![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
The Problem of Evil
Disinterested Inquirer: So, Jaina, how was your first day back in classes?
Me: Well, you know, it's funny you should ask that...
Friends, this is going to be a very interesting semester. Because while I have General Psychology (for which I don't actually need the stupid clicker, as it has NO impact on my grade whatsoever and... frankly, I just don't care that much, though I found it laughable that he kept insisting that we'd use it for the rest of our college career, when I clearly have never had to use one in my entire college career), Intro to Media Studies (we watched the flying scene from Titanic on the first day of class. What does that tell you?), and Kirkland's WWII history class (it's Kirkland. I could not go and still get an A - I know, because that's what I did last semester too), all of which will be really easy, I'm also taking Goddess Religions.
I believe I've mentioned to the majority of parties with any interest in this little blog my reasons for taking the class. In short, one should always know the enemy very well. It's like Admiral Thrawn, for you Star Wars nerds out there - study a people's art, and you understand the people. Or, in this case, just take a class from them and see what they teach. I mean, what better way to figure out what they believe than to try to learn it from them, right? I feel like I'm a spy in that class, like I'm an interloper on a Top Secret Mission from High Up, looking to infiltrate the enemy base and learn everything I can.
You probably think I'm exaggerating. Let me assure you that I'm not. I do not belong in that class. Everything makes it abundantly clear, from the fact that (apparently) it's supposed to be restricted to juniors only (we just... won't mention that I'm a senior, because really, does it matter at ALL if I have an extra semester under my belt?) to the things we're being taught. I am the enemy to these people: a conservative, Christian woman who believes in the Bible and - lo and behold - actually reads the thing enough to know when they're lying to me. Or at least strongly suspect it. I never would have believed it before I walked in there, but I tell you truly, I was under attack for an hour in that room. Satan knew who I was and why I was there and he was doing his damnedest (literally) to undermine it - by a spiritual attack. I didn't actually think they manifested themselves like that - I didn't know I could feel like I was under siege. I didn't know that I could feel something battering at my spirit, attacking me with fear and doubt and sometimes, even terror. And yet that's what happened. I was attacked today in class.
Now, there has been one other time in which I have been attacked, and that time I fell. Or, rather, I didn't fall when I was supposed to. But that was a couple of years ago, at the Source, and the minute I realized what had happened, what I had done, I repented and swore that it would never happen again - in the future, I would rely on God when such an attack came and I would prevail, instead of trying to rely on what I thought and my own meager defense. But that attack was peanuts to this. And this time, by the grace of God, I withstood.
You all know me. You know that I generally don't mess with stuff like "spiritual attacks" and that I'm conservative enough that people who even lift their hands in worship kind of freak me out, let alone the kneeling or writhing on the floor varieties of worship. Some part of me sees that and judges it, sees it as foolish and kind of cheesy, or scary. And I may never get past the discomfort that gives me, but I do hope someday to stop being so judgmental about it. But I never would have believed me, back in high school, say. And now... there was evil in that room. Palpable evil. I don't understand it, but there it was. And that's what I get to stew in every other day, for an hour at a time, all semester. Thankfully, I have an hour before that class every day, after general psych, in which I can prepare myself - gird myself for battle, as it were. My plan is to go to the chapel on campus (which is quite a walk from the Clark building), which so far has nothing scheduled earlier than 11:30, and so should be empty at 10 in the morning - unless it takes a while to prepare, in which case I'll need a new plan. But the idea just now is to pray, to pull out a Bible and read, and do whatever I need to do in order to prepare myself for the trial ahead of me. Later, when it gets warmer, maybe I'll find a little place outside, but I want somewhere private. I don't need people interrupting me or staring at me during this time, I need to be focusing on God. It's that whole Matthew 6:6 thing - when you pray, go into your room and close the door. I don't want to make a production of this, it's for me, and it's private. The production will come later.
