ENOUGH ALREADY!
Oct. 31st, 2008 07:23 pmOh, and Elizabeth Dole is running ads about her opponent being a godless atheist. And so what if she fucking is, BITCH!? This has fuck-all to do with working in the government! These people are making me crazy! The NewsHour w/Lehrer is making me sad with tonight's political sound bites. I can't fucking wait for this election to be over! If it weren't for my condition, I'd be getting so skunk drunk on Election night like I haven't in ages.
ENOUGH ALREADY!
Oct. 31st, 2008 07:23 pmOh, and Elizabeth Dole is running ads about her opponent being a godless atheist. And so what if she fucking is, BITCH!? This has fuck-all to do with working in the government! These people are making me crazy! The NewsHour w/Lehrer is making me sad with tonight's political sound bites. I can't fucking wait for this election to be over! If it weren't for my condition, I'd be getting so skunk drunk on Election night like I haven't in ages.
(no subject)
Oct. 30th, 2008 06:15 pmPraying at the Golden Calf!!!
Damn, I wish I had known this was going down. I might have gone over there to heckle.
Damn, I wish I had known this was going down. I might have gone over there to heckle.
(no subject)
Oct. 30th, 2008 06:15 pmPraying at the Golden Calf!!!
Damn, I wish I had known this was going down. I might have gone over there to heckle.
Damn, I wish I had known this was going down. I might have gone over there to heckle.
I <3 John Shelby Spong
Sep. 25th, 2008 04:01 pmBishop Spong Q&A
Bruce Barrett from Mobile, Alabama, writes:
I want you to know that I have an advanced education where understanding the Bible is concerned. I took Old Testament and New Testament at Wittenberg University in the early '60s. Wittenberg was then a liberal LCA college. While I understood the concept of the "historical critical method," the connotations of "critical" have always bothered me on an emotional level. Why can we all not say "analytical" instead? After all, that's what it is. We read and analyze relative to the available knowledge about the times, and draw conclusions based on that analysis (scripture, reason and tradition). We're all (well, the intelligent folks, anyway) trying to understand God's revelation of God's marvelous self to humankind. Terminology affects the ease of sharing insight.
An example of the problem: At a Lenten Wednesday evening lecture/discussion several years ago, our curate announced that we would be studying Mark by the historical critical method. The discomfort in our mostly college educated faithful was palpable. Our curate, being prepared to present seminary level material, was a bit taken aback by the tension and didn't grasp that it was just the terminology that was bothering the group. Now these members are the serious members of the congregation, not the twice a year folks. They're not literalists by any stretch of the imagination. It's the connotation of the word "critical" (admittedly, taken out of the academic context) that bothered them. I don't mean to brag, but the mood relaxed significantly when I piped up and said something like, "So we're analyzing the story, not criticizing the Bible, then?" The curate grudgingly agreed. I suggest this to you because you have a wide audience that (I suspect) includes clergy as well as intelligent laity. It's my opinion that intelligent understanding of scripture can be facilitated by appropriate terminology. Don't you agree?
Dear Bruce,
No, I do not agree.
Surely if the word "critical" causes people to turn negative then some other word (like "analytical," as you suggest) might be substituted. I think, however, that this still looks like placating the fundamentalists and I have little patience with that. The time has come for scholarship not to be defensive about the Bible. Much of the Bible needs to be criticized. It has been proclaimed as literally true for far too long and a literal Bible turns off far more people than the word "critical" ever will.
I recently published a book called The Sins of Scripture, which looked at what the literal Bible has done to the environment, to women, to left handed people, to people of color, to homosexual people. The Bible has been quoted to justify things as evil as the Crusades, the Inquisition and slavery.
You say that the people of your church are not literalists, but I have been to Alabama and Mobile many times and biblical fundamentalism is surely in the culture there, indeed in the very air one breathes. My father was a native of Montgomery, so that world is not unknown to me. The Episcopal Bishop of Alabama, Henry N. Parsley, Jr., is not a literalist, but he does not want to disturb the literalists by allowing them to be educated. I regard that as just as bad, to say nothing of being an example of ineffective leadership. I suggest that literalism is deeper than you might imagine. For example, I do not know of a single reputable New Testament scholar in the world who thinks that the stories of Jesus' virginal birth are actually historical or that the resuscitation of a deceased physical body is the meaning of resurrection. Try those ideas on those you say are "certainly not literalists" and see if you don't get critical responses.
The gospels are distorted by literalism. The depth of these ancient stories is violated by literalism. That needs to be heard. I think using the words "critical biblical scholarship" opens people to new possibilities and, if they are afraid of these words, then it is because they are defending their literal understanding of the Bible. Sorry, but I vote with the curate.
–John Shelby Spong
Bruce Barrett from Mobile, Alabama, writes:
I want you to know that I have an advanced education where understanding the Bible is concerned. I took Old Testament and New Testament at Wittenberg University in the early '60s. Wittenberg was then a liberal LCA college. While I understood the concept of the "historical critical method," the connotations of "critical" have always bothered me on an emotional level. Why can we all not say "analytical" instead? After all, that's what it is. We read and analyze relative to the available knowledge about the times, and draw conclusions based on that analysis (scripture, reason and tradition). We're all (well, the intelligent folks, anyway) trying to understand God's revelation of God's marvelous self to humankind. Terminology affects the ease of sharing insight.
