Lately I've been partaking in an exercise in which I am saying yes and saying no. This seems so simple, but it's difficult to do.
Instead of maybe, or kinda, or sort of- let my yes be yes and let my no be no.
I didn't do that the other day, but I am glad I noticed it.
Wednesday, July 29, 2015
Tuesday, July 28, 2015
The Kite Runner - Khaled Hosseini
I really didn't want to sob in the middle of KFC, and I didn't, but I could have.
Christmas in July
Christmas in July
It's July, and someone passed a Facebook meme around that had a picture of Will Ferrell as Elf, who was letting us know how many Fridays until Christmas.
So here I am again, thinking about the season vs. The Season, and the year; 2015, versus Anno Domini, in which Christ was placed at the center of time.
Most say that Jesus was born in the Spring, but I've not remembered hearing Christmas in June, or other months as much as in July. I suppose there's a reason Christmas comes back to mind in July. It's like an Unbirthday in some sense; because every day is a day to think about the master and marker of time, but maybe it's almost like a half-birthday in that Someone's birthday is so important that it knocks the balance out of the axis so there has to be some response on the other side of the year to keep the cycle running for the next six months.
At the time, the birth of Christ was not marked on the calendar. Calendars were created and maintained by power structures and His didn't get going until after resurrection; or until after death, as some people say. It was amazing to me how many teachers tried to explain miracles from the Bible but just skipped over the only one that matters: Jesus raising Himself from the dead. Either the resurrection happened or it didn't, and most people who want to study are more comfortable talking about walking on the water or loaves and fishes- not because they are more unlikely but because they are less significant.
Easter used to do that; provide the foil for Christmas as the other part of the whole. But Easter has left the public consciousness. I remember in English class in high school, we were reading a short story and discussing it with our partners. My partner was very bright, and cute, and very likable. So when she said something about the story inferring birth, and Easter was the time of new birth, I went along with it, even when she said that was the time of Jesus' birth, wasn't it? I'm nodding, because it makes so much sense, and the day is sunny and the story is about Spring, and her eyes are so welcoming, and I want to make connections between texts, and then I think- hello! I know this. Easter is about birth of course, and it's Spring, but it's a new birth. It's not Christmas.
Easter had to leave the public consciousness if people were going to forget about resurrection. The preeminence of Christmas is of course, a pious smokescreen to get everyone to forget about the man God and to focus on the baby. If we think about the baby, and join in with that sentimentality, it sure is a beautiful picture, and a fitting opening for the greatest story ever told. But it also gets us off track if it's not seen as the beginning of something.
Micah 3:5-12 tells about the sun of righteousness that would rise with healing in his wings after the long night in between testaments.
We're created by Old and New Testaments whether we know it or not. Western civilization is orphaned now, or thinks it is, having forgotten about its parents, but there they are. Mom was Hebrew, so we're all Hebrews, and the Bible ended for Mom. But since then, she's had to justify her beliefs up against our overbearing Dad who patriarched his way into world domination. The story then started up again for our Greek Daddy, who interprets the Old only through the New and pretty much forgot he is married and can't have kids by himself. Zeus did it, right? We kids stayed way too Greek, but how many Hebrew words made it into English?
Prophecies can be fulfilled in lots of ways, depending on who's reading them and who's waiting for what, but those prophecies are easy to interpret as becoming history.
Here is a quote by Dr. J. Vernon McGee
Daily Radio Commentary on Micah 5:1,2
I personally think that this is a good time to look at the Christmas story. Christmas, I think, needs to be stripped of all of its heathenism and the accretions of time have added the accessories of paganism to it, and probably we're prepared to look at the birth of Christ without bells and bunting, and tinsel and the tawdry, the crowds and the clamor and actually a Christmas without a Santa Claus...
He goes on to note that Matthew combines prophecies about Ramah, Nazareth, Egypt and Bethlehem into the biography of Jesus; seamlessly connecting the threads of expectation with reality. They can't deny that there was a Jesus, but they can surely lean toward Christmas over Easter at the same time that others deny it and everybody forgets about it.
Monday, July 27, 2015
Seek and Find
I love thinking of how excited Jews and Christians should have been when Jacob started coming back to Israel. How impossible that seemed; having a Jewish state again, when people knew history! And how wonderful it must or should have felt to people who say they believe the Bible to see some of it becoming true in their own lifetimes. Suddenly is wasn't just about the past or the myth or the legend or the history, it was alive undeniably in the present.
So why were people even reading it if they didn't already think it was true and alive in the present! And why don't we remember this time period when it was a dead book and see it now as once again alive? The people who see the Bible as alive, assume that it is and the people that see it as dead don't care about the proof that it isn't. We either watch Fox or CNN, and nobody considers any other opinions but sees what they look for.
What we don't realize is that Fox and CNN only tell us what is wrong.
Don't you want to know what's right?
Who are you listening to, that tells you just what you want to hear, and shows you just what you want to see?
Amy Grant, Mindy Smith from Somewhere Down The Road,
2010
So why were people even reading it if they didn't already think it was true and alive in the present! And why don't we remember this time period when it was a dead book and see it now as once again alive? The people who see the Bible as alive, assume that it is and the people that see it as dead don't care about the proof that it isn't. We either watch Fox or CNN, and nobody considers any other opinions but sees what they look for.
What we don't realize is that Fox and CNN only tell us what is wrong.
Don't you want to know what's right?
Who are you listening to, that tells you just what you want to hear, and shows you just what you want to see?
Amy Grant, Mindy Smith from Somewhere Down The Road,
2010
Politics Today - a Curmudgeon's Perspective
Politics Today - a Curmudgeon's Perspective
Very frankly, I think it's almost a joke, when you have a group of congressmen, investigating something in politics, and probably everyone sitting there judging the other fella, they've got a skeleton in their own closet.... In my entire lifetime, I've never felt that there were men, in places of leadership, that were fit to sit in judgement on other men. It takes men of character to do that sort of thing...... Therefore today, my friend, we need men and women who have a heart, who have more than just cleverness with the law. We need men and women today, who, I think, know God.
J. Vernon McGee
TTB.org
Daily Radio Commentary
Micah 2:12-3:4
Very frankly, I think it's almost a joke, when you have a group of congressmen, investigating something in politics, and probably everyone sitting there judging the other fella, they've got a skeleton in their own closet.... In my entire lifetime, I've never felt that there were men, in places of leadership, that were fit to sit in judgement on other men. It takes men of character to do that sort of thing...... Therefore today, my friend, we need men and women who have a heart, who have more than just cleverness with the law. We need men and women today, who, I think, know God.
J. Vernon McGee
TTB.org
Daily Radio Commentary
Micah 2:12-3:4
Saturday, July 25, 2015
German, Hebrew, and English studies have brought me to this:
German, Hebrew, and English studies have brought me to this:
Thoughts while listening to commentary on Micah 2:12-3:4 by Dr. J. Vernon McGee at TTB.org:
I've thought about this for a long time, and I don't know if it already exists, but I want to read a Bible without proper names; that is, one with capital letters only at the front of sentences. I believe that the usage of capital letters, as used in German for all nouns, or in English for proper nouns, confuses the meanings in Hebrew and in Greek; although I've never taken Greek. In Hebrew, the names mean something, and I'd like to read those words rather than thinking of the name as a character. Instead of an alliteration or an Anglicized version of the sound, we should use a word that means the same thing as the Hebrew word; not one that sounds somewhat like the original or one that brings to mind a familiar character for which we supply our own interpretations built upon repetition and tradition and preconceived ideas.
We do this in fairy tales and so we English readers know simultaneously that Snow White is a particular princess, and what her name means. But in the Bible, the meanings of names are obscured due to over-translation, and this is not good in a language that relies on meanings of words and meanings of names in particular; and in which so many main characters experience name changes. There aren't that many words in Hebrew, so we shouldn't be dividing them up into 15 words in English, but learning them for what they say so that when we study a word we have some idea of the times it is used before we start talking about its meaning. I want to be able to read passages about Jacob as being about that character, but also as passages about Trickster, or about a trickster, if that's what Jacob means.
Here's what a Google search about the meaning of Israel netted me today:
You may not be able to read it, but I believe that if you could, you'd find out less than I did, because I knew what I was looking for and I know it wasn't there.
I am amazed at how divisive the Bible is. So many people swear they believe it, yet they have no idea what 90% of it says. And then there are so many people who think of it as rubble, old and smoking; on its way out of relevance, who have no idea what 91% of it says.
Here, in his daily commentary, Dr. McGee states that the name Jacob is used to refer to the same people as Israel, but Jacob is their sin, or old nature and Israel is the new. I'd like to read the word with the meaning, and not be distracted by the name and the associations I place upon it about sheep and goats and distractingly hairy men lying and cheating and eating red stew. It's important to know who Jacob and Israel are, but they're many things: a real person with two names, a real nation or people group with two names, and a character or characters in the story of one man, and the character or characters of a people group in the history of them and in their story as presented as well. Then after those obvious things are understood, one could see what the words say about tricksters in general, for a look at Scripture on several levels. When I read something about Snow White, I don't have to think too hard to interpret that thought as something that pertains to white people, because I know that her name means white and I know she's a person, but if I don't know what a Bible name means....
