What a brave man Dan Abrams must be. He took this chance to write on a subject that has been a part of the war of the sexes for years: Who is the superior sex?" He said on MSNBC that this book had to be written by a man so that the book would not be perceived as biased. "Man Down" puts all of the data on various subjects all in one place, at the reader's finger tips
Exactly what information was discovered about the sexes? It was found that women are smarter, cooler, healthier, more deliberative than men who tend to wing it, etc., etc., etc.
Women through a whole host of reasons came out on top in category after category when compared to men. I myself have been pondering the mystic of women who are placed second in command in the family heirarchy in the Bible. I'm not a feminist, but wondered why in Christianity women have a supporting role while in many pagan religions womanhood is celebrated. In history, if there was a powerful movement occuring, a woman would be in the midst of things; as we see with the birth, life, ministry, death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. In the Gnostic Gospels, Mary Magdeline is hated by Peter for her close relationship with Jesus. This gospel, which has been dispelled, fits into the history of the treatment of women.
Science has weighed in on the differences of the sexes without causing too much fall out.
Women have four times as many brain cells (neurons) connecting the right and left side of their brain. This latter finding provides physical evidence that supports the observation that men rely easily and more heavily on their left brain to solve one problem one step at a time. Women have more efficient access to both sides of their brain and therefore greater use of their right brain. Women can focus on more than one problem at one time and frequently prefer to solve problems through multiple activities at a time. Nearly every parent has observed how young girls find the conversations of young boys "boring". Young boys express confusion and would rather play sports than participate actively in a conversation between 5 girls who are discussing as many as three subjects at once!
Women tend to be intuitive global thinkers. They consider multiple sources of information within a process that can be described as simultaneous, global in perspective and will view elements in the task in terms of their interconnectedness. Women come to understand and consider problems all at once. They take a broad or "collective" perspective, and they view elements in a task as interconnected and interdependent. When deciding on war or even a president, women more than likely weigh the information in relationship to their needs as mothers or potential mother of young, teen, young adult, asnd adult children as opposed to following the loudest voice in the political arena. President Obama's large number of votes can be attributed to the mind of the woman across racial lines.
Men tend to focus on one problem at a time or a limited number of problems at a time. They have an enhanced ability to separate themselves from problems and minimize the complexity that may exist. Men come to understand and consider problems one piece at a time. They take a linear or sequential perspective, and view elements in a task as less interconnected and more independent. Men are prone to minimize and fail to appreciate subtleties that can be crucial to successful solutions. A male may work through a problem repeatedly, talking about the same thing over and over, rather than trying to address the the problem all at once. This explains why it is so easy for men to declare war or even push ecological concerns to the backburner.
I haven't read the book "Man Down" yet, but I will and post on it in a more informed manner. For now, I'll leave you with a few differences between the sexes that are pretty well known and accepted.
Women have higher life expectancy than men at birth and at age 60
There are more literate men
There are slightly more female who enroll in high school
There are more women who enroll in college
Eighty-two percent of teachers in elementary and secondary schools are women *Union cut target*
Ninety-one percent of registered nurses are women *Uninion cut target, not firemen or policemen*
Ninety-eight percent of pre-elementary and kindergarten teachers are women *
Eighty-eight percent of civil engineers are men
Ninety-two percent of electrical and electronic engineers are men
Ninety-eight percent of pilots and flight engineers are men
There are more men in the labor force
There are more women who are unemployed
There are more women who engage in part-time employment
There are more men legislators and managers
There are more women who have college degree
There are more men in prison
Female inmates had higher ratio of mental problems
Men drink far more than woman
Suicidal rates are higher to men than women
There are more male patients in mental institutions
Alcohol and substance abuse is 5 times more in men than in women
There are more men who have cancer of the brain
There are more diabetic men
There are more obese women
Men are twice as likely as women to become victims of online fraud.
No matter how superior we are men, the world will always need you.
True Power
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Everyone Wants To Lead (Joan of Arc)
I was in a meeting supporting my friend who happens to be a city alderman. After talking about the plans in store for our city and whether the proposed concept was good for the city, someone said, "It has always been hard for a certain segment of the population to work effectively together because everyone wants to be the leader and no one wants to follow."
This was not a comment that did not ring true to the many people in the meeting room. I myself belong to several groups and hold various positions and have been frustrated beyond belief at how we spin our wheels and accomplish nothing. To be truthful, everyone in the organization does want to lead and can not be counted on to follow.
Being a TCM (Turner Classic Movie) fan, I spent this past Sunday night snuggled on my favorite couch to watch two versions of Joan Of Arc. The first was a 1927 silent black and white version and the second was a foreign French version, black and white from 1937, I believe. Each movie was had the English dialogue streaming on the bottom of the screen.
Being a TCM (Turner Classic Movie) fan, I spent this past Sunday night snuggled on my favorite couch to watch two versions of Joan Of Arc. The first was a 1927 silent black and white version and the second was a foreign French version, black and white from 1937, I believe. Each movie was had the English dialogue streaming on the bottom of the screen.
 |
| 1920's Joan |
I have seen many versions of Joan Of Arc, but never one of the two listed above. These two versions were produced using only original court transcripts and interviews found by the people of that time.
