Dear Relda,

There was a case where nonviolent resistance worked against the Nazis. In February 1943 the Nazi rounded up all Jews left in Berlin. Non-Jewish, German wives of Jewish husbands gathered around the collection centre in Rosenstrasse and demanded their husband’s release. Berlin police and SS threatened to shoot the women down unless they would disperse. After a week, the German authorities released the men most of whom survived the war. "Resistance of the Heart" by Nathan Stolzfus tells the story. The Nazis feared that carrying out their threats to shoot the women could spark a revolt. The death camps were set up in part because regular army units had soldiers breaking down and being unfit for duty after killing on site. Nonviolent protests can arouse the conscience of the people even in Nazi Germany. The women conquered their fear, and it worked. Many people passively accept wrong.

I didn't take the Bible narrative literally. I think both parts of the Bible contain fiction. I claimed that pagan elements were incorporated into the mythic material to appeal to the Roman pagans. The appeal was apparently successful as the new faith gathered converts. I wrote: "The New Testament was designed to minimize antagonizing the Roman authorities and to seek favour from the surrounding people. Therefore Jews rather than Romans could be blamed for the crucifixion and pagan elements could be included." There is nothing in the foregoing that can reasonably be interpreted as carrying a literal interpretation.

I disagree that pride generally leads to arrogance. We humans can live together because we control the expression of our feelings. One can take pride in a job well done or pride in our children's accomplishments without boring those around us with talk of it. Those who brag about what they take pride in are generally shunned. Pride is feeling. Arrogance is behaviour. Niebuhr criticised the Christian evangelicals for their arrogance not for their pride in their faith. A communicant of any religion can take a quiet pride in their faith without translating that pride into arrogant behaviour.

david f,
"A communicant of any religion can take a quiet pride in their faith without translating that pride into arrogant behaviour." - totally agree, and that perhaps is our commonality. I haven't any problem with this type of 'pride'.

Your statement, "In some ways Christianity is a step backward from Judaism toward paganism" is certainly at odds with "the purpose of the narrative .. the point of its message". That was my point - "in some ways" necessarily infers a literal interpretation. From the story, certain Jewish elements can certainly be found to have instigated the crucifixion - but these 'elements' should in no way be found found to represent all Jews.

Dear Relda,

I regard the story as largely or completely fiction which purposely introduced pagan beliefs. If you see that as literal interpretation I can't help it. The concept of a humanoid God is completely pagan.

The narrative has Jesus before the sanhedrin in the evening. As far as is known from other sources the sanhedrin did not meet in the evening. The account of any Jewish involvement at all in Jesus' death is questionable. If Jesus existed and his mother was Mary Jews gave birth to Jesus. However, that doesn't seem emphasised. One presumes that the Holy Ghost as father was not a communicant of any religion.

Anyhow I usually appreciate your postings. They are well thought out and exhibit considerable erudition.

david f,
You are quite correct in your facts - Rabbinic Judaism also rejects any connection with the trial of Jesus with or without a "Sanhedrin". It is quite possible that the trial was held as a Sadducean illegal court, or perhaps the details as we know them today are incomplete or inaccurate. Nevertheless, the general Gospel narrative retains its integrity (even if not the facts) - Josephus (Ant. 20:9, etc) generally portrays the Sadducees as antagonistic to early Christianity. Reasons exist for this antagonism.

The Sanhedrin (the supreme religious body in Israel up until about 425 C.E.), as undoubtedly you know, was composed of religious leaders knowledgeable in the law, including priests, Pharisees, and scribes; and that there were two Sanhedrins, one political and the other religious. What is interesting about Jesus’ recognition of their authority is that He commanded his disciples to listen to what they said. With the loss of a true and holy high priest from the sons of Aaron, the Sanhedrin formed the last remaining legitimate authority in Israel. Interestingly, the Pharisees, ever the defenders of the righteous, stood up for the followers of Jesus. In Acts 5:34-39, Gamaliel, a famous rabbi, is still revered for his wisdom by Orthodox Jews today.

Jesus’ notion and practice of ‘enemy-love’ was also a ‘command’. The implied command to greet even those who are not your brothers reveals another contrasting dimension of love, beyond, "You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD." (Leviticus 19:18). The command to love one’s enemy refers to more than the dire circumstances of persecution. The ‘enemy’ does not cease to exist when he ceases to persecute. For many, "Loving your enemy" is an impossible precept. Few Christians can follow it, and certain Jewish thinking also finds it completely impractical and foolish. In short, a “politics of love” is impossible; compassion toward the other would bring the political to an end.

Dear relda,

I think loving one's enemy could be a most practical precept. We have a much larger vocabulary than those who made up the Bible. The books that made up the Bible probably originated in an oral culture and were later written down. We can recognise the essential humanity of the enemy. Look at that sentence. "Essential", "recognise" and "humanity" are abstractions which might not even have existed at the time that Leviticus was merely a group of tales passed on by word-of-mouth. It is possible that the equivalent of 'love' in the language of the times subsumed a much broader notion than it does in the language of today. I am not a philologist and do not even think we can trace the various meanings of the word, love, at different times. However, I know words change their meaning and emphasis. Recognising the essential humanity of the enemy, I believe, is important. I was horrified by the sanction of torture by the Bush government in the United States. The recognition that suspects of belonging to or actual members of Al Qaeda are, nevertheless, human should preclude that, as that is something one should not do to human beings.

One example I have recently come across of changing meaning is in "Ozymandias". One line: "The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed." is interpreted differently in the language of today. In Shelley's time "The hand that mocked them" was the hand of the sculptor who 'mocked' or 'depicted accurately' the features of Ozymandias.

The injunction to love one's enemy might have been quite possible in the language of its time.

I asked where the Bible says the earth is flat. I wondered what might come up. We got three references from Daniel, Matthew, & Isaiah. One refers to a pagan king’s dream; another to a vision involving a curious being from another realm; and lastly an idiom referring to distant parts of the world. None of them are making inference about the world’s geology or topography, as any intelligent primary school student reading the texts could point out.

All writing must be examined in its own proper context. For instance, in the scene from Matthew, no uneducated sheepherder thinks you can see Rome from Palestine by climbing a high mountain. So something exceeding natural limitations is understood within the context. The ‘four corners’ of the world is an idiom expressing distant lands, similar to the ABC TV show or current expressions involving four winds or four compass points.

David raises the question of who are real scientists. I understand Harrison Schmidt was the exception amongst the Apollo astronauts as he was a specialist in geology amongst flight engineers. It’s a bit rough to demean the others of their significant accomplishments by labelling them mere engineers. My wife worked as a researcher in the field of chemical engineering and made positive contributions to scientific knowledge.

David’s comment referring to what a scientist must do if he comes into conflict with his beliefs displays innocence into how scientists really think. All of us think within the confines of our worldview and scientists within a paradigm. It’s rare to arrive at a significant theory which takes into account all of the data neatly without any loose threads. All theories have their problems, which research tries to iron out. Any radical theory must be streets better (not just significantly better) at assessing the data before the majority are prepared to give up on the old paradigm.

And as for rocket science not requiring knowledge of the age of the earth? No useful, experimental science does. This is why creationists and evolutionists and people of other philosophies can work together in advancing technologies.