Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Birkat HaChamah
Blessed are you, Lord our God, ruler of the universe, who does the work of creation.
Friday, May 16, 2008
1st Kings 17-20
1st Kings 17-20
So now we’ve reached the Jezebel and Ahab versus Elijah story. And I bet you’re guessing what my opinions on this will be, but you’re probably going to be wrong.
Jezebel is probably the second of two of the “Bad Girls of the Bible” who actually deserves the “evil” label. I would dearly love to sympathize with her, because she was supposed to be a devotee of my goddess but that’s partly why I feel that what she did was just so much *worse*.
Jezebel is a “foreign” queen, of Phoenician extraction, a devotee of Asherah and Baal (who were not Phoenician gods but either the writer is confused or the cultures had started blurring together anyway). She begins persecuting the prophet Elijah when he objects to her religion.
Proselytizing monotheists are expected. So expected, that we get used to them and just assume all monotheists are like that and make them work to prove they’re not (for example, the popular tendency to think the Biblical Hebrews approached interfaith dialogue the same way medieval European Christians did). There is a definite tendency these days to convince ourselves that polytheists and pagans never have done or will do, that sort of thing. Which is not exactly true. Especially not in the days when paganism was the global norm and monotheistic Judaism was the aberration. Jezebel is not an oppressed outsider here. The problem was that she was in a position to force her beliefs on the nation and she did so, causing things to get very…unpleasant and bloody.
Jezebel and Women in Power
Because “Jezebel” has been used for centuries to denote any woman who strays from her culture’s rules about appropriate behavior for women, it overshadows the fact that the actual character of Queen Jezebel might have actually done the things she’s accused of doing.
The ultimate in sexual equality is admitting that women can fall prey to all the same power trips and bloodthirsty desire for dominance, death and destruction that men do. Anyone who actually thinks the only thing we need to fix the world is put women in charge has never been heavily involved in any school or organization comprised mostly of women. I think that maybe they never went to junior high or had a sister, either.
The point of feminism is not that women are better than men, it’s that they are equal. And being equal means an equal chance to be cruel or evil. Because we’re not pristine angels or alien beings. I don’t know about anyone else (actually, I do, because I’ve been in fandom eight years) but I have some pretty appallingly sick stuff I carry around in my head. The stuff I post for public consumption is just the stuff I consider appropriate to share.
Yeah.
It’s been so long since Goddess worship had any power that people often forget that there is not only such a thing as a Dark Goddess but a goddess who is both dark and light at various times. I am under no illusions that this particular goddess is always peaceful, gentle, and non violent. In this story, God and Goddess are having a little lover’s squabble, hurling the supernatural china at each other and tossing each other’s stuff out on the lawn. Everything that is said here is said in the heat of the moment and will be regretted later.
Jezebel, however, takes it all too far and finds out that…well, you’ll see.
The Goddess is not Cosmic Barbie. The Dove is the symbol of The Great Middle Eastern Mother Goddess but so is the Lioness. And sometimes, we are the unsuspecting zebras.
So now we’ve reached the Jezebel and Ahab versus Elijah story. And I bet you’re guessing what my opinions on this will be, but you’re probably going to be wrong.
Jezebel is probably the second of two of the “Bad Girls of the Bible” who actually deserves the “evil” label. I would dearly love to sympathize with her, because she was supposed to be a devotee of my goddess but that’s partly why I feel that what she did was just so much *worse*.
Jezebel is a “foreign” queen, of Phoenician extraction, a devotee of Asherah and Baal (who were not Phoenician gods but either the writer is confused or the cultures had started blurring together anyway). She begins persecuting the prophet Elijah when he objects to her religion.
Proselytizing monotheists are expected. So expected, that we get used to them and just assume all monotheists are like that and make them work to prove they’re not (for example, the popular tendency to think the Biblical Hebrews approached interfaith dialogue the same way medieval European Christians did). There is a definite tendency these days to convince ourselves that polytheists and pagans never have done or will do, that sort of thing. Which is not exactly true. Especially not in the days when paganism was the global norm and monotheistic Judaism was the aberration. Jezebel is not an oppressed outsider here. The problem was that she was in a position to force her beliefs on the nation and she did so, causing things to get very…unpleasant and bloody.
