<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Mark for Lent 28</title>
	<link>http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/03/29/mark-for-lent-28/</link>
	<description>musings from those on the journey</description>
	<pubDate>Fri,  5 Dec 2008 01:28:07 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Janet</title>
		<link>http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/03/29/mark-for-lent-28/#comment-132671</link>
		<dc:creator>Janet</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Mar 2006 11:06:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/03/29/mark-for-lent-28/#comment-132671</guid>
		<description>"no single entity / system should have sovereignty in our lives" Hmm. Why not? Isn't there a sense in which every time we make a decision on anything our choice is based on suppositions... on ethics, values, assumptions? Our world view, if you like, invariably has sovereignty in our lives. You may be able to pick values willy-nilly from any source based on personal preferences alone... but is this necessarily a superior guide to life than one based on... say... the teachings of Jesus? How can one know one's own personal preferences are a reliable guide to anything?

If you can demonstrate your life is "gooder" than that of Jesus... your moral teaching higher... your love and compassion deeper... your integrity greater... your wisdom deeper... then I'll follow you and your value system Keiran.

The greatest people I can think of, past and present... Mother Teresa, Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King... are simply following Christ's example imperfectly, but more clearly than most of us do.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;no single entity / system should have sovereignty in our lives&#8221; Hmm. Why not? Isn&#8217;t there a sense in which every time we make a decision on anything our choice is based on suppositions&#8230; on ethics, values, assumptions? Our world view, if you like, invariably has sovereignty in our lives. You may be able to pick values willy-nilly from any source based on personal preferences alone&#8230; but is this necessarily a superior guide to life than one based on&#8230; say&#8230; the teachings of Jesus? How can one know one&#8217;s own personal preferences are a reliable guide to anything?</p>
<p>If you can demonstrate your life is &#8220;gooder&#8221; than that of Jesus&#8230; your moral teaching higher&#8230; your love and compassion deeper&#8230; your integrity greater&#8230; your wisdom deeper&#8230; then I&#8217;ll follow you and your value system Keiran.</p>
<p>The greatest people I can think of, past and present&#8230; Mother Teresa, Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King&#8230; are simply following Christ&#8217;s example imperfectly, but more clearly than most of us do.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: just_nigel</title>
		<link>http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/03/29/mark-for-lent-28/#comment-132658</link>
		<dc:creator>just_nigel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Mar 2006 08:26:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/03/29/mark-for-lent-28/#comment-132658</guid>
		<description>"Isn't this an extreme position?" relatively speaking, yes.

"I would argue that no single entity/system should have sovereignty in our lives." ... and yet you worry what your family would say if you gave away everythying you owned to the poor.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Isn&#8217;t this an extreme position?&#8221; relatively speaking, yes.</p>
<p>&#8220;I would argue that no single entity/system should have sovereignty in our lives.&#8221; &#8230; and yet you worry what your family would say if you gave away everythying you owned to the poor.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kieren Green</title>
		<link>http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/03/29/mark-for-lent-28/#comment-132654</link>
		<dc:creator>Kieren Green</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Mar 2006 08:09:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/03/29/mark-for-lent-28/#comment-132654</guid>
		<description>So one theme here is about complete trust and faith in God, as compared to letting other systems/people have sovereignty in our lives.  Once again, isn't this an extreme position?  I would argue that no single entity/system should have sovereignty in our lives.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So one theme here is about complete trust and faith in God, as compared to letting other systems/people have sovereignty in our lives.  Once again, isn&#8217;t this an extreme position?  I would argue that no single entity/system should have sovereignty in our lives.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: just_nigel</title>
		<link>http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/03/29/mark-for-lent-28/#comment-132643</link>
		<dc:creator>just_nigel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Mar 2006 07:40:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/03/29/mark-for-lent-28/#comment-132643</guid>
		<description>"There were not any figs, because it wasn’t the season for figs." (Setting: road to Dodge City)

Now we know that Mark knew that Jesus knew that all of his disciples knew - face it we all know that it was not the season for fig's so this story (despite Kieren's misunderstanding) is not about one particular plants reproductive system. What is it about?

Once again Mark breaks a story in two around an interupting episode (remember the time Jesus told a parable about telling parables or the synagogue leader who needed faith interupted by a bleeding woman...who had faith) and the interupting episode gives an interetive framework.
Notice how Jesus says "THIS tree" I can imagine Jesus with a wink in his eye nodding to the thing he was really refering to as he says it - but what could it possibly be about if not figs.

"Jesus went into the TEMPLE" (Setting: Dodge Central)
We travel to the heart of the temple relgion/state authority. Jesus finds the temple is fruitless and damns it. Much to the annoyance of the chief priests and the 'teachers of the Law of Moses' so the plot to kill Jesus grows.