Joan was tried by the Catholic Church with the English having a vested interest in the outcome of her trial due to the fact she was helping the king of France, an enemy at the time.
Joan broke all of the rules. She wore men clothing, led men into battle, wore armor, cut her hair, and worst of all; she believed she could by pass the church i.e. bishops and pope and speak directly with God and even the saints and angels (Micheal). She was a heretic and the church was going to excommunicate her if she did not recant that she was working under the counsel of God. While in prison it was determined that her clothes may have been giving her stoic resolve so they tried to get her to put on a dress; which she refused to do. Then it was determined since she vowed her virginity to God, she was receiving her stregnth from that. In the 1937 movie Joan told a priest that the guards had tried to rape her on three different occasions. Communion was paraded before her as a bargaining tool to get her to recant.
After being tried just feet from the galleys, she recanted, but within hours changed her mind and said she was weakened by the fear of death but could not make God a liar and said her recanting was the true lie.
Joan was burned at the stake with the church and governmental officials looking on. As soon as the flames began, you could see the doubt cross the faces of the men. They had to wonder, who would go to their death proclaiming to be a servant of God if they were not. This was the action of the Jesus and later the apostles.
I thought about all of the people who want to lead. When glory, fame, fortune, and honor are to the results it is easy to want to lead, but when ridicule, torture and death are the result, no hand will go up to be chosen.
Great leaders always pay a heavy price whether you are aware of it or not. If you were to read the biography of people we consider great, there will be pages filled with pain and often times uncertainty and pure defeat of the spirit at times.
Victory has many fathers. But who claims defeat? The person who claims defeat is the one who got back up and dusted themselves off and continued onward not accepting defeat as an option, but just a bump in the road.
Joan Of Arc was a woman who led but she was also a woman who followed God. The church saw her as a threat with her nonsense of hearing and talking to God on her own. Years would pass and what the church feared at that time would still come to pass, the Protestant movement came and said we should be able to read the Bible for themselves and pray on their own.
So now I must ask myself do I know when to lead and do I know when to follow. Joan's life ended at the age of 19 in a tragic blaze of fire and smoke. She stood behind her beliefs and cause to the end. All I can say is, I can understand why men would follow her into battle
Friday, March 11, 2011
Obama Fear???
Why make so much of where President Obama was born and his religion - To insight fear. But, how and why? People are usually afraid of the unknown or something that is new and thus foreign. I often wonder whether women in the pulpit face so much opposition based on doctrine or because of fear. Below is an example of what fear can look like and how a minority group like women ministers must endure.
When immigrants to America became too numerous or no longer needed for labor, fear would be employed to get rid of them going as far as to say they (the immigrants) were after the white woman for sexual gratification.
In today’s political arena, we hear a lot about the president. He does sound scary when you listen to cable shows and talk radio. It seems comforting to some to attack the president on some personal level; his origins and beliefs. Everyone is jumping on the “Hey, I’m just like you; afraid of the president and what he may do to our country.” We have heard the rallying cry of the masses to “Take our country back.” I want to know: “Take our country back to where?”
The earliest census for 1700 in the United States had 3.9 million residents of which 3.14 million were white and 700,000 were African slaves. There were less than 60,000 free non-white residents in the entire country. America was the land of the white man with women not having equality. The white man was king. It worked in 1700.
On his nationally syndicated radio show, Bill O'Reilly claimed that on the April 11 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, guest Charles Barron, a New York City councilman, had revealed the "hidden agenda" behind the current immigration debate. O'Reilly told his listeners: "[T]he bottom line is Charles Barron said last night there is a movement in this country to wipe out 'white privilege' and to have the browning of America." But in the April 11 interview, Barron at no point claimed that he and other advocates for immigrant rights are motivated by a desire to force white Americans into the minority -- despite O'Reilly's repeated efforts to provoke such an acknowledgment.
O'Reilly asked: "[Y]ou'd like the changing America to be -- the dominant people would be people of color? ... But you want it to happen, do you not? ... Do you not want it to happen? ... [T]hat's the bottom line on it, isn't it, Charles? ... You want a totally different country." But Barron responded that this was not the bottom line. To the contrary, he argued that the growing minority population is instead driving the backlash on immigrants: "You fear that ... your white privilege will no longer exist. ... And that's why you have problems with immigration. Because it's the browning of America. ... You want to stay in control. You want to stay in power." (Full transcript of the interview): http://mediamatters.org/research/200604140009
America has changed and the change is scary to many. I have a white friend who told me she could not understand all of the hostility towards Obama and was sick and tired of it. I said I can understand it. White people in history past mistreated one ethnic group after another beginning with the Indians and continuing on to include the Irish, Italian, Japanese, Mexican, Scottish, African, and German. If these groups ever joined together the white man may think retribution may be on their minds. This was the thought of white people in Africa when Nelson Mandela was elected president, but it proved to be a false assumption. Mandela brought the races together through the national sport of soccer. Payback was not a part of his philosophy. And I daresay, not on the mind of our president today.
America is changing. It is becoming more diverse and even browner with each passing decade. The thought of becoming a minority and knowing how minorities are treated would cause fear in anyone who has never been a minority. It is completely understandable.
