The heart knoweth its own bitterness; and a stranger doth not intermeddle with its joy.Everyone has his own emotional and spiritual pain thresholds. One person endures the loss of his job, his family, and his health, and carries on. Another person loses an illusion and collapses into substance abuse and cycles of self destruction. We can see who is stronger, but who is to say who suffers the most? Only God can really see the heart; only He knows the real depth and cause of our wounds. Thankfully, He also knows what will bring us the greatest joy. No one else does.
No One Knows
No one knows the troubles I've seen. I believe that's the essense of what Solomon meant by Proverbs 14:10.
In the Interests of Sensitivity
Over the last twenty years there have been a lot of pushes for name
changes in the interest of sensitivity to Native Americans, even when
the Native Americans in question hadn’t even realized that they ought to
be feeling sensitive. There’s the Redskins, the Seminoles, the Chiefs,
etc. If we’re really concerned with doing the right thing here, we can’t
stop with sports teams. Naming a team after an Indian tribe or
archetype is supposed to be something of a complement.
(BTW, why won’t anyone stand up for all those poor North Carolina Renos and Dumonts suffering under the oppression of Duke University and their Blue Devils!?)
A few more names I think we should seriously consider changing:
(BTW, why won’t anyone stand up for all those poor North Carolina Renos and Dumonts suffering under the oppression of Duke University and their Blue Devils!?)
A few more names I think we should seriously consider changing:
- Alabama
- Mississippi
- Missouri
- Illinois
- Sioux City
- Iowa
- North and South Dakota
- Utah
- Saskatchewan
- Minnesota
- Indiana (!!!)
- Cheyenne
The Ancient Roots of Palestine and Palestinians
Someone recently asked, “If ‘Palestine’ is such an ancient country why is it not mentioned in ancient history?”
Actually it is. The same word is found all through the Old Testament, so obviously it was mentioned in the histories of at least one ancient people. Palestine is an English corruption of a Latin corruption of Pilishti, which we more commonly know from the Bible as Philistine.
That kind of corruption happens with words all the time. Think of Jesus, which came from Iesus, which came from Yeshua. Or Jay, which came from Jayco, which came from Iago, which came from Yaakov.
The Philistines (not the Palestinians) would have a prior claim to part of the land of Israel, if it weren’t for that inconvenient thing about God taking the land away from the Philistines and Canaanites and giving it to the Israelites. The modern Palestinians are just Arabs who happen to live within a political boundary once bearing that name, and are not actually related to the ancient Philistines at all.
Once upon a time, Jews, who lived in the territory known as Palestine before it became the State of Israel, were known as Palestinians, but few of the people we now call Palestinians would claim them as ancestors.
There doesn’t appear to be an actual ethnic group of people that anyone can accurately call “Palestinians.” It’s a little like claiming to be of the Pennsylvanian race. There are Pennsylvanians, but they’re only called that because they live in Pennsylvania, not because they’re really a distinctive race of people
Actually it is. The same word is found all through the Old Testament, so obviously it was mentioned in the histories of at least one ancient people. Palestine is an English corruption of a Latin corruption of Pilishti, which we more commonly know from the Bible as Philistine.
That kind of corruption happens with words all the time. Think of Jesus, which came from Iesus, which came from Yeshua. Or Jay, which came from Jayco, which came from Iago, which came from Yaakov.
The Philistines (not the Palestinians) would have a prior claim to part of the land of Israel, if it weren’t for that inconvenient thing about God taking the land away from the Philistines and Canaanites and giving it to the Israelites. The modern Palestinians are just Arabs who happen to live within a political boundary once bearing that name, and are not actually related to the ancient Philistines at all.
Once upon a time, Jews, who lived in the territory known as Palestine before it became the State of Israel, were known as Palestinians, but few of the people we now call Palestinians would claim them as ancestors.
There doesn’t appear to be an actual ethnic group of people that anyone can accurately call “Palestinians.” It’s a little like claiming to be of the Pennsylvanian race. There are Pennsylvanians, but they’re only called that because they live in Pennsylvania, not because they’re really a distinctive race of people
Pride, Fear, & Polygamophobia
Eloquent as ever, Mizazeez wrote,
Our culture’s monogamous, polygamophobic dogma relieves wives of a large part of this battle. It tells them that it is OK to surrender to Jezebel in this one area. “It’s OK to rule your husband in this way,” it says, “because you’re equal.” Never mind the inherent contradiction of ruling an equal, and never mind that this one surrender gives the enemy a beachhead by which he can conquer the whole woman. Likewise, it tells men that they are perverts or domineering control freaks if they ever feel the slightest desire for another woman or if they entertain even a thought that the other woman might be a good addition to his family. Wives build a fortress of pride and indignation around this little kingdom and hold it over their husbands’ heads, constantly threatening and manipulating.
There are three evidences that this jealously guarded fortress is actually territory surrendered to fear.
