The wrong questions

Some people ask if there is any difference between nutrients in 'chemical' or 'organic' form, but that is really asking the wrong question. We should actually be asking how stable and soluble the nutrients are.—How to Grow Winter Vegetables, page 36

<idle musing>
Aren't we always asking the wrong questions, though?
</idle musing>

What of the dead

The concept of the deification of the dead as a universal religious phenomenon belongs to the evolutionist paradigm of 19th-century scholarship. Because the Hebrew Bible contains almost no evidence that family (or royal) ancestors were worshiped, it seems to provide a strong argument against the universality of this phenomenon.—Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant, page 433

<idle musing>
But that doesn't keep it from being repeated!
</idle musing>

Thought for today

Does he who fashioned the ear not hear? Does he who formed the eye not see? Does he who disciplines nations not punish? Does he who teaches mankind lack knowledge? The Lord knows all human plans; he knows that they are futile. (Psalm 94:9-11 NIV)

How high?

May it not also be the case that some have opposed the doctrine [of holiness] really because it raises a higher standard of personal holiness than they like—too high, perhaps, to permit them to hope as Christians, too high for their experience, and too high to suit their tastes and habits for future life?—Charles Finney

<idle musing>
Yep!
</idle musing>

The power of a blessing

Blessing and curses were not magical acts that merely manifested the inherent power of words but were ritual acts of speech that mediated or anticipated God’s favor or disfavor and were performed by a person endowed with authority, even when that authority was merely situational. This authority in familial contexts would usually have resided in the pater familias. 410

Some good stuff

I've been busy getting the cabins ready for the season—we're officially open! But, only two are really ready as of this moment—and one of those is rented.

We'll have them all ready to go by the middle of next week, but it's been a bit hectic in the meantime. In fact, I should be doing other things right now! : )

Anyway, some good stuff that I just now took the time to read:

Alan Knox has a good series on the love problem. The first post has a link to them all. Here's a good appetizer:

ately, whenever I’ve talked about this “love problem,” I’m often met with reasons, excuses, justifications, conditions, and finger pointing. This has happened several times. I’ve rarely been met with this answer: “You’re right… we’re not very loving.”

This is a problem. It’s a problem we must own up to. It’s a problem we must address.

Yep!

And, Roger Olson has a good post on the Bible. Here's the heart of it:

First, speaking only for myself, and realizing I will sound like a fundamentalist here, I don’t think the Bible is all that unclear if read and studied properly, that is, reasonably–recognizing the Bible for what it is (now I’ll stop sounding like a fundamentalist)–not a source book of propositional answers to curious questions but a complex narrative written and compiled by human authors led by but not over ridden by the Holy Spirit.

Second, still speaking only for myself, in my opinion, everything we need to know to have a sound relationship with God and to become whole and holy persons is clear in Scripture.

Third, just because people disagree about what a text means does not mean it isn’t clear. There are all kinds of reasons why people don’t “see” what is clear. They approach scripture with preconceived interpretive frameworks that don’t really fit all of scripture or they are morally challenged and don’t want the Bible to contradict their lifestyle or vested interests or they are looking for harmony beyond what the Bible offers or was intended to offer. There are many conceivable reasons why people disagree about what the Bible says.

<idle musing>
About sums it up, doesn't it? My experience tells me that the most common problem is the first one: a source book for everything. Folks, it ain't! It's designed to bring us to Christ, who is the source of everything!
</idle musing>

Taste good?

Our tongue is able to distinguish five tastes: sweet, salt, sour, bitter, and savory. Sugar covers up all four. It covers up salty (trail mix, honey roasted peanuts), sour (the acidity in processed tomato sauce provided by less-than-ripe tomatoes, or lemonade), bitter (milk chocolate). And savory (sweet-and-sour pork). Sugar covers up the inequities of foods, making not-so-tasty food seem like it is worth eating. Bottom line, you can make pretty much anything taste good with enough sugar. And the food industry does.—href=http://www.us.penguingroup.com/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9781101606582,00.html target=”_blank”> Fat Chance, pages 170-171

