The Bible as Literature Blog

how refreshing

2007-12-13T10:56:00.000-06:00

I just wanted to thank you all for the experience of this class. My faith has grown stronger because of it, and I have enjoyed hearing everyone's thoughts about some texts that I had grown too familiar with to still see clearly.

I hope you all have very happy holidays!

Hey ya.

2007-12-13T01:37:00.000-06:00

Thanks for the information! I work until 3... do you think y'all will still be there? I hope so.

Also, if you're ever dreadfully bored, click my name; I've got my regular blog on here as well as my journals. Tata for now!

A few answers-

2007-12-12T00:19:00.000-06:00

The party will be at 2:00 Thursday the 13th at the Marriott's Bronzeback Grille (I think that's the name of the restaurant).

Thanks

2007-12-11T11:45:00.000-06:00

I just want to say thanks to everyone. This class was already hard for me cause its literature. And I know your all or most of you are literature majors. But I appreciate you all not laughing at me. Please again forgive me for my presentation. And I'd like Dr. Akinson to know she helped me with my reading. Because before this class I wouldnt read unless it was something I want to read. Which the reading assignments I could find somethings in them that were interesting and thing that made me go research more about certain things. But I hope you all have a Merry Christmas and A Happy New Year!

And also, I'm curious about the party details...

2007-12-10T21:18:00.001-06:00

I've been meaning to post this for a while (since I believe this sign was brought up in class one day) and haven't had the chance.

"On my way back from pc today i passed a sign that said "go to church or the devil will get you." you can imagine my initial knee-jerk reaction, but you know, maybe they just got lazy and didn't have enough room to write: "its probably a good idea if you go to church because it provides a medium for introspection so you can examine your life and see if you are living up to your own morals and expectations and determine what changes you need to make to become a better person."but, you see, it takes up less space to write the former, so sometimes you just have to make things simpler. so now if i hear people say things like that or see signs and such i'll just smile and choose to think that they are only looking out for people."

My friend Lance wrote that one day, and I thought it was wonderful. I stopped being a Christian because of God and Jesus and started claiming Christianity for the exact reasons described above several years ago. For all the negative impacts our religous believes have on the world, there are definitely good things to find. Potluck dinners, lock-ins, a community in which one can participate, unconditional love... these are all things I've found through my church family.

Keep Reading and an Update

2007-12-10T17:16:00.000-06:00

Keep reading, Jennifer. It becomes more obvious in the subsequent books. Pullman makes no secret that he and his books are about killing god. I just don't see why people care. If this guy can kill god, then we should know that and follow suit.

Also, I am unable to attend our party Thursday. I have to be in South Carolina. Sorry. I'll be wishing I were there!

questions

2007-12-10T12:58:00.001-06:00

When?
Where?
What time?
Is our party Thursday.

Sorry

2007-12-09T15:51:00.000-06:00

I'm sorry everyone about my presentation. I really knew more about art and the bible its just I'm not good at talking in front of the class when its assigned.I had a stack of papers and had everything high lighted to bring me in to points on what too talk about but my mind just scattered before I started. But here's a little more on the subject that I could seem to present to you all. Sorry!

Art and the Christian
Jerry Solomon & Jimmy Williams
Art in our LivesWhere are you as you read this? You may be sitting in an office, reclining in a lounge chair at home, lounging in your back yard, sitting at a desk in your dorm room, or any other of a number of scenarios. Consider for a moment if art is part of your consciousness. If you are sitting in an office, is art anywhere within your vision? If you are reclining in a lounge chair, does the furniture have an artistic dimension? If you are lounging in your back yard, can the word art be used to describe any facet of what you see? If you are in your dorm room, are you listening to music that is art?
If I had the pleasure of dialoguing with you in regard to these questions, no doubt we would have a very interesting conversation. Some of you may say, "No, art doesn't describe anything I see at the moment." Or, some of you may state, "I haven't thought of this before. You'll have to give me more time for reflection."Others may assert, "I only think of art within museums, concert halls or other such places that enshrine our art." Others may say, "Yes, art is very much a part of my daily life." But since I can't dialog with you in order to know what you are doing at the moment, and I certainly cannot see what you see, let me tell you where I am and what I see as I write these comments. I am sitting in my study at my desk while I am listening to the music of Bach. I see a clock on one of the bookshelves, a hand-painted plate I purchased in the country of Slovenia, a framed poem given to me by my daughter, several chairs, two floor lamps, a mirror with a bamboo frame, two canoe paddles I bought in the San Blas islands off the coast of Panama, a wooden statue I purchased in Ecuador, and a unique, colorful sculpture that was made by my son. As I mention these things, perhaps you are attempting to imagine them. You are trying to "see" or "hear" them and in so doing there are certain of these items you may describe as art. Your first response may be to say that the music of Bach, the hand-painted Slovenian plate, or the Ecuadorian statue can be described as art. But what about the chair in which I am sitting, the desk, the bookshelves, the chairs, or the lamps? Better yet, what about such items that are found where you live? Are they art?
Such questions are indicative of the challenges we face when we begin to consider the place of art in our lives. As an evangelical Christian I can state that art and the aesthetic dimensions of life have not received much attention within my formal training. Only through my own pursuit have I begun to think about art with a Christian world view.And I have found my experience is similar to what many have experienced within the evangelical community. Too often we have tended to label art as inconsequential or even detrimental to the Christian life.
Actually, there is nothing new about this. Our spiritual forefathers debated such issues. They were surrounded by Greek and pagan cultures that challenged them to give serious thought to how they should express their new beliefs. Art surrounded them, but could the truth of Christ be expressed legitimately through art? Could Christians give positive attention to the art of non- Christians? In light of such struggles it is my intention to encourage you to give attention to some of the basic elements of a Christian world view of art and aesthetics in this essay. I believe you will find that our discussion can have significant application in your life.
Art and AestheticsSeveral years ago I was having dinner with a group of young people when our conversation turned to the subject of music. During the discussion I made a comment about how I believe there is a qualitative difference between the music of Bach and that of a musician who was popular among Christians at the time of our discussion. When one of the group at our table heard this, he immediately responded in anger and accused me of flagrant prejudice and a judgmental spirit. Even though I attempted to elaborate my point, the young man had determined that I was an elitist and would not listen any longer.
This incident serves as a reminder that one of the most prevalent ways of approaching art is to simply say that "beauty is in the eye (or ear) of the beholder." The incident also serves to show that concepts of "good" and "bad," or "beautiful" and "ugly," or other adjectives, are part of our vocabulary when we talk of art. This is true whether we believe such terms apply only to individuals or everyone. The vocabulary pertains to a field of philosophy called aesthetics.
All of us deal with aesthetics at various times in our lives, and many of us incorporate aesthetic statements in daily conversations. For example, we may say, "That was a great movie." Or, "That was a terrible movie." When we make such statements we normally don't think seriously about how such terms actually apply to what we have seen. We are stating our opinions, but those opinions are usually the result of an immediate emotional response. The challenge comes when we attempt to relate qualitative statements about the movie as part of a quest to find universal guidelines that can be applied to all art. When we accept this challenge we begin to explain why some artists and their art is great, some merely good, and others not worthwhile.
Aesthetics and NaturePerhaps one of the clearest ways to begin to understand the aesthetic dimension of our lives is to consider how we respond to nature. Have you ever heard anyone say, "That's an ugly sunset." Probably not, but surely you have heard the word beautiful applied to sunsets. And when you hear the phrase "beautiful sunset" you probably don't hear an argument to the contrary. Usually there is a consensus among those who see the sunset: it is beautiful. From a Christian perspective those who are there are offering a judgment concerning both the "artist" and the "art." Both the "cause" and "effect" have been praised aesthetically. Torrential waterfalls, majestic mountains, as well as sunsets routinely evoke human aesthetic response. The Christian knows that the very fabric of the universe expresses God's presence with majestic beauty and grandeur. Psalm 19:1 states, "The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows forth his handiwork." Nature has been called the "aesthetics of the infinite." Through telescope or microscope, one can devote a lifetime to the study of some part of the universe--the skin, the eye, the sea, the flora and fauna, the stars, the climate. All of nature can be appreciated for its aesthetic qualities which find their source in God, their Creator. In fact, we can assert that "the major premise of a Christian world view, including a Christian aesthetic, is that God is the Creator."(1)
Human Creativity"You have a wonderful imagination! Are you an artist?" Has anyone said such things to you? If so, perhaps you responded by saying something that would reject the person's perception of you. Most of us don't see ourselves as imaginative, artistic people. Indeed, most of us tend to think of the artist and imagination as terms that apply only to certain elite individuals who have left a legacy of work. "The truth is that in discussing the arts we are discussing something universal to mankind."(2) For example, anthropologists tell us all primitive peoples thought art was important.(3) Why is this true?
From the perspective of a Christian world view the answer is found in how we are created. Since we are made in God's image that must include the glorious concept that we too are creative. After creating man, God told him to subdue the earth and rule over it. Adam was to cultivate and keep the garden (Gen. 2:15) which was described by God as "very good" (Gen. 1:31). The implication of this is very important. God, the Creator, a lover of the beauty in His created world, invited Adam, one of His creatures, to share in the process of "creation" with Him. He has permitted humans to take the elements of His cosmos and create new arrangements with them. Perhaps this explains the reason why creating anything is so fulfilling to us. We can express a drive within us which allows us to do something all humans uniquely share with their Creator.
God has thus placed before the human race a banquet table rich with aesthetic delicacies. He has supplied the basic ingredients, inviting those made in His image to exercise their creative capacities to the fullest extent possible. We are privileged as no other creature to make and enjoy art.
There is a dark side to this, however, because sin entered and affected all of human life. A bent and twisted nature has emerged, tainting every field of human endeavor or expression and consistently marring the results. The unfortunate truth is that divinely-endowed creativity will always be accompanied in earthly life by the reality and presence of sin expressed through a fallen race. Man is Jekyll and Hyde: noble image-bearer and morally- crippled animal. His works of art are therefore bittersweet.
Understanding this dichotomy allows Christians to genuinely appreciate something of the contribution of every artist, composer, or author. God is sovereign and dispenses artistic talents upon whom He will. While Scripture keeps us from emulating certain lifestyles of artists or condoning some of their ideological perspectives, we can nevertheless admire and appreciate their talent, which ultimately finds its source in God.
The fact is that if God can speak through a burning bush or Balaam's donkey, He can speak through a hedonistic artist! The question can never be how worthy is the vessel, but rather has truth been expressed? God's truth is still sounding forth today from the Bible, from nature, and even from fallen humanity.
Because of the Fall, absolute beauty in the world is gone. But participation in the aesthetic dimension reminds us of the beauty that once was, and anticipates its future luster. With such beauty present today that can take one's breath away, even in this unredeemed world, one can but speculate about what lies ahead for those who love Him!
Art and the BibleWhat does the Bible have to say about the arts? Happily, the Bible does not call upon Christians to look down upon the arts. In fact, the arts are imperative when considered from the biblical mandate that whatever we do should be done to the glory of God (I Cor. 10:31). We are to offer Him the best that we have-- intellectually, artistically, and spiritually. Further, at the very center of Christianity stands the Incarnation ("the Word made flesh"), an event which identified God with the physical world and gave dignity to it. A real Man died on a real cross and was laid in a real, rock-hard tomb. The Greek ideas of "other- worldly-ness" that fostered a tainted and debased view of nature (and hence aesthetics) find no place in biblical Christianity. The dichotomy between sacred and secular is thus an alien one to biblical faith. Paul's statement, "Unto the pure, all things are pure" (Titus 1:15) includes the arts. While we may recognize that human creativity, like all other gifts bestowed upon us by God, may be misused, there is nothing inherently or more sinful about the arts than other areas of human activity.
The Old TestamentThe Old Testament is rich with examples which confirm the artistic dimension. Exodus 25 shows that God commanded beautiful architecture, along with other forms of art (metalwork, clothing design, tapestry, etc.) in the building of the tabernacle and eventually the temple. Here we find something unique in history art works conceived and designed by the infinite God, then transmitted to and executed by His human apprentices!
Poetry is another evidence of God's love for beauty. A large portion of the Old Testament, including Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, portions of the prophets, and Job contain poetry. Since God inspired the very words of Scripture, it logically follows that He inspired the poetical form in such passages.
Music and dance are often found in the Bible. In Exodus 15 the children of Israel celebrated God's Red Sea victory over the Egyptians with singing, dancing, and the playing of instruments. In 1 Chronicles 23:5 we find musicians in the temple, their instruments specifically made by King David for praising God. And we should remember that the lyrical poetry of the Psalms was first intended to be sung.
The New TestamentThe New Testament also includes artistic insights. The most obvious is the example of Jesus Himself. First of all, He was by trade a carpenter, a skilled craftsman (Mark 6:3). Secondly, His teachings are full of examples which reveal His sensitivity to the beauty all around: the fox, the bird nest, the lily, the sparrow and dove, the glowering skies, a vine, a mustard seed. Jesus was also a master story-teller. He readily made use of His own cultural setting to impart His message, and sometimes quite dramatically. Many of the parables were fictional stories, but they were nevertheless used to teach spiritual truths via the imagination.
We should also remember that the entire Bible is not only revelation, it is itself a work of art. And this work of art "has been the single greatest influence on art. It sheds more light upon the creative process and the use of the arts than any other source, because in it are found the great truths about man as well as God that are the wellsprings of art."(4)
Evaluating ArtCan the Bible help us evaluate art? Consider the concepts found in Philippians 4:8:
Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and ifanything worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things. Let's concentrate for a few moments on this verse in order to see if it might at least provide the beginning of a framework for the evaluation and enjoyment of art.
Paul begins with truth. When considering art the Christian is compelled to ask, "Is this really true?" Does life genuinely operate in this fashion in light of God's revelation? And Christians must remember that truth includes the negatives as well as the positives of reality.
The second word refers to the concept of honor or dignity. This can refer to what we related earlier in this essay about the nature of man: we have dignity even though we are sinful. This gives a basis, for example, to reject the statements in the work of the artist Francis Bacon. Bacon painted half-truths. He presented deterioration and hopeless despair, but he didn't present man's honor and dignity.
The third key to aesthetic comprehension has to do with the moral dimension--what is right. Not all art makes a moral statement, but when it does Christians must deal with it, not ignore it. For example, Picasso's painting, Guernica, is a powerful moral statement protesting the bombing by the Germans of a town by that name just prior to World War II. Protesting injustice is a cry for justice.
Purity is the fourth concept. It also touches on the moral-- by contrasting that which is innocent, chaste, and pure from that which is sordid, impure, and worldly. For instance, one need not be a professional drama critic to identify and appreciate the fresh, innocent love of Romeo and Juliet, nor to distinguish it from the erotic escapades of a Tom Jones.
While the first four concepts have dealt with facets of artistic statements, the fifth focuses on sheer beauty: "Whatever is lovely." If there is little to evaluate morally and rationally, we are still free to appreciate what is beautiful in art.
The sixth concept, that of good repute, gives us impetus to evaluate the life and character of the artist. The less than exemplary lifestyle of an artist may somewhat tarnish his artistic contribution, but it doesn't necessarily obliterate it. The greatest art is true, skillfully expressed, imaginative, and unencumbered by the personal and emotional problems of its originators.
Excellence is yet another concept. It is a comparative term; it assumes that something else is not excellent. The focus is on quality, which is worth much discussion. But one sure sign of it is craftsmanship: technical mastery. Another sign is durability. Great art lasts.
The last concept is praise. Here we are concerned with the impact or the effect of the art. Great art can have power and is therefore a forceful tool of communication. Herein lies the "two- edged swordness" of art. It can encourage a culture to lofty heights, and it can help bring a culture to ruin. Paul undergirds this meaty verse by stating that we should let our minds"dwell on these things," a reminder that Christianity thrives on intelligence, not ignorance even in the artistic realm.
Thus it is my hope that we will pursue the artistic dimensions of our lives with intelligence and imagination. The world needs to see and hear from Christians committed to art for the glory of God.

