[minsocal]

AllInTheNameOfProgress, on Oct 23 2008, 10:38 AM, said:

1. Must rescue others versus must be rescued by others (rescue - attach) (care - be cared for) (altuistic - lovable)
2. Must achieve goals versus must surrender goals (assert - adapt) (strength - acceptance) (successful - tribute)
3. Must remove danger versus must move from danger (fight - flight) (threat - retreat) (heroic - refugee)
4. Must obtain scarce essentials versus must create scarce essentials (compete - cooperate) (power - love) (honored - beautiful)
For what its worth, I think it would be a fairly easy task to find the pairs (1-4) all represented in the Bible. The point I wish to make here is summed up in the following example:

-----------------------------------
I loved the example minsocial. Do you want to move the 4 characteristics to another posting and we can work on the exercise of finding those teachings in the Bible? Then we would all be prepared to counsel like the rabbi.

I used to be confused when I read conflicting messages in the Bible, like "Honor thy father and mother" and "let the dead bury their own dead." Now I understand that because life is so complex, one answer does not fit all situations or all people. That is why people can use the Bible to justify opposing positions on the death penalty, human rights, etc.

However, I believe there is value in taking some time for the Mary side if one tends to operate on the Martha side most of the time. The author of the Mary in a Martha World book suggested that Martha had grown in her faith between the time she was complaining in the kitchen and the time she ran to meet Jesus after her brother, Lazarus had died. At that point she chose to give her time and energy to Jesus, to put her trust in Him.

Yes, we all have a Martha side and a Mary side. In this sense, the story asks us to look inside ourselves.

It seems to me that the Martha - Mary story is a mix of three of the four categories above. Martha the caregiver and Mary being cared for [1]. There is also the element of achieving and surrendering goals [2]. Finally, there is the element of scarce essentials [4]. Simply use the words to the right to generate an interpretation of the story. This give the story a great deal of flexibilty. Sort of like being your own Rabbi.

As stated elsewhere, the key is to look at the words associated with the categories and note that they all have positive conotations. For far too long now we have demonized "the animal" part of human nature. I think this is a distortion of Paul and not associated with the teachings of Jesus, but I could be wrong.

[davidk]

The Martha and Mary story is really very simple. I find no advantage in over-analyzing it.
- From Luke 10:
Jesus and His crew were on the road and were just hitting town when Martha saw them and invited them into her home. Jesus was making Himself comfortable when Martha's sister, Mary, sat down with Him to listen to what He was saying.

Meanwhile, Martha, distracted with running around trying to get everything ready for her guests, looked over and saw Mary sitting, listening to Jesus, and not making any attempt to help her out.

With that, he she walked up to Jesus saying,"Lord, don't you care that my sister has left me all alone to get everything done? Tell her to get up and help me!"
"Martha, Martha," Jesus said, "you're worrying about too many things. There's only one thing for you to really be concerned about right now, and it's the same thing your sister's concerned with; and it's not the house. Mary's chosen wisely, don't take that away from her."
-
That's it! We don't know what happened after that. Did Martha huff back to the kitchen or did she get the message and sit down with her Lord? We don't know.

It's all to often complex interpretations miss the point of this simple little story: our first priority is to love the Lord! As long as you understand this universal truth, you can just worry about all the little stuff you want.
That's it, folks!

[minsocal]

"If Gen 2:25 defines sexual intimacy, it is explicit in its reference to be solely between a man and women as man and wife."

A man and a women saw each other naked and were not ashamed. That's it. Get over it.

[davidk]

minsocal, on Mar 2 2009, 06:47 PM, said:

"If Gen 2:25 defines sexual intimacy, it is explicit in its reference to be solely between a man and women as man and wife."

A man and a women saw each other naked and were not ashamed. That's it. Get over it.

This doesn't really apply to the Martha and Mary story, as far as I can tell.

[minsocal]

davidk, on Mar 3 2009, 09:53 AM, said:

This doesn't really apply to the Martha and Mary story, as far as I can tell.

There you have it, you missed my point. Again. Let me step through this very simply.

You said not to read too much into the story of Mary and Martha.

I said, in response, not to read too much into your quote from Genesis.

This post has been edited by minsocal: 03 March 2009 - 05:15 PM

[davidk]

minsocal, on Mar 3 2009, 05:07 PM, said:

There you have it, you missed my point. Again. Let me step through this very simply.

You said not to read too much into the story of Mary and Martha.

I said, in response, not to read too much into your quote from Genesis.

(Gen 2:25- it explicitly says man and wife. How much should I leave out so as not to be reading too much into it, in your opinion. There's no direct accusation of your having over-analyzed M & M, but you have written several posts on it.)

see post #42

[minsocal]

davidk, on Mar 4 2009, 06:35 PM, said:

(Gen 2:25- it explicitly says man and wife. How much should I leave out so as not to be reading too much into it, in your opinion. There's no direct accusation of your having over-analyzed M & M, but you have written several posts on it.)

see post #42

Yep, a man and his wife saw each other naked. It refers simply to "a man and his wife", nothing more. Or ...

Micah 1:8

"For this I will lament and wail; I will go stripped and naked; I will make lamentation like the jackals, and mourning like the ostriches."

and ...

Isaiah 58:7

"Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter-- when you see the naked, to clothe him, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?"

hmmm ?

This post has been edited by minsocal: 05 March 2009 - 12:08 AM

[davidk]

minsocal, on Mar 5 2009, 01:01 AM, said:

Yep, a man and his wife saw each other naked. It refers simply to "a man and his wife", nothing more. Or ...

Micah 1:8

"For this I will lament and wail; I will go stripped and naked; I will make lamentation like the jackals, and mourning like the ostriches."

and ...

Isaiah 58:7

"Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter-- when you see the naked, to clothe him, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?"

hmmm ?

I really wish I knew at what point you were driving toward.
I'm not arguing with you about Genesis 2:25, for pete'e sake! Why do you continue to write as if I am?
Your Micah is so out of context that your point is unclear for its inclusion into this Martha/ Mary dialogue.
The first part of Isaiah could have some smidgen of relevance, but there seems to be some fascination about the word 'naked'. In this I can find no relevance to Martha and Mary.

[minsocal]

The story of Mary and Matha disturbs some due to implications of hegemonic patriarchy. That is one view. Another view, far more subtle, has to do with adult intimacy. The subject of 'intimacy' has been corrupted by negative sexual connotations that did not surface until a very long time after the Bible was written. To be "naked" before the other simply means this is who I am. That is adult intimacy.

[davidk]

minsocal, on Mar 15 2009, 02:11 PM, said:

The story of Mary and Matha disturbs some due to implications of . That is one view. Another view, far more subtle, has to do with adult intimacy. The subject of 'intimacy' has been corrupted by negative sexual connotations that did not surface until a very long time after the Bible was written. To be "naked" before the other simply means this is who I am. That is adult intimacy.

Luke 10:38-42 makes no reference, neither specific nor inferred, of any hegemonic patriarchy. Nor is there any form of "adult intimacy" remotely approaching the level of a husband and wife relationship as described in Gen 2:25. It is so sublte as to be nonexistent.
Reading into this passage in Luke any accusation of hegemonic patriarchy or being naked only leads to the corruptions that's continually mentioned here and it is inapplicable to Martha and Mary.