Looking up what Paul said in conclusion to the cover discussion, 1 Corinthians 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. / So, to me that sounds optional.
Personal cover experiment: It's been a few years, but I've done covers in the house before. Somehow it made me feel... sheltered? Special? Not to man, but just... special? Covered, if you will.. /grin. So I wanted to see if that would hold forth. I, again, am really not interested in doing it outside the house as an experiment, the last thing I need is an injection of Pride.
Now, back to another question... how do you approach loving God for God? Wanting Heaven for Him, rather than the release from this world and reunion with loved ones?
And sorry you are having a bad health day - me too! /hugs and chocolate for both of us.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Coverings?
Whether or not Jewish women of the 1st century AD shaved their heads and wore wigs - I doubt it, but it might make interesting research. I do know that Paul was "on" about women being authorities in the church, and I think that has a lot to do with it.
As for me, the cover, looking "holy" and whatnot... I was going to do it inside (except for taking son to school/pickup) because then I could concentrate on what it did (or did not) do for my relationship with God. I already know about the looks from other people. I get them for wearing skirts most every day! And I *have* worn a cover to church, I got compliments. :)
SoCal definitely is its own little weird place for "looks" or not. There's a lady in my church that comes in her sari, I see muslim ladies with scarves at the mall all the time, and "body art" is so normal that I was the only mommy in my son's preschool who DIDN'T have either a piercing or a tattoo.. including the teacher and the nice mormon lady ten years my senior. The "ladies in skirts" tend to be Mormon or very conservative Catholics. We don't see many Christian covers here at all. Or "mainstream" Christian ladies in "modest" (skirts, long sleeves) outfits. (The ladies at my church are most likely to show up wearing jeans). So - look at me? Yes... but not so much. It's not the issue of their eyes, it's the issue of my heart. Y'know?
More later, my breakfast guest is here. :)
As for me, the cover, looking "holy" and whatnot... I was going to do it inside (except for taking son to school/pickup) because then I could concentrate on what it did (or did not) do for my relationship with God. I already know about the looks from other people. I get them for wearing skirts most every day! And I *have* worn a cover to church, I got compliments. :)
SoCal definitely is its own little weird place for "looks" or not. There's a lady in my church that comes in her sari, I see muslim ladies with scarves at the mall all the time, and "body art" is so normal that I was the only mommy in my son's preschool who DIDN'T have either a piercing or a tattoo.. including the teacher and the nice mormon lady ten years my senior. The "ladies in skirts" tend to be Mormon or very conservative Catholics. We don't see many Christian covers here at all. Or "mainstream" Christian ladies in "modest" (skirts, long sleeves) outfits. (The ladies at my church are most likely to show up wearing jeans). So - look at me? Yes... but not so much. It's not the issue of their eyes, it's the issue of my heart. Y'know?
More later, my breakfast guest is here. :)
Sometimes we sure do misunderstand each other
Time for me to do some clarifying :-)
I know that the temple prostitutes and the Nazirites are two different things. And I know that that idea has been thrown around that the reason that Paul spoke as he did about short hair versus long hair was because of the temple prostitutes. I am just not sure that the people who say that are entirely right.
Paul, for all that he was a Hellenized Jew, wasn't divorced from Hebraic tradition and so I think it depends on whether or not Jewish women had in Paul's time, or before Paul's time, shaved their heads and then covered them with a religious veil. He was still a Jew - there wasn't this great delineation between Jew and Christian at that time since the Christians were mostly Jewish, so I don't see why he would have, even with the example of the pagan temple prostitutes, necessarily associated their hair styles with what is or is not appropriate for Christian women to wear. His thinking would still have been of Jewish tradition and culture.
He draws his analogy to the natural world, not to temple prostitutes. And Paul is blunt and straight forward enough, that if he had meant that short hair and shaven heads reminded him of pagan temple prostitutes, I think he would have come right out and said that. But he instead draws on the natural world as an example, even though his example makes no sense.
I wasn't afraid you wanted to drag me off to church, haha. The reason I wrote that I didn't go to church was because it occurred to me as I was writing that if anyone is reading this, they wouldn't know that I don't go to church. I wanted to give an example of head covering from what I remember from when I did go to church. However, since I haven't gone to church for so many years, I don't want to be presumptuous and say 'this and this is what they do in Mennonite churches today' since I don't really know.
As to head covering, with the idea of us both wearing it for a day, I was thinking to myself that I will no doubt be home that day and no one would see me and while you are thinking that you don't want anyone to get any ideas that you are holier-than-thou, in a way, that is what the point is - that in the eyes of the world, you are showing yourself to be modest, in this world but not of it. In the privacy of your home, when it is just you, there is no point in showing your modesty, is there?
The very idea of a visible form of faith is to show your difference to the world when you are in the world. Sitting in my house by myself watching Dr. Phil with a head covering on - well, what would be the point of that? In other words, I don't think there is anything wrong at all with wearing a head covering and people looking or staring or noticing it.
Most Mennonites dress just like everyone else. When I was a little girl and I was in a store with my mother, I would actually look longingly at little girls, from other branches of Mennonites, who wore long dresses, had long hair, and sometimes, a small kerchief over their hair. They just looked so darned clean and holy to me. I admired that.
And then my next thought was that I see people all the time with head coverings - not just Muslims, but my own ethnic Mennonite people, so religious head coverings are not strange to me. It wouldn't feel strange or brave to wear one. It wouldn't feel holy to me either. I think part of what attracts you to head coverings, is that it is something different than what you were raised with, whereas while my branch of Mennonites did not wear head coverings on a daily basis, the idea of it isn't at all strange to me and I don't think that people would look at me any differently if I did. People are often attracted to something that is new and this isn't new to me nor do I feel any spiritual need to cover my head.
Well, today was not a particularly good day for me. I am feeling sickish. Maybe it is the flu.
Layla
I know that the temple prostitutes and the Nazirites are two different things. And I know that that idea has been thrown around that the reason that Paul spoke as he did about short hair versus long hair was because of the temple prostitutes. I am just not sure that the people who say that are entirely right.
Paul, for all that he was a Hellenized Jew, wasn't divorced from Hebraic tradition and so I think it depends on whether or not Jewish women had in Paul's time, or before Paul's time, shaved their heads and then covered them with a religious veil. He was still a Jew - there wasn't this great delineation between Jew and Christian at that time since the Christians were mostly Jewish, so I don't see why he would have, even with the example of the pagan temple prostitutes, necessarily associated their hair styles with what is or is not appropriate for Christian women to wear. His thinking would still have been of Jewish tradition and culture.
He draws his analogy to the natural world, not to temple prostitutes. And Paul is blunt and straight forward enough, that if he had meant that short hair and shaven heads reminded him of pagan temple prostitutes, I think he would have come right out and said that. But he instead draws on the natural world as an example, even though his example makes no sense.
I wasn't afraid you wanted to drag me off to church, haha. The reason I wrote that I didn't go to church was because it occurred to me as I was writing that if anyone is reading this, they wouldn't know that I don't go to church. I wanted to give an example of head covering from what I remember from when I did go to church. However, since I haven't gone to church for so many years, I don't want to be presumptuous and say 'this and this is what they do in Mennonite churches today' since I don't really know.