Now, since this is going to be incredibly long, and I know not everyone will want to read it all, I'm going to hide this (and all future) reflection on the day's lecture behind one of those handy LiveJournal cuts. If you care to read it, click on the link. Otherwise, you can go ahead and skip forward - I'll understand your not wanting to spend that much time on my journal. I do hope you'll take the time to skim it, since it has some fascinating claims to explore, but that's your call.
Now, there's something I must ask of all of you. Keep me in line. This is going to be really hard on me, walking into that class every day and having to somehow behave toward these people as Christ would have me do. To speak the truth in love - but most importantly, to SPEAK. Anyone who has had a class with me knows that I'm the quiet one in the front who never says much but always seems to do pretty well. I can't be that girl in this class. I have to speak up. That's why I'm there. And I failed pretty badly today at that, but thankfully we have journal entries due every day where I can voice some of my concerns. I plan to address the henotheistic issue in today's, which is optional, and we'll see what she says.
I'm also being indoctrinated against the Truth. And in order to withstand that, I'll need your prayers. I'll need you to call me out if I say something that strikes you as funny. Keep me accountable. I know I've got God on my side and I know he'll defend me. Part of the way He'll do that is through you - the people who know me and love me best - helping me out.
There's a beautiful irony in the Bible verse of the day that shows up on my Google desktop today. It's one of my favorites: Zephaniah 3:17. It reads, "The LORD your God is in your midst, a mighty one who will save; he will rejoice over you with gladness; he will quiet you by his love; he will exult over you with loud singing." I lived that verse today, and it was amazing.
okayMe: Well, you know, it's funny you should ask that...
Friends, this is going to be a very interesting semester. Because while I have General Psychology (for which I don't actually need the stupid clicker, as it has NO impact on my grade whatsoever and... frankly, I just don't care that much, though I found it laughable that he kept insisting that we'd use it for the rest of our college career, when I clearly have never had to use one in my entire college career), Intro to Media Studies (we watched the flying scene from Titanic on the first day of class. What does that tell you?), and Kirkland's WWII history class (it's Kirkland. I could not go and still get an A - I know, because that's what I did last semester too), all of which will be really easy, I'm also taking Goddess Religions.
I believe I've mentioned to the majority of parties with any interest in this little blog my reasons for taking the class. In short, one should always know the enemy very well. It's like Admiral Thrawn, for you Star Wars nerds out there - study a people's art, and you understand the people. Or, in this case, just take a class from them and see what they teach. I mean, what better way to figure out what they believe than to try to learn it from them, right? I feel like I'm a spy in that class, like I'm an interloper on a Top Secret Mission from High Up, looking to infiltrate the enemy base and learn everything I can.
You probably think I'm exaggerating. Let me assure you that I'm not. I do not belong in that class. Everything makes it abundantly clear, from the fact that (apparently) it's supposed to be restricted to juniors only (we just... won't mention that I'm a senior, because really, does it matter at ALL if I have an extra semester under my belt?) to the things we're being taught. I am the enemy to these people: a conservative, Christian woman who believes in the Bible and - lo and behold - actually reads the thing enough to know when they're lying to me. Or at least strongly suspect it. I never would have believed it before I walked in there, but I tell you truly, I was under attack for an hour in that room. Satan knew who I was and why I was there and he was doing his damnedest (literally) to undermine it - by a spiritual attack. I didn't actually think they manifested themselves like that - I didn't know I could feel like I was under siege. I didn't know that I could feel something battering at my spirit, attacking me with fear and doubt and sometimes, even terror. And yet that's what happened. I was attacked today in class.
Now, there has been one other time in which I have been attacked, and that time I fell. Or, rather, I didn't fall when I was supposed to. But that was a couple of years ago, at the Source, and the minute I realized what had happened, what I had done, I repented and swore that it would never happen again - in the future, I would rely on God when such an attack came and I would prevail, instead of trying to rely on what I thought and my own meager defense. But that attack was peanuts to this. And this time, by the grace of God, I withstood.
