Disqus - Latest Comments for jasonknox

Re: ‘Love or the lack of it’

jasonknox — Sat, 29 Sep 2018 16:02:09 -0000

"In his name, my task is just begun.... I will take her to the hospital. I will send for your daughter immediately. I will see it done!"
https://www.youtube.com/wat...

Re: NBC’s High School Drama Features Explicit Gay Kiss, Teen Sex, and Crisis Pregnancy

jasonknox — Wed, 18 Apr 2018 16:31:03 -0000

I'm not here to defend Rise (I've never seen it), but this review is dishonest and refuses to actually listen to the show instead of merely having knee-jerk reactions to keywords.

The way that Dawn describes the conversation between Lilette and Simon in the drug store is particularly dishonest. Clearly, Simon is under duress. He is afraid that he is homosexual and is merely posturing about his attraction to Annabelle. When he says "It's a natural progression" it's clear that he doesn't believe that himself. "It's a natural progression" is a lie that he is telling Lilette (and himself) in order to justify doing something he isn't actually wanting to do. He's a scared teenager posturing in front of his friend. If Dawn can't see that and instead interpets his comment as a thesis statement from the show's creators then she probably needs a break from her job until she can learn how to understand narrative art.

The show is trying to make it clear that for Simon, who is attracted to men, having sex with Anabelle is overtly NOT a natural progression. The show wants us to believe that Simon and Anabelle having sex ISN'T natural - that Simon is lying to others, that he is hiding his true identity, that he is being dishonest about his true self. From the description - I don't think RISE is rooting for Simon and Anabelle. It doesn't want audiences to cheer for those two having sex - them having sex is merely Simon's insecurity and a lie. For Dawn to jump on this phrase and condemn the show for pushing the narrative that sex is a "natural progression" between any two people is blatantly missing what the show is saying.

Dawn, it's ok to disagree with what the show is trying to say - but it's not ok to misrepesent it.

Re: Google's Defense of No Easter 'Doodle': 'Well, We Did One in 2000'

jasonknox — Sun, 27 Mar 2016 19:31:04 -0000

We are not google's costumers. We're not paying them. They are a search engine - if you get upset about your search engine not wishing you a happy Easter then you are inventing a problem where there is none. It's ok to want it, "hmm.. it might be nice if they did a google doodle for Easter." or "I would have liked it if..." but to demand it or to be offended by it's absence is absurd. This is why we have churches - if your church refuses to mention it then you have a problem. If you are looking to your search engine to be your church then it's not the search browser which is in the wrong.

Re: How the New Christian Left is Twisting the Gospel

jasonknox — Thu, 18 Feb 2016 17:21:47 -0000

This sort of sounds like a guy who is misinterpreting a difference in style for a difference in substance. Of course if hip Christians are teaching that Jesus is only one of the ways to heaven then they are patently wrong and need to be corrected. That, however, just kind of feels like a strawman that this guy is railing against. Sure, some of them really do exist, but reading that you get the impression that the author is all too quick to group every young christian who dresses differently and likes different music into those obvious heretical strawmen.

Take, for instance, this diagonsis:

"Couch-potato Christians: These Christians adapt to the culture by staying silent on the tough culture-and-faith discussions. Typically this group will downplay God's absolute truths by promoting the illusion that neutrality was Jesus' preferred method of evangelism."

The old "Moral Majority" STYLE thought it was important to take to public forums and announce their views of those issues in the media, politics, and every large audience they could get. Now, a younger genertion does not see those avenues as particularly helpful and hasn't taken to the airwaves to broadcast "God's absolute truths" in the same way and the author here is equating that to "staying silent." He interepts a choosing to not use the bully pulipts for those purposes as a wishy washy "neutrality." His claim is that if you are not vocal about these issues in the same way that his generation was vocal about those issues then you clearly have compromised God's truth on it. That is plainly untrue and a very unhelpful way to view your brothers and sisters. Younger generations have taken a different stratgey on those topics but it isn't right to accuse them of compromising their beliefs or being indifferent to those issues.