Thoughts while listening to commentary on Micah 2:12-3:4 by Dr. J. Vernon McGee at TTB.org:
I've thought about this for a long time, and I don't know if it already exists, but I want to read a Bible without proper names; that is, one with capital letters only at the front of sentences. I believe that the usage of capital letters, as used in German for all nouns, or in English for proper nouns, confuses the meanings in Hebrew and in Greek; although I've never taken Greek. In Hebrew, the names mean something, and I'd like to read those words rather than thinking of the name as a character. Instead of an alliteration or an Anglicized version of the sound, we should use a word that means the same thing as the Hebrew word; not one that sounds somewhat like the original or one that brings to mind a familiar character for which we supply our own interpretations built upon repetition and tradition and preconceived ideas.
We do this in fairy tales and so we English readers know simultaneously that Snow White is a particular princess, and what her name means. But in the Bible, the meanings of names are obscured due to over-translation, and this is not good in a language that relies on meanings of words and meanings of names in particular; and in which so many main characters experience name changes. There aren't that many words in Hebrew, so we shouldn't be dividing them up into 15 words in English, but learning them for what they say so that when we study a word we have some idea of the times it is used before we start talking about its meaning. I want to be able to read passages about Jacob as being about that character, but also as passages about Trickster, or about a trickster, if that's what Jacob means.
Here's what a Google search about the meaning of Israel netted me today:
I am amazed at how divisive the Bible is. So many people swear they believe it, yet they have no idea what 90% of it says. And then there are so many people who think of it as rubble, old and smoking; on its way out of relevance, who have no idea what 91% of it says.
Here, in his daily commentary, Dr. McGee states that the name Jacob is used to refer to the same people as Israel, but Jacob is their sin, or old nature and Israel is the new. I'd like to read the word with the meaning, and not be distracted by the name and the associations I place upon it about sheep and goats and distractingly hairy men lying and cheating and eating red stew. It's important to know who Jacob and Israel are, but they're many things: a real person with two names, a real nation or people group with two names, and a character or characters in the story of one man, and the character or characters of a people group in the history of them and in their story as presented as well. Then after those obvious things are understood, one could see what the words say about tricksters in general, for a look at Scripture on several levels. When I read something about Snow White, I don't have to think too hard to interpret that thought as something that pertains to white people, because I know that her name means white and I know she's a person, but if I don't know what a Bible name means....
And Justice For All
And Justice For All
Commentary on commentary of Micah 2:12-3:4
In this installment, Dr. J. Vernon McGee at TTB.org speaks about philosophy of government. His thesis is old-fashioned and hard to argue with:
leaders need to be of good character.
This thought makes me think of the good leaders who were killing indiscriminately throughout history. How can they be both good leaders and evil people?
Actually, they weren't really killing indiscriminately. Either they were killing their rivals, perceived rivals, enemies or terrorizing people or all three and their killing had positive results, for them!
They thought that their agenda was more important than the people they used to be able to enforce those ideas; even if their agenda was only their own advancement. We tend to think we're right, don't we? Even if we think we're not supposed to do a thing, we do nothing because we think we ought to, or because we can get away with it.
That's what these evil people do. But that's what good people do too, because that's what people do.
I suppose the definition of leading might mean that if you have the most people following you, you're doing the best job.
What makes right? Might? Just because we can abuse someone terribly, we do that without judgement if all we're concerned about is ourselves. This is easy to justify if we think ourselves correct, and who doesn't? and then tell everyone including ourselves that our opinion is good for everyone.
Mr. McGee points out that Micah compares poor government to unfeeling cannibalism. It's an image of power and greed, disregard for life and unfeeling. He often states that man at his core is lower than the animals. Then he provides a commentary on the prophecy of a beautiful future breaking through the clouds of judgement that Micah might be known for.
Grace, grace.... God's grace.
Grace that will pardon and
cleanse within. Grace, grace,
God's grace.
We see this in the pages of history if we only look. Jacob is the trickster, but he didn't
stay that. Israel means....
see other post...
Triumphant with God.
It didn't seem possible until modern times. But when Micah was written, it also didn't seem possible that people all over the world would be reading Micah without knowing much about him.
For 1500 years people read this passage thinking it couldn't possibly say what it says- or refer to whom it refers to. Micah is very concerned about the problems of leadership. He might use terms like "sins of the prophets, princes" and other leaders such as priests that we use different names for today, but we know more about leadership mistakes than Micah did.
In Romans 2 we're told that we can't criticize because then we're doing what they're doing, the people that we're criticizing, the things that we don't want to do. Man can't be a judge. A judge is out of his league.
Micah wants us to hear, all ye people! And maybe he means what he says and is referring to all people.
It's nice to be able to elect our leaders, but that only works if the people know what they're voting for.
Commentary on commentary of Micah 2:12-3:4
In this installment, Dr. J. Vernon McGee at TTB.org speaks about philosophy of government. His thesis is old-fashioned and hard to argue with:
leaders need to be of good character.
This thought makes me think of the good leaders who were killing indiscriminately throughout history. How can they be both good leaders and evil people?
Actually, they weren't really killing indiscriminately. Either they were killing their rivals, perceived rivals, enemies or terrorizing people or all three and their killing had positive results, for them!
They thought that their agenda was more important than the people they used to be able to enforce those ideas; even if their agenda was only their own advancement. We tend to think we're right, don't we? Even if we think we're not supposed to do a thing, we do nothing because we think we ought to, or because we can get away with it.
That's what these evil people do. But that's what good people do too, because that's what people do.
I suppose the definition of leading might mean that if you have the most people following you, you're doing the best job.
What makes right? Might? Just because we can abuse someone terribly, we do that without judgement if all we're concerned about is ourselves. This is easy to justify if we think ourselves correct, and who doesn't? and then tell everyone including ourselves that our opinion is good for everyone.
Mr. McGee points out that Micah compares poor government to unfeeling cannibalism. It's an image of power and greed, disregard for life and unfeeling. He often states that man at his core is lower than the animals. Then he provides a commentary on the prophecy of a beautiful future breaking through the clouds of judgement that Micah might be known for.
Grace, grace.... God's grace.
Grace that will pardon and
cleanse within. Grace, grace,
God's grace.
We see this in the pages of history if we only look. Jacob is the trickster, but he didn't
stay that. Israel means....
see other post...
Triumphant with God.
It didn't seem possible until modern times. But when Micah was written, it also didn't seem possible that people all over the world would be reading Micah without knowing much about him.
For 1500 years people read this passage thinking it couldn't possibly say what it says- or refer to whom it refers to. Micah is very concerned about the problems of leadership. He might use terms like "sins of the prophets, princes" and other leaders such as priests that we use different names for today, but we know more about leadership mistakes than Micah did.
In Romans 2 we're told that we can't criticize because then we're doing what they're doing, the people that we're criticizing, the things that we don't want to do. Man can't be a judge. A judge is out of his league.
Micah wants us to hear, all ye people! And maybe he means what he says and is referring to all people.
It's nice to be able to elect our leaders, but that only works if the people know what they're voting for.
Gone with the Wind
We today have moved into a
unique position as a nation.....
At the beginning of our nation,
and it's so easy for the critic today and the very sophisticated historian today likes to tell about what barbarians our ancestors were,
how narrow-minded they were
and what bigots they were that came to this country...
Well, they were human beings,
but they had a reverence for the Word of God, even those that were not Christian had a reverence for the
Word of God and they had a certain knowledge of it,
because actually, the reason that both Harvard and Yale universities were founded, were to train ministers so that the people in this country would not be in the darkness of ignorance of the Word of God.
But I tell you, the light's gone out, hasn't it?Dr. J. Vernon McGee
TTB.org
Quote on Micah 3:5-12 from his radio commentary that plays daily
Judgement Free Zone
Micah 2:12-3:4
In this installment, Dr. J. Vernon McGee at TTB.org talks about the drunk driver who killed his mother and tries to get a handle on the issue of judgement.
Judgement is a huge issue as we think about behavior and character. At Planet Fitness, or anywhere else, there is actually no judgement free zone, regardless of capitalization or grammar. So we have an unreachable goal; a recipe for dissatisfaction.
Depending on the meaning, we have to judge, don't we? In order to think, we have to evaluate. But here we go again in English with words that have different shades of meaning and aren't clones of one another but words that did have different meanings in a time when people used definitions rather than synonyms to gain further understanding.
We know there is something wrong with judging, but what is it?
Judgement
Judging
Evaluation
Thinking
Critiquing
I suppose it all comes down to intention, and do we understand our own intentions? Can we judge ourselves enough to make good choices or are we reacting rather than choosing to act or not?
(Today, according to Google, the PF website uses the phrase Judgement Free Zone with all capital letters- in majuscule, as I would think it would be in English, therefore denoting the presence of proper nouns; more readily evident of ownership in that language, unlike in German where every noun is just as special as every other one.)
