Hi Agnieszka,

No.  I wouldn't.  Depending upon the tone of the question I think that there is a range of possibilities as to what is being communicated.

I don't believe that I have, at any time mocked you for not watching violence as entertainment nor have I anywhere, here on WonderCafe ever suggested that anyone should watch violence as entertainment.

Agreed.  The point I am trying to make, unsuccessfully, is not that you ought to look at it but rather try to look past it.

The key for me in that is the "has yet to" it doesn't mean that God cannot it means God has not felt that now is the time.

True.  Not everyone shares my faith.  The question you started with was "do you . . ."  I didn't join the conversation to say what everyone must do I joined it to share what I do.

Yes brutality still exists.  I would argue that in many instances brutality has been declawed.  The violence against blacks when televised during the march on Selma shook most of The United States out of a comfortable status quo into social unrest and change.  Violence against blacks still exists in certain places it is hard to root completely out of any society particularly when ignorance is still able to exist.  For the most part society recognizes that such violence is wrong and steps are being taken to eliminate the root causes.

The broadcasts of violence were not for entertainment purposes.  The broadcasts of violence were for informational purposes.  Violence as an academic exercise spurns us to academic responses.  The blood caked on the face of a neighbour or a loved one provokes other responses not all of which are more violence.

Well, yes and no.

Yes, Jesus, bleeds and falls, (more in Mel's passion than in any gospel narrative).  The key difference, for Mel and others who accept that Jesus is God in human flesh, is that Jesus had the power to stop it and immediately bring those responsible to justice.

That is it.  Only Christ can take it and not resort to violence in return.  Christ doesn't go out for vengeance he calls for forgiveness.

I'm thinking no.  The narratives of the gospels and Mel's Passion make it quite clear that Jesus doesn't beg for things to end.  I expect that 10 year old girls do not suffer in silence.  Which is what those with power over want to see happen.  There is no thrill in committing violence if the victims of violence will not fight back or beg for their victimizers to show pity.

So you say.

Well, to be fair, scripture goes a bit beyond newscast format.  If it bleeds it leads is a maxim for the nightly news.  Sadly, all it leads to is more blood.  Scripture might lead with blood on occasion, it doesn't stop there to gawk at it.  In fact, if anything, the trajectory of scripture is away from the spilling of blood.

Fair enough.

Truthfully, that is how I am interpreting what I am reading in your posts.  There are places in the forest where a particular type of vegetation is denser.  Forests are not uniform in their composition.  So, even if one particular type of vegetation is more prolific in one spot it can be completely absent in another and what was hard to see in one part becomes more obvious in others.

If it is completely infested I won't go in.  Some of my most favourite wilderness places are owverwhelmed with poison ivy.  If I do go in I am not surprised when I'm needing cortizone injections to bring my reaction under control.

Not every forest is so infested.  One of the things I liked best about living in Newfoundland and Labrador was that the rock is completely free of Poison Ivy.  Some of the residents refer to Stinging Nettle as poison ivy which was unnerving at first but once I saw what they were pointing at I knew I was okay.

Although Stinging Nettle is no picnic.

That is not what I am saying.  What I am saying is that what was included was included for a purpose.  We who read what was written are not always aware of what that purpose was and we invent a purpose that seems reasonable to us.

There is a right way to interpret.  Essentially, it is getting the point that the author wanted us to get rather than inventing another point.  Is it easy?  By no means.  Exegesis, reading out of the text is different than Eisegesis, reading into the text.

Violence is present.  Do we let it tell us something or do we bring our thoughts about violence into the story and twist it somehow?

The crucifixion for example.  A very bloody but ultimately common way for Rome to deal with political enemies.  I suspect that most, if they cried out at all, cried out threats and promises of vengeance.  Jesus asks for everyone participating to be forgiven.  It breaks the cycle of violence.  The resurrection breaks the cycle of death.  

Maybe not.  I did not get the impression that you thought the problem of violence was simply a matter of your perspective and that there were other ways of looking at the same texts.  

None of us knows how not to interpret.  Each of us has the ability to interpret in a number of ways.

I am not suggesting that you not interpret.  I am suggesting that your current paradigm isn't working.

Fair enough.  There are a number of messages.  The one I find most powerful and prevalent is the theme of redemption.  I see it everywhere.

The simplistic linear model of scripture is marked by three regions:  Creation, Fall and Redemption.  Even with those three simple themes at hand one can identify passages which speak to each.

Fair enough.  Glimpses of sunlight show that the sun exists.  We may not see clearly or perfectly.  We see well enough to know that there is more beyond what we have always seen or seem always to see.

Perhaps they have failed to some degree.

If we cannot or will not see further than they that is our failure not theirs.

The greatest failure would be not even trying.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Cheers,

Agnieszka

[/quote]

To turn to any other ideology and book than the Bible for guidance is no more than turning off the light in a dark world.  There is only one book worthy of our attention and that is the Bible.

Prof. Daniel B. Wallace (he wrote the textbooks about ancient Greek & Greek translation used in many Universities) in an interview in the book "The Case for the Real Jesus" by Lee Strobel says

"It's disturbing that when it comes to the Christian faith, people don't really want, or know how, to investigate the evidence"

and I can see that those not wanting to know are growing in number all the time.
 

2 Timothy 3:16
Every scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=2Ti&chapter=3&verse=16

The only scripture he had was the Old Testament, the New Testament was being written and the 4 gospels and Paul's letters were the accepted texts from the beginning of the first century!

Ah well... it is still true.

Proverbs 14 verse 6 (Amplified Bible)
A scoffer seeks Wisdom in vain [for his very attitude blinds and deafens him to it], but knowledge is easy to him who [being teachable] understands
http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Pro&chapter=14&verse=6

James 1:5
If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him.
 

Hi Happy Genius:

The Glass Bead Game, too, is one of my all time favourites.

I read it in two different English translations and in the original German. Each edition gave me a different impression, but the original impressed me the most.

I read Hesses' Collected Works—in German—as well as other contemplative Sufi and Eastern literature during my "Winter of Contemplation," the winter of 1984. The last book I read was Hesse's Glassbeadgame. At the end of that winter, I put in a short fast during which I did no more reading, just meditating and contemplating. I particularly contemplated Hermann Hesse and Zen Buddhism, because Hesse, in his memoirs, had said that his major influence had been Zen Buddhism. What I contemplated with particular intensity was Hesse's final work, which had always intrigued me the most: The Glassbeadgame.

Then, on the eve of the Spring Equinox of 1984, after my evening meditation, I became total blackness. In that blackness there appeared a bubble of light, and a bubble half the size inside it. Those two bubbles multiplied in inverse and outward quantum leaps, from the smaller bubble inward and the larger bubble outward, always six doublings of bubble numbers followed by a doubling/halving of bubble sizes. This bubble contiuum ex/impanded rapidly: an unfolding of three-dimensionally inverse and three-dimensionally outward space—in the same space! Bubbles within bubbles within bubbles, seemingly ad infinitum.

Eventually, the bubble continuum was ripped into chaos, and out of the chaos emerged the world as it is today. In had conceived of a reality consisting entirely of bubbles of light. "Aha, Hesse's Glass Bead Game!" I thought with a sudden flash of insight.