The United States is a diverse country, racially and ethnically. Six races are recognized: White, American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, and people of two or more races; a race called "Some other race" is also used in the census and other surveys, but is not official. Americans are also classified as "Hispanic or Latino" and "Not Hispanic or Latino”. White Americans (non-Hispanic/Latino and Hispanic/Latino) are the racial majority, with an 80% share of the U.S. population, per official estimates from the Population Estimates Program (PEP), or 75% per the American Community Survey (ACS)."
The majority of the more than 300 million people currently living in the United States consist of White Americans, who trace their ancestry to the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa.
Multiracial Americans numbered 7.0 million in 2008, or 2.3% of the population. They can be any combination of races (White, Black or African American, Asian, American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, "Some other race") and ethnicities. The U.S. has a growing multiracial identity movement. Miscegenation or interracial marriage, most notably between whites and blacks, was deemed immoral and illegal in most states until the 20th century. Demographers state that the American people were mostly multi-ethnic descendants of various immigrant nationalities culturally distinct until assimilation and integration took place in the mid-20th century.
"Hispanic or Latino origin" is a self-designation made by 47 million Americans, as of 2008.
By the time the class of 2010 has children old enough to attend college, America will look remarkably different. This generation is far and above the most ethnically and racially diverse generation ever; soon, whites will not be the majority group. Interracial dating and marriage are nearly universally accepted among youths. And more young people are involved in interracial relationships themselves. The next generation that this generation bequeaths will encompass a complex mix of colors. All of this taken together will have profound implications for American society.
85 percent of people aged 18-29 support interracial marriage, according to the Pew Research Center. And, according to a 2008 USA Today/Gallup Poll, more than half of all teens have dated someone from a different race or ethnic group.
To some Obama does represent the boggieman. He symbolizes that America is different, but it is not his fault. President Obama is just simply AMERICA a man made up of different ethnic groups and a wide range of concern for all. He has been accused of changing too much too fast. The truth is there has been a subtle change occurring for years.
Even in my rural little patch of earth, there are numerous white grandparents pushing buggies with little curly headed ethnically mixed grandchildren. It is almost impossible to decipher the ethnic make up of the child; you just know it is a blend of something and the best part is no one cares. To be afraid of the black man now is to be afraid of your grandchild’s grandparent, uncle, cousin, and even brother. The next generation will not be as afraid of the Indian, Mexican, or black man.
The older generation is having a hard time living in this new America, and I feel for them. It’s like “remember when a cookie once cost five cents?” Older people always reflect on the good old days while youths are living in the present thinking about their future.
There is no need for anger on anyone’s part. There is no need for fear either. No one person owns the world, we all have to adjust, assimilate, in one way or another. Minorities have been doing it forever; it is accomplishable. Because President Obama comes from this ethnic blend he is not shocked by the reaction of the old guard and minority groups. He has been privy to the world of the white person and the black person. He understands the power and the pain of skin color and the reactions of people to both. He has been privy to the private conversations of the whites and the blacks. I’m sure he prepared himself well before he decided to step into the political arena.
When immigrants to America became too numerous or no longer needed for labor, fear would be employed to get rid of them going as far as to say they (the immigrants) were after the white woman for sexual gratification.
In today’s political arena, we hear a lot about the president. He does sound scary when you listen to cable shows and talk radio. It seems comforting to some to attack the president on some personal level; his origins and beliefs. Everyone is jumping on the “Hey, I’m just like you; afraid of the president and what he may do to our country.” We have heard the rallying cry of the masses to “Take our country back.” I want to know: “Take our country back to where?”
The earliest census for 1700 in the United States had 3.9 million residents of which 3.14 million were white and 700,000 were African slaves. There were less than 60,000 free non-white residents in the entire country. America was the land of the white man with women not having equality. The white man was king. It worked in 1700.
On his nationally syndicated radio show, Bill O'Reilly claimed that on the April 11 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, guest Charles Barron, a New York City councilman, had revealed the "hidden agenda" behind the current immigration debate. O'Reilly told his listeners: "[T]he bottom line is Charles Barron said last night there is a movement in this country to wipe out 'white privilege' and to have the browning of America." But in the April 11 interview, Barron at no point claimed that he and other advocates for immigrant rights are motivated by a desire to force white Americans into the minority -- despite O'Reilly's repeated efforts to provoke such an acknowledgment.
O'Reilly asked: "[Y]ou'd like the changing America to be -- the dominant people would be people of color? ... But you want it to happen, do you not? ... Do you not want it to happen? ... [T]hat's the bottom line on it, isn't it, Charles? ... You want a totally different country." But Barron responded that this was not the bottom line. To the contrary, he argued that the growing minority population is instead driving the backlash on immigrants: "You fear that ... your white privilege will no longer exist. ... And that's why you have problems with immigration. Because it's the browning of America. ... You want to stay in control. You want to stay in power." (Full transcript of the interview): http://mediamatters.org/research/200604140009
America has changed and the change is scary to many. I have a white friend who told me she could not understand all of the hostility towards Obama and was sick and tired of it. I said I can understand it. White people in history past mistreated one ethnic group after another beginning with the Indians and continuing on to include the Irish, Italian, Japanese, Mexican, Scottish, African, and German. If these groups ever joined together the white man may think retribution may be on their minds. This was the thought of white people in Africa when Nelson Mandela was elected president, but it proved to be a false assumption. Mandela brought the races together through the national sport of soccer. Payback was not a part of his philosophy. And I daresay, not on the mind of our president today.