Mr. McGee speaks with passion today. Of course he does. But he doesn't speak about his own mother's death with more passion than most other subjects that he covers. Could it be that the death of his mother isn't quite as important as scripture, or knowledge, or truth itself or the sum total of one man's lifework? One could call him a Mensch. He's showing judgement; an ability to see beyond oneself before making the decision of how to feel, what to do and what to think and what to say. I'm wondering why I don't show much judgement before speaking. It's as if when I see the truth I just need to say it.
Hmmm. The only one who's always there when I see the truth is me, so I guess I know instinctively that I'm the one that needs to hear it, because apparently that's who I'm talking to most of the times that I speak. But that's not how I operate. I see it, and I say it. "Watch out, there's a car coming" might be a necessary comment to someone sometime, but it's not like anybody else knows what I'm talking about if they don't have any context, or ears to hear or time to listen or know the language I'm using.
Listening to Mr. McGee expound and postulate once again, I am very grateful for his work that covers every chapter of the Bible. But now I am also interested in reading or listening to his work that might have been collated by subject rather than as part of a chapter commentary. For instance, where could I find a collection of all his comments on "government today" that are more timely now than when he said them?
We hate the good and love the evil, because we're comparing others' works to our own! How can we be objective when we're so filled with covetousness and envy? Keeping up with the Joneses is a national pastime. Since the Bushes have had two presidents, now the Clintons want the same distinction. This isn't a problem of each of us in our hearts, but a systematic celebrated societal problem. There are economies and industries built upon this premise:
If you've got it, I want it.
Everybody wants everything, except what they've got. I don't think it matters much if we have another Bush or Clinton in The White House, but I am surprised that the nation is caught up in the middle of their family squabble. One has CNN on their side and one has Fox. Can nobody see that there are more than two choices? Who says America doesn't have dynasties?
Greed, envy, striving, trying: that part of the problem has been evident to me. It's not like the people in power are any worse than the people who don't have power. Everybody wants something. But now, after listening to J. Vernon, I get to add the further frustrating concept of self-pity to the mix. This is why the proverbial judge, a little tipsy the night before the trial, can't objectively judge the drunk driver in court the next day. She knows that she drinks and so she sees herself in the remorseful criminal's eyes. We need to judge only when we're judges, but even then it seems impossible to separate the personal from the mix.
I love the idea that liberals are kind against criminals because they know deep down that we're all the same and that they've done reprehensible things themselves. I've always known there was something wrong with liberal wishiwashiness and this has helped me peg it. There's nothing wrong with universal brotherhood and there's nothing wrong with mercy. But only someone better than somebody else can offer grace, and it's that sanctimonious position of helping the poor, the down-trodden and the outcast that is just a front for pride.
I love the idea that conservatives are harsh on criminals because they know deep down inside that we're all the same and that we're all deserving of punishment. They know they can't fix the world, but they can apply judgement and justice where they find it. They just want to do their part, right? Wrong. I've always known there was something wrong with this way of thinking but now I know what it is. Justice is great. But only God can be just and only God can be truly gracious.
We're not God and we're judging anyway. There's the problem.
We're called to be just but not judging, and we're called to show grace and mercy. This is not something that can be accomplished by being liberal and this is not something that can be accomplished by being conservative. In fact, it's revolutionary and that's why they killed Him.
How can the victim judge the crime? How can anyone judge anybody when we all know we've done the same thing? God is a better judge, and we'll tear each other to bits in comparisons and false pride bolstered by power and righteousness even if it's cloaked in legal righteousness. One can eat the poor or feed the poor, but if you don't see that we're all poor, you're wrong. It doesn't matter which side of the horse we fall off of while we reach for that golden ring.
Christians know that they have been given a free pass, and they know that they should forgive others if they want to be forgiven. we say it all the time.
When do we do it?
In this installment, Dr. J. Vernon McGee at TTB.org talks about the drunk driver who killed his mother and tries to get a handle on the issue of judgement.
Judgement is a huge issue as we think about behavior and character. At Planet Fitness, or anywhere else, there is actually no judgement free zone, regardless of capitalization or grammar. So we have an unreachable goal; a recipe for dissatisfaction.
Depending on the meaning, we have to judge, don't we? In order to think, we have to evaluate. But here we go again in English with words that have different shades of meaning and aren't clones of one another but words that did have different meanings in a time when people used definitions rather than synonyms to gain further understanding.
We know there is something wrong with judging, but what is it?
Judgement
Judging
Evaluation
Thinking
Critiquing
I suppose it all comes down to intention, and do we understand our own intentions? Can we judge ourselves enough to make good choices or are we reacting rather than choosing to act or not?
(Today, according to Google, the PF website uses the phrase Judgement Free Zone with all capital letters- in majuscule, as I would think it would be in English, therefore denoting the presence of proper nouns; more readily evident of ownership in that language, unlike in German where every noun is just as special as every other one.)
Mr. McGee speaks with passion today. Of course he does. But he doesn't speak about his own mother's death with more passion than most other subjects that he covers. Could it be that the death of his mother isn't quite as important as scripture, or knowledge, or truth itself or the sum total of one man's lifework? One could call him a Mensch. He's showing judgement; an ability to see beyond oneself before making the decision of how to feel, what to do and what to think and what to say. I'm wondering why I don't show much judgement before speaking. It's as if when I see the truth I just need to say it.
Hmmm. The only one who's always there when I see the truth is me, so I guess I know instinctively that I'm the one that needs to hear it, because apparently that's who I'm talking to most of the times that I speak. But that's not how I operate. I see it, and I say it. "Watch out, there's a car coming" might be a necessary comment to someone sometime, but it's not like anybody else knows what I'm talking about if they don't have any context, or ears to hear or time to listen or know the language I'm using.
Listening to Mr. McGee expound and postulate once again, I am very grateful for his work that covers every chapter of the Bible. But now I am also interested in reading or listening to his work that might have been collated by subject rather than as part of a chapter commentary. For instance, where could I find a collection of all his comments on "government today" that are more timely now than when he said them?
We hate the good and love the evil, because we're comparing others' works to our own! How can we be objective when we're so filled with covetousness and envy? Keeping up with the Joneses is a national pastime. Since the Bushes have had two presidents, now the Clintons want the same distinction. This isn't a problem of each of us in our hearts, but a systematic celebrated societal problem. There are economies and industries built upon this premise:
If you've got it, I want it.
Everybody wants everything, except what they've got. I don't think it matters much if we have another Bush or Clinton in The White House, but I am surprised that the nation is caught up in the middle of their family squabble. One has CNN on their side and one has Fox. Can nobody see that there are more than two choices? Who says America doesn't have dynasties?
Greed, envy, striving, trying: that part of the problem has been evident to me. It's not like the people in power are any worse than the people who don't have power. Everybody wants something. But now, after listening to J. Vernon, I get to add the further frustrating concept of self-pity to the mix. This is why the proverbial judge, a little tipsy the night before the trial, can't objectively judge the drunk driver in court the next day. She knows that she drinks and so she sees herself in the remorseful criminal's eyes. We need to judge only when we're judges, but even then it seems impossible to separate the personal from the mix.
I love the idea that liberals are kind against criminals because they know deep down that we're all the same and that they've done reprehensible things themselves. I've always known there was something wrong with liberal wishiwashiness and this has helped me peg it. There's nothing wrong with universal brotherhood and there's nothing wrong with mercy. But only someone better than somebody else can offer grace, and it's that sanctimonious position of helping the poor, the down-trodden and the outcast that is just a front for pride.
I love the idea that conservatives are harsh on criminals because they know deep down inside that we're all the same and that we're all deserving of punishment. They know they can't fix the world, but they can apply judgement and justice where they find it. They just want to do their part, right? Wrong. I've always known there was something wrong with this way of thinking but now I know what it is. Justice is great. But only God can be just and only God can be truly gracious.
We're not God and we're judging anyway. There's the problem.
We're called to be just but not judging, and we're called to show grace and mercy. This is not something that can be accomplished by being liberal and this is not something that can be accomplished by being conservative. In fact, it's revolutionary and that's why they killed Him.
How can the victim judge the crime? How can anyone judge anybody when we all know we've done the same thing? God is a better judge, and we'll tear each other to bits in comparisons and false pride bolstered by power and righteousness even if it's cloaked in legal righteousness. One can eat the poor or feed the poor, but if you don't see that we're all poor, you're wrong. It doesn't matter which side of the horse we fall off of while we reach for that golden ring.
Christians know that they have been given a free pass, and they know that they should forgive others if they want to be forgiven. we say it all the time.
When do we do it?
Thursday, July 23, 2015
You've Got to Be Kidding Me
Hey, blog. There is a need here that you're providing for me.
Apparently, I need to talk all the time, and very few people I am around want to hear me that much.
So thank you, blog. Thank you for listening in silence and paying such close attention to everything I write.
You're just the best.
Apparently, I need to talk all the time, and very few people I am around want to hear me that much.
So thank you, blog. Thank you for listening in silence and paying such close attention to everything I write.
You're just the best.
Wednesday, July 22, 2015
Can't Wait to Post This
As readers of my blog will notice,
and as I notice, I'm the only reader,
I have been listening to Mr. J. Vernon McGee go TTB.org. This morning he was speaking about the end of Micah 2 and the beginning of Micah 3. I wondered why he divided up the sections this way, knowing that chapters were added later to the text, as were verse numbers, and of course- pages.