If the author wanted to he could argue as to why the new stratgeies are less effective but instead he just accuses them of lacking conviction and neglecting the Great Comission.

The only example he uses is the one survey he asked the one class. This is just full of lazy generalizations (Like this one: "The millennial generation's susceptibility to "feel-good" doctrine is playing a big part in America's moral decline." Says who? Does your Christianity NOT make you feel good? Why is it important for a nation to be moral if it isn't also Christian? Why lament a "feel good Christianity" if your greatest fear is that our nation no longer has a "feel good morality"?)

What a person fears the most often reveals their idolatry:

"If America's evangelicals disengage from the public square and fail to engage the rising generation of Christian leaders, then we risk losing our public voice, then our religious liberty, then liberty altogether."

This author very clearly fears cultural impotence which means that she worships power. The worst thing that she can imagine is losing the power to influence the public. However, Jesus had a very clear critique of how the world views power and how his disciples were to wield it. It isn't top down but bottom up. The early church had no public voice or religious liberty. We don't need to dominate the arts, education, and politics with strong armed strength - we need to serve self-sacrifically. She's afraid that if we stop shouting from our bully pulpits then we'll lose our public voice altogether which is assuming the necesity and power of a public voice. She assumes that we need to directly communicate our ideas to large audiences and that kind of influence is what power is. What if Jesus said that power isn't to be lorded over others but to be laid down to engage in the lowiest of service? What if we all merely quitely loved our neighbors - not being silent or netural, but being small, local, personal, and sacrifical? As we love and engage our neighbors we don't keep silent on the dangers of sexual sin or abortion, but we don't just step up to random soap boxes either. We get to know our individual neighbors personally and see where we can lay our lives down for them and figure out what issues they are struggling with personally and we engage in a targeted manner. We may lose the platforms that our rock stars (that this author considers a direct competitor) have but maybe that's really ok. A Rock Star might be able to communicate ideas to large numbers but they can't love people from a stage. She is so afraid of "losing our liberty altogether" but is forgetting how the church flourishes under tyrants like Rome or Communist China. I'm not suggesting that we desire those circumstances, but her fear of them suggests that she is putting her hope in the wrong things.

The author is accusing young Christians of not having a hatred of the world but her fantasy of what we really need to do is to wield the same kind of power that the world wields. She seems to love the world's style but just disagrees with their subtance. She sees the politicans and the rock stars and public school teachers and says "They are our direct competitors and we need to wrestle power back from them and wield that power to our advantage." That doesn't look like hatred of the world at all - it looks like envy.

Re: Coming Soon: New ESV Journaling Bibles

jasonknox — Tue, 26 May 2015 12:43:50 -0000

I currently use my old journaling Bible as my own personalized Study Bible. As I've sat under teaching from many great professors, pastors, books, and group studies I've been able to keep all of my notes alongside the text and constantly refer to it as I study.

Re: Don’t look at the finger, look at the moon

jasonknox — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 14:27:51 -0000

It
seems like you are saying two things:

1)
We must allow the larger themes of the Bible to correct certain
verses that contradict those larger themes.

2)
Those who claim that the Bible has no verses that contradict the
larger themes are “the other side” and wrongly prioritize their
reading of the Bible (the finger) over God (the moon).

Therefore
what I am hearing is you say is that the Bible (when properly
understood according to its “larger themes”) has the authority to
correct.

“At
times the Bible endorses values we should reject, praises acts we
must condemn, and portrays God in ways we cannot accept.”

If
it can correct particular verses then surely it must also have the
authority to correct values held by people, acts committed by people,
and people's portrayals of God. I don't have to be one of the people
you label “on the other side” to suggest that sometimes the Bible
has to correct us. “The other side” will argue that the Bible
must always correct us and never the other way around, but it seems
as though your side would agree faithfulness looks like engaging the
Bible in such a way that at least some of the time it corrects you
(and some of the time you correct it).

