Posted                          

quote:

---

Barnabas62 said:
That feels like "the end justifies the means". Few things cause more alienation than the sense that one has become a victim of such "holier than thou" behaviour.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
But it doesn't say the "dashing children against the rocks" is judgement on the children but on Babylon. It is hard to think of any punishment that could cause more pain and anguish than to see your children dashed against the rocks.

---

quote:

---

Nor does it say that this actually happens as judgement on Babylon; it is clearly one Jew, who has seen some pretty horrible atrocities done to his people by Babylon, saying that whatever horrible things happen to Babylon, they thoroughly deserve it, and the judgement that will eventually come upon them will be part of God's purposes.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
I haven't read through the whole thread yet (sorry!) - but Ps 137, imho (of course!), shifts in verses 7 & 8 from being a straightforward "this is what happened and this is how I'm feeling" psalm into metaphor - "Daughter of Babylon" is not a crown princess of Babylon but rather the personification of Babylon itself, and thus the children are not *human* children but rather the product of the 'Evil Empire' itself - the fruits, so to speak - the cruelty and injustice, etc.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Except it doesn't seem to. It's amazing how it's justified. I find Custard's response interesting. It seems to imply that as long as you're doing it to punish the parents, it's perfectly acceptable to kill children as a punishment.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
In private conversations, I tend to find that many folks see the ethical dilemmas which the cursing verses in the Psalms produce - and don't like them. But they aren't prepared to "sell" the inerrant principle because of what they don't like. Ultimately, conceding that one does not understand why "that" is "there" is preferable (from that POV) to conceding that it shows an erroneous ethic, or history, etc.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
but but but... does that answer the question? HOW do you guys read 109? (*whimper*)

---

quote:

---

Psalm 109 (NKJV) 1 Do not keep silent,
O God of my praise!
2 For the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful
Have opened against me;
They have spoken against me with a lying tongue.
3 They have also surrounded me with words of hatred,
And fought against me without a cause.
4 In return for my love they are my accusers,
But I give myself to prayer.
5 Thus they have rewarded me evil for good,
And hatred for my love.

6 Set a wicked man over him,
And let an accuser[a] stand at his right hand.
7 When he is judged, let him be found guilty,
And let his prayer become sin.
8 Let his days be few,
And let another take his office.
9 Let his children be fatherless,
And his wife a widow.
10 Let his children continually be vagabonds, and beg;
Let them seek their bread[b] also from their desolate places.
11 Let the creditor seize all that he has,
And let strangers plunder his labor.
12 Let there be none to extend mercy to him,
Nor let there be any to favor his fatherless children.
13 Let his posterity be cut off,
And in the generation following let their name be blotted out.

14 Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered before the LORD,
And let not the sin of his mother be blotted out.
15 Let them be continually before the LORD,
That He may cut off the memory of them from the earth;
16 Because he did not remember to show mercy,
But persecuted the poor and needy man,
That he might even slay the broken in heart.
17 As he loved cursing, so let it come to him;
As he did not delight in blessing, so let it be far from him.
18 As he clothed himself with cursing as with his garment,
So let it enter his body like water,
And like oil into his bones.
19 Let it be to him like the garment which covers him,
And for a belt with which he girds himself continually.
20 Let this be the LORD’s reward to my accusers,
And to those who speak evil against my person.

21 But You, O GOD the Lord,
Deal with me for Your name’s sake;
Because Your mercy is good, deliver me.
22 For I am poor and needy,
And my heart is wounded within me.
23 I am gone like a shadow when it lengthens;
I am shaken off like a locust.
24 My knees are weak through fasting,
And my flesh is feeble from lack of fatness.
25 I also have become a reproach to them;
When they look at me, they shake their heads.

26 Help me, O LORD my God!
Oh, save me according to Your mercy,
27 That they may know that this is Your hand—
That You, LORD, have done it!
28 Let them curse, but You bless;
When they arise, let them be ashamed,
But let Your servant rejoice.
29 Let my accusers be clothed with shame,
And let them cover themselves with their own disgrace as with a mantle.

30 I will greatly praise the LORD with my mouth;
Yes, I will praise Him among the multitude.
31 For He shall stand at the right hand of the poor,
To save him from those who condemn him.