An example of the problem: At a Lenten Wednesday evening lecture/discussion several years ago, our curate announced that we would be studying Mark by the historical critical method. The discomfort in our mostly college educated faithful was palpable. Our curate, being prepared to present seminary level material, was a bit taken aback by the tension and didn't grasp that it was just the terminology that was bothering the group. Now these members are the serious members of the congregation, not the twice a year folks. They're not literalists by any stretch of the imagination. It's the connotation of the word "critical" (admittedly, taken out of the academic context) that bothered them. I don't mean to brag, but the mood relaxed significantly when I piped up and said something like, "So we're analyzing the story, not criticizing the Bible, then?" The curate grudgingly agreed. I suggest this to you because you have a wide audience that (I suspect) includes clergy as well as intelligent laity. It's my opinion that intelligent understanding of scripture can be facilitated by appropriate terminology. Don't you agree?
Dear Bruce,
No, I do not agree.
Surely if the word "critical" causes people to turn negative then some other word (like "analytical," as you suggest) might be substituted. I think, however, that this still looks like placating the fundamentalists and I have little patience with that. The time has come for scholarship not to be defensive about the Bible. Much of the Bible needs to be criticized. It has been proclaimed as literally true for far too long and a literal Bible turns off far more people than the word "critical" ever will.
I recently published a book called The Sins of Scripture, which looked at what the literal Bible has done to the environment, to women, to left handed people, to people of color, to homosexual people. The Bible has been quoted to justify things as evil as the Crusades, the Inquisition and slavery.
You say that the people of your church are not literalists, but I have been to Alabama and Mobile many times and biblical fundamentalism is surely in the culture there, indeed in the very air one breathes. My father was a native of Montgomery, so that world is not unknown to me. The Episcopal Bishop of Alabama, Henry N. Parsley, Jr., is not a literalist, but he does not want to disturb the literalists by allowing them to be educated. I regard that as just as bad, to say nothing of being an example of ineffective leadership. I suggest that literalism is deeper than you might imagine. For example, I do not know of a single reputable New Testament scholar in the world who thinks that the stories of Jesus' virginal birth are actually historical or that the resuscitation of a deceased physical body is the meaning of resurrection. Try those ideas on those you say are "certainly not literalists" and see if you don't get critical responses.
The gospels are distorted by literalism. The depth of these ancient stories is violated by literalism. That needs to be heard. I think using the words "critical biblical scholarship" opens people to new possibilities and, if they are afraid of these words, then it is because they are defending their literal understanding of the Bible. Sorry, but I vote with the curate.
–John Shelby Spong
I <3 John Shelby Spong
Sep. 25th, 2008 04:01 pmBishop Spong Q&A
Bruce Barrett from Mobile, Alabama, writes:
I want you to know that I have an advanced education where understanding the Bible is concerned. I took Old Testament and New Testament at Wittenberg University in the early '60s. Wittenberg was then a liberal LCA college. While I understood the concept of the "historical critical method," the connotations of "critical" have always bothered me on an emotional level. Why can we all not say "analytical" instead? After all, that's what it is. We read and analyze relative to the available knowledge about the times, and draw conclusions based on that analysis (scripture, reason and tradition). We're all (well, the intelligent folks, anyway) trying to understand God's revelation of God's marvelous self to humankind. Terminology affects the ease of sharing insight.
An example of the problem: At a Lenten Wednesday evening lecture/discussion several years ago, our curate announced that we would be studying Mark by the historical critical method. The discomfort in our mostly college educated faithful was palpable. Our curate, being prepared to present seminary level material, was a bit taken aback by the tension and didn't grasp that it was just the terminology that was bothering the group. Now these members are the serious members of the congregation, not the twice a year folks. They're not literalists by any stretch of the imagination. It's the connotation of the word "critical" (admittedly, taken out of the academic context) that bothered them. I don't mean to brag, but the mood relaxed significantly when I piped up and said something like, "So we're analyzing the story, not criticizing the Bible, then?" The curate grudgingly agreed. I suggest this to you because you have a wide audience that (I suspect) includes clergy as well as intelligent laity. It's my opinion that intelligent understanding of scripture can be facilitated by appropriate terminology. Don't you agree?
Dear Bruce,
No, I do not agree.
Surely if the word "critical" causes people to turn negative then some other word (like "analytical," as you suggest) might be substituted. I think, however, that this still looks like placating the fundamentalists and I have little patience with that. The time has come for scholarship not to be defensive about the Bible. Much of the Bible needs to be criticized. It has been proclaimed as literally true for far too long and a literal Bible turns off far more people than the word "critical" ever will.
I recently published a book called The Sins of Scripture, which looked at what the literal Bible has done to the environment, to women, to left handed people, to people of color, to homosexual people. The Bible has been quoted to justify things as evil as the Crusades, the Inquisition and slavery.
