#also i like the term the faithful wife its very biblical. like how women in the bible (esp new testament) are more often known by epithets | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

nightcoremoon · 4 years ago

Text

weird opinion but christians aren't religious.

ok so like, jews generally follow god's rules, muslims follow allah's rules, hindus probably follow their gods rules, so on and so forth. and overall they do it out of faith; they do it because they want to honor the deity who loves them rather than because society forces them to.

granted the zionists and the radical extremists and the zealots do exist but as loud minorities and thus are statistical outliers & don't matter.

christians are... a different breed.

"if you aren't x branch and dont obey y rules you'll go to hell so we'll fucking murder you" is pretty much the main driving force behind a significant portion of christianity in history. the catholics, the protestants, the orthodoxy, all are built on a foundation of fear, anger, and hatred. it's shaped the way society developed; in the 4 nations that did the most genocidal imperialist colonialism- England, France, Spain, and Italy- a combination of convenient coastal locations, naval prowess, military tendency, christianity, and ultranationalism lead them down a path of missionaries, holding bibles in one hand and bloodstained knives in the other. the religion is inseparable from the culture and inseparable from the horrible things done in the name of their god, and the resulting cancers of society we feel today from the campaigns of slaughter. xenophobia. capitalism. savage barbarism via sensationalized capitol punishment. misogyny. queerphobia. gender fascism. classism. racism. all of these issues in the "civilized world" stem predominantly from those four nations and the disease ridden pestilent filth some call pilgrims.

here's something interesting:

there are less than 1 million rastafari in the world.

there are less than 5 million shinto in the world.

there are less than 25 million jews in the world.

there are less than 30 million sikhs in the world.

there are roughly 100 million african cultural religious adherents in the world.

there are less than 400 million chinese cultural religious adherents in the world.

there are about 500 million buddhists in the world.

there are about 1.1 billion hindus in the world.

there are about 1.2 billion nonreligious people in the world.

there are 1.6 billion muslims in the world.

and one final statistic

there are over 2.1 billion christians in the world.

the jewish count is a highball, rounded up, and includes several different definitions of jewish including people who are only one quarter. so for every single person who is even remotely jewish, there are more than 8 christians. for every hindu, there are 4 christians. for every atheist, agnostic, or "other", 2 christians. this frightening statistic should set off warning bells for everyone who is involved in a discussion about religion. and anyone who knows BASIC world history and can correlate data at all can probably piece together what I'm putting down.

now, I may be slightly biased here considering my eclectic religious beliefs. now, I personally believe that there is some primary force of energy that may or may not manifest itself as a humanoid being, that engineered the most basic laws of physics in the universe: atomic magnetism. as can be inferred by planck's constant and its implications, our universe is digital, written in binary. an electron either moves or doesn't move. there are no other options. so I genuinely believe in some form of intelligent design; whether it's a bearded guy on a cloud, some dude with six arms and an elephant for a face, just a big swirling pool of ectoplasm, or a big ol' plate of spaghetti and meatballs, something is out there that we are physically incapable of contacting from our plane of existence, just as a drawing on a piece of paper cannot reach out to interact with the world: a gif will move on its own but it will never acknowledge our existence, even if it could think by itself. and all the different mythologies of the world- egyptian, greek, norse, shinto, whatever- very well could be the agents of that unknown "god". perhaps anubis, ra, and bastet are just angels with animal heads that all of the peoples of ancient egypt saw and were like oh I guess this must be a god. maybe zeus and loki were the same person with a magic dick who fucked a bunch of animals in both greece and the scandinavian countries and spawned all of the horrible half-animal monstrosities that, idk, made vishnu think "well I have to kill that" and caused the biblical flood or something. maybe the jewish god gifted wisdom to siddhartha for sitting under a fig tree for 6 years through the angel pomona [roman goddess of fruit, had to google that one], so buddha gets his wisdom from demeter and is in nirvana right now right a step up from hades on yggdrasil the world tree keeping an eye on his charge persephone. any theory could theoretically be true but we ants of humans will never fucking know because we can't just point a telescope at the magellanic clouds and say "look, there's amaterasu with russell's teapot, and she's having tea with... *rubs eyes* lemmy kilmister??? wow I guess gods are real after all!" it's impossible to know the secrets of our universe because of the very restrictive nature of the universe itself. is it a circle? is it a donut? WE DONT FUCKIN KNOW.

we cannot know what religion is truthful.

""anyone who says that any one religion is more or less true than any other is a fucking moron, and if they're suggesting that White Western European Colonial Imperialist Protestantism is the one true faith, they're probably a fucking racist colonizer who beats his wife/sister and burns gays at the stake. and considering how that exact demographic is typically the one that murdered people for not converting to their religion, I don't think they have the intellectual non-deranged ability to make those logical connections.

again, I'm not saying that there AREN'T a lot of people of every religion who are evil assholes who contributed to mass genocide. israelites killed palestinians. shiites killed sunnis. hutus killed tutsis. danes killed geats. turks killed armenians. the ottoman empire has as much blood on its hands as the holy roman empire. germans who called themselves aryans but weren't actually aryan killed jews. but all of these tragedies were isolated incidents rather than repeated patterns over the course of two thousand years. not like christianity was and is.

just look at the United States, Canada, Mexico, Hong Kong, South Africa, Australia, & India's British Raj. Britain, France, Spain, and Italy, by extension Protestantism and Catholicism, are the shared factor between the long and bloody history fraught with massacring indigenous populations who wouldn't convert religions. native americans, indigenous canadians, latin americans but predominantly mexicans, the eastern chinese, coastal africans, aborigine aussies, indians- coastal coastal coastal. true the western chinese and the mongols/hunnu and xinjiang muslims haven't exactly been on civil terms and the silk road has always been a battleground and the middle east was already tenuous before murrica bombed them for oil but those happened in such a spread out area among asia which is FUCKING HUGE, MIND YOU! but also that's three high traffic places with massive diversity, it's human nature to have conflict, but not nearly to the same level as all of the shit christianity has done to the world. it's impossible to separate the religion from the cultures; victorian england without protestantism is just dirty people who die at 15 from having their 3rd child. italy without the catholicism is just grass and cheese. france and spain without religion are just kingdoms that fought wars with england for forever and now just make food that's one part delicious and three parts horrifying. religion is directly responsible for a significant portion of the evils those countries committed. one religion in particular.

they don't practice religion the same way as the rest do. they aren't faithful to their god. they don't follow his rules out of love but out of fear. they execute dissenters without a second thought, heresy they cry. they execute women and little girls for being free thinking or having sickness associated with mercury poisoning in the water, witch they cry. they slaughter men women and kids alike in the name of cramming their beliefs down the natives throats, we're chasing out the snakes they cry, we're bringing god to your godless people they cry, we're just civilizing you they cry. they shit in the streets and proudly display rotting corpses and leave the impoverished disabled and starving to die alone and whip their slaves and rape teenage girls and scrap in the streets while sopping wet with spilled ale over insignificant insults and stab people to death in the night and never even fucking BATHE, and they have the nerve to say the natives were uncivilized. the nerve. because hey. they read a magic book they stole from a culture who stole from another culture who stole from another culture, mistranslating each time from hebrew to greek to italian to english, and they think they're better because their skin is white.

christians never evolved. their mentalities have stayed the same. all thatms advanced has been technology. that's it. they're still the same evil disgusting degenerate bastards they always were. they just have the money they stole to buy stained glass windows, rosary beads, giant tacky metal statues, bigass robes, leather, and printing presses. and as time passed they used the money they continued to steal to buy cars and websites and radio stations and commit felony tax evasion and secretly molest children and line the pockets of the politicians.

all of their holidays are stolen from pagans anyway.

so fuck christmas. fuck easter. fuck lent. fuck the golden calf christian holidays that the tiny minded fragile snowflake conservatives lose their collective shit over because the pandemic response common sense stipulations won't let them buy the shit they can't afford with money they shouldn't have for people they don't even LIKE, all in the name of tradition, tradition! the rituals that worship something so much worse than satan or baphomet or pan or whatever: the dollar. they buy all the new shiny shit they can, at the expense of the chinese kids that the corporate pigs outsource to, buy the pine trees and the coca cola vunderbar and the fake mint corn syrup Js and watch the same shitty cookie cutter white supremacist hallmark fash movies and stuff their kids full of enough sugar to go into a goddamn coma when the african slaves who pick the cocoa beans will never get to know what actually being a kid will ever feel like because they're gonna die from falling into a combine harvester and be eternally forgotten to history and no christian will ever give a shit because they don't fucking care about what they don't see on their safe space news or hear on their safe space radio or read on their safe space social media. they think their worst sin is eating cheeseburgers so instead they'll go eat a mcchicken or chick fil a or an arby's chicken sandwich instead but not at popeyes because "that place is sketchy" and by that they mean they don't wanna eat where black people eat, that's why cracker barrel was so popular for so many white christians for so long because it had racially segregated seating until barely 20 years ago.

they don't love jesus. they love a paper doll they shove into their back pockets until every other sunday where they go to a fucking mall with a baptism waterslide and raise their hands like a bunch of dumbass weirdos and away to adult contemporary indie schlock with the word jesus pasted into a boring-ass hetero romance song, pat themselves on the back, then go to starbucks to scream slurs and misgenderings at 14 year old starbucks baristas who give them a cappamochalattechino instead of a fucking carmamochalattechino because you mumbled under the mask you didn't even fucking cover your nose with because you don't give a shit about the virus beyond how it inconveniences you.

they are horrible people who pretend to be good. until you suggest the slightest infinitely small inconvenience to them that would alter their holiday plans even the littlest smidge. then they would kill you if not for the police. don't get me started on them because you know by now what I'd say about those fuckers. but they'll gladly wear shirts about how they'll kill you. how they'll go back 200 years. how they'll murder you and watch you slowly suffer because their primate brains shoot a million endorphins when they watch things die by their hands because they never evolved a sense of empathy, compassion, or morality beyond how wearing a cross necklace will remove any of the consequences they will face in their afterlife.

they are horrible people who pretend to be good. unless you're gay or black or trans or Not Christian™ or mexican or disagree with them about politics economics sociology science technology music or movies. assimilate or die. assimilate or die. assimilate or die.

they don't deserve special treatment for their false idols.

they aren't better than jews or muslims.

they're worse.

so much worse.

and they should be stopped.""

-Nightingale Quietioca

save as draft arch draft bookmark draft where did I put my keys contra code kontra kode I need to remember this and copy it buzzwords keywords find it later please god tumblr don't bork on me this is good stream of consciousness repackage repackage change the words this is a great character study if I do say so myself thanks 3am me you're welcome 3am me

21 notes · View notes

humansofhds · 4 years ago

Text

The Rev. Judith Hoehler, BD ’58

“I had not intended to go on into a ministry. I really had intended to take a year out and go back into foreign service, but after I had been there for about six months studying, I knew that this was the place where I wanted to be. I felt my calling was in theology and ministry.”

Judy Hoehler is one the first seven women to enroll and receive a BD degree, which would later become the MDiv degree. She is also among the first denominational counselors at HDS, representing Unitarian Universalism.

A Time of Rejuvenation

Judy’s path to HDS began in South America.

She explains, “I had been a Spanish major in college and had received a fellowship to do graduate work in Latin American studies at the University of Chile in Santiago. The more that I studied down there, the more I realized that the questions I was asking about how I wanted to spend the rest of my life were theological questions. And so, I decided to take a year off, since I was slated to go into foreign service, and go to divinity school, where I could address some of these issues.”

In the spring of 1955, a friend encouraged Judy to apply to Harvard Divinity School. It was opening its doors to women for the first time that fall, and what was more, Paul Tillich was coming to HDS.

“It was going through a rejuvenation,” Judy explains, “and I thought it would be a very exciting place to study. I lived in Massachusetts, and my brother had gone to Harvard, and so, when I got home, I went and applied and was accepted as one of the seven first women.”

We Were Pathbreakers

When she arrived, Harvard had no dormitory space for women. Dean Douglas Horton and Mrs. Mildred McAfee Horton presented a solution. The Harvard Press building was undergoing renovations to become Jewett House, a home on Francis Avenue for the Dean, so the School had rented another house on Francis Avenue from the ambassador to India, Professor Galbraith, for the new dean and his wife.

Judy recalls, “It was a large house, and the Hortons very graciously opened two of the rooms to two of the woman students, and that was for Letty and for me.”

Shortly into the school year, Mrs. Horton held a tea for the seven women students at her home. Mrs. Horton was the former president of Wellesley and the founder the WAVES, the women's navy during the second world war, at President Franklin Roosevelt’s request.

“She had a tea for us because she thought we would benefit from hearing her experiences in breaking into an all-male bastion. It was a wonderful afternoon. All seven of us saw ourselves as breaking new ground.”

One example Judy recalls is the first day of classes, which was also the first day that morning prayers in Memorial Church’s Appleton Chapel were open to women.

“Up until that time, Radcliffe College students had been able to come to morning prayers, but they would have to sit in the main sanctuary of Memorial Hall and listen to the prayers through the choir screen. So Letty and I got up early. We were determined to be the first women to attend morning prayers, and we were the first women that day to get there. We later learned that George Buttrick, who was the university preacher that had come the spring before, had insisted that his wife be allowed to come to morning prayers, so in fact, she was the first woman. But Letty and I certainly saw ourselves as pathbreakers.”

Accepted Inside, Rejected Outside

When classes began, unlike Letty who had been a Bible major at Wellesley, everything was new to Judy.

“Every course opened up my mind to whole worlds that I had not been aware were there. I really was blessed with some superb lecturers, such as Tillich. Another plus that should not go unmentioned was the fact there were so many denominations, and eventually, world religions represented there. That was something that really did enrich education at Harvard.”

Judy and Letty fell in with a group of graduate students very early.

“They were all strongly in favor of women's education at the Divinity School. The faculty seemed very supportive. They seemed to not make a distinction, faculty such as Conrad Wright, George Williams, James Luther Adams, Paul Tillich, Richard Niebuhr, and Krister Stendhal. I felt very little prejudice at that time. If there was any, I was not aware of it. But Letty was. She spoke about it to me. Even after, I only noticed it in little subtle ways. For example, if we were in some discussion around a table and I said something, then later what I had said was brought up, it would be attributed to one of the male students. Other than that, I did not feel it.”

Both Letty and Judy did denominational work and met with much more prejudice in seeking ordination than either had at the School.

“In the 1950s there was a perception that the proper role for women in the church was in religious education or pastoral work rather than engaging in intellectual scholarship, theology, or official ordination.”

Even so, Judy applied for ordination in the American Unitarian Association, a very liberal denomination that had ordained quite a few women at the turn of the century. By the time Judy applied though, that had changed. There were only one or two women ordained, older women whom Judy knew.

“In my interview, I was told that I had a fine record, and I would do a good job, but unfortunately, since it was a congregationally run denomination, the congregations probably were not yet ready for women in leadership positions.”

Afterward, Judy compared interview notes with her classmate William Jones, who applied at the same time.

“It was interesting because we were both told the same thing, only his reason being that he was African American, and mine being a woman. William went on to become a professor of theology, and, of course, I went on to become a pastor, although it took a little while. It was not courage so much as a real desire to do ministry that allowed me to move forward. It was a passion to show churches that women could be pastors.”

Women Can Do the Work

There were two phases in the admission of women to Harvard Divinity School. The first was granting women access to the institution. The second was reckoning with the implications of women entering the conversation in terms of texts, doctrines, practices, and church history.

Judy explains, “The second stage happened after we left because the women's movement was just getting underway when we were students there. Our primary focus was on proving that women could do the work and women could, in fact, become pastors and theologians. I think we did succeed because Letty and I were the only two students to graduate with honors out of the 25 to 30 graduating students three years later in ‘58.”

Judy and Letty were also the only two of the first seven women to complete the three-year BD/MDiv program.

“It was an exciting time, particularly the textual criticism that was emerging called feminist works,” Judy recalls.

By the mid-1980s people like Clarissa Atkinson, Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Phyllis Trible, and Letty Russell were all producing work looking at scripture, religious history, and theology from a female perspective.

“They were simply mining history from a different point of view. By the time I returned to Harvard in 1985 as an instructor in preaching and denominational counselor for Unitarian Universalism, more than half of the students were women. That was quite a remarkable change.

“I think the School should look back on the involvement of women, beginning in 1955, with pride, certainly. But with humble pride. It was a good thing that they opened admission to women, but seven women, or nine if you count two who were part time, in our entering class of over 120 was not a very big thing. HDS was not the first of the professional schools to do this at Harvard. However, once HDS decided to do it, they did it well.”

A 60-Year Co-Ministry

Attending HDS changed Judy’s life in many ways.

One moment that helped shape Judy’s future life and ministry was when she met Harry Hoehler, a Unitarian looking to enter the ministry. Harry and Judy eventually married, and Judy became a Unitarian bent on ministry as well.

“I was pregnant when I graduated, or very soon after. We had three children relatively close together, and so, I decided to put off ordination until the children were a little bit older. But I was doing a lot of work. In the early ‘60s, the women's movement was beginning to blossom, and I was doing a lot of lecturing in churches. Around ’65, I was on the first denominational committee that went around to Unitarian churches looking for new ministers and give them a training session. It was required before they could get names from the department of the ministry. It was about a day-long workshop on being open to calling women as pastors because by then, we were getting a number of very talented women into the Unitarian ministry as well as ministry in general.”

Judy identifies her “solid grounding in intellectual, academic theological and Biblical work” as one of the most important things she took away from HDS.

“It made writing sermons more central to my ministry because I began to see that the role of the pastor really is to interpret the scriptures for the contemporary scene, how one's faith was to be acted in the present time. That's certainly what governed all the lectures I did on women, women in society, and women in the church.”

She recalls, “As students, Letty and I used to complain, as did other classmates, about the fact that we really got your training by doing student work in little churches around the state. Although there were pastoral theology classes and so forth and the School was supposed to train you for the ministry, we felt there was not much training for it.

“I have to say, though, that through my years in the ministry, what has stood in good stead for me has been the very rigorous grounding that the faculty required of us in our courses in theology, church history, New Testament, Old Testament. That is something that stays with you. It whets your appetite so you continue studying, and working, and joining groups like the Boston Ministers Association, where you read papers to one another.

“I think that's really my greatest gratitude to the Divinity School. And the fact that the Divinity School was so open to the many branches of Christendom and ultimately of world religions. It led Harry and me to both be involved in interdenominational, interreligious work, through our whole ministry. It’s been 60 years that Harry and I have been in co-ministry, and it has been a very rich life, I must say.”

Edited by Natalie Campbell; original interview by Rich Higgins / Photos: Harvard Divinity Bulletin and Andover-Harvard Theological Library

#internationalwomensday #Religion #Harvard #Unitarian Universalist #Harvard Divinity School #Religious Studies #interdenominational #Boston #cambridge #pathbreaker #large

3 notes · View notes

theeasterlymedia · 4 years ago

Text

A Normative Discussion on Andrei Rublev

Meghnad Mukherjee

While watching Rublev, I couldn’t help but think about Béla Tarr and his The Turin Horse. Tarr developed his distinctive style over time, and so one should presume Rublev was a stage in Tarkovsky’s development towards perfecting his almost magical cinematic philosophy that we admire today. In this essay we will be discussing only some of the scenes (and a short general discussion) of this three hours long masterpiece otherwise the obvious following rant would not have stopped.

