Trump World Grab-Bag--A Collection

Saturday, June 20, 2015

Mike Huckabee and the Godly Shoot-Out

You know, I read the Bible. I kind of liked it, too. It sparked a fascination with Near-east archaeology and folklore for me that I have found personally rewarding, for a degree of rewarding that I would call "spiritual" and not in any other sense. (I consider my tutelary deity Anath. Dark goddess love is a form of feminist self-care. Wading in blood up to your knees is not a common woman experience--but wanting to? See also, Sekhmet, slaying and drankin'. )

I sometimes wonder if current God-botherers get the ethos of their creed from something obscure--or just make it the hell up. Because the ordained pastor of the pale Galilean who mumbled something about turning the other cheek and blessing those that curse you, has endorsed shoot-outs amongst the pews.

I am not 100% on my Christian theology, but I think that a shoot out in the pews of a Christian Church is more of a profanation against what Jesus was about than anything my liberal little heart might dream up.

But no, really. Imagine that one person there was well-heeled and prepared to dome a motherfucker. Is that a Christian gun? (But of course, it was Peter, who drew his sword,  that was the Rock upon which the Church is supposedly formed.)

It depends upon politics, doesn't it?  I recommend the film Agora to anyone with a Netflix account. But all in all, I don't think that holy places are great spots to wage carnal war. I actually think of Huckabee as more of a clown for this particular view.

I don't know how people less-schooled in ancient views of Christianity might see Huckabee's grasping about violence.  I'd like to think they wouldn't be in favor.

5 comments:

StringOnAStick said...

Every time one of these events happens, and they happen all too frequently, guys like the Huckster can't get to the microphones fast enough to publically lick the NRA's balls. At some point you'd think normal 'Merikans would get a frickin' clue...

Formerly Amhert said...

Hi Vixen, I am instructed that a more liberal translation of the Bible would be that “Thou shalt not murder.” Naturally, this places a somewhat different spin on the ball.

I also am instructed that there is no imperative sense in Aramaic, so actually the Ten Commandments might read something like, “It is unseemly to steal, it is unseemly to bear false witness,” etc., etc.

There have been many translations of the Bible. I find the Holy Bible “from the ancient eastern texts known as the Lamsas translation from the Aramaic of the peshitta” to be the most interesting. It reads somewhat differently than most translations, because of the understanding of Aramaic and the understanding of colloquialisms used in the east at that time. For example, Job 7 reads, “Oh remember that the spirit is still alive, even yet my eye shall again see good,” rather than the King James which reads “Oh remember that my life is wind my eye shall no more see good.”

Of course as I have commented in the past, you cannot very well build a society around Jesus bin Joseph's teaching.

For example, “Be perfect even as your father in heaven is perfect” simply does not offer instruction within the realm of possibility. Again and again, Jesus bin Joseph offers guidance that cannot be applied in the world of secondary effects, i.e., the material world.

You can hardly build a justice system around turning the other cheek. Or to paraphrase, if someone steals and rapes one child, you should let them steal and rape a second child, from the idea that if you are forced to go one mile, allow the bad guy to force you to go a second mile.

But this is always the problem when a spokesman for the fully enlightened perspective is inadequately understood by people who are not in enlightenment. The enlightenment perspective resolves all of these questions for the enlightened, but still seems obscure to those of us less blessed. Enlightenment is the ultimate aim and purpose of human life, but once enlightened, one no longer sees the physical world as the arbiter of reality. For example, the Vedas state that a master sees the world as the three gunas in 24 manifest variations. I will not get into the thorny issue that the world we see as a yardstick of reality is seen as maya by the east. Of course, the Sephir Yetzirah sees the world as “the luminous garment of the eternal.” A flattering view of the material world, yet the suggestion that it is a light show and a wraparound of the 'real' reality. (Luminous garment )

The Qaballah offers 4 different levels of cognition about the scriptures starting with P'shat, simple understanding which is operative in Assiyah (physical concretization). Then up through the 3 levels, Remnez, Drash, and finally in Atziluth, Sod (mystical interpretation).

You can see that the 3 veils you'll recall from Regardie are very much in play here since every veil is drawn to reveal another veil. And of course from the Qaballistic point of view, the world of Malkuth of Assiyah is simply the “world in action.” Other properties must be examined in deeper levels.

So all of these Biblical phrases would have to be interpreted on deeper levels than the simple one to come to an understanding.

I will also mention that Protestantism does not regard the Church as the bride of Christ. The Church is simply the place where Protestants come together in order to worship a view of divinity. The building is not regarded as sacred in and of itself as a Catholic might view it.

Personally I feel that if someone is shooting at you, you had better be able to shoot back. So I suppose at least in that sense I would fall a bit more on the Protestant side.

My complaint is that the simple level is not so much wrong as it is incomplete.

Vixen Strangely said...

One of my failings (I guess we could call it that) in comprehending religion as religion, is that the man Jesus to me is a person, a reforming Jewish activist. When he says things like "Turn the other cheek" and "Go not one mile but two", and "be as subtle as serpents, and as wise as doves," my half-a hippie outlook views him as a figure operating within the structure of Roman occupation of his Jewish homeland, who is compromising with the public view in pretty much the same way as Gandhi or MLK did. To me, he is a community organizer very well conscious of how his radical message will be received. He is instructing his followers in particular in how to navigate a world that will crack down on them.

But the larger message as a prince of peace is that love casts out fear and that all action is reciprocal. There are many parallels with the message of the Christ and the Buddhas, with some scholarly interest in where these teachings intersect (once you start comparing their lives and teachings, the similarities of Jesus and Siddartha are kind of hard to shake.)

I have a St. Peter problem, myself. I might not be afraid, myself, to suffer violence, but I think I would draw a sword to protect people I care about. Nonviolence is a display of abiding by law, but when faced with a situation outside of all law? Protecting one's brother and oneself are the moral acts. "Incomplete" is right--there are exceptions because we are human and all things are never really equal.

But in the meanwhile, I have an admiration for the congregants of the Mother Emanuel Church, in that they have expressed forgiveness in such a way that this sad figure who attempted so much harm, is so belittled by their decency. His intolerance is so outclassed. And they show all the ability to move on because they are not besotted with vengeance.

Me? Gevurah. I would find it a lot harder than they do.

Vixen Strangely said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Vixen Strangely said...

(2nd try)

I wouldn't find it harder--I am not saying forgiveness is easy. But I tend towards being vengeance-y. I feel like vendetta is the right way to close books. I have a tendency towards thinking "get-back" is the proper "give-back".