Jezebel and Women in Power
Because “Jezebel” has been used for centuries to denote any woman who strays from her culture’s rules about appropriate behavior for women, it overshadows the fact that the actual character of Queen Jezebel might have actually done the things she’s accused of doing.
The ultimate in sexual equality is admitting that women can fall prey to all the same power trips and bloodthirsty desire for dominance, death and destruction that men do. Anyone who actually thinks the only thing we need to fix the world is put women in charge has never been heavily involved in any school or organization comprised mostly of women. I think that maybe they never went to junior high or had a sister, either.
The point of feminism is not that women are better than men, it’s that they are equal. And being equal means an equal chance to be cruel or evil. Because we’re not pristine angels or alien beings. I don’t know about anyone else (actually, I do, because I’ve been in fandom eight years) but I have some pretty appallingly sick stuff I carry around in my head. The stuff I post for public consumption is just the stuff I consider appropriate to share.
Yeah.
It’s been so long since Goddess worship had any power that people often forget that there is not only such a thing as a Dark Goddess but a goddess who is both dark and light at various times. I am under no illusions that this particular goddess is always peaceful, gentle, and non violent. In this story, God and Goddess are having a little lover’s squabble, hurling the supernatural china at each other and tossing each other’s stuff out on the lawn. Everything that is said here is said in the heat of the moment and will be regretted later.
Jezebel, however, takes it all too far and finds out that…well, you’ll see.
The Goddess is not Cosmic Barbie. The Dove is the symbol of The Great Middle Eastern Mother Goddess but so is the Lioness. And sometimes, we are the unsuspecting zebras.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
1st Kings chapters 12-17
It has been four hundred and eighty years since the Israelites left Egypt (although a footnote says it’s been four hundred and forty years, so I’m confused).
1st Kings chapters 12-17
Solomon has died, and been replaced by his son Rehoboam. The people ask him to “lighten their load.” (kind of spurred on by this man Jeroboam) The elders advise Rehoboam to do so, but he decides to listen to his contemporaries instead, who are all “you should totally be stricter” and “you people better do what this guy says, he’s even worse than his father”.
The king tries to crack down on them but they stone his official in charge of forced labor. He is forced to flee the country with a force from Judah and Benjamin (it always seems to be Judah and Benjamin allied against everyone else) but God’s prophet tells everyone to stop fighting and come back. But Jeroboam already thinks of himself as the new king. He builds two idols , on in Bethel and one in Dan and convinces the people to worship them, so Rehoboam will not be able to control them anymore.
Ch 13: 2
“A son named Josiah will be born to the house of David. On you (the altars) he will sacrifice the priests of the high places who now make offerings here and human bones will burned on you.”
Because the way to deal with this is more human sacrifice.
Ch14: 23-24
they had also set up for themselves high places, sacred stones, and Asherah poles on every high hill and under every spreading tree. There were even male shrine prostitutes in the land, the people engaged in all of the detestable practices of the nations the LORD had driven out before Israel
Judah and Israel have split again, and this infighting continues through two more kings, ostensibly over whether the Hebrews should be allowed to worship pagan gods or not. But it’s really because they didn’t want to be one country, because uniting under one king and having to change the way you do things is kinda scary. You can compare it to the US Civil War, which wasn’t really about slaves but about whether we were or were not gonna take this “let’s be a united country” thing seriously and do it and one half of the country was jealous over the other half having more power.
1st Kings chapters 12-17
Solomon has died, and been replaced by his son Rehoboam. The people ask him to “lighten their load.” (kind of spurred on by this man Jeroboam) The elders advise Rehoboam to do so, but he decides to listen to his contemporaries instead, who are all “you should totally be stricter” and “you people better do what this guy says, he’s even worse than his father”.
The king tries to crack down on them but they stone his official in charge of forced labor. He is forced to flee the country with a force from Judah and Benjamin (it always seems to be Judah and Benjamin allied against everyone else) but God’s prophet tells everyone to stop fighting and come back. But Jeroboam already thinks of himself as the new king. He builds two idols , on in Bethel and one in Dan and convinces the people to worship them, so Rehoboam will not be able to control them anymore.