Holiday, 1408, June

The scene opens with the greatest of all Russian Icon painters Andrei Rublev and his crew of apprentices and helpers on their way to a job in the once-powerful feudal fortress city Vladimir in June of 1408. It is probably the evening of June 23, St. John the Baptist Eve, which falls immediately after summer solstice, the end of spring. The Kliaz'ma River rises north of Moscow, flows between Moscow and the Trinity-St. Sergius Monastery and eastward past Vladimir.

Gathering firewood, Andrei gets caught up in a village pagan ritual. We should notice the sounds of nightingales and of ritual bell percussion.Some would say he seeks a way to join his high spiritual calling and art to the real soil of Russian folk experience, his "civilization" to his "culture". One way to describe the linkage of Christian "civilization" with Russian pagan "culture" is dual faith. Andrei is about to have a "dual faith" experience himself, and so are you if you let the film have its way.The making of a straw effigy and the burning of it are documented features of peasant ritual on St. John's Eve. The sexual license portrayed here is characteristic of peasant spring and summer rituals. Andrei stands over a smoldering camp fire and his monkish robes catch fire. Fire and water are central to the pagan rituals of St. John's Eve (they are also central to Tarkovsky's own personal film imagery). The men and women are performing a characteristic ritual of St. John's Eve. Also don't miss the scene downstream from the two lines of naked folk---a white horse comes into view and begins to thrash the river's surface as the ritual boat approaches.

Andrei is captured and bound in a stable by villagers who do not want him to interfere with their dear ritual. Marfa approaches him and plants an earthly kiss: physical contact of native paganism with highly refined and civilized Christianity. Notice the necklace she wears. Also notice how Andrei sheds his monkish cowl (identifying "uniform" of the black or monkish clergy) as he decides to melt into the woods and rejoin the village fest. As the next morning follows someone has squealed on the village revelers. The local landlord and his ruffian men-at-arms on horseback appear, accompanied by clerical enforcers, all bent on doing their official Christian duty. They hope to run down participants in last night's ritual. Sure enough, here comes Marfa and her significant other, chased by authorities. He doesn't get away, but she swims toward the middle of the river, immediately past the boat carrying Andrei, but he will not look at her. She splashes bravely out to deep waters.

Raid, autumn, 1408

Now we jump ahead a few weeks to the fall of 1408 and the outskirts of the city Vladimir. This army is led by a Russian prince who is a rival of his own brother for power in Vladimir. A tatar Khan’s army and his one will join up at a difficult river ford in preparation for an attack on Vladimir. As the two armies link up, the Khan and the Russian prince vie with one another to see who is faster. The Russian prince recalls an event in the previous winter in which the church tried to reconcile him with his rival brother. The wintry church is the great in Vladimir, built in 1194-1197. You can just barely make out the remarkable animal, vegetable and human figures carved in relief in the white stone outer walls of this ancient cathedral. These figures are taken to be themselves representatives of the combination of old pre-Christian "Scythian" motifs with Biblical themes.

Two times later in this section of the film, the Russian prince flashes back to this treacherous "kissing of the cross" which he and his Tatar ally are now about to betray. The second flashback occurs as the Russian prince witnesses the Tatar humiliation of the captured prince's brother and family and receives from the Tatars the vestments of the now deposed brother's power. The sounds of the Orthodox mass can be heard again, now in the courtyard as the Tatar khan nervously walks his war horse back and forth in anticipation of breaking into the church. A dying horse comes down a stairway and falls to the ground, bleeding to death. This is a disturbing and powerful scene. We may be more touched by this cruel death than by all the other film portrayals of human death. As the horse stumbles to its death, from the church we hear the most characteristic phrases from the Russian mass: Hospodi, pomilui, Hospodi, pomilui... [Lord, have mercy, Lord, have mercy...].

Soon, we see inside the cathedral being rammed by the Tatar army.We spy Andrei again. He is with a young blond woman. The actress is Tarkovsky's wife, and she is playing a paradigmatic Russian cultural role: the holy fool. She is a "durochka", not able to take care of herself, but in her naive simplicity representing something very dear to Russian tradition. Andrei has made himself her protector in earlier scenes, and now they are trapped together as the cathedral door breaks open. What a scene, as the Tatar khan paces his horse around inside the cathedral, asking the Russian prince taunting questions about the holy images on the walls, most now burning. The brave and defiant Foma is tortured, molten lead is poured into his mouth, and he is dragged to his death by a stallion stampeded through the devastated streets of Vladimir.The traitorous prince is beset with deep misgivings about this destructive adventure. Large white geese float from cathedral rooftops to the disordered streets below, all in slow motion. Andrei and Durochka are still in the church and try to come to terms with what has just transpired.

Tatar's Wife

The final scene I have selected is four years later, the winter of 1412. It is a hard winter, and famine stalks the land. Andrei is heating large stones and trying to transfer them to wooden casks to heat water. Durochka is eating an old apple. The Tatar khan rides into the monastery with several of his warriors. They are in a playful mood. The khan feeds frozen meat to quarrelsome dogs. Durochka wants some too. What follows is one of the most intriguing "falling-in-love" scenes in all of filmdom. Andrei tries to intervene, but this situation is beyond his or just about any imaginable power to change. As the khan sweeps Durochka up behind his saddle and he and his warriors gallop out of the monastery courtyard through a roofed gateway, our time is up.

Some commentary or rather a casual discussion --

Tarkovsky created a film about faith in a time when there were no films about religion, apart from satire or anti-religion propaganda. At the same time, people who were religious have tended to view film as a profane medium, inappropriate for religious topics. Andrei Rublev was a 15th-century monk regarded as Russia’s greatest icon writer. While his work is well known and celebrated throughout Russia, little is known of his life except for the handful of icons he left behind. Tarkovsky invented life for Rublev. It is then not an investigation into the painter’s life, but Tarkovsky’s response to what the filmmaker saw and felt by looking at Rublev’s icons.

Moving through ‘a sequence of detailed fragments’ in which Rublev is sometimes present, sometimes only an observer, the film works toward difficult questions: how is experience related, and how can it be communicated? How can art be true to its subject and its audience?How do you paint the trinity without just reducing it to the sum of its parts?

At once humble and cosmic, Rublev was described by Tarkovsky as a “film of the earth.” Shot in widescreen and sharply defined black and white, the movie is supremely tactile—the four classical elements appearing here as mist, mud, guttering candles, and snow. A 360-degree pan around a primitive stable conveys the wonder of existence. Such long, sinuous takes are like expressionist brushstrokes; the result is a kind of narrative impasto.The film’s brilliant, never-explained prologue shows some medieval Icarus braving an angry crowd to storm the heavens. Having climbed a church tower, he takes flight in a primitive hot-air balloon—an exhilarating panorama—before crashing to earth. Fifteenth century Russia was a tumultuous country, never really at peace, and Tarkovsky shows this in particular in the latter half of the film. The theme of conscience is present throughout the film.Tarkovsky plays here with sound and silence, almost deafening silence.

Shooting the entire movie in black and white, Tarkovsky finally dazzles the audience with close-ups of Rublev’s works, revealed for the first time during the movie in all their brilliance and colour. After more than two hours of sombre and austere imagery, the beauty of the frescoes amazes the viewers. The art, born from the endeavours and aspirations of the artist, is presented to the audience in all its grandeur, rising over the everyday like the man on the balloon at the beginning of the movie. This universal quality of the artist and his work makes the historical period irrelevant, performing a spiritual sweep, casting an ethereal spell on the audience.

Andrei Rublev is itself more an icon than a movie about an icon painter. (Perhaps it should be seen as a “moving icon”) This is a portrait of an artist in which no one lifts a brush. The patterns are God’s, whether seen in a close-up of spilled paint swirling into pond water or the clods of dirt Rublev flings against a whitewashed wall. But no movie has ever attached greater significance to the artist’s role. It is as though Rublev’s presence justifies creation.

#world cinema #film #cinema #andrei rublev #andrei tarkovsky

7 notes · View notes

romancatholicreflections · 6 years ago

Text

14th April >> Sunday Homilies and Reflections for Roman Catholics on Palm Sunday of the Lord's Passion - Year C.

To be celebrated on 14th April 2019

Palm/ Passion Sunday

Gospel Reading: Luke 19:28-40

vs. 28 Jesus went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem.

vs. 29 Now when he was near Bethphage, close by the Mount of Olives, as it is called, he sent two of the disciples, telling them,

vs. 30 “Go off to the village opposite, and as you enter it you will find a tethered colt that no one has yet ridden. Untie it and bring it here.

vs. 31 If anyone asks you, ‘Why are you untying it?’ you are to say this, ‘The Master needs it.'”

vs. 32 The messengers went off and found everything just as he had told them.

vs. 33 As they were untying the colt, its owner said, “Why are you untying that colt?”

vs. 34 and they answered, “The Master needs it.”

palm sunday 1

vs. 35 So they took the colt to Jesus, and throwing their garments over its back, they helped Jesus onto it.

vs. 36 As he moved off, people spread their cloaks in the road, and now, as he was approaching the downward slope of the Mount of Olives,

vs. 37 the whole group of disciples joyfully began to praise God at the top of their voices for all the miracles they had seen.

vs. 38 They cried out: “Blessings on the King who comes, in the name of the Lord!

Peace in heaven and glory in the highest heavens!”

vs. 39 Some Pharisees in the crowd said to him, “Master, check your disciples,”

vs. 40 but he answered, “I tell you, if these keep silence the stones will cry out.”

**************************************************

We have four commentators available from whom you may wish to choose .

Michel DeVerteuil : A Trinidadian Holy Ghost Priest, director of the Centre of Biblical renewal .

Thomas O’Loughlin: Professor of Historical Theology, University of Wales, Lampeter.

Sean Goan: Studied scripture in Rome, Jerusalem and Chicago and teaches at Blackrock College and works with Le Chéile

Donal Neary SJ: Editor of The Sacred Heart Messenger

**********************************

Michel de Verteuil

Lectio Divina The Year of Luke

www.columba.ie

General Comments

The Palm Sunday procession is a living lesson in liturgy. By inviting us to imitate the actions of Jesus entering Jerusalem and the crowd welcoming him, the Church wants us to experience that the story is still being lived today. Whenever people of faith decide to confront evil at its source, and do so with inner freedom, remaining faithful to their values, Jesus is once more entering Jerusalem.

We have the same experience by meditating on the gospel texts and recognizing ourselves in them.

Each of the gospels tells the story of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem in a distinctive way. In St Luke’s account, which we read this year, there is first of all the very significant verse 28, which describes Jesus “going on ahead of his disciples.”

The events described in verses 29 to 34 are found in all the synoptic accounts, a sign that the early Church found them highly symbolical. Some take the story as evidence of Jesus’ supernatural powers, but it could merely be evidence of his self-confidence as he faces his great moment of truth, a mark of true leadership.

In St Luke’s account, it is the disciples themselves, entering alongside Jesus, who are moved to excitement at this moment.

A small detail, but clearly significant for St Luke: the disciples “helped Jesus on to the colt.”

The people do not wave palm branches in St Luke’s account, but their gesture of spreading their cloaks in the road before Jesus is both a sign of their wild excitement and their welcoming him as a king.

The cry of the people in verse 38 echoes the song of the angels at the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:14).

The brief dialogue in verses 39-40 can be interpreted in different ways. The Pharisees in question may have been followers of Jesus who were afraid of confrontation and wanted to protect Jesus. Or they may have represented the first assault of the opposition to Jesus. In either case his answer expresses his inner freedom very dramatically.

Scripture reflection

Lord, there comes a time in the lives of all of us when we, like Jesus,

must enter into a radical confrontation:

– those in authority have been abusing their power;

– we finally recognise that we need help to overcome an addiction;

– some members of our community have betrayed the cause and must be excluded;

– we need to give up our comfortable situation and move into something new.

At these moments, give us

– and especially those of us whom you have called to be leaders in our communities –

a share in the inner freedom of Jesus,

so that like him we can go on ahead of the rest, as we go up to our Jerusalem.walking-with-jesus1

Help us like Jesus to make our arrangements confident that they will come to pass,

and to allow ourselves to be put in a position of authority.

Help us to be so confident of our cause

that if someone told us to check our followers

we would know that if they kept silence, the stones would cry out.

Lord, we thank you for glorious moments of grace

– we found a friend whom we felt we could trust perfectly;

– we enjoyed intimacy with our spouse;

– one of our children did us proud;

– a new social movement arose in our country.

We were like the disciples when Jesus approached the downward slope of the Mount of Olives:

we joyfully began to praise you at the top of our voices for the miracle which we had seen.

We cried out, ”Blessings on the king who comes in the name of the Lord!”

We glorified you in the highest heavens.

Lord, it is strange how when the moment of grace comes,

everything seems to fall into place very naturally.

If we need something, we find as the disciples did on the first Palm Sunday,

that all we need say is, “The Master needs it,” and immediately all obstacles are removed.

Lord, we pray that as a Church we may not betray our young people.

Often we lack the courage of our convictions,

are too anxious to please them, and do not go ahead of them.

But when young people today meet leaders who challenge them, they joyfully praise God,

they are ready to spread their cloaks in the road before them,

and welcome them as kings who come in the name of the Lord.

“The important events of history are the thousands of humble actions that heal and reconcile.” …Cardinal Arms of Sao Paulo in Brazil, 1994

Lord, we thank you for the many humble people who enter Jerusalem in peace.

As we think of them, we praise you at the top of our voices

and cry out, “Peace in heaven and glory in the highest heavens.”

************************************************

Thomas O’Loughlin,

Liturgical Resources for the Year of Luke

www.Columba.ie

Introduction to the Celebration

The text in the Missal (p. 123: ‘Dear friends in Christ …‘) cannot be bettered. However, care should be taken to read it as if it were one’s own notes so as to stress the notion that we are entering into the Great Week, accompanying Christ in the Paschal Mystery.

Passion Notes

1. For those who seeking in the gospels an historical record of the events of Jesus’ life, the passion accounts present an awful problem: for the most crucial event in the whole story the early churches had at least four different pictures. When Christians today think of Jesus’s death their picture is invariably a mixture with the people drawn from John and the general scene from the synoptics. Ct the real oneChrist is flanked by two other crosses (Jn 19:18; but a detail common to all four), and standing near him are ‘his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene’ and John (Jn 19:25-26). Nearby also are soldiers casting lots for his clothes (Jn 19:23-25 but with parallels in all four). The scene is one of darkness covering the earth (Mt 27:45; Mk 15:33; Lk 23:44 — a darkness unknown in Jn). Against this conflation, it is worth noting how Luke sets out his scene as it allows us to see his particular perception. The scene of the crucifixion is dark (Lk 23:44) not only in terms of light, but in terms of the courage of his followers: those who knew him, men and women who had followed him from Galilee stood at a distance watching the event unfold (Lk 23:49). Near him there are a crowd of spectacle lovers, scoffing leaders and mocking soldiers (Lk 23:35-36). In Matthew and Mark both criminals also taunt him (they are silent in John), but in Luke (23:39-43) we have the dialogue of the Good Thief whose opening words are a confession that Jesus is suffering as an innocent man (23:41). The centurion’s confession is found only in Mark (15:39) and Luke (23:47), but while in Mark this is a christological statement, in Luke it is a declaration of the imiocent suffering of Jesus: ‘Now when the centurion saw what had taken place, he praised God, and said, “Certainly this man was innocent!”.’ Luke, uniquely, adds another detail at this point: ‘And all … who assembled to see the sight, when they saw what had taken place, returned home beating their breasts’(23:48).

2. A convenient way to see how Luke’s passion differs from the other is to note those items which are proper to him. These present Christ as the righteous one who is faithful to the end alone. Luke presents Jesus as alone from all those whom he had spent time with, eaten with, and been with in the good times; yet in the dark hour his goodness still shone out and transformed people. While his long-term followers were lying low, Jesus was gathering new witnesses to his truth amidst the moral chaos which was his crucifixion. The sense of finality is heightened at the beginning of the passage when Christ states his longing to eat the meal (the final meal in a whole series of meals in Luke) and that he shall not drink wine again until the kingdom comes (22:15- 20). It is also seen in his instructions for the church after his departure (22:35-7) and his warning to Jerusalem (23:27-32). His aloneness is pointed out in the prophesy that the disciples will desert him (22:21-3 and 33-4), and this is fulfilled in the detailed story of the triple denial of Peter (22:54-62)Jesus and cross

By this time Luke presents all the disciples as having fled. By the time of the crucifixion — in stark contrast to John from whence comes our familiar picture of John, Mary, and the other women standing beneath the Cross — there is not a single friendly face nearby: his acquaintances (hoi gnóstoi) and the women stand watching at a distance (23:49). In the end the only ones who acknowledge him are outsiders who at least recognise him as a good and righteous man: Pilate, a criminal, and Roman soldier. Luke alone has Pilate recognise him as one without fault (23:5; 14-5; and 22); similarly he alone has ‘the good thief’ incident who states that this man has done nothing wrong (23:39-43); and finally the centurion, but while in Mark 15:39 and Matthew 27:54 he states, ‘Truly this was the Son of God!’, here Luke has him state simply: ‘Certainly this man was righteous (dikaios).’

For Luke Christ in his passion is utterly abandoned, and he in turn abandons himself to the Father to do the Father’s will (22:22, 29, 37, 42-3). This abandonment reaches its climax in the final cry from the Cross (23:46).

Homily Notes

1. The Missal says that ‘a brief homily may be given.’ There is definitely a case today for taking up this permission to omit the homily altogether; not because such an omission might shorten an already long liturgy, but since we have just come through one of the longest verbal elements in the whole of the liturgy (the passion), another verbal event (a homily) does not bring contrast or help the gospel reading to sink in. A better way to highlight what has been read would be a couple of moments of structured silence (e.g. ‘Let us now reflect in silence on the passion of our Saviour’) before standing for the Creed. On the subject of the length of today’s liturgy we should remember that length of time is one of the key non-verbal ritual cues that humans use to indicate special importance: a crucial symbolic event that is over in a moment, or takes just the same length of time as an ordinary event is an anti-climax – do not forget that Christmas dinner must take longer than an everyday meal. Because this is a special day opening a special week, it should md must take a noticeably longer time than an ordinary Sunday.

Holy wk2. If one does preach, then the brief comments should be directed introducing the week as a whole rather than particular comments on the readings. This could take its starting point from the gospel outside – that Christ has arrived at, and entered Jerusalem, and that ‘his hour’ has arrived. As Christians we are sharers in this event.

3. If the situation calls for a meditation rather than a homily, then a suitable meditation is provided in the Christ-hymn (the second reading) as a way of interpreting the events narrated. However, rather than re-reading it directly from the lectionary it may be broken up into its verses and read with pauses. The version used in the Office is better for such use than either the RSV/ JB. Better still, have it sung by a soloist and simply introduce as the earliest Christian meditation we possess on what we lve just recal1ed about the death of Jesus.

