CHRISTIANS HAVE COMMITTED TERRIBLE CRIMES OVER THE CENTURIES. WHY IS THAT?

Niall Gooch 28 March, 2019

Taking of Jerusalem by the Crusaders (1847), by Émile Signol

People who sincerely practise the faith are capable of acts of monstrous wickedness
During the Siege of Jerusalem, at the conclusion of the First Crusade in 1099, a priest led devotions on the Mount of Olives, attended by hundreds of Crusaders. After the Christian armies had captured the city, a thanksgiving procession to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre took place, attended by dozens of priests. In the interim, the Crusaders had murdered thousands of Muslims and Jews.
It is hard to understand how an army marching under the banner of the Cross could act thus. Yet throughout history we are confronted with the unsettling spectacle of Christians who behaved in ways dramatically at odds with the truths of the Gospel.
On one level, of course, all Christians are guilty of this. Equally, there remains something decidedly disturbing in actions carried out by Christians that are not just enormously brutal but systematically and determinedly so.
One needn’t accept the Black Legend of relentless Catholic iniquity to be horrified by the complicity of Catholic individuals and institutions in excessive judicial violence and slavery – and, perhaps worst of all, the cruel mistreatment of Jewish people down the centuries.
Oliver Cromwell was by all accounts a genuine Puritan Christian, a firm believer in his own need for mercy. His New Model Army sang psalms as they went into battle. Yet his conquest of Ireland in the 1650s was appalling. Even if we accept the revisionist accounts that downplay his responsibility for the massacres at Wexford and Drogheda, the subsequent “pacification” of the country – for which Cromwell was ultimately responsible, and which brings to mind Tacitus’s savage aside about creating desolation and calling it peace – was grotesque. Indeed, much British oppression in Ireland, from evictions to extra-judicial murder, was planned and carried out by men who sat in church every Sunday.
Protestant Northern Ireland, in which the government systematically tyrannised its Catholic minority, was run and defended by observant Christians, including clergy. On the other side of the sectarian divide, many leaders of the Provisional IRA were serious Catholics. Martin McGuinness apparently wore a scapular even as the organisation of which he was a leader routinely tortured people to death.
Considering another time and place, I was deeply troubled by Christopher Browning’s Ordinary Men, which describes how an auxiliary police battalion in Nazi Germany slaughtered thousands of Jews, including children. The men were from a reputedly anti-Nazi city, Hamburg, and had largely grown to adulthood before 1933, so had not been indoctrinated in the Hitler Youth. In many cases they were churchgoers. All were offered the chance not to participate. Few took it.
How to account for all this? It would be too easy, I think, to blame cynicism on the part of the individuals, ie to believe that they were only counterfeit Christians. This doesn’t move us on very far, however, and is patently untrue in many cases. No doubt there have been countless people down the ages who have merely pretended to Christian devotion because it gave them opportunities for enrichment and advancement. But as a matter of empirical reality, people who genuinely believe in and practise the faith for sincere reasons are capable of acts of monstrous wickedness. They fail to resist the inhuman pressures from within their own cultures, whether brutal anti-Semitism or cruel norms about the appropriate fate for captured enemy populations.
The question is simultaneously simple and impossible to answer. The obvious answer is that we are scarred by Original Sin, masters of self-deceit and rationalisation. As Kierkegaard said: “We Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers.”
There is, nevertheless, something a little glib and unsatisfactory about this. We are all burdened by the Fall, but we do not all yield to the undoubted temptation to commit great evils. Some resist in the most heroic fashion. That is where the impossible aspect of the matter comes in. The darkness of the human heart – deceitful above all things, as Jeremiah said – is perhaps the ultimate mystery of human existence. Anyone with even a little self-knowledge will know this. We are all familiar with it from our own small-scale daily battles to choose good over evil.
I’m not a theologian, but I know a little about poetry, and I think one answer – a possible protection against the temptation to enormous evil – lies in something TS Eliot wrote: “The only wisdom we can hope to acquire/Is the wisdom of humility: humility is endless.”
Radical Christian humility, so hard to achieve but visible in the lives of so many great saints, is the opposite of the worldly aspirations and obsessions that so often lie behind great evils; a shield against the dangerous preoccupations of our particular cultures, and against believing our own ideologies are so important that they are worth killing for.
Niall Gooch tweets @niall_gooch

55 thoughts on “CHRISTIANS HAVE COMMITTED TERRIBLE CRIMES OVER THE CENTURIES. WHY IS THAT?