I know that Micah is naturally divisible by the refrain of the prophet asking us, the readers, to hear. But I can't wait to get back to the text and go into it more.
Today Mr. McGee spoke of judging, which is a subject I've been wrestling with since I was about 8 years old. The issue has plagued me since before birth, but I didn't realize that until I was about 8 years old. That's speaking for myself, but of course I believe that my insight includes all humanity, for which I'm happy to speak, yet don't want to judge.
and as I notice, I'm the only reader,
I have been listening to Mr. J. Vernon McGee go TTB.org. This morning he was speaking about the end of Micah 2 and the beginning of Micah 3. I wondered why he divided up the sections this way, knowing that chapters were added later to the text, as were verse numbers, and of course- pages.
I know that Micah is naturally divisible by the refrain of the prophet asking us, the readers, to hear. But I can't wait to get back to the text and go into it more.
Today Mr. McGee spoke of judging, which is a subject I've been wrestling with since I was about 8 years old. The issue has plagued me since before birth, but I didn't realize that until I was about 8 years old. That's speaking for myself, but of course I believe that my insight includes all humanity, for which I'm happy to speak, yet don't want to judge.
Tuesday, July 21, 2015
Reflection on a Blog: So Far
I started at the beginning of the year and it's about halfway through the year now.
I remember that I started with lots of colors, and I think some other formatting choices to illustrate when my thoughts wander or if I think I went down some alley or other. Now I've left those style choices behind, mainly.
I still attempt to be consistent in spelling, but I know that since I don't notice each error, particularly word choice, and since I don't agree with every automatically red-lined word as incorrect, there are a few inconsistencies.
There are greater inconsistencies with use of punctuation. I want to be consistent with this but I don't really understand commas and semi-colons and colons enough to choose between their various usages, and like a two-year old in the front of a shopping cart, attracted to everything at eye-level, I flit from goal to goal and have way too many to fulfill.
Speaking of goals, I did want to write every day. And I also don't want to automatically write everyday as one word just because they are next to each other, just as I don't want to use an apostrophe with every word that ends with the letter S. But do S and everyday need italics? Quotes? Is that fact that Quotes? is not a complete sentence a problem?
One of my favorite authors, Joyce Carol Oates, seems to run fast and loose with punctuation and style. Because I like everything I've read of hers, I see her freedom as artistic license and believe that she uses style in appropriate ways depending on the situation.
I once thought that I would change up styles as well, but always stick to complete sentences and familiar spellings. Now I'm not sure about that at all because people don't speak in complete sentences, necessarily and sometimes I want to reflect upon a character's pronunciation. I remember in college playwriting class how I would use "should of" instead of "should have" or "should've." My professor marked it wrong, and she was right. She was brilliant. Of course she was right. But I could hear the character in my head, and he said "should of." For a play, how else would I tell the actor how to say that? In a narrative, would it matter?
I love the meanderings of Thomas Hardy and I believe his style is consistent, but I have not studied this. I think that when he slips in bits about pronunciation; such as D'Urberville becoming Darbyfield, it's so charming. But when his country characters say something in a certain way, it's no more jarring to me than his use of words I just don't know, that would have been completely understandable to his audience at the time.
I'm writing.
That's the purpose of a blog.
I remember that I started with lots of colors, and I think some other formatting choices to illustrate when my thoughts wander or if I think I went down some alley or other. Now I've left those style choices behind, mainly.
I still attempt to be consistent in spelling, but I know that since I don't notice each error, particularly word choice, and since I don't agree with every automatically red-lined word as incorrect, there are a few inconsistencies.
There are greater inconsistencies with use of punctuation. I want to be consistent with this but I don't really understand commas and semi-colons and colons enough to choose between their various usages, and like a two-year old in the front of a shopping cart, attracted to everything at eye-level, I flit from goal to goal and have way too many to fulfill.
Speaking of goals, I did want to write every day. And I also don't want to automatically write everyday as one word just because they are next to each other, just as I don't want to use an apostrophe with every word that ends with the letter S. But do S and everyday need italics? Quotes? Is that fact that Quotes? is not a complete sentence a problem?
One of my favorite authors, Joyce Carol Oates, seems to run fast and loose with punctuation and style. Because I like everything I've read of hers, I see her freedom as artistic license and believe that she uses style in appropriate ways depending on the situation.
I once thought that I would change up styles as well, but always stick to complete sentences and familiar spellings. Now I'm not sure about that at all because people don't speak in complete sentences, necessarily and sometimes I want to reflect upon a character's pronunciation. I remember in college playwriting class how I would use "should of" instead of "should have" or "should've." My professor marked it wrong, and she was right. She was brilliant. Of course she was right. But I could hear the character in my head, and he said "should of." For a play, how else would I tell the actor how to say that? In a narrative, would it matter?
I love the meanderings of Thomas Hardy and I believe his style is consistent, but I have not studied this. I think that when he slips in bits about pronunciation; such as D'Urberville becoming Darbyfield, it's so charming. But when his country characters say something in a certain way, it's no more jarring to me than his use of words I just don't know, that would have been completely understandable to his audience at the time.
I'm writing.
That's the purpose of a blog.
Wednesday, July 15, 2015
These Politicians Today
These Politicians Today
Commentary by Dr. J. Vernon McGee from TTB.org on Micah 1:1,2
Speaking from the grave, the present state of politics in the United States of America is pegged with accuracy.
Commentary by Dr. J. Vernon McGee from TTB.org on Micah 1:1,2
Speaking from the grave, the present state of politics in the United States of America is pegged with accuracy.
This'd be a good book for the Democrats and Republicans to consider in Washington today. It wouldn't hurt them to look at God's philosophy of government, because very candidly, their form is not working today. And the reason they can't make our form work is because it was put together by men. Several of them were not Christians; couldn't be called Christians, but they had respect and reverence for the Bible. And they felt that the great principles stated in the Bible were worth following, and therefore that was woven into the web and woof of our government and the group of godless men today can't make it work, and it will never work in the hands of godless men. And that, friends, frankly, is our problem. Our problem today in this country is not a question of this party or that party, and it's not a question of whether this'll work or that will work and they're all kinds of rationalizing today of what our problem is, but our problem today is that our current government is in the hands of godless men. And it won't work.
Dear Sugar - tiny beautiful things
300 × 200 - therumpus.net
330 × 509 - brainpickings.org
What a great book! Thanks to a dear friend who let me borrow.
Friday, July 10, 2015
Clothed in Light
Clothed in Light
Commentary on 1 John 5:1-6
Listening to J. Vernon McGee at TTB.org has been great. He repeats himself, and backs up, and restarts, and goes through everything in 5 years. There is progress, but it's like driving down the road with my Grandpa, who never used turn signals because he thought it was nobody's business where he was going. We kids, munching on granola, would be looking out the back of the car, or VW van, (that was painted with house paint of whatever colors were left over from various projects), watching the long stream of cars piling up behind us, waiting for a chance to pass.
J. Vernon likes to go through things pretty well and not miss much. More importantly, he wants to make sure that the audience, who hasn't been to seminary, hasn't missed much. I wonder if he knew the phrase that states the importance of the journey rather than the destination? He taught that way.
I used to think Mr. McGee was so old fashioned, and there is a great validity to that idea. Listen to his voice! He apologized a little for being country, but he's not trying to hide it or dress it up like they do in subsequent decades. Would a man with that voice be a preacher in Los Angeles today? He's constantly talking about "today" and although he's speaking about a few years ago, with a very old-fashioned voice and style, he's talking about what has happened somewhere in the past that could also be right here; now. The same forces are at work. This is a process that takes millenia. God made the world and has brought about the forces to return the world to Himself. But how can we even begin to understand this?
Lately, he has been talking about three definitions of God; Light, Love and Life. In English, they have that nice alliteration, and sound important and true. But of course, God can't be confined to our definitions; particularly those that are so ordinary that we use the words every day.
God is Light, but also clothed in light.
What a concept. If God is Light, how can that also be clothes for itself? Clearly, we are dealing with ideas that are beyond us, and they're not going to be particularly logical ideas, but they will be hopefully helpful.
"Glory, beauty and dazzling splendor" are the attributes of light that will help us understand God. Light reveals everything, except for God, who is clothed in light, and therefore, covered or obscured by it. Apparently, light is the closest brightest thing we understand but even that is darker than God.
When I was little, saying light and dark, and words like bright, meaning good, did not bother me because I did not associate any of those words with my cousins who were darker than me. We all were bright then. And we all were good. Somewhere along the way, one of my cousins decided that she didn't like the phrases in church music like "whiter than snow" meaning innocence. She started to think that people thought she was darker than me. I think she started to think that about herself.
This seemed like nonsense to me. I knew that I wasn't thinking of dark people as less innocent, and I dismissed her objections. She likes to object to things anyway, so of course if she has the opportunity to be contrary, she'll take it. Now I see things differently, but I don't think I'm better for it. Now when I hear a phrase about color, I think of race. Race is arbitrary to begin with. And color is only one way to define it. Race isn't categorical, like male and female, but a spectrum. We can say black and white, but who are we forgetting and how many people don't fit into either one? Where's my cousin? We can say red and yellow, black and white. But we could say purple and green for how realistic and helpful these categories have been.