******************************************************

3. Sean Goan

Let the reader understand

www.columba.ie

Gospel: Luke 22:14-23:56

Holy week begins with a dual focus, namely the events of Palm Sunday and the triumphant march of Jesus into Jerusalem and then, by contrast, the story of his passion and death. In year C we read from Luke’s account of the passion and it is worth our while noting the differences, as each evangelist highlights different things in order to bring out the meaning of what is taking place. As in the public ministry of Jesus, so too in his death Luke stresses the themes of forgiveness and prayer. Only in Luke does Jesus pray that his executioners be forgiven and only here is the good thief mentioned. Also in Luke, Jesus dies with a prayer of trust on his lips, thus embodying a teaching that he had given many times in his life.

Reflection

Suffering is part and parcel of being human and while we must readily acknowledge this fact it is also true that we usually do all in our power to avoid it. The readings for today are an invitation to reflect on how the passion of Jesus can change our outlook on suffering. Our Saviour may be seen in these texts as a model of patient endurance and of faithfulness. We are not asked to believe that suffering is good in itself but to see that good can come of it and to recognise in Jesus God’s solidarity with all those who endure suffering for doing what is right.

boy-and-cross-of-jesus

**********************************************

4. Donal Neary S.J.

Gospel reflections

www.columba.ie

PALM SUNDAY

Who was there at the end?

Who was there at the end? The friends of Jesus: from a distance, but still around. They stayed near, not wanting to leave. Did they all stand around for a while? Wanting to go and not wanting to go, like mourners at a graveside – confused, sad and discouraged – silent in the moments of violent death. Were they afraid that this might happen to them too? The friends and acquaintances of Jesus, the one who promised much and said he would rise again… Did any of them remember this promise? Did they whisper it to each other as they closed the stone at the tomb? Did they wonder if more was yet to come? For there was always more with Jesus. We are that ‘more!

centurian at the cross

There also was the centurion: the good man who said, ‘he was a Son of God’. The one from Rome saw through the many from Jerusalem. He was a strange type of guy at the cross – the Roman who had been told to get these crucifixions done, with the least amount of trouble and publicity. Away from home and his own people, he would find a new God in the home of his heart and would be linked forever to a new people.

Something about this man gave a scent of love, and an authority that came from somewhere far away – further than an emperor or a political power. He knew that this man was a Son of God; may we know this too of Jesus.

Lord by your cross and resurrection, you have set us free.

You are the savior of the world.

___________________________________

3 notes · View notes

livingcorner · 3 years ago

Text

10 Things You Should Know about the Garden of Eden

This article is part of the 10 Things You Should Know series.

1. Eden was good, but not yet fully glorious.

Eden was bright and beautiful, and we tend to think of it in terms of perfection. But rather than thinking of Eden in terms of perfection, we should think of it in terms of potential. Certainly, Eden was pure and pristine, ordered and filled, but the Eden we read about in Genesis 1 and 2 wasn’t yet everything God intended for his creation. It was unsullied but incomplete.

You're reading: 10 Things You Should Know about the Garden of Eden

From the very beginning, Eden was not meant to be static; it was headed somewhere. We could say there was an eschatology of Eden. God’s intentions for his creation have always been headed toward consummation, toward glory.

2. Eden was abundant, but it wasn’t yet expansive.

Genesis 2:8 tells us that on the earth God created, “the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east.” He instructed Adam and Eve to, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth” (Gen 1:28). Clearly there was an expansion project in the works. As Adam and Eve worked and kept the garden, and as they were fruitful and multiplied, Eden would grow beyond its current boundaries, and the glory of Adam and Eve’s royal rule would increase.

God’s intention to dwell with a holy people in a holy land could not be thwarted by human sin.

3. Eden was completely good, but it wasn’t completely secure.

As good as the original Eden was, it was vulnerable to evil, deception, and even death. This becomes obvious when we consider that Satan inhabited the body of an ordinary serpent and brought death into the pristine garden. In Revelation 21, John takes care to assure us that this will not happen in the greater garden to come. It will be utterly secure. “Nothing unclean will ever enter it, nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life,” (Rev. 21:27).

Read more: Raised Bed Garden from A – Z | What to Know | joe gardener®

4. Eden had a rhythm of work and then rest, but not yet unending rest.

God did his work of creation, and then he rested. In his rest, God was setting before Adam something to look forward to when he accomplished his work of subduing the earth, exercising dominion over it, and filling it with image bearers. Had Adam faithfully finished the work, he and Eve and their offspring would have entered into a permanent Sabbath rest.

5. Adam and Eve were made in the image of God, but not yet as glorious as God intended.

David wrote about the first man, “You have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor” (Ps. 8:5). Clearly Adam and Eve, having been made in God’s image had a measure of his glory. Had they obeyed, they would have been transformed from one degree of glory to another. “Transformed from one degree of glory to another” has always been and still remains God’s plan for those made in his image. Even now, as the Holy Spirit works in us, we are being changed from one degree of glory to another. But it is the fullest resurrection glory we anticipate the most. “We await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body” (Phil 3:20–21).

6. Adam and Eve were naked, not yet robed in royal splendor.

When we read in Genesis 2 that Adam and Eve were naked in Eden, it may initially seem to us to be a good or neutral thing. But Moses’ original readers would have recognized that something was lacking. These were royal representatives of the great king. And royal representatives in Scripture are always dressed in royal robes (think of Joseph’s coat of many colors, Jonathan’s robe given to David, the robe and ring given to the prodigal son). The report of their nakedness indicated a need for royal clothing which would have been given to them had they faithfully exercised dominion. But instead of being further clothed, Adam and Eve lost the original glory that covered them. This is what made their nakedness before God so unbearable that they sought to cover themselves up with fig leaves.

7. Adam and Eve enjoyed one-flesh intimacy, but their bond was vulnerable to brokenness.

The love story in Eden began with Adam and Eve enjoying bone-of-my-bones, flesh-of-my-flesh intimacy. But the same two people who were naked and unashamed are, only a few verses later, trying to cover up their shame. The same husband who held out his hand to his wife to welcome her, exclaiming, “At last!” only a few verses later points the finger of blame in her direction, saying, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate” (Gen. 3:12). This partnership that was intended to bless the world brought a curse upon the world.

Ever since this first marriage went so terribly wrong, God has been working out his plan to present a perfected bride to the perfect groom. The day will come when the shadow of temporary human marriage will give way to the substance—the eternal, unbreakable, most intimate marriage between Christ and his bride. This will be the happiest marriage of all time.

Even Better than Eden

Nancy Guthrie

Tracing 9 themes throughout the Bible, this book reveals how God’s plan for the new heaven and the new earth, far better than restoration to Eden, is already having an impact in the world today.

8. Adam and Eve enjoyed God’s presence, but they were vulnerable to his presence in judgment.

Adam and Eve experienced the joy of God’s presence with them in the garden before they sinned. But one aspect of his presence with them was the warning he gave them regarding the forbidden tree, “In the day that you eat of it you shall surely die’” (Gen. 2:17). When we read in Genesis 3:8 that Adam and Eve “heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day,” it was not as though God was taking his regular leisurely afternoon stroll in the garden. This was judgment day, which for Adam and Eve meant that it was also eviction day. No longer could they live in the holy sanctuary of Eden in the presence of a holy God, because they had become unholy people.

But God’s intention to dwell with a holy people in a holy land could not be thwarted by human sin. Instead, God began working out his plan to make it possible for sinners to be made clean and holy in order to live in his presence. The day is coming when, “He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God” (Rev. 21:3).

Read more: Madison Square Garden | Unforgettable Starts Here

9. Adam and Eve could have gained the knowledge of good and evil without eating from the forbidden tree.

When we read about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:9), we might think that there must have been something essentially evil, even foreboding, about this tree. But it wasn’t forbidden because it was evil. Rather, it was evil because it was forbidden. God had put this tree in the garden to give Adam and Eve the opportunity to live out genuine faith and obedience. Adam and Eve could have used the wisdom God gave them through his word to judge the Serpent’s lies and rebellion against God as evil, while clinging to God’s goodness. Adam should have crushed the head of the evil serpent then and there. He should have squashed this rebellion rather than taking part in it. Had he done so, Adam and Eve would have been able to eat their fill of the tree of life, and enter into a heavenly life, without ever having to experience death.

10. Eden had the tree of life, but Adam and Eve were prohibited from eating from it.

We’re not told specifically that Adam and Eve could not or did not eat of the tree of Life that was in the midst of the garden. But it would seem that the fruit of this tree was a feast for Adam and Eve would enjoy once they passed the test of obedience represented in the forbidden tree. Revelation 2:7 speaks of eating of the tree of life being granted to those who “overcome” or “conquer.” Clearly, Adam and Eve did not overcome temptation. They were meant to rule over creation but they couldn’t rule over their own appetites. Because of their disobedience they were barred from eating of the tree.

Revelation 22 reveals that the opportunity for God’s people to eat of the tree of life is not gone forever. Instead, the tree of life is gloriously planted in the center of the greater garden to come. In Eden, the trees bore fruit in their season, which means once a year. But in the new and better Eden, the tree of life yields a new crop of fruit every month. In Eden, the tree of life grew in the midst of the garden. But in the new Eden, the tree of life grows on either side of the river. It seems to have multiplied and expanded, implying that everyone will have access to it; all will be welcome to eat their fill. And it’s not just the fruit that will feed us; the leaves of this tree will heal us. In fact, they will heal everything.

Sometimes we hear the story of the Bible told as Creation-Fall-Redemption-Restoration. But as good as Eden was, we’re not merely headed back to Eden as it once was. The story of the Bible is Creation-Fall-Redemption-Consummation. We’re looking forward to a home that will be even better than Eden.

Nancy Guthrie teaches the Bible at her home church, Cornerstone Presbyterian Church in Franklin, Tennessee, as well as at conferences around the country and internationally, including her Biblical Theology Workshops for Women. She is the host of the Help Me Teach the Bible podcast from the Gospel Coalition and the author of numerous books, including Even Better than Eden and Saints and Scoundrels in the Story of Jesus. She and her husband are cohosts of the GriefShare video series and lead Respite Retreats for couples who have faced the death of a child.

Popular Articles in This Series

View All

Crossway is a not-for-profit Christian ministry that exists solely for the purpose of proclaiming the gospel through publishing gospel-centered, Bible-centered content. Learn more or donate today at crossway.org/about.

Source: https://livingcorner.com.au Category: Garden

source https://livingcorner.com.au/10-things-you-should-know-about-the-garden-of-eden/

#livingcornernews

0 notes

pamphletstoinspire · 7 years ago

Photo

Padre Pio and Erminia Gargani

Story with images:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/padre-pio-erminia-gargani-harold-baines/?published=t

“Good daughter it is not abandonment but love that the most sweet Savior is showing you” - Padre Pio (Padre Pio writing to Erminia)

The role expected of women in Italy at the beginning of the 20th century and especially in southern Italy, was that of wife and mother and with all the emotional and religious ties and duties that go with it, which the men were too occupied in the hard work of the land and in the pursuit of social and economical realization had no time for. So a woman who chose to live outside of these traditional parameters was seen as breaking, almost "transgressing" convention. Erminia Gargani because she also worked and was independent was considered to be in many respects "transgressive."

Erminia moreover, grew up in a family in which the women had character. Erminia, although the of sister Mother Maria Gatgani, a woman of strong faith and will, she was not overshadowed by this sister, who even in her gentleness was imposing and could have relegated her to a role of secondary status. Erminia knew how to always be herself, that is she knew how to "start again," to "rethink" her life, especially after the terrible tragedy that was reserved for her.

Erminia was a schoolteacher and had studied at the Avellino Teachers College. When she received her diploma she was assigned a post at a school in Casalnuovo Monterotaro, a small town in the province of Foggia, where she lived for 19 years and where her family in many ways would change forever.

Committed totally to her work, Erminia almost at once would be challenged by the hardships of life. In fact, her first classes consisted of undisciplined children totally incapable of following the school rules. But, she was not discouraged and began to look for the good side in them: she stimulated their interests, treated them with respect and little by little she won them over and they began to obey the regulations, greet her when she entered the classroom, and even start the day with a prayer to Jesus. But here at Casalnuovo, Erminia would leave a part of herself.

It was here that her "womanhood" would undergo a sharp and painful trial; it was here in fact, where she lived her love story with Carlo Agnusdei, a well brought up young man from a distinguished and wealthy family. It was a courtship very different to what we have become accustomed to today. It was a romantic wholesome love expressed in an atmosphere of reserve, of amorous sentiments and much through words. But in that period of time when this love was born, it was the mother of the family who was responsible for the children's' education and the arrangement of their marriages, especially of the male offspring. And in this story too, in keeping with the most traditional of clichés, the love of Erminia and Carlo would be obstructed by the family of the husband to be, with the mother in the front lines preventing her son from marrying "beneath himself."

Carlo's parents out to "protect" what Pierre Bourdieu has termed the "symbolic capital" of the family, the family name rather than the patrimony, failed to recognize in Erminia her great emotional, psychological and spiritual worth and she, in turn, her head held high, would not accept a marriage without the complete approval of the fiancés family. Erminia had no wish to enter an emotional relationship that would go against her future in-laws and nor did she wish to embitter the relations between Carlo and his parents, and because of this she refused to marry. With dignity she got herself out of this sterile entanglement, the result of complicated and distressing family relations, knowing that she would never be able to "build" a marriage on the "ruins" of a parent-son relationship.

But as resolute as Erminia was in her decision, Carlo could not comprehend her feelings and, perhaps from extreme personal suffering, or because he lacked the same faith and strength of Erminia, he took his life with poison. His suicide was a cry of desperation over this failed relationship between his parents and Erminia.

Erminia was never able to recover from the tragedy, although with Padre Pio's help, who in this difficult moment would come into her life, she would little by little be able to come to terms with it. She was heartbroken over Carlo's suicide and at first decided to join a religious order of nuns, the Sacramentine Sisters at Casoria, but this decision would cause great grief and disagreements in her family. Her sister Maria wrote to Padre Pio seeking his advice and he wrote back to her: "If your parents are absolutely determined to take your sister from the cloister by force… then it would be better, for civility, to persuade your sister to return, leaving her re-entry into the Order for a better time" (S.G. Rotondo, 24 September 1916).

Erminia would leave the convent and go back to teaching, and, from that moment on, begin a busy apostolate in her parish teaching catechism, in which she would receive encouragement from Padre Pio through an ardent correspondence of a total of 69 letters, now part of Volume III of Padre Pio's writings.

Padre Pio welcomed Erminia among his spiritual daughters in a very distressing time of her life, and instead of advising her to leave the world, he directed and guided her in the world.

In a letter to his "good daughter," as he often called her, he explained: "It is not abandonment but love that the most sweet Savior is showing you. It is not at all true that you offend God in that state of aridity and desolation of spirit in which the loving Savior has placed you, because His vigilant grace greatly protects you from such an offense" (Letters III). Padre Pio writing to Erminia would teach and explain the faith to her in relation to the spiritual situation of her life. Only eight days later, knowing very well the loneliness Erminia was experiencing, he wrote again: "I write immediately, because I believe Jesus wants to comfort you through this poor writing of mine" (Letters III).

Little by little Erminia would come to feel that she could confide in Padre Pio and she told him about the terrible confusion and darkness she was experiencing. Padre Pio, spoke to her using the imagery of a cloud, a symbol of the "unknowable" God: "The deeper the darkness grows, the closer God is. Remember this great truth, my beloved daughter, and be comforted by it. That a cloud covered the 'Sancta Sanctorum' every time the Lord wanted to warn His chosen people of His presence" (Letters III).

Padre Pio's knowledge of Scripture was not the speculative and disinterested knowledge of a scholar. As a true Franciscan, Scripture had become a second nature to him. He thought and understood in a biblical way and it was part of his everyday speech.

Padre Pio did not cease to calm Erminia and to encourage her in the faith: "Come on! Keep strongly and constantly united to God, consecrating all your affections, torments and your entire self to Him, patiently awaiting the return of that beautiful sun, whenever the Spouse is pleased to visit you through trials or aridity, desolation and darkness of spirit" (Letters III). Words like these we find continuously in his letters to her.

Padre Pio stressed to Erminia, in particular, the virtue of humility on the road to perfection. In his letter dated 15 February 1918, he wrote: "To begin with, you must insist on the root and foundation of Christian justice and goodness; on that virtue, that has been clearly offered to us as an example to follow, and by that I mean humility; an interior and exterior humility, but more interior than exterior, more felt than shown, more profound than visible" (Letters III).

It is in this letter that he indicates to her six rules to attain this goal:

"1.) Never be satisfied with yourself.

2.) Never complain about offenses wherever they might come from.

3.) Forgive everyone in Christian charity.

4.) Always lament your wretchedness before God.

5.) Do not be surprised at all by your weaknesses recognizing yourself for what you are, blushing at your constancies than infidelities to God, and place your trust in the heavenly Father, abandoning yourself in His arms like a child in the arms of its mother.

6.) Never take pride in your virtues, reminding yourself often that everything comes from God, to whom we must give honor and glory" (Letters III).

These goals are not something easy to attain and because of this Padre Pio would remain close to Erminia and continue writing to her: "When you are able to take big steps on the path along which God leads you, patiently wait until your legs are strong enough to run, or rather, until you have the wings to fly. Be content for now, my good daughter, with being a little honeybee, which will soon become a big bee capable of producing honey" (Letters III).

This image of the busy honeybee is the symbol of that patient waiting that Erminia would have to achieve in herself. She would "work" hard on herself, perfecting her faith that would continue to grow her whole life, spent in teaching and instructing the catechism. She gave thanks to Padre Pio for making her understand something very important, that her life after Carlo's death, was not barren and unproductive. Even though she renounced forever matrimony, and by that motherhood in a biological sense, in dedicating her life to teaching, she considered this her mission, and would become a mother, a second mother, to generations of students.

In this mission, morality would prevail over the intellectual, even though the intellectual remained always very important.

On 4 May 1953, Donna Erminia as she is still remembered in her hometown of Morra Inpinia, was awarded by the President of the Republic, Luigi Einaudi, for her 40 years of teaching in elementary schools, a gold medalli

Nine years later, she would peacefully give up her soul and join forever her Carlo, whom she had continued to love her whole life with her pure love.

As the author of this story states "We women, it is a known fact, are made in this way. We are capable of loving the reminiscence of an impossible love for always. On these loves it will never be possible to write the last word."

Story by Marianna Iafelice

#padre pio

2 notes · View notes

deadbscrolls · 8 years ago

Text

Three Examples of the Way We Be (1 Samuel 1-3)

There are many lessons to learn from 1 Samuel, some of which are found in the first few chapters. While studying it to teach the first chapter, and from continuing on past where we left off in home church, I've found some interesting things I can't help but write about.

What's very cool is how much there is to learn from some of the minor characters in this book. We talked about these characters a bit in home church but in case anyone wasn't there I'll repeat some aspects that were already discussed.

What I'd like to talk about is three examples of relationships with God, told through the lives of Eli, Samuel, and Hannah from the scope of 1 Samuel chapters 1-3.

Old Eli

We are introduced to Eli as a priest. Already pretty old & overweight by the time we meet him. Supposedly a godly man, his life doesn’t match his title, at least what we know of it. He never disciplined his kids, who at this time have been sleeping around with temple prostitutes, cheating and manipulating people (using there title, also priests), as well as never listening to their dad. When it comes down to it, Eli brought this disrespect upon himself by never disciplining his kids. It's no wonder they are so wild when the only thing Eli does at the reports of their behavior his tell them its bad and that they should stop.

