RE: The Gospels: Big bad Jim is sweet James now.

Who sheared your hair Samson, er I mean Jim? Are you the strong side or
weak side LB? I know, it's not a nickel D and you are playing the middle LB
but remember, the middle LB can't over penetrate hoping for a sack and he
can't fall back looking for the Interception he has to glide horizontal
along the line to keep all gains short of the full ten, very conservative
and no field streaking like a free safety. Politics? I guess if your main
desire is for the polis then yea politics but if the tranquility of the
polis or self for that matter is not what lies at heart then Politics is
just another type of blood sucking vermin that requires tongs or a little
fire to get rid of. It's that body thing and its regulation I guess but
politics brings to me images of that whole stitched together body; ad hoc
grave robbing stuff. I guess if any of that body is going to make it
doesn't hurt to have a surgeon who is skilled with the blade. That's the
interesting part Jim, the surgeon can be slandered as the Psycho shower
slasher but when all the cuts are done is the victim alive? I suppose some
were concerned about how the light was reflected into Roman eyes, actually I
am sure some were but I think that a close reading of the material wasn't
terribly concerned with Rome but with the stiff necked lot in question.
Like we said previously, transcendent truth is not exclusive to one group
and the overlap can be construed as courting some sort of political favor
when in truth the early Christian church wasn't even harvesting that crop it
just turned out to be gleanings at that time in history and later the same
fruit became political baggage. It seems that there are many more things
with two edges than only swords but what matters most is the cutting ability
in the hand that wields them, now some may call that political but that call
would only make a nasty contusion instead of a clean cut.
Daniel

That was a good response, Daniel. I think one way bias works is to see
those we disagree with as being "politically" movtivated while those we
agree with as being
 "honest." The reality is that every belief or position can be defined
in terms of a political alliance of some sort; even transcendent truth,
once it shows up, starts looking like just another player on the field
(to steal your analogy).

So this approach doesn't really tell us why we should choose the Nag
Hammandi documents over the Christian Scriptures as more reliable --
both are politicized to a certain extent, and the full extent of the
politicization of each is somewhat lost to us. I don't think there's
any question the early Christian church wanted to be seen by the Roman
Empire in a positive light. Given their position, I don't blame them.

Jim
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Mon Jul 28 16:28:04 2003