Reminder!

2007-12-09T11:20:00.000-06:00

Everyone interested in playing "Dirty Jesus" remember to bring a religous-ish gift for the Christmas party on Thursday!

The Golden Compass

2007-12-08T17:34:00.000-06:00

I just finished the first book in the series. I did not read anything anti-God in it. The main religious sect that was portrayed in the book is supposed to be a Christian religion, I would assume Catholicism (not sure), does seem to be, at least a branch of it, pretty harsh. The idea the book is going with is that the humans of the fantasy world he has made up, have a Daemon that acts, from what I tell, almost like a spirit guide and represents the persons soul or part of it. There is also this thing called Dust that settles on a person when they hit puberty, and is referred to as "original sin". This religious sect has set out to cut the Daemon from children before they hit puberty. When they cut the daemon away most children die, some become zombie like creatures, and very very few live but are unemotional, almost robotic. The main character is a little girl who has control of a compass that tells the future, and she has set out on this journey to stop these people from killing children.

This piece is a pure work of fiction with its; daemons, armored bears, dust, cities that can be seen in the northern lights, and many other fantasy type things. Fiction is not reality. Any child that is brought up right will know that. If you want your child to be atheist raise them that way if the are strong in their beliefs a children's story is not going to change their mind and vise verse, if you want your child believing in God a simple story will not change their mind. Things are going to into your life that are going to challenge your beliefs no matter what they are, this is a good thing because it will make you a stronger person. It will make you study harder, ask more questions, and be knowledgeable about the world around them. I think this is what scares so many people. They do not want to question things and they do not want their children to question things. That is a sad way to look at life. This book did not change my belief and I really do not think it will change my five year old nephews belief, if I set down and read it to him. He is only going to care about the really cool armored bears.

Like I said I have just read the first book, therefore I cannot commit on the rest, but in my opinion the first book is cute. It is not as wonderful in my opinion as the Harry Potter books, or some of the Chronicles of Narnia (there were one or two that were kind of boring but I am an adult). I personally would go up against any religious or non religious sect that was doing harm to a child so if this child has to bring down this particular sect to stop it than so be it.

Another thing, Douglas Adams is, as far as I can tell by reading the Hitchhikers series, an atheist but no one made a fuss when that movie came out. I think they even have to read the first book in that series in school. I probably should not have said that. Some one reading this right now is having a fit. I love Adams' series. I highly recommend them.

The Golden Compass

2007-12-05T15:12:00.000-06:00

Hm. I'm really tired of this, and not taking sides, but the anchor here seems to be a little bit one sided on the issue...

Evolution of Satan PowerPoint Presentation

2007-12-04T23:49:00.000-06:00

Hey guys, here is that ppt presentation from last week, and the sources

Jewish Encyclopedia
Encyclopedia Mythica
Papyrus of Ani
Egyptian Mythology
Catholic Encyclopedia

More for Robert

2007-12-04T09:02:00.000-06:00

Exactly, Robert! Good stuff.

Some things the Bible says cannot be explained away. It really says some of the things that modern readers find difficulty reading. The challenge is not to not question, but whether or not it is useful to you. Most people don't realize that they have been doing that with the Bible all of their lives.

How many people do you meet that spend all kinds of time in Joel or Obadiah? How many people just love the messages of Titus and Jude? While some people may say that the entire Bible is applicable and complete, they spend most of their lives compiling texts that are far more useful to them--like The Purpose-Driven Life and The Ragamuffin Gospel. Without saying it specifically, most people are creating personal canons that don't include many books of the canonical Bible.

What's more is that their canons are wide open and growing or shrinking with new concepts and texts. When a new book, like Celebration of Discipline, helps a person understand how to better live a Christian's life, their canon grows. Suddenly that person is looking to Richard Foster and committing his words and principles to memory and application instead of one of Paul's books. That is the very reason, I hope, that your pastor has wisely instructed you to open the door to your mind and allow the flow of ideas. You are creating your canon and you may not have even realized it.

That is the very way I view the non-canonical works. The Gospel of Judas is a flow of ancient ideas, as is Judith, Bel and the Dragon, City of God, and who knows how many other texts. The canonical gospels even reflect this idea. The Jews got Matthew, the gentiles got Mark and Luke, and the Gnostics got John. If one story would have sufficed for all people then we would only have one Gospel, but the story needed different tellings and applications.

I'm proud to know that your mind has opened. It's going to be a rough journey, and the rough part hasn't even started. In fact, it's going to last a long, long time, but the end result is not only confidence in yourself, but in what you're reading. The details may not make sense, but that's because they may not have been meant for you. Eventually, you should write your own. It won't apply to everyone, but you will have made your contribution to the canon and someone else will learn to do the same things you did--or they won't; it depends on what they need.

Again, that's the beauty. It's not that our art is the greatest in the museum, it's that our art is in the museum!

~ Dec 03's Class ~

2007-12-03T23:40:00.000-06:00

Todays class was amazing. It is wonderful when each one of us researches and shares an idea with the class. I want to congratulate Kelly and Eliot for their presentations today. Life is art seen through creative temperament. Literature is what we experience daily from morning papers to bed-time stories!! Abortion, Homosexuality, use of alcohol... were brilliant topics.

I'm so happy I took this class !

I agree

2007-12-03T21:12:00.000-06:00

I do agree and that is why when I spoke to my pastor he told me not to quite the class but take it as a learning experience. I have alot to learn and thats why I stay reading and asking questions about the word. Its stuff this semester that I learned and did not know because I over looked it. And thats why I bring my bible to class to see the difference in my bible and the book for our class. And I learned that the bible in a way is like a paper that everyone have wrote and rewritten and you cant read them all. Because the mistake of one word could change a verse. I'm the type person that sits back and listens and if it doesnt sound right or if that person doesnt seem right I just stop contact. But talking to my pastor he told me that I have to listen to both parts the good and the bad of situation.Because people rephrase thing all the time like in Elliots presentation when he talks about the preacher that gave those (lets just say different statements)that he believes. But I have learn there are some thing in the bible we shouldnt question but just believe and take them just as they are. But that is why I'm still learning and will for ever keep learning.

