Why call these parts of the bible "difficult"?  Why not call them what they are - immoral and violent and gory?

And why is "serious bible study" required to understand these "difficult" passages?  Is it because the verses are wrapped under multiple layers of metaphor and language, or is it because it takes a lot of work to convince yourself that the pain and suffering and death of people at the hand of God is a good thing?

Your religion has a violent history.  It has a violent text, with a petty and jealous and violent God.  Who loves you.  In more modern terms, your God is bipolar.

Agnieska

I'm sort of joking in the first part of my previous  post since the word men is always used. Here's the link re Sarah. Its very long. I also posted an article about Sarah  from it on my circumcision thread ( I think).

Sexism is a sin

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

Hello RevJohn,

Here is my response to your last post.

Well, you are welcome to your opinion.  In my opinion, which is very different from yours, steering away from the violence in the bible is simply a wiser thing to do at times, just as its not always a good idea to watch a horror flick or read bad news in the newspapers.  There may well be a time and place to reading those texts.  For me, now is not that time.  If to you that means I'm hiding in the basement from something, that's your opinion, I guess. Though it's a very limiting one, it doesn't allow that there is a time and place for everything...  And, one might say, it's very "macho".

Well, that's up for debate, isn't it.  There has been plenty of research done into the influence of violence media on behaviour.  Some argue that being expose to violence does in fact make people less sensitive to what violence actually means and to the suffering of others.  I won't go hunting for those studies but I am sure they would not be hard to find.    

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.[/quote]

I have trouble with the fact that violence is teaching anyone anything at all.  It's counter intuitive. Yes, there are lessons there but can they not be learned without violence?  Why is that?  

I realize that I am about to be called naive and a sissy or whatever.  So be it.  I'm not macho.  Nor do I want to be.

We live in a culture that is saturated with the conviction that violence is completely unavoidable.  But is that really true?  

If Scripture was simply recounting the evil that people did, I could understand that since we are a messy creature with very nasty tendencies and G_d is trying G_d's best to help us grow out of it, yes, that would make some sense.  But there is plenty of violence that G_d is said to have asked for, demanded even, caused, wanted, and rewarded.  What is that about?  

And still, to this day, the fact that G_d needed and required that G_d's own beloved be murdered in a bloody way?  That makes me shudder.  

Haha... saw that one coming from a mile away.  Yes, I am obsessed with violence.  Which is way I hide in the basement and don't own television. 

What is that redemption?  Where is it?  Is it Jesus' death on the cross?  That's just more violence.  And the violence continues, as I have said many times already.  All as is a matter of belief and speculation and imagination.  If there is reprieve from the violence it is due to peoples' commitment and desire to stop it from continuing.  I see G_d's Hand in that.  

Why not?  It's a collection of books put together over a long span of time containing a whole lot of different bits and pieces.  And there are as many interpretation of its meaning as there are traditions and people within those traditions.  People see many different things in different parts.  How are you or how is anyone going to enforce just one way of treating it? 

If someone is about to preform violence on you, aren't you going to escape it?  Or are you going to walk right at it and look for the lesson that's there?  I'm not interested in the lessons violence has to offer.

The very same can be said about anyone reading the book, yourself included.

That's all for now.  More coming soon.

Agnieszka

Hi Chansen,

I call them immoral, violent and gory.  And I also call them "difficult".  Is that an issue?

Why not?

Maybe it's both, maybe it's neither.  You forget one thing:  G_d didn't write the book, people did. And, who is trying to convince themselves that the pain and suffering and death at the hand of God is a "good thing"?  Good for whom?

Whose religion are you referring to?  Mine or RevJohn's?  Or Stardust's?  Or Lastpointe's?  The text definitely contains violence.  Sometimes the writers describe a G_d that is indeed petty and jealous and violent.  is G_d actually those things?  I don't know.  Do you?  

lol.  I'm sure more than half the figures of history, religion, mythology would be on one sort of psychiatric med or another based on modern assessment.  

