A reminder all Christians could use

At church last night some scripture was read that hit all to personally and at all too appropriate timing. This scripture is one particular important in this political season, but one we must continue to remember long after November 4th. These words inspired me to live better and maybe they will inspire others as well.
The words I am referring to are the entirety of Romans 14. The actual words in the passage refer to particular interpretations of the meaning of scripture–specifically those of what is okay to eat and what it means to honor the Sabbath. (If you have some familiarity with scripture it will be easy to see that the concept of eating has a literal meaning as well as a symbolic one. This being the case, there is a lot that can be said about why Paul used this particular example.) The words can also apply to any and every disagreement among Christians. (In my particular case it can apply to opposing views on how Christianity should affect our political views). Please feel free to fill in the context most appropriate to your own life.

The Message translations is the one from which I heard the words and the one I include here. It does a good job of making things easily understandable and relevant in today’s world.

————————–

Romans 14

(v.1) Welcome with open arms fellow believers who don’t see things the way you do. And don’t jump all over them every time they do or say something you don’t agree with–even when it seems that they are strong on opinions but weak in the faith department. Remember they have their own history to deal with. Treat them gently.

(v.2-4) For instance, a person who has been around for a while might be convinced that he can eat anything on the table, while another, with a different background, might assume he should only be a vegetarian and eat accordingly. But since both are guests at Christ’s table, wouldn’t it be terribly rude if they fell to criticizing what the other ate or didn’t eat? God, after all, invited them both to the table. Do you have any business crossing people off the guest list or interfering with God’s welcome? If there are corrections to be made or manners to be learned, God can handle that without your help.

(v. 5) Or, say, one person thinks that some days should be set aside as holy and another thinks that each day is pretty much like any other. There are good reasons either way. So, each person is free to follow the convictions of conscience.

(v. 6-9) What’s important in all this is that if you keep a holy day, keep it for God’s sake: if you eat meat, eat it to the glory of God and thank God for prime rib; if you’re a vegetarian, eat vegetables to the glory of God and thank God for broccoli. None of us are permitted to insist on our own way in these matters. It’s God we are answerable to–all the way from life to death and everything in between–not each other. That’s why Jesus lived and died and then live again: so that he could be our Master across the entire range of life and death, and free us from the petty tyrannies of each other.

(v. 10-12) So where does that leave you when you criticize a brother? And where does that leave you when you condescend to a sister? I’d say it leaves you looking pretty silly–or worse. Eventually, we’re all going to end up kneeling side by side in the place of judgment, facing God. Your critical condescending ways aren’t going to improve your position there one bit. Read if for yourself from scripture:

‘As I live and breath’, God says,
‘every knee will bow before me:
Every tongue will tell the honest truth
that I and only I am God.’

So tend to your knitting. You’ve got your hands full just taking care of your own life before God.

(v.13-14) Forget about deciding what’s right for each other. Here’s what you need to be concerned about: that you don’t get in the way of someone else, making life more difficult than it already is. I’m convinced–Jesus convinced me!–that everything as it is in itself is holy. We, of course, by the way we treat it or talk about it, can contaminate it.

(v. 15-16) If you confuse others by making big issue over what they eat or don’t eat, you’re no longer companion with them in love, are you? These, remember, are persons for whom Christ died. Would you risk sending them to hell over an item in their diet? Don’t you dare let a piece of God-blessed food become occasion of soul-poisoning!

(v. 17-18) God’s kingdom isn’t a matter of what you put in your stomach, for goodness’ sake. It’s what God does with your life as he sets it right, puts it together, and completes it with joy. Your task is to single-mindedly serve Christ. Do that and you kill tow birds with one stone: pleasing God above you and proving your worth to the people around you.

(v. 19-21) So let’s agree to use our energy in getting along with each other. Help others with encouraging words; don’t drag them down by finding fault. You’re certainly not going to permit an argument over what is served or not served at supper to wreck God’s work among you, are you? I said it before and I’ll say it again: All food is good, but it can turn bad if you use it badly, if you use it to trip others up and send them sprawling. When you sit down to a meal, your primary concern should not be to feed your own face but to share the life of Jesus. So be sensitive and courteous to the others who are eating. Don’t eat or say or do things that might interfere with the exchange of love.

