There's one book that I read every day, and that is the Bible. There. But maybe the Bible simply illustrates my reading habits.
I almost never, ever read one book at a time.
Occasionally, there's a book that I sit down and read straight through, front to back, because it's a really good book. But most of the time, I have five or six various reading 'projects' going on at the same time. I inhale the written word. Whether this is a good or bad habit, it goes on and on.
My reading is sometimes thematic. I'll bang out several poetry books in a few weeks. Suddenly, acting is fascinating. If I had the money to buy all the books that I thought I needed to study my current obsession, I would own a private library. And then again, I could be reading an old childhood favorite, such as "Journey from Peppermint Street" alongside "Trading Territories: Mapping the Early Modern World", which, while well-written and fascinating, is a bit higher on the reading scale than Peppermint St.
I would love to get reading suggestions from people on nonfiction books. Although I own various poetry volumes, half a dozen Cadfaels, the afore mentioned children's story, and some other fiction books, I actually read more nonfiction than anything else.
Current reading obsession: mathematics.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Friday, May 18, 2007
Modesty
OK, so I just copied the title of a post from teampyro.blogspot.com. But I admitted it! Here's the original post, and if you want to have some interesting reading, check it out
http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2007/05/modesty.html
I managed to throw in a few words. When I attempted to comment again, my scintillating and insightful...insights...were lost to the blogging world. I'm pretty sure that it's just my computer or me, messing it up again. I gotta figure out where those comments are going. Maybe you have never had the experience of a brilliant yet humble, gentle but unyielding, stern but gentle reflection upon the human condition get eaten by blogger. Well, it's tragic.
I've combed through many posts about modesty. Some, controversial (SEE ABOVE) and some on those pink and purple blogs that Christian women seem to feel obligated to use. I'm serious. What is with that hideous pink that Moms always seem to use? You're hurting my eyes. Oh, and those are never controversial.
There are many assumptions made in people who want to see modesty. For the sake of clarity, let me define what modesty actually means in most posts. (And I'm not simply talking about teampyro's post, which has certainly received a busy pummeling)
"Modesty/Modest: Clothing that meets fuzzy cultural or subjective standards of conservative, good girlness. Modesty is a virtue most needed by women, who arouse lust in men by their inappropriate clothing, or lack thereof. Men just need a side note about modesty, and certainly not an entire blog post. Men, however, do get lectures (and sometimes very good ones) about lust. Modesty is a lost virtue that, if regained, would help to restore this sex-crazed society or at least help curb whole sale lusting. I'm talking to you, young lady!"
It is my contention, however, that most arguments or pink and purple blog posts about modesty are busily hacking the weed off---at ground level. Modesty is EASY to make rules about. It's EASY to make fun of the 'dumb girl' who doesn't realize that her hot bod is doing to the guy across the aisle, it's EASY to make fun of the parents who froth at the mouth when anyone gently suggests that it might be a good idea if Lil Honey didn't wear jeans with JUICY across her bottom.
It is NOT EASY to face the root of it. It's not hard to challenge a society that glorifies porn, that turns women into separate body parts, that tells you that you have failed, as a women, if you are not sexy and desirable. That's why you can see unattractive heroes, but never (almost) unattractive heroines in the movies. Because no one can love an ugly women---a woman is defined by her looks.
So when Helen in her JUICY pants walks down the aisle to sit next to her friends, your first thought is not "Who told her that she needed to be juicy?" your first thought is "Wow---she IS!" Or the girl in the short shorts and the flimsy top is now just long legs and breasts. Women aren't people. They are simply a collection of gratifying lust objects.
This root causes lust in places like Saudi Arabia. If guys mentally undress immodest women, than the guys there just have to take a little bit longer. I'm serious. No amount of clothing stops lust. Maybe it stops some of the fleeting thoughts that cause some people so much guilt---they get obsessive over it, when they should recognize biological realities and simply say "I'm a human, and they are humans, too, not just there to please me"---but it sure doesn't stop lust.
