I just don't enjoy watching talk shows. It doesn't mean I don't 'like' them, only that I don't care for the genre. I'll admit that I have watched the Ellen show for a couple of minutes at a time just because, well, she's Ellen! But it still doesn't make me like her show.
I get most of what little I know about politics from the Rachel Maddow show. I don't like it because she's gay. Yes, I think she's a total hottie! But I like it because of the way she presents the story. I never cared for the show with the two gay men and the skinny redhead across the hall. It was just too superficial. Of course, maybe it's me that's being superficial; perhaps I'd have liked it if the cute redhead character had been gay
I think we all are going to be drawn to things that we can relate to. I won't watch Fox news because of all the hatred. But I won't watch some MSNBC news shows because the host and participants simply yell over one another. Still, I'll tend towards MSNBC and the Rachel show because they represent who I am better than Fox and its hate rhetoric.
That said; I'm a transsexual lesbian but I don't relate to other transsexuals. I relate to women and to lesbians. That I'm a transsexual doesn't mean that I'll just automatically want to be like Ru Paul or want to watch her show 'drag race'. I was raised in a 'trailer trash' environment, but most of those shows on (I think) the History channel celebrating rednecks and trailer trash are of no interest to me.
You are who you are. You aren't going to like something just because there is some common thread.
Some women feel that they must 'submit themselves' to a man, becoming someone that doesn't feel true to themselves. You were meant to be you! The very best you that you can be! Read my blogs on your 'women's roles in the church' and you will see my opinion of those who would take the words of the misogynists and homophobes and use them literally as hate rhetoric. Jesus' first missionary (arguably an ad hoc disciple) was a Samaritan adulteress, and he never once said one word in the negative to her. He showed compassion to a Jewish adulteress who was caught in the very act, protecting her from an unruly crowd of men (teachers of the law and Pharisees were all men at the time).
His dying act was to make sure that His mother was taken care of. Women were the last at the cross, the first at the tomb, and the first to see Him after resurrection. Women were among His followers and helped to support Him 'out of their own means'. When at the house of Martha and Mary he rebuked Martha when she asked Him to tell Mary, ...'who sat at the Lord’s feet listening to what he said...' to get up and perform her 'women's duties'; “Martha, Martha,” the Lord answered, “you are worried and upset about many things, but few things are needed—or indeed only one. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her.”
Jesus never once showed anything but respect and kindness to women. He never told a woman to do anything but listen to His word. He defended women. He allowed women to follow Him, even allowing them to support Him and His retinue out of their own pockets; He who wouldn't take anything from the Pharisees, Sadducees, or other political leaders. This can all be seen without even going into the Apocrypha! Meanwhile, throughout the Gospels you can find stern rebukes from Him towards his male followers, and many cases where they abandon Him or deny Him.
Women are special. His words tell us that. His message confirms that. You be as loud and assertive as you like! Ignore the opinions of anyone of any gender who wants to belittle you or 'put you in your place'! Read the words in red! Feel the love!
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." - Mahatma Gandhi
Wednesday, December 25, 2013
Is it a sin to pay someone weekly?
"Do not hold back the wages of a hired worker overnight." Leviticus 19:13
Leviticus 19:13 is one of the verses that I use to dismiss Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 when talking to those who wish to tell me that homosexuality is a sin. If 18:22 (Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable) and 20:13 (If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.) must be read literally, so also must be observed the Lords decrees that you; pay workers daily, not wear garments of a blend (polyester/cotton blend), stand up in the presence of the aged, do not spread slander (gossip), not eat from a fruit tree until its fifth year, not cut your hair or beard, and treat foreigners (immigrants) with love.
My contention is that, if you find justification to nullify any of these, you have to use that same justification to nullify all of them. Note that Leviticus 19:37 says "Keep all my decrees and all my laws and follow them. I am the Lord." It doesn't say "unless you agree among yourselves not to", or "unless you have a really good reason to do otherwise." It just says do them! So while I tend towards a literal interpretation of the bible (guided by appropriate study of various translations) I don't accept everything at face value until I've run it through the message of Jesus (see more below).
