Category Archives: Reviews

On the DORs for June 6, 2015

Description of  Planes from the 344th Bomb Group, which led the IX Bomber Command formations on D-Day on June 6, 2014. Operations started in March 1944 with attacks on targets in German-occupied France, Belgium, and the Netherlands. After the beginning of the Normandy invasion, the Group was active at Cotentin Peninsula, Caen, Saint-Lo and the Falaise Gap.  (Photo by Galerie Bilderwelt/Getty Images)

“Do you realize that by the time you wake up in the morning 20,000 men may have been killed?”
                                                                           – Winston Churchill to his wife, on the night before D-Day

*   *   *   *

Saturday, June 6, 2015 is a red letter day, and not just because it’s been 71 years since the best-known D-Day.  (Though that’s certainly enough…)   It also has special significance based on the timely and instructive Daily Office Readings for today.

Those readings include Psalm 55, 138, and 139:1-17(18-23).  The Old Testament reading is Deuteronomy 29:2-15, the New Testament reading is 2d Corinthians 9:1-15, and the Gospel is Luke 18:15-30.   We’ll look at the three psalms for today further below.

Deuteronomy 29:2-15 is part of “concluding discourse” of Moses, on renewing the covenant between God and the Hebrews.  See Deuteronomy – Wikipedia, which said the book has “three sermons or speeches delivered to the Israelites by Moses on the plains of Moab, shortly before they enter the Promised Land.”  (It included the image at left, “Moses viewing the Promised Land.”)    Deuteronomy 29 is also known for commemorating the ancient Hebrews’ years of wandering in the wilderness:

I have led you for forty years in the wilderness.  The clothes on your back have not worn out, and the sandals on your feet have not worn out; you have not eaten bread, and you have not drunk wine or strong drink…

In other words you could say these Children of Israel went through a kind of “boot camp” or recruit training.  (Designed to toughen them up and make them worthy of the high honor bestowed on them.  See also Spiritual boot camp, from April 2014.)

That in turn could remind us to expect some of the same “toughening up” in our lives.

The New Testament reading – 2d Corinthians 9:1-15 – was part of Paul’s “instructions for the collection for the poor in the Jerusalem church.”  (See Second Epistle to the Corinthians.)  Or as the IBC put it, “Paul was organizing a collection from his Gentile churches for the poor in Jerusalem.”  As part of the discussion, Paul set out “the principles of Christian giving.” (1403)   Specifically, 2d Corinthians 9 included this, from verses 6 and 7:

The point is this:  the one who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and the one who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully.  Each of you must give as you have made up your mind, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

Which is just common sense.  If you are “miserly” in sowing your seed, the resulting “crop” that you get will be nothing to write home about.

But the point in turn is this:  Every Sunday at my church, the priest includes 2d Corinthians 9:6-7 in what he calls the “interactive portion” of the service.  (At “half-time,” after the exchange of the peace and announcements, and before the Liturgy of the Table.  See also The Holy Eucharist:  Rite Two, at the end of page 360.)   At the end of the verse 7 part the Good Father says “for God loves…”  At that point the congregation responds en masse, “…a cheerful giver!”

The Gospel – Luke 18:15-30 – began with people bringing children for Jesus to bless.  The disciples tried to stop it, but:

 Jesus called for them and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs.  Truly I tell you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it.”

The point of this Gospel passage is that children never stop asking questions!  In fact, they can be quite a pain about it.  See for example Children’s questions: a mechanism for cognitive development, and also Why do kids ask so many questions—and why do they stop?

As to why our kids stop asking questions, the second post above said this:

In school, we’re rewarded for having the answer, not for asking a good question…   Which may explain why kids – who start off asking endless “why” and “what if” questions – gradually ask fewer and fewer of them…   Preschool kids ask their parents an average of 100 questions a day.  By middle school, they’ve basically stopped [and at] this time … student motivation and engagement plummets.

Thus the question:  Do kids stop asking questions because they’ve lost interest?  Or “because the rote answers-driven school system doesn’t allow them to ask enough questions?”

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zg9CRD5TZXA/VKXZIIj-bnI/AAAAAAAAFTo/FOOeK5pQzEA/s1600/BachMusicQuote.jpgPersonally I think it’s the “rote answer.”

More than that, I think the same thing applies to the Bible-approach that emphasizes literalism or fundamentalism.  It seems to me that such an approach can comfort some people, like those “creatively challenged.”  But more often it just stifles the very creativity that is such a big part of interacting with God.  (See humanlifematters.org/the-quest-to-express – the source of the image at left – and also Holy Spirit as God’s Creative Power.)

All of which brings us back to why we were able to win World War II.  In large part it was based on the creativity – the individual initiative – shown by American fighters:

During World War II, German generals often complained that U.S. forces were unpredictable…  After the Normandy invasion in 1944, American troops found that their movements were constrained by the thick hedgerows…   In response, “Army soldiers invented a mechanism on the fly that they welded onto the front of a tank to cut through hedgerows…”   American troops are famous for this kind of individual initiative.  It’s a point of pride among officers that the American way of war emphasizes independent judgment in the fog and friction of battle, rather than obedience and rules.  (E.A.)

See Why Our Best Officers Are Leaving, which noted that – sadly – the current military establishment is “creating a command structure that rewards conformism and ignores merit.  As a result, it’s losing its vaunted ability to cultivate entrepreneurs in uniform.”

Which means it’s not just “Bible-thumpers” who are now trying to create a culture that rewards conformism and stifles creativity.  It’s happening in other walks of American life as well.

But  finally, this is a day to remember when “independent judgment” – not rigid obedience to a pre-formed set of “rules” – was the order of the day, and not the exception.

Into the Jaws of Death 23-0455M edit.jpgIn other words, this June 6th calls for us to remember the sacrifices of those brave members of the armed services 71 years ago, as part of the Allied invasion of Normandy.

For one such remembrance, see On D-Day and confession.  That post talked about World War II, when up to and beyond D-Day, “our fathers, uncles and other relatives flew in bombers” from England, “with targets in Germany and other European countries.”  It talked about the importance of debriefing after those missions; basically a process of asking really aggravating questions.  (Not unlike the way children do, as noted above.)   The post then noted:

Maybe that’s what the … concepts of sin and confession are all about.  (Or should be about.)  When we “sin” we simply fall short of our goals; we “miss the target.” When we “confess,” we simply admit to ourselves how far short of the target we were.  And maybe the purpose of all this is not to make people feel guilty all the time…

In turn it said the concepts of sin, repentance and confession should be viewed as “tools to help us get closer to the target.”  In other words, they help us grow and develop, and are not to be used as a means of social control, as it sometimes seems.

Note also that the “Biblical Greek term for sin [amartia], means ‘missing the mark,'” and implies that “one’s aim is out and that one has not reached the goal, one’s fullest potential.”

So in the end, hitting the mark is what it’s all about.  And that’s true whether you’re reading the Bible, trying to liberate a people from tyranny, or just trying to “be all that you can be.”  In turn, to “be all you can be” you need to explore “the mystical side of Bible reading.”

And that is just another way of saying that by reading the Bible with an open mind, you’ll be on your way to the creative judgment that overcomes “the fog and friction” of everyday life.

*   *   *   *

The upper image – borrowed from On D-Day and confession – is courtesy of the Denver Post “Plog,” D-Day in Color, Photographs from the Normandy Invasion.   The caption reads:  “Planes from the 344th Bomb Group, which led the IX Bomber Command formations on D-Day on June 6, 2014. Operations started in March 1944 with attacks on targets in German-occupied France, Belgium, and the Netherlands. After the beginning of the Normandy invasion, the Group was active at Cotentin Peninsula, Caen, Saint-Lo and the Falaise Gap. (Photo by Galerie Bilderwelt/Getty Images) #.”

The Churchill quote is courtesy of The Bombing Offensive | History.co.uk.

The “D-Day” image is courtesy of Normandy landings – Wikipedia.  The full caption: “US Army troops wade ashore on Omaha Beach on the morning of 6 June 1944.”

Other notes from the original post:

The painting of Jesus blessing the children is courtesy of Christ Blessing the Children by MAES, Nicolaes, which noted it was “loosely based on Rembrandt’s famous Hundred Guilder Print.”

Re: “nothing to write home about.”  I was originally going to say “If you are niggardly in your ‘sowing…'”  But there is some controversy about that word – see controversies about the word “niggardly” – which might lead some to say there’s no such thing as too much education.  But that in turn would have required a citation to “Another brick in the wall,” and for me to eventually write, “We digress greatly!”   As the saying goes, “discretion is the better part of valor.”

Re: “sin.”  See Eastern Orthodox view of sin – Wikipedia.

Re: “D-Day.”  As I worked on this post, Mi Dulce emailed one of those aggravating questions.  (You know, the kind kids ask, as noted above?)   The question: “What does the ‘D’ in ‘D-Day’ stand for?”

