This post does not pertain to New Testament course work.

How did I just realizes that I've been living in such a base, immoral pit of beauty all year? Gonzaga is so beautiful. A lot of the students here come from wealthy, beautiful families and private schools and sunny California. But if I've learned one non-academic thing this year, it is that personality and principle are dead. Entirely dead. What counts now, here at this place in this day and age, is not what we believe in or the good things that we choose to do. What counts is what we wear, who we're seen with and how we put others down. Gonzaga is a city in which judgments and shit-talking will triumph over personal improvement and perspective and confrontation any day. Two things I hate: judgment and avoidance of confrontation. I wish everyone would keep their goddamn mouths shut from slandering others behind backs and their fists reared for confrontation. I honestly wish, instead of stupid shit-talking, that everyone just walked up to each other and said how they really felt, and accepted the consequences of whatever ensued. At least, then, everyone would experience the pain that they deserve. Maybe if you got punched in the mouth every time you made fun of someone, or said something cruel, or put someone down, you wouldn't do it anymore. But no. Not here. Here at Gonzaga we believe in talking behind backs and avoiding confrontation. It's a much *safer* way to live: neither the talker or the topic get hurt, because (ideally) the topic never finds out he or she is a topic.

I fucking hate it. As this year has progressed, I've found myself analyzing and re-analyzing the actions of others and myself. Trying not to care what others thing, but finding myself livid at their crass and mean shit-talking about me. How do I not care? The shit-talking behind my back is definitely a consequence of me going against this popular grain: doing what I want, when I want to do it, and saying how I feel TO OTHER'S FACES. Why is this such a strange action today? Why do you have to attack me for feeling this way?

I'm making a victim and martyr of myself. I apologize. It's not right, and I'm certainly not perfect in this respect (or any). I've talked my fair share of shit, and avoided my fair share of confrontation. But I'm trying hard to change these things about myself, and I guess my fury comes from the fact that NO ONE else even realizes how this is a problem!?

I hate this modern thought. It's so cowardly. You fucking cowards, with your beautiful clothes, your beautiful faces and your filthy mouths. If you hate me, if you hate what I do, tell me. Now. I don't care how you feel about it, (though I'd like to know in a calm manner, simple for perspective's sake), but if you're going to take an opinion, TELL ME. If you have something nasty to say about me, say it to me. Then, we'll fight fairly with wit or physical strength or even screaming. I'd rather engage in any of this than be a topic of your petty conversations. 

On my wall right above my bed, I see Einstein staring off into space and his quote below; "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." But what would a great spirit do? Certainly not get in as many fights as I do. A great spirit would definitely see all of this going on, analyze it objectively, and fight with wit and wisdom. I'd like to get there someday. What would God say? turn the other cheek? Hell no. Not doing that. I'm not nearly strong enough to do that. I've been trying so hard to smile and turn away quietly. But it doesn't work, I just erupt periodically at these awful people. 

What do I do? I've heard a lot lately that all you have to do to make a dream a reality is commit it to writing. And I keep telling myself that I can't change those haters, even though I wish I could. But I can only change myself. Here's what I want to work on: 

1. Wrangling my tongue

-not exploding when I'm angry

-thinking before speaking

2. let some time elapse between the infliction and my response, to help me formulate my opinions 

3. bite back with sharp wit, not a shrill voice

4. stop talking shit. period. 

5. if I have a problem with someone, either bring it to them, or forget about it. but mostly, I need to stop picking fights.

6. as hard as it is, and as much as Moans hates it, refuse to believe that the way of the world is devoid of principle. Not that I can change anything, but I can change myself. Who says the way of the world has to be my way? 

7. Not giving up. 

8. Not caring what others thing or do. Just letting it roll off of my back. 

9. Start boxing, to release some of these demons. 

10. "Keep your nose out of the sky, keep your heart to God, and keep your face to the rising sun.", think positive. Chin up.

I don't care what you say, Moans, success does not come to the malicious who engage in this stuff. I don't care what the world does, I'm going to make it to the top on principle and hard work. Because I'm Irish, and an American, and my family is the American Dream! 

Kiss it, Gonzaga. I'm above this.

