TonioTimeDaily

The contradictions start in the opening chapters of the Bible, where inconsistent creation stories are told. Genesis chapter 1 says the first man and woman were made at the same time, and after the animals. But Genesis chapter 2 gives a different order of creation: man, then the animals, and then woman.

Genesis chapter 1 lists six days of creation, whereas chapter 2 refers to the “day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.” Genesis 1:2-3 claims that God created light and divided it from darkness on the first day; but Genesis 1:14-19 tells us the sun, moon, and stars weren’t made until the fourth day.

Chapter 1 reports that the fruit trees were created before the man, while chapter 2 indicates they were made after him. Genesis 1:20 says the fowl were created out of the waters; Genesis 2:19 alleges they were formed from the ground.

Contradictions are also seen in the biblical story of a worldwide flood. According to Genesis 6:19-22, God ordered Noah to bring “of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort . . . into the ark.” Nevertheless, Genesis 7:2-3 relates that the Lord ordered Noah to take into the ark the clean beasts and the birds by sevens, and only the unclean beasts by twos.

Genesis 8:4 reports that, as the waters of the flood receded, Noah’s ark rested on the mountains of Ararat in the seventh month. The very next verse, however, says the mountaintops could not be seen until the tenth month.

Genesis 8:13 describes the earth as being dry on the first day of the first month. But Genesis 8:14 informs us the earth was not dry until the twenty-seventh day of the second month.

The Old Testament contains an interesting contradiction in the story of the census taken by King David and the resulting punishment of the Israelites. God was so angered by the census that he sent a plague that killed 70,000 men. According to II Samuel 24:1, the Lord had caused David to take the census – which makes the punishment appear even more nonsensical. But an attempt was later made, at I Chronicles 21:1, to improve God’s image by claiming that Satan incited the census.

Further, the Old Testament is contradictory as to whether the Lord commanded the Israelites to sacrifice animals to him. At Jeremiah 7:22, God denies he ever gave the Israelites commandments about animal sacrifices. In contrast, Exodus 29:38-42 and many other verses depict God as requiring the Israelites to offer animal sacrifices."

Link: https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/reasons-humanists-reject-bible/

I first analyze a sermon titled, “Tulsa’s Race Riot and the Teachings of Jesus,” by Bishop Edwin D. Mouzon of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, preached on the Sunday after the massacre.

Rephrasing my key question for this analysis, How did Mouzon respond to the massacre?

How did Mouzon, a White Christian preacher, appeal to theology and scripture to justify racist actions or uphold white supremacy?

Appealing directly to theology without specific biblical reference, Mouzon downplays White racial prejudice in Tulsa. Mouzon condemns the KKK, but he clearly states racial equality will never be realized. Quoting Bishop E.E. Hoss, Mouzon says, “God Almighty has drawn the color line in indelible ink.”[7] He then insists on separate (but not equal) dwellings, hotels, schools, and churches in Tulsa and points to the social failures of race mixing in Brazil.

Scripturally, Mouzon loosely uses Jesus’ language about “a city set on a hill” as exposing lawlessness. “‘Little Africa’ was almost without law. No effort had been made to enforce the rule of law,” Mouzon says, separating the “fine citizens” of Tulsa from the lawless Blacks who incited the riot and lawless Whites who burned “Little Africa.”[8]

How does Mouzon call the church to account for racist ideas, policies, and actions? Mouzon calls White Christians to take responsibility only for the disgrace of permitting lawless men to make our city immoral and unsafe. “Let us repent of our sins and resolve to make this fair city safe for men and women to live in.”[9] Though Mouzon speaks of Black people being saved in eternity, his overall rhetoric betrays any interpretation of “men and women” to include Black people.

Dripping with ethos, the sermon includes no compassionate pathos for Black people. On the Sunday after ten thousand Black people became homeless because of White mob actions, one of Mouzon’s suggestions for a better future was that White preachers and godly White women must teach Black “creatures” better behavior."