2007-12-03T18:10:00.000-06:00

That was wonderfully put Joey. I wish more people understood that concept. :)

Beauty

2007-12-03T14:50:00.000-06:00

I think it would surprise you, Robert, if you and I got a chance to sit down and discuss beliefs. We would probably match up on several things.

Since you're an art major, allow me to explain what I mean: God is a lot like an priceless work of art; like a Waterhouse or a Brueghel. It is what it is and what it is is unchangeable. However, whenever new eyes find the canvas it becomes something else and that changes with every pair of eyes. The art is still art, but the application and purpose of the art changes because each person who sees it needs it to do something else for them. Some people see The Birth of Venus and find it erotic, some see love, some see comfort, some see a mother, some see pornography, some are untouched. The real beauty of the art is nothing inherent at all--well, maybe a little--; instead the beauty is that every emotion evoked and every thought created is real, true, and applicable. What I love is real and what you love is real. What I hate is real and what you hate is real.

That is the beauty of God. The Bible serves only as a window through which we may view the way the Jews, the Greeks, the peasants, the farmers, etc. viewed God. It helps us learn. Even the things that are factual errors show the things that were important about God to that author. With that in mind, every religious book, blog, paper, thought, tradition, article, translation, etc. becomes a new chapter in the Bible. It all serves as our ability to view the things about God that are important to another believer and/or non-believer.

The beauty is that if someone is looking for an immuteable, concrete truth then they've found that very thing in their own belief system. It may not look exactly like another person's, but for you it is concrete, valid, and perfect. With time it may change for you, for me, for anyone, but at any given time you are experiencing your truth.

That's beautiful.

Sorry

2007-11-28T11:43:00.000-06:00

Hi everyone! Sorry I havent got on here much this semester. No excuses. The whole reason I took the class was to learn more about the bible. And I have. You know its always been there its just I have been blind to some of the things in the bible. You know you dont want to think in a negative way about God and some times in class it seems that way to me. I talked to my pastor because some day I would come to class and tone everyone out cause I felt it went against my religion, but after talking to him he told me to listen a learn. He told me it would be a learning experience and to learn other peoples views and beliefs in the bible and to just stay reading my bible and that I knew what i believed in an nothing should change that if I'm a strong believer. Not saying any one in class is wrong its just my beliefs are different on certain things in the bible.But like I said I have learned and some thing that I have thought about and wonder have came up about in class and have been answered and made me go research things for my self. But have learned.

book from my presentation

2007-11-26T12:00:00.000-06:00

"Why Not Women? A Fresh Look at Scripture on Women in Missions, Ministry, and Leadership" by Loren Cunningham and David Joel Hamilton

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Not-Women-Biblical-Leadership/dp/1576581837/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196100005&sr=8-1

Be sure to read some of its negative reviews... they're hilarious.

Troubled Isn't the Word

2007-11-26T08:11:00.000-06:00

"I want to see [Christian children] as radically laying down their lives for the gospel as they are over in Pakistan in Israel in Palestine."

She actually said that.

Concerning the Church of Christ worshipping sans instruments: they base their belief on the fact that there is no mention of them in the New Testament. They take it a step further by claiming that Colossians 3:16 and Ephesians 5:19 are commandments to sing, and to do more than that would be "adding" to the "word of God." Very strange, indeed. I have been a staff member in some capacity at a Church of Christ since 1998, and it's never made any sense to me. I don't have any problem with a capella music--in fact, I love it--but I do have a major problem with someone telling other people they're going to hell because they use instruments. That's ludicrous.

For study's sake: there is a lot evidence that instruments were not a part of Christian worship for hundreds of years. The phrase "a capella" is Latin for "as in chapel." As I recall, the phrase gained prominence as a musical instruction during the Renaissance. When composers desire their work to be done with voices only they instructed performers to relay the work like the music in their churches: without instruments. That much I understand, but that hardly makes sense as a spiritual directive with salvation implications.

Responses: Music in the Church, Socialization of Children

2007-11-25T18:47:00.000-06:00

As far as i am aware the only denomination to disallow use of musical instruments is the Church of Christ, they base this belief on one verse in particular, and here is their explanation from church-of-christ.org's FAQ:
"What kind of music is used in the worship?

As a result of the distinctive plea of the church - a return to New Testament Faith and practice - acappella singing is the only music used in the worship. This singing, unaccompanied by mechanical instruments of music, conforms to the music used in the apostolic church and for several centuries thereafter (Ephesians 5:19). It is felt that there is no authority for engaging in acts of worship not found in the New Testament. This principle eliminates the use of instrumental music, along with the use of candles, incense, and other similar elements. "

They don't hold the belief that all music is evil, they just wish to re-create, as closely as possible, the type of worship practiced by the early church. This would obviously be devoid of modern instruments. Also, after having listened to various types of church music, especially contemporary christian radio stations, these guys may really be on to something with the whole "no music" deal.

I'm going to post a couple videos from CNN's "God's Warriors" special from this past August (click the link for the God's Warriors website @ CNN.com) that show how children raised in such enviroments have these ideas further reinforced at various ages.
Part 9

Part 10

Part 11

This is only the last three parts of eleven, and these were also very relevant to the topic being discussed previously.

Here's the rest of it... some of the other parts are also quite frightening, but a few offer a glimpse of hope:
Part 1

The most frightening of these is probably that regarding Liberty University's Law School and graduates in Part 2:

Part 3

Part 4

Jimmy Carter I think has some good things to say about the subject at hand, but Hagee is an absolute nut... i'm genuinely scared that this many people listen to his "Christian-Zionism"

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

There was actually some stuff that is much closer to what i would consider christianity represented as well. For example:

Part 8

Idolatry?

2007-11-23T22:03:00.000-06:00

In the first video I was struck by the President Bush cardboard cut-out. Why would you make kids talk to cardboard? I'm sure visual aids make the brain washing process more effective, but don't the adults see the hypocracy of what they're doing? As Protestant fundamentalists, shouldn't they rethink that particular approach? I found the whole situation to be very golden calf-ish. Anyone else?

Deeply Disturbed

2007-11-23T10:13:00.001-06:00

I was deeply disturbed by these videos. Disturbed to the point that I cried at some of the scenes. I cannot say that speaking in tongues is not real. I have never done it and have not seen anyone in my adult life do it. As I mentioned in class my little sister and I remember my father doing it (I even think my stepmother did it but I doubt she would own up to if I asked her), but I was very young, and do not remember any of it. I do not have a problem with it but I do have a problem with what these people are doing to these kids.
I cried watching that little girl. She looked (I cannot even describe how she looked). I just wanted to grab her and take her away from all it. I wanted to take all of those children away. I cannot believe their parents sat by and watched. Anyone under the age of about sixteen is too young to claim that they have experienced something like that. Especially, in that type of setting with people all but making them do it. Children believe nearly everything an adult tells them and these people are taking advantage of their innocence.
I was baptised at the age of ten or so, and should not have been until I was out of high school. I did not understand my religion then. I still don't, but at least now I know enough to be able to make that decision. In bible school and camp these kids should be learning the basic stories of Creation (not that I am a creationist, I completely believe in evolution and that the world is a lot older that 5000 years), Noah and Jesus, not how to convulse on the floor. Their knowledge needs to gradually grow. As it grows they will be able to decide for themselves what denomination and what religion they want to follow. If you start out with the basics they will asked questions, they will study and learn. I probably believe this way because it was how I was raised and how I learned about Christianity, and I think it worked. I feel secure in my beliefs and informed of my religion. Yes I have question. I will always have questions but that is because no one will ever know how much of the bible is literally true and how much of was altered to suit someones opinion.
I do believe in God but God and I would have some serious problems if I saw any of my nieces or nephews doing that. (Actually, my problem would not be with God it would be with whoever taught them to do it.) But if God was actually doing it HE/SHE and I would be having words. If HE/SHE wants someone to teach the word, to prophecy or anything else HE/SHE needs to go through me not my babies. Kids should not, under any circumstances, be used like that.
I do not see it as cute, or interesting, or see them as being blessed. I see it as them being abused, used, and forced into a world that they should be left innocent to.

Jesus Camp/Speaking in Tongues

2007-11-21T18:17:00.000-06:00

Have any of you seen this documentary? It is insane. I'll try and post a few clips. This scared the hell out of me. The first one has a woman calmly speaking in tongues for those of you who've never heard it.

This last one is pretty long, but it shows an adult instructing kids to speak in tongues, so I thought I would include it. This lady actually says that kids are "usable" in Christianity.

Music in the Church

2007-11-21T15:00:00.001-06:00

That video that Grace posted has got me thinking. (By the way, it is totally hilarious! My favorite part is when the crowd does the backwards "wave" by falling into their seats.) Music is such a big part of the way I study and write that I have several playlists that I use to get motivated. This music is in the background when I type journal entries, work on presentations and blog. As this semester has progressed, my biblical list has grown into about fifteen songs. My tastes are eclectic, ranging from old school folk ballads and gospel to more hip-hop and rock flavored stuff. Also, while I was researching Kabbalah I found all kinds of instrumental music I liked and eventually added to my playlist.

And that brings me to this question: What denominations rule out using musical instruments during worship and why? Also, can these instruments be used in instances that are not worship-driven, or is it all the devil's music? I do know that the Bible never comes right out and says that guitars and tambourines are bad, and singing is pretty much universally accepted.

Historically, musical instruments were a huge part of pagan celebrations. So I'm thinking that is part of the puzzle, but there has to be more. Anybody feel like explaining it to me?

tongues and video

2007-11-20T12:35:00.001-06:00

That was very informative, Anna Beth. I'm surprised that you can recall the specific jibberish used by the lady in the pew. It seems like the other Biblical passages are used to justify any type of expression

On the video---I love it!!! I have to show it to as many as possible.

Speaking in Tongues

2007-11-20T11:10:00.000-06:00

I did a little bit of Biblical research on speaking in tongues.
[by research, I mean that I asked my husband... he knows a lot about such matters :) ]

According to my husband (and to most Pentecostal churches that I've been to), there are two types of speaking in tongues mentioned in the Bible, although the text never specifically says that they are different... leading to our confusion in class as to how the babbling many of us have heard in churches is a reflection of the Acts 2 Pentecost story - and also to a pretty big theological debate.

The first type of speaking in tongues - "natural" or "foreign" tongues is what we read about in Acts 2. "They were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to talk in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them power of utterance" (Acts 2:4). For the purpose of spreading the Gospel, believers were given the ability to speak foreign languages. I think this story is the only instance of the gift of foreign tongues in the NT.

Okay, so, the second type is "spiritual" or "heavenly" tongues, and this one is more frequently mentioned in the NT. Acts 10:46 - "for they could hear them speaking in tongues of ecstasy and acclaiming the greatness of God." This language does not appear to be understood by anyone, but is a tongue of ecstasy. The same thing happens in Acts 19:6, with the addition of prophesy. Mark 16:17-18 (the snake-handling verses) says that believers will "speak in strange tongues." 1 Corinthians 12-14 is where the most info about speaking in heavenly tongues is given. Paul acknowledges that some have the gift of tongues, and some have the ability to interpret them. He mentions speaking in the tongues of angels (but notes that it - like all things - is worthless without LOVE). In Ch. 14, he emphasizes that if tongues are not interpreted, they're gibberish. But, he also says that this is the language of prayer (verse 14), with which his spirit prays... which seems to say that an interpretation is not needed if one is praying alone in his closet a la Matthew 6:6.