Lust is not stopped by clothing. Lust does not come from someone other than yourself. Immodesty (according to your culture) can help feed your lust, but it does not create it. Immodesty does not create lust. LUST, and a fallen society, create immodesty. Lust flourishes the world over, it does not matter what the women or the men wear.
Then why is everyone so worried about modesty, if lust can and does flourish no matter what?
Because it is easy. Our human minds don't like to let other people choose so freely, we want to be able to set up rules, it's fun and self gratifying to make fun of people who don't meet those rules or standards. It's easy to blame someone else who forced you to sin, because all pity is immediately transferred to you. Adam started it, and it's been a long and 'glorious' tradition ever since.
It is not easy to confront a corrupt culture. It is not easy to realize that we must
"Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. (Eph 6:11-12 TNIV)
Immodesty, culturally bound as it is, is not the enemy. Satan probably enjoys the in-fighting, the bickering, the skirt measuring, the mental standards that we measure other people with. Meanwhile, he is busy telling us that he is not the enemy... the women are. Lust is not the enemy...immodest (women/men) are...lust doesn't create immodesty or porn...immodesty and porn create lust...if you just got modesty right, all your problems would go away. Once you find the perfect standard, once you find the perfect, fulfilling wife/husband, once you put on the right clothing--you will win.
But lust is the enemy. Lust does create porn. People do have wonderful spouses, and they still struggle with lust. People have created 'perfect' standards, and they've found that the enemy isn't without...it's within.
I can and am irritated by the various other problems with many modesty arguments and mistakes (Women aren't really tempted visually, and if they are, it's just weirder and a recent phenomena produced by a wicked society, all immodest women are flaunting their bodies to seek affirmation, not sex, all immodest women want you to notice their awesome body, women should be more concerned with modesty than men should, women need to be more modest and careful, women create sin with their bodies, blah, blah)
But I didn't devote my blog post to that. Because once we recognize the real enemy, we can fight it.
Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. (Eph 6:10)
http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2007/05/modesty.html
I managed to throw in a few words. When I attempted to comment again, my scintillating and insightful...insights...were lost to the blogging world. I'm pretty sure that it's just my computer or me, messing it up again. I gotta figure out where those comments are going. Maybe you have never had the experience of a brilliant yet humble, gentle but unyielding, stern but gentle reflection upon the human condition get eaten by blogger. Well, it's tragic.
I've combed through many posts about modesty. Some, controversial (SEE ABOVE) and some on those pink and purple blogs that Christian women seem to feel obligated to use. I'm serious. What is with that hideous pink that Moms always seem to use? You're hurting my eyes. Oh, and those are never controversial.
There are many assumptions made in people who want to see modesty. For the sake of clarity, let me define what modesty actually means in most posts. (And I'm not simply talking about teampyro's post, which has certainly received a busy pummeling)
"Modesty/Modest: Clothing that meets fuzzy cultural or subjective standards of conservative, good girlness. Modesty is a virtue most needed by women, who arouse lust in men by their inappropriate clothing, or lack thereof. Men just need a side note about modesty, and certainly not an entire blog post. Men, however, do get lectures (and sometimes very good ones) about lust. Modesty is a lost virtue that, if regained, would help to restore this sex-crazed society or at least help curb whole sale lusting. I'm talking to you, young lady!"
It is my contention, however, that most arguments or pink and purple blog posts about modesty are busily hacking the weed off---at ground level. Modesty is EASY to make rules about. It's EASY to make fun of the 'dumb girl' who doesn't realize that her hot bod is doing to the guy across the aisle, it's EASY to make fun of the parents who froth at the mouth when anyone gently suggests that it might be a good idea if Lil Honey didn't wear jeans with JUICY across her bottom.