Ch 13: 2
“A son named Josiah will be born to the house of David. On you (the altars) he will sacrifice the priests of the high places who now make offerings here and human bones will burned on you.”
Because the way to deal with this is more human sacrifice.
Ch14: 23-24
they had also set up for themselves high places, sacred stones, and Asherah poles on every high hill and under every spreading tree. There were even male shrine prostitutes in the land, the people engaged in all of the detestable practices of the nations the LORD had driven out before Israel
Judah and Israel have split again, and this infighting continues through two more kings, ostensibly over whether the Hebrews should be allowed to worship pagan gods or not. But it’s really because they didn’t want to be one country, because uniting under one king and having to change the way you do things is kinda scary. You can compare it to the US Civil War, which wasn’t really about slaves but about whether we were or were not gonna take this “let’s be a united country” thing seriously and do it and one half of the country was jealous over the other half having more power.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
1st Kings Chapters 1-10
I have skipped over the rest of the David story for now, because it’s been David, David, David all the time for the last several months and I can’t allow myself to get stuck in that story or I’ll never get out.
1st Kings
The basic point of this book is to A) describe the reign of Solomon, David’s son who is now king after fighting over the throne with his brother. The biggest difference between Solomon and David is that Solomon is never, ever, ever, allowed to be wrong except in one specific area. The entire book has the feel of political propaganda intended to portray a Golden Age. The second point of the book is given over to long, detailed descriptions of Solomon’s palace, and the Temple, which he is building as a permanent base for YHVH worship. He installs the Ark of the Covenant , which David rescued and brought back to Jerusalem.
This whole section is really very dull, but it’s important because it describes the Temple in detail, and it involves the character of Hiram, who will become important to Masonic mythology thousands of years later (everything in this part is important if you’re interested in the Masons).
Chapter 10 contains the story of the Queen of Sheba’s visit to Solomon. It’s about a half a page long and fuzzy on the details, and yet people are still ‘shipping them (as if he wasn’t married to someone else at the time), to the point where there are actually books all about their romance.
What’s that about putting romance in Bible stories where it’s never mentioned in the actual Bible, again? Hmm? Oh, this time it’s okay, for some reason, because it’s het and it doesn’t involve Jesus?
Solomon has “many foreign wives” and not only doesn’t force them to convert but provides means for their continual worship of their own gods. He even becomes interested himself. Solomon worships “Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, Chemosh the destestable god of Moab, and Molech, the detestable god of the Ammonites.”
Very little information seems to exist on Chemosh. However, there is a popular theory that Solomon’s “Song of Solomon” aka “Song of Songs” or “Canticle of Canticles” is at least partially based on traditional songs of Asherah worship. Having read some of the Ishtar hymns, I can see where people could get that impression. Various authos have used the Queen of Sheba and Solomon's very weird relationship with Abishag as a human stand ins for a dialogue between YHVH and Asherah. Margaret Starbird takes it a step further and winds the thread through the Jesus/Mary Magdalene story.
1st Kings 11: 2 They were from nations about which the LORD had told the Israelites, “You must not intermarry with them because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods”.
This is one of those famous verses that people use out of context to claim that interracial marriage is wrong. Other people say marrying someone not of your faith is wrong, it doesn’t matter what color their skin is. Seems to me though, that the moral here is “Don’t marry multiple women of other faiths when you’re the king”. Which is a very reasonable thing to ask of a king, but has a bad effect on ordinary people inclined to take it too literally. Although booing interracial/interfaith marriages is something people are inclined to do on their own, with or without Biblical help. Sadly. Most Christians I grew up around had nothing at all against interracial marriage, they believed it meant you should never marry an "unsaved" person. Which gives you a wide range of choices when it comes to skin color but a very narrow range when it comes to religious beliefs- you could marry a Chinese person or an Arab or a Native American but only if they were an evangelical Protestant.
1st Kings
The basic point of this book is to A) describe the reign of Solomon, David’s son who is now king after fighting over the throne with his brother. The biggest difference between Solomon and David is that Solomon is never, ever, ever, allowed to be wrong except in one specific area. The entire book has the feel of political propaganda intended to portray a Golden Age. The second point of the book is given over to long, detailed descriptions of Solomon’s palace, and the Temple, which he is building as a permanent base for YHVH worship. He installs the Ark of the Covenant , which David rescued and brought back to Jerusalem.