You say that the people of your church are not literalists, but I have been to Alabama and Mobile many times and biblical fundamentalism is surely in the culture there, indeed in the very air one breathes. My father was a native of Montgomery, so that world is not unknown to me. The Episcopal Bishop of Alabama, Henry N. Parsley, Jr., is not a literalist, but he does not want to disturb the literalists by allowing them to be educated. I regard that as just as bad, to say nothing of being an example of ineffective leadership. I suggest that literalism is deeper than you might imagine. For example, I do not know of a single reputable New Testament scholar in the world who thinks that the stories of Jesus' virginal birth are actually historical or that the resuscitation of a deceased physical body is the meaning of resurrection. Try those ideas on those you say are "certainly not literalists" and see if you don't get critical responses.
The gospels are distorted by literalism. The depth of these ancient stories is violated by literalism. That needs to be heard. I think using the words "critical biblical scholarship" opens people to new possibilities and, if they are afraid of these words, then it is because they are defending their literal understanding of the Bible. Sorry, but I vote with the curate.
–John Shelby Spong
Bruce Barrett from Mobile, Alabama, writes:
I want you to know that I have an advanced education where understanding the Bible is concerned. I took Old Testament and New Testament at Wittenberg University in the early '60s. Wittenberg was then a liberal LCA college. While I understood the concept of the "historical critical method," the connotations of "critical" have always bothered me on an emotional level. Why can we all not say "analytical" instead? After all, that's what it is. We read and analyze relative to the available knowledge about the times, and draw conclusions based on that analysis (scripture, reason and tradition). We're all (well, the intelligent folks, anyway) trying to understand God's revelation of God's marvelous self to humankind. Terminology affects the ease of sharing insight.
An example of the problem: At a Lenten Wednesday evening lecture/discussion several years ago, our curate announced that we would be studying Mark by the historical critical method. The discomfort in our mostly college educated faithful was palpable. Our curate, being prepared to present seminary level material, was a bit taken aback by the tension and didn't grasp that it was just the terminology that was bothering the group. Now these members are the serious members of the congregation, not the twice a year folks. They're not literalists by any stretch of the imagination. It's the connotation of the word "critical" (admittedly, taken out of the academic context) that bothered them. I don't mean to brag, but the mood relaxed significantly when I piped up and said something like, "So we're analyzing the story, not criticizing the Bible, then?" The curate grudgingly agreed. I suggest this to you because you have a wide audience that (I suspect) includes clergy as well as intelligent laity. It's my opinion that intelligent understanding of scripture can be facilitated by appropriate terminology. Don't you agree?
Dear Bruce,
No, I do not agree.
Surely if the word "critical" causes people to turn negative then some other word (like "analytical," as you suggest) might be substituted. I think, however, that this still looks like placating the fundamentalists and I have little patience with that. The time has come for scholarship not to be defensive about the Bible. Much of the Bible needs to be criticized. It has been proclaimed as literally true for far too long and a literal Bible turns off far more people than the word "critical" ever will.
I recently published a book called The Sins of Scripture, which looked at what the literal Bible has done to the environment, to women, to left handed people, to people of color, to homosexual people. The Bible has been quoted to justify things as evil as the Crusades, the Inquisition and slavery.
You say that the people of your church are not literalists, but I have been to Alabama and Mobile many times and biblical fundamentalism is surely in the culture there, indeed in the very air one breathes. My father was a native of Montgomery, so that world is not unknown to me. The Episcopal Bishop of Alabama, Henry N. Parsley, Jr., is not a literalist, but he does not want to disturb the literalists by allowing them to be educated. I regard that as just as bad, to say nothing of being an example of ineffective leadership. I suggest that literalism is deeper than you might imagine. For example, I do not know of a single reputable New Testament scholar in the world who thinks that the stories of Jesus' virginal birth are actually historical or that the resuscitation of a deceased physical body is the meaning of resurrection. Try those ideas on those you say are "certainly not literalists" and see if you don't get critical responses.
The gospels are distorted by literalism. The depth of these ancient stories is violated by literalism. That needs to be heard. I think using the words "critical biblical scholarship" opens people to new possibilities and, if they are afraid of these words, then it is because they are defending their literal understanding of the Bible. Sorry, but I vote with the curate.
–John Shelby Spong
Happy Solstice
Dec. 21st, 2007 10:30 pmThe Raven
A long time ago, the Raven looked down from the sky and saw that the people of the world were living in darkness. The ball of light was kept hidden by a selfish old chief. So the Raven turned himself into a spruce needle, and floated on the river where the chief's daughter came for water. She drank the spruce needle. She became pregnant and gave birth to a boy, who was the Raven in disguise. The baby cried and cried until the chief gave him the ball of light to play with. As soon as he had the light, the Raven turned back into himself. The Raven carried the light into the sky. From then on, we no longer lived in darkness.
From "Northern Exposure", season 3 episode "Seoul Mates," as told by Marilyn Whirlwind.
*******************************************************************************************
A Tlingit Tale:
In the beginning there was no moon or stars. Raven was the most powerful being. He had made all of the animals, fish, trees, and men. He had made all living creatures. But they were all living in darkness because he had not made the sun. One day, Raven learned that there was a chief living on the banks of the river who had a very beautiful daughter who possessed the sun, the moon, and the stars in a carved cedar box.
