The danger in me writing about anything biblical is that I know bupkis about it. But in today's public or even semi-public discourse, rampant ignorance and outright lies are hardly unusual or even disadvantageous. In keeping with those standards and practices, then, herewith follows today's gospel of Mark.
A couple of religio-inspired things have gotten my attention lately, and they are from the Alpha and Omega of the Bible, from Genesis and Revelation. Letting the last be first: Elaine Pagels (of the Gnostic series, probably most notably The Gnostic Gospels) has a new book called Revelations: Visions, Prophecy, and Politics in the Book of Revelation. In it she apparently attempts to, as Adam Gopnik (and what a wonderful writer he is) says in a recent New Yorker, "gently...bring"(Revelation's) "portents back to earth." It is Pagels's contention that (quoting Gopnik again) "it's essentially a political cartoon about the crisis in the Jesus movement in the late first century....All the imagery of the rapt and the raptured and the rest that the Left Behind books have made a staple for fundamentalist Christians represents" (then-) "contemporary people and events, and was well understood in those terms by the original audience."
So Revelations is basically just a Michael Bay action movie script, Transformers circa 85CE. There'll be no seven-headed beasts (Wait! How many candidates were there on stage in NH for the first Repugnicant debate this year? Um, Santorum, Bachman, Romney, Gingrich,...uh, Perry, Pawlenty, and, let's see, someone biblical, ummmm, oh yeah, Cain; let's see: Santorum one, two, Romney's three, four, Perry five...holy shit!), no battles between millions of angels and demons (except on pinheads), no supernatural meaning to 666 (it's just a really long road to get your kicks on), no choruses of trumpets, etc, etc. Turns out it's not prophecy, it's just allegorical reportage, just made-up, opinionated ad hominem shit, like on Fox Noise (Motto: "Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.") today. It's kinda disappointing, really, but it certainly won't change the views of the Christian Right (again, mostly neither Christian nor right, by their words and behavior) from attempting to scare the bejeezus out of us with their "facts."
What does scare the bejeezus out of me, what is perhaps the most damaging prose ever committed to print BMB ("Before My Blog") in human history comes from Genesis 1:28: "Be fruitful and multiply" (wow, have we heeded that directive) "...replenish the earth" (maybe not so much that one, except with ourselves) "and subdue" (my emphasis) "it, and have dominion over..." EVERYTHING... "that moveth on the earth." Kill, kill, drill, drill, frack, frack--"God said it, man. I'm just doing His bidding!" We've been focussing our attention on the apocalyptic vision in Revelation all this time when the end is actually gonna come from that very beginning (See previous post, "Every hello contains goodbye," he said, self-referentially). Adam hadn't even named everything his offspring were gonna be hell-bent on destroying when God put out that contract (Can't you just see him in his study, telling his consigliere, "Use Luca Brazzi...?).
What brought this up for me was a fairly recent quote (it's hard to keep up, they're generating new wacknesses so fast) from Rick Santorum (R, Headuphisass), wherein he accused Obama of "phony theology." In fairness, as things are spelled out above (and, to some, Above), Santorum's got a case. If, as he went on to say, Obama's views are based on "... a world view that elevates the earth above man" (that pagan Kenyan Hitlerian socialist) well, there may be a "gotcha" there. It's contrary to The Word of God. Of course, strict adherence to The Word is leading us to the total destruction of life as we have known it on this near-totally subdued orb, and may in fact give credence to Newt Gingrich (R, Hell)'s vision of colonies of humans on the Moon ( and in fairness, let's call that the "Kramden Gambit," shan't we, as Ralph was always threatening to send Alice there) in the near future. We all need to step back here, take a deep breath, and realize that a years-long winnowing of the Repug field of candidates still contains those guys as self-proclaimed (at least) serious contenders, and then think about what that means for the future of the two-party system, democracy, and our species. But that's for a future post.
At any rate, all of this is spurring me to play songs of creation, beginning, revelation, and mysticism. Hope you can join me on Tuesday from noon till two (remember, it gets here an hour sooner this week--how great is THAT?) at 100.1 FM or on the webs at wool.fm.
And say "Amen," somebody.
You should have a consultation with your first begotten re: that business in Genesis. He will fork your path.
ReplyDeleteLooking forward to the broadcast (which is a farmer's term, speaking of those who "replenish the earth") in any case, dear.
I'm afraid my path is already forked....
ReplyDeleteAmen.
ReplyDeleteThought for sure that there would be some mention of the latest wisdom from Rush.. Ya, you're right, that wasn't worth mentioning.
I know that Biblical exegesis is neither your nor, alas, your so-called Repugnicants' intention, but since the can of worms has been opened, let's allow them to crawl around a bit.
ReplyDeleteGenesis 1:28 does indeed use the term "subdue" in the sense of "control," a pretty unambiguous meaning even in the Hebrew. However the important adjunct of this is man's role as "steward" or caretaker of the earth. The argument is essentially that God created man ("male and female created He them") to act as His representative on Earth as rulers but -- and I stress -- also guardians of His creation. It's interesting, actually, because this same passage that is frequently derided by the secular as the problem with our environmental outlook is also cited as the primary Christian argument for environmentalism, especially given the narrative's continuity, such as in Genesis 2:15 -- "And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it." Note that this is "keep" in the traditional sense of "to watch, guard or tend to" -- or "take care of," as the NIV has logically rendered it. (In fact it is the same word used by Cain when he petulantly asks "Am I my brother's keeper?")
However there is another consideration, the theological nuances of which we haven't room for here, which is that this command was given before man was ejected from the garden, thus losing at least in part his likeness to God (if not his image exactly) and rendering the issue somewhat more abstruse, for example concerning man's impotence in the natural world outside of paradise.
I suspect Lisa could add to (or correct?) my comments here....
Y'know, I nearly mentioned the relatively recent Christian environmental movement, limited as it is in scope and number. And while it may exist, and may in fact be growing (is it?), it's still virtually ignored by those who lead, and would lead more, in the Republican (is that better?) party. The words (Words?) as written are still, to my mind, incredibly damaging since they can be and have been used, even if subconsciously, being so deeply imbedded in human thinking for centuries, to explain away and foster untold damage and destruction.
DeleteHey, you write pretty well; who the hell are you?