Who is Jesus #2

 Jesus in a paragraph, sentence, word:

Jesus is the human savior that God sent down to repair the sin humanity has inflicted upon the Creator. Jesus was born, lived and died a mortal death, but experienced an immortal resurrection and continuously consulted supernatural beings such as the Holy Spirit and God. Jesus was persecuted by his own people, Jews, since he presented a radical viewpoint that attempted to trade in the old Law for new virtues of kindness, truth and acceptance of all people. Should we so choose to accept the sacrifice that Jesus has made, His life on Earth has presented a route for humankind to be in the Kingdom of Heaven despite the inherent sin that we live in. Jesus’ existence, though he lived a sinless life, has been the most controversial event of all time—during Jesus’ life and now. 

                Jesus is the mediator between humankind and God.

                Messenger

 Course Reflection:

                This course has certainly changed my view of the New Testament and Jesus! Having read the entire bible long before stepping through the doors of the “shoebox”, I had many preconceived notions or ignorances about the New Testament. For one, I believed that the New Testament was entirely focused on “good” events (pre-passion, of course): Jesus healing people, Jesus walking on water, Jesus praying in gardens, Jesus multiplying food. How nice! However, I was surprised to find that controversy exists in the New Testament as well as the Old. Pharisees are constantly hounding Jesus, Jesus finds fault with his own disciples on numerous occasions, and Jesus is ALWAYS picking fights! I never thought that I could view the New Testament, or “Good news” so darkly.

                Another enlightenment that I received is that the New Testament—writings that I have believed strongly for many years—wasn’t even written during Jesus’ lifetime! The earliest writings that we have now were written long after Jesus died, which certainly calls to question their truth. The Synoptic Gospel book showed me that giant discrepancies exist between the Gospel authors (which I had absolutely no knowledge of before!). I was also shocked to find out that Q and other Gnostic writings exist. I certainly hope that every word of the Gospel is divinely inspired, because a large margin could easily exist between what we know about Jesus and what actually happened with Him. Another shock was finding that Gospel authors definitely have biases. For example Luke loves to support the poor and women, two lower-status groups in society. Sometimes Jesus is the Light, and at other times he’s the Savoir or the Prophet. To know that gospel authors can write with bias calls the divine inspiration into question in my mind again.   

                More than any other finding, I am proud to say that New Testament has certainly tested my faith. Raised in a Catholic school and frequently subjected to Methodist and Lutheran interpretations of the bible, I had an “ask no questions” policy before entering New Testament. Though questioning beliefs that we’ve held so long can be painful and uncomfortable, the curiosities that New Testament has brought about are absolutely healthy and vital to my faith journey. And what’s more is that, for the first time, I felt permitted to hold such doubts in an objective, academic sense. I still need to do more research, prayer and thought before I would classify my internal questions as settled, but New Testament was certainly a good starting place.

Jesus at the Movies #2

Shepherding

                Sometimes I feel that God is like the wind. We cannot see either in front of us, but we know that both exist due to the effects that they procure. A wind gust brings movement in the trees, fallen branches and occasional power outages. God’s existence has brought followers, opposition, wars, government, and a moral code for humanity. Some might argue that every action some (or all) human beings make is a result of God’s prevalence on Earth. But how can this be? How can an invisible force bring about so many real, visible consequences? Perhaps the answer has to do with the “guidance” that both bring about--the shepherding influence that invisible forces around us have on our lives. (After all, Jesus is referred to as the “Good Shepherd”)! In the film Chocolat, “shepherds” and their effects on followers teach us how we, as inevitable shepherds and followers, should view the quality of goodness and happiness in our lives.

 Several shepherding figures exist in Chocolat. The Comte de Reynaud acts as a shepherd for the village, fostering his own rigid flavor of Tranquilite and making strong suggestions to the villagers about how to live their lives in order to foster this Tranquilite and the sanctity of the group. Pere Henri acts as a shepherd in holy matters, interpreting God’s word to fit the Comte’s shepherding mold. The Clever North Wind shepherds Vianne Rocher and her mother, moving them from place to place and urging them to help others in Vianne’s own sweet ways. In this essay, I will focus on the shepherding styles of Caroline Clairmont and Vianne in how they shepherd their children, Luc Clairmont and Anouk Rocher.

