A Follow-Up: Finger Prints on Wedding-Bands

A follow-up was finally made to the issue I discussed awhile ago in the post Fingerprints on Wedding Bands (I/II). In that post I contemplated the fact that marriage taken out of its designer’s context—Christ’s—is quite redundant because it is the union of two lives as one and not simply a contract. With the ideal of evolution, it seems odd that people would evolve to develop such a “conservative” public status as marriage even beside the fact that there are only two genders. The desire to be so committed to one person seems far too credible and if anything—farther evolved than what we even would be at this point in the culture of an evolved humanity. Considering the fact that society is agreeably and curtly becoming more and more “secular” as a general rule and partially supported by the fact that homosexuality is becoming legalized. Relationships are occurring out of wed-lock where a couple abides together and perhaps have sexual relations before they are married.                                                                        
             What I learned is that this is a supported, integral claim. My youth pastor brought up the point to me that marriage among the state is really more of an issue about concrete situations like dependence with insurance living and what not. Really, it is true that our marriage licenses are simply files of the government. In terms of the original American government establishment in relation to legalized issues such as marriage licensing, it is historically accurate that it be a Government Issue because America was founded “under God” (and protestant ideals). Marriage isn’t simply the physical agreement of commitment (or whatever marriage entails under secular belief), but it is rather an agreement and undefiled commitment ordained and publically declared under God.
              If we were to zoom into the future and assume that gay rights were passed in all states and that people of any age could be married……

Social Skills in the Making? II

During that era were the first experiences of child glorification. Parents of the baby-boomers who grew up during WWII were products of a war-time economy where a paternal figure was lacking in the lives of many who were fighting continentally. When the war’s ceased and the economy was rejuvenated—for many in their consciousness and lifetime, the economy was made favorable and the nation broke into a passionate state of love with an abundance of children as the product. Ever-instilled hard work ethic meant that large, nuclear families could thrive with the mother at home. That was the first point in American culture where children became glorified. That point in time marked the beginning of advertisement as it stands and is ever-revolutionizing toward today which is so geared toward teenagers. Entertainment was becoming more and more family oriented. With the out-break of television, cartoons became an obvious craze consuming a great amount of broadcast time. The nuclear family with the stay-at-home mom who would devote all of herself to raising her children was now no longer a luxury but a social expectation.

Although the coining of Dr. Sears’ term did not occur until several decades proceeding, attached parenting began with the start of a cultural revolution where children and teenagers propel culture. Perhaps this is the result of attached parenting that Sears either expected or that occurred in effect of those aspects of Sears’ideal that have yet to be discovered. It will be interesting to see how these play out in adult culture as these generations from the seventies on will contain characteristics exclusive to this style of up-bringing. I would be just as curious to find out whether this style will become more or less popularized, especially as it is used by people who aren’t even aware of attached-parenting as a practice. This lends to the fact that it is probably becoming more and more ingrained in culture.

Social Skills in the Making? I

As a bit of a follow-up to my thoughts on feminism which favored the claims of a society shifting to a less specified feminine, gentle, and maternal figure being that undoubtedly of the woman, I came across a time article about Dr. Sears and his idea about attachment parenting. In the 1970’s, he published a bestselling book which caught the attention of many mother’s making them aware of a parenting—or rather, mothering—which was to support better child development. It created a standard which almost required women to commit to a stay-at-home lifestyle spent completely devoted to children to the point of complete attachment, and literally too. Since then, a few scientific discoveries proved some of Sears’ ideal wrong, but many remain strongly supported if not 100% proven. Near constant sling carrying, advanced-stage breast-feeding (beyond 6 months), and frequent night crashes in the parents’ bed are all aspects of Sears’ plan. These things are supposed to contribute to better social skills. 20 percent of parents follow this routine today, which may either be a large surprise or none at all. I think most parents practice what would be considered a partial variation of this—which in fact has an official term, which I am oblivious to at the moment. It is probably Sears’ most effective extreme which is least likely to seem appealing to most people. Yet the minority is quite existent and surprising in its quantity, especially with the modern –day working mom. Despite the spoilage of the baby-boomers come the fifties, it would seem “feminism” chased maternal closeness from common-hood.