Link: https://www.tulsahistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/E-D-Mouzon_Tulsa-Race-Riot-Sermon_Christian-Advocate-07141921_and-transcription-00000003.pdf

"People can be solo poly by choice or circumstance. That is, some people prefer solo polyamory and are unwilling to strongly merge their identity or life infrastructure with their partners. Others simply happen to be effectively solo: they may desire (or be open to) primary-style relationships in the future, but they just don’t happen to have one at the moment.

Solo polyamory can be an expression of personal values. People who prefer solo polyamory generally embrace autonomy as a paramount value: their own, and that of others. (This is very much the case for me, but not for all solo poly people.)

Solo poly people may or may not also be “single,” in the conventional sense of that term (“completely unpartnered”). We may have one or more intimate partners who play a significant, ongoing role in our lives — or we may, at the moment, have no such relationships. At the time I wrote this post (December 2014) I was involved in one significant ongoing intimate relationship, while remaining open to others. Most of a year later, that relationship has ended, and I’m dating others, but nothing yet feels like a particularly deep relationship. And that’s OK.

I do consider myself poly; I wouldn’t participate in an exclusive or dishonest relationship. At times I may incidentally be single — but I am always solo, regardless of my partnership status. Also, I never really view myself as part of “a couple;” I’m an individual who has important and open intimate relationships with other individuals, when it feels right.

Solo polyamory: Flipping these words around, polyamory is, broadly speaking, one approach to engaging in (or being open to having) ethically nonexclusive relationships involving sex, romance, or deep emotional intimacy. What distinguishes solo poly people is that we generally do not have intimate relationships which involve (or are heading toward) primary-style merging of life infrastructure or identity along the lines of the traditional social relationship escalator. For instance, we generally don’t share a home or finances with any intimate partners. Similarly, solo poly people generally don’t identify very strongly as part of a couple (or triad etc.); we prefer to operate and present ourselves as individuals."

Link: https://solopoly.net/2014/12/05/what-is-solo-polyamory-my-take/

As far as I can tell, the artistic choice to depict Matthew as autistic has been widely embraced. Jesus came for the sick and outcast, so it’s not hard to imagine him calling someone with a disability to follow him.

But let me ask a somewhat provocative question: What if The Chosen had taken the artistic liberty to present Jesus as neuroatypical or less than able-bodied?

Surely, there’d be pandemonium, along with accusations of heresy. Our knee-jerk reaction reveals something troubling about our understanding of Jesus. Perhaps a Hollywood, handsome Jesus has become too sacrosanct. It’s time to uproot this idol. The Scriptures and church history give strong precedent for pondering Jesus as less than able-bodied.

One of the most cherished passages from Isaiah is the Suffering Servant passage in 52:13–53:12. Pre-disability, I relished the passage’s vision of substitutionary atonement—the Servant died in my place for my sins:

But he was pierced for our transgressions,

After the onset of my disability, God invited me to cherish other aspects of this passage. How is it possible I had never noticed the disfigurement of Jesus and his social rejection (52:14 NIV)?

Many were appalled at him.

It seemed unavoidable that God actually wanted me to perceive Jesus as disfigured. At the very least, this verse speaks of Jesus’s condition on the day of his death. He is flogged, his flesh ripped. He is bloodied, bruised, and covered with spit. He is a spectacle of deformity, paraded to Calvary. Suffering, deformed, and disabled. Like me. Like millions of others. He can relate; he became what I am.

I wonder, though, if these statements resonate with Jesus’s entire life, not just his crucifixion. For Isaiah adds (53:2 NIV):

He grew up before him like a tender shoot, . . .

Let those words sink in: Jesus was unattractive. We read further of him:

A man of sorrows and familiar with illness (53:3 my translation)

like one from whom people hide their faces (53:3b NIV)

This sorrowful, sickly servant is like a freak show, “like one from whom people hide their faces” (53:3 NIV).

Isaiah 52:13–53:12 seems to offer a strong basis for assessing whether our Hollywood, handsome, able-bodied Jesus is correct."

Links: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/matthews-disability-chosen-matters/ and https://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/why-its-important-to-value-neurodiversity-in-the-church/ and https://cypf.berkshirehealthcare.nhs.uk/media/168884/positives_of_autism-poster.pdf. 

"What did Jesus eat?