This is so clear to me because my cousin is lighter than I am when she hasn't been in the sun. When we were babies and parts of us had never seen the sun, she was a different color than I, but not darker. I was a little pinker and she was a little peachier. But when she gets in the sun, she can become golden or bronze. I can be pinker or redder, and a little bit browner than my normal shade. It's what's affecting us on the outside that makes us think we're not the same.
Commentary on 1 John 5:1-6
Listening to J. Vernon McGee at TTB.org has been great. He repeats himself, and backs up, and restarts, and goes through everything in 5 years. There is progress, but it's like driving down the road with my Grandpa, who never used turn signals because he thought it was nobody's business where he was going. We kids, munching on granola, would be looking out the back of the car, or VW van, (that was painted with house paint of whatever colors were left over from various projects), watching the long stream of cars piling up behind us, waiting for a chance to pass.
J. Vernon likes to go through things pretty well and not miss much. More importantly, he wants to make sure that the audience, who hasn't been to seminary, hasn't missed much. I wonder if he knew the phrase that states the importance of the journey rather than the destination? He taught that way.
I used to think Mr. McGee was so old fashioned, and there is a great validity to that idea. Listen to his voice! He apologized a little for being country, but he's not trying to hide it or dress it up like they do in subsequent decades. Would a man with that voice be a preacher in Los Angeles today? He's constantly talking about "today" and although he's speaking about a few years ago, with a very old-fashioned voice and style, he's talking about what has happened somewhere in the past that could also be right here; now. The same forces are at work. This is a process that takes millenia. God made the world and has brought about the forces to return the world to Himself. But how can we even begin to understand this?
Lately, he has been talking about three definitions of God; Light, Love and Life. In English, they have that nice alliteration, and sound important and true. But of course, God can't be confined to our definitions; particularly those that are so ordinary that we use the words every day.
God is Light, but also clothed in light.
What a concept. If God is Light, how can that also be clothes for itself? Clearly, we are dealing with ideas that are beyond us, and they're not going to be particularly logical ideas, but they will be hopefully helpful.
"Glory, beauty and dazzling splendor" are the attributes of light that will help us understand God. Light reveals everything, except for God, who is clothed in light, and therefore, covered or obscured by it. Apparently, light is the closest brightest thing we understand but even that is darker than God.
When I was little, saying light and dark, and words like bright, meaning good, did not bother me because I did not associate any of those words with my cousins who were darker than me. We all were bright then. And we all were good. Somewhere along the way, one of my cousins decided that she didn't like the phrases in church music like "whiter than snow" meaning innocence. She started to think that people thought she was darker than me. I think she started to think that about herself.
This seemed like nonsense to me. I knew that I wasn't thinking of dark people as less innocent, and I dismissed her objections. She likes to object to things anyway, so of course if she has the opportunity to be contrary, she'll take it. Now I see things differently, but I don't think I'm better for it. Now when I hear a phrase about color, I think of race. Race is arbitrary to begin with. And color is only one way to define it. Race isn't categorical, like male and female, but a spectrum. We can say black and white, but who are we forgetting and how many people don't fit into either one? Where's my cousin? We can say red and yellow, black and white. But we could say purple and green for how realistic and helpful these categories have been.
This is so clear to me because my cousin is lighter than I am when she hasn't been in the sun. When we were babies and parts of us had never seen the sun, she was a different color than I, but not darker. I was a little pinker and she was a little peachier. But when she gets in the sun, she can become golden or bronze. I can be pinker or redder, and a little bit browner than my normal shade. It's what's affecting us on the outside that makes us think we're not the same.
Monday, July 6, 2015
Fabulous First Paragraph - Faces in the Water - Janet Frame
Fabulous First Paragraph
Faces in the Water
by Janet Frame
1961
I have added spacings and margins from my own whim to this wonderful and long first paragraph of a novel whose work continues to fascinate me.
They have said that we owe allegiance to Safety,
Until that day how can we find our path in sleep and dreams and preserve ourselves from their dangerous reality of lightning snakes traffic germs riot earthquakes blizzard and dirt when lice creep like riddles through our minds?
Quick, where is the Red Cross God with the ointment and plaster the needle and thread and the clean linen bandages to mummify our festering dreams?
7/20/15 Now, in spite of myself, I've finished the book. With books that I enjoy reading so much, I try to go slowly, but this one pulled me in and hasn't let me go.
I hate that I notice typos so often. But a few typos did not distract me from realizing what a great writer I have been reading. Really, though? The main character's first name is spelled two different ways, inexplicably? I could be a proofreader. But I don't want to do that! I want to read text with no errors.
I continue to be impressed with some writers and their ability to flaunt punctuation rules, but I can't get a handle on this for my own writing. You see, if I like the writer, I like what they do when they flaunt conventions of punctuation, as Janet Frame does when she leaves commas out. But if I don't like the writer, I think they have taken too many liberties, and that makes me value their art less. And of course, if I don't understand what they're up to- Janet's lack of commas illustrate to me perfectly the idea of overwhelming options that invade my own thoughts- then I think they've gone too far, which is self-fulfilling, or a circular argument's evidence. For instance, I sometimes like an attempt to spell phonetically pidgin or slang or ethnic expressions of pronunciation, and sometimes I am distracted by it, but does that mean that the writer's skill is lacking, or that my knowledge of that collection of sounds is incomplete?
Do I prefer fiction that is more baldy autobiographical, as this one is? A better question is what should I write. All words come from experience, even if we know that we're coining them at the time, and with only a few text choices on a keyboard, can any of us know that we're inventing any word?
I want to write stories and songs, but I don't want to copy anybody's work unless I know that I'm doing that, in very small doses, in homage or in caricature.
Faces in the Water
by Janet Frame
1961
I have added spacings and margins from my own whim to this wonderful and long first paragraph of a novel whose work continues to fascinate me.
They have said that we owe allegiance to Safety,
that he is our Red Cross who will provide us with ointment and bandages for our wounds and remove the foreign ideas the glass beads of fantasy the bent hairpins of unreason embedded in our minds.
On all the doors which lead to and from the world they have posted warning notices and lists of safety measures to be taken in extreme emergency. Lightning, isolation in the snows of the Antarctic, snake bite, riots, earthquakes. Never sleep in the snow. Hide the scissors. Beware of strangers. Lost in a foreign land take your time from the sun and your position from the creeks flowing towards the sea. Don't struggle if you would be rescued from drowning. Suck the snake bite from the wound.
When the earth opens and the chimneys topple, run out underneath the sky.But for the final day of destruction when "those that look from the windows shall be darkened" they have provided no slogan. The streets throng with people who panic, looking to the left and the right, covering the scissors, sucking poison from a wound they cannot find, judging their time from the sun's position in the sky when the sun itself has melted and trickles down the ridges of darkness into the hollows of evaporated seas.
Until that day how can we find our path in sleep and dreams and preserve ourselves from their dangerous reality of lightning snakes traffic germs riot earthquakes blizzard and dirt when lice creep like riddles through our minds?
Quick, where is the Red Cross God with the ointment and plaster the needle and thread and the clean linen bandages to mummify our festering dreams?
Safety First.
7/20/15 Now, in spite of myself, I've finished the book. With books that I enjoy reading so much, I try to go slowly, but this one pulled me in and hasn't let me go.
I hate that I notice typos so often. But a few typos did not distract me from realizing what a great writer I have been reading. Really, though? The main character's first name is spelled two different ways, inexplicably? I could be a proofreader. But I don't want to do that! I want to read text with no errors.
I continue to be impressed with some writers and their ability to flaunt punctuation rules, but I can't get a handle on this for my own writing. You see, if I like the writer, I like what they do when they flaunt conventions of punctuation, as Janet Frame does when she leaves commas out. But if I don't like the writer, I think they have taken too many liberties, and that makes me value their art less. And of course, if I don't understand what they're up to- Janet's lack of commas illustrate to me perfectly the idea of overwhelming options that invade my own thoughts- then I think they've gone too far, which is self-fulfilling, or a circular argument's evidence. For instance, I sometimes like an attempt to spell phonetically pidgin or slang or ethnic expressions of pronunciation, and sometimes I am distracted by it, but does that mean that the writer's skill is lacking, or that my knowledge of that collection of sounds is incomplete?
Do I prefer fiction that is more baldy autobiographical, as this one is? A better question is what should I write. All words come from experience, even if we know that we're coining them at the time, and with only a few text choices on a keyboard, can any of us know that we're inventing any word?
I want to write stories and songs, but I don't want to copy anybody's work unless I know that I'm doing that, in very small doses, in homage or in caricature.
Saturday, July 4, 2015
J. Vernon McGee and the Spirits
I want to borrow a phrase from TTB.org's J. Vernon McGee and go about my business "plowing a straight furrow and letting the clods fall where they may."
These are my thoughts after listening to J. Vernon speak about 1 John 4:1-3 again today.
