A lady or two left the classroom during this discussion/lecture tangent in, as I perceived (biased as I am), denial. The tangent was original from a discussion on the Woman Caught in Adultery passage found in John 8:1-11. It had started off as a linguistic discussion on the Hebrew baraz translated into the English "caught" and a cross-referencing to Numbers 5:13. Apparently there are Rabbinical traditions that take this to be a physical catching. In other words, rape. We usually read it in our English equivalent of "to be caught"as the woman being "discovered in adultery."
The discussion turned, shortly, to adultery. The fact is, only a woman commits adultery. Biblically. A man is never spoken of as committing adultery. A man only commits adultery if he sleeps with another man's wife (Deuteronomy 22:22).
Go ahead. Look it up. I'll wait.
How many examples can you think of off the top of your head of men sleeping with women they aren't necessarily married to without any consequences? The rest of the context of Deuteronomy furthermore makes it clear the male preference. Especially verses 28-29. Keep in mind at this time it is common for a man to have multiple wives.
Furthermore, it was discussed in class that if a woman is raped, though she has not sinned, she is still considered adulterous. Again drawing from Deuteronomy 22 and other verses and examples she can not marry, she is not a virgin. How terrible for the woman!
With the Woman Caught in Adultery in John 8, notice there is no man present. Reread 22:22 and you'll see both the man and the woman must be stoned. Which rules out her being, as the English would render it, discovered in the act of adultery. So, she must have been raped and our physical rendering of "caught" must be applicable here. So, why are the religious leaders wishing to stone her? Probably because of the formulated tradition that a woman is an adulterous whether it is willing sex or forced sex. This isn't new. There are other nations who do not blame men for rape but the women. The question is, is this a right and good theology? Should we be basing our theology of adultery on the Bible?
I would not, that's for sure. And who's to say I can't have multiple husbands, but a man can have multiple wives? Well, that's another discussion.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Friday, February 26, 2010
Week 5.2 - Biblical type scenes
In Bible as Literature we have been discussing the construct of type-scenes as used in ancient and particularly biblical literature. English majors might enjoy this if I can articulate it well enough.
Basically, biblical literature often times fits into what are called type-scenes that have inherent expectations. A modern day comparison is Western movies. You have the sheriff of the town who is a great shot, the best. He comes into conflict with a criminal of some sort. They have a shoot-out, draw, whatever they call it. The sheriff wins due to his quick hand. We all know the tales! Furthermore, genres in general usually have their own type-scenes. Ever watched criminal sitcoms, or soap operas so often that you can tell what is going to happen? We know that she is going to fall in love with him before anyone else, we also know that he is not the killer because it's too early in the show and we know the real discover always happens at 7:52!!
Likewise, there are such conventions in Biblical literature, it seems, that would have been predictable to the audience reading it.
As discussed in class, there is the woman at the well type scene. What happens in these scenes is a journey into a foreign land, a meeting of a woman at a well, a drawing of water, a running of the woman, testimony of the woman to family, feast and betrothal of man to woman. Isaac met Rebekhah at a well, Jacob met Rachel, and Jesus met the Samaritan woman. Deviations are found in each, but deviations are put in place for a meaning, to make a point. When in a Western the sheriff is someone crippled, we know the story may follow the same conventions loosely but will be making a special point. Or if they find the murderer sooner, we know something else will be revealed later.
Taking type scenes to another stretch, we have this strange type scene in Genesis of lying. Abraham lies twice concerning Sarah being his sister to Pharoh, and then to Abimelech. We then see his son doing the same with his wife! (Genesis 12, 20, and 26) In each case, we have a further elaboration of the specifics. Why? To make a point.
I want to focus on Abraham and Sarah. Check out Genesis 12 and 20. Notice the basic framework: the telling of the lie/half truth, the "taking" of Sarah, the discovery (by different modes, compare with 26's discovery) of her married status, the plague upon the nation, the offerings for forgiveness/vindication.