(v. 22-23) Cultivate your own relationship with God, but don’t impose it on others. You’re fortunate if you behavior and your belief are coherent. But if you’re not sure, if you notice that you are acting in ways inconsistent with what you believe–some days trying to impose your opinions on other, other days just trying to please them–then you know that you’re out of line. If the way you live isn’t consistent with what you believe, then it’s wrong.

————————–————————–—–
If you are curious, the passage quoted in verse 11 is Isaiah 45:23.

To me, this says what is important is not our own opinions but how we live our life.

Our truth worth is measured through our actions. Our consistency to live according to our own beliefs,to “practice what we preach”, is particularly important as verses 22 and 23 point out. We cannot expect others to live the same way we do if their beliefs are different than our own.

~J

P.S. I’m quite aware the I need this lesson as much if not more than the last guy. I’m likely to fall short of it’s example over and over again. From now on, I will try my best to only express and explain my views rather than impose them upon others. Simply expressing and explaining my views was all I meant to do along, at least in my original blog posts. I know I have responded to the words of others in more insistent and imposing ways. I am sorry if I have been critical and condescending to anyone. I will try my best to be sensitive and courteous from now.

What you really may be saying if you call Obama a Muslim Terrorist

The following two segments were originally Amendments to my “Please People Can We Remember the First Amendment” post, but I decided they stood better on their own.

———————————————————-

Amendment A. What members of the religiously conservative right are unintentionally implying when they doubt Obama’s worth as a presidential candidate due to the false idea that he is a Muslim. An extension of the question “So what if Obama was a Muslim” that appears in the previous blog post:

I’m going to say something here that is probably be going to be considered extremely liberal and probably heretical, but none the less historically correct. The claim that by the conservative right that Obama is a Muslim implies that the God of the Islam, Allah, is a false God is historically incorrect. Lets a little journey to back to our Bibles and look at the story of Abraham. The God of Abraham father of Judaism and thus father of Christianity (as Jesus himself was Jew) is also the God of Hagar and Ishmael (also a child of Abraham). God promises to Abraham to make a nation out of Ishmael’s line in Genesis 21:13. When Hagar and Ishmael were cast into the desert by Sarah, Hagar called upon the God of Abraham to save her son from the brink of death. Genesis 21:8-21 tells their story. God not only hears the crys of both mother and son but sends and angel to deliver the same promise to Hagar he made in Genesis 21:13 to Abraham. The story accounts that God then save mother and son from the brink of death by providing water (much as he does in the story of Moses for the Israelites). Genesis 21:21 accounts that “God was with the boy as he grew up.” Genesis 25:12-18 gives an account of the sons of Ishmael. It’s not a pleasant story but one the Jews considered important enough to keep in their holy book. From the line of Ishmael and thus the line of Abraham, Islam eventually forms. Christiams claim as their own the God of Jesus, the very same God of Abraham and thus God of both Jews and Muslims. You may say that Muslims having fallen away from the God of Abraham, but just go back and read your old testament, the Jews fall away from God over and over again, but he remains their true God even when they worship others. The Bible says that God is unchanging, if you believe the Bible (which you must if you call yourself a Christian) than you must also believe in the unchanging God. People and interpretations haved changed over time but God has remained the same and thus the has remained the God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

This being the case if a Christian or a Jew calls the God of Islam false, that Christian of Jew is calling their own God false.

Thus even if Obama is a Muslim (which he is not), our country will still remain One Nation Under God if he becomes president, just as much as it will if McCain and Palin get in to office. Just as much as our nation will remain one under God be if Obama (who really is a Christian) is elected.

——————-

Amendment B. What anyone who thinks Obama might be a terrorist is really implying about the strength of America:

I have one more thing to say about the false notion that Obama is a terrorist. This notion is running rampant among the conservative right. Members of the conservative right are generally big supporters of the war and our troops. If Obama really was a terrorist it would say very bad things about our National Security. What kind of country would we be if we let a terrorist get one step away from the presidency? If our nation could allow a terrorist to be in office than our fight against terrorism would have not only failed but made things worse than they were before the war. It seems to me that if you buy into the lie that Obama is a terrorist, you are implying (whether you mean to or not, whether you admit it or not) that you have lost faith in our goverment’s ability to protect Americans. Consider that saying or even thinking our nation could let a terrorist run for president is the most unpatriotic thing anyone could think or say. If you have said you think Obama even “might be a terrorist” then please reconsider your own claim to patriotism and do not accuse any one else, especially Obama, of being unpatriotic. If you truly support our troops than do not accuse Obama of being a terrorist, because doing so is equivalent to saying our National Security Administration has failed us and thus all the lives lost in 911and The War on Terrorism have been in vain. Please, if you still believe in America, do not accuse Obama of being a terrorist.

