Re: passion; no otr content so please excuse me & ignore me if you wish :-)

[DustyVolume <dustyvolume@yahoo.com>]

Hi,

Before I say what comes below, let me concede that the movie has flaws.
However, in my opinion, none of them are outlined below by Katherine.  I do
conced that she has a right to state her opinion.  Just as I have the right to
do so here--just as you have the right to delete whatever you don't want to
read.  Also, please understand none of what I'm saying is in anger or the
result of any ill will toward Katherine or anyone who believes differently than
I do.  I just happen to feel strongly enough about this to agressively state it
as I have below.  And, I do not have all the answers either.  I will be happy
to listen to any counter arguments as well.  Even those that merely add to what
has already been stated.  And, lastly, I realize that after this messsage hits
the list, there will be calls to "take it off list" so I'm amenable to that as
well.  Please pardon the flames that will undoubtedly ensue, and thank you.


--- "Katherine E. Willis Pershey" <katherinepershey@yahoo.com> wrote:

> feminist theologians have noted in the past 20 years
> the incredibly unethical message underlying this
> storyline.  

First, this is not a storyline, this is scripture.  If you reject it, then you
reject the creator who allowed it to endure for 2000+ years.  Feminist
theologians (a relative newcomer to the world) will come and go.  The Bible
will endure.

> no matter how closely you want to identify
> jesus w/ God, it still adds up to God= Divine Child
> Abuser.  

Not true.  Making sacrifices for those you love does not equal abuse.  The
universal message contained in the crucifixtion is not meant to be read
literally as a story of a misguided onnicient father who was bent on hurting
his only child.  That's ridiculous.


> besides, by emphasizing suffering as
> redemptive and explicitly and implicitly encouraging
> persons to "carry your cross" like Jesus, the church
> has encouraged oppressed persons to stay in situations
> of oppression.  the church, through its liturgy and
> hymnody, has taught women, children, and men to endure
> abuse- all in the name of jesus.  this is unethical
> theology.  

What you express here is more secular humanism than christian.  Quite frankly,
it is this type of "theology" that undermines the redemption message.  Just as
someone sued McDonalds for serving hot coffee, so too will people continue to
apply their self-serving agendas to things they have no business applying them
too.  Namely stating that christianity is the reason we have cycles of abuse in
the world.  Don't get me wrong.  It *will* come to this.  The Bible states that
it will. There will come a day (again) when christianity is banned and people
are killed by the masses for their christian faith.  It's all in Revelation.


  the cross is only redemptive if one
> understands that jesus? suffering was a consummate
> rejection of the violence he endured.  

I don't understand how you can claim to be a theologian and support this
statement.  Christ had no say in the matter.  He was the human manifestation of
God himself.  Jesus was (is) immortal.  Suffering and dying to him was the
equivalent of one of us being in a body cast or being on life support and then
coming back from it.  None of us can die and come back like Christ did, but we
can suffer and then heal from it.  To someone who is immortal like Christ (the
human manifestatin of God) suffering and dying was like suffering the worst
thing imaginable and then returing to paradise.  Jesus is expressed as God's
son because as humans we can understand this concept.  Humans should not be so
presumptious to think we can understand everything that exists in the universe
and beyond.  We are not meant to grasp certain things.  If we could, there
would be no need for religion or faith or any of this.



> violence should
> never been sacralized; and yet this is precisely what
> atonement theology does.  

Sorry, but no.  I can't accept this either.  Atonement theology does not
sacralize violence, rather it sacralizes the end result of the violence.  As
humans, we can understand the violence and the death and we can understand that
because Christ did die for us, we are guaranteed atonement for our sins and
entry into Heaven.  It's a concept we can understand because it's universal to
all humans.  Even those born without the ability to feel pain, can feel
emotional pain.  The christian faith is not meant to be this hard to
understand.  It's a simple concept made difficult by humans.  That's why faith
is required to accept it.  Just as we have faith that when driving across a
bridge, it won't collapse and send us plummeting to our death.  When I cross a
bridge, I'm not thinking about why the bridge won't collapse, or what kind of
reinforcement was used, or who built it, or if I agree with the design
principles used.  Usually, I'm not even thinking about it at all. I just drive
across it.  This is the way faith is meant to operate. If something works just
as it is, why start looking for ways to improve it?  

Maybe those who feel that christianity is the reason they are tormented and in
a cycle of violence should look at the way they're viewing the the world, and
not the world itself.   

Mark


=====


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com
---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/