A Biblical Marriage

Benjamites take women of Shiloh as wives. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Bible speaks of marriage.

Many believe that the Bible is the exact word of God and should not be interpreted. Yet many of those that say that, still interpret it.

For example, this passage:

Ephesians 5:23,24,32 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.

Read more: http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/bible-verses-about-marriage-20-great-scripture-quotes/#ixzz3kUNYqiY8

This does not jibe with accepting women as equals so this is taken at a slant. People define submit differently. They say this is God’s truth, but here submit means support. But the words are submit in everything. So if a man wants to have sex, the wife has no choice. For a long time, this was how it was taken. Now we know this is barbaric. So we look at it differently. I am simply saying that we do this for other passages.

The Bible talks of marriage. Of being fruitful and multiply and  in Mathew-

“At the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'

5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' ?

6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

And-

Jeremiah 29:6
"Take wives and become the fathers of sons and daughters, and take wives for your sons and give your daughters to husbands, that they may bear sons and daughters; and multiply there and do not decrease."

But to me it sounds like the Bible is talking to those men and women who marry. This is what you should do when you want to be with a member of the opposite sex forever. The Bible simply did not consider other people.  People that never marry for example. Some people are asexual and do not have sex with anyone. The Bible does not talk about them. In such a way, I think the Bible does not address same sex marriage. It does not prohibit it. It says a man will leave his father, it does not say he must.

The Bible did not talk about homosexuality, just as it did not consider the Internet, and technology. Unless you are Amish, you are already nto following the Bible as it was written.

Personally, I think the Bible was written by humans and is fallible. With Godly intent (perhaps), but it is to give guidance and cause discussion. I don’t believe it should be taken exactly literally. Neither do you unless you believe that women should submit. They should be servants and property to men as they were during ancient history. If you do believe this, then there is no hope for you.

In closing I ask you to consider this:

"Since everything God created is good, we should not reject any of it but receive it with thanks. For we know it is made acceptable by the word of God and prayer." (New Living Translation)

Just as I meditate on this message and take it to heart as I consider the Bible-thumpers, I want you to see gay people are part of God’s creation. This means they are good. 

Are You a Jerk test

The transgender pride flag (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

We need to develop criteria to see if you should be offended or oppose something.  I came with this thought about transgendered bathrooms:

1)      Will it affect my life?

2)      Will it allow someone else to live a better, happier life with little impact on me?

3)      Am I making it an issue because of my own issues? For attention?

4)      Have I looked at objectively, from all sides and not just someone that holds similar beliefs as my own?

Related articles

• Draft Rights of Transgender Persons Bill, 2015 released - PRSIndia

Traditional Marriage- Back to Concubines

Same Sex Marriage (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Marriage has always been a bad deal.

Okay that is not what I really want to say. It’s just that marriage is only as good as people and people are always flawed. This is why people that protest homosexual marriage as an attack on traditional marriage is so wrong. Traditional marriage is probably stronger now than ever.

First, however, I want to find out how gay people living together and bringing up children and living as a couple is any worse or better than them getting married. They are striving for and cherishing an institution that many heterosexual do not.  The only people that can destroy a marriage is the people in it.

Traditional marriage gives the children from it a better chance for a good life than children not from one. But is this the institution or the people in that marriage.

Do we want to go back to the tradition of marriage the way it was in the 50s? Many do and many marriages were good. However, as an institution it sucked. Women were not given a lot of say and had fewer rights and opportunities. An abused spouse had little options other than be a punching bag.  Today there are many strong, loving interracial marriages. Not in the 50s. People died because the social norms inhibited them from getting a divorce.

Maybe we should go back to the 1800s. See the further back you go, the younger people got married and if you married someone bad you were stuck with them. The further back you go, the less women were treated like humans and more like property. Many supporters of traditional marriage get a secret thrill from this thought.

I’m sure there were good, loving marriages during Jesus’s time. However, there were many bad things. Arranged marriages and daughters traded away for a dowry.  They had no say in who they married. They were valued so little that a man might have several wives. To me it sounds like the wives were just above the concubines.

Those that look to the Bible to preserve the idea of a traditional marriage are ignoring how much marriage has already changed from when the Bible was written. Changed for the better.  Somehow they believe that the Bible was written in the 1950’s America.

Transgendered Bathrooms

A portal icon for Portal:Transgender, based on File:Portal LGBT.svg. Gradient from pink (feminine) to blue (masculine) (and shades in-between) to represent the spectrum of gender identity. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

We need to develop criteria to see if you should be offended or oppose something.  I came with this thought about transgendered bathrooms:

1)      Will it affect my life?

2)      Will it allow someone else to live a better, happier life with little impact on me?

3)      Am I making it an issue because of my own issues? For attention?

4)      Have I looked at objectively, from all sides and not just someone that holds similar beliefs as my own?

they are the takers.

The western front of the United States Capitol. The Capitol serves as the seat of government for the United States Congress, the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government. It is located in Washington, D.C., on top of Capitol Hill at the east end of the National Mall. The building is marked by its central dome above a rotunda and two wings. It is an exemplar of the Neoclassical architecture style. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Let me get this straight, people like Romney are upset that 47% of people are supported by the government in some way?  I guess I did used to see the government as becoming more intrusive away and taking care of people too much.  Still worried about that.  But the fact that so many people are on government assistance tells me that something else is going on.  We are not a country of lazy people.  People put in more hours than ever.  What is really going on here?  Perhaps people like Romney have gathered so much power and wealth that people need that government assistance.  Like a lord in a feudal system complaining that his serfs are keeping some of the grain they farm in order that they have enough sustenance to live. 

