The Zero-Sum Game
Someone raised the question yesterday of what you do when you get bored in Church. Well, I solved that problem over 35 years ago. I stopped going to Church. OK, 35 years ago, I started up again, but in a different Church. (Some of us would rather switch than fight.)
I do find that when you have some smart-aleck (moi?) sitting on the back row, things rarely get boring. Fortunately, we have an excellent Sunday School teacher, so things never get boring. Leastwise, not that I've ever seen.
At any rate, things got a little more exciting than usual this past Sunday when we were discussing the case of David and Bathsheba. Apparently, our sexist society still blames David 100% for what happened.
All I did was point out that responsibility is not a zero-sum game. That is to say, David being responsible for his actions (lusting, adultery, murder) did not reduce Bathsheba's responsibility (bathing where she could be seen, committing adultery). From the reaction I got, you'd think I had cast aspersions on the Lord's annointed.
Unfortunately, it looks like there aren't a whole lot of folks who understand the concept of a zero-sum game. You'd think I was trying to explain how increases in M1, M2, and M3 differ from the wage/price spiral. Half the people had a MEGO moment, I'm sure.
The whole thing spilled over into an on-line discussion where some people didn't seem to understand that women have a responsibility to dress, speak, and act modestly (as do men) and men have a responsibility to control their thoughts and their hormones (as do women).
Oddly enough, I can't think of any women I'm close to who are not modest. Go figure. As they use to say about Ban, it takes the worry out of being close. And some of them have expressed appreciation for me behaving myself.
It's not a zero-sum game.
posted by Jahn @ 16:00
6 Comments:
Jahn, I totally agree with you on this one. It takes two to tango. Basheba was definately after David, both were at fault.
I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that she was "after him" (the Bible is silent on that point), but she definitely should have taken some common-sense precautions and pulled a Nancy Reagan ("Just say 'no'".).
Yes, the Bible is very silent on her thought process. However, the question arises as to what we are supposed to do when our leaders lead us astray. As her king, and a man who had power to ruin her reputation (which was just about all a woman had in those days) and her life, what could she have reasonably done? Should she denounced him? She she have just followed her leader? In a society where women had no power or influence beyond the walls of their homes, what could she have reasonably done?
And yes, I acknowledge that women have a responsibility to dress modestly. But what does it say about men who consistently choose to pay attention to women who wear cleavage-showing tops or short skirts? I think men have a large part in women's fashions than they are taking responsibility for.
Dora - Women who wear those types of fashions are trying to get noticed.
OK, I went back and read it again and they really did not elaborate much about what happened. The point is that Basheba was married and David did lie with her. They both sinned in the eyes of the Lord. Secondly, David arranged for her husband to be killed in the war so as to make it look legit. Only problem here is that the Lord knew the truth. I think this is the begining of David's downfall.
Part of my point is that we really don't know what Bathsheba's part was in all of this, but too many people want to pin 100% of the blame on David. He is 100% responsible for what he did. But Bathsheba is responsible for what she did or decided not to do.
In those days, the average person really was pretty powerless. But some chose to stand up to unrighteous leaders. Remember Shadrach, Meschach and Ab'd-Nego? Daniel and the lions den?
For my part, I decided long ago that I would not date anyone who did not dress modestly. So far, I'm batting 1.000 (or .000, if you want to look at it that way).
Of course, the worst thing that David did was having Uriah killed. That's where he lost it all. (But at least he didn't have to ponder the meaning of "is".)
Post a Comment
<< Home