(You can read more about this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia. Glossolalia is Greek for tongue-speaking.)

I wonder if the authors of the NT only had the first kind of speaking in tongues in mind... and church leaders have since constructed the second form of speaking in tongues so that some people could "shandalah" (it all sounds like that to me) and feel much holier-than-thou without having to have an actual miracle. I think you could very easily read the first type of tongue-speaking onto the 1 Corinthians 14 verses (interpretation is necessary), but I acknowledge that this is a MUCH bigger topic that I can fully explore in this blog. :)

So, I'll share a story. My husband and I used to go to a traditional, old school, Pentecostal church (don't even ask me why). And every Sunday morning, when there would be a lull in the worship, we knew it was coming: a little old lady would rise up out of her pew and say, "Shandalah... rahshahkosomarlaseeto... errahshambada"... and the pastor would get this expression on his face (as if he were receiving the word from the Lord), and then say something completely generic like "God wants us to know that He loves us and He is with us this morning. Hallelujah." And everyone would clap like a miracle had just taken place. They legitimated this process with 1 Corinthians 12-14... but, it seemed so obvious to me that this was no representation of a "spiritual gift" that Paul talks about: it was just a tradition, a way to make the congregation feel that God was there with them.

Video

2007-11-19T14:16:00.000-06:00

That was great. I had to show it to Russell, and he said that the only way that would have been funnier is if they used "Smack My Bitch Up" by Prodigy as the song. By the way Drowning Pool does this song not Manson. Although, it would have been more sacrilegious if they used one of his songs considering everyone thinks he is the Antichrist. Thanks for posting it. I had never seen it, and it is absolutely hilarious. :) hahahahahahaha

What'd the five fingers say to the face?

2007-11-19T12:00:00.000-06:00

Wow...

2007-11-18T16:56:00.001-06:00

I think I might have mentioned this before, but I never knew before I took this class that anything outside of the canonical Bible existed. I thought some of the other stuff we have read was interesting, but the Infancy Gospel of Thomas blew my mind! No wonder this wasn't included in the Bible! According to this, Jesus acted like any other bratty child except he had the power to kill kids that made him mad! Of course people couldn't lend any real credit to this because it would destry the image of Jesus being perfect and faultless. This kind of negates the whole "Honor thy father and mother" commandment...

corporate

2007-11-16T13:21:00.001-06:00

thanks!

"Corporate" Prayer?

2007-11-16T11:24:00.000-06:00

After our discussion this morning, I did a quick google search on "corporate prayer." A ton of info came up about it, but I couldn't find anything that commented on the use of the loaded term "corporate," nor could I find anything about the origins of its use. My search of all English translations of the Bible on biblegateway.com came up with ZERO uses of "corporate."

I found this to be interesting, though: http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/etc/printer-friendly.asp?ID=112 This is a sermon by Jonathan Edwards (the "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" guy), but I'm pretty sure that the author of the website added its title, "Jonathan Edwards on Corporate Prayer." I didn't see that Edwards used that term at all, only "cooperation in prayer."

There's even a corporateprayer.org! http://corporateprayer.org/

As I mentioned in class, my church has corporate prayer 14 times a week, and you can read about it here: http://calvaryfellowship.com/prayer.htm :)

My biggest question now is, when did "corporate prayer" become such a common term? Obviously, it was after Jonathan Edwards (who preached in the 1750s), as he talks about common or group prayer in his sermon, but does label it as "corporate."

My 'blog

2007-11-16T09:38:00.000-06:00

Visit my personal 'blog sometime: click here.

Today's Extra Meeting

2007-11-14T11:06:00.000-06:00

Today (11/14) we'll be meeting at Ryan's around 2:00 p.m. You don't have to eat if you don't want to, but if you choose to, don't forget to figure in an extra dollar or two for our server's tip. We'll be in the back room on the right (the front-side of the building).

We'll be discussing The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, and, if you would like, more on the Gnostics.

See you all then!

lunch

2007-11-09T15:11:00.000-06:00

I'd certainly like to get together again. I'm free after our class til 1 and after 3 on monday and wednsday. Fridays i'm busy til 4. tuesday and thursday i'm free all day. Just let me know...

2007-11-08T14:18:00.000-06:00

I missed class yesterday because I have a head cold, can anyone tell me what we should be reading for Monday. I am also up for meeting outside of class again. I have not eaten at Ryan's in awhile so I am not sure how the food tastes, but if everyone else is game, I am. I am free MWF after our class, TTH after 315 and anytime most weekends.

lunch

2007-11-08T12:44:00.000-06:00

I'd like to get together as we did before. The room sounds good and maybe we'd be able to talk more easily.

Suggestion

2007-11-07T15:06:00.000-06:00

I'd like to suggest another late-lunch meeting. Perhaps we could go to Ryan's and get one of the back rooms. It would be quiet and we would be able to face each other around a big table. I know some people don't like the food there--I've heard it called trough eating--but I love it!

What do you think?

Which day is best for you?

Hells yeah Jennifer!!

2007-11-07T12:59:00.000-06:00

I have to agree whole-heartedly with Jen. The sadistic cult should have a little morality when they protest. I must admit, that has to be the most absurd reason to protest...if they are just looking for something to protest, they might have better success arguing the effectiveness of gravity...that makes more sense than saying a person who was ordered to go to war is going to hell for following orders. I completely disagree with the argument...gravity is very effective.

Harmony of the Gospels

2007-11-07T11:18:00.000-06:00

I think it's funny to see that title because it implies that they are all in agreement. I won't expound right now because I don't have time, but the link is below.

Click here.

Click here for a more user-friendly version that allows you to click the verse references in order to read each account.

Finally, click here for the best study tool I have ever encountered. It's all free! Just download the program and add whatever modules you want! There are multiple translations, commentaries, dictionaries, atlases, language references, et cetera. You won't believe what all is available.

John and America

2007-11-06T13:05:00.001-06:00

I think Elliot makes a good point about how Jesus responds.

and on God and America--That church is the Westboro Baptist from Kansas. A few years ago, they were protesting here at a funeral in Greenhill.

"God Hates America"

2007-11-05T15:00:00.000-06:00

The other night I caught the tail end of a 20/20 episode about this church (cult in my opinion) in Kansas that went around the world protesting at the funerals of a war victims. How heartless and soulless can a person be to lead a protest at a funeral. I mean thier protest is ridiculous no matter where they do it but a funeral. Aperently they have never actually read the Bible or any other religious book if they think they are doing this for God or on God's behalf. They are claiming that God hates America, and that we are all going to hell because of homosexuality. They are teaching their children to sing songs that go ""Thank God for dead soldiers" "God hates fags." "God is your enemy," "God hates fag enablers." "God Hates America" to the tune of "God Bless America." " (Where's DHR when you really need them.)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21566280/ &
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/wireStory?id=3802376

Have more info. on the story. During the part of the program the son and daughter of the preacher were being interviewed and they were so angry at the questions and the logical points that were being made by the person doing the interview. I do not understand people. Nor the thoughts that go through their head. It also angers me that people who claim to be followers of God are so ignorant, agressive, and arrogant. How can anyone claim to know the mind of God. For anyone to say that they know for sure that a certain person or groups of person are going to hell is blashphmous. All I have to say to these people is if I am going to hell I will meet them there. Sorry this episode really angered me. I had gotten over my anger until I had to go back and look for the info. on it. Writing this really set me off. Our converstation at the end of class reminded me of it.

Miracles In John

2007-11-03T12:32:00.000-05:00

When reading John, I noticed that there seemed to be somewhat of a contradiction. At first, it seems as if Jesus is performing miracles to gain followers. He tells Nathanael that he will see "greater things than that." This came across to me like he was trying to prove his divinity to the people by the miracles he was performing. However, after the officer asks him to heal his son, he acts as if it is rude of him to do so. He says:
"Will none of you ever believe without seeing signs and portents?" (John 4:48)
It seemed to be somewhat of a contrast to the earlier instances.

The cosmic battle for heaven

2007-11-02T19:04:00.000-05:00

I've always wanted to comment about this topic because of my affinity for George Lucas and a few of his cohorts. After watching the new 'Star Wars' films for the first time since beginning this class, I began to notice the relation between the cult classic and religious stories. These similarities have been addressed before (by people much more educated on the subject than I), but I seem to be missing something....does Jesus play Luke Skywalker, or Anakin Skywalker? In the new movies, Anakin has no father...immaculate conception. However, during the original trio, Luke is always dressed in white--while he battles Darth Vader, a.k.a. Anakin Skywalker. I'm curious if the story writers neglected to pay attention to the fact Anakin would become the diabolical leader of the EVIL Empire or if Luke never 'manned-up' on his part of "The Chosen One"...My point in this little blab session is to prove people's poor attention span. If we as a species are supposedly 10 times more accomplished than the times that Jesus actually lived, then why are we overlooking simple details. Consider this....if a writer can lose the complete direction of a piece, then what could lead us to believe people in Biblical times were more aware???? Me confused.....

Even more on Matthew

2007-11-02T18:35:00.000-05:00

Jennifer- I understand your frustration about Matthew 5:27-30 (lustful eye, tear it out, fling it away). The next two verses scared the hell out of me when I was a little kid-

"They were told, 'A man who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of dismissal.' But what I tell you is this: If a man divorces his wife for any cause other than unchastity he involves her in adultery; and whoever marries her commits adultery."

My parents had each been divorced before they met each other and that verse made my 7-year-old-self hysterical.

Beginning in verse 21 of chapter 5, the author sets up a pattern in which Jesus reminds his audience of a particular Judaic law, then counters the old law with a newer one that seems more strict. I think, and again this is just my interpretation, that the second half of this chapter is really more about debunking the Pharisees than imparting new commandments. It emphasizes that the spirit of the law is more important than the letter of the law, and encourages the Jews to internalize the laws, which would make the Pharisees' role as spiritual law-enforcement less necessary.

I don't know if I'm making any sense, so I'll just stop here!

