Reflection on Modern Crucifixions

Here's a theological reflection on how to treat others as we ought. The blogger is an interesting one; though I find him disagreeable on other social issues, I agree with him here.

http://criticalrealismandthenewtestament.blogspot.ca/2014/10/recrucifying-jesus.html

AMEN! #KARMA #BAH

http://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com/2014/10/11/karma/

The Jewish Jesus and American Christianity

Presently, I'm translating the Fourth Gospel, John. In here, I'm often surprised to see references to "the Jews", or, at times, the ambiguous term "Judeans". As a post WWII student, I find this unsettling. However, as I make progress throughout the gospel, I see the usages in a nuanced fashion; this is evident in chapter 11. Regardless of how I feel, however, I still need to understand the gospel within its contemporary setting. For me to impose my modern ideals is to do violence to the text, and I refuse to do that! On one hand, if the text has friction with the first century Jews, then there's nothing I can do about it, and will have to read and understand the text as how it stands. That, however, does not justify any actions taken against Jews-that would be an abuse of a text as well. Yet, on the other hand, there is another danger we face being modern Christians, in particular having fundamentalist tendencies. I've heard many people discuss "legalism", and reference "the Law" with disdain. This, of course, is with the stereotyping of Jews, both from this time, and of the past. (Oddly enough, the Jews seem to have more freedom in things, e.g., drinking, clothing, etc.) Frequently, I hear of "Judaizers" in discussion of Pauline literature, and it's always in a negative context. This, too, is anachronistic, but on the other end of the spectrum. Since the reformation (though the inquisition made use of racism too), Christianity has had a tendency to downplay Jesus' Jewishness, and  emphasize Jesus in a non-historical light. In my biblical studies courses, I'm surrounded and taught by wonderful Baptists, but I find myself in disagreement with them in their approach to the scriptures-this is not because I'm a Pentecostal (sorry about that, guys-it's just far more than that). I see that their reformed traditions have them interpret the Bible with bias, and that bias has to be seen for what it is. As part of a separate discussion, but since I enjoy irony, these fellow students, and professors also have a tendency to be Zionist, an odd contradiction.
Now, I am not alluding to, or suggesting that the reformation tradition is antisemitic, in particular toward first century Jews. These are tendencies that have been strong due to readings of certain traditions, Luther in particular (I was just reminded this morning how Luther was just vile at times towards others, e.g., Zwingli, along with Jews). Though I think Luther is one of the best theologians, I find myself not caring for his theology.  What I am saying is that we must be cautious of how we interpret the scriptures. We can look through our perceptions, and see what we've been told to see, and not anything else. This post is to show that we can take two different approaches to the scriptures and be nowhere near the truth. I have to be cautious as to anachronistically being apologetic in my reading, because of WWII, and others have to be cautious in reading through antisemitism. As another side note, I am not a Zionist. Hence, showing another paradox.

Here's the post that got me on my little, but sturdy (because of my weight) soapbox.
http://historicalchaos.wordpress.com/2014/10/11/rudolf-rocker-on-houston-stewart-chamberlain-and-fascist-scholarship/

Racial Profiling and Philosophy Talk

Those who know me know that I enjoy National Public Radio. So, I'm recommending one of my favorite shows, Philosophy Talk, today's program in particular. This is especially important because it deals with racial profiling, and, well, I'm a minority. Hence, here's the link. Now, this won't show tonight, but it'll be on tomorrow.
http://www.philosophytalk.org/

Quote of the day

"Christianity didn't begin as a new religious experience; it began with the claim that something had happened, something that had changed the world...something that had happened to Jesus." 

-N.T. Wright 

Sleeping In Church

Now, I'll confess, there are times that some sermons are a bit dull, and even I have fallen asleep, at times (those were times of working early morning shifts), but if you're tired, then do your best to get rest at some other point of the weekend. Now, if you don't, make sure I'm not around with my phone.

I believe that Sunday morning services are to be refreshing, but in a different sort of way.