Welcome to the League of Glass Bead Game Players. If you want to read my version of the Glassbead Game, it is described on http://www.hharlos.com

Your would-be Magister Ludi,

Arminius

By doing it mindfully and with the intention of better understanding the text so that I can get to the spiritual meat of it rather than merely treating it as history or literature as a secular scholar might. IOW, the historical and literary part is a path to something else, not an end product. Keep in mind also, Agnieszka, that I'm UU so it is one source among many for me even if my Christian upbringing and leanings mean it is a very important one for me. I approach it the same way I approach other texts and traditions rather than giving it "special treatment".

Mendalla

Mendalla, 

Because I am UCC and not UU, I guess you would say I give the bible "special treatment".  This language makes me somewhat uncomfortable.  On another thread, you spoke about Jesus as the "core myth" for those who identify as Christians.  I liked this quite a lot, and I have been trying it on for size, if you know what I mean.

The Bible can certainly be approached as an intellectual exercise, and I think this has its place.  To use it as a spiritual resource seems to require some grounding in the history and context of the Bible, but also a willingness to engage deeply with it.

I am reminded of a comment attributed to the Dalai Lama.  When asked by a spiritual seeker if she should become a Buddhist, he replied, "Go more deeply into your own tradition." 

I feel sorry for anyone who can write "There is only one book worthy of our attention and that is the Bible." 

Over a lifetime I have read a good many books, from a good many authors, on a number of subjects and I have found challenges, enlightment, enrichment, and joy.  They have expanded my horizons.  They have stretched my imagination.  They have deepened my faith.

Oh, yes.  Among those many books is the Bible.  I've read it too.

Hello mosquito,

I appreciate the sentiment.  Disagree with the premise.

First and foremost the Bible isn't a book.  The Bible, as the name says, is best described as a library.  It is a series of books not a book.

Second, the purpose of the Bible is not to disseminate or collect all knowledge worth knowing.  If, God forbid, you are ever in need of a physician and surgeon I hope that they have read more than the Bible.  There is more in God's wonderful creation than is contained in the pages of scripture.

Which is a great thing.  Do you believe that Paul intended for that particular passage from that particular book was to be understood as scripture or do you think that maybe Paul was looking at something else as scripture.

It seems quite plausible that Paul was not speaking about anything in what we call the New Testament.

Maybe.  There is no evidence that Paul had read anything that he had not written.  I suspect that he was more than a little familiar with the Hebrew scriptures which were the Bible that Jesus used,

Indeed it will.  It may come in the form of a book that is not part of the Bible.  If such is the case then your initial statement, "There is only one book worthy of our attention." limits God and denies that wisdom can be found anywhere outside of it.

Even if God supplies it.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Bad choice of words, perhaps. Just wanted to get across the idea that the Bible isn't necessarily the sole focus of my studies overall (though it is right now). 

Exactly what I was trying to say but worded better.

Smart dude, that Dalai Lama (but don't tell my wife I said that). Problem is that it is sometimes hard to go deeply into your own tradition when you're smack in the middle of it. I think I've gone more deeply into Christianity as a UU than I ever did as a Christian. Which, ironically, is what might eventually get me back into a UCC pew. Why? Not 100% sure, but perhaps because in my family's UCC, it was very mainstream and comfortable and not really into going "deep" whereas in my UU fellowship there is always someone else with another idea or a deep view of another tradition to question and challenge where I'm going.

Mendalla

Yes, I agree with p3 and the Dalai Lama: spiritual insight can be had in any tradition, and one might as well seek it within one's own. But in some traditons it is a bit closer to the surface while in others one has to dig deeper. In the more mystical Eastern traditions, mystical insight is closer to the surface, whereas in the more intellectual Western traditions, the rational intellect predominates and mystical insight is buried more deeply.

If, however, wisdom is a balance between opposites, then a balance between rationality and intuition might well be what we need. Then the Eastern and Western approach complement each other and we can learn from each other without leaving our tradition.

Been there; done that.

Hey Mendalla, 

Just to pick up on another conversation we have had recently . . .

You have just expressed a similar sentiment to some of the folks in the UU Christian network . . . some of them speak about being able to live more fully as Christians within UU than within mainline Christian denominations.

It certainly will be ironic if you decide to return completely to your UCC roots :)

Hey Arminius, 

I am honoured to be placed in the same sentence with the Dalai Lama :)

Agnieska your quote:

"I'm referring to the violence, patriarchy, sexism, misogyny... The language and teachings in the Bible that have resulted in much harm to women in particular - "

Perhaps I'm the blind leading the blind....sorry... but I found a couple of links I had saved that may be of a little help to you, no miracles.....

Sexism is a sin

http://www.all-creatures.org/hr/sex-tc.htm

The Non Violent Prophets

http://www.all-creatures.org/hr/what-10.htm

The Violent Prophets

http://www.all-creatures.org/hr/what-09.htm

Not merely in the same sentence, but in the same category.

The Dalai Lama knows that the Cosmic Spirit is a Triple Paradox—you have named yourself after the Triple Paradox.

Just thinking about the ability to do that...and with Hesse!

And conversing with those who know Latin and Greek...

and I lived in Montreal (for two years) -- and I don't even know French.

Ah, well...I have, within reaching distance several life-times of worthy un-read books in English...

and sources of information on on-line that I couldn't have dreamed of when I got my first computer...1979...

Wonder Cafe is a daily delight...

...AND I have all the time in the world.

It's Spring and I am in
Vancouver!

Ahhhh...walking in the garden in the cool of the afternoon...no wonder God liked doing that!

Interesting to learn...

In my comparativly dull way I became/am enamoured with Mahhiyanna Buddism...

---as with Rumi, there is no end to the ---what?--'widening the niew -with pleasurer'?

Zen I know little of Zen; that little is probably wrong: I get the feeling that it REALLY concentrates on now. "Don't worry about the past; you can't change it; don't worry about the future...just work with what you got. " (learning to walk, is neat, and the art - gardening is beautful. )

(...uh..."Have life, and live it more abundently"
 

Izzat even close?

For me, it's simple if corny: Every day is a gift; that's why they call it the present.

Gemeinshaftgeful (if that is spelt correctly, I'd be surprised) - The definition I learned was "Social interest"  How close izzatt?

This is Wonder Cafe, I wonder if any one is isnterested in this or is this turning into

(mere!) personal communication?

 "Aha, Hesse's Glass Bead Game!" I thought with a sudden flash of insight.

(ok it's 2AM I've had my second glass of wine, But after following your experience, I thought 'now that, put into a ipad app, could change the world!'. Y'know, something like that could happen...anything could

Welcome to the League of Glass Bead Game Players. If you want to read my version of the Glassbead Game, it is described on http://www.hharlos.com

Your would-be Magister Ludi,

 Hadn't thought of THAT, but boy wouldn't I like to be!

I'm off to the link --

.

Agnieska

Good morning! I hope we didn't lose you already. Come back! I like you . Sorry I'm not really addressing your OP. I'm thinking about  the living conditions and the weather in biblical times.

Here's a little article about violence way back when. I'm not up on my history so I can't vouch for the truth of it.  Its interesting . The link itself is about child psychology.

Quote:

The study points to a dramatic climate change in the Old World, the drying up of the vast Sahara and Asian Deserts, with attending famine, starvation and forced migrations which pushed the earliest humans into violent social patterns, a trauma from which we have not yet recovered in over 6000 years.

New Study On the Origins of Violence Proves:

Ancient Humans Were Peaceful, Modern Violence is Avoidable.

