The theme of today's reading was mercy. The author of the letter was looking for a break from what he calls an "affliction." Pope Gregory II, the person who wrote this letter, begs Charles "the Hammer" Martel for his help against the Lombards from Italy. Martel is best known for his battle against the Muslims.
Pope Gregory II tried as hard as he could to maintain a good relationship with the Lombards. It was pretty difficult for him to do when the Lombards took Cumae. This caused Rome to be cut off from Naples.
Pope Gregory II was afraid that the Lombards were trying to take all of Italy, one region at a time. That was when he appealed to Charles Martel. Unfortunately, Wikipedia says, Martel did not respond to his request.
I think it's interesting that the Lombards completely disregard the Pope. I was under the impression that the national religion is Roman Catholicism, but maybe that came at a later date. Although, this could be a rebel group that didn't necessarily fall under any type of religion.
While reading this, the idea that I had was that it's strange that Martel would engage in a battle against Muslims, but wasn't too keen on helping the Roman Catholics. I could give him the benefit of the doubt and say that maybe he didn't get the letter. Or, perhaps, he was too busy to respond.
However, one could also say that it's just like humans to pick and choose who they are against. In today's Christian culture, we pick homosexuals or fornicators or promiscuous men and women. What about the prideful? The people who tell little white lies? What about the people committing "little" sins? Really, they're all the same to God.
Monday, September 24, 2012
Monday, September 17, 2012
Didache
The Didache was written in the first century, dated around 40-60 CE. It was supposedly written by the Apostles, and in 1873 a man by the name of Philotheos Bryennios discovered a Greek manuscript. J. Schlect discovered a Latin version of the Didache in 1900. Parts of the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles are said to be the "oldest written catechism," according to the Wikipedia website dedicated to this subject.
Honestly, I think the only modern parallels we can make today is the Constitution. Our Constitution and laws lay the moral groundwork for our culture. They tell us what we can and cannot do, but the only difference is that it doesn't tell us what we should do, such as letting our neighbor steal from us.
All in all, there aren't very many parallels you can pull from this reading and our culture today. The theme of this literature is purity. The idea behind the rules, or guidelines, listed in this writing is to make you pure before God. Pure heart, pure body, pure mind. 1:9 directs the reader to "abstain from fleshly and bodily lusts." In the middle of 2:2 the author orders listeners not to commit fornication.
In addition to this theme, we also see the writer putting a lot of emphasis on loving one another. As in the Bible we know today, the author says that if a person is to slap us on the cheek, we must give him the other. If a person should "take your cloak, give him your coat also." (1:12)
I think it is interesting in 2:2 that the author instructs his reader "not to corrupt boys." I am not sure what the author intended that to mean, but it sounds like it could mean one of two things: that the reader must not lead the boy into a sinful lifestyle, or, and this may be a stretch, that the reader must not violate or sexually harm the boy. I am not completely sure of the meaning, but either way, I thought it was interesting that the author would mention that.
As I read this piece, I was reminded of how we have to read the Bible today. Our culture is completely different than it was in Bible times, so we're required to decide the timelessness or timeliness of the things we read. There are some things that are obviously timeless, but other things are in a gray area...can we still do that thing? Why or why not?
I think as a Christian culture, that's something we struggle with a lot these days. If we have too many rules, we're legalistic. If we don't have enough rules, people question whether or not we're really Christians. I think it's important to have rules and beliefs and to think things contrary to our secular, sexualized culture. But something that God has been known to do is take the customs of the day and infuse them with His presence. God is really, REALLY good at that. Us, not so much. The Christian music genre is just one example...and I really could go on and on and...well, I'll stop there.
Honestly, I think the only modern parallels we can make today is the Constitution. Our Constitution and laws lay the moral groundwork for our culture. They tell us what we can and cannot do, but the only difference is that it doesn't tell us what we should do, such as letting our neighbor steal from us.
All in all, there aren't very many parallels you can pull from this reading and our culture today. The theme of this literature is purity. The idea behind the rules, or guidelines, listed in this writing is to make you pure before God. Pure heart, pure body, pure mind. 1:9 directs the reader to "abstain from fleshly and bodily lusts." In the middle of 2:2 the author orders listeners not to commit fornication.
In addition to this theme, we also see the writer putting a lot of emphasis on loving one another. As in the Bible we know today, the author says that if a person is to slap us on the cheek, we must give him the other. If a person should "take your cloak, give him your coat also." (1:12)
I think it is interesting in 2:2 that the author instructs his reader "not to corrupt boys." I am not sure what the author intended that to mean, but it sounds like it could mean one of two things: that the reader must not lead the boy into a sinful lifestyle, or, and this may be a stretch, that the reader must not violate or sexually harm the boy. I am not completely sure of the meaning, but either way, I thought it was interesting that the author would mention that.
As I read this piece, I was reminded of how we have to read the Bible today. Our culture is completely different than it was in Bible times, so we're required to decide the timelessness or timeliness of the things we read. There are some things that are obviously timeless, but other things are in a gray area...can we still do that thing? Why or why not?
I think as a Christian culture, that's something we struggle with a lot these days. If we have too many rules, we're legalistic. If we don't have enough rules, people question whether or not we're really Christians. I think it's important to have rules and beliefs and to think things contrary to our secular, sexualized culture. But something that God has been known to do is take the customs of the day and infuse them with His presence. God is really, REALLY good at that. Us, not so much. The Christian music genre is just one example...and I really could go on and on and...well, I'll stop there.