So maybe we can attribute such lack of fatherly duties to his old age. That’s all good and well but what about his lack of insight and sheer ignorance when he spotted Hannah praying in the Tabernacle?

1:12 As she was praying to the Lord, Eli watched her. 13 Seeing her lips moving but hearing no sound, he thought she had been drinking. 14 “Must you come here drunk?” he demanded. “Throw away your wine!”

For a priest, this is an embarrassing judgement call. A woman is praying in a place that should have been one of the most common places to find someone praying. Instead of assuming the most obvious of possibilities, Eli jumped to the conclusion that she was drunk.

Either it’s a rare sight to see someone praying in the tabernacle, or Eli was truly losing it by this point. Crazy or stupid, I'm not sure. However I do think its pretty clear that for a priest on duty at the tabernacle, Eli demonstrated a serious lack of godliness.

Old and set in his ways, not much got through to him. He received a letter through a prophet, from God himself. The letter detailed how Eli would soon be losing his entire family from war and natural causes. Instead of taking this letter to heart, repenting (or turning to God knowing what he'd been up to was wrong and expressing his desire to change), or even expressing any sort of emotion on the matter, Eli continues on in his ways. Granted the focus switches right after the letter is over and we don’t know exactly how Eli reacted, we do know if he was repentant, that detail would have been included.

Some time passes and Eli is aware that Samuel recently heard the Lord speak. He is extremely adamant that Samuel leaves no detail out of the message. You must wonder if Eli regrets this later because the message he receives from Samuel is clear - Eli & his family are doomed. Still not much of a reaction from Eli:

3:18 So Samuel told Eli everything; he didn’t hold anything back. “It is the Lord’s will,” Eli replied. “Let him do what he thinks best.”

Basically he says "he's gonna do what he's gonna do". This is not a heart that wants to change, It's a heart that says, "if God doesn’t like what I'm doing with my life, he can kill my whole family, I don’t care". Well, if you read on, the Lord's prophecy all comes true as just as he said it would. Eli eventually dies in a cartoonish way that might make you laugh out loud.

4:18b …Eli fell backward from his seat beside the gate. He broke his neck and died, for he was old and overweight…

Young Samuel

The story starts before Samuel is born. After Hannah puts her faith fully in God, after years without being able to have a child, Samuel is born. Hannah names him Samuel which literally means that she asked God for him. That's a pretty cool name if you ask me. Hannah promised God that she would dedicate Samuel to the Lord. Once he's old enough she follows through and gives Samuel to Eli to aid him in his work, and overall serve the Lord.

Eli was the guy earlier that called Hannah out for being drunk and now she's trusting him with her only son. This supposedly godly priest is now over Samuel to teach him in his ways. Luckily, this is what's so amazing about Samuel, even with how terrible a father Eli was, or how wild his sons were, Samuel remained a godly boy. With all t his corruption surrounding him, it's clear that God is actually at work. You have to imagine that there would be heavy amounts of temptation and peer pressure to join Eli's sons in their tomfoolery.

2:18a But Samuel, though he was only a boy, served the Lord…

Samuel is young and eager to serve the Lord, yet severely naïve. There's no doubt that Samuel loves God, but his training must not be that in depth. You get this idea when it takes way too many tries for God to get in touch with Samuel. He calls his name a few times, and each time Samuel thinks that its Eli calling him. Eventually Eli tells him to talk back to the voice - even then he doesn't tell him what's going on or that it's God speaking, instead he gives him a script to say to God - what a terrible discipler!

Godly Hannah

Hannah is a biblical superhero. Prior to studying this, I had never heard her story. Here circumstances were less than desirable; her husband barely cared about himself more than her, she shared her husband with another woman, and she was unable to have kids. In those days, if you were unable to have kids you were a loser. Barren women were useless - that was a known fact in their ancient society. All of these things caused Hannah deep sorrow. She was so sad to the point of not eating. What made things worse is her husbands other wife wouldn't stop making fun of her inability to have kids, and her husband never told her to shut up.

It was a rough life for Hannah in those days. She did what any believer should do in troubled times - she turned to God in prayer and asked for help in this area. She poured her heart out.

When it comes to the interaction between her and Eli, when he thought she was drunk - you must admit, her response was rather impressive. Eli didn't care about whatever she was going through, basically said "be on your way lady", and after all that - she just hoped he wouldn't think that she was a bad lady. She asked for respect. How gracious! Hannah showed no sign of offense at all. That was impressive.

As Hannah walks away, her sadness is gone and God's peace washes over her face. Then she becomes the living embodiment of Philippians 4:6,7 :

6 Don’t worry about anything; instead, pray about everything. Tell God what you need, and thank him for all he has done. 7 Then you will experience God’s peace, which exceeds anything we can understand. His peace will guard your hearts and minds as you live in Christ Jesus.

Hannah gave everything over to God, stopped worrying about it, and God's peace clearly was being experienced. This is to me, a beautiful picture of that Philippians passage actually taking place in a person's life. Absolutely beautiful.

Later after Samuel is old enough, she hands him off to Eli to serve the Lord. The beginning of chapter 2 is her prayer after giving away her firstborn son. Not only does this reveal her beautiful relationship with the Lord, but that she was also very wise in the ways of God.

Specifically Hannah is aware of God's loving grace:

2:8

He lifts the poor from the dust

and the needy from the garbage dump.

He sets them among princes,

placing them in seats of honor.

Calling her Godly Hannah is no overstatement. I stole that nickname from some commentary that probably stole it from someone else. It's a very fitting title.

In Hannah we have the mature Christian lifestyle. In Eli we see the old, boring, compromised believer. In Samuel (during the time of chapters 1-3) we see the young eager baby Christian mindset. All three can be learned from. Whether you want to be more like Hannah or less like Eli, there's something about Samuel's eager-to-serve-heart we can all benefit from. Personally I think Hannah's life is one to remember no matter who you are. In terms of godliness, it seems as if Hannah is one of the most godly people in the bible, yet the least talked about. Her trust in God is something I only hope I can one day have myself.

#god

2 notes · View notes

angryacegiant · 8 years ago

Text

Fight me you Twat waffle

Alright you little fuckers, sit down and shut up. I’m gonna prove to your sorry ass that the bible is pro-LBGT+. And there is nothing you fuckers can do about it. So, you, being the little shit you are, may be all like but what about Leviticus 18:22 “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” It clearly states that homosexuality is a sin!!

So, the verse you’re ever so incorrectly quoting comes from Leviticus (AKA “Levitical Law”), it was part of the life guidelines God laid down for the Israelites through Moses on Mount Sinai after their exodus from slavery in Egypt. We call it “Levitical” because Moses was descendant from Levi, one of the twelve original tribes of Israel and sons of Jacob. The Levites were held responsible for religious duty of the nation of Israel, so the term “Leviticus” as well as “Levitical Law” flows from the recognition of the Levites as the main holders of religious law among the nation/peoples of Israel.

Now, we’ve all heard the arguments from people about which Levitical Laws our modern, twenty-first century Christians adhere themselves to. Most of them are cherry picked for convenience and ease of use. We love to quote Levitical Law against homosexuals, but we seem to forget our reading comprehension when that same law turns to the clothes we should wear and the foods we should eat. What’s more, Levitical Law wasn’t MADE for you, a modern day Christian. It was a covenant law between God and a people who followed him for everyday use and is included in the canonical Hebrew text for reference and context. And that’s really what we need here, isn’t it? Context.

Oh, DO let us open the can of worms about biblical contextualism. Because while you may not think it’s important, it really is. The fact of the matter is that contextualism and contextual reading of biblical text becomes crucial, especially for what we refer to as the Old Testament. Because we no longer live in a tribe mentality and because we no longer live under the social and political laws and landscapes of Ancient Israel and its surrounding and neighbor areas, we absolutely must take this into context before we just throw it out blindly.

Property rights. “Mike”, you say, “What does Leviticus 18:22 have to do with property rights?” And to you I say “Everything”. Because this passage is specifically dealing with and addressing women and men as they pertain to property. Or didn’t you know, that women were considered property in Ancient Israel? They were. They were absolutely considered property to be bought, sold, and betrothed. A man in these ancient tribes was considered a property holder. And a woman was property. She was property belonging to her father upon her birth and transferred to her husband, but not upon what we see as “marriage”. Because in Ancient Israel, “marriage” was not a ceremony and a paper signing, “marriage” was sex. And the transference of property rights from father to husband for a young female was found through sex.

So, what God is saying in these passages is that the divine transference of the covenant of marriage and the ownership (yes, ownership) of a woman comes through the consummation of that relationship. What he is saying is that two men in equal standing lying with one another cannot equally own one another and therefore, it creates disputes and dissatisfaction. Because at this time, sex was the catalyst of property transference. If two men of equal standing lay together, who owns whom?

And the thing is. We do not live there anymore. We do not live with those mentalities. We are not the social and political tribes of Ancient Israel and we do not have their functioning. Two men of equal standing in society in the twenty first century can have sex without implications of ownership. Two women in the twenty first century can have sex without implications of ownership. Your thinking lacks not only context on a historical scale, but also a progressive scale in which you fail to see the passage of time and sociopolitical interactions from a tribe mentality to something more evolved. To continue this line of thought let’s talk about Levitical law in relation to other books of the bible. Moreover, Levitical law was OVERTURNED in Paul’s letters to the Romans! Paul stated that those of Gentile faith are not required to follow Jewish law. That is why we, as Christians, are allowed to eat pork, that’s why we can shave, that’s why we can get divorced, because we are not subject to Jewish law!

Born this way!

Some Christians confidently assert that God did not create homosexual people “that way.” This is important because they realize if God did create gays “that way,” rejecting them would be tantamount to rejecting God’s work in creation. In pressing their “creation order” argument, some Christians are fond of saying, “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!” To bolster their position, they often cite Jesus’ words in Matthew 19:4-5, where he responds to a question about whether divorce is permissible:

“Jesus answered, ‘Have you not read that the One who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh”? Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate.’ ”

From these words, some Christians draw the conclusion that heterosexuality is the creation norm and, thus, heterosexual marriage is the only legitimate way for people to form romantic relationships. Ironically, Jesus’ own words in this very same passage refute these conclusions.

As the dialogue continues, Jesus’ disciples are disturbed by his strict teaching on divorce. The disciples say that if divorce is not a ready option, perhaps it would be best for a man not to marry a woman. Jesus responds:

“Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.” (Matthew 19:11-12)

Also in Ephesians 1:4 it states “According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world”. This is a clear passage that in short means God specifically created LGBT people that way. Along with that, another passage that supports this claim is Psalm 139:14 – “I praise you, nor I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.”

Here Jesus identifies three classes of men who should not marry women. Taking his categories in reverse order, first, there are those who have made themselves “eunuchs” for the kingdom of heaven, i.e., those who foreswear marriage to better serve God. Second, he mentions those who have been “made eunuchs by others,” an apparent reference to castrated males. But Jesus mentions a third category — eunuchs who were born that way. Some might argue that Jesus was referring to males born without testicles, but this would be extremely rare. Moreover, this interpretation ignores how the term “born eunuchs” was used in other literature of the time.

Gay people in the bible

From our days in Sunday school, many of us are familiar with the Gospel story where Jesus healed the servant of a Roman centurion. This story is recorded in Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10. In Matthew, we are told that the centurion came to Jesus to plead for the healing of his servant. Jesus said he was willing to come to the centurion’s house, but the centurion said there was no need for Jesus to do so — he believed that if Jesus simply spoke the word, his servant would be healed. Marveling at the man’s faith, Jesus pronounced the servant healed. Luke tells a similar story.

The same Hebrew word that is used in Genesis 2:24 to describe how Adam felt about Eve (and how spouses are supposed to feel toward each other) is used in Ruth 1:14 to describe how Ruth felt about Naomi. Her feelings are celebrated, not condemned.

And throughout Christian history, Ruth’s vow to Naomi has been used to illustrate the nature of the marriage covenant. These words are often read at Christian wedding ceremonies and used in sermons to illustrate the ideal love that spouses should have for one another. The fact that these words were originally spoken by one woman to another tells us a lot about how God feels about same-gender relationships.

In the entire Bible, there are only two books named after women. One is Esther, which tells the story of a Jewish woman who becomes Queen of Persia and saves her people from destruction by “coming out” as Jewish to her husband, the king. The other is Ruth, which tells the story of two women who love and support one another through difficult times. Both books contain powerful messages for gay, lesbian, and bisexual people, but it is the story of Ruth that addresses the question we raised in chapter one: Can two people of the same sex live in committed, loving relationship with the blessing of God?

In the ancient world, eunuchs were widely associated with homosexuality. Here a self-avowed eunuch is welcomed in to the early church without any concerns about his sexual orientation. He was welcomed on the same basis as other people – his faith in Jesus Christ.

Isaiah 56:3-5, which promises eunuchs who keep God’s commandments that someday they will receive a house, a monument, and a name within God’s walls. Perhaps, like gay, lesbian, and bisexual Christians today, he had gone to his religious leaders pointing to the Scriptures which affirmed him, hoping he might somehow be accepted. But instead, he had been clobbered once again with Deuteronomy 23:1. A eunuch “may not enter the assembly of God’s people!” And so he had taken his precious scroll of Isaiah and begun his journey home, reading about another of God’s children who had been despised, rejected, and cut off.

It was at this point Philip, guided by the Holy Spirit, happened along and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” The Ethiopian eunuch, still seeking a religious authority figure, answered “How can I unless someone guides me?” (8:31) So, Philip started with this Scripture and “proclaimed to him the good news of Jesus.” (8:35) Then they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is some water! What is to prevent me from being baptized?” Philip’s answer should be astonishing to anyone who still holds a prejudice against gay, lesbian, and bisexual believers.

Philip responded, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.”

Philip did not say, “Let’s talk about Deuteronomy 23:1.” He also did not say, “I realize since you’re a eunuch that you may desire men; can you promise me you’ll never have a sexual relationship with a man?” Instead, operating under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” We have no way of knowing whether the Ethiopian eunuch was in fact gay. But we do know he was part of a class of people commonly associated with homosexuality and that this fact was completely irrelevant to whether he could become a Christian.

On the premise of the LGBT community lets also talk about transgender people and the bible. More specifically how God couldn’t give two flying fucks about it. I bring into evidence Galatians 3:28 “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” As you can see, God literally does not care what you or anyone else identifies as.

History

Now its time to talk about the virgin mother, I.e. historical context. The word ‘virgin’ did not originally mean a woman whose vagina was untouched by any penis, but a free woman, one not betrothed, not bound to, not possessed by any man. It meant a female who is sexually and hence socially her own person. But if you so insist that you take to modern day patriarchal version than fine with me. By your own standards Jesus had two fathers and a surrogate mother, which never had sex with either of them.

History lesson: late 13c., "bundle of twigs bound up," also fagald, faggald, from Old French fagot "bundle of sticks" (13c.), of uncertain origin, probably from Italian fagotto "bundle of sticks," diminutive of Vulgar Latin *facus, from Latin fascis "bundle of wood" (see fasces).

"Male homosexual," 1914, American English slang, probably from earlier contemptuous term for "woman" (1590s), especially an old and unpleasant one, in reference to faggot (n.1) "bundle of sticks," as something awkward that has to be carried (compare baggage "worthless woman," 1590s). It may also be reinforced by Yiddish faygele "homosexual" (n.), literally "little bird." It also may have roots in British public school slang noun fag "a junior who does certain duties for a senior" (1785), with suggestions of "catamite," from fag (v.). This also spun off a verb (see fag (v.2).

Burning sometimes was a punishment meted out to homosexuals in Christian Europe (on the suggestion of the Biblical fate of Sodom and Gomorrah), but in England, where parliament had made homosexuality a capital offense in 1533, hanging was the method prescribed. Use of faggot in connection with public executions had long been obscure English historical trivia by the time the word began to be used for "male homosexual" in 20th century American slang, whereas the contemptuous slang word for "woman" (in common with the other possible sources or influences listed here) was in active use early 20c., by D.H. Lawrence and James Joyce, among others.

So in short a faggot is a bundle of sticks that is set on fire that is now a slur for a homosexual male. Yet isn’t it funny that Moses came across a burning bush (sticks on fire) and saw God in them. Isn’t it funny how faggots and God can look the same sometimes?

Let’s talk about that slut Paul:

Now it’s time to slut shame St Paul. It seems that Paul was disgusted with certain aspects of sex in Greco-Roman society. He was at times a bigot and a prude - he even admits as much when discussing whether women's hair should be covered. He at no time discusses equal relationships between people of the same sex. It is possible that if he had known about them he would still have disliked them; after all Paul seems to condemn prostitutes, but given that we know most ancient prostitutes, whatever their social opprobrium, were forced, usually sold in fact, into prostitution, it does not speak well of Paul, that he condemned these poor abused people: Jesus never did!

So, stop fucking using my religion as an excuse to be a bigoted asshole you little self-righteous fucker.

#wrote this out of spite #fite me #christianity #lgbt+#square up #meet me in the pits #essay

2 notes · View notes

shekeepsthebees · 4 years ago

Text

A repudiation of the Hahn’s Rome Sweet Home by Owen Wood, 2009

Rome Sweet Home (Roman Catholicism)

In contrast to Alexander Hislop's "The Two Babylons" (Pagan Influence in Catholicism), the book "Rome Sweet Home" is quite sympathetic to Roman Catholicism. "Rome Sweet Home" is the first-person account by Scott Hahn and his wife, Kimberly, of their conversion from the Presbyterian Church to the Roman Catholic Church. As a young adult, Hahn "experienced a special outpouring of the Holy Spirit." He developed strong "anti-Catholic convictions" because of his strong belief that the Bible taught "sola fide," justification by faith alone, whereas Roman Catholics believed that they were saved by their works. He says on page 6, "Let's face it, anti-Catholicism can be a very reasonable thing. If the wafer Catholics worship is not Christ (and I was convinced it was not), then it is idolatrous and blasphemous to do what Catholics do in bowing before and worshiping the Eucharist." He cited many "errors and superstitions" in the Roman Catholic Church, including infant baptism, and he became convinced "that the covenant was the key for unlocking the whole Bible".

It is important to explain here the "sola" terminology used by Hahn. Martin Luther taught a doctrine he coined as "sola fide" which is the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and one he also coined "sola scriptura" which is the doctrine that state that the Scriptures are the Christian's sole authority, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as opposed to extra-biblical divine authority of a pope, a church, or tradition. It seems that when pressed to support Roman Catholic doctrine from scripture, many feel the need to discredit Luther's "sola" doctrines. From a Roman Catholic perspective, Luther seems to be viewed as the person who divided and ruined the Roman Catholic Church, so it becomes necessary to find a flaw in Luther's credibility. Hahn's first revelation that the Roman Catholic Church might not be entirely wrong occurred when Kimberly convinced him that contraception was wrong. Meanwhile, he routinely engaged in late-night discussions with peers "debating hard doctrines..." After "acquiring some skills in Greek and Hebrew", he became convinced that "with the Holy Spirit and Sacred Scripture we could reinvent all the wheels, if need be." Hahn says that he has been blessed "with very deep friendships with men and women who were really serious about opening up their minds..."