Caroline Clairmont, an assistant to the Comte de Reynaud, lives a very straight-laced life. Caroline has a strict view of God, (which some might argue is more a view of religion since her actions seem to lack spirituality): rituals must be followed, mass must be attended, and family infrastructure must be fostered. Caroline is particularly controlling of her actions since she has been warned by the Comte, her leader and boss, that (extremely) strict adherence to the moral and ethical standards cast by the Comte and the Catholic Church are vital to happiness, even though the villagers’ following of such standards leads to unhappiness. But more than the Comte’s or God’s influence, Caroline seems to live by strict standards to regain a card house-like control of her family upon feeling unpleasant with her rearing by the wild Armande Voizin. Having been raised by the rebellious, outspoken Armande, Caroline believes that the best way to shepherd Luc is to set strict rules upon his actions and expect pristine behavior as his response. Caroline has fit her life into a grid: every week, she has her hair styled, she provides a loving home for Luc, she helps him with his homework, and encourages that he draws versus playing with friends. Caroline clearly strives to raise Luc as a quiet, introverted child, since this type is more likely to respect the wishes of authority. Just as Caroline strives to adhere to strict standards of the exclusive, perfect God presented to the villagers by Comte de Reynaud, she has shepherded a boy who knows well how to follow--despite his own desires.

Vianne Rocher is a warm, rebellious character. She moves with Anouk Rocher, her daughter, from place to place sharing her influential chocolate and ideas to both those who will listen and those who will not. Vianne was raised by her ethnic mother in the same fashion: creating delicious chocolate using ancient Mayan recipes and following no direction other than tradition and the unpredictable beckoning of the Clever North Wind. We are never confirmed as to Vianne’s image of God, so we have no right to describe her any kind of believer or non-believer in any religious framework. Vianne’s beliefs reside in inclusion and outreach. Vianne clearly believes that a right action is one that makes people happy, so she shares indulgent chocolate with others, inspires creativity, and exhibits friendliness to those outcast by the harsh mores of Comte de Reynaud’s Tranquilite. Vianne’s kind actions include protecting a social outcast, Josephine Muscat, who has been abused by her husband, Serge Muscat, bringing happiness to the grouchy Armande Voizin, mending the lost passion between Yvette Marceau and Alphonse Marceau, and befriending Roux the pirate who had been boycotted for his “immorality”. Vianne is clearly an open-minded and accepting individual and encourages Anouk to be as well. Vianne and Anouk are extremely close; they sleep in the same bed, spend all of their free time together, and share openly their life happenings. In her accepting nature, Vianne allows Anouk to foster a public belief in an imaginary kangaroo friend, Pontouf, play cards at the bar with grown men, and make friends with whosoever Anouk choses (such as Roux’s niece). Vianne’s belief that happiness does not come from rituals performed to a God but from kindness to those around her shepherds Anouk into an outgoing, loving child who is every bit as rebellious to societal conformity as Vianne.

Like the wind’s or God’s invisibility procuring visible manifestations of their influence, we can judge the character of Caroline Clairmont and Vianne Rocher based on the actions of their shepherded children. Both Luc and Anouk are good-hearted children: they try to obey their mothers’ rules but live spirited lives according to their own intuitions. Luc is extremely well-behaved: he attends church with his mother, resists boisterous play, completes his schoolwork, and tries to resist Vianne’s chocolate even when his mother is not around. But the viewer senses that Luc is an unhappy child at the beginning of the movie, since his drawings, (one of a dead bird), are fairly morbid. Luc seems to feel trapped by his mother’s wishes, especially when he is forbidden from visiting with his grandmother or eating chocolate during Lent. So, like any child, Luc rebels. He begins visiting Armande at the chocolate shop in secret; eating chocolate and reading poetry that his mother would certainly not approve of. Luc, clearly afraid of the harsh punishment that his mother might inflict should she uncover his taboo actions, rebels in secret. Anouk, on the other hand, rebels from Vianne openly. She engages in fights at school, physically resists moving and directly complains about Vianne’s lack of conformity in society (not attending church or wearing black shoes). Anouk is an accepting and friendly child who is open with her emotions and desires. Neither child is perfect. Luc is often unhappy due to his restraints from freedom and Anouk is unhappy due to her lack of stability--even in endless freedom.

So, how is a shepherd to tend his flocks? Chocolat presents a stark, black-and-white scenario in which Vianne shepherds with complete freedom and Caroline shepherds without any freedom: such are clear statement of how we may interpret God. Is God a shepherd to whom we must strictly obey, one who expects perfection and self-restraint? Or is God a shepherd who inspires kindness as the only rule? Does the former represent the Torah’s Law, and the latter represent the Golden Rule of Jesus’ teachings?

Chocolat confirms the latter. In Pere Henri’s final sermon, he rejects convention in religion, saying, “Do I want to speak of the miracle of Our Lord's divine transformation? Not really, no. I don't want to talk about His divinity. I'd rather talk about His humanity” (imdb.com). Clearly, Pere Henri is discarding the Comte’s ideas of strict adherence to divinity and perfection in lieu of other themes; “I think that we can't go around... measuring our goodness by what we don't do. By what we deny ourselves, what we resist, and who we exclude. I think... we've got to measure goodness by what we embrace, what we create... and who we include” (imdb.com). This is evidenced by Caroline and Luc’s transformation toward the end of the movie into warmer, more accepting individuals.

