acceptance, bible, Biblical, French and British, God, greek, History, LGBTQ, LGBTQI, new testament, old testament, scholars, Uncategorized

A Different Perspective

rainbow-gay-pride-flag-1192851

A  Different Perspective 

On August 23-26, in St.Lucia, there was a celebration of her first pride month with the theme “Persist with Pride.”  This was an important milestone for many reasons. For example, male homosexuality activity is illegal on the island and members of the LGBTQI  community have been discriminated against on the island. Some people don’t identify themselves as gay, lesbian, bisexual,or transexual in publiv. Some anti-LGBTQI sentiments on the island are because of religious reasons and many of the laws against homosexuality are from colonial days.

 

Before the Pride event took place and even during the event  , many people expressed their bigotry outwardly against the pride event. However, there were  many supporters which provided enough enthusiasm to hold the event. There were some religious leaders especially those of the Pentecostal denomination who clearly believe  , that homosexuality is a sin and did not want the event to happened nor do they want the laws of old be changed or updated.However, the head of the Catholic Church in St.Lucia and the Methodist minister Archbishop Robert Rival and Superintendent Seth Ampadu said in March and April of this year that the law should be reviewed and updated with if no longer serves its purpose.Both religious clergy did however, state that they don’t hate those in the LGBTQI but hate the  sex acts in which they participate. In my opinion, this is problematic because it is not a lifestyle or an activity or choice. I must commend the two clergy for their willingness to review the laws in attempts to potentially update them.

 

Being a member of the LGBTQI community is not a sin or immoral. Those who are against members of the LGBTQI community based their reasoning on the Bible but as a student of the Bible and its social world, I contend that the texts used against homosexuality are not used and understood in their full context .

Hence in light of the Pride month that took place , I would like to offer a different perspective and interpretation of the Biblical texts used starting with the Old Testament /Hebrew Bible .

  1. Homosexuality was part of the ancient Near East .When Leviticus 10 and 20 were written (the holiness code) ancient Israelites  were trying to separate themselves from other people from the Near East. Michael Coogan in his article, God and Sex , shares my sentiments . He states that the code of purity was meant to distinguish between the behavior of the Israelites from the polytheistic Canaanite . (Coogan 135 October 2010 )
  2. The Hebrew Bible only condemns male homosexuality and doesn’t  condemn it for women also. Thus if we are taking an ancient text literally, perhaps we shouldn’t discriminate and judge lesbians, since the code condemns male homosexuality. See what I did there? Perhaps we shouldn’t use an ancient  text that dictates to people how they live especially if they are not hurting anyone.
  3. The next text that is used to discrimate against gays and lesbians is the Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19 . This text when read properly and accurately does not specifically  speak of homosexuality per-say. If we take our time to read Genesis 19:5-10 you will understand the men of the city wanted Lot to give the angels to them and Lot offered up his daughters (which is problematic )  but the men of the city insisted that they wanted the angels. This text is not about consenting homosexual relations but about attempted rape. Mark Allan Powell supports my view that this was attempted rape in his piece in the Harper Collins  Bible Dictionary. 
  4. The Jewish prophets were not clear on the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah. Louis Crompton in his book Homosexuality and Civilization states the Jewish prophets  are not as clear about the sin. According to Crompton, the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah and Zephaniah vaguely mention the sin of what caused the destruction . However, Ezekiel specified that the cities were destroyed because the lack of social justice. (Crompton 2006 37-39).

 

Thus, Old Testament and Hebrew Bible laws should not be used to discriminate against the LGBTQI community.

 

Many people would say that we are not under the Old Testament anymore but under a new law established by Jesus Christ and the New Testament also condemns homosexual behavior. Though the New Testament seems to speak out against homosexuality, I will argue for the most part it doesn’t.