More on Matthew

2007-11-02T08:08:00.000-05:00

Amen Kellie! Especially for that last part. This was the first time I have ever read that line and I was shocked to read it. I now have ammo to use when people want to try and "parade" their version of Christianity in my face. I am all about having intellectual conversations on the subject but I really hate when people are so hell bent and determined to not listen to any argument and are constantly going "see here is what my religion has done" or "this is how much greater my interpretation of the bible is to yours." I have a big beef with Christianity because of this. I really do not believe a person should force their beliefs on anyone. I think it is a bit shameful at how far people in this world will go to force their interpretation of any religious text on another person.
I have a few other things to say about Matthew also. I am have a big problem with the section in Chapter 5 that states "If a man looks at a woman with a lustful eye, he has already committed adultry with her in his heart. If your right eye causes your downfall, tear it out and fling it away; it is better for you to lose one part of your body than for the whole of it to be thrown into hell. (Matt 5:28-29)" I do not know about anyone else but I cannot always control what I think. Hell sometimes I cannot control what comes out of my mouth let alone what pops into my head at any random moment. I find it hard to believe that I am going to be condemed for eternity for the things that I think. I cannot count the number of times I have looked over at Russell and thougth about strangling him (hahaha), or the number of times I have found some man or woman sexually attractive. I realize this is more information than most of you need about me but still they are real thoughts that pop into my head and for the most part pop back out just as quickly as they popped in, so no harm on foul. Besides just because I think about doing something does not mean I am going to go right out and do it. Now there is a good chance that if I think about saying something I say it before I can stop myself, which is why a good number of people think that I am a mean person. I also do not understand the cut out your eye or cut off your arm if it does you harm. You are in control of your body if your eye or arm does something YOU made it do it (unless you have some strange medical problem that causes you to do such things). I hope what is really meant here is if you are with people who do bad things or are in a situation where bad things are going to happen that you should get away from them or it.
To go back to the first part of that section again I noticed that in chapter 15 Jesus is claimed to have said "what comes out of the mouth has its origins in the heart. (Matt15:18)" I can kind of understand this but some of what I say and I think I really do not mean. I do not think I am as bad of a person as I it would appear by my thoughts that I am. Although I am not in the practice of coddling people therefore some of what I do think and say is true and needs to be thought and said. We lie to much these days to save other peoples feelings when we are really hurting them more, in the long run. than we are helping them. I had another two paragraphs or so here but I deleted them because I went into more of a rant than I really needed to got into. The above should be enough for anyone reading this to get where I am going with my thoughts.

2007-11-01T23:25:00.000-05:00

Before we move completely away from Matthew, I just wanted to talk about a few things that stuck out to me:

First, going back to the narrative in Exodus that explains the plagues in Egypt: In Exodus 7:5 the Lord says, "When I exert my power against Egypt and bring the Israelites out from there, then the Egyptians will know that I am the Lord." The Lord is saying that he is inflicting the Egyptians with these plagues just for the purpose of showing them his powers and that He is the one true God. This narrative came to mind when I read Matthew 8:23-27. It tells the narrative of Jesus and his disciples being in a boat on a lake when a great storm comes. Jesus is just sleeping and all the disciples are scared. They wake him up and he calls them all cowards and immediately stops the storm and calms the waters. It seems like Jesus performs this miraculous act just so the disciples will see his power and fully believe in him even more.

Also, In Matthew 9:27-31, Jesus heals a blind man just because the blind man had faith that he would be healed. But, when the healing was complete, Jesus sternly told him, "See that no one hears about this," like something shady has just taken place. Didn't Jesus come to heal the people and perform miracles and save the world? Why would He want one of His good deeds to be kept a secret? (By the way, the man went out anyway and told everybody he knew about Jesus healing him...)

Fianlly, I just wanted to point out one of the verses that has been very useful to me in the past. It is Matthew 6:1 - "Be careful not to parade your religion before others; if you do, no reward awaits you with your Father in heaven." Do people like Roy Moore just skip over this verse in the Bible? I used this verse in a persuasive speech I gave in the 11th grade against Roy Moore. That was about the time the whole "Ten Commandments" uproar was in full swing, and I thought the man was a fool for running around, actually saying that Christians rights were being trampled upon? Are you kidding me? I am a Christian and I never once have felt like my rights have been trampled on in this country. It was a political ploy. And whenever someone would say to me that what Roy Moore was doing was a noble thing, I'd throw Matthew 6:1 in there. (Sorry for the digression and mini-rant...)

Joey's vote

2007-10-30T14:10:00.000-05:00

I'm not opposed to it.

2007-10-30T13:45:00.001-05:00

I would like to create a link from our blog to our English dept. site. Is anyone opposed to this? Maybe these posts can be edited or changed if you are opposed to something you've said.

Tomorrow

2007-10-23T22:22:00.000-05:00

I won't be able to attend tomorrow's class. My wife is having some serious medical difficulty and I would like to be with her at the doctor. Her appointment is at 9:50 a.m. Keep us in your thoughts if you don't mind.

Thanks!

Justice and Wisdom

2007-10-23T18:54:00.000-05:00

Meant to post this last week, but I kinda forgot about it after saving it as a draft, anyway, here it is.

A British depiction of Lady Justice.

Statue outside the courthouse in Memphis, TN.

It should not be surprising that both Justice and Wisdom are given a female persona. The Egyptian concept of Ma'at was personified as a woman, and in Greek, Etrustcan, and later Roman mythology Wisdom is uniformly female. In ancient Greece, as i'm sure many of you are aware, Athena is the goddess of wisdom, and she is seen as independent of any male influence, given her lack of a husband or consort. Minerva was the Roman equivalent, and she likely derives her name from the Etruscan "Minrva," as the latin "mens," means mind. The Roman Minerva seems to be a merging of Athena and this Etruscan goddess.

Justice, likewise, has long held a female persona.

Judith Pictures

2007-10-21T15:04:00.001-05:00

I agree. I love the way the two women look as if they are doing normal every day things. I also love that the women are not stick figure barbies. As a heavy set woman, myself, I love that the artist portrays her as having a thick body and curves. In today's society she would have been painted as a stick figure Barby.

paintings

2007-10-21T10:32:00.000-05:00

thank you, candace, for posting those paintings! i love the one with the head in the basket because it looks like 2 women just doing daily chores and chit chatting and then there's that head!

Judith Paintings

2007-10-19T14:01:00.000-05:00

Here are some examples of artwork inspired by Judith. The top three were all painted by Artemisia Gentileschi, a pretty interesting character herself. On the bottom, the left artist is Michelangelo Caravaggio and the one to the right is Gustav Klimt.

god and gender

2007-10-18T13:26:00.000-05:00

On making us in his own likeness (as Pratik quotes)--

Of course, I read the creation story metaphorically, but if I were to read it literally, I don't see why we need to take the word "likeness" to mean "likeness in physical body". Even taken literally, the word is ambiguous because it doesn't follow with the kind of likeness.

~ Monday class: Idolatry ~

2007-10-16T22:24:00.000-05:00

I can understand when Candace says, "How can God be standing there?" God is invisible, shapeless, formless... He is the ultimate power! I agree with Dr Atkinson whether: "Can God be gendered? Can Wisdom be gendered?"

Ok, it is easy for me to see God in human form because that's how I've seen Him ever since. But Genesis 5:1 (Pg 15) claims God in the form of man:

"On the day when God created human beings he made them in his own likeness."

We look like humans, we look like God, God looks like us... So, doesn't God look like a human being then?!!

Women

2007-10-15T18:37:00.000-05:00

I noticed an interesting thing while reading The Wisdom of Solomon. We have discussed before that (and it is very prominent in the section this section) that Wisdom is feminine. In Ch 1 Justice is also female "will justice overlook him when she passes sentence(1.8)" but death is male "the godless by their deeds and words have asked death for his company. Thinking him their friend and pining for him . . . (1.16)." It is interesting to me that the compilers of the bible are so set on making women out to be sinful and beneath men but then they attribute good and positive things to being female and bad or negative things as male. Gender labeling things this way is probably another reason why this section was left out of the mainstream readings.

Responses to Anna Beth and Elliot; Inanna/Ishtar/Astarte and Astrological Parallelism in Job and Lamentations

2007-10-11T18:11:00.000-05:00

The reason that there aren't any references to women in the wisdom literature, aside from the vague passage in Proverbs 8, may be due to the fact that the authors were writing for an audience of men. This is also probably why there are numerous warnings about promiscuous women. Keeping in mind the misogynistic attitudes of the time period, few women were allowed to become literate, hence any writing that was done, was most likely intended exclusively for men. I'm certainly not advocating this practice, but it does make some sense of the lack of femininity.

In both these sections of our reading i found it interesting that a bear, lion, and hunter are mentioned together.

Job 38: 31 Can you bind the chains of the Plei'ades, or loose the cords of Orion? 32 Can you lead forth the Maz'zaroth² in their season, or can you guide the Bear¹ with its children? 33 Do you know the laws of the heavens? Can you set up God's³ dominion over the earth?...
37 Who has the wisdom to count the clouds? Who can tip over the water jars of the heavens 38 when the dust becomes hard and the clods of earth stick together? 39 "Do you hunt the prey for the lioness and satisfy the hunger of the lions 40 when they crouch in their dens or lie in wait in a thicket?

1) or Leo
2) alternate translations include morning star and zodiac
3) or their

Lamentations 3: 10 He is to me like a bear lying in wait, like a lion in hiding; 11 he led me off my way and tore me to pieces; he has made me desolate; 12 he bent his bow and set me as a mark for his arrow. 13 He drove into my heart the arrows of his quiver;

Bold=My Emphasis

These references are interesting because they seem to relate to astrology, which many Christians have come to view as an evil perversion of the hebrew zodiac, or Maz'zaroth. Also, neither the bear nor the lion are native to the Levant. This would lead me to believe that these actually are astrological references and not the author speaking extemporaneously. Further evidence of this is the equation of bear and lion in both passages.

The Job reference is quite obviously a bit of astrology, as it begins with the Pleiades, or 7 Sisters. This may also be where the theme of 7's originates. If one takes the "morning star" translation of the Job passage, this could be a reference to the Inanna/Ishtar/Astarte/et al. goddess, who were represented by the planet Venus. It is notable that Astarte was both the sister and consort (or according to some sources wife) of the Syro-Palestinian deity El. Also if one replaces "God's" with "their," as per the footnote, we have another reference to the curious Elohim. This makes it more likely that the speaker here is El as opposed to Yahweh, though the two had been somewhat merged by this point.

Another interpretation of the "their" footnote is that the pronoun is refering to the Maz'zaroth, or Semitic Zodiac. This would then be a very strange verse if it attributed power over the earth to the Zodiac. If this is to be the interpretation, the Lamentations passage could also be construed as meaning that these negative events happened due to some astrological alignment. I doubt there is any way to prove that for certain, but it is an interesting viewpoint from which to look at other seemingly odd sections.

It is also interesting that El equates himself with the astrological sign of Aquarius when he says "Who can tip over the water jars of the heavens." As the sign of aquarius is a man pouring out a jar of water. This may sound like a stretch, but given a series of previous anecdotes, I believe it makes sense. For more info about the Great Year and Great Months, or Ages, click here. First off there is the golden calf incident that occured at the earliest 2200-1800 BCE. This was around the end of the Age of Taurus(ca 4300-2150 BCE). After the Age of Taurus, we have the Age of Aires(ca 2150BCE-1CE). As you probably already know, Aires is represented as a ram.. During this period the blowing of the shofar, or Ram's horn, was involved in many a religious ceremony in Judaism. The horn of any animal can be used as long as it is not of a bovine, because of the golden calf incident. Also interesting are the variants of El, including El-Eyal and El-Ayil. Ayil and Eyal are related words in hebrew, the latter means "power" and the former means "ram." Then comes the Age of Pisces(ca 1CE-2150CE) represented by two fish. There is plenty of fish (the sign of pisces) imagery connected with Jesus, i.e. the two fisherman brothers Simon Peter and Andrew, the feeding of the multitude with 5 loaves of bread and two fish, Mat. 4:19 "Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men," etc... Furthermore, when asked (indirectly) about his return Jesus says "And He sent two of His disciples and said to them, "Go into the city, and a man will meet you carrying a pitcher of water; follow him; (Mark 14:13, Luke 22:11). Given all of this, and that the apocolyptic visions of Enoch, Daniel, and Revelation sound much more like the despotic El/Yahweh deity than the pacifistic Christ, I believe it is safe to assume that the apocolypse, or second coming, is merely a reference to the passing of the Age of Pisces and the coming Age of Aquarius.