In Chocolat, viewers are confronted with several controversies: ritual versus rebellion, society versus outcast, quiet versus noise, and freedom versus entrapment. Perhaps Pere Henri’s sermon provides the answer to our original question: how do shepherds affect the way in which we view goodness and happiness? Chocolat argues that shepherds should foster goodness in their followers, and the film’s Pere Henri has suggested that goodness must create happiness for all. Be it the shepherding influences of characters in Chocolat, the wind or the Almighty God, we should consider that the happiness of the followers indicate the goodness of the shepherd.

Romans 10:13

                I was young. 13 years, that is, and working at a Christian summer camp in Port Orchard, Washington. We hosted a weekly concert for the campers, and this week was the stellar Christian rock band, Autumn’s Fire. I loved their acoustic sound, their charming biblical references and the fact that the lead singer could make an uncanny Chewbacca noise in the microphone. I had decided that I loved Autumn’s Fire, so I bought their CD and had them sign it after the show. The bassist (whom I had not even noticed behind Chewbacca), signed, “Romans 10:13,” and his name…Amos whatever. Awed by this pearl of wisdom, I immediately referenced the verse and committed to memory. “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved,” it says. So that is how I lived my life, until it completely screwed me over.

                Ehrman says that “those who believe in Christ have been made right with God and will be saved from the wrath of God that is coming upon this world (5:1-11). They will also be delivered from the reign of God’s mortal enemy, death, which entered into the world through the disobedience of Adam, Christ’s counterpart, but which has now been conquered by Christ’s own act of obedience (5:12-21)” (271). One might interpret that this means Jesus has saved humanity from having to deal with the cosmic power of sin, in order to more easily access salvation through God. Upon further review, I would agree that Romans 10:13 assures us of the same fate: if we choose to accept Jesus’ saving of our sins, we can be free of sin and death.

                But, at 13, I completely misconstrued those few words in Romans 10:13. After the “turn the other cheek” Catholic upbringing I’d experienced, I understood Christian salvation—and thus, life on Earth—as allowing others to hurt, harm and do what they please with you, while you turn the other cheek, call out to God, and eventually experience some kind of salvation. Oh, how this confusion of the message destroyed me! I grew laterally from 13 into the biggest pushover humankind has witnessed thus far, which ended with devastating consequences and lessons definitely learned the hard way. Upon reviewing Romans, I don’t see Paul advising against self-defense or social diplomacy. In fact, God is particularly “righteous” in Paul’s works, saving those who reject the confines of the Law and choose to accept Jesus’ sacrifice.

                Word to the wise 13 year-olds out there: Paul’s message in Romans, particularly chapter 10, verse 13, does not imply that anyone should lay across (figurative) train tracks, allowing the forces of sin and death to destroy them, awaiting God’s saving power. Instead, Paul asks us to fearlessly (and confrontationally, as in the case of the Romans!), proclaim the good news of Jesus’ sacrifice to begin the process of eternal sin removal. Now, a much smarter--but still extraordinarily dumb—18 year-old, I feel I have transformed from a adhering-conscious Jew to a stronger Roman, interpreting and awaiting more signals while defending myself and my faith on Earth.

Reflection Paper #4-Forgiveness

Mary C. McAleer
23 March 2010
Dr. Ardy Bass
New Testament 120
Reflection Paper #4

A great theme of the New Testament is forgiveness. I’m sure some would argue that forgiveness is the greatest theme, period. However, I’ve always struggled with this idea, since forgiveness—a hopelessly abstract noun—is ridiculously hard for me to understand. Forgiveness is so tough; it requires that: 1. I must be sorry, 2. whomever I am apologizing to must care enough about me and/or the situation to accept my apology, 3. they must be kind enough to forgive me, and 4. I must be willing to never commit the injustice again. Holy shit, that’s too many complicated emotions for me! And yet, it seems as though we ask and give forgiveness many times every day. Reading Luke I feel as though Jesus offered a different kind of forgiveness than we use. We often hear the phrase, “Jesus came down from Heaven to forgive our sins.” What does this mean! Did you ever hear Him say “I forgive your sins” to every single person? Absolutely not! Jesus actively forgave in a way that gave the people a more literal second chance.

