Browsed by
Tag: biblical interpretation

Arabic Name Tags

Arabic Name Tags

Comments 9 comments

Would you like to see your name written in beautiful Arabic letters? The author of My Name in Arabic is offering framed tags for free. I’ve reduced them 50% for display here, but I’ve got the originals for email signatures.

PLEASE stop requesting me to do these for you! I don’t know Arabic – click on the above link for requests.

Here is the simple image for “Heidi”: Heidi in Arabic

Heidi has no equivalent I know of in Arabic. However, it’s funny how it sounds like some other words. In Lebanese Arabic, ‘Heidi’ means ‘this’ or ‘that’. In Berber, like Tashelhit spoken in North Africa, ‘Heidi’ means ‘here is the dog’, ‘aydi’ meaning a ‘dog, and ‘ha’ used as a demonstrative pronoun. I thought it would be funny for you to know about that.

Yeah, funny. Makes me think of all the German Shepherds I have met who shared my name.*

Here is the transliteration of my first (and last name) in a beautiful frame.

Heidi N* in Arabic About my last name:

G has no equivalent in Arabic, so we use a close letter to it, that sounds like French R.

He (or she?) was very generous, and also translated VirusHead. This wasn’t transliterated by sound, because it’s not really a name but rather two translatable words mushed together.

VirusHead in Arabic

‘Virus” is the same, and “head” is “ra’as.” In Arabic, “head” comes first, so it would be “the head of the virus.”

“Head of the virus” evokes very different meanings for me than “VirusHead.”

I’m thinking of some structure not unlike …um …. let’s say a tadpole.

Or maybe a being with superpowers over viral colonies – the Virus Queen? Heh-heh

Actually, when I was thinking about viruses day and night, I sometimes felt that they resisted – as though the abyss began to stare back at me. There were enough coincidences and even synchronicities to make me toy with magical thinking. When you’re thinking about one kind of thing most of the time, I think it’s natural to start seeing all kinds of connections – even to start projecting them. We are creatures of pattern recognition. I never thought of myself as controlling viruses, but rather felt at times as though they were playing with me. I tended to anthropomorphize, as did many of the authors. I had to keep reminding myself, especially when I was states of information overload, that viruses have no agency. They don’t intend anything. They don’t have a brain, and they don’t think. We’re not even sure about whether or not they are technically alive – at the very least, we’ve had to rethink the definitions of life.

This kind of gonzo scholarship produced insights, though – especially for the AIDS chapter and the chapter on vampires and communion. If the Ph.D. is meant to celebrate mastery over one very small specialization, I guess I could claim to be the “head” of the virus. However, it also reminds me of some of the biblical interpretations of headship, such as the husband’s power over the wife. Sometimes people forget that even in the most literal interpretations, the individual man is given power over his wife only on the condition that he love her as himself.

(Dominion. If I remember correctly, the meaning of the Hebrew word (rdh or radah) is better translated as something like “stewardship” or “guardianship” – which puts a man in the position of guardianship and care – the responsibility to care for and protect. Even in strong instances of its use, the implication is that of a benevolent rule where the ability to direct is linked to the requirement of the ruler to care for his subjects. Adam was put into the Garden to serve it and till it (‘abad) and to guard and preserve it (shamar). There is also a pun between the meanings of Adam and ground – humans are made from and part of the earth, not lords over it. Our “radah” relationship to creation is to represent God back to it, to develop and refine and beautify it. Our ‘radah’ is to be, not for our own sake, but for the sake of the other. In that sense, it is a form of service, not mastery. It reverses the harm done by exploitation, and models righteousness.

A steward is someone who looks after property, farm – crops and animals – you know, husbandry – while the lord is away. All very evocative. The steward does not own the land, you know, just as we do not own the earth. When the lord returns, there is an accounting of how well the steward cared for the lord’s interests… I guess if we destroy the planet, the cockroaches shall then have “dominion.”)