The Clash of Modern-day Culture's Opponents Two

 The single identifier that created conclusiveness to my claim were the recent and honest comments attached to an active video which is currently a hit music title. Interestingly enough, the song was one of a few that had probably made it on the charts by way of the hipster category of people. It was selected—according to the majority of the comments as well as from personal experience and my own public observation—for its genuine, timeless music quality, interesting and dynamic tune, as well as for uniqueness and probably its lyrics alongside. As has this been the basis of selection for most of these seemingly unlikely, but reasonably credible hits. Anyway, the comments on the page seemed a typical battle for this situation between “mainstreamers” and “hipsters”. The top comments included several which were blunt and that evaded the attack of the mainstreamer, but which used counter to show favor to the hipster reasoning for partiality to the catchy music. Others are less persuasive, grammatically accurate and their authors simply object to bring peace to the dispute and which encourage listeners to enjoy the music amongst one another’s difference in view on the object of shared likeness. Then there are the commentators who are clearly high strung on the music and, expressing their newfound love in the music. The difference between them—and this situation appears on many of the videos of songs which fit this profile—is that the ones whom would label themselves hipster are sincere about the music, and have and will continue to be. The carefree, lustful comments are representative of those who discovered the music by way of the true praise and popularity the song gained by listeners who could appreciate and recognize the quality of the music. They would discover it because of the rage over it and then become tasteful toward it for that reason and not because of the music itself.

With that as both an example of opposing aspects between the two types on a subject that is very relevant, and as an analogy also, most situations to follow may be fairly easy to differentiate about this same process. Perhaps it would not be even obvious to select these two types as the opposing, single people groups. Never the less, it may be idealized.

The Clash of Modern-Day Culture's Opponents

Well I think that I’ve come to a general conclusion about America in terms of society (As cliché as this is for the fact that this diary of internet essay’s is themed by society, I do not claim to have figured people-and-the-most-important-thing-about-them-that-most-seem-to-want-to-know out). I will state plainly my thesis: the new generation is divided whether equally or not into “hipsters” and mainstream. Now this is an interesting debate here because using the term hipster as a type is completely contradictory to its definition, which is to be odd and edgy to a point of slight discomfort, but mainly for the hope of being different and not nearly as much for the pain of it. The latter is hardly independent of the former. Mainstream by definition, also loses its meaning in this context when compared side-by-side with the term “hipster”, because if the two do indeed take equal symbiosis to the other, then mainstream is not a majority type as its coining intended to specify. 

Even the same, I examine these two from a point of equal insight and on behalf of both selections. As far as the ratio of them in the population, I do not know as I have become aware of a distinguishing  factor among society favoring these groups. Then again, it may be that I see them as prevalent divisions because coming of possible currency, or because I am in the midst of transferring to the other side of that which I used to maintain as sole. With some consideration to that possibility, I remain unbiased—also supported by my impartiality.

The Effect of Feminism on Chivalry iiiil

Most effectively of all, even aside from the way that the revolution of women has played on the general aura between the two sexes and the way that has transcribed in powers of relationships, is the physiological effect and thus the attitude and role of males. In society, men are typically stereotyped as lazy, sarcastic, and brain-less. Not to mention specific situations such as where a man gives in to his demanding, controlling wife —a characteristic of the modern-day female stereotype— without hesitant comply, and is immediately considered “whipped”. Along those lines, it should barely matter that a man be the underdog in the relationship between him and a woman, because he hardly interested in anything more than sex. Although these claims and types are not true half of the time, there is a reason for their presence in modern societal perspective. How true and prevalent these ideas are is not for sure, but the one thing that is for sure is that they are completely contradictory to the design of humanity in specificity to males.  

