• Life in da ‘hood
  • Redefining Orthodoxy
  • About Me
    • Statement of Faith
    • Reading List

Amanti

~ The only things we truly possess are those things that we are continually rediscovering.

Amanti

Tag Archives: humanity

Arguing with God

18 Monday Oct 2010

Posted by Davo in Christianity, Religion, Spirituality, Thoughts & Musings

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

abraham, argue, bible, blessing, canaanite woman, christian, Christianity, christine hayes, compassion, covenant, destroy, destruction, dr christine hayes, egypt, ethnic boundaries, exodus, flood, god, golden calf, heals, hebrew bible, homosexulaity, humanity, israelites, jesus, logos, moral, moral growth, morality, moses, mount sinai, mt sinai, noah, numbers, old testament, open course, patriarch, paul, Religion, righteous, righteousness, sinai, sodom, spirituality, wickedness, yahweh, yale university, yhwh

I’ve been listening to Introduction to the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible), an open course from Yale University taught by Dr. Christine Hayes. In her session covering the Exodus to Sinai, she makes an interesting statement regarding Numbers 14. Moses comes down from Mt. Sanai to find that the Israelites have built a golden calf. God is so irate that God threatens to destroy everyone and start over with Moses.

Note God’s offer to start all over again with Moses. This is a pattern with this God. You know, he creates, gets upset, a flood wipes them out. Says, “Let’s start again. Mmm, still not to good. Let’s choose one person–Abraham–see how that goes. Eh. Disappointed. Let’s go with Moses.” So this is a bit of a pattern. But Moses refuses to accept the offer. And instead he defends the Israelites, and he averts their destruction.

She highlights an interesting parallel between the stories of Noah, Abraham and Moses that I’ve never noticed before. When God becomes frustrated with humanity, God destroys or alienates all but a chosen hero (and his family, of course). Each time, God starts anew with humanity, making a covenant with God’s chosen one.

However, unlike Noah and Abraham, Moses rejects God’s offer. Moses argues back and convinces God not to destroy the Israelites. In doing so Moses also implicitly rejects the opportunity to become a patriarch. He had the opportunity to become the sole heir of the covenant offered to Abraham. He would have certainly received fame, glory and prestige for being the instigator of the Exodus, the sole progenitor of all subsequent Israelites, and the recipient of a new covenant with God. Rather he bypasses all of that, seemingly without aforethought. He responds with an act of compassion. He begs God, “In accordance with your great love, forgive the sin of these people, just as you have pardoned them from the time they left Egypt until now” (Numbers 14:19, NIV). Moses chooses compassion and the sanctity of human life over glory and honor. God relents and promises not to destroy the Israelites.

This isn’t the only time that someone argues with God in the Bible, nor is it the only way that Moses’ life parallels that of Abraham’s. In Genesis 18 Abraham also argues with God and begs God to show mercy to the inhabitants of Sodom. (Hayes also clears up a common misconception here. The sin of Sodom was not, as many have assumed recently, homosexuality. The Bible states in multiple locations that it was for their inhospitality and failure to protect vulnerable aliens that Sodom was destroyed). Here, God says that for their wickedness, God will destroy Sodom. Abraham implores God to spare the city if God can find 50 righteous men. God submits, and Abraham counteroffers with 45 righteous men. Abraham eventually whittles God down to 10 righteous men. Unfortunately, all of the men of Sodom seemed intent on gang-raping their vulnerable guests, and you know the rest of the story. Nevertheless, like Moses, Abraham successfully argued with God for compassion in favor of destruction.

There is one additional instance of someone arguing with God (or at least, the Son of God) found in the Bible. This one comes from the Christian scriptures. Matthew 15:21-28 gives us an account of a Canaanite woman who argues with Jesus. She starts imploring him to come heal her sick daughter, to which Jesus replies “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel… It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs.” The Canaanite woman replies, “Yes, Lord, but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.” Jesus relents and heals her daughter. Through this action, he offers divine blessing to a non-Israelite. Previously, God’s blessing had been exclusively for God’s chosen ones, Israel. The rest of the world would be blessed through Israel, but had not independent access to divine blessing. This expansion of YHWH’s blessing was substantial and would manifest itself more substantially in the first century after the death of Jesus at the hands of Paul and others.

I believe these passages make masterful use of literary techniques and do fascinating job of showing the evolution of humanity’s conceptions of the Logos. The accounts of Noah, Abraham, Moses and the Canaanite woman illustrate the moral growth of humanity’s understanding of God. In the case of Noah, God destroys the whole earth without consideration. God’s chosen one Abraham manages to talk God down from destroying Sodom if a remnant of righteous can be found. Moses manages to fully dissuade God from destroying the Israelites, although he has to make a significant personal sacrifice. The Canaanite woman convinces Jesus to heal a non-covenanted individual, expanding God’s grace and compassion across the chasm of ethnic boundaries which so often divided the ancient world.