Spiritual used to mean supernatural. It used to mean things that we couldn't understand. People wanted to understand them, so they made up two main ways to do that; religion and science. Religion is much older and by my lifetime science was king, although religion may have been the ceremonial monarch for many, including myself. It's as if religion is the constitutional monarch for some people, and science is the constitution. During the millenia that religion was king, a few people were practicing science. And during the time that science was king, probably 1800 through today, lots of people were practicing religion but trusting in science more than their religion.
They used to be parts of a whole, but science is the part of spiritualism that's getting bigger and bigger. There are embarrassments along the way, and I think the current ones are electricity and nutrition. We don't have a handle on these things at all, but we talk about them alot. We know more and more of what used to be unknown; and the part we can prove and repeat and build upon brick by brick, is science. I suppose science and religion are both able to be aggregates through time, therefore they are culture, but one is provable through a method that we all assume is valid. One of them is repeatable.
Because of this change in the hierarchy between science and religion, spiritualism came to mean the unknown that couldn't be proved by science. And to people in the West, this was Christianity versus anything else. Some people remained well within Christianity, and others looked for anything else. Christianity is our parent, and no matter how much of a rebel we think we are, we're either following our parent, or rebelling against our parent. We're either dressing respectably or wearing black clothes and eyeliner to avoid doing that. We're not approaching the world as if we're a newborn foundling who doesn't have a parent, even though we don't know much about our parent anymore. Today it's all about looks, because we think we know what Christianity looks like; white (wrong!), patriarchal, old-fashioned (wrong!) and inflexible. In short, it's seen as the power broker with the stick up his butt.
Spiritualism then came to mean Christianity or anything unprovable, which includes Christianity. Now that Christianity is on the way out (the culture, not the true belief) people delve into things that they cannot understand while losing this perspective or framework.
None of us know very much about the spirit world and we're not supposed to! "You can go off the deep end" here and there is too much time given to it. Jesus said to love your enemies. Let's do that, rather than try to put every spirit into its place, define the soul and angels; principalities and cherubim, and think we can know everything.
I believe that I am supposed to do the things that I know I should do, and stop trying to know everything. A far as spirits go, I am not supposed to study them or talk to them, or explore them, but never doubt their existence for a minute. We are supposed to prove or test them, but why? I think it's to make the point that there is a plane we cannot know and some of it comes from God. If it comes from God, do it, and this is the Word. I'm not doing the Word so that's the first step.
We Christians concentrate on the Holy Spirit but don't know His word. Instead we run around chasing miracles and trying to create them. There are countless fallen angels, and unclean spirits. Or maybe there's just one. Or maybe there's none. What's the difference if I don't do what I know I should do?
I believe there is a gigantic spiritual battle involving wickedness in high places, maybe not low places. We're not called to tell people they're wrong. We're called to tell people what's right. Freedom to do what you please is back in fashion- but it's not new. It is older than people and it is from the pit of hell; no matter where or how hell exists. Either you know better or your boss knows better. My authority or His authority- and we're called to submit to someone else's- our boss, our parents, our spouses and each other. We're all following, but who are we following.
Love each other, help each other. Abound in love more and more but in knowledge and all judgement. The world is wicked, but the plan is good. Sure this is confusing. But we know what we should do. It's not to review the sum total of knowledge, and study. Bad teaching, shallow and poor instruction follow.
Why am I saying more than the scripture says rather than following what it says. I can learn how to reign it in because I believe that's what others are doing and I know they are wrong. I'm not called to call people bad, but learn from their mistakes.
He's so nice, he was a great child, superior, and religious genius. You know why? He had greater knowledge, was an amazing superstar, and very nice but why? Because he was God manifested in the flesh!?
Incarnation is fancy word I don't think we should use anymore unless we think about it as being where you are. I've been disincarnate- off in movies and books and inside my head. He was where he was, Bethlehem, Egypt, Galilee, Nazareth, Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem, outside the city gates in a tomb and on the road to Emmaus and on mountaintops and in heaven before and after. Maybe he went to hell. Maybe I've been, but I need to be where I am. Jesus was God come to earth, more than remarkable, but the only God, bodily born, bodily died and bodily raised and working today.
Am I working? Am I following? I'm not sure if I'm working. But I am following somebody, all the time. Sometimes it's the right Somebody.
These are my thoughts after listening to J. Vernon speak about 1 John 4:1-3 again today.
Spiritual used to mean supernatural. It used to mean things that we couldn't understand. People wanted to understand them, so they made up two main ways to do that; religion and science. Religion is much older and by my lifetime science was king, although religion may have been the ceremonial monarch for many, including myself. It's as if religion is the constitutional monarch for some people, and science is the constitution. During the millenia that religion was king, a few people were practicing science. And during the time that science was king, probably 1800 through today, lots of people were practicing religion but trusting in science more than their religion.
They used to be parts of a whole, but science is the part of spiritualism that's getting bigger and bigger. There are embarrassments along the way, and I think the current ones are electricity and nutrition. We don't have a handle on these things at all, but we talk about them alot. We know more and more of what used to be unknown; and the part we can prove and repeat and build upon brick by brick, is science. I suppose science and religion are both able to be aggregates through time, therefore they are culture, but one is provable through a method that we all assume is valid. One of them is repeatable.
Because of this change in the hierarchy between science and religion, spiritualism came to mean the unknown that couldn't be proved by science. And to people in the West, this was Christianity versus anything else. Some people remained well within Christianity, and others looked for anything else. Christianity is our parent, and no matter how much of a rebel we think we are, we're either following our parent, or rebelling against our parent. We're either dressing respectably or wearing black clothes and eyeliner to avoid doing that. We're not approaching the world as if we're a newborn foundling who doesn't have a parent, even though we don't know much about our parent anymore. Today it's all about looks, because we think we know what Christianity looks like; white (wrong!), patriarchal, old-fashioned (wrong!) and inflexible. In short, it's seen as the power broker with the stick up his butt.
Spiritualism then came to mean Christianity or anything unprovable, which includes Christianity. Now that Christianity is on the way out (the culture, not the true belief) people delve into things that they cannot understand while losing this perspective or framework.
None of us know very much about the spirit world and we're not supposed to! "You can go off the deep end" here and there is too much time given to it. Jesus said to love your enemies. Let's do that, rather than try to put every spirit into its place, define the soul and angels; principalities and cherubim, and think we can know everything.
I believe that I am supposed to do the things that I know I should do, and stop trying to know everything. A far as spirits go, I am not supposed to study them or talk to them, or explore them, but never doubt their existence for a minute. We are supposed to prove or test them, but why? I think it's to make the point that there is a plane we cannot know and some of it comes from God. If it comes from God, do it, and this is the Word. I'm not doing the Word so that's the first step.
We Christians concentrate on the Holy Spirit but don't know His word. Instead we run around chasing miracles and trying to create them. There are countless fallen angels, and unclean spirits. Or maybe there's just one. Or maybe there's none. What's the difference if I don't do what I know I should do?
I believe there is a gigantic spiritual battle involving wickedness in high places, maybe not low places. We're not called to tell people they're wrong. We're called to tell people what's right. Freedom to do what you please is back in fashion- but it's not new. It is older than people and it is from the pit of hell; no matter where or how hell exists. Either you know better or your boss knows better. My authority or His authority- and we're called to submit to someone else's- our boss, our parents, our spouses and each other. We're all following, but who are we following.
Love each other, help each other. Abound in love more and more but in knowledge and all judgement. The world is wicked, but the plan is good. Sure this is confusing. But we know what we should do. It's not to review the sum total of knowledge, and study. Bad teaching, shallow and poor instruction follow.
Why am I saying more than the scripture says rather than following what it says. I can learn how to reign it in because I believe that's what others are doing and I know they are wrong. I'm not called to call people bad, but learn from their mistakes.
He's so nice, he was a great child, superior, and religious genius. You know why? He had greater knowledge, was an amazing superstar, and very nice but why? Because he was God manifested in the flesh!?
Incarnation is fancy word I don't think we should use anymore unless we think about it as being where you are. I've been disincarnate- off in movies and books and inside my head. He was where he was, Bethlehem, Egypt, Galilee, Nazareth, Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem, outside the city gates in a tomb and on the road to Emmaus and on mountaintops and in heaven before and after. Maybe he went to hell. Maybe I've been, but I need to be where I am. Jesus was God come to earth, more than remarkable, but the only God, bodily born, bodily died and bodily raised and working today.
Am I working? Am I following? I'm not sure if I'm working. But I am following somebody, all the time. Sometimes it's the right Somebody.
Old Friend and the Balancing Act
It was nice running into an old friend yesterday.
He isn't old. He's someone I haven't seen in a long time, although we're both in the age group that starts to think about being old. I don't feel old, thank goodness, except for that right hip and my back and my knees sometimes.
I hadn't seen him in years and it was a pleasant surprise. What I especially liked is that neither of us tried to justify our behavior. I haven't called him or e-mailed him in years and as far as I know, he's not done the same. I didn't feel the need to say why or when or apologize. We all know that friends and strangers and family members; all relationships, are temporary. Why apologize for this? I suppose my beliefs include this, but I also feel that I can benefit from everyone and there's just too many people. I know that if I was on a deserted island with another person than that person would probably be my friend! Choosing my own friends, for how long, and to what extent, isn't easy for me.
