Thursday, January 27, 2022

Laud-a-mercy

Would you buy a used 3-legged
stool from this man?*

  Laud-a-mercy 

Uncle Albert read my previous post. He may have had his eyes closed, he insisted, and he may have been breathing “regularly” (his term), but he wasn’t asleep. And the point of the Narrow Man’s sermon was in the Luke part of it, where he – “Roz’s friend,” as he called him – wondered if we believed that the one in whom the Scriptures were fulfilled was the ultimate revelation of God. “Etc.” What Uncle Albert said, “Etc.”
     “You were listening to that, right?” Uncle Albert asked. “The story from Luke. Jesus opens the scroll and reads from Isaiah then says, ‘Today, this word has been fulfilled in your hearing’?”
     “Yes,” I said. “I know the story.”

     “That’s the answer to the question, ‘Do you know the story?’” he quarreled. “I asked, ‘Were you listening when it was read?’ But no matter. If you know it, that’s enough.     
     “The preacher took the claim, ‘Today this is fulfilled in your hearing’ to line up with the theological notion that Jesus was – is – the ultimate revelation of God. If he was, then, God might be different than we imagined – or than we wished. But, the preacher went on, Did we believe that? – Jesus was the ultimate revelation of God.”

    
“Okay,” I said because what else could I say?

    
“Yes,” Uncle Albert said. “Yes, okay for you. But maybe not for most of the people sitting in the pew, especially at the later service, I’m betting. ‘Your friend’ – he called the Narrow Man this time – took two legs off the stool. He ended up sitting on a one-legged stool.”

    
“Like a milking stool?” I said.

    
“What?”

    
“Not good?” I said.

    
“Precarious as hell!” Uncle Albert can’t wave his arms anymore, but his voice did.

    
I didn’t understand, so I said, “Oh.”
    

                                                                  01.17.22 
_______________
 
*
Would he sell one to you? Digital collage by Shoddee Graphics with apologies to A. van Dyck and Joe’s Used Cars.

______________________________
proofreader@grammargran.biz
to T Riich  crabbiolio@gmail.com

I don’t know where to start. This is confusing as hell!

______________________________
crabbiolio@gmail.com
to Grandma  proofreader@grammargran.biz

All right. Yes. But so is the 3-legged stool. So was the conversation with Uncle A. Life is confusing as hell. And whose big idea was it that theology could be method not doctrine?

Tuesday, January 25, 2022

Future Perfect

 Future Perfect 

I mean the tense as in, “After we shall have sung the hymn, “O God, Our Help in Ages Past,” number 107, we shall hear from our guest preacher, NM.”

This was last Thursday. Roz had discovered that her “friend,” the Narrow Man, was preaching at St. Jude’s, so she thought she would go to church with Uncle Albert and me if we were going – if there were a service, then if we could make our way through the streets and sidewalks flooded with snow and coronavirus.
     “Well, if we can’t,” I said, “we can watch him on television.” “If,” Roz said, he can make his way through the flooded streets or St. Jude’s has a helicopter.”
     “Yes,” I said; then, when she turned and went toward the kitchen, began to think about “if.”

If I think about it, I find I am only vaguely interested in the future. Partly, it is a philosophical stance though an existential (brooding) thing, not a well-thought-out position. But it, the future, is, as far as I can see, completely unpredictable.
     That doesn’t mean that we don’t make plans that we can’t carry out – plans for ten minutes from now or tomorrow, for next week or next year. We write appointments in our calendars. We plan trips and begin to make arrangements for them. We act as if nothing will intervene. It is a convincing act (even when we buy travel insurance), and we are largely convinced. But we’re also aware that we are acting.
     All the world is not a stage we are playing on – we do know that too – that there are things happening backstage, in the audience, in the box office, and on the street in front of the theater* that may prevent Act IV from proceeding to Act V. Someone in the audience – or in the cast! – could have a heart attack. Someone in the box office could get it in his mind to throw the master switch in the breaker box. Two friends of a paralytic could unroof a section of the roof and let their friend’s limp-legged body down center stage front.
     None of these things would immediately change our plans because for a lengthy moment we would be without plans altogether. For another while, we would be uncertain that the way we had seen forward was still closed to us. At the same time, we would be wondering if it were still open to us. Was it ever actually a way?
     There might well be in the meantime people running around shouting directions at us, even directions based on a contingency plan. Officious jackanapeses reveling in their officiousness. Still, would they have any confidence that their instructions would be carried out? How many under their officious yelling would believe and follow? (What makes the paralytic stand up and walk? Does he know where he is going?)

We do plan. But at our core, we’re in a constant panic about our plans because we know we are pretending to know something we don’t. (What we know is that we are pretending.) We know the plans are an uncertain hedge against runaway inflation. (What plans did the paralytic make for his stroke?)