The chief and his people protected her and the treasure. Raven knew that he must trick the villagers to steal their treasure, so he decided to turn himself into a grandchild of the great chief. Raven flew upon a tall tree over their house and turned himself into a hemlock needle. Then, as the needle, he fell into the daughter's drinking cup, she drank the needle. Inside the chief's daughter, Raven became a baby and soon the young woman bore a son who was dearly loved by the chief and was given whatever he asked for. The stars, moon and the sun were each in a beautifully carved cedar box which sat on the floor of the house. The grandchild, Raven, wanted to play with them and wouldn't stop crying until the grandfather gave them to him. As soon as he had them Raven threw them up through the smokehole. Instantly, they scattered across the sky. While the chief was unhappy, he loved his grandson too much to punish him for what he had done. Now that he had tossed out the stars and moon, the little grandson began crying for the box containing sunlight. He cried and cried and would not stop. Finally, the grandfather gave him the box. Raven played with the box for a long time. Suddenly, he turned himself back into a bird and flew up through the smokehole with the box. Once he was far away from the village he heard people speaking in the darkness and approached them. "Who are you and would you like to have light?" he asked them. They said that he was a liar and that no one could give light. To show them that he was telling the truth, Raven opened the ornately carved box and let sunlight into the world. The people were so frightened by it that they fled to every corner of the world. This is why there are Raven's people everywhere. Now there are stars, the moon, and daylight and it is no longer dark all of the time.
A long time ago, the Raven looked down from the sky and saw that the people of the world were living in darkness. The ball of light was kept hidden by a selfish old chief. So the Raven turned himself into a spruce needle, and floated on the river where the chief's daughter came for water. She drank the spruce needle. She became pregnant and gave birth to a boy, who was the Raven in disguise. The baby cried and cried until the chief gave him the ball of light to play with. As soon as he had the light, the Raven turned back into himself. The Raven carried the light into the sky. From then on, we no longer lived in darkness.
From "Northern Exposure", season 3 episode "Seoul Mates," as told by Marilyn Whirlwind.
*******************************************************************************************
A Tlingit Tale:
In the beginning there was no moon or stars. Raven was the most powerful being. He had made all of the animals, fish, trees, and men. He had made all living creatures. But they were all living in darkness because he had not made the sun. One day, Raven learned that there was a chief living on the banks of the river who had a very beautiful daughter who possessed the sun, the moon, and the stars in a carved cedar box.
The chief and his people protected her and the treasure. Raven knew that he must trick the villagers to steal their treasure, so he decided to turn himself into a grandchild of the great chief. Raven flew upon a tall tree over their house and turned himself into a hemlock needle. Then, as the needle, he fell into the daughter's drinking cup, she drank the needle. Inside the chief's daughter, Raven became a baby and soon the young woman bore a son who was dearly loved by the chief and was given whatever he asked for. The stars, moon and the sun were each in a beautifully carved cedar box which sat on the floor of the house. The grandchild, Raven, wanted to play with them and wouldn't stop crying until the grandfather gave them to him. As soon as he had them Raven threw them up through the smokehole. Instantly, they scattered across the sky. While the chief was unhappy, he loved his grandson too much to punish him for what he had done. Now that he had tossed out the stars and moon, the little grandson began crying for the box containing sunlight. He cried and cried and would not stop. Finally, the grandfather gave him the box. Raven played with the box for a long time. Suddenly, he turned himself back into a bird and flew up through the smokehole with the box. Once he was far away from the village he heard people speaking in the darkness and approached them. "Who are you and would you like to have light?" he asked them. They said that he was a liar and that no one could give light. To show them that he was telling the truth, Raven opened the ornately carved box and let sunlight into the world. The people were so frightened by it that they fled to every corner of the world. This is why there are Raven's people everywhere. Now there are stars, the moon, and daylight and it is no longer dark all of the time.
Happy Solstice
Dec. 21st, 2007 10:30 pmThe Raven
A long time ago, the Raven looked down from the sky and saw that the people of the world were living in darkness. The ball of light was kept hidden by a selfish old chief. So the Raven turned himself into a spruce needle, and floated on the river where the chief's daughter came for water. She drank the spruce needle. She became pregnant and gave birth to a boy, who was the Raven in disguise. The baby cried and cried until the chief gave him the ball of light to play with. As soon as he had the light, the Raven turned back into himself. The Raven carried the light into the sky. From then on, we no longer lived in darkness.
From "Northern Exposure", season 3 episode "Seoul Mates," as told by Marilyn Whirlwind.
*******************************************************************************************
A Tlingit Tale:
In the beginning there was no moon or stars. Raven was the most powerful being. He had made all of the animals, fish, trees, and men. He had made all living creatures. But they were all living in darkness because he had not made the sun. One day, Raven learned that there was a chief living on the banks of the river who had a very beautiful daughter who possessed the sun, the moon, and the stars in a carved cedar box.
