To Catch a Thief

Dear Prof. HotWind,

-excerpt-

LONDON – For a priest in northern England, the commandment that dictates "thou shalt not steal" isn't exactly written in stone. The Rev. Tim Jones caused uproar by telling his congregation that it is sometimes acceptable for desperate people to shoplift — as long as they do it at large national chain stores, rather than small, family businesses.

-comment-

Apparently, our online bible scholar has a little competition. Talk about drifting from what you hold true, in a sometimes acceptable manner. We all thought George Carlin was just being funny when he said, “Sometimes the church grants dispensation”. Man, he would have a field day this. I would like some insight on the good Reverend’s twenty first century view on the coveting of thy neighbor’s wife.

We need to reset for a moment. The Reverend isn’t throwing out a blessing to would be thieves. His sermon is a reminder that we need to help our brother in his time of need; turn a blind in a manner of speaking. Other religious factions sanction the taking of life in HIS name. We’re only talking about a loaf of bread here, not a beheading. And hi def telis are right out!

Although the Reverend meant well, the phrasing of his thoughts should have been reconsidered. If we really need to hang a priest, we should go after the dirty bastards that like touching little boys.

Puzzled in a pew


Dear Puzzled,

A fine and sensitive treatment of the story my dear friend.

I marvel at a cozy scene where you, still bent over a warm internet keyboard, are visited by the resplendent visage of sweet Wisdom herself, draped in a shimmering irridescent lame' with an open back and plunging neckline. Whose soft council spills like sunlight over the war torn fields of your fatigued philosophy.

"Think of the poor, the tired, the homeless", she purrs, "it is Christmas."
. . and your dick stirs.

"But think also of the victims and their ruined plans, their loss " she whispers, and the soft folds of her loose gown slide over the smooth white skin of her naked shoulder.


You smile weakly, turning your eyes from her fresh licked lips, but find your nose a mere two inches from the deep roundness of her anxious, rolling bosoms, almost begging to be set free . . .
"Remember the story of Lot." she teases, "What manner is a village that simply watches its saddest, most unfortunate die without helping?"

Her hand runs across your hair; at this point you can't possibly stand from your chair without embarrassment . . .

"Remember also" she breathed, "this same village might well perish but for its love of the truth in the Commandments and the law."

At this point a small, bare foot steals out from the garments trailing hem.

"So small, so perfect." you think to yourself as you stare helplessly at the tiny toes which slowly brush, seductive yet somehow indifferently across your leg.

"But we can't just go around, having our priests tell the people that its plum all right to go around stealing tits from Wallmart ! ! ! . " you shout, . . . . at which point you freeze having realized the slip of the tongue.
"I mean 'shit'; that's 'shit from Wallmart' " you explain.

If your priest can only find the right rhetoric, I'll bet we can anticipate a future where some judge releases a poor, desperate homeless man who was arrested by a friendly cop who answered a 911 call from Wallmart who eventually gave the wretch a scarf they caught him trying to steal. Every one is happy, every one feels good about helping the poor; everyone feels good about obeying the law.

Now how are you going to "adjust" your metrics of morality and tear a piece off Wisdom?

The UnForgiven

jt,
-excerpt-
CHARLESTON, W.Va. – The Gospel of Luke records that, as he was dying on the cross, Jesus showed his boundless mercy by praying for his killers this way: "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."
Not so fast, say contributors to the Conservative Bible Project. The project, an online effort to create a Bible suitable for contemporary conservative sensibilities, claims Jesus' quote is a disputed addition abetted by liberal biblical scholars, even if it appears in some form in almost every translation of the Bible.

Comment: In these hard times, to thrash out at the center figure of the beliefs of so many spiritual factions is an affront to those that worship his godliness and is more than in poor taste. If they need to soften the power of mercy for conservative sensibilities, let them first examine the feeding of many with two fish and six loaves of bread. Can't get too much more conservatively merciful than that.
hoop
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hoop,
I've come to a workable compromise when faced with the similar frustration born of dealings with powerful groups and their misguided aggressions. Aren't these the same people that would have America's socialized education system withhold Darwin's theory of evolution from our children on the principle of Biblical infallibility? And all this while simultaneously denouncing Socialism? Philosophy, like personal hygiene, is an abstraction from nature of its more intrinsic subtleties directed toward the development and employment of a system devised to neutralize man's vulnerability to the natural order.

From these elements and axioms we sculpt our laws and physics, humanize our enigmas and sanitize all record of our contemporary membership in the animal community. But as Jerry Seinfeld once remarked, personal hygiene is a labor intensive compulsion. "If your body was a car, you wouldn't buy one." If clear, logical thought came without effort to an individual, you would most likely find him heavily sedated in some Asylum for the Fragmented and Despondent. We debate as a species for the simple reason that no argument is of itself an end, but rather an invitation for a multitude of contradictions. No great campaign was ever satisfied but that it edited life to fit some predisposed, amputated objective; each man satisfied to yield some portion of fact for a tidy summation of his personal, inevitable truth.

And what is an opinion but some position along a scale on which the pleasant is measured against the unpleasant by virtue of an individual's agility with numbers and ingenuity with the language. Many a fact was held to be unsound for centuries before that certain "character" arrived with the skill to express its evolved truth. Though the metrics of the condition remained fixed for those many years, it was the elasticity of the words, the rough distinction of their definitions and the syntax which provided a fresh opportunity for the new interpretation.

Take for example the Pythagorean superstitions of numeric coincidences; the five "Platonic solids" and subsequent "music of the spheres"; our profoundly diverse interpretations of the appearance of life on Earth or the polarized approaches of Keynes and Friedman to economic practices in the United States. Each "truth" exists consequent to the edit and particularly, the dismissal of related data whose mere acknowledgement would challenge the primary objective.

In the case of Pythagoras, the crisp, objective discovery of numeric coincidence transposed a degree of unwarranted authority to a framework of intangible spirituality, a cosmic force, whose legitimacy survived the absence of equivalent interrogation.
Pythagoras' legacy alone was enough to excite Johannes Kepler's imagination to conclude the existence of a relationship between planetary orbits and the geometric volumes of Plato's five ideal solids. Although he outlived the conviction of own his epiphany, he would survive to witness a greater personal achievement.
Darwin's version of evolution simply challenges the authority of Judeo/Christian scripture. A true mess here.
. . . and Keynes, noted British Economist, would take your paycheck and put it in the bank for a steady, moderate return, whereas Friedman, (think "de-regulation"), would aim for higher profits at the track.

In every case we approach our subject with some primary assumption, trusting our scales, watches and thermometers to reveal some accountable fact of its nature. These instruments then cough out their numbers onto pages where they are arranged and subsequently shuffled into some context. Though the numbers present themselves as metaphorical stones whose face value is presumed eternal and unyielding, such is not the case with the language used to relate them.

Words begin at their core like the pit inside a peach, firm and distinct. But through context and metaphor, idioms are born and layers are grown onto the seed, not unlike the juicy meat of the peach. It is through this process we learn to value and treasure our language and cultivate our long fascination with literature. And from this peach we must provide a context to our arithmetic.
How could one expect mankind to have the accuracy of our deliberations keep pace with our predilection for ambiguity; our love for association? Philosophy is as difficult on the mind as weight training is on the body; an inconvenient fact has never stopped the idiot from expressing an opinion, formed in the vaccuum if its conspicuous exclusion. Outmatched by disciplined logic, these passionate yet compromised individuals have leveled the playing field with a spurious approach to an art form called Rhetoric, designed by their adversary and used to considerable effect against them.

Rhetoric is the skill of leaning words of specific innate potential, soft sides back to back, until they no longer stand perpendicular to the flat baseline of reason, creating instead a fresh, innovative angle closer to the craftsman's object yet further from the original ideal, namely: Truth. Cases are constructed in this manner that conform to a logical framework, woven of dubious, unsubstantiated or concocted material; a Christmas tree adorned with sugar ornaments in the rain. It is small wonder therefore that the history of our development, through its art, literature and science, has continually wrestled with a reluctance to acknowledge the ironic reflection staring back at us from the shiny lenses and forceps of our kitchens, laboratories and temples. It was essential that God's decision to create man in accordance to his own likeness was addressed so early on in the Bible. In this manner it was established as an axiom, beyond further analysis.

I believe firmly that our single common denominator as a species is a specific form of loneliness, that painful emptiness felt most figuratively by the child in an orphanage. We ache to discuss our achievements, our self love and our plans for the future with some paternal, guiding soul. We desperately wish to impress, to be counseled and caressed by something not simply equal to our race. How ironic that this wonderful blue planet, teeming with life, should leave us so lonely this way. So our Gods came to interview for the position. Some came and left for better employment elsewhere, some were layed off and some were fired. Some are with us today, hired when the company was smaller and charged to reinvent themselves as the corporation grew.

In light of this brief discussion of my opinion of opinions, I would like to close by applying some principles to the subject of your letter.

1] If there did indeed exist a man named Jesus, was he the Son of God?
- if yes, then move on to his life's work.
- if no, then the issue is done.