As to head covering, with the idea of us both wearing it for a day, I was thinking to myself that I will no doubt be home that day and no one would see me and while you are thinking that you don't want anyone to get any ideas that you are holier-than-thou, in a way, that is what the point is - that in the eyes of the world, you are showing yourself to be modest, in this world but not of it. In the privacy of your home, when it is just you, there is no point in showing your modesty, is there?
The very idea of a visible form of faith is to show your difference to the world when you are in the world. Sitting in my house by myself watching Dr. Phil with a head covering on - well, what would be the point of that? In other words, I don't think there is anything wrong at all with wearing a head covering and people looking or staring or noticing it.
Most Mennonites dress just like everyone else. When I was a little girl and I was in a store with my mother, I would actually look longingly at little girls, from other branches of Mennonites, who wore long dresses, had long hair, and sometimes, a small kerchief over their hair. They just looked so darned clean and holy to me. I admired that.
And then my next thought was that I see people all the time with head coverings - not just Muslims, but my own ethnic Mennonite people, so religious head coverings are not strange to me. It wouldn't feel strange or brave to wear one. It wouldn't feel holy to me either. I think part of what attracts you to head coverings, is that it is something different than what you were raised with, whereas while my branch of Mennonites did not wear head coverings on a daily basis, the idea of it isn't at all strange to me and I don't think that people would look at me any differently if I did. People are often attracted to something that is new and this isn't new to me nor do I feel any spiritual need to cover my head.
Well, today was not a particularly good day for me. I am feeling sickish. Maybe it is the flu.
Layla
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Quick clearing up
Somehow the Nazirites (OT) and the temple Prostitutes in Corinth (NT) have gotten wound around themselves here... but they're different.
OT... that was Dr. McGee, a very old-fashioned preacher (gone to glory lo these 20 years) mentioning that part of the setting apart of a Nazirite was a male growing out his hair, when the norm was for a man to have short hair. For cover issues... I don't know how relevant that is. I can make some commentary about grape products all having leaven (yeast) in them, but again... not too relevant to the subject at hand.
NT... the temple prostitutes of Corinth: Well, this isn't just Dr. McGee. I've heard this over and over, that the priestess/prostitutes in Corinth kept their hair short and that the whole long/covered hair thing went along with being quiet in church as a woman, so that the short/uncovered woman represented to Paul and the Corinthians a pagan priestess. I dont' think that has anything to do with the Jewish women there, as the Corinthians were mostly Gentile converts, weren't they?
Now: Orthodox women covering their hair, etc. I think that's well-cool, honestly... if you keep your regular hair and use a scarf. The shave/wig thing seems pretty pointless to me, if the wig is nice, where does the extra modesty come in?
I wasn't going to drag you off to church! I *was* going to see if you wanted to cover your hair in the house for a day. If not, no worries. I think I'll try it again and report back, it's been awhile. If nothing else it should keep my hair out of the bread dough that day... ;)
And I have a busy morning, sorry for the shortish post.
OT... that was Dr. McGee, a very old-fashioned preacher (gone to glory lo these 20 years) mentioning that part of the setting apart of a Nazirite was a male growing out his hair, when the norm was for a man to have short hair. For cover issues... I don't know how relevant that is. I can make some commentary about grape products all having leaven (yeast) in them, but again... not too relevant to the subject at hand.
NT... the temple prostitutes of Corinth: Well, this isn't just Dr. McGee. I've heard this over and over, that the priestess/prostitutes in Corinth kept their hair short and that the whole long/covered hair thing went along with being quiet in church as a woman, so that the short/uncovered woman represented to Paul and the Corinthians a pagan priestess. I dont' think that has anything to do with the Jewish women there, as the Corinthians were mostly Gentile converts, weren't they?
Now: Orthodox women covering their hair, etc. I think that's well-cool, honestly... if you keep your regular hair and use a scarf. The shave/wig thing seems pretty pointless to me, if the wig is nice, where does the extra modesty come in?
I wasn't going to drag you off to church! I *was* going to see if you wanted to cover your hair in the house for a day. If not, no worries. I think I'll try it again and report back, it's been awhile. If nothing else it should keep my hair out of the bread dough that day... ;)
And I have a busy morning, sorry for the shortish post.
Christ, Himself, Alone
I had tried to post earlier and my computer was 'doing funny things,' as the techies say and then I got busy with all the little trick-or-treaters.
So on to Heaven and your question of, if I haven't forgotten all the brilliant insights I had at the time when I first started writing this.
When I was a little girl, the idea of Heaven terrified me but the alternative, being Hell, as I understood it, was even worse, so as far as I was concerned, the 'choice' was forced on me. Of course I had to pick Heaven. I felt very bad and guilty about these thoughts which I had even then. When I was growing up, love of God was not emphasized nearly as much as the alternative, Hell. For some odd reason some pastors think that they can scare people into the arms of God. In my blasphemous thoughts, I felt that well, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
And so it was with me and my idea of God. I felt that I had to love Him because otherwise I would end up in Hell. So I feared God but I didn't love Him, for Himself alone. I think a lot of people who have turned against traditional churches have turned away for exactly that reason. People - most people? - resent feeling they are being forced into a corner.
And with regards to wanting to be in Heaven because we will see our loved ones and because there will be no more pain - firstly, we know that without God, there is nothing but pain, so really when we look forward to Heaven because there is neither death nor pain nor injustice, although maybe it seems at first glance that we are looking forward to Heaven only because of that, we aren't. We are looking forward to a place where there is no injustice, no death, and where we are reunited with our loved ones, and by definition, such a place, such thoughts have to include God. So God is not left out of the equation.
I think that is almost silly, when pastors tell us we were created to love God and praise Him. What the heck does that mean? Those words haven't any meaning at all because no one can tell us what they mean by that. Here we are, going through all this crap, and someone Up There claims that He created us to love Him. I think why we were created is a mystery, and no one has come up with a good answer, and so they trot out trite, superficial sayings and for some reason, expect that to comfort or satisfy us.
I believe it was Jesus (maybe it was God) who said that or maybe it was one of the apostles who said something along the lines of we didn't choose Him - He chose us. In fact, God in the OT reminds Israel repeatedly of that - that they didn't choose Him - He chose them, and not because they were so much better than the rest of us. He doesn't really get into His reasons for choosing Israel. He just says it wasn't because they were so much better than everyone else.
And then somewhere else in the Bible, it says that we love Him because He first loved us. His love comes first, not ours. Which makes perfect sense, since He is the First Cause of everything.
When we are forced to take a position due to the threat of dire consequences, how can we love freely? I don't believe that God wants to hold us hostage in a love me, or else way. That's not love. Love is something personal, that is given freely.
I've often wondered why children have so many nightmares. I don't have nearly the number of nightmares I had as a child. I can remember quite clearly the emotions I had when I realised, as a child, that one day my parents were going to die. One day everyone was going to die. Including me. And it seems to me that my nightmares sprung out of that fear. I used to try and plan what I would do if my parents died. I wanted to be with them. Then I was told that suicide would also take you to Hell. So you were stuck in this life because if you killed yourself thinking that you would be reunited in Heaven with your loved ones, well, God had a trick up His sleeve, because suicides, I was taught, went to Hell. Catch-22.
It is kind of hard to love a God like that for Himself, and not for fear of His threats so it is only natural that when we think of Heaven, and how much we want to be there, He isn't foremost in our minds. Our loved ones are.