  1. Hellohi Indeed thauld Christians have done horrible things and some still do. Other religions and cultures are no saints heither hi. Humans are still base animals underneath and this often surfaces
    The uniform gives power and many forget what Christ came to do but crack on anyway. Sadly again tis the sheeps what lose out hi but

    Like

  2. Bp Pat, there was a very good 3-part programme on the BBC recently about “The Crusades.”
    “Dr Thomas Asbridge presents a revelatory account of the Crusades, the 200-year war between Christians and Muslims for control of the Holy Land.
    The story of the Crusades is remembered as a tale of religious fanaticism and unspeakable violence, but now fresh research, eyewitness testimony and contemporary evidence from both the Christian and Islamic worlds shed new light on how these two great religions waged war in the name of God. ”
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01b3ftw/the-crusades-1-holy-war

    Like

  3. a powerful statement, from the Catholic Herald of all places!

    Like

  4. A very thought provoking article by Niall Gooch. Much evil, wrong and abuse has been committed by Christians of all persuasions. Much wrong has also been committed by extremists of other religions too. Evil crimes are not the preserve of Catholicism only but its legacy is far from commendable. Look at the teachings of Scientology, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Islam and other religious groups and we find much that is suspect, harmful and very questionable. All religions (groups) have a legacy of negativity, harmful teachings and behaviours. Yet, alongside the legacy of great harm done by Catholicism is also a legacy of immense goodness, evidenced by the selfless, generous witness by legions of men and women, laity and religious who have illuminated the essence of Christ-like living and whose witness to gospel justice and compassion has made a difference to millions throughout the world. We can point to the great harmful abuse of institutionalised religions but also we see the light of true goodness. At a personal level we are each capable of harmful behaviour and abuse and can destroy the lives of others very easily by the tyranny of our words which we witness all too frequently on this blog. Any abuse and harm from whatever source is morally reprehensible and unacceptable – in thoughts, words or deeds!

    Like

  5. All true and we haven’t even mentioned slavery or the treatment of Africans by white Christian colonists. However I do jib at the use of the Crusades as a shock-horror tactic. Why did Christian kings think a crusade was necessary or justifiable however misguided those reasons now appear? In the early centuries the whole of the Middle East, Asia Minor and North Africa were Christian heartlands. Today people seem to think they had always been Muslim. Now these countries where Christianity had been so strongly established did not, I suspect, convert to Islam because they were charmed by missionaries knocking on their doors like a pair of nice Morman boys from Idaho. Just saying like, before someone pipes up to say that, unlike Christianity, Islam is a religion of peace.

    Like

    1. @8.48
      Another ‘Bash Whitey.’ Not all Christians were saints, but I am certainly not going to collude in the current rush to indoctrinate our young into ‘white guilt’ disease. White blame is currently EVERYWHERE. The EU 2 days ago passed a bill for reparations (of God only knows what sort) for ‘Afro europeans’! Meanwhile the hard-done- by superior African culture machetes itself in London in an orgy of Blood and the same crowd we colonial Irish (who knew!) took in and pay for in Dublin are wanking themselves off in dublin bus queues and bloodily gang fighting. But white Christianity is to blame?
      ‘By their fruits you shall know them.’ The leaven of Christianity in western societies has produced countries the rest of the world wants to come and live in. That’s the proof.
      Unfortunately the non Christians are now coming here in hordes and clergy have no balls to tell them about Christ. They are too busy giving them food parcels while they iron their daughter’s breasts, fgm them, honour kill, poly marry, bomb us, shoot us, groom and gang rape white children, lie as uk mp’s, lie as r.o.i. political candidates, act as slum landlords, cheat on driving licence scams, supply abortion of female foetuses, serially get white girls pregnant (often fat ones) and then leave a trail of fatherless children behind them, and on and on and on…………
      Look at Zimbabwe and South Africa. Would you go live there?!!! Trump was right, ‘shitholes’ and very
      dangerous shitholes.
      So I’m over all this masochism about terrible Christianity. It’s been the best thing that ever happened the world!