As the Zodiac was most likely developed in Babylonia, it should not be surprising that it has quite a heavy influence on the local Levantine mythologies that conglomerated to form what is now the Judeo-Christian tradition. Also, many different cultures have mythologies that are heavily influenced by the zodiac. These seem to originate independently in different cultures as well, as Chinese, Mayan, and Near Eastern zodiacs all appear to have developed regardless of contact with each other.

Proverbs and Ecclesiastes

2007-10-11T13:39:00.000-05:00

When reading Proverbs, I noticed that one main theme continued to reoccur. Throughout the entire book, verse after verse seemed to say "watch out for promiscuous women."

For example, chapter 2, verses 16-18: "It will lead you from the adulteress, from the loose woman with her smooth words, who has forsaken the partner of her youth and forgotten the covenant of her God; for her house is the way down to death, and her course leads to the land of the dead"

There are many other verse almost identical to this example. (5:3-6, 7:10-27, etc.) I found it interesting that this one point was so dominate throughout the book. There were other points and themes within Proverbs, but I thought that this one really stood out since it was mentioned so many times.

Ecclesiastes also seemed to be centered around one or two main themes. I found that it seemed to be saying "wisdom before wealth," and "Pleasure and happiness is a direct result of God." As in Proverbs, there were many verses which mention these points in similar ways...many times even using repetition.

I know this might all be obvious to everyone as they read the books, but I just found it interesting that both of the books seemed to be centered around one or two main points, it is almost like they are both teachings, or sermons of some sort.

If Wisdom is personified as a woman....

2007-10-08T11:31:00.000-05:00

why are no real wise women found in the wisdom literature?

"After searching long without success: I have found one man in a thousand worthy to be called upright, but I have not found one woman among them all" - Ecclesiastes 7:28

(that makes me mad!)

I definitely think it's cool that Wisdom is personified as a woman in Proverbs... this seems radical, against the background of a text where women are only praised for their work as wives.

Responses

2007-10-08T07:52:00.000-05:00

I just thought I would add this picture to give us a little comic relief. It seems to summarize a lot of my feelings during this course! ha!

Noah - nice!

I don't know what to make of it all, but I love it. It's unbelievable how many traditions that can be found in the sediment of Christianity's stories.

Pratik - disturbing!

I don't think I've ever questioned the logic that you just spelled out, but it does support this picture of a god that wants to punish the very attributes it proclaims to have programmed in its subjects.

Candace - I'm floored!

I would love to work with someone to compile the canon of Wisdom. If she is the perfect entity of knowledge and, of course, wisdom, then I would rather be reading her book!

Wisdom as a Woman

2007-10-04T15:22:00.001-05:00

I've been reading the next article on the syllabus, "The Perspective of Wisdom", and came upon a reference to Proverbs. In the scripture, Wisdom is personified in feminine form. What interests me, is that she has her own voice. In it, she claims to have been the first creation of the Lord himself, as well as "his darling and delight" as he finished the rest of his labors.

The article goes on to discuss whether this appearance is a "personification" or "hypostatization". The definition of the second term sounds kind of like the shekinah of Jewish Kabbalah. The term originally referred to the "visible manifestation of the Divine Majesty" according to the OED, but in the tradition of some Jewish mystics it has come to be understood as the feminine aspect of divinity.

Interesting stuff.

~ Proverbs discussed in class ~

2007-10-04T15:13:00.000-05:00

I was goin through the proverbs we discussed in class and a particular sprang up @ me:

Folly is deep-rooted in the hearts of children; a good beating will drive it out of them.
(22:15 ~ Page 673)

So, who has deep rooted this 'folly' in the hearts of children ? God as the creator I guess?!! Then why the blame the children?? Besides the meaning of folly has been changed from 'Perilously or criminally foolish action, Evil; wickedness, Lewdness; lasciviousness' to 'A lack of good sense, understanding, or foresight; An act or instance of foolishness'. What is the modern reader supposed to interpret?! I'm studying this text so I took the trouble to find all definitions of 'folly' but I doubt an ordinary church-goer will find obsolete meanings on the OED!! He would rather bash his child up for lacking understanding. Moreover, it seems to encourage corporal punishment towards children rather than the non-corporal way!! I thought a child was associated with innocence. All my heart out to those unlucky children!!

Prophetic fulfillment, Marcionism, C.S. Lewis and Sol Invictus

2007-10-03T18:01:00.000-05:00

First off, thanks joey and kathryn.

As for Christ having no credibility in Marcionism, i'm only aware of one argument, and its a bit out there, but somewhat interesting. It could be considered an offshoot of C.S. Lewis' "true myth" concept. One could argue that Jesus was the concrete embodiment of any number, or the culmination of all of the "Solar Messiah" mythologies (or for this case, prophecies). Jesus shares many attributes with various sun-deities, most of which seem to originate in ancient Egypt. The Egyptian mythology (and hence most derivative mythologies) regarding the sun seems to derive from the sun's apparent movement around the time of the winter solstice. As the solstice (around Dec 21-22) approaches the sun moves further towards the south, and on the solstice it stops. During this solstice and for the following two days the sun's trajectory does not change. Around the 25th the sun's trajectory starts to move back towards the north, or rise. Here's a diagram to help explain:

the lower picture represents the most southerly path the sun takes, usually on the 21st or 22nd of December; the sun stays on this path for approximately 3 days.
This astrological phenomenon is where many of the death-rebirth sun-deity myths originate. This is also why many pre-Christian religions have festivals around Christmas, and certain sects within christianity reject the celebration of Christmas as tainted by paganism. The most notable of these is the Roman festival of Sol Invictus. This was a celebration worshipping several different sun deities that occured on Dec 25. Easter is also usually right around the vernal (spring) equinox for similar reasons, i.e. Spring being representative of the rebirth of the life which appears dead during the harsh winter, new beginnings, etc.

The occurrence of an actual event that was foretold in the sky and seeped into what could be considered a "Jung-ian" collective subconscious through various mythologies regarding the life enabling star could be considered to be fulfilled by the life and death of Jesus Christ.

However, given that many of the astro-&-theo-logical elements were very possibly added to the story of Jesus later, as opposed to being actual events, this argument has lots of holes that I can't logically patch up.

Like I said, its quite a stretch, and I certainly don't endorse this myself, but it is an interesting argument nonetheless.

More On Prophecy's Necessity

2007-10-01T21:27:00.000-05:00

Well, it seems to me that Jesus had only prophecy to support him because the Jews were already looking for a supposed messiah. If you read the gospels literally, his miracles also attest to validity, but that's a bit far-fetched. Let's just peruse the gospels using a skeptic's filter - the only logical and natural support is prophecy. If Marcion discounts the OT, and if miracles are a creation of later chroniclers, then Jesus has nothing more than a claim of fulfillment. Unfortunately, that, too, is empty because there would be nothing to fulfill.

Response to Noah and Joey

2007-10-01T09:07:00.000-05:00

Noah, I love the comparison you brought up concerning the verses in 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles. Yahweh's duality is a fascinating concept.

Joey, you mention that Jesus relies on prophesy to obtain credibilty. I guess I've never thought about where Christ's credibilty comes from, and instead took it for granted. However, I see exactly what you mean.

I just wanted to thank both of you for your posts as they've allowed me to consider new things.

Thanks!

Marcionism

2007-09-28T09:23:00.000-05:00

Okay, Noah, that was one of the best posts we've seen thus far. Nice stuff.

When you touch on Marcion of Sinope, I can't help but get excited because the era in which he lived (150 yrs. prior to 200 yrs. after) is the time that cranks my tractor!

The cool thing about Marcion is that most all we know of him comes from those who hated him. His main infraction was the recreation of a NT text that only contained the supposed words of Christ and the Pauline texts. He didn't reject the God of the OT, but he did see that God as a separate God from the NT's. The Catholic church, in its early stages, separated from him after his father excommunicated him for sexual sins. This religious ouctast was already in hot water by the time his rogue views found parchment.

This biggest problem with Marcionism is the lack of creedence given to supposed prophecy fulfillment. I don't have a clue what is true, but I do know that the only way for Jesus to have credibility as "savior" is through prophecy. The Jews who followed and the Gentiles who proselyted did so because of the supposed fulfillment of prophecy in the OT. If the two, Christianity and Judaism, are in staunch contrast, as Marcion believed, then Marcion would have to establish a new list of criteria for Jesus' validity. It's not that that can't be done, it's that Marcion didn't do it. That left Christianity, in Marcion's structure, as no better than any other religion that began in the 1st century of the Common Era. Obviously, that does not sit well with anyone who wants to view his/her belief system on a continuum that ascribes critical importance to every point and event.

Enough of my babbling. I'll save it for another class.

Again, nice post, Noah.

Different gods in the Old and New Testament?

2007-09-27T19:42:00.000-05:00

Throughout history this has been a bit of a hot topic. In the second century a major theologan named Marcion promoted this ideology. Of course he was denounced as a heretic by what later became the organized church. He was labelled as a Gnostic, though, I don't really think he fits that strict definition. Definitely a dualist though. He taught that Jesus was the savior, but that Christianity was distinct from and incompatible with Judaism. In Marcionism the true god had no previous interactions with mankind and sent Jesus to help free humans from the cruel and defective world created by the demiurge; the god of the Hebrew bible was considered a demiurge-type character and lesser than the god of Christianity. This aspect of his teachings was similar to gnosticism. The Gnostics considered Yaweh to be the creator, and therefore the de facto source of evil. This is not at all out of the realm of Judaic thought, as Yaweh is the source of all things good and bad for a large portion of the Old Testament. Take the following verses: Isaiah 45:7 - I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and CREATE DISASTER; I, YHWH (Yahweh), do all these things.

Lamentations 3:38 - Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and EVIL come?

Jeremiah 26:3 - It may be they will listen, and every one turn from his EVIL way, that I may repent of the EVIL which I intend to do to them because of their EVIL doings.

1 Kings 21:29 - Have you seen how Ahab has humbled himself before me? Because he has humbled himself before me, I will not bring the EVIL in his days; but in his son's days I will bring the EVIL upon his house.