I feel that I am in the age of options and there are too many to choose from. I also feel that I like options, so why does this overwhelm me?
I want to do everything, but I know I can't do even close to that.
In some way, we've never had so many options, but one thing that bothers me about options is how there are many, but they are categorized into twos.
Are there many, or are there two?
You can have any soda you want, but they're almost all either actually Coke or Pepsi. You can be black or white, (which is arbitrary, but binding nonetheless), and you can be male or female. (This has become a choice too.) Well, why do we have lots of choices but then pick from two of them?
If I just take these three examples- Coke and Pepsi are the huge giants among a crowded field, yet each restaurant that has a soda fountain almost certainly has to pick one; not both, or not one with other options. Black and white is such a limited view of race that I can't stand it. We've taken two categories that are arbitrary and fluid, and excluded most of the world from being either one. Then we're pretending like we're not living in a world where a white woman with a man's name can mother a Black president. Black and white is so arbitrary, obviously, but there are institutions and worldviews built around this meaningless construct. Male and female are real categories and aren't very fluid. Statistically, they are cast in stone. Yet, people equate race and gender as if they are both categories that are either false or mean everything.
I'm so confused.
Maybe I'm not.
I love Coke and hate Pepsi. This is weird because it's all sugar water and I'm definitely drinking less sugar water than I was in the last decade.
I'm pretty much the whitest person I know in looks, but not at all in tastes and preferences.
I'm so male to myself that I find it difficult to accept that people see me as someone they have to squint at to discern gender. Baldness and beardedness certainly help in this area.
What does the category of male have to do with sports (which is just one particular manifestation of pretend competitiveness) or appearance (only certain expressions are acceptable and have to seem as if they are serendipitous, not planned too much) or being enthusiastic about anything other than sports, babies or sex?
I'm a male. I am considered white. I am moving away from Coke to drinks that don't have much sugar, but I have not figured out electrolytes. I believe that electrolytes are "any substance containing free ions. This includes sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium, and I think one or more of these should be adjusted in me.
I've been drinking more water lately, eating less honey than usual, drinking more tea (unsweet) than usual, and my ears are stuffed. Water/electrolyte balance is off, I believe.
Hmmm, that's the problem. We're pretending like protein is one thing, and carbs are one thing and water is one thing and electrolytes are one thing. Then we're trying to eliminate one or more of them. We need a balance.
He isn't old. He's someone I haven't seen in a long time, although we're both in the age group that starts to think about being old. I don't feel old, thank goodness, except for that right hip and my back and my knees sometimes.
I hadn't seen him in years and it was a pleasant surprise. What I especially liked is that neither of us tried to justify our behavior. I haven't called him or e-mailed him in years and as far as I know, he's not done the same. I didn't feel the need to say why or when or apologize. We all know that friends and strangers and family members; all relationships, are temporary. Why apologize for this? I suppose my beliefs include this, but I also feel that I can benefit from everyone and there's just too many people. I know that if I was on a deserted island with another person than that person would probably be my friend! Choosing my own friends, for how long, and to what extent, isn't easy for me.
I feel that I am in the age of options and there are too many to choose from. I also feel that I like options, so why does this overwhelm me?
I want to do everything, but I know I can't do even close to that.
In some way, we've never had so many options, but one thing that bothers me about options is how there are many, but they are categorized into twos.
Are there many, or are there two?
You can have any soda you want, but they're almost all either actually Coke or Pepsi. You can be black or white, (which is arbitrary, but binding nonetheless), and you can be male or female. (This has become a choice too.) Well, why do we have lots of choices but then pick from two of them?
If I just take these three examples- Coke and Pepsi are the huge giants among a crowded field, yet each restaurant that has a soda fountain almost certainly has to pick one; not both, or not one with other options. Black and white is such a limited view of race that I can't stand it. We've taken two categories that are arbitrary and fluid, and excluded most of the world from being either one. Then we're pretending like we're not living in a world where a white woman with a man's name can mother a Black president. Black and white is so arbitrary, obviously, but there are institutions and worldviews built around this meaningless construct. Male and female are real categories and aren't very fluid. Statistically, they are cast in stone. Yet, people equate race and gender as if they are both categories that are either false or mean everything.
I'm so confused.
Maybe I'm not.
I love Coke and hate Pepsi. This is weird because it's all sugar water and I'm definitely drinking less sugar water than I was in the last decade.
I'm pretty much the whitest person I know in looks, but not at all in tastes and preferences.
I'm so male to myself that I find it difficult to accept that people see me as someone they have to squint at to discern gender. Baldness and beardedness certainly help in this area.
What does the category of male have to do with sports (which is just one particular manifestation of pretend competitiveness) or appearance (only certain expressions are acceptable and have to seem as if they are serendipitous, not planned too much) or being enthusiastic about anything other than sports, babies or sex?
I'm a male. I am considered white. I am moving away from Coke to drinks that don't have much sugar, but I have not figured out electrolytes. I believe that electrolytes are "any substance containing free ions. This includes sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium, and I think one or more of these should be adjusted in me.
I've been drinking more water lately, eating less honey than usual, drinking more tea (unsweet) than usual, and my ears are stuffed. Water/electrolyte balance is off, I believe.
Hmmm, that's the problem. We're pretending like protein is one thing, and carbs are one thing and water is one thing and electrolytes are one thing. Then we're trying to eliminate one or more of them. We need a balance.
Friday, July 3, 2015
Why Women Need to Submit
Women need to submit. Men do it all the time.
Where do you want to go?
I don't know. Where do YOU want to go?
I don't know.
I don't know either. Let's just go there.
Okay.
That conversation is evidence of a submission, even though we don't use that old-fashioned word too much. I don't like that word because it only means one thing now. It means whether or not women do whatever men want them to do- and that's an incorrect, limited and distorted definition.
Ephesians 5 says something like:
Be happy and grateful all the time, submitting to one another; giving up the need to be right, and not worrying about who is in control, but following each other just exactly like we follow Christ and God.
You don't need to fight with me about where you want to go to lunch as retribution for millenia of patriarchy. I'll go where you want to go sometimes and you'll go where I want to go sometimes. And when we get our food we're going to be grateful no matter what it looks like, how long it takes to order, or how much it costs because our food is provided to us for our happiness, health and productivity.
Where do you want to go?
I don't know. Where do YOU want to go?
I don't know.
I don't know either. Let's just go there.
Okay.
That conversation is evidence of a submission, even though we don't use that old-fashioned word too much. I don't like that word because it only means one thing now. It means whether or not women do whatever men want them to do- and that's an incorrect, limited and distorted definition.
Ephesians 5 says something like:
Be happy and grateful all the time, submitting to one another; giving up the need to be right, and not worrying about who is in control, but following each other just exactly like we follow Christ and God.
You don't need to fight with me about where you want to go to lunch as retribution for millenia of patriarchy. I'll go where you want to go sometimes and you'll go where I want to go sometimes. And when we get our food we're going to be grateful no matter what it looks like, how long it takes to order, or how much it costs because our food is provided to us for our happiness, health and productivity.
Teaching Isn't Saying Whatever Comes to Mind
Aboard the Bible Bus this morning, I listened to the Daily 5-Year Bible Study with J. Vernon McGee speaking on 1 John 4:1-3.
Speaking on false prophets and spirits, he expressed a belief that I have which is that we really need to understand that this endeavor; our life, our person, our purpose, is a spiritual one that includes our physical realm. We are supposed to take care of eating, and exercising and working, but realize that what we see is just a small portion, and not the important portion of reality.
I think for the most part we are supposed to ignore the forces that we're not sure about, and we can't be sure of anything that's not in the Bible. Boy that sounds close-minded. But the Bible does not say that everything is God and God is everything. It's mysterious how God created evil, why and to what extent, but it's beyond me. I think it's beyond us. Rather than thinking about that, I want to do the things I'm told to do like be nice and speak truth and help people. My tongue can lay low the proudest man, but is that what I'm supposed to do? I really don't think my tongue belongs anywhere near that. I've been king of the scoffers as if I never read Psalm 1. Thanks to Spotify for giving me the idea to bring together lots of versions of that, and Marlo (Edith) for FB posting Psalm 1 more than once.
We're supposed to test the spririts- not study the spirits or follow the spirits or define the spirits. It used to be, and J. Vernon saw this before I did, being on the West Coast California Dreaming WonderLAnad la la LA, (Los Angeles) that the supernatural was ridiculed and no scholar seriously regarded it. But in this age, Aquarius or whatever, the supernatural is now accepted, and intelligensia and colleges have changed. There is still much pull back from this idea, but it's not just the public or the people that think this way. Scholars and researchers have returned to this idea like the alchemists and the medicine men before them.
John and Paul warned of false teachers. We need to know spirit of God, not sit around complaining or learning about the tactics of anybody else. If we're not doing what Jesus said to do, everything else is a distraction and a waste.
"Every spirit that says that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God" is good, but this leads to confusion. We're headed for one religion and one political system worldwide and although it sounds good....
Why does it even sound good to me? Well, that's simple. The time is getting closer every day and we all are being prepared for it, as the world itself is being made ready.