---

quote:

---

Psalm 109 - A Psalm about the unhappy state of the church.
Verses 1-6 It repudiated the Lord, and considered Him vile, and hated Him.
Verses 7-12 The church with those who reject Him will come to an end, and there will be others in their place, who will be received, and a church established with them.
13-20 The church will not contiue with their posterity, because they are in falsities of evil, and because they reject the Lord.
21-25 A prayer to the Father for help, because the Son is not accepted, is considered vile, and as nothing.
26-29 They will not succeed in evil.
30-31 Song in praise of the Father, because He gives help.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Freddy

Is this a Swedenborgian inerrant interpretation? This is why I ask.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The link is working OK for me, Freddy. I linked to the second post on page 1 of the Biblical Inerrancy thread (which I reviewed prior to posting there). My POV is that your interpretation is actually a very interesting and creative allegory. I only asked the question in case your understanding had moved on since that (by now) quite old post.

---

I never realized that that thread was one I had ever posted on. That was in 2002. The horse lived until page 7 and then died.

Then it lay rotting until 2004, when someone exhumed it.

It is embarassing to read my old, mistaken opinions and realize that I haven't progressed an inch since then.

[ 07. December 2005, 18:49: Message edited by: Freddy ]

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posted                       

quote:

---

Pposted by Freddy:
I don't know if this helps, but this is how I see the message of this Psalm. So it has nothing to do with revenge, but is merely a statement that the evil will not succeed in the long run.

The Psalmist himself, of course, would have known nothing of this. He was expressing the desire for revenge that was normal to him. But the Lord was using him to give a message.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dark Knight
To me, the primary meaning of the Psalm must be what the original author intended, as far as this can be deduced.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dark Knight:
This I find very interesting. You seem to be saying that the meaning of Psalm 109 is completely different from what the original author intended. In fact, a meaning that the Psalmist could not possibly have intended, seeing there was no church when ths Psalm was composed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dark Knight:
I can't agree, being a disciple of the historical critical method. To me, the primary meaning of the Psalm must be what the original author intended, as far as this can be deduced. In this case, the original author couldn't possibly have had the church in mind.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Having said that, however, I do tend to play very fast and loose with the servant songs in Isaiah, but I maintain that the original author of those songs was not thinking specifically of Jesus (how could he/she?), but perhaps was thinkning in messianic terms.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dark Knight:
I believed for a long time that the way of Christ was to "kill" the parts of me that were sinful, but I now believe that we need to embrace the "shadow" (to use Jungian language) as part of ourselves, realising that the more we try to kill or supress it the stronger we make it. To recognise it is to difuse it.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
Freddy, that's *wild* - I would have never thought of reading Psalm 109 as an allegory for the church in the world!!! wow!

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Do we read the cursing psalms aloud in church? Should we?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
There is this advice in Ephesians 4. No one says it is easy to do.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

The thread may become purgatorial as a result, but let's see where it goes.

---

quote:

---

1. Biblical based opening posts only – this board is for discussing the Bible. Discussions and arguments should arise from biblical study. Such threads may progress into theological debate as long as they remain biblically grounded. General theological debate is carried out in Purgatory.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Do we read the cursing psalms aloud in church? Should we?

---

We read this (Ps 137) one in our Psalter.

Amazingly, I've never heard anyone complain.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Do we read the cursing psalms aloud in church? Should we?

---

We read this (Ps 137) one in our Psalter.

Amazingly, I've never heard anyone complain.

---

Or even ask a question?.....

I'd want to either have a chance to talk about the verses in the sermon, or have a small enough congregation that I knew well enough to be confident that they wouldn't go away thinking the verses mean that God tells us to bash children's heads on rocks.

---

quote:

---

"Jehovah God or the Lord never curses anyone, is never angry with anyone, never leads anyone into temptation, and never punishes, let alone curses anybody. It is the devil's crew who do such things. Such things cannot possibly come from the fountain of mercy, peace, and goodness. The reason why here (in God's curse on the serpent in Genesis 3) and elsewhere in the Word it is said that Jehovah God not only turns His face away, is angry, punishes, and tempts, but also slays and even curses, is that people may believe that the Lord rules over and disposes every single thing in the whole world, including evil itself, punishments, and temptations. And after people have grasped this very general concept, they may then learn in what ways He rules and disposes, and how He converts into good the evil inherent in punishment and the evil inherent in temptation. In teaching and learning the Word very general concepts have to come first; and therefore the sense of the letter is full of such general concepts." Arcana Coelestia 245

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I don't reflexively think "of course they should never be read in public worship" -- I think we are at danger of cleansing too much the bible if we don't grapple with what's really in it. But I would also want to be cautious -- I'd want to either have a chance to talk about the verses in the sermon, or have a small enough congregation that I knew well enough to be confident that they wouldn't go away thinking the verses mean that God tells us to bash children's heads on rocks.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Posted by Freddy:
I agree. Recognition helps to remove its power over me. But how is "diffuse" different from "kill"? Aren't they just two ways of referring to a similar idea?

---

Perhaps, as both are metaphors for something going on internally, but the language we use either expresses the way we think or influences it. In this case, to say kill in reference to a part of myself is a destructive and dualistic image, suggesting that there is a part of me that is just "bad" and needs to be destroyed.

However, when I use the term "diffuse" I am saying that there are things that I do which may have negative consequences, and these need to be redirected or reassessed. I am not talking as if something was inherently wrong with me.

In relation to these Psalms, my understanding is this: rather than stewing on these deep feelings of anger and hatred, either forcing them deeper inside to boil and simmer away or exploding outward into anger, physical violence or homicide, the Psalmist acts to get those feelings and thoughts out, away from him/her, to where they can do no damage to him/herself or anyone else. If this is what is going on, this should be celebrated. It is not a cause for saying there is a deep problem here with the Psalmist which is "sinful" and needs to be killed.

Forgive me if I bypass your comments on inspiration etc., as Godfather Pyx_e might well leave a horse's head in my bed if I go down that path

Lyn:

quote:

---

Dark Knight, I guess "embrace" sounds too much to me like "approve of." I think there are things in me which I cannot kill (you cannot crucify yourself - at a certain point, you require a person outside yourself to wield the hammer - ugh) and which Christ will either kill or redeem (wood hay and stubble, or gold and jewels).

---

I hope my response to Freddy clarifies my view. I realise the metaphors you have chosen are biblical ones (wood hay and stubble etc) I am just not sure what to make of them anymore. I remain convinced that crucifixion- either self or by someone else (please understand I am speaking metaphorically, as in crucifying parts of yourself or someone else that are "sinful") is not the path to wholeness.

leo: Great story, I think a very powerful and practical exegesis of the Psalm's meaning. Thank you so much for telling that story

--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U

----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Sorry it has taken me awhile to get back and respond to some of these posts.

quote:

---

Posted by Freddy:
I agree. Recognition helps to remove its power over me. But how is "diffuse" different from "kill"? Aren't they just two ways of referring to a similar idea?

---

Perhaps, as both are metaphors for something going on internally, but the language we use either expresses the way we think or influences it. In this case, to say kill in reference to a part of myself is a destructive and dualistic image, suggesting that there is a part of me that is just "bad" and needs to be destroyed.

However, when I use the term "diffuse" I am saying that there are things that I do which may have negative consequences, and these need to be redirected or reassessed. I am not talking as if something was inherently wrong with me.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dark Knight:
[QB]

quote:

---

Posted by Freddy:
I agree. Recognition helps to remove its power over me. But how is "diffuse" different from "kill"? Aren't they just two ways of referring to a similar idea?

---

Perhaps, as both are metaphors for something going on internally, but the language we use either expresses the way we think or influences it. In this case, to say kill in reference to a part of myself is a destructive and dualistic image, suggesting that there is a part of me that is just "bad" and needs to be destroyed.

However, when I use the term "diffuse" I am saying that there are things that I do which may have negative consequences, and these need to be redirected or reassessed. I am not talking as if something was inherently wrong with me.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

It is terrible to think of God wishing to "kill" a part of us. My own opinion is that there is nothing wrong with any of us. It is more an issue of what we allow to influence us.

---