As it turns out, this is a “most frequently asked question” and one on which “disagreements abound.”  See What does the “D” in D-Day mean – The National WWII Museum.  The article noted that in the simplest sense, “the D in D-Day merely stands for Day.”  In a second sense it is “simply an alliteration, as in H-Hour.”   Other explanations: The D means disembarkation, or debarkation, while “the more poetic insist D-Day is short for ‘day of decision.’”  In 1964 someone asked General Eisenhower – who by then was a retired President of the United States – and his assistant wrote back:  “Be advised that any amphibious operation has a ‘departed date’; therefore the shortened term ‘D-Day’ is used.” 

The most logical answer came from What Does the “D” in “D-Day” Stand For? – Today I Found Out:

[T]he “D” is just a placeholder or variable for the actual date, and probably originally was meant to stand for “date” or “day” (if anything), if the associated “H-hour” is any indication. The use of D-day allows military personnel to easily plan for a combat mission ahead of time without knowing the exact date that it will occur.  (E.A.)

In other words, “D-Day” was short for “the day when we invade this particular place or beach, but at a date and time we don’t know for sure yet.”  The latter site noted the term was first used in September 1918 – 26 years before the best-known “D-Day” – in an Army Field Order:  “The order stated that ‘The First Army will attack at H hour on D day with the object of forcing the evacuation of the St. Mihiel Salient.'”  And finally, the National WWII site also noted that the “invasion of Normandy on June 6, 1944 was not the only D-Day of World War II.  Every amphibious assault – including those in the Pacific, in North Africa, and in Sicily and Italy – had its own D-Day.”

Re: the rest of the June 6 Gospel-reading, Luke 18:15-30.  It recites the lesson of the eye of a needle, to wit:  that it is “easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”  (The image at left is courtesy of genius.com/2320019/Shad-remember-to-remember/This-camel.)

And finally, a note about the psalms for this June 6th.  Psalm 55:24 reads – in the Book of Common Prayer –  “Cast your burden upon the Lord, and he will sustain you.”  And Psalm 138:9 reads – in the BCP – “The Lord will make good his purpose for me.”  That in turn is also pretty much what this blog is all about:  Helping us both figure out what precise purpose God has for us.

(Note that psalm-passages in the Prayer Book are occasionally different from those given in other translations.  See Psalm 55:22, “Give your burdens to the LORD, and he will take care of you.  He will not permit the godly to slip and fall.”  And see also Psalm 138:8.)

On “Job the not patient” – REDUX

Ilya Repin: Job and his Friends

Job and his friends, by Ilya Repin (1869). . .

*   *   *   *

I spend a lot of time driving.  A lot of it I spend visiting Mi Dulce, who lives three counties over.

The point is that to help pass the time I’ve gotten the habit of listening to “lectures on CD.”  I’m now listening to Hebrews, Greeks and Romans:  Foundations of Western Civilization, by Professor Timothy Shutt.  The other point is that in this lecture, Professor Shutt gave the best analysis of the Book of Job I’ve ever heard “in all my born days.”

Some think Job is a great book, but not me.  Alfred, Lord Tennyson loved it; “the greatest poem of ancient and modern times.”  But to me it’s always been greatly depressing and impossible to understand.  In that spirit I posted Job, the not-so-patient last August, which ended:

For just that reason, guys like John R. W. Stott took issue with literalists who say the Bible should viewed as “inerrant per se.”  Instead – he said – the Bible should be viewed as inerrant “in all that it affirms.”  As applied to this case, Stott would say that the “plain meaning” of the Book of Job should not be seen as affirming suicide…   But since we’re running out of space and time, Stott’s views will be explored in a future post.

This then is that “future post…”

The point of Job the not-patient was that there are some parts of the Bible you really don’t want to take too literally.  Another case in point is Mark 16:18, part of the Great Commission of Jesus. That’s where He said of His disciples, “they will pick up snakes with their hands.”  But as noted in Snake-handling, Fundamentalism and suicide, Mark 16:18 is a verse that can definitely be “taken out of context.”  (That would be Part I and Part II, with the  “Stumpy” photo below left.)

But to get back to the depressing part of Job… 

Verses 1-22 of Job, Chapter 3 are a good example of passages from the Bible that should both be approached with great caution, and not taken too literally.  Put another way, Job 3:1-22 itself could definitely be taken out of context:

Job opened his mouth and cursed the day of his birth…   “Why did I not perish at birth, and die as I came from the womb [or] hidden away in the ground like a stillborn child, like an infant who never saw the light of day…  Why is light given to those in misery, and life to the bitter of soul, to those who long for death that does not come, who search for it more than for hidden treasure, who are filled with gladness and rejoice when they reach the grave?”

Emphasis added.  Thus as Wikipedia noted, the Book of Job addresses the ongoing theme of “God’s justice in the face of human suffering – or simply, ‘Why do the righteous suffer?'”  (See also When Bad Things Happen to Good People, a book by Harold S. Kushner.   Or just Google the words “why do bad things happen to good people.”  I got some 170,000,000 hits.)

But getting back to Professor Shutt, he noted that Job was written – or at least came to light – just after The (First) Destruction of the Temple.  (I.e., the first time it was destroyed, around 586 B.C., and not to be confused with the second great destruction of the Temple, in 70 A.D.  See  Siege of Jerusalem (AD 70) – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.)

Needless to say, the destruction of their Holy of Holies provoked a crisis of faith in the Jewish people.  (Not unlike the one after the Holocaust, 70 years ago.) That in turn led to the question:  How could God let this happen to His Chosen People? 

Or as put above, Why do bad things happen to good people?  To that there are two main answers.  First, God was not who the Hebrews thought He was.  Second: There Is No God at all.  But as Professor Shutt said:

Even in the most hopeless days of the Babylonian exile, though [roughly the 70 years from 605 to 539 B.C.], another answer seems to have been possible, and we find it formulated most powerfully, if not, perhaps, most clearly, in the Book of Job.

That’s the conclusion in Track 7, Disc 1, of Hebrews, Greeks and Romans: Foundations of Western Civilization, and/or pages 24-27 of the Course Guide (“CG”).

But wait, there’s more!

As Professor Shutt put it, God’s covenant started out with the Hebrews as His Chosen People, which carried with it an implied promise.  (If not an “implied contract.”)  That promise – quite simply – was “obey and prosper.”  But the Job examines what happens when good people do “obey God” and don’t prosper.  The short answer – the one given repeatedly by Job’s friends – is that he had to have done something wrong.  (A fallacy that continues “even to this day.”)

Put another way, many a person thinks that if he or she lives a good life, God owes me!   

But as we all know, life doesn’t work that way.  No one has found the magic formula to change God into a “magic genie” who will cater to our every whim.  (See “O Lord won’t you buy me a Mercedes Benz,” by Janis Joplin, at left.)

The upshot of that is that – for better or worse – we are simply incapable of ever fully understanding God.  As Professor Shutt put it, we can’t “put God in a box.”  But that’s exactly what many people still try to do.

Even though we can’t make sense of it, there’s a presence out there, somewhere.  A presence that we can “feel,” even in our darkest hours.  “We can’t put it in a box, we can’t tie it up in a ribbon,” as Shutt put it, but it’s there.  Yet many people still try to put God “in a box” or “tie Him up in a ribbon.”  We always tend to commit the error of “making a god of our idea of God.”

And that’s the ultimate lesson of the Book of Job:  “We can make a god of our idea of God.”  We keep trying to conceptualize God.  We are always trying to make some sense of “Him” (anthropomorphism), which is of course only right and natural.  But the key to remember – as Shutt noted – is that “we have to sit on the conceptualizations lightly.”

All of which may be why God chose to bring Jesus into the world.  Because without that image of a “finite” human being to focus on, our poor little pea-brains simply couldn’t even begin the process of bringing The Force That Created the Universe into any kind of focus at all.

Shutt noted that in approaching God, it’s all “about contact and experience.”  It’s not about finding persuasive “courtroom evidence.”  It’s not about finding the actual Noah’s Ark in Turkey to prove – once and for all – that God does indeed exist.  And it’s not about finding the one true passage from the Bible that will bowl over all doubt.  The covenant – as Shutt put it – is “the face of our interaction with God.”  In other words, God can’t be “proven,” only “experienced.”

So since it all comes down to personal experience – but mostly just because our minds are so limited – “we cannot ever fully know the nature of God.”  We can never fully either understand or explain “God.”  Yet that’s just what Job’s friends did.  Their solution was to “make a god of their idea of God.”  They tried to put God into a “conceptual box.”

So in Shutt’s final analysis, “God’s answer to Job is, again, no answer.”  Which is just another way of saying that – in that final analysis – we are simply not up to the task of fully understanding God:

We are simply not up to the task, not wired for such an overload.  We are no more prepared to comprehend an answer than – to make use of a memorable example – cats are prepared to study calculus.  It’s just not in our nature.

But that doesn’t mean we have nothing to go on.  Even if we can never fully understand God, we can – from time to time – ” feel His presence.”  We can have that experience of God.

Our view of the tree in the yard is not the result of logical calculation…  So too in a way, and so too surprisingly, our sense of God’s presence, should we feel it.  Even if we obey and don’t prosper, the covenant somehow seems still to hold.  Or so in any case the ancient Hebrews seem to have decided.