However,
is it not then possible that you have defined the “larger themes”
of the Bible based on your preconceived values, acts, and portrayals
of God? If your values, acts, and portrayals of God lead you to
misinterpret “the larger themes” of the Bible then isn't there
the danger that you are looking past the wrong finger and therefore
looking at the wrong moon? Isn't there a danger of being so sure that
you are looking at the right moon that you become unwilling to glance
back at the finger and therefore you have become unwilling to be
corrected?

The
Bible is a large book and therefore the “larger themes of the
Bible” really do have to be pretty large not simplistic. If “the
larger themes” is something as simple as “God is love” then I
can't imagine that theme is borne out of intensive study but rather
the elevation of a few favorite verses that someone refused to check
against the actual larger theme.

This
is perhaps still a little too simple, but I appreciate James
Hamilton's attempt to boil down the larger themes of the Bible:
Displaying God's glory in salvation through judgment.” It seems to
me that that allows for some degree of “harm” or judgement to
come against everything that is opposed to that Glory. How can you
truly love something and not hate that which seeks to destroy it? The
Good News is that God uses judgment in order to save and thereby
bring glory to himself.

I'm
assuming that you know what Mark Driscol was shouting "How dare
you?" at - he was angry at the men (boys, he would call
them) who are abusing the women in the church. To love the women of
his church he has to hate that which seeks to destroy them.
Also,
the finger and the moon analogy assumes that the Bible is of
different origins than the moon. The finger is on earth and is
pointing at the moon. Statistically, it would be impossible to aim
and hit something that far away in space from the earth (and therefore, if true, you would be right to be wary of the finger). I consider
the Bible to be an arm reaching down from the moon to give us a hint
of what the moon is like and then becomes a true and straight line
back to the moon. I get that not everyone will agree with that and I
supposes that's ok.

Re: John Piper’s influence is, he says, ‘irrespective of competency’

jasonknox — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 21:55:55 -0000

greenygal,
When I wrote "for the woman to act as a helpmate means..." I was using my imagination to fill in the gaps of Piper's article - I don't believe that Piper was saying anything either way about what the woman ought to do or not do. I don't think Piper is talking about Sarah at all. I think Piper was using one situation to make one point and it looked to me as though people were using their imaginations to assume negative things about him. I wanted to propose alternatives.

I think Piper's main point is not "women serving in combat is intrinsically bad" but that "men abdicating their roles and their duty to die for others when called upon is intrinsically bad." It seems to me that Piper believes that women serving in combat is the symptom and the disease is "men acting cowardly." I don't imagine he is mad at the women serving, I think he is mad that men would stand by idly making it necessary for women to serve.

Re: John Piper’s influence is, he says, ‘irrespective of competency’

jasonknox — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 21:46:33 -0000

Chris,
both in the knife fight example and with my box carrying example you are extrapolating beyond my intentions. I think you are right - wisdom does consider circumstances.

In a heavy box carrying example if all other things are equal then I don't believe that she simply should not do such things. What about the other 99 times out of a hundred in which I'm not there? Of course women can and should carry boxes. However, if all things are being equal I would offer to carry it to do something nice for her. If she refused that would really be ok. I would just offer to lay down my preferences for her - is that so bad?

I very much disagree that Jason attacking first would not add and possibly subtract from the "problem" of having your life threatened by a knife guy. I imagine Sarah would be much more safe and capable of finally dispatching of the knife guy if Jason is at least distracting him. I imagine Jason being at least maniacal enough to give Sarah enough time to best assess the situation and maybe knock the knife away or get a good swift kick to the head while the attacker is focusing on Jason. That really seems to be the best solution - far better than Jason stepping back and saying "all you!"

Re: John Piper’s influence is, he says, ‘irrespective of competency’

jasonknox — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 21:32:29 -0000

frazer,
Piper isn't saying "be suicidal and foolish" - he is saying don't be a coward. There is a difference. Piper isn't forbidding the woman to act - he is forbidding the man to not act. I imagine that in Piper's "preferred solution" the man doesn't die either, but the man does refuse to allow the woman to die in his place. Is that so controversial?