In the parable of the Barren Fig Tree, the poorly producing fig tree will be cut down, until a man says “ ‘Sir, leave it for this year also, and I shall cultivate the ground around it and shall fertilize it; it may bear fruit in the future. If not you can cut it down’” (Luke 13:8-9). One of the farmers, therefore, is offering the fig tree a second chance. Karris mentions that the fig is a valuable and savored fruit, so chopping down a fig tree would require throwing away a great deal of potential. However, the first farmer feels no hesitation in doing this, since the tree hasn’t produced a fig in the past. The second farmer has faith in the fig tree, that it will produce a valuable fig in the future with some extra care and a second chance. Luke then offers a more practical example in which Jesus sets a woman free of her “infirmity” in Luke 13:10-13.

Ultimately, I feel like Jesus’ actions and purpose represent the same forgiveness in the fig tree parable. Forgiveness as we know it repairs an evil or wrong action that we’ve committed, but Jesus’ forgiveness does not fit the four-step model I’ve constructed in the Introduction above. Instead, Jesus, like the farmer, offers a second chance to those that he saves, in hopes that they’ll produce good “fruit” in the future. As supported by Luke in the Fig Tree Parable and the Crippled Woman story, Jesus has faith that we are good people capable of good future actions. So, now we ask, is this what our forgiveness means? When we apologize, are we really promising to change our wrong actions in the future? Are we promising not only to correct our wrong actions, but to produce good, fruitful actions instead? And in forgiveness, are we confirming our trust and faith in those we are forgiving. Did Jesus do this? Perhaps. Perhaps the potential dichotomy between Jesus’ forgiveness and our forgiveness shall remain undefined for now. It’s abstract, anyway!

Jesus at the Movies #1

Orthodoxy vs. Invictus

“Nice guys finish last:” a subconscious societal understanding that humankind has debated, defended and rejected violently since…forever. In the film Crimes and Misdemeanors, Woody Allen affirms that nice guys finish last by mirroring the lives of two very different New York men and observing their interactions. Throughout the film we see Judah Rosenthal and Cliff Stern--among others--battling to navigate their hardships via ruthless and blatant carelessness for the sanctity of others’ emotions and well-being. The film deals with another vital question conjectured more obviously by the roles of Professor Louis Levy and Rabbi Ben: how do we attain happiness, and is happiness what we need in order to survive and thrive in life? In this essay, I will be examining the practical consequences of one’s religious views, what Professor Levy and Rabbi Ben can teach us about hope and happiness, and just whether or not nice guys finish last.
Rabbi Ben is a devoutly committed orthodox Jew. He strongly believes in obedience to God’s and Law and clearly sees the Lord as King, Judge and Creator. He is optimistic that proper actions dictate our happiness and success in life, and he hopes that he can perform right actions in God’s watchful eyes and help others to do so. He believes that the world is a “moral structure with a higher power” and that “the righteous will be rewarded, the wicked will be punished for all of eternity.” For our purposes, and because modern society would agree, he is what we shall refer to as a “nice guy.”
Professor Louis Levy is a mysterious character. Though he acknowledges the existence of God, love, happiness and community, he seems to live devoid of all of these pleasures. In his features, he speaks great volumes of wisdom on these subjects as if he packs loads of experience, but watchers get the feeling that he is very aloof and alone from the pleasures of life, and likewise seemingly unaffected by its inherent shortfalls. Professor Levy obviously places no stock in the power of God; he frequently explores the idea that human existence is defined and navigated by our power to create our own destiny—our own luck, fortune, and demise. He says of the early Israelites; “the caring God asks Abraham to sacrifice his own son; we have not succeeded to create a completely loving God.” Levy’s brash willingness to suggest that God is a product of human creation, (and not the other way around), suggests he believes humans are their own captains, and we have created God, or an image of God, which does not suit our human needs. He later comments that “we define ourselves by the choices we’ve made. In fact, we are the sum total of those choices. Human happiness was not designed in creation,” representing his pessimistic, self-empowered perspective on living. Since Professor Levy comprises views that contemporary American society often rejects, we shall call him the “not nice guy.”
Both Rabbi Ben and Professor Levy’s worldviews dictate the way in which they live and their ultimate “success” in life. Ben lives quietly. He cares deeply for others--which we see when he attempts to help Juda-- and cares deeply for the wishes of God. He lives his life obediently to the Lord, but is unfortunately plagued with a progressing blindness throughout the film. Nevertheless, Ben keeps his optimism and ultimately dances happily at a wedding at the film’s end. Professor Levy’s reality is much different; since he believes that he captains his own soul and fate, Professor Levy produces several documentaries discussing his worldviews, then suddenly takes his own life, leaving a note saying “I’ve gone out the window.” This is an action that Ben would never, ever, ever consider performing since God forbids suicide, and Ben’s body—life and death—belong to God. Professor Levy has no problem committing suicide since he does not see life as a sacred item bestowed by God, but as a personal possession; one which is perfectly ethical to create, change and destroy. Ultimately, the discrepancy in their views lurks deeper than their belief or disbelief in a God. Ben believes that the universe stretches beyond his current circumstances, and right actions provide for eternal happiness in an eternal life. Ben believes in something more than this; some omniscient God who defines our happiness. Levy’s idea that our souls and actions are cultivated by our upbringing (“we need a gradient of love to stay in life”) presents a deep faith that this life, the one which we are living, is all we have. It is our playground to enjoy, and observe and create, but there is no point in reserving ourselves in order to ensure happiness for eternity, since we’re not so sure eternity exists. Levy relies on and attempts to understand and define what is tangible in life: family, love, happiness versus an intangible God.
Woody Allen obviously makes the statement that the universe is most certainly NOT a friendly place. Even though Ben lives a pristine life, he still goes blind by the power of his own God! And though Levy harbored a brilliant mind full of fresh philosophy, he was obviously unhappy and killed himself. Cliff Stern, though a good man, loses the girl he loves to a slimy millionaire (so that she can further her career), and Judah prospers despite his vicious murder of Dolores. No, according to Woody Allen, the universe is not a friendly place. For me, it is too early to tell.
So, do nice guys finish last? Leo Tolstoy, Woody Allen and Frank Capra might argue fifteen different ways— but really, no one can say. If we believe that our life here is all that we have to look forward to, and that we captain our destinies, perhaps nice guys do finish last. Perhaps Professor Levy would say that Rabbi Ben finishes last, since he misses out on all of the richness in life (casting doubt on the existence of a loving God or reveling in the philosophy of a powerful self). Rabbi Ben would argue that nice guys most definitely do not finish last, and will be happily feasting in heavenly eternity while the wicked who questioned God and lived recklessly will suffer. But if these murmurs of faith and doubt in both theories had not plague the human mind for all of…forever, no bright, allegorical works such as Crimes and Misdemeanors ever would have been created.

