Parables that Jesus might have spoken...
The Kingdom of Hell
We can never know what Jesus might have said about a number of
contemporary issues but there is no reason not to try and imagine
his views on these subjects. After all, this is to discuss issues that
effect
us all, sometimes in profound ways. And for Christians there is always
the question: What would Jesus do? Or: What would Jesus say?
We can make educated guesses. The new Testament is all about Jesus
and there is a library of scholarship about him that is available for
anyone
with the interest. What follows is my personal interpretation, based on
close reading of the Bible for many years, and considerable study of
scholarly literature. Needless to say, all of this has been refracted
through
experiences and values that are part of my life as a modern-day
American and political Independent. Which also means philosophical
independent and religious independent as well.
-----
Here are 10 "parables of Hell" that may provoke discussion.
Jesus, of course, spoke about Hell as part of his message. He was not a
"kumbaya prophet" for whom everything was reducible to "love your neighbor
as yourself" even though that is central to what he believed. There were
also
admonitions about damnation -and how punishment in Hell could be one's
fate
if his or her life was dominated by sin. And, very clearly, Jesus had
important
things to say about Satan, a being that epitomizes evil whom most
"Christians"
these days do not believe exists.
About which my attitude is: Too bad for you, for Satan is as real
as anything gets and if you don't "get it" your regrets could be enormous.
Jesus, we are told, was tempted by Satan and there is a major "pericope"
(narrative sequence) on this subject in the Gospel of Matthew -with a
parallel in Luke.
As for the Sermon on the Mount, which some believers seem to think is 100%
sweetness and light, there are three passages that are explicit to the
effect that
those who sin against God will end up in Hell; these are:
"Enter by the narrow gate. The gate is wide that leads to perdition [Hell],
there is plenty of room on the road, and many go that way..."
"...unless you show yourselves far better men than the Pharisees and the
doctors of the law, you can never enter the kingdom of Heaven [and
will, by logical deduction, find yourself in Hell or, in some
interpretations,
obliterated, annihilated forever]"
"You have learned that our forefathers were told, "Do not commit murder;
anyone who commits murder must be brought to judgement." But what
I tell you is this: Anyone who nurses anger against his brother must be
brought to judgement. If he abuses his brother he must answer for it
to the court; if he sneers at him he will have to answer for it
in the fires of hell."
This manifestly is not a message of "love is the answer to everything"
and "we are all universalists for whom Hell does not exist."
This is, s'il vous plait, stark fundamentalism. Its just that it does
not line up with the media view that fundamentalism necessarily
means cranky bigots who only got as far as the third grade in school.
Personally, I am sick and tired of this idiotic stereotype of
fundamentalists
one that -and he had the most reason to think something like this-
was completely rejected by H.L. Mencken. He criticized traditionalist
Christians at great length, of course, but only where he felt it was due,
only with conscientious honesty, and only in the context of first-hand
experiences with 'fundamentalist' Christians whom he liked and admired.
About Hell per se, here is what we can read about Jesus' visit to Gehenna
in the New Testament, three of at least ten such verses; this material
originates with the valuable Wikipedia article about the Harrowing of Hell:
Philippians 2: 9-10, "God exalted Him and gave to Him the name that is
above every name, so that at the name of Jesus, every knee should bend,
of those in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth."
Acts 2: 27, "For You will not leave my soul in Hell, nor will You allow
Your Holy One to see corruption."
1 Peter 3: 18 - 19, "For Christ also died for our sins once and for all.
He, the just, suffered for the unjust, to bring us to God. In the body he
was
put to death; in the spirit he was brought to life. And in the spirit he
went
and made his proclamation to the imprisoned spirits" -which has
traditionally
been interpreted to mean that they were imprisoned in Hell
About the reality of Hell, the concept is brought out most clearly in
Matthew 11: 23, where we read- "And you, Capernaum, who are exalted
to heaven, will be brought down to Hell; for if the mighty works which
were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained
until this day."
Lastly there is this somewhat lengthy passage from chapter 16
in the Gospel of Luke:
'There was once a rich man, who dressed in purple and the finest linen,
and feasted in great magnificence every day. At his gate, covered with
sores,
lay a poor man named Lazarus, who would have been glad to satisfy his
hunger
with the scraps from the rich man's table. Even the dogs used to come and
lick
his sores. One day the poor man died and was carried away by the angels
to be with Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried, and in Hades,
where he was in torment, he looked up; and there, far away, was Abraham
with Lazarus close beside him. "Abraham, my father," he called out, "take
pity
on me! Send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water, to cool my
tongue,
for I am in agony in this fire." But Abraham said, "Remember, my child,
that all the good things fell to you while you were alive, and all the bad
to Lazarus; now he has his consolation here and it is you who are in
agony.
But that is not all: there is a great chasm fixed between us; no one from
our side who wants to reach you can cross it, and none may pass
from your side to us."
These verses do not mention Jesus in this context but obviously reflect
what
the first Christians believed about Christ and the afterlife.
We know what Jesus said about the Kingdom of Heaven, at least some
of what he said, what has survived in the New Testament accounts.
But what might Jesus have said about Hell? Here are some possibilities
for your consideration...
----------------------------------------------------------
Parables of Hell
1. The Parable of the House
The Kingdom of Hell is like this:
A man named Ezra bought a house in Chorazin that he had wanted
very much. It was pleasing to look at, built in a style that people
admire in that city. The house was sold to him by a gentleman of stature
in the town, someone whom it was natural to admire for his demeanor
and reassuring words.