As men are to be protectors, providers, and preservers as well as the leader among a relationship with a woman, they are often taken out of context for that which they are absolutely intended to be. Especially with the rise in homosexuality, the role of a man has become quite warped. However, it isn’t to say that chivalry is extinct. In fact I believe that chivalry in a man is a very distinct aspect. Even though men can and have attained the stereotypes which they have in addition to their actual terms as lazy or possessing, it is only because of the certain wealth which males are formulated with which is wonderful in assuming the strength and solid presence they are supposed to, its just that the magnitude of which can be taken in the absolute opposite direction so that it is more of a harm than the wonderful, effective good that it ought to be. In fact, chivalry is nowhere near extinct, just wrongly focused; there are many men who are gentlemen today. I am actually surprised by the amount and quality of chivalry among my own younger generation especially, at present. And it isn’t even to say that women are complete, control-freaks and petty, demanding, horrors, which would seem the extreme required to create that described by the male stereotype mentioned, but I believe that with this almost the case as a general rule, the men who truly want to be the man they are made to be, will assume that position. I give props to many guys who have probably only by training themselves to do so, have stepped up to their position aside from the distractions that surround them in modern day culture as chivalrous men.

The Effect of Feminism on Chivalry IIIII

Although the lawful rights of equality between man and women are what brought about this mutation in their reaction to one another, and though these are what coined the “feminist movement”, the significance in the movement was the effect that was made on the interaction between the sexes. Women probably felt the lucidity to wear less primitive clothing as they began to live independently just as normally as married. As a result of that civil change, the way that women have been dressing in the last half century has become more and more revealing, not to mention masculine on the more obvious level. Previously, women of nearly all religions and customs in America would wear modest clothing. In addition, it was only proper to abide together and certainly to remain abstinent until after marriage. In keeping with a constant “masculinity” among a female-involved society from generation to generation, where men are born with an inner masculinity, there is certainly no alteration. Men and women have been and will continue to be born with an inner nature which is specific to their sex. All things considered, as well as the fact that men are un-doubtedly both very visual and the more sex-driven of the two genders, women dressed modestly—primitively—so as to preserve the men of their society from the dangers of lust by adorning themselves modestly. 

Since that has changed dramatically, we are simultaneously entering a sexual revolution. As men are tempted by the immodesty and flippant revealing of female body’s in life, as constant advertisement, and as a market, they are consistently aware of and struggling with sexual immorality mentally. Where men were originally perfectly designed as the protectors of women, they eventually became the owners of women as property because women have become a symbol for satisfaction first to a delicate, gentle, dependent. Yet the fact is that men are only responding naturally as far as their senses go, but this is one of the greatest distorters of that wonderful design.

The Effect of Feminism of Chivalry IIII

Simultaneous to the rise in Feminism has been the rise in homosexuality of both genders. Since the seventies, shortly after women became socially accepted at a near completely independent level, it also became socially acceptable to at least declare homosexuality. It may be reasonably understandable that some women begin to attribute more masculine traits. Many of those are often not even considered gender specific any longer. A woman taking laboral jobs in factories, doing construction, and working as administrators is not uncommon anymore. Women have since begun to be represented in the Church in religions where women typically remained quiet as generations of ritual. In nearly all aspects, men and women are equally integrated. Whether or not these positions reject a feminine ideal is probably an opinionated consideration. However, the fact that the connotations attached to this ideal are still present as well as the fact that these even reflect the psych and physicality of women as they are generally created, supports the idea that women are certainly distinct from masculinity. And if it is indeed that this medium has been the ideal in nearly all of history, then the roles of men and women are being defied at current.

These ideals are often that women are weaker both physically and emotionally. Whether these are more or less true is not the issue; however I believe that they are true with few exceptions. Also that women are soft and typically more complexified even to the point of pettiness. It is this aspect of femininity which in turn qualifies chivalry. Of course men are probably as equally created masculine with the instincts designated by chivalry as women are with femininity, however this would probably not be without the existence of women. The two must be inter-related. With this as the case, and with the fact that feminism is the current trend—ever evolving—it is only natural that an effect be created on chivalry in a society where women are at least law-fully equalized with men. Even though the in-born identity is present, and men and women are still in the presence of one another, they’re natural reaction to the other will be altered.