First presented to the world in the 1980s,
and now, after 9-11, more important than ever for an understanding
of the genesis of human antisocial violence and warfare.                                                                                  With very few exceptions, there is no clear and unambiguous evidence for warfare or social violence on our planet Earth prior to around 4,000 BC and the earliest evidence appears in specific locations, from which it firstly arose, and diffused outward over time to infect nearly every corner of the globe." says DeMeo, who today directs his own private institute in rural Oregon. "A massive climate change shook the ancient world, when approximately 6000 years ago vast areas of lush grassland and forest in the Old World began to quickly dry out and convert into harsh desert. The vast Sahara Desert, Arabian Desert, and the giant deserts of the Middle East and Central Asia simply did not exist prior to c.4000 BC" DeMeo asserts, pointing to numerous studies in paleoclimatology - the study of ancient climates. "Something happened around 4000 BC which forced the drying-out of this vast desert region, which I call Saharasia, and the drier conditions created social and emotional havoc among developing human agricultural societies in these same regions."

DeMeo's maps show spreading centers for the origins of patriarchal authoritarian cultures within this same Saharasian global region - male-dominated, child-abusive, sex-repressive cultures with a great emphasis upon war-making and empire-building.

http://www.orgonelab.org/ResearchSummary1.htm

Note to Agnieska: Sorry I'm off topic but please "don't sweat the small stuff".  The sky isn't falling......

Arminius and Happy Genius

Hello to you happy folks in beautiful B.C. My sister sends me pics. and videos of Van. every other day. The flowers this year are totally amazing. Hesse.....?....gosh I feel so old. I read Hesse some years back, not the Glass Bead Game. Some reviews are saying its rather dull.

Hi stardust:

Yes, Siddartha is Hesse's most famous work. Although it offers a somewhat  uncomplimentary biography of the Buddha, portraying him, in part, as a drunkard and greedy merchant and associating with a whore, it was translated into most Asian languages and made Hesse a household word in Japan.

While Siddartha was translated world-wide, Hesse lived pennyless in a Swiss villa made available to him at no cost by an Italian nobleman. He donated all proceeds from the book to the Red Cross for prisoners-of-war care.

Historically, Prince Siddartha was Gautama the Buddha. But Hesse, in his novel, made the two into different people who met at one point in the book.

"You are a clever man, Siddartha," said Gautama to Siddartha when they met. "Beware of too much cleverness."

With this clever stroke of his pen, Hesse reminded all those clever men who aspire to Buddhahood to beware of too much cleverness.

I certainly feel spoken too!

Hi Stadust and everyone,
no, you haven't lost me. I have a sick child and a teething baby at the moment. I will write again when things calm down.

Agnieska

Thanks for letting us know. You sure have your hands full at the moment. Sending positive thoughts your way that all will be well again soon.

A kiss for the kids to make it all better .......

Arminius quote:

"With this clever stroke of his pen, Hesse reminded all those clever men who aspire to Buddhahood to beware of too much cleverness."

I don't have to worry about this but for you, Arminius the Genius....yes, there is a crack in everything.....take care!

Hi Happy Genius:

"Gemeinschaftsgefühl" would translate best as a "feeling of community."

Certainly, there is a "Gemeinschaftsgefühl" here on the Café. Everyone is welcome, and atheists, fundies, liberals and mystical braggarts like me get along. And if someone comes here with a chip on their shoulder, the chip wears off eventually. (Unless, of course, it is a diamond chip like mine. A chip off the old God block, eh?)

But can these virtual communities replace real live communities, where people meet face to face?

[quote=stardust]

Note to Agnieska: Sorry I'm off topic but please "don't sweat the small stuff".  The sky isn't falling......

hi Stardust,
can you tell what you mean?

Thanks

The Non Violent Prophets

http://www.all-creatures.org/hr/what-10.htm

The Violent Prophets

http://www.all-creatures.org/hr/what-09.htm

[/quote]

thanks for the links, Stardust!

This is one enjoyable post. Masterful metaphoric responces...

Memorable...

And to:

Mel Gibson's Passion is nothing but a glorification of Jesus' suffering... like it's never happened before and never since.  That's just plain BS.

At that my begining to get riffled mind is calmed by a smile at:

So you say.

And to:

... I can't see the forest for the trees, yes?  Maybe it's because when I'm walking through the forest that is all I CAN see?

Truthfully, that is how I am interpreting what I am reading in your posts.  There are places in the forest where a particular type of vegetation is denser.  Forests are not uniform in their composition.  So, even if one particular type of vegetation is more prolific in one spot it can be completely absent in another and what was hard to see in one part becomes more obvious in others.

========

I can smell the pine needles...

(I'm trying to find a clearing , so I wont keep bumping into things...)

(That's about three lessons-worth in two sentences...)

 But the best part:

Agnieszka:

At this moment in my spiritual/religious life, the Bible allows an insight into the minds of the people who wrote it, that is all.  The Mind of G_d is beyond their comprehension though they might have had a glimpse or two and tried, awkwardly and pitifully, to present it.  But mostly they have failed in that. 

THIS: 

Fair enough.  Glimpses of sunlight show that the sun exists.  We may not see clearly or perfectly.  We see well enough to know that there is more beyond what we have always seen or seem always to see.

Man!

There is more beyond what we have seen

Or seem always to see

Words sometimes make poetry

With which I hearitly agree

Perhaps they have failed to some degree.

 If we cannot or will not see

.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hey, a great big bucket full of that - all over you!

You asked me if I will "hide in the basement"  in response to my comments about violence.  What was being communicated in that?

You asked me if I would "hide in the basement" instead of exposing myself to violence.  What were you trying to say?  What did you intend?

Would that be kind of like looking past Timothy's requirement that women be silent in the church?

What do you see when you look past that?  How exactly do you look past that?

Would the ease with which you can look past the sexism have something to do with the fact that it doesn't affect you personally?  Kind of like, a heterosexual has no problem looking past the homophobia in the texts either?

The world might be coming to an end any moment.  The fact that it has no happened yet does not mean it won't happen any moment.  Why do you go on as if it's not going to happen?

You did not join the conversation saying "in my experience this is how it is" or saying "I believe", or saying "what I do is..."  No, you joined the conversation saying "well, are you going to hide in the basement because there is violence"?  And preaching about the right way to interpret, to look past, to not focus on, etc., etc..

The difference between those broadcasts is that they were shown when they happened, they provided the information, they were discussed, and then they were archived.  The texts in the Holy Book are brought out again and again and again.  They are searched for spiritual messages and spiritual meaning.  They are consulted.  They are studied.  The violence is repeated, examined for something of value again and again and again.

But, since Jesus does not stop it immediately and punish those responsible, this is nothing but speculation.  And it's a dangerous idea: it is behind much suffering... countless people have stayed in abusing situations because they wanted to "take it" like Jesus did, hoping that they martyrdom is collecting points in heaven.

Mothers of children who abuse them do not call for vengeance and call for forgiveness instead. For centuries, wives did not call for vengeance but have mustered forgiveness countless times (the system made sure they had no choice).  Daughters abused, sold, given away by their fathers continue not to call for vengeance.  Perhaps this is a challenge to men, but to women it is nothing new.  Also, don't forget that Jesus was vastly outnumbered, betrayed.  As a human being, he could have done little at the time.

Girls kept as sex slaves in brothels will be violently maimed or even killed if they cry out while servicing customers.  Girls who are molested by male adults are threatened with violence, are shamed, or their family members are threatened, into silence.  Boys who are molested by family members are shamed into silence and are physically restrained.  Wives are beaten and raped with no place to turn, and they remain silent because God has ordained that their husbands have the right to do with them as they please.  It is naive to think that all victims feel strong enough, have hope enough, have even sense enough to fight for themselves.

