The apple tosser note

The apple tossing and the apple tosser note itself are works of hate as ugly as their intentions, but the commentary on it has been fairly nice.  I don't just mean on the internet.

Context: Someone noted that Wheaton College's statement of faith, something that the students must swear on or be expelled, said nothing about Christiany stuff and something about how the kingdom of God was reserved only for straight and/or celebrate people.  Said-someone, Philip Fillion, asked a question about it and was then met by an incoming apple.

Well, there's debate.  He says it hit him, the person who threw it and the school itself say it missed him.

Anyway, things quieted down and the dying off discussion was mostly directed at rationalizing away the incident as no big deal.  I note that apples are one of the hardest fruits around and if there are any specialty "harder than rock hard" fruits out there the fact that the apple tosser tossed an apple rather than one of them is probably due to availability and not choice.  It doesn't seem like something that should be dismissed to me.

But it was rapidly being forgotten about after being smothered in excuses and minimization.

Which is when the apple thrower decided to publicly defend his act with a written statement posted on an old fashioned cork bulletin board.

And this is when we get to the only good part of the story.  The commentary.  It was commentary on the internet that let me know this had happened, but it was really the commentary written on the physical copy of the statement that had been affixed to the cork board with a push pin that drew me in.

Without commentary the note simply reads:

Dear Enemy,

I will be the first to admit that I am a
sinner.  But my sin does not define me.
Truth judges me. The righteousness of Jesus
Christ defines us.  The Law of God is ever
before me as it has been since before
childhood.  So I fear God!  In regards to
“casting a stone”, you would be mistaken to
think that I threw the apple out of hatred.
I have strong aim and could hit a head at
fifteen meters if I wanted to.  No, I threw
it purposefully as a warning against
insulting the Spirit of grace.  Because
Truth itself was maligned.  For the
destruction of those who “have the form of
godliness but deny its power” was written
about long ago.  And in regards to the story
of the adulteress, have you not read what
Jesus told the woman, “God now and leave
your life of sin.” ?  So neither do I
condemn you, but do fear God and live in
righteousness!  Do not choose destruction.

Not ashamed of Truth,

Roland Hesse.

Which is both assholic and needing some paragraph breaks or something.  Seriously, that chunk of text hurts.

On its own it stands as a little monument to hate and intimidation.

With the commentary it reads:

My dear brother... you have forgotten who the real enemy is...

This post saddens
me greatly. Please love

Dear Enemy,                              K. Don't
      fellow Christian?                     harass people.

I will be the first to admit that I am a
sinner.  But my sin does not define me.   But yours defines you?
Truth judges me. The righteousness of Jesus
Christ defines us.  The Law of God is ever
before me as it has been since before
childhood.  So I fear God!  In regards to
“casting a stone”, you would be mistaken to
think that I threw the apple out of hatred.
I have strong aim -- Pride or insecurity?
                  and could hit a head at
fifteen meters if I wanted to. --LOL
                                No, I threw
it purposefully as a warning against
insulting the Spirit of grace.-- right because that was gracious
                                Because
Truth itself was maligned. What?
                            For the
destruction of those who “have the form of
godliness but deny its power” was written
about long ago. -- Ok, we uphold the truth, [illegible] in love. 
                                          When you are God, you can throw a stone or
                                          whip the currency exchangers
                 And in regards to the story
of the adulteress, no one threw anything then. 
                   have you not read what
Jesus told the woman, “Go now and leave
your life of sin.” ?  So neither do I
condemn you, but do fear God and live in        Ok
righteousness!  Do not choose destruction.      Jesus.

Not ashamed of Truth,
Superiority Complex

Roland Hesse.
You. Are. [illegible]]                                   Disagree all you want.  
                  Scum.                                           But throwing things solves nothing.     +1

Which is a lot better than the original document.

There are still a lot of things that could be said, and I don't agree with everything that was added.

For example, I think that it's ok for ordinary people to cast out the money changers and note that if we accept that Jesus is God then Jesus is not in favor of even God casting stones.  He certainly didn't pick up a rock, throw it at the woman, and then say, "I totally don't condemn you, the rock thing wasn't a condemnation, now go and sin no more."  As the scholiast on that line points out: no one threw anything then.

I'm also not a big fan of calling people scum, but I think that's just because I had a bad experience; the guy is certainly an asshole.

I feel like the thing needs more scholia honestly.

-

As I read it things come to mind:

I will be the first to admit that I am a sinner.

I'm glad that's not something we're going to have to debate.  Because, yeah, you are.

But my sin does not define me.

Just defines everyone else, good to know.  Funny how your sin isn't a problem, but other people's sin is your problem.  I think you may have misunderstood the very concept of sin.

Truth judges me.

And here the author asserts that he is judged by an abstract concept that never shares its judgements with others.  While others can be judged, and thrown at, by mere mortals such as the author, the author is judged by a platonic ideal.  Platonic ideals, by some strange quirk of fortune, have a notable tendency to not throw fruit.  Even the Platonic ideal of Throwing Fruit has never been recorded as throwing fruit itself.

