Just returned from a two-week road trip visiting family and friends out there in the wild blue yonder. While visiting my dear christian fundie mother, I handed her this verse from Matthew 10: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (Jesus speaking, here.)
“See?!” I crowed. “Your Jesus pushes war, not peace!” Ma pulled out her Bible, read, and then said sadly, “It makes more sense if you read the verses around it.” She and I turned to other topics then, but when I got home I read those other verses:
34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother in law — 36 a man's enemies will be the members of his own household. 37 Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me….”
In case you didn’t “get” it, I’ll hit you over the head with it: I had unwittingly pushed my own mother into the part of her holy book that tells her to – what? “Take up the sword” against me, her daughter (because -- as the astute among you might have noticed -- I’m not a jesus follower)?
Is this really “The Prince of Peace” talking here? How’d he get that name if he says things like this? I hafta tell ya, this bible seems like one sick puppy of a book to me.
But my real question is this: Do you think the authors of this dweeby book meant that parents should literally “use a sword” against their own children? That children should literally slice up their parents? Or did they mean the sword as a metaphor?
The problem is, a sword is about as strong a metaphor as you bump into. People use swords for two things: to kill, and to beknight. And I don’t think this dude jesus was talking here about beknighting anybody.
So I don't see any way around it: The “Peace Prince” obviously preaches the murder of all family members who snub him.
This doubly concerns me, because my mother, who used to be completely sane, has gradually become nuttier for christ in direct proportion to the number of years she’s gone gaga over slick televangelists. For example, when she heard the bible says women musn’t speak in church, she actually went to her minister to ask if she should start clamming up after crossing the church threshold.
Way to go, Peace Prince! Another family broken apart, another notch to carve in the butt of your box cutter.
_____
Thnx to estilete for the superb foto of one common version of the modern "first-world" blade weapon, aka the yellow-handled box cutter.
7 comments:
I'm a little confused here; you quote the Bible as saying "35 - For I have come TO TURN A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER.." though what you write is that you used quotes from Jesus (of whom you're not "a follower") in the Bible (a "dweeby book") to confront your "christian fundie Ma" about something as if to show her that this is the "truth", yet you state you don't believe in jesus or in the Bible. This seems like some kind of circular reasoning to me, but maybe I misunderstood something here. From what you write also, it it does not sound as if your Ma was "taking up the sword" against you; it appears to be the reverse including your decision to be writing against her in your blog! But again maybe I didn't "get it." I do agree with you definitely with the idea that somewhere in all this, a "sick puppy" does exists that might be causing yet "another family (to be) broken apart".
I'm surprised you didn't actually quote the passages where Jesus, Peter and John tie Peter's family down. They rape them then cannibalize them.
It's in there, you know.
(I expect you to believe this because it seems you'll believe just about any negative thing about the Bible. It's almost a pathology with you.)
Mike, you didn't answer my primary question: "Do you think the authors of the bible meant that parents should literally “use a sword” against their own children? That children should literally slice up their parents? Or did they mean the sword as a metaphor?"
Mike, also: if they meant the sword as a metaphor, what exactly are they telling parents to do to their children who have the audacity to choose freedom from their parents' so-called religion?
Now that's what I've been craving - hard core Athana tellin' it like it is.
I'll answer your question. I think it was meant literally. This is a book that shows men being rewarded for sacrificing virgin daughters and offering them up for gang raoe. It also recommends stoning a child who disrespects his parents so...
If you wrote those words in modern English, and attributed them to any celebrity - Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Michael Jackson, David Koresh, anyone - they'd start yelling "It's a cult! Congressional hearing! Pass a law! What about the Children?!?!?!"
And they'd be right.
oH OH OH you are so right, Morgaine! What a fabulous way to look at it. Spoken in modern English, the bible clearly becomes the dangerous cult it actually is. Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity: "So if my kid tries to lose Christianity, I'd take a box cutter to his hide as soon as look at him, you'd better believe I would."
Moderator: ?!?
Ann/Sean: "No, no, my holy book tells me this is how to handle it. You knife the kid to death."
Moderator: ?!?!?!
Ann/Sean: "Sorry. Them's the rules. I didn't write the book."
Can't help but notice that the people who want to argue with you are either anonymous or unavailable for counter-blog-viewing.
I don't trust one single "Jesus said" in the Bible. If you were writing something down 70 years after the fact, would you remember what someone said? Or would you have your own agenda?
Post a Comment