To "kill time" on Friday, a member of an email group I belong to (I'll call her Alpha) sent the rest of us the signs of the Zodiac and asked us to say which ours was. One of the members (who are predominantly church-going Christians) said that after reading the one that was supposed to apply to her, she thought she'd stick to her real sign: "the Cross." (I'll accordingly call her Chi, the first letter of the Greek word for Christ.)I'd already replied to Alpha that the clash between my personal characteristics and the ones listed for Capricorn "rather tend to disprove astrology's claims to objectivity, don't you think?" so for her opposition to astrology I applauded Chi a "Good on you!"
Alpha then asked, "Where does 'Good on You' come from—did you mean to say 'Good for you, Chi'? I'm confused."
Now, Alpha is very well aware of my "theological position." Her confusion was likely compounded by my apparently saying something good about Chi's declaring for the Cross. Perhaps she wondered whether "Good on you" was some sort of put-down.
I replied, "'Good on you' is an Australian saying [says my Aussie friend Peter], whose meaning is 'Well done.' But I adopted it and have used it for years as a blessing. Picture good flowing over someone's head. My image for this comes from the 23rd Psalm. And when I enlarge the saying to 'Good on you to overrunning cup,' I'm quoting the fifth verse. I'm sorry that my quaint use of a biblical reference was confusing to you."
This interchange hadn't gone unnoticed by at least some of the others. Beta spoke up next: "So-o-o, Morris [I see no reason to substitute a Greek letter for myself; I guess if I did it could be Mu], you do believe in the Bible? Every believer tends to memorize Psalm 23 early in their [sic] Christian life. This is good to know about you."
Not so quick, Beta. "No, I don't what you say 'believe in' the Bible, but I have read (and studied much of) it and in my earlier days spent many hours praying over it. Obviously it isn't all bunk. It has a few laudable things in it. Is it the 'inspired word of God'? No. Men wrote it. Men edited it. Men selected it. I'd have said humans but, alas, the patriarchal society from which it sprang mostly suppressed women. Remember, in Genesis 19, when the rude crowd comes up to the good guy's house and wants to sodomize the male visitors [a couple of angels], the good guy gives them his daughters instead?"
Silence ensued for some minutes. But after a while this came quietly (and privately) from Gamma:
II Timothy 3:16. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: John 3:16. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.I graciously wrote back, "Thanks, dear Gamma. You're a good 'un!" And left it at that.
Whether you choose to believe it or not it is still true. I would not try to debate you regarding this, but I hope that you will think about these verses.
But last night, at 2:19 a.m. to be precise, I realized that dear, doctrinally reproving, correcting, instructing Gamma was rather saying "So there!" to me, like the folks with raised voices and red faces about whom I wrote on Friday. I might have realized it sooner had equable Gamma not always given the impression of never raising her voice—though possibly being prone to turn red from self-righteousness?
I lay in bed thinking of a few things I'd like to ask Gamma, if she were willing to "try to debate" me on this.
Why do you say that, Gamma? Did you perhaps mean to say, "Whether you believe it or not, I do"? Or, "You may not know that it's true, but I know it"?I suppose I shouldn't wonder that Gamma doesn't care to debate it.
How do you know it, Gamma?
When you say it's true, what do you mean? All of it? All of those animals fitting on Noah's little ark, the Earth six thousand years old, the contradictions? The talking snake?
No comments:
Post a Comment