You all know me. You know that I generally don't mess with stuff like "spiritual attacks" and that I'm conservative enough that people who even lift their hands in worship kind of freak me out, let alone the kneeling or writhing on the floor varieties of worship. Some part of me sees that and judges it, sees it as foolish and kind of cheesy, or scary. And I may never get past the discomfort that gives me, but I do hope someday to stop being so judgmental about it. But I never would have believed me, back in high school, say. And now... there was evil in that room. Palpable evil. I don't understand it, but there it was. And that's what I get to stew in every other day, for an hour at a time, all semester. Thankfully, I have an hour before that class every day, after general psych, in which I can prepare myself - gird myself for battle, as it were. My plan is to go to the chapel on campus (which is quite a walk from the Clark building), which so far has nothing scheduled earlier than 11:30, and so should be empty at 10 in the morning - unless it takes a while to prepare, in which case I'll need a new plan. But the idea just now is to pray, to pull out a Bible and read, and do whatever I need to do in order to prepare myself for the trial ahead of me. Later, when it gets warmer, maybe I'll find a little place outside, but I want somewhere private. I don't need people interrupting me or staring at me during this time, I need to be focusing on God. It's that whole Matthew 6:6 thing - when you pray, go into your room and close the door. I don't want to make a production of this, it's for me, and it's private. The production will come later.
Now, since this is going to be incredibly long, and I know not everyone will want to read it all, I'm going to hide this (and all future) reflection on the day's lecture behind one of those handy LiveJournal cuts. If you care to read it, click on the link. Otherwise, you can go ahead and skip forward - I'll understand your not wanting to spend that much time on my journal. I do hope you'll take the time to skim it, since it has some fascinating claims to explore, but that's your call.
So, what exactly did we "learn" today? Well, our lecture was titled "Assumptions that affect the way we view the ancient culture" and was entirely appropriate, though certainly not in the way I'm sure the prof. thought when she wrote it up. In fact, many of them were things she assumed that we believed, or were not assumptions at all, but simple fact. Take, for example, the first one: Monotheism is the Truth, with a capital T. Well... um, that's because it is. I mean, okay, granted, not everyone believes it - but that doesn't make it any less true. And even if it's not something that is absolutely, 100% true, for those of you who are thinking, "it's not true, you arrogant @#$%," there are those of us for whom that is NOT a simple "assumption." People like me have spent a great deal of time determining exactly why it's not just an assumption but is a belief which is grounded in fact, and you'll have to give me some other facts in order to make me believe otherwise. Let's follow the evidence to where leads, shall we, rather than starting with a conclusion and looking for evidence to support it?
Let's be fair, though - she does give "evidence." She says that the earliest Jewish and Christian cultures were henotheistic, meaning that they worshipped Yaweh but believed in the existence of other gods. In researching this claim, I came across a very fascinating (though not surprising) assertion in Wikipedia: Gnosticism is generally henotheistic. (I can almost see the light bulb going on over Mom's head when she reads that, and hear the knowing gasp she gives!) How poetically appropriate, that a woman who is clearly a feminist theologian should label early Judaism and Christianity with henotheism, whereas it is actually the gnostic traditions from which feminist theology draws so much of the justification for its claims that is henotheistic. No Christians, early or otherwise, have been labeled henotheistic from what I can glean - at least not reliably. And rightly so, for the New Testament contains nothing to suggest a henotheistic worldview. As to Judaism, there are claims that certain Biblical passages suggest henotheism, but I have not found a single one that stands up to that scrutiny. Granted, this is over a ten-minute Google/Wikipedia search, but if this were true you would expect to find better documentation than "some scholars believe this passage may suggest..." sorts of things. Indeed, she herself cited a Biblical story to support this claim: Solomon allowed his wives to bring in idols of other gods to the Temple. She left it there, but I remembered there being more to the story, such as that being a BAD idea and very much frowned upon. So, I decided to look it up. I finally discovered the story in 1 Kings 11, and sure enough, Solomon, an old man, married a bunch of women whom God had specifically forbidden to the men of Israel, knowing that they would tear their husbands away from love of Him. And, lo and behold, not only did Solomon build temples to the goddesses worshipped by his wives (he didn't put them in God's Temple, in fact) in order to please them, he worshipped those goddesses themselves. And, of course, God was not so happy with this development - and Solomon's son would lose the kingdom of Israel (barring a very small remnant) because of it. Nowhere in the passage could I find any hint that these goddesses were real, only that God was angry with Solomon's insistence on worshipping them instead of Him. And rightly so, considering that the worship of these goddesses sometimes included child sacrifice. (On a side note, it's interesting how all these women who are so delighted with goddess worship tend to overlook little details like worship via KILLING CHILDREN IN RITUAL SACRIFICE. But, then, things aren't so different now, after all - they're just killing the babies before they're born, instead of after, and the sacrifice is to themselves rather than to some external idol. Bet you never thought of abortion like THAT, did you?) So we'll go ahead and call Jewish henotheism flat-out WRONG.