This whole section is really very dull, but it’s important because it describes the Temple in detail, and it involves the character of Hiram, who will become important to Masonic mythology thousands of years later (everything in this part is important if you’re interested in the Masons).
Chapter 10 contains the story of the Queen of Sheba’s visit to Solomon. It’s about a half a page long and fuzzy on the details, and yet people are still ‘shipping them (as if he wasn’t married to someone else at the time), to the point where there are actually books all about their romance.
What’s that about putting romance in Bible stories where it’s never mentioned in the actual Bible, again? Hmm? Oh, this time it’s okay, for some reason, because it’s het and it doesn’t involve Jesus?
Solomon has “many foreign wives” and not only doesn’t force them to convert but provides means for their continual worship of their own gods. He even becomes interested himself. Solomon worships “Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, Chemosh the destestable god of Moab, and Molech, the detestable god of the Ammonites.”
Very little information seems to exist on Chemosh. However, there is a popular theory that Solomon’s “Song of Solomon” aka “Song of Songs” or “Canticle of Canticles” is at least partially based on traditional songs of Asherah worship. Having read some of the Ishtar hymns, I can see where people could get that impression. Various authos have used the Queen of Sheba and Solomon's very weird relationship with Abishag as a human stand ins for a dialogue between YHVH and Asherah. Margaret Starbird takes it a step further and winds the thread through the Jesus/Mary Magdalene story.
1st Kings 11: 2 They were from nations about which the LORD had told the Israelites, “You must not intermarry with them because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods”.
This is one of those famous verses that people use out of context to claim that interracial marriage is wrong. Other people say marrying someone not of your faith is wrong, it doesn’t matter what color their skin is. Seems to me though, that the moral here is “Don’t marry multiple women of other faiths when you’re the king”. Which is a very reasonable thing to ask of a king, but has a bad effect on ordinary people inclined to take it too literally. Although booing interracial/interfaith marriages is something people are inclined to do on their own, with or without Biblical help. Sadly. Most Christians I grew up around had nothing at all against interracial marriage, they believed it meant you should never marry an "unsaved" person. Which gives you a wide range of choices when it comes to skin color but a very narrow range when it comes to religious beliefs- you could marry a Chinese person or an Arab or a Native American but only if they were an evangelical Protestant.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
1st Corinthians pt4
14
9 So with yourselves; if in a tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is being said? For you will be speaking into the air.
All that random "speaking in tongues" done in charismatic churches? Totally useless if it's not a real language that the people around you can understand. That was never the purpose of the whole speaking in tongues thing, to look mystical in front of other people by babbling made up words.
14
34 women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. 35 If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. F70
Oh, SHUT UP. In a verse I skipped typing up, he goes on and on about how God is the head of Christ and Christ is the head of man which makes man the head of his wife. Now, does anyone see the flaw in this? If man is to obey Christ, how did Christ treat women? He let them talk, and gave them positions of leadership. Plus, this all totally contradicts the fact that Paul seems to have many female friends who are preachers and missionaries. It shows up at the end of the chapter as this weird kind of afterthought, and the footnotes say that it is sometimes inserted after the last paragraph instead of just before. So it's a totally out of place verse, inconsistent with earlier teachings, and it keeps moving around. A later insertion, perhaps? Or is Paul just losing it? Some people have tried to explain it by saying Paul was referring to a specific problem in a specific church, where the women wouldn't shut up. But the way the verse is worded, it just doesn't look like he's addressing one specific situation. It looks like a blanket statement about all churches.
It sounds extremely familiar, and so I went and looked it up, and a famous early Christian bishop said a suspiciously similar thing-prior to the official creation of the NT. It would not surprise me at all to discover that Paul was judiciously edited. I just cannot figure this guy out.
You couldn't have paid me to be a woman in first century Israel, but then, you couldn't have paid me to be a man back then either. But I'm a little annoyed with how people always try to claim that Christianity's flaws all come from Judaism. First, because Roman paganism was not exactly uplifting for women all the time, and some of those Greek philosophers were quite misogynistic too. I think that what really happened with the sexism is the same thing that happened with the racism, the anti Semitism, the violence and the materialism. People started to follow Jesus, then a few generations later they realized his messages were going to require giving up things they enjoyed, just not workable in the world they wanted to create.
9 So with yourselves; if in a tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is being said? For you will be speaking into the air.
All that random "speaking in tongues" done in charismatic churches? Totally useless if it's not a real language that the people around you can understand. That was never the purpose of the whole speaking in tongues thing, to look mystical in front of other people by babbling made up words.
14
34 women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. 35 If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. F70
Oh, SHUT UP. In a verse I skipped typing up, he goes on and on about how God is the head of Christ and Christ is the head of man which makes man the head of his wife. Now, does anyone see the flaw in this? If man is to obey Christ, how did Christ treat women? He let them talk, and gave them positions of leadership. Plus, this all totally contradicts the fact that Paul seems to have many female friends who are preachers and missionaries. It shows up at the end of the chapter as this weird kind of afterthought, and the footnotes say that it is sometimes inserted after the last paragraph instead of just before. So it's a totally out of place verse, inconsistent with earlier teachings, and it keeps moving around. A later insertion, perhaps? Or is Paul just losing it? Some people have tried to explain it by saying Paul was referring to a specific problem in a specific church, where the women wouldn't shut up. But the way the verse is worded, it just doesn't look like he's addressing one specific situation. It looks like a blanket statement about all churches.
It sounds extremely familiar, and so I went and looked it up, and a famous early Christian bishop said a suspiciously similar thing-prior to the official creation of the NT. It would not surprise me at all to discover that Paul was judiciously edited. I just cannot figure this guy out.
You couldn't have paid me to be a woman in first century Israel, but then, you couldn't have paid me to be a man back then either. But I'm a little annoyed with how people always try to claim that Christianity's flaws all come from Judaism. First, because Roman paganism was not exactly uplifting for women all the time, and some of those Greek philosophers were quite misogynistic too. I think that what really happened with the sexism is the same thing that happened with the racism, the anti Semitism, the violence and the materialism. People started to follow Jesus, then a few generations later they realized his messages were going to require giving up things they enjoyed, just not workable in the world they wanted to create.
1st Corinthians pt3
11:
4 Any man who prays or prophesies with something on his head disgraces his head, 5 but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head—it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved. 6 For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should wear a veil. 7 For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection F53 of God; but woman is the reflection F54 of man. 8 Indeed, man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man. 10 For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of F55 authority on her head, F56 because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man or man independent of woman. 12 For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman; but all things come from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 But if anyone is disposed to be contentious—we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.
Seems almost like he's saying at the end that the Christians had no custom of head coverings, so it's cool whatever you want to do. But that doesn't make up for the previous statements.
Look, I don’t have a problem with covering my head for church or prayer. I've never been asked to, but if I did I wouldn't care all that much. If I had to cover my head all the time I'd be pretty annoyed. But men not having to do it? That's not fair. And in Judaism, as I understand it, men do have to cover their heads- a man is supposed to wear a yarmulke when he goes to temple or engages in some other formal religious activity. And in the Bible, men wore prayer shawls to cover their heads when praying. I think some men still do that? But here's Paul, trying for some reason to weasel out of men having to cover their heads, while insisting that women still have to. It's very weird. Judaism was kind of sexist, but it was an organic sexism that grew out of a certain culture. But Christianity took that, made the policies even more unfair and redesigned the entire world to run that way. And it really brought out the worst in some people, because they couldn't deal with this thing that wasn't part of their mindset before.
His logic is pretty stupid. "Man came from God but woman came from man?" The image I get is of Adam building himself a love bot in his garage ala Warren on "Buffy". Adam didn't build Eve himself, nor did he order her to his own detailed specifications from God's Love Bot Catalogue. Only one version of the story even has the rib taking event, in the other version, and in the Sumerian/Babylonian/etc version man and woman are made at the same time. It's awfully, disturbingly arrogant of man to convince himself that he's responsible for the invention of women and that life revolves entirely around him. If life revolves entirely around men, which man does it revolve the most around?