There were no fast-food establishments in Jesus’ time, and we know that he was not raised by strangers on junk foods in day care centers, because there were no day care centers in those days.

We can be certain that his mother, Mary, made a sustained effort to feed her son home cooking and a healthy, natural, Mediterranean diet. It was Mary’s labor of love for Jesus, and he was bathed in Mary’s love.

Like many of the Jewish women of her times, Mary was a masterful nutritionist and cook. Her nutritional knowledge and knowledge of medicinal herbs had been handed down for centuries from mothers to daughters. Mary was not about to raise her Messiah son on junk foods.

As observant Jews, Jesus’ family did not eat ham or pork. Jesus’ meals probably included homemade yogurt, goat’s cheese, eggs, fish, lots of salads with tomatoes and cucumbers dressed in olive oil and medicinal herbs like oregano, basil, and mint, lots of fresh vegetables like squash and eggplant, whole-grain wheat, brown rice, lentils, garbanzo beans, nuts like almonds, and whole-wheat bread. He also probably ate an assortment of fresh fruits – figs, dates, apricots, bananas, apples, and oranges. All these foods are indigenous to the Holy Land.

Very occasionally, for religious holidays and special events, like weddings, Jesus’ family probably ate lamb or chicken, but meats were not central to the Mediterranean diet, and, as they are today, meats were used very sparingly in dishes, mainly as seasonings.

Jesus’ diet was probably mainly plant-based, and today would come under the category of “health foods” at very dear prices. But these health foods were much cheaper in Jesus’ times because many families cultivated their own extensive gardens.

Because of the healthy diet Mary fed him and his daily strenuous physical activity, the boy Jesus grew into a strong and healthy man bursting with energy.

We also know that Jesus ate in moderation and fasted and prayed frequently, and that he often sought quiet and rest."

Links: https://www.soulshepherding.org/jesus-set-boundaries/ and https://www.joyfulnoiseletter.com/the_physically_fit_messiah.asp

"Most people perceive Jesus Christ as a passive personality. But a closer look reveals His life example and teachings to be assertive. With reference to the “Passive-Assertive-Aggressive” continuum and chart on page 2, the person of Jesus is centered and balanced in the assertive realm. Indeed; if the core intent of assertiveness is “to communicate”, then Jesus truly is the Teacher. For the Christian this difference; Jesus being an assertive person rather than passive, is of the utmost importance. This is particularly true when successful, permanent behavioral modification is necessary. As the Apostle Paul commands: “Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ” (I Corinthians 11:1). The depth of this imitation is described in a letter by Paul: “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life that I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God...” (Galatians 2:20). For the Christian, self is put to death so the character of Christ can be developed in the individual. In another passage the Scripture speaks of God’s pre-determined purpose for the believer “to become conformed to the image of His Son” (Romans 8:29). Therefore, the goal and orientation of the follower of Christ would be to strive toward an assertive, rather than a passive (or aggressive), life style as his behavioral norm. Assertiveness Passive Assertive Aggressive Consider the following chart Nonassertive Assertive Aggressive Characteristics of the behavior Does not express wants, Ideas and feelings, or Expresses them in self-deprecating way. Intent: to please. Expresses wants, ideas, and feelings in direct and appropriate ways. Intent: to communicate Expresses wants, ideas and feelings at the expense of others. Intent: to dominate or humiliate Your feelings when you act this way Anxious; disappointed with yourself. Often angry and resentful later. Confident; You feel good about yourself at the time and later. Self-righteous; superior. Sometimes embarrassed later. Other people’s feelings about themselves when you act this way. Guilty or superior Respected, valued Humiliated, hurt Other people’s feelings about you when you act this way. Irritation, pity, disgust. Usually respect. Anger vengefulness. Outcome Don’t get what you want; anger builds up. Often get what you want. Often get what you want at the expense of others. Others feel justified in “getting even” Payoff Avoids unpleasant situation, conflict, tension, confrontation. Feels good; respected by others; improved self-confidence; relationships are improved. Vents anger; feels superior."