Although the structure is fascinating, and there are many ethical issues here, there is a slight deviation and language issue that is even more interesting!!
12:15 "...was taken into Pharoh's house."
12:19 "... so that I took her as my wife"
Most of us have been taught to read this innocently. Sarah was taken into pharaoh's house, Pharaoh was shown that Sarah was actually Abraham's wife,, and Sarah was released. What we don't realize, is that we are imposing the facts found in 26 because we assume each account is the same, not stopping to read what is said.
It says she was "taken," which in Hebrew is a euphemism for a sexual taking.
Pharaoh explicitly says he took her as his wife.
Chapter 20 elaborates this story more, almost seeming to attempt to clarify the questions in the previous chapter (theologically) but literarily we can't help but notice the differences as meaning something!
Notice the repetitions in this account. We have a repeating of "take" in verse 2 and 3. Then we have the repetition of claims of innocence by Abimelech and we can't help but be reminded of our dear President Clinton "I did not have sex with that woman!" Why else would someone so emphatically claim his own innocence but by the fact that he is guilty? Even God in this passage says he has "done this" out of the cleanness of his hands, but done what?
Then notice Abimelech's address directly to Sarah, what man speaks directly to a woman in ancient times? We rarely see this in biblical accounts and here we have a king addressing her, saying that she is giving her husband money to vindicate her. Vindicate her for what?
And the clincher, immediately after this is chapter 21, the birth of Isaac.
=)
It seems here what should follow is a state address by Abimelech "I did have sex with that woman..."! By Abraham's treatment of Sarah, I think it's fair to assume he didn't like her much. Maybe she wasn't barren herself, but Abraham had some failings in performance with her. Stretch? I think not if you read these two stories. Doesn't it seem odd that this affair with Abimelech is immediately followed by Isaac's birth?
Basically, biblical literature often times fits into what are called type-scenes that have inherent expectations. A modern day comparison is Western movies. You have the sheriff of the town who is a great shot, the best. He comes into conflict with a criminal of some sort. They have a shoot-out, draw, whatever they call it. The sheriff wins due to his quick hand. We all know the tales! Furthermore, genres in general usually have their own type-scenes. Ever watched criminal sitcoms, or soap operas so often that you can tell what is going to happen? We know that she is going to fall in love with him before anyone else, we also know that he is not the killer because it's too early in the show and we know the real discover always happens at 7:52!!
Likewise, there are such conventions in Biblical literature, it seems, that would have been predictable to the audience reading it.
As discussed in class, there is the woman at the well type scene. What happens in these scenes is a journey into a foreign land, a meeting of a woman at a well, a drawing of water, a running of the woman, testimony of the woman to family, feast and betrothal of man to woman. Isaac met Rebekhah at a well, Jacob met Rachel, and Jesus met the Samaritan woman. Deviations are found in each, but deviations are put in place for a meaning, to make a point. When in a Western the sheriff is someone crippled, we know the story may follow the same conventions loosely but will be making a special point. Or if they find the murderer sooner, we know something else will be revealed later.
Taking type scenes to another stretch, we have this strange type scene in Genesis of lying. Abraham lies twice concerning Sarah being his sister to Pharoh, and then to Abimelech. We then see his son doing the same with his wife! (Genesis 12, 20, and 26) In each case, we have a further elaboration of the specifics. Why? To make a point.
I want to focus on Abraham and Sarah. Check out Genesis 12 and 20. Notice the basic framework: the telling of the lie/half truth, the "taking" of Sarah, the discovery (by different modes, compare with 26's discovery) of her married status, the plague upon the nation, the offerings for forgiveness/vindication.
Although the structure is fascinating, and there are many ethical issues here, there is a slight deviation and language issue that is even more interesting!!
12:15 "...was taken into Pharoh's house."