It is NOT EASY to face the root of it. It's not hard to challenge a society that glorifies porn, that turns women into separate body parts, that tells you that you have failed, as a women, if you are not sexy and desirable. That's why you can see unattractive heroes, but never (almost) unattractive heroines in the movies. Because no one can love an ugly women---a woman is defined by her looks.
So when Helen in her JUICY pants walks down the aisle to sit next to her friends, your first thought is not "Who told her that she needed to be juicy?" your first thought is "Wow---she IS!" Or the girl in the short shorts and the flimsy top is now just long legs and breasts. Women aren't people. They are simply a collection of gratifying lust objects.
This root causes lust in places like Saudi Arabia. If guys mentally undress immodest women, than the guys there just have to take a little bit longer. I'm serious. No amount of clothing stops lust. Maybe it stops some of the fleeting thoughts that cause some people so much guilt---they get obsessive over it, when they should recognize biological realities and simply say "I'm a human, and they are humans, too, not just there to please me"---but it sure doesn't stop lust.
Lust is not stopped by clothing. Lust does not come from someone other than yourself. Immodesty (according to your culture) can help feed your lust, but it does not create it. Immodesty does not create lust. LUST, and a fallen society, create immodesty. Lust flourishes the world over, it does not matter what the women or the men wear.
Then why is everyone so worried about modesty, if lust can and does flourish no matter what?
Because it is easy. Our human minds don't like to let other people choose so freely, we want to be able to set up rules, it's fun and self gratifying to make fun of people who don't meet those rules or standards. It's easy to blame someone else who forced you to sin, because all pity is immediately transferred to you. Adam started it, and it's been a long and 'glorious' tradition ever since.
It is not easy to confront a corrupt culture. It is not easy to realize that we must
"Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. (Eph 6:11-12 TNIV)
Immodesty, culturally bound as it is, is not the enemy. Satan probably enjoys the in-fighting, the bickering, the skirt measuring, the mental standards that we measure other people with. Meanwhile, he is busy telling us that he is not the enemy... the women are. Lust is not the enemy...immodest (women/men) are...lust doesn't create immodesty or porn...immodesty and porn create lust...if you just got modesty right, all your problems would go away. Once you find the perfect standard, once you find the perfect, fulfilling wife/husband, once you put on the right clothing--you will win.
But lust is the enemy. Lust does create porn. People do have wonderful spouses, and they still struggle with lust. People have created 'perfect' standards, and they've found that the enemy isn't without...it's within.
I can and am irritated by the various other problems with many modesty arguments and mistakes (Women aren't really tempted visually, and if they are, it's just weirder and a recent phenomena produced by a wicked society, all immodest women are flaunting their bodies to seek affirmation, not sex, all immodest women want you to notice their awesome body, women should be more concerned with modesty than men should, women need to be more modest and careful, women create sin with their bodies, blah, blah)
But I didn't devote my blog post to that. Because once we recognize the real enemy, we can fight it.
Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. (Eph 6:10)
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
TNIV Spotting!
On reflex, when reading a book that quotes the Bible, I check the copy right page, just to see what translation they're using (no need when the KJV is used, the Kings English can be spotted a mile away) and almost invariably, it is the NIV. The few exceptions are usually the NASB.
Imagine my surprise and delight when I turned to the copy right page of the book above....and saw that the TNIV was used!
The book itself was interesting and frustrating. Jarrett Stevens wrestles with our various misconceptions of God, and provides some tantalizing insight...but it feels like the book stopped short of an all out smack down, a real wrestling match with our doubts and fears and questions. I wanted Stevens to take names, and really Chuck Norris 'em. Still, it was a humorous, interesting Borders read---the type of book that's short enough for me to read in one Borders visit.
(The Message is also used in spots in the book)
Still, it was nice to make my very first TNIV spotting!