Hebrews 8 quotes Jeremiah 31 by saying in part:
"For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.
But God found fault with the people and said: “The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah.
It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.
This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.
No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.
For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”
By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear."
In Romans 13:8-10 Paul says "Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."
Normally I do not like to quote Paul as (I think) he was a deeply disturbed individual, but as long as I 'filter' what he says through the words and message of Jesus, and try to avoid his writings from when he was in one of his psychotic episodes I feel like I'm ok.
Jesus said we simply had to love the Lord our God with all our hearts, and souls, and minds and to love our neighbor as ourselves. When asked to define 'neighbor' he gave us the parable of the good Samaritan, perhaps the most hated and reviled person that a Jewish audience could image. He did that for a reason, and He didn't mention any ritual purification or cleansing that the Samaritan or Jew had to go through. I think it's also important to note that He included 'your mind'; He didn't want us to be ignorant. He wanted us to inquire and understand His message.
I think that all of the Levitical laws, including the one regarding daily payment, are nullified by the new covenant that was brought by Jesus Christ and sealed in His blood. I think Jesus' admonition and Pauls restatements are clearly; to love one another and, after loving God, that is enough.
Love does no harm.
Leviticus 19:13 is one of the verses that I use to dismiss Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 when talking to those who wish to tell me that homosexuality is a sin. If 18:22 (Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable) and 20:13 (If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.) must be read literally, so also must be observed the Lords decrees that you; pay workers daily, not wear garments of a blend (polyester/cotton blend), stand up in the presence of the aged, do not spread slander (gossip), not eat from a fruit tree until its fifth year, not cut your hair or beard, and treat foreigners (immigrants) with love.
My contention is that, if you find justification to nullify any of these, you have to use that same justification to nullify all of them. Note that Leviticus 19:37 says "Keep all my decrees and all my laws and follow them. I am the Lord." It doesn't say "unless you agree among yourselves not to", or "unless you have a really good reason to do otherwise." It just says do them! So while I tend towards a literal interpretation of the bible (guided by appropriate study of various translations) I don't accept everything at face value until I've run it through the message of Jesus (see more below).
Hebrews 8 quotes Jeremiah 31 by saying in part:
"For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.
But God found fault with the people and said: “The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah.
It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.
This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.
No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.
For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”
By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear."
In Romans 13:8-10 Paul says "Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."
Normally I do not like to quote Paul as (I think) he was a deeply disturbed individual, but as long as I 'filter' what he says through the words and message of Jesus, and try to avoid his writings from when he was in one of his psychotic episodes I feel like I'm ok.
Jesus said we simply had to love the Lord our God with all our hearts, and souls, and minds and to love our neighbor as ourselves. When asked to define 'neighbor' he gave us the parable of the good Samaritan, perhaps the most hated and reviled person that a Jewish audience could image. He did that for a reason, and He didn't mention any ritual purification or cleansing that the Samaritan or Jew had to go through. I think it's also important to note that He included 'your mind'; He didn't want us to be ignorant. He wanted us to inquire and understand His message.
I think that all of the Levitical laws, including the one regarding daily payment, are nullified by the new covenant that was brought by Jesus Christ and sealed in His blood. I think Jesus' admonition and Pauls restatements are clearly; to love one another and, after loving God, that is enough.
Love does no harm.
The Bumper Sticker Jesus
I am basically a 'red letter Christian'. Effectively; I try to understand the message of Jesus, then I filter everything else, including His own words, through the context of that message!