America is changing. It is becoming more diverse and even browner with each passing decade. The thought of becoming a minority and knowing how minorities are treated would cause fear in anyone who has never been a minority. It is completely understandable.
The United States is a diverse country, racially and ethnically. Six races are recognized: White, American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, and people of two or more races; a race called "Some other race" is also used in the census and other surveys, but is not official. Americans are also classified as "Hispanic or Latino" and "Not Hispanic or Latino”. White Americans (non-Hispanic/Latino and Hispanic/Latino) are the racial majority, with an 80% share of the U.S. population, per official estimates from the Population Estimates Program (PEP), or 75% per the American Community Survey (ACS)."
The majority of the more than 300 million people currently living in the United States consist of White Americans, who trace their ancestry to the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa.
Multiracial Americans numbered 7.0 million in 2008, or 2.3% of the population. They can be any combination of races (White, Black or African American, Asian, American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, "Some other race") and ethnicities. The U.S. has a growing multiracial identity movement. Miscegenation or interracial marriage, most notably between whites and blacks, was deemed immoral and illegal in most states until the 20th century. Demographers state that the American people were mostly multi-ethnic descendants of various immigrant nationalities culturally distinct until assimilation and integration took place in the mid-20th century.
"Hispanic or Latino origin" is a self-designation made by 47 million Americans, as of 2008.
By the time the class of 2010 has children old enough to attend college, America will look remarkably different. This generation is far and above the most ethnically and racially diverse generation ever; soon, whites will not be the majority group. Interracial dating and marriage are nearly universally accepted among youths. And more young people are involved in interracial relationships themselves. The next generation that this generation bequeaths will encompass a complex mix of colors. All of this taken together will have profound implications for American society.
85 percent of people aged 18-29 support interracial marriage, according to the Pew Research Center. And, according to a 2008 USA Today/Gallup Poll, more than half of all teens have dated someone from a different race or ethnic group.
To some Obama does represent the boggieman. He symbolizes that America is different, but it is not his fault. President Obama is just simply AMERICA a man made up of different ethnic groups and a wide range of concern for all. He has been accused of changing too much too fast. The truth is there has been a subtle change occurring for years.
Even in my rural little patch of earth, there are numerous white grandparents pushing buggies with little curly headed ethnically mixed grandchildren. It is almost impossible to decipher the ethnic make up of the child; you just know it is a blend of something and the best part is no one cares. To be afraid of the black man now is to be afraid of your grandchild’s grandparent, uncle, cousin, and even brother. The next generation will not be as afraid of the Indian, Mexican, or black man.
The older generation is having a hard time living in this new America, and I feel for them. It’s like “remember when a cookie once cost five cents?” Older people always reflect on the good old days while youths are living in the present thinking about their future.
There is no need for anger on anyone’s part. There is no need for fear either. No one person owns the world, we all have to adjust, assimilate, in one way or another. Minorities have been doing it forever; it is accomplishable. Because President Obama comes from this ethnic blend he is not shocked by the reaction of the old guard and minority groups. He has been privy to the world of the white person and the black person. He understands the power and the pain of skin color and the reactions of people to both. He has been privy to the private conversations of the whites and the blacks. I’m sure he prepared himself well before he decided to step into the political arena.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Newt Ain't Cute
It seems the motto of the Republican Party has become: "Slap Some Jesus On It" and no matter what you say, no matter how incorrect, hypocritical, obscene, or malicious it is, it will be okay as long as you slap some Jesus on it.
So many politicians who champion family values end up having affairs. Many who crusade against homosexuality fall in the public spotlight for being homosexual themselves. They all seem to find a Godly cause to stand loudly behind because it is Christian and stumble on the issue to make a final statement of repentance to family and God and jump right back on the band wagon. Huckabee, a religious man, LIED about where the president grew up, pandering to a conservative audience. He issued a public statement saying he misspoke but never apologized for the heart of the comment; "the president must be watched because he does not have American values" Running for president is as American as one can get. God sees the heart and knows what it harbors. People will take away from this: Christians are liars. Shame on Huckabee and this public representation of Jesus.
Newt Gingrich is testing the waters to see if he has enough of interest from people before he actually throws his hat in the ring for president. He knew his past would be a hurdle he would have to overcome.
There is no need for me to tell you the details, because Newt is casting a spell over potential voters using God to erase memories of his atrocious acts of infidelity. While prosecuting one man for a sin, he himself was engaging in the same action. While saying one man's character was flawed and representative of what kind of leader they were, he indulged in the same behavior while declaring he stood for family values.
There is no need for you to sum up Newts past behaviors, choices, and hypocrisies; in life because he has slapped some Jesus on it and that is all that matters now. This would be true if Newt himself has not been questioning whether the president was a Christian. It seems God can forgive Newt's sins (several transgressions in marriage) but there is no way this same God can be the God of the president who the president himself says he serves as a Christian.