Monday, September 10, 2012
The Luxury of the Rich in Rome
A theme I found when reading this piece of literature was political stratification. There were a few types of Romans: noble political leaders, equestrians, and slaves. The political leaders held the highest ranks in society. The equestrians did not hold political offices, but instead knew politicians personally. The slaves' only connection to political leaders was when they were required to serve them.
As a whole, the Romans were a wealthy people. They put dignity and duty on a pedestal and highly regarded art, literature, and philosophy. In this reading, the author, Ammianus Marcellinus, speaks about how the culture responds to different things that happen in society. At one point he states that the wealthy treat their horses like they are disposable. I am paraphrasing, of course, but I think that gives us a pretty good picture of their society that they would consider transportation animals something of low importance.
As I read this material, I was forced to stop and ponder this society. How was it that you were either the elite or a slave? Their "middle-class" is considered our "upper-class." They were so rich and took it for granted.
But that is just like Americans today. We don't even realize how rich we are, yet we treat our stuff like we are rich enough to replace it any time. We are never content, always wanting more. How is it that we never have enough?
As a whole, the Romans were a wealthy people. They put dignity and duty on a pedestal and highly regarded art, literature, and philosophy. In this reading, the author, Ammianus Marcellinus, speaks about how the culture responds to different things that happen in society. At one point he states that the wealthy treat their horses like they are disposable. I am paraphrasing, of course, but I think that gives us a pretty good picture of their society that they would consider transportation animals something of low importance.
As I read this material, I was forced to stop and ponder this society. How was it that you were either the elite or a slave? Their "middle-class" is considered our "upper-class." They were so rich and took it for granted.
But that is just like Americans today. We don't even realize how rich we are, yet we treat our stuff like we are rich enough to replace it any time. We are never content, always wanting more. How is it that we never have enough?
Monday, September 3, 2012
The Code of the Assura
The Code of the Assyrians revolves around the theme of relationships, mostly between males and females. The rules that are laid out concern adultery, homosexuality, and animals.
Something that stood out to me in this reading was I.47. In this passage, the writer strictly prohibits sorcery. If there is a person who is found committing this crime, the author demands that they be put to death. This is interesting to me because their culture was not God-centered. They were heathens and pagans, so one would assume that they accepted things like this. Additionally, one would also think that this culture encouraged experimentation with homosexuality or promiscuity. However, this entire law code is completely against all of those things.
This makes me wonder about Bible times. My knowledge of history never included a society wherein there were good morals but no Christian God. I made the presumption that if they weren't following God, they were making poor decisions and living their lives selfishly and in any sort of capacity they chose.
In modern times, I think of secular individuals where they make family and their community a priority. They have morals; they know not to kill people. They're not Christians. They're just "good people."
The reading also speaks about prostitutes and how they are to be treated. In I.40, the writer delegates that women of higher social status are to wear head coverings in public, while harlots are ordered not to wear head coverings. While they are publicly humiliated in this way, they are protected in I.51. This ordinance directs that if a man abuses a harlot and causes her to miscarry, then that man is to be beaten as much as he beat her. In today's day and age, women are protected from abuse just as they were in this code written so many years ago.
The text delves into the Code of Hammurabi, a 282-rule document that introduces us to the idea of "an eye for an eye." It was written in 1772 BCE, 697 years before the Code of Assura was written. Hammurabi believed that the punishment should fit the crime. He also realized the importance of the irrigation system that was in Babylon, and several of the rules revolve around the preservation and conservation of the system. Other rules are very similar to the ones listed in the Code of Assura.
Overall, while this Code doesn't necessarily apply to our American society today, it has some slight relevance in that they believe the punishment should fit the crime.
Something that stood out to me in this reading was I.47. In this passage, the writer strictly prohibits sorcery. If there is a person who is found committing this crime, the author demands that they be put to death. This is interesting to me because their culture was not God-centered. They were heathens and pagans, so one would assume that they accepted things like this. Additionally, one would also think that this culture encouraged experimentation with homosexuality or promiscuity. However, this entire law code is completely against all of those things.
This makes me wonder about Bible times. My knowledge of history never included a society wherein there were good morals but no Christian God. I made the presumption that if they weren't following God, they were making poor decisions and living their lives selfishly and in any sort of capacity they chose.
In modern times, I think of secular individuals where they make family and their community a priority. They have morals; they know not to kill people. They're not Christians. They're just "good people."
The reading also speaks about prostitutes and how they are to be treated. In I.40, the writer delegates that women of higher social status are to wear head coverings in public, while harlots are ordered not to wear head coverings. While they are publicly humiliated in this way, they are protected in I.51. This ordinance directs that if a man abuses a harlot and causes her to miscarry, then that man is to be beaten as much as he beat her. In today's day and age, women are protected from abuse just as they were in this code written so many years ago.
The text delves into the Code of Hammurabi, a 282-rule document that introduces us to the idea of "an eye for an eye." It was written in 1772 BCE, 697 years before the Code of Assura was written. Hammurabi believed that the punishment should fit the crime. He also realized the importance of the irrigation system that was in Babylon, and several of the rules revolve around the preservation and conservation of the system. Other rules are very similar to the ones listed in the Code of Assura.
Overall, while this Code doesn't necessarily apply to our American society today, it has some slight relevance in that they believe the punishment should fit the crime.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)