2] Was he executed for his life's work?
- if yes, then move on to his dying words
- if no, then why was he executed? (i will not continue this here)

3] Did he ask forgiveness for his executioners?
- If yes, what are the positive and negative implications?
- If no, what are the positive and negative implications?

Assuming these individuals who are editing the current version of the book of Luke are concerned with the Bible's legitimacy as an authoritative text, I can only conclude that they are amputating such knowledge from their rhetoric to protect a higher ideal, some greater good. If this is correct, I need someone to explain the potential, viral harm which hides in Forgiveness.
Then I would like an explanation for the use of the "infallibility" clause with respect to Genesis. The Bible is infallible or it is not. You must not confuse your stones for peaches lest you lose a tooth.
jt,

A rare occasion it is when, meeting at the railway depot of thought, we're not found standing on opposite platforms. Although easy to follow, the simplicity of your flow chart seems to have eluded many "great thinkers" of these times. But the true/false method of quizzing time-honored "givens" leaves little room for the filibustering responses of those who like to think they know better than the annals of the brilliant, celebrated and/or righteous ones.

The analogy to the peach with regard to this discussion was appropriate. As such, I offer the rhetoric of the worm and it's need to feed as nothing more than an attempt to spoil the fruit for the many that enjoy it's nourishment. Our twenty first century, online bible scholars need a reminder. Our beliefs are healthy and living well within the pit of our souls. And lest they fear otherwise, our fruit is dusted daily. If I may quote a phrase, most associated with the journalist Ernie Pyle, "There are no atheists in fox holes".

Believing must be complete. Besides, The Pearly Gates would be an awful place to learn of holes in their sacred story, and peaches as well.
- hoop

Hoop,
Why must "believing" be complete?
- jt

jt,
With respect to your response, you've got quite the economy of words. Running low on hot air to keep your balloon aloft? I doubt it.

I’ve apparently used a phrase that didn’t convey my thought as I intended. Perhaps I should have written "We must be true to the beliefs we embrace". Stated facts are often questioned. This can be expected and is often necessary to reach a full understanding of what one has engaged. In taking hold of a belief, specifically one's spiritualism, we can’t simply pick and choose specific aspects of the facts, myths, and tales, ignore the rest and still profess our faith. If you wish to believe in the legend of Paul Bunyan, that's OK with me, but then you can't disavow the existence of his rather large blue ox.

Do Christians believe that Jesus turned water to wine? Was it the process of fermentation or divine intervention? Did Jesus walk on water or did he step on the backs of turtles sunning in a shallow stream bed? Whatever the circumstances of these (apparent) miracles, free of physical evidence, they will always remain miracles in the hearts of those who have chosen to believe in Christ and his teachings.

Did Christ forgive those who put him to death? The question relates to the speaking of these words as he, nailed and tied to a cross, was dying. Writing of a verbal forgiveness may have been done to exemplify the height of his mercifulness. From what I’ve learned of crucifixion he would have had difficulty breathing let alone attempting to speak. So when asked if Christ forgave his executioners I answer, in accordance with his teachings, yes. By the way, research concludes that a cross true to the shape we now associate with the son of God may be inaccurate. Do we strike this image from the records as well?

Our Conservative Computer Bible Scholar has a right to question the Book of Luke. This freedom however doesn’t permit him to re-write Luke to meets his needs. To edit the Bible could therefore only be for his personal gain and is suspiciously hypercritical. Personally, I don’t think he knows how to believe. Oh ye of little faith. Sorry, you can't change the control group so the hypothesis is correct without raising the price of the book.
-hoop (aka:Our Lady of Pulpit Software V1.2)

. . . and this from Karen in Fla.:

Merry Meet Jeff......
I was reading your blog the other day. I found the topic of Jesus going on between you and hoop... I loved your questions.

Your first question, "was he the son of God" got me wondering. My initial reaction is then who was his mother?? How are we created through man? Why can't it be Mary?
How would God, a spirit, be able to do that...?

My next question: is there one shred of evidence that Jesus existed.? The stories tell us he died for our sins. What sins ! ! ? What did you or I do when we were born that we already had sin? I don't understand a religions that claims we are bad the minute were born. And this man died for these sins? How much guilt is that to be on our heads from young children to adults?

I guess I spent most of my young life believeing in him. That was what I was taught. As I grew older I began to question it. Now, I don't really want to say too much because I don't pretend to know any of these answers. Everyone is has the right to their own beliefs. I happen to believe that John Lennon said it best : "What ever gets you through the night."
......Blessed BE
-your little pagan friend...
( karen) I don't want you to get me mixed up with any of your other pagan friends.. love you