~J

Please People Can We Remember The First Amendment Already?

I’m getting so frustrated with the whole conservative view of “Oh, I can’t vote for Obama. He is a Muslim.” Fundamentally it just isn’t true. Just check out his website and life history. Does the phrase “guided by his Christian faith” mean nothing to any of you who buy into this whole Obama is a Muslim thing? Seriously! You can say “oh well just because he says he’s a Christian doesn’t mean it’s true.” If that’s so than why should anyone believe you and I are Christians just because we say so?

Just because Barack Obama’s middle name is Hussein doesn’t mean he is Muslim or a terrorist either. If having the middle name Hussein makes you a terrorist than having the middle name James (like Timothy James McVeigh, the Oklahoma City Bomber) also makes you a terrorist. My brother’s middle name is James, he’s certainly not a terrorist! It’s not like Barack even named himself. I’m pretty sure when Obama’s parents named him, Saddam Hussein didn’t have the reputation for evil he ended with.  I’m absolutely sure they didn’t name Obama after Saddam.

Besides the fact that Obama being a Muslim is a lie, so what if it was true anyway? Since when does being a Muslim make you a terrorist? If being a Muslim makes you a terrorist, than being white and from the South makes you a member of the KKK: than being a pro-lifer makes you a bomber of abortion clinics. How is not voting for a Muslim any less racist and prejudice than not voting for an African American? And those of you who won’t vote for either…

Just because you disagree with Islam on a religious level does not mean it is bad. I’m tired of all this “oh we need a Christian president…” Please people can we remember the First Amendment already?! Do we enjoy our own freedom to practice Christianity? We have this because of the first amendment. Just as all other people of faith (or lack there of) have a right to practice their own beliefs. Freedom of religion is a fundamental principle upon which America is built! If you are voting because of your religious beliefs than you are denying this right for yourself and others. You are denying a fundamental part of America. If you want to pick a president that will be a religious leader as well as a political leader than you are living in the wrong country. America is a democracy not a theocracy. I can understand wanting a president who shares your values, but Christian values are not limited to Christian faith (nor do all Christians have the same values). If you vote simply because a candidate shares your religion you are giving up your religious freedom. Sure maybe this president will agree with you, practice your religion and enforce beliefs that you share. If the cost of such a scenario is throwing out the First Amendment, then there is nothing stopping the next president from enforcing opposing religious beliefs or enforcing the halt of all religious practices.

Please can we all start focusing on the issues. Please vote because of the issues each candidates supports and not according to what church each candidate attends. (In saying this I asks you to review the issues important to you and consider whether you have such opinions because of your religious beliefs. If this is the case, this also implies forfeiture of the First Amendment. Maybe your religious beliefs are at the core of who you are, there is nothing wrong with that, but please consider the issues for their political value and not whether or not they measure up to your religious principles. Please don’t be selfish in choosing the next president. There are a whole lot more people affected by your vote than just those who share your religious beliefs and principles. Consider the others on November 4th. In other words (as JFK said) “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”

I close with a statement from Barack Obama himself:
“I’m asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington… I’m asking you to believe in yours.”

~J

The Final Debate: McCain the Jerk

Last night was John McCain’s best debate and Obama’s worse. Even so, the audience polls showed Obama winning by a landslide in every poll. Some of the uncommitted voters used for the graph at the bottom of the CNN showing even said that this debate caused them to decide for sure to vote for Obama. None of the uncommitted voters in this group said they were definitely going to vote for McCain. Obama also still won in the overall points displayed in the CNN HD showing though the margin was much closer than it had been in the other debate. John McCain did a good job of firing up his base who were already going to vote him no matter what. But once again he did nothing to reach out to those who still weren’t sure. John McCain’s campaign strategy so far is not working in his favor. Things are still looking good for Obama (but I won’t count my chickens before they hatch).

Obama may have been “flat” but he still addressed the issue better than McCain and gave more solid answers than McCain. Proving once again that Obama is the best candidate for the job.