Or as Isaac Asimov put it, “At the end of God’s speech, Job realizes divine omnipotence and understands the folly or trying to penetrate God’s plan and purposes with the limited mind of a human being.” (487)   And that’s a lesson we need to keep on learning…

*   *   *   *

“Job and his friends…”

*   *   *   *

The upper image is courtesy of Job and His Friends – Ilya Repin – WikiArt.org.  See also Ilya Repin – Wikipedia, on “the most renowned Russian artist of the 19th century, when his position in the world of art was comparable to that of Leo Tolstoy in literature…  His method was the reverse of impressionism.  He produced works slowly and carefully.  They were the result of close and detailed study.  With some of his paintings, he made one hundred or more preliminary sketches.  He was never satisfied with his works, and often painted multiple versions, years apart.”

As to the “redux” part of the post-title.  It’s an allusion to the 1971 book by John Updike, Rabbit Redux.  This was the second of five “Rabbit” books about an aging high-school basketball star – Harry “Rabbit” Angstrom – as he went through five decades of life.  The series began with Rabbit, Run (1960), when Harry was 26.  The five books feature “recurring themes of guilt, sex, and death.”  See, Wikipedia.  The article added that the word redux means “brought back” or “restored,” and that other works of literature with the title-word include John Dryden‘s Astraea Redux (1662), and Anthony Trollope‘s Phineas Redux (1873).  Wikipedia also noted, “Rabbit Redux led to a redux in popularity of the word redux,” for example, in Rabbit At Rest itself.  Updike had Harry Angstrom notice a story in the local paper, headlined “Circus Redux:”

He hates that word, you see it everywhere, and he doesn’t know how to pronounce it.   Like arbitrageur and perestroika…”

Re: Professor Shutt.  See also Tim Shutt · Kenyon College.

Re: the Great Commission of Jesus.  “According to some critics, in Mark”  –  the first Gospel to be written  –  “Jesus never speaks with his disciples after his resurrection.  They argue that the original Gospel of Mark ends at verse Mark 16:8 with the women leaving the tomb (see Mark 16).”

Re: bad things happening to good people.  See also When Bad Things Happen to Good People – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, which noted: “Harold Kushner, a Conservative rabbi”  addressed “one of the principal problems of theodicy, the conundrum of why, if the universe was created and is governed by a God who is of a good and loving nature, there is nonetheless so much suffering and pain in it – essentially, the evidential problem of evil.”  Note also that in the NRSV, Job 3:22 speaks of those who are bitter of soul, and “rejoice exceedingly, and are glad when they find the grave…”

Re: Professor Shutt’s conclusion on Job.  See pages 24 and 25 of the Course Guide.

The Janis Joplin photo is courtesy of The story behind Janis Joplin’s “Mercedes Benz,” which noted of the original recording session:  “she begins to sing, exercising soulful control over her enormous, whiskey-soaked voice…  ‘Mercedes Benz’ is a lonely blues tune about the illusory happiness promised (but rarely delivered) by the pursuit of worldly goods…”

The “God in a box” image is courtesy of www.bransonparler.com/blog/what-we-talk-about-when-we-say-you-can’t-put-God-in-a-box.  See also Relevant Bible Teaching – Don’t Put God in a Box.

As to Isaac Asimov on Job, see Asimov’s Guide to the Bible (Two Volumes in One),  Avenel Books (1981), beginning on page 474, up to the “not-so-patient” quote on page 480, on to the “folly or trying to penetrate God’s plan and purposes with the limited mind of a human being,” at page 487.  

The lower image is courtesy of Bildad – Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaBildad, from the Hebrew meaning “Bel has loved, was one of Job‘s three friends who visited him Book of Job:

He was a descendant of Shuah, son of Abraham and Keturah (Genesis 25:1), whose family lived in the deserts of Arabia, or a resident of the district.  In speaking with Job, his intent was consolation, but he became an accuser, asking Job what he has done to deserve God’s wrath.

See also Job and his three friends Drawn by Gustave DoreGetty images.

For more on this topic, see When Bad Things Happen to Good People – My Jewish Learning.

*   *   *   *

Reflections on Volume 3

https://tmrichmond3dotnet.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/picture1_0.png

 

 

 

 

 

 

(I just published Volume 3 of my collection of blog-posts.  It begins like this:)

 

In the 15th and 16th centuries, superstitious people might have warned an explorer, sailing west from Europe, that he was doomed to fall off the edge of the world.  At the very least, they might have said, the explorer and his sailors would suffer horribly and never be seen again…   For all the grim warnings, nobody could have predicted that the explorers would not sail off the edge of the known world, but into an entirely new one. (E.A.)

Track 1, Disc 1, The Modern Scholar: Journeys of the Great Explorers.

 

That’s what this blog is all about.   Finding that entirely new world

I’m not saying that the Bible is just another set of superstitions, or a handbook on methods of social control.  And I’m not saying that after you read the Bible, you’re supposed to shape yourself into another “carbon copy Christian.”  (Or “just another brick in the wall.”)

There are a lot of people who seem to use the Bible for just those reasons, but I’m not one of them.  I see the Bible more as a tool of liberation.  I see the Bible as a “pair of spiritual wings.”  (See Isaiah 40:31.)  It’s a set of spiritual wings that can take you to wonderful places and experiences that you’ve never dreamed of.

So the idea behind this blog is:  Reading the Bible can lead you into that Whole New World.

Or as I said in the Intro page, you might consider the Bible as a vast, unexplored, new continent.   Just like the one Lewis and Clark opened up, starting in May 1804.

*   *   *   *

As noted, I just published Volume 3 of my collection.   (To order a copy, see For a book.)

Now, about the image above.  I got it – and the “15th century” text – from The Blog.  That page talked about blogs in general, including a citation to Blogging For Dummies.  “BFD” said that at its most-basic level, “a blog is a chronologically ordered ordered series of website updates, written and organized much like a traditional diary.” (Emphasis added.)

This blog – my own diary – has grown and expanded since May 2014, when I first started.  It’s been a learning experience, but that’s not surprising.  After all, the Bible is “the most influential, the most published, the most widely read book in the history of the world…”

I published Volume 2 of this book-collection of blog-posts back on August 16, 2014.   Volume 1 included my first 13 posts, up to and including On “Titanic” and suspending disbeliefVolume 2 began with On Jesus: Liberal or Fundamentalist?   It went on for a total of 12 posts and ended with On “Patton,” Sunday School teacher and On the readings for June 1, subtitled “On liberally interpreting ‘Sabbath day’s journey’.”

Since publishing Volume 2 last August, a lot has happened.  For one thing I’ve clarified that long-sought “true test of faith” that I’ve been looking for.  Under that true test of faith, even if I get to the end of my life and find out that my faith is based on a hoax, it won’t matter.

Unlike the false Christian, I hope I wouldn’t be outraged.  I wouldn’t say, “You mean I could have spent my life partying?  Boozing it up?  Chasing women?  Boy am I angry…”   I hope to say – if I learn my faith is some kind of cosmic practical joke –  “You know, I wouldn’t change a thing.”  (See also Why I’d Still Believe In God Even if the Bible was a Fairytale.)

I wrote about that “wouldn’t change a thing” revelation in the post-column, Ash Wednesday and a True Test of Faith, posted on February 20.  In turn, I wrote that column in response to a reader comment on Oscar Wilde and Psalm 130.

One reader – “Harpo” – quoted Oscar Wilde:  “People fashion their God after their own understanding.  They make their God first and worship him afterwards.”  Harpo went on to say there are “thousands and thousands of Gods, and nearly as many religions.”  He then said the fact that “an adult would continue to hold on to this last childhood fable [God] when there is no more evidence [of God’s] existence than the other [fairy tales], bewilders the thoughtful and scientific mind.”    I responded, in pertinent part:

I agree that there are way too many so-called Christians who use the Bible and their faith as an excuse to close their minds…  I’m working on a new post, “The true test of faith” (or some title to that effect).  The punch-line will be how two different Christians might respond if they died and found out – as you say – that there is no God and no after-life.

But we’re getting ahead of ourselves. . .

*   *   *   *

As noted, I ended Volume 2 with a post on a liberal interpretation of the term “Sabbath day’s journey.”  That is, I noted that “from the time of Joshua to the time of Jesus, the distance a devout Hebrew could travel on the Sabbath was gradually and continually expanded.”  See The readings for June 1.  I wrote that to counter the idea you must read the Bible conservatively.

I began Volume 3 with On Jesus in Hell

 

Continued in Reflections on Volume 3 – Part II

 

File:Christ's Descent into Limbo by Dürer .png

The upper image is courtesy of tmrichmond3.net/2014/02/07/here-be-dragons, a blog where the blog-bio notes:  “I am the pastor at the First Presbyterian Church in Medford, Oregon.  I believe that faith should be able to sustain us, not oppress us.”  (Emphasis added.)

The lower image is “Christ’s Descent into Limbo, woodcut by Albrecht Dürer (circa 1510),” courtesy of  Christ’s Descent into Limbo by Dürer – Wikimedia.

A  full citation:  Aladdin – A Whole New World (HQ 1080p HD) – YouTube.