So, someone whirled the gazillions of ice-bats stratospherically circling the Valley and the gelid waste that they had dropped onto our sidewalks and streets was pushed aside and deodorized sufficiently that we could go outside without choking, we could walk without falling, we could drive to St. Jude’s for Morning Prayer. And the Narrow Man preached.
     But did anyone listen? Uncle Albert slept; not only were his eyes closed, he was also snoring, if so lightly to disturb any of the other eight widely-spaced people there for the early service. I tried to follow, but I lost the thread with the first break in it between the passage from Nehemiah and the passage from First Corinthians, for that is what he was doing, leading us from passage to passage – Nehemiah 8 to First Corinthians 12 to Luke 4 – or so he said. I did hear that much. And I heard more, but I was finding it hard to follow, trying to remember why Ezra held from on high that the Jews in the land, the ones that didn’t go into exile and come back but remained in the land, had to put away their wives and their children. For didn’t make them, the wives and the children, “widows and orphans and aliens in the land” to be afforded special care; yet, once put away, we don’t hear of them again, do we? So, I was leafing through the Bible in my mind because there aren’t any in the pews at St. Jude’s. And it was full of holes in the whole Chronicles saga.
     And Uncle Albert was asleep, not that I could consult his prodigious memory anyway.
 

Roz said on the way home, “Wasn’t that a good sermon?” And we both agreed. But I wondered how he, the Narrow Man, felt about it. Could he tell that no one but faithful Roz was paying attention? Did he feel like Whitman’s noiseless, patient spider, launching “filament, filament, filament” but not at all sure that a single “gossamer thread” would catch anywhere?
    
Maybe that’s what preachers always feel like. If they’re at all aware.
 

   01.25.22   

_______________________________________
 * and in the next street over, etc.
 

Wednesday, January 19, 2022

Bat guano

 Bat guano 

Gaspar wrote,
     “Where am I going? Help me,” you said. With what? I can’t help you with the snow. I understand that it went away and now it has come again. Didn’t you describe it once as “frozen bat guano”? – there were millions, billions, gazillions of ice-bats circling above your poor Valley, dropping gelid waste onto your lawns, your sidewalks, your streets. You couldn’t go outside, the stench would fill your nose, scrape its way down your throat, shut down your lungs, and you would die. I can’t help with that. Your shrink, perhaps?

I can’t recall having written that, but I have written about snow.

Jacques Callot: Les Grandes Misère de la Guerre’
February 3, 2014

Jesop’s farable: snow and cold”
June 22, 2017

“Snow Job”
April 10, 2018

“Oh, isn’t it beautiful.”
  “I don’t know. Isn’t it the yew bush
and the magnolia tree and the house
across the street that is beautiful? Take
them away, the snow looks like this.”

“Snow on snow”
January 13, 2019

“winter colors”
February 3, 2021

   01.19.22

 


Monday, January 17, 2022

Revenge Religion, Part 2

 Revenge Religion, Part 2 
continued from here
_____________________________________

gasparthegreat@whatmail.edu

to T Riich crabbiolio@gmail.com

“Where am I going? Help me,” you said.
     With what? I can’t help you with the snow. I understand that it went away and now it has come again. Didn’t you describe it once as “frozen bat guano”? – there were millions, billions, gazillions of ice-bats circling above your poor Valley, dropping gelid waste onto your lawns, your sidewalks, your streets. You couldn’t go outside, the stench would fill your nose, scrape its way down your throat, shut down your lungs, and you would die. I can’t help with that. Your shrink, perhaps?
     About “righteous anger,” I can say – with you, I take it – that among human beings it doesn’t exist. If the gods are angry ... No, specifically, if God of Israel is angry, His anger must be righteous because He is righteous – always! So the Rabbis insist.
     Their Scriptures have eight or eleven or sixteen different words for it, divine wrath, the most prominent of which is nose [
אף]. The people get up God’s nose; he snorts them out. In the New Testament, these 11 (or 8 or 16) different angers have been reduced to two (θυμός and ỏγρή) – actually by the LXX, there are just these two, which suggests, the nuances, the distinctions, the numbers of ways to be angry may not be an OT vs NT thing; it may be a Middle Eastern vs Mediterranean thing. In Jerusalem there are at least eight ways to get pissed off (for God or “man,” either one); in Athens there are only two.

Philo
Consider Philo, who is caught somewhere in between, and whose position I find myself in sympathy with. Basically, it is this: We may get angry, though we really shouldn’t because anger is among the passions reasonable people ought to have under control.  But our anger is nothing like God’s “anger,”  not because his anger is righteous and ours is petty, but because God doesn’t get angry at all. God doesn’t get anything. God is απάθης. What we call God’s “anger” is not a reality but a case of anthropomorphism (or, more accurately, anthropopathism). It gives us a motive for actions God doesn’t need a motive for. God doesn’t have motives. God is God.
     Jesus is human as well (as divine), at least according to Chalcedon, but while he may weep, he doesn’t get angry either – ever! There is no place in the NT that says he does, not even in that story of the cleansing of the temple (from John’s lunatic gospel). Read it again if you don’t believe me. When his disciples tell the story, they remember the “prophecy that zeal for God’s house will consume him.” Zeal,
ζηλος! He is motivated; but zeal doesn’t mean anger, does it?.
     As for the rest of us, if you ask me, we should take his advice:  “You have heard that it was said to the men of old, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be liable to the hell of fire. Blessed are the meek.” Or, if you can’t listen to Jesus, listen to the wise of Ecclesiastes and Proverbs, where the wise are forbearing, leaving anger to the fool; or listen to James, who advises us to be quick to hear and slow to speak, to be slow to anger because, in effect, the ỏγρή of men (and women) doesn’t have anything to do with – it never furthers – the righteousness of God.
     Because, frankly, what do we know about that.? When we get mad, we just get mad. We can blame the sinners. But it just ain’t their fault. We can think of ourselves as righteous, but we’re just pissed off that somebody got something they didn’t deserve or got away with something and God let them.
     But I could be wrong. (I know I am about some of the damn Greek; I just can’t get my email to do what I want it to with accents and shit. I should know how to do this by now. Sorry.)