I’d like to see if anyone else noticed some things about McCain’s performance that irritated me. First of all he brought up the same that has been brought up in the other debates in exactly the same way he always has. This forced Obama to once again respond the same way he always has. Please McCain, tell us something new and let Obama do so also. Of course the ridiculous issue of the “overhead projector” at the planetarium was brought up. Does McCain really think we are dumb enough to not know the difference between your standard classroom overhead projector and the thing that projects all the stars and planets onto the ceiling in the dome shaped room at planetariums? Hello! Of course, something like that is going to cost a fortune. “Planetarium” should be emphasized a lot more but it’s more like “OVERHEAD PROJECTOR for a planetarium.” Planetarium gets all muffled and turned into the fine print. Not only was I annoyed that this whole thing was brought up again but did any one notice exactly what McCain said. In the last debate he said Obama spent 1 million dollars on the thing; this time he said Obama spent 3 million dollars on it. That’s a pretty big difference. Is this simply a fact checking error of is McCain telling fish stories?

The thing that irritated me most about McCain’s performance was his body language. He was completely disrespectful in his body language. Obama sat there listening patiently and shaking his head casually when McCain said something negative about him. But McCain! McCain was a straight up ass! McCain sat there laughing and shaking his head like Obama had no idea what he was talking about. He very rarely actually listened patiently or even watched Obama when he spoke. Instead he was sitting there with the “I’m better than you look” fiddling with his pad of paper and pencil. Sometimes he actually took notes but most of the time he was just fiddling. I could’ve sworn at one point he was doodling. He was acting like a bored arrogant high school student in an unliked class. He showed no respect for Obama; instead it looked like McCain thought Obama was an idiot. I just wanted to reach throught the TV and slap McCain across the face for being so rude. I haven’t ever liked McCain but untill last night I never found myself angry with him (maybe with some of the stuff his campaign does but never boiling over at him personally).I don’t know about you guys but I want a president that listens when people talk to him and treats even his worst enemies with respect.

McCain may have done a better overall job actually debating this time but he held himself horribly. He was completely undignified and unpresidential in this debate. His mannerisms almost made Sarah Palin look good. Obama on the other hand was completely respectful, dignified, and very presidential. Such striking contrasts between the two presidential candidates make me all the more eager to fill in the bubble next to Barack Obama’s name on November 4th.

Gidget Goes to Washington

For those of you who did not watch the vice presidential debate on PBS, the post debate commentary is where I found such a great title for this blog. In speaking of the effect of Sarah Palin’s “folksiness”, historian Richard Norton Smith said it’s a matter of whether you consider it Reaganesque or “Gidget goes to Washington.”

Here I want to addres my opinion about Palin’s folksiness. I personally think it is negatively effecting her image. I understand that some people want a candidate who with whom they can relate even to the point where they would feel comfortable (to use a Colbert Report reference) sitting down to have a hotdog with said candidate. Sarah Palin presents this idea very vividly in her colloquial verbage.

I’m not sure friendliness or hanging-out-with-a-buddy-ness are things I find respectable in a vice-presidential or presidential candidate. Sarah Palin is the epitome of such character traits. I believe it makes her even less qualified to be vice president.

I want a president who will be smarter and better at the job than the average Joe. Someone who will exemplify leadership in all that they do. Someone who can give intelligent oration. Someone whose shows qualification through professionalism . This buddy-like attitude that Palin has is not something I find respectable. It’s one thing to be down-to-earth and relatable; it is quiet another to be buddy-like. Barack Obama is down-to-earth and relatable but also shines with intelligence, leadership ability and professionalism. Sarah Palin’s folksiness makes her sound unproffesional, unintelligent and thus unqualified. She is simply buddy-like.

Some people like buddy-like, but let’s take a look at the recent history of another buddy-like politician. That politician is none other than George W. Bush. He is the embodiment of everything buddy-like. He is the kind of guy you would want to sit around and with eating burgers and drinking beer. He’s the kind of guy you’d invite to your bar-b-que and expect to be the life of the party. But let’s take a look at his presidential-ness. He has been arguably the worst president in all of history. He’s appeared not only ineffective but unintelligent. His failures have been greater than his successes.

Is Sarah Palin really any different? Will having her in office really make things any better? Or will she be just another (slightly less powerful) screw up?