Many joke that God only belongs to the Republican Party. Democrats, to my surprise, demonstrated for the country at the public service for fellow politician 'Gabby' that they too had access to the Bible and were familiar with its contents.
Newt tells all who will listen that his transgressions against his WIVES were due to his PASSION for his country to which he worked slavishly and drove him to sexual relationships (or at least mental infidelity) with other women. His patriotism led him to woo and win other women.
God forgives and He will continue to forgive and He forgives who He will, but the audacity of Newt to think in his head: as long as I wrap everything up in Jesus I can say and do anything.
His explanation is demeaning to womanhood. To deliver divorce papers to a wife with cancer and wrap it up in patriotism and God - Newt has not one ounce of compassion or concern for those close to him. For Newt to loudly advocate family values and bring a person up on charges for adultery; while indulging in the same behavior - Newt does not care about the other man and his family. For Newt to look into the eyes of fellow Christians and say I transgressed due to my passion for my country; Newt does not care about the people of his party and voters at large.
Newt must have employed these same strategic devices while ditching one wife and obtaining another: I do what I want regardless of how it looks or who it hurts. We do know there is repentance and forgiveness, but there are also consequences set into motion by sin. Below is an excerpt from my book "The Politics of Prayer":
David was “a man after God’s own heart” (I Samuel 13:14). He governed God’s people by God’s principles. Even though he possessed strong leadership abilities and a willingness to obey God, he was still human. He struggled with lust, adultery, and even murder. He had problems with a son trying to entice an entire nation into rebellion against him, the king.
When David repented to God for his sins, God showed him forgiveness and his fellowship and peace with God was restored. Though God forgave David, he had to live through the consequences his sins had set in motion (II Samuel 12-20), such as the death of his child with the woman he committed adultery with, Bathsheba.
We see David as an ideal leader of an imperfect kingdom. Then we see an ideal kingdom and an imperfect leader.
So Newt, and all of the others in government and the political arena, even if you slap God, Jesus onto everything; there will always be consequences for your actions. And to Newt - you ain't cute.
So many politicians who champion family values end up having affairs. Many who crusade against homosexuality fall in the public spotlight for being homosexual themselves. They all seem to find a Godly cause to stand loudly behind because it is Christian and stumble on the issue to make a final statement of repentance to family and God and jump right back on the band wagon. Huckabee, a religious man, LIED about where the president grew up, pandering to a conservative audience. He issued a public statement saying he misspoke but never apologized for the heart of the comment; "the president must be watched because he does not have American values" Running for president is as American as one can get. God sees the heart and knows what it harbors. People will take away from this: Christians are liars. Shame on Huckabee and this public representation of Jesus.
Newt Gingrich is testing the waters to see if he has enough of interest from people before he actually throws his hat in the ring for president. He knew his past would be a hurdle he would have to overcome.
There is no need for me to tell you the details, because Newt is casting a spell over potential voters using God to erase memories of his atrocious acts of infidelity. While prosecuting one man for a sin, he himself was engaging in the same action. While saying one man's character was flawed and representative of what kind of leader they were, he indulged in the same behavior while declaring he stood for family values.
There is no need for you to sum up Newts past behaviors, choices, and hypocrisies; in life because he has slapped some Jesus on it and that is all that matters now. This would be true if Newt himself has not been questioning whether the president was a Christian. It seems God can forgive Newt's sins (several transgressions in marriage) but there is no way this same God can be the God of the president who the president himself says he serves as a Christian.
Many joke that God only belongs to the Republican Party. Democrats, to my surprise, demonstrated for the country at the public service for fellow politician 'Gabby' that they too had access to the Bible and were familiar with its contents.
Newt tells all who will listen that his transgressions against his WIVES were due to his PASSION for his country to which he worked slavishly and drove him to sexual relationships (or at least mental infidelity) with other women. His patriotism led him to woo and win other women.
God forgives and He will continue to forgive and He forgives who He will, but the audacity of Newt to think in his head: as long as I wrap everything up in Jesus I can say and do anything.
His explanation is demeaning to womanhood. To deliver divorce papers to a wife with cancer and wrap it up in patriotism and God - Newt has not one ounce of compassion or concern for those close to him. For Newt to loudly advocate family values and bring a person up on charges for adultery; while indulging in the same behavior - Newt does not care about the other man and his family. For Newt to look into the eyes of fellow Christians and say I transgressed due to my passion for my country; Newt does not care about the people of his party and voters at large.
Newt must have employed these same strategic devices while ditching one wife and obtaining another: I do what I want regardless of how it looks or who it hurts. We do know there is repentance and forgiveness, but there are also consequences set into motion by sin. Below is an excerpt from my book "The Politics of Prayer":
David was “a man after God’s own heart” (I Samuel 13:14). He governed God’s people by God’s principles. Even though he possessed strong leadership abilities and a willingness to obey God, he was still human. He struggled with lust, adultery, and even murder. He had problems with a son trying to entice an entire nation into rebellion against him, the king.
When David repented to God for his sins, God showed him forgiveness and his fellowship and peace with God was restored. Though God forgave David, he had to live through the consequences his sins had set in motion (II Samuel 12-20), such as the death of his child with the woman he committed adultery with, Bathsheba.