This is simultaneously more difficult and easier than it sounds. It is more difficult because you will find Him saying things like "No man, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God." while He's forgiving Peter like a jillion times. He makes comments such as "Until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or one stroke of a letter will pass from the law until all things are accomplished" while admonishing the Pharisees to "go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'"
It is easier because, once you really start listening to Him, you realize that He really, honestly, did not seem to care if we followed 613 anal retentive laws such as "If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity." (Dt 25:11 NIV)
You can almost feel His frustration when He is talking to people, it's as if He wants to beat his breast and ask "Are you not listening to me? Do you understand the words that are coming out of my mouth?" (Yeah, that's a Jackie Chan quote! )
Jesus intentionally spoke in parables. He was possibly the greatest master of the Socratic Method; "Then he told them many things in parables..." I think He did this specifically so His message would be easier to understand and remember. It is more difficult to remember specific words than it is to remember its intent in story form (see Aesop's fables ).
Using this method of understanding what He meant for us, I find the twin stories of the two adulteresses in John to be quite telling when juxtaposed against Mark 10. In Mark 10 He is speaking to the Pharisees, telling them that divorce is (effectively) adultery; He is essentially condemning adultery and divorce.
In John 8 a woman caught in adultery is brought to Him by the Pharisees. He is asked what should be done with her. First He disperses the crowd by telling them "Let those among you who are without sin cast the first stone!" Then He asks the woman "Where are those who condemn you?"
He wanted her to accept and understand that no one could accuse her! Only after she accepts this does He continue, stating "Then neither do I condemn you."
Here's the interesting part; He ranted on about the evils of divorce and adultery in Mark (and also of course in Matthew), but when faced with an adulteress He is gentle with her, making sure that she is safe and that she carries no guilt when she leaves. Do you see the difference between His lecture to the Pharisees in Mark and His refusal to even condemn the woman here? Do you hear the words that are coming out of His mouth?
In John 4 He meets a Samaritan woman who has been divorced from five husbands and is living in adultery with a sixth! He states this to her bluntly, as if He is saying "I know who you are!" But then He never mentions it again!
In John 8 He tells the woman who was caught in adultery to "Go and sin no more." In John 4 He doesn't even condemn the woman. He wants her to know that He knows! But He never condemns her! Instead, he 'deputizes' her as His first apostle, His first missionary, and uses her to convert many in her village!
Fundamentalists, literalists, and legalists will say that He condemned divorce and adultery!
Those who are trying to understand His message realize that He was only condemning these in the context of railing against the fundamentalists, literalists, and legalists. He wasn't condemning the sinners who are guilty of these acts, rather He was condemning the Pharisees, fundamentalists, literalists, and legalists who focused on justice over mercy! "And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them."
Note that He told the woman 'caught' in adultery to go and sin no more. That she was 'caught' in adultery would mean that she was fooling about with someone outside the context of a committed relationship. To the woman at the well, who was in a committed relationship, He never said boo about it.
If you're searching for His message with the hope of understanding His will (which seems appropriate to me), you might come away from this with a few lessons:
- Grace - there is nothing we can do to make Him love us less, and there is nothing we can do to make Him love us more. Even the faith of the man who cried out "Help me with my unbelief" was enough for Him.
- Committed relationships - He didn't seem to have a problem with the woman who was in a committed relationship, even though it was with a sixth man! What seemed to be important, when contrasted with His message to the woman in John 8, was simply that this woman was in a committed relationship!
- What He doesn't like - The only thing He consistently spoke angrily about was those who "do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns." Having trouble with your faith but you really, really want to believe? No worries! He's got your back! Know you're a sinner and you just can't stop but you try to carry His message? Not a problem! He can use you!
Don't you think that, if He wanted to, He could have given us lots of pithy little sayings, bumper sticker logic, spin? It worked for Poor Richards Almanac... but that's not what He did.
He told us to love the Lord our God with all our hearts and souls and minds. Minds... get it? He wanted us to think and understand. He rebuked people almost continuously for failing to see His message, and instead focusing on the minutiae. He told people not to tell about His miracles because He didn't want the hyperbole to exceed His message.
I understand where people get the idea that homosexuality is wrong. i understand where people get the idea that eating pork is wrong. I understand lots of the little details, but I don't focus on them, and neither did He.
All He ever asked is for us to try and understand, to do the very best we can, and to love Him and our neighbor. I find no condemnation in His message for my being gay, a transsexual woman, or for my various and sundry other sins which pop up almost as if I have Tourette syndrome!