-Steven 

An Observation on a Tweet

 
  I have a friend who has attached a link on her Instagram profile of a speech given by an abortion-survivor (Here's the link! http://youtu.be/q5YlJ9CZ9fI). Through this subtle act, she states her position on an extremely controversial matter. And, very importantly, she does this as a woman. This tells me a few things about her, and I will take a bit of time to show my observations, or assumptions. In comparison to others (including myself), she places the link to point to something other than herself, and yet she connects it to her, with the link being juxtaposed to her picture, and brief comment-her bio is closely tied with her stance; thus, showing her to be a mixture of personality, and conviction. This is not as a means to deflect anything from herself, a means to avoid being noted because of insecurities, as it's commonly done with deflection, rather, it shows that she believes in something other than herself; she shows that there is something important outside of her (a great relief in a narcissistic culture). Thus, she is not showing insecurity, rather humility-this, I find, is admirable, especially since I shamelessly put the link to this blog, which I see as an extension of myself.With that being said, her position has made me think about abortion more than I usually do. Not that I find it unimportant, but it is something that I've had a hard time placing it in a sensitive perspective. That's not to qualify my lack of contribution to the cause, rather that it's a tough subject for me to work through. As it is my hope that this post helps, I devote it to her. But, if it's absurd, and damaging, then, it's to go on as a memory of my absurdity, and to that I say, "my bad."
  It's worth noting, things of this sort (wrestling with issues like this) are the reasons why this blog exists, and it's also worth mentioning, this is a difficult topic to discuss.
   Coming from a patriarchal society, we find that it's easy to subjugate women to our preconceived notions-this is found in, both, North American and Mexican culture. Women had to fight for suffrage, and some (especially in school campuses),now, are fighting for justice in rape (which is an outrage!). Our culture, our American one, has a prepackaged context- we know that it's wrong to like soccer (which I find fairly entertaining), and to not like football (for which I don't truly care). Or, the Bible and the Constitution are pretty much the same thing (ok, ok, I'll stop with that one, but that irks me). Along with that, we, as men, are supposed to take pain "like a man", or that someone who has a pathetic toss "throws like a girl"-we also compliment girls when we say she's like "one of the boys"; we do this without thinking that that places men at a higher level than women. (Women and men are different, but no one is more important, or any less than anyone else-there is no superior sex.) This, also, runs smack in the face of the recent killings by Elliot Rodger because of misogyny. Hence, it's difficult to come with a acceptable argument against abortion as an outsider. There are too many layers of cultural contexts that I must pull out of before I can honestly say that I can think this through without the pull of my unnecessary biases. Now, please don't misunderstand, everyone will present any argument with bias-there is no such thing as a disinterested observation, or argument, but in the name of equality, I must be sure I'm not presenting something polluted. Hence, I will deal with one statement posed by a man, and this will be my first post dealing with abortion-I hope that I'll be able to work through this issue in the near future, and I will be able to help others throughout the process.
 

  Though I will be dealing with the second statement, I will agree with his first tweet. It is an important discussion, and as Christians we must be wise in presenting our side of the discussion, in particular with those that are willing to have a dialogue. 

  Now, when I first read his tweet, it made me think, "hmmm...interesting point...". However, as I thought it through, I saw it for what it was, a non-sequitur. Firstly, he works from the basis that there is morality. His position works from a division of wrong and right. Not only does he have that presupposition, but he also states that termination is bad, but not in this context. Hence, we have two parts of his foundations: there is a right and wrong, and termination, at times, falls under the wrong category. 

  He then makes the statement about terminating "a person who doesn't exist". Of course, he is emphasizing that he doesn't believe that a fetus is a person. But, can anyone really make such a statement about someone who doesn't exist? It is now under the category of non-existence. I dare ask, if a fetus is nothing, what is he arguing? Apparently, his whole argument is based on nothing. Termination can only work if there is something to terminate; there has to be something started. With no beginning, there can be no end. An end to nothing is nothing within itself, and that's just to start! Along with that, he states that rejection of sex would be murder. Of course, that's absurd. Once again, there would be nothing created to terminate. His logic works backwards, giving him that much credit. Termination in itself is an end, and denying sex is refusing to make a beginning. This is also out of touch with reproduction. Sex doesn't always produce pregnancy; if that were the case, there would be many people I know with enough children to make their own small town. It seems as though he equating termination with non-production. Thus, his idle, non-baby-producing, tweeting was the equivalent of an abortion. 

  The argument, therefore, makes the assumption that one can terminate nothing, or no one. In termination, non-existence is the end, not the start. Thus, we are given a non-sequitur. I know that I didn't deal with abortion directly, and I will eventually, but as I stated earlier, there's a lot that has to be considered before I can give a sufficient argument. As a note, this, undoubtedly, is full of non-sequiturs in itself, and is incomplete, but I this is unedited, and quickly written (all in one sitting). Also, I'm not a philosopher, so I argue from an untrained perspective. Please feel free to comment, and ask questions (I'm assuming I have a true readership).