<idle musing>
Yep! And they do : (
</idle musing>

Firstborn

As concluded by Milgrom (2000: 1590), “There is no evidence that the firstborn, except in crisis situations (e.g., 2 Kgs 3:27), were sacrificed; there is no indication that Israel’s God ever demanded or even sanctioned this practice.” The demand that the firstborn be offered therefore represents thanksgiving to YHWH for granting the first child and for enabling the mother and child to survive the birth.—Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant, page 403

Final excerpt from Hannah Whitall Smith's book

Just as light drives out darkness, so does the realized presence of God drive out sin, and the soul that by faith abides in His presence knows a very real and wonderful deliverance.—Hannah Whitall Smith

A different perspective

A woman in childbed was deemed impure for 7 days following the birth of a son and for 14 days after the birth of a daughter (Lev 12:2, 5). This status of impurity was associated not only with the mother’s bleeding during parturition but also with her close encounter with the divine during the birth process.—Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant, page 391

<idle musing>
Hadn't thought of that angle before...what would that mean for the extended separation for a girl baby, then?
</idle musing>

Thought for today

People, despite their wealth, do not endure; they are like the beasts that perish. This is the fate of those who trust in themselves, and of their followers, who approve their sayings. They are like sheep and are destined to die; death will be their shepherd (but the upright will prevail over them in the morning). Their forms will decay in the grave, far from their princely mansions. But God will redeem me from the realm of the dead; he will surely take me to himself. Do not be overawed when others grow rich, when the splendor of their houses increases; for they will take nothing with them when they die, their splendor will not descend with them. Though while they live they count themselves blessed— and people praise you when you prosper— they will join those who have gone before them, who will never again see the light of life. People who have wealth but lack understanding are like the beasts that perish. (Psalm 49:12-20 NIV)

Comforting thought

If any of us, therefore, have that in our past which has caused us anxiety or remorse, let us lift up our heads in a happy confidence from henceforth, that the God who is behind us will set it all straight somehow, if we will but commit it to Him, and can even make our very mistakes and misdoings work together for good.—Hannah Whitall Smith

Magic

In considering trajectories of human social development from the 19th century onward, many people (including those associated with the so-called phenomenological school and the German “Religionsgeschichtliche Schule” of the first half of the 20th century) assumed an evolutionist paradigm and were misguided into thinking that human progress had followed a path from “savagery, through barbarism, to civilization” (Morgan 1877). According to this evolutionist paradigm, magic was an expression of the first and most-primitive forms of human religion, born of belief in the hidden powers of nature (as in manaism or dynamism) or of spirits (as in animism). Up to the second half of the 20th century, many exegetes and scholars of religious studies believed that monotheistic religion had supplanted beliefs in magic with conceptions of the absolute dependence of man on the one true God, and thus this dependence was in no way amenable to manipulation through magic...

Over the last decade, however, as anthropology has turned more directly toward cultural phenomena, the perception of “magical” practices in Old Testament studies has changed (Cryer 1991; Jeffers 1996; Schmitt 2004), as it has also in studies of the ancient Near East (for example, Thomsen 1987; Abusch 2002; and Schwemer 2007) and Egypt (for example, Assmann 1991 and Ritner 1993). Magic and divination have come to be seen more as performative acts and comprising the more integral part of religion and the entire symbolic system of a culture. Accordingly, magic in the Old Testament, as in the ancient Near Eastern world, was not so much a manipulation of matter and beings through the use of dynamistic or animistic powers as it was the result of a belief in the absolute power of the divine. The absolute divinity was the final or sole authority able to intervene by supernatural force in the human realm. Magic as a descriptive term denotes ritual practices that were intended to effect particular results through rituals or acts performed in anticipation of divine intervention (see Schmitt 2004: 92–93). Thus, the rites and rituals of family religion—as well as the rituals of official cults—were strategies of ritual behavior that must be seen as genuine expressions of religion, regardless of differences in socioreligious settings.—Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant, page 388

<idle musing>
Same results, though. Man trying to control God!
</idle musing>

Food

Micronutrients matter—the biochemistry says so—except they don't work when provided as supplements in clinical trials. How many studies do we need? Now you're ready for the dénouement: Real food, containing endogenous micronutrients, prevents metabolic syndrome. Processed food causes metabolic syndrome. And nutritional supplements can't reverse that which have previously been destroyed.—href=http://www.us.penguingroup.com/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9781101606582,00.html target=”_blank”> Fat Chance, page 156