She continued with the assumptions, saying that we assume that monotheism is ethically superior to polytheism. I don't know about that - ethics are more of how we interact with each other, whereas monotheism and polytheism are how we interact with the divine. However, while there have been horrible things done in the name of God (which should not be mistaken with the way God actually wants us to behave, though it often is), there have also been horrible things done in the names of other gods, and those are often in ritual worship (like the child sacrifice above or the Aztec practice of ripping a person's still-beating heart from their chest as a sacrifice... yep, that's not sick at all, only the Christian God leads to senseless violence. Of course). This is where she put in her plug (I swear, it was absolutely inevitable) that "If only we could remove the masculine language from our discourse about the divine, wouldn't that be wonderful?" I panicked for a second and drew a blank - I knew that was wrong somehow but I couldn't figure out how - until I finally realized that I spent WEEKS writing that Sophia paper about this SAME THING: As Christians, we believe in the Bible. And in the Bible, God has chosen to reveal Himself in masculine terms, for reasons of His own which are not limited to the self-worship which seems inherent in goddess religions. I felt like I passed a test or something when I finally remembered that - and who knows? perhaps I did.
The next assumption was that Animism is primitive and silly. Animism, for those of you unfamiliar with the terminology, is the belief that everything from humans to rocks have souls, and by extension, is holy. Now, I don't know about you, but even when I was a very little girl, this idea seemed primitive and silly. I mean, who honestly believes that rocks have souls? I mean, sure I sometimes anthropomorphize inanimate objects when I talk about them, but it's not like I believe that they have souls. Or even that they think, for that matter. I'm certain that Jesus didn't mean the rocks had souls when he said that if the people kept quiet the very rocks would cry out (that's in Luke 19, for those who are curious). She tried to put a green spin on it and say "Oh, what would we do if we believed the whole earth to be holy?" Which, whatever - we'd probably rationalize our way out of changing a thing, being as we seem to be good at that sort of thing. But then she went into this whole long thing about how Christianity is so awful at respecting the earth, and blah blah blah. She conceded that there are passages in the Bible which instruct us to take care of the earth. But then she went on to accuse the Bible of giving us domination over the earth, which apparently is a bad thing. See, I was under the impression that we WERE given domination over all the earth, with instructions to maintain it well - meaning that we should take care of our home, not because it's divine, but because God, who IS divine, instructed us to take care of his property. So... how does that make animism better? Oh, I know she didn't come right out and SAY that goddess religions or whatever else are better than Christianity, but you'd have to be a robot not to notice that she's constantly referring back to why Christianity is simply wrong, or inadequate, or evil, or whatever else. I was hoping that I would be wrong in anticipating this class to be a direct attack on Christianity, but I was only too correct. There is nothing about God that is good enough, aside from token concessions that mean nothing.