The Effect of Feminism on Chivalry III

As for why it is that the peak in the revolution on feminism came exactly when it did, is not for sure but it is not without some reasoning. Perhaps it was the fact that women had been just an inch too far immersed in independence with their abilities—newly established by the century—to get a higher education if they chose, take a job position, and vote for themselves. It could be that the pride they sought in maintaining the country as American men fought away from the home front, was the tipping point. Even the implementation of technology in the area of assistance to the modern housewife could have been a supporting factor. Whatever the case, this was probably the first time in history that women have been so independent and with so many rights at such a widespread level. Despite this, women fought for these rights in most every society in most every time period. It is interesting therefore that the time of the fifties is considered a time that was socially one of the best in modern American history, if women were generally in an ideal position as mothers and housekeepers, with manners and etiquette.

Since that time, women have all of the rights as American’s that men do with the exception of a still slightly lower wage. Women are currently at a 42% graduation rate for associate’s of bachelor’s degree compared to men at 34%. This is a drastic difference from the even 35 years ago when the percent ratio was 13 to 23, women to men (Population bulletin, 2009). Besides these more lawful ordeals, were the changes that occurred to culture. Women now compete in athletics as avidly as men, in nearly as many official sports—most of them being in common—as men. In addition, women no longer have the obligation to wear skirts for the most part. Raising children alone, and living independently alone are common for women of today. With these things considered, and knowing that women have historically wanted, and today feel that they have the right to all of these lifestyle types, we must be aware of the fact that with great change comes great effect.

The Effect of Feminism on Chivalry II

A fairly consistent movement continued on in the next few decades until to the fifties, where women were primped, and propped back down into their place a bit with the return of troops from the war. With Eisenhower as President during most of the fifties at the conclusions of the World Wars, women were no longer necessitated for their factory work as they had previously been temporarily. Although many of them saw the opportunity to step up and hold importance in the workforce of America as an “advancement” to their place in society, it was not so steadily maintained with the return of their husbands. To encourage their return home was the baby boom, which brought new mother’s back home. The Nuclear Family was ideal at this time.

Many people say this was just a perfect time in American history where the economy was stable, family was glorified, crime rates were low, and life was enjoyment-centered. With more women who worked before now returned to homes than remaining at their jobs, this was a fairly conservative era with the classic American way at its finest. Despite this the case, the revolution continued and women broke back out of the primitive way that their parents lived before them and which they lived before the wars. Since then, women have continued to work outside the home more and more, have fewer children, and act less and less as the dainty figure which comes as a connotation with women both socially and by nature.

The Effect of Feminism on Chivalry

Two years ago, actress Jennifer Aniston stated, “Women are realizing more and more that they don’t need to have a man to have a child… Times have changed and what is amazing is that we do have so many options these days, as opposed to our parents' days when you can't have children because you have waited too long.” Although this is a probably the freshest and one of the more dramatic feminist actions in the movement to feminism as it is most recently, it may shed light on the absolute extreme that could come of feminism; not to mention where it’s advancement is at present. More importantly I believe, is the significance of the effect that Feminism has had on America. Females being half of the population, the question: How has Feminism impacted the minds and roles of men?

