Comments on: The Kingdom of God: is it Really Counter-Cultural?

By: Jared

Jared — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 17:31:48 +0000

Touche.

:-p

By: Travis

Travis — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 16:40:30 +0000

That’s because you’re a hierarchical snob.

By: Jared

Jared — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 00:50:06 +0000

Ah.

As for the grammar, I would lean more toward Princeton’s WordNet definition and away from that authoritative resource of grammatical correctness, Wikipedia.

By: Travis

Travis — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 00:27:55 +0000

Jared,

I wasn’t trying to say that you meant to use “counter-culture” the way I explained it here–my whole point is that the way we use the term in reference to the Church is sort of a bastardization of the phrase.

So I wasn’t arguing with you; if anything I was just correcting your grammar.

By: Jared

Jared — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 22:00:55 +0000

Shoot, I meant to write “Who would disagree that Jeusus isn’t a would-be King to the world’s ‘real’ kings?”.

By: Jared

Jared — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 21:59:26 +0000

I don’t see anything here I disagree with, except the assumption that my definition of counter-culture is the negative one you disagree with.

The kingdom is a culture, I agree. It is a culture that runs counter to the idolatry of worldly culture(s). That’s why I call it a counter-culture.

And of course who would disagree that Jesus is a would-be King to the world’s “real” kings? Certainly not me. So good point on the Kingdom being the true culture. Can’t disagree with that either.

Nihilism? Wow.

By: Nicole Seitler

Nicole Seitler — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 18:54:38 +0000

Good thoughts, Bear. Like how you pointed to what the real definition should be.