I am trying to think just how and when it began that I loved God for Himself and I am not really sure. Somehow it began first with a verse, I think it is in Genesis, where it says, "Will not the Lord God do that which is right?"
And then I thought that yes, yes He would. He would do that which is right. He is the First Cause of justice as well. It is He from whom we get our ideas about justice. We (people) are very stupid in a lot of ways, but we all have a sense of justice, the moral law within, as the philosopher Immanuel Kant put it. Even the sociopath knows what is right and what is wrong - he just doesn't care.
I don't believe that God has any tricks up His sleeve. I don't know why He made us. I think He made us in part for companionship. Maybe angels are not free to choose to love him. Or maybe, because angels must know more than we and less than God, the very fact that they have more knowledge of Him makes the love that angels feel for God, less than faith - the faith that sees through a glass darkly, but not face to face. Maybe God wanted to create a thinking creature and see whether such a creature, who did not see God on His throne daily, could still see the goodness of God shining through the darkness in this world, and still, without ever having seen Him, believe that He must exist.
And somewhere along the line I realised that although I wasn't perfect, and in fact, my every imperfect way caused me such shame, that I don't have to be perfect. Jesus knows I am trying. That my prayer is more along the lines of I believe. Help Thou mine unbelief.
And somewhere along the line, I came to the point where seeing my loved ones alone, would not be enough. I want to see God face to face. I feel as though I have a world of tears bottled up that won't get out until I see Him and He explains to me the reasons for everything. I think that when we finally get to that place, that is how everyone will feel and that is what is behind that verse in the Bible, when it says that God will wipe away all tears from our eyes. First there has to be the crying before the tears can be wiped away.
And I believe that He is going to give us a reason and it is going to make perfect sense and the reason has to be a really good reason, a reason so good that all the pain of all people in the world at all times, is somehow justified by this reason. What that can be I really don't know. But I believe that it exists. And I can say, that even without my loved ones, I want to be there and I want to see Him, first of all.
I hope this post makes some sense. I feel as if I have rambled all over the place without quite connecting my thoughts the way that I want to.
Layla
So on to Heaven and your question of, if I haven't forgotten all the brilliant insights I had at the time when I first started writing this.
When I was a little girl, the idea of Heaven terrified me but the alternative, being Hell, as I understood it, was even worse, so as far as I was concerned, the 'choice' was forced on me. Of course I had to pick Heaven. I felt very bad and guilty about these thoughts which I had even then. When I was growing up, love of God was not emphasized nearly as much as the alternative, Hell. For some odd reason some pastors think that they can scare people into the arms of God. In my blasphemous thoughts, I felt that well, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
And so it was with me and my idea of God. I felt that I had to love Him because otherwise I would end up in Hell. So I feared God but I didn't love Him, for Himself alone. I think a lot of people who have turned against traditional churches have turned away for exactly that reason. People - most people? - resent feeling they are being forced into a corner.
And with regards to wanting to be in Heaven because we will see our loved ones and because there will be no more pain - firstly, we know that without God, there is nothing but pain, so really when we look forward to Heaven because there is neither death nor pain nor injustice, although maybe it seems at first glance that we are looking forward to Heaven only because of that, we aren't. We are looking forward to a place where there is no injustice, no death, and where we are reunited with our loved ones, and by definition, such a place, such thoughts have to include God. So God is not left out of the equation.
I think that is almost silly, when pastors tell us we were created to love God and praise Him. What the heck does that mean? Those words haven't any meaning at all because no one can tell us what they mean by that. Here we are, going through all this crap, and someone Up There claims that He created us to love Him. I think why we were created is a mystery, and no one has come up with a good answer, and so they trot out trite, superficial sayings and for some reason, expect that to comfort or satisfy us.
I believe it was Jesus (maybe it was God) who said that or maybe it was one of the apostles who said something along the lines of we didn't choose Him - He chose us. In fact, God in the OT reminds Israel repeatedly of that - that they didn't choose Him - He chose them, and not because they were so much better than the rest of us. He doesn't really get into His reasons for choosing Israel. He just says it wasn't because they were so much better than everyone else.
And then somewhere else in the Bible, it says that we love Him because He first loved us. His love comes first, not ours. Which makes perfect sense, since He is the First Cause of everything.
When we are forced to take a position due to the threat of dire consequences, how can we love freely? I don't believe that God wants to hold us hostage in a love me, or else way. That's not love. Love is something personal, that is given freely.
I've often wondered why children have so many nightmares. I don't have nearly the number of nightmares I had as a child. I can remember quite clearly the emotions I had when I realised, as a child, that one day my parents were going to die. One day everyone was going to die. Including me. And it seems to me that my nightmares sprung out of that fear. I used to try and plan what I would do if my parents died. I wanted to be with them. Then I was told that suicide would also take you to Hell. So you were stuck in this life because if you killed yourself thinking that you would be reunited in Heaven with your loved ones, well, God had a trick up His sleeve, because suicides, I was taught, went to Hell. Catch-22.
It is kind of hard to love a God like that for Himself, and not for fear of His threats so it is only natural that when we think of Heaven, and how much we want to be there, He isn't foremost in our minds. Our loved ones are.
I am trying to think just how and when it began that I loved God for Himself and I am not really sure. Somehow it began first with a verse, I think it is in Genesis, where it says, "Will not the Lord God do that which is right?"
And then I thought that yes, yes He would. He would do that which is right. He is the First Cause of justice as well. It is He from whom we get our ideas about justice. We (people) are very stupid in a lot of ways, but we all have a sense of justice, the moral law within, as the philosopher Immanuel Kant put it. Even the sociopath knows what is right and what is wrong - he just doesn't care.
I don't believe that God has any tricks up His sleeve. I don't know why He made us. I think He made us in part for companionship. Maybe angels are not free to choose to love him. Or maybe, because angels must know more than we and less than God, the very fact that they have more knowledge of Him makes the love that angels feel for God, less than faith - the faith that sees through a glass darkly, but not face to face. Maybe God wanted to create a thinking creature and see whether such a creature, who did not see God on His throne daily, could still see the goodness of God shining through the darkness in this world, and still, without ever having seen Him, believe that He must exist.
And somewhere along the line I realised that although I wasn't perfect, and in fact, my every imperfect way caused me such shame, that I don't have to be perfect. Jesus knows I am trying. That my prayer is more along the lines of I believe. Help Thou mine unbelief.
And somewhere along the line, I came to the point where seeing my loved ones alone, would not be enough. I want to see God face to face. I feel as though I have a world of tears bottled up that won't get out until I see Him and He explains to me the reasons for everything. I think that when we finally get to that place, that is how everyone will feel and that is what is behind that verse in the Bible, when it says that God will wipe away all tears from our eyes. First there has to be the crying before the tears can be wiped away.
And I believe that He is going to give us a reason and it is going to make perfect sense and the reason has to be a really good reason, a reason so good that all the pain of all people in the world at all times, is somehow justified by this reason. What that can be I really don't know. But I believe that it exists. And I can say, that even without my loved ones, I want to be there and I want to see Him, first of all.
I hope this post makes some sense. I feel as if I have rambled all over the place without quite connecting my thoughts the way that I want to.
Layla
Head coverings
"Caligirl" - for a second my eyes deceived me and it looked perilously close to "callgirl."