12:19 "... so that I took her as my wife"
Most of us have been taught to read this innocently. Sarah was taken into pharaoh's house, Pharaoh was shown that Sarah was actually Abraham's wife,, and Sarah was released. What we don't realize, is that we are imposing the facts found in 26 because we assume each account is the same, not stopping to read what is said.
It says she was "taken," which in Hebrew is a euphemism for a sexual taking.
Pharaoh explicitly says he took her as his wife.
Chapter 20 elaborates this story more, almost seeming to attempt to clarify the questions in the previous chapter (theologically) but literarily we can't help but notice the differences as meaning something!
Notice the repetitions in this account. We have a repeating of "take" in verse 2 and 3. Then we have the repetition of claims of innocence by Abimelech and we can't help but be reminded of our dear President Clinton "I did not have sex with that woman!" Why else would someone so emphatically claim his own innocence but by the fact that he is guilty? Even God in this passage says he has "done this" out of the cleanness of his hands, but done what?
Then notice Abimelech's address directly to Sarah, what man speaks directly to a woman in ancient times? We rarely see this in biblical accounts and here we have a king addressing her, saying that she is giving her husband money to vindicate her. Vindicate her for what?
And the clincher, immediately after this is chapter 21, the birth of Isaac.
=)
It seems here what should follow is a state address by Abimelech "I did have sex with that woman..."! By Abraham's treatment of Sarah, I think it's fair to assume he didn't like her much. Maybe she wasn't barren herself, but Abraham had some failings in performance with her. Stretch? I think not if you read these two stories. Doesn't it seem odd that this affair with Abimelech is immediately followed by Isaac's birth?
Monday, February 8, 2010
Week 2.4 Biblical Rape
Judges 19
If you have not, read it.
We discussed this class in Bible as Literature class and it was a surprisingly quiet session. I could tell this was the first time some of the students have ever seen this passage in their Bible. No one ever preaches it, that is for sure! So who can blame them for their silence?
The passage, as you can speaks of rape, murder, and gender differentiation.
I am in the process of asking Christians, through forum discussion and 1 on 1 to discuss this passage and its implications in the Bible for me. So I will update on the study if it bears fruit.
As a non-believer, I ask myself why is this passage in a holy and sacred book? The first, obvious answer is that the author is describing a historical event. This did in fact happen and the Levite did in fact cut up his concubine (alive?) and mail her pieces to the 12 tribes, and the 12 tribes did in fact go to war because of this display and event.
However. The event and actions of the Levite speak so much more, ojectively and textually than just a historical fact. It speaks of cultural traditions. For one, we know that in middle eastern societies, even to this day, people have the social demand that if a stranger comes to your town, you must offer him your hospitality for 3 days. So we know that the person who invited in the Levite was exhibiting a social duty. We also know that he of course would protect him against any attackers coming to his door.
But is not the Levite's concubine also a guest? Is not she also protected?
Apparently not. Which is where the problem begins. Why is the woman tossed out, a guest, and the guest's concubine? The host knew what these men were going to do, rape her. He also knew they had evil intents and would probably cause her deadly harm, besides the initial trauma of being gang raped. Yet he threw her out to them to be their toy all night. What does this say?
A lot. Now what does this say to someone who believes that the Bible is the guidebook for humanity? How does someone rationalize God's silence in a book that is supposedly the Word of God?
Reactions I gleaned from the class discussion? My professor said the first time she read it was when a friend of hers, who had been raped, read this passage for the first time and called her weeping and asking her "why is this in the Bible???" My professor said, shocked, she opened her bible and read it for her first time. She also wept. She didn't have an answer then, and doesn't have an answer now.
If you have not, read it.
We discussed this class in Bible as Literature class and it was a surprisingly quiet session. I could tell this was the first time some of the students have ever seen this passage in their Bible. No one ever preaches it, that is for sure! So who can blame them for their silence?
The passage, as you can speaks of rape, murder, and gender differentiation.
I am in the process of asking Christians, through forum discussion and 1 on 1 to discuss this passage and its implications in the Bible for me. So I will update on the study if it bears fruit.