 The greatest revolution on American feminism was during the 1920’s.The progression of feminism since then was no less inordinate as the impact feminism has had on American culture and society. It was at that time that the new generation of women began to seek more independence in their lifestyles. Young women wanted to achieve a college level education and then assume a job. A shift was made from the simpler, more innocent life which many people held at the time in the country. Although these women were not the first to get jobs in United States history—for minority and low-class women had been working a century prior—they were the first middle class women to intend on changing the way society traditionally was. These women became trademarked as the young, flamboyant flappers. They casted a wave in the conservative American culture with shorter skirts and edgy hairstyles, as well as by taking up jobs typically as secretaries. This indeed was a change, however it was not only them who sought variation in what became coined as the nuclear family in the 1950’s. Older women of the twenties who had been raised and derived from the classic American home of working husbands and wives and who tended to the home and children contributed greatly to the first legal action which set women slightly higher up beside the more yielded to man. It was this group of women who began the revolution by avidly seeking and establishing suffrage.

The Desire of Parents III

The selfish want for children can be specifically driven by different things. The most usually and probably the most inclusive reason is that a couple wants’ to be responsible for another. We are made to be caring, giving, and compassionate people, and we find joy in giving to others. Children who people to us are our responsibility alone, and they cannot live without us. Humans want the joy that a child brings, even aside from the parent-dependent relationship, especially when the child is a product of us and the one person we love the most. Obviously that love will spill over. These are all good things, but they are still initially self-centered.

Other times, whether these are for good or bad reasons for having children, they are probably more subconscious than anything in most situations. Those would include wanting to have control over a life in order to manipulate it in a way that the person themselves were or were not in the past, but have the ambition to place authority over in the life of someone else. That could include things which were disappointments or points of shame or guilt that one may seek to set in correct motion in a new life where the mistake can be prevented from reoccurrence before it becomes a history. Even if these are not the motive of potential parents, they could become the intent of parents. These things can certainly be for the benefit of the child in themselves, but they can easily be for the conscience of the parent.

God’s design of the family is very amazing. Despite the intentions and desires of our early nature, whether or not those be the majority of the incentive for a family with children, God uses us through the selfless-selfish love humans have for their blood, flesh, and imitation images. The Lord will use us to bring up the people that He wants in His plan.

That brings me to the counter which I didn’t completely explore which is what it would be to desire and have children out of selflessness. If we are living for the plan of the Creator, we will desire only what is for the kingdom of God. I believe it would be the will of God for us to adopt those children who already have life but do not have parents to take care of them. Because we are all children of God, it could be considered selfish to have children of our own just because we want them to have our genes. Selfless parents would be willing to parent any child of God. Even still, He delights in all children and His will will be done either way.

The Desire of Parents II

That situation is an example of a mother who thought she was loving her daughter and caring for her in a way that would provide the very best for her daughter. By this we can obviously know that the mother truly did love her daughter. In fact that is the case more likely than not. It’s not to say that parents do not love their children with this claim, it’s just that the production of the pure existence of children may be more for the parent themselves than the child. After all, parents do not know the child to love them before they are born. The idea and God-given desire for a family complete by children, is all that two individual’s have before their descendant’s.  

The mother of that girl thought that she was fighting for her daughter in the last possible way by keeping her alive. The mother knew life was the greatest thing she could give her, and like any loving parent, she thought death would be the worst she could give her. It wasn’t in the wish of the daughter she was interested in and acting upon though. The mother’s love for her daughter benefited her own selfish desire as true love for her daughter would have been selfless, giving first to the hope of her daughter as a result. I know that it is impossible for parent’s to think of agreeing to death, even if that would essentially be better for their child. With that kind of love, a parent would obviously be loving selflessly because they cannot even imagine this worst for their child. I don’t deny that, but my claim is that the intent of having children may be lout of selfishness many times.

The father’s love for us is selflessly given, and that is why our god is jealous for us. He wants back for His own, but selflessly he also have us the choice to life of death (literally and not as a continuation to the story).  Therefore—because we are made in God’s image—it is no wonder that parent’s could then love selfishly or jealously. For Christ-follower’s the drive to have a family comes with honoring God by doing so—contributing to His mission field by raising children who will fear Him and share what He did for us. Even within this, I believe selfish reasons are in the greater likeliness as the motive for children.