I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God, and they will be my people.
No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the Lord.
For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.
Jeremiah 31
Jesus was a heretic and a blasphemer. The dogma and orthodoxy of the modern 'Christian' church would have (and I believe does) appall(ed) Him. He didn't have a daily planner and follow little rules, guidelines, and 'helpful hints from Heloise'. He loved sinners but condemned only those who condemned them. He loved the poor and the sick but condemned only those who refused to help them.
If you ask Him for understanding, and he gives it to you, but you refuse to believe because of the hate rhetoric from false prophets, why bother? Seriously. Just consider the harbingers of hatred to be your High Priest, your Caiaphas, and don't bother Him anymore; leave Him to dwell in the Holiest of Holy Places.
If you ask Him for understanding and He tells you "Then neither do I condemn you", perhaps you should listen.
Peace,
Elisheba Ruth
"People arrive at a factory and perform a totally meaningless task from eight to five without question because the structure demands that it be that way. There’s no villain, no ‘mean guy’ who wants them to live meaningless lives, it’s just that the structure, the system demands it and no one is willing to take on the formidable task of changing the structure just because it is meaningless.
But to tear down a factory or to revolt against a government or to avoid repair of a motorcycle because it is a system is to attack effects rather than causes; and as long as the attack is upon effects only, no change is possible. The true system, the real system, is our present construction of systematic thought itself, rationality itself, and if a factory is torn down but the rationality which produced it is left standing, then that rationality will simply produce another factory.
If a revolution destroys a systematic government, but the systematic patterns of thought that produced that government are left intact, then those patterns will repeat themselves in the succeeding government. There’s so much talk about the system. And so little understanding" - Robert M. Pirsig
This is simultaneously more difficult and easier than it sounds. It is more difficult because you will find Him saying things like "No man, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God." while He's forgiving Peter like a jillion times. He makes comments such as "Until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or one stroke of a letter will pass from the law until all things are accomplished" while admonishing the Pharisees to "go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'"
It is easier because, once you really start listening to Him, you realize that He really, honestly, did not seem to care if we followed 613 anal retentive laws such as "If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity." (Dt 25:11 NIV)
You can almost feel His frustration when He is talking to people, it's as if He wants to beat his breast and ask "Are you not listening to me? Do you understand the words that are coming out of my mouth?" (Yeah, that's a Jackie Chan quote! )
Jesus intentionally spoke in parables. He was possibly the greatest master of the Socratic Method; "Then he told them many things in parables..." I think He did this specifically so His message would be easier to understand and remember. It is more difficult to remember specific words than it is to remember its intent in story form (see Aesop's fables ).
Using this method of understanding what He meant for us, I find the twin stories of the two adulteresses in John to be quite telling when juxtaposed against Mark 10. In Mark 10 He is speaking to the Pharisees, telling them that divorce is (effectively) adultery; He is essentially condemning adultery and divorce.
In John 8 a woman caught in adultery is brought to Him by the Pharisees. He is asked what should be done with her. First He disperses the crowd by telling them "Let those among you who are without sin cast the first stone!" Then He asks the woman "Where are those who condemn you?"
He wanted her to accept and understand that no one could accuse her! Only after she accepts this does He continue, stating "Then neither do I condemn you."
Here's the interesting part; He ranted on about the evils of divorce and adultery in Mark (and also of course in Matthew), but when faced with an adulteress He is gentle with her, making sure that she is safe and that she carries no guilt when she leaves. Do you see the difference between His lecture to the Pharisees in Mark and His refusal to even condemn the woman here? Do you hear the words that are coming out of His mouth?
In John 4 He meets a Samaritan woman who has been divorced from five husbands and is living in adultery with a sixth! He states this to her bluntly, as if He is saying "I know who you are!" But then He never mentions it again!