In any case, I have no dominion over actual viruses (the -es form is incorrect, but customary and much less awkward in English), nor do I have mastery over the complex bio-chemical transactions of the virus. But perhaps I could imagine myself as an emissary of the mute and mostly invisible virus, a representative to the court of human imaginaries. Something like that. I do not see a crown/head of power in that – nor the phallus/head of domination. But I do hold in stewardship a set of ideas and connections regarding viral forms, figures, associations, and family resemblances. More like the poet, translator, word-painter – or the one who arranges family picnics. Did you know that matrix is Latin for womb? I am alert to, let’s say, pregnant viral moments of replication/mutation, contagion, interconnection, networked lines of association – tracing out the emergent discourse of the viral, seeing that the discourse itself shows viral characteristics and tendencies. I think of the shimmering stories of Jorge Luis Borges – and I always felt as though I were softly, tentatively exploring the garden of forking paths – or the library of Babel.

* from above: In personality, I’m not so much like a German Shepherd myself, but am closer to a Canaan or Bernese Mountain Dog – at least according to these blog quizzes.

Which breed of dog is most like you?
Bernese Mountain Dog

Bernese Mountain Dog (Bernese Sennenhund) – No bones about it, you’re a good-hearted, people-loving Bernese Mountain Dog. Down-to-earth and loyal, no one works or plays harder than you do. You put your nose to the grindstone when it really counts, but you never neglect your social calendar. Simultaneously strong and sweet, you’re very tuned-in to the feelings and needs of the other dogs you run with. Without having to be asked, you always have a helping paw to lend and a sympathetic shoulder to lean on. “Communication” is your middle name, and when that’s paired with your unswerving devotion, you get a breed that everyone respects and trusts. Woof!

Ex-JW Rebuttal to a Jehovah’s Witness

Ex-JW Rebuttal to a Jehovah’s Witness

Comments 4 comments

I’ve been having an extended discussion/argument with a Canadian Jehovah’s Witness in the comments of an old post. Feel free to read the whole thing if you can bear it. Yes. It’s long. I know. There were some resources in my latest reply that I thought might help others – so here’s a piece:

Most of what I posted from JW publications (not my own opinion, but actual arguments made by JWs themselves) show pretty clearly that JWs believe that you have to be a JW to live through Armageddon. Isn’t that a direct refutation of your claim? It is illuminating that criticism has forced the organization to change its rhetorical tactics – where is the standard line: "Only Jehovah’s Witnesses….." do such and such – refuse to salute idolatrous flags, refuse to partake of blood (again, why not kosher meat, which is where the Jews do honor the blood prohibition?), refuse to vote, etc etc?

OK, on blood. I don’t disagree with any of the arguments about medical risks. Yes, there are new things to test for every year. Blood transfusion is riskier than most people realize, and it’s good to have this information out there. Incidentally, did you know that JWs used to be prohibited from vaccinations as well? In an actual life and death situation, however, a doctor or team of doctors has to weigh the risks. I would be dead myself without a blood transfusion given after massive internal bleeding from a ruptured ectopic pregnancy, so I’m not unbiased on the issue. As for it not being a current issue, that’s simply not true on either side. The Society’s own positions are constantly changing and often contradictory, and they reassessed their teachings again just last month. There is almost always a lawsuit in the works somewhere. Here’s the most recent one from your own country. I’m sure you’re aware of it. And please check out the Watchtower Victim’s Memorial, including the Library of Watchtower Blood Quotes and archival images that illustrate their views of the medical profession. On the other side, there are important advancements in no-blood alternatives – certainly worth consideration and I am happy to see it.

You have not given any real argument here as to why a corporation formed in the last century could have any connections whatsoever to the Pentacostal outpouring of holy spirit. As you say, the last surviving member of Jesus’ original followers has been dead for a long time. The JW interpretation of the governing body’s authority is the single most destructive aspect of their teachings. I refer interested parties to Captives of a Concept by Don Cameron, Jehovah Lives in Brooklyn, by Richard Francis and Apocalypse Delayed: The Story of Jehovah’s Witnesses by James M. Penton.