"If you have faith in God and don’t doubt, you can tell THIS mountain to get up and jump into the sea, and it will." (Setting: road out of Dodge City)

Sure enough the tree has completely dried up, roots and all. How did that happen? Don't the kings of this world draw their authoirty from controlling access to health and education and eccononic systems, or ritual cleanness, or social capital, or exchange or even 'God' - so what authoirty does Jesus have?

"Faith in God!" Once more Jesus shows he is on about a different approach. Trusting God and not any of these other sorces of power that we may be tempted to have sovereignty in our lives.

"You can tell THIS mountain to get up and jump into the sea, and it will." Now we know that Mark knew that Jesus knew that all of his disciples knew - face it we all know that moutains of rock and soil don't levitate through mind control. This story is not (despite Kieren's misunderstanding) about geo-physic landscaping. What is it about?

Notice how Jesus says "THIS mountain" and not "just any old mountain". 
I can imagine Jesus with a wink in his eye nodding to the thing he was really refering to as he says it - but what could it possibly be about?

I'll give you one guess which mount Jesus was standing on when he said it...

"As he was walking through the TEMPLE" (Setting: back in Dodge Cetnral) "the chief priests, the nation’s leaders, and the teachers of the Law of Moses came over to him. They asked, “What right do you have to do these things? Who gave you this authority?”

So we are back to the issue of the opening confrontation between Jesus and the spirit of evil represented by those enamoured by the 'teachers of the Law of Moses'?

And what do you do with people who refuse to see? Tell them a riddle that exposes their own blindness. And the one Jesus uses is ... John the baptiser! Yes this story is turning full circle. The way Mark is bringing back his earlier themes and starting to tie them together is very satisfying narratively.

Yes our expectations were correct afterall, Act three is looking like it is about the confrontation betwen the entrenched religious / ecconomic / political authorities based in the temple at the heart of Jerusalem and the authority of Jesus who has prefered to identify with the fringes of society and proclaims a radically different picture of the soverignty of God. Mark has shown us in this passage through the twin signs of the damn fig tree and beach-going mountain that he believes Jesus' faith in God has the power to beat the temple system -- I wonder how that will happen before the book ends?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;There were not any figs, because it wasn’t the season for figs.&#8221; (Setting: road to Dodge City)</p>
<p>Now we know that Mark knew that Jesus knew that all of his disciples knew - face it we all know that it was not the season for fig&#8217;s so this story (despite Kieren&#8217;s misunderstanding) is not about one particular plants reproductive system. What is it about?</p>
<p>Once again Mark breaks a story in two around an interupting episode (remember the time Jesus told a parable about telling parables or the synagogue leader who needed faith interupted by a bleeding woman&#8230;who had faith) and the interupting episode gives an interetive framework.<br />
Notice how Jesus says &#8220;THIS tree&#8221; I can imagine Jesus with a wink in his eye nodding to the thing he was really refering to as he says it - but what could it possibly be about if not figs.</p>
<p>&#8220;Jesus went into the TEMPLE&#8221; (Setting: Dodge Central)<br />
We travel to the heart of the temple relgion/state authority. Jesus finds the temple is fruitless and damns it. Much to the annoyance of the chief priests and the &#8216;teachers of the Law of Moses&#8217; so the plot to kill Jesus grows.</p>
<p>&#8220;If you have faith in God and don’t doubt, you can tell THIS mountain to get up and jump into the sea, and it will.&#8221; (Setting: road out of Dodge City)</p>
<p>Sure enough the tree has completely dried up, roots and all. How did that happen? Don&#8217;t the kings of this world draw their authoirty from controlling access to health and education and eccononic systems, or ritual cleanness, or social capital, or exchange or even &#8216;God&#8217; - so what authoirty does Jesus have?</p>
<p>&#8220;Faith in God!&#8221; Once more Jesus shows he is on about a different approach. Trusting God and not any of these other sorces of power that we may be tempted to have sovereignty in our lives.</p>
<p>&#8220;You can tell THIS mountain to get up and jump into the sea, and it will.&#8221; Now we know that Mark knew that Jesus knew that all of his disciples knew - face it we all know that moutains of rock and soil don&#8217;t levitate through mind control. This story is not (despite Kieren&#8217;s misunderstanding) about geo-physic landscaping. What is it about?</p>
<p>Notice how Jesus says &#8220;THIS mountain&#8221; and not &#8220;just any old mountain&#8221;.<br />
I can imagine Jesus with a wink in his eye nodding to the thing he was really refering to as he says it - but what could it possibly be about?</p>
<p>I&#8217;ll give you one guess which mount Jesus was standing on when he said it&#8230;</p>
<p>&#8220;As he was walking through the TEMPLE&#8221; (Setting: back in Dodge Cetnral) &#8220;the chief priests, the nation’s leaders, and the teachers of the Law of Moses came over to him. They asked, “What right do you have to do these things? Who gave you this authority?”</p>
<p>So we are back to the issue of the opening confrontation between Jesus and the spirit of evil represented by those enamoured by the &#8216;teachers of the Law of Moses&#8217;?</p>
<p>And what do you do with people who refuse to see? Tell them a riddle that exposes their own blindness. And the one Jesus uses is &#8230; John the baptiser! Yes this story is turning full circle. The way Mark is bringing back his earlier themes and starting to tie them together is very satisfying narratively.</p>
<p>Yes our expectations were correct afterall, Act three is looking like it is about the confrontation betwen the entrenched religious / ecconomic / political authorities based in the temple at the heart of Jerusalem and the authority of Jesus who has prefered to identify with the fringes of society and proclaims a radically different picture of the soverignty of God. Mark has shown us in this passage through the twin signs of the damn fig tree and beach-going mountain that he believes Jesus&#8217; faith in God has the power to beat the temple system &#8212; I wonder how that will happen before the book ends?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: phil</title>
		<link>http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/03/29/mark-for-lent-28/#comment-132640</link>
		<dc:creator>phil</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Mar 2006 07:32:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/03/29/mark-for-lent-28/#comment-132640</guid>
		<description>ok</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>ok</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kieren Green</title>
		<link>http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/03/29/mark-for-lent-28/#comment-132639</link>
		<dc:creator>Kieren Green</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Mar 2006 07:31:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/03/29/mark-for-lent-28/#comment-132639</guid>
		<description>"Ultimately, this is our site. We pay for it, we maintain it and will continue to do so as long as it continues to amuse us. So, even though the above points are guidelines, we reserve the right to do pretty much what we please without warning or explanation"