That says more about the times we live in than those characters themselves.  

But that's besides the point:  your statement needs to be corrected.

"In more modern terms, the biblical description of (your? whose exactly?) G_d present G_d as bipolar". 

Yeah, that's much better.

Unless you can actually prove that the G_d described in the Bible is actually G_d.  In which case you might need meds yourself. But I'd like to see you try anyway.

Cheers,

A.

Hi Agnieszka,

It is readable.  No need to apologize about that.

My interpretation of the crucifixion has not appeared in this thread that I am aware of.  I said that I understand what Mel and others are trying to say.  I never said that I agreed with it.

Personally speaking "Jesus taking it" is not as important to me as "Jesus not retaliating."  It would be hard for the violence to be redeemed if all it lead to was yet further violence.  The narrative makes it clear in several places that the people would have rebelled against Rome if Jesus called for it.  He didn't.

Theologically speaking Jesus has command over the host of heaven, an army far more powerful than oppressed Israelites.  Jesus does not even give that army permission to avenge insult against his person.

That is an extreme move away from violence.  Instead of conquering and crushing Jesus is intent on reconciliation and graciousness.

Sure.  In a patriarchical system a woman's security rests upon her man.  The stronger the man the stronger her security.  Of course if the man in question has sudden whims then she walks on eggshells.  What she does inside or outside of the house is subject to her man's approval or her man's man since even in a patriarchical system it is the patriarch who holds the power not just any and all males.

In a patriarchical society a a woman married to a patriarch is secure from most slights.  Once the patriarchy has passed to a son the mother's security rests upon her son's pleasure.

I doubt that there was a great deal of effort put into making it look accidental.

I am also not familiar with it happening anywhere within the context of the Hebrew or Greek testaments.  Queen Vashti is deposed and the narrative makes it very clear why she was deposed.  The narrative also makes it clear that such action is the way of the Persians and the Medes not Israel.

While genital mutilation is a part of some cultures it is not a part of Israelite culture.  Not all patriarchies shared its practice.

The definition may not apply.  Security isn't absolute though unless you are talking ideals.  Here in Canada we have security to walk down most streets at any hour of the day.  That doesn't mean that there are certain streets at certain times that our respective risks are not greatly increased.

Again, not all patriarchies are equal.

Lot has guests and his neighbours in Sodom decide to rape the visitors just so that they know who is in charge in Sodom.  Lot offers his daughters to placate the mob rather than allow his guests to be dishonoured.

The mob already dominates Lot and his family, there is nothing for them to gain in raping the daughters so they refuse.

The guests then flex their might and the mob is struck blind.

I'm certain some women do sacrifice their own security for their children.  I am just as certain that some women will sacrifice their children for their own security. 

It is about survival.  Some folk will do anything to survive.

I agree with you that some women sacrifice their security and their freedom for the lives of their children.  I have also seen some women sacrifice their children for their own security.  

I don't know whether our society requires that of mothering or not.  If mothering is happening more than parenting maybe there are some other issues that need to be addressed.

Take whatever time you need.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi Agnieszka,

Fair enough.  My read of you to this point is that there is never a time.  If that is a misread then we obviously do not communicate well with one another.

I believe so.

I have heard that is so.  I don't know that the Bible has been part of those studies.  I'll look around though I am pretty sure that the studies focus on graphic imagery not text based media.

It isn't the violence which teaches; hopefully, it is the response.  The point of the crucifixion is not to teach anyone how to crucify others it lacks detail for that.  The point of the crucifixion is that Jesus doesn't use it to justify any violence of his own as response.

Can we learn how to resist violence without being confronted with violence?  I suppose.  We can learn CPR without anyone actually having to have a heart attack or stop breathing.  Of course when you are practicing on "Annie" there is considerably less stress than when attempting the same on flesh and blood.

Or not.

I do not believe that violence is completely unavoidable.  Any more than traffic accidents are completely unavoidable.  Violence happens and whether or not we are involved is not always given to us to choose.