In John 8 He tells the woman who was caught in adultery to "Go and sin no more." In John 4 He doesn't even condemn the woman. He wants her to know that He knows! But He never condemns her! Instead, he 'deputizes' her as His first apostle, His first missionary, and uses her to convert many in her village!
Fundamentalists, literalists, and legalists will say that He condemned divorce and adultery!
Those who are trying to understand His message realize that He was only condemning these in the context of railing against the fundamentalists, literalists, and legalists. He wasn't condemning the sinners who are guilty of these acts, rather He was condemning the Pharisees, fundamentalists, literalists, and legalists who focused on justice over mercy! "And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them."
Note that He told the woman 'caught' in adultery to go and sin no more. That she was 'caught' in adultery would mean that she was fooling about with someone outside the context of a committed relationship. To the woman at the well, who was in a committed relationship, He never said boo about it.
If you're searching for His message with the hope of understanding His will (which seems appropriate to me), you might come away from this with a few lessons:
- Grace - there is nothing we can do to make Him love us less, and there is nothing we can do to make Him love us more. Even the faith of the man who cried out "Help me with my unbelief" was enough for Him.
- Committed relationships - He didn't seem to have a problem with the woman who was in a committed relationship, even though it was with a sixth man! What seemed to be important, when contrasted with His message to the woman in John 8, was simply that this woman was in a committed relationship!
- What He doesn't like - The only thing He consistently spoke angrily about was those who "do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns." Having trouble with your faith but you really, really want to believe? No worries! He's got your back! Know you're a sinner and you just can't stop but you try to carry His message? Not a problem! He can use you!
Don't you think that, if He wanted to, He could have given us lots of pithy little sayings, bumper sticker logic, spin? It worked for Poor Richards Almanac... but that's not what He did.
He told us to love the Lord our God with all our hearts and souls and minds. Minds... get it? He wanted us to think and understand. He rebuked people almost continuously for failing to see His message, and instead focusing on the minutiae. He told people not to tell about His miracles because He didn't want the hyperbole to exceed His message.
I understand where people get the idea that homosexuality is wrong. i understand where people get the idea that eating pork is wrong. I understand lots of the little details, but I don't focus on them, and neither did He.
All He ever asked is for us to try and understand, to do the very best we can, and to love Him and our neighbor. I find no condemnation in His message for my being gay, a transsexual woman, or for my various and sundry other sins which pop up almost as if I have Tourette syndrome!
I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God, and they will be my people.
No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the Lord.
For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.
Jeremiah 31
Jesus was a heretic and a blasphemer. The dogma and orthodoxy of the modern 'Christian' church would have (and I believe does) appall(ed) Him. He didn't have a daily planner and follow little rules, guidelines, and 'helpful hints from Heloise'. He loved sinners but condemned only those who condemned them. He loved the poor and the sick but condemned only those who refused to help them.
If you ask Him for understanding, and he gives it to you, but you refuse to believe because of the hate rhetoric from false prophets, why bother? Seriously. Just consider the harbingers of hatred to be your High Priest, your Caiaphas, and don't bother Him anymore; leave Him to dwell in the Holiest of Holy Places.
If you ask Him for understanding and He tells you "Then neither do I condemn you", perhaps you should listen.
Peace,
Elisheba Ruth
"People arrive at a factory and perform a totally meaningless task from eight to five without question because the structure demands that it be that way. There’s no villain, no ‘mean guy’ who wants them to live meaningless lives, it’s just that the structure, the system demands it and no one is willing to take on the formidable task of changing the structure just because it is meaningless.
But to tear down a factory or to revolt against a government or to avoid repair of a motorcycle because it is a system is to attack effects rather than causes; and as long as the attack is upon effects only, no change is possible. The true system, the real system, is our present construction of systematic thought itself, rationality itself, and if a factory is torn down but the rationality which produced it is left standing, then that rationality will simply produce another factory.
If a revolution destroys a systematic government, but the systematic patterns of thought that produced that government are left intact, then those patterns will repeat themselves in the succeeding government. There’s so much talk about the system. And so little understanding" - Robert M. Pirsig
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)