Before Ezra man moved his family into the dwelling he asked the man about
the
condition of the building, about termites or dry rot or other potential
problems.
The man assured Ezra that there was nothing to worry about, the house was
sound and everything was in order, just as it appeared. And it did appear
to be solid in every respect and, of course, Ezra was very pleased with
how the place looked; whomever constructed it had a sense of style.
So, Ezra bought the house without asking to see any reports about it
that the Romans maintained in their archives.
Soon afterwards, Ezra and his family moved in.
Not many weeks later, Ezra showed his new house to his brother, Jeremiah.
Ezra was proud of this new home and showed Jeremiah everything he could.
This included the basement, which many homes now have. That was where
Ezra's family kept jars of olive oil and wine; sacks of wheat were also
stored there. And there were several columns that supported the upper
stories.
"What is directly above us?" asked Jeremiah. "This is where my study is
located,"
said Ezra, pointing to an area above where he was standing. That is where
I do almost all of my writing and where my scrolls can be found. "Over
there,"
he said, pointing to another part of the ceiling, is where women gather to
spin cloth
and sew garments. "My wife provides that space for wives and older
daughters
of other families to work in, together. That area over there is where the
children sleep and we read stories to them."
Jeremiah was impressed but he noticed something strange about the columns,
they all had been painted repeatedly, you could see this easily enough.
Ezra excused himself for a short while, saying that now that he was in the
basement
he should finish a task he had started the day before, and separate some
sacks
of barley from among the sacks of wheat.
When Ezra commenced his work, which would take several minutes, Jeremiah
took a short knife he always carried and scraped away some of the paint on
one of the columns. He was aghast, so he scraped away some of the paint
on another column and then still another. Jeremiah was speechless.
By that time Ezra had completed his task and asked Jeremiah to follow him
upstairs.
When the brothers then sat together drinking some wine, Jeremiah said, "I
have
looked beneath the paint on several of the columns in the basement and
must tell you that there is a serious matter than you should know about."
"What is it?" Ezra asked. "The columns holding up the house are rotted out,
each one that I looked at. They are half air, there are so many holes
within them; it is only a matter of time before they start to fail.
Probably
most of them need to be replaced, they are basically worthless."
Rather than thanking Jeremiah for this information, Ezra became furious.
First he asked Jeremiah, "how do you know?" Jeremiah explained that
he was curious upon seeing so much paint on the columns and he scraped
some of it off from several of these posts. That was when Ezra's anger
broke into the open. "How dare you scrape paint off the columns" he said,
"this is my house and I made the right purchase. And I certainly don't
want
new expenses. Who do you think you are, criticizing my judgement and
telling me how to think about my house?" adding, "this is exactly what
I have wanted for many years, for which I have invested my life savings
and upon which my family now depends. And now you scrape paint
from the posts, how dare you?"
"But the columns are rotted out," Jeremiah replied.
"I think you should depart," said Ezra, visibly upset with his brother.
However, Ezra decided that he would not tell his wife and family
about the disagreement so that life would go on normally, as before,
and so that there would be no questions that might be asked which
would spoil their satisfaction at living in their beautiful house.
Days later, Jeremiah needed to visit Ezra to tend to some family business.
Ezra was not at home when Jeremiah arrived and he was told to wait
in the courtyard. That was where the entrance to the basement was located
and Jeremiah decided to look inside to see if his warning had been heeded.
Yes, it had been. As Jeremiah could plainly see, Ezra had taken
his own paint and had carefully covered over each place where
the existing paint had been scraped off.
Adapted from Richard Packham's short story,
"The man who bought a house, a Parable."
------------------------------
2. The Parable of the Trial
The Kingdom of Hell is like a man who was arrested by Roman officials
who do not tell the man what crimes he was charged with. After an
interrogation
the man was allowed to go free but only on the condition that the matter
was far from settled and there would be a full-fledged trial at an
unspecified time.
The man was perplexed by this turn of events because he had no idea what
the charges were and what the Roman authorities intended to do next.
Everything
became worse when the man's friends insisted that the case must be serious,
otherwise the procurator, who is in charge of legal affairs, would
never have allowed things to go that far.
The man simply could not understand what this could possibly be all about,
however, because, while he certainly remembered all kinds of stupid things
he had done in his life, and all kinds of small offenses he had committed,
why would any of that have led to a trial like the one he now faced?
Wouldn't a fine be sufficient, or restitution to a victim, like the time
he had a meal at an inn and snuck away without paying for it?
But this was far more serious than those kinds of things. The Romans
finally
told him to prepare a defense because the trial would be held in one week.
What kind of defense was possible, though, when the charges were unknown
and no-one would tell him what the rules for the trial consisted of?
Matters became even worse than this when the trial was postponed just a day
before it was to begin. A few weeks later when the new court date drew near
the officials told him yet again that there would be a postponement. But
this was
not the end of things because there was yet another postponement, and
another.
As time progressed the man's life as a merchant became impossible.
His customers went elsewhere, most of his friends ceased being friends,
and he was compelled to find other work to sustain himself, which mostly
meant unpleasant jobs doing tasks he did not have any interest in,
including some that were back-breaking and dangerous. The man made
the best of the situation but too much had been lost and there was
no way out of his predicament that he could imagine.