The chief and his people protected her and the treasure. Raven knew that he must trick the villagers to steal their treasure, so he decided to turn himself into a grandchild of the great chief. Raven flew upon a tall tree over their house and turned himself into a hemlock needle. Then, as the needle, he fell into the daughter's drinking cup, she drank the needle. Inside the chief's daughter, Raven became a baby and soon the young woman bore a son who was dearly loved by the chief and was given whatever he asked for. The stars, moon and the sun were each in a beautifully carved cedar box which sat on the floor of the house. The grandchild, Raven, wanted to play with them and wouldn't stop crying until the grandfather gave them to him. As soon as he had them Raven threw them up through the smokehole. Instantly, they scattered across the sky. While the chief was unhappy, he loved his grandson too much to punish him for what he had done. Now that he had tossed out the stars and moon, the little grandson began crying for the box containing sunlight. He cried and cried and would not stop. Finally, the grandfather gave him the box. Raven played with the box for a long time. Suddenly, he turned himself back into a bird and flew up through the smokehole with the box. Once he was far away from the village he heard people speaking in the darkness and approached them. "Who are you and would you like to have light?" he asked them. They said that he was a liar and that no one could give light. To show them that he was telling the truth, Raven opened the ornately carved box and let sunlight into the world. The people were so frightened by it that they fled to every corner of the world. This is why there are Raven's people everywhere. Now there are stars, the moon, and daylight and it is no longer dark all of the time.
A long time ago, the Raven looked down from the sky and saw that the people of the world were living in darkness. The ball of light was kept hidden by a selfish old chief. So the Raven turned himself into a spruce needle, and floated on the river where the chief's daughter came for water. She drank the spruce needle. She became pregnant and gave birth to a boy, who was the Raven in disguise. The baby cried and cried until the chief gave him the ball of light to play with. As soon as he had the light, the Raven turned back into himself. The Raven carried the light into the sky. From then on, we no longer lived in darkness.
From "Northern Exposure", season 3 episode "Seoul Mates," as told by Marilyn Whirlwind.
*******************************************************************************************
A Tlingit Tale:
In the beginning there was no moon or stars. Raven was the most powerful being. He had made all of the animals, fish, trees, and men. He had made all living creatures. But they were all living in darkness because he had not made the sun. One day, Raven learned that there was a chief living on the banks of the river who had a very beautiful daughter who possessed the sun, the moon, and the stars in a carved cedar box.
The chief and his people protected her and the treasure. Raven knew that he must trick the villagers to steal their treasure, so he decided to turn himself into a grandchild of the great chief. Raven flew upon a tall tree over their house and turned himself into a hemlock needle. Then, as the needle, he fell into the daughter's drinking cup, she drank the needle. Inside the chief's daughter, Raven became a baby and soon the young woman bore a son who was dearly loved by the chief and was given whatever he asked for. The stars, moon and the sun were each in a beautifully carved cedar box which sat on the floor of the house. The grandchild, Raven, wanted to play with them and wouldn't stop crying until the grandfather gave them to him. As soon as he had them Raven threw them up through the smokehole. Instantly, they scattered across the sky. While the chief was unhappy, he loved his grandson too much to punish him for what he had done. Now that he had tossed out the stars and moon, the little grandson began crying for the box containing sunlight. He cried and cried and would not stop. Finally, the grandfather gave him the box. Raven played with the box for a long time. Suddenly, he turned himself back into a bird and flew up through the smokehole with the box. Once he was far away from the village he heard people speaking in the darkness and approached them. "Who are you and would you like to have light?" he asked them. They said that he was a liar and that no one could give light. To show them that he was telling the truth, Raven opened the ornately carved box and let sunlight into the world. The people were so frightened by it that they fled to every corner of the world. This is why there are Raven's people everywhere. Now there are stars, the moon, and daylight and it is no longer dark all of the time.
(no subject)
Jun. 22nd, 2006 10:14 amJohn Ruddick from North Sydney, Australia writes:
"Is it possible that Jesus was inferring that some people were born gay in Matthew 19:12? It reads, 'For there are different reasons why men cannot marry: some because they are born that way, others, because men made them that way and others do not marry for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven.'"
Dear John,
It is very difficult for anyone living in 2006 to say what Jesus meant in the early years of the first century of this Common Era.
First, to the best of my knowledge, Jesus left no written records and there were no tape recorders to record his words for future use. Our best estimates are that the earthly life of Jesus was lived between 4 B.C.E. and 30 C.E. He spoke Aramaic.
Matthew, who is the only gospel writer to record the text you cite, wrote between 80 and 90 C.E. or 50 to 60 years after the life of Jesus. He wrote in Greek not Aramaic. So, if Jesus actually spoke these words that Matthew attributes to him, someone had to remember them and pass them on by word of mouth for 50-60 years, translate them from Aramaic into Greek and finally to the English words that you quote. If that process can be navigated successfully and literally, we might begin to answer your question.
The next thing we need to raise is the issue to which Matthew is speaking when he had Jesus utter these words. The truth is that some people are born gay and others are born straight. Some have powerful libidos and some weak. Some are male and some female. Some are born with an xxy gene and others with only xx or xy. Some are castrated by religious zeal. Some are rendered impotent by sickness and others by surgery.