  1. Jesus does not speak about homosexuality in any of texts that we have. Margaret Aymer in her article What do the Gospels say about sex and sexuality, states that Jesus says nothing negative or positive about homosexuality. She conveys that there are some scholars that say, Jesus encounters a same sex sexual relationship when he is asked to heal the slave of the Roman centurion. She agrees that sexual relationships like  these were common but there is no evidence for that in the text. Aymer conveys that there are some scholars who believe that there was a romantic relationship between Jesus and the beloved disciple. She contends that there is no evidence of a sexual relationship but the text does not explain the friendship either. Aymer states that the Gospels are not concerned about same sex relations as it was not very important to the writers. Aymer states that the Gospel writers were more concerned about how to live as a faithful servant, the writers were concerned about because of the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70CE.(Aymer 2009 4). Hence, I am of the opinion that since Jesus didn’t say it and many of us here in St.Lucia are followers of Christ then homosexuality is not a sin.
  2. When Jesus refers to Sodom, he does not mention homosexuality, Jesus in Matthew 10:14-15 tells his 12 disciples that the punishment for those who don’t welcome in their homes will be far worse than what Sodom and Gomorrah got. Alluding to the fact that the sin was the lack of charity and hospitality. 
  3. I will concede that Jude1:7 may imply condemnation but I can argue that the strange flesh could mean angels. Hence you shouldn’t be screwing angels. Another argument that I can make about the phrase strange flesh is that it could also be referencing foreigners thus the support of the argument is lack of hospiltality and charity .
  4. Romans 1:26-27 Beverly Roberts Gaventa, in her article, “What does Romans 1 teach about homosexuality and how should we live in response?  states that Romans 1 does not address homosexuality as an orientation, as the people in Paul’s time did not deal with heterosexual or homosexual as an orientation. She also states that Romans does not address ordination or leadership of gay people in the Christian community. (Gaventa  2009). Colin Kruse states in his book, Paul Letter to the Romans, says that Paul was condemning those who are heterosexual who experienced with homosexuality. (Kruse 2012).
  5. 1 Corinthians 6:9,  Robert Brawley talks about in his article, What does 1 Corinthians 6:9, teach about homosexuality and how we should live in response. He argues that it is unclear if Paul is speaking against homosexuality. It is not clear because of the translation from the Greek. He states Malakai means literally means soft and is used in Greek to describe effeminate men. He says that many people interpret the text  as same sex behavior between two males. Nevertheless, the King James Version translates it to effeminate and Luther translates it as weakling. The Revised Standard Version combines Malakai  and Arsenokoitai into one translation sexual perverts. The New Revised Version translates into male prostitutes (Brawley 2009). Thus because 1st Corinthians translations from the Greek to English is not clear, we cannot in my opinion use it to discriminate or exclude members of society 

 

Many people will argue that homosexuality is unnatural and God in the Bible didn’t create Adam and Steve or Eve and Evelyn but Adam and Eve. I contend that the Bible is not scientific or a history book but mostly literature made up of psalms, proverbs, fables, legends, letters, some history, mythology and parables.

Homosexuality is natural. In animals (and humans are animals), there is implied homosexual or bisexual behavior.  According to Zuk Bailey in the article “Same sex sexual behaviour and evolution.“Trends in Ecology and Evolution 24 (8),these behaviors include same sex sexual activity, courtship, affection, pair bonding and parenting among sex animal pairs (Bailey 2009 ,439-46).  Other scientists such as Bruce Bagemihl and Simon Levay agree that there are homosexual and bisexual practices in animals. Therefore if homosexuality is unnatural, then the rest of creation would not engage in it. Most scientists don’t view homosexuality as a choice . The American Psychiatric Association  removed homosexuality from the DSM in 1973 stating that scientific evidence does not support the case that it is a mental illness. Hence the argument that homosexuality is unnatural is already void by science. 

 

If we are a Christian nation, then based on the texts explained and given we should allow our fellow brothers and sisters to love who they want without the being discriminated for who they are.

Lastly, I will argue that religion and state should be separate and that these laws should be updated and reviewed..While the majority of St. Lucians are Christians, not all Christian St. Lucians believe that it is a sin and we are not an island nation made up of only Christians. Everyone whether religious or not live here and the laws should reflect that.