You brought up a number of interesting subjects. I think I will tackle the head covering thing first. I don't quite see the point in what Dr. McGee has to say about the Nazirites in relation to men having short hair and women having long hair. I think the whole point was to be different - visibly different, to go outside the norm, so that in a sense, everyone knew you had made a vow to God. But if that was the meaning of it, to purposefully humiliate yourself for God, why is Paul against it?
It isn't any different from what the Hutterites and Amish practise in terms of dress. They also dress in a way that makes them visibly different as an expression of their faith. Are you saying that because the idea of shorn hair on a woman was tied to prostitution what Paul has to say about it isn't valid for today's Christians?
I haven't been to church for many years and I don't really feel any sort of calling to return. I have never been baptised and the head covering that was common among women in my denomination of the Mennonite church forty and more years ago was exclusively for baptised women.
But even then, aside from the very (to my childish eyes) ancient crones occupying the first two or three rows at the front of the church, who always, as I remember it, wore black shawls over their hair, not unlike that of Muslim women, the younger women, the ones who were not widows, seemed to prefer fashionable hats that would not have been out of place on any non-Mennonite woman at that time. Hats were in fashion back then and not something that only Mennonite women wore in church.
I think that one has to understand the original religious reasons for head covering in order to understand what Paul meant exactly. Orthodox Jewish women also cover their heads - and in some cases of the ultra Orthodox, some also shave their heads, then cover themselves with a wig. If Jewish women were covering their heads or shaving their heads before they came into contact with Greek culture, the association between Greek temple prostitutes and shorn hair that Dr. McGee makes would be too recent to account for it.
Head covering among Jews, as with other cultures of the time, predate the Greek empire. I am not sure however, whether shaven heads among Jewish women predates Greek culture. Although I think it is odd that if the Jews associated a shaved head on a woman with pagan temple prostitution, that shaven heads, albeit covered with wigs, would ever have become part of orthodox Judaism. So I think that either Dr. McGee is wrong in his explanation, or Paul, being a Hellenized Jew, was part of a Jewish culture that associated shaved heads on women with temple prostitutes. In which case, Paul's ideas about that would have been cultural/regional rather than religious.
As far as kneeling to pray in church, I have no idea if it is still done this way, but when I was a girl in church, at least two prayers that were part of the service were done with the whole congregation kneeling. I can certainly see the purpose of it, in that it seems or feels to me that one is consciously humbling one's self before God. I am not usually a kneeler though, mostly because there is always someone around. But I do kneel sometimes, when I want to earnestly connect with God, and I have a moment of privacy. And when I do, I do feel that I am very deliberately humbling myself before Him and kneeling is the physical manifestation of it.
There are so many more thoughts to address, that I will have to give it some more thought before I respond to the rest of them.
Layla
You brought up a number of interesting subjects. I think I will tackle the head covering thing first. I don't quite see the point in what Dr. McGee has to say about the Nazirites in relation to men having short hair and women having long hair. I think the whole point was to be different - visibly different, to go outside the norm, so that in a sense, everyone knew you had made a vow to God. But if that was the meaning of it, to purposefully humiliate yourself for God, why is Paul against it?
It isn't any different from what the Hutterites and Amish practise in terms of dress. They also dress in a way that makes them visibly different as an expression of their faith. Are you saying that because the idea of shorn hair on a woman was tied to prostitution what Paul has to say about it isn't valid for today's Christians?
I haven't been to church for many years and I don't really feel any sort of calling to return. I have never been baptised and the head covering that was common among women in my denomination of the Mennonite church forty and more years ago was exclusively for baptised women.
But even then, aside from the very (to my childish eyes) ancient crones occupying the first two or three rows at the front of the church, who always, as I remember it, wore black shawls over their hair, not unlike that of Muslim women, the younger women, the ones who were not widows, seemed to prefer fashionable hats that would not have been out of place on any non-Mennonite woman at that time. Hats were in fashion back then and not something that only Mennonite women wore in church.
I think that one has to understand the original religious reasons for head covering in order to understand what Paul meant exactly. Orthodox Jewish women also cover their heads - and in some cases of the ultra Orthodox, some also shave their heads, then cover themselves with a wig. If Jewish women were covering their heads or shaving their heads before they came into contact with Greek culture, the association between Greek temple prostitutes and shorn hair that Dr. McGee makes would be too recent to account for it.
Head covering among Jews, as with other cultures of the time, predate the Greek empire. I am not sure however, whether shaven heads among Jewish women predates Greek culture. Although I think it is odd that if the Jews associated a shaved head on a woman with pagan temple prostitution, that shaven heads, albeit covered with wigs, would ever have become part of orthodox Judaism. So I think that either Dr. McGee is wrong in his explanation, or Paul, being a Hellenized Jew, was part of a Jewish culture that associated shaved heads on women with temple prostitutes. In which case, Paul's ideas about that would have been cultural/regional rather than religious.
As far as kneeling to pray in church, I have no idea if it is still done this way, but when I was a girl in church, at least two prayers that were part of the service were done with the whole congregation kneeling. I can certainly see the purpose of it, in that it seems or feels to me that one is consciously humbling one's self before God. I am not usually a kneeler though, mostly because there is always someone around. But I do kneel sometimes, when I want to earnestly connect with God, and I have a moment of privacy. And when I do, I do feel that I am very deliberately humbling myself before Him and kneeling is the physical manifestation of it.
There are so many more thoughts to address, that I will have to give it some more thought before I respond to the rest of them.
Layla
Monday, October 29, 2007
Seasons? To a CaliGirl?
Okay yeah sureeeeeeeee... we have fire season and rain season and swimming season... there are others? :) And the lettuce gets downright pathetic midsummer... likewise the strawberries won't be in any shape until February at least! ;) This is why our very general locations are on the profiles... sometimes they are relevant. So yes, I was thinking of seasons primarily as "harvesting different things". Obviously with the Lord as the sun forever located in Jerusalem, our seasons and everything will change RADICALLY, in ways I can't imagine. We'll go with "seasons = regularly occuring change in routine", if you will?
You have a point about bloodsucking creatures. Anything that lives off of death (ie tigers) will have to be changed so why not them? But... therein lies the question. Will specific dogs and tigers etc be in Heaven, or just "tigers" generally? DO they have an immortal soul? This would mean that not only tigers but all of the extinct animals would be there... mammoths, dinosaurs, what have you. I tend to think that God will populate the new earth with what suits Him rather than crowding it with everything that has ever lived. I am anxious to hear your thoughts on that, honestly I've never given it much consideration.
Coverings, male/female: Dr. McGee explained the Nazirites thusly, that they were willing to humiliate/make themselves visibly different for God, and that's what the whole deal with long hair on men was. Likewise, the shorn hair of the temple prostitutes in Greece was what prompted Paul to instruct women to grow long hair and/or cover their hair. I don't have any definitive answers, although I've heard good discussion both pro and con on the covering issue. Have YOU ever tried it? What did you think for yourself? I liked it, but I would have liked being somewhere other women were covering more. In a way it made me feel specially protected, and in a way it made me feel really self-conscious. I stopped because of the latter... I didn't want to be thinking about my own "holiness" while in the act of worship. Also when I gave it up I was gaming and my avatar ingame was far from modest and the two didn't go together for me at all... I don't do hypocrisy, at least when I can locate it! (Likewise I'd really like to say that I wear skirts for religious reasons, but I really just don't like pants).