      Like

    2. Didn’t we have our own crusade against Iraq just a few years ago, which probably caused far more suffering and destruction than the medieval ones.

      Like

  6. It is true that organised religions have caused much harm and unimaginable hurt to people. It is also true that other “isms” have damaged, crushed and destroyed the dignity of people – communism, capitalism, socialism, extreme politics – none of which is ever justifiable or acceptable in any era or context. Christian religions have left their mark in very negative, extremist ways, far removed from the vision of Christ. Conversely these same religious belief systems have also contributed immensely to charitable causes, fighting for justice for the oppressed, the marginalised, the forgotten. We can point to many wonderful individuals and christian charities in our country, who, because of their religious beliefs and convictions make a huge difference to thousands. We each must ensure if we believe in God that we live by CHRIST’S gospel, not some created vision of our own. We are each capable of harmful and destructive behaviour, with or without religion. Abuse in the name of any religion or of a God is inherently repugnant.

    Like

    1. 10:13
      You, like other posters here, have missed the point of todsy’s blog. It isn’t to ‘dumb down’ Christianity, but how to square extreme violence by Christians historically with the essentially peaceful core tenets of their faith.

      Like

      1. @ 11.48
        No. YOU’VE missed it!
        We don’t have to square it. Sometimes Christians do/did bad things, because we’re not perfect and don’t claim to be.
        What YOU seem to miss is that this article is part of something bigger – the rapidly spreading infection of croppies (Christians) lie down. Excuse me while I vomit over the latest Jon Snow pronouncement.
        I’m proud of the values Christianity imbued into western society and won’t be joining in the orchestrated attack on it.
        Christians are so peaceful they have allowed enemies of their way of life to swarm their very lands, ferried them here for free on boats, allowed them access to all our services and rights built up over centuries, and then kowtow to all their demands to turn a blind eye to all their ‘cultural’ practices while bending over backwards to give ALL newly arising jobs in BBC etc to them and allow our children to be indoctrinated that we are the cause of all the world’s ills and must be punished for it. That’s how peaceful Christians are.
        So go ahead, Magna – self-flagellate all you want. What storey do you want pushed off as a homo supporter when the mohammadans outbreed us?

        Like

      2. 11.48: Here we go, a gentle dusmissal of other people’s intelligent comments. As the day unfds, expect more vitriolic, abusive comments. What is it about this plonker, Magna, who seeks to denigrate all others. My comment at 10.13, along with other posters DON’T MISS ANY POINT OF THE ARTICLE. We are contributing alternative and legitimate debate – and with respect, reasonableness and rationality – unlike you, you sour, crerpy dope! Go back to bed…..

        Like

    2. 12:39

      When you’ve managed to calm yourself, re-read my other post: I did not equate genuine Christianity with stupidity.

      And no, Christians sometimes did ‘bad things’ (your phrase, and a gross understatement of historical truth) not because they were imperfect, but because they were taught a base form of Christianity…a bastardization of what Christ intended…by a theocractic elite which had syncretized the legacy of Christ’s teaching, in order to do what he had counselled could not be done: bridge the chasm between God and mammon (‘mammon here being ‘worldliness). And particular reference to the Old Testament (its moral barbarism) was made by these men to justify the most ferocious and extreme slaughter.

      ‘Deus Vult!’ (‘God wills it!’) was the rallying cry, the inspiration, and the moral driving force of the First Crusade. With those words ringing in his ears, and with the earnest support of a pope (safely away from the thestre of conflict) what did a crusader feel himself not capable of doing in God’s name?