As a non-believer, I ask myself why is this passage in a holy and sacred book? The first, obvious answer is that the author is describing a historical event. This did in fact happen and the Levite did in fact cut up his concubine (alive?) and mail her pieces to the 12 tribes, and the 12 tribes did in fact go to war because of this display and event.
However. The event and actions of the Levite speak so much more, ojectively and textually than just a historical fact. It speaks of cultural traditions. For one, we know that in middle eastern societies, even to this day, people have the social demand that if a stranger comes to your town, you must offer him your hospitality for 3 days. So we know that the person who invited in the Levite was exhibiting a social duty. We also know that he of course would protect him against any attackers coming to his door.
But is not the Levite's concubine also a guest? Is not she also protected?
Apparently not. Which is where the problem begins. Why is the woman tossed out, a guest, and the guest's concubine? The host knew what these men were going to do, rape her. He also knew they had evil intents and would probably cause her deadly harm, besides the initial trauma of being gang raped. Yet he threw her out to them to be their toy all night. What does this say?
A lot. Now what does this say to someone who believes that the Bible is the guidebook for humanity? How does someone rationalize God's silence in a book that is supposedly the Word of God?
Reactions I gleaned from the class discussion? My professor said the first time she read it was when a friend of hers, who had been raped, read this passage for the first time and called her weeping and asking her "why is this in the Bible???" My professor said, shocked, she opened her bible and read it for her first time. She also wept. She didn't have an answer then, and doesn't have an answer now.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Belief and Spiritual Atheism
Wittgenstein taught that the term "I believe" did not convey anything and was in itself meaningless. What does belief add?
His example: When you say "I believe it will rain" is it not the same as saying "it will rain"? For you state to state it, it must follow that you believed what you just stated to be true.
This seems to make tremendous philosophical sense. Practically, why do we use "belief" terminology? Perhaps because of religious texts that push "faith," believing in what can not be substantiated/seen. So the article of faith demands a person use the precursor "I believe." For if you believe in something that can not be found to be true, for example, again, "It will rain today" you are making a statement that can be validated. (I added "today" simply because if you do not put a timeframe on the statement, it elongates my argument's point.) Either it will rain today, or it will not. Thus, you are either making a true or false statement. Belief is neither true, nor false. Although certainly we can say belief can be grounded, or absurd!
However, when it comes to God, we also encounter the issue of existence. Which... well I would suppose will have to be left to another post because it's another deal all together. But basically, if someone can give a definition of that thing which exists, we can then seek to find that thing! But people make God such an incomprehensible concept, that the discussion is meaningless. I can not substantiate whether X is true if you don't tell me what X is! Especially if there are other incomprehensible variables in the equation. You can have one X in an equation, and most of the times solve it, but only if you can provide an equation that can be solved.
Which leads to my personal application of this information and the issue of spiritual atheism. Is it feasible? The latest book I read, "Atheism: The Case Against God" by George H. Smith boiled down Atheism to its core: lack of theistic belief. Since then, I have born the label. But I wonder, is this misleading? Certainly, many bear many titles and do not fit the supposed mold! But is it acceptibile? Can one be open, and be an atheist? Can one be open, and be a Christian? I frown upon the label of agnosticism for many reasons, so I will not address that supposed "middle-ground" here, but can the title of Atheism fit someone as I who is open to God existing, just makes the decision not to believe in it?
Going back to the issue of belief, why state belief in something that can not be validated? Thus, a*theism for me.
But I wonder, can the concept of God be discussed philosophically in his existence's favor? I pondered this in class, as our professor offered himself as an example of one venturing into the philosophical world as someone who can "bring something new to the table as a Christian." I couldn't help but wonder, just how he goes about philosophically supporting this God's existence without completely stripping it of all understandable definitions and thus, return back to the prior point.
Unless.
