November 30, 2005

 This is page two of the "journal".  My husband and I were doing a Bible study the other day.  We were thinking about some weighty matters of the world.  Although this isn't a very weighty matter, I did begin to wonder about this mathematical issue. (The "issue" is meant to be a joke.) If they have pie ( pi) in math, do they also have cake?  And if they have cake in math, do they also have a mathematical formula detailing how to have ones cake and eat it too? 

My little cat is meowing. She doesn't meow a lot.  She wants something.  Really, she wants me to play with her.  I'll be right back.

Ok. I'm back.  A little catnip works wonders.    

On this page I am writing about some of my "pet aggravations".  They are some of the "political" ones this time.   In the first "political" rant, I use for an example, "The Five Fundamentals" that Christian "Fundamentalists" believe. They are something that you might call, "Church politics" or "religious politics". (politics within "religion")  It is what an unbeliever might call, "semantics". There is a "Biblically correct" way to view this as well.  I am merely bringing up that as an illustration of my point---which is, that I am not really a "Fundamentalist". 

After that, I am writing my take on feminism a little bit. 

By the way, Christianity is not a "Religion"!  Christianity is man's relationship with God.  It is what Christ wrought on the cross.  "Religion" is what man does.  It is the "trappings" around Christianity.  You know, the lighting of candles in churches etc.

One of my "pet aggravations" is that my beliefs are sometimes called "Fundamentalist".  I am not a "fundamentalist".  I am not conservative enough to be "Fundamentalist".  If you want to give me a label, I suppose "Evangelical" would work.  Although, I do not believe everything that they believe either.  For example, I do not believe that we should be as involved in "politics" as some Evangelicals are.  I don't believe it is "Spiritually Correct" to impose upon the U.S. the "Theocracy" that the "Progressives" are "always on about". The left in this country claims that the "Fundies", or "Fundamentalists", are on a mission to get a "Biblical Theocracy" as the government of this country. I think it is more the "politicized" Evangelicals who are doing it and not the "Fundamentalists".  I do not agree with everything these Evangelicals are doing either. The way to really change the world is by, "Each One, Reach One".  It is better to be "Biblically" or "Spiritually Correct", than to be "Politically Correct" any day. 

According to some people, "Fundamentalist" Christians believe in the "Five Fundamentals".  Actually they believe in much more than these five "Fundamentals".  One of my favorite short-wave radio stations is Fundamental Broadcasting Network out of Newport, North Carolina.  I enjoy the music they play.  I get a lot out of their Bible teachings too.  I don't agree with all of it, but a great deal of it is good.  As I said before I don't consider myself a "Fundamentalist".  The "Progressives" would.  As you can see by the following chart, I state that the Bible does not always agree with these statements.  So, the "Fundamentalists" would call me a "heretic".  I think even some of my "earthly family" might call me a "heathen" for the same reasons.  (For the most part my family and I agree on a lot of things Biblically.  I have a great family.) This added December 4, 2005: http://poll.gallup.com/content/?ci=20242

Five Fundamentals: (paraphrased)                                      Are these Biblically Correct?    

(If you want to know more about these things, just ask me.)

I do not consider myself a feminist.  I don't "hate liberated women".  Women are liberated through Christ.  The Bible does not say that a woman should be put under the thumb of a man!  That is "religion" talking and not God! There's a lot I could write about here.  Don't get me started.  The feminist "philosophy" seems very strange to me.  Feminists try very hard to get where they are in life.  They celebrate the achievements of women and girls.  The odd thing is how "masculine" they try to be.  Wouldn't they want to try and be more "feminine" rather than masculine??? Or, is being truly "feminine" a bad thing?  To me it seems as if they celebrate the achievements of women and girls when they succeed at something that was traditionally male.  As far as I understand it, they wouldn't celebrate the winner of the "Pillsbury Bakeoff" in a feminist magazine. The feminists want a "matriarchal" society rather than a "patriarchal" society. (Wow! If you think society is screwed up now!!)  They hate it when people bring up the fact that there are very real differences between men's and women's brains and bodies.  (In one famous case, it was a man who mentioned that women and men have different brains in a speech. Maybe the speaker being male, is why it was such a controversial thing.)  Back in the 1980's I read an article telling parents to name their girls male names so that they could get further ahead in life.  It has fallen out of fashion to call a woman in the acting profession an "actress".  I don't know if that is because of a bad habit, or because of the "political correctness" of not using "gender specific nouns".  I do not like to call an "actress" an "actor"!  I would have been "barked" at by my school teacher had I done that in class years ago.  I guess that tells you what sort of education I had.  The thing that goes through my mind when I read and hear about these things is, "If men are so bad, then why are you trying so hard to be one?!". 

Another "pet aggravation" that I have:     I was looking up via "Google", something to do with how it is insurance that drives up the cost of health care in the U.S.  I was looking up "socialized medicine" (universal health care) as well.  I ran across this article where someone interviewed two feminists.  The one lady said she put off having children. The reasons she gave were, the "unreliable-ness of men", and the fact that there wasn't government child care in this country. (I know lots of reliable men!) The article also talked about how we don't have "universal health care" in this country either.  Then a few months ago, I saw part of a speech by this lady who said that the school year in the U.S. ought to be extended.  There ought to be longer school days and school should start at an earlier age.  Gee!  People want to have children but they want the "state" (government) to raise them.  Not a good idea!!  If you disagree with what the government says on any point, then why would you want them having control of your child's mind more hours of the day than you do?!!!!  The school year in the U.S. is based on the agrarian year. My grandfather told me that sometimes he started school late in the year because he had to get a crop in.  I know that children need to play.  I learned more useful stuff by playing than I probably did in school.  I learned that if you pester a dog they bite. 

If you hit your sister, she hits back. I wouldn't have learned those things in school.  Those are not the best examples.  It ought to be well known that if a kid spends all day in school, all evening at sports or other activities, they don't do as well in life.  You would think that would be well known.  I don't know how well kids will fare in the world, if they spend their days structured.  There has to come a time when kids learn how to do things on their own.  They have to learn how to succeed or fail.  The idea I have of a lot of kids is (and it is probably a stereotype):

1. that they spend the day in school;

2. they either play video games or get involved in things like sports, music or dance; they have several activities they do after school. 

3. If they aren't doing the activities or school they are playing video games. 

As I understand it, kids need to have some sort of "play" outside that.  It is ok for a kid to be an achiever and do better than their parents.  It is ok for parents to encourage their children to do well.  It is wrong for a parent to push their kids too hard.

Going back to the unreliable-ness of men...  If you don't bother to get married to a man then what do you expect?  Reliable men would want to get married.  Not all married men are reliable though.  If a man has no idea, where he will be or what he will be doing, a few years down the road, then he won't be wanting to get married. If a man doesn't want to get married, because he might decide to take off on a whim, then I guess he wouldn't be very reliable.  This would NOT be the sort of guy a woman would want to have children with.  It happens though.  It is best that if you have a desire to have children, that you find a decent man who wants to get married. (That is, if you are a woman who desires children, it is best to first find a good man who wants to be married to a woman. Of course you must be willing to make him [i.e. "be"] a good wife.) I know that reads as "sexist" and "homophobic" but that is how it is.  As a very wise man once said, "Don't argue with me, I didn't write the book!". 

Ok I am finishing this page now.  I have been on here long enough.  If you have read this, "Thanks!".