The Desire of Parents I

After thinking about relationships of marriage among society, I began to consider the desire for children in life. Of course the life of not every child is expected, however when they are expected or initially intended upon it is with some motive or desire that they are. Because I am a teenager- still a dependent and not a parent myself, I offer the lesser of the two positions for this perspective and although I look from the outside in, I am not under the suasion of bias on the investigation of why these desires may be.

When we are little, we just know that our parents love us. It is as we grow and have experiences where we get so frustrated and the only issue in the world is the one at the present moment that we wonder why we are there. When we are little, we don’t realize that our parents wanted us to have life because they wanted to experience the joy we would bring. God told us that children are precious gifts and that they ought to bring joy. He told the people of Israel to go and multiply and that those who rose up his children on earth would be specially honored for being parents. Indeed we are sinful people and it is in the sin that we reproduce by sexual desire, although that too was given us by God to be enjoyed between a husband and wife.

It is a common rule that children come of the love between two- which is part of the desire for children, however it could still be out of intention and out of love that a child be produced of selfishness. Ironically, as I sat down to write this, my point in doing so was affirmed in a sort of way by the moral on the story called “My Sister’s Keeper”. Based on a true story, the movie showed the miserable struggle of a young woman with cancer. When she was diagnosed with cancer as a toddler, her parents genetically selected a sister that could be born to help preserve the life of their first daughter. The younger sister loved her elder and endured pain of her own in order to provide the blood and marrow for her sister. When the cancerous girl no longer wants to fight her disease, she asks her sister to sue their parents for the right to her own body, for it was the mother who clung to her daughter’s life and not herself. It would be by law that the girl could finally have her will of death over the suffering in the disease after sixteen years of her mother’s wish for her life despite disease.

Fingerprints on Wedding Bands ll

Ephesians 5:22

“Wives, submit  to your husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife as also Christ is the head of the church – he himself being the savior of the body. But as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her.”

It isn’t by any means to say that any person who is not a Christ-follower has no reason to believe that marriage isn’t necessary, important, sacred, or desired, but rather that the likeliness of its existence by evolutionary life is not very great. Assuming that man and woman evolved, being the only two of a kind, it would seem just as likely an option among many for humanity to decide that marriage ought to be lawful. In addition to that, society seems to agree that sexual immorality (sex before marriage) is not acceptable outside of marriage. Without a doubt, history holds many accounts of sexual immorality. Presently, as the act of sexual immorality becomes more and more of a common ground for relationship less committed than that of a marital status, it is still scorned and thought unruly by the same cultures as before (the majority of cultures, mainly those modeled about the American culture). Although the traditional example of “The Scarlet Letter” was written now nearly 160 years ago, and although the terms “slut” and “whore” are used flippantly now, they are still entitled with reason.

Marriage as a cultural style is a modern-day, realistic, and explicit finger-print of The Creator.

Fingerprints on Wedding Bands

Having been a Christian all of my life, knowing no other than Christian values, and having such an out-look on the world; I have never considered the cultural and societal aspects to evolutionary concepts. Through something so common and conventionally received as marriage, there is a great defiance between the two most disputed matters: Evolution and Christianity.

If it were my own will without spiritual intervention and holy law, I would naturally say to let people be as they are. I would say to let them live as they want, and artlessly in our wonderful, benevolent country. It would seem unquestionable to give marriage rights to gay couples or allow the choice of abortion for instance. However, the very reason this former issue particularly is disputed is not because of religion or even value and personal moral, but rather value based on the terms of right and wrong. As captured best by C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity, it is certain that we are held to a moral basis. By this it would seem enough to out rule things such as murder and abortion –not arguing whether life begins at conception or not.