Belief is a decision? Hence our created, emotionally-wired word "faith." If faith a choice? Is faith a logical choice? Or is it absurd?
His example: When you say "I believe it will rain" is it not the same as saying "it will rain"? For you state to state it, it must follow that you believed what you just stated to be true.
This seems to make tremendous philosophical sense. Practically, why do we use "belief" terminology? Perhaps because of religious texts that push "faith," believing in what can not be substantiated/seen. So the article of faith demands a person use the precursor "I believe." For if you believe in something that can not be found to be true, for example, again, "It will rain today" you are making a statement that can be validated. (I added "today" simply because if you do not put a timeframe on the statement, it elongates my argument's point.) Either it will rain today, or it will not. Thus, you are either making a true or false statement. Belief is neither true, nor false. Although certainly we can say belief can be grounded, or absurd!
However, when it comes to God, we also encounter the issue of existence. Which... well I would suppose will have to be left to another post because it's another deal all together. But basically, if someone can give a definition of that thing which exists, we can then seek to find that thing! But people make God such an incomprehensible concept, that the discussion is meaningless. I can not substantiate whether X is true if you don't tell me what X is! Especially if there are other incomprehensible variables in the equation. You can have one X in an equation, and most of the times solve it, but only if you can provide an equation that can be solved.
Which leads to my personal application of this information and the issue of spiritual atheism. Is it feasible? The latest book I read, "Atheism: The Case Against God" by George H. Smith boiled down Atheism to its core: lack of theistic belief. Since then, I have born the label. But I wonder, is this misleading? Certainly, many bear many titles and do not fit the supposed mold! But is it acceptibile? Can one be open, and be an atheist? Can one be open, and be a Christian? I frown upon the label of agnosticism for many reasons, so I will not address that supposed "middle-ground" here, but can the title of Atheism fit someone as I who is open to God existing, just makes the decision not to believe in it?
Going back to the issue of belief, why state belief in something that can not be validated? Thus, a*theism for me.
But I wonder, can the concept of God be discussed philosophically in his existence's favor? I pondered this in class, as our professor offered himself as an example of one venturing into the philosophical world as someone who can "bring something new to the table as a Christian." I couldn't help but wonder, just how he goes about philosophically supporting this God's existence without completely stripping it of all understandable definitions and thus, return back to the prior point.
Unless.
Belief is a decision? Hence our created, emotionally-wired word "faith." If faith a choice? Is faith a logical choice? Or is it absurd?
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Week 2 - Bible and philosophy
I began my philosophy class with a friendly discussion among students. We had a good amount of time before our professor showed up, so we turned to each other to get the philosophical ball rolling.
I can not recall the exact question. The religious studies major first voiced his position through the lenses of his field, turned to the business major for his interpretation, and then to myself as the "theologian." It was fascinating to be in such a mutual learning environment! All I remember about the topic was what I shared, I think it was surrounding the Atheist and how he can believing in an incomprehensible universe. Something like that. My response, again, as the theologian, was that "doesn't the theologian (notice my objectivity! I craftily avoid proclaiming my stance..) believe in an incomprehensible God?"
So class begun shortly thereafter. We delved into all the problems with religion. From the problem of evil, to the problem with Arminianism and the fact that if God is omniscient, we have no free will.
After this, in facing all the problems with God head on, our professor clarified and said "now we cannot take off our glasses." In other words, we look at all this through Christian lenses and do not remove them. So although we realize none of this makes sense, we still believe in our God.
So I asked myself. Is it that simple? Is faith really just a matter of wearing glasses? What about me, have I taken the glasses off? If so, can the glasses be put back on? Would I see God clearer through these lenses? The ultimate question: Can I face the fact that none of it makes sense, and still believe?
Certainly, if we destroy all of our doctrines, we simply strip God of human definitions, do we not? We do not actually destroy the possibility of his/its existence.
But then what would I be believing in? If it is devoid of the capacity to define it, can I still call myself a Christian? Although, naturally, the Christian believes in more than God, the Chrsitian believes in the Bible and in Jesus, which is embeded in those glasses.