First, godly women are to follow the examples of the Hebrew matriarchs, Sarah, Rebekah, Leah, and Rachel, in their relationships with their husbands. Three of those four women insisted on sharing their husbands with other women. While they were still motivated by fear or jealousy, those motivations led them to surrender more control to their husbands.
Second, most women would sooner tolerate multiple, temporary, and adulterous affairs than share their husband with a second wife. Not only does promiscuity put her husband’s soul at risk, but it puts both of them at risk of disease. Despite recent propaganda to the contrary, polygyny is no more conducive to the spread of disease than is monogamy. Women will tolerate sin and death before considering true submission.
Third, wives who are otherwise submissive and honorable are likely to enter an immediate rage at the prospect of a second wife. They will give in to the urge to hate, lie, and abuse, but will not give in to their husbands.
These are not characteristics of righteousness and love, but of fear and pride. They are only and thoroughly evil.
i suppose my struggle has never been with polygyny in general. i suppose my struggle was more personal. my husband taking another wife triggered pre-existing insecurities and animosity that would have surfaced at some other time due to some other circumstance had my husband not had polygynous endeavors.That is true in almost everything. Our problems are almost always of our own making. Our attitudes–our baggage–are behind almost every human conflict. God created men and women to be married in a particular relationship to one another, and it is not a relationship of equal partners. In Genesis 3:16 God told women (via Eve) that they will be in an eternal struggle against their pride and drive to rule their husbands. That is the true patriarchal curse of Eve, not that she would be ruled by her husband, but that she and all of her descendants would each have to battle and defeat their own Jezebel in order to be content in life as God meant it to be lived. This desire is like (perhaps more than “like”) a living creature, and it must be fought as such.
Our culture’s monogamous, polygamophobic dogma relieves wives of a large part of this battle. It tells them that it is OK to surrender to Jezebel in this one area. “It’s OK to rule your husband in this way,” it says, “because you’re equal.” Never mind the inherent contradiction of ruling an equal, and never mind that this one surrender gives the enemy a beachhead by which he can conquer the whole woman. Likewise, it tells men that they are perverts or domineering control freaks if they ever feel the slightest desire for another woman or if they entertain even a thought that the other woman might be a good addition to his family. Wives build a fortress of pride and indignation around this little kingdom and hold it over their husbands’ heads, constantly threatening and manipulating.
There are three evidences that this jealously guarded fortress is actually territory surrendered to fear.
First, godly women are to follow the examples of the Hebrew matriarchs, Sarah, Rebekah, Leah, and Rachel, in their relationships with their husbands. Three of those four women insisted on sharing their husbands with other women. While they were still motivated by fear or jealousy, those motivations led them to surrender more control to their husbands.
Second, most women would sooner tolerate multiple, temporary, and adulterous affairs than share their husband with a second wife. Not only does promiscuity put her husband’s soul at risk, but it puts both of them at risk of disease. Despite recent propaganda to the contrary, polygyny is no more conducive to the spread of disease than is monogamy. Women will tolerate sin and death before considering true submission.
Third, wives who are otherwise submissive and honorable are likely to enter an immediate rage at the prospect of a second wife. They will give in to the urge to hate, lie, and abuse, but will not give in to their husbands.
These are not characteristics of righteousness and love, but of fear and pride. They are only and thoroughly evil.
The Blind Leading Themselves
Scientists Find Lamprey A ‘Living Fossil': 360 Million-year-old Fish Hasn’t Evolved Much
Scientists from the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa, and the University of Chicago have uncovered a remarkably well-preserved fossil lamprey from the Devonian period that reveals today’s lampreys as “living fossils” since they have remained largely unaltered for 360 million years.DNA, red blood cells in T-Rex bones, dozens of “living fossils”, dozens of other low-age indicators…If scientists didn’t already know better, you’d almost think that those fossils couldn’t possibly be 360 million years old. Don’t anyone open your eyes, now! I wouldn’t want you to have to face the fact that your entire life’s work has been a complete waste of time.
Girls Will Be Girls
In honor of the Glasgow city councilthings,
I have searched through all of the articles in my blog and altered as
many gender-neutral terms as possible into the appropriate
androcentricisms.
Don’t thank me, love. Just doing my part.
Don’t thank me, love. Just doing my part.
Girlz Az Boyz
You know what’s worse than McBrows?
OK, well, maybe nothing.
But you know what’s about as bad as McBrows? Girls dressing like boys. I don’t just mean tom boys or unfeminine girls. I mean girls who deliberately dress to look like boys. I know of a young woman who always wears a ball cap turned to the side, over-sized pants pulled half-way down to her knees, and an over-sized shirt (or three) usually untucked. She has a pretty face and a nice figure, too.
That is about as tasteless as it gets.
OK, well, maybe nothing.
But you know what’s about as bad as McBrows? Girls dressing like boys. I don’t just mean tom boys or unfeminine girls. I mean girls who deliberately dress to look like boys. I know of a young woman who always wears a ball cap turned to the side, over-sized pants pulled half-way down to her knees, and an over-sized shirt (or three) usually untucked. She has a pretty face and a nice figure, too.
That is about as tasteless as it gets.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)