I find those who think that a particular text in the Bible addresses a specific issue today are operating out of a very superstitious view of the Bible. It is only when the weight of the Bible is employed in a particular human arena that I think it can be legitimately used. By this shall people know that you are my disciples, that you love one another. If you say that you love God and hate your neighbor, you are a liar. Love your neighbor as yourself. Welcome the stranger, care for the weak, embrace the outcast. Jesus is even made to state his purpose in the Fourth Gospel as "I have come that they might have life and have it more abundantly." These are some of the biblical texts that have cumulative power, that build a consensus and that counter the limited, mean-spirited prejudices that we human beings have used so often in the name of religion to violate the humanity of another child of God.
I know you probably wanted a yes or no answer. Unfortunately, the Bible does not lend itself to that kind of response.
-- John Shelby Spong
"Is it possible that Jesus was inferring that some people were born gay in Matthew 19:12? It reads, 'For there are different reasons why men cannot marry: some because they are born that way, others, because men made them that way and others do not marry for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven.'"
Dear John,
It is very difficult for anyone living in 2006 to say what Jesus meant in the early years of the first century of this Common Era.
First, to the best of my knowledge, Jesus left no written records and there were no tape recorders to record his words for future use. Our best estimates are that the earthly life of Jesus was lived between 4 B.C.E. and 30 C.E. He spoke Aramaic.
Matthew, who is the only gospel writer to record the text you cite, wrote between 80 and 90 C.E. or 50 to 60 years after the life of Jesus. He wrote in Greek not Aramaic. So, if Jesus actually spoke these words that Matthew attributes to him, someone had to remember them and pass them on by word of mouth for 50-60 years, translate them from Aramaic into Greek and finally to the English words that you quote. If that process can be navigated successfully and literally, we might begin to answer your question.
The next thing we need to raise is the issue to which Matthew is speaking when he had Jesus utter these words. The truth is that some people are born gay and others are born straight. Some have powerful libidos and some weak. Some are male and some female. Some are born with an xxy gene and others with only xx or xy. Some are castrated by religious zeal. Some are rendered impotent by sickness and others by surgery.
I find those who think that a particular text in the Bible addresses a specific issue today are operating out of a very superstitious view of the Bible. It is only when the weight of the Bible is employed in a particular human arena that I think it can be legitimately used. By this shall people know that you are my disciples, that you love one another. If you say that you love God and hate your neighbor, you are a liar. Love your neighbor as yourself. Welcome the stranger, care for the weak, embrace the outcast. Jesus is even made to state his purpose in the Fourth Gospel as "I have come that they might have life and have it more abundantly." These are some of the biblical texts that have cumulative power, that build a consensus and that counter the limited, mean-spirited prejudices that we human beings have used so often in the name of religion to violate the humanity of another child of God.
I know you probably wanted a yes or no answer. Unfortunately, the Bible does not lend itself to that kind of response.
-- John Shelby Spong
(no subject)
Jun. 22nd, 2006 10:14 amJohn Ruddick from North Sydney, Australia writes:
"Is it possible that Jesus was inferring that some people were born gay in Matthew 19:12? It reads, 'For there are different reasons why men cannot marry: some because they are born that way, others, because men made them that way and others do not marry for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven.'"
Dear John,
It is very difficult for anyone living in 2006 to say what Jesus meant in the early years of the first century of this Common Era.
First, to the best of my knowledge, Jesus left no written records and there were no tape recorders to record his words for future use. Our best estimates are that the earthly life of Jesus was lived between 4 B.C.E. and 30 C.E. He spoke Aramaic.
Matthew, who is the only gospel writer to record the text you cite, wrote between 80 and 90 C.E. or 50 to 60 years after the life of Jesus. He wrote in Greek not Aramaic. So, if Jesus actually spoke these words that Matthew attributes to him, someone had to remember them and pass them on by word of mouth for 50-60 years, translate them from Aramaic into Greek and finally to the English words that you quote. If that process can be navigated successfully and literally, we might begin to answer your question.
The next thing we need to raise is the issue to which Matthew is speaking when he had Jesus utter these words. The truth is that some people are born gay and others are born straight. Some have powerful libidos and some weak. Some are male and some female. Some are born with an xxy gene and others with only xx or xy. Some are castrated by religious zeal. Some are rendered impotent by sickness and others by surgery.
I find those who think that a particular text in the Bible addresses a specific issue today are operating out of a very superstitious view of the Bible. It is only when the weight of the Bible is employed in a particular human arena that I think it can be legitimately used. By this shall people know that you are my disciples, that you love one another. If you say that you love God and hate your neighbor, you are a liar. Love your neighbor as yourself. Welcome the stranger, care for the weak, embrace the outcast. Jesus is even made to state his purpose in the Fourth Gospel as "I have come that they might have life and have it more abundantly." These are some of the biblical texts that have cumulative power, that build a consensus and that counter the limited, mean-spirited prejudices that we human beings have used so often in the name of religion to violate the humanity of another child of God.
I know you probably wanted a yes or no answer. Unfortunately, the Bible does not lend itself to that kind of response.