We see David as an ideal leader of an imperfect kingdom. Then we see an ideal kingdom and an imperfect leader.
So Newt, and all of the others in government and the political arena, even if you slap God, Jesus onto everything; there will always be consequences for your actions. And to Newt - you ain't cute.
What Would Jesus Cut?
"George Ozuna Jr. of the Learning Resources Center compiled a list of controversial issues that fall into the political sphere and issues Christians would and should care about. To say the list was substantial is an understatement. While looking at the list I began to wonder: opposition or support for which subject or policy signals without a doubt whether one is a Christian or not? Look at the list below and try to rank, by importance, from top to bottom which controversial policy would signal Christianity to society if you took up the cause:
Homeland Security
Health Insurance
Energy
Censorship
Capital Punishment
Abortion
Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA)
CIA and Drugs ($5-600 billion per year in drug money is moving through the US economy and the illegal covert operation which maintain control of that cash flow for US economic interest).
Homeless-National Coalition for the Homeless
Crime
Death Penalty
College Drinking
Racism
Corporate Crime
Diseases, the Global Threat of New and Reemerging
Education
Environmental Health
Nuclear Issues
Prisons
How many of the issues facing our society are we to rally against if we are truly Christians? Has involvement for or against specific policies become the determinate of Christianity and if so who is doing the judging; God or man? I often hear those involved in political causes state they are doing what Jesus would do. Jesus did not lead social causes but went to the source of change, individuals. He offered them a better way of life. He offered them eternal life. Jesus’ ministry focused on the condition of the human heart and soul. His prayers were for those that were lost in wickedness, not by changing laws, but by changing lives.
No matter what laws are instituted, it is the heart of each individual that will make the difference. The Christian does not rely on law for righteousness (right choices and right actions) but on God. The Christian that does look to government to do what is Godly or right will be a disappointed Christian."
Those who are for cuts believe financial funding for state programs make people lazy and dependent on the government. For some this is completely true; for others, the funding is a matter of life and death. Jesus said wheat and tare grow side by side almost identical until the final stage of maturity. He said He will be the one to do the separating of the two plants. The same goes for those in need and those who abuse laws, policies, and government funded programs. Christians should be aware of the big picture and not have tunnel vision. Obamacare is declared health insurance to pull the plug on grandma, but cutting funding to Medicare kills grandma too. Right to lifers state someone must stand up for the unborn, the babies. Cutting Medicaid hurts babies also. So, what is a Christian to do? Asking ourselves, What Would Jesus Cut would be a great beginning without focusing on the sinful who take advantage and abuse everything and everyone in life; they will have their day of reckoning, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
It is always hard to make Godly choices in a sin sick world, but trying to make heaven on earth; forcing everyone to live like a Christian when they have not freely made that choice, is not the answer either. Regardless what the world is doing, Christians must still remain true to Jesus' teachings.
A year of celebration devoted to liberty and justice and observed every fifty years by the Israelites. During this year, Israelites serving as indentured servants were released from their debts and set free. All properties given up because of indebtedness since the last jubilee were returned to the original owners. Cropland was allowed to go unplanted as a conservation measure(Lev. 25:8-55). The edges of fields were left unharvested so the hungry could eat. No one was allowed to pick up anything that was dropped during harvesting, it too was left for the hungry.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Bible shows female exploitation: VASHTI
When I say the Bible has examples for all circumstances in life; you can believe me, it does.
Have you ever noticed when watching a movie the hero is fully clothed and maybe even wearing a bad boy leather jascket? Have you noticed the heroine will either have on a muscle shirt or a skin tight cat suit? Music videos are notorious for the men having on baggy jeans and a humungous jacket while the female in the video has on a skimpy dress or a two piece swimsuit. Why must women be almost nude to be considered sexy? I think having a bit of mystery as to what is exactly underneath the clothes is more tantalizing to a man and lets face it, the nudy girl is not the one he takes home to momma.
In the book of Esther, King Xerxes was showing off his vast wealth to all the nobles, officials, military leaders of Persia and Media, and princes. Xerxes ruled over 127 provinces stretching from India to the upper Nile region known at that time as Cush. His display of his wealth lasted 180 days. After the 180 day display he gave a banquet in his garden lasting for seven days. To this banquet he invited the every day individual as well as the powerful. Wine flowed freely during the banquet.
While her husband was entertaining the drunken men, Queen Vashti held a banquet for the women in the royal palace. On the last day of the banquet a drunken King Xerxes ordered his seven eunichs to bring his wife bedecked in her crown so he could display her to the other men as he had done with all of his riches (property). The king was angered when his beautiful wife refused to be displayed to his court of drunken guests. The king asked seven wise men, nobles, from Persia and Media what must he do to his wife for disobeying his command.
The wise men told the king not only did his royal wife insult him by not obeying but insulted every man present and if he let his wife go unpunished other women would do as Vashti and disobey their husbands. Her punishment must be public, law, and severe. Vashti would no longer be allowed in the presence if the king and her position was now to be given to someone else. A proclaimation went forth throughout the entire land that from the least to the greatest every man should be ruler over his own household Esther 1:1ff
In this story the position of the woman is not even considered. Any husband following God, it seems to me, would not want to parade his wife, who we guess he loves, in front of a crowd of drunken men. We understand that Vashti was disobedient, but WHAT WAS THE KING. The wise men the king consulted were not concerned with a MARRIAGE, but concerned about making sure their own wives remained obedient.
