3 Nephi 18 :29 [Book of Mormon]
“For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him. “
Good thing then that we aren’t given his body or blood but just bread and water done in remembrance of his body and blood, or symbols of it. Good thing that. Otherwise we might have to concern ourselves with whether or not we were worthy or not, and the answer would be no.
This is clumsy paraphrase of what 1 Corinthians says. Where it is not whether or not the person is worthy, but whether they take it in an unworthy manner, that is to say taking it in a manner that says it is really nothing, but a symbol. As Paul says:
“ Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.” (1 Cor. 11:27 (ESV)
And to paraphrase Flannery O’Connor, “if it is just a symbol then to hell with it.”
15 comments:
Sheesh! Such contradictory drivvel right in the same contiguous thought. I mean, right in the very next sentence?!
First its a symbol to remember him. Next sentence, a person can drink that symbol unworthily, as if it actually is MORE than a symbol?
Gibberish. Falderal. Reliable? No way. Cheap rip-off? Yup.
Jonathan could be the other guy in the videos you should be making.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91AM7665cbo&feature=player_embedded
I know Jonathan, amazing isn't it. I think we should make those videos. Seriously the book is beyond ridiculous when it come to consistency.
You know, it just bugs me that you can never get a straight answer when you zero-in on this stuff. It just goes into juke and jive.
I guess I am expecting too much from a theology "system" that is totally dorked up. It's like they want to pretend they are hiding a ball from you. Well, I don't think they really have such a ball. The real answer has got to be, there is no pea under the shell.
I wonder how far into the organization you have to get to before they finally let you in on that piece of info. And, so what's the real endgame? You could ask the same of Scientology, and other similar organizations, I guess.
Kyrie Eleison.
And, no, there will be no book burning for me.
As it is, my remarks on these topics are already too caustic, and so are not advancing the cause in a winsome way as they should.
Jonathan,
Right!
Essentially when I talk to these people it often becomes what I lampooned earlier in these posts as a "pragmatic approach" to religion.
They don't believe it really. They don't think you can know any metaphysical truth. They are skeptical of the Bible, for no good reason except that the prophet says it isn't translated rightly, they have no idea what to do when you tell them you read it in Greek and Hebrew.
so really they fall back on, well it works for me. My lie is better than your truth. to paraphrase the "its true to me" b.s. that passes for religion.
In truth they hold on to it for family reasons, and here in Utah there is a sort of arrogance that they have bread among themselves, that makes them feel superior to others, and they are loath to give up that delusion.
As for being caustic, I am guilty of that at times too. Probably more often then not. There is reason to speak the truth in love. I could probably do better at it.
But it is hard to put up with the stupidity of it all. And there dishonesty is frustrating.
There can be no metaphysical truth.
So why should anyone pick that wacky sounding one!?
Really? in that case you'd stick with Jesus in North America and golden plates and seafaring Israelite tribes?
Why not just go with the one already recognized as a stumbling block to the Jews and folly to the Greeks?
The theology of the cross, at least it's intellectually honest and thoroughly worked out, and you don't have to act like you can explain without actually explaining why you don't really believe what you claim to believe.
Universalism. According to them, everybody gets to a level of paradise anyway. Maybe if they act real nice and claim to be religionistical enough, they can hope to get a higher level. If it exists, that is, cuz you can't be sure about this metaphysical stuff, you know.
It is so hard regarding the tone. People must know that we love them.
Yet, satire helps with bringing out truth.
All that is really needed it to point out the inconsistencies.
Erasmus wrote some very stinging satire. Without that we may not have had all the humanists, the Greek New Testament and people emboldened to do what they did during the reformation and support what they did.
There was a kind of shaking up and that with the power of the word and pen, not the sword.
Tonight, I was reminded of Elijah taunting the prophets of Baal.
I don't want to taunt, or goad, or belittle. Just some intellectual honesty back would be nice. No bobbing and weaving, and, for pete sake, no burning bosom.
And no book burning. This is only good news for the printers. They can just keep printing.
To some extent also you have to go with your personality and use what the Lord has put in the cradle, your gifts and passions.
One could also write the dialogue and send it off to Hans F. of Lutheran satire.
Thought about that Brigitte.
Post a Comment