There is a reason why adults choose young children for their sexual abuse - children are powerless and vulnerable and can be manipulated.  There is a reason why husbands in many parts of the world rape their wives - they have no place to turn and will not resist.  Your generalization simply does not apply in those cases.

And apparently you think that by underlying the fact that I do in fact say so, you are proving something? Is what I say somehow less true than what you say?  Are you closer to the truth? Is what you say more valuable?  Or, is it just my opinion so who care?  Yes, I do say so.  And?

The blood and gore actually lead to the message "awful things are happening everywhere, you are not safe, the government is screwing up, people are evil and can't be trusted."

Scripture leads to blood often.  And then it leads to the winner glorifying in the suffering of the loser.  If one does not bring to scripture one's own perspective that there is more to it than the violence, it can easily seem like nothing more than a show of how one's god has killed one's enemies, etc., etc.,.  And when one's god is not murdering one's enemies, one's god is sending one's enemies into a lake of never ending fire.  

Agnieszka

Happy Genius, maybe it's time to start a fan club.

Which is precisely why a reasonable thing to do is to avoid entirely the parts of the forest that are treacherous and harsh.  Problem is this particular forest is filled with the treacherous parts...  and the safer and less dense parts are few and far inbetween.

Would you keep walking in and getting the cortizone injections day in and day out in the hopes that something beautiful and meaningful and nurturing will come out of the experience?  You see my problem then?

Very true, not every forest is so infested.  Which is why I'm staying away from this one.

And that is how we invent religion...  When it ceases to be reasonable, that might be a good time to move on.

And who has figured out this right way?  Where is it to be found?  Do the Evangelical Christians have it?  Or is it the Catholics?  Or is it the Episcopalians? 

And yet, so much of what has been said about the author's points is based on faith (such as your statement that just because God has not resurrected anyone other than Jesus yet doesn't mean God won't resurrect someone when the time is right), that what the author's point might actually be has been made to fit what the tradition says... like, when the texts are used as proof that Jesus is the son of God, for example...  or when the texts are being used as proof that woman is secondary to man... or that woman is equal to man (though this one was not that popular for the longest time)... or that homosexual marriage is sin...

No, it isn't easy.  Which is why most of religion has abandoned that practice entirely and has left it to academics who have no faith at all.  Interesting.

Well, which do you do?  Why not state your point of view and be done with it?  Why the rhetorical questions?  

I can participate in speculation too. Didn't they know they were dying?  What threats could they honestly make?? And didn't Jesus cry out, too?  He cried out for forgiveness, you will say.  But wasn't he showing them that he has some sort of power, some sort of connection to God that they do not have, since he can tell God to forgive them?  Wasn't this another way to "turn the other cheek", which in practice is actually a very aggressive response to abuse?  Kind of like saying to your rapist, go ahead, rape me.

Why did Jesus have to call it outloud for everyone to hear?  Why did he make a show of his closeness to God?  What was he trying to do?   Why not pray quietly and in secret as he has advised his disciples, not to make a show of their prayerfullness or their generosity?  

My impression is that you hold your perspective as the only one to hold because others, like mine, are not wise, a failure.

Working for what? 

But let's look at what you refer to as my paradigm:  the violence, sexism and misogyny in the bible are very discouraging, harmful, and spiritually empty; the records of the abuses and murder, the constant reference to men as heros, leaders, spiritually more advanced, teachers, etc., is spiritually harmful and empty;  the violence and sexism in the bible might have some kind of a message there but they in themselves are so upsetting and hurtful that the message is seems hardly worth the pain. 

This is the problem I started this thread with.  And what has your response been?  That I ought to look past the violence because you can and because it's the wise thing to do.  Didn't I say that I am having trouble with that?

Perhaps that is because you have experienced redemption or because your tradition has taught it to you, or because your life experience has offered you the benefit of understanding redemption.  I was taught condemnation, God's rage, God's punishment, threats, capriciousness.  I see it everywhere.  Who has it right?  Whose vision is more true?

The problem is that in some traditions, one does not have confirmation of one's Redemption until life is over.  Consider yourself lucky.

You are speaking for yourself here.  Why would you presume to speak for me?

That sounds to me like an invitation to invent meanings when they don't exist.  You said earlier that there is a right way to interpret and that one must see what the author's point is.  Now you are saying we must see further than they did and it is our failure if we will not or cannot.  I say, B.S..  We are all raised in traditions which have interpreted and read into the authors' meanings for centuries.  Whose failure is it when one's tradition threatens hell and eternal damnation when one does not believe what that tradition teaches?  Whose failure is it when one's tradition teaches God's hatred for those who look for deeper meanings than those provided by that tradition?

The greatest failure would be continuing to walk into the same traps over and over again, hoping that something new will show up, some new meaning out of the suffering.  There is enough suffering all around to be turning to holy books for more of the same.

Agnieszka

Agnieska

You are awesome!  I've had a lot of the very same thoughts which you're explaining to Rev. John.  I just could never find the words but they are in my heart.  Perhaps sometimes I  lack confidence in myself . I was afraid  my thoughts were wrong or I'm crazy or something.

Mel Gibson's Passion movie? It was pornography, plain and simple. It was masochism  to the 10th degree, sadism or whatever. There was nothing holy about it. After the movie people built shrines to the dead Jesus. They took pity on him. Its well known that Mel loves violence and continues to make violent movies. He used some kind of prostitute movie stars in the movie....OMG....! He was trying to atone for his sins by making the movie. What a weird way of doing it.

Your quote:countless people have stayed in abusing situations because they wanted to "take it" like Jesus did, hoping that they martyrdom is collecting points in heaven.

YES TO THIS!

Your quote:  For centuries, wives did not call for vengeance but have mustered forgiveness countless times (the system made sure they had no choice).  Daughters abused, sold, given away by their fathers continue not to call for vengeance.  Perhaps this is a challenge to men, but to women it is nothing new.

YES TO THIS!

Your quote: There is a reason why husbands in many parts of the world rape their wives - they have no place to turn and will not resist.

YES TO THIS!

And Agnieska you forgot to mention that many people including prisoners have gone to their deaths or the electric chair  in silence just like Jesus did. They have discovered through DNA  that many innocent people were executed by the state  in the good old U.S. of A. I've watched 2 or 3 men go to the chair on TV. I believe Saddam Hussein was also silent.

Of course despite having these thoughts I'm a Jesus freak....lol. I also think Rev. John is a really good person. He has come here to help to the best of his ability. He's here almost since day 1. No offence intended  towards others but he has put much more of himself into the WC than any other minister on the WC. He has a son who has problems, ADD...I don't know. Its a sacrifice for Rev. John to spend so much time here on the WC. His light shines even if  it may seem like darkness to you. Don't forget that God is in the dark as well as in the light. They are alike to God. You may not realize it but Rev. John is really very humble, not at all arrogant although he may come across that way. He sure does not condone violence in his efforts to understand it  in the bible. Oddly enough when I used to read it I never saw the violence in it  because I was thinking spiritually . In our quest to find God its quite easy to become blinded. We see what we choose we see.

Your last post is posted at the same time as mine so I didn't see it. I'm referring to an earlier post of yours.

I think you just invented a new grouping of society. I am thinking of having business cards made...Mystical Braggart....beats  Ignorant Gnostic. Gaming Pietist... 

But can these virtual communities replace real live communities, where people meet face to face?

An excellent question: things are moving too fast to predict...