I'm willing to do a "cover all day" and see if I feel any differently this time 'round... do you want to try that with me? Not tomorrow/Tuesday but sometime this week? Say Thursday or Friday?
That brings up self-consciousness in worship and all kinds of random things... it's really silly/pathetic, but I don't want to kneel down in my church to worship (even though I'm sure no one would mind) and at the same time I vastly prefer to kneel when worshipping on my own. Sometimes I'd like to kneel, but don't want to make a spectacle of myself. UGH. Sooo not a good thing... but then if I do kneel, am I going to be thinking about people looking at me or about God? Bah. Good Baptist girls sit completely motionless (or stand, depending) during worship services, so the change to the nondenom church where people raise their arms and sway is a big one for me! Thoughts? I am much more free in my "prayer closet" (ie my bedroom).
The prior was little stuff... this one is a big one. How do you approach wanting Christ for Himself alone? So many of my devotionals and religious texts emphasize that that is why we were created, to love Him. And I feel like I want Heaven for the sake of friends and loved ones, for rest and quiet, for a release from the body ruled by the old nature... for any number of things, but wanting Him? That's really hard for me. It's hard to know how to approach Him, as a person? rather than deity and not be disrespectful. I don't even know how to begin to want Him for Himself alone. I am trying to learn, as you know this has been a hard season in my life and I have been spending a lot of time listening to His Word and praying for guidance etc etc... where does that leave off, "Daddy help me ... fix it... heal meeee..." and go to "I love you Daddy!" for yourself alone - or to think of Jesus as Bridegroom... This is a big mystery to me. I could quote you about it, but I'm interested in how YOU approach this if you do. I want to please Him, and very honestly, I WANT to love Him properly. Obviously as a human I can't love Him as He deserves or even begin to, but... I want to. Does that make sense?
A fine mess I leave you with... enjoy!
You have a point about bloodsucking creatures. Anything that lives off of death (ie tigers) will have to be changed so why not them? But... therein lies the question. Will specific dogs and tigers etc be in Heaven, or just "tigers" generally? DO they have an immortal soul? This would mean that not only tigers but all of the extinct animals would be there... mammoths, dinosaurs, what have you. I tend to think that God will populate the new earth with what suits Him rather than crowding it with everything that has ever lived. I am anxious to hear your thoughts on that, honestly I've never given it much consideration.
Coverings, male/female: Dr. McGee explained the Nazirites thusly, that they were willing to humiliate/make themselves visibly different for God, and that's what the whole deal with long hair on men was. Likewise, the shorn hair of the temple prostitutes in Greece was what prompted Paul to instruct women to grow long hair and/or cover their hair. I don't have any definitive answers, although I've heard good discussion both pro and con on the covering issue. Have YOU ever tried it? What did you think for yourself? I liked it, but I would have liked being somewhere other women were covering more. In a way it made me feel specially protected, and in a way it made me feel really self-conscious. I stopped because of the latter... I didn't want to be thinking about my own "holiness" while in the act of worship. Also when I gave it up I was gaming and my avatar ingame was far from modest and the two didn't go together for me at all... I don't do hypocrisy, at least when I can locate it! (Likewise I'd really like to say that I wear skirts for religious reasons, but I really just don't like pants).
I'm willing to do a "cover all day" and see if I feel any differently this time 'round... do you want to try that with me? Not tomorrow/Tuesday but sometime this week? Say Thursday or Friday?
That brings up self-consciousness in worship and all kinds of random things... it's really silly/pathetic, but I don't want to kneel down in my church to worship (even though I'm sure no one would mind) and at the same time I vastly prefer to kneel when worshipping on my own. Sometimes I'd like to kneel, but don't want to make a spectacle of myself. UGH. Sooo not a good thing... but then if I do kneel, am I going to be thinking about people looking at me or about God? Bah. Good Baptist girls sit completely motionless (or stand, depending) during worship services, so the change to the nondenom church where people raise their arms and sway is a big one for me! Thoughts? I am much more free in my "prayer closet" (ie my bedroom).
The prior was little stuff... this one is a big one. How do you approach wanting Christ for Himself alone? So many of my devotionals and religious texts emphasize that that is why we were created, to love Him. And I feel like I want Heaven for the sake of friends and loved ones, for rest and quiet, for a release from the body ruled by the old nature... for any number of things, but wanting Him? That's really hard for me. It's hard to know how to approach Him, as a person? rather than deity and not be disrespectful. I don't even know how to begin to want Him for Himself alone. I am trying to learn, as you know this has been a hard season in my life and I have been spending a lot of time listening to His Word and praying for guidance etc etc... where does that leave off, "Daddy help me ... fix it... heal meeee..." and go to "I love you Daddy!" for yourself alone - or to think of Jesus as Bridegroom... This is a big mystery to me. I could quote you about it, but I'm interested in how YOU approach this if you do. I want to please Him, and very honestly, I WANT to love Him properly. Obviously as a human I can't love Him as He deserves or even begin to, but... I want to. Does that make sense?
A fine mess I leave you with... enjoy!
Mosquitoes in Heaven
Good morning, Hearth.
Well, now, about seasons - I certainly did understand you to mean seasons as in leaves blowing around, and fall and winter but, duh! I forgot I was talking to a California person. Obviously when you think about seasons it isn't going to be remotely what I think when I hear seasons - I think of a bitterly cold fall wind, snaking around your body, looking for gaps in jackets, mitts and boots. Being snowed in for months at a time. Life in the igloo ;-^
Just to clarify - to you seasons on earth simply means that we aren't harvesting the same thing all the time? Gathering various kinds of fruit means seasons to you? As in radish season, pea season and strawberry season and corn season? Singing season, visiting season and praising season?
You say that you have a notion that there will be weather seasons of some vague sort but you don't say whether you think these seasons are in Heaven or on earth, or if Heaven and Earth in the new, redeemed world are one and the same thing. Revelations 21 says that there will be no more sea and in reference to sunlight, it states that (v23, NIRV) The city does not need the sun or moon to shine on it. God's glory is its light and the Lamb is its lamp. (v24) The nations will walk by the light of the city. The kings of the earth will bring their glory into it. Its gates will never be shut because there will be no night there....
It seems to me that John is writing about an earthly place due to the fact that he writes about the kings of the earth, but when he says that God's glory is its light, does he mean that God's glory is its only light and that there is no sun and no moon? He does say that there is no night there. Or is the city of God somehow separate from the rest of the earth in the sense that the rest of the redeemed earth has both a sun and a moon?
Okay, now on to flies and mosquitoes. I am sure this is just a little thing and I said it in a joking way but the fact is, that it used to bother me endlessly as a child, that I could not reconcile mosquitoes with God. And flies of course. Other things too, but mainly mosquitoes and flies. If I believe that animals have immortal souls, then how can I draw the line at mosquitoes and flies? The way I understand you, you believe that blood-sucking things are evil but I don't think that God makes anything evil.
We are told that both man's nature and the nature of animals will undergo a radical change, in that animals, including meat-eaters will eat grass instead of each other. So a similar change is possible for mosquitoes and vampire bats. However, possible though that may be, that mosquitoes undergo a change so that they don't suck blood and bother people, I just can't imagine what God would do with all these mosquitoes and flies, reformed or not. Sometimes it is the little things that are the stumbling block.