I want to state that whether or not the religious texts condemn homosexuality or not-it should not matter, as we do not live in the ancient world anymore. The world has evolved and we as a people should evolve. It is okay to have our religious beliefs, as someone religious, I understand, our beliefs brings us peace and comfort, however, we should not take everything literally from an ancient text. Otherwise, this would translate to women literally having to shut up in church, slaves obeying their masters, we would be taking up our crosses literally, women would be stoned to death, rape victims would marry their rapists and since the Bible was written in the ancient world that consider women and children property, fathers would murder their own children and parents will leave their unwanted children on hills, mountains and in the elements to die or for wild animals to take. We don’t live in that world, thus we should evolve with the rest of the world.

Hell, our colonial masters, France and Great Britain, in which our laws are based on have moved on, so should we. HECK everyone should just mind their damn business. Your business is not private,  everyone wants to know your business ,be in your business and everyone wants to stop you from doing your business but I digress.

 

Charles Perrualt, fairytale, mermaids, Walt Disney

The Truth about Fairy Tales Part 1

Oh how we all just love Disney with its happily ever. The little mermaid who falls in love with the prince gets legs and lives happily ever after and what Cinderella with that glass slipper fitting her foot so well. These stories that were brought to us by Walt Disney Productions were actually darker and sadder than what is actually filmed.
Shall we start with The Little Mermaid; When Disney brought the little mermaid to us, it was about a little mermaid who fell in love with a human prince and wanted to become human herself. Then she goes to the seawitch who turns her into a human, but takes her voice. The mermaid has three days to make the prince fall in love with her and she almost succeeds too, when he falls in love with someone else. Yeah and we all know that the other woman was the seawitch and the prince was under a spell. They break the spell , kill the seawitch and live happily ever after the end. But it wasn’t the end or nor it was happily in the original version , it is true that the mermaid saves the prince, her voice was taken away from her and she did become human but rest is quite depressing and sad. The little mermaid with no voice actually had unlimited time to make the prince to fall in love with her. But the catch was that if he were to love another, the day after the wedding she would die by turning into sea foam. She was actually his servant while she tried to seduce him. The prince did fall in love with her and thought she was the one. He promised that there was no doubt it was her. But how he lied to the poor girl when a woman almost a complete replica of the little mermaid came into his life. He instantly fell in love and married the woman. So the little mermaid, sad that her beloved married another, wept. Then her sisters came from the sea. They all traded their hair to give the little mermaid a knife to kill the prince. The little mermaid took the knife and went to where the prince slept with his new wife (they were on a ship). She could not kill the prince, so instead she threw the knife into the sea and dove in just as the sun came up. Then there was something about her talking with some woman in heaven or something like that. This tale was written by the Danish author Hans Christian Andersen and was published in 1837. Some debate on the fact that the little mermaid ending up in heaven in the original story was a happy ending or not but I guess that’s for the reader to decide. 
On the next fairy tale Sleeping Beauty, there are two parts of this fairy tale the first one is just like how Disney portrayed it only difference is Disney forgot the fact that Sleeping Beauty slept for over a hundred years and that the fairies put a spell on everyone to sleep with her in the castle so that she won’t be alone, so anyways many princes tried to wake the sleeping beauty and the one that succeeded kissed her and she woke up and they lived happily ever after ……… the end but it wasn’t the end , there are some sources that say that she didn’t wake up when the prince kissed her and that he raped her in her sleep and bore him two children and while one baby sucked on her finger, the piece of the spindle came out and she woke and married her rapist. Then part two of the story the prince forgets conveniently to tell sleeping beauty that his mother the queen is of ogre lineage. Anyways once the prince ascended the throne he brought sleeping beauty and their children into his palace and then left in the regency of the Queen mother and went to fight war with his neighbour . The Queen Mother sent sleeping beauty and the children to a house secluded in the woods, and directed her cook there to prepare the boy for her dinner, with a sauce . The humane cook substituted a lamb, which satisfied the Queen Mother, who demanded the girl, but was satisfied with a young goat prepared in the same excellent sauce. When the Ogress demanded that he serve up the young Queen, the latter offered her throat to be slit, so that she might join the children she imagined were dead. There was a tearful secret reunion in the cook’s little house, while the Queen Mother was satisfied with a hind prepared with saucet. Soon she discovered the trick and prepared a tub in the courtyard filled with vipers and other noxious creatures. The King returned in the nick of time and the Ogress, being discovered, threw herself into the pit she had prepared and was consumed, and everyone else lived happily ever after .
