?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Wah! I'm trying to find a link to the donkey parable, because it… - Sally's Journal
March 30th, 2005
12:06 pm

[Link]

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Wah! I'm trying to find a link to the donkey parable, because it says something that I liked far better than I can, and I can't find it. pw201 or robhu must know the one I'm thinking of... it's very (fairly) funny, and illustrates why you shouldn't take things out of context. It takes the "bring me a donkey" quote, and then amusingly illustrates many schisms over how we should bring Christ a donkey. I thought it was at god hates figs, but I can't find it...

UPDATE : Searching for "Gay Donkey" in google doesn't help. Really. Please, I don't recommend you do it.

UPDATE II : robert_jones, proving he is a font of wisdom as well as aesthetically pleasing and good at correcting my manners and my spelling, has found it. It's here for those of you who didn't have a clue what I was on about.

(35 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments
 
From:fluffymormegil
Date:March 30th, 2005 11:13 am (UTC)
(Link)
I could have told you that without attempting it...
[User Picture]
From:robert_jones
Date:March 30th, 2005 11:19 am (UTC)
(Link)
I thing you mean this. (Googling for "'gay bishops' donkey" seems to be correct.)
[User Picture]
From:cartesiandaemon
Date:March 30th, 2005 11:25 am (UTC)
(Link)
UPDATE : Searching for "Gay Donkey" in google doesn't help. Really. Please, I don't recommend you do it.

*snork*

I thing you mean this. (Googling for "'gay bishops' donkey" seems to be correct.)

Also *snork* though I felt a bit guilty about this one :)
[User Picture]
From:atreic
Date:March 30th, 2005 11:33 am (UTC)
(Link)
Ah yes. Thankyou.
[User Picture]
From:atreic
Date:March 30th, 2005 12:06 pm (UTC)
(Link)
By the way, if you have the time to google for gay bishops, do you have the time to reply to my email letting me know what's happening tonight? It would be lovely to see you and Elise (and the cam-goth-books), and I'm perfectly happy to turn up whenever, in a state of fed-ness or un-fed-ness as you see fit, but at the moment I have no idea.
[User Picture]
From:ewx
Date:March 30th, 2005 12:17 pm (UTC)

Reading beyond the silly as...

(Link)
or that we all ought to be subsidence farmers

*grin*

[User Picture]
From:ewx
Date:March 30th, 2005 12:24 pm (UTC)

Re: Reading beyond the silly as...

(Link)
(though apart from the comedy misspellings I'm finding it a very interesting article)
[User Picture]
From:atreic
Date:March 30th, 2005 12:35 pm (UTC)

Re: Reading beyond the silly as...

(Link)
Yes, it's a marvelous artical, that's why I bugged my entire Lj friends list trying to find it again.
[User Picture]
From:ewx
Date:March 30th, 2005 01:02 pm (UTC)

Re: Reading beyond the silly as...

(Link)

Having finished it I feel I have a much better conceptual grasp of what's going on in the CofE. Whether it matters to me is another question. I'm not religious and won't become so; so in some sense it's none of my business.

Yes the relevant Church is somewhat entwined with the British state, but I think that that relationship should be undone, so the precise details of what the CoE believes are moot to me from that point of view.

On the other hand the views of the Church aren't entirely without effect on the rest of society, and I am part of that, and all this would remain so even after disestablishment; so the subject doesn't entirely fail to impinge on me.

And of course it might affect my friends somewhat more directly; but since from my point of view those people are starting from a factual error that I'm by and large not actively complaining about, trying to talk them out of, or whatever, drilling down into details of who can be a priest would seem rather an odd thing to do. Which is really the same as the disestablishment-related argument above, I suppose. At least there is consistency l-)

[User Picture]
From:robert_jones
Date:March 30th, 2005 12:22 pm (UTC)
(Link)
When did I correct your manners?
[User Picture]
From:atreic
Date:March 30th, 2005 12:37 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Oh, I can't imagine you'd do anything so rude as upbraiding me on my mistakes*, but your living example of good manners has corrected me on so many counts ;-)

* Or at least can't remember it at the moment...
[User Picture]
From:wildeabandon
Date:March 30th, 2005 03:03 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Oh, I can't imagine you'd do anything so rude as upbraiding me on my mistakes*

Heh. He does that to me all the time.
[User Picture]
From:atreic
Date:March 30th, 2005 03:17 pm (UTC)
(Link)
:-) But he likes you more than he likes me...

