Disqus - Latest Comments for jin_roh

Re: The Yearly Cost of Religious Tax Exemptions: $71,000,000,000

jin_roh — Sat, 16 Jun 2012 22:48:50 -0000

All religious things aside... the distinction between "subsidizing" an organization and "not taxing" an organization should be obvious...

Re: Bob Jones University Has a ‘Don’t Ever Badmouth Us In Public’ Policy

jin_roh — Sat, 16 Jun 2012 22:45:57 -0000

Bob Jones is the worst of the worst. I'm glad there are enough religious colleges that aren't that insane or cultic.

Re: Can You Be Loyal to God and Country?

jin_roh — Fri, 25 May 2012 12:04:01 -0000

I feel sad for a lot of the veterans. Pretty much every vet since veitnam has fought in an unpopular war. They aren't lauded like the old WWII guys.

Memorial day just makes me think of my grandfather. I would visit his graveside if I did not live several hours away.

I do not feel that memorial day honors war. This article is right though, that we can expand our sympathies towards our enemies.

Re: Do Denominations Still Matter?

jin_roh — Sun, 22 Apr 2012 14:15:56 -0000

I notice that lot of Baptist focus on the mechanics of baptism and cite Acts (which describes, rather than prescribes) with great frevor. Surely, though, Baptism also shows up elsewhere in the NT?

Re: Do Denominations Still Matter?

jin_roh — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 03:29:26 -0000

As someone who is at least nominally ELCA Lutheran, I appreciate this article. I also appreciate it as a denizen of Southern California where mega churches reign like independent, unaccountable, city-states.

Lutheranism has its internal struggles, but there is still a degree of uniformity. When I went as far away as South Korea, getting plugged into and joining a church was really easy. I found the local Lutheran Congregation (LCMS, but honestly that didn't make a difference to me) and joined, worshiped, and attended as easily as I did the ELCA church in my home town. It gave me an anchor in a strange new area, as well as conduit with which to serve North Korean refugees.

As someone who went through theological education, the you grow in knowledge, the more you start to realize that you're going to pick a team. You're also going to pick an epistemology. Sometimes, its not even a "I'm right, your wrong issue." It's just what happens out of convenience. It helps makes your church decision easier and more efficient. I know, for instance, that I should not work with a ministry that has a strong Calvinist reformed bent. I don't begrudge the neo-calvinists (much), but I stay with my "clan" where I will serve much better. Likewise with my evangelical friends.

I actually think source of a lot of problems is "just Christian" mentality and the non-denoms. Basically, one of the advantages of being Lutheran (or Episcopalian, Nazarene, Catholic, PCUSA etc) is that you *know* that you are in a tradition and can compare to others. It forces you to think outside your box, because you first admit that you are in one. The "Just Christian" non-denom aren't always conscious of their own traditions (which is often, imo, rooted in Low church congregationalism, the baptist tradition, and being an American). Furthermore, a Lutheran Youtube Minister once noted that main-line protestants are much less likely to say, "Oh you're not a real Christian because you don't think *exactly like me and my church does*" but you'll hear that refrain from non-denom evangelicals quite frequently.

Re: Beauty vs. Sexuality

jin_roh — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 13:00:20 -0000

As a Christian and more broadly as a virtue ethicist, I agree with this very much. Yes, I think the end of all Christian virtue must necessarily entail love of others.

Unfortunately, I feel when it comes to sexual ethics, evangelicalism defines purity by negation only, or by an excessive (positive) idealism that fits for a few while and ignoring or maligning the many. Thus failing -in my opinion- to love one's neighbor.

Re: Beauty vs. Sexuality

jin_roh — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 15:17:46 -0000

So what exactly is "purity"? Can it be defined positively? I ask because in evangelical discourse it is frequently described with negation (i.e. *not* looking at someone lustfully, *not* crossing physical boundaries, *not* causing your brother to stumble etc)

What exactly does Christ want for us?