Now Snow White we all remember that tale like it was yesterday. We know how she ate a poison  apple and fell asleep and how the prince kisses her and she wakes and they marry and live of course happily ever after. But what Disney does not tell in its version is that there was more than one attempt on Snow White’s life. First was a poisonous comb which was put into Snow White’s hair. After that failed, there was the bodice that got tighter and tighter until it suffocated poor Snow White. Then after that failed, came the poison apple and you know the rest…or do you? Well as it turns out the Queen didn’t die from falling from a cliff. No, she actually was order to wear hot iron shoes and dance in them until she dropped dead.
Now Let’s move on to the favourite and classic fairy tale that has been remade for ages Cinderella, now Disney does not do that bad on this fairy tale in fact the film is very close to the original tale. Disney just fails to mention the fact that Cinderella went to the castle many times in an elegant dress and then left the prince to go back home. Also, there was no fairy godmother. Birds were actually the ones that brought the dress and shoes to Cinderella. Now, it’s time for the horror part. Well, the prince wanted to desperately to find the young maiden that stole his heart. So, taking the slipper; he tried to find the maiden that fit it. Well when the prince gets to Cinderella’s house, the stepsisters are eager to try the shoe on. The first one can’t get her big toe into the darn thing, so the stepmother takes a knife and cuts the girls big toe off. Then she tells the prince that it fit perfectly. Then he sees the blood and tells the other sister to try it on. Well it turns out this sisters foot is too long, so they cut off her heel. That didn’t fool the prince either, so then Cinderella tries it on and guess what? Perfect fit. Now on the wedding day the two stepsisters ask to be Cinderella’s bridesmaids. At the wedding the stepsisters stand on either side of Cinderella. Then the birds that had given Cinderella the dress and slippers peck the eyes out of the two stepsisters, so they could be blind for the rest of their lives. Cinderella has origins in Ancient Egypt, Cinderella is actually named Rhodopis who was a slave girl and prostitute and married the Egyptian king. Like the other cinder stories, there was no fairy godmother just the help of birds.
Little Red Riding Hood. There is more that story than we are let on to believe. We all know about the wolf eating the grandmother and disguising himself as the grandmother. First off, how can you confuse the two. Little Red’s grandmother must have excessive hair growth or something. Modern day tale tells about a woodcutter and how he saves Little Red and her grandmother from the wolf, or just Little Red. The earliest printed version was created by the French author Charles Perrault. He originally created the tale and in his story the grandmother is eaten and Little Red comes. Then she strips, gets into bed with him, asks her damn questions, and then gets eaten. The moral was that young and beautiful girls shouldn’t talk to strangers, otherwise they would be eaten by ‘wolves’.But it is said there is actually another earlier version. One saying that the wolf was actually a werewolf or ogre. He fed Little Red meat and blood of her grandmother and then burned her clothes. Then right before she gets into bed with him, she sees through the wolf’s disguise and tells him she has to use the bathroom. Then she escapes using her own wits.
There are many more but right now i don’t feel like continuing we all know the stories just not the originals. Each of these stories in the original form taught a moral lesson like Red Riding Hood don’t talk strangers and if parents knew the original copy of the stories most would not let their children be engrossed in these fairy tales
Uncategorized

Lady Gaga, Blood Mary, and Mary Magdalene

Pop Culture and Theology

By Princess O’Nika Auguste

Lady Gaga’s second full-length studio album, Born this Way is a true gospel album. From the album’s title track focused around the message that we are all created by God as we are (regardless of race, sexuality or gender) to songs with titles like “Black Jesus+Amen”, Born this Way  is replete with religious themes and images.  