Politcal Differences: A Family Fued

I feel I must share an email conversation that occured between my father and I over our extemely differing views.  It will not only share the views of extreme conservatism but will also share my own opposing view points. Be warned, I was quite offended by some of what my dad said (well most of what my dad said) and some of you probably will be as well.

Well here goes

My Dad’s email (in reply to one I had sent earlier explaining some of the reasons I will be voting Obama):

“I am voting for John McCain.  He is a conservative. and a military hero. I have made up my mind.

I cannot vote for Obama because he’s not a conservative democrat, but a plain liberal.

I can see some of the view points liberals have about running our country, but on the other hand they are haters of God,  Jesus warned that in the last days many false religions would arise, even in the church. Read below:

The Christian Research Institute has a good online Perspective regarding the false-church of Christian Liberalism, which in my view, is another religion posing as “Christian,” inside the church.

Want to know how those who claim to be “Christian” can come to conclusions that clearly contradict Scripture? Here’s a good place to start (the following is an article my dad quoted from the Christian Research Institute):

“What’s Wrong With Christian Liberalism?

They’re in our schools and in our churches! People who profess to be Christian, yet deny the authority of Scripture, and compromise essential doctrines. What is Christian liberalism?

Christian liberalism blossomed in the 19th century. In order to adapt to modern trends, certain scholars began to apply anti-supernatural ideas and Darwinian evolution to Scripture. The miracles of the Bible were now considered myths. The deity of Christ was replaced by a Jesus who was martyred for his humanitarian efforts, and who did not literally rise from the dead.

In fact, Liberals have an extremely optimistic view of man. Mankind is evolving religiously. World peace is man’s ultimate goal in which the “Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man” reigns supreme. Salvation is for the society rather than individuals.

However, evolutionism and the denial of miracles are diametrically opposed to what the Scriptures teach. Although Christians can adopt modern thinking, they should not let the “spirit of the age” become their ultimate authority, especially when these thoughts contradict the Bible.
Man was created by God, not by accident, as evolutionists teach (Gen. 1,2). And if we deny miracles, we must also deny Christ’s physical resurrection. But Scripture says, “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins” (1 Cor. 15:17). Without a literal resurrection, there can be no salvation.

Liberal scholars, like the Jesus Seminar committee, eliminate many of the words of Jesus to mere legends. But in doing so, they’ve reduced Him to a non-controversial figure instead of the unique Son of God. Why was He crucified if He didn’t offend anyone? If His disciples were the ones who created many of the famous sayings of Jesus, liberals ought to worship them instead of Christ!

Ultimately, liberalism builds its house upon the shifting sands of sinful men, but Christianity is built upon the rock of God’s Word.”

You and your husband pray about where you stand.”

My response:

“I cannot agree with you at all on what you said about Liberals being anti-God. I am a Liberal, my husband is a Liberal, your oldest son is a Liberal. By say liberals are god haters you have called the three of us God-haters and accused us of being insincere in our faith. There are many others like us. The statement “Liberals are God-haters” is nothing more than an extremely flawed stereotyped created by the radically biased extreme conservative right!  It’s like saying all Conservatives are sexist and racist, or destroy the environment intentionally, or all Republicans are Red-necks. Like saying that all Christians are stupid or crazy because they believe in the unseen and unprovable. The truth is not even all liberals are evolutionist and not all conservatives are believe in God. And as far as “salvation being for society instead of individuals”, society is nothing but a word for a large collection of of individuals. In other words, society is made up of individuals.

If you are going to present an extreme conservative biases view point. Let me point out one to you that is democatically biases but not nearly as extreme. Republican conservatives typically are in support of the rich and do not stand for issues that encourage helping the poor and needy and also tend to vote against such things that protect nature (the creation of God). But isn’t this what the Bible teaches us. To love one another, to take care of orphans and widows, care for the sick and poor, to live in awe and wander of creation and not destroy it to make room for the material. This means that it is extremely hypocritical for someone who to call themselves Christian Republican, just as you claim there is no such thing as a Christian Liberal. Is not voting yes on policies that ignore the oppressed and sometimes create more opression denying the authority of Scripture? (And more directly so than “adapting to modern trends”.)