In this entire account, the men did not display any wisdom. When a couple married in the Old Testament, God declared the two became one. I wonder if the king would have paraded himself around in front of a drunken hoard of people at the Queens request? I also wonder when the Old Testament defined the Proverbs woman was Vashti trying to live up to that standard and not let herself be trotted around men for their carnal delight? Who in this chapter of Esther was behaving in accordance with God's commands.
How far must a wife go in being obedient to her husband until her own soul in in jeapordy?
Nabal was a wealthy man married to Abigail. David and his army, while in his time of fleeing from Saul came into the territory where Nabal lived. David sent a messenger to Nabel reminding him that his army did not harm any of his servants when they had come upon them and asked for whatever he could spare at sheep shearing time, which David called a festive time. Nabal replied with a stern NO. David, not the least bit happy with this reply, gathered 400 men armed with swords and headed out to have a face to face with Nabal.
A servant of Nabal's told Abigail of the exchange between her husband and messenger. Abigail wasted no time. She gathered 200 loaves of bread, 2 skins of wine, 5 dressed sheep, 5 bushels of roasted grain, 100 cakes of raisins, and 200 cakes of pressed figs loaded them on a donkey and headed out to find David. She did all of this without telling her husband of her plans. She found David, pleaded her case referring to Nabal as a wicked man and accurately named - FOOL. David blessed her and let her know she stopped the bloodshed of her husband, household and people with her wise actions. When she returned home, her husband was drunk. The next day she told him what she had done and 10 days later Nabal fell dead; struck dead by the Lord.
When David heard Abigail's husband had died, he sent word asking this wise woman to be his wife. 1 Samuel 25:ff
To examples of woman who thought for themselves. Which woman was more of a Godly woman? Being pro woman is not anti man. Being pro woman is being able to safeguard your soul and life
Have you ever noticed when watching a movie the hero is fully clothed and maybe even wearing a bad boy leather jascket? Have you noticed the heroine will either have on a muscle shirt or a skin tight cat suit? Music videos are notorious for the men having on baggy jeans and a humungous jacket while the female in the video has on a skimpy dress or a two piece swimsuit. Why must women be almost nude to be considered sexy? I think having a bit of mystery as to what is exactly underneath the clothes is more tantalizing to a man and lets face it, the nudy girl is not the one he takes home to momma.
In the book of Esther, King Xerxes was showing off his vast wealth to all the nobles, officials, military leaders of Persia and Media, and princes. Xerxes ruled over 127 provinces stretching from India to the upper Nile region known at that time as Cush. His display of his wealth lasted 180 days. After the 180 day display he gave a banquet in his garden lasting for seven days. To this banquet he invited the every day individual as well as the powerful. Wine flowed freely during the banquet.
While her husband was entertaining the drunken men, Queen Vashti held a banquet for the women in the royal palace. On the last day of the banquet a drunken King Xerxes ordered his seven eunichs to bring his wife bedecked in her crown so he could display her to the other men as he had done with all of his riches (property). The king was angered when his beautiful wife refused to be displayed to his court of drunken guests. The king asked seven wise men, nobles, from Persia and Media what must he do to his wife for disobeying his command.
The wise men told the king not only did his royal wife insult him by not obeying but insulted every man present and if he let his wife go unpunished other women would do as Vashti and disobey their husbands. Her punishment must be public, law, and severe. Vashti would no longer be allowed in the presence if the king and her position was now to be given to someone else. A proclaimation went forth throughout the entire land that from the least to the greatest every man should be ruler over his own household Esther 1:1ff
In this story the position of the woman is not even considered. Any husband following God, it seems to me, would not want to parade his wife, who we guess he loves, in front of a crowd of drunken men. We understand that Vashti was disobedient, but WHAT WAS THE KING. The wise men the king consulted were not concerned with a MARRIAGE, but concerned about making sure their own wives remained obedient.
In this entire account, the men did not display any wisdom. When a couple married in the Old Testament, God declared the two became one. I wonder if the king would have paraded himself around in front of a drunken hoard of people at the Queens request? I also wonder when the Old Testament defined the Proverbs woman was Vashti trying to live up to that standard and not let herself be trotted around men for their carnal delight? Who in this chapter of Esther was behaving in accordance with God's commands.
How far must a wife go in being obedient to her husband until her own soul in in jeapordy?
Nabal was a wealthy man married to Abigail. David and his army, while in his time of fleeing from Saul came into the territory where Nabal lived. David sent a messenger to Nabel reminding him that his army did not harm any of his servants when they had come upon them and asked for whatever he could spare at sheep shearing time, which David called a festive time. Nabal replied with a stern NO. David, not the least bit happy with this reply, gathered 400 men armed with swords and headed out to have a face to face with Nabal.
A servant of Nabal's told Abigail of the exchange between her husband and messenger. Abigail wasted no time. She gathered 200 loaves of bread, 2 skins of wine, 5 dressed sheep, 5 bushels of roasted grain, 100 cakes of raisins, and 200 cakes of pressed figs loaded them on a donkey and headed out to find David. She did all of this without telling her husband of her plans. She found David, pleaded her case referring to Nabal as a wicked man and accurately named - FOOL. David blessed her and let her know she stopped the bloodshed of her husband, household and people with her wise actions. When she returned home, her husband was drunk. The next day she told him what she had done and 10 days later Nabal fell dead; struck dead by the Lord.
When David heard Abigail's husband had died, he sent word asking this wise woman to be his wife. 1 Samuel 25:ff
To examples of woman who thought for themselves. Which woman was more of a Godly woman? Being pro woman is not anti man. Being pro woman is being able to safeguard your soul and life
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Women of worth stand proud
Today is International Women's Day. I have been alive for some forty odd years and never heard of this day until today. I am not one that can be described as living under a rock, but I never knew there was such a day.
the reason this international day; holiday for others in other countries, is being heralded is because of the assault on women in the United States and because of the many pictures we recently viewed of women in Egypt protesting openly with their male counterparts.
No matter the reason it is now being announced over and over on the news cycles, it is amazing to know there was a day set aside to celebrate women before they were even allowed to vote in the U.S.
Every great movement of change was made necessary by a great injustice. I don't believe women discuss with their daughters and sons that the freedom their mother enjoys came from protests, pickets, and jail time by other brave women. Just as I encourage women to teach their children how and why God created them 'female' I hope we continue the dialogue to contemporary times. People have been trying to repeal equal employment opportunity laws because they feel they are only for minorities i.e. blacks and Hispanics. People, and shamefully women, forget that they are also a minority and the gals ceiling and the good old boys club don't want them in the work place either. The governor in Wisconsin is trying to piggy back a law where birth control will not be covered by insurance while Viagra is. When prostate cancer began taking out men, a quick, painless test to detect it early was found in record time while we still have relays for breast cancer.
So today on International Women's Day I ask you to stand proud and knowledgeable on what it means to be a woman. As always read my book "When Will Eve Be Forgiven?" to help you uncover or rediscover womanhood in all of its glory. Below is an article I found explaining this day. What a great day to be a woman and don't just celebrate womanhood one day, but celebrate it every day.
International Women’s Day began as National Women’s Day in the US in 1909 and has its roots in the now defunct Socialist Party of America. The following year, a German woman named Clara Zetkin proposed the first International Women’s Day while at the second International Conference of Working Women, held in Copenhagen. The day was first celebrated internationally in 1911 and has been observed in many countries every year since then. It was moved from its original date in late February to its current date, March 8, in 1913.
The United Nations began honoring International Women's Day in 1975, the UN-proclaimed International Women's Year. In 1977, it went a step further, adopting a resolution recognizing International Women’s Day. Since its first celebration, the UN has hosted four international women's conferences and in 2010, it created the UN Entity for Gender Equality and Empowerment of Women – also known as UN Women.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-Issues/2011/0308/International-Women-s-Day-What-s-it-all-about/What-are-its-origins
the reason this international day; holiday for others in other countries, is being heralded is because of the assault on women in the United States and because of the many pictures we recently viewed of women in Egypt protesting openly with their male counterparts.
No matter the reason it is now being announced over and over on the news cycles, it is amazing to know there was a day set aside to celebrate women before they were even allowed to vote in the U.S.
Every great movement of change was made necessary by a great injustice. I don't believe women discuss with their daughters and sons that the freedom their mother enjoys came from protests, pickets, and jail time by other brave women. Just as I encourage women to teach their children how and why God created them 'female' I hope we continue the dialogue to contemporary times. People have been trying to repeal equal employment opportunity laws because they feel they are only for minorities i.e. blacks and Hispanics. People, and shamefully women, forget that they are also a minority and the gals ceiling and the good old boys club don't want them in the work place either. The governor in Wisconsin is trying to piggy back a law where birth control will not be covered by insurance while Viagra is. When prostate cancer began taking out men, a quick, painless test to detect it early was found in record time while we still have relays for breast cancer.
So today on International Women's Day I ask you to stand proud and knowledgeable on what it means to be a woman. As always read my book "When Will Eve Be Forgiven?" to help you uncover or rediscover womanhood in all of its glory. Below is an article I found explaining this day. What a great day to be a woman and don't just celebrate womanhood one day, but celebrate it every day.
International Women’s Day began as National Women’s Day in the US in 1909 and has its roots in the now defunct Socialist Party of America. The following year, a German woman named Clara Zetkin proposed the first International Women’s Day while at the second International Conference of Working Women, held in Copenhagen. The day was first celebrated internationally in 1911 and has been observed in many countries every year since then. It was moved from its original date in late February to its current date, March 8, in 1913.
The United Nations began honoring International Women's Day in 1975, the UN-proclaimed International Women's Year. In 1977, it went a step further, adopting a resolution recognizing International Women’s Day. Since its first celebration, the UN has hosted four international women's conferences and in 2010, it created the UN Entity for Gender Equality and Empowerment of Women – also known as UN Women.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-Issues/2011/0308/International-Women-s-Day-What-s-it-all-about/What-are-its-origins
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
This Could Be Me At Your Next Event
Author And Public Speaker
Book Reviews