The republicans have usurped ideals that American have of being independent, working hard and even learning from their suffering to justify what corporations used to do  In the good old days, government did not play such a big role in people’s lives.  Is it because people are so different today?  I don’t think so.  What has changed is the way people earn a living.

In an agrarian society such as the United States was at our founding, a person’s survival could be an independent endeavor.  There was always a land to go to and work.  Those that were not farmers.  Those that did not farm could do well by learning  a trade and opening their own business.  However, in the late 19^th century man-power decreased in value and human became just equipment in a factory and was valued as such.  The robber Barons prospered and many people suffered.  They had that American spirit of independence and working hard to become a success.  For many, that did not get them too far.  The robber barons amassed great fortunes in unethical ways. 

This appears to be happening again.  The difference this time is that we have learned from the industrial revolution and have ways to protect people from harm.  It is this safety net that keeps the super rich from being labeled robber barons.  Conservatives are being successful in framing this question as Do we want a country of makers or takers?    In asking this question, it makes people yearn for a time that has passed.  What time?  The 1940s and 1950s?  That was perhaps a sweet spot of honest workers and respectful employers.  This time, I contend was created by the backlash to the practices of robber barons and the subsequent legislation that protected the workers.  Yes, the unions.  So we do we want government to go back to hands-off in the affairs of business in America?  This will drive us back to the time of robber barons.  In effect, through the ineffectiveness of government, we have something close to laisses faire.  The conservatives are seizing on this and trying to grab power.  They want more makers and less takers because they are the takers. 

If we try to make things too fair by handicapping business with too much regulation, we will all suffer.  Our country will not be able to move forward.  However, if we unfetter corporations we will return to the 19^th century.  Then we will have to pull the safety net away and let people suffer, children grow up with opportunities, and cause civil unrest.  Of course we cannot do that.  So what would we do? Decrease taxes, remove regulations and increase the safety net.  We are already stretched to our financial limits.  This would also result in more people receiving assistance from the government.  More takers. 

Romney and his cohorts want an easy answer.  There never is.  They want a return to a simpler time.  There was never a simple time.  Just different problems that history has glossed over.  They want someone to blame.  Romney blamed 47% of the population.  They are not innocent.  The 47% perhaps need to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.  However, in laying the blame, I would say he should be balming 46% less people.

I used to be concerned that the united states was heading towards socialism.  No I am more worried about the split between the have and the have nots that lead to revolutions that resulted in socialism.

I Can No Longer vote Republican

English: In 2010, the US House passed the Senate's Healthcare bill. The map above represents the breakdown of the vote by congressional district. How did the House vote? Democratic yes Republican yes Abstention Democratic no Republican no (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

There was a time when I voted for the candidate that was the most honest. The one the stuck with his own principals.For a long time it was conservatives.  They took the nonpopular stances.  The ones that did not cater to people's desire to get something for their vote.

Thanks to Walker and the other candidates I will never vote for a conservative again. They have shown their true colors.

There is the outright corruption.  More pervasively is their desire to cater to the people and the corporations with the money.

They use trigger topics to sway people of faith and independent minded people.  Okay not sway. Trick.  They convince #catholics and others that there is a war on Christmas and religion. They try to empower #homeschooling parents so that they can dismantle schools.  STo be frank, some people can teach their children well.  Then there is the trailer trash people that think they can, but they damage their children.  These dumb children and the weakened public schools play into the republicans (liek #Walker) plan to make america dumber. The dumber you are the more reactionary you are and that's what the tea party needs to thrive.  They want a nation that works at Walmart, receives food stamps from the government, and then spend their food stamp monies to show at Walmart.

Using You

speaking at CPAC in Washington D.C. on February 10, 2011. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

There is a movement in our country to have effective government. To have some politicians that will shake things up. Conservatives are against big government so it makes sense that they want the people that will have an impact on the way our government runs. It used to be the many conservatives had ideals were good. Stand on your own two feet. Rely on yourself and help others by not giving to them.

The problem lies on who is capitalizing on the movement to shake things up. It is the capitalists that want to use conservative values to make more money. They use the rhetoric to stir up the angry and the bigoted to come into power. They are also stirring up those that are so fed up they just want change. Even if that change is Donald Trump.

People need to take a step back and be objective when looking at things. Look for statements that are used to rile you up and scare you.  They want to take away your way of life. It is an attack on Christmas. They want to take away your guns. Schools want to control your kids and brainwash them. 

Let’s talk about guns. In the 1920s they abolished drinking. It caused created syndicates of crime and did not work. Today, the distribution of alcohol is highly controlled. But do you have easy access do alcohol? Yes. Are the laws there to take it away? No, just to make the world safer.

Are schools trying to instill certain morals and values in your children? Yes. It is their role that they were created for. They Are given the responsibility to create good citizens of the United States. So if you pull  your child out and homeschool them, you are not being patriotic. I wrote that statement to be snarky, but now I think I believe that.  Homeschoolers want to instill their values on their children. I res;pect that. America allows you that. But under your definition of patriotism, you do not want to be part of America.

People think they are finally supporting politicians that will change things up.  Who they are really supporting are the corporations and ALEC that want to use the government to control people and make more money.