13
1 If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, F65 but do not have love, I gain nothing.
There are so many people out there who have read every Gospel and pseudo gospel and apocryphal gospel and every important holy book they can get their hands on. They meditate daily, and have never lied, stolen, cursed the name of God or committed adultery, they give to charity and have never struck someone on purpose and yet they're extremely unpleasant to be around. That's how I felt during the like, two days, I was on the ChristianWicca email list- "If these people are so bloody brilliant, why are they all so awful?" Frankly, I think it's part of what killed the Gnostic sects and damages a lot of other faiths. People don’t want to go where they don't feel wanted, even if the group that doesn't want them seems to be right about a lot of stuff. But they will put up with incredible amounts of pain and abuse from groups or individuals when they feel that the group or person "loves" them and wants them.
Following all the rules won't do much good unless your heart is in it. I think that's the central message of the entire New Testament. Sometimes that means, for the sake of your heart, you have to bend those rules. Sometimes, for the sake of your heart, it's better to keep them. There's been a lot of throwing babies out with the bath water done by everyone. The "theology of hate" that always tries to resurface- who knows, maybe they're right about some of what they believe, but it doesn't make them better people, due to the tactics they use to get their point across.
Intent, as I learned in magic, is more important than any other ingredient in a spell.
Now Paul, having explained how important Love is, goes on to illuminate the definition of Love.
4 Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant 5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; 6 it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. 7 It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
I can't even think of a comment. I just like that whole bit.
8 Love never ends. But as for prophecies, they will come to an end; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will come to an end. 9 For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part; 10 but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end.
11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways. 12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, F66 but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known. 13 And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love.
As they say on Sesame Street, you gotta put down the ducky if you wanna play the saxophone. You can't cling to the past (your inoccent childhood) and develop your future (mature grownup talents) at the same time. I don't think this means that everything from childhood has to be destroyed but for example, my doll collection is seriously holding me back from moving on with my life. I feel compelled to keep buying them even though I can't afford it, I'm running out of space (technically, I ran out of space several years ago) and whenever I try to move out I'm held back by the conundrum of what to do with my dolls.
4 Any man who prays or prophesies with something on his head disgraces his head, 5 but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head—it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved. 6 For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should wear a veil. 7 For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection F53 of God; but woman is the reflection F54 of man. 8 Indeed, man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man. 10 For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of F55 authority on her head, F56 because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man or man independent of woman. 12 For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman; but all things come from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 But if anyone is disposed to be contentious—we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.
Seems almost like he's saying at the end that the Christians had no custom of head coverings, so it's cool whatever you want to do. But that doesn't make up for the previous statements.
Look, I don’t have a problem with covering my head for church or prayer. I've never been asked to, but if I did I wouldn't care all that much. If I had to cover my head all the time I'd be pretty annoyed. But men not having to do it? That's not fair. And in Judaism, as I understand it, men do have to cover their heads- a man is supposed to wear a yarmulke when he goes to temple or engages in some other formal religious activity. And in the Bible, men wore prayer shawls to cover their heads when praying. I think some men still do that? But here's Paul, trying for some reason to weasel out of men having to cover their heads, while insisting that women still have to. It's very weird. Judaism was kind of sexist, but it was an organic sexism that grew out of a certain culture. But Christianity took that, made the policies even more unfair and redesigned the entire world to run that way. And it really brought out the worst in some people, because they couldn't deal with this thing that wasn't part of their mindset before.
His logic is pretty stupid. "Man came from God but woman came from man?" The image I get is of Adam building himself a love bot in his garage ala Warren on "Buffy". Adam didn't build Eve himself, nor did he order her to his own detailed specifications from God's Love Bot Catalogue. Only one version of the story even has the rib taking event, in the other version, and in the Sumerian/Babylonian/etc version man and woman are made at the same time. It's awfully, disturbingly arrogant of man to convince himself that he's responsible for the invention of women and that life revolves entirely around him. If life revolves entirely around men, which man does it revolve the most around?