Re: “Social control.”  See Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, which added that the term is defined as “the regulation of individual and group behavior in an attempt to gain conformity and compliance to the rules of a given society, state, or social group.”

A full cite: Lewis and Clark Expedition – WikipediaSee also National Geographic: Lewis & Clark:

When Thomas Jefferson dispatched Lewis and Clark to find a water route across North America and explore the uncharted West, he expected they’d encounter woolly mammoths, erupting volcanoes, and a mountain of pure salt.  What they found was no less surprising.

Reflections on Volume 3 – Part II

Imagine if Moses had told the whole truth about that “big bright round thing in the sky…”

 

 

As noted in “Part I,” I ended Volume 2 with a post on a liberal interpretation of “Sabbath day’s journey.”   I began Volume 3 with a discussion of Jesus in Hell.  (For the rest of the story about the painting above – of Moses getting stoned – see the notes below.)

That column – about Jesus in Hell – discussed the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Harrowing of Hell.   It also spoke of the Bible as a rich source of universal “stories, themes, metaphors, and characterizations.”  That is, the Bible contains a number of “literary forms and genres,” including “poetry, narratives, epistles, proverbs, parables, satire, and visionary writing.”

All of which – I argued – provides yet another reason for studying the Bible.  “To find grist for becoming a better, more-productive and more fascinating artist or member of the “Literati.

Another note:  In reading this blog you need to keep in mind that to most reasonable people the Bible is not a history book in the modern sense.  For one thing, “its writers lacked the benefit of modern archaeological techniques, did not have our concept of dating and documentation, and had different standards of what was and not significant in history.” (Asimov, 8)

Then too it’s important to keep in mind that the guys who wrote the Bible had to focus on their immediate, primary audience.  For Moses – writing the first five books or Torah – that meant his fellow Hebrews who had far less education than he did.  In turn that meant Moses had to write very carefully, mostly so his main audience would listen to him in the first place.  But he also didn’t want to get burned at the stake for heresy, or tarred and feathered.

Which led to a question: How would those primitive, backward Hebrews have reacted to Moses telling them things we now take for granted?  How would they have reacted to being told:

“You see that big bright round thing in the sky?  The thing that disappears when it gets dark, to be replaced by a smaller not-so-bright round thing?  Well, it looks like it revolves around us, but really, we live on this other big round thing, which is hurtling though space, and our big round thing actually revolves around that other Big Bright Round Thing In The Sky, not the other way around like we’ve been thinking all these years…”

The chances are good that if Moses had said that to his fellow Hebrews – primitive, backward and ignorant as they were at the time – he would have ended up either burned at the stake or tarred and feathered.  (Or maybe both.)

(See for one example, Exodus 17:4, where Moses said to God, “What am I to do with these people?  They are almost ready to stone me.”)

The point is this:  When Moses first told his Story of Creation to his fellow Hebrews, he had to use language and concepts that his “relatively-pea-brained contemporary audience” could understand.  In other words, Moses’ ability to “tell the story he wanted was limited to his audience’s ability to comprehend.”  (See The readings for June 15 – Part I.)

Which is appropriate, because that’s the same problem God has when He tries to communicate with us.  (Or, the problem we have in trying to communicate with Him.)  See e.g. Isaiah 55:8-9:

For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
nor are your ways my ways, says the Lord.

(TLB, emphasis added.)  See also John 3:12, where Jesus said, “if you don’t believe me when I tell you about earthly things, how can you possibly believe if I tell you about heavenly things?”

All of which is a good reason why I say, “You’re only cheating yourself if you read the Bible in a too-strict, too-narrow, or too-fundamental way.”   You risk creating God in the image of you, not the other way around.  See for example, Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 5:1.   (And by the way, maybe that’s what Oscar Wilde was talking about when he said that people “fashion their God after their own understanding.”  Maybe he just recognized that it’s an ongoing problem…)

And there’s another ongoing problem to keep in mind as you read the Bible, or this blog.  The idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun was never “contrary to Scripture.”   It was only contrary to a too-conservative, too-literal interpretation of that Scripture…

 

 

The upper image is courtesy of Stoning – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.  The caption:  “The Punishment of Korah and the Stoning of Moses and Aaron (1480–1482), by Sandro Botticelli, Sistine Chapel, Rome.”  See also Heresy – WikipediaThe “stoning” article said this of the painting:

The painting … tells of a rebellion by the Hebrews against Moses and Aaron.  On the right the rebels attempt to stone Moses after becoming disenchanted by their trials on their emigration from Egypt.  Joshua has placed himself between the rebels and Moses, protecting him from the stoning

Which raises anew the question:  “What would those backward, ignorant, sons-of-the-desert have done to Moses if he’d told them the truth about that ‘big bright round thing in the sky?'”

For one possible answer, consider the lower image – Cristiano Banti‘s 1857 painting Galileo facing the Roman Inquisition” – courtesy of the article, Heresy – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

Galileo Galilei was brought before the Inquisition for heresy, but abjured his views and was sentenced to house arrest, under which he spent the rest of his life. Galileo was found “vehemently suspect of heresy”, namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture.  He was required to “abjure, curse and detest” those opinions. (E.A.)

Re: Genesis 1:27Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary added that “It is the soul of man that especially bears God’s image.”  (E.A.)  The complete citations: Genesis 1:27 So God created mankind in his own image, and Genesis 5:1 This is the written account of Adam’s family.

See also Genesis creation narrative – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Re: Isaac Asimov.  The quote – about the Bible not being a history book “in the modern sense” – is from Asimov’s Guide to the Bible (Two Volumes in One),  Avenel Books (1981), at page 7.  (The same page that noted the Bible was and is “the most influential, the most published, the most widely read book in the history of the world.”)   Asimov (1920-1992) was “an American author and professor of biochemistry at Boston University, best known for his works of science fiction and for his popular science books.  Asimov was one of the most prolific writers of all time, having written or edited more than 500 books and an estimated 90,000 letters and postcards.”  His list of books included those on “astronomy, mathematics, the Bible, William Shakespeare’s writing, and chemistry.”  He was a long-time member of Mensa, “albeit reluctantly;  he described some members of that organization as ‘brain-proud and aggressive about their IQs.’”  See Isaac Asimov – Wikipedia.

On “Exodus: G&K,” the movie

Exodus Gods and Kings Bale and Edgerton Exodus: Gods and Kings: Christian Bale on Moses, Biblical Scale, & Charlton Heston

 

January 28, 2015 – The image above is from Exodus:  Gods and Kings

But come to think of it, another image comes to mind.  The movie – E: G&K – ends with Moses riding in a wagon, with the Ark of the Covenant in the back.  (This was after the parting of the Red Sea and after he was re-united with his family, but before the 40 years of Wandering in the Wilderness.)   Up to now in the movie, Moses had appeared youthful and dark-haired.  But as the movie ends, Moses looks pretty much like the guy on the Home Page, to wit:  Moses at the Battle of Rephidim, “in John Everett Millais‘ Victory O Lord! (1871).”

But we digress…

In the photograph above, Moses stands in the foreground.  He – Moses – will eventually become the “greatest prophet, leader and teacher that Judaism has ever known.”  In the background stands Ramesses II.  He will soon become the all-powerful Pharoah of Egypt.

The kicker is that up to the time shown in the photo, these two powerful men of Egypt had considered themselves life-long blood brothers and fellow warriors.

Wikipedia described what happened later, when Moses learned the truth about who he was.  (This was shortly after Moses saved Ramesses’ life in battle.)  The reigning Pharoah – Seti I, played by John Turturro  – sent Moses to the city of Pithom, to check out the man overseeing the Hebrew slaves.  See Exodus: Gods and Kings – Wikipedia:

Upon his arrival, he encounters the slave Joshua and is appalled by the horrific conditions of the slaves.  Shortly afterwards, Moses meets Nun, who informs him of his true lineage; he is the child of Hebrew parents who was sent by his sister Miriam to be raised by Pharaoh’s daughter.  Moses is stunned at the revelation and leaves angrily.

The point?  Until he was 40 years old, Moses thought of himself as an Egyptian, and only as an Egyptian.  More than that, he thought of himself as literal Prince of Egypt.  Small wonder then that he was “stunned” as he listened to an old Hebrew slave named Nun.  (Whose son Joshua would become Moses’ second in command and go on to write the sixth book of the Bible).

It was at that moment – when he was 40 – that Moses learned that everything he’d been told about himself was lie.  He wasn’t a prince.  He’d really been born a lowly and despised slave…

And so the movie – indeed the original Bible book – could well have been named Pilgrimage.  (As in Pilgrimage:  Gods and Kings.)  Both versions show a pilgrimage, in large part from an “Eden-like” state of innocence and ignorance.  From there Moses’ pilgrimage took him through the pain of increasing knowledge, and the pain of failure that led to that knowledge.