Then there were the Romans and their collaborators, who are friends to
nobody but themselves. From time to time they arrived in the man's life,
unannounced, and reminded him of the court action that was pending
and that new evidence had been found against him. Yet he was never told
what that evidence consisted of. When the man was a merchant he knew
several men versed in the law and one or another might still have helped
him,
but what can he tell them about his trial? He could tell them nothing.
The man had a nightmare. In it the trial had begun and the prosecutor gave
a speech to make his case against the man. The prosecutor said:
"My name is Satan and I am here to show you why this man deserves eternal
punishment in the furnace below, where horrible fires burn forever." Satan
then
spoke about every sin the man had ever committed in his life, each and
every one
of them, no matter how insignificant they might otherwise be considered.
As for serious sins, each and every detail was described vividly, and
the man's motivations at the time were discussed, exposing their veniality
and the bad judgement that had made them possible. In the end, everyone
the man ever knew learned about all of his sins, nothing was left to hide.
That nightmare was only the first; much the same nightmare repeated itself
at intervals that made no obvious sense, sometimes a few days apart,
sometimes
only after months had passed, but in any case they never ended.
It was never possible for the man to clear his name and start his life
over.
He never actually knew enough to do even that much.
He finally understood only that guilt or innocence did not matter if the
Romans
did not care about guilt or innocence. And that meant many, many Romans,
at many levels in his society. And not just the Romans, everyone who
owed their allegiance to the Romans.
It was all so unjust but the man feared the trial nonetheless,
and the terrible punishment which could be his fate.
But there never was a trial despite the long years of waiting.
Based -loosely- on ideas in Kafka's The Trial and upon themes in the
Book of Job. There is also one reference to a scene in a short story,
the author not known, called "My Attorney," found in a collection of
"Modern Day Parables." There are some problems with the story as
writing, especially the way it assumes, unquestioningly, the standard
Evangelical interpretation of the Christian message, but it is well worth
reading regardlessly for its imaginative use of those beliefs in fiction.
-------------------------------
3. The Parable of the Marketplace
The Kingdom of Hell is like this:
A man named Barsabbas was walking in the marketplace at Sepphoris
during the time of the Feast of Rededication. Many of the shops
in the city were closing as nightfall approached; the air was getting cold.
As Barsabbas walked, thinking about the comforts of his home, carrying
goods has had purchased for the feast, he noticed a little girl, a child
who probably had just begun her schooling; she was very young.
The girl was alone among the dwindling crowd, crouched down outside
a store that was being shuttered for the night.
Barsabbas wanted to return home, he had been in the market too long as it
was.
He looked at the little girl. From her appearance she did not seem to be
afraid of anything, and perhaps she simply was tired and needed a rest.
Maybe the girl's mother had told the girl to wait at that spot until she
had taken care of some errand; "surely that would explain it,"
Barsabbas thought to himself as he hurried towards his home.
However, as Barsabbas walked away he became increasingly concerned
about the young girl; she was about the same age as his daughter and
that made him stop and think. Something seemed wrong.
Barsabbas had already walked about one stadion when he decided that he
should
return to the market and ask the girl if she needed help. But by he time
he
reached the shop where he had last seen the child, she was gone.
Barsabbas thought to himself, almost in relief, "I have lost my chance to
help
that little girl, at least I gave it an effort." Then he walked home, not
a great
distance but sufficient to feel that he had been away too much time. All
was well
in his comfortable house, it was warm inside as the fire in the hearth
glowed
in reddish colors, and it was so good to be with his family. Only a slight
feeling of guilt made Barsabbas uneasy. Had he done enough to find the
girl?
But probably his concern was misplaced, surely the reason she was not
at the shop where he saw her was because her mother had arrived and
taken the girl to their home, it could not have been because the shop
keeper
ordered her to go away.
The night was very cold even for that time of year. There was snow on the
crests of the nearby hills.
In the morning Barsabbas went outside, as he usually did, to visit his
neighbor
to find out if there was talk among the people of the town that his
neighbor always
leaned from people whom he visited with, early in the morning, while
preparing
to open his tailor's shop for business.
The neighbor had bad news to share. "It was heart breaking," he said.
"a little girl had frozen to death outside the back of a shop in the
Sepphoris
marketplace. The owner of the shop recognized the girl from the night
before
when he had sent her away because she did not belong there. Her mother
had been looking for her daughter for hours after the girl had gotten
lost."
Adapted from a narrative poem found at Spiritual-Short-Stories.com,
entitled "A Story of Sorrow;" the author is unknown.
----------------------------------------------
4. The Parable of the Rabbi from Ephraim
The Kingdom of Hell is like this:
There once was a rabbi from Ephraim who claimed that he was willing to
listen
to many views besides his own. Tradition affirmed that truth is best served
by listening, not just preaching, the rabbi told one and all. This was the
true course of wisdom. He proclaimed this from the housetops, so that
everyone in his community knew his stand on questions of wisdom, and he
took pride in his 'righteousness;' it was, he said, his special virtue.
And it justified his leadership among the people.
Now it came to pass that a controversy broke out in the city at that time;
this was during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. Twenty assassins acting
in the name of Antiochus entered Jerusalem and, in the process of burning
down
the marketplace, murdered many people.
Most people in Ephraim said that the assassins acted entirely outside the
laws
of Antiochus and that the king's policies were opposed to crimes of
such nature. They said that Antiochus stood for peace and harmony among
all people. And most everyone in Ephraim was deeply saddened by the
destruction and deaths in Jerusalem and joined with Syrian supporters
of Antiochus in praying for peace.