Which leads to the next class, and next thought process:
If the Bible can be found to be true, does Atheism fall apart?
I have though long and hard (*giggle* long and hard...) about this and have not come to a consensus.
For one, can the Bible be proven to be true? I recall lists that can easily be found on the internet of "problems with the Bible." But every time I go to my classes, the Bible makes more and more sense. The questions are explained, it it suddenly makes contextual sense. So what if all those problems can be answered with reasonable, contextual, critical analysis? Would it be true? Just what does it take to prove something like the Bible as true?
Furthermore, if I can find the Bible to be true, can I again accept Jesus? Can I make that step? Can I intellectually grab a hold of the concept that I am a sinner although I find such a doctrine as absolutely repulsive? Can I wrap my arms around the fact that I must accept this man, Jesus, who lived 2000 years ago as my "savior" (from what, I don't know) from whom I am granted access into the afterlife?
Even further, do I have to? Well, the Bible says that if I do not, I burn. So I have no choice if I find it to be true. But I wonder if I have the capacity? It makes no sense to me, but many things don't make sense and are true. I look at the platypus for example and think... well that's just odd! It doesn't make sense to me and is, to me, the strangest creature to be found. But it is real.
Then again, my use of "sense" is not congruent with logic!
So can the Bible make logical sense? I wonder!
I can not recall the exact question. The religious studies major first voiced his position through the lenses of his field, turned to the business major for his interpretation, and then to myself as the "theologian." It was fascinating to be in such a mutual learning environment! All I remember about the topic was what I shared, I think it was surrounding the Atheist and how he can believing in an incomprehensible universe. Something like that. My response, again, as the theologian, was that "doesn't the theologian (notice my objectivity! I craftily avoid proclaiming my stance..) believe in an incomprehensible God?"
So class begun shortly thereafter. We delved into all the problems with religion. From the problem of evil, to the problem with Arminianism and the fact that if God is omniscient, we have no free will.
After this, in facing all the problems with God head on, our professor clarified and said "now we cannot take off our glasses." In other words, we look at all this through Christian lenses and do not remove them. So although we realize none of this makes sense, we still believe in our God.
So I asked myself. Is it that simple? Is faith really just a matter of wearing glasses? What about me, have I taken the glasses off? If so, can the glasses be put back on? Would I see God clearer through these lenses? The ultimate question: Can I face the fact that none of it makes sense, and still believe?
Certainly, if we destroy all of our doctrines, we simply strip God of human definitions, do we not? We do not actually destroy the possibility of his/its existence.
But then what would I be believing in? If it is devoid of the capacity to define it, can I still call myself a Christian? Although, naturally, the Christian believes in more than God, the Chrsitian believes in the Bible and in Jesus, which is embeded in those glasses.
Which leads to the next class, and next thought process:
If the Bible can be found to be true, does Atheism fall apart?
I have though long and hard (*giggle* long and hard...) about this and have not come to a consensus.
For one, can the Bible be proven to be true? I recall lists that can easily be found on the internet of "problems with the Bible." But every time I go to my classes, the Bible makes more and more sense. The questions are explained, it it suddenly makes contextual sense. So what if all those problems can be answered with reasonable, contextual, critical analysis? Would it be true? Just what does it take to prove something like the Bible as true?
Furthermore, if I can find the Bible to be true, can I again accept Jesus? Can I make that step? Can I intellectually grab a hold of the concept that I am a sinner although I find such a doctrine as absolutely repulsive? Can I wrap my arms around the fact that I must accept this man, Jesus, who lived 2000 years ago as my "savior" (from what, I don't know) from whom I am granted access into the afterlife?
Even further, do I have to? Well, the Bible says that if I do not, I burn. So I have no choice if I find it to be true. But I wonder if I have the capacity? It makes no sense to me, but many things don't make sense and are true. I look at the platypus for example and think... well that's just odd! It doesn't make sense to me and is, to me, the strangest creature to be found. But it is real.