Some are more obvious than others. The provocatively titled “Judas” sees Lady Gaga take the roles both of Mary Magdalene and the woman caught in adultery. The song also references Judas’s betrayal of Christ and alludes to the possibility that there were romantic feelings between Jesus and Mary. Finally, “Judas” references the woman in Luke 8, who washed Jesus’ feet with her hair. Similarly the song’s official music video is a modern biker-themed take on Scripture.  

But perhaps no song on Born This Way is as ripe for theological…

View original post 1,670 more words

Biblical, Early church fathers, History, Romans, Sabbath, Sunday

The History of Sunday Worship in Western Christianity

 

In some Christian circles there is this perception that is going around as fact that Sunday worship celebrated by most Christians was imposed on the church by the Romans .  This is not the complete truth . There is evidence historically and Biblically that Sunday worship was not imposed by the Romans  and the Roman Church.

Christians who worship on Sunday call it the Lord’s Day which appears in Rev 1:10, is the weekly worship practice of remembering the resurrection of Jesus Christ who in numerous accounts in the Gospels to have been seen alive on the first day if the week.

According. to Roger T Beckwith in his book Calender,Chronology ,Jewish and Christian Biblical Intertestament and Patristic Studies.page 47. in Acts 20:7 Christians met togethet to break bread and gather around to hear preaching.

Justin Martyr a 2nd century philosopher and Christian apologist in his book The First Apology. Chapter 67 says that Christians worshipping on Sunday was widely spread. In the New Testament the phrase te mia ton sabbaton meaning the first day of the week both for the early morning John 20:1 and evening John 2:19 appears.

Paul also in 1st Corithians 16:2 has the church in Corinth to collect funds for Christians in Jerseulem on the first day of the week.
Most scholars agree that by the 2nd century Sunday worship was widespread. RJ Bauckham in his book Sabbath and Sunday in thr Post Apostlic Chuch pages 252 -298 says that Sunday worship originated in Palestine by the mid 1st century in the period of the Acts of the Apostles c.f Acts 20 and became universial by the 2nd century without controversy,
Therefore, the Sunday law that some Christians claimed that the Romans impose on Christians couldnt be possible as Christians were already gathering on Sundays . The Church in Rome aka The Roman Catholic Church didnt have the power or the authority to do that at that time. Bauckham states all Christian groups except the Ebionites who were  mentioned by Eusebius of Caesarea observed worship on a Sunday.

Many advocates for the Sabbath suggest that Constantine the Great changed the Sabbath and decreed that all residents of the empire worship on Sunday, however that is not completely the case.

It wasnt until March 3rd 321 that Constantine decreed that Sunday will be observed as Roman day of Rest. However  by that time Christians were already observing Sunday as the day of worship . The emperor’s decree was mostly modelled for pagan sun worshippers, but it can be assumed and argued he also intended it for the church whom  were already worshipping on Sunday.

Christians have been worshipping on Sundays from day 1 for 2000 years. Morevover we are not Jews. Christians are primarily comprised of Gentiles.

The 3rd century church father Tertullian which wrote in his work Ad Nationes against Christians who practiced pagan rituals defending Sunday worship by implying that we were not Jews and also implying that to Christians Sabbath seems weird  and because it is strange to us it is  not observed. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.iv.viii.i.xiii.html

Another 3rd century church father  Cyprian linked Sunday which was also called the eighth day to baptism and Jesus resurrection, stating that because the 8th day is the first day after the Jewish Sabbath and Jesus rose on that day, Spirtual circumcision (baptism )was also given to us. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.iv.lviii.html

Augustine of Hippo , a church father of the early middle ages suggested that the Sabbath  rest was not to be taken literally by taken to mean a Spirtual rest. Nevertheless, Sunday and Sabbath rest was increasing during the middle ages.

church interior
Photo by Thgusstavo Santana on Pexels.com

Thomas  Aquinas a theologian of the middle ages , according to R.J Bauckham in his article, “Sabbath and Sunday in the medievial church in the west “From Sabath to the Lord’s Day stated that the Ten Commandments is an expression of natural law and everyone is binded to it and it was a moral requirement like the other 9. Thus because of Aquinas  Christians  started to rest more on Sunday and Sabbath.(Bauckham 1982 299-310).