Some people even think that Yahweh of the Old Testament, and Satan in the New Testament are the same character. This is somewhat in-line with the Gnostic philosophy of the material world and its creator being evil, and the new Testament god being the beacon of light and truth that can free mankind from this. This philosophy is actually based on one of the verses we read in class on Wednsday, as well as another in Chronicles:

2 Samuel 24:1 And again the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them, saying, Go, number Israel and Judah.

compared with the following:

1 Chronicles 21:1 And Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel.

Here it appears that Yahweh, and Ha Sheth'n, the accusing angel, or adversary, are doing the exact same thing, are the same character, are working together, or are different aspects of the same character. These certainly aren't the only interpretatons, but this is very interesting to think about. The chronicles verse also ascribes more power to Ha Sheth'n than is given him (or her) in other sections. Usually Yahweh has to approve of this character's actions (like in Job) or simply allow them. What do you guys think?

Dualism and Jesus as a Neo-Levite

2007-09-26T14:30:00.000-05:00

It seems like there's a tendency to view YHWH as egomaniacal and elitist in our OT readings. We've commonly referred to the incongruence of the death of the "stick-picker" and the lenience shown to David in the blatant census disobedience as examples of these traits in God. My question is a little early, in regards to the syllabus, but what are your thoughts on the possibility of two near-totally different gods represented in the Bible? The god of the OT seems to be an oppressive, prideful, even racist despot. The god in the NT is addressed by characters as if s/he/it is far away and unapproachable. In fact, Jesus seems to act in an almost priestly fashion by saying that no one can approach god without first approching him (Jesus). Maybe I am mis-reading, but that sounds a lot like the priest-speak that we read in the Pentateuch! I wonder if there's any study on a deuteronomic approach to the NT.

Also, has anyone checked out the first three words of 1 Maccabees?! I've not spent any time in the Maccabees so I'm pretty pumped to see that Alexander the Great is mentioned in the Bible. You Catholics get all the fun histories!

Get together?

2007-09-24T16:46:00.000-05:00

Hello all, sorry i've been unavailable for the past few days, but i'll be back in class on wed. I don't have class on tuesdays or thursdays, so those are good for me. Thursday I work in the writing center from 6-9 though. Monday and Friday I'm done with class at 2:50, but Wed. i have a night class from 6-8:45. See you guys soon.

Schedule

2007-09-24T09:07:00.000-05:00

My schedule is pretty open. Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday evenings after 5:30 pm are booked, but any other time should be workable for me.

Kathryn

Schedule

2007-09-24T08:53:00.000-05:00

My schedule is free throughout the week after our class, except for Friday's. I usually have to be at work around noon that day.

~ Article on Prophecies ~

2007-09-23T20:37:00.000-05:00

~ God canvassing for elections with all/mostly male supporters --is the idea that struck me while reading The Phenomenon of Prophecies. The conduct of leaders under constant speculation, the tug of power to institutionalise God as 'people of the Lord' and the nations conflict over the issue; sounds absurd to me! Looks as if people of those times had no inner voice to choose or distinguish on their own!! One followed and was expected to do so of whatever the 'power' said. The question of righteousness was not to be decided by the public. The following drew my attention:
"The canonical prophets had raised expectations of righteousness in their community and of fulfillment of the Lord's way in history that could not be realized in proximate and penultimate conditions and times." [Page 170*]

~ The second idea that came in my mind was God as the greatest example of patriarchal figure in the history of mankind. The story has a male God and mostly male servants/prophets!! Complete lack of women Gods (Goddesses). Why the gift of prophecy only to men? Women are subject to 'visions' but never chosen by God to deliver 'the vision' to others. Did God think women were incapable of influencing? Or is that a sexist attitude!!

Schedule

2007-09-23T20:28:00.000-05:00

I have to work on monday, and thrudsday. Other than that, I am available any other day/time.

schedule

2007-09-23T14:22:00.000-05:00

I am available on Friday, as well. I'll bring a change of clothes when I have to work.

Rebecca's schedule

2007-09-23T12:55:00.000-05:00

The only day I can't meet is Monday. I have a class from 1:00-2:50.

so far

2007-09-23T11:12:00.001-05:00

well m or f at 2 seems to be ok with the few responses--what about the rest of you?

Jennifer's Schedule

2007-09-22T20:53:00.000-05:00

I am free MWF anytime after our class and TTH after 3:15pm. Weekends are negotiable.

~ My preference ~

2007-09-22T17:19:00.001-05:00

I can do any day (Mon-Fri) after 14:00 hrs. Sorry Dr Atkinson, I've Dr Lott's class @ 13:00 hrs Mon & Fri. Hope 14:00 hrs is not too bad a time for you.

getting together

2007-09-22T15:40:00.000-05:00

remember that we were going to try to schedule our get together via the blog. so when is everyone or most able to be there? i can do monday and friday afternoon, beginning at 1.

Tick-Tock, The Prophetic Clock

2007-09-21T09:23:00.000-05:00

I'm sorry, first of all, for not commenting for so long. I read the prophecy article last night, and have a couple of comments. I know that the human race is bound and determined to destroy itself; almost like children on the playground feel the need to pick on the neighborhood dog. History shows that "everything that has a beginning, has an end." (The Oracle; The Matrix Revolutions) Ah movies...some of the greatest one-liners can be found in the mind of another. :)
In order to have faith in the idea that everyone has the same opportunity to survive after this life it is essential we have an idea of when, not just where, we will go post-mortem. Prophecy will rear its ugly head in the form of skeptics...followers...and people who think the world has lost the marbles that keep it spinning. When the marbles in the Chinese Checkers game have fallen off the board, the game must start over...with the loss of reality, and the foreclosure of the spot we have been promised has arrived...the time for prophecy will have ended. I truly believe the people of Earth should pay closer attention to the notion that, not only the text in which we develop our prophetic visions, but the physical evidence our own people has turned over could both have a necessary part in this golden dream we label as prophetic.

Prophets, Visions and Ghosts

2007-09-19T17:30:00.000-05:00

I find it interesting that at one point in time people relied on prophets and such to make religious and day to day decisions. I know so many people who are dead set against such things. They believe so emphatically that these sort of things are of the devil that it is hard for me to believe that at one point in time people of an extremely early Christian religion. Also, there are so many chase in the bible of people talking to angels and spirits but today people have a hard time believing other people when they have seen a ghost.

~ Response to Dr Atkinson ~

2007-09-18T23:39:00.000-05:00

Ruth as folktale, indeed seems so!! To me it also seems professing a hidden and known sub-culture among men: homosexuality, homoeroticism,...etc. Plus the interpretation of text can be quite individual because it is drawn from personal experience & knowledge, due to which the answers will always be overlapping.

~ Almighty brought misfortune?!! ~

2007-09-17T08:59:00.000-05:00

I found it interesting when Naomi passes the blame of her loss to God and tells that the "Almighty" has brought her misfortune. Rather than evaluating her deeds, which was likely for a person during that period to do; she buck backs it to the "Lord". "Its all Your fault" ~really interesting!!

Ruth and Custom

2007-09-17T08:05:00.000-05:00

How do you guys feel about the Jewish custom of levirate marriage or yibbum? The OED defines it as "the custom among the Jews and some other nations, by which the brother or next of kin to a deceased man was bound under certain circumstances to marry the widow". Essentially, its purpose was to keep the family name and line going. The first born son of the later union would still bear the deceased father's name and be entitled to all his property and/or possessions.

Keeping this custom in mind, you have to look at the story of Ruth a little differently. Apparently, Ruth is childless when she departs with Naomi from Moab. And her only brother-in-law dies alongside her husband. Her social status is pretty much nothing if she stays behind with the Moabites. She probably knows exactly what her options are when in comes to men in the community, and also the stigma of remaining un-remarried. Her best option is to try greener pastures. Ruth knows that her mother-in-law is returning to her "own country" where there are bound to be a few relatives to whom she could try and intiate the levirate custom. Why else would she rather die than leave Naomi's side? The Bible may try to sell Ruth as loyal, but I like to think she is just being practical.

Naomi was just as aware of the custom of levirate marriage as her daughter-in-law. She is the one that teaches Ruth to pimp herself out, giving her pretty exact instructions. Check out 3:1 through 3:16. Naomi knows the steps required in setting up the match between Boaz and Ruth. I think these steps, like rolling back the covering from the sleeping man's feet, must have been a part of the levirate custom. Otherwise, how would Naomi have been so sure of Boaz's reaction? As for Boaz, he does the right thing by marrying Ruth. He gets a smart wife and a nice chunk of land. Also, I think men could be punished for not carrying out this bizarre custom. But, I will have to research that some more.

~ Deity and Transcendent ~

2007-09-16T23:40:00.000-05:00

In the Deity article, Hayes refers the Deity to be considered both transcendent and immanent as per common theologies. I came across something in reference to this in the Message of Myth episode of Joseph Campbell where he says that popular myths are mere stories to search meaning and significance, to touch the eternal and understand the mysterious. Here is a picture of Lord Buddha which has 3 faces. So what does such a deity reveal?!! Campbell gives a satisfactory description saying that whenever one moves out of the transcendent one comes to the field of opposites: male/female, this/that, dark/light, dead/alive, good/evil, not/is, right/wrong, being/not being, past/future, peaceful/wrathful... According to him everything is dual in time and the middle refers to the radiance of eternity and the spilt refers to the spilt as in good and evil. Are myths/deities in myths clues to the spiritual potentialities of the human life of what we are cpable of knowing and experienceing within??!

Random Ruth Reflections

2007-09-16T20:40:00.000-05:00

Alright, not sure how to throw this radical observation out here on the internet, but here's my attempt:

Does Ruth appear mentally disabled to anyone else? I've never heard this theory, nor thought so myself until now. Then again, I've never read Ruth before, only learned that she was a strong woman and a heroine. Reading the story, however, she reminds me of some of the people I work with who have mental retardation and other mental handicaps. I know this is bogus, but her character seems very dependent and innocent to me. Little things gave me this image, like the way the Boaz wants to protect her from the men, and how she follows Naomi's orders to the letter. Even at the end, her baby is given to Naomi to raise.

I'm not sure of the implications of this way of reading it, or if anyone else can even imagine her this way. I just didn't picture the daring woman I'd heard about before. I think Naomi's character is much more admirable, as she leaves everything and everything she knows to follow her husband into a foreign land, where she births two sons, only to have them and their father die. She then journeys back to her home, where I assume any semblance of rights or power she had through her husband are now gone with his death.

Well, there it is... my blasphemous interpretation of one of the most celebrated woman of the Bible. Yeesh.

ruth

2007-09-16T15:28:00.000-05:00

Did anyone notice the line that Boaz says to Ruth (when she is in the field):
"I have told the men not to molest you."
It would seem that the men would do so had they not been told not to.

Ruth is like a folktale. What do you think the tale was supposed to teach?

Ruth and the reading for Friday

2007-09-14T22:00:00.000-05:00

I agree with Jennifer. I have always loved Ruth. As a character, she is the kind of woman I would want to write into my own stories. I am amazed at how brave she is to leave her home and her family and go live with her mother-in-law out of devotion and loyalty to her. I could never do that. And once she is in Naomi's homeland, she does what she's got to do for the good of Naomi and herself. And she gets one of the best men in town just because she's a great woman. Good for her! This really is a good story, and I too have wondered why it would paint a woman in such a positive and different light than other women. But whatever the reason, I'm glad this book is in the Bible.