The rabbi said that because the crime was so great, it was important for
everyone who had an opinion to be heard, so that truth would become
known to one and all. Hence it came to pass that there were many meetings
in the town at which more than a score of people spoke their minds,
all of whom, however, made statements that supported the authority
of Antiochus.
But there was a scholar from Emmaus named Bilgah who took a different
view of the matter and blamed Antiochus for the disaster inasmuch as
the king's policies had inspired the assassins even if they had no official
sanction
for what they did. As Bilgah saw it, the assassins were of the same mind
as Antiochus -they were as evil as he was.
Rabbi Belteshazzar, that was his name, was opposed to the views of Bilgah
and when the scholar sought the opportunity to address the people this
presented a dilemma. Or so you would think, and you would be right
to suppose that the only honorable thing to do at that juncture was for
the Rabbi to allow Bilgah to speak. After all, Rabbi Belteshazzar was
known for his stands in favor of everyone speaking his mind.
And to an extent those who had spoken publicly until that time had
represented
wide variety in the community. There had been an inn keeper known for
serving
the best olives in Judea, there was a keeper of records for the Syrian
overlord,
there had been a teacher, an expert on the Law, and so forth. Each had
spoken
for an hour or so, and had been able to discuss some of their ideas in
detail.
Indeed, Rabbi Belteshazzar took pride that so many viewpoints had
already been heard.
Bilgah pointed out, however, that all these speakers had supported
Antiochus
and said they respected his policies. He wanted an opportunity to demur and
to explain his very different outlook and was willing to take the
consequences
for expressing unpopular opinions. He felt it was his responsibility to
speak out especially when the great majority acted like a herd of sheep.
After some delay, Rabbi Belteshazzar agreed; after all, everyone knew that
he favored the rights of people to make their views known. So it came about
that the rabbi announced a "special" feature of the public speeches. One
one
evening there would be a unique kind of presentation, there would be
several groups of speakers, everyone not heard until then, each group
consisting of five people. The five would be able to talk for ten minutes,
which, although he did not say so, meant about two minutes each.
In the first group this went smoothly enough. A shop keeper, an orchardman,
a specialist in herbs, and so forth, all agreed that Antiochus meant well
and
that the assassins had "stolen" his good name for evil purposes. Basically,
except for difference in emphasis, they all agreed with one another
and no-one argued with any of the others.
Then came the time for the group that Bilgah was included in.
One was a zealot for Antiochus who had faith in the monarch's every word.
Another was a teacher at the Torah school who had just returned from
Damascus. The one after that was a messenger for the governor,
well educated in Jerusalem. The other was the owner of many properties
who had read many scrolls on diverse matters. Each would have
one minute to make a statement summarizing his views. The others
could then comment if they chose to do so.
When it was Bilgah's turn, he tried to compress all of his ideas into a
very brief rejoinder to all that had been said before him, over many days,
which, of course, was an impossible task, but he did his best. Then, as
soon
as he concluded, the other four each vehemently attacked his views. Bilgah
was able to reply forcefully and to every point that was raised, but in the
end
he was shouted down.
Afterward, Rabbi Belteshazzar took pride in how open he had been
to allowing even someone who opposed his views the opportunity to
speak freely to the people. The rabbi said that this should remove
all possible questions about how fair he was to everyone and
also showed that he was willing to listen to anyone with a serious
message. He beamed with pride; he had demonstrated
his devotion to 'truth.'
-------------------------------------------------
5. The Parable of John the Baptist
The Kingdom of Hell is like John the Baptist when he was arrested
by the Romans. He was accused of many crimes he did not commit
but he admitted freely to his many actions done within the law yet
intended to cause embarrassment to the Sadducees and Pharisees.
Had not John put on parade for all to see, the Lady called Naked Truth?
Had he not done so many times? "No-one wants to see the truth for what
she is," said John, "it was up to me to disrobe her because no-one else
would do it." Then he added, "charge me with that, which I have done."
The Romans were not interested in the Lady, however, and they did not
comment about the false allegations; they simply regarded them as fact
from which there was no appeal. What they would do, however, was to
charge the Baptist with words he said in condemnation of the sodomites.
A Roman officer named Sporus, acting outside the laws of Augustus
but unquestioned by anyone with greater authority in Judea, berated John
for his views on sodomy. "How dare you criticize those who have entered
such unions, they are free to do as they wish, it is a matter of rights,"
he said. "What they do in private is not open for discussion,"
Sporus continued, "it is a pastime for many in the city and you are
a criminal for arguing against their behavior. In the enlightened
opinion of heralds under my command, and of tribunes to whom
I report, what they do is beyond reproach."
John the Baptist would have none of that; he knew that he would be
slandered by Romans like Sporus no matter what he said, so he spoke
his mind without equivocation.
"Everything you have just said about sodomites," said John, "is based on
false
premises or is simply false on the face of it," he said clearly so that
there
would be no misunderstanding. "What they do is vile beyond comprehension,
it is shameful, ugly in character, and embodies sickness like nothing
else. How can
you talk of rights to break all rules of decent conduct? How can you claim
that what they do deserves no reproach when it violates the examples of
nature
which have been placed on Earth for our edification? How can you defend
a form of conduct that not only violates all rules of morality in the
sacred texts
but that invariably leads to malevolence in many areas of life, that
results in
chaos within families, and that disrespects the example of fathers and
mothers?"
"No matter what you say," replied Sporus, "we are discussing rights. If
some
abuse those rights that is a different matter."