I don't read too much into the fact that Lucifer is called the Lord of the Flies because Gentiles are also called dogs, an animal for which ancient Israel seemed to have as much distaste as I do for mosquitoes. I think Lord of the Flies is a figure of speech, since flies are associated with death. And dogs, in the Bible, are associated with uncleanliness, as in they eat anything and then lick their butts. So that's what us Gentiles are compared to. Pretty picture, no?
Head-coverings. Ummmm. Well, what I was hoping for when it comes to Heaven was long beautiful, pitch black hair that never has a Bad Hair Day. But as to head coverings for women now, I am not sure what I think.
In the Mennonite church I grew up in - way back when - women covered their heads with shawls or hats on Sunday when they went to church. Some denominations of women covered their heads with a small version of the skull cap at all times. Usually it was placed over a bun. The denomination I grew up in didn't do that - head coverings in the form of a hat (modern hats) were strictly for Sunday church and worn only by baptised women. Nowadays most church-going Mennonites don't wear anything on their heads in church.
Frankly, I think the apostle Paul was more confusing than anything when he said that (Cor 11:6) What if a woman does not cover her head? She should have her hair cut off. But it is shameful for her to cut her hair or shave it off. So she should cover her head.
In the same chapter, (v 13-14) he says, ...Is it proper for a woman to pray to God without covering her head? Suppose a man has long hair. Doesn't the very nature of things teach you that it is shameful?
Paul has never made an ounce of sense to me with this argument. He seems to say that nature itself teaches us, as is the phrasing in the KJV, that it is a shame for a man to have long hair, and yet when you observe nature, it is the male lion that has the mane, not the lioness. It is the male peacock that has the beautiful feathers, not the peahen. It is often the males in nature that have the more brightly coloured plumage, not the female. So what is Paul going on about?
Nature, as far as I can see, does not teach us one single thing about what is the proper length of hair for a man or for a woman.
Furthermore, in the Old Testament, the Nazirite men deliberately did not cut their hair because they were consecrated to the Lord.
Numbers 6: The Lord said to Moses, Speak to the people of Israel. Say to them, Suppose a man or woman wants to make a special promise. They want to set themselves apart to the Lord for a certain period of time. They want to be Nazirites.
3. Then they must not drink any kind of wine. They must not drink vinegar that is made out of wine of any kind. They must not drink grape juice. They must not eat grapes or raisins.
4. As long as they are Nazirites, they must not eat anything the grapevine produces. They must not even eat the seeds or skins of grapes.
5. They must not use razors on their heads. They must not cut their hair during the whole time they have set themselves apart to the Lord. They must be holy until that time is over. They must let the hair on their heads grow long. And they must not go near a dead body that whole time.
Samson (Judges 13) was a Nazirite promised to God by his mother before his birth. He had long hair, until of course, Delilah made him cut it.
So I don't understand at all why the ideal of the Nazirite is contradicted (apparently) by the apostle Paul. Or why he would go even further and say 'nature' teaches us these things, when I know of nothing in nature that teaches us that men should have short hair and women, long.
Layla
Well, now, about seasons - I certainly did understand you to mean seasons as in leaves blowing around, and fall and winter but, duh! I forgot I was talking to a California person. Obviously when you think about seasons it isn't going to be remotely what I think when I hear seasons - I think of a bitterly cold fall wind, snaking around your body, looking for gaps in jackets, mitts and boots. Being snowed in for months at a time. Life in the igloo ;-^
Just to clarify - to you seasons on earth simply means that we aren't harvesting the same thing all the time? Gathering various kinds of fruit means seasons to you? As in radish season, pea season and strawberry season and corn season? Singing season, visiting season and praising season?
You say that you have a notion that there will be weather seasons of some vague sort but you don't say whether you think these seasons are in Heaven or on earth, or if Heaven and Earth in the new, redeemed world are one and the same thing. Revelations 21 says that there will be no more sea and in reference to sunlight, it states that (v23, NIRV) The city does not need the sun or moon to shine on it. God's glory is its light and the Lamb is its lamp. (v24) The nations will walk by the light of the city. The kings of the earth will bring their glory into it. Its gates will never be shut because there will be no night there....
It seems to me that John is writing about an earthly place due to the fact that he writes about the kings of the earth, but when he says that God's glory is its light, does he mean that God's glory is its only light and that there is no sun and no moon? He does say that there is no night there. Or is the city of God somehow separate from the rest of the earth in the sense that the rest of the redeemed earth has both a sun and a moon?
Okay, now on to flies and mosquitoes. I am sure this is just a little thing and I said it in a joking way but the fact is, that it used to bother me endlessly as a child, that I could not reconcile mosquitoes with God. And flies of course. Other things too, but mainly mosquitoes and flies. If I believe that animals have immortal souls, then how can I draw the line at mosquitoes and flies? The way I understand you, you believe that blood-sucking things are evil but I don't think that God makes anything evil.
We are told that both man's nature and the nature of animals will undergo a radical change, in that animals, including meat-eaters will eat grass instead of each other. So a similar change is possible for mosquitoes and vampire bats. However, possible though that may be, that mosquitoes undergo a change so that they don't suck blood and bother people, I just can't imagine what God would do with all these mosquitoes and flies, reformed or not. Sometimes it is the little things that are the stumbling block.
I don't read too much into the fact that Lucifer is called the Lord of the Flies because Gentiles are also called dogs, an animal for which ancient Israel seemed to have as much distaste as I do for mosquitoes. I think Lord of the Flies is a figure of speech, since flies are associated with death. And dogs, in the Bible, are associated with uncleanliness, as in they eat anything and then lick their butts. So that's what us Gentiles are compared to. Pretty picture, no?
Head-coverings. Ummmm. Well, what I was hoping for when it comes to Heaven was long beautiful, pitch black hair that never has a Bad Hair Day. But as to head coverings for women now, I am not sure what I think.
In the Mennonite church I grew up in - way back when - women covered their heads with shawls or hats on Sunday when they went to church. Some denominations of women covered their heads with a small version of the skull cap at all times. Usually it was placed over a bun. The denomination I grew up in didn't do that - head coverings in the form of a hat (modern hats) were strictly for Sunday church and worn only by baptised women. Nowadays most church-going Mennonites don't wear anything on their heads in church.
Frankly, I think the apostle Paul was more confusing than anything when he said that (Cor 11:6) What if a woman does not cover her head? She should have her hair cut off. But it is shameful for her to cut her hair or shave it off. So she should cover her head.
In the same chapter, (v 13-14) he says, ...Is it proper for a woman to pray to God without covering her head? Suppose a man has long hair. Doesn't the very nature of things teach you that it is shameful?
Paul has never made an ounce of sense to me with this argument. He seems to say that nature itself teaches us, as is the phrasing in the KJV, that it is a shame for a man to have long hair, and yet when you observe nature, it is the male lion that has the mane, not the lioness. It is the male peacock that has the beautiful feathers, not the peahen. It is often the males in nature that have the more brightly coloured plumage, not the female. So what is Paul going on about?
Nature, as far as I can see, does not teach us one single thing about what is the proper length of hair for a man or for a woman.
Furthermore, in the Old Testament, the Nazirite men deliberately did not cut their hair because they were consecrated to the Lord.
Numbers 6: The Lord said to Moses, Speak to the people of Israel. Say to them, Suppose a man or woman wants to make a special promise. They want to set themselves apart to the Lord for a certain period of time. They want to be Nazirites.