Today's reading in 1 Samuel seemed in such a contrast. Here we have had this empowering story about Ruth and this awesome bond she has with Naomi, and then we have the two wives of Elkanah, Peninnah and Hannah... Gone is the friendship, the bond, the closeness. Granted, the two women are sleeping with the same man so naturally there will be tensions, but it's still sad to me to see these two womens' interactions (Peninnah tormenting Hannah for not having any children) after reading Ruth. However, Hannah is still a good woman because it takes a very strong woman to be able to give her one and only child (at the time) completely to the Lord. I was glad that after this the Lord blessed her with more children in place of Samuel so she would still get to be a mother.

The whole slaying of Eli and his family because they were messing up the offerings was a little out there for me. All that fuss over some raw meat... But, in general, I have a hard time understanding some of the customs in the Old Testament and the way God acts because it is in such contrast to what I have always known of God.

And I never knew the Ark of God had been lost or taken. Reminds me of Indiana Jones: Raiders of the Lost Ark!

Ruth

2007-09-14T15:19:00.000-05:00

I also agree. It does seem like Ruth is somewhat assertive to be a female figure in the Bible. Also, one thing I found interesting is that when Boaz is speaking to the "next-of-kin," there is mention of a strange custom I had never heard of.

"Now it used to be the custom when ratifying any transaction by which property was redeemed or transferred for a man to take off his sandal and give it to the other party; this was the form of attestation in Israel. Accordingly when the next-of-kin said to Boaz, 'you must take it over,' he drew off his sandal and handed it over." (verses 7-9)

I have never seen this anywhere else in the Bible. However, it could be a common practice mentioned, and I've just never noticed. I am curious to find out if there is any historical truth to this custom, and if it is mentioned anywhere else in the Bible.

Assertive Women

2007-09-14T13:02:00.000-05:00

I think I like Ruth more than any other woman that has been mentioned so far in the bible. She is assertive, loyal, and not afraid to get her hands dirty. She is a brave woman who is willing to leave her family to follow her mother-in-law into a strange land and religion. She is not afraid to work when she has too and when she finds a man that she wants she is not afraid to let him know. She is a woman to be admired and respected. Although, she is a better woman than I am when she gives her son to her mother-in-law. I am surprised that this is actually in the bible considering that pretty my all of the other women are so submissive. It seems that this story would undermined that kind of thinking. I know that she is still to an extent a piece of property but at least she is trying to take charge of her life.

Ruth and 1 Samuel

2007-09-14T12:12:00.000-05:00

The story of Ruth has always been one of my favorite Bible stories, too. I love that she is the celebrated hero: In Ruth 4:15, the women say to Naomi that Ruth "has proved better to you than seven sons," and I love that! Ruth has such a crazy-strong devotion to her mother-in-law (more important than her devotion to God, which seems to be just an aspect of being devoted to Naomi) and I wonder what made this relationship so important to the purpose of this story. To encourage women to be more devoted to their in-laws? That's unlikely because Orpah isn't criticized for going back to "to her people and her god" (Ruth 1:15).

I also noted a lot of the simplistic style in 1 Samuel that Kathryn saw in Ruth. Some of the stories are so silly - Eli thinking Hannah was drunk when she was praying; Samuel repeatedly thinking Eli was calling him when it was the Lord, Eli's sons referred to as "scoundrels;" and, what has to be one of the most bizarre stories in the entire Bible, the golden tumours and rats [what??]!

The story of Eli's sons was similar to that of Pharaoh to me: "They would not listen, however, to their father's rebuke, for the Lord meant to bring about their death" (1 Samuel 2:25). Just as He hardened Pharaoh's heart, He kept them from listening to their father's counsel? This has bothered me for years because it just doesn't mesh with most Christian theology of a God who loves and wants to save all of humanity. (Paul brings up the Pharaoh issue in Romans 9:14-23).

1 Samuel has so many cool things in it. My biggest question, though, is why did the Lord appoint them a king, knowing it was not the best thing for them? If they're His chosen people, shouldn't He want to "save" them?

Style in Ruth

2007-09-14T10:30:00.000-05:00

When I was a little kid I would read certain Bible stories instead of listening to the sermon in church. The Book of Ruth was always one of my favorites. Reading it again for the first time in years, I'm struck by the style the story was written in. It reminds me of a folktale-

Ruth 3:7-8"When Boaz had eaten and drunk, he felt at peace with the world and went and lay down to sleep at the far end of the heap of grain. Ruth came quietly, turned back the covering at his feet and lay down. About midnight the man woke with a start; he turned over, and there, lying at his feet, was a woman!"

The exclamation mark just makes it for me. It's no wonder I was drawn to it as a kid; the sentences are simple and the style is light and entertaining. Furthermore, it has none of those disturbing aspects (at least none that spring immediately to my mind) like most of the other things we've discussed- Sarai as a sister instead of a wife, Miriam's blight, etc. Anyway, those are my thoughts...

Kathryn

El & Elohim;

2007-09-13T19:32:00.000-05:00

El was the supreme god in Canaanite religion. The Canaanite (Ugaritic) religion borrowed heavily from its more powerful neighbors, so El may derive from a number of Sumerian or Akkadian gods. El was also know as El-Elyon, meaning God Most High, and later El Shaddai, meaning god of the mountain. El supposedly lived on Mount Saphon, hence the "El Shaddai," name. He was a member of the Ugaritic pantheon and was later equated with Yahweh in Exodus 6 v2-3. One of El's sons, Ba'al Hadad, slays a sea monster, Lotan or Lawtan, according to Ugaritic texts. This is very similar to Yaweh's fight with Levithian in Isaiah 27.

El is also used to refer to a foreign god in several other places.

The plural Elohim is a very curious considering the use of the singular El. I've been unable to find any other examples of a majestic plural in ancient hebrew, but that certainly doesn't mean they don't exist. If anyone knows anything else about this term I'd certainly be interested in where it may come from and what or who it originally refered to.

The most interesting bit of info I found regarding the term Elohim comes from Moses Maimonides in his Yad ha-Chazakah. Here Elohim is considered to be a class of angel, and not even a very high class of angel. This bit of info came from wikipedia though, so I'm not sure if its entirely accurate.

Here are a couple other websites that have useful information on this subject:
Encyclopedia Mythica
Jewish Encyclopedia

Never put that together.

2007-09-12T22:41:00.000-05:00

Thanks Anna Beth for the info about why the Jewish people stopped sacrificing. For some reason my brain never put two and two together. It should have been obvious but for some reason it never has.

Sacrifice, response to Anna Beth

2007-09-12T13:34:00.000-05:00

Jews today no longer offer sacrifices because they no longer have a proper place to do so. Yaweh is rather specific in his requests about where sacrifices can be offered, and the last place he specified was the temple in Jerusalem. When the Romans destroyed the temple around 70 C.E. the sacrificial rituals stopped, because offering a sacrifice improperly would be considered a sin. Orthodox Jews pray for the restoration of the temple in Jerusalem and the resumption of the rituals that were performed there. This includes the sacrifice. This may sound cruel, but since the either the preists or the family of the man offering the sacrifice normally eat the animal, and it is slaughtered in a manner similar to that which animals are slaughtered for food (the draining of the blood through the carotid artery) it wouldn't necessarilybe considered cruel or wasteful.

Currently there is a mosque on the site of the old temple in Jerusalem which prevents the re-building of the temple.

Also, the practice of tithing has its roots in Deut. and Genesis, so it wouldn't really be a mistake to read that concept onto sacrifice. It was also common practice for a landowner to collect a 10% fee from those farming his land. Similarly if one king aided another in battle, and the latter was victorious, the king who came to his assistance was entitled to a percentage of the spoil. This process could easily be applied to a deity as well.

repsonse to Jennifer

2007-09-12T12:51:00.000-05:00

I, too questioned why only Miriam was punished when Number 12:1 reads "Miriam and Aaron began to find fault with Moses." The Lord calls both of them out, but only diseases Miriam. Aaron actually says, "My lord, do not make us pay the penalty of sin..." (Numbers 12:11), even though he appears to be untouched. God's punishments seem so fickle. Abraham repeatedly lied about Sarah's not being his wife, and God wasn't angry with him at all; in Acts 5, Ananias and Sapphira lie and are struck dead. It frustrates me that there is no "standard."

I always think of sacrifices as the worshipers giving their best to God or the gods to show their dependence and trust that He or they would provide for them, in spite of what they gave up; but, I'm likely reading the later practice of "tithing" into that too much. As we talked about in class, animal sacrifices more realistically had a lot to do with feeding the priests.

I have a question: Why do Jews no longer offer animal sacrifices? I'm certainly glad that they don't, but if the reason why Christians don't is that Jesus was the "ultimate sacrifice," then what is the reason for the Jews? I'm sure there is a very elementary reason of which I'm not aware.

Miriam and Sacrifices

2007-09-11T18:40:00.000-05:00

Why was only Miriam punished and not Aaron. It clearly states that they both disagreed with Moses being married to a Cushite woman but God singles her out for punishment. Also someone explain to me the importance of sacrifices? Why would the gods want them? It is unsettling to know that these people gave up their best animals as sacrifices especcially in during a time when it is apparent that food was needed.

deities

2007-09-11T10:47:00.000-05:00

Yesterday I meant for us to talk some about the Deities article that we were supposed to discuss last Friday. But we got so into our discussion of law that it slipped my mind. Let's talk about the article some tomorrow; it is really interesting I think.

Azazel

2007-09-10T11:48:00.000-05:00

In the passages from Enoch that we read, Azazel was one of the angels who mated with women to spawn the Nephilim. He also taught men how to make weapons of iron and bronze and women the art of beautifying their bodies with jewelry, makeup, and hair dye. For this he is cast into a hole in the desert and chained there with jagged rocks put on top of him. Also Enoch says with regard to Azazel: "To him ascribe all sin." This is why the ceremonial placing of sins on a goat who is let either into the wilderness or more likely off a cliff to die may have something to do with Azazel. Notably an alternate translation for his name is scapegoat. He is also considered the personification of impurity.

He is also purportedly the leader of the Sei'irim, goat demons who haunt the desert to whom many primitive semitic tribes offered sacrifices. Since he also is mentioned in Mandæan, Sabean, and Arabian mythologies, he may partially derive from a Babylonian deity that was later degraded by the aforementioned peoples. In Islamic demonology his name is changed to Iblis, or despair.

According to the Dictionarre Infernal Azazel is the guardian of goats, and today, Sept. 10th, was the Jewish feast of Expiation, in which the lots were cast for the two goats and one is set into the wilderness.

The worship of Azazel was common among the semitic peopls as Jeroboam appointed preist for the Sei'irim, but since this practice supposedly involved the copulation of women with goats, all these places of worship were later destroyed by Josiah.

Given the combination of his goat like traits, his ascription of all sin, as well as his dwelling under jagged rocks in the desert, one can see how this somewhat strange ritual in Leviticus may have evolved.