Pope, great news ...
in [Liverpool]
|
From: Pope Pompous XVIII on 19 Apr 2010 16:33 On 2010-04-19, Pope Pompous XVIII <popepompousxviii(a)popes.news> wrote: > On 2010-04-19, Graf Finklestein <udo_binsack(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> On 19 Apr, 16:33, Pope Pompous XVIII <popepompousxv...(a)popes.news> >> wrote: >>> >>> All the old monks were taught to deliberately introduce flaws >>> into their work, be it a Russian icon or the Book of Kells. In those >>> days people were humble enough to know nothing perfect on earth could be >>> created by man, and so they deliberately crippled their work as a sign >>> of their humility before God. >> >> Pope, as you know I don't get involved in all this puerile religion >> bashing that some on here need to indulge in to feel better about >> themselves. >> >> But sometimes, I do wonder... >> >> I mean, if these people knew that nothing created by man could >> possibly be perfect, why the need to delibertately spoil their >> efforts? If even the greatest artistry of man could never be as >> flawless as that of the Creator, why the need to deliberately balls it >> up? It seems to suggest that they believed God could be fooled into >> thinking something was perfect even if, by his own decree, it couldn't >> possibly be, so they had to mar it in an obvious manner. > > > Humility, Graf. > > As Mary proclaimed in her Magnificat, God scatters the proud > and raises the lowly. He casts the mighty from their thrones and flees > to the aid of those in need. I was fascinated to read recently that the "Marian" chapters of Luke's gospel - chapters one and two - are linguistically different from the rest of the gospel. If Luke really did chase down the eyewitnesses when he was composing his gospel, as he says he did, then logic demands he chased Mary herself down too, because the stories in these first chapters could only have come from Mary. And indeed biblical criticism has now confirmed that the language of these chapters is decidedly Semitic, and unique in Luke's gospel, which everywhere else bears the imprint of an educated Greek. It's pretty cool to think Luke got the words of this Magnificat straight from the mouth of Mary, in her own dialect! -- "Everybody thinks that the tomb signifies death. Not at all, the exact opposite. The Shroud and the tomb signify an unbelievable beginning, because in the depth of the collapsed event horizon, there is something which science knows as 'singularity'. This is exactly what started the universe in the 'Big Bang'. We have nothing less in the tomb of Christ than the beginning of a new universe" - Dame Isabel Piczek, particle physicist, 2007 documentary /The Fabric of Time/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVQea5Uca24
From: Red Rackham on 19 Apr 2010 16:43 "Pope Pompous XVIII" <popepompousxviii(a)popes.news> wrote in message news:slrnhspes4.h75.popepompousxviii(a)slackware.popes.news... > On 2010-04-19, Graf Finklestein <udo_binsack(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> On 19 Apr, 16:33, Pope Pompous XVIII <popepompousxv...(a)popes.news> >> wrote: >>> >>> All the old monks were taught to deliberately introduce flaws >>> into their work, be it a Russian icon or the Book of Kells. In those >>> days people were humble enough to know nothing perfect on earth could be >>> created by man, and so they deliberately crippled their work as a sign >>> of their humility before God. >> >> Pope, as you know I don't get involved in all this puerile religion >> bashing that some on here need to indulge in to feel better about >> themselves. >> >> But sometimes, I do wonder... >> >> I mean, if these people knew that nothing created by man could >> possibly be perfect, why the need to delibertately spoil their >> efforts? If even the greatest artistry of man could never be as >> flawless as that of the Creator, why the need to deliberately balls it >> up? It seems to suggest that they believed God could be fooled into >> thinking something was perfect even if, by his own decree, it couldn't >> possibly be, so they had to mar it in an obvious manner. > > > Humility, Graf. > > As Mary proclaimed in her Magnificat, God scatters the proud > and raises the lowly. He casts the mighty from their thrones and flees > to the aid of those in need. > > Christianity is fundamentally a religion of paradox. These monks felt > that in negating themselves and stamping their work with these flaws > they were actually taking the road to perfection. Humility and > lowliness are the path to glory and honour, and conversely pride and > arrogance the path to shame and humiliation. This is the paradox of the > cross,and every day of my life I see it repeated before my eyes, over > and over again. The ignorance of the wise, and the wisdom of the > ignorant. The impoverishment of those who are intellectually or > materially wealthy, and the enrichment of those who are poor. > > The Gospel writers weren't even interested in getting their gospels to > agree with each other. What does that tell you? That they were liars? > No. That they were interested in something more important than the > precision and exactitude so obsessively pursued by our own generation. > > Thank you for your respectful tone. It means a lot to me. Pope, with respect, can I just say that reminds me of an interview I saw with the esteemed Julia Roberts. The world renowned actress was politely asked why her performance in her latest film, Mary Reilly, was so utterly abysmal, and why, especially, her Irish accent (she was playing a maid to Doctor Jekyll) was so all over the shop that it was ludicrously hilarious. And this is what she replied. I'll paraphrase: Yes, the accent was a thing the director and I spend a lot of time working on to make sure we got it exactly right. We saw Mary as the kind of girl who was born in Ireland before moving to Scotland, then spending time in Cornwall, Wolverhampton, Newcastle, Liverpool, Cardiff, Peshawar, Iran, Perth, Cape Town and Paris before settling in London, which is why my accent had so many different aspects to it. 'The gospel writers weren't interested in getting their stories to agree with each other? They were interested in something more important than precision and exactitude.' Priceless. Either the bible is the word of god or it isn't. Either it's all true or it's all made up by a bunch of different people who didn't agree their stories. But I love your explanation for it all being nonsense. Respectfully yours ...