Re: John Piper’s influence is, he says, ‘irrespective of competency’

jasonknox — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 21:02:14 -0000

John Piper is giving a hypothetical situation, of course the two should run if they are able. He is making a circumstance with artificial restraints to give us a thought experiment and make a point. He didn't create an allegory in which every element in the story has an equivalent. When Jesus tells the story about the guy who bugs his neighbor at night so much that eventually the neighbor helps him out just to shut him up. Jesus isn't trying to make a point about God being like the short tempered neighbor, he's making a point about the guy and how we should pray. Don't misread Jesus and write a blog saying "Jesus believes that God is cranky and only helps you to not be annoyed."
To assume that Piper would have the woman stand there and do nothing while her hero fights the knife guy says more about you than it does about John Piper. That's not the point of the thought experiment. His point is that for the man to stand idly by is cowardice. Are we really going to argue with that? For the woman to act a helpmate means, particularly if she is a trained martial artist, fighting the guy as well. Piper wouldn't say that if she was alone that it would be improper for her to fight and he isn't saying that it would be improper to have her join in. He doesn't think that a female trained martial shouldn't be allowed to defend herself. Don't dissect his example as an allegory - that is an unfair way to misrepresent him. If I offer to hold a door for a woman or carry a heavy box for her it doesn't mean that I assume that she is incapable of doing that and it doesn't mean that I believe she shouldn't be allowed to do that. When I ask, "Would you like me to carry that for you?" please don't hear "My ego would be hurt if you don't submit to me."In writing this John Piper was seeking to condemn male cowardice and argue that men ought to be willing to lay down their lives for women. He is not saying less than that and he is not saying more than that. Don't hear what he is not saying.

Re: Saturday salmagundi

jasonknox — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 21:31:38 -0000

My worry is that people equate "does not apply" with "let's toss out the whole book!" which I whole heartily disagree with. I think they are relevant and helpful and beautiful, but they do not apply to you in several very important ways:

As a modern gentile, these laws NEVER applied to you. The laws do not apply to you in a binding way. The laws do not apply to you as the basis for your salvation and relationship. The laws should not be reinforced by our government or our churches - except to the extent that we can see some of God's heart and values in them and to the extent that they teach us principals for applying God's general laws (do not murder, love the needy, etc).
These laws will not save you. These laws are not the scale by which God will grade you. These laws do not establish your righteousness nor give anyone a pedestool to look down on anyone else. These laws do not diminish your value or worth which is wholly God given.

Re: Saturday salmagundi

jasonknox — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 21:20:05 -0000

I've never seen that r0t13 thing before - that seems very helpful!

I remember that time in my preteen years as well. I think it's a glorious thing that God doesn't call us sinful for that, but calls us human. God doesn't want us to not be human - God wants us to not pretend like we aren't human and in those moments God calls us to use those opportunities to remember that it is no small thing to enter into God's presence and shouldn't be taken lightly. God wants us to not pretend to be brains on a stick (or souls on a stick?) and that in the rhythms of our bodily functions are reminders to be before the Lord always. He designed us that way!

Re: Saturday salmagundi

jasonknox — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 21:07:04 -0000

I meant "for a second" to be rhetorical and I am sorry if it came across as diminishing your struggles - I was indelicate with my word choice and not attuned to the whole person that I was responding to (the danger of online discussion boards is that I often believe that I'm talking to an argument or idea instead of a person).

I don't see the child birth uncleanliness as some kind of weird exception as the only value-neutral acknowledgement - I don't think any of the uncleanliness is a value judgement. I think that the modern "babymoon" is anachronistic to Leviticus and that the two are not the same, merely similar. I like that example because I think it most easily cuts through the cultural contexts to help us see that uncleanliness can result from faithful obedience to God and does not render a woman as a social outcast, religiously looked down upon, or somehow "wrong." As do we, the Bible celebrates children and the amazing life giving birthing capabilities of women! We are not Platonic dualists - childbirth is a wonderful and righteous act!