Re: Beauty vs. Sexuality

jin_roh — Sat, 14 Apr 2012 10:24:14 -0000

Yes, but I think part of the issue is the grand canyon wide rift between the ot/nt and our time on this issue. There was no "dating" in the Bible. There was no "biblical courtship" either. I'm sure as someone who is in youth ministry, you probably also know that there was no "adolescence" in Ot/NT either. Sex and marriage meant something different in the world of the OT patriarchs and even in the NT. How do we teach teenagers about sex and dating in allegedly Biblical way, without prooftexting and abusing scripture to make it say what we think (or presuppose) it says about a cultural practice (dating) that never existed in its time?

Re: Beauty vs. Sexuality

jin_roh — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 01:31:23 -0000

I had an additional thought on this:

Men = Visual. Therefore woman must be careful to cover up their bodies. It causes men to lust. etc etc

Women = Verbal. So therefore men must...

It seems that what should be filling the blank her is something like: men should be careful when talking with their Sisters-in-Christ. We must never cause them to stumble by having long, articulate, fun, and lively conversations with them.

Because it might cause them to lust.

I never heard that message during the guy times at church. Did anybody else get the memo?

Re: Beauty vs. Sexuality

jin_roh — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 13:41:30 -0000

Physical attraction, going either way, is always necessarily also sexual attraction. Of course, good Christian boys are supposed to be asexual. Which is why it is very, very hard to get used to approaching girls, asking them out, helping them have fun, talking to them, having "alone time" with them, or otherwise all of the other things that actually get a relationship started.

I actually feel really bad for all the Christian girls who attend Christian colleges and then wonder why guys don't approach them when we should. Its even sadder when girls feel like if they act inviting or other initiate flirtation they're doing something inappropriate.

Christian guys do not "struggle" with lust. I think the struggle is trying to reconcile a paradox of "go pursue that girl, like a upstanding Christian alpha male" and "don't you ever, ever, think about touching her or even looking at her the wrong way." That's why a lot of the Christians guys have a very hard time learning how to approach or other romantic relationship skills. A married, female, and Christian friend of mine once remarked that secular boys just have more motivation.

It's just silly to tell men (and women for that matter) to pursue something that is consummated is sex (marriage), but self-deprecate over every sexual inclination you have prior to entering into a relationship.

I very much liked this article. Women should not be afraid of their bodies or their beauty. Guys should understand that women actually *like* feeling sexy.

Re: Beauty vs. Sexuality

jin_roh — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 13:27:59 -0000

Thank you, so much, for giving up the curriculums on sex and dating. This article is good, and I like it.

It's pretty sad that evangelicalism wants to pretend that women do not experience sexual desire or should be ashamed of it when they do.

Re: Rachel Held Evans Video Now Online!

jin_roh — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 19:52:43 -0000

Dear... God... they actually placed June Cleaver as an ideal? On purpose? hahaha

Re: RELEVANT Magazine - "But He (or She) Isn't a Virgin"

jin_roh — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 00:04:19 -0000

What if we're not bothered by partner's sexual past in the first place?

Re: Human Rights Group Pushes for Divine Comedy Ban

jin_roh — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 22:43:44 -0000

I think this is the Italian equivalent of removing Huckleberry Fin from classrooms because it uses the N-word. Which is totally understandable. Reading Huckleberry Fin will make you a racist pig. That last sentence was sarcasm.

I think banning this book overstates the perceived power it will have over young minds and underestimates both educators and children. Having children read something does not mean that you accept its values.

I am also very much against censoring something out of deference to Islam. In the west, all religions are up for criticism. I've read a few articles here and there in which I get the impression that many in the Islamic world don't quite get that. Are Muslims going to be offended by Dante's Inferno? Yes, I suppose they would be. Are they going to have to get used to it in places like Australia, Europe, and the United States? Absolutely. Welcome to the social contract, and no we're not adjusting it.