3. Then they must not drink any kind of wine. They must not drink vinegar that is made out of wine of any kind. They must not drink grape juice. They must not eat grapes or raisins.
4. As long as they are Nazirites, they must not eat anything the grapevine produces. They must not even eat the seeds or skins of grapes.
5. They must not use razors on their heads. They must not cut their hair during the whole time they have set themselves apart to the Lord. They must be holy until that time is over. They must let the hair on their heads grow long. And they must not go near a dead body that whole time.
Samson (Judges 13) was a Nazirite promised to God by his mother before his birth. He had long hair, until of course, Delilah made him cut it.
So I don't understand at all why the ideal of the Nazirite is contradicted (apparently) by the apostle Paul. Or why he would go even further and say 'nature' teaches us these things, when I know of nothing in nature that teaches us that men should have short hair and women, long.
Layla
Heaven and Animals and Flies? Oh My.
Hi Layla! This is going to be so fun. :)
Seasons in Heaven/the New Earth. Well, once again my lack of specificity has gotten me. When I said "seasons" I meant two rather disparate things - one, I suppose there will be some vague sort of seasons on the new earth, although since the light of the sun will be eclipsed by the light of our Lord, I don't know how that will work. The other was my feeling that there will be seasons in Heaven. Not seasons of falling leaves or snow, but seasons of activities.
Our God is a God of order. But He is not a God who makes things stale! This is the God who arranged for the Jewish people to come to the Temple on certain holidays to celebrate as a whole people. I don't see those holidays stopping on the New Earth, so there will certainly be some sort of seasonal travel/change as people come to worship and adore Him. While I know it will be different for those of us who are resident in Heaven, I think it will be similar. As I said in the emails... I expect some sort of shifts between times of pure worship (our "season" singing His praises) and seasons of whatever our "work" will be... and probably seasons of other things as well. Add to that the 1000 year wedding banquet (what a party!) and the war at the end of that, as well as the various judgements and things alluded to in the Scriptures (we will judge angels?!!?) and I don't see us being in just one place - nor do I see us scattering willy nilly. So... seasons. :) But I don't expect to be gathering colored leaves, no. (Though I'd enjoy a long tour of the new Earth as one of my seasons... that's always been one of my daydreams of Heaven. A time of walking the new earth, every inch of it, looking out and enjoying the beauty our Lord has created. There is never time and *this* body hasn't the strength to walk it all. Actually there's a good bit of travel I'd like to do - and a whole universe to explore).
Flies and mosquitos etc. Okay, first... I don't think insects have souls. No. No way. Maybe a "soul of the flies" generally, but .. no. And secondly, Beezelbub is called Lord of the Flies, so they definitely belong to Hell, not Heaven or the New Earth. (I expect butterflies and bees, however, clouds of both of them). I've always thought that the pest insects were part of the curse of Adam, really. Not those that serve a good purpose - ants doing their thing, worms theirs... but things that exist to drink the blood of animals or men? Definitely evil. We will have to see what form entropy exists in on the New Earth, it is going to have to be something completely revamped when death is defeated.
Animals and the new earth... Have you ever read Perelandra, by CS Lewis? The uncorrupted "Lord and Lady" of Venus (Perelandra) had animals everywhere, and had a sort of pet/child relationship with them. That resonates with me. That we'll be able to communicate with them, as our "little brothers" and as creatures in their own right, whose beauties and capabilities exist to show the myriad faces of our God. I am less interested in "will my old cats be in Heaven" than "when I take my tour of earth, will there be a sea to swim alongside the dolphins in?" (It's supposed to dry up, I'm hoping that's only the Mediterranean). I'd like to learn what it's like to be a dolphin or a tiger, to chill out with them and hang out. I agree that the old relationships will be made completely new. But... with no death, I tend to think we'll mostly be fruitiarians anyway. Animals and humans alike. No opinions on what our new bodies will eat or if they'll need to eat (as opposed to being capable of eating, which since our Lord Jesus ate in His resurrected body, obviously we will be).
Regardless, it can't come soon enough to please me. Later today, can the trumpets call us Home?
Next question... you knowI tried to talk about this a bit on the old debate board, but it went south fast. What do you think of covering - ie women covering their hair? I tried it for a while. Now, I don't feel any conviction on it, but it does feel *good* when I do it (err, other than the darn covers slipping off). Thoughts?
Seasons in Heaven/the New Earth. Well, once again my lack of specificity has gotten me. When I said "seasons" I meant two rather disparate things - one, I suppose there will be some vague sort of seasons on the new earth, although since the light of the sun will be eclipsed by the light of our Lord, I don't know how that will work. The other was my feeling that there will be seasons in Heaven. Not seasons of falling leaves or snow, but seasons of activities.
Our God is a God of order. But He is not a God who makes things stale! This is the God who arranged for the Jewish people to come to the Temple on certain holidays to celebrate as a whole people. I don't see those holidays stopping on the New Earth, so there will certainly be some sort of seasonal travel/change as people come to worship and adore Him. While I know it will be different for those of us who are resident in Heaven, I think it will be similar. As I said in the emails... I expect some sort of shifts between times of pure worship (our "season" singing His praises) and seasons of whatever our "work" will be... and probably seasons of other things as well. Add to that the 1000 year wedding banquet (what a party!) and the war at the end of that, as well as the various judgements and things alluded to in the Scriptures (we will judge angels?!!?) and I don't see us being in just one place - nor do I see us scattering willy nilly. So... seasons. :) But I don't expect to be gathering colored leaves, no. (Though I'd enjoy a long tour of the new Earth as one of my seasons... that's always been one of my daydreams of Heaven. A time of walking the new earth, every inch of it, looking out and enjoying the beauty our Lord has created. There is never time and *this* body hasn't the strength to walk it all. Actually there's a good bit of travel I'd like to do - and a whole universe to explore).
Flies and mosquitos etc. Okay, first... I don't think insects have souls. No. No way. Maybe a "soul of the flies" generally, but .. no. And secondly, Beezelbub is called Lord of the Flies, so they definitely belong to Hell, not Heaven or the New Earth. (I expect butterflies and bees, however, clouds of both of them). I've always thought that the pest insects were part of the curse of Adam, really. Not those that serve a good purpose - ants doing their thing, worms theirs... but things that exist to drink the blood of animals or men? Definitely evil. We will have to see what form entropy exists in on the New Earth, it is going to have to be something completely revamped when death is defeated.
Animals and the new earth... Have you ever read Perelandra, by CS Lewis? The uncorrupted "Lord and Lady" of Venus (Perelandra) had animals everywhere, and had a sort of pet/child relationship with them. That resonates with me. That we'll be able to communicate with them, as our "little brothers" and as creatures in their own right, whose beauties and capabilities exist to show the myriad faces of our God. I am less interested in "will my old cats be in Heaven" than "when I take my tour of earth, will there be a sea to swim alongside the dolphins in?" (It's supposed to dry up, I'm hoping that's only the Mediterranean). I'd like to learn what it's like to be a dolphin or a tiger, to chill out with them and hang out. I agree that the old relationships will be made completely new. But... with no death, I tend to think we'll mostly be fruitiarians anyway. Animals and humans alike. No opinions on what our new bodies will eat or if they'll need to eat (as opposed to being capable of eating, which since our Lord Jesus ate in His resurrected body, obviously we will be).