Henceforth, Sunday worship is not a sin nor is it breaking any of the commandments. Sunday worship also is not a creation by the Romans nor the Roman church.It has always existed in Christian communities historically and Biblically.

However ,if you want to keep the Sabbath that is your choice but know Christians worshipping on Sunday are not doing it so because of the Romans or the Roman church. They are actually worshipping on Sunday just like the first Christians in Acts 20 did 2000 years ago. They are also historically and Biblically accurate. We have enough to blame the Romans and Roman church for but this isnt one but i digress….

bible, feminism, patriarchy, rape, sexual assault, women

Sexual Violence in Revelation to John

Sexual Violence in the Revelation to John

There is an idea by many Christians that the New Testament is not as violent as the Old Testament however, this concept is untrue. When Jesus is suggesting that he came to bring the sword and not peace, this is Jesus suggesting violence. Jesus also says our hands should be cut off which in itself is a statement inciting violent.. Jesus says to those who asked him about lust to pluck their eyes out. He did not blame women for lust, specifically adultery, yet his statement was still violent.Finally, Jesus in the book of Revelation is violently striking down his enemies with a two edged sword.. Revelation’s Jesus is not a pacifist but a violent warrior.
Hence, like any other acts of violence, there are acts of sexual violence, particularly in the Revelation to John, chapters 2 and 17 . In Revelation 2:22-23 there is a threat of violence against a woman named Jezebel. In the chapter overall, messages are given to the four churches in Asia Minor ( present day Turkey). The churches that were spoken about in Revelation included Ephesus 2:1-7, Smyrna 2:8-11, Pergamum 2:12-17,Thyatira 2:18-28.
In regard to the sexual violence, it is the message to Thyatira in which the harsh act of sexual assault is implied. The woman who is threatened with this act, a prophetess, is called a Jezebel.(2:20-21). Jezebel, the Phoenician princess, referenced in the Book of Kings is deemed evil .Jezebel is evil because she convinces her husband to abandon God and brought in the worship of her gods and encourage the people who worship her gods. Jezebel also killed and persecuted the followers of God. Thus Jezebel is connected with false prophetess. Because of this reference to Jezebel in the book of Kings, the reader interprets Jezebel in Revelation as doing evil and as a false prophetess ( Revelation calls her false prophet)
.The writer of the text states in vv 21-23 “I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her fornication. Beware, I am throwing her on a bed, and those who commit adultery with her I am throwing into great distress, unless they repent of her doings; and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches will know that I am the one who searches minds and hearts, and I will give to each of you as your works deserve.” This text is using the motif of rape to justify punishing someone. It also conveys control. It brings to the understanding that rape is not about sex but control. Power over someone who is weaker and This threat of rape is used as punishment for Jezebel and to deter anyone who believes as she does. In this perciope, punishment and harm are intended. If this author is not intending to do harm to her, why is he threatening to throw her on a bed where she will suffer harm and then punish not only her but those who do harm to her? It suggests that if you have committed a crime that you deserve to be raped.In our modern world women and men in prisons who are sexually assaultedare thought to deserve it.. Many former prisoners have said they were victims of sexual assault. Thus,this scripture can be used to justify sexual assault of prisoners.