-- John Shelby Spong
"Is it possible that Jesus was inferring that some people were born gay in Matthew 19:12? It reads, 'For there are different reasons why men cannot marry: some because they are born that way, others, because men made them that way and others do not marry for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven.'"
Dear John,
It is very difficult for anyone living in 2006 to say what Jesus meant in the early years of the first century of this Common Era.
First, to the best of my knowledge, Jesus left no written records and there were no tape recorders to record his words for future use. Our best estimates are that the earthly life of Jesus was lived between 4 B.C.E. and 30 C.E. He spoke Aramaic.
Matthew, who is the only gospel writer to record the text you cite, wrote between 80 and 90 C.E. or 50 to 60 years after the life of Jesus. He wrote in Greek not Aramaic. So, if Jesus actually spoke these words that Matthew attributes to him, someone had to remember them and pass them on by word of mouth for 50-60 years, translate them from Aramaic into Greek and finally to the English words that you quote. If that process can be navigated successfully and literally, we might begin to answer your question.
The next thing we need to raise is the issue to which Matthew is speaking when he had Jesus utter these words. The truth is that some people are born gay and others are born straight. Some have powerful libidos and some weak. Some are male and some female. Some are born with an xxy gene and others with only xx or xy. Some are castrated by religious zeal. Some are rendered impotent by sickness and others by surgery.
I find those who think that a particular text in the Bible addresses a specific issue today are operating out of a very superstitious view of the Bible. It is only when the weight of the Bible is employed in a particular human arena that I think it can be legitimately used. By this shall people know that you are my disciples, that you love one another. If you say that you love God and hate your neighbor, you are a liar. Love your neighbor as yourself. Welcome the stranger, care for the weak, embrace the outcast. Jesus is even made to state his purpose in the Fourth Gospel as "I have come that they might have life and have it more abundantly." These are some of the biblical texts that have cumulative power, that build a consensus and that counter the limited, mean-spirited prejudices that we human beings have used so often in the name of religion to violate the humanity of another child of God.
I know you probably wanted a yes or no answer. Unfortunately, the Bible does not lend itself to that kind of response.
-- John Shelby Spong
randomness
May. 4th, 2006 05:35 pmIt's a ~beautiful~ day.
Gosh darn it, I am in need of ice cream!!
I am in the middle of cleaning out stuff in my room, I have been saving way too much crap over the years. I found the script from my Confirmation Service & Confirmation Notes (catechism stuff)...I was confirmed a little over 19 years ago! I completely forgot I was still holding on to this stuff, guess it's still in my possession to remind me of what I consider to be um....Catholic stuff that is irrelevant to my life. After all, contrary to the purpose of Confirmation in the Catholic Church and my parent's expectations, the whole process of getting Confirmed is what pretty much made me realize this jive wasn't for me. The only reason I went through with the confirmation was because I knew full well my mother would have literally kicked my ass if I even suggested not going through with it. Haha, I am taking a peek at the Confirmation Notes now, wow. Just got a flashback of when I was first given these papers by the CCD teacher, and the look on her face when I started to question something that I read, something that I wasn't sure about. When she told me that this was not information to be questioned, but information to be accepted, memorized, and parroted back (she didn't saay it in so many words, but that was the gist), well....I think that was the final straw for me. What I had been suspecting up until then became stark reality: this wasn't for me, I wasn't about to have my relationship with God dictated to me. Damn, I was one smart 13 year old ;).
Crikey, I'm amazed by the some of the mementos I've been holding on after all of this time. Some are being kept, to be tucked away in folders/boxes for the occasional perusal but so much has been/will be tossed away. It's necessary and cathartic, but also bittersweet in a way. I guess letting go of evidence of your own past always is...but, I am making room for my future, and that's a really good thing.
Still want ice cream, I might have to stroll outside for an ice cream sandwich.
I am still getting used to wearing this engagement ring! The weight on my finger, looking at my hand and still thinking "Holy crap, I'm engaged to![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
fings!!". Am feeling a little giddy, a bit scared, rather excited and very happy! I hear this is normal ;).
I have to get rid of a shitload of books, oy.
Am *dying* to see pictures ofrenegade_geek & kosciost's new baby, Gwynn!
OK, that's it for now, peace out, yo.
Gosh darn it, I am in need of ice cream!!
I am in the middle of cleaning out stuff in my room, I have been saving way too much crap over the years. I found the script from my Confirmation Service & Confirmation Notes (catechism stuff)...I was confirmed a little over 19 years ago! I completely forgot I was still holding on to this stuff, guess it's still in my possession to remind me of what I consider to be um....Catholic stuff that is irrelevant to my life. After all, contrary to the purpose of Confirmation in the Catholic Church and my parent's expectations, the whole process of getting Confirmed is what pretty much made me realize this jive wasn't for me. The only reason I went through with the confirmation was because I knew full well my mother would have literally kicked my ass if I even suggested not going through with it. Haha, I am taking a peek at the Confirmation Notes now, wow. Just got a flashback of when I was first given these papers by the CCD teacher, and the look on her face when I started to question something that I read, something that I wasn't sure about. When she told me that this was not information to be questioned, but information to be accepted, memorized, and parroted back (she didn't saay it in so many words, but that was the gist), well....I think that was the final straw for me. What I had been suspecting up until then became stark reality: this wasn't for me, I wasn't about to have my relationship with God dictated to me. Damn, I was one smart 13 year old ;).