"Some?" asked John, incredulously. "Some?" "It isn't just a small minority
among these creatures, themselves a small minority, but many of this
population,
most of them and very conceivably all of them. The very nature of what
they do
causes a stench that rises to heaven and offends God above, and offends
any of the spirits you claim to worship if they are true spirits."
"How impudent of you," said Sporus, "to talk to a Roman like that."
"If you cover my name with mud," said John, "if you imprison me for many
years,
that would change nothing," said the Baptist. "Evil is always evil no
matter
whether you or anyone else presents it as acceptable, as a matter of
rights,
as enlightened, or anything else. Who we are talking about are grown males
who seduce or coerce innocent children into depravity, who defecate
on their own sexuality by cherishing the defecations of those they admire
and bed with, and who have no natural affections at all. It is no accident
that these vermin disguised as men are condemned in the sacred books
of the prophets and the law."
"You are giving me no choice" said Sporus, "but to ensure your
condemnation."
"Then I am ready for exactly that," replied John. "Under no circumstances
will I give the least respect to males who burn with lust for other males,
for females who despise natural intercourse and prefer a diseased
substitute, pretending a tongue is their male member, then acting as
if they were part of a marital union. Everything about such behaviors
is repulsive and deserves nothing but contempt, which was why
the city of Sodom was destroyed by fire."
"And you shall suffer your own miserable fate," said Sporus.
"I know that," replied John the Baptist, "but if it means passing through
the furnaces of Gehenna for the sake of truth and what is right, that is
precisely what I shall do. The sodomites know the just decree of God, they
know that they deserve eternal torment for what they do, and they know in
their hearts how wrong they are no matter how they appeal to others with
lies they know
are false and deceptive."
"Who are you to say any such thing?" Sporus wanted to know.
"Just a man," John replied, "but someone who speaks the truth even when
most other men would prefer to hide from the truth. Noble Romans like
Caesar Augustus when he lived, understand perfectly. And so would the
sodomites if they decided to look at themselves for the moral lepers that
they are, their lives one mass of putrid foulness, one mass of inner
infection,
and one mass of madness that poisons everything about them. Yet they are
only one decision away from saving themselves. Even Aesclepius could
help them if they asked, if they actually believed in anything at all that
represents the Good, and how much more can Jehovah do, who is so
much greater than Aesclepius."
"Send him to his fate," commanded Sporus to his soldiers.
"Whatever happens I will witness for the Lord," said the Baptist, "the
sodomites
witness for their lord, Satan, the fount of all evil. That is the crystal
truth."
John was turned over to the mercies of Herod Antipas.
"And this is what is expected of my disciples," said Jesus, "this is a
fight
to the death against Satan in all his forms, especially the most repugnant
and ugly of forms, that of Sodom. For what is present in the world now
is even worse than Sodom."
Sources:
Identification of Satan with sodomy -homosexuality- is found in the book
of Daniel, 11: 36-37, where the King James translation reads, about a
future evil ruler:
"He shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall
speak marvelous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the
indignation be accomplished: for that [which] is determined shall be done.
Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers,
nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself
above all."
Since Daniel is problematic historically and since the translation of the
passage is questionable, with scholarly modern-day versions indicating that
it was the "God beloved of women" whom the evil ruler rejected even if he
may well have rejected women also,
it is better to refer to Revelation 11, verses 3 - 8, which has a direct
reference to Sodom
and its association with a horrible evil being it is logical to identify
with Satan.
Some of the language is borrowed from Romans 1: 24 - 32.
There is direct reference to Christ's condemnation of sodomy in the Gospel
of Matthew in chapter 11, verses 20 -24.
A number of themes in this parable derive from my reading of psychology
professionals, especially the late Dr Charles Socarides, but there are many
others, a good number
of whom have made it clear that homosexuality is nothing less than
a virulent psychopathology.
------------------------------------------------
6. The Parable of the Desert Tribe
The Kingdom of Hell is like this:
There was a tribe that lived in the desert that sent its young men on raids
into the villages and towns year after year. The young women cheered
the young men on, and would belittle and insult those who showed any signs
of reluctance to take part. None of this was seen as wrong in any way,
on the contrary, the raids were viewed as virtuous, as a means to
show devotion to their God, of whom they spoke with reverence
and longing.
There was a village where the people cherished their heritage and showed
respect to the memory of all who had gone before them. In the village
lived some scribes who wrote down stories from the past, those that taught
the young and old alike the way of virtue and of devotion to things of the
Spirit
There also were artisans in the town who created things of beauty for all
to look upon and wonder about, representations of the ideals of the people
and images of heroes and heroines who could inspire everyone to do their
best.
A shrine was set up in one part of the town which was the pride of the
community.
Whatever people could spare was given to the overseers of the shrine and
generation after generation it became more and more beautiful. Weddings
were
held there, and festivals of thanksgiving, as well as memorials for the
dead.
None worshipped idols, the people were devoted to truth and beauty
even if figures of people might be shown to summon memories that
could teach men and women about their shared past and all the sacrifices
that had been made by those who came before, that they now had
the benefit of making use of to nourish the good in life.
One day the tribesmen from the desert arrived in force and set about
stealing
whatever they wanted, smashing as much artwork as they could find, and
destroying the scrolls of the scribes. Anyone who showed resistance
or who complained, was killed without mercy. Some of the young women
were captured and were never seen again -except a few who, some time
later, were sold at a slave auction in a nearby city.
The people of the community were heartbroken and unconsolable.