Captives of a Concept (Anatomy of an Illusion) Jehovah Lives in Brooklyn Apocalypse Delayed: The Story of Jehovah's Witnesses

Suppose the JWs are right, and that there is a literal remnant of a literal 144,000 that still lives on earth – what relation do those people have to the multiple corporations of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society? Who directs the "new light" then, the remnant or the guys in Brooklyn? JWs never question the connections and disconnections of the structure here – they only know they must obey. What is funny to me is that former JWs are described as the "evil slave class" in opposition to the "faithful and discreet slave" putting them at the same level of importance. A few whistleblowers are so threatening as to be put at the same level…

Why would I think that the organization’s protection of known pedophiles and abusers would be the reason you are doing this? That’s really a desperate kind of charge. In any case, it’s all well-documented and the Society has spent a lot of JW money on lawyers. Consult http://www.silentlambs.org/ for news on lawsuits and the history of JW policies on this matter. The Society has protected sex offenders, hidden their records from "worldly authorities" as well as from members of congregations, failed to report accusations to the police and even punished children and families making accusations. The Watch Tower Society defends keeping the database of self-confessed and accused offenders secret as part of its strategy of dealing with abuse without referring to the judicial system – ie, the "theocratic war strategy" (do a search on that phrase – it’s basically a justification for lying). You can keep up with JWs in the news – on this and a range of other topics such as those I mentioned – at Watchtower News and the Watchtower Information Service (note: Here’s another source I just found at the About Guide).  With the internet, people can research and discover for themselves the actual dealings of the corporation you worship. A simple search is sufficient to disprove your statements.

You use your words about the Bible to distract from difficult issues into vague feel-good information that most Christians might agree with. I remember the strategy from the so-called Theocratic Ministry School. While I was never baptised, I sure did go to about 5 hours of weekly indocrination at the Kingdom Hall. I did go out in "service." I recognize the language and the strategies you employ because I’ve actually made a study of discourse analysis and applied it to my own experience. I teach my students how it’s done – it helps them read the news.

Normally, I resist being sucked into doctrinal argument. I think these are things that people are empowered by God to decide for themselves. However, I do have my own opinions. I am a contextual ethicist and a scholar of religion to some degree – although my most advanced training (and interests) moved into other topics as well. I’ve taught religion at the college level, including Judeo-Christian Traditions. It was quite a revelation to me to read the "meaty" work of real scholars and to compare that to the "skim-milk" of JW pseudo-scholarship. I recommend that those who are interested in any of these topics to read widely and to consider various arguments.

The JWs are largely unaware that there are multiple interpretations for many of these texts. Some of the considerations of interpretion include the actual meanings of biblical worlds and phrases in the original languages, the cultural and historical context, the genre and purpose of each kind of text, literary methods and theories, anthropological, psychological, linguistic, archaeological questions, the way the texts were actually selected for biblical inclusion, and a host of other perspectives and questions. Good interpretation comes from asking better questions from a better-informed perspective, not from rote repetition. JWs do not allow question-based analysis of any kind among their members, although they have to tolerate it from newbies and people at the door. What they generally will do is exactly what you’re doing – deflect, distract, and get back on script. JWs are not trained in the interpretation of texts – they have no methods for doing so because it is not allowed. The rank and file JW is simply force-fed the interpretation of the mysterious few at the top (while criticizing the Pope and priests for doing the same thing).

Just one example. You earlier interpreted Jesus as refusing to be drawn into an argument over the paying of taxes. I would argue just the reverse because I think his response was one of the most brilliant rhetorical accomplishments I have ever seen. What he actually said addressed a very complex religious and political situation of conflicts between multiple audiences – yet his words had a message for each one of them. The Herodians and Pharisees wanted to trap Jesus with a no-win answer: Neither group really wanted Jesus to agree with them. The Herodians were hoping that Jesus would say you should not pay taxes – that would put him big trouble with the Roman authorities. He would be guilty of sedition, a capital offense. If he so agreed with the Pharisees, the Herodians could charge him with revolution against the Romans. But the Pharisees were hoping Jesus would take the Herodians’ position and support the payment of taxes. Then Jesus would have lost the support of the people who hated Roman occupation of Israel – and if he agreed with the Herodians, the Pharisees could charge him with idolatry.

But Jesus countered with "why tempt me you hypocrites?" He called attention to the likeness of Caesar on a coin – and made a simple distinction: to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s (translations vary: compare the different gospel versions as well). In one cryptic sentence, he addressed several audiences. The Romans "heard" that these new followers would continue to pay their taxes, and that this rabblerouser wasn’t in fact interested in taking political power or challenging them on this topic. The Pharisees couldn’t fault him for prioritizing God’s law or separating the realms of heaven and earth and the Herodians couldn’t align him with the revolutionary movement. Those who wanted to trap Jesus were foiled and dared not question him that way again.