So again, during the first 40 years of his life Moses came of age believing he was a literal “Prince of Egypt.”  He had the power of life and death at his disposal.  In a sense he believed that the “world revolved around him.”  But then he learned who he really was…

*   *   *   *

Before exploring that topic further, let’s see what Wikipedia said about the movie:

Exodus: Gods and Kings is a 2014 biblically-inspired epic film directed by Ridley Scott.  It was written by Adam Cooper, Bill Collage, Jeffrey Caine and Steven Zaillian.  The film stars Christian Bale, Joel Edgerton, John Turturro, Aaron Paul, Ben Mendelsohn, Sigourney Weaver, and Ben Kingsley.  It is an interpretation of the exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt as led by Moses and related in the Book of Exodus.  The film is dedicated to Scott’s younger brother and fellow director, Tony Scott, who committed suicide in 2012.

See Exodus: Gods and Kings – Wikipedia.  To see how Christian Bale prepared for his role as Moses see ‘Exodus: Gods and Kings’: Christian Bale on Moses, Biblical Scale, & Charlton Heston.  He started out by watching Cecille B. DeMille’s 1956 epic, The Ten Commandments.  One of his first conclusions:  “You can’t out-Heston Charlton Heston:”

This was a man with an incredible weight on his shoulders.  This is about a man straining.  He fought against being the Chosen One [but with the film] “Ten Commandments” it was very much sort of an uplifting…   I felt like ours should be about [Moses] desperately trying to move forward because of the enormous pressure that is on him. (E.A.)

So right from the start, the newer version tried to focus on a more-realistic Moses, a more human Moses who had his times of doubt.  A man who sometimes felt abandoned by God.  (Or at least he felt God wasn’t always there when he needed Him…)

But first a bit of foreshadowing.  Back when Moses got sent to Pithom, his task – as noted – was to “check out the man overseeing the Hebrew slaves.”  That overseer, the Viceroy Hegep, wanted more troops to control the unruly Israelite slaves.   To make his point (that they were unruly), he told Moses that the very name Israel – in their own language – meant “fights with God.”   But Moses corrected him, saying the better translation was “wrestles with God.”

(Remember, this was before Moses learned he was born an Israelite, a “wrestler with God.”  For more on that pointabout wrestling with God – see the post On arguing with God.)

This version of Moses – played by Christian Bale – later does “wrestle with God,” until the day he dies.  He challenged God, and even argued with Him.  What’s more, God argued back.

Which brings up the anomaly – to some – that in this movie God is portrayed as an 11-year-old:

If there’s anything daring in Scott and his screenwriters’ take on this oft-told tale …  it’s the decision to depict God, or his earthly iteration, as a bratty kid with an English accent.  As Moses struggles with issues of faith, madness, and spousal neglect … this pint-size Brit (Isaac Andrews) challenges Moses to rise to the occasion.  The lad warns the beleaguered Hebrew of the coming plagues, browbeats him, taunts him.  If you want a less portentous title for this big and curious cinematic endeavor, The Prophet and the Pip-squeak could work nicely. (E.A.)

See Exodus: Gods and Kings‘: God as a bratty kid, and Ridley Scott chooses 11-year-old boy as voice of God.   The second article quoted the director:  “Sacred texts give no specific depiction of God, so for centuries artists and filmmakers have had to choose their own visual depiction…   Malak [the “God character’] exudes innocence and purity, and those two qualities are extremely powerful.”  (And incidentally, Malak as defined by Wikipedia is “the Semitic word for ‘angel.'”  See also Strong’s Hebrew: 4397. מַלְאָך (malak).)

So right from the start we have a couple of controversies about this film.  It’s gotten reviews like this:   Very predictable, Historic mistake, and Ridley Scott made this movie out of contempt.  The third review included a comment that Scott “has a personal grudge against all Christians.”

To which I say, “Well, apparently not all Christians…

To review the theme of this Blog:  It’s all about reading the Bible to expand your mind and your horizons.  On that note the blog includes posts on people like Thomas Merton.  (See On Thomas Merton.)  One  biographer wrote that Merton was helped in his spiritual quest by both Christian mysticism and his ongoing “wide knowledge of Oriental religions.”

That is, later in his life Merton studied Taoism, “regular” Buddhism and Hinduism.  But dallying in these exotic disciplines didn’t weaken his Catholic faith.  (Merton was a Trappist Monk.)  If anything, such “dalliances” strengthened his faith, as a biographer wrote:

 …by approaching the spiritual quest at unexpected angles, they opened up new ways of thought and new ways of experiencing that invigorated and released him

Which is pretty much what this blog is about:  Reading the Bible in ways that can invigorate and release you.  (Only in that way can you expect to perform even greater miracles than Jesus did.  See John 14:12, discussed in “WHAT’S IN IT FOR ME?”)

Now, about that “God as bratty kid.”  For one thing, there’s Matthew 18:3, where Jesus said unless you “become like little children, you will never get into the kingdom from heaven.”  Then there’s the ancient Buddhist proverb:  “A child looks at a mountain and sees a mountain.  An adult looks at a mountain and sees many things.  A wise man looks at a mountain and sees … a mountain.”  And finally – if you want to get all Fruedian – you might say Moses’ vision of God as a young boy was prompted by a sense of guilt for his abandoning his family, including his first-born son Gershom, to go and save the Hebrews from their slavery.

All of which leads to the point:

This will have to be continued…

 

File:DeMilleTenCommandmentsDVDcover.jpg

 

Re:  “This will have to be continued.”  See On Exodus (Part II) and Transfiguration.

 

The upper image is courtesy of  Exodus: Gods and Kings:‘ Differences Between the Movie & the Bible.  The lower image was borrowed from On Moses and “illeism,” and refers to the Heston-DeMille “original” movie version of the Exodus.  In turn the image is courtesy of  wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b0/DeMilleTenCommandmentsDVDcover.jpg.  The tagline in the “illeism” post reads, “Moses doesn’t like this.  Moses doesn’t like this one bit…“   (Illeism is the practice of “referring to oneself in the third person instead of first person,” and is exemplified in the first five books of the Bible.  According to tradition, Moses himself wrote those first five books…)

 Re: Moses as greatest prophet, leader and teacher Judaism ever knew, and being 40 years old when he “heard the truth.”  See Judaism 101: Moses, Aaron and Miriam:  “The biblical narrative skips from his adoption by Pharaoh’s daughter to his killing of an Egyptian taskmaster some 40 years later.”

Re: blood brothers.  The term refers to either “a male related by birth, or two or more men not related by birth who have sworn loyalty to each other.”  See Blood brother – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Re: anamoly:  See Definition of anomaly by The Free Dictionary, referring to a “deviation or departure from the normal or common order, form, or rule,” or something that is “peculiar, irregular, abnormal, or difficult to classify.

Re:  Trappist monks.  The full citation is Becoming a Trappist Monk or Nun: Homepage.

Re:  Thomas Merton.  See Monica Furlong’s Merton  A Biography, Harper and Row (1980), page 325.

Re:  wise man … mountain.  See (of all places) Can I? – Mitsubishi Delica L400 with the 4M40 engine.

Re:  Gershom.  See Gershom – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, with the added note:  

The passage in Exodus concerning Moses and Zipporah reaching an inn contains four of the most ambiguous and awkward sentences in Biblical text.  The text appears to suggest that something, possibly God or an angel, attacks either Gershom or Moses, until a circumcision is carried out by Zipporah on whichever of the two men was being attacked.

The passage in question is Exodus 4:24-26, and is one of the topics bearing further meditation.

 

On “Gone Girl” and Lazy Cusses – Part II

A 19th-century example of vigilante justice… 

 

 

Welcome to DORScribe, a blog about reading the Bible with an open mind.

In other words, this blog is different.   (For one thing it includes movie reviews like this to see how “old-timey” Biblical principles can apply to modern culture…)

But mostly this blog says you can get more out of the Bible by reading it with an open mind, and that it was written to liberate people, not shackle them in some kind of “spiritual straitjacket.”

Such ideas run contrary to some common perceptions these days.  For example:

I don’t have a problem with God.  I have a problem with religion.  I’ve chosen to live my life without the certainties of religious faith.

See 10 Questions for Sting – TIME.  (But here’s a news flash:  “If your religion makes you ‘certain,’ you’re missing the point!”  See for example, On a dame and a mystic.)

Sting’s comment gives one example of some common perceptions of Christians today:   1) that too many are close-minded; 2) that too many are way too negative; or 3) that too many Christians think The Faith of the Bible is all about getting you to follow their set of rules, on pain of you “going to hell.”  (See my way or the highway – Wiktionary.)

For more on such thoughts see About this Blog, which talks instead about the Three Great Promises of Jesus, to all people, and about how through those promises we can live full, rich lives of spiritual abundance and do greater miracles than Jesus, if only we open our minds

 

In the meantime:

 We were talking about vigilante justice, as examined in the movie Gone Girl, and in the Biblical example of the Apostle Paul being nearly “lynched” by a group of rioters in Jerusalem.  (See On “Gone Girl” and Lazy Cusses – Part I.)

As noted, the Daily Office Readings for Saturday, October 11, included Acts 25:13-27, where Paul made his defense before the Roman governor Festus, along with “Agrippa the king” (who ruled as a puppet of Rome).  Again, this all started back when Paul arrived in Jerusalem after this third missionary journey, and got in trouble at the hands of certain “agitatators.”