      And don’t turn my comment into some political banner for unlimited immigration; it most certainly is not. I am inclined, very strongly, to the opinions of Tommy Robinson and of others on Rebel TV.

      Like

      1. @1.53
        You’re out of date on the crusades. Catch up! And evaluate your sources.
        Why are we being led to discuss crusades which we never experienced but banned from discussing other current things we have personal experience of, for fear of a knock on the door and loss of employment?
        The point IS that this article can NOT be seen in isolation. It is part of a pattern and to autistically focus on a part and ignore the whole is both stupid and dangerous. Get woke. This is just another little bit of poisonous identity politics. You shouldn’t be stupid enough to fall for it -even if it does afford you an opportunity to get off on hierarchy bashing. You’re a tool i.e. being used.

        Like

      2. 2.24
        A disgraceful reference to a special needs condition in a derigatory way.

        Like

    3. 12:41
      You want a free run, don’t you? To be able to make unchallenged remarks on the blog? Which is why you have already resorted, so early in the day, to describing my criticisms as ‘abusive’.
      This is a blog for debate. If you cannot handle debate like an adult, go elsewhere.

      Like

      1. 1.59: One word to aptly describe and define you: abusive. You deserve nothing but contempt. I always tell others in difficulties ircwho think little of themselves that God doesn’t make mistakes. You, Magna, prove each day that you are “the exception”. Grow up.

        Like

      2. @6.11
        You obviously don’t know what you are talking about. Research has shown that those on the asd spectrum visually focus on particular parts of faces or what is in front of them rather than scanning the whole. It is also recognised that those on the asd spectrum can fixate on particular aspects of a situation rather than seeing the situation in the round. You wish to deny this? Facts are not derogatory; they are neutral facts. There is nothing derogatory (corrected your misspelling) about pointing out that focussing on one aspect while disregarding the whole is an autistic feature.

        Like

    4. 2:24
      For obvious political reasons, you are trying to widen the scope of today’s blog as a platform for railing against topical contoversies, like immigration, multiculturalism, globalism, etc. You’d be surprised how closely my own views on these topics coincide with yours. But this is a matter for another time; it is NOT the subject of today’s blog.

      Like

      1. @ 3.17
        Everything is best judged in context. If today’s topic is not to be seen in context, then it should be.

        Like

  7. The crimes against Sean Hickey and David Dysky all occurs under the tenure of Michael Fanny Mullaney.

    Like

    1. If you have evidence that even one crime has been committed, you know what to do.
      Put up or shut up!

      Like

  8. MC always takes over this blog particularly more so at weekends, interesting that isn’t it. If you don’t react to this fool who relies on Wikipedia he will soon lose interest as before. However, it’s not always easy as he replies to his own comments under ‘anonymous’ and he then retorts back as MC so the blog some days is only about him. Get the picture?

    Like

    1. 2:11

      Would you ever listen to yourself? Taking over the bolg? Me? How, for heaven’s sake? Am I forcefully stopping any one from posting?

      Nah! What’s really behind your whining, and behind others’ here, is petty, childish jealousy of my intellectual abilities and knowledge, and an attempt to have me barred from posting, like that clown, MMM, the other day. PETTY, CHILDISH JEALOUSY. Nothing else

      It did not work while I was at school, and university, both at graduate and post-graduate level. And it won’t work here.😆

      Like

      1. 2.35: Magna, praise yourself as repeatedly as you want, despite your self proclaimed intellectual abities, your abusive behaviour towards those with a different opinion is psychopathic in nature, vile, evil, ugly, utterly repugnant. You belittle, condescend and abuse others. Armed with Wikipedia information and your own limited knowledge you intimidate and bully, controlling and dominating this blog. You turn many off from commenting. When legitimate criticisms are made of you, your response is vicious, that of the typical school yard bully. You deserve to be clobbered! Grow up, little girlie!!

        Like

    2. Totally agree with your observations @2.11pm regarding the loathsome MC. Out of 19 posts already today 7 from MC and another 4 suspected anonymous from this troll. It doesn’t take a fool to work out what’s a going on here.