Justification by Faith Alone

Hahn says, "... I discovered that nowhere did Saint Paul ever teach that we were justified by faith alone. Sola fide was unscriptural!" This seems to have been based on James 2:24, "You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone." I submit that are several problems with this reasoning.

The first problem is the common misinterpretation of the passage in James, and Roman Catholics are not alone in misunderstanding it. This is referring to the verification of our justification before men, not before God. Although God saves us by grace through faith alone, the evidence of our salvation before men is our conduct.

Also, one of the basic principles of hermeneutics (interpretation) is that a doctrine cannot be based upon only a single scripture. The doctrine must be substantiated by other passages in the Bible. Even if Hahn's interpretation of James 2:24 was correct, it would be supported by other proof texts. Even if it wasn't, the best case would be that this doctrine wasn't addressed elsewhere in scripture. The worst case would be that it disagreed with existing proof texts on this subject.

However, if there is one message that is clearly repeated throughout the Bible, it is the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Romans Chapters 3 through 5 and Galatians Chapters 2 through 5 are dedicated to this doctrine, and it is explicitly stated in many more scriptures (Acts 16:31; Romans 1:17; Romans 3:22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28; Romans 4:3,5,9, 11-13, 16-20, 24; Romans 5:1, 2, 21; Romans 9:30, 32; Romans 10:4, 9-14; Romans 11:20; Romans 15:13; 1 Corinthians 1:21; 2 Corinthians 6:1; Galatians 2:16,20; Galatians 3:6-9, 14, 22, 24, 26; Galatians 5:5-6; Ephesians 1:13, 19; Ephesians 2:8; Philippians 3:9; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Thessalonians 1:10; 2 Thessalonians 2:10, 12; Hebrews 3:19; 1 John 5:1, 10-11, 13).

We cannot begin to cover all the proof texts here, but it is necessary to look at a few of them in order to show the clarity of the scriptures concerning justification. Probably the most emphatic and complete verse on justification is Galatians 2:16, "A man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So, we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified." Furthermore, Romans 1:16 says that the gospel is the power of God to everyone who "believes" (John 3:16, 1 Corinthians 1:21). In fact, the most common terms found in the scriptures for differentiating Christians from non-Christians are "believers" and "unbelievers," so justification by faith is even inherent by definition. It should also be noted that this justification by faith is in accord with the doctrine of grace (Romans 4:16, 5:2), in that even our faith comes from God (Romans 12:3, Philippians 1:29, Colossians 2:12, 2 Peter 1:1). God is the one who justifies (Romans 8:33, 1 Corinthians 6:11), and justification comes from His grace, not from our works.

Clearly, the 56 verses in the 22 passages (mostly from Paul) cited above establish the doctrine of justification by faith alone, in contrast to Roman Catholic doctrine. Hahn's claim that Paul didn't teach that we are justified by faith alone is a failed attempt to (in his own words) "reinvent" a core doctrine of the Scriptures. If Hahn's interpretation of James were true, it would be in direct contradiction with these other 22 passages of inspired scripture. Although Hahn is not the first to misinterpret James, to take a solitary verse out of context in this way, in light of so many other passages, seems to be a weak intellectual argument.

Another major problem with justification by works, as taught by the Roman Catholic Church , concerns the qualification of just how good one's works would have to be. If I'm 95% good, is that good enough? If I do 25% of it and God does 75%, is that OK? On the contrary, the Bible teaches justification by faith alone, whereas one must actually be as good as Jesus Christ, and he attains that standing by being declared righteous by God's grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-10). In fact, the Bible hold harsh warnings for anyone trying to achieve justification through works: "Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness" (Romans 4:4-5). Also, "And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace" (Romans 11:6). Roman Catholic doctrine becomes quite confusing when it tries to teach salvation by grace as well as by works.

Defenders of Roman Catholicism often point to Mother Theresa as proof that we are saved by our good works. They ask, "How could all her good works not earn her salvation?" The answer is in Galatians 1:16, because we're not justified by our good works. I don't know whether Mother Theresa was saved or not, but if she was, it was because of her faith in Christ, not because of her good works. Anyone can do good works, although Mother Theresa did more than most. However, by the doctrine of imputation, Mother Theresa, like the rest of us, was stained by imputed sin that could only be paid for by the death of (the perfect) Jesus Christ on the cross, and we can only claim our position in Him through faith.

The Sacraments

Hahn started celebrating communion every week, and he became caught up in the sacramental imagery as presented by Roman Catholicism. He talked so much about sacraments, liturgy, typology, and Eucharist, that his wife coined a phrase for him, "Luther in reverse", to which he responded with a quest to live up to the task of searching for scriptural defense of every Roman Catholic custom.

Transubstantiation

Hahn next dealt with the Eucharist, in relation to John 6:53, which says, "Jesus said to them, 'I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.'" Hahn became convinced of transubstantiation; i.e., that Christ was not speaking symbolically, and that the bread and wine of communion miraculously changes into the actual flesh and blood of Christ. Although this is an age-old controversy, I've often wondered why the Roman Catholic Church, if its position is correct, doesn't easily and definitively end this debate. If the bread and wine were simply subjected to scientific examination, both before and after the miracle of transubstantiation, this controversy could be quickly resolved.

The Infallible Pope

Hahn then attacked "sola scriptura" which claims that the Bible alone is our authority, rather than the Pope, Church councils, or Tradition, as the Roman Catholic Church teaches. His defense here comes from a misinterpretation of 1 Timothy 3:15 which says, "If I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth." However, Wycliffe best explains this verse as speaking of the church "in its sphere of testimony to the world. Christ, himself the truth, is the one foundation of the Church (1 Cor. 3:11)."

Hahn also cites the various Councils at which the Canon of scripture was established by selecting which books it would include, and he says, "So, whose decision was trustworthy and final, if the Church doesn't teach with infallible authority?" However, if one doesn't believe that God justifies by faith, how could he believe by faith that God provided the Canon He intended for us? Hahn later asks, "How can we be sure about the twenty-seven books of the New Testament themselves being the infallible Word of God, since fallible Church councils and Popes are the ones who made up the list?" The answer is the same one as that for justification--we accept by faith that God has provided us with His true Word.

Self-Indoctrination

Hahn energetically continued his newfound love for Roman Catholicism by buying the library of a deceased priest and reading Roman Catholic theology books every night for up to seven hours. He says that he owned around fifteen thousand books. He even cites a list of modern theologians he just discovered and says, "It's incredible--even if they're wrong--it's a gold mine!" As a result, he became even more impressed with liturgy and all of the "prostrations, incense and icons, the smells and the bells...", and later, "...Gregorian chant and Latin in the liturgy". His description of his enthusiasm suggests a possible emotional self-indoctrination and infatuation with Roman Catholic theology.

"Nothing Less Than Diabolical"

Then Hahn makes this startling statement, "But if the Catholic Church was wrong, it was more than a little off, because no denomination on earth made the kinds of outrageous claims that Rome made for itself." He also notes that only Catholics claim to be the one and only true church founded by Jesus, to have as their head a Pope who was Christ's infallible vicar on earth, and to be run by leaders claiming an unbroken line of succession going all the way back to Peter (which he later bases upon Matthew 16:17-19). Then he says that he agrees with Cardinal Newman, who said that "if the Catholic Church was wrong, it was nothing less than diabolical." This tells us that if one believes that the Roman Catholic Church is wrong on justification by faith, transubstantiation, or the infallibility of the Pope, then it must follow that he believes that Catholicism is diabolical.

Hahn had some interesting encounters with several Roman Catholic priests to whom he went for advice. He was disappointed when they "really didn't want to talk about the church". One even told him, "If you want someone to help you convert, you've come to the wrong person." He even enrolled in a catholic university (Duquesne), and found that he was sometimes the only student defending the Pope. Then he asked his wife this telling question: "Why are Gerry and I the only ones to see these Catholic ideas in Scripture?"

The Rosary / Praying to the Sinless Mary

Then someone (he doesn't say who) mailed him a plastic Rosary, which made him confront what he considered the toughest obstacle of all: Mary. He locked himself in his office and prayed, "... Mary, if you are even half of what the Catholic Church says, please take this specific petition--which seems impossible--to the Lord for me through this prayer." He then prayed his first Rosary. Three months later, he deduced that Mary had answered his prayer. Furthermore, he calls the Rosary "an incredible weapon, one that highlights the scandal of the Incarnation." At this same time, Mrs. Hahn says that she was "concerned that the Rosary was an example of vain repetition that had been clearly condemned by Jesus". However, "If the prayers of a righteous man are very powerful, as James 5:16 says, how much more those who are perfected? If I could ask my mother on earth to pray for me and know that God would hear her petitions, why couldn't I ask the Mother of Jesus to pray for me?" Mrs. Hahn demonstrates a reinvention of her own when she somehow uses Revelation 12:17 and John 19:26-27 to explain away all the Marian doctrines, completely ignoring Matthew 12:49. Also, on several occasions, Hahn is quick to point out that Roman Catholics don't worship Mary, they simply venerate her. However, they do believe she was sinless.

Turmoil in the Rome Home

The Hahns make some incredible statements concerning the effect of Mr. Hahn's conversion on their family life. Mrs. Hahn says, "... we were both starting not to trust each other. The foundation of trust in our marriage was being shaken tremendously." One day she told her husband, "I would never consider suicide, but I have begged God today to give me an illness that would kill me so that I can die and have all the questions laid to rest. Then you could find a nice little Catholic girl and get on with this life." She said that on that day she "felt the joy of the Lord depart. Except for a few brief times, it did not return for almost five years..." She ends that particular chapter of the book with, "I'm so confused?"

She says, "I was devastated... I had a very deep sense of betrayal... I was dying inside... Scott was vowing himself to a Church that would separate us for a while and perhaps even permanently." To her, communion became their "symbol of disunity. And the rejoicing of the people was like a dagger in my heart, for their joy was my unspeakable sorrow." She calls her first Mass "the worst night of my life... it was excruciating to see the delight of all for him when our marriage was in the midst of the greatest challenge we had ever had." Mr. Hahn cited "the pain and desolation," but he says it couldn't compare to his ecstasy of conversion." Mrs. Hahn said, "The loneliness between us was excruciating... The Bible was my only consolation. But I began to be concerned about even picking up the Scriptures, because Scott kept telling me that the Bible said something different from what I thought... Scott was stuck with me because he did not believe in divorce." Mr. Hahn said, "... if it had been me five years ago, I would have urged divorce in the same situation." Mrs. Hahn noted that she had two miscarriages during this difficult time. She said that she felt like she had to choose whether she would be separated from her immediate family or her extended family. At no point did Mr. Hahn question whether his new indoctrination and infatuation with Roman Catholicism was worth the five years of marriage and family life which it destroyed.

Romance

I was intrigued by Hahn's statements on pages 86-87 where he says of his conversion, "It was capturing my imagination as well as my intellect," and that it "was becoming, supernaturally, a romance tale." Again, his enthusiasm seems to be based upon his emotions.

The Mass

Hahn said, "Then one day, I made a fatal blunder--I decided that it was time for me to go to Mass on my own." At the Mass, he whispered, "I don't want to hold anything back." Of that Mass experience he said, "Within a week or two I was hooked... Each day after Mass, I spent a half hour to an hour praying the Rosary," then praying to God. "... Am I just caught up in some intellectual escapade?" When his friend Gerry told him that he was going to join the Roman Catholic Church, Hahn said, "'You can't beat me to the Eucharist!' It hardly seemed fair."

Mrs. Hahn Finally Surrenders

After a year or so, Mrs. Hahn became particularly influenced by "the beauty of the baptismal liturgy," making an interesting statement: "... very few, if any, of my Catholic students really understood their Faith, even the basics." Unfortunately, the same can probably be said of most denominations.

After about five years of agony in her marriage, Mrs. Hahn decided to be confirmed in the Roman Catholic Church, agreeing with her husband that "the Catholic Church is not just another denomination--it is either true or diabolical."

Relics

Mrs. Hahn had some trouble with crucifixes, and statues and pictures of Jesus, Mary, and the saints, believing that they constituted "the making of graven images and bowing down before them." However, a priest explained these away as being like family photos that simply remind us of our loved ones.

Summary

Only Mr. Hahn knows for sure if his conversion experience was simply the emotional infatuation of an educated but over-zealous Bible student on a quest to reinvent Christianity; or, if he became bored with Biblical Christianity and went on a one-man crusade to search for something more. For nearly five years, he indoctrinated himself daily by attending Mass, saying the Rosary and praying to Mary for one hour, and reading his fifteen thousand books on Roman Catholic doctrine for up to seven hours each day. Who can say whether or not his time would have been better spent in nurturing his marriage? It's no wonder that he began believing what he was reading, and who he was praying to. If one is exposed to enough indoctrination, whether it is true or false, he will believe and respond to it. In Hahn's own words, if he is wrong, then Roman Catholicism is "idolatrous and blasphemous," "more than a little off," "nothing less than diabolical," and "either true or diabolical."

0 notes

torreygazette · 5 years ago

Text

Ordinary Callings

The first time I spoke at length to my (now) husband Jordan, we were in a Ford Taurus, traveling from Connecticut—from my childhood home—back to college in western Pennsylvania. We exchanged pleasantries, talked about what music we should listen to in the car, and started driving. Then his very normal and appropriate question: “What’s your major?” launched us into my first conversation about the doctrine of vocation.

At the time of this exchange, I was a new college Freshman, and still a relatively new Christian. In my fervor to commit my life to Jesus, I was in turmoil over what my life should look like. The source of my anguish: should I trade in my literature major for a biblical studies major? Beginning college, I wanted to become a literature professor, ideally one whose expertise was in the realm of literary theory and composition. But here’s the thing that was driving me crazy: could I really serve God in that type of a career?

Although I had been baptized as a baby in the Episcopalian church and attended fairly regularly for the first ten years of my life, when my parents were divorced, we stopped going altogether, save on Christmas and Easter. When I finally heard the gospel for the first time, I was somewhere around sixteen or seventeen years old, and subsequently began attending a Christian Missionary Alliance church. It was in this church environment that I saw a strong emphasis on missions and pastoral ministry for the first time. As a new believer, it seemed to me that real Christians did missions. Real Christians went into vocational ministry. Real Christians shaped their lives around their faith—they didn’t spend time debating literature and textual interpretation in the academy, right? At least I didn’t think they did.

Amid my extremely long answer to Jordan’s unintentionally difficult question, he recognized my need to hear about the doctrine of vocation. He had just finished Gene Edward Veith’s book God at Work not long before this car ride and had the information fresh in his mind. His response to me boiled down to something along the lines of, “God calls us to love Him and serve our neighbor in every area of our life, and vocational ministry is simply one of the callings you could have, not the highest calling.”

During the time of Luther, and similar to the mission’s emphasis of my high-school church, “vocation” was distinctly connected to full-time church ministry. In this way, those who existed and performed other tasks in the world, such as being a farmer or a midwife, were not considered to have a “vocation” equal to that a monk. To combat this idea, Luther emphasized the priesthood of all believers. Veith explains, ‘The priesthood of all believers’ did not make everyone into church workers; rather, it turned every kind of work into a sacred calling.” It did not denigrate church work but emphasized the importance of all types of work.

It would be misleading if I said I had any intention of actually ending up in vocational ministry at the time. The only reason I was debating switching majors was out of a feeling of obligation, of a sense that I could only serve God in that type of work. I had just begun opening the scriptures for the first time; I had just learned who Abraham was two months before this car ride, for example. It was my overwhelming desire to serve God in my life. I just hadn’t found a way to reconcile literary theory and a life devoted to God. Fast forward eleven years, and here I am in full-time vocational ministry—but how did that happen? I will unpack that soon, but first, I’d like to look more precisely at what the doctrine of vocation is.

The Doctrine of Vocation

In our culture today, if you were to say the word “vocation,” people would immediately associate it with the idea of “jobs,” or the work we do to make money. The word “vocation,” however, has a historical doctrinal meaning. It is derived from the Latin word vocatio, meaning “calling.” Every person is laden with the task of loving God and serving their neighbor (Mark 12:30-31), but that service manifests itself in every sphere of our lives, and God works through us to care for others. The purpose, then, of living out vocational callings in our lives is to allow God to work in and through us to help and serve those around us. Veith writes,

God healed me. I wasn’t feeling well, so I went to the doctor. The nurse ran some tests, and the lab technicians identified the problem; so the doctor wrote me a prescription, I got it filled at the pharmacist, and in no time I was a lot better. But it was still God who healed me. He did it through the medical vocations.

It is not contradictory to believe that God is the one healing through the hands of the medical professionals, it is simply the ordinary ordering of things. If you read Romans 13, it becomes clear that God even works through non-believers to execute His will and purposes, which is why we are called to submit to earthly authorities. In every relationship, every service done, God is there serving our neighbor through us.

So what are some examples of vocational callings? Obviously job-related work fits this, but it’s not the only thing. Perhaps that calling is to be a nurse, a farmer, a president, a data-analysis specialist, or a fast-food worker—all of these are job-related vocations, but vocation extends into our personal lives too. God calls us to be in community in the church and society. He calls us to be in relationships with other people: friendship, marriage, citizenship. All of these are ways in which we not only relate to one another, but they are ways in which we can bless others as well.

As mentioned earlier, the boy in the Ford Taurus and I ended up falling in love and getting married. Thus, one of my callings is to be a wife. We had two children, now I serve my two small kiddo neighbors as a mother. He became a pastor in the Lutheran church, so I became a pastor’s wife. I was not born into these vocations, but they were given to me as a blessing as years passed, as Veith says, “We do not choose our vocations. We are called to them.” All the while, I retained my vocations—and served others—as a friend, daughter, sister, active layperson in my church, stay-at-home mom, and citizen of the United States of America. In the realm of these different callings, I function differently. I do not treat my friends as I would treat my children, nor do I serve my government in the same way that I serve my church, and my vocations make me no better or worse than someone who serves in different vocations.

This said, I have struggled immensely in each of these vocations (and all of the others along with them)—as we all probably do. How can I be a good citizen if I feel like I can’t vote in good conscience for candidates in an election? Can I be a good mother if I feel so profoundly frustrated when my children wake me up in the middle of the night? At what point do I cut off toxic friendships? Or should I muscle through knowing that God tells me to love all people?

Although complex and often laden with interpersonal difficulty, vocations are to be done out of joy. Luther explains at length the importance of joy in service—vocational callings are not law thrust upon us, but a way of serving in light of the gospel. A beautiful example of this is when Luther explores the rhetorical question: why would anyone want to be married and have kids? Kids are smelly and frustrating and demand time and attention, and marriage isn’t any easier. Luther responds:

What then does Christian faith say to this? It opens its eyes, looks upon all these insignificant, distasteful, and despised duties in the Spirit, and is aware that they are all adorned with divine approval as with the costliest gold and jewels. It says, “O God, because I am certain that thou hast created me as a man and hast from my body begotten this child, I also know for a certainty that it meets with thy perfect pleasure. I confess to thee that I am not worthy to rock the little babe or wash its diapers. or to be entrusted with the care of the child and its mother. How is it that I, without any merit, have come to this distinction of being certain that I am serving thy creature and thy most precious will? O how gladly will I do so, though the duties should be even more insignificant and despised. Neither frost nor heat, neither drudgery nor labor, will distress or dissuade me, for I am certain that it is thus pleasing in thy sight” [...].