Ahh, now we get to a fun one. Apparently we assume that religious traditions in which sexuality and fertility are central concerns are inferior. To what is not stated, but you know it's to Christianity, just like everything else. The basic idea is, Christianity is dumb because it represses sexuality - and Paul is the worst of the lot, because he says we shouldn't have sex at all (class giggles), and if we really really have to do it we better get married and then only do it within wedlock (more giggles), and even THEN we better not have FUN doing it because procreation is the ONLY reason to EVER have sex and there's not thing sacred or beautiful or holy about it (class erupts in full-on laughter). Silly Christians, don't they know anything? ...sigh. Unfortunately, this is an altogether too common belief regarding Christianity, and it drives me bonkers. Let's get one thing straight: sex is not bad. Sex is not even not good. It is, however, an intensely private and intimate and HOLY thing in which a man and a woman become one flesh, which is not something to be taken lightly. The thing with which Christians (the ones who read the Bible, anyway, and read Song of Songs for what it is) take issue is not sex, but the way it is used today as a substitute for real human relationships, and a cure-all, and something lewd and crude. The way the modern world views sex is disgusting. It's a marketing tool. It's a bragging point (ever heard of the Mile High Club?). It's a trophy. It's a weapon. It's an escape. It's entertainment. It's a way to make money. It's sick! How DARE you take the intimacy of two people knowing each other that closely (and yes, I think the Biblical euphemism is very appropriate) and make it so public? It's sacred, yes, and the reason Christians take it the way we do is because it IS so important. It's not something to share with just anyone. There's a reason I'm still a virgin, and it's because I want to share that kind of intimacy with a man who deserves it, and to whom I have promised my life. I don't want to treat it like it's just a fun time I could go have here and there. I want it to MATTER, to be more. Now, who respects sex more, a Christian like me, or the temple prostitute who is sleeping with more men then she will remember as a form of "worship"?
We're not even going to bother with the "assumption" that women are inferior and therefore not worthy of serious study. I am so sick of dealing with that stuff. The feminist movement was back in the 60's - it's now 2008, nearly 50 years later. NEWS FLASH: We have achieved equality with men - in some places we've managed to subordinate them! You can stop now, you won! Sheesh, get over yourselves already! (By the way, Professor Mitchell is exactly the right age to be all kinds of into this sort of old-school feminism, so it's not surprising.)
All right, we're nearly there. If you've stuck with me this long, applaud yourself, because this has taken me hours to write and I wouldn't be surprised if it's taken you nearly that long to read. Two more points, and then I'm done, I promise. Okay, maybe three. But we're close.
So. Assumptions about humans and cultures. There were several subcategories in this one, the first of note being that ancient cultures divide the world into the secular and the spiritual like we do. As her example, she gave Hinduism, which, she explained, "is a way of life" rather than just a religion. And that leads me to the question, is Christianity - TRUE Christianity - not a way of life? If one is truly a Christian, he will live differently. He will not be able to do otherwise, since God has changed his heart - removed his heart of stone and given him a heart of flesh, as it says in Ezekiel. If you want an example, just look at Saul, who became Paul. Talk about a changed lifestyle - from persecuting Christians to spreading the Gospel and writing a sizable chunk of the New Testament is a rather huge change, I would imagine. Granted, that's an extreme. But it's not possible to live in a relationship with the Living God and not be changed in every aspect of your life. It's just not. So let's not pretend that other religions are the only ones which are more of a lifestyle than a happy thought now and then.
The last point has really nothing to do with her lecture. I mean, she said it, and -gasp!- I agree with her, but my thoughts really go way beyond anything that was even mentioned in class. She said that ancient people were just as smart as we are today. Maybe they didn't know as much stuff, but their mental capacity was just as good as ours is today. And my very first thought was, yeah! So, doesn't that mean that we haven't evolved since then? I mean, obviously we haven't changed species or anything, but you'd think that if we were evolving to something else our mental capacity would be increasing. And yet, that's simply not the case. The mindset that primitive men were somehow less intelligent comes directly from an evolutionary world view, where we have evolved in intelligence since the early Biblical times. Just a thought.