Your new user icons are gorgeous, BTW...
[User Picture]
From:wildeabandon
Date:March 30th, 2005 03:33 pm (UTC)
(Link)
*blush* Thankyee.
[User Picture]
From:libellum
Date:March 30th, 2005 04:53 pm (UTC)
(Link)
*g* likewise.

at least when he does it on livejournal, you can delete the comment. Oh, for that to be possible in real life!
[User Picture]
From:emperor
Date:March 31st, 2005 09:05 am (UTC)
(Link)
you can delete the comment. Oh, for that to be possible in real life!

*laugh*
[User Picture]
From:filecoreinuse
Date:March 30th, 2005 12:22 pm (UTC)
(Link)
UPDATE II : [info]robert_jones, proving he is a font of wisdom as well as aesthetically pleasing and good at correcting my manners and my spelling

On a similar note, it is 'fount' - as in 'fountain'. The fount that one uses in a word processor is also technically avec 'u' (and the word 'fount' as a typeface predates computers) but, like 'programme'/'program' we tend to adopt the US spelling there.
[User Picture]
From:filecoreinuse
Date:March 30th, 2005 12:27 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Ah - I take it back - I just realised you meant 'font' as in container, rather than 'fount' as in upspray. So he is a container of knowledge rather than a provider of it :).
[User Picture]
From:satanicsocks
Date:March 30th, 2005 12:28 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I wondered if your pet mistake alert would flash on that one. Naughty boy.
[User Picture]
From:cartesiandaemon
Date:March 30th, 2005 02:25 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Dave was so attuned to "begging the question" that he upbraided me in the CMS cafeteira before playing back the conversation and realising that I'd actually used it correctly; it's a commonly used phrase so the vast majority of uses are the wrong[1] one.

[1] I know opinions differ as to it if *is* wrong.
[User Picture]
From:cartesiandaemon
Date:March 30th, 2005 02:26 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Wait, *lots* of people say "font" when they mean "fount"? How?
[User Picture]
From:oedipamaas49
Date:March 30th, 2005 05:01 pm (UTC)
(Link)
See here for some linguists pondering font/fount.
[when they say 'eggcorn', they mean something like misunderstood/misheard phrase]
[User Picture]
From:cartesiandaemon
Date:March 31st, 2005 09:21 am (UTC)
(Link)
Ooh, thanks. That is interesting, though now I feel very sorry for 'champ' :)
From:ex_robhu
Date:March 30th, 2005 12:44 pm (UTC)
(Link)
:-P

I had read it before but would have failed to find it. Thanks for thinking highly of me in this respect though! pw201 is I believe on holiday.
[User Picture]
From:lavendersparkle
Date:March 30th, 2005 08:07 pm (UTC)
(Link)
If that verse were in the Old testament there'd be at least twenty pages of discussion about how it could be applied to life in the mishna :-P
[User Picture]
From:mobbsy
Date:March 30th, 2005 10:33 pm (UTC)
(Link)
That was an interesting read, thanks for digging it up.

I'm now interested in more of the detail of what bits of the OT are generally considered (by Anglicans) obsoleted by the New Covenant, which aren't, and which are controversial. I've a feeling that the author of that may have spent rather too long in the detail of contemporary theology and slightly lost how unclear the distinctions are to much of the laity. Certainly it isn't clear to me after years of sunday school, confirmation classes, sermons and generally being brought up as an observant Anglican (and since deciding that there isn't a God). I have a general feeling about it, but if pressed on the detail I couldn't put up a coherent argument either way especially for edge cases.

(He's also way too dismissive of the problems presented by evil happening in the presence of an omnipotent good God, but that's a different argument).
From:nlj21
Date:March 30th, 2005 11:13 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I'm slightly out of my depth here (so am going to steal a few paragraphs written by someone much more knowledge than me), but I think are two main theological camps in this country.