Now you tell me, when a father goes ahead and washes diapers or performs some other mean task for his child, and someone ridicules him as an effeminate fool, though that father is acting in the spirit just described and in Christian faith, my dear fellow you tell me, which of the two is most keenly ridiculing the other? God, with all his angels and creatures, is smiling, not because that father is washing diapers, but because he is doing so in Christian faith. Those who sneer at him and see only the task but not the faith are ridiculing God with all his creatures, as the biggest fool on earth. Indeed, they are only ridiculing themselves; with all their cleverness they are nothing but devil's fools. (The Estate of Marriage)

I have to admit, I loved citing this passage when our children were small, and I wanted my husband to have a turn with diaper duty. But aside from the radical nature of Luther’s willingness as a man to attend to “women’s work,” this passage is fundamentally about joy and serving the helpless child to whom God has entrusted to love.

Vocation is Motivated by a Free Gospel

It is important to take a step back and acknowledge with Luther and the other reformers that performing good works benefits us nothing in terms of our salvation: “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast” (Eph. 2:8-9, NKJV). No amount of changed diapers can merit us eternal salvation. No quantifiable joy in our service will do so either. Even if these works were far above and beyond the ordinary works that we do in life, they still have no bearing on our eternal status before God. Veith explains, “We often speak of ‘serving God,’ and this is a worthy goal, but strictly speaking, in the spiritual realm, it is God who serves us.” The purpose of living out our vocational callings is to love and serve our neighbor. Vocation is not self-serving to gain us a place in heaven, but a life focused on serving others out of the abundance of our freedom earned through Christ’s sacrifice. Paul teaches this in the next verse in Ephesians writing, “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:10, NKJV).

If my works did something to justify me before God, wouldn’t my works, in fact, be fundamentally self-serving? These “good works” would use my neighbor to my own end, and not actually serve my neighbor for the sake of serving. The law convicts us of our sins and leads us to contrition and repentance. Through that repentance, we have ears to hear the message of the gospel: that Jesus Christ came into the world to bear our sin on the cross and to rise from the dead, conquering sin, death, and the devil for us. Now freed from the demands and threats of the law, we are made free to serve in light of it.

Living in Light of Vocational Callings

The doctrine of vocation followed me throughout these eleven years, reminding me to serve from a place of joy, acknowledging that in every way that I am called, I should be glad to serve—not as law, but as a freed, loved woman in Christ.

So how did I end up in vocational ministry when I had been convinced that I could pursue my dream of becoming a literature professor? In short, God called me to it. It sounds overly simple, but I have to say it’s simply true. All of the things I have done in the last eleven years: getting married, having kids, beginning seminary, moving five times, etc., God has made my callings clear. While my relational callings have remained remarkably the same, except for the death of my mother, my career was the thing that changed the most over the years. I went from retail worker, to stay-at-home-mom, to editor, to seminarian, to preschool teacher, to college minister, and many of these overlapped at any given time. It wasn’t until I graduated from seminary—with still no intention of going into vocational ministry—I was called to serve part-time as a preschool teacher at a Lutheran school.

Now, a year later, I have been called to a role as a college minister, working with female students. Many of my conversations with them cycle back to the idea of vocation. How do I know what God wants me to do? Can I love God in the job I’ve picked out for myself? Am I serving my neighbor if my motivations are self-serving? (All good and similar questions to those I had in college).

And to these questions, I remind them that when Jesus died on the cross, we did not only have all of our sins wiped away. We were also given as a free gift through faith all of Christ’s righteousness. Theologians call this the “great exchange.” In this exchange, when God looks on us in our sin, he sees the robes of righteousness given to us in Christ. Similarly, because our good works will never truly be perfect, God looks on all that we do and credits it to us as perfect for the sake of Christ. God wants to use us, and he does through absolutely ordinary things. He does so in all of our callings. We exist in our vocations imperfectly, yet because of our faith in Jesus, it is credited to us as righteousness.

Photo by Drew Mills

#Women and Doctrine #Vocation

0 notes

yourgodmoments · 7 years ago

Text

The True Christmas Story

In approximately 7 B.C. during the reign of King Herod (also referred to as ‘Herod the Great’) who ruled over Judea, Zacharias, (a priest – also translated as Zachariah or Zechariah) was visited by an angel by the name of 'Gabriel.'

Zacharias and his wife Elizabeth (she happens to be a cousin of Mary, the mother of Jesus) were very old and childless. Still, they were righteous and faithful, and never gave up hope that God would bring them a child.

Gabriel tells the priest that he and his wife's prayers are answered, and that the child would be a son. He told Zacharias to name him 'John.' (The name means 'God has shown favor.') And, John would be special:

"For he will be great in the sight of the Lord...He will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb. And he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God. He will also go before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord." Lk. 1:15 - 17. NKJV

Thus, John (to be known as 'John the Baptist' in adulthood) would be driven by the Spirit of God Himself, and he would preach powerfully in the manner of Elijah, the Old Testament prophet.

John the Baptist reconciled many people, turning them to pursue righteous behavior and positioned them to receive Christ – fulfilling yet another Messianic prophecy.

When Elizabeth reached her sixth month of pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, to reveal His will to Mary – a woman engaged to a man named Joseph. Gabriel speaks:

"Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!" Lk. 1:28 NKJV

Indeed, Mary was chosen to be the carrier of the Salvation of the Earth. What this scripture does not mean, is that she should be worshiped in any way. That would violate the first and the second of the Ten Commandments.

Mary was beside herself but Gabriel assuaged her fears; and then he makes a phenomenal earth-shaking declaration:

"Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name JESUS.

He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end." Lk. 1:30 - 33. NKJV

The name 'Jesus' finds its roots in the Hebrew word Yhowshuwa, translated as Jehoshua or Joshua, and from the Greek word Iesous, meaning 'The Lord is salvation.'

So, Jesus is revealed as the Son of God, who will reign over God's children eternally.

Mary protests, thinking it impossible in her virgin state. She was thinking small:

And the angel answered her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you, therefore the child to be born will be called holy - the Son of God." Lk. 1:35 ESV

This is a one-time only event in all of history – a Holy Spirit-facilitated conception, whereby the Spirit of the Son of God is transferred into flesh.

(The Koran refutes this scripture, as it interprets this event to mean that God was involved in some carnal act, but it was nothing of the kind. It was a transformation.)

Gabriel went on to tell Mary that God had rendered her cousin Elizabeth and her husband Zacharias fertile so that they were now bearing a child. How did God do that, knowing that the couple was so advanced in age? Gabriel reminds us:

"For with God nothing will be impossible." Lk. 1:37 NKJV

After Mary's encounter with Gabriel, she rushed over to Elizabeth's house. As soon as she entered it, the unborn John the Baptist leaps in his mother’s womb and Elizabeth is filled with the Holy Spirit – who reveals to her the miraculous transformation of her cousin. Elizabeth shouts:

"Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" Lk. 1:42, 43. NKJV

The answer was that Elizabeth was being rewarded for her faith.

Mary stayed with Elizabeth until just before John was born. When he is born, Zacharias is filled with the Holy Spirit, and he bursts forth with prophecy concerning his son:

"And you child, will be called the prophet of the Most High; for you will go on before the Lord to prepare His ways; to give His people the knowledge of salvation by the forgiveness of their sins. Because of the tender mercy of our God, with which the Sunrise from on high will visit us, to shine upon those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace." Lk. 1:76 - 79. NASB

At that time, Mary was three months' pregnant. Joseph knows that the child isn't his, so he is considering not marrying her. But in his dreams, God sent Him an angel who enlightened him:

"Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins." Mt. 1:20, 21. ESV

This is yet another fulfillment of Messianic prophecy – one where Isaiah told of the virgin birth of Christ 400 years before it happened.

Joseph married Mary, but he did not have marital relations with her until after the birth of Jesus.

Near the time of Jesus' birth, Caesar Augustus was the emperor of Rome, and he ordered a census be taken so that everyone would be registered for the purpose of taxation.

Everyone had to register in the city where his or her ancestral records were kept. For Joseph and Mary, that meant a trip to Bethlehem. When they got there, there was no available lodging, so they had to stay in a manger (translated from the Greek word phatne, meaning 'stall’).

And that's where our Lord was born.

Simultaneously, an angel appeared to a group of shepherds who were tending their sheep at night in a nearby field, declaring:

"Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people. For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord." Lk. 2:10, 11. NKJV

Immediately after this declaration, the angel was joined by a multitude of other angels, who burst into praise:

"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men!" Lk. 2:14 NKJV

(The fact that the shepherds were in the fields at night would suggest a warmer time of year than that of winter. So, we don't really know the correct date of Christ's birth.

One of the earliest references to December 25th says that in 354 A.D. the Catholic Church picked that date, as both Christ's birth, and for a 'Christmas' to celebrate it.

Christmas has a storied past. It has been denounced as a Catholic invention to give the pagans a 'holy holiday' to celebrate – instead of reveling at winter solstice festivals or at celebrations used to worship a god named Saturn; i.e. 'Christmas was believed to be some form of 'conversion tactic.'

The early American colonists were against it because the holiday was too 'English' for them.

Many of the early Protestants were in opposition to celebrating it as well, because some people used the holiday for drinking and cavorting. Some even went so far as to call 'Christmas' evil, because it wasn't biblical and because the only two examples of 'birthday celebrations' in the Bible were associated with evil outcomes.

Yet to me, that's like saying that if someone died of a poisoned apple in the Bible, that all people should stop eating apples.

I believe that if a true follower of Christ wants to proclaim Christmas for the purpose of exalting the Savior and to celebrate God's gift to us through the earthly incarnation of Christ, then they should be able to follow their own heart.)

Returning to our biblical narrative:

The angels left and the shepherds went to see the baby Jesus; and word began to spread about this Christ child.

On the eighth day, Jesus was circumcised and formally named. After approximately 40 days, He was dedicated to God in the Temple. At that time, there was a man named Simeon, whom God had directed to the Temple by the Holy Spirit (to fulfill an earlier promise that He had made to Simeon – a promise that he would get to see the Messiah before he died). Simeon picked up baby Jesus and said:

"Lord, now you are letting your servant depart in peace, according to Your word; for my eyes have seen your salvation that you have prepared in the presence of all peoples, a light for revelation to the Gentiles, for glory to your people Israel." Lk. 2:29 - 32. ESV

Thus, Christ is the Savior for all of God's children around the world – Jews and Gentiles alike.

Simeon (still filled with the Holy Spirit) turned to Mary and said:

"Behold, this child is appointed for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and for a sign to be opposed - and a sword will pierce even your own soul - to the end that thoughts from many hearts may be revealed." Lk. 2:34, 35. NASB

So, Christ will be the eternal Savior of those who follow Him but He will be the harbinger of death to those who stand in opposition. And Mary's heart will be pierced at the crucifixion of her Son, as the full impact of who He is and what He's done, is acutely felt...

News of the birth of the Messiah traveled fast and far – even reaching the 'East' (a term generally used in the Bible to refer to Arab lands). And so it was, that 'wise men' (which can also be translated as philosophers or astrologers) from the East came to Jerusalem to find the Messiah. (The Bible never says that there were three of them by the way.)

The wise men inquired:

“Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the east and have come to worship Him.” Mt. 2:2 AMP

King Herod got wind of this, and he began to worry about his rule being usurped. He gathered together his priests, who, in answer to his demand, tell him that the Old Testament says that the birthplace of the Messiah-King will be in Bethlehem.

Subsequently, the king gathered the wise men of the East to him and asked them to return to him after they find the Messiah, to tell him of His whereabouts so that he can worship him as well. (In reality, Herod wanted to kill this 'Christ.')

The wise men followed a star to where Jesus lay, and worshiped Him and presented Him with gifts. Afterwards, God sent the wise men a vision in their dreams – warning them against returning to Herod. Wisely, (pardon the pun) they returned to the East by another route.

Immediately after the wise men left, an angel came to Joseph in a dream and presented him with an urgent task:

"Arise, take the young Child and His mother, flee to Egypt, and stay there until I bring you word; for Herod will seek the young Child to destroy Him." Mt. 2:13 NKJV

Joseph obeyed.

After the wise men fail to return to King Herod, he figures out that he's been duped. Using the approximate time of Jesus' birth, (as was relayed to him by the wise men, before they found Jesus), Herod retaliated by having every male child in Bethlehem, aged two and under, slaughtered. His act is commonly referred to as the 'Massacre of the Innocents.'

When Herod died, (approximately 4 B.C.) God sent another angel to Joseph – this time instructing him to bring his family back to Israel.

They returned to find Herod's eldest son Archelaus ruling over Judea. Archelaus' rule was oppressive, so Joseph takes his family to live in the region of Galilee (which was under the rule of Archelaus' half-brother, Herod Antipas – who apparently ruled with a softer glove). Within that region, they settled in the city of Nazareth.

And the Bible tells us:

And the Child continued to grow and become strong [in spirit], filled with wisdom; and the grace (favor and spiritual blessing) of God was upon Him. Lk. 2:40 AMP

That's the true Christmas story. Tell a friend…

#angel Gabriel #birth of Jesus #born in bethlehem #Holy Spirit conception #Joseph and Mary #king of the Jews #Savior #True Christmas story #virgin birth

0 notes

ramrodd · 7 years ago

Video

youtube

Plot In Biblical Narrative

COMMENTARY:

I endorse this particular ministry and video. At some point, I will probably put a little money into it because I see it as a shrewed investment in the quality of my life, moving forwarad, in an enlightened self-interest kind of way.

Christianity is an exercise in Enlightened Self- Interest. Anyone who has read Ayn Rand will recognize her formulation in this, that being "rational self-interest". As a sound bite, I stipulate to it's facial qualities. How that plays out ethically is at the core of philosophy as an inquiry into what we know, ethics being an element of philosophy, philosophy being the "infinite game" and ethics being a "finite game" subset to philosophy. This is the moral context of "rational self-interest". This context contains "Trust" as a finite dimension.

Rand's system of thought, such as it is, represents itself as a creature of philosophy as the infinite game. In Rand's mind, her world view is perfectly coincident with "Eternal Truth" in what I would characterize as Platonic in nature, but she wouldn't agree. I have no way of knowing how she would construct this same relationship with grammer that coincides with any reality beyond it's dictionary meaning and Rand's ecology of the mind. However, I think she would stipulate to the proposition that her thinking represented "Eternal Truth" in an unalienable kind of way. Whatever that means. In any event, that is the market place of ideas and the ethical arena she proposes to dominate with rational self-interest as she defines it, "rational" being the necessary common denominator. This is true of practically any alleged philosopher who appeals to "Reason" as their abiding muse.

As a Christian, I can stipulate to Philosophy as an infinite game as defined by James Carse in "Finite and Infintie Games". Epistemologically, Plato's theory of the Forms is a useful way to understand the Mind of The One, Or Mind. Or The One. If you see what I mean. Socrates is all about "rational self-interest" as a way to guide personal behavior if you are Iago and you want to be able to fuck up the system to your advatage and/or amusement. Of course, Iago was as perfectly self-aware as Jesus was in a Satanic doppleganger kind of way. Socrates was teaching insurrection, purposefully, in much the same way Newt Gingrich has been doing it since before he got into politics. One of the things you do in Counter-Intelligence and Counter-Insurgency is to spot the people doing this kind of thing, how Gingrich and Bannon accumulate power. It's what Cornelius is describing in the Gospel of Mark: how does Jesus do the things He does and to what purpose? In the case of Jesus, the Romans considered him to be pretty benign and to Herod, He was sort of a Cat Steven's kind of dog and pony show. Jews didn't generally practice magic, it being a stoning offense and all, but here was this guru with more women around Him than you could shake a stick at, doing magic tricks. And he, Herod, had steady reports from Levi, a very successful tax franchiser, with brilliant ethical discourse. And Cornelius's spy network spotted Him coming out of the water as something special and that's how the Gospel of Mark was conceived before the facts. In Co-Intel and Co-In, you look for people like Jesus and Iago.

And Newt Gingrich and Steve Bannon, who err on the side of Iago. Politically, Mike Pence and Betsy DeVos are aligned with Gingrich and Bannon, but Pence is just too fucking dumb to know when someone besides his wife is pulling him around by his pecker while Betsy DeVos is what Jesus means by "The Love of Money is the Root of all Evil". The Evangelical "spiritual warrior" business model that is disrupting the US Air Force Academy is based squarely on the Love of Money, in a Norman Vincent Peale "Prosperity Gospel" kind of way. Her whole fortune is bubbles up from an infinite number of up-lines in the AwWay net-work marketing community and it about as fundementalist as you can get and not be a female Muslim under Sharia law. And she's in control of Education. From my perspective, they are fully engagaed in the finite political game of the crypto-Nazi Bob Ewell-Bull Conner white supremacist dominant wing of the GOP. During Lincoln's time, they were the Radical Republicans. Today, they run the GOP.

Now, as a Christian, I stipulate to "rational self-interest" as a sound bite, but I am not constrained by its boundaries. Rational self-interest is, necessarily, a finite game. It's the one we aspire to in the public arena. That's the larger point to Socrates' tutelage: as you become aware of rhetoric, you become aware of your own thinking and how it is influenced. And, knowing that, you can begin to acquire what is called in cognitive science "controlling variety", which is a huge advantage in a society where most people barely sustain "requisite variety". But Socrates true purpose was to demonstrate the dimensions of citizenship as a function of "enlightened self-Interest", which he did by chugging hemlock to make his point. Without this element, anything that purports to be "enlightened self-interest" (such as the Evangelical "spiritual warrior" conceit) is actually rational self-interest, which is a way of saying your Pucker Factor is not engaged. It's like being a passionate anti-abortion Pro-Life male determined to destroy Planned Parenthood because, basically, you can't get pregnant.

Which brings me back to the theme of the video, learning how to read different types of literature, in particular, the Bible, but universally apllicable. If you have an AB in Literature, this will be part of your academic vocabulary.

Now, in terms of the pedantic elements of this video, I stipulate entirely with them. They represent a skillful demonstration of the arts and sciences of literary criticism. I wish this had been available to me in high school to say nothing of college, when it took me about 3 years to get to the point where I could write the screen play, if you see what I mean. This good poop.

It is also an example of the difference between rational self-interest and and enlightened self-interest.

Their interpretation of Gideon is from the perspective of The Rich Young Ruler in Mark. This is exactly where the "spiritual warriors" metaphor fails. These young men, Tim Mackie and all of them, have had other priorities than military service. Not that there is anything wrong with that. But there perspective of what is going on between The One and Gideon is informed by the League of Justice Super Heroes and not by actually being shot at. Their perspective, formed experientially, is basically the same as Ken Burns' perspective which informs the editorial position of Vietnam. It's honest, it's rational, it reflects moral clarity, but their Pucker Factors are not engaged. So, it is rational self-interest and not enlightened self-interest.

Like Christ's path to the Cross, Gideon is given a mission by The One that can get him pretty permanently killed in a number of violent ways and he, Gideon, if being very careful in establishing the bona fides of whoever it is whiispering in his ear. Remember, Satan whispered in the ear of Judas Iscariot and tempted Mohammad in a similar manner. Gideon didn't take the bait and Mohammad did.