That was all that stuck out to me - which is a good 90% of her lecture. Go figure. One thing that particularly stood out to me (in a very annoying sort of way) was when she was talking about sex (I think) and how more conservative Christian circles are bad about it but some of the more liberal ones are loosening up on their ideals regarding sex. Only, while she had no problem thinking of the word "conservative" to describe the ones who were on the wrong side (in her view), she somehow couldn't find the right word to describe the more "open-minded" of their counterparts. Using the term "liberal" apparently did not occur to her. Dad will find it amusing that I was a hair's breadth away from offering "liberal" when she paused and audibly searched for the word she wanted, but I couldn't quite get it out before she decided on "open-minded" and moved on. Still, I was flabbergasted that, while "conservative" crossed her lips like a curse with the ease of normal conversation, "liberal" does not seem to be in her vocabulary. Sigh. And she didn't even seem to think anything was wrong with it - nor, for that matter, did anyone else in the class.
And if I have to do that every time I have that class to process my thoughts, it might be a very long semester.
Let's be fair, though - she does give "evidence." She says that the earliest Jewish and Christian cultures were henotheistic, meaning that they worshipped Yaweh but believed in the existence of other gods. In researching this claim, I came across a very fascinating (though not surprising) assertion in Wikipedia: Gnosticism is generally henotheistic. (I can almost see the light bulb going on over Mom's head when she reads that, and hear the knowing gasp she gives!) How poetically appropriate, that a woman who is clearly a feminist theologian should label early Judaism and Christianity with henotheism, whereas it is actually the gnostic traditions from which feminist theology draws so much of the justification for its claims that is henotheistic. No Christians, early or otherwise, have been labeled henotheistic from what I can glean - at least not reliably. And rightly so, for the New Testament contains nothing to suggest a henotheistic worldview. As to Judaism, there are claims that certain Biblical passages suggest henotheism, but I have not found a single one that stands up to that scrutiny. Granted, this is over a ten-minute Google/Wikipedia search, but if this were true you would expect to find better documentation than "some scholars believe this passage may suggest..." sorts of things. Indeed, she herself cited a Biblical story to support this claim: Solomon allowed his wives to bring in idols of other gods to the Temple. She left it there, but I remembered there being more to the story, such as that being a BAD idea and very much frowned upon. So, I decided to look it up. I finally discovered the story in 1 Kings 11, and sure enough, Solomon, an old man, married a bunch of women whom God had specifically forbidden to the men of Israel, knowing that they would tear their husbands away from love of Him. And, lo and behold, not only did Solomon build temples to the goddesses worshipped by his wives (he didn't put them in God's Temple, in fact) in order to please them, he worshipped those goddesses themselves. And, of course, God was not so happy with this development - and Solomon's son would lose the kingdom of Israel (barring a very small remnant) because of it. Nowhere in the passage could I find any hint that these goddesses were real, only that God was angry with Solomon's insistence on worshipping them instead of Him. And rightly so, considering that the worship of these goddesses sometimes included child sacrifice. (On a side note, it's interesting how all these women who are so delighted with goddess worship tend to overlook little details like worship via KILLING CHILDREN IN RITUAL SACRIFICE. But, then, things aren't so different now, after all - they're just killing the babies before they're born, instead of after, and the sacrifice is to themselves rather than to some external idol. Bet you never thought of abortion like THAT, did you?) So we'll go ahead and call Jewish henotheism flat-out WRONG.
She continued with the assumptions, saying that we assume that monotheism is ethically superior to polytheism. I don't know about that - ethics are more of how we interact with each other, whereas monotheism and polytheism are how we interact with the divine. However, while there have been horrible things done in the name of God (which should not be mistaken with the way God actually wants us to behave, though it often is), there have also been horrible things done in the names of other gods, and those are often in ritual worship (like the child sacrifice above or the Aztec practice of ripping a person's still-beating heart from their chest as a sacrifice... yep, that's not sick at all, only the Christian God leads to senseless violence. Of course). This is where she put in her plug (I swear, it was absolutely inevitable) that "If only we could remove the masculine language from our discourse about the divine, wouldn't that be wonderful?" I panicked for a second and drew a blank - I knew that was wrong somehow but I couldn't figure out how - until I finally realized that I spent WEEKS writing that Sophia paper about this SAME THING: As Christians, we believe in the Bible. And in the Bible, God has chosen to reveal Himself in masculine terms, for reasons of His own which are not limited to the self-worship which seems inherent in goddess religions. I felt like I passed a test or something when I finally remembered that - and who knows? perhaps I did.
