Comments for internetmonk.com http://www.internetmonk.com ...conversations in the Great Hall Thu, 30 Jul 2015 15:24:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.3 Comment on Miguel Ruiz: New light on the oldest profession by Miguel http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/58200/comment-page-1#comment-979107 Thu, 30 Jul 2015 15:24:06 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/?p=58200#comment-979107 I actually agree there: Whatever it takes to give sex workers some legitimate help more than merits our serious consideration. I don’t know how much legalization really helps in the long run, but the point isn’t roasting certain types of sinners (while others get a break, right?).

There are two extremes: On one hand, you have some who would deny grace on any terms to certain kinds of sinners. On the other hand, you have people who would designate them as victims who are therefore exempt from moral critique. I think both are wrong. Not because victims really need their sin pointed out, but because justifying them in it is not ultimately very helpful.

]]>
Comment on Miguel Ruiz: New light on the oldest profession by That Other Jean http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/58200/comment-page-1#comment-979106 Thu, 30 Jul 2015 15:18:28 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/?p=58200#comment-979106 . . .and disappointed.

]]>
Comment on Miguel Ruiz: New light on the oldest profession by Miguel http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/58200/comment-page-1#comment-979105 Thu, 30 Jul 2015 15:15:43 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/?p=58200#comment-979105 Thank you. SCOTUS never even crossed my mind when writing it. Honestly. This is about theology and hermeneutics, not politics. I just don’t care that much about politics. There was a legalization angle touched on briefly, but only as an extension of the church reversing its judgement.

]]>
Comment on Miguel Ruiz: New light on the oldest profession by Rick Ro. http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/58200/comment-page-1#comment-979104 Thu, 30 Jul 2015 15:11:57 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/?p=58200#comment-979104 He does indeed seem to be that!

]]>
Comment on Miguel Ruiz: New light on the oldest profession by Rick Ro. http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/58200/comment-page-1#comment-979103 Thu, 30 Jul 2015 15:11:12 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/?p=58200#comment-979103 But the deeper issue – how far do you take and twist scripture to suit your belief – is worthy of its own discussion, which is getting lost in the satire.

]]>
Comment on Miguel Ruiz: New light on the oldest profession by Miguel http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/58200/comment-page-1#comment-979102 Thu, 30 Jul 2015 15:09:14 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/?p=58200#comment-979102 Chaplain Mike is indeed a very generous host.

]]>
Comment on Miguel Ruiz: New light on the oldest profession by Miguel http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/58200/comment-page-1#comment-979101 Thu, 30 Jul 2015 15:08:45 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/?p=58200#comment-979101 Thanks, David.
I’m having a hard time making sense of that Luther quote, though. It would seem he was opposed to celibacy/monastic vows of chastity? Figures, he married a nun. But FWIW, nothing he wrote is ever considered authoritative by us. Unless, of course, it was included in the final cut in 1580. So basically just the small and large catechism, and the Smalcald Articles. We reject even the 95 thesis (though that first one is a handy zinger at times).

It doesn’t take a genius to see that Luther was a deeply flawed man, like the rest of us. He is also considered one of the most influential historical figure of his millennium, but all in that category wrote and believed some outlandish things. In Lutheran circles, the primary purpose of reading Luther’s extended works is, in addition to mining humorous quotes, to shed light on the cultural context in which the confessions were written. Much of the BoC was crafted as a response to specific historical errs that had crept into the church, and apart from understanding those circumstances it can be a bit difficult to make sense out of.

]]>
Comment on Miguel Ruiz: New light on the oldest profession by Rick Ro. http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/58200/comment-page-1#comment-979100 Thu, 30 Jul 2015 15:07:36 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/?p=58200#comment-979100 “Part of the hermeneutical problem I’m addressing here is the tendency to make the Bible speak in little verses and snippets to prescribe or proscribe specific details of our lives. The vast majority of potential sins are never directly addressed, but this does not necessarily imply endorsement either.”

That would be worthy of its own article, without the satire.

]]>
Comment on Miguel Ruiz: New light on the oldest profession by Rick Ro. http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/58200/comment-page-1#comment-979099 Thu, 30 Jul 2015 15:00:20 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/?p=58200#comment-979099 I was trying to figure out why this didn’t work for me as humor, and maybe you’ve hit upon why: using marginalized people as his foil. I found a lot of content in the article worthy of discussion.

But humor, and satire especially, are such tricky and subjective things. I remember going to This Is Spinal Tap on opening weekend and half the audience was laughing at the joke, the other half sat in agitated boredom.

]]>
Comment on Miguel Ruiz: New light on the oldest profession by Miguel http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/58200/comment-page-1#comment-979098 Thu, 30 Jul 2015 14:52:10 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/?p=58200#comment-979098 Truth, and wisdom. Thank you, Tokah.

Part of the hermeneutical problem I’m addressing here is the tendency to make the Bible speak in little verses and snippets to prescribe or proscribe specific details of our lives. The vast majority of potential sins are never directly addressed, but this does not necessarily imply endorsement either.

I agree with you fully that someone would need much more than a face-value take on Romans 1 to withstand a lifetime of temptation. Biblical ethics should not be built on proof-texts, and those who attempt to do so can fit whatever they want into their system. Ultimately, without leaning very heavily upon tradition, I honestly do not believe the Bible will be rightly understood very often. I believe it is technically possible, but generally our ulterior motives get the best of us all. The jettisoning of tradition is a rather unfortunate tool to accommodate this, which is why my snark here is equally critical of conservative literalism as it is the kind of progressivism that is post that.

]]>