_____________________________________
crabbiolio@gmail.com
to G Stephens gasparthegreat@whatmail.edu

Yeah, so you could. (Apology accepted, not that I could tell.)

 01.17.22 

Tuesday, January 11, 2022

the lion, the tiger, and the ox

Ox-headed Jesop
 the lion, the tiger, and the ox* 

A lion, a tiger, and an ox agreed to build a house and live together, but they had trouble with the privy, which the lion and the tiger wanted to line with clay pellets while the ox wanted to cover the floor with straw.
     Who have ears, let them hear.
                                                           01.11.22

_______________
Jesop’s Farables (an online reproduction of the 1887 edition with an afterword by me, Ted Riich) is available here.

 

Friday, January 7, 2022

Revenge Religion

 Revenge Religion 

. . . because the wrath of God is not sufficient: He/She/It does not hate hard enough. In the case of the Father (in Christianity), why did he reveal himself in Jesus of Nazareth instead of John of Patmos? Doesn’t he understand humankind – our inability to repent? Too many of us don’t even know we need to; we don’t even know we are sinning. The book of sins, a sort of Leviticus, let’s say, isn’t thick enough. It needs to be elaborated several times over with particular attention to sexual sins and failures of obedience. It needs to consider not only our deeds, it should delve into our thoughts, and it should prescribe punishments that are swift and sure and painful. Some sins, it needs to tell us, are unforgivable.

_______________________________________
crabbiolio@gmail.com
to G Stephens <gasparthegreat@whatmail.edu>

flathead
screwdriver

You asked about our weather. The snow is already six inches deep and still whirling down, thickening the air. Its white is like the black of night. Both seek to cover everything. Only you can, as your eyes adjust, see through the darkness. There is a kindness about the dark. It may not be intentional, but it is there. About the white, there is none.

Have you read The Anomaly? By Hervé Tellier. It won a Goncourt Prize. It took much too long to get started, three-quarters of it was chapter one. Then, suddenly, there are these French intellectuals discussing on French TV, and one of them says something like something you wrote some time ago: “We want a way of conceiving the world without reexamining our values.” It was in a preface to something someone had written about politics and religion.
     I didn’t read the book, but the argument of your preface went something like this. We all want the world to conform to our expectations. What distinguishes the arrogant from the humble (and all elites and fundamentalist preachers are arrogant, their “humility” is utter pretense; moreover, they know it) – what distinguishes the arrogant from the humble is that the arrogant want to impose their expectations on as many of everyone else as they imagine they can; and their imaginations are as large as their ambitions are as large as their egos. The humble, on the other hand, would at most only like occasionally to speak – not that they expect anyone to listen. In one moment, they hope someone might; in the next, they realize that that hope is ludicrous. In that moment, they may actually reexamine their expectations, even their values; but they can’t see around or beyond them, nor do they see others to embrace. So, they give themselves a pass. They go for a walk or look for something on Netflix.

The discussion in The Anomaly set me thinking about arrogant and humble religion. The writer of The Apocalypse was certainly among the arrogant. But Jesus – I humbly believe – was among the humble. He did have an audience, but he never expected to convince any of them. Why were they following if they weren’t listening? Some pretended to, almost convincingly, but none did.
     Where am I going with this? Help me out.

_______________________________________
gasparthegreat@whatmail.edu
to T Riich <crabbiolio@gmail.com>

I am sorry about the snow. I know you find it abominable. (Did you see what I did there?) Are you sure it’s something I wrote that you’re thinking about?

_______________________________________
crabbiolio@gmail.com
to G Stephens <gasparthegreat@whatmail.edu>

Yes. I found the book, Politics or Ethics? by Giles Hircum-Juvenis. In the second section of your preface, you wandered a bit off track to take on “the pharisees,” a term I’m told we should now avoid, even in lower case. Though, what is a good alternative? – not “hypocrites,” who would have us believe they respect the law but do not. No, we want to describe those that revere the law too much. “Idolaters”? 

_______________________________________
gasparthegreat@whatmail.edu
to T Riich <crabbiolio@gmail.com>

Legalists? Most are idolaters as well. And interested in revenge if at all possible.

                                                                       01.17.22 
                                                                                                                                                      
to be continued