  1. Covenant Theology


  2. Holds that the Mosaic Law can be divided into three groups of laws--those regulating the government of Israel (civil laws), ceremonial laws, and moral laws. The ceremonial law and civil law are no longer in force because the former was fulfilled in Christ and the latter only applied to Israel's theocracy, which is now defunct. But the moral law continues.

    So the question here about any OT law is what was its purpose. Was it to do with the effective running of government, was it part of some ceremony, or was it part of some eternal moral law.

  3. New Covenant Theology


  4. Argues that one cannot divide the law up in that way, as though part of the Mosaic Law can be abrogated while the rest remains in force. The Mosaic Law is a unity, they say, and so if part of it is canceled, all of it must be canceled. On top of this, they say that the New Testament clearly teaches that the Mosaic Law as a whole is superseded in Christ. It is, in other words, no longer our direct and immediate source of guidance. The Mosaic Law, as a law, is no longer binding on the believer.

    Does this mean that believers are not bound by any divine law? No, because the Mosaic Law has been replaced by the law of Christ. NCT makes a distinction between the eternal moral law of God and the code in which God expresses that law to us. The Mosaic Law is an expression of God's eternal moral law as a particular code which also contains positive regulations pertinent to the code's particular temporal purpose, and therefore the cancellation of the Mosaic Law does not mean that the eternal moral law is itself canceled. Rather, upon canceling the Mosaic Law, God gave us a different expression of his eternal moral law--namely, the Law of Christ, consisting in the moral instructions of Christ's teaching and the New Testament. The key issue that NCT seeks to raise is: Where do we look to see the expression of God's eternal moral law today--do we look to Moses, or to Christ? NCT says we look to Christ.

So to go for a massive oversimplification: New Covenant Theology says OT laws are no longer in effect unless repeated in the NT. Whereas Covenant Theology says OT laws are still in effect unless abrogated in the NT.

I *think* most Anglicans (or at least the conservative evangelical ones) are closest to New Covenant Theology. Whereas the non-conformist churches, particularly those which hold strongly to the Westminster confession, are more likely to be Covenant Theology. Although that is just my general feeling.

Hope that helps!
[User Picture]
From:mobbsy
Date:March 31st, 2005 05:40 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Thanks, I will go and read the full article soon.
[User Picture]
From:atreic
Date:March 31st, 2005 09:48 am (UTC)
(Link)
Well, just from fuzzy gleanings (almost-christian on the street, if you like) I'd say it's obvious that the food laws are overturned (because I've spent my life eating pork, and because Paul has a Dream) and it's obvious that the 10 commandments arn't, although they get the "love your god with all your heart...and love your neighbour" stuck on at the top.

Although Paul does say somewhere "all things are permissible, but not all things are beneficial" so I've often thought of that as meaning that everything is not the law anymore, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. A kind of anachist utopia?

nlj21 probably said all that much better than I did...
[User Picture]
From:countess_rezia
Date:March 31st, 2005 01:23 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Thanks, I haven't seen that before. And the point it makes is definately pertinent to me in my current position of trying to reconcile myself with the Church and work out if I can belong to it again
[User Picture]
From:atreic
Date:March 31st, 2005 01:32 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I really like the other stuff he's written on his website too - it's well worth wandering around. He has a blog too, but it's not on LJ, and I can't work out if there's an RSS feed.
[User Picture]
From:mair_aw
Date:April 2nd, 2005 11:36 am (UTC)
(Link)
[User Picture]
From:atreic
Date:April 2nd, 2005 11:06 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I want something like stephdiary where it just appears on my friends page - can I do that from that link?
[User Picture]
From:mair_aw
Date:April 3rd, 2005 10:27 am (UTC)
(Link)
well, as far as I know (never tested it) those atom feeds are suited to setting up syndications, which you can do if you have a paid account. There's a box at the bottom of http://www.livejournal.com/syn/ for doing so.

Some people feel that it's courteous to inform the blog-owner if you're going to do that.
[User Picture]
From:atreic
Date:April 4th, 2005 07:18 am (UTC)
(Link)
Well, I would, but the "contact me!" address just bounces...
Powered by LiveJournal.com