Feel free to exercise that option any time you wish.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Ultimately, this is our site. We pay for it, we maintain it and will continue to do so as long as it continues to amuse us. So, even though the above points are guidelines, we reserve the right to do pretty much what we please without warning or explanation&#8221;</p>
<p>Feel free to exercise that option any time you wish.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: phil</title>
		<link>http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/03/29/mark-for-lent-28/#comment-132637</link>
		<dc:creator>phil</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Mar 2006 07:25:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/03/29/mark-for-lent-28/#comment-132637</guid>
		<description>Dave, the more you post the more you prove my point. The knowledge is based upon 10 or 15 years ago and the demonstration of your comments that show you have not improved your relational skills at all.

A shame.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dave, the more you post the more you prove my point. The knowledge is based upon 10 or 15 years ago and the demonstration of your comments that show you have not improved your relational skills at all.</p>
<p>A shame.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kieren Green</title>
		<link>http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/03/29/mark-for-lent-28/#comment-132634</link>
		<dc:creator>Kieren Green</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Mar 2006 07:16:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/03/29/mark-for-lent-28/#comment-132634</guid>
		<description>If you have known someone well in the past, say 10-15 years ago, you can't claim that that same knowledge is entirely applicable today.  Are you making that assumption, Phil?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you have known someone well in the past, say 10-15 years ago, you can&#8217;t claim that that same knowledge is entirely applicable today.  Are you making that assumption, Phil?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: phil</title>
		<link>http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/03/29/mark-for-lent-28/#comment-132630</link>
		<dc:creator>phil</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Mar 2006 07:05:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/03/29/mark-for-lent-28/#comment-132630</guid>
		<description>Oh I know you too well.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh I know you too well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kieren Green</title>
		<link>http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/03/29/mark-for-lent-28/#comment-132629</link>
		<dc:creator>Kieren Green</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Mar 2006 07:03:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/03/29/mark-for-lent-28/#comment-132629</guid>
		<description>I don't think you can clinically disect peoples motivations as easily as that, Phil.  With your adroit people skills you must realise that motivations can vary from time to time.  People don't continuously engage in academically serious discussion.

And back to the mental dysfunction analogy - do you mean to say you cannot any oddness with the reported behaviour of Jesus?  Do you think your theological training has conditioned your viewpoint?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think you can clinically disect peoples motivations as easily as that, Phil.  With your adroit people skills you must realise that motivations can vary from time to time.  People don&#8217;t continuously engage in academically serious discussion.</p>
<p>And back to the mental dysfunction analogy - do you mean to say you cannot any oddness with the reported behaviour of Jesus?  Do you think your theological training has conditioned your viewpoint?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