That is – and as told back in Acts 21:27-32 – some members of the “powers that be” in Jerusalem saw Paul in the Temple accompanied by “infidels,” and totally misconstrued the situation:

They stirred up the whole crowd and seized him, shouting, “Fellow Israelites, help us!  This is the man who … has brought Greeks into the temple and defiled this holy place…  The whole city was aroused, and the people came running from all directions.  Seizing Paul, they dragged him from the temple…  While they were trying to kill him, news reached the commander of the Roman troops that the whole city of Jerusalem was in an uproar.  He at once took some officers and soldiers and ran down to the crowd.  When the rioters saw the commander and his soldiers, they stopped beating Paul.

Sound familiar?  (I mean, except for the part about soldiers rescuing a person accused of a heinous crime from an angry mob?)   And aside from that, there’s a BTW:  Paul had followed the law and purified both himself and his “guests” before entering the holy Temple.  So “the crowd” got it all wrong but didn’t let a trifling thing like the actual facts get in the way of a good riot.

The upshot was that Paul was arrested and made his defense in several tribunals, including the Sanhedrin, but when the Roman authorities learned that some of the rioters had hatched a plan to kill Paul, they had him taken to Caesarea, where – as noted – he eventually made his defense before Festus and King Agrippa, as told in Acts 25:13-2.

This was after Festus went to Jerusalem to consult Paul’s accusers, but as noted in Acts 25:3, “They requested Festus, as a favor to them, to have Paul transferred to Jerusalem, for they were preparing an ambush to kill him along the way.”  But Festus – in a justified abundance of caution – had them come to Caesarea, where he (Festus) brought King Agrippa up to speed:

Festus discussed Paul’s case with the king.  He said: “There is a man here whom [former Roman governor] Felix left as a prisoner.  When I went to Jerusalem, the chief priests and the elders of the Jews brought charges against him and asked that he be condemned.   I told them that it is not the Roman custom to hand over anyone before they have faced their accusers and have had an opportunity to defend themselves against the charges.”

(Acts 25:14-16, emphasis added)   What a concept!  Having a person accused of a heinous crime being able to actually face the person accusing him, and be able to present a defense.  What will they think of next?   (See Sarcasm – Wikipedia, and/or Irony – Wikipedia.)

But seriously, there is cause for concern these days, as explored by the movie Gone Girl.   (And yes – in case I’m being too subtle – I am saying that such media frenzies and/or circuses are indeed a form of modern-day vigilantism…)

There’s a reason why we have things like the Sixth Amendment, which is supposed to guarantee that a person accused of a crime can only be convicted after a public trial “by an impartial jury … and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”  See Bill of Rights Institute: Bill of Rights.

And by the way, these aren’t “new-fangled pointy-headed liberal” legal protections.  They go back to the Bible times of Paul and beyond.  And there’s one big reason for this Biblical protection:  In way too many cases “the crowd” – or in today’s case the media – simply gets it all wrong, as shown in the image below.  But there’s another big lesson here:  the Bible was designed in large part to protect idiots from their own stupidity! 

That is, in Matthew’s Gospel Jesus said, “Judge not lest ye be judged.”   But more importantly, He added this, in Matthew 7:2 (NIV):  “For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”

So, if you’re prone to make snap judgments based on incomplete information from sources that aren’t always reliable – like today’s mass media – the chances are good that that’s the same method God will use in judging you.  (See also Karma – Wikipedia.)

Now, getting back to the movie being reviewed, Gone Girl:

I don’t want to give away the ironic plot twist or the ending, but here’s a hint:

 

 

The upper image is courtesy of Vigilante – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, with the full caption, “A lynching carried out by the San Francisco Committee of Vigilance of 1856.”  The article added:

“Vigilante justice” is rationalized by the idea that adequate legal mechanisms for criminal punishment are either nonexistent or insufficient.  Vigilantes typically see the government as ineffective in enforcing the law; such individuals often claim to justify their actions as a fulfillment of the wishes of the community…   In a number of cases, vigilantism has involved targets with mistaken identities.

The lower image is courtesy Dewey Defeats Truman – Wikipedia: “‘Dewey Defeats Truman’ was a famously incorrect banner headline on the front page of the Chicago Tribune on November 3, 1948, the day after incumbent United States President Harry S. Truman won an upset victory over Republican challenger and Governor of New York Thomas E. Dewey in the 1948 presidential election.”   The full caption:  “President-elect Truman holding the infamous issue of the Chicago Tribune, telling the press, ‘That ain’t the way I heard it!’”

 

As to the subtle difference between a media frenzy and a media circus, see also Media Frenzy Global, a company that apparently specializes in “frenzy manipulation:”

Whether you’re trying to pique interest, incite sales, stir the market, or fan the flames of controversy, one thing is certain – you need to cause a commotion.  Of course, you want to remain cool and composed in the midst of the excitement…   In other words, you want to harness the media frenzy…    We harness the media frenzy by controlling, managing and exploiting the media platforms…

All of which provides an interesting commentary on modern life.

See also Court of public opinion – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia; “It has been said that the prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse case attempted to try the case in the court of public opinion by making unsupported allegations to the media. In the Kobe Bryant sexual assault case, it was alleged that parties were using court pleadings as press releases.”

 

 

“Gone Girl” movie review and Media Frenzy

A still from Gone Girl.   (Note the “askew”camera angle, symbolizing “media frenzy…”)

 

The movie Gone Girl explores the modern-day phenomenon of media frenzies, and how they can be manipulated by those apparently being manipulated…

As noted in On “Gone Girl” and Lazy Cusses – Part II, this blog is different for reasons including that it has movie reviews like this one, to see how “old-timey” Biblical principles can apply to modern culture.  There’s more on that below, but first let’s begin with this note:

Harry Truman didn’t have much use for the reporters of his day.

“Newspapermen, and they’re all a bunch of lazy cusses, once one of them writes something, the others rewrite it and rewrite it, and they keep right on doing it without ever stopping to find out if the first fellow was telling the truth or not.”

Truman also spoke of plowing a field with a mule as being the “most peaceful thing in the world,” an activity that gave old-time farmers plenty of time for thought.  (Guys like Thomas Jefferson…)   But – Truman added – “there’s some danger that you may, like the fella said, get kicked in the head by a mule and end up believing everything you read in the papers.”

Some 20 years later the president’s feelings were mirrored by a brash young “AFL” quarterback named Joe Namath.   Shortly after Joe signed with the Jets (for a record salary), a wise-guy New York reporter asked what he had majored in, down south at the University of Alabama; “Basket-weaving?”   Joe answered, “No man, I majored in journalism.  It was easier.”

Then in 2014 along came Gone Girl, a film that expresses pretty much the same feelings about “media frenzies” as Harry Truman and Joe Namath, only more so.

*   *   *   *

Which brings up the point that I – the Scribe – did movie reviews for the student newspaper, back in mid-1970s  when I was getting a Bachelor’s degree in Mass Communications.  It seemed like a good way to go on and make a living, doing two things that I loved; watching movies and writing about them.  But alas, God had other plans for me (that’s my story anyway), and you could say my life that followed had enough twists, turns and betrayals to be made into a movie like Gone Girl.   But my point – if I’m being too subtle – is that in the fullness of time, here I am again, writing in a venue (the blog) that didn’t exist back then.  Somehow it’s like “coming home.”

(Oh, and did I mention that I went on to get a Master’s degree in Journalism?)

*   *   *   *

So anyway, Wikipedia said that the film Gone Girl “examines dishonesty, the media, the economy’s effects on marriage, and appearances:”

On the day of his fifth wedding anniversary, Nick Dunne (Affleck) returns home to find that his wife Amy (Pike), is missing.  In the ensuing media frenzy, suspicions arise that Nick murdered her, and his awkward behavior is interpreted as characteristic of a sociopath.

See Gone Girl (film) – Wikipedia (emphasis added).   In other words, the character Nick Dunne was tried in and by the media, who found him guilty, as so often happens these days.  But as it turned out, the process by which he was tried and convicted was “infected by the politicized, media-enabled ‘cult of victimhood.'”  (See the Rothman note below.)

Which in turn brings up the topic of the modern-day media frenzy or media circus:

Media circus is a colloquial metaphor, or idiom, describing a news event where the media coverage is perceived to be out of proportion to the event being covered, such as the number of reporters at the scene, the amount of news media published or broadcast, and the level of media hype.  The term is meant to critique the media, usually negatively, by comparing it to a circus, and is considered an idiom as opposed to a literal observation.  Usage of the term in this sense became common in the 1970s.

See Media circus – Wikipedia.  All of which brings up the New Testament reading in the Daily Office for Saturday, October 11, Acts 25:13-27.  To bring you up to speed, after Paul arrived in Jerusalem after his third missionary journey, he suffered a “media circus” of his own, as shown below in the work by Gustave Dore.  He was arrested and later tried, first in Jerusalem and later in Caesarea, all of which makes for some interesting “compare and contrast.”

For more on that, see “On ‘Gone Girl’ and the Lazy Cusses – Part II.”