They had done nothing to deserve this disaster to their lives, and it would
take years to repair the damages and not even then would all of the losses
be made good. Many things were gone forever, including priceless writings
and art that the best of craftsmen had labored to create. And their shrine,
the product of generations of sacrifice and work, was destroyed.
People in the next village heard of this tragedy and in response they
invited
people from the tribe of raiders to speak in their synagogue. They invited
some
of them to dinners held in their honor. The chieftan of the village spoke
to
the community and told them that the tribesman were misunderstood
and that the tribe really stood for peace and harmony among people.
Yes, there had been a tragedy at the other village but it was perpetrated
by renegades from the desert tribe who were acting on their own against
the wishes of their peers and against the teachings of their faith.
What most concerned the chieftan and the elders of that village
was the possibility that members of the desert tribe might be
called names or otherwise made to feel persecuted.
No help was extended to the nearby village that had lost so much.
At the encampment of the desert tribe the people were celebrating their
'triumph' over the 'idolaters' while the young men violated the young women
captives from the village.
Then all of the people of the desert tribe, in obedience to the commands of
their 'holy' book, gathered for prayer and prostrated themselves on the
ground
to show submission to their God, Behemoth.
In the depths of Hell, Satan received the prayers of the desert tribe with
the greatest satisfaction.
Inspired by a heart-rending story told by Beth Hammett of the
National Writing Project under the title, "The Parable of the Bridge."
-----------------------------------------------
7. The Parable of the Stolen Shekel
The Kingdom of Hell is like this:
A girl stole a shekel from a friend. It could just as well have been a boy
of the same age, six years old, or seven, the lesson would be the same.
Many years later the memory of that theft remained fresh in the mind
of the girl, now in her adult years, with a family and children of her own.
The woman reflected back to that day, often. It was a betrayal of a friend,
and for what? A coin that could only purchase a limited amount of
anything.
And what is a friendship worth? You cannot put a price on it.
The woman thought back to what the theft had cost not only to her friend,
the loss of something she intended to buy, but different kinds of costs to
herself
-measured in shame, regret, and the burden of hiding a wrong not only
from others but from herself.
Years later the woman thought about what her childhood "crime" really meant
in her life. And how could she undo her sin? She could not. The coin
remained
stuck in her memory like a thorn stuck in a lion's paw.
"It never bought me what I thought I wanted," she thought to herself,
and it cost me my integrity. "This is what sin did to me."
The woman found her friend despite the many years that had passed
and offered a heartfelt apology. That action, while it could not remove
all of the effects from that long-ago sin, helped her accept herself
as she is, someone who no longer needed to keep a diseased secret.
For others the answer to the problem is more sin. In time sin becomes
habitual,
it becomes normal and is not given any thought. Why not steal from others
if you can do so and not get caught? Why not lie about others? Why not
tear someone down to make yourself seem more important to others?
What does this do to one's family is never asked in the process, nor what
this does to one's community, and not even how these events may turn
upon oneself as mistrust grows among friends who become less and less
who they were, and as people one knows become more and more suspicious
of everyone's motives. Is that what a sinner really wants?
The woman who stole the shekel lived many years with a soiled memory.
Finally, after still more years passed, this story was told to the girl's
mother,
the mother of the woman who was now well into her middle years.
"Why didn't I tell my daughter about the curse of sin?"asked the mother
in deepest sorrow and shame."Why didn't I believe what my own faith
teaches?"
And she wept and could not stop weeping.
Based on a blog post for January 26, 2015 by Melissa Dalton-Bradford,
with the title: " Say You’re Sorry: Part 2 of a 50¢ Parable." My most
sincere
thanks to her for her honesty and genuine desire to live her faith.
----------------------------------------------
8. The Parable of the Ship from Pergamum
The Kingdom of Hell is like this:
A ship was on a long voyage, but the captain was not a skilled pilot
and had managed to create terrible problems for everyone on board.
It was a large ship and there were many passengers.
At that point the crew realized that it was time to choose a new captain
according to the custom of Pergamum, the nation that sent the ship
on its way. Should a captain prove to be too unskilled to command
a ship on to its destination, he should be replaced by one of the crew
who, in the judgement of all others on board, should be capable
of the task.
When it became clear that the ship needed a new captain a number of
sailors cam forward to express their desire to guide the vessel. But it
became obvious, soon enough, that each of he candidates for the post
could easily have been even worse than the captain they already had.
So the issue was in doubt for some time.
Each faction supported someone who was good at talking but who had
no sound ideas about what to do with the ship, who didn't know how to
steer, or what ports to call on, or how to make provision for needed
supplies, each was defective in some particular and some were defective
in several. Finally, though, the choice fell upon an Ethiopian, not the
best
among the Ethiopians, but the one who sounded the best
His promises to the passengers and crew were magnanimous in spirit,
he would, he said, heal the rifts between factions, he would get the ship
to Tarshish expeditiously and make the voyage profitable for the merchants
who provided the funds for the journey.
But when he took command of the ship it was not long before the Ethiopian's
limitations became obvious to everyone -except to his loyal supporters,
virtually every Ethiopian on the ship, plus most of the Lusitanians, most
of
the Euboeans, and some others, especially many women, which was
important since in Pergamum the female sex was given honors equal with
those of the men. These people made every excuse they could think of
to justify the incompetence of the new captain, disregarding the
complaints
of everyone else.
And so the ship floundered on to its destination, arriving battered
and, once there, with insufficient leadership from a captain who only had
a flawed understanding of his responsibilities to make the voyage
profitable.