Someting has to change in the educational "system" ---

'The world -- too wide for it's shrunk shank.' --

When I think of my delight in getting a working crystal radio , getting a real one, learning CW and comunicating, a little, around the world....

Now to almost everybody in the world,,,sound, video...soon, translation...

How close we are getting to adequaetly providing the world  -- providing needs, opportunitys and comfort.

How close we are getting to the War of Lasting Damage...

The Duke Ferdinand is in danger again...something REALLY significan like that could well light the fuse....

Or perhaps it will be science and not religion that will make us aware of the (blessed) inter-connection of all things. Buddah's web only convinced a few dozen million...if world-wide inter conectedness was realized (As the 6 billionth iPad was sold?) this planet

(I stop in mid thought: This planet would what? Be heaven? Godly? Would we devolve as people of no purpose. ,,

No doubt about it we  are living in historical times ...("Interesting times", indeed...)

Ah...(looking at the clock)     I/ think/there/4.a.m....

Happy Genius quote to Arminius:  " Mystical Braggart....beats  Ignorant Gnostic. Gaming Pietist...  "

Tut...tut....this is bad ...! Arminius would never condone such a card. Don't you realize yet  that Arminius is the Messiah?  Arminius is part ignorant Gnostic too. You don't know Arminius yet....stick around! 

I know you're joking .....

Hi Agnieszka,

The idea that hiding from violence does not prevent violence.  It may get you out of harms way for a bit.  Sooner or later you have to come back up.

More of the same.  Hiding is not a permanent solution.

Pretending it wasn't said doesn't resolve anything.  Even if I am a smart-ass and say that Paul said it not Timothy, that doesn't resolve anything.  There is context missing surrounding that comment which we no longer have access to.  Was Paul telling women in every time and every place to keep silent in the church?  Was Paul telling specific women at a particular time and place to keep silent in the church?  Was Paul addressing "wives" and not "women?"

What else do we know about Paul?  We know that Paul is the only author in the Greek canon to address a woman as an Apostle.  We also know that Paul referred to women as Deaconesses (the female equivalent of Deacon and not a lower office).  

Why would Paul give that specific instruction if he allowed women to hold educational offices in the Church?

We could make Paul anti-woman.  That is an interpretation that has been stuck to him.  I don't find it to be accurate.  Popular certainly.  Truthful, hardly.

As above.  Paul left a fairly large body or writing.  Larger than a line or two.  Any of us, if we have a portion of a post lifted out of context can be made into monsters.

Unfortunately some "scholarship" has done that and what should never have stuck did.

How can I possibly answer that credibly as a male?  If I deny sexism or homophobia exist in the text that would confirm for you that I am both wouldn't it?

And, as I point out above, the agenda of sexism and homophobia are latter interpretations of the text and not, I believe, original intent.

Why do I believe that?  Paul recognizes women as having equal access to the gifts of the Holy Spirit and acknowledges several women in the higher authoritative offices.  The word "homosexual" does not exist in the original texts, it is a modern day translation and I submit that interpreters have erred in equating homosexual activity with male on male rape.  Prior to the introduction of the English word "homosexual" most texts read "Sodomy."

Even if the world is to end before I finish this response it seems that I have no power to affect that.  Which gives me a choice.  I can either sit and wait for the world to end and perhaps twiddle my thumbs for a good long time or I can fill my time with something more worthwhile than twiddling my thumbs.

Even if five minutes from now there is nobody around to show what I have done and nothing of what I have done remains to be shown it is a choice.

What was my first line?  Was it about hiding?  The basement comment was in my third post to the thread.  It is decidedly not how I joined the conversation.

True.  That is a matter of technology though not purpose.  And even though those broadcasts were archived we do not leave them there.  Some of the images have become iconic.

The texts are brought out and the texts are examined.  If someone is using them to justify violence that is an abuse.  Abuse happens and should be spoken against.  I do not think that abuse is automatic everytime a text from scripture is studied.  Even if it is a text that speaks of great violence.

It may well be speculation.

Even if it is only that is that speculation looking to promote violence or is that speculation looking to decrease violence.  If it is purely a human response it is as human to interpret scripture as a move away from violence as it is to interpret scripture as a support of violence.

And if both interpretations are equal choices why would you choose to see it as a promotion of violence and not promoting and end to it?

I have heard.  I don't agree with that interpretation nor have I ever offered it.

Well, there are a number of things at play which you appear to want to equate and I, personally, don't think the equation works.  

It is true that women have always had tenuous security in patriarchical systems.  What they have offered (and you have labelled forgiveness) has been for their own security.  It isn't the same as Lot offering up two daughters for the sake of visitors to his home which I do not condone though I understand it.  It is women sacrificing their children for their own security.

They aren't offering forgiveness.  They are offering a sacrifice.  Sometimes it is female children, sometimes it is male children.  It is a decision that most women make believing that they have no choice not too.

They remain silent because they believe that God has ordained that their husbands have the right to do with them as they please.

Their belief is in error.  

That error is not avoided by ignoring the text.

Indeed it is.  Some, through history, have used the Bible to seek redress for such injustice.  While it is true that some have used the Bible to support slavery others have used the Bible to abolish it.

To have that happen individuals are forced to go to texts that terrify and look at them for what they are.

Which would happen even if scripture of any kind simply ceased to exist and fell completely out of living memory.  The will to dominate will find anything at all to justify dominance even that which speaks against such tyranny.

Maybe.  Either of us can say anything we want to.

You and I do not share the same perspective.  The reasons why are probably legion.

That is a possibility isn't it?  Is what I say somehow less true than what you say?  Is that also a possibility or forgone conclusion?

That also is a possibility.  You being closer to the truth is also a possibility.  How will we tell?

That is an interestingly loaded question.  Is what I say less valuable?

Just your opinion?  Probably not your opinion alone though maybe it is.  And?  And is it a debatable matter or not.  My reading of the B.S. comment suggests that the debate is closed.

It could lead that way.  Does it necessarily go there?

What is the prevalence rate?

Again what is the prevalence rate?

Again what is the prevalence rate?

I'm not trying to be a wise-ass.  We are arguing about what kind of tree dominates the forest.  What is the rate of the violence tree?  Is it numbered in the millions or is it just one really big tree?

Grace and peace to you.

John

 Gotta drop out of the conversation for the time being: 4 out of 5 members of my family are sick (5 year old, 4 year old, 5.5 month old and my husband); 3 of the 4 have chicken pox.

Cheers,

Agnieszka

Hi Agnieszka,

My sympathies to you and your little ones.  My wife and I did chicken pox with out three, 5.5, 3 and 1.5 (all in years)while we were travelling from Vancouver, BC to St. Anthony, NL.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Whew! Thanks be to your last line--actually those business cards are for ME .

Whew! Thanks be to your last line--actually those business cards are for ME .

What an interesting post!

"Prior to the introduction of the English word "homosexual" most texts read "Sodomy." "

Not really expecting it to be brought up - my poetic nature broght forth thisv profundity:

Sodomy

Is odd t' me.

------------------------------------------------

Ok, I'll' attempt an end to my purility to review your neat-o exhchange

Oh, the "if there's a near-by car accident, I don't look to see details....cause I can avoid looking on the 11 o'clock news.

OK. I got that. Somewhat. ( I wonder what happened to my Jefferson Bible...always thought I'd get around to doing that. Cutting and pasting, aiming for a harmony of the Gospels is as close as I came. Mebbie Agnieszka now that it's a lot easier digitally, Could do that. Rid of the fiddely-bits, I dare say there'd be enough for him to chrunch on....