Advertisements

Reflections on Gandhi

31 Tuesday Mar 2009

Posted by Davo in Christianity, Politics, Religion, Social Justice, Spirituality, Thoughts & Musings

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

arun, arun gandhi, Christianity, colorblind, colorblindness, equality, generation, grandfather, grandson, heritage, humanity, identity, inequality, label, mahatma, mahatma gandhi, mahatma k gandhi, mohandras k gandhi, non-violence, nonviolence, passive violence, philosophy, physical violence, Politics, reconciliation, Religion, society, terrorism, terrorist, terrorists, violence, war, war on terror

Some reflections on Arun Gandhi’s (grandson of Mahatma Gandhi) lecture at Ball State…

During the Q&A, one woman asked what it would look like to respond non-violently to terrorists on the other side of the world. Arun stated that physical violence is usually the frequently the result of anger which is a reaction to passive violence. If we want to end terrorism, we shouldn’t declare war on it and try to kill all of the terrorists, for we would only become terrorists ourselves and breed another generation devoted to our own destruction. Rather, we should examine the ways in which we have committed passive violence and seek reconciliation.

During the lecture, Arun also spoke out against assigning labels to others. Later, a black woman asked him to clarify what he meant. She said that she was proud of her heritage: proud to be black and proud to be a woman. “Is that wrong?” she asked.

At first I thought he was essentially advocating for “colorblindness” that we “shouldn’t see color.” The issue with this philosophy is that in assimilates rather than integrates. Refusing to acknowledge color is tantamount to attributing whiteness. This denies persons of color their identity and heritage.

Instead, Arun asserted that we should primarily try to recognize each other’s humanity. Through this recognition, we acknowledge the inherent value of those different than us. In recognizing this equality, we must also recognize the inequalities which our society has created because it has assigned values to our differences.

Rationalizing: A need to justify.

11 Friday Jul 2008

Posted by Davo in Christianity, Love, Religion, Spirituality, Thoughts & Musings

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

$2, $2000, 000, art, backpeddling, brock, build relationships, calcuta, calcutta, calcutta india, Christianity, chuffed, culture, dan, dropped, education, encounter, escape, Food, humanity, immutable truth, india, indian, indian art, indian culture, indian food, inherent, interact, interfacing, intrigued, investment, justification, justify, kolkata, kolkata india, kolkatta, kolkatta india, learn, list, live simply, lot of money, mai thai, mai thais, marginalized, mike, money, mother teresa, mother theresa, need to justify, oppressed, palm trees, perspective, plane ticket, plane tickets, point of view, post modern, postmodern, rationalization, rationalizing, recgonize, reconciliation, relax, Religion, religious, remote tropical island, sal, Sara, seek solidarity, sisters of charity, solidarity, sun, sympathize, top 5, tropical island, vacation, value, value system, world

I dropped over $2,000 on plane tickets to Kolkata, India last week. Sara, Sal, I and possibly Dan, Brock and whoever else wants to come, will be spending 9-10 days working with Sisters of Charity.

Quite honestly, I’m terribly excited. India has been on my top 5 list since I developed my top 5 list. I’m intrigued by the culture, the art and especially the food. For the first time, I get to cross a country off the list, and it has me chuffed.

That said, I strongly sympathize with Mike’s point of view, and am struggling some with it myself. It is an awful lot of money. If I’m seeking to live simply and fairly with my fellow humanity, $2,000 goes a long way. (Now obviously, I’m not backing out. The payment has been made. There’s no backpeddling now).

So this is my attempt to rationalize it, to justify my action, to resolve the cognitive dissonance.

  1. The trip is an investment in my education. I will be interfacing with a new culture. The experience will broaden my worldview, allow me to interact with a different value system, and give me a deeper perspective on how the world functions. I will learn from the people I encounter. Perhaps they will learn from me. The experience will help me better understand others and myself.
  2. We seek solidarity with the people we work with. This isn’t a vacation to a remote tropical island with sun and palm trees and Mai Thais.  Our purpose isn’t to relax and escape.  We will be working with the marginalized and oppressed. The purpose is to build relationships and recognize the inherent value in each other.

I believe that the experience will be worth the investment, weighty as it is. That is my rationalization, justification and reconciliation. But I’m not claiming immutable truth on this. Challenge me if see things differently.

Subscribe

  Subscribe to Amanti
  • Poverty of mind... it's a good thing

Recently

  • The Persecution Complex
  • Bringing Race Back into the Conversation
  • Quotes from On the Mystery
  • Osama Is Dead, but Was Justice Done?
  • Why Life Always Is neither Pro-Life nor Effective

Categories

  • Food (11)
  • Love (14)
  • My life (27)
    • Life in da 'hood (8)
  • Pissed off (14)
  • Politics (32)
  • Religion (83)
    • Christianity (73)
      • Redefining orthodoxy (13)
    • Spirituality (72)
  • Social Justice (51)
  • Thoughts & Musings (76)
  • Whiskey Tango Foxtrot (35)
    • List of things not to do again any time soon (2)

Liscence

Creative Commons LicenseThis work by Amanti is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Locations of visitors to this page Amanti - Blogged
Advertisements

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy