I must admit to a totally non-religious attitude to Easter - which is instead populated by "Love" for chocolate.

And good childhood memeries of egg and bunny hunts.

More seriously most in OLO might BLAME the Femo-Nazification of society for all this Love-Hate conceptualising.

And Jesus and his diciples "The Beatles" have much to answer for:

- The Sermon on the Mount http://youtu.be/YP2KDUiBI-E

AND

- http://youtu.be/WWP80rXP4cM

Philospher Pete

PS to Graham.

Does one need to experience Hate to Love?

Is it safer to love no-one but a disembodied institution or a star?

Alas! I hate nothing and am too jaundiced in past female relationships to trust another.

So love is for My Family (older and younger).

Love is also for my Royal Family, with the portrait of the Queen and my wall and Dear Duchess Kate Middleton (my screen saver).

Here http://www.hellomagazine.com/imagenes/homes/20210127105544/kate-middleton-laptop-stand-zoom-calls/0-508-683/kate-middleton-laptop-stand-z.jpg
________________________

Of EASTER.

Isn't that about Cruxifiction http://youtu.be/zPi76KvQF1g

Death

Miraculous Rebirth (distrusted in these non-miraculous Scientific times)

AND

LOVING Thy Neighbours in THIS context http://youtu.be/tRJlo2WRDbw?t=6m30s

I guess we all have our biases and prejudices no
matter what they may be. But I doubt if most of us
would really seriously act on them as we see on
the news be it in the "Canberra Bubble"or in countries
like America where race seems to still be a serious problem.

Of course my experiences have been rather narrow - growing
up in Sydney and then living in Melbourne. I'm an urbanite
and know little about what our Indigenous People have to put up
with on a daily basis. Or for that matter - single mothers, or
women who experience domestic violence, or even people
taking drugs, and so on.

My family worked hard, saved, and as a result had/have a
good life. They didn't ask anything from anybody. They
instilled in us the values that they thought important.
And it has stood us in good stead - thus far.

Hate, was not part of my family's agenda. They took people
as they found them. And none of us are perfect. But staying
positive was important.

Is it this modern form of love that sees the young thug, thief or car stealing hoon let off with a pat on the head, & an admonishment to "be a good boy, & don't do it again".

Is it love to train them to be bad, or is it an unwillingness to invest in prisons.

From the growth of antisocial behavior it appears something a little more firm than love is deeded to encourage respect of others in those sinners offered all this love.

Do-gooders are a major cause of Love falling to bits !

Dear GrahamY,

Good to get something with some meat. Touchstone issues with a few interesting touches.

There is a strong element of course of the right's rewriting of the basic tenements of the Christian faith, but that has been going on since Constantine so nothing new. It allowed the slave owners of the US Republic to write "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” without blinking an eye. More recently of course it allowed the American Evangelicals to side with Trump in the very high percentages that they did.

It takes empathy for the monied classes to be prepared to bring in a universal health care system for instance. Something actively worked against by Republicans and their base.

What you are putting has been well explored by Nietzsche. He derided the Christian 'morality of compassion' calling it 'moralic acid'. This was all set out in his book The Anti-Christ.

You miss other targets as well when you write; “I'd put the moment the cancer developed somewhere in the 60s, in the Age of Aquarius. The Beatle's "All You Need Is Love" is one of the anthems, written by John Lennon, who wrote the equally silly "Imagine".”

Hardly. The Second Vatican Council and the Liberation Theology movement of the early 60's fit your time line and were far more consequential for your faith. The Beatles may well have declared themselves larger than Christ but the reality was the monolithic Catholic Church had far more reach.

As an aside when you write this: “So the Christian version of love doesn't involve acceptance, meaning "I affirm you as you are", it means acceptance as in "I'll be your friend, whatever your behaviours, but I hope that you will change, and I will try to demonstrate how you might".”

I can't help but think of how many of our young were talked into gay conversion therapy with the above justification.

Hopefully it drives a good discussion.