 Hey, it's go to the top of the nearest hill and wait time? Was that TODAY?

(Ive lost control of the formatting...

ah well, move on...nothing hsppening here....

 ===============

THE question: (TheBible)

 why would you choose to see it as a promotion of violence and not promoting and end to it?

For exactly the same reason I always pick out the dullest, most trivial and forgettable line in a poem and memorize that.

Wow. Now THAT is one hellovan opinion!  I am mightily impressed at the huge resources at his beck to enable that conclusion. Unless 'countless people' means it's a wild-ass conjecture with no substatiation to buttress his antipathy...

Credit for imagination, though....

I have heard.  I don't agree with that interpretation nor have I ever offered it.

People have strange thoughts and weird ideas.some of course , are correct, e.g. that I am perfect in every way, utterly flawless. (That reminds me of the prayer: "Today I have not cheated, taken advatage of any one, lied ...etc.....but then I haven't gotten out of bed yet...."

.=========

Format= something or other here)

Well, there are a number of things at play which you appear to want to equate and I, personally, don't think the equation works.

-------Now, me.

Which is the nicest way I have ever read of informing the correspondant that it is a firmly helf conviction that there is a super abundence of defacatory material currently residing within.

OK I take it back, my bar is just set lower

They remain silent because they believe that God has ordained that their husbands have the right to do with them as they please.

Their belief is in error.  

That error is not avoided by ignoring the text.

(INSERT: As above )

Indeed it is.  Some, through history, have used the Bible to seek redress for such injustice.  While it is true that some have used the Bible to support slavery others have used the Bible to abolish it.

To have that happen individuals are forced to go to texts that terrify and look at them for what they are.

 .

You and I do not share the same perspective.  The reasons why are probably legion.

In Roman days that meant 3000 to 6000.

Sounds about right.

Agnieszka, I apologize if I have offended you.  It's my daughters birthday 52, and she;s the younger...I justtook her to a wonderous dineer at which there were several pleasent toasts...so I refuse to be solumn...hope i wasn't rude.

Hi Happy Genius:

I have great hopes for the internet. I think it will eventually lead to us to regard ourselves as a global community. That a single shot, like the one that killed archeduke Ferdinand at Sarajevo, should trigger a world war is becoming increasingly unlikely.

Yes, I agree: science will make us aware of the interconnectedness of all things.

That energy is eternal is already scientifically established fact. And the scientfic acknowledgement that energy it is self-creative or self-transcendental may soon follow.

Energy/spirit, as a singularity in a state of synthesis and capable of transcendence, may be all there is. Spiritual enough for me.

Hi happy genius,
you WERE rude and you know it. I'll let it go, THIS TIME. But only because I have a household full of chicken pox (my three kids and husband). :-)

Cheers,
Agnieszka

Hi Happy Genius:

You better not take on Agnieszka. She is a formidable Amazon, as I know from experience.

InannaWhimsey,  unfortunately I do not see the connection between computer programming and the topic of this thread...  please explain.

A.

Hello Rev John,

I'm going to undertake some one handed typing while holding my baby... and some coherent thinking while listening to my daughters' Veggie Tales...

You said "so few newscasts lack violence.  Is it time to hide in the basement?"  Is turning off the TV equivalent to "hiding in the basement"?  You wrote that in response to my statement that "so few of the books in the Hebrew bible lack in violence".  I still don't get your point.  Are you saying that one ought not to steer away from the violence in the bible because that would be equivalent to hiding in the basement?  Why is that the case?  And why does avoiding exposure to violence automatically gets construed as being in denial about its existence (aka "hiding in the basement)?  Why does the fact that I turn off the bloody newscast or Mel's indulgent blood bath of a Passion story mean that I'm naive about the existence of violence?  

Yes, violence is all around us, but do I need to watch every bloody newscast, read all stories of violence happening now or those that have happened in the past?  Is that a requirement for being aware that violence exist?

I have no doubt that I will encounter violence in my life again without having to search it out... just as i have in the past as a social worker.  Why is not searching it out intentionally a form of hiding in the basement?

Okay, I'm done with the basement. 

The assumption is that to you turning off the the violent newscast is a form of hiding.  I don't agree with that.  Turning off the bloody newscast or not re-reading the violence filled stories over and over again - call them lifestyle choices.  I know full well that they are there - just like I know that women get beaten by the partners everyday - but I don't need to be voyeur in order to know that.

Who is pretending??  I'm saying that I'm not finding consolation in the bible because it's full of this stuff.  How is that pretending that it's not there??  How did you come to that conclusion?

Sorry, I don't follow that.  To me, it makes little difference actually... at this point, at least.  Perhaps in the past I would have really hoped that it wasn't Paul. 

Yes, I'm aware of the possibilities here... I highly doubt that the statement was meant to refer to all women at all times.  And yet, somehow that context doesn't seem to matter that much to the majority of Christian denominations who refuse to permit women to teach in the same position as the men.  Why have those denominations with their rich and lengthy histories, Divine Inspiration and all that, not realize that there was a context for that statement by Timothy/Paul? Haven't they spent hundreds of years studying scriptures?  

Again, somehow these bits of history/scripture have been conveniently overlooked.   Why is that?  Looks to me that hundreds of years of various interpretations spent on reading convenient ideas INTO the text.  And now that we are at a different time in history, at least some of us, we are trying to do the same again... Jesus was actually a feminist, didn't you know... 

Hmmm...  The whole entire culture at the time of Paul was what you call "anti-woman".  Paul was not somehow suspended outside of his culture and time.  He might have had his moment of being astonished by women in his midst... he might have been less "anti-woman" than the rest of his society.  But that hardly makes him pro-woman, whatever that means.  

You don't have to answer the question.  You just need to think about what it's asking.  And consider the possibility that it just might be different from you because of your positioning in relation to the scripture.  And then, it might be worth keeping that in mind when you discuss topics like this one.

If you denied sexism or homophobia exist in the text, I would have to say that you're in trouble as a preacher and Christian!  If you denied sexism or homophobia in the texts, I would also say, you haven't really read the book at all.  Would it automatically make you sexist or homophobic?  Not necessarily, just ignorant.  Being sexist and a homophobe does require some intention, in my opinion.

So if your call that Paul, for example, was not anti-woman.  Both can be said to be interpretations resulting from the current time and place, culture and social values.

But, we also have to consider the definitions of the terms.  I won't quote dictionaries, but it's common knowledge that sexism is a set of beliefs, attitudes, ideas that define women as less valuable than men.  This set of beliefs and attitudes was everyday part of the culture in which the texts are set.  Was there an agenda of sexism? As in, an agenda to intentionally belittle and abuse women?  I doubt it.  But sexism itself, as the belief that women are less than men, was very common.  

So, looking back at the text and saying that there is sexism there is also an assessment of the values of the times.  

Homophobia in itself is a bit of a different boat, since homosexuality as an identity or orientation was not part of that culture as a concept.  Sure, people had sex with each other, regardless of gender - and I am %100 sure that they did, why else would the writers found it necessary to write in the rule that such a form of sexual act is not good? But the active belittling and abuse of people who identify as homosexual?  Not likely.

Paul's recognition of women as having equal access to the gifts of the Holy Spirit isn't that far from the Pope saying women are equal but different - the statement is just ambiguous enough for anyone not to have to actually change their attitudes.  Sure, women may have equal access to the gifts of the Holy Spirit, but who says?  A man.  So, who gets to call the shots?