RP#3--Matthew 12:46-50

I enjoy reading the Bible. I have read it cover to cover. I have read the Gospel stories countless times. However, I always carry an ugly, lurking thought every time I read scripture. A seed of doubt was planted somewhere in my gut that causes me to doubt every ounce of faith I’ve ever harbored.
In Matthew 12:49-50, Jesus, “stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, ‘Behold My mother and My brothers! ‘For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother.’” I felt a pang of doubt upon reading these words, and I knew that tiny seed in my gut would act up. Jesus can be admired for pursuing justice, righteousness and kindness, and his words obviously mean that He and we should have such compassion for fellow believers that we should treat them as family. This is all fine and great, what about loyalty? Where was Jesus’ loyalty for His real mother, who gave birth to Him, clothed Him and fed Him. How could He publicly reject her in order to teach the people to embrace other believers? Who could disrespect their mother this way? And the guilty doubt seed grows: If I were an Israelite in Jesus’ time, what would I believe? If Mary McAleer stands for loyalty to family and obedience to tradition, does that pit me (in my 2010 self or 20 C.E. self) against Jesus? Right or wrong, family (particularly my mother) comes before absolutely anyone. If I’d have heard this come out of Jesus’ mouth before a group of followers and believers in crowds, I fear that I would be abhorred! I’m afraid that I would have turned the other way and walked, back to my (most likely) Pharisee ways.
Barbara Reid comments very little on this passage, even though it stood out like bolded letters to me. She summarizes the passage as “True family,” saying “This is the last mention of Jesus’ family members. Those bound to Jesus in discipleship are as family to him and to one another” (73). Couldn’t we consider Mary, the Mother of Jesus a disciple? In Luke 14:27, Jesus says “And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.” If anyone dropped everything they were doing to get up and “carry the cross,” it was the Virgin Mary. Jesus wasn’t even around to set an example for her to follow—she followed a small vision from Angel Gabriel with great faith and gave birth to the greatest historical figure of all time despite social harassment and the extreme unlikelihood of an immaculate conception. How could Jesus betray His own Mother this way, first acknowledging his Apostles as family?
With the understanding that culture in Israel in 20 C.E. differs greatly from our cultural today, I suppose we could try to rationalize Jesus’ action. Perhaps ‘family’ just had a very different connotation, or ‘family’ isn’t as tight as it is today. Perhaps I completely misconstrued Jesus’ words. The beauty and likewise never-ending complexity and controversy of the Gospel resides in the fact that we’ll never really know the answer in consensus. Any Christian could rationalize Jesus’ words in this passage, or we could interpret them 15 different ways. Unfortunately, none of these explanations by 21st Century scholars or Christians or Jews can remove a tiny seed of doubt.