Dear Steele,

WOW!

Steeleredux,
Could you please provide a link to where you copied this from ?

Dear Steele,

One can only hope for a good discussion.
Hopefully people like Banjo Paterson and others will
join in. You've made a good start though.

>"hate the sin and love the sinner".

But why is it always the genitals they go on about ? Why not the bits prohibiting the eating of shellfish as an example. Why wasn't Izzy down at the docks pleading with fishermen not to bring in the shellfish catch because it's an abomination ? Leviticus (amongst others) prohibits us from the eating of shellfish.

Exodus 21:7 says can sell my daughters into slavery, so why wasn't Izzy protesting and picketing in front of parliament to allow that to happen ? I don't want him to break the law of course but he could at least show he's faithful to the bible, not too much to ask ?

Leviticus again states that I can buy slaves as long as they are from neighbouring states, does this mean I can get Kiwis as slave ? Why isn't Izzy insisting upon that ?

My suspicion is it has nothing to do with religion at all, how do I know this ? because everything else that's not done.

As to cancel culture, it seems to me a bunch of folks organisising and successfully insisting upon a certain action is how it's supposed to work ? Are you envious becasue they are successful ?

Valley Guy,
You should check on the biblical definition of 'Slave'.

.

Dear Graham,

.

The paradox of the New Testament narrative is that as a constitutive “person” of the Trinity, Jesus of Nazareth (God the Son), could not die because he was just as equally God as the two other constitutive “persons”, God the Father and God the Holy Ghost.

As God the Son, Jesus would have been immortal, in which case he would never die and, therefore, never resurrect. On the other hand, the man Jesus could die but he would not have been able to resurrect because, unlike God the Son, human beings are mortal.

Saul of Tarsus (St Paul, the apostle) suggested (in 1 Corinthians 15:44 and Philippians 3:20–21) that the resurrection body was not the natural (physical) body of the man Jesus but the "spiritual" body of God the Son.

If that were the case, then what on earth happened to the natural (physical) body of the man, Jesus ? Saul remains silent on that. Nor does he attempt to explain why it disappeared in the first place. If it was only God the Son’s “spiritual” body that resurrected, why worry about the man Jesus’ natural (physical) body at all ?

If the duality of God and man in the earthly life of Jesus of Nazareth is difficult to conceive, it seems to me even more difficult to conceive of his (their) death and resurrection.

The ineffability of the Christian dogma of the Trinity (not to mention its logical impossibility) that the three persons of the Godhead are one – is second only to the ineffability of the alleged resurrection of the man-God, Jesus of Nazareth.

Perhaps the love-hate duality you mention in your article is just another manifestation of the inherent intricacies and complexities of our Christian culture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Rf3WK_IJ1g&ab_channel=TheTabernacleChoiratTempleSquare

.

Dear Banjo,

Thank You for giving us more food for thought.

What you've posted would never have occurred
to me. Thank You.

Banjo Paterson has had a crack at explaining some of the inconsistencies of the Trinitarian approach.

I am fortunate to be somewhat free of the doctrinal offerings from the different strands of the devotionalists. This leaves me with the liberty to appreciate the literary merit of the work, and having read much of it derive an encompassing narrative that works for me.

The approach of a number of Rabbis I have warmed to is that the relationship between God and his chosen people is like a marriage. You don't get to choose who you fall in love with and the adjustments that are required from both parties are essential to maintaining that marriage. Many parts of the Bible provide a tale of a God seeking to understand what the human condition entails and humans seeking to understand the perspective of their God.

Both parties repeatedly challenge each other to do better and some of the most powerful parts of the Bible are when challenging circumstances elicit behavioural change just as that which occurs in earthly relationships.

The quick upshot is I approach the crucifixion as both a redemption by God for the trauma he so often imposed on his people such as Abraham (in relationship terms it could certainly have been judged abusive early on), and a seeking by him to both experience that trauma and understand them more fully. This is of course a fully literary framing of the work but it renders it complete and quite formative to me.