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Paul_Addresses_the_Crowd_After_His_Arrest_by_Gustave_Dor%C3%A9.jpg

 

The upper image is courtesy of What “Gone Girl” Is Really About, a review in The New Yorker, dated October 8, by Joshua Rothman, which includes this telling tidbit:

[W]e’re fascinated with stories of victimhood – and … especially in tabloid, cable-news culture, we endow victims with specialness, sanctity, and celebrity.   “Gone Girl” asks whether genuine expressions of sympathy or solidarity with victims can ever happen without being infected by the politicized, media-enabled “cult of victimhood.”

Rothman’s review compared the movie with “what I heard” about the book version, and concluded that what’s best about the movie is that it “gets at what is unsettling about coupledom [i.e., marriage or “serious relationships”] : our suspicion that, in some fundamental sense, it necessarily entails victimization.”  See also Gone Girl (film) – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.  But as noted herein, Yours Truly thinks that the movie is really about the modern media and its role in contemporary “lynchings,” which to this point have generally been metaphoric.

For other reviews of the movie, see Gone Girl – Rotten Tomatoes.

The lower image is courtesy of Wikimedia and/or http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Paul_Addresses_the_Crowd_After_His_Arrest_by_Gustave_Dor%C3%A9.jpg.  See also Gustave Doré – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

 

The first quote on reporters is courtesy of Plain Speaking[:]  An oral biography of Harry S. Truman, by Merle Miller, Berkley Publishing NY (1973), at page 251.   The “field-mule” quote is at page 258.

The Namath quote is courtesy of famous alabama football quotes – Angelfire.  See also Joe Namath – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, which noted that when Namath signed with the Jets, the NFL and AFL were separate leagues, engaged in a “bidding war” for college players. 

 

On reading the Bible

Reading the Bible can provide you with “the marrow of lions…”

*   *   *   *

Here’s what Isaac Asimov said about “The Book” – and how often it’s been read:

The most influential, the most published, the most widely read book in the history of the world is the Bible.   No other book has been so studied and so analyzed and it is a tribute to the complexity of the Bible and the eagerness of its students that after thousands of years of study there are still endless books that can be written about it.* [E.A.]

So even after 2,000 years or so, “there are still endless books that can be written” about the Bible.  And – one might add – there could still be endless blogs written about it.

As for the photo caption above, it comes from Romain Rolland’s novel  Jean Christophe:

The Bible is the marrow of lions.   Strong hearts have they who feed on it…  The Bible is the backbone for people who have the will to live.

So that’s one thing this blog will  try to do:  Help you develop that “marrow of lions.”

To begin with, one key to reading the Bible is to remember that it’s not a history book in “modern sense.”  The people who wrote the Bible “lacked the benefit of of modern archaeological techniques, did not have our concept of dating and documentation, and had different standards of what was and not significant in history.” (Asimov.)

Then too it’s important to remember that the people who wrote the Bible had to keep in mind their primary audience.  In the case of Moses, that meant his fellow Hebrews who had far less education than he did.  As a result, he pretty much had to dumb it down.

Stoning of Moses, Joshua and CalebIn other words, Moses had to write very carefully.  In the first place, he had to make sure his primary audience of soon-to-be desert cut-throats would listen to him.  Second, he had to insure they wouldn’t turn and stone him for heresy.  [See On Moses getting stoned, including the illustration at left.]

Thus in the Torah – the first five books of the Bible – Moses had to tell the history of the world from its Creation, up to where he and his fellow Hebrews were wandering in the wilderness.  In doing so he had to use language and concepts his “relatively-pea-brained contemporary audience could understand.”

The point being:  Moses’ ability to “tell the story he wanted was limited to his audience’s ability to comprehend.”  (See On the readings for June 15 – Part I.)

Which by the way is also pretty much the problem God has, in trying to communicate with us. (Or that we have when trying to communicate with Him.)  See for example Isaiah 55:8-9:

For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
    nor are your ways my ways, says the Lord.

That’s a good reason why you’re only cheating yourself if you choose to read and study the Bible only in a strict, narrow, or fundamental way.

One risk is that you create God in the image of you, instead of the other way around.  (See Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 5:1.)   And you risk limiting your appreciation of the majesty of God – the Force that Created the Universe – to your puny, “pea-brained” ability to comprehend.

So I’d say the better course is to admit that you can never fully comprehend “God.”

But you can try and glimpse Him, albeit “through a glass, darkly.”  See 1st Corinthians 13:12:

For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then [in heaven] we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

Note first that the “through a glass, darkly” phrase is from the King James Translation.  (The one God uses.)  But  note also that Paul was saying no matter how long we study the Bible and follow The Faith, we can never fully comprehend “God.”  (At least not in this “incarnation.”)

Which doesn’t mean the effort won’t pay off.  (See On the Bible as “transcendent” meditation, and Spiritual boot camp.)  Then too, that doesn’t mean the best place to start your Bible training is not to take it literally.  Just like Army Basic Training, the best place to start is with the fundamentals:  “This is where individuals learn about the fundamentals of being a soldier…”

But no good soldier wants to be stuck as a buck private his whole time “in service.”  (Although there are some few who enjoy having no additional responsibility…)

That’s what this blog is about:  Developing into more than just someone who knows the bare “fundamentals.”  Which is another way of saying that by reading the Bible with an open mind, you can reap its full benefit and do all that God intended for you to do.

To put it yet another way:  If those six blind men had gotten together and compared notes, they would have gotten a much better picture of what they were seeking. . .

*   *   *   *

*   *   *   *

First note that I edited and/or updated this post on January 21, 2016.  That was in preparation for publishing my fourth collection of blog-posts, also titled “On Reading the Bible.”  (Which I haven’t gotten around to yet.)  In turn, this post was originally published on July 19, 2014, and was updated and/or edited again on October 22, 2018,

References to posts after July 2014 will be in brackets, as in “[See On Moses getting stoned.].”

*   *   *   *

The upper image is courtesy of Lion – Wikipedia.  The caption:  “A Male Lion at Bannargatta National Park, Bangalore, India.”

*   *   *   *

[Re:  The ancient Hebrews as “desert cut-throats.”  From the paragraph beginning “In other words, Moses had to write very carefully.”  Note first that this end-note was added as part of the 1/21/16 update, and thus is listed in brackets.  As to the reference, see Contradictions Of Christianity – Vanguard News Network Forum, which referred to “Yah being the ancient tribal god of the Habiru Sagaz or Desert Cutthroats, as jews [sic] were known in those times.”  The writer also noted the “hypocritical chameleon called Christianity,” which gives a flavor of that writer’s not-so-hidden agenda.  Be that as it may, see also Habiru – Wikipedia, noting the name from which “Hebrew” arguably sprang, and also The Mysterious Habiru – The History of Israel.  The point being:  After 40 years of Wandering in the Wilderness, those ancient Hebrews were not anything “civilized people” would want to mess with.  In further words, they were arguably the functional equivalent of the Bedouin – “desert dwellers” – if not today’s Hells Angels, at least in terms of fighting capacity.]

*   *   *   *

*  Asimov’s Guide to the Bible (Two Volumes in One),  Avenel Books (1981), at page 7, Introduction.

Note also that the term Gospel is from “the Old English gōd-spell . . . meaning ‘good news’ or ‘glad tidings.’   The word comes from the Greek euangelion.”  See Gospel – Wikipedia.

Jean-Christophe was a novel – written in 10 volumes and completed in 1912 – that earned Rolland the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1915.  As for the quote, see the web article Part VIII – Nystamp.org, under “Conflict with Evolution,” emphasis added.  Romain Rolland (1866-1944) was “a French dramatist, novelist, essayist, art historian and mystic,” awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1915 “as a tribute to the lofty idealism of his literary production and to the sympathy and love of truth with which he has described different types of human beings.” 

The Isaiah 55 quote is from The Living Bible translation, emphasis added.   

The King James Bible image is courtesy of King Jame’s Bible – Image Results.

The lower image is courtesy of Blind men and an elephant – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.  Wikipedia noted that this parable “has crossed between many religious traditions and is part of Jain, Buddhist, Sufi and Hindu lore.”   In the Buddhist version, “The men cannot agree with one another and come to blows over the question of what it is like and their dispute delights the king.  The Buddha ends the story by comparing the blind men to preachers and scholars who are blind and ignorant and hold to their own views.”  See also Matthew 13:34 (ESV):  “All these things Jesus said to the crowds in parables; indeed, he said nothing to them without a parable.

 

On the “Infinite Frog”

Infinite Frogs

There actually IS a website for “infinite frogs. . .”

*   *   *   *

From the Scribe – 15 July 2014:

I just got back from a two-week vacation to New York City and Montreal, which included a round-trip on Amtrak’s Adirondack Route, “through the wine country of the Hudson Valley.”  (See On the Bible readings for July 13, “written in beautiful Montreal.”)

So anyway, last Sunday afternoon – July 13 – I was driving home on Interstate 81, through western Virginia’s Shenandoah Valley, and talking on the phone* with Mi Dulce, who happened to take her two-week vacation at the same time (albeit in Cleveland Ohio).

This nice lady was saying something about getting some things back from her former life in Cleveland, which included what sounded like her Infinite Frog.    There followed a couple of definite say whats?   But as it turned out, this mi Dulce o’ mine was actually saying that she’d gotten her Infant of Prague back, which then became the seed thought for this blog-post.