Worse, when in port, en route, in Syracuse, the Ethiopian captain dined
with the
officers of a ship docked there from Nabatea, the sworn enemy of Pergamum.
This was because the Ethiopian had a brother who made his home in that
country and was a votary of the Nabatean God.
As well, the Ethiopian captain antagonized the captain of another ship in
port,
a ship from Ascalon, an important ally of Pergamum.
There had been an opportunity to remove the Ethiopian from the captaincy
while the ship was under sail, but the seas were stormy and his supporters
rallied behind him, arguing to everyone on board that he needed another
chance
to show how good he really was, that so far, it only seemed as if he did
not
know what he was doing, and the passengers and other crew members
mostly agreed -to their regret. It soon became clear even to some of the
Ethiopian's ardent supporters how unqualified he really was. Only with
luck
did the ship complete its journey after a number of serious incidents
along the way.
When news of the unfortunate voyage reached Pergamum the leaders
of the country finally understood that if people are to select a captain
wisely
they need to actually understand why they were choosing someone for
such responsibility. The people needed to be informed and thoughtful
or else the custom they all cherished would fail. The leaders also
discussed
among themselves the need for talented officers who could rise to the rank
of captain, but this never went beyond talk, and no-one could agree about
how to induce the people to learn how to choose wisely.
Disagreements about these things grew worse with the passage of time
and the threat of civil war loomed. The king understood this threat
with great clarity and did not want his country to suffer such a fate.
In his will, at his death, all of Pergamum was ceded to the Roman Empire.
Peace was guaranteed from then on. The only price to pay was freedom.
Inspiration: The parable of the ship, Plato, The Republic.
-------------------------------------------------
9. Parable of the Self-righteous Wife
The Kingdom of Hell is like this:
There was a woman who thought it was smart to disagree with her husband
at every opportunity. Not because of defects in her husband, although he
was
not any more prefect than any other husband, but because the woman
had the view that since she could insist on her way she ought to do so;
in this behavior she derived pleasure.
It almost did not matter what was right and what was wrong as seen
by any fair-minded person although, as in the real life of all people,
there was some mixture of right and wrong whomever you might be
describing in the marriage. Still, the woman was not interested in
talking things through with her husband, not interested in her husband's
point of view, nor interested in much of anything except her satisfaction
for her own reasons. It did not matter to her what the scriptures said,
in her mind the sacred scrolls said whatever she wanted them
to say on every issue that mattered in her life
The years passed, with the couple bound to each other with unseen cords,
as things are meant to be when a man and woman enter marriage. The wife
was happy with the privileges she took for herself, unbidden. She had
nearly
all the good things in life she might desire, and as far as others were
concerned
things seemed good between the man and woman. There were visits with
friends, visits with family, and visits to places like Capernaum and
Sidon..
It happened that the man went on a journey in search of opportunity.
He had grown dissatisfied with his work in Tiberius even though the city
was a good place to live, along the shores of Lake Gennesaret, also called
the Sea of Galilee. But the husband understood that there was no
possibility
of achieving his goal of becoming a scribe, for which he had studied from
long before his marriage, continuing to that very time. In Tiberius he was
recognized as a land surveyor and there was no real choice
but to continue that work.
However, the man learned of a village in Beraea, which was seeking
a scribe. Few established scribes took an interest in that small town
but it seemed to the man that it might be a perfect place to make a name
for himself as a scribe. And so he went there and found the village
much to his liking; he signed a contract and agreed to locate
there in only a few weeks.
When the man returned to Tiberius his wife, as she often did, berated
her husband's choice, and she was not about to relocate to a remote place
far from the city -assuming that her husband wanted her to do so.
But she was not concerned about his decision inasmuch as, so she said,
after a short stay he was sure to return to Tiberius where life was
filled with activity amidst throngs of people -who could also
tell the woman good things about herself she loved to hear.
That was not how things turned out, Within a year the man had divorced
his wife and the next year had married someone else. He had started
his life over and was thankful for the chance to do so in a place
on the edge of the wilderness, and he liked that, too.
The woman, now a former wife, became bitter and recriminating.
When she wasn't angry she was filled with self pity. Her solace became
eating to excess and after a while she became very obese and very
unpleasant
to look at, which made her problems even worse. Her unhappiness was
boundless, about which she complained to everyone she knew.
At length, in desperation, she turned to religion and made a study
of the Torah and the traditions, always, of course, interpreting
everything
to justify her new condition and situation. And she fervently prayed to
God,
asking how this could possibly have happened to her,
someone who always did what was right.
-----------------------------------------------
10. The Parable of the Prince and Princess
The Kingdom of Hell is like the man who found a precious woman like no
other.
The man and the woman were married and for several years the two of them
lived like lovebirds in a nest; they were inseparable and did not want
it any other way.
Their marriage was the kind of life that mothers tell their children
about,
how the deserving prince meets an unknown but beautiful maiden
who secretly is a princess.
It was at that time that people were talking about then new liberties that
were being afforded to Roman women. And much of that was for the good.
We remember our ancestors and how the families that made us a nation
were always led by a households in which women were important and
shown great respect. This was so for Abraham and Sarah, as it was for
Isaac, Leah, and Rebecca. It was also true for many others.
We should not forget Miriam the sister of Moses, nor David and Abigail
and the other wives, nor the Shunamite woman whom Solomon loved.