These religious biases are the reasons the first amendment exists. Politics and Religions should not mix. If you believe that political decisions should be based on religious ideals than you are saying the first amendment is wrong. Without the first amendment we would not be able to practice our religion. If you are saying that political leaders should also be religious leaders you must realize one thing. Sure at first it my be a Christian leader who agrees with your values, and maybe it’s not so bad if other religions are persecuted than there is nothing stopping the next national leader from being from another religion that believes Christianity is wrong and should be illegal. Or even an atheist leader who bands the practice of religion completely. When you enjoy your Christianity and freedom to worship God, remember you have that freedom because of the separation of Church and State. Thus you should choose you political stances apart from your religious stances. I’m not saying forget your morals when you vote, but remember that neither Republicans, Conservatives, or even Christians have the monopoly on morality. It is quite possible to be a good person (or at least do good things) without being a religious person. It’s even possible to be a good person (or at least do good things) and be an atheist. No goodness does not bring salvation but neither does voting republican. Our country needs leaders who do good things and care about every citizen regardless of their religious beliefs.

And there have been false religions since Jesus’ time. Are they’re really so much more now? You make think that the things going on in the world now are signs of “the last days.” But every bad thing that has happened since Jesus’ time has been interpreted as a “sign of the end times.” If you look at history as a whole, far worse things have happened in the past than the things that are happening now. Does not also the Bible say that the end times will come unlooked for? Sounds to me like religious conservatives are looking way too hard for it to be the actual end times. It’s quite possible for there to be thousands of years left before second coming. I’m not saying your interpretation of modern events is wrong, only that you must keep it in perspective.

Just to let you know, William and I have prayed and studied about where we stand. Just because our interpretation of scripture is different than your own does not mean that it is wrong. Neither does it men that only one of us can be right and the other must be wrong. God created individuals who think and act and see the world individually. Different minds see the world in different ways and thus scripture must be written in such a way that it can be truth to each and everyone of these different mindsets. Thus different people interpret scripture different ways. If God created us uniquely, than it only makes sense that he would present his word in such a way that it can be interpreted uniquely and thus there cannot possible be only one correct interpretation. If there are not multiple correct interpretations, than not only are some wrong but they all must be. God has many names and presents himself in many ways throughout the Bible after all in accordance with which name and presentation will have the most meaning to whichever character at whatever point in time within the Word.

Christianity builds it’s foundation on the hope that there is freedom from sin, and thus hope for sinful man. The Bible is made up of primarily sinful men. Paul himself was once as far anti-christian as possible. Even king David, seen as the most Godly man of all time (besides Jesus) lived a life of sin, and he lived such a life even after he was appointed by God, even after he committed himself to God. The Bible, the foundational book of Christian faith, teaches love hope and forgiveness for such men. Without the “shifting sands of sinful man” there would be far less value in the rock of God’s word. And if there were no sinful men  for Jesus to save than the existence of Jesus would be completely irrelevant. I do not believe you are correct in condemning Liberal values. Instead you should be reaching out to such people. I believe our purpose as Christians should be focused on the changing of hearts, not the changing of political positions.

Your liberal but God-loving daughter”

~J

The Definition of Marriage

A curious subject came up in conversation last night and it seemed something worthy of being blogged. Before I get started let me give a slight disclaimer: Because I have a spiritual world view I will be using such terminology as “union of souls” and “in God’s eyes” because those phrases are the best way I know to express what I am trying to say. If you are reading this and you come from a non-spiritual (“secular”) world view please feel free to translate such phrases into language that appeals to your world view. Anyway…

The subject came up after watching television that the cultural norm seems to have become sex for the sake of sex within any relationship, committed or otherwise. Years ago, sex was taboo in the media and now it is common for television and movie characters to have multiple sexual partners to. This observation led into a conversation about values such as abstinence (particular abstinence before marriage) and how such values can be effectively taught in a society where promiscuity (to use a strong word) has become the norm. It was observed that such values seem only to exist in modern society within religious families. Such values are certainly not limited to the religious; religion is just where they are most strongly expressed. The question then became “Well, what does marriage mean? If the definition is changing should religious institutions adapt to that change?” (In saying this I must add that there is a big difference between adaptation and transformation.) Here, I want to discuss some of what was mused in reply to these questions and some of what I have thought since the conversation.

