Comments on: A Couple Philosophical Questions for the (more recent) Jesus Manifesto http://www.nathangilmour.com/hardly/2009/06/a-couple-philosophical-questions-for-the-more-recent-jesus-manifesto/ Wed, 01 Dec 2010 15:48:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: ngilmour http://www.nathangilmour.com/hardly/2009/06/a-couple-philosophical-questions-for-the-more-recent-jesus-manifesto/comment-page-1/#comment-3932 ngilmour Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:00:18 +0000 http://www.nathangilmour.com/hardly/?p=2896#comment-3932 There is indeed. The first two links in the OP are for "The Jesus Manifesto" and "A Jesus Manifesto." There is indeed. The first two links in the OP are for “The Jesus Manifesto” and “A Jesus Manifesto.”

]]> By: TW http://www.nathangilmour.com/hardly/2009/06/a-couple-philosophical-questions-for-the-more-recent-jesus-manifesto/comment-page-1/#comment-3929 TW Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:38:13 +0000 http://www.nathangilmour.com/hardly/?p=2896#comment-3929 Is there a blog for the "Manifesto"? Is there a blog for the “Manifesto”?

]]> By: ngilmour http://www.nathangilmour.com/hardly/2009/06/a-couple-philosophical-questions-for-the-more-recent-jesus-manifesto/comment-page-1/#comment-3861 ngilmour Sat, 27 Jun 2009 02:35:34 +0000 http://www.nathangilmour.com/hardly/?p=2896#comment-3861 Phil, I think you're right on about the character of a manifesto--there has to be a target. I get a vague idea, as linda noted, that the target is the Jim Wallis end of evangelicalism, but as I noted in my own post, I'd just as soon have a manifesto tell me outright who's in the crosshairs. Andrew, thank you much. I'm always flattered to get quoted. I hope you drop by on occasion to read more--everyone's welcome at HLW. linda, I've actually not heard much about how things have developed since I left the ooze. I tried to do a stint on a specifically Stone-Campbell message board directly after leaving theooze.com, then did a brief tour on theologica, but in neither case could I settle in like I did over in ooze-bekistan. I think I'm just better suited for the blogosphere than for threaded messages any more. Phil, I think you’re right on about the character of a manifesto–there has to be a target. I get a vague idea, as linda noted, that the target is the Jim Wallis end of evangelicalism, but as I noted in my own post, I’d just as soon have a manifesto tell me outright who’s in the crosshairs.

Andrew, thank you much. I’m always flattered to get quoted. I hope you drop by on occasion to read more–everyone’s welcome at HLW.

linda, I’ve actually not heard much about how things have developed since I left the ooze. I tried to do a stint on a specifically Stone-Campbell message board directly after leaving theooze.com, then did a brief tour on theologica, but in neither case could I settle in like I did over in ooze-bekistan. I think I’m just better suited for the blogosphere than for threaded messages any more.

]]> By: linda http://www.nathangilmour.com/hardly/2009/06/a-couple-philosophical-questions-for-the-more-recent-jesus-manifesto/comment-page-1/#comment-3857 linda Fri, 26 Jun 2009 23:04:50 +0000 http://www.nathangilmour.com/hardly/?p=2896#comment-3857 it sounds to me like they are addressing liberal christianity. you left the ooze before it got really bad, but i think the type of thinking they are resisting is much of what is currently on the ooze. it sounds to me like they are addressing liberal christianity. you left the ooze before it got really bad, but i think the type of thinking they are resisting is much of what is currently on the ooze.

]]> By: Andrew Perriman http://www.nathangilmour.com/hardly/2009/06/a-couple-philosophical-questions-for-the-more-recent-jesus-manifesto/comment-page-1/#comment-3853 Andrew Perriman Fri, 26 Jun 2009 21:18:40 +0000 http://www.nathangilmour.com/hardly/?p=2896#comment-3853 Nathan, I enjoyed your energetic analysis, especially the Beatrice paragraph, which I <a href="http://www.opensourcetheology.net/node/1847#comment-8726" rel="nofollow">quoted on Open Source Theology</a>. Nicely written. Nathan, I enjoyed your energetic analysis, especially the Beatrice paragraph, which I quoted on Open Source Theology. Nicely written.

]]> By: phil rutledge http://www.nathangilmour.com/hardly/2009/06/a-couple-philosophical-questions-for-the-more-recent-jesus-manifesto/comment-page-1/#comment-3852 phil rutledge Fri, 26 Jun 2009 20:57:36 +0000 http://www.nathangilmour.com/hardly/?p=2896#comment-3852 I too had some of the same feelings. The "manifesto" idea in general is interesting. I can't lay it out like you did, but if you are doing a manifesto you gotta have a target. Capitalism, Catholicism, Liberalism, etc. Now if it's a manifesto against bad pop psychology and philosophy, then I would say right on. Jesus can't be separated from his teachings and philosophies. I think the only way to follow Jesus is to follow his teachings. I would also say that it is critical for the Church to continue to answer the question "who do you say I am?" It's a big one and we should continue having that debate. I too had some of the same feelings. The “manifesto” idea in general is interesting. I can’t lay it out like you did, but if you are doing a manifesto you gotta have a target. Capitalism, Catholicism, Liberalism, etc. Now if it’s a manifesto against bad pop psychology and philosophy, then I would say right on. Jesus can’t be separated from his teachings and philosophies. I think the only way to follow Jesus is to follow his teachings. I would also say that it is critical for the Church to continue to answer the question “who do you say I am?” It’s a big one and we should continue having that debate.

]]>