The Good News Only - thread...

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

The Crofted Crest

Active Member


Another byelection in the offing? At this rate Johnson won't need to resign, he'll have lost his majority by Christmas.
 
OP
OP
mudsticks

mudsticks

Squire
Summertime..

And the farm lunches are particularly yummy ...

♥️🧡💜💚♥️💜💚

PXL_20220629_120437248~2.jpg
 

FishFright

Well-Known Member
In this situation, as was alluded to earlier, protest is anything you agree with, harassment is anything you don't.

If I set up a loudspeaker and had some placards made outside Farm Mudsticks, then followed her and her colleagues to the shop shouting obscenities at them because I disagreed with her farming practices (which I am sure are above reproach) that is a protest so fine is it not?

It wouldn't be a violent protest .
You already know this of course but you're so out of ideas now it's down to one post per thread and keep repeating it.
 
OP
OP
mudsticks

mudsticks

Squire
It wouldn't be a violent protest .
You already know this of course but you're so out of ideas now it's down to one post per thread and keep repeating it.

I actually think the 'protest' scenario proposed is very funny..

Craig needs to bear in mind though that it's a fair old step to 'the shops' , so he'll be needing his biggest book of profanities...

We would of course be allowed to profane right back, right..??

Some of my 'colleagues' seem to know some awfully rude words :blush:

But that's the peasantry for you eh??
:rolleyes:
 

Unkraut

Master of the Inane Comment
Location
Germany
Unkraut’s Jesus is all about the judgement and the shaming I think.

Well it's fascinating the impression you can give people sometimes!

I suppose judging of any sort is out these days. If anyone is daft enough to drag religion into a thread, from experience you can expect something like 'Jesus taught love and tolerance' to raise its head at some point. Love yes, but not an emotion, but tolerance? Unconditional acceptance? It would be nice those who say this would, during their brief sojourn on this planet, at least read say Luke's gospel to get a better idea than this. Might get a bit more balance.

The non-judging Jesus seems to be a white European, shoulder length hair (Jews didn't have long hair!), rather thin, soft spoken, only gentle and bordering on effeminate (Hunt's Light of the World picture I believe used a female model). It's not far from that to imagine the camp fire, the first century equivalent of a guitar and Kumbaya (would you like to sing it in Aramaic or Greek?). That would not be good news!
 
OP
OP
mudsticks

mudsticks

Squire
Meanwhile .
More Good News...

_20210304_143459.JPG
 

Unkraut

Master of the Inane Comment
Location
Germany
Am I wrong?

If you mean believing in some kind of 'judgmental Jesus' is a personal hobbyhorse I'd say yes. From thence he [Christ] shall come to judge the living and the dead is part of the apostle's and Nicene creeds, common to protestant and Catholic, orthodox, free churches and pentecostals, although the latter don't usually recite if very often like the older liturgical churches. Shouldn't be such a strange idea.

As for your other sentence above about inventing as deity in your own image, why would anyone invent a deity to whom they will have to give an account, even of every careless word they utter? Think of the implications of that for social media!

The usual response is religion is all about men wanting exercise control, but Jesus expressly forbade this, and the apostle Peter as well, elsewhere it says those who do so will have to give an account.

I think you should either accept all of it (if you are convinced it is true) including the bits you don't like, understand or would prefer not to be true, or reject all of it. Selecting the bits you like won't do, but it is very common these days.
 

FishFright

Well-Known Member
If you mean believing in some kind of 'judgmental Jesus' is a personal hobbyhorse I'd say yes. From thence he [Christ] shall come to judge the living and the dead is part of the apostle's and Nicene creeds, common to protestant and Catholic, orthodox, free churches and pentecostals, although the latter don't usually recite if very often like the older liturgical churches. Shouldn't be such a strange idea.

As for your other sentence above about inventing as deity in your own image, why would anyone invent a deity to whom they will have to give an account, even of every careless word they utter? Think of the implications of that for social media!

The usual response is religion is all about men wanting exercise control, but Jesus expressly forbade this, and the apostle Peter as well, elsewhere it says those who do so will have to give an account.

I think you should either accept all of it (if you are convinced it is true) including the bits you don't like, understand or would prefer not to be true, or reject all of it. Selecting the bits you like won't do, but it is very common these days.

"The usual response is religion is all about men wanting exercise control, but Jesus expressly forbade this, and the apostle Peter as well, elsewhere it says those who do so will have to give an account."


So how's that going at Peter's place ? Backlog of accounts ?
 

AuroraSaab

Legendary Member
I think you should either accept all of it (if you are convinced it is true) including the bits you don't like, understand or would prefer not to be true, or reject all of it. Selecting the bits you like won't do, but it is very common these days.

I disagree. The Bible was written by people, people who were just as socialised into the prevalent moral attitudes of their time as we are today. I don't think it is God's direct words (if you believe in God, obvs) - it's what Man interpreted as being God's will. As such it's perfectly reasonable to apply our brain to it's teaching and discern the important stuff.

I think you can justifiably select the bits that are the most authentic. If you're a Christian you would surely give more weight to the words of Jesus, than to a passage on what you can and eat from Leviticus.

It would have been really helpful if the early Church had extracted the words and teaching of Jesus from the texts and just said, 'You know what, let's just stick with all the good stuff... we can junk the rest'. But they didn't, so apart from the Quakers, we have had 2,000 years of Christian teaching in which the Church/State have interpreted the Bible to their own whims in order to control and subjugate their subjects. And stopped ordinary folk even reading it in their own language until 500 years ago*, just in case they realised how the Church was twisting it to suit their own needs.

* Big thumbs up to William Tyndale for his first English Bible.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom