Misc. Thoughts- 3

13 Feb

I have been very distracted this week so that is why this little series came to be.

#1. MRS. —

Sociology and psychology,” the father said, and paused, shrugging. “Don’t get me wrong. We think it was important they got an education, but they were really after their MRS degrees.” His wife sat next to him, beautiful and inscrutable.

All sound fell away for me as if I’d been sucked back to 1976 when I first heard the very same comment from some burly guy with a ruddy complexion. He swept his arms wide to include all the women sitting at the cafeteria table, in the dining hall, registered at the university, and on the planet earth, “They’re just here to nab a husband.”

One of my suite mates giggled and said, “I want to graduate in June, and get married in July.” She batted her heavily mascaraed eyes at him, and he sat down and shut up. She didn’t even have a steady boyfriend, but seemed sure one would materialize within her time frame. Clearly, she was after her MRS degree and wasn’t shy about saying so.

He made me angry, and she made me feel dirty. I joined the feminist ranks on the spot.

If women wanting to get married makes other women instant feminists then the problem is not with the women desiring a husband. There is nothing wrong with women going to university to find a good man as long as they do it for the right reasons. By that I mean, if they want certain traits in a man then they need to work on achieving those traits and attitudes that are complimentary to the men they become involved with. Love and marriage is a two-way street, a shared experience and one that both people work together on equally sharing the load and supporting their partner.

Anybody can marry any women but a good woman, as the Bible says, is hard to find.  But if you go to university to obtain your MRS degree, take your studies seriously for your husband and children need you to be truly educated.

#2. Eastern Culture

From ‘passenger shaming

The picture is worth 1000 words and it tells me that Jim West and others do not understand eastern culture. That picture doesn’t bother me as I have seen Eastern people do far worse and it is part of their cultural thinking. My attitude would be, ‘at least he isn’t doing it on the floor’. Westerners have a different perspective of how people behave than the east does and if you travel to Asia, take time to prepare yourself for what a different culture actually does and learn why it is called ‘a different culture.’

The complaints I have read and heard from westerners who come to this country only demonstrates the westerners lack of preparation for life overseas and exposes their ‘the west is the only culture that is right’ mentality. People actually do think differently than western societies and it is not the believers mission to make other cultures western as so many of the first missionaries in the 1800s tried to do.

Western culture does not equal Christianity so believers need to learn from God about how they should view those minorities they come in contact with in their own countries. They need different approaches than one would do for a White western native. There is more to ‘loss of face’ than westerners think.

#3. Samaritans

Estimation of genetic distances between the Samaritans and seven Jewish and three non-Jewish populations from Israel, as well as populations from Africa, Pakistan, Turkey, and Europe, revealed that the Samaritans were closely related to Cohanim. This result supports the position of the Samaritans that they are descendants from the tribes of Israel dating to before the Assyrian exile in 722–720 BCE.

Secular science seems to revel in the obvious, telling us what we already knew. I learned this decades ago.

#4. Empower

When we see a woman with the untypical body type feeling empowered and vulnerable to pose for an artist, it’s like somehow I break the rules of what is acceptable for how much skin a woman ‘should’ show,” the photographer continued. “And to show her allowing her breasts to be used in a completely un-sexualized manner, that really rocks the boat.”

I officially hate that word now.  I do not know where women got it into their heads that stripping down to nothing makes them ’empowered’ but they have been deceived and misled. Going naked to make a point is not being Lady Godiva but just shows your unbiblical attitude and disrespect for anyone else, especially your husband.

It is not the right thing to do. Going nude for certain activities is not a gift of the Spirit, it is not a talent and it does not bring any power to you although it will brighten the day of many lecherous men whom you have led to sin because of your public display. This is not to say that breastfeeding is wrong but it is also not a public viewing activity.

Just because an activity is natural doesn’t mean it is for public display. If you are told to be more discreet, no one is shaming you because there are the feelings of others that come into play with the request.

#5. 5 Reasons-

I’m convinced that many American Christians would not. In the course of 2000 years, Christianity- while maintaining the basic tenets, has morphed and shifted from the way it was originally designed and lived out. Since we tend to live in a culture that is rather self-centered, we have a tendency to assume we “have it right” while completely overlooking the fact that our version of Christianity might appear quite foreign– even hopelessly corrupted– if viewed through the eyes of one of the first Christians.

I am always amazed at how so many educated people think they can read minds, both of the living and the long dead.  That link leads to yet another rant trying to force secular personal views upon others. But he doesn’t tell the whole story
The first Christians rejected personal ownership of property and engaged in a redistribution of wealth.
While this is so, biblical teaching doe snot require us to do that as in the story of Ananias Peter said:
While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not [b]under your control?
Believers are allowed to own property and are only required to tithe 10%. The rest is under the category of gifts and offerings, free will giving, not mandatory nor a doctrine to give up all you possess. In other words those people gave as they felt they should not because some alternative believer is unhappy with how they used their wealth.
But what ruins his argument is that he does not tell us that he is selling his home or giving away his book royalties or speaking fees so that others can be able to make ends meet. He wants to tell others what to do not practice what he preaches first. The thing is we do not know how widespread that activity was and since there is no biblical teaching to give away everything you own but there is biblical teaching on being a good steward and making sure you have enough for yourself then he is distorting one part of scripture and ignoring other biblical teaching that guides us in how to spend or handle our possessions.
The first Christians didn’t like big, show-y church stuff.
We do not know if this is true or not. Ancient records telling us about the activities of different churches are non-existent so this is an argument from silence. Since Solomon tells us ‘nothing is new under the sun’ I am sure there were worship teams in some form, launch teams and so on at some point in the ancient church.
Churches back then were house churches with maximum numbers that would be considered below the minimum amount of people you’d want as a core “launch team” to plant a church in the United States.
This is very misleading and taken from incomplete data. Sure there were house churches but that doe snot mean that believers did not meet in larger buildings. There is NO biblical teaching stating that we are limited to houses only or that the early church was restricted to those structures. They probably met there because it was convenient, or that they did not have the funds for a larger space.
Then if we look at other passages, Pentecost garnered 3,000 souls, the limitation of house churches seems a bit small to handle the influx of believers. His quote of some anonymous early writer doesn’t even come close to supporting his point of view and does not limit Christians to houses only. The owner of formerly fundie misses the point of Christianity.
The first Christians didn’t warn anyone about hell.
This is just not true as the NT writers told everyone about hell and warned them thus the ancient Christians were well warned about sinful life as were those who rejected the gospel.
When you read the book of Acts, it’s almost as if they didn’t believe in hell at all because hell was not something they used to motivate or warn people.
Well the book of Acts was not the only NT book written in the first century and Jesus talked about hell so the owner of that website ignores biblical teaching to make his point.
The first Christians weren’t patriotic.
My question is– how does he know this? as a person who studies ancient manuscripts whenever he can I have seen nothing that talks about this topic or how the ancient church members felt about their countries of origin. The owner of that site seems to lump every believer into one category and says that everyone did the same thing but that is impossible to do because not everyone believed exactly the same in the ancient world. Even in the early church.
What he is basically saying is, he is upset that some people support their country ad Christians but as long as that support doesn’t supersede God and his kingdom, I do not see anything wrong with being patriotic. And we need patriotic Christians in the military, in politics, in business so that the world is not led to destruction by evil men and women.
The owner of that website does not see the whole picture but simply wants everyone to follow his personal subjective views.
They were universally pacifists.
Another faulty argument from silence and another push to make people follow his personal beliefs and forgets that people are not perfect. Nor does he take into account the fact that Christians also have freedom of choice and they do choose to disobey some times. It seems that that author wants a perfect church where every believer is perfect right from the get go and that is just unrealistic.
He doesn’t seem to be able to handle the fact that believers need to grow, change, adapt and expects every one of them to kow tow to his ideals as if they have no other teacher than him.  I do not know who died and made him the boss of Christianity but he acts like his views trumps everybody else’s and Christ’s. And it is funny that he will violate his own ideas for the church when he is in charge.
He will ban people without letting them defend themselves, without notice or with any fairness or justice just because they dare to disagree with him and as far as I am concerned, banning is not being a pacifist. It is doing harm to someone while protecting one’s point of view. So if that owner wants to be heard and have his words mean something, he needs to make changes to his life and practices first and change his views about God’s word, sin and so on.
The word hypocrite was coined for a reason, it tells people that they are not practicing what they preach and they need to make changes to their lives. Well that word applies to the owner of formerly fundie because he wants other people to do what God said while he continues to ignore scripture and supports sin and wants to import sin into the church.
If he wants to be a part of God’s kingdom then he needs to repent of his sins and adhere to what God wants not what he wants.
Comments Off on Misc. Thoughts- 3

Posted by on February 13, 2015 in academics, Bible, church, faith, family, General Life, history, leadership, politics


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: