Don’t know if you shared it earlier than that?

I think so, but I have failed to find it. It could easily be a faulty memory on my part.

Have I come across as *that* anti-black-and-white?

Well, yes and no.

[The rest of this comment is light-hearted self-reflection, considering how I come across and whether I have changed much.]

I think you are remembering incorrectly. Here’s what I remember, off the top of my head:

I *think*, it was a discussion with some conservative, you pointed them at the Haidt video hoping to discuss of five-pillars vs two-pillars. I can’t remember the details of the discussion, but I didn’t have time / make time that day to look at the video. I rediscovered the clip yesterday, and remembered “ah, this is what Ben’Jammin was talking about that other time!” – watched it, and thought “this kicks ass, pity I hadn’t watched it already!”

Now checking if I remember correctly… [time passes]

Hmmm, I found this:
http://www.thinktoomuch.net/2009/01/27/please-refrain-from-anti-moderates-rhetoric/#comment-25436
in a discussion with Amanda. I don’t see myself responding to it. Don’t know if you shared it earlier than that?

What I find interesting then is the general picture/expectations you have of me: “you didn’t like it then – too ‘liberal/conservative’ black and white.” Have I come across as *that* anti-black-and-white? Hehe, maybe. This talk didn’t bother me at all though, maybe I am more accepting of studies that need to divide into boxes in order to be able to learn something.

For people who like text instead of video, here is Haidt:

http://cbdr.cmu.edu/seminar/Haidt.pdf

or

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt07/haidt07_index.html

BOB DYLAN – WITH GOD ON OUR SIDE

Oh my name it is nothin’
My age it means less
The country I come from
Is called the Midwest
I’s taught and brought up there
The laws to abide
And that land that I live in
Has God on its side.

Oh the history books tell it
They tell it so well
The cavalries charged
The Indians fell
The cavalries charged
The Indians died
Oh the country was young
With God on its side.

Oh the Spanish-American
War had its day
And the Civil War too
Was soon laid away
And the names of the heroes
I’s made to memorize
With guns in their hands
And God on their side.

Oh the First World War, boys
It closed out its fate
The reason for fighting
I never got straight
But I learned to accept it
Accept it with pride
For you don’t count the dead
When God’s on your side.

When the Second World War
Came to an end
We forgave the Germans
And we were friends
Though they murdered six million
In the ovens they fried
The Germans now too
Have God on their side.

I’ve learned to hate Russians
All through my whole life
If another war starts
It’s them we must fight
To hate them and fear them
To run and to hide
And accept it all bravely
With God on my side.

But now we got weapons
Of the chemical dust
If fire them we’re forced to
Then fire them we must
One push of the button
And a shot the world wide
And you never ask questions
When God’s on your side.

In a many dark hour
I’ve been thinkin’ about this
That Jesus Christ
Was betrayed by a kiss
But I can’t think for you
You’ll have to decide
Whether Judas Iscariot
Had God on his side.

So now as I’m leavin’
I’m weary as Hell
The confusion I’m feelin’
Ain’t no tongue can tell
The words fill my head
And fall to the floor
If God’s on our side
He’ll stop the next war.

The Gospel of Judas is probably from no earlier than the second century, since it contains theology that is not represented before the second half of the second century, and since its introduction and epilogue assume the reader is familiar with the canonical Gospels.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas

So that does suggest the earlier Gospels have greater authority. My ponderings “that the early Christians considered Judas a traitor and didn’t want to hear more about it” is then not a good explanation of why it was excluded in the canonical texts. The reason it wasn’t included: it was scripture of the Gnostic followers, who “lost the battle” with regards to what was to become the canonical scriptures, theology, etc.

I’m of course still curious about Peter’s second book, and I also have Philip Harland’s podcast series I want to go through. (He approaches it from a “historical perspective”, and talks about the rival “Jesus following” communities in the first couple of centuries, the title of the category on his blog is “Opponents and ‘heresies’”.)

FWIW.

The second interpretation draws from Biblical texts out of Genesis, as I’m sure you picked up? The bit about God hardening Pharaoh’s heart? It also draws from the “orthodox” view that the crucifixion was God’s Plan, that Jesus had to be handed over thus. Thus Judas was necessarily a pawn in the grand scheme of things. If God planned it all, can Judas be faulted for it?

The third, I’m not sure what might have served as inspiration for that one. It seems to me to be the most radically creative. (Read: most heretical, unbacked by scripture, canonical or apocryphal.)

How much of this can be found in the “canonical” texts, I don’t know. Yet. I’ll write about “The Fidelity of Betrayal” when I eventually get around to reading it.

So, a couple of questions then: the first take is the traditional one, right? I did not go back to the text to see how well it supports other interpretations. Then again, I’m not a strong literalist. (And Acts says he fell and had his head dashed open on the rocks, if I remember, whereas in the gospels he hanged himself. That’s just me motivating my non-literalism, literalism is not the topic here.)

My questions then: how did you feel about the different takes? Do they feel heretical? Or do they feel… um… “mind-broadening”, ’scuse the horrid construction. I suspect Peter motivates his take (fourth take) in his second book, “The Fidelity of Betrayal”.

Having pendulum-swinging heretical tendencies, I was originally a fan of “any theory but the original”, and was excited about reading Peter’s second book. (Still waiting for me.) So what actually impressed me about this presentation is the “equal time” given. I mean, that was borderline “returning to my roots” for me. I remain a fan of it, because I’m such a fan of multiple interpretations, since it isn’t so much about “what really happened” to me, as it is about what difference the text can make in people’s lives. Hence, the ability for people to hear the text speak different things into their lives, that’s something I *do* like.

I think some of the more controversial things will be found in the ikon community’s answers to the four questions. Those answers pretty much paint a picture of their “theological position”, firstly, but also of their theological roots. (So I’d say there are “post-fundies” there, though others might have phrased it “deconverted fundies”.)

Below are some questions I’d like to ask of anyone here then, including the more secular leaning people, that were interested enough in engaging with the ikon gathering. (and I don’t know if this will work. The answers at ikon were anonymous. Want to try anonymous? Email me? ):

- (From “What would you do for four months wages?”) -> Reflect a bit, and provide some honest examples of where you might compromise on your values, for… four months’ wages? (Four months, that’s a bit small, maybe? This would turn into something of a public-confessional though…)

- What have you been blamed for that wasn’t your fault?

- What is the most screwed up thing you have done in the name of doing good, to the best of your intentions? (From “in the name of God”) I.e. you meant well, but in retrospect, it was really screwed up…

- The last question was: “What have you done for love that has brought you pain?” These were not read though. So… (a) Do you want to share something on this question? (b) Why do you think they chose to not share this particular question? (I haven’t thought enough about that yet.)

Also: what do you think about this exercise? In the form it was at ikon, in the form I’m trying to present/translate it here… Do you think it might be useful? Do you find it a waste of time? Do you think ikon’s community might have found it useful, even if you don’t, because they have a different context?

Etc. These are some ideas of discussions we can have. Take a bite at what seems tasty. Feel free to present some other ideas. Etc.

hmmm.

don’t quite know what to make of the ikon theodrama…