Crackpot religious ideas

[The Hen]

I'm not sniping Lo. I am trying to direct you to what people have requested you provide evidence of, instead of you just linking to things which are irrelevant whilst thinking they prove your point like the Christopher Hitchen's quote.

[loCAtek]

Very well, you didn't follow the other link? I'll start a 'Myth of ...' thread and stop hijacking CP's.

[Lord Jim]

I'll start a 'Myth of ...' thread

Well thank goodness....

We've been running seriously short on those....

[Crackpot]

Dredging up this old thread...

Meade I have a (Biblical) question that I've been meaning to ask you.

What is your view of Jonathan (the son of Saul)? his life his fate etc...

I'd like to hear your opinion. (I'm particularly surprised to hear how few consider him at all)

Other viewpoints welcome as well of course. I just don't know how familiar the rest of you are with him.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I can't say I've given overmuch thought to Jonathan. His role appears to be that of the contrast in attitude between he and his father toward David. J is the obvious successor-king to Saul but chooses instead to place David's interests ahead of his own - he is the polar opposite of dad.

The honey-eating episode seems to me to confirm Jonathan's pending death (and non-succession) - Saul swore an oath than any who ate would die but when it came down to condemning his own son he allowed the people to "ransome" J's life.

Exactly how does one pay a ransome to God to whom a promise (a curse?) was made . . . well, it was Saul's personal failure that led to God's selection of David as next king and it is perhaps Saul's personal failure that led to the death of Jonathan who in the meantime is used by God to protect David until Saul shuffles off this mortal coil.

It is not insignificant (I believe) that Jonathan pre-deceases Saul who now fully realises that David will make good on God's promise to take the throne away from Saul's line. Mephibosheth would never inherit despite being Jonathan's son. And for Jonathan to have survived that final battle would have produced a pretty problem for Israel in choosing between two men well-qualified to hold the throne.

It seems clear that Jonathan is a better servant of God than Saul. In that role, he in essence chooses a higher good (in enabling David's survival to become king) rather than his own self-interest.

What thoughts have you?

Meade

[Crackpot]

He's a biblical character that doesn't fit the the "popular" mold. He doesn't have a clear choice between right and wrong in fact for the most part he's screwed either way or even regardless of his choice. Despite this by and large he makes the "right" choice in any given situation and still is lead to a bad end.

I think this story serves to temper our expectations from God. Sort of an anti-properity gospel if you will. He is Job without the reward (at least terrestrially). A hard reminder that "it's not all about you"

[Gob]

Don't you think an omnipotent being, capable of creating thsi world and all on it, would be slightly more concise and accurate in laying down his fables?

[Crackpot]

Fables? Sure. Fabels are simplistic and one dimensional. Unfortunately these aren't fables. Fables are good teaching tools used to illustrate a point.

If you are trying to illustrate the complexities of real life OTOH....

[Gob]

Still, you'd think a diety woudl do it better......



...otherwise you wouldn't be asking Meade to clarify....

[MajGenl.Meade]

Quite amusing. Of course he wasn't asking me to clarify the record - but to give my opinion about the record which is a different fettle of kish.

CP I'm interested in that "bad end". Jonathan, as do we all, kicked the bucket i.e. came to the same end. We do view shorter lives as somehow "less" in more than just time. But given an eternal perspective, why is that? Jonathan seems to have been a stand-up fellow and, as you say, made right choices - judging by his son's name and history, he would seem to be the sort who'd welcome the improvements post-earth. We (and I include myself) do appear to have a hard time acting as if we too would be pleased to pop our clogs and go to the better place. No one of course is in a rush to do that but you know what I mean?

[Gob]

Quite amusing. Of course he wasn't asking me to clarify the record - but to give my opinion about the record which is a different fettle of kish.

Any omnipotent being worth the name would make sure his; "Morality for Dummies" book was written clearly enough not to need debate or discussion.

[Lord Jim]

Any omnipotent being worth the name would make sure his; "Morality for Dummies" book was written clearly enough not to need debate or discussion.

Glad to know you're such an authority on the proper behavior of omnipotent beings....

[Gob]

Expert mate, expert, eons of experience.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Any omnipotent being worth the name would make sure his; "Morality for Dummies" book was written clearly enough not to need debate or discussion.

Ah - you only discuss and debate things you don't understand? At last, an explanation for your prolific output of thought and opinion!

[Gob]

LOL!! I do not set rules of behaviour for people Meade, (but there's more than a few I would happily burn in hell for not doing what I want.)

[MajGenl.Meade]

Yeah, sure. Your sentence implies that you have been described as wanting to "set rules of behaviour". However, I don't see that having happened. Therefore I don't understand why you brought up rules of behaviour but it's of no moment.

In the context of a discussion about the character and actions of Jonathan, what do you identify as neither "concise" nor sufficiently "accurate"? Have you some information about Jonathan that we've missed? Have you questions about Jonathan that are bothering you?

I'm sure CP and I would be happy to help.

[Gob]

In the context of a discussion about the character and actions of Jonathan, what do you identify as neither "concise" nor sufficiently "accurate"? Have you some information about Jonathan that we've missed? Have you questions about Jonathan that are bothering you?

Jonathan who? The only Jonathan I know is my nephew, and he's a twat.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Short-term memory loss as well? Tsk tsk! Try bacon (eXtra cRispy)

What is your view of Jonathan (the son of Saul)? his life his fate etc...

About which you opined:

Don't you think an omnipotent being, capable of creating thsi (sic) world and all on it, would be slightly more concise and accurate in laying down his fables?

and

Still, you'd think a diety (sic) woudl (sic) do it better..otherwise you wouldn't be asking Meade to clarify

and

Any omnipotent being worth the name would make sure his; "Morality for Dummies" book was written clearly enough not to need debate or discussion

Evidently "Jonathan who?" reveals that your previous three entries were a load of
But thanks for playing!

[Gob]

No, I was being factitious.

My whole point was that the Bible is so unlike anything written by a omnipotent being, that silly little stories like Jon and Saul just emphasise how unlike the word of a deity it is.

[MajGenl.Meade]

No, I was being factitious.

My whole point was that the Bible is so unlike anything written by a omnipotent being, that silly little stories like Jon and Saul just emphasise how unlike the word of a deity it is.

I see - facetious eh - must be so, since "factitious" is wot you is not.

Since you declare that the Bible is "unlike anything written by a(n) omnipotent being" may I ask you for a copy of whatever it is you are comparing it to - i.e. something that was written by an omnipotent being? I live in hopes (soon to be dashed, no doubt) of not getting in return a reference to such as your blog or a scribbling of Mr. Dork-ins.

(a) the Bible was not "written" by an omnipotent being - Christians and atheists concur. I believe you may be confusing it with certain beliefs about the Koran;

(b) the history of the first king of Israel, his family and his conflict with Philistia and the man who became the second king of Israel (David) is not "silly" in the least.

I ask again: In the context of a discussion about the character and actions of Jonathan, what do you identify as neither "concise" nor sufficiently "accurate"? Can you estimate the correct number of words for writing about Saul and Jonathan and describe what the inaccuracies are?

You could just say "Oh sorry - I was talking twaddle" and there will be no need for pistols at dawn. Be warned: I am a crock shit.... er crap shoot.... er crackpot (no, that's the other one)... well anyway just watch out!

Meade