Then again, my use of "sense" is not congruent with logic!
So can the Bible make logical sense? I wonder!
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Week 1.3 - Hallway oddities classrom absurdities
Walking through the hallways today in college, I came across three separate occasions of group prayers. As a christian, seeing such interactions were heart-warming. Objectively? They're comparable to an insane asylum, honestly.
Two in particular stood out to me and made me walk quicker to my classroom. The third was quiet in nature between two people just holding hands and murmuring with their eyes closed.
The first two consisting of people screaming, mostly in what evangelicals call "tongues" (a christian language that even they do not understand but the spirit of God utters through them). It was passionate, and kind of frightening in a sense.
The second encounter was one man, in the hallway, standing in a corner crying and screaming "Help me Jesus!" and someone or another, some specific request to Jesus to help him understand something.
Now I'm not one to objectify people's personal experiences. But this was in public, and Christian college or not... odd and strange, and raised eyebrows from me at least.
Classroom absurdities? I have two words: Pat Robertson.
This Haitian man, whose working as the Teacher's Assistant, uttered the fatal words "pact with devil." I lost it. Asked him his sources, informed him that no, 90% of Haiti does not practice voodoo, but is actually Catholic. He insisted it was "history" (this vacuous title) and then did what every Christian does: make jabs at Catholicism as idolatrous in nature and having actually "synchronized" with voodoo. In other words, claim they are Catholic but actually practice voodoo.
*sigh*
But I have much else to share. Philosophy of Religion class: Excellent. Will reflect on that in a soon to follow post. I have "The Bible as Literature" in 10 minutes which is actually being held in the Teacher's lounge!
Two in particular stood out to me and made me walk quicker to my classroom. The third was quiet in nature between two people just holding hands and murmuring with their eyes closed.
The first two consisting of people screaming, mostly in what evangelicals call "tongues" (a christian language that even they do not understand but the spirit of God utters through them). It was passionate, and kind of frightening in a sense.
The second encounter was one man, in the hallway, standing in a corner crying and screaming "Help me Jesus!" and someone or another, some specific request to Jesus to help him understand something.
Now I'm not one to objectify people's personal experiences. But this was in public, and Christian college or not... odd and strange, and raised eyebrows from me at least.
Classroom absurdities? I have two words: Pat Robertson.
This Haitian man, whose working as the Teacher's Assistant, uttered the fatal words "pact with devil." I lost it. Asked him his sources, informed him that no, 90% of Haiti does not practice voodoo, but is actually Catholic. He insisted it was "history" (this vacuous title) and then did what every Christian does: make jabs at Catholicism as idolatrous in nature and having actually "synchronized" with voodoo. In other words, claim they are Catholic but actually practice voodoo.
*sigh*
But I have much else to share. Philosophy of Religion class: Excellent. Will reflect on that in a soon to follow post. I have "The Bible as Literature" in 10 minutes which is actually being held in the Teacher's lounge!
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Week 1.1 - First day of class
I had a moment where I seriously got a nauseating "what the fuck have I done?" reaction. I seriously almost broke down back into faith. I mean... I saw all my friends, liberal and conservative and just... felt sick having to save face and hide my disbeliefs.
And then class was just... it was awesome. It reminded me of my former passion for the Bible. It brought up those deep brainwashed ideas that "The Bible is canon! The Bible is canon! It's God breathed!" etc etc.
So when I asked the usual Atheist's problem with Luke 1-
"How do you respond to those who say "virgin" in the Greek is a complete mistranslation of the Hebrew "almah" in Isaiah from which the gospel writers are supposedly writing to say Jesus fulfilled this verse?"
...and actually got an answer I did not expect? An answer that showed there was former Jewish tradition of Melchizedek being born of a virgin? That this MAY have actually been a real Jewish expectation and not a mistranslation?