Like Revelation 2, Revelation 17 also implies that rape can be justified as punishment. In this portion of Revelation, 17:15-18, the Whore of Babylon is raped. L .Michael White in states in a PBS documentary that the Whore of Babylon is symbolic of Rome. He and Tina Pippin also convey that Rome oppressed many of the people within their empire. Hence, according to Pippin John’s Revelation is about Rome and its oppression. In verses 16, it expresses that they will make the whore desolate, naked, devour her flesh, and burn her to death. There in this verse the threat of violence is again used for punishment and control. There Revelation also implies that because the Whore of Babylon has multiples of people following and that she has to be punished for her promiscuous behaviour . The Whore of Babylon is symbolic in the way that there is no perfect rape victim. The Whore of Babylon oppresses other entities and people but her punishment is to be sexually assaulted.
If we move away from John’s Revelation, Jezebel,The Whore of Babylon, and come into our modern context, rape or the threat of rape, is also used as punishment or a determent of crime. Female and male prisoners of war are raped. Male and female prisoners who are incarcerated throughout prisons and jails are raped. The outside world or should one say our 21st century world does not believe that prisoners have rights and believe that prisoners deserve to be assaulted. Thus ,it is not irrational to interpret that the Revelation of John in chapters 2 and 17 are justifying the use of sexual violence against the prophetess Jezebel and the Whore of Bbaylon. In Revelation 2 and in Revelation 17 raped is used as punishment for evil and thus the modern interpretation that the punishment fits the crime.
The Old Testament is viewed as violent and sexist in its depictions of women but the New Testament via The Book of Revelation is also just as hostile towards women. Although, the women are symbolic especially in the The Whore of Babylon, the actual depiction of Rome and any other oppressor as an evil and promiscuous woman is dangerous, chauvinistic and patriarchal. Women ,particular rape victims, are not deemed human.Hence they are depicted in the Bible as evil women who are threatened with violence.
To move away from this patriarchal view, we must unpack Revelation and question whether it was necessary for women to be depicted as oppressive and be threatened with violence and whether it is still necessary and why we must move away from this suggestion and read Revelation with a hermeneutic of suspicion.Burgkmair_whore_babylon_color
Continue reading “Sexual Violence in Revelation to John”

Uncategorized

Signifying and Scripturalization in Xena: Warrior Princess

I wrote this

Pop Culture and Theology

By Princess O’Nika Auguste

Xena: Warrior Princess is a fantasy/historical fiction action and adventure show that aired on television from 1995 to 2001. Xena is a spinoff of Hercules the Legendary Journeys. Xena and Hercules both are based on Greek mythology although they divulged into other forms of mythology and history including Christian mythology and Christian Theology, Xena more so than Hercules. In the two last seasons of Xena, the show goes deeper into Christian mythology and theology with characters like Livia/Eve, Eli, the archangel Michael, concepts of hell and heaven, and the concept of Eli’s God becoming the one true God. I would like to take a moment to say despite I myself being a Christian, I absolutely despised the Christian mythology on the show especially in season 6. What Xena the Warrior Princess did throughout seasons 5 and 6 was engage in a process of signifying and…

View original post 2,069 more words

Food, History

Sweet Potato pie with tuna and spinach filling

Sweet potato pie with tuna and spinach filling
Ingredients
Sweet pototatoes about 12 depending on their size and how many people serving
3 cans of tuna.
A handful of spinach
A block of cheese

Preparation
Wash and peel the sweet potatoes and put them to boil until soft.
Meanwhile open one or two cans of tomato sauce place it in a pan, season it with garlic, onions,celery and all that jazz.then sautéed the sauce until boiling
Then open the cans of tuna, drained them and place the tuna in the sauce.
Wash the spinach and cut them up and also place it in the sauce.
Grate the cheese.
Meanwhile the tuna and spinach sauce is cooking check with the potatoes are soft. If they are drained the water from the pan and mashed the potatoes adding milk and butter.
Once the sauce is cooled
You get a baking pan and layer it the mashed potatoes first , then cheese , then tuna and spinach sauce, then cheese then the mashed potatoes and then cheese .
Place the dish in the oven at 350 degrees and bake for an hour and half or until cheese has melted and it’s golden brown.
Looked all over the Internet to see if there was a recipe but nothing like it so I guess until further notice this recipe is my invention.
History of the sweet potato
Acording to the Encyclopaedia Britannica the sweet potato or the morning glory is native to tropical America and is cultivated in the trooical parts of the United States, the Caribbean, central and south America, warmer parts of Japan,Russia and the Pacific islands. It is a root vegetable and is served as a vegetable either whole or mashed.
Tuna
Tuna fish migrate all over the world’s oceans and occupy tropical, cooler and temperate waters and are main staple of fish all across the world.
Spinach.
Native of Europe and the United States and are edible leaves and can be bought canned, fresh or frozen. Spinach can be served as a cooked vegetable or served as a green salad. Although never ate it in a salad and I personally think it would taste horrible.
Anyways that is all I got for now and the sweet potatoes pie was delicious .