RP#2-Mark Chapter 6

Sashimi and Such

Jesus was human. We know this. However, we also know that humans, being endotherms, must be heterotrophic  and consume energy from outside sources; they must eat. Did Jesus eat? Why, he was documented by Mark and Luke a few times. In the story of Jesus Feeding the Five Thousand, he multiplies five loaves of bread and two fish to fill the stomachs of five thousand hungry followers. In Luke 22 and 24, Jesus ate a piece of broiled fish and honey. And, of course, at the Last Supper, Jesus shares bread and wine with the disciples. But if Jesus was the Son of God, why did he need to eat? If he can conquer the rising waters of the Sea of Galilee, then shouldn’t he be able to conquer his need for energy?

                The most common foods eaten in Jesus’ time were fish, bread, wine, fruits and vegetables, eggs, fowl, cheese, wine, olives, honey, beef and lamb. Pork and crustaceans were not allowed by Jewish law because they were “unclean” (www.jesuscentral.com). This is sometimes called the Mediterranean diet, and is quite nutritious and lean.

                The story of Jesus Feeding the Five Thousand is a story intertwined with the Mediterranean diet. Jesus, before a crowd, provides copious amounts of food to feed five thousand listeners on the shore while he sits in a boat on the Sea of Galilee. The disciples are worried: they tell Jesus “’send them away so that they may go into the surrounding country and villages and buy something for themselves to eat’” (Borg for NRSV 29). Obviously everything in this story is symbolic. Of the many goods eaten in Jesus’ time, bread and fish were the most common and humble of all foods. They were easily attained by fishing in the Sea of Galilee and growing wheat in the fertile area surrounding Israel. However, this is what Jesus had to offer to the people. Though, perhaps Herod would have fed the masses great amounts of beef and lavish food to win their approval, Jesus shows the people that they only need humble bread and fish to fill their stomachs. However, he provides their fill. Perhaps this shows that Jesus is suggesting that faith in God is ever-providing; God will give you as much as you need to be full, but do not expect lavish beef or much wine, since these are creations of the World and His kingdom expands much further than this. God will give you all that you need to survive—be rest-assured, disciples! All Jesus asks is that they have faith in order to receive assurance from God.

                As Borg mentions on page 58, we are not to deliberate about the factuality of this story, because such deliberating causes us to miss the point of the story, since Jesus acted and taught in parables. What we need to grasp from the story is not to follow the Mediterranean diet or how Jesus managed to provide fish cooked and prepared to eat for 5000 people, but we need to realize that Jesus is showing the people that all of their needs would be fulfilled should they choose to follow the path of Jesus. Since they eat bread and fish, we can decipher that the path of Jesus is not one filled with lavish and luxurious material things of this world, but is instead filled with love and faith to fulfill the needs of the soul, rather than the body. Perhaps the story which is most about food is not, in fact, about food at all!

Re: Religion in The Roman World

Re: Religion in The Roman World

Marianne Bonz’s essay describing the several Roman Gods and Goddesses made me feel much like the Roman people. Like all of humanity including the sturdy Romans, I have always embodied a thriving curiosity about the world around me. If I could, I would love to know exactly how everything in the natural world works, so I study Biology. Bonz’s description of the divine deities obviously made sense to the Roman people since the purposes of each God or Goddess explained a natural cause for which the people had no other explanation. The Romans could not whip out their microscope or pH testing kits or reference Linus Pauline’s theory on electron bonding—the Romans simply did not yet have the technology to decipher the mysteries of the natural world. So, they adhered to principles that deities created for them.