The next assumption was that Animism is primitive and silly. Animism, for those of you unfamiliar with the terminology, is the belief that everything from humans to rocks have souls, and by extension, is holy. Now, I don't know about you, but even when I was a very little girl, this idea seemed primitive and silly. I mean, who honestly believes that rocks have souls? I mean, sure I sometimes anthropomorphize inanimate objects when I talk about them, but it's not like I believe that they have souls. Or even that they think, for that matter. I'm certain that Jesus didn't mean the rocks had souls when he said that if the people kept quiet the very rocks would cry out (that's in Luke 19, for those who are curious). She tried to put a green spin on it and say "Oh, what would we do if we believed the whole earth to be holy?" Which, whatever - we'd probably rationalize our way out of changing a thing, being as we seem to be good at that sort of thing. But then she went into this whole long thing about how Christianity is so awful at respecting the earth, and blah blah blah. She conceded that there are passages in the Bible which instruct us to take care of the earth. But then she went on to accuse the Bible of giving us domination over the earth, which apparently is a bad thing. See, I was under the impression that we WERE given domination over all the earth, with instructions to maintain it well - meaning that we should take care of our home, not because it's divine, but because God, who IS divine, instructed us to take care of his property. So... how does that make animism better? Oh, I know she didn't come right out and SAY that goddess religions or whatever else are better than Christianity, but you'd have to be a robot not to notice that she's constantly referring back to why Christianity is simply wrong, or inadequate, or evil, or whatever else. I was hoping that I would be wrong in anticipating this class to be a direct attack on Christianity, but I was only too correct. There is nothing about God that is good enough, aside from token concessions that mean nothing.
Ahh, now we get to a fun one. Apparently we assume that religious traditions in which sexuality and fertility are central concerns are inferior. To what is not stated, but you know it's to Christianity, just like everything else. The basic idea is, Christianity is dumb because it represses sexuality - and Paul is the worst of the lot, because he says we shouldn't have sex at all (class giggles), and if we really really have to do it we better get married and then only do it within wedlock (more giggles), and even THEN we better not have FUN doing it because procreation is the ONLY reason to EVER have sex and there's not thing sacred or beautiful or holy about it (class erupts in full-on laughter). Silly Christians, don't they know anything? ...sigh. Unfortunately, this is an altogether too common belief regarding Christianity, and it drives me bonkers. Let's get one thing straight: sex is not bad. Sex is not even not good. It is, however, an intensely private and intimate and HOLY thing in which a man and a woman become one flesh, which is not something to be taken lightly. The thing with which Christians (the ones who read the Bible, anyway, and read Song of Songs for what it is) take issue is not sex, but the way it is used today as a substitute for real human relationships, and a cure-all, and something lewd and crude. The way the modern world views sex is disgusting. It's a marketing tool. It's a bragging point (ever heard of the Mile High Club?). It's a trophy. It's a weapon. It's an escape. It's entertainment. It's a way to make money. It's sick! How DARE you take the intimacy of two people knowing each other that closely (and yes, I think the Biblical euphemism is very appropriate) and make it so public? It's sacred, yes, and the reason Christians take it the way we do is because it IS so important. It's not something to share with just anyone. There's a reason I'm still a virgin, and it's because I want to share that kind of intimacy with a man who deserves it, and to whom I have promised my life. I don't want to treat it like it's just a fun time I could go have here and there. I want it to MATTER, to be more. Now, who respects sex more, a Christian like me, or the temple prostitute who is sleeping with more men then she will remember as a form of "worship"?
We're not even going to bother with the "assumption" that women are inferior and therefore not worthy of serious study. I am so sick of dealing with that stuff. The feminist movement was back in the 60's - it's now 2008, nearly 50 years later. NEWS FLASH: We have achieved equality with men - in some places we've managed to subordinate them! You can stop now, you won! Sheesh, get over yourselves already! (By the way, Professor Mitchell is exactly the right age to be all kinds of into this sort of old-school feminism, so it's not surprising.)