My passion is to see people delighting in God through his word. I believe that women have great value, I believe that God holds women in high esteem, and I believe that the Bible does too. I get sad when some people feel like we need to choose between loving women and loving the Bible. The more I have studied the Bible the more I see it affirming the glory, value, worth, dignity, esteem of women.
These systems have been used to abuse and oppress women (though that need not mean that the systems themselves are abusive). While I can be aware of that happening I know that I cannot experience the hurt that comes with it. I don't know your pain. As a White, Male, Christian I shamefully know that I have a share in the guilt - I can't pretend to justify myself or my gender in all ways. I know that in several areas of this conversation men have lost their right to have a voice, but one area where I hope to always be able to speak is to advocate for the beauty and importance of God's word. I am blessed to be friends with several women who have theologically have wrestled with these topics for decades longer than I have and have come out loving the book of Leviticus. Their joy in the scriptures is enviable and I wish it for everyone. "Sometimes you need to watch someone love something to learn how to love it yourself."

When I see someone claim that the Canon Law is part of the problem I can't understand the hurt behind it, but I can feel like the best hope for their healing is in God and his word. I don't believe that we'd be better off without it because we live in a world in which it exists and God gave it to us (which means that if we'd be better off without it we wouldn't have it).

The whole notion of the many laws of Leviticus must be placed in their redemptive context - God already saved them out from Egypt. God already choose them and decided to dwell among them. God does not set aside grace to give his people these books of law - God always have and always will relate to his people by grace. The law is a call to put God's grace in action.

Thank you for engaging me on this I am sorry for the way men have treated women over the millenia and it angers me that men do it under the guise of godliness - I hope you see that I want nothing but good for you. I want you to feel valued and loved and full of dignity and I want you to love God's word too (which won't require an act of intellectual striving as if you just don't know enough to appreciate it now, but an act of God in healing you from very real and legitimate wounds that He weeps over even more than you).

Re: Saturday salmagundi

jasonknox — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 17:18:47 -0000

The unclean don't have "full participation" in society but if you read Leviticus you'd know that that most of them are not excluded and isolated from society at all (lepers being the big exception). Menstruating women are not kicked out of town! They won't go to the market or into the temple, but they aren't exiled!

Re: Saturday salmagundi

jasonknox — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:40:50 -0000

I choose ejaculation just as a counterpoint to menstruation, but there are dozens and dozens of fluids, activities, diseases, statues (I don't have the actual count, I feel like it's near a hundred but didn't want to be accused of hyperbole) that make a person unclean. Read through the book and you'll see that it doesn't single women out at all. All are included. That isn't a helpful topic to advance the conversation of "Is Canon Law a problem?"

Re: Saturday salmagundi

jasonknox — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 15:21:40 -0000

Why are we having this conversation as if ejaculate isn't also on the list of fluids that make people unclean? This isn't a male/female thing.

God created the world and he declared it "Good." God created man and called him "Very Good." God isn't punishing humans for being human - he delights in our bodies and our fluids. 1st Century Jewish Pharisees living after the return from the exile began equating unclean with shame/guilt and for all of us Western thinkers we come after the line of Plato and his dualism that separated the body and the soul and made one better than the other. God does no such thing. Body shame isn't found in the Ancient Near East - don't read into Leviticus what isn't there.

God commands his people to be fruitful and multiply, but the man who ejaculates is unclean and the woman giving birth is unclean. God isn't commanding sin and he isn't making those who are faithful and obedient to his commands second class citizens who should be regarded as "ew." A new mother, while being unclean, was celebrated as faithful and blessed. She would not be stigmatized or looked down on or shamed or anything. She is not ostracized or made to be second class. You, and our culture, are more influenced by Plato than we think we are.

All of this happened right after the Exdous. God already redeemed his people. God already claimed them and said "You are Mine and I am Yours" and they don't see these laws as some kind of impossibly high standard dangled over them to make them acceptable. Unclean people are no less God's people than the priests were. These laws were celebrated as a gift so that it might be possible for a holy God to dwell in their midst again, like in the garden. The longest Psalm in the Bible is 119 which celebrates the law!