So what does define a marriage? My husband and I would say “the union of two souls.” So then at what point are these two souls united? (For those of the Judeo/ Christian world view, at what point are these souls united in the eyes of God?) It cannot be that point in which the man and woman say “I do” in front of a religious leader, for marriage certainly means no less for the non-religious. The difference is only in the ceremony. Does that mean a couple is united when they sign a legal document (marriage license) and vow to be husband and wife before a legal witness? Is it really the signatures on a piece of paper or the saying of vows that unite the couple? It seems it must be more than this. While the written contract and the promises before a religious or legal witness have their place, they are really nothing more than a more finite way to express an abstract concept. If those things are just representations of the union of souls, is consummation where the real union takes place? Somehow this seems wrong as well. This would mean that all sexual partners become spouses even though they be without commitment or even love. Though I see sex as a spiritual act, this also seems very wrong. Though I believe sex should not occur before marriage or leastwise commitment, I cannot call those who have had sex outside of such a relationship “married” because of the physical act. Cannot the union of two souls be possible without physical consummation? If marriage is defined not by religious or legal tradition, but by the abstract but no less meaningful union of souls in a committed relationship, is sex outside of legal or religious marriage, but still within a lifelong commitment,  really wrong in the eyes of God?

The question I struggle to find an answer for is this. If marriage is possible without the signing of legal documents before a witness, or without religious ceremony, or even without consummation, when is it that the marriage of two souls occurs? How do you put a finite time and place on such an act without the traditional legal, religious, and physical acts? I cannot believe love and commitment are limited to these traditional expressions. But without such things, how does a couple know their souls are united? At what moment is a couple married in the eyes of God though not in the eyes of the Law and the Church? It seems that vows and an expression of commitment are important as well as the presence of a witness (for the sake of accountability). But these things are surely possible without traditional ceremony. Marriage is surely possible without following the processes of “the institute of marriage.” So, I asked again, when does the union of souls really occur within or without such institution?

I’m not sure there is any finite or even clear answer to such a question beyond the cliche and abstract use of the phrase “you just know.” Even so I’m curious to know how others would respond to such an obscur question.

I’m sure my writing is as confused and jumbled in this blog as the concept is in my head, so if you have not followed I apologize.

Thanks for listening,

~J

A truly good day

Today has been one of those days, the good kind. The kind of day that seemed at first like it was going to be boring or uneventful but instead became amazing.

A week ago I made plans to visit my best friend from highschool today. This is a friend whom I have not seen in nearly 3 years and whom I have only recently reconnected with after over two years without speaking to her or even hearing from others how she was. By the middle of this week I began to doubt that I would be able to visit her because of a bad cold that I couldn’t seem to shake. Though I was not completely free of my cold yesterday, I felt I was well enough to go visit her today. The timing was perfect because my husband had day long plans with his friends that I was not interested in participating in. I called her to let her know that plans were still on to find out she was the one that had to reschedule. Turns out she got a job this week and had to work today.  An hour after that disappointment, it occurred to me that I could instead spend the day at my grandfathers house with my grandfather, mom, and youngest brother. I called my mother and she said they’d be happy to have me.

And so I went, much later than I had originally planned because early starts are difficult on Saturdays.  I actually woke up at 7am because I’d had a dream that was story worthy and wanted to write it down before it slipped away. So I wrote for two and a half hours and then went back to sleep. Thus I did not leave for my mom’s at 10am like I had planned. Instead I woke up at 12pm and didn’t leave until after 1:30. But I did go.

At my moms, I ate a late breakfast of sausage and homemade waffles that tasted like soap. Well I ate a few waffle bites and then threw the unpalatable waffles away. Then I pretty much sat around reading the newspaper and looking at catalogs while my mom ran around doing various things, my brother played with friends, and my grandpa alternated between napping and watching football. It began to get close to dinner time and my mom was suppose to take out a friend who is moving away in a few days. We had not yet spent any quality time together. My mother and I had earlier planned to go on a walk and enjoy the fall weather, but distractions had ensued. Mom called her friend and made definite plans. There was time enough to spare for us to have our walk and have it at a local park. My brother joined us. The park we had originally intended to go to was closed and so we went to one a little farther away.

Here the quality time kicked in. My mom, brother and I spent time together talking and walking on the park’s nature trail, my brother and I stopping often to take pictures of each other and the surrounding nature with our separate cameras. After a lovely walk we all played on the park’s playground equipment (including my 50 year old mom). We took a lot of good and fun pictures at the playground. It was a lot of fun.