While being on the receiving end of violence is not always a matter of our own choice how we respond to violence is.  Having examples that show further violence is not the only possible answer is, I believe, of great importance.

Indeed what is it about?  Machismo or something else?

It is but one of several atonement theories.

If that were so then there would have been no Easter morning.  Granted the Roman Catholic Church places more emphasis on Jesus' death than his resurrection.  Protestant Catholics place a heavier emphasis on the resurrection.  How one can have a resurrection without an actual death?

And where does that particular commitment and desire to stop it from continuing come?  Are there none who read scripture who share that commitment?

All true.  The purpose of putting all of those books together was not as haphazard.

As to enforcing just one way of treating it that is a mighty big hill for either of us to climb.  Isn't that what this thread is about though?   How not to read/interpret scripture in one way?

My response would likely reflect the context.  I am not frequently a target of physical abuse, it has happened.  I am more often a target of verbal abuse (though that is also infrequent).  I suspect that my vocation opens the door to that from time to time and sometimes clergy are a target of convenience.

The lesson is not in how violently one treats others (although that can be telling of another's character) the lesson comes from the response.  There is also a matter of who is meant to learn what.  What lesson does the bully learn when everyone simply runs away?

Very true.  Are we to encourage that?

Okay.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi Agnieszka,

Sorry I missed this one and am dealing with it out of sequence.

I disagree.

Deborah as leader of Israel offers no empowerment whatsoever?

Jael defeats the commander of a Canaanite army does that not offer any empowerment?  Of course there is violence in that but it is a man suffering at a woman's hands.  Quite remarkable in a patriarchy.

No Jew or Gentile, no slave or free, no male or female just heirs with Christ.

As far as traditions go.  Traditionalism is a problem for many.  It would be even if there were no faith of any kind.

Indeed, just like you and I.

What does that say about the text?  That it isn't fool-proof.  What fools do with it is no knock on the text.

And what does?

Fair enough I'll look as well.

Well, if the argument is that there is nowhere one can turn without running into it I think that needs to be shown.

It is there.  Is that all that is there? 

One pine tree does not a coniferous forest make.

If you recognize that it is a shadow then you know that there is more light somewhere else.

People are still waiting.  Not all are simply watching the clock.  Some believe in a righteous remnant.  I don't know that the remnant is a minority.

Grace and peace to you.

John

A marvelously perfect response !

Youse got a way with them woids...

Hi RevJohn,
I'm sorry, I'm not able to continue our chat. I've lost track of the response I'm supposed to respond to next! And I'm just not seeing the point to it. We disagree, period.

Thanks,
Agnieszka

Hi Agnieszka,

Fair enough.  Disagreement happens.

Grace and peace to you.

John

While in Korea I witnessed a friend's head being blown off, among other memorable things.. I have experienced violence. I wish every body in the world, including of course, you, could have footage of my memory. Such experience makes one hate violence to an extent profound.

I disaggre entirely, adamantly with the conclusions  reached by that research. How much experience did those reshearchers undergo?

And I have trouble with those that have that trouble

Counter your intuition.

You say there are lessons  there...name your intuitive lessons that would work.

Yeah, I call you 'whatever'

I've always wondered at the derogitory  implications of the word "sissy" Also "pacifist" come to thnk of it.  My oh my. Being against war!

No (and I'm unsaturated). But it has always been present somewhere.

Unavoidable? No. Lessened, yes.

(Disagree with me and I'll punch you.)

Hi Happy Genius,

For the most part I do not disagree with you.

I find the threat, whatever its intention, to be in bad taste.

Grace and peace to you.

John

For the most part I do not disagree with you.

I find the threat, whatever its intention, to be in bad taste.

A poor attempt at humour on my part. I really can't think of someone actually, seriously stating that.

I shoulda hada oughts  givin it a ....and, better, not posted it.

Mea culpa.

And to you sir!