Thursday, May 3, 2007
My (Non)Favorite Preacher!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKHILew-laI
Let me clarify right off the---OK, I can't think of the right word, but let me clarify right away that I do not intend to demonize Mark Driscoll. It would be dishonest to say that this dude is a jerk freshly-dipped in hell fire, ready to gobble down your children. I've listened to one sermon by him, and appreciated it. So you have to understand that I have limited contact with his preaching, appreciate some of what he is doing, and bang my head against the keyboard at the rest. I mean, look at this quote
Mark Driscoll
“So the question is if you want to be innovative: How do you get young men? All this nonsense on how to grow the church. One issue: young men. That’s it. That’s the whole thing. They’re going to get married, make money, make babies, build companies, buy real estate. They’re going to make the culture of the future. If you get the young men you win the war, you get everything. You get the families, the women, the children, the money, the business,
you get everything. If you don’t get the young men you get nothing. You get nothing.”
So young women do not get married, make money, make babies, build companies, buy real estate, they don't make the culture of the future (despite making up 51% of the population) and if you get young women, you don't win the war, you don't get everything, you don't get the families, the women, the children, the money, the business, you don't get everything. If you don't get young women, you're not losing out too bad. If you don't get young women, it doesn't matter.
He seems to be stating, basically, that once you get young men, the women are dragged along inside. Good for macho Driscoll, 'cause that way, he doesn't have to worry about appealing to the "feminine" half of humanity (a very dirty word for Markie) because that would be really below him. In fact, to appeal to women, he would have to soften his theology, sing love songs to Jesus, and wear a pink suit, because according to Mark, that's what women want. In fact, the feminization of the church is a big concern for Mark, because you see, feminine equals silly, vapid, empty, directionless, soft, liberality.
See, what Mark and "God" know is that the church needs a big shot of masculinity, because masculinity equals strong, no-nonsense, pure, vision-oriented, conservative, intelligent churches. It doesn't matter to Mark that men historically have started the major cults, and have lead the church. The church is dominated by male leadership and male theology. So to take the mess that is our current American church and dump it into the laps of women/feminists is silly and immature.
Oh, and churches that don't target 22-25 year old men aren't innovative because the innovators aren't there? OK, that's sexist beyond belief. Because the huge implication is that women are not and cannot be innovators.
Lame, lame, lame.
And I leave you with this.
So the question is if you want to be innovative: How do you get Caucasians? All this nonsense on how to grow the church. One issue: whites. That’s it. That’s the whole thing. They’re going to get married, make money, make babies, build companies, buy real estate. They’re going to make the culture of the future. If you get the white people you win the war, you get everything. You get the families, the blacks, the children, the money, the business, you get everything. If you don’t get the Caucasians you get nothing. You get nothing.
Why is it OK to be sexist?
Let me clarify right off the---OK, I can't think of the right word, but let me clarify right away that I do not intend to demonize Mark Driscoll. It would be dishonest to say that this dude is a jerk freshly-dipped in hell fire, ready to gobble down your children. I've listened to one sermon by him, and appreciated it. So you have to understand that I have limited contact with his preaching, appreciate some of what he is doing, and bang my head against the keyboard at the rest. I mean, look at this quote
Mark Driscoll
“So the question is if you want to be innovative: How do you get young men? All this nonsense on how to grow the church. One issue: young men. That’s it. That’s the whole thing. They’re going to get married, make money, make babies, build companies, buy real estate. They’re going to make the culture of the future. If you get the young men you win the war, you get everything. You get the families, the women, the children, the money, the business,
you get everything. If you don’t get the young men you get nothing. You get nothing.”
So young women do not get married, make money, make babies, build companies, buy real estate, they don't make the culture of the future (despite making up 51% of the population) and if you get young women, you don't win the war, you don't get everything, you don't get the families, the women, the children, the money, the business, you don't get everything. If you don't get young women, you're not losing out too bad. If you don't get young women, it doesn't matter.