Where us western readers read about being unclean as is they are being told to "treated like like 'ew no get them away from me!'" that is not how women were treated back then. You are bringing a lot of assumptions to the text that simply are not there. I know women who have begged their employers and communities for the kind of Babymoons that Leviticus prescribes. God really does want the best for his people.

Re: Saturday salmagundi

jasonknox — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:54:56 -0000

Ellie,
In both cases though - unclean does not equal guilty of sin.

I think it is a smart way to read the book by not trying to understand those two verses as dealing with the same thing - they are not dealing with the same thing and the answer is not to try to cram them both into one box - no one answer will satisfy both of them.

God is highly aware that menstruation is a normal function. God commands his people to be "fruitful and multiply" but at the same time he requires mothers who just had birth to be unclean. God is not commanding sin. Try not looking at this as a western people latently influenced by Plato and his duality between body and soul. God never declares the body to be bad - he thinks his creation is good and that humans are VERY good! God hasn't forgot all of that by the time he gives these laws. Try reading Leviticus again this way and really ask yourself what are the consequences of being "uncleasn." If you are not a western living after Plato - or a 1st century pharisee living after the exile - you are not going to conclude that these unclean women are shameful or guilty in any way. You'll see them as obedient and blessed - yet still somehow unclean (maybe being unclean isn't as bad as you once thought!) Body shame is pretty new. God clearly isn't ashamed of our fluids.

For a second, assume that God is good and loving and holy and just and compassionate, different than the other gods, and protective of his people and wants nothing but the best for them (namely, giving them himself and dwelling among them!) and then reread Leviticus. Maybe you'll see it another way.

Re: Saturday salmagundi

jasonknox — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:41:58 -0000

The short answer isn't that there is no "one-sized fits all" theory to help us understand each and every law.

The only umbrella theories is looking at it in the context of the whole Pentateuch: God creates humankind in his image, walks with them, humankind rebels causing sin and the curse is introduced, God is committed to his people and proclaims that he will use them as agents of his redemption of this cosmos, God's people become a whole nation, God says that he intended to live and walk among them again, God gives them the law so the former slaves can now live as a nation in a way that images God's rule in the world (like in the garden, but now on a bigger scale and in light of the rebellion) and that God can dwell among them in a way that they don't burn up (when Moses saw a piece of God's backside he glowed so much the people couldn't stand to look at Moses). Then remember the context of Israel being a church-state-nexus at this point in history.

Another umbrella theory ties this back to the OP - the book of Leviticus helps us understand the 10 Commandments and God's Creation mandate (fill the world with my image) by elaborating on them. So we know not to murder people but now we can also see that if people are going to be working and sleeping on our roofs then we need to put a fence around them so they don't trip and fall to their deaths (or roll off it and die in their sleep). Therefore, the umbrella rule teaches me that even though I don't own a roof this law still applies to me and I need to think not just about the floor of the law (don't murder) but I need to think about the ceiling of the law (protect and guard human life) in all aspects of my life .

The only other umbrella big enough to explain all of the laws is that God wove clealiness and uncleanliness into the warp and woof of the daily lives of the Israelites so that they couldn't go about their lives unthinking and unconcerned with the reality that they are God's holy people among whom God dwells (smoke by day, fire by night). The presence of God among them means that all of their daily choices actually matter (where they sit, what clothes they wear, how they care for the poor, how they relate to one another, how they do business etc) and that they can not enter into His presence lightly or unthinking or without preparation. God "set them apart" as different from their neighbors to demonstrate that they are a unique people and that their God is unlike any of the other gods. None of those "theories" makes uncleanines sin - making themselves distinct does not mean that doing the things that wouldn't make them distinct (like eating pigs or wearing mixed fabrics) are things that are offensive to God, but God is offended by his people pretending like they aren't his people.

Again, those are the big umbrellas, but that doesn't mean that each and every law shouldn't be looked at to learn more or that each and every law is completely understandable to us thousands of years later. However, just because we can't explain/understand each one that doesn't mean that it didn't make perfect sense to them OR that we shouldn't try to understand them either. For some of the laws all we have are these bigger umbrellas, but for many of them we can see even more sense behind them.