Link: https://hischurchnorthwest.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Character_of_Jesus_Paper.119142420-1.pdf

"An instinctive dismissal is easy enough as a quick reaction to the simple declaration that Jesus was a victim of sexual abuse without further elaboration. But it becomes much harder when the text is read carefully. For those who take the text seriously, the evidence usually becomes compelling. Recent work developing contextual Bible studies on Mk 15:15–24 and Mt 27:26–31 supports this claim. When the first century historical evidence is examined and what is known of sexual abuses in contemporary contexts are considered, the argument usually becomes convincing. This acts as a bridge to a deeper conversation on the difference this makes to how Christians might see Jesus and how churches might respond differently to survivors of sexual abuse. Interviews with a group of male survivors of church related sexual abuse in Peru indicated that all eight of the men interviewed believed that the sexual abuse of Jesus was an important issue for the whole church and not just for survivors of abuse.  Commenting on the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) first series of hearings on Child Sexual Abuse in the Anglican Church in England and Wales (5–23 March 2018), Woodhead has argued that although a change in culture within the church is necessary, cultural change will fall short if it does not also extend to theology. Woodhead argues that a theology of forgiveness that supported abuse needs to be reconsidered. Likewise, naming Jesus as a victim of sexual abuse would provide impetus for a more urgent discussion of how other areas of church theology, including a naïve Christology, must be scrutinized and rethought in light of abuse scandals. A potentially positive aspect of these discussions is that the special status of Jesus in Christianity strongly resists the blaming and shaming discussed above. Jesus is the one person who is usually viewed within the churches as faultless and blameless. Likewise, Christians are very unlikely to suggest that Jesus is less worthy as a religious leader because of what was done to him.

Therefore, the suggestion that Jesus experienced sexual abuse is highly disruptive and disconcerting to the notionally respectable Christian view, which so readily stigmatizes victims. Recognizing Jesus as a victim challenges the prejudice that a victim of sexual abuse is somehow at fault and/or spoilt by their experience. Naming Jesus as a victim of sexual abuse therefore matters far more than is obvious at first. It is not just getting the historical record correct, it can make a real difference to how survivors see themselves and how they are perceived and treated by others. Further research is required around survivor response, but many individual survivors have spoken of their appreciation of this reading and the practical difference it has made to them. In the words of one survivor: ‘When I was abused, I never imagined that God could understand my shame’.  Conclusion An understanding of crucifixion as a form of sexual abuse has started to be more widely recognized in recent publications. Whether crucifixion is viewed from the perspectives of torture (Tombs), lynching (Gafney), or sexual abuse (Heath and Trainor), the sexual element in crucifixion is coming into clearer focus. Yet there is still a long way to go for this to become fully appreciated in the church, the academy, or wider society."

https://brill.com/view/journals/ijpt/13/4/article-p387_2.xml?language=en

P.S. I think Jesus loved to party in a self-controlled type of way.

Growing up, I guess I had an image of Jesus from paintings or stained glass windows. Isn’t he distant, emaciated, in pain? But there he is in Luke 10:21—“full of joy.” This word, agalliaō, notes Robert H. Mounce, is “a very strong word depicting unrestrained joy.”

The pacing and tone of his speech seem to have been badly misread. Jesus jokes. He tells one in Luke 14:14–24 that is a bit sexual. The set-up is: three guys get invited to a party. All three say they can’t come. Karl Hand, in “A Wicked Sense of Humor,” maps out the connections:

Growing up, I thought the messiah came off masculine and not too cute. A regular guy, was the idea. Isn’t that how men were supposed to be? The gospels don’t describe Jesus’ body, but the Old Testament prophet Isaiah does say the messiah will have “no form nor comeliness…no beauty…” (53:2)

That might refer to him having little social importance. As Joan E. Taylor explains in What Did Jesus Look Like? (2018), early Christians understood Jesus to be smoking hot—citing the messianic Psalm 45, a long praise of a beautiful man: “Youthful in beauty you are, beyond the sons of men; grace was poured on your lips.”

But this is the Bible, where heroes—from Joseph to David—tend to be a bit girly. If studying the clues to Jesus’ gender presentation, we don’t see that he’s too manly. As Aída Besançon Spencer notes: “Jesus never uses the Greek masculine term anēr (male) for self-description. Jesus always uses the generic or inclusive term anthrōpos (human).”

He calls himself the ‘son of Man’. “In Hebrew the phrase simply means ‘a human being’,” notes Walter Wink."

B.C. (Before Church/Christianity)

Born in Palestine of teenage parents (legends aside)

About 18 “dark” years when, IF he actually had been The Son of God, would have healed everyone and brought peace to the world (wouldn’t you think?)

Became a wandering Jewish heretic storyteller

Never wrote a word (and may have been illiterate)

Never a Christian

Executed by the Romans (like everyone else the Romans felt threatened by)

-Listen to poor and powerless people, they are the real teachers (“Especially honored are the poor. . .”)

-Clergy, religious teachers and theologians don’t speak for Secular Jesus

-Stories (parables) illustrate how to be a good human being

-If there is something “divine,” that divinity is present and active here on earth, not in an imagined heaven

-It’s about Ethics, not Faith (be a good person, what you believe doesn’t much matter)

-Secular Jesus has no “holy book” (all “sacred scriptures” are true … or all of them are false; books are good but can distract from ethical living)

-Truth cannot be contained in one book, one person, one religion, one state. . .

Secular Jesus cannot be owned by any faith

Even secular people can “follow” Secular Jesus (i.e. his ethical teachings, radically heretical life and teachings)

"Many will come into my name to distract you from my practical ethics, directing your eyes to the heaven, another world, the super-natural. They will speak of theology and spirituality, scriptures and churches. But I say...take a deep breath and go for a hike. You'll learn more about the meaning of life, and what I'm really teaching." - Secular Jesus

P.S. “ I decided to start my own condom/contraceptive line business, sex museum business, erotica business, and healthy sexuality businesses for people with sexual issues and sexual trauamas, and just healthy sensuality and healthy sexuality in general.“

-Antonio Myers 

"Here are some suggestions to help you do that:

1. Set ground rules for sharing: Ask yourself what about your partner’s history is relevant to your relationship today? Revealing your STI status, health concerns, past trauma, or ways your like to be touched is important. But is it necessary to spill every single bean? Ask yourself if what you’re sharing serves the essence of what you’d like to communicate (i.e. I’m kinky, I’m afraid, I’m confused etc). I doubt that you’ll ever find yourself on a game show where knowing the nickname your girlfriend gave to her ex’s penis comes between you and the grand prize.

2. That they are even telling you about their past is a really good thing. They’re making themselves vulnerable enough to communicate with you and trusting that your relationship is steady enough to withstand it. Thank your partner for being open with you, and if you’re sharing, try to be sensitive to how your partner receives the information.

3. Remind yourself that their physical relationship with you is probably better because of their relationship with someone else. With experience, we grow more in touch with our body, we realize what feels good and what doesn’t, and we learn to lock the door to our office (sorry everyone). Be grateful for this.

4. Focus on your sexual future together instead of your sexual past. Remember, there is nobody else just like you. The chemistry you share with your partner is unique and stands alone. It’s a waste of time and energy to compare yourself to anyone.  So unless you’re into freaky paranormal phantom sex, throw those ghosts out of your bed and move on.

5. Guess what: The jealousy, anger, insecurity, resentment, and fear that you may feel, stem from YOUR fantasies of your partner’s past, and YOUR relationship to those fantasies. Believe it or not, your feelings have much more to do with you than with your partner. So if you have a problem with what they did between the sheets circa 1994, it’s ultimately your problem to take care of.

Do let your partner in on how you’re feeling, but the worst thing you can do is lash out, blame, shame, or make them responsible for your feelings.

This is the thing – while your partner’s past had nothing to do with you, if it’s coming up now, it is affecting you both right now, and how you respond to it will affect your relationship today.

Retroactive jealousy is a common topic of conversation between couples in my psychotherapy practice. As a Gestalt Therapist, I like to ask:

a. How is the past present? That is, how are you using yours/your partner’s past to influence your current relationship?

b. What’s it like for you to hear about your partner’s sex life before they met you?

c. Are you using it to create distance between you?

d. Are you using it to scare yourself?

e. Are you seeking validation from your partner? Or can you allow it to be something that brings you closer?

I suggest you share the answers to these questions as well!"