There are still more who have special places in the scriptures, like Ruth
and the Queen of Sheba, like the prophetess whom Isaiah loved,
and like Queen Esther.
The Roman women of that time, however, were not 'just like' the women
we know from our sacred writings. Why this was so has many explanations
but what is important to keep in mind was that women with names like
Aemila Tertia, Scribonia, Fulva, Clodia, and Servilia were part of a Cause
which had the effect that it set women against men even if this was denied
in public forums.
What was this Cause all about? It began with much deserved rights granted
to
women which allowed many to succeed in the public realm as merchants,
shopkeepers, managers of property, and still other things. There was also
newfound equality with men in several areas of life, especially with
respect
to freedom to meet men, to enter business partnerships with anyone they
so chose, and to receive education similar to that of men. Philosophers
of previous times had advocated these things.
However, that was only the beginning. The Roman women began to blame
men for their "oppression," they said that the laws of the state were
unfair
to women, and that households in which men were the natural leaders
were unjust.
Hearing these things, numbers of deviant women, commonly but inaccurately
identified with Lesbos, saw opportunity for themselves and they took up the
Cause for themselves. Which is a major reason why the tide that swept over
women took some of the turns that it did. The morals -corruptions of
morals-
that were found among women of unnatural lusts flooded into the lives of
the other women who were part of the Cause, and from there spread to
the whole of society.
The effects were not immediate but they were forceful when they came.
Indeed, the Roman women condemned their own religion, condemned morality
as unnecessary, and condemned the family itself.
They also promulgated the view that true happiness for a woman
was not to be found in motherhood and raising children, but in the
marketplace where success at business is the standard of judgement.
Love itself was condemned as unnecessary and detrimental
to women's fulfillment.
Besides all of this, Roman women began to make false claims about
how unfortunate they were because everything was not exactly what they
most wanted, and because they were blind to the responsibilities that men
assume as second nature and rarely talk about because such things
don't merit discussion, they simply are the way things are. These are
things we all need to accept if we are to live normal lives where we can
achieve some measure of lasting happiness.
The Roman women did not agree with that view, whatsoever. For them
the morals that made love between men and women possible, that made
the family possible, and that made communities possible, were all evils
that should be sneered at. In place of traditions that had served Rome
well for countless years, the Roman women of that era offered, instead,
sexual libertinism, self-centeredness, and disdain for almost all of the
good
that had been the virtues of the Republic. As for those women who
disagreed
and defended love and the family and communities where people care about
each other's well being, they were ridiculed as slaves to patriarchy,
or as religious idiotes, and still other demeaning things.
Such ideas became known to the young wife and she, in turn, began to
persuade her husband that these ideas were good. In time, not all
at once but month by month, the values that the couple had shared
were undermined and then forgotten, leaving less and less
of their love and less and less respect for each other.
Was this all the fault of the woman? Her share of the blame was undeniable.
Would things have slid down the mountain the way they did had she not
given the first horrible push. Sometimes women do act the part of Eve
in the book of Genesis, even if not exactly in the manner of Eve;
of that there can be no doubt.
But the husband, whatever virtues he had, and there were some which were
noble enough, had his own failings, such as inability to see what these
ideas
were leading to and what these ideas really were based upon, which was,
ultimately, a set of beliefs that had arisen from amongst the sodomites,
the sodomite women first and then the sodomite males. That is how could
he have been so oblivious? That kind of not-seeing-the-obvious
has no excuse.
These were now accepted as 'truths" among normal people, as if the values
of pederasts and of women who partook in unnatural relationships
should serve as models for all men and women -no matter what
the effects of such perversions might have on their lives.
There were other considerations. Was the woman selfish? About some things,
yes, but it was far more true that this was the husband's failing, not from
malice but from inability to see his actions clearly for what they were.
Which was another case of being oblivious to the obvious.
In fact, the whole course of the marriage was foreseeable but not foreseen.
The truth was not recognized for what it was, that they were on a path
of self-destruction, until it was much too late. Only confrontation with
failure was able to waken the man to what had really happened,
and even that required years of searching his soul.
As for the woman, if she ever came to understand the tragic reality that
had
torn her life apart is unknown and perhaps is best left unknown. Her
contribution
to the destruction of a life filled with love was allowing the ideas of
Roman
women to substitute for the values of her faith, with consequences that
her faith could so easily have predicted.
Sodomy has nothing at all to do with the lives of normal men and women?
The minute that normal men and women start thinking like sodomites,
even if they have no interest at all in sodomy itself, is the minute that
they
start to destroy their own lives from within.
About some things men are more susceptible to the blandishments of Satan.
About other things it is women who are more corruptible. The prince and
princess did not live in happiness thereafter, they went separate ways,
each to a different kind of fate but in neither case a fate of lasting
love.
That was the price to be paid for heeding ideas in fashion, ideas that
under
any scrutiny should have been seen as horrible poisons.
This is a lesson. You have now been forewarned. If you allow
this to happen to you, knowing the truth, who could you blame?
There is also a final lesson. Roman men have begun to revolt against
the ideas of those Roman women. The Cause of the Roman women,
it seems certain, will be trampled under foot. Roman men are finally
seeing those ideas for what they are: Sickness wearing the mask
of liberty from oppression. That is like demanding freedom from
everything that gives you limits but which, at the same time, makes
your life possible. That is no different than freedom from sanity.
Inspired by pain and by a book that deserves far more recognition
than it has received, Christina Hoff Sommers, Who Stole Feminism?
--
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