I almost lost it. I felt sick.
I still feel kinda sick. I've been schooled, man. Which is maybe why I knew, deep down I just new that I had to go back to this college.
But I'm trying to hold my own. I sat on the bus really thinking and had to ask myself "why should the Bible be the only true account of God?" "What makes you think God, if he exists, would fit this mold?" "What of your other problems with the bible (infanticide, genocide)?"
And I still know I'm going to stay in my disbeliefs. I can by no means just jump back! That's for certain. It's be taking on a butt-load of doctrines I can't accept.
Maybe I have to start reconstructing? Maybe I'm at the last stage, like Descartes was, when all he could say is "I think, therefore I am" and then reconstructed his faith from scratch? I dunno if I'm there yet... but I have a feeling this semester is going to deeply impact me. (Atheists out there, help my shock!)
For anyone interested:
I didn't find the source yet, but apparently the myth of Melchizedek says that his mother came to his father with news of a miraculous pregnancy. The father accused her of infidelity and had her stoned (or whatever, killed). As she dropped to the floor, out popped Melchizedek.... prophesying!! His father picked him up, and raised him.
Hence why Hebrews says "he was born without a mother, nor father." He had no father due to miraculous birth, and his mother was dead. Ever question why Hebrews said this when the Bible said nothing of it? Now you know.
Also with John the Baptist being Elijah, someone questioned if the Jews expected a physical return of Elijah himself. The answer was no. To seal the deal, he gave the example of how to this day, Jewish fathers place their just circumcised sons on the "seat of Elijah" with the hope that "this one will be he!"
4 classes to go, including philosophy of religion which will probably jolt me back to my senses.
And then class was just... it was awesome. It reminded me of my former passion for the Bible. It brought up those deep brainwashed ideas that "The Bible is canon! The Bible is canon! It's God breathed!" etc etc.
So when I asked the usual Atheist's problem with Luke 1-
"How do you respond to those who say "virgin" in the Greek is a complete mistranslation of the Hebrew "almah" in Isaiah from which the gospel writers are supposedly writing to say Jesus fulfilled this verse?"
...and actually got an answer I did not expect? An answer that showed there was former Jewish tradition of Melchizedek being born of a virgin? That this MAY have actually been a real Jewish expectation and not a mistranslation?
I almost lost it. I felt sick.
I still feel kinda sick. I've been schooled, man. Which is maybe why I knew, deep down I just new that I had to go back to this college.
But I'm trying to hold my own. I sat on the bus really thinking and had to ask myself "why should the Bible be the only true account of God?" "What makes you think God, if he exists, would fit this mold?" "What of your other problems with the bible (infanticide, genocide)?"
And I still know I'm going to stay in my disbeliefs. I can by no means just jump back! That's for certain. It's be taking on a butt-load of doctrines I can't accept.
Maybe I have to start reconstructing? Maybe I'm at the last stage, like Descartes was, when all he could say is "I think, therefore I am" and then reconstructed his faith from scratch? I dunno if I'm there yet... but I have a feeling this semester is going to deeply impact me. (Atheists out there, help my shock!)
For anyone interested:
I didn't find the source yet, but apparently the myth of Melchizedek says that his mother came to his father with news of a miraculous pregnancy. The father accused her of infidelity and had her stoned (or whatever, killed). As she dropped to the floor, out popped Melchizedek.... prophesying!! His father picked him up, and raised him.
Hence why Hebrews says "he was born without a mother, nor father." He had no father due to miraculous birth, and his mother was dead. Ever question why Hebrews said this when the Bible said nothing of it? Now you know.
Also with John the Baptist being Elijah, someone questioned if the Jews expected a physical return of Elijah himself. The answer was no. To seal the deal, he gave the example of how to this day, Jewish fathers place their just circumcised sons on the "seat of Elijah" with the hope that "this one will be he!"
4 classes to go, including philosophy of religion which will probably jolt me back to my senses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