Crikey, I'm amazed by the some of the mementos I've been holding on after all of this time. Some are being kept, to be tucked away in folders/boxes for the occasional perusal but so much has been/will be tossed away. It's necessary and cathartic, but also bittersweet in a way. I guess letting go of evidence of your own past always is...but, I am making room for my future, and that's a really good thing.
Still want ice cream, I might have to stroll outside for an ice cream sandwich.
I am still getting used to wearing this engagement ring! The weight on my finger, looking at my hand and still thinking "Holy crap, I'm engaged to
fings!!". Am feeling a little giddy, a bit scared, rather excited and very happy! I hear this is normal ;).I have to get rid of a shitload of books, oy.
Am *dying* to see pictures of
renegade_geek & kosciost's new baby, Gwynn!OK, that's it for now, peace out, yo.
randomness
May. 4th, 2006 05:35 pmIt's a ~beautiful~ day.
Gosh darn it, I am in need of ice cream!!
I am in the middle of cleaning out stuff in my room, I have been saving way too much crap over the years. I found the script from my Confirmation Service & Confirmation Notes (catechism stuff)...I was confirmed a little over 19 years ago! I completely forgot I was still holding on to this stuff, guess it's still in my possession to remind me of what I consider to be um....Catholic stuff that is irrelevant to my life. After all, contrary to the purpose of Confirmation in the Catholic Church and my parent's expectations, the whole process of getting Confirmed is what pretty much made me realize this jive wasn't for me. The only reason I went through with the confirmation was because I knew full well my mother would have literally kicked my ass if I even suggested not going through with it. Haha, I am taking a peek at the Confirmation Notes now, wow. Just got a flashback of when I was first given these papers by the CCD teacher, and the look on her face when I started to question something that I read, something that I wasn't sure about. When she told me that this was not information to be questioned, but information to be accepted, memorized, and parroted back (she didn't saay it in so many words, but that was the gist), well....I think that was the final straw for me. What I had been suspecting up until then became stark reality: this wasn't for me, I wasn't about to have my relationship with God dictated to me. Damn, I was one smart 13 year old ;).
Crikey, I'm amazed by the some of the mementos I've been holding on after all of this time. Some are being kept, to be tucked away in folders/boxes for the occasional perusal but so much has been/will be tossed away. It's necessary and cathartic, but also bittersweet in a way. I guess letting go of evidence of your own past always is...but, I am making room for my future, and that's a really good thing.
Still want ice cream, I might have to stroll outside for an ice cream sandwich.
I am still getting used to wearing this engagement ring! The weight on my finger, looking at my hand and still thinking "Holy crap, I'm engaged tofings!!". Am feeling a little giddy, a bit scared, rather excited and very happy! I hear this is normal ;).
I have to get rid of a shitload of books, oy.
Am *dying* to see pictures ofrenegade_geek & kosciost's new baby, Gwynn!
OK, that's it for now, peace out, yo.
Gosh darn it, I am in need of ice cream!!
I am in the middle of cleaning out stuff in my room, I have been saving way too much crap over the years. I found the script from my Confirmation Service & Confirmation Notes (catechism stuff)...I was confirmed a little over 19 years ago! I completely forgot I was still holding on to this stuff, guess it's still in my possession to remind me of what I consider to be um....Catholic stuff that is irrelevant to my life. After all, contrary to the purpose of Confirmation in the Catholic Church and my parent's expectations, the whole process of getting Confirmed is what pretty much made me realize this jive wasn't for me. The only reason I went through with the confirmation was because I knew full well my mother would have literally kicked my ass if I even suggested not going through with it. Haha, I am taking a peek at the Confirmation Notes now, wow. Just got a flashback of when I was first given these papers by the CCD teacher, and the look on her face when I started to question something that I read, something that I wasn't sure about. When she told me that this was not information to be questioned, but information to be accepted, memorized, and parroted back (she didn't saay it in so many words, but that was the gist), well....I think that was the final straw for me. What I had been suspecting up until then became stark reality: this wasn't for me, I wasn't about to have my relationship with God dictated to me. Damn, I was one smart 13 year old ;).
Crikey, I'm amazed by the some of the mementos I've been holding on after all of this time. Some are being kept, to be tucked away in folders/boxes for the occasional perusal but so much has been/will be tossed away. It's necessary and cathartic, but also bittersweet in a way. I guess letting go of evidence of your own past always is...but, I am making room for my future, and that's a really good thing.
Still want ice cream, I might have to stroll outside for an ice cream sandwich.
I am still getting used to wearing this engagement ring! The weight on my finger, looking at my hand and still thinking "Holy crap, I'm engaged to
fings!!". Am feeling a little giddy, a bit scared, rather excited and very happy! I hear this is normal ;).I have to get rid of a shitload of books, oy.
Am *dying* to see pictures of
renegade_geek & kosciost's new baby, Gwynn!OK, that's it for now, peace out, yo.