The righteousness of Jesus Christ defines us.

This is either a piece of self-righteous pseudo-philosophical crap, or the author's lack of understanding of abstract concepts continues unabated.

The Law of God is ever before me as it has been since before childhood.

This is a Christian college where everyone is required to make a statement of faith, it is a back and forth where the other side, the "Enemy" (capitalized) has already, apparently, quoted the Bible in a way the apple thrower feels compelled to respond to.

This, thus, cannot be interpreted as a theological claim.  They've already got the theology agreed upon.  This is a claim that would, then, have to be based on personal experience.

So I fear God!

And I fear heights.  Are we sharing our fears today?  Where does this fit into the large argument.  How does this, for lack of a better term, sequit?

I suppose that one could posit that the part of the Law of God the apple thrower was reading in (or is that "pre") utero was the part on how violations would be punished.  I believe it was related in I Dante Chapter 3 through 34 and II Dante chapters 2 through 27.  I don't have verse numbers (sorry), but chapter numbers should suffice.

Even so, where is this meant to fit?  The apple thrower does not claim that he acted out of fear.  Fear of God will be mentioned again (because love is not enough, I guess*) but not the fear of the apple thrower.

The apple thrower's fear of God is clearly attested here, but why it should be attested is unclear.

In regards to “casting a stone”, you would be mistaken to think that I threw the apple out of hatred.

The prohibition was not, "Let he who is without hatred throw the first apple."

Stone throwing was discouraged not in the hateful but in the sinful.  The author has already acknowledged being sinful.

It must also be remembered that the statement was not, "Let he who is not defined by his sin throw the first stone."  If it had been, the outcome of the story in question would likely have been a good deal more morbid.

I have strong aim and could hit a head at fifteen meters if I wanted to.

I thought the metric system was for Godless heathens.  Damn am I behind on the times.

No, I threw it purposefully

This clarification was no doubt for those who thought it had been thrown accidentally.

as a warning against insulting the Spirit of grace.

Warnings are most effective when communicated via common language, not projectiles.

Because Truth itself was maligned.

The apple thrower again assures us he is in communication with Truth.  Apparently Truth does not merely judge him, it also makes judgement for him.

For the destruction of those who “have the form of godliness but deny its power” was written about long ago.

Again, how does this sequit?  The "For" implies that this directly relates to Truth being maligned.  Is the apple thrower claiming that someone denied this partial quote?

Also note that these people's destruction was not written about.  2 Timothy 3 contains no claims such people will be destroyed, only a command to avoid such people because theirs is the way of folly.

And in regards to the story of the adulteress, have you not read what Jesus told the woman, “God now and leave your life of sin.” ?

This would be the part AFTER Jesus tells other people not to throw stuff at her and likewise refuses to throw things himself.

So neither do I condemn you

I'm betting that apple felt a hell of a lot like a condemnation person who mimics certain parts of what Jesus' said but ignores his actions, context, and in fact acts in defiance of the very thing Jesus said FOUR VERSES BEFORE THAT.  Four.  Not a big number.

One verse before that Jesus spoke to the woman instead of throwing something at her.

Two verses before that everyone left without throwing stuff at the woman because of what Jesus said and did.

Three verses before that Jesus wrote on the ground rather than throw stuff at the woman.

And four --four-- verses before that Jesus said not to throw shit.

You do not get to fucking claim Jesus' right to pontificate (especially since that translation isn't universally agreed on and there's a lot of room for interpretation AND even if it precisely fits the apple thrower's desires given the context it could be something more along the lines of "try not to die" than anything of moral weight just said in a way that's slightly less morbid) if you're doing the very thing he was telling people not to do.

You cast the first fucking stone.  Your "I'm claiming the right to pronounce judgement in Jesus' place" card has officially been revoked and I seriously question how you got a hold of one of those in the first place.

but do fear God and live in righteousness!

Again with the fearing.  Also, if righteousness means throwing apples, maybe the apple thrower doesn't want "Enemy" to be too righteous right now.  Just saying: self interest might make you want to rethink that imperative apple thrower.

Do not choose destruction.

Indeed.  Lennon and McCartney are well worth listening to:

But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out

Not ashamed of Truth,

Unless it goes against my preconceptions.

Actually, something just occurred to me.  What if "Truth" is his cat or something?

-

That got away from me a bit.

Feel free to add your own commentary.

One last note before I post this.  Wheaton College surprised everyone when, eventually, it actually took disciplinary action against the apple thrower.  When it was just throwing something at someone that didn't get a response, but when it became self-righteous grandstanding about how it was totally called for to throw do it, that actually caused Wheaton to do the right thing.

So, you know, partial credit where partial credit is due.

-

* This position is supported in the text, De Principatibus Chapter 17, which may also be a part of the apple thrower's canon.  Unfortunately the text is not divided into verses (for shame) but even without verse numbers the relevant passages should be obvious.