Re: The Purity Puzzle

jin_roh — Sat, 10 Mar 2012 17:11:14 -0000

I feel like its a little... binary?... to believe that there two ways: virginity until marriage... or the horrible, destructive, downhill slide to sexual depravity, STDs, and loveless, mechanical sex. Plenty of people who are not practicing "purity" but who still oppose pornography, casual sex, and teen pregnancy.

I also think it's a bit of misnomer to talk about "giving away virginity." I don't think virginity is a "thing." It's just noun we use to describe a negation (i.e. "not having yet had sex.") There is nothing there to lose or give away, because there is literally (metaphysically?) nothing there.

After all, we don't have words for "not having yet visited germany" or "not having yet kissed someone" or "not having yet performed on stage." Might be some importance to the "first time" but nothing is irrevocably lost, because again -there was nothing there in the first place.

Obviously, the first time you do anything is a big deal, but it shouldn't be a definitive valorization of the experience for all times prior.

The first time I sang for a music teacher it was really awkward and pretty bad. Doesn't stop me from singing now.

Re: Rachel Held Evans | Five fun things you should know about....

jin_roh — Sat, 10 Mar 2012 16:41:18 -0000

I really wish I wasn't broke, because then I would support the sex documentary with cash. Instead, I just had to blog about it myself. To bad...

Re: Why Guarding Your Heart Isn't Enough

jin_roh — Sat, 10 Mar 2012 12:34:45 -0000

Jo, what does it mean to love God "foremostly"? Do you believe that loving God will sometimes trump our priorities to love our neighbor? I'm just trying to get clarification.

Re: Why Guarding Your Heart Isn't Enough

jin_roh — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 20:40:22 -0000

Regarding Jeremiah, I don't think that the ancient Israelites used "heart" in the same way we do. I could be wrong, but I think they thought of it as the seat of emotions AND thoughts and not just emotions like we do today. I could be wrong about that though.

In my opinion, the two greatest commandments are *not* to be understood in some kind of hierarchy. As if we say, "yes you must love people (which, yes, will include romantic relationships) just as long as it doesn't cloud our priorities of Loving God. To often, in my own, life just the opposite has be true. I was to busy worried about loving God to love someone else.

I actually think that Loving God is in many ways equivocal (equivalent?) with loving people. Jesus said to the sheep and the goats, "whatsoever you do the least of my people, that you do unto me." Thus, in that apocalyptic image, he illustrates that success (or failure) of loving a person is not disconnected from Love of God. 1 John 4 also makes a connection -not a hierarchy of priorities- between loving God and loving others. If you cannot love people, who you see, you cannot love God, who you do not see.

If the ways in which I love God ever cause me to withhold love from neighbor, than I misunderstand what it means to love God.

Regarding the whole guarded heart versus vulnerability, I, like many people have made the mistake of being both both excessively guarded and at other times recklessly vulnerable. In both instances I have hurt myself and others. Strangely though, the emotional baggage from reckless vulnerability hurts, far, far, less than the alternative. I've had a much easier time recovering from those mistakes than those made when I was excessively guarded. I even learned things through those mistakes. Crazy huh?

Re: The Secret Sexual Revolution

jin_roh — Sat, 03 Mar 2012 11:24:05 -0000

Your story is all to common, but it violates the "official message" of Evangelicalism. I too, am extremely frustrated about this. Several people I know have fallen into the "young marriage trap." In fact, one of my divorced was so hurt by the experience that he refers to other young marrieds as "the practice marriage." A few of my other friends have pressured out of churches because they are divorced. It is if the sustaining the myth that young marriage is best prescription is more important than caring for people once they're suffering the emotional consequences of divorce.

That's not very compassionate, in my opinion.

Re: The Secret Sexual Revolution

jin_roh — Sat, 03 Mar 2012 11:19:33 -0000

Thank you, Alvin.