      Like

      1. 5:35
        I hate to say this, but only a fool would have posted what you did; and only an even greater fool would believe it.
        But then, there are a lot of fools around here.😆

        Like

  9. French polymath Blaise Pascal, on precisely the subject of today’s blog, once mused that ‘men never do evil so cheerfully and completely as when they do it from religious conviction’. Pascal was thinking here of Christianity in the form he found it at the time.
    The best puzzles are those that contain their own solution, and Pascal’s incisive observation answers its own, implied conundrum, as to how Christians can allow themselves to resort to such extremes of physical savagery. The answer, of course, is when Christianity becomes adulterated through ideologization, that is, ‘infused as much, or more, with the fallible ideas of men as the infallible teachings of God. It is then that Christianity becomes a religion. And, as history proves, a broad mortal danger to humankind rather than a narrow roadway to salvation.

    Like

    1. 3.08: Pascal’s observation is proved by the arrogant, selfish, abusive Magna: he acts out of his “absolutist religious principles” – he is right, everyone else is wrong: he is an intolerant, abusive, sneering demigod, the nasty bully who treats others with humiliation, hatred and poison. Maggy, your “religious principles” are anathema to Christ’s way, not that you ever convince us that you “follow” him!! Yes, you should be barred from all social media forums. You are an abusive, vile person.

      Like

      1. 5:50

        Ah, yer not so bad yerself.😆

        Like

    2. Aren’t we blessed to have our very own polymath in Maggie Carter? 😆

      Like

      1. 7.14: Polymath – Maggie? Hardly…more a gargantuan rodent spitting out vile, venomous abuse…The composite that is Mags is descending into crazy, mad, delusional gombeen. Let him go.

        Like

      2. 7:14
        You got that right, my friend.
        HAH, HAH, HAH 😅
        😆

        Like

  10. Magna’s Mummy 30th Mar 2019 — 4:36 pm

    Mummy loves it when her little Magna gets all bossy and butch.

    You know people have the total wrong impression of my Magsy Wagsy. He’s such a sweetie pie. Really.

    True, his father, God rest his soul, never looked at him quite the same after watching that film The Omen; but my little Mags, just like that nice boy Norman Bates, wouldn’t hurt a fly.

    All those incidents with the dismembered little kittens were blown totally out of all proportion. The same with all those dalmatian puppies.

    Experiments gone wrong is all they were. A few little miscalculations. Unfortunate – yes. Could happen to anyone though.

    But my darling Magna boy gets such a bad press. I wish you could all see him when he’s with Mumsy on her own. You would pronounce less harshly.

    They don’t see the gentle Magna who’s devoted to his Mummy and who’ll be going to town on her for Mothering Sunday.

    He might even let old Mummykins out of the suitcase he keeps her in under his bed.

    Like

    1. 😂😂😂😂😂

      Like

    2. 4:36
      Humour’s not subtle enough. Actually, not subtle at all.
      Very Year 11.
      Mommie Dearest can provide you with some comedic tips…if you ask her nicely (while slipping her a bottle of Mother’s Ruin.)😆

      Like

  11. 4.53: Pat, in your charity, you should not allow any responses to this ignoramus’s question. How ignorant! How utterly distasteful to judge any person in this way! Pat, do not facilitate abusive, fat shaming, dangerous comments.

    Like

  12. How dreary this blog is today with a take over by Magna, in his pseudonym and anonymous postings. His script is obvious. Magna, if you go to Church tomorrow, 4th Sunday of Lent, perhaps you might listen carefully to the gospel of the “lost and found” son. But, concentrate on the older brother’s response: that’s you: petulant, angry, jealous, begrudging, divisive, nasty, immature. However, if you really want change to happen in your life, the Waiting Father in the parable is always prepared to take you back, to heal you, to make you more “God-like”, to recreate you, to make you a better, more likeable human being. Aren’t you fortunate that this God (whom you believe in!!) has great patience and redeeming judgment…lucky for you.

    Like

    1. Ah, at last! People are finally catching on to the Magna composite who controls this blog. This troll needs stopped but he will succeed if he continues to be encouraged and protected. People have had enough. Just wait now for the anonymous comments in support of the composite. Start beginning to smell the rat.

      Like

      1. Is there no way to look through this blog without having to notice Magna posts?

        Like

    2. @7.03
      That’s a strange take on the first born son who the Father says, is “always with me, and all I have is yours..”. Understandably hurt and put out – yes. But those other things? I’m afraid they are a figment of your imagination. I hope you are not going to inflict this gibberish on a captured audience tomorrow.
      And by the way, I’m not Magna.

      Like

      1. 8:05
        Are you reading the same Lukan passage as the rest of us?

        v. 28 He was angry when he learned the reason for the feasting.
        He did not wish to come in and join in the celebration.
        He answered his father..’You did not give me even a kid to share with my friends. But this son of yours who ate up your life with prostitutes…’
        7:03 is understating the case of the older son. Gibberish? Look at the parable closely and respond to the text and not to what you think the text says. Your reactions make you look foolish.

        Like

    3. 7:03
      (Sigh) Address the subject of today’s blog, instead of waffling on about what’s not relevant. (Sigh again😩)
      But since you raised this parable, 😆 the older son wasn’t immature, just hurt and puzzled at his father’s reaction. But you don’t know why, do you? Let me tell you, then. Under Judaic inheritance law, goods/wealth could be received only post-mortem. This was a strict, legal prescription. So when the younger son, self-opinionated hedonistic brat that he was (like you, in a way), demanded his inheritance NOW, he was connoting a clear and hurtful wish…that he wanted his father dead. No wonder the faithful, older boy couldn’t understand his father’s forgiveness. So if YOU listen carefully enough tomorrow to your priest’s homily (and provided he’s learned enough) then perhaps you’ll discover a lot more than you know now, which, frankly, isn’t very much, is it?
      By the way, the Prodigal Son is a parable, not a ‘gospel’. 😆

      Like

      1. At 9:24.
        Intrinsic to the concept of inheritance is the condition of the death of the donor. So your first claim is a tautology.
        Your mistake is to see this parable as an inheritance issue. In 15:12 the younger son asks the father for the share of the living that is currently, literally ‘falling’ (‘epiballon’ – present participle) to him.
        So your reading of the Gospel text – and it is very definitely a Gospel text, of a reference of a death wish in relation to the father – is a ‘reading into’ (eisegesis) it of something which is not there.

        Like

      2. 9.24: Magna, reflect on the gospel. Let it touch that hard heart of yours. Try to be a good person. Stop printing information from Wikipedia and other commentaries. Try to imagine yourself somewhere in the story and identify with a character. I see you as the older brother: begrudging, jealous, envious, ungenerous, immature…but of course you’re too “learned” to imagine….God help you. Be healed of your hatred. I so look forward to preaching tomorrow with great poetic imagination on this wonderful story. I thank God for the privilege…and for allowing me to share, inspire and encourage through my words…

        Like

      3. @10.05
        No. You’re the daftie. The elder son behaved in an entirely natural and understandable manner. Stop trying to make out he was a rogue, he wasn’t. Maybe the Father should have offered him the odd kid to celebrate with his friends, so he has a point there.
        The parable is about the generosity of the father, not knocking the elder son. If the Father’s behaviour wasn’t over the top there would be no point in the parable! We have to ACCEPT that the Father treats all latecomers OVER GENEROUSLY, be they gentiles, repentant sinners or vineyard workers but the bashing of the perfectly, human response of the elder, responsible son just makes you look stupid.

        Like

      4. @ 10.05
        And by the way , who appointed you the interpreter of Bible passages? Sounds more like a formulaic interpretation you were handed out in Maynooth and you were too lazy ever to ponder it yourself.
        The fact the previous poster was using it to beat another poster over the head and abuse him doesn’t seem to matter to you. I’d advise you to meditate a bit more and criticise a bit less.
        Jesus understood human nature, you obviously don’t.