It is an abuse and it is a common practice.  No, abuse may not automatically arise out of examining the texts.  My original question was how to not get brought down by its prevalence when I turn to scripture for consolation.  If the text speaks of great violence, it violates me and my spirit.

Recap: Jesus did not stop the violence against him, even if, as you argue, he had the power to stop it immediately.  I call that argument speculation.  You are asking if that speculation, that Jesus could have but didn't stop the violence again him, is looking to promote violence or is it looking to decrease violence.  I find that question void of meaning.  If Jesus had had the power to stop the violence against him immediately, he would have in fact decrease violence.  But not stopping it immediately, he did not decrease violence, he let it continue... and it continues to this day, relived every year at Easter, in blood bath remakes like Mel's little gem, etc..  So.  Does the speculation that Jesus could have stopped the violence immediately promote or decrease violence?  He did not choose to decrease the violence even though he could have.  

Hmmm...  the question: why would I choose to see Jesus' choice not to stop the violence against him immediately as a promotion of violence vs. an end to violence?  Maybe because I'm looking straight at it with no theological interpretations.  If I were to apply a theological interpretation, like the on that says that Jesus' choice to have violence committed against him is preventing the rest of us from the eternal violence of hell, then I could see his choice as promoting an end of violence.  I don't believe in that theology.  

Agnieszka

Hi Agnieszka,

Yes.  In a nutshell.

And, I don't think that engaging texts with violent content automatically leads to further violence.

Steering away from the violence also steers one away from the response or the commentary on the violence and, I would argue, those lessons become weaker as a result.  Just as the concept of grace becomes diminished as one ignores or denies the concept of sin.

There are some who don't ignore and instead become rather obsessed with the former rather than the latter.  Some forget all about grace and instead focus only on sinfulness.  Some forget about redemption and instead focus on violence.

I don't think that the Bible is meant to be used in such a pick and choose manner.

I'm not using hiding in the basement as denial.  I'm using hiding in the basement as escape.  

I have not accused you of being naive about the existence of violence.  

I believe that your response to violence in scripture is more about you than it is an engagement of scripture itself.  Scripture doesn't appear to live up to your expectations and you are critical of it because of that.

If you "needed" to then you would have serious issues.

Again scripture is not about how to shed blood.  It is how God responds to the shedding of blood, even to the point of finding a way to end the blood shed.

It is possible to focus on the acts of violence and not the response to violence and it is possible to do so in a way to elevate violence as glorification or the only point.

Why is reading it at all searching it out intentionally?

I think this may be the crux of our conflict on this point.  

To be fair I don't think I have constructed the extremes you appear to see.  I think that there must be some point somewhere between reading texts of violence for the thrill and not reading scripture because acts of violence are leaping out of every verse.

I don't know why the extremes are the only points that are seen to exist.

I'm appealing to the newscast as metaphor.  Not reading scripture because you only see the violence is a form of hiding.

Fair enough.  Again, I think that there is a middle ground and that reading scripture, even accounts of violence in scripture doesn't mean that I am a voyeur with a violence addiction.  If that was all I managed to focus on it could mean that.

I hear that.  I've asked about prevalence and the question is discounted.  Maybe you aren't pretending that it doesn't exist.  Maybe you are pretending that it is all that exists?

I simply could have said "Timothy didn't say that."  It wouldn't have engaged the issue or your negative reaction to it being said in the first place.

So are you reading the scripture for what it means to you or what it means to them?  I don't understand why, if you are aware of the possibilities you don't read with those possibilities on the horizon rather than the ever present shadow of a poor interpretation?

I'm not sure which denominations you are referring to.  Many are not, all things considered, particularly rich.

The doctrine of divine inspiration, like any doctrine, can be horribly abused.

The doctrine speaks only to the text as written.  We do not possess any of those original documents though we have quite a few copies of early documents and fragments.  The doctrine would also only apply to original languages and not to translation out of.

Many of the more theologically conservative denominations that have not valued academic rigour would not accept that inspiration did not transmit itself into translation and as such individuals in those denominations would understand that whatever understanding they arrived at pertaining to scripture must itself be inspired.

We have dealt with this issue here at WonderCafe on several occasions in several ways.

I don't know if it is as deliberate as you paint it.

Given the rate of Biblical illiteracy (ignorance of actual content) it is not surprising that contextual illiteracy is just as high.

If it is possible for someone to interpret the text that they are staring at it how would they interpret text they only think they remember?

Some Christians are fervently anti-scholastic.  They think that all one needs to have to interpret scripture is a Bible.  They do not think of themes progressing in scripture they think of epochs. So, with respect to an eye for an eye they would not see it as part of a progression.  It was the rule for the time.  If it has been changed that is because God has a new rule for a new time.

On the surface that looks like progression.  The problem is that once the canon of scripture was closed all interpretations are closed.  With no new revelation from scripture there can be no new rule.

So, scripture written in the context of a particular social/cultural reality is held hostage in that social/cultural reality and not allowed to dismantle what of that social/cultural reality needed to be dismantled.

"Lord" for example.  Contemporary folk balk at it now because it suggests that God somehow owns us and that we are little more to God than slaves.  Slavery is wrong so the notion that God is Lord must also be wrong.

What did it mean to proclaim that Jesus was Lord?

Many have forgotten.

Christians have forgotten much of what Christianity laboured so long to learn.

I know that it is popular to claim him as one.  I think Jesus was just true to himself.  

Liberals find him liberal.  Conservatives find him conservative.

So because he cannot be pro-woman he must be anti-woman.  There is no middle ground everything must be extreme?

So that my own silence is read as incriminating guilt?  

My positioning in relationship to scripture is as sinner, one who has fallen short of the glory of God.  That has nothing to do with my gender, race or socio/economic standing.  It has everything to do with the standard of perfection set by God and the fact that I don't meet it.

I'm not better off, with respect to scripture, because I am white or male or in a certain tax bracket.

Unless you are positing a different standing I never forget who I am according to scripture or what it is that I have most need of.

If I claimed that they existed I think I would be in even bigger trouble.

Both are modern sensibilities projected upon an ancient text.  A reading into not a reading out of.

I've been accused of heresy I'm not afraid of accusations of ignorance.

I read the book.  I haven't brought the same presumptions that you have to the text obviously.  When did you become such a fundamentalist?

Ahhhh so there is ignorance as a middle ground at least.

I believe so, yes.

Fair enough.  Is that what scripture is doing?  Jesus treats women of questionable virtue with dignity and honour.  Jesus treats the very sick and disabled with dignity and honour.  Jesus redeems what is broken.

Paul credits at least one woman to the office of apostle which means it isn't an old boy's club.  Many more are credited with the office of deacon.  Others nurture the growing church with their own resources.  Women were preachers and teachers and with the sweat of their own brows they built the early church.

Just as men did.

That is very plain if one reads scripture.

Equal gifts means that those called to any office in the church are called based upon the presence of the required gift and not the gender or skin colour or social standing.  That means equal period.

What has been done with that since is not necessarily the trajectory that God initiated.

Because a man speaks out against traditional patriarchical practice it is just more patriarchy.  So even if Jesus was a feminist he was, unfortunately, still a man.

So do we seek to do better or just let it continue to happen.  Will it correct itself?

What does it do when it speaks of redemption?

Fair enough.

So, how is he going to non-violently end violence?  Instead of calling for any army he has at his beck and call he dies alone.  He doesn't retaliate, he doesn't escalate.  He shows that he is in control of himself and he doesn't need to be a slave to fear or greed.  Others have that example to emulate or ignore.