Re: Does Voting Matter?

jin_roh — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 22:45:14 -0000

As a Californian, I do not vote in national elections for president, senator, etc. The republican party has no chance, and the democratic party does not need my help. In a way, I kind of like it because rather than putting the amount of mental and emotional energy to make a serious political decision (even if it is a small one) I can take all that energy and put it elsewhere. That can be anything from things I find simply personally fulfilling (like writing, drawing etc) or to deepening my friendships and other relationships.

I don't care much for political pudits, because I dislike rage-porn and I don't like TV news anyway.

During 2008, I wrote in Dwight Eisenhower and refused to vote on the infamous Prop 8.

Re: The Secret Sexual Revolution

jin_roh — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 21:59:52 -0000

Here's quote from an Australian drama about prostitutes in a high end brothel. The conversation is between a daughter and her house keeper. The daughter has recently found out that her mother does *not* work for a Casino.

Daughter: My mother's a prostitute.
Housekeeper: Oh, so was Mary Magdalene.

The ensuing conversation between daughter and housekeeper is the beginning of a restoration of a relationship between mother and daughter.

I hope I can regard virginity and "experience" like the housekeeper.

Re: The Secret Sexual Revolution

jin_roh — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 14:57:14 -0000

Few things:
I think it is ridiculous -absolutely fucking ridiculous- to blame our "highly sexual culture" or the media for this phenomena. It is if everyone can be perfectly pure and virtuous until we're sexualized by some external temptation. Wanting to have sex is natural and hard-wired into us. The evidence for this? Even in a hyper-sterilized culture of 19th century England -where they invented table cloths because the table legs could arouse you sexually- there was still a thriving prostitution and pornography businesses. If you see a romantic comedy about two yuppie professionals starting a friends with benefits scenario, that move is popular because it connects with the experience of the audience. The media responds to the social phenomena (not the other way around) in this case.

Secondly, the author of the article points to the giant culture gulf between our world and the world of the Bible. He however, does not point out one implication. Arranged marriages were arranged because that is how you exchanged property and formed alliances. It was tied up with caring for the elderly as much as it was about procreating. That is why virginity (abstinence) was important. You could not form those alliances or make those deals if your daughter was not a virgin. The point? The reasons that the OT places a premium on virginity are *not* the reasons why we place a premium on it today. Also, it only really matter when it came to girls. The OT premium on virginity is as one-sided as it is obsolete.

Third, the author wants us to value marriage more highly, but I don't think this is the problem. Evangelicalism already has the most high-brow, idealistic, vision of marriage of any group in America. Can we articulate that ideal without offending the long-term singles and those failed to meet the ideal? No I don't think we can. If you assert, "abstinence till marriage is greatest" or "two virgins on their wedding night is the ideal" than you are implicitly saying "abstinence till marriage is greater than cohabitation before marriage" and "previous partners is not quite as good as two virgins on a wedding night." No matter how you massage it there will always be a 2nd class romance, as it where. The 2nd class will always have to pay lip-service to the ideal, even though they didn't met it and in many cases, no worse off for it.

What really needs to be evaluated here is what the Bible actually says about sex, and whether or not it is consistent in its message. When commands concerning sex are given, we need to figure out why and if those reasons still matter. Furthermore, we need to figure out where the ideal comes from. Finally, we should ask if keeping it is worth the trouble it causes.

You can probably guess how I would answer that last question.

Re: Fundamentalism... Some Rants on Its Historical Development (repost)

jin_roh — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 13:19:49 -0000

Thanks for fleshing that out for all of us. I would add the American "pioneer" democracy added to fundamentalism.

The less educated you are, the more spiritual are.

Far to many "do it yourselfers" out on those covered wagons.

Re: Do You Have the Mark of the Beast? 666: Greg Boyd

jin_roh — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:25:43 -0000

This was a great video. I am reposting it on my own blog.

Greg Boyd showed adequate and eloquent restrait when commenting on some dogmas of futurism.