The Infant Jesus of Prague . . . is a 16th-century Roman Catholic wax-coated wooden statue of child Jesus holding a globus cruciger, located in the Carmelite Church of Our Lady Victorious in Malá Strana, Prague, Czech Republic.  Pious legends state that the statue once belonged to Saint Teresa of Avila and allegedly holds miraculous powers, especially among expectant mothers.

See Infant Jesus of Prague – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.  (As was explained later, this statuette – also known as a “Child of Prague” –  was a gift from a former mother-in-law.)

As Wikipedia noted, thousands of pilgrims pay homage to the Infant of Prague every year, and statuettes of this “Infant Jesus are placed inside many Catholic churches, sometimes with the quotation, ‘The more you honor me, the more I will bless you.'”  Further, devotion to the “Child of Prague and belief in its power to influence the weather is still strong in many parts of Ireland. A wedding gift of a statue of the Child of Prague is particularly auspicious.”   (E.A.)

It further turns out that the basis for this adoration goes back four centuries:

In April 1639, the Swedish army began a siege of the city of Prague.  The frightened citizens hurried to the shrine of the Infant Jesus of Prague as services were held day and night at the Church of Our Lady Victorious in the Little Quarter.  When the [Swedish] army decided instead to pull out, the grateful residents ascribed this to the miraculous Holy Infant.  The tradition of the Infant Jesus procession and the coronation continues to this day.  This ceremony is the closing highlight of the annual Feast of the Infant Jesus in Prague.

All of which brings up the power of prayer (and there was no doubt a passel of prayer going on back in 1639 Prague).  It also brings up the different types of prayer.

As the Book of Common Prayer noted, “the principle kinds of prayer are adoration, praise, thanksgiving, penitence, oblation, intercession, and petition.”

Most people are more familiar with the petition type of prayer, basically translated, “Gimme, gimme, gimme!”   On the other hand, we’ve all had times in our lives when we’ve found ourselves in way over our heads, like those people of Prague in 1639, but that’s a totally different “petition.”  It also brings up the “thrilling drama” noted above, and Psalm 50:15:

Call upon me in the day of trouble; I will deliver you, and you shall honor me.

Which is another way of saying that God loves drama.   So, if you expect to go from victory to victory when you begin your Christian Pilgrimage, you’re in for a big surprise.  (For one thing, drama makes a much better story to bore your grandchildren with.)

But all of this drama in your life can lead to the best, simplest and most appreciated-by-God type of prayer, adoration, “the lifting up of the heart and mind to God, asking nothing but to enjoy God’s presence.”  For more on that see On three suitors (a parable), and this prayer:

O God, if I worship Thee in fear of hell, burn me in hell;   if I worship Thee in hope of Paradise, exclude me from Paradise;   but if I worship Thee for Thine own sake, withhold not Thine everlasting beauty.

In the meantime, enjoy having learned about this Infinite Frog.

*   *   *   *

*   *   *   *

The upper image is courtesy of Infinite Frogs | Are We Full Yet? 

The lower image is courtesy of the article, Infant Jesus of Prague – Wikipedia, and includes the caption: “The elaborate shrine which houses the wax-wooden statue.  Church of Our Lady Victorious, Mala Strana, Prague, Czech Republic.”

The article includes a section on Vestments:

Several costly embroidered vestments have been donated by benefactors.  Among those donated are those from Empress Maria Theresa and Emperor Ferdinand I of Austria, which are preserved to this day.  A notable garment in the collection is an ermine cloak placed on the statue the first Sunday after Easter, which is the anniversary day of the coronation of the statue by the bishop of Prague in 1655.   In 1713 the clothing began to be changed according to the liturgical norms.  Other valuable garments worn by the image are vestments studded with various gemstones, embroidered with gold French bullion wire threading, and silk fabrics as well as handmade lace customised purposely for the statue.

The schedule includes Green for “Ordinary Time;” Purple for “Lent, Candlemas and Advent;” Red or Gold for Christmas and Easter; and Royal Blue for “Immaculate Conception / Feast of Assumption.”

*   *   *   *

As to Amtrak’s Adirondack Route, see Adirondack Trains Travel from New York City to Montreal, and/or Adirondack Route Guide – Amtrak.

*  As to “talking on the phone,” I was using the functional equivalent of Bluetooth.

As to adoration and the other types of prayer, see the Book of Common Prayer at pages 856-57, or The Online Book of Common Prayer, and/or The Catechism.

On Gregorian chant

“A dove . . . symbolizes Divine Inspiration” for the Gregorian chant. . .

 

 From the Scribe (6/29/14)

 

Once upon a time there was a Great Flood.

Actually there were at least two Great Floods, but this one took place in 1993 – from April to October – and covered “the American Midwest, along the Mississippi and Missouri rivers and their tributaries.”   An estimated 32 to 50 people died.  Some places on the Mississippi River were flooded nearly 200 days and some 100,000 homes were destroyed.  It was among the most costly and devastating floods ever in the United States, with an estimated $15 billion in damages. see Great Flood of 1993 – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

I mention this because my late wife and I took a small part in the relief effort, in the summer of 1994.  Towns like St. Louis were still reeling from the flood and needed all kinds of basic necessities – like plain clean drinking water – that most people normally take for granted.

At the time we had a  van and travel trailer, and had been planning a trip from Florida to Las Vegas anyway.  So as part of the trip we decided to take that van-and-trailer, load them full of supplies, plus a hefty check – all the fruits of a fundraising drive at our local church – and drop them off in St. Louis.   (Which by the way allowed us to deduct part of the trip’s expenses.)

Among other things the long trip west was noteworthy for the number of videos we took along the way.  Most of the videos have this enchanting background music, and that enchanting music was courtesy of the CDs of Gregorian chants that we listened to most of the way.

I mention this because somewhere on the trip from “back then to now,” I lost the habit.  I lost the habit until last Friday afternoon and a particularly bad bout of traffic.   During a long wait at a stop-light I shuffled through my pack of CDs, and came upon one of the “Gregorian” CDs that managed to survive the journey from 1994 to the present day.  It was so soothing, so calming and so relaxing that I wondered why I ever stopped listening to them.

But don’t take my word for it.  Listen for yourself, courtesy of GREGORIAN CHANT – YouTube.

Meanwhile, back at Wikipedia: “Gregorian chant is the central tradition of Western plainchant, a form of monophonic, unaccompanied sacred song of the western Roman Catholic Church,” which developed “mainly in western and central Europe during the 9th and 10th centuries.”  The chants were usually sung by choirs of men and boys in churches, monasteries, other other religious orders.  “Although Gregorian chant is no longer obligatory,” the Catholic Church still considers it “most suitable for worship.”  And lately “plainchant” has enjoyed a “musicological and popular resurgence.”  See Gregorian chant – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

But like most popular phenomena, there’s always the story behind the story.  For one thing, there is some debate whether the chant is really “Gregorian:”

That “Gregorian” chant was named for and credited to Pope Gregory I (r. 590-604) is an accident of politics and spin doctoring.  Tension between the Pope (the Bishop of Rome) and other Bishops regarding the authority of the Pope as “first among equals” was matched by tension between the Pope, as spiritual ruler of Rome, and Rome’s secular rulers. . .    There are any number of lovely stories and legends associated with Gregory[, including] a bird singing chants into his ear as he wrote them down.   (Unfortunately, of course, there was no usable music notation at the time.)   There are [also] stories of his sending out missionaries with instructions to bring back any new music they encountered, saying “Why should the Devil have all the good songs?

(See Why is chant called Gregorian?)  I had two responses to the quote above, the first being  “Why indeed?”   As in, “Why indeed should the Devil have all the good songs?”

The second response is more along the line of “Be that as it may. . .”  That is, does it really matter if Pope Gregory got undue credit for “creating” such chants, or does it really matter if Admiral Beaufort really “created” the wind scale that carries his name?  (See Defining the Wind: The Beaufort Scale and How a 19th-Century Admiral Turned Science into Poetry.)

Be that as it may,” we still measure the wind by Beaufort’s scale, and – as I told a dear, dear friend (who happens to be “RC”) – “Gregorian chant is one thing the Catholic Church really got right.”  Or to paraphrase that 1970s TV ad again, “Try it, you’ll like it!

 

“Mississippi River out of its banks in Festus, Missouri. . .” 

 

 

The upper image is courtesy of Wikipedia.  The full caption:  “A dove representing the Holy Spirit sitting on Pope Gregory I‘s shoulder symbolizes Divine Inspiration.”  Aside from the sources listed in the main text, see also CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Gregorian Chant – New Advent.

As to the “old TV ad from the 1970s, ‘Try it, you’ll like it!‘”   See On “what a drag it is. . .”

The lower image is courtesy of Great Flood of 1993 – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, full caption:  “Mississippi River out of its banks in Festus, Missouri.  The spot where this photo was taken” was a mile and a half and 30 feet above the river.  Note too the “waterfront dining” sign, an example of the usual warped-but-plucky American sense of humor in the face of death and disaster.