Jesus does not let it continue.  We do.

I'm not sure what you are referring to with respect to the blood bath remakes.  I have never seen any blood present at a Good Friday service.  The only symbolic blood I have seen is in communion on Easter Sunday morning.

Even that is not to glorify violence.

Choosing not to escalate or retaliate does, I believe, decrease violence.  It at the very least puts a very serious kink in violence's cyclical nature.

Who says you are?

Fair enough you don't believe in that theology.  Theology is not monolithic.  You aren't forced to believe in that theological construct.

You are allowed to look for middle ground.  The solution doesn't need to be an extreme.

Does Jesus choose to have violence committed against him?  No.  Others choose to commit violence against him.  Does Jesus choose not to resist that violence?  Yes.  Jesus chooses not to resist.

Does his death save everyone from hell?  I'm not a universalist so I would say no on that score.  Does his death have redemptive value?  I don't know how to make that assessment objectively.

What I do see though is that the progression of violence that starts only with the limiting leads to non-resistance and Jesus lives that teaching out.

Grace and peace to you.

John 

Hello RevJohn, 

Since I hadn't finished responding to your previous post,  I was not ignoring your questions.  I'll finish that response now, and then I'll focus on your recent reply.

(The formatting is a little wacky again, sorry.)

Alright.  You say you never offered this interpretation.  You  do seem to be praising Jesus for "taking it". That's the interpretation I saw in your writing.  Jesus was being abused that he "took it".  Meaning, he didn't respond with violence.  I said, above, that many people have attempted to "take it" in that same manner.  

Tenuous security...  can you say more about this security?

Clarification, please:  mothers forgiveness of their children's slights and disrespect are offered for the mothers' security?  How? 

The security of wives in patriarchal marriages?  If you call the fact that one could be accidentally murdered (and often were), security, then yes, I guess they were all very secure...  

The security of daughters in patriarchal households and societies?  If you call the fact that a girl will be maimed for life through genital mutilation today, tomorrow and many many days after, security, then yes, I guess that's tenuous security...

The definition of security does not apply here:  it's either be abused in the patriarchal marriage or household, or be raped and abused outside of it.  I am referring to women of many centuries ago and women in many cultures today.

I don't understand this comment:  what isn't the same as Lot offering his children for the comfort of strangers?

Is that what you really mean?  I could have sworn the reality is that women sacrifice any chance they might have of security for their children.  

You will have to explain this to me step by step, please.  What I have observed and the history I have read tells me that even in this day and age, in this postmodern society, women sacrifice their security, their freedom, their lives for their children.  Mothering in our society requires that of women.  I don't get your comment, I must be missing something.

That is all I can speak to right now.

I will finish this response later and then move on to your reply.  Please be patient.

Thanks,

Agnieszka

Hello again,

Here is the rest of my reply to that other response. ;-)

Neither is their error corrected by the text.  The Hebrew Bible is no source of empowerment for women, quite the opposite.  And the Christian Bible has moments... mostly moments were Jesus is being humane in spite of a whole entire society.  There is little in either of those collections of books to correct that belief, and plenty to support it.  Nevermind the fact that many Christian traditions, Jewish traditions, and Muslim traditions would support it strongly.

Indeed.  That and much much more.  

... or, individuals go to the texts with a set agenda and find exactly what they are looking for.  Kind of like you and I.  What does that say about the text?  That is yields itself to human ideas and agendas.  

Which it might as well since it does nothing to help the horrors happening everyday.

Has someone calculated the prevalence rate of blood in Scripture?  I'm sure someone has.  As soon as I find it, I'll provide the percentages.

Again, has someone actually done that calculation?  Do you want every book, chapter and verse that goes into how YHWH has shamed the "enemies", so on and so forth?  Seriously?

Again, do people go around calculating the exact number of stories where YHWH has doomed Israel's foes?  It's all there!  Plenty of it!  

You don't have to try too hard, quite frankly.

What's the difference?  Whether there are millions or it's just one huge monstrosity, the shadow is large enough to overtake my of the landscape.  And what's not covered by that dark shadow is a measly glimmer of hope...  People are still waiting for Jesus to return... except nothing that great is in store for the majority of us when and if he does finally drop by.

Agnieszka

 I am a reader and lover of the books of the bible.  Many speak to me clearly and many I do struggle with.  I have found a book like Judges to be one of the more difficult ones to understand.  That is until I took a bible study with a "hebrew studies leader."  Her insight into the "whys" of the various stories really changed how I read the bible.

Now, when i read a story that contains violence I gind myself trying to look at the outcomes and why the story is there.

One of her points was that the books were written by people to show the actions of God.  Each of the stories contained in it are deliberate and not accidental.  SO if a story showing the massacre of a tribe is there, what is the writer trying to say?

I think prior to that i had thought of some of the books are fairly simple chronological tales of events.

From our minister I often get details like a story's background, or perhaps where the story fits into the book itself of how the story was originally in poetry and has been transcribed into prose and how that has changed the impact and the flow..............

So yes I think the bible has alot for people of our times.  Perhaps one of the messages is that even after Jesus we still live in a world of tribal pettiness and fighting and that we have still missed the message.

Agnieska, i can see that you dislike the violence in biblical times and in ours.  That you do't find the bible relevent and find it hard to read due to violence.

Perhaps at this time in your life you can avoid reading things that make you uncomfortable. Read the bible sections that you do find helpful and soothing when that is what you need.

Agnieska quote to Rev. John :  "People are still waiting for Jesus to return... except nothing that great is in store for the majority of us when and if he does finally drop by."

What do you mean nothing great is in store for us ?  The fowls are being called together  unto the supper of the great God. They are going to eat  all  the men !   They will eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and their riders, the flesh of all men , both free and bond, both small and great. Rev. 19 - 17,18.  (Of course this is simply an allegory....lol...)

However, there is another verse we should take literally as explained in a link I posted.  You know God made a covenant with Abraham that all the nations of the earth would be blessed through  him. God also made a covenant with Sarah the same as with Abraham in Gen.17 - 15,16 . The  link explains that the patriarchs dismissed the importance  of Sarah and the role of women in  society.

The bible truly is full of stories that are very hard to understand unless we indulge seriously in bible study which I've never done.

Hi Stardust,
I was referring to the judgement that's waiting... It won't be a love-in for many.

Anyway, I think you forgot to include the link.

Hello Lastpointe,

You know, despite my current frustration, I am also a lover of the Bible and have studied it on and off for years, sometimes in intensive study settings (like the Anglican Church's Education for Ministry course with last three years). Taking a course with someone schooled in Hebrew Studies sounds very interesting.

You know what would be great? To hear people like yourself share in their own words what they get out of a story like the one you quote...without big theological concepts or pressure to buy into them, just sharing their own take whether it's the "right way" of interpreting it or not

I agree with you, we did miss the message of Jesus. I struggle to find the good news in that. You?

Yes, I don't like the violence in the bible. But I'm NOT suggesting we should cut out those pages. I did at one point, but it's no use. I think that at this point in my journey it's very challenging and painful to accept the sometimes harsh and terrible realities of the past... I'm raising a baby boy and two preschool aged daughters. I suffer at the thought of their future suffering.

So yes, I do need to avoid those parts of the Bible that make me uncomfortable. Thank you for the encouragement to "read the bible sections that you do find helpful and soothing".

That's why it's great to know there is no reason for the judgement claims.  Makes it pretty easy to laugh off the threats from the religious.