He seems to be stating, basically, that once you get young men, the women are dragged along inside. Good for macho Driscoll, 'cause that way, he doesn't have to worry about appealing to the "feminine" half of humanity (a very dirty word for Markie) because that would be really below him. In fact, to appeal to women, he would have to soften his theology, sing love songs to Jesus, and wear a pink suit, because according to Mark, that's what women want. In fact, the feminization of the church is a big concern for Mark, because you see, feminine equals silly, vapid, empty, directionless, soft, liberality.
See, what Mark and "God" know is that the church needs a big shot of masculinity, because masculinity equals strong, no-nonsense, pure, vision-oriented, conservative, intelligent churches. It doesn't matter to Mark that men historically have started the major cults, and have lead the church. The church is dominated by male leadership and male theology. So to take the mess that is our current American church and dump it into the laps of women/feminists is silly and immature.
Oh, and churches that don't target 22-25 year old men aren't innovative because the innovators aren't there? OK, that's sexist beyond belief. Because the huge implication is that women are not and cannot be innovators.
Lame, lame, lame.
And I leave you with this.
So the question is if you want to be innovative: How do you get Caucasians? All this nonsense on how to grow the church. One issue: whites. That’s it. That’s the whole thing. They’re going to get married, make money, make babies, build companies, buy real estate. They’re going to make the culture of the future. If you get the white people you win the war, you get everything. You get the families, the blacks, the children, the money, the business, you get everything. If you don’t get the Caucasians you get nothing. You get nothing.
Why is it OK to be sexist?
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Duhhh...Complementarianism Strikes Again!
I did something that I shouldn't have done. I searched "women" on a complementarian blog. I seemed fairly innocuous, most of the stuff you've heard before. But this one really cracked me up.
Here's a link to the original post Genesis 3: Curses, Consequences and Covering and the excerpt
She was also told that her husband would rule over her. The headship of the man existed before the fall, so this ruling over her is not evil in and of itself, but Eve did assert herself by taking the fruit while Adam looked on. The seed was planted for women to feel under appreciated and they would at times be rebellious to their husbands, but the men would ultimately rule over them, as God’s definition of the family can not be usurped by any act of man.
On that last phrase "God's definition of the family cannot be usurped by any act of man."
Exactly. God doesn't redefine sin because humans think that adultery is fine. However, humans go right on committing adultery. It is utterly silly to suggest that men continued to rule over their wives because if they didn't, it would mean that God's definition of the family would be redefined. If, as I anticipate, homosexuals are allowed to marry, does this redefine GOD'S definition of marriage! Of course not, that is simply illogical. Women disobeying God's supposed decree that husbands rule over their wives wouldn't redefine God's definition of marrige, anymore than homosexual marriage would.
People misuse language, but doesn't change the language. Despite humankind's redefinitions of all of God's laws and decrees, they still stand. People simply disobey them.
OK, so let's check out what Genesis says here, and I'm using the ESV, no stealthy TNIV here.
Genesis 3:16 To the woman he said, "I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children.Your desire shall be for[e] your husband, and he shall rule over you."
Sounds fairly simple. However, for fun, let's make a version that makes it easier to swallow this complementarian's interpretation.
NEW COMPLEMENTARIAN VERSION! Genesis 3: 16 To the woman he said, "I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children.Your desire shall be for[e] your husband, and he shall rule over you and even though him ruling you isn't really evil or part of the curse, you will feel under appreciated, and you'll try to rebel against him, but he'll manage to keep you in line anyway.
Genesis seemed pretty simple.
Oh, and I love "Eve did assert herself." Oh my goodness. Even though God actually told them not to eat the fruit, the really tear-jerker for a complementarian is the idea that Eve "asserted" herself. The problem isn't that she disobeyed his husband. She disobeyed God. The problem is not that Adam obeyed his wife----the problem is that in obeying his wife, he disobeyed God.
Overall, this is an even worse argument than the "he ruled her before the fall, but now husbands would be mean rulers" one.
Sigh. I really shouldn't have. It's a guilty pleasure. And it's a pain. I should give myself a rest sometimes.