Food, French and British, History, Native Americans, St.Lucia

Corn and Carrot pie

I found a way to combine my love of food (eating and cooking) with my love of history and writing.Now the corn and carrot pie seems to be a native dish of St.Lucia and the wider Caribbean. I have tried to research similar recipes but nothing has come up yet. Hence I am assuming until further notice it is a St.Lucian dish.
Ingredients
A can of corn
5 carrots
1 block of cheese.
How to make it.
Grate ,wash and clean the five carrots placed the grated carrots in a baking dish, then open the can of corn and poured it over the carrots.Finally grate the cheese and then pour the grated cheese over the corn and carrot mix. Then placed the dish in the oven for an hour or until the cheese has melted and it is golden brown . MAKE sure the oven is 350 degrees.
History of the Carrot.
According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica , the carrot was domesticated in central Asia around 1000 BC.The carrot a root vegetable is native to Europe and Southern Western Asia and probably came from Persia which is what is now known as Iran. Before it was domesticated , the according to Iorizzo Massimo , Senalik ADouglas ,and Shelby L Ellison in their article Genetic structure and domestication of the carrot American Journal of Botany (2012)100 (7) 930-938 carrot awas used for medical purposes.
Hence the carrot probably came over to St.Lucia with European colonization in the 17th century. The first permanent European settlements was in 1635 where both the British and the French set up colonies on the island. The British settlement died out because of diseases and hence the French were the main colonized until 1663 when the Caribs ( a Native American / Amerindian tribe) sold the island to the British and since then until 1814/1815 the island went between the English and FRENCH until Napoleon gave the island to the British.
Corn
Is native to the New World and is a grain/cereal . It was first domesticated by the indigenous peoples in southern Mexico Maize as corn is known as according to Delores Piperno in her article The Origins of Plant Cultivation and Domestication in the New World Developments, “Current Anthropology 52 (54):453-470 2011.Native Americans taught Europeans how to grow it and Christopher Columbus and other colonizers brought it to Europe and from then on became the staple of the world.
Cheese is harder to give a history of.the cheese we used in St.Lucia came from cows. Cows came to the island because of European Colonization and we’re domisticated about 10,000 years ago and originated from Eurasia. Cheese making begun before recorded history and most of the old world were already making cheese archaeological sites in Egypt,Greece, Sumeria, the Sahara and Rome have shown evidence of cheese making.
Hence the process of this dish on a tiny caribbean island is a mixture of mostly old world ingredients with one new world ingredient. It is easy to make, tasty and let’s us know that food is universal and there is a story in each recipe to tell.
received_280520319330753

Uncategorized

The privilege of language

PaperGirl36's Weblog

What is the role of language in the creation of culture? In the process of meaning-making? What is the place of culture in a societal formation? What is the relationship of culture to other social practices? And what does any of this have to do with race and racism? These are the questions I attempted to answer today.

It is comical to me the complications of reading work that could/would be classified as “high theory.” I’ve really decided that some scholars just don’t want to be understood, or that some scholars only want to be understood by a certain **class** of folks. This is what I’ve decided to call “the privilege of language.” I’m definitely not the first person to land in this spot, with this thought. Epifanio San Juan basically says the same thing in his 1992 essay “From Institutional Racism to Everyday Racism,” he just didn’t…

View original post 332 more words