Subject:
|
Re: New Stories from the New Testament
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 16 Feb 2002 17:08:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
874 times
|
| |
|
|
snip
>
> This is a little bit closer to what I have done, but still not quite right.
> I could imagine someone creating a Harry Potter movie which down-played the
> "nice boy" image of Harry Potter and emphasized those times at which Harry
> does things which are morally-questionable or just strange. For example
> (I've never read the book, but saw the movie), one might highlight the scene
> early in the movie in which Harry uses magic to trap his cousin in the snake
> pit at the zoo.
>
> The difference between doing this to Harry Potter and doing this with
> stories and characters from the Bible is this. Nobody expects that Harry
> Potter has to be anything more than an interesting character. Whether or
> not his actions are morally good or bad has no theological implications.
> But the Bible is presented as the word of God, and has been looked to for
> ages by millions as a guide to how the world really is and how one should
> act. For a book that is the only written guide for humanity from a
> supposedly all-loving, all-good, and merciful God to contain numerous
> stories of heinous acts and morally questionable divine instructions is,
> well, kind of strange and interesting to me.
It's true that the Bible doesn't sugar-coat it's heroes. David, the man
after God's own heart, is an adulterer and a murderer. God anoints Samson
with incredible strength, even though he frequents prostitutes. God does
destroy the entire earth with the flood.
I also want to point out that the Bible doesn't just reveal Jesus as a
silly hearted, teddy bear that tousles the head of pharisees and drunks
alike. So when I read the your story of the Seduction of Lot, I thought it
was a fair depiction. Understand that I still think they're tasteless, but
not untrue. You see the end result of Lots' choices, though you missed the
opportunity to show his wife turning into a pillar of salt, or the "bombing"
of Sodom and Gomorrah. Also pretty heinous acts, and the result of choices
people made.
> > I hope that my above paragraph answers this question. Of course it's not
> > the omission of details, but the selective removal of details to re-invent
> > the teachings that I'm talking about. • <<snip>>
> > How many of Jesus' miracles were mentioned?
> > Hmmm. I count zero.
>
> You are correct, I have chosen not to illustrate the more familiar nicer and
> more friendly words and acts of Jesus which have been much more commonly
> illustrated and expounded upon elsewhere. There will be some miracle
> stories added to the site eventually, but for the most part these things did
> not interest me as a LEGO illustrator.
more snippage
> Yes, but again, the difference is that nobody expects your dad to morally
> perfect. If we did expect your dad to be morally perfect and a model for
> all other humans to base their behaviour after, his spanking and yelling at
> you would be a lot more interesting and worthy of drawing attention to.
So you're saying for God to be morally perfect, he should not discipline the
children of his creation. You see a dichotomy between moral correctness
(righteousness, to use the Biblical term) and spanking your child. I see
spanking as a continuation of my dad's love for me as well as another of my
dad's dimensions; righteousness and action against my sin. Though I
disagree with your opinions, I do understand your thinking more.
Is your theology is that God cannot be considered perfectly loving and
perfectly holy at the same time? Is that the basis of your project? I
don't think you are trying to portray to people, "Look, God isn't just
loving. He has a moral standard that must be adhered to or he will judge."
> > Though you skip around the accounts of the gospels, I noticed that you
> > neatly neglected the passage where Jesus healed the man who's ear Peter cut
> > off, and ended your tale as if Jesus either encouraged the behavior or was
> > passive about it. I haven't looked it up myself yet, but I believe Jesus
> > rebuked him saying, "He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword." Would
> > love to hear your reasoning, though we both know the real answer.
snip to the Lou my darling...
>
> So for the record, 3 out of 4 gospels agree with my "editing". Obviously I
> did not choose to include the healing which only 1 out of 4 gospels has an
> account of because I have chosen to skip over such "nice" acts of Jesus and
> highlight the less-often-looked-at strange, questionable, and alarming ones.
Fair enough. I've always heard, and taught I guess, the complete story with
all four viewpoints. Incidentally, in Mark's account, to clarify, Jesus
didn't say nothing but spoke to his accusers. (see vs 48-50) He asked if he
was leading a rebellion. If so why were they coming with swords and clubs?
But in your account, your portray Peter looking to Jesus for permission
before cutting off the ear. This gives the indication that Jesus approved,
when the Bible clearly indicates that Jesus did not. When convenient, you
moved to another account, always avoiding the inevitable truth, that Jesus
was not leading a rebellion. He put up no fight and condoned no fight.
That is what you are deliberately misrepresenting.
You are trying to be a shock jock with Legos. That is your choice, your
claim to fame. Again I reiterate that there's plenty of funny, peculiar,
gruesome, vulgar, disturbing scenarios in the Bible to tickle the darkest of
humors. You don't need to embellish the Word with made up controversies.
Jesus got ticked off and fed up. He called the Pharisees unflattering
names. But he did not, my friend, ever endorse a Crusade of any kind. I do
appreciate your pointing the four different viewpoints out. I've never
taken the time to look at the eye-witness accounts before. Personal notes:
Matthew's gospel was written especially for the Jews. He was interested in
how Jesus fulfilled Jewish prophecies and how Jesus fulfilled the law. He
taught that his kingdom was not like other kingdoms and we would not fight
like other kingdoms.
Mark emphasized the servanthood of Jesus. He emphasized Jesus explanation
to the soldiers that he wasn't leading a rebellion.
Luke was a doctor and probably was the most captivated that Jesus healed the
ear in the middle of his arrest.
John emphasized Jesus was the way to salvation. He fixated on the fact that
Jesus made sure his disciples were let go, and that He was there to drink
the cup God had given Him.
It's so interesting how four eyewitnesses caught four different aspects of
the encounter and take home powerful revelations of Jesus for their own
lives and for those who followed them. Pity that you read so much and
missed them all. :(
> If Jesus had said both "Father forgive them for they know not what they've
> done" (another Jesus quote which 3 out of 4 gospels did not include) *and*
> "Kill da Wabbit!" then this would be a valid criticism. I contend that I
> have not made Jesus say anything he is not recorded to have said in the
> gospels, and I do not believe I have done any "dishonest and deceptive"
> selective editing of the reversal-or-meaning sort.
Sarcasm. But I hold to my view that of reveral of meaning editing. You
still haven't mentioned my comments about the Instructions for Women. I'm
glad you're willing to discuss them.
> > He can share his views of the Bible. I'm just pointing out that he
> > deliberately missed some very key points of the story and it's not a mystery
> > why. Did I try to shut down his site? Three announcements of the Brick
> > Testament on Lugnet and I'm the first lurker to finally voice a dissenting
> > view. I too have a right to free speech.
>
> I just want to say a word of thanks to everyone who has posted on this
> thread. I've appreciated all the comments, no matter whether they have been
> generally supportive or critical. I'm sorry it's taken me a few days to
> respond here -- I'm on the road and on the way to Brickswest this weekend.
>
> -The Rev. Brendan Powell Smith
Thanks for responding. Let me reiterate that, though I disagree with your
world-view and agenda, I am jealous (in a good way) of your incredible
ability to recreate biblical scenes. I cannot tell you how many times I
wished I could edit your stories for family viewing for my Children's Church
kids. But because of our previous conversation, christian integrity would
not allow me to do that. (Believe it or not) :O)
Your Christian yet mostly non-violent friend,
Markus
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: New Stories from the New Testament
|
| (...) I am the first to admit that I have selectively chosen which stories from the Bible, and in certain cases which parts of which stories to illustrate on The Brick Testament. But I do not agree that my editing of passages from the Bible is (...) (23 years ago, 15-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
47 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
