sometimes it sucks to humanize people. because when you do, they’re so much harder to:
-
1. hate
2. mistreat
3. objectify
4. dismiss
5. treat as two-dimensional
6. all of the above, darn it!
first it was that darn brett kunkle from stand to reason. he was easy to dislike when i just thought he was two-dimmensional blog guy. he was rather completely impossible to dislike once he drove down to san diego and we had lunch and shared life stories and all that stuff i say i believe in.
now, last week it was amy and roger from the a-team blog. harumph. my life was much more nicely segregated into ‘keep at arms distance’ and ‘hug’ categories until i had dinner with them.
tony jones had initiated dinner with the stand to reason peeps and the a-team peeps, during the national pastors convention last week, and invited me to join in the *fun*. it seems the whole lot of ’em (doug pagitt was there also, and a couple professors — roger blogged about it here — retired to a zondervan suite to have a quiet conversation about substantive theological stuff. but i had to leave before that, and joined them all for the two hours in a noisy restaurant. i would have enjoyed listening in on the meatier stuff, i’m sure. but the truth is: it was great to sit between brett and roger, and across from amy, and not be able to hide in the really-smart-guys-club at the end of the table (tony, doug, greg k from str, and a prof from talbot named scott, i think). it forced roger and i to talk. and it forced amy and i to lean in (to overrule the background noise) and talk. and we didn’t talk about what we disagree on. we didn’t talk about postmodernism or modernism of apologetics or brian mclaren. we talked about our lives, and why we do what we do. we laughed. we didn’t cry, but — heck — we might have if it weren’t for the really bad piano bar entertainer in the next room (shoot, he almost made us cry!).
roger and amy have both emailed me since — very nice emails, both tracing back to our ugly days in august. i’m sure i could find 100 things i disagree with them on. and i’m sure they could find 200 things they disagree with me on. but meeting people face-to-face forces us into one of those “well, look at that, we can find 1000 things we agree on” situations.
so, i’m going to the airport to await the arrival of deb from lighthouse trails research. she’s just got to be my next ex-nemesis, doesn’t she?
The point is holiness and walking in a manner worthy. And that’s all. I didn’t bring up the topic of underwear…I tried to redirect it to some truth… I’m just passing through…read Karen or Cathy’s comment that the participants of this blog don’t like it when scripture is quoted…just seeing what would happen if I did.
p.s. in Bible times, they were called linen, garments, girdles, etc…
But enough about that now…time to travel on to something profitable…
Carla: “Now the passages I posted were answers to Sean’s interesting question: “what makes a thong unholy, but briefs or boxers (I presume)righteous…If there is a scriptural basis for thongs being unholy”…”
I love the scriptures. I love when they’re quoted. I will NEVER tire of hearing from the Bible. However, if you are going to use scripture to answer a question (you claimed you were answering the question, not “redirecting” it) then find scripture that backs your answer…
For those of you who refuse to understand what I was saying. I will be somewhat blunt and I will risk being told I am guilty of the very thing I was trying to point out. I do not talk about a woman’s bra or about “passing gas” or about someone’s underware getting bunched up or about thongs because, it is “coarse jesting” and it takes people’s minds to parts of our bodies that we do not need to be discussing in such a frivolous or joking manner. There is a modesty and purity that Jesus calls us to. It is a part of growing in His holiness. It is not the thongs that are unholy it is the immodest, coarse jesting about those things that is unholy. If you do not understand that-any of you-even you, Jen- than so be it. You really do not want to get it. With that, I think I’ll leave again. karen
PS Jen, You particularly seem upset. Why don’t you go back to Point A and read all that has been said, and you, who love scripture, might get another take on all of this. Karen
Karen,
Are you also Carla? You’re confusing me by answering things that I directed toward Carla. I never had an issue with the things you mentioned (would that be “Point A”?). I also (still) see your point on your comment at 4:12pm. I don’t think it’s right to casually joke about thongs either, especially when it’s coming from a guy. However, like I stated, “I didn’t care about this new thong topic until Carla posted the Leviticus scriptures as an “answer”.”
I seem upset? Well, I am disturbed. It is very frustrating when people use scripture to “answer” things when the answer isn’t even in the scripture. It’s what I strive to clarify in teens lives almost everyday. Adults are brainwashing them with “answers” straight from the bible and it’s completely out of context.
So, unless you’re also “Carla”. I’d say let her “defend” her own views and opinions.
ok — i let this comment-thread run for a while, because i’m hoping we can all listen to each other. but i think it’s passed any real usefullness.
thank you all (sincerely!) for your comments.
but let’s call this one a day, OK?
so why don’t you do as others do and filter your comments. You could keep nuts like me out and retain those who like to joke about thongs.