13
1 If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, F65 but do not have love, I gain nothing.
There are so many people out there who have read every Gospel and pseudo gospel and apocryphal gospel and every important holy book they can get their hands on. They meditate daily, and have never lied, stolen, cursed the name of God or committed adultery, they give to charity and have never struck someone on purpose and yet they're extremely unpleasant to be around. That's how I felt during the like, two days, I was on the ChristianWicca email list- "If these people are so bloody brilliant, why are they all so awful?" Frankly, I think it's part of what killed the Gnostic sects and damages a lot of other faiths. People don’t want to go where they don't feel wanted, even if the group that doesn't want them seems to be right about a lot of stuff. But they will put up with incredible amounts of pain and abuse from groups or individuals when they feel that the group or person "loves" them and wants them.
Following all the rules won't do much good unless your heart is in it. I think that's the central message of the entire New Testament. Sometimes that means, for the sake of your heart, you have to bend those rules. Sometimes, for the sake of your heart, it's better to keep them. There's been a lot of throwing babies out with the bath water done by everyone. The "theology of hate" that always tries to resurface- who knows, maybe they're right about some of what they believe, but it doesn't make them better people, due to the tactics they use to get their point across.
Intent, as I learned in magic, is more important than any other ingredient in a spell.
Now Paul, having explained how important Love is, goes on to illuminate the definition of Love.
4 Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant 5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; 6 it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. 7 It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
I can't even think of a comment. I just like that whole bit.
8 Love never ends. But as for prophecies, they will come to an end; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will come to an end. 9 For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part; 10 but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end.
11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways. 12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, F66 but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known. 13 And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love.
As they say on Sesame Street, you gotta put down the ducky if you wanna play the saxophone. You can't cling to the past (your inoccent childhood) and develop your future (mature grownup talents) at the same time. I don't think this means that everything from childhood has to be destroyed but for example, my doll collection is seriously holding me back from moving on with my life. I feel compelled to keep buying them even though I can't afford it, I'm running out of space (technically, I ran out of space several years ago) and whenever I try to move out I'm held back by the conundrum of what to do with my dolls.
1st Corinthians pt 2
7:1
1 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: "It is well for a man not to touch a woman." 2 But because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 This I say by way of concession, not of command. 7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has a particular gift from God, one having one kind and another a different kind. 8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am. 9 But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.
And…. This translated in people's heads into, "people should be coerced into marriage as young as possible. Women have no rights whatsoever about when their husbands have sex with them, but the man can do whatever he wants. But sex is actually icky and no one should do it unless they can't help themselves. " I refer you to the link above, again.
8:7
7 It is not everyone, however, who has this knowledge. Since some have become so accustomed to idols until now, they still think of the food they eat as food offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. 8 "Food will not bring us close to God." F41 We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. 9 But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if others see you, who possess knowledge, eating in the temple of an idol, might they not, since their conscience is weak, be encouraged to the point of eating food sacrificed to idols?
Idols aren't real anyway, there's only one real God. So if you want to eat food sacrificed to idols, go ahead because they're not real anyway. But don't let anyone who thinks otherwise catch you doing it, because then they'll think it's okay to eat food sacrificed to idols.
So, if, like, I want to eat a chicken sacrificed to Moloch, that's fine because Moloch isn't real (even though he told us earlier that the old gods were demons. Demons!) but I shouldn't do it in front of someone who believes the food is sacrificed to real gods, since they're weak willed and will fall into sin because of me? But if I can do that, because the god isn't real, then why will they get in trouble for eating food sacrificed to something that's not real?
I guess it can all be summed up best as "Do whatever works for you, just don't do it in front of people who will be upset by it". A lot less convoluted than trying to puzzle out the actual sentences, although it still seems off to me.
9:
This is my defense to those who would examine me. 4 Do we not have the right to our food and drink? 5 Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife, F46 as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? 6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living? 7 Who at any time pays the expenses for doing military service? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat any of its fruit? Or who tends a flock and does not get any of its milk? 8 Do I say this on human authority? Does not the law also say the same? 9 For it is written in the law of Moses, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain." Is it for oxen that God is concerned? 10 Or does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was indeed written for our sake, for whoever plows should plow in hope and whoever threshes should thresh in hope of a share in the crop. 11 If we have sown spiritual good among you, is it too much if we reap your material benefits? 12 If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we still more?