All right, we're nearly there. If you've stuck with me this long, applaud yourself, because this has taken me hours to write and I wouldn't be surprised if it's taken you nearly that long to read. Two more points, and then I'm done, I promise. Okay, maybe three. But we're close.
So. Assumptions about humans and cultures. There were several subcategories in this one, the first of note being that ancient cultures divide the world into the secular and the spiritual like we do. As her example, she gave Hinduism, which, she explained, "is a way of life" rather than just a religion. And that leads me to the question, is Christianity - TRUE Christianity - not a way of life? If one is truly a Christian, he will live differently. He will not be able to do otherwise, since God has changed his heart - removed his heart of stone and given him a heart of flesh, as it says in Ezekiel. If you want an example, just look at Saul, who became Paul. Talk about a changed lifestyle - from persecuting Christians to spreading the Gospel and writing a sizable chunk of the New Testament is a rather huge change, I would imagine. Granted, that's an extreme. But it's not possible to live in a relationship with the Living God and not be changed in every aspect of your life. It's just not. So let's not pretend that other religions are the only ones which are more of a lifestyle than a happy thought now and then.
The last point has really nothing to do with her lecture. I mean, she said it, and -gasp!- I agree with her, but my thoughts really go way beyond anything that was even mentioned in class. She said that ancient people were just as smart as we are today. Maybe they didn't know as much stuff, but their mental capacity was just as good as ours is today. And my very first thought was, yeah! So, doesn't that mean that we haven't evolved since then? I mean, obviously we haven't changed species or anything, but you'd think that if we were evolving to something else our mental capacity would be increasing. And yet, that's simply not the case. The mindset that primitive men were somehow less intelligent comes directly from an evolutionary world view, where we have evolved in intelligence since the early Biblical times. Just a thought.
That was all that stuck out to me - which is a good 90% of her lecture. Go figure. One thing that particularly stood out to me (in a very annoying sort of way) was when she was talking about sex (I think) and how more conservative Christian circles are bad about it but some of the more liberal ones are loosening up on their ideals regarding sex. Only, while she had no problem thinking of the word "conservative" to describe the ones who were on the wrong side (in her view), she somehow couldn't find the right word to describe the more "open-minded" of their counterparts. Using the term "liberal" apparently did not occur to her. Dad will find it amusing that I was a hair's breadth away from offering "liberal" when she paused and audibly searched for the word she wanted, but I couldn't quite get it out before she decided on "open-minded" and moved on. Still, I was flabbergasted that, while "conservative" crossed her lips like a curse with the ease of normal conversation, "liberal" does not seem to be in her vocabulary. Sigh. And she didn't even seem to think anything was wrong with it - nor, for that matter, did anyone else in the class.
And if I have to do that every time I have that class to process my thoughts, it might be a very long semester.
Now, there's something I must ask of all of you. Keep me in line. This is going to be really hard on me, walking into that class every day and having to somehow behave toward these people as Christ would have me do. To speak the truth in love - but most importantly, to SPEAK. Anyone who has had a class with me knows that I'm the quiet one in the front who never says much but always seems to do pretty well. I can't be that girl in this class. I have to speak up. That's why I'm there. And I failed pretty badly today at that, but thankfully we have journal entries due every day where I can voice some of my concerns. I plan to address the henotheistic issue in today's, which is optional, and we'll see what she says.
I'm also being indoctrinated against the Truth. And in order to withstand that, I'll need your prayers. I'll need you to call me out if I say something that strikes you as funny. Keep me accountable. I know I've got God on my side and I know he'll defend me. Part of the way He'll do that is through you - the people who know me and love me best - helping me out.
There's a beautiful irony in the Bible verse of the day that shows up on my Google desktop today. It's one of my favorites: Zephaniah 3:17. It reads, "The LORD your God is in your midst, a mighty one who will save; he will rejoice over you with gladness; he will quiet you by his love; he will exult over you with loud singing." I lived that verse today, and it was amazing.
(Anonymous)
Good luck surviving the class, and just keep in mind some other people are going through what you are, or at least have in the past.