In all the enjoyment, the time for my mother to go to dinner with her friend came quickly. In fact, she was already late and her friend was already at the restaurant when we left the park. We went back to the house where mom got ready to go to dinner with her friend. My brother and I then went out to dinner with my grandfather at Sonny’s. We had a really nice waiter and a good time being silly and talking. (And of course lots of good food… I introduced my brother to corn nuggets.) It was a very good meal and a very good time.

I came home after returning to grandpa’s house to have Face something I had dreading. I was suppose to have grand jury duty this past Tuesday in the midst of my bad cold. I managed to only get one hour of sleep  before waking up to get ready for jury duty and thus felt even more terrible than befpre. I knew I had no business leaving the house, or even the bed. I was so sick, I had to have my husband call for me. I was suppose to be there at 9 but we couldn’t call untill 8:30. He called and they said they would take care of it and thus I was able to get the rest I needed. I had been dreading all week what the consequences of my absence were going to be. Was I going to be fined? Summoned to court? Whatever else? When I arrived home this evening I had a letter from the court house. I opened it to read to my great relief something along the lines of “Your request to have your jury duty postponed has been granted. You now are called to appear in November. We will contact you will farther details.” And that was it. No negative consequences. Like I said, I was quite relieved. What a great addition to an already great day.

That was my day. A day in which all pre-made plans were thwarted and all day-made plans were delayed. A day in which many hours were wasted, but the few hours used wisely were wonderful beyond measure. For such simple treasures I praise God.

~J

Why I write.

Every writer at some point is either asked by themselves or by another why they write.

So why do I write?

Reason # 1: As someone once said “Because I must.” I can’t not write. I write because I always have, at least as long as I’ve had the ability to do so. It is in my nature to take pencil or pen to paper, or sit down in front of a computer and type. I’ve just always been better at expressing myself through written word. So that is what I do.

Reason # 2:  I write for others. Maybe something I have to say can make a positive difference in someone else’s life.

Before I continue on this track let me first say this: I am under no delusions that I have anything new or original to say. Everything I have learned about writing tells me it has all been done before. Someone somewhere has either said, wrote, or at least thought anything and everything I have to say. As Solomon says in Ecclesiastes “There is nothing new under the sun.” He said that thousand of years ago but it is still true today. Okay, yes, there are new technologies and inventions and material things, but the human experience is essentially the same. So while I cannot hope to say anything new or orignal, the best I, and any writer, can hope to achieve is to offer a fresh or at least unfamiliar perspective on things. In that new or unfamiliar perspective is where I hope to positively influence someone else.

Maybe my perspective on an idea will be the first someone out there has ever heard of the idea. Maybe someone out there will have never looked at things the same way I have and something I write will give that person new insight on things. Maybe I will inspire someone to consider a scenario they’ve never considered previously. This person, with the new perspective, may change an aspect about their life in a positive way because of what I said. Even if only one person reads what I have written and makes even the slightest positive change in their life, that is enough. I’d like to think that I’ve already had this kind of influence on someone, though through my actions or friendship rather than my writing. But I must keep trying, even if I never know the impact my words have had. Maybe this is vain or arrogant of me but the hope that I have the potential to make a positive difference is enough to keep me writing.

Reason # 3: I write for myself, possibly even more so than for the hope of influencing anyone else.

For me, writing is soothing and almost therapeutic. Sometimes I cannot sleep at night because I have too much on my mind. But if I get out of bed and write those things down, I am able to find peace and rest. I use to journal frequently and that helped, but I have not done that in a long time. This blog is a new place for me to journal; a faster bigger world in which my thoughts and feelings have somewhere else to go besides a notebook that no one else will ever read. Here, I can know that I am not alone.

I also write as a way to better understand myself. Writing gives me a medium to organize my thoughts. Once thoughts are written down and organized, I can look back at them rather than trying to dig them out of memory. Looking back on my thoughts may help me to better understand some aspect of an event in my life or even an aspect of my own character. Through this visual analyzation of myself, I can learn to appreciate things I have taken advantage of or not noticed previously. I can look at my own character and become aware of my strengths and weakens, my successes and mistakes. I can learn from such things and become a better person.

Maybe, just maybe, I can write something here that someone else will comment on. This commentary may give to me a new perspective, just as I hope to give others, and I will become one of those people who has been positively influenced by the words of someone else. Something I say here may lead to someone else out there saying something that will make me a better person.

That is why I write.

~J