God hasn't changed since he first gave those Laws - yet we are in a new context. I am a gentile who never lived in God's church-state-nexus, and so I'm not going to stone absurdly disobedient children, but I am going to recognize that disobedience is a significant issue and not to be taken lightly. This shows me the heartbeat of God.

Good grief, I have spent hours on this discussion when I should be writing my grad school paper due tomorrow. I want people to know that this is important and that Canon Law is not the problem, but something highly valuable and beautiful, but I can't spend much more time on here for now. Reread Exodus and then reread Leviticus - it really can be quite complex and confusing but also wonderful!

Re: Saturday salmagundi

jasonknox — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:17:30 -0000

No, excluding lepers is not for holiness in a "lepers are unholy" way. I keep saying that "unclealiness = unholy."

Leviticus is a big book and historically complex book. If you are looking for a one size fits all hermanutic the best we can do is "this is what it looks like a for a Holy God to dwell among an unholy people" but to understand each and every bit takes work. Don't demand a simplistic answer to a complicated topic - yes, one of these things is NOT like the other, therefore don't try to use my answer for one thing to say that I can't explain a different question.

Re: Saturday salmagundi

jasonknox — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:03:27 -0000

Reread the book of Leviticus - particularly after reading the book of Exodus. In Psalm 19 the people sing aloud that the book of Leviticus is like honey and more desirable than money. For me, I had to actually sit with and ACTUAL Old Testament scholar and watch him love Leviticus to learn how to love Leviticus on my own.

Maybe once my finals are over I'll be able to get into this with more detail. I would refer you to a link that Fred Clark once referred all of us to:
http://morganguyton.wordpre...

He claims that our instinct is to immediately paint the woman at the well as a horrible sinner instead of a victim. Some 1st Century Jewish leaders equated uncleanliness with sin and we've been doing it ever since. I suggest that if you read the Book of Leviticus without the lens of "uncleanness = sin" you'll begin to see the book as beautiful as the ancient Israelites did.

Assume that God isn't against menstruation (or ejaculation or birth or disease) and that he is for holiness (imagine you were an ancient Israelite and just a child when you were freed from Egypt and all of the sudden God has declared that he desires to dwell among his people!) and then reread the book.

Re: Saturday salmagundi

jasonknox — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 13:49:02 -0000

I would say that my view of sexual relationships is consistent with that approach, but that doesn't lead me to conclude that he has no objections with same-sex relationships. IF the ONLY mention of marriage, sex. and homosexuality was that one verse in Leviticus I imagine that I would still agree with it, but be incredibly open and understanding to people having other interpretations - admitting that the Bible is not clearly opposed to it. Yet, that isn't the only mention of it in the Bible and, in fact, we see the Bible several times rooting it in the conversation of creation and it being part of God's designed natural order - designed for a purpose - to image God's union to the dissimilar (us). A reading of the whole of scripture, both Testaments, make this pretty plain in overt descriptions and the subtle arch of the Bible's narrative.

Again, returning to the OP, I think that is why Canon Law is so lengthy and important - it teaches us the principals for applying the general "be engaged in to His Glory" in specifics. The distinction between male and female is important and their union serves the function of declarative playacting in the proclamation of his Glory and image throughout the world.

As far as civil government law is concerned I'm all for gay marriage, but I think the state and the Bible define marriage differently and things get muddled when we conflate the two.

Why no capital H? Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. The Bible never commands us to to do it but it's kind of just become part of our traditions (like where does it say to give up something for lent?) I'm not opposed to it, but I don't feel obligated to it either. It is no longer part of our cultural norms to give someone respect by capitalizing their pronouns (we would't do it for our President like we used to do it for our Kings and such) so when I do it I do it mostly for grammatical clarity. Also, privately I call God by his personal name, but I typically don't online because it can just confuse people.

Re: Saturday salmagundi

jasonknox — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 14:27:56 -0000

The Bible is pretty clear that menstruation is not offensive to God. What is offensive to God is to pretend like we are brains on a stick. Reading Leviticus makes it clear that uncleanliness does not equal sin/guilt. It equals humanness and God is very interested in us being whole persons - people with all kinds of fluids and life cycles and goals.
The cleanliness laws are woven into the warp and woof of daily life so that Israelites didn't go about their days as if all of their choices didn't matter or as if worship is this thing that we do once a week in the Temple but the rest of our weeks are for other things.

The Bible is also pretty clear that God is not offended by pigs ether - in the New Testament we see God telling Peter "Don't call anything I've made clean unclean!" Yet, God did ask the church-state-nexus that was Israel to be different than their neighbors and to have diets that reflected their "set-apartness" as a nation. That doesn't mean that God hates bacon (thank God!).

Re: Saturday salmagundi

jasonknox — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 14:19:29 -0000

The profile picture cuts off my chin - there's a pretty hefty goatee going on under there!
I am not ignoring God's law in that way, though, because I'm not an Israelite, but I know that my God hasn't changed - therefore - I know that how I keep my appearance does matter to God as an opportunity to worship him and is an opportunity to remind myself and others that I am not my own. God being interested in my hygiene is a daily reminder that holiness/cleaniness is woven into the warp and woof of life and that all of my little choices reflect the state of my heart.

Re: Saturday salmagundi

jasonknox — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 14:13:11 -0000

How I am defining relevant is something close to "significant and instructive, but not binding." I am saying that the God who gave those laws hasn't changed, but the circumstances have. I am not an Israelite living in a theocracy. As a gentile brought into God's plan of redemption by the new covenant I am not subject to those laws in the same way that ancient Israelite were, but that does not make them irrelevant to me - because God is still God.

What/how I eat is important to God and I am to eat to his glory, but I can eat bacon and shellfish. What I wear matters to God and dressing myself should draw my attention to living as God wants me to live, but I can wear mixed fabrics. The way I schedule my time and if I have rhythms of work and rest matter greatly to God and I must use my week and particular days of rest to worship God and trust him with my work load, but I can make that day of rest any day of the week.

We don't just toss out the books of the Bible that God gave to the Israelites when they were to be a church-state-nexus and pretend like they don't matter, but we recognize that God's plan has grown to include people from all nations, tribes, and tongues.

Re: Saturday salmagundi

jasonknox — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 02:21:47 -0000

... there is no indication that the Dietary Laws were because of health problems or that fabric mixsing laws were for the purpose of comfort or that the laws regarding the "uncleaness" of human secrections had anything to do with health/sanitation "cleaniness" - it was a ritual uncleaninless meaning that they couldn't worship in the temple, not that they physically dirty.

It's relevance depends on how you define relevant. It is 100% relevant to the degree that laws reveal the heart/priorities/values of the Law giver. God hasn't changed at all and the reason why he gave those laws are still 100% relevant - they show us his heart! His laws are not arbitrary and while we may not know why exactly each one was given, we can know for a lot of them and know God better by knowing his laws.

Returning to the OP - they are also relevant to the extent that by elaborating on the Decalogue they help us understand the fullest extent of that law. They model for us what it means to improvise and apply God's general commands (such as "love one another" or "do not murder") in specific situations ("I am harvesting my crops / People use and sleep on my roof"). Looking at gleaning laws teaches us how to apply "love your neighbor" during the harvest and looking at parapet laws teach us how to apply "do not murder" when it comes to dangerous parts of your property. Now, I'm not a farmer nor am I a home owner, but by looking at these elaborations on the law I pick up skills in application for the thousands of situations I find myself in that are not described in the Bible.

So much of the rest of the Bible is based on it - 1,2 Kings correspond to Deuteronmy almost chapter to chapter, countless Psalms describe how wonderful the law is and why it is lovely. the prophets explain why the exile happened by refrencing the law, the books of the law are constantly quoted in the New Testament, James exhorts his readers to look into the perfect law of liberty to be reminded of the glorious people they were created to be, etc. Considering the law irrelevant makes so much of the rest of the Bible inaccessible.

This list could go on - I think we shortchange ourselves so much when we neuter God's law. We don't include them in the Bible simply as a historical curiosity.