Paul is complaining that he doesn't get paid enough. I can certainly sympathize. I've known many pastors who were totally dependant on the church to feed, cloth and house them, and ended up really struggling because of it. They usually have to take on humiliating second, secular jobs if they can't get extra work as a police chaplain, guest speaker, professor or writer. Many kids who graduate from seminary are faced with the realization that they have almost no job prospects, and when they get a position, it's likely that they'll be living hand to mouth.
I used to envy my PK friends who got to live in parsonages, because those houses always seemed so nice compared to the one I lived in. And they are nice. But they were usually lucky enough to be pastoring at wealthy churches, and they always had at least two incomes in spite of getting a big, free house. I've known a lot of pastors and not all of them were so fortunate.
Some churches don't bother to pay their ministers at all, yet expect someone to be at their service twenty four hours a day. The pastor's wife has double his workload and has to do it all for free. I remember reading a comment recently that couples coming out of seminary together are often shocked to discover that there are no churches who can afford to (or are willing to raise the money to) support two full time pastors at once.
1 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: "It is well for a man not to touch a woman." 2 But because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 This I say by way of concession, not of command. 7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has a particular gift from God, one having one kind and another a different kind. 8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am. 9 But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.
And…. This translated in people's heads into, "people should be coerced into marriage as young as possible. Women have no rights whatsoever about when their husbands have sex with them, but the man can do whatever he wants. But sex is actually icky and no one should do it unless they can't help themselves. " I refer you to the link above, again.
8:7
7 It is not everyone, however, who has this knowledge. Since some have become so accustomed to idols until now, they still think of the food they eat as food offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. 8 "Food will not bring us close to God." F41 We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. 9 But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if others see you, who possess knowledge, eating in the temple of an idol, might they not, since their conscience is weak, be encouraged to the point of eating food sacrificed to idols?
Idols aren't real anyway, there's only one real God. So if you want to eat food sacrificed to idols, go ahead because they're not real anyway. But don't let anyone who thinks otherwise catch you doing it, because then they'll think it's okay to eat food sacrificed to idols.
So, if, like, I want to eat a chicken sacrificed to Moloch, that's fine because Moloch isn't real (even though he told us earlier that the old gods were demons. Demons!) but I shouldn't do it in front of someone who believes the food is sacrificed to real gods, since they're weak willed and will fall into sin because of me? But if I can do that, because the god isn't real, then why will they get in trouble for eating food sacrificed to something that's not real?
I guess it can all be summed up best as "Do whatever works for you, just don't do it in front of people who will be upset by it". A lot less convoluted than trying to puzzle out the actual sentences, although it still seems off to me.
9:
This is my defense to those who would examine me. 4 Do we not have the right to our food and drink? 5 Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife, F46 as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? 6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living? 7 Who at any time pays the expenses for doing military service? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat any of its fruit? Or who tends a flock and does not get any of its milk? 8 Do I say this on human authority? Does not the law also say the same? 9 For it is written in the law of Moses, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain." Is it for oxen that God is concerned? 10 Or does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was indeed written for our sake, for whoever plows should plow in hope and whoever threshes should thresh in hope of a share in the crop. 11 If we have sown spiritual good among you, is it too much if we reap your material benefits? 12 If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we still more?
Paul is complaining that he doesn't get paid enough. I can certainly sympathize. I've known many pastors who were totally dependant on the church to feed, cloth and house them, and ended up really struggling because of it. They usually have to take on humiliating second, secular jobs if they can't get extra work as a police chaplain, guest speaker, professor or writer. Many kids who graduate from seminary are faced with the realization that they have almost no job prospects, and when they get a position, it's likely that they'll be living hand to mouth.
I used to envy my PK friends who got to live in parsonages, because those houses always seemed so nice compared to the one I lived in. And they are nice. But they were usually lucky enough to be pastoring at wealthy churches, and they always had at least two incomes in spite of getting a big, free house. I've known a lot of pastors and not all of them were so fortunate.
Some churches don't bother to pay their ministers at all, yet expect someone to be at their service twenty four hours a day. The pastor's wife has double his workload and has to do it all for free. I remember reading a comment recently that couples coming out of seminary together are often shocked to discover that there are no churches who can afford to (or are willing to raise the money to) support two full time pastors at once.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