Scriptural to trim nose hair?

Scriptural to trim nose hair?

Comments 3 comments

Here is another parody of JW reasoning written by Subir Kaunds and published here with his permission. Thank you so much!

QUESTIONS FROM READERS

Is it scriptural to trim nose hair?

A Christian is governed by conscience. And some Christians may feel, in the absence of any specific prohibition in the Bible, that trimming nose hair does not go against their conscience. But is that the correct view?

Since we hold the scripture as our unfailing guide, we want to be “full grown in our powers of understanding” (1 Corinthians 14:20), and understand “the deep things of God.” (1 Corinthians 2:10).

To understand the issue under discussion, three things have to be taken into consideration. The meaning of ‘nose’ in the scriptures; the figurative use of ‘hair’; and scriptural principles that have a bearing on the matter.

First the nose or nostrils.

When God created Adam, he proceeded to “blow into his nostrils the breath [form of nesha·mah’ in Hebrew] of life, and the man came to be a living soul.” (Genesis 2:7) This “breath of life” not only filled the lungs with air but also imparted to the body the life-force that is sustained by breathing. The breath being drawn into the body through the nostrils is essential to life; it sustains the life-force. At the Flood, “everything in which the breath of the force of life was active in its nostrils, namely, all that were on the dry ground, died.” (Genesis 7:22).

The Hebrew word for nose or nostrils (´aph) is frequently used to refer to the entire face. Adam was sentenced to earn his livelihood from the ground ‘in the sweat of his face [literally, “nose” or “nostrils”].’ (Gensis 3:19) Lot bowed down with his face (nose) to the ground before the visiting angels.(Genesis) 19:1.1

So it is clear from the above that when the Bible speaks of the nose it actually refers to the entire face and that the nose is the fundamental organ that keep us alive since it is the genesis of the life-force. Keeping this point in mind we now have to see what the word ‘hair’ means in scripture.

One may be forgiven for thinking that all hair in the human body is the same. It is the same as saying that the toes are the same as the fingers (both being digits) or that the elbow is the same as the knee (both being joints) or that the scalp is the same as the soles of the feet (both being skin).

The hairs of the head, facial hair and pubic hair though fundamentally the same in substance, have different textures and uses. This dissimilarity becomes more pronounced when we consider the other hairs on the body like those which are found in our ear or inside the nostrils. About the hair in our ears consider the following information that appear in The Awake magazine issue of January 22, 1990 (published by the Watchtower Society).

“[In one of the walls in the inner ear known as] the basilar membrane, is the highly sensitive organ of Corti, named after Alfonso Corti, who in 1851 discovered this true center of hearing. Its key part consists of rows of sensory hair cells, some 15,000 or more. From these hair cells, thousands of nerve fibers carry information about the frequency, intensity, and timbre of the sound to the brain, where the sensation of hearing occurs… thus sound of a specific frequency produces waves that flex the basilar membrane at a specific spot, causing the hair cells there to react and send signals to the brain. The location of hair cells would correspond to the frequency, and the number of hair cells triggered would correspond to the intensity.”

In the light of this scientific fact can we conclude that the hairs inside the ear are the same as those on the head?2 A ear specialist would laugh at the suggestion. The same is the case with hair inside the nose. Consider the following facts:

“The olfactory area is located in the upper part of the nasal cavity, where the olfactory nerves terminate in hairlike endings; also fine endings of the trigeminal nerve are found in this area. The sense of smell in humans is very acute. According to an article in the Scientific American (February 1964, p. 42): “The sense of smell obviously is a chemical sense, and its sensitivity is proverbial; to a chemist the ability of the nose to sort out and characterize substances is almost beyond belief. It deals with complex compounds that might take a chemist months to analyze in the laboratory; the nose identifies them instantly, even in an amount so small (as little as a ten-millionth of a gram) that the most sensitive modern laboratory instruments often cannot detect the substance, let alone analyze and label it.” The nose also plays a large part in taste. There are four primary tastes: sweet, salt, sour, and bitter. These the taste buds in the mouth recognize. But much of the flavor in food is enjoyed because of the sense of smell. For example, a person whose nostrils are stopped up finds difficulty in distinguishing between two kinds of food, as most things then taste more or less flat. 1

These facts prove that the hairs in the ears and in the nose are actually nerves and not hairs at all. Can you imagine pubic hair helping us to smell and taste? But nasal hair does. We smell and taste due to the “hairlike endings” which are actually nerves.

