I forgot to mention the wounded testicles guy in 23, I remembered him as I was reading in 25 about the woman getting her hand cut off for grabbing the guys "private parts"that is fighting her husband. I thought to myself, "man that's randomly specific, you know that came about after a specific inncedent". Then I was brought back to the no injured testicles rule. Ah ha I said aloud, these two are related.
I found a couple of really good positive things today. Perhaps its my new beach, perhaps its the doves singing to me in the background or perhaps I just want to find the good in all this just a tad bit more today than yesterday.
I love the bit about, should you miss something in your field or vinyard, leave it. Someone will need it.
Also, something I struggle with myself, having two weights. Being a teacher of a very low socio-economic class of kids, I fight the urge everyday to hold them to a lower standard than I would the class of kids across town. But what keeps me grounded is looking out the window and across the steet to their neighborhood. If I judge them with a lighter weight then there, they shall stay. But if I pull out the weight I hold my kids to, most will rise to it, or die trying. I have learned along the way that whatever expectations u set, these kids usually reach it. Its up to me to set it high enough.
I may have interpreded that in intirely the wrong way, who knows?
We finish today with some blessing and some curses. I feel like maybe they are all just standing there, sorta rolling their eyes "come on come on Moses!! Enough, we get IT! Give thanks, follow the rules, take care of the widow. Can we go NOW?" Its like the mother of all pre-game pep talks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
The woman wasn't fighting with or grabbing her husband's private parts, it was the guy her husband was fighting with. Either way, athiest, Christian, agnostic, etc., if you're a man you've gotta appreciate this rule. Somebody write Congress and see if we can't amend the Constitution. Ah, forget the Constitution, just appoint a czar and enforce it. It's our 53rd czar!...the Testicle Czar! Brilliant!
I appreciate the weights analogy, but I think it's just simply dealing with people fairly. Fairness isn't NECESSARILY comparative of how you treat one group vs. another, in my opinion. Sometimes fairness can be dealing with different people the same, but sometimes it's dealing with them fairly given THEIR specific situation/circumstances and your own. On the surface that seems contradictory, but I hope you understand what I'm saying. Fairness to me is about giving to someone what they deserve, regardless of how it benefits or "harms" you or others or them. Not giving them more OR less.
It does seem like this is the pep rally from He[ll?]aven. But we've seen how incredibly hard-headed these people are. If anyone could use it, it's them.
Wives are to get their husbands undivided attention for a full year after they're married. I'm not sure if that's good or bad. Btw, these aren't commandments....like if you don't do them you're a sinner, many of these are more traditional than spiritual. Sort of common sense I would think.
I'd like to know what 25:4 means. Anyone have any ideas? It's gotta be something more than just what it says...maybe not. References I Cor. 9:9,10 and I Tim. 5:17,18. Guess I'll read those and think on it. See this is where some of you others that are on here that seem Hell bent (pun intended) on being argumentative could be helpful by putting in your two cents on what this passage might mean (instead of trying to convince everyone that no matter what the passage may be trying to convey, it's false).
And we close with the declaration of the blessing and the curse...something all good documents, whether spiritual, legal, or otherwise have. Statutues (blessing and curses) that are binding on all parties.
Stephen and J, I am going to read your comments on the question I posed concerning ch25:4 and the verses it references. So, here's your big opportunity to insult me and have me actually read it; although, I hope to get your honest opinions on what you think it means.
Tomorrow's..Deut 28-29
Ok, after reading the referenced passages, I think it means that if you work, you've got a right to the fruit of your labor, or at least wages from that labor. So because the ox is working, don't muzzle him so he can eat some of what he's working for. The last line of Tim. 5:18 says '...laborer is worthy of his hire'; which kind of goes back to what I said at the beginning. People should be able to enjoy and profit from (spiritually and materially) from their labors. Does this mean if you don't work you don't eat? Could this be indirectly supportive of capitalism and the free market and therefore counter to socialism. Or is it ok that someone who works a little reaps the same harvest as someone who works a lot. A farmer, practically speaking, would tell you no. To me this lends to how complex and layered the Bible is. There are spiritual, practical, literal, and figurative meanings/lessons in it.
can't log in right now,on the iphone, but short answer is that it was in reference to priests and accepting on behalf of God, some of the money brought in by the "tribe" or community, for the work they did in being spiritual leaders.
If you search for references of this verse, I bet you will find variations on this, in other books of the bible but my 3g is being finicky....
It was another way for the priests and members of the priesthood to ensure their livelihood. I don't begrudge them that. - Groman
G, I see what you're saying. That makes sense to me. Do you think it's so singularly applied, though? I read the "linked" verses and many of the verses before and after them, too. I guess I thought there was a larger meaning. But I get what you're saying.
Post a Comment