Speaking on false prophets and spirits, he expressed a belief that I have which is that we really need to understand that this endeavor; our life, our person, our purpose, is a spiritual one that includes our physical realm. We are supposed to take care of eating, and exercising and working, but realize that what we see is just a small portion, and not the important portion of reality.
I think for the most part we are supposed to ignore the forces that we're not sure about, and we can't be sure of anything that's not in the Bible. Boy that sounds close-minded. But the Bible does not say that everything is God and God is everything. It's mysterious how God created evil, why and to what extent, but it's beyond me. I think it's beyond us. Rather than thinking about that, I want to do the things I'm told to do like be nice and speak truth and help people. My tongue can lay low the proudest man, but is that what I'm supposed to do? I really don't think my tongue belongs anywhere near that. I've been king of the scoffers as if I never read Psalm 1. Thanks to Spotify for giving me the idea to bring together lots of versions of that, and Marlo (Edith) for FB posting Psalm 1 more than once.
We're supposed to test the spririts- not study the spirits or follow the spirits or define the spirits. It used to be, and J. Vernon saw this before I did, being on the West Coast California Dreaming WonderLAnad la la LA, (Los Angeles) that the supernatural was ridiculed and no scholar seriously regarded it. But in this age, Aquarius or whatever, the supernatural is now accepted, and intelligensia and colleges have changed. There is still much pull back from this idea, but it's not just the public or the people that think this way. Scholars and researchers have returned to this idea like the alchemists and the medicine men before them.
John and Paul warned of false teachers. We need to know spirit of God, not sit around complaining or learning about the tactics of anybody else. If we're not doing what Jesus said to do, everything else is a distraction and a waste.
"Every spirit that says that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God" is good, but this leads to confusion. We're headed for one religion and one political system worldwide and although it sounds good....
Why does it even sound good to me? Well, that's simple. The time is getting closer every day and we all are being prepared for it, as the world itself is being made ready.
Luke's Opera
I'm reading a little of the book of Luke and I notice the songs. I need to clarify from the Greek which passages are songs and which are plays - lists of dialogue. Let text be the guide and only use songs to make an opera with no recitative or use dialogue for recitative and songs for songs. Don't decide which scenes to use except from their genre. Either make a play with songs (musical) or a show with just songs (rock opera?) If parable dialogue is used to make spoken or sung scenes, make the point that they are about real people- maybe crowds acting it out but not speaking? Miming normal unnamed people? Named characters sing?
Mary sings in chapter 1 a song of praise and fulfillment, revolution and happiness. Zechariah, John's father, sings next. The angels sing in chapter 2.
I'm using sing, rather than say: if it's going to be an opera they'll all be singing.
All three songs praise God at the start- as in the Lord's prayer. They each can sing separately and then as a duet with a huge chorus of angels.
Simeon sings next at the temple. Anna joins in there also, but I don't see any dialogue for her.
Then there could be a nice recap of everyone, but in separate sets- Zechariah with Elizabeth at home, the angel chorus up in the heavens and the temple crowd.
Isaiah sings in chapter 3 of Luke; a voice from the past fulfilled in the present. Should he be offstage? Alone on an empty stage with just one spotlight?
The devil sings in Jerusalem at Jesus in Luke chapter 4. Jesus sings in Nazareth, quoting Isaiah. Should they sing together? Isaiah start and Jesus come in louder and a key higher? He doesn't praise God and neither did the devil who asked for proof. Instead, Jesus declares his own worth. His response should answer the devil's question musically. Call and response.
Luke chapter 6 has Jesus singing the Beatitudes, which is a word I don't like because it only has one context so means nothing to people who don't already know the word. It doesn't teach you what it is, or relate it to anything else, which is what words do, so to me it's not even a word but a separating label.
The woes, which follow the blessings, should be with sad or martial music contrasting with the bright happiness music of the preceding blessings. Music should be slower and more memorable. Everybody forgets them.
Luke chapter 7 has two refrains. I think one is Isaiah, and if it is, he can sing from offstage with Jesus who is onstage and the melody can be a development one Isaiah previously sang. The next one about music not working could be a great song whose melodies parody what a dirge and a dance sound like.
Luke chapter 8 - song about truly seeing and hearing.
Luke 11- The Lord's prayer with hints or quotes of The Lord's Prayer by Albert Hay Malotte with violin solo played by me.
Luke 13 - Sturm und drang- big surprise at the end of time for people who say they knew Jesus but didn't.
Luke 16 - Shrewd manager song praising negotiation and business and ending in who are you following, who's your real manager? Do you want to do what's right for you or Him?
Luke 19 - short Jesus refrain, maybe same tune as when he said he was the One earlier - Blessed is the king (himself speaking about himself) who comes in the name of the Lord. Possible quote of Sandi Patti's song "In the Name of the Lord."
David's song - if Isaiah was offstage, then David is too. Maybe David and Isaiah sing separate duets with Jesus when their song comes up or Jesus takes over the songs after they start them, respectively. David's theme developed from Psalms theme.
Luke 23 - Hosea's theme sung from the cross???? I think the opera should end already.
Luke 24 - Road to Emmaus - doesn't seem like a verse or a scene of a play but how powerful that Jesus preaches against the gnostic belief that he is just a prophet. He's mad. We need a Jesus is mad musical theme.
Prophet theme, teacher theme, praise theme, Psalm them, heavenly choir theme combine to make Jesus' theme?
How to make an opera that includes one tiny verse from the cross or even includes the cross or ascension. If limited to songs from the text, what is the end of the story?
Mary sings in chapter 1 a song of praise and fulfillment, revolution and happiness. Zechariah, John's father, sings next. The angels sing in chapter 2.
I'm using sing, rather than say: if it's going to be an opera they'll all be singing.
All three songs praise God at the start- as in the Lord's prayer. They each can sing separately and then as a duet with a huge chorus of angels.
Simeon sings next at the temple. Anna joins in there also, but I don't see any dialogue for her.
Then there could be a nice recap of everyone, but in separate sets- Zechariah with Elizabeth at home, the angel chorus up in the heavens and the temple crowd.
Isaiah sings in chapter 3 of Luke; a voice from the past fulfilled in the present. Should he be offstage? Alone on an empty stage with just one spotlight?
The devil sings in Jerusalem at Jesus in Luke chapter 4. Jesus sings in Nazareth, quoting Isaiah. Should they sing together? Isaiah start and Jesus come in louder and a key higher? He doesn't praise God and neither did the devil who asked for proof. Instead, Jesus declares his own worth. His response should answer the devil's question musically. Call and response.
Luke chapter 6 has Jesus singing the Beatitudes, which is a word I don't like because it only has one context so means nothing to people who don't already know the word. It doesn't teach you what it is, or relate it to anything else, which is what words do, so to me it's not even a word but a separating label.
The woes, which follow the blessings, should be with sad or martial music contrasting with the bright happiness music of the preceding blessings. Music should be slower and more memorable. Everybody forgets them.
Luke chapter 7 has two refrains. I think one is Isaiah, and if it is, he can sing from offstage with Jesus who is onstage and the melody can be a development one Isaiah previously sang. The next one about music not working could be a great song whose melodies parody what a dirge and a dance sound like.
Luke chapter 8 - song about truly seeing and hearing.
Luke 11- The Lord's prayer with hints or quotes of The Lord's Prayer by Albert Hay Malotte with violin solo played by me.
Luke 13 - Sturm und drang- big surprise at the end of time for people who say they knew Jesus but didn't.
We knew you.
You did not.
We ate and drank with you, who taught us. You were our teacher. Our godly teacher.
Luke 16 - Shrewd manager song praising negotiation and business and ending in who are you following, who's your real manager? Do you want to do what's right for you or Him?
Luke 19 - short Jesus refrain, maybe same tune as when he said he was the One earlier - Blessed is the king (himself speaking about himself) who comes in the name of the Lord. Possible quote of Sandi Patti's song "In the Name of the Lord."
There is power in the name of the Lord. There is hope in the name of the Lord. Blessed is He who comes... in the name of the Lord. His name will be worshiped forever (sung by angel choir again, up above the stage where they have been waiting patiently since Bethlehem? There's gotta be other things for them to sing in between - but don't make them up!)Luke 20 - The stone that the builders rejected song (use musical themes from whatever book it's from- Psalm theme here, Isaiah theme previously, maybe have a prophets theme.)
David's song - if Isaiah was offstage, then David is too. Maybe David and Isaiah sing separate duets with Jesus when their song comes up or Jesus takes over the songs after they start them, respectively. David's theme developed from Psalms theme.
Luke 23 - Hosea's theme sung from the cross???? I think the opera should end already.
Luke 24 - Road to Emmaus - doesn't seem like a verse or a scene of a play but how powerful that Jesus preaches against the gnostic belief that he is just a prophet. He's mad. We need a Jesus is mad musical theme.
Prophet theme, teacher theme, praise theme, Psalm them, heavenly choir theme combine to make Jesus' theme?
How to make an opera that includes one tiny verse from the cross or even includes the cross or ascension. If limited to songs from the text, what is the end of the story?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)