Now, I have a working relationship with the Holy Spirit and I depend upon these sort of tests to move forward, the doubling of the fleece being the primary test. I have never demanded a tests in the manner of Gideon, but my relationship was more mature than Gideon's at a similar moment of decision: I left the Army and Gideon started one. And Gideon is demonstated enlightened self-interest because his Pucker Factor was engaged. The difference between me and Gideon at this particular moment of decision, my Pucker Factor was already calibrated in a Fear of the Lord is the Beginning of Wisdom Be All You Can Be kind of way and his wasn't. His Pucker Factor very quicly became calibrated and the Bible demonstrates that process.

Everything after that describes how Gideon creates a Special Operations unit to take out an opposing army in a way very similar to the way the Green Berets routed the Taliban beginning in October 2001. The Green Berets are the Gideon's 300 of the US Army and Gideon's 300 are the Jedi Knights of the Old Testament.

From the perspective of Christianity, Philosophy is a finite game which is based on rational self-intest and is an inquiry into enlightened self-interest as a gateway to the Mind of The One. In this respects, Epistemology is an infinite process, a verb, so to speak, providing the link, the Vulcan Mind Weld, The purpose of the Bible is epistemological and it is full of similar case studies like Gideon's and his 300 on how that has worked in the past.

For example, the difference between rational self-interest and enlightened self-interest is the difference between Peter's understanding of Jesus before the second crow of the cock and Peter's understanding on Pentacost. And, if you are calibrating your pucker factor, this is the difference between trust and faith.

This is why it is important to learn how to read different kinds of literature, in particular, the literature of the Bible.

Just for the record, females begin to calibrate their Pucker Factors with menarche and I infer that they establish a relationship with Yaweh during childbirth that they share with men who have met the elephant. although neither may realize it. Yaweh is a feminine aspect of God and She is Queen of Battle and the Midwife of Travail

#transformingamerica

0 notes

nicemango-feed · 8 years ago

Text

Islam & Christianity: The Demonization and Exploitation of Female Sexuality

Below is a guest post by : Michael Sherlock, which originally appeared on Michael's blog

I hope you enjoy this wonderful essay as much as I did.

-Eiynah

***** The struggle of democratic secularism, religious tolerance, individual freedom and feminism against authoritarian patriarchal religion, culture and morality is going on all over the world – including the Islamic world, where dissidents are regularly jailed, killed, exiled or merely intimidated and silenced.[1]

~Ellen Willis

Introduction

Sexuality is notoriously difficult to define.[2] Lemon describes it as encompassing ‘body image, self-esteem, social interactions, myths, feelings, and interpersonal relationships’,[3] whilst Lefebvre argues that sexuality is ‘verbal, visual, tactual, and olfactory communication that expresses intimacy and love’.[4] Thus, female sexuality might cautiously yet not exhaustively be defined as encompassing female body image, self-esteem, female-centred social interactions, sexual myths surrounding women, the feelings men and women have regarding women, and gender roles and expectations pertaining to the female as a sexual being.[5] These criteria are heavily influenced, if not entirely determined, by social, cultural, religious, and political pressures.[6] Therefore, the nature and qualities of a given society dictate and determine female sexuality.[7]

An honest and accurate discussion on Islam and Christianity’s obsession with controlling female sexuality[8] cannot adequately take place absent an appraisal of the pervasive patriarchal context in which both religions are firmly rooted.[9] Christianity and Islam are religions made by men and predominantly for men, and both religions have within their core doctrines and scriptures religious justifications for the disenfranchisement of women, as well as insurance policies which ensure that the issue of female sexuality remains within the firm grasp of men, both present and past.[10] Notwithstanding the efforts of modern feminist movements within these two patriarchal religions, Islam and Christianity, wherever they yield significant sway over a society, continue to suppress and oppress female sexuality in accordance with the ideological, philosophical, social, cultural and political building blocks that form their patriarchal foundations.[11]

This essay will examine the way in which “Islam” controls female sexuality by evincing core scripture and by examining historical and contemporary contexts. Further, this essay will contrast Islam’s treatment of female sexuality with Christianity’s to demonstrate that Christianity has been far more oppressive with regards to sexuality in general. Finally, this essay will briefly address the shortcomings of Islamic feminism and apologetics with regards to claims surrounding the alleged sovereignty of women to determine their own sexuality.

Patriarchy and Patriarchal Religion

Patriarchy, as initially defined by Maine and Morgan in the nineteenth century, describes an organizing principle based on the biblical model, upon which male-dominated societies place power in the hands of the father, husband and brother over the mother, wife, and sister.[12] Radcliffe-Brown extended upon this definition to assert that patriarchy describes a ‘society in which descent is traced through the male line, residence is patrilocal, inheritance of property, and succession is in the male line and the family is patripotestal or that there is male authority’.[13] Malinowski, however, simplified the term patriarchy to simply describe a patripotestal system which places power in the hands of men over women.[14] Feminist scholar Sylvia Walby defines patriarchy as a ‘system of social structures and practices in which men dominate, oppress and exploit women’.[15]

There is little doubt that both Christianity and Islam are patriarchal religions.[16] Both religions were constructed upon the acutely patriarchal Abrahamic religious system.[17] Discussing women in Islam, Byzantine Christianity, and western Christianity, Stearns argues: ‘Both Islam and Christianity faced a major tension in principle: they granted women souls and the chance of salvation, but they regarded women as inferior, more prone to evil. Neither religion undermined patriarchy’.[18] Further, in describing the purely patriarchal soil in which the religion of Islam was first sown, Inhorn states: ‘Like Judaism and Christianity before it, Islam came into being in a patriarchal society where patrilateral endogamy, the practice of marrying within the tribal lineage, set the shape for the oppression of women in patrilineal society long before the rise of Islam (Tillon 1983).[19] The purpose of Inhorn’s argument here was to establish grounds for shielding the Islamic ideology from justified charges of female oppression, and to shift the focus onto the ‘social, cultural and political-economic conditions’,[20] which, ironically, Inhorn argued were the very building blocks for the patriarchal ideology she sought to defend.

Female Sexuality in Islam

There is no one thing which might rigidly be called ‘Islam’. Like all religions, Islam is a confusion of contradictions, variations, and nuances which have arisen due to the fact that religion is, like its creators, a messily evolving imperfect phenomenon. The ‘Islam’ of one Muslim can be vastly different from the ‘Islam’ of another. Yet the acknowledgment of such nuance in no way prevents the application of a definition of Islam cemented in uniting elements and principles. The primary scripture of Islam, the Qur’an, unites an otherwise diverse collection of individuals, however, interpretation enters the equation to once again divide those who call themselves Muslim. As such, there are Sufis, Shi’ites, Sunnis and within these schools there are even more divisions. There are LGBT Muslims, feminist Muslims, reformist Muslims, secularist Muslims, liberal and conservative Muslims. This diverse array of categories clearly indicates that a religion is more than just the sum of a few of its parts; it is a fluid phenomenon that must be interpreted and analysed as a whole. To add further nuance and confusion, a religion also involves an interactive process between individual adherents and their religion’s doctrines and traditions, which varies and develops over time and space. Hence, a discussion on female sexuality within ‘Islam’ must be sufficiently cautious to avoid oversimplification. The safest means by which one may assess the relationship between Islam and female sexuality is with an examination of the Qur’an and the theological and historical contexts in which it was first transmitted, as well as by examining extra-religious influences that have contributed to the various evolutions and devolutions of Islam in this respect.

According to the Qur’an, a woman’s sexuality is not her own to determine, but a man’s.[21] A wife must submit to the sexual desires of her husband lest she be admonished, isolated, or even beaten.[22] A man may enjoy the sex with multiple wives, but such a right is not merely denied to a woman, it is incomprehensible.[23] A female captive becomes the sex-slave of her male captor, whom the Qur’an expressly gives to the male victor as a spoil of war.[24] The Qur’an expressly states that the wife is a tilth unto her husband, who is encouraged to enter his subordinate female partner when and how he pleases.[25] There are verses in the Qur’an that encourage husbands to be respectful of their wives,[26] yet such ‘respect’ should not necessarily be interpreted in a modern sense, but within the patriarchal context of male and female gender relations of medieval southern Arabia. Examining the hadith to provide some historical context, it’s clear that the primary exemplar of Islam, Muhammad, had great respect for his wives,[27] yet his ‘respect’ was able to accommodate violently striking his child-bride Aishah in the chest when she was mildly deceptive,[28] laughing when his father-in-law, Abu Bakr, beat two of his wives for annoying him[29] – he consummated his marriage to his 17-year-old Jewish wife, Safiyya bint Huyayy, shortly after his men killed her fiancé and her family,[30] he instructed an abused woman to return to her violent husband and submit to his sexual desires, even though, according to Aishah, her face so badly bruised that it was ‘greener than the veil she was wearing’.[31] The point here is that respect for women in both Quranic and historical contexts does not necessarily equate with the notion as we understand it today.

Yet such an obvious reality has not prevented numerous modern Muslims from pragmatically applying modern notions and selective readings of the Qur’an and the Sunna to arrive at a less patriarchal version of Islam.[32] Of course, in contrast to progressive movements within the Ummah there are increasingly popular Salafist movements, and such movements seek to return Islam to its medieval origins, a time Wahhabists and other Salafists see as representing a purer form of the faith.[33] It must also be acknowledged that there exists a wealth of passages and teachings within the Qur’an and ‘sahih’ hadiths that justify and legitimate their stricter application and interpretation of Islam. Having said this, it bears repeating that a religion is not merely the sum of a few of its parts. This being the case, the modern relationship between Islam and female sexuality is one underscored by extreme tensions between those who wish to apply strict seventh century Islamic values and those who prefer a more modern, selective, tempered, and pragmatic application of their religion.[34]

Dialmy argues that sexual standards in Islam are self-contradictory, stating: ‘Sexual standards in Islam are paradoxical: on the one hand, they allow and actually are an enticement to the exercise of sexuality but, on the other hand, they discriminate between male and female sexuality…Men are given more rights with regard to the expression of their sexuality; women are forbidden to have extramarital sex (with their slaves)…’[35] This paradox distinguishes Islam from Christianity, because Christianity did not, and does not, generally speaking, entice the exercise of sexuality; on the contrary, it roundly renounces and represses it.[36] In fact, Islam’s more rational yet paradoxical acceptance of human sexuality represents one of the popular complaints made by many fathers and thinkers within Christianity over the centuries. Aquinas complained that ‘He [Muhammad] seduced the people [men] by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh goads us’.[37] Discussing the fifteenth century Christian theologian and translator of the Qur’an, Juan De Segovia, Wolf remarks: ‘…he [Juan De Segovia] repeatedly remarked to his readers that Islam was a religion that encouraged sexual licence, one of the most common charges made by medieval Christian polemicists…He was convinced that this promise of everlasting sexual gratification was a significant factor in the spread of this religion’.[38]

Sexuality in Christianity

The outright repression of human sexuality in Christianity is rooted in the New Testament, particularly within the Pauline epistles.[39] Christianity’s emphasis on controlling female sexuality, however, derives from its interpretation of the etiological/charter myth found in the first three chapters of Genesis, in which Eve, per the popular Christian exegesis, symbolically, and often literally, represents the inherent dangers of female sexuality.[40] She is the temptress who brought about the downfall of humanity and juxtaposed to her is the Virgin Mary. Mary is the antithesis of Eve, the blessed virgin, of whom Irenaeus in the late second century wrote: ‘As Eve was seduced into disobedience to God, so Mary was persuaded into obedience to God …That is why the Lord proclaims himself the Son of Man, the one who renews in himself that first man from whom the race born of woman was formed; as by a man’s defeat our race fell into the bondage of death, so by a man’s victory we were to rise again to life’.[41]

From this excerpt of Irenaeus’ ‘Against the Heresies’ two prevalent themes in Christian theology can be observed: Firstly, disobedient women are easily seduced by demonic influences and secondly, women possess the [sexual] power to influence men to the detriment of our entire species, which was a prevalent motif throughout the witch craze in late medieval Europe and Britain.[42] Thus, to guard against the female’s sexuality is one of the most crucial areas of concern for the pious male, who – should he fall prey to the beckonings of the flesh – will participate in the “literal” downfall of ‘mankind’. Such psychological pressure, it may be argued, appears to have resulted in an animosity toward women within not only Christianity, but also within Islam. The author of Ecclesiastes writes: ‘I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare…while I was still searching but not finding– I found one upright man among a thousand, but not one upright woman among them all’.[43] Here we find a parallel in Islamic scripture, with Muhammad alleging: ‘”I looked at Paradise and found poor people forming the majority of its inhabitants; and I looked at Hell and saw that the majority of its inhabitants were women.”’[44] Abrahamic Context

To understand the inherent animosity toward women and female sexuality in both of these religions, an examination of the historical contexts within which these religions were first formed is required. Further, being that both of these religions are theologically rooted in Judaism, it would be prudent to also examine their parent-religion’s influence in this regard. In her exposition on the image of women in the Old Testament, Ruether argues: ‘The wife’s primary contribution to her family was her sexuality, which was regarded as the exclusive property of her husband, both in respect to its pleasure and its fruit. Adultery involving a married woman was a crime of first magnitude in Israelite law (Lev. 20:10; Exod. 20:14), ranking with murder and major religious offenses as a transgression demanding the death penalty…The issue was not simply one of extramarital sex (which was openly tolerated in certain circumstances). The issue was one of property and authority. Adultery was a violation of the fundamental and exclusive right of a man to the sexuality of his wife. It was an attack upon his authority in the family and consequently upon the solidarity and integrity of the family itself’.[45] Notwithstanding certain Muslim, Christian and Jewish feminists’ revisionist attempts to soften the patriarchal character of their respective religions, female sexuality in the Abrahamic religious context cannot be truly extricated from its patriarchal roots and the belief that an omnipotent God authored or inspired various patriarchal prescriptions as universal and enduring wisdom is a firm anchor that keeps ancient and medieval patriarchy alive and well in the twenty-first century. An example of Muslim feminism’s attempt to justify and rationalize obvious patriarchy can be found in the numerous apologia offered to justify and rationalize the overtly patriarchal ‘modesty culture’, symbolized by the hijab, niqab, and other female-specific coverings.[46] British sociologist Linda Woodhead sees the veiling of Muslim women as a form of female liberation, because according to Woodhead, it affords Muslim women the opportunity to leave the home and participate in the public sphere without forfeiting their culture or their history,[47] which, ironically, are acutely patriarchal. Egyptian feminist Nawal El Saadawi, on the other hand, views the veiling of women as oppressive, saying: ‘The veil is a tool for the oppression of women…They [Muslim women in the west] defend the veil in the name of mulit-culturalism. It is a lie’.[48]

The disproportionate imposition of physical ‘modesty’ upon female sexuality, which is not unique to Islam, may be argued to lend weight to Ruether’s argument regarding female sexuality being the exclusive gift and property of her conjugal patriarch. A popular social media campaign in recent years that sought to normalize the veiling of women compared veiled women to wrapped candy.[49] The irony of this campaign was that the women involved were comparing themselves to pieces of confectionary – female sexuality was being discursively described and analogized as a delicious treat for sanctioned males, thereby once again evincing the inescapable patriarchal origins described in Ruether’s argument concerning female sexuality.

Islamic Feminism

Eyadat identifies four primary strands of Islamic feminism: apologist, reformist, hermeneutic and rejectionist. According to Eyadat, apologist feminists seek to reinforce existing patriarchal gender roles.[50] Reformists framed their reformations upon a ‘western framework’, and for this reason received little popularity, and yet their highest ambition was to ‘redefine certain notions of women’s rights and gender roles in order for women to better perform their given societal duties’.[51] Hermeneutic feminism, to which Eyadat subscribes, seeks to employ ijtihad (literally ‘striving’ or ‘exertion’ – legal term: ‘independent reasoning/thinking’)[52] in a modern Quranic context in order to provide a balance to an ‘almost exclusively male-dominated Quranic interpretation’.[53] The final strain of Islamic feminism identified by Eyadat, rejectionist, holds that Islam is inherently patriarchal and incompatible with gender equality,[54] a view that could be argued to be the closest to the historical origins and minds of the early authors of the Qur’an and Sunna, for it is very difficult to reinterpret Muhammad’s pronouncement regarding the intellectual inferiority of women,[55] or his “revelation” concerning the inherent female drives that lead them more than men into hellfire,[56] without taking into account the time, culture and regional influences that underpinned his worldview. Furthermore, if Muhammad is the ideal Muslim, as the Qur’an claims,[57] then such negative beliefs concerning women, and his conduct toward them, although not always misogynistic and exploitative, must be held to be superlative, leaving little room for Islamic feminists to effectively extricate Muslim women from patriarchy. This in turn renders Islamic feminism devoid of any principle which might be even loosely associated with anything remotely resembling ‘feminism’. If such is in fact the case, and the rejectionists are correct, which scripture and historical context seem to suggest, then female sexuality in Islam will forever remain a male-owned commodity – a covered piece of confectionary for the exclusive enjoyment of conjugal patriarchs.

Conclusion

Islam and Christianity are both patriarchal religions rooted in patriarchal culture. As such, both religions are infused with patriarchal beliefs concerning female sexuality. Christianity has successfully demonized female sexuality by exploiting the etiological/charter myths of Eve and the Fall of Man, and by demonizing sexuality outright. Islam, on the other hand, has embraced sexuality, yet predominantly for the male’s use and enjoyment. Patriarchal beliefs concerning female sexuality are evident within the core doctrines of these religions, which, as discussed above, place the dominant discourse surrounding female sexuality in the hands of men, past and present. To rebuke or reform the patriarchal prescriptions concerning female sexuality in either religion is to rebuke or reform the essential building blocks of both religions – namely, the Bible and the Qur’an. Put simply, to reject the oppressive constraints placed upon female sexuality in either religion is to reject the “omniscient wisdom” of the foundational texts. For this reason, many feminists within Christianity and Islam have had to resolve their dissonance by placing their religion ahead their feminism, thereby contributing little more than vain rationalizations which have done little more than justify and excuse patriarchy. On the other hand, it may be argued that the fluid nature of religion itself can afford religious feminists room to manoeuvre, yet the length and breadth of such room will always be confined and constrained by the significance each of these religions place on their foundational texts, which, in both cases, are believed to be divine manifestos dictated or inspired by an all-knowing patriarch, whose wisdom is incomprehensibly profound, and by whose patriarchal prescriptions such feminists must ultimately abide and obey. Herein lies the true power of these religions to regulate and control female sexuality, for in the abridged words of Voltaire, ‘It is difficult to free [the oppressed] from the chains they revere’.

Support Michael Sherlock's work here

Support the Nice Mangos blog here

End Notes

Ellen Willis, The Mass Psychology of Terrorism, cited in: Stanley Aronowitz (ed.) and Heather Gautney (ed.), Implicating Empire: Globalization and Resistance in the 21st Century World Order, New York: Basic Books, 2003, p. 97.

Robert A. Padgug, Sexual Matters: On Conceptualizing Sexuality in History, cited in: Richard Parker and Peter Aggleton, Culture, Society and Sexuality: A Reader, London: UCL Press, 1999, p. 17.