This is also proved by the fact that some of us may even find that bright sunlight is enough to cause sneezing. This is because the eye nerves are closely connected with the nerve endings in the nose. (Awake 90 6/8)

In fact nasal hair may also have a part to play in digestion. Awake of February 8, 1987 (page 30) had this to say: “According to Dr. Volker Schusdziarra from the University of Munich, peptides (chemical compounds) that control digestion and arouse feelings of hunger and satiety and that are normally found in the stomach and intestine have recently been detected not only in the brain but also in the nerve cells of the retina. The German medical magazine Zeitschrift für Allgemeinmedizin reports that new variations of these substances are discovered continually. It appears that they carry messages between the sensory organs (eyes, nose, tongue, and so forth), the brain, and the digestive system.”

To sum up, we see that the nose often refers to the face and nasal hair is not hair at all but nerves. Hence, trimming nasal hair is actually like cutting the nerves of ones face. In the light of this let us turn to the Bible to understand the scriptural principles.

Christians are aware of scriptures like 1 Corinthians 11:14: “Does not nature itself teach YOU that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him.” And Leviticus 19:27: “YOU must not cut YOUR sidelocks short around, and you must not destroy the extremity of your beard.” However these commands cannot be applied to nasal hair since we have seen that nasal hair is actually nerve.

However two scriptures have a bearing on the matter under discussion. God’s law to the Israelites stated: “YOU must not make cuts in your flesh.” (Leviticus 19:28). As we have seen trimming nasal hair is tantamount to cutting the nerves of one face.

Moreover wise King Solomon observed: “For the churning of milk is what brings forth butter, and the squeezing of the nose is what brings forth blood, and the squeezing out of anger is what brings forth quarreling.” (Proverbs 30: 33). Here tampering with the nose is equated with provocative wrath. Remember that the Bible repeatedly warns against wrath and anger (Colossians 3:6).

In view of the foregoing, mature Christians may take a dim view of trimming nasal hair. In fact trimming of such hair could only be allowed as part of an emergency surgical procedure. Cosmetic trimming of such hair may not be proper. The principle found at 1Timothy 2:9 would apply: “Not with styles of hair braiding.” Here it is the principle of avoiding cosmetic procedures that is important, rather than the type of hair. Also as Matthew 10:30 assures us: “The very hairs of your head are all numbered.” Obviously the hair here is used figuratively and includes all hair not just on the head.

An important point to keep in mind is that God’s law prohibited certain ones from the assembly. We read at Leviticus 21:18, “In case there is any man in whom there is a defect, he may not come near: a man blind or lame or with his nose slit or with one member too long.” Since the scriptures show that trimming nose hair is like maiming the face one who indulges in such practices cannot be appointed to privileges in the congregation.

FOOTNOTES

1 Insight on the Scriptures, vol ll, pg 509-510, (published by the Watchtower Society).

2 Hair on the head is also a marvelous product of intelligent design. Awake of August 22, 1989 (pg 31) reported: “Drugs such as cocaine and heroin, for example, will not be found in the urine even a few days after use. Yet these drugs will show up in a hair analysis months later. This is because drug residues remain embedded in the hair as it grows. Bernard Gropper of the National Institute of Justice observes: “Hair has the advantage of long-term memory. It’s a permanent record, like tree rings.” A three-inch [8 cm] strand of hair will give a six-month history, since head hair grows at a rate of about a half inch [1 cm] a month.”

And this passage from Awake of November 22, 1972: “Your hair actually can indicate the condition of your health. This is due to the fact that hair is one of the fastest growing tissues in the body, and any abnormalities in the chemistry of your body will show up in the growth structure of your hair. Some doctors are even beginning to think that it is possible to diagnose a person’s illnesses by examining a strand of hair.”

More JW humor