From: Graf Finklestein on 19 Apr 2010 16:48 On 19 Apr, 21:22, Pope Pompous XVIII <popepompousxv...(a)popes.news> wrote: > On 2010-04-19, Graf Finklestein <udo_bins...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On 19 Apr, 16:33, Pope Pompous XVIII <popepompousxv...(a)popes.news> > > wrote: > > >> All the old monks were taught to deliberately introduce flaws > >> into their work, be it a Russian icon or the Book of Kells. In those > >> days people were humble enough to know nothing perfect on earth could be > >> created by man, and so they deliberately crippled their work as a sign > >> of their humility before God. > > > Pope, as you know I don't get involved in all this puerile religion > > bashing that some on here need to indulge in to feel better about > > themselves. > > > But sometimes, I do wonder... > > > I mean, if these people knew that nothing created by man could > > possibly be perfect, why the need to delibertately spoil their > > efforts? If even the greatest artistry of man could never be as > > flawless as that of the Creator, why the need to deliberately balls it > > up? It seems to suggest that they believed God could be fooled into > > thinking something was perfect even if, by his own decree, it couldn't > > possibly be, so they had to mar it in an obvious manner. > > Humility, Graf. > > As Mary proclaimed in her Magnificat, God scatters the proud > and raises the lowly. He casts the mighty from their thrones and flees > to the aid of those in need. > > Christianity is fundamentally a religion of paradox. These monks felt > that in negating themselves and stamping their work with these flaws > they were actually taking the road to perfection. Humility and > lowliness are the path to glory and honour, and conversely pride and > arrogance the path to shame and humiliation. This is the paradox of the > cross,and every day of my life I see it repeated before my eyes, over > and over again. The ignorance of the wise, and the wisdom of the > ignorant. The impoverishment of those who are intellectually or > materially wealthy, and the enrichment of those who are poor. > > The Gospel writers weren't even interested in getting their gospels to > agree with each other. What does that tell you? That they were liars? > No. That they were interested in something more important than the > precision and exactitude so obsessively pursued by our own generation. Thanks for the response, Pope. For those of us with no religious convictions, it's interesting to sometimes try to see the world through the eyes of those who have a faith. There's a film by Tarkovsky called Andrei Rublev, about the 14th Century (iirc - well, thereabouts) Russian iconic painter, that deals with, among other things, the humility required in depicting the Divine. Brilliant film, well worth checking out - think you might get even more out of it than mere heathens like us lot ;-) > Thank you for your respectful tone. It means a lot to me. You're welcome.
From: Red Rackham on 19 Apr 2010 16:54 "Pope Pompous XVIII" <popepompousxviii(a)popes.news> wrote in message news:slrnhspfge.i6v.popepompousxviii(a)slackware.popes.news... > On 2010-04-19, Pope Pompous XVIII <popepompousxviii(a)popes.news> wrote: >> On 2010-04-19, Graf Finklestein <udo_binsack(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> On 19 Apr, 16:33, Pope Pompous XVIII <popepompousxv...(a)popes.news> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> All the old monks were taught to deliberately introduce flaws >>>> into their work, be it a Russian icon or the Book of Kells. In those >>>> days people were humble enough to know nothing perfect on earth could >>>> be >>>> created by man, and so they deliberately crippled their work as a sign >>>> of their humility before God. >>> >>> Pope, as you know I don't get involved in all this puerile religion >>> bashing that some on here need to indulge in to feel better about >>> themselves. >>> >>> But sometimes, I do wonder... >>> >>> I mean, if these people knew that nothing created by man could >>> possibly be perfect, why the need to delibertately spoil their >>> efforts? If even the greatest artistry of man could never be as >>> flawless as that of the Creator, why the need to deliberately balls it >>> up? It seems to suggest that they believed God could be fooled into >>> thinking something was perfect even if, by his own decree, it couldn't >>> possibly be, so they had to mar it in an obvious manner. >> >> >> Humility, Graf. >> >> As Mary proclaimed in her Magnificat, God scatters the proud >> and raises the lowly. He casts the mighty from their thrones and flees >> to the aid of those in need. > > I was fascinated to read recently that the "Marian" chapters of Luke's > gospel - chapters one and two - are linguistically different from the > rest of the gospel. If Luke really did chase down the eyewitnesses when > he was composing his gospel, as he says he did, then logic demands he > chased Mary herself down too, because the stories in these first > chapters could only have come from Mary. And indeed biblical criticism > has now confirmed that the language of these chapters is decidedly > Semitic, and unique in Luke's gospel, which everywhere else bears the > imprint of an educated Greek. It's pretty cool to think Luke got the > words of this Magnificat straight from the mouth of Mary, in her own > dialect! Or, have you considered any other reasons that the language might be very different?
First
|
Prev
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 Prev: Inter v Barcelona Sithcast Next: half filled anfield in complete silence even at 2-0 |