A. Lemon (1993). ‘Sexual Counselling and Spinal Cord Injury’. Sexuality and Disability. 11 (1), 73-97, cited in: Eva Miller and Irmo Marini, Sexuality and Spinal Cord Injury Counselling Implications, cited in: Irmo Marini (ed.) and Mark A. Stebnicki, The Psychological and Social Impact of Illness and Disability, 6th Ed., New York: Springer Publishing Company, LLC, 2012, p. 135.

Ibid.

Pat Caplan (ed.), The Cultural Construction on Sexuality, London: Routledge, 1987, pp. 1-10.

Gail Hawkes, A Sociology of Sex and Sexuality, Philadelphia: Open University Press, 1996, p. 8.

Dr DCA Hillman, Original Sin: Ritual Child Rape and the Church, Berkley, California: Ronin, 2012, p. 26; Cheris Kramarae (ed.) and Dale Spender (ed.), Routledge International Encyclopedia of Women: Global Women’s Issues and Knowledge, Vol. 1: Ability – Education: Globalization, ‘Christianity’, New York: Routledge, 2000, p. 169; Haideh Moghissi (ed.), Women and Islam: Critical Concepts in Sociology, Vol. 1: Images and Realities, London: Routledge, 2005, p. 18; Haideh Moghissi, Populism and Feminism in Iran: Women’s Struggle in a Male-Defined Revolutionary Movement, London: MacMillan Press Ltd, 1994, p. 76; Etin Anwar, Gender and Self in Islam, London: Routledge, 2006, p. 145.

Vern L. Bullough (ed.), Brenda Shelton (ed.), Sarah Slavin (ed.), The Subordinated Sex: A History of Attitudes Toward Women, Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press, 1988, pp. 113-114; Fatima Mernissi, Beyond the Veil: Male-Female Dynamics in Modern Muslim Society, Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1975, p. 82; Haideh Moghissi (ed.), Women and Islam: Critical Concepts in Sociology, Vol. 1: Images and Realities, London: Routledge, 2005, p. 177; Deborah F. Sawyer, Women and Religion in the First Christian Centuries, London: Routledge, 1996, pp. 110-114.

For example, The Qur’an, 4:34, 2:223, Yusuf Ali translation; The Bible, Genesis 3:16; 1 Corinthians 11:3, 14:34; Ephesians 5:22-23, NIV.

Kamila Klingorova and Tomas Havlicek, ‘Religion and Gender Inequality: The Status of Women in the Societies of World Religions’, Moravian Geographical Reports, Feb., 2015, Vol. 23, cited at: http://ift.tt/2jgrvH1490676/Religion_and_gender_inequality_The_status_of_women_in_the_societies_of_world_religions, accessed on 10th Jan, 2017; Sally Baden, ‘The Position of Women in Islamic Countries: Possibilities, Constraints, and Strategies for Change’, Bridge Development Gender, Sept., 1992, Report. 4, cited at: http://ift.tt/2jse7gFre/img_documents/15_rep_so1.pdf, accessed on 10th, 2017.

Ranjana Subberwal, Dictionary of Sociology, New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited, 2009, cited at: http://ift.tt/1V7p4zZ/books?id=lNgIfUqkwusC&pg=SL16-PA2&dq=Sociology+patriarchy+definition&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjp1LuWxpjRAhXLE7wKHSlrAdYQ6AEIKjAC#v=onepage&q=Sociology%20patriarchy%20definition&f=false, accessed on 29th Dec, 2016.

Ibid.

Sylvia Walby, Theorizing Patriarchy, Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd., 1990, p. 20.

Arvind Sharma (ed.), Women in World Religions, Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 1987, p. 17; R.W.J. Austin, Islam and the Feminine, cited in: Denis MacEoin and Ahmed Al-Shahi, Islam in the Modern World, New York: Routledge, 1983, pp. 36-37; Rosemary Radford-Ruether, Women in World Religions: Discrimination, Liberation, and Backlash, cited in: Arvind Sharma (ed.), The World’s Religions: A Contemporary Reader, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011, p. 145.

Melissa Raphael, Introducing Theology: Discourse on the Goddess, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999, p. 32; Aaron W. Hughes, Abrahamic Religions: On the Uses and Abuses of History, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012, p. 79.

Peter N. Stearns (ed.), World History in Documents: A Comparative Reader, 2nd Ed., New York: New York University Press, 2008, p. 90.

Marcia C. Inhorn, Infertility and Patriarchy: The Cultural Politics of Gender and Family Life in Egypt, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1996, p. 31.

Ibid. p. 32.

The Qur’an, 2:223, Yusuf Ali translation.

The Qur’an, 4:34, Yusuf Ali translation.

The Qur’an, 4:3, Yusuf Ali translation.

The Qur’an, 33:50, 23:5-6, 70:29-30, 4:24, 8:69, Yusuf Ali translation.

The Qur’an, 2:223, Yusuf Ali translation.

The Qur’an, 4:3, 4:19, Yusuf Ali translation.

Jami’ At-Tirmidhi, Vol. 1, Book 46, hadith No. 3895, cited at: http://ift.tt/2jsfXxZ830, accessed on 10th, 2017.

Sahih al-Bukhari, Book 4, hadith 2127, cited at: http://ift.tt/2jgjn9hm/sahihmuslim/132-Sahih%20Muslim%20Book%2004.%20Prayer/9023-sahih-muslim-book-004-hadith-number-2127.html, accessed on 10th, 2017.

Sahih al-Muslim, Book 9, hadith 3506, cited at: http://ift.tt/2jsk2SSm/9/3506, accessed on 10th, 2017.

Sahih al-Bukhari, Book 1, Vol. 8, hadith 367; Book 59, hadith 522, cited at: http://ift.tt/2jgp2fK.com/Pages/Bukhari_1_08.php, accessed on 10th, 2017.

Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 7, Book 72, hadith 715, cited at: http://ift.tt/2jgp2fK.com/Pages/Bukhari_7_72.php, accessed on 10th, 2017.

Kecia Ali, Sexual Ethics and Islam: Feminist Reflections on Qur’an, Hadith and Jurisprudence, London: Oneworld Publications, 2016, p. 196.

Joas Wagemakers, Salafism in Jordan: Political Islam in a Quietist Community, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016, p. 228; Zoltan Pall, Lebanese Salafis Between the Gulf and Europe: Development, Fractionalization and Transnational Networks of Salafism in Lebanon, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2013, p. 37.

Bassam Tibi, Political Islam, World Politics and Europe: From Jihadist to Institutional Islamism, London: Routledge, 2014, p. 284.

Abdessamad Dialmy, ‘Sexuality and Islam’, The European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care, June 2010;15:160–168.

James A. Brundage, Laws, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval Europe, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987, pp. 80-86.

Thomas Aquinas, On the Truth of the Catholic Faith, Book One: God, Anton C. Pegis trans., Garden City, NY: Image, 1955, p. 73.

Anne Marie Wolf, Juan De Segovia: Lessons of History, cited in: Simon R. Doubleday (ed.) and David Coleman (ed.), In the Light of Medieval Spain: Islam, the West, and the Relevance of the Past, New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2008, p. 37.

The Bible, Galatians 5:16-21; Romans 7:5, 8:5; 2 Peter 2:10, Ephesians 2:3,

Robert Crooks and Karla Baur, Our Sexuality, 11th, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2010, p. 12; Robin May Schott, Cognition and Eros: A Critique of the Kantian Paradigm, University Park, Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1988, p. 44.

Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, cited in: Sophia Institute for Teachers, Love and Mercy: The Story of Salvation: Teacher’s Guide, Washington D.C: Sophia Institute for Teachers, 2015, pp. 30-31.

Hans Peter Broedel, The Malleus Maleficarum and the Construction of Witchcraft: Theology and Popular Belief, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2003, pp. 6-7.

The Bible, Ecclesiastes 7:26-28, NIV.

Sahih al-Bukhari, hadith number 3241, cited at: http://ift.tt/2jsjQmw/30280, accessed on 2nd Jan, 2017; Sahih al-Muslim, hadith number 2737, cited at: http://ift.tt/2jgtaMG49, accessed on 2nd Jan, 2017.

Rosemary Radford Ruether (ed.), Religion and Sexism: Images of Woman in the Jewish and Christian Traditions, Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1998, p. 51.

Hanna Yusuf, ‘My Hijab has Nothing to Do with Oppression, It’s a Feminist Statement’, The Guardian, June, 24th, 2015, cited at: http://ift.tt/29kbAC4m/commentisfree/video/2015/jun/24/hijab-not-oppression-feminist-statement-video, accessed on Jan. 7th, 2017; Celene Ibrahim, ‘Wearing the Headscarf is a Matter of Feminism, Aesthetics and Solidarity for Me’, New York Times, Jan. 6th, 2016, cited at: http://ift.tt/2jgiFJdmfordebate/2016/01/06/do-non-muslims-help-or-hurt-women-by-wearing-hijabs/wearing-the-headscarf-is-a-matter-of-feminism-aesthetics-and-solidarity-for-me, accessed on Jan. 7th, 2017; Shelina Zahra Janmohamed, ‘Calling all Feminists: Get Over the Veil Debate, Focus on Real Problems’, Aljazeera, 25th, 2013, cited at: http://ift.tt/1GWTtPindepth/opinion/2013/09/calling-all-feminists-get-over-veil-debate-focus-real-problems-201392573343242621.html, accessed on 8th Jan., 2017.

Linda Woodhead, Women and Religion, cited in: Linda Woodhead (ed.), Paul Fletcher (ed.), Hiroko Kawanami (ed.) and David Smith (ed.), Religions in the Modern World, London: Routledge, 2002, p. 400.

Aditi Bhaduri, ‘Interview: Dr Nawal El Saadawi’, News Line Magazine, July, 2006, cited at: http://ift.tt/2jgsxCBm/magazine/interview-dr-nawal-el-saadawi/, accessed on 10th, 2017.

Maha, ‘Why the Wrapped vs Unwrapped Candy Analogy is Wrong When it Comes to the Hijab’, Mahavalous, 2nd March, 2014, cited at: http://ift.tt/2jsbLOQ4/03/02/why-the-wrapped-vs-unwrapped-candy-analogy-is-wrong-when-it-comes-to-hijab/, accessed on Jan. 9th, 2017.

Zaid Eyadat, ‘Islamic Feminism: Roots, Development and Policies’, Global Policy, Vol. 4, Issue 4, (Nov. 13th), 359-368.

Ibid.

John L. Esposito (ed.), The Oxford Dictionary of Islam, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003, p. 134.

Ibid.

Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 3, Book 48, hadith 826, cited at: http://ift.tt/2jguqiC/52/22, accessed on 10th, 2017.

The Qur’an, 33:21, Yusuf Ali translation.

Bibliography

Religious Texts

The Qur’an, Yusuf Ali translation.

The Bible, New International Version.

Jami’ At-Tirmidhi, Vol. 1, cited at: http://ift.tt/2jsfXxZ830, accessed on 10th Jan., 2017.

Sahih al-Bukhari, cited at: http://ift.tt/2jgjn9hm/sahihmuslim/132-Sahih%20Muslim%20Book%2004.%20Prayer/9023-sahih-muslim-book-004-hadith-number-2127.html, accessed on 10th Jan., 2017.

Sahih al-Muslim, Book 9, hadith 3506, cited at: http://ift.tt/2jsk2SSm/9/3506, accessed on 10th Jan., 2017.

Secondary Sources

Ali, Kecia, Sexual Ethics and Islam: Feminist Reflections on Qur’an, Hadith and Jurisprudence, London: Oneworld Publications, 2016.

Anwar, Etin, Gender and Self in Islam, London: Routledge, 2006.

Aquinas, Thomas, On the Truth of the Catholic Faith, Book One: God, Pegis, Anton, C, trans., Garden City, NY: Image, 1955.

Austin, R.W.J., Islam and the Feminine, cited in: MacEoin, Denis and Al-Shahi, Ahmed, Islam in the Modern World, New York: Routledge, 1983.

Baden, Sally, ‘The Position of Women in Islamic Countries: Possibilities, Constraints, and Strategies for Change’, Bridge Development Gender, Sept., 1992, Report. 4, cited at: http://ift.tt/2jse7gFre/img_documents/15_rep_so1.pdf, accessed on 10th Jan., 2017.

Bhaduri, Aditi, ‘Interview: Dr Nawal El Saadawi’, News Line Magazine, July, 2006, cited at: http://ift.tt/2jgsxCBm/magazine/interview-dr-nawal-el-saadawi/, accessed on 10th Jan., 2017.

Broedel, Hans Peter, The Malleus Maleficarum and the Construction of Witchcraft: Theology and Popular Belief, Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Brundage, James A., Laws, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval Europe, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987.

Bullough, Vern L. (ed.), Shelton, Brenda (ed.), Slavin, Sarah (ed.), The Subordinated Sex: A History of Attitudes Toward Women, Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press, 1988.

Caplan, Pat (ed.), The Cultural Construction on Sexuality, London: Routledge, 1987.

Crooks, Robert and Baur, Karla, Our Sexuality, 11th Ed., Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2010.

Dialmy, Abdessamad, ‘Sexuality and Islam’, The European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care, June 2010;15:160–168.

Esposito, John L. (ed.), The Oxford Dictionary of Islam, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.

Eyadat, Zaid, ‘Islamic Feminism: Roots, Development and Policies’, Global Policy, Vol. 4, Issue 4, (Nov. 13th), 359-368.

Hawkes, Gail, A Sociology of Sex and Sexuality, Philadelphia: Open University Press, 1996.

Hillman, Dr DCA, Original Sin: Ritual Child Rape and the Church, Berkley, California: Ronin, 2012.

Hughes, Aaron W., Abrahamic Religions: On the Uses and Abuses of History, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.

Ibrahim, Celene, ‘Wearing the Headscarf is a Matter of Feminism, Aesthetics and Solidarity for Me’, New York Times, Jan. 6th, 2016, cited at: http://ift.tt/2jgiFJdmfordebate/2016/01/06/do-non-muslims-help-or-hurt-women-by-wearing-hijabs/wearing-the-headscarf-is-a-matter-of-feminism-aesthetics-and-solidarity-for-me, accessed on Jan. 7th, 2017.

Inhorn, Marica C., Infertility and Patriarchy: The Cultural Politics of Gender and Family Life in Egypt, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1996.

Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, cited in: Sophia Institute for Teachers, Love and Mercy: The Story of Salvation: Teacher’s Guide, Washington D.C: Sophia Institute for Teachers, 2015.

Janmohamed, Shelina Zahra, ‘Calling all Feminists: Get Over the Veil Debate, Focus on Real Problems’, Aljazeera, 25th Sept., 2013, cited at: http://ift.tt/1GWTtPindepth/opinion/2013/09/calling-all-feminists-get-over-veil-debate-focus-real-problems-201392573343242621.html, accessed on 8th Jan., 2017.

Klingorova, Kamila and Havlicek, Tomas, ‘Religion and Gender Inequality: The Status of Women in the Societies of World Religions’, Moravian Geographical Reports, Feb., 2015, Vol. 23, cited at: http://ift.tt/2jgrvH1490676/Religion_and_gender_inequality_The_status_of_women_in_the_societies_of_world_religions, accessed on 10th Jan, 2017.

Kramarae, Cheris (ed.) and Spender, Dale (ed.), Routledge International Encyclopedia of Women: Global Women’s Issues and Knowledge, Vol. 1: Ability – Education: Globalization, ‘Christianity’, New York: Routledge, 2000.

Lemon, M.A., (1993). ‘Sexual Counselling and Spinal Cord Injury’. Sexuality and Disability. 11 (1), 73-97, cited in: Miller, Eva and Marini, Irmo, Sexuality and Spinal Cord Injury Counselling Implications, cited in: Marini, Irmo (ed.) and Stebnicki, Mark A., The Psychological and Social Impact of Illness and Disability, 6th Ed., New York: Springer Publishing Company, LLC, 2012.

Mernissi, Fatima, Beyond the Veil: Male-Female Dynamics in Modern Muslim Society, Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1975.

Moghissi, Haideh, Populism and Feminism in Iran: Women’s Struggle in a Male-Defined Revolutionary Movement, London: MacMillan Press Ltd, 1994.

Moghissi, Haideh (ed.), Women and Islam: Critical Concepts in Sociology, Vol. 1: Images and Realities, London: Routledge, 2005.

Padgug, Robert A., Sexual Matters: On Conceptualizing Sexuality in History, cited in: Parker, Richard and Aggleton, Peter, Culture, Society and Sexuality: A Reader, London: UCL Press, 1999.

Pall, Zoltan, Lebanese Salafis Between the Gulf and Europe: Development, Fractionalization and Transnational Networks of Salafism in Lebanon, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2013.

Radford-Ruether, Rosemary (ed.), Religion and Sexism: Images of Woman in the Jewish and Christian Traditions, Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1998.

Radford-Ruether, Rosemary, Women in World Religions: Discrimination, Liberation, and Backlash, cited in: Arvind Sharma (ed.), The World’s Religions: A Contemporary Reader, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011.

Raphael, Melissa, Introducing Theology: Discourse on the Goddess, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.

Sawyer, Deborah F., Women and Religion in the First Christian Centuries, London: Routledge, 1996.

Schott, Robin May, Cognition and Eros: A Critique of the Kantian Paradigm, University Park, Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1988.

Sharma, Arvind (ed.), Women in World Religions, Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 1987.

Stearns, Peter N. (ed.), World History in Documents: A Comparative Reader, 2nd Ed., New York: New York University Press, 2008.

Subberwal, Ranjana, Dictionary of Sociology, New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited, 2009, cited at: http://ift.tt/1V7p4zZ/books?id=lNgIfUqkwusC&pg=SL16-PA2&dq=Sociology+patriarchy+definition&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjp1LuWxpjRAhXLE7wKHSlrAdYQ6AEIKjAC#v=onepage&q=Sociology%20patriarchy%20definition&f=false, accessed on 29th Dec, 2016.

Tibi, Bassam, Political Islam, World Politics and Europe: From Jihadist to Institutional Islamism, London: Routledge, 2014.

Wagemakers, Joas, Salafism in Jordan: Political Islam in a Quietist Community, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016.

Walby, Sylvia, Theorizing Patriarchy, Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd., 1990.

Willis, Ellen, The Mass Psychology of Terrorism, cited in: Aronowitz, Stanley (ed.) and Gautney, Heather (ed.), Implicating Empire: Globalization and Resistance in the 21st Century World Order, New York: Basic Books, 2003.

Wolf, Anne Marie, Juan De Segovia: Lessons of History, cited in: Doubleday, Simon R. (ed.) and Coleman, David (ed.), In the Light of Medieval Spain: Islam, the West, and the Relevance of the Past, New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2008.

Woodhead, Linda, Women and Religion, cited in: Woodhead, Linda (ed.), Fletcher, Paul (ed.), Kawanami, Hiroko (ed.) and Smith, David (ed.), Religions in the Modern World, London: Routledge, 2002.

Yusuf, Hanna, ‘My Hijab has Nothing to Do with Oppression, It’s a Feminist Statement’, The Guardian, June, 24th, 2015, cited at: http://ift.tt/29kbAC4m/commentisfree/video/2015/jun/24/hijab-not-oppression-feminist-statement-video, accessed on Jan. 7th, 2017.

from Nice Mangos http://ift.tt/2jghGbS via IFTTT

0 notes