        Like

    4. 7:52
      Seriously?
      I hope it’s an untutored imagination that’s drove you to post those immature thoughts, and not paranoia.😕

      Like

    5. 9:24
      No, it isn’t tautaulogous, but necessary explicitation; the point (the young man’s callous indiffernce to his father) would otherwise likely have been missed by many readers. This is nearly always the case in my experience.
      No, I don’t understand the parable as an inheritance issue alone, and I said no such thing. But it IS an important feature of it, which I highlighted because it is so frequently overlooked, or is simply not known.
      The last paragraph of your post is confused: on the one hand, you state that the parable ‘is a reference of a death wish in relation to the father’, while on the other, you criticise me for reading this reference into the text. How can I have read into the text what you yourself have already admitted is intrinsically ‘there’?😕

      Like

      1. At 10:57 a.m.
        I can assume only that you are deliberately misreading what I wrote.
        1. It is a Gospel passage. Your differentiation between Gospel and parable is bizzare.
        2. There is no death wish implication in the son’s request since this is not an inheritance pericope (as the text makes clear). You are guilty of eisegesis.

        Like

    6. 1:35

      I did not misread your text. My understanding of it, and my quotation from it, are derived from the actual words you yourself posted. If you are unhappy with this, then I suggest that the problem lies with lack of clarity in your comment.

      The poster at 7:03 referred to the ‘gospel of the “lost and found” son (sic)’. It was to this poster that I directed my earlier comment, at 9:24. I assure you that the words in single quotation marks are his or hers. I can assure you as well that there is no such gospel. There is, however, the Gospel of Luke, which contains the parable of the Prodigal Son, but the parable itself is not a gospel. I can only conclude that you were being obtuse in describing my comment on this matter as ‘bizarre’.

      As I stated above, perhaps the problem in that poster’s comment is one you both share: inability to express yourselves clearly.

      As I have already pointed out to you, the younger son would have been well aware that the inheriance he sought required his father’s death, legally speaking; therefore the clear connotation of his request is that he cared nothing for his father (confirmed by his subsequent abandonment of him), even to the point of wishing he were dead. Whether you call this esigesis or whatever, it is an obvious inference from the legal and cultural milieu of Judaism at the time, and it is based on the known facts of the story and not on any prejudice or presuppostion on my part. Technically, therefore, it is not esisegesis.

      The inference, however, is true.

      Like

      1. Obviously your marching orders from the seminary were issued before you had the opportunity to begin theology. (5:09)
        I believe the word you are misusing is ‘eisegesis.’

        Like

    7. 6:29
      How did I misuse ‘eisegesis’?😆
      Do you mean ‘misapply’, or ‘misunderstand’, or ‘misinformed about’?😕
      What do you mean?😆

      Like

      1. @ 7.14
        They’re priests and they know it all, don’t ye know? They spout pure waffle most Sundays, and we’re supposed to sit tight and pretend we’re in awe.
        Nothing said by the Father against the elder brother, just a reassurance that his place and inheritance was still secure but we have to be told how monstrous he was – and YOU have to be put in your place by these Christ-like priests and told how bad, like him, you are. If they had a brain they’d be dangerous.
        I’ve had to sit through rubbish expounded on Brexit and God only knows what week after week, never hear anything in depth on faith or Catholicism though. They’re not up to it. Just silly talk about a meanie elder brother.

        Like

  13. Magna Carta's Mum 30th Mar 2019 — 8:22 pm

    Magna darling, first the Crusades and now somebody pretending to be me! Where will it all end?
    People don’t appreciate that your difficulty with the church started young, when our parish priest tried to teach you to serve Mass. He hadn’t even got as far as Introibo, when he handed you his biretta and said, ‘Kiss my hand’. You replied, ‘Kiss my a*se,’ and were back in the pew with Mummy in no time!

    Like

  14. It’s safe to say that today’s blog like many other previous blogs have been dominated by MC. Tomorrow will be no exception.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this:
search previous next tag category expand menu location phone mail time cart zoom edit close