And yes I do enjoy the fruits of being free thinker.

And this is why I love the forum!

Reading this article makes me so grateful to God that I was not born a Christian.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Aw come on mate. I get that there is a sense that both Islam and Christianity are the bastard children of the Jewish faith, and in some ways death cults to boot. But they are also extraordinary expressions of humanity's religious creativity and should be celebrated as such.

The article not withstanding I feel human empathy exudes from the best of them all, but the Jewish faith might be deemed the most celebratory of not being the 'other'.

.

All you need is love . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNgVdj4M4KM&ab_channel=LolosP

.

.

All you need is love . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2snTkaD64U&ab_channel=MetropolitanOpera

.

Oh indeed. Wasn't Garanca brilliant. Saw this when it can out at Her Majesty's in Ballarat. Of course it contained the Geelong Cats team song which was a bonus.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qfGJt6I3g

I seriously doubt the reality of the term
“all you need is love”. or
that “love conquerors all”.

Not denying the nurturing and help people give to those in distress helps enormously.
But it doesn’t conqueror all. If you are dying, you are still dying.
If you are born into a cruel society you may still have no escape from it.
If you lose a child to an accident or illness you have still lost that child and must go through the grieving process, other people can’t go through it for you, although they can be kind.

It is a comforting thought to to say,” Love conquerors all.” But it is the usual fairy floss only half true fantasy, that the human race likes to fool itself about, because they can’t face the really harsh realities of life where love doesn’t conqueror all, but some straight
thinking and understanding of the truth, might provide more actual solutions and answers.

.

Dear CHERFUL,

.

I think you're right. Love does not change reality.

But I do think it can change how it affects us - and maybe help put us in the right disposition to reflect on the best way forward.

.

Dear Banjo,

«Love does not change reality.»

True, but it changes everything: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5CPJHyg95M

.

Thanks, Yuyutsu.

Perhaps you might like to listen to hear what the moon has to say about that :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzoO756PvL8&ab_channel=AlainGuilloux

.

Love changes things considerably, especially the love for money !

The Christian story , and that is just what it is, is one of a God of love, demonstrated in the old testament by his interaction with Abraham. Remember that was another "story".

However it all falls apart when his apparent son, who may well have actually been the son of a Roman centurion, is abandoned to die a cruel death on the cross. This leads to a considerable doubt in my mind as to whether there is actually a God at all.

I see the stories in the old testament as an attempt by their leaders to maintain control over their followers in a similar way that the Catholic hierarchy maintained control over their cohort before the reformation woke people up to their motives.

Christianity would be a more plausible concept if it just followed the teaching of Jesus and stopped ineffectual praying to God with many of the writings of Paul treated with a grain of salt.

David

Dear David,

«However it all falls apart when his apparent son, who may well have actually been the son of a Roman centurion»

It occurred to me that Jesus never considered God to be the biological father of his body. The use of "Father", "Our father in heaven" or "Our Father, our King", is all too common in Jewish prayers, describing an emotional, rather than genetic, connection to God.

«Christianity would be a more plausible concept if it just followed the teaching of Jesus and stopped ineffectual praying to God»

Unfortunately we are not in a position to reconstruct the teachings of Jesus out of the anecdotal reports by his disciples, decades later at best. Nevertheless, as far as we can tell, praying to God was an important aspect of his teachings.

Hi David,

"However it all falls apart when his apparent son, who may well have actually been the son of a Roman centurion, is abandoned to die a cruel death on the cross. This leads to a considerable doubt in my mind as to whether there is actually a God at all."

That is a very interesting take on the subject considering that the death of Jesus on the cross and subsequent appearances has been such a compelling 'drawcard' for people over the centuries.

Out of curiosity why do you consider that God (if hypothetically "there is actually a God at all") abandoned His only begotten son because Jesus died on the cross? cf. the idea that Jesus gave his life for redemption of other people?