Here's a link to the original post Genesis 3: Curses, Consequences and Covering and the excerpt
She was also told that her husband would rule over her. The headship of the man existed before the fall, so this ruling over her is not evil in and of itself, but Eve did assert herself by taking the fruit while Adam looked on. The seed was planted for women to feel under appreciated and they would at times be rebellious to their husbands, but the men would ultimately rule over them, as God’s definition of the family can not be usurped by any act of man.
On that last phrase "God's definition of the family cannot be usurped by any act of man."
Exactly. God doesn't redefine sin because humans think that adultery is fine. However, humans go right on committing adultery. It is utterly silly to suggest that men continued to rule over their wives because if they didn't, it would mean that God's definition of the family would be redefined. If, as I anticipate, homosexuals are allowed to marry, does this redefine GOD'S definition of marriage! Of course not, that is simply illogical. Women disobeying God's supposed decree that husbands rule over their wives wouldn't redefine God's definition of marrige, anymore than homosexual marriage would.
People misuse language, but doesn't change the language. Despite humankind's redefinitions of all of God's laws and decrees, they still stand. People simply disobey them.
OK, so let's check out what Genesis says here, and I'm using the ESV, no stealthy TNIV here.
Genesis 3:16 To the woman he said, "I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children.Your desire shall be for[e] your husband, and he shall rule over you."
Sounds fairly simple. However, for fun, let's make a version that makes it easier to swallow this complementarian's interpretation.
NEW COMPLEMENTARIAN VERSION! Genesis 3: 16 To the woman he said, "I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children.Your desire shall be for[e] your husband, and he shall rule over you and even though him ruling you isn't really evil or part of the curse, you will feel under appreciated, and you'll try to rebel against him, but he'll manage to keep you in line anyway.
Genesis seemed pretty simple.
Oh, and I love "Eve did assert herself." Oh my goodness. Even though God actually told them not to eat the fruit, the really tear-jerker for a complementarian is the idea that Eve "asserted" herself. The problem isn't that she disobeyed his husband. She disobeyed God. The problem is not that Adam obeyed his wife----the problem is that in obeying his wife, he disobeyed God.
Overall, this is an even worse argument than the "he ruled her before the fall, but now husbands would be mean rulers" one.
Sigh. I really shouldn't have. It's a guilty pleasure. And it's a pain. I should give myself a rest sometimes.
Chocolate People Are Funny!
I was browing seventypercent.com, a site devoted to chocolate. 70% referring to the amount of cacao---the part of a choco bar that makes it chocolate. I admire their dedication, enjoy chocolate, but this review really amused me!
Aroma transfers to flavor both in content and in intensity, as this is by no means a shy chocolate. Ash surges on the tongue, but it quickly settles down and is then followed by sweet whisky with mild tropical fruits laid on top, which is further succeeded by shy blackberries.
Down with shy chocolate, I say! I'm tired off these wall flowers chocolates hiding in tiny whole food stores and hip cafes! And those durn blackberries...no wonder I can find them!
I also enjoyed the review that referred to a chocolate as actually being a virgin bride in her white wedding dress---not an exact quote. Still, you gotta think that too many 100% percent bars went to the reviewer's head on that one.
Teehee.
Teehee.
"shy-no-more"
opinion-minion
Aroma transfers to flavor both in content and in intensity, as this is by no means a shy chocolate. Ash surges on the tongue, but it quickly settles down and is then followed by sweet whisky with mild tropical fruits laid on top, which is further succeeded by shy blackberries.
Down with shy chocolate, I say! I'm tired off these wall flowers chocolates hiding in tiny whole food stores and hip cafes! And those durn blackberries...no wonder I can find them!
I also enjoyed the review that referred to a chocolate as actually being a virgin bride in her white wedding dress---not an exact quote. Still, you gotta think that too many 100% percent bars went to the reviewer's head on that one.
Teehee.
Teehee.
"shy-no-more"
opinion-minion
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)