Regardless, it can't come soon enough to please me. Later today, can the trumpets call us Home?
Next question... you knowI tried to talk about this a bit on the old debate board, but it went south fast. What do you think of covering - ie women covering their hair? I tried it for a while. Now, I don't feel any conviction on it, but it does feel *good* when I do it (err, other than the darn covers slipping off). Thoughts?
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Seasons in the Son
Dear Hearth,
I thought that I would simply continue an aspect of the conversation on Heaven we have been having on email before I got this crazy idea that it might be interesting for others to read our discussions, coming as we do from different, yet similar theologies.
We were discussing Heaven, and whether animals have souls and whether they would all be there or just some specially loved pets, and whether pigs have wings, to quote Lewis Carroll. I suppose one of the reasons we wonder about that is because we just can't envision mosquitoes in Heaven, even if they don't suck blood. I can't envision all those mosquitoes, all the mosquitoes that have ever lived, in Heaven. Or flies. If it isn't too blasphemous of me to say so, I have wondered if maybe they just go to Hell. Maybe Hell is a mosquito or a fly's idea of Heaven anyway, so it wouldn't be like they were being tormented, but rather that they are part of the torment.
But I can't imagine that God would have gone to all the trouble of making animals, only to discard them, their life essence, their spirit. He could have made the world without animals, if the only point of the world was man. Or, if the argument is that God knew, being God, that man would eventually fall from grace, and so He prepared animals in anticipation of the Fall so that we would have another form of companionship after He no longer walked in the Garden with us, or so that we would have clothing and food, He could also have made animals after the Fall - I mean, if that was their only purpose.
He made the rainbow appear in the sky after Noah's Flood, and we are meant to see it as a sign to this day. It seems to me that if animals have no real purpose beyond this world, then He would have made them afterwards, and they too would serve as a sort of sign, a sign of our Fall.
God has also used animals to reprove us, as when Balaam's ass remonstrated with Balaam as to why, after years of service, he was being beaten. I wonder if the point of the story - or one of the points - was to make us see what animals would say, if they did speak, and to impress on us that animals do feel, that they are not simply soulless creatures for us to abuse as we will. Balaam's ass speaks the way any person would, if they felt they were unjustly abused.
God also says, somewhere in the Bible, "a righteous man regards the life of his beast" and tells us not to "muzzle the ox that treads out the corn."
Now with regards to one thing you said in your last email, about Heaven having seasons - you quoted Revelations 22: Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life. It was as clear as crystal. It flowed from the throne of God and of the Lamb. It flowed down the middle of the city's main street. (v2) On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit. It's fruit was ripe every month. The leaves of the tree bring healing to the nations (NIRV) for your thoughts that Heaven has seasons.
It seems to me that this chapter in Revelations is talking about the new earth, since in the chapter preceding chapter 22, John writes, I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem. It was coming down out of heaven from God.
I understand Heaven to be up and we are shown the Holy City coming down. Do you think that the new Heavens and the New Earth are one and the same thing?
Ezekiel 47 references the same vision, and I always understood it to mean the earth, not Heaven, although Ezekiel's vision, makes no specific mention of a particularly new Heaven and a new Earth. But he does write in verse 12, Fruit trees of all kinds will grow on both banks of the river. Their leaves will not dry up. The trees will always have fruit on them. Every month they will bear fruit. The water from the temple will flow to them. Their fruit will be good for food. And their leaves will be used for healing.
I wonder if the word new in association with the redeemed earth is meant as a descriptor of a world that is so unlike the world we live in that it might as well be new. We are also back to the subject of animals and their place in creation and redemption since we have lions lying down with lambs and children playing on the holes of vipers, and the Lamb of God living among us, and we are told, there will be no more night, and we will not need the light of the sun.
All of that sounds so mysterious to me, that mixture of animals and relations that we do understand, with the idea of no more sun. Is this new earth even a planet anymore?
What do you think?
love, Layla
I thought that I would simply continue an aspect of the conversation on Heaven we have been having on email before I got this crazy idea that it might be interesting for others to read our discussions, coming as we do from different, yet similar theologies.
We were discussing Heaven, and whether animals have souls and whether they would all be there or just some specially loved pets, and whether pigs have wings, to quote Lewis Carroll. I suppose one of the reasons we wonder about that is because we just can't envision mosquitoes in Heaven, even if they don't suck blood. I can't envision all those mosquitoes, all the mosquitoes that have ever lived, in Heaven. Or flies. If it isn't too blasphemous of me to say so, I have wondered if maybe they just go to Hell. Maybe Hell is a mosquito or a fly's idea of Heaven anyway, so it wouldn't be like they were being tormented, but rather that they are part of the torment.
But I can't imagine that God would have gone to all the trouble of making animals, only to discard them, their life essence, their spirit. He could have made the world without animals, if the only point of the world was man. Or, if the argument is that God knew, being God, that man would eventually fall from grace, and so He prepared animals in anticipation of the Fall so that we would have another form of companionship after He no longer walked in the Garden with us, or so that we would have clothing and food, He could also have made animals after the Fall - I mean, if that was their only purpose.
He made the rainbow appear in the sky after Noah's Flood, and we are meant to see it as a sign to this day. It seems to me that if animals have no real purpose beyond this world, then He would have made them afterwards, and they too would serve as a sort of sign, a sign of our Fall.
God has also used animals to reprove us, as when Balaam's ass remonstrated with Balaam as to why, after years of service, he was being beaten. I wonder if the point of the story - or one of the points - was to make us see what animals would say, if they did speak, and to impress on us that animals do feel, that they are not simply soulless creatures for us to abuse as we will. Balaam's ass speaks the way any person would, if they felt they were unjustly abused.
God also says, somewhere in the Bible, "a righteous man regards the life of his beast" and tells us not to "muzzle the ox that treads out the corn."
Now with regards to one thing you said in your last email, about Heaven having seasons - you quoted Revelations 22: Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life. It was as clear as crystal. It flowed from the throne of God and of the Lamb. It flowed down the middle of the city's main street. (v2) On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit. It's fruit was ripe every month. The leaves of the tree bring healing to the nations (NIRV) for your thoughts that Heaven has seasons.
It seems to me that this chapter in Revelations is talking about the new earth, since in the chapter preceding chapter 22, John writes, I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem. It was coming down out of heaven from God.
I understand Heaven to be up and we are shown the Holy City coming down. Do you think that the new Heavens and the New Earth are one and the same thing?
Ezekiel 47 references the same vision, and I always understood it to mean the earth, not Heaven, although Ezekiel's vision, makes no specific mention of a particularly new Heaven and a new Earth. But he does write in verse 12, Fruit trees of all kinds will grow on both banks of the river. Their leaves will not dry up. The trees will always have fruit on them. Every month they will bear fruit. The water from the temple will flow to them. Their fruit will be good for food. And their leaves will be used for healing.
I wonder if the word new in association with the redeemed earth is meant as a descriptor of a world that is so unlike the world we live in that it might as well be new. We are also back to the subject of animals and their place in creation and redemption since we have lions lying down with lambs and children playing on the holes of vipers, and the Lamb of God living among us, and we are told, there will be no more night, and we will not need the light of the sun.
All of that sounds so mysterious to me, that mixture of animals and relations that we do understand, with the idea of no more sun. Is this new earth even a planet anymore?
What do you think?
love, Layla
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)