What was the great ball of light in the sky? Was it light? Who was in charge of its rays, and why does it warm Earth around us? Why, because Apollo, “an archer-god, whose arrows could either wound or heal,” had “rays [that] strike the earth like darts” (Bonz). Biologically, I would say that the Sun’s rays do move like darts or arrows in all directions and straight lines, and the vitamin D produced as a product of sun exposure on human skin can dry and prevent hemorrhages such as rosaceous skin and certain mild acne. UVA rays are proven to prevent and heal psoriasis skin diseases as well (webmd.com). As we all know, overexposure to sun is “wounding,” since excessive UVA/B rays can cause painful sunburns and skin cancers.

Why are men attracted to women? The Romans would say that Aphrodite persuaded sailors, “exud[ing] charm and seduction” (Bonz). They might say that a man had been hexed just as Cupid shot himself in the foot in pursuit of Psyche. However, Biologists might argue than men lust after women due to the different investment of male and female sex gametes. In all animals, males produce many more sperm than they could ever need to reproduce, but females produce very few. This principle of anisogomy states that males will forever relentlessly pursue females.

In hopes of a successful harvest, Romans might consult the Goddess Demeter, “the goddess of fertility and of the fruits of the harvest…bestow[ing] the benefits of the earth’s abundance” (Bonz). Farmers of the 21^st Century might consult a meteorologist, climatologist, or an Almanac—empirical data. They might guess that a period of unusually warm winter (El Nino weather pattern) might be a precursor to a period of unusually cold winter (La Nina weather pattern). They might realize that, while wine grapes might never grown in Northern Wisconsin, they might grow in Southern Ireland since low pressure air currents bring warm air and climate to County Kerry and the Dingle Peninsula in South Ireland. Roman farmers prayed relentlessly to Demeter in hopes of a fruitful crop, instead.

So we inevitably ask ourselves the question; which is the more superior approach for explaining natural phenomena?  As a 21^st Century scientist, I am compelled to defame the Roman belief in Gods and Goddesses overshadowing and controlling Earth complete dogma bullshit. Even those of us who do not study science will hear ourselves saying that the Romans “made up” or “created” tales of powerful deities to explain the world around them. But who is correct? We readily admit that nothing on Earth is fact. Even our hand before us is an upside-down perception taking place in our optic nerve and brain. We do not “see” it, our brain tells us what our eyes are viewing, and we call it “hand.” All we see and know are just theories we have cultivated reliant on faith, logic, and test, which do not differ at all from the Romans’ approach in their belief in deities at all. Romans’ faith in Zeus/Jupiter, who was “the most powerful and the most wise” relied solely on faith, logic and test as well. What can be noted, however, is that the Romans (though superior to their surrounding counterparts) did not accredit their existence and survival to their own doing. They relied on supernatural forces who guided their existence in manifestations such as arrow-like rays and rain amid a drought. Perhaps humanity will never gain the confidence to devote our survival to the brilliance of the human mind. Maybe we will always seek a supernatural being, reason, or group to worship. But do not read this too loudly, my blasphemy might merit me a lightning bolt-strike straight from Zeus!... (or from electrostatic attraction between positive and negative charges between the stratosphere and the ground)

MMM

           

Who am I?

1. Paragraph

I am a multi-faceted individual who revels in curiosity and discovery. I love science, animals, philosophy, and politics. Social diplomacy is of interest to me; I like to think that it is one of my greatest strengths. I love learning above all else, but I am easily stressed by certain inevitable conformity, such as practices in education and politics. I love God, America, and horses above all else. Though a staunch Republican and Secretary of GUCR, I love Earth and appreciate conservation efforts, especially in caring for Earth's animal population. I firmly believe in remaining calm through struggle and viewing life as a whole rather than small, detailed events. Therefore, I believe trying and working at bits of everything is much better than committing to any one thing. Therefore, my life is quite compartmentalized--some would call me a hypocrite in many ways, but who knows better than I? I believe that God plans everything, and service to God and country is vital. Someday, I hope to serve in the military as a doctor and become a General Practitioner in a rural area. I love life. 

2. Sentence

Through good and bad, it's all beautiful to me. 

3. Word

Onion

Who is Jesus?

1. Paragraph:

Jesus is the Son of God. He is the Messiah, and the human manifestation of the Lord. He was born of the Virgin Mary and lived a perfect life as a Holy beacon for believers. He sufferred, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate--which He freely accepted. He was resurrected on the third day and ascended into Heaven, where He lives and reigns with the Father. As a historical figure, He is a hero to all mankind since He was kind, virtuous, truthful, and faithful. He can be noted as the beginning of Christianity and the belief of 32% of the Earth.

2. Sentence:

Jesus is the Son of God; the Messiah who came down from Heaven to free mankind from sin.

3. Word:

Messiah.