As for the address of homosexuality, I can understand a need for specific instruction from the Creator of the moral standards. To most humans, I can bet that without any Divine consultation of this sort of thing, it would seem more moral to comply with homosexuality. Adjudged not by whether or not it is “alright” for two people of the same sex to love one another sexually, but rather based on it being first moral to accept the ideas and differences of others if they be exception from the only norm- that being heterosexual love. Of course assuming a worldly, even evolutionist view, marriage in itself -whether between homosexual couples or between a man and a woman- when taken into consideration in the legal sense, is redundant. For I believe that evolutionists may take heed to the existence of a moral law and thus toward right conduct as we are all under the law of morality (accepting the existence of a moral law and The Creator whom would put us under it). But as for the assumption of a basis for societal and relational trends, there is none. When usurping an evolutionist view where coincidence brought about man and coincidence brought about a woman, I should think that even with the obligation of some shared moral standard among humanity, there would be neither regard nor necessity for marriage. Marriage is a creation of Christ and a direct reflection of God and The Church- or the people of God.

The Science of Kissing

It does not make sense through the scope of my views to assert that a mate should be sought through physical appeal. Although two people may have excellent chemistry; idealizing that the one person meets the one other person whose chemistry best fits them by which their chemistry is absolutely prime, they may not be meant to be. The individual they were designed best to fit as a mate -considering all aspects: especially that of spirit before physicality and even emotion, personality, etc- may not be the one with whom the best chemistry could be discovered. However, this is not a deterrent to the effectiveness on the prospect of physical attraction. If indeed two people may be meant exclusively for one another, then marriage is applicable. With the standard of marriage comes the values by which marriage was created. Marriage was created to unite a man and a woman as one legally and by commitment so as to make them an individual soul in combination. By the same values were sexual aspects created, including kissing. Therefore, kissing is a symbol and result of love which should only be had between those two and only individuals after commitment. As a result, the testing and discovering in the chemical compatibility is not only unnecessary, but also sinful.

The concretely scientific support that physical chemistry is a determinant for the success of a relationship is nearly dire to the view from which it was written. It was no wonder I experienced a feeling of bad consent on this newly presented idea when I first read it. For it wasn’t until the second time I referred to the article that I realized there was a second page whose half to the article substantiates the exact edge to its claim and the values by which it was produced. In the 5^th to last paragraph, Landau reveals for certain the fact that her basis for the claim is on an evolutionary foundation. Without being aware of the fact that the article was written completely in opposition to my values, truth contradicted the content of the claim.

If every couple who couldn’t say that they experience physical attraction and sexual chemistry could be considered not meant for the other, or not really in love, there would be a lot of couples who are considerably “unhappy” and “not in love”. However, there are people whose case is this and who would beg to differ by saying that they are with the person they love most who is meant especially for them. Thankfully, because we first are spiritual people, we love spiritually as well- spiritually as in all of the abstract elements of life.

Kissing is a result of love and is a sacred element limited for marriage. We will not know whether or not our mate is a good kisser or if we have good chemistry when kissing until after we are married. Therefore, the quality and extent of the physical attraction will not matter. It is only a secondary element.

The True Science of Kissing

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-02-13/health/kissing.science_1_first-kiss-hormone-levels-oxytocin-levels?_s=PM:HEALTH

When I initially skimmed through this article after a friend sent it to me for my information and take on it, I did not agree with it. I didn’t really think much about it at first. I barely formulated my consensus on it, and had disregarded it and yet had just a slight aurora of coarseness and demur about it all the same. 

The one basis which was a claim to the perspective I formed on the article was a line by Professor Helen Fisher saying:

"Kissing is not just kissing. It is a major escalation or de-escalation point in a powerful process of mate choice"…

Although chemically physical attractions may indeed be scientifically true and affective in relationships where those chemicals combine very well, they should ultimately be detached from the emotional and spiritual aspects of the relationship. In other words, I do not think that success and credibility of a relationship is dependent upon the physical chemistry of which. We are relational people. And we were made for a spiritual life. Where the advanced actuality of carnal life has involved the dynamic of physicality and emotion in relationship, these may only with ignorance be rejected as a relational determinant. I am neither saying that the physical realm of factors are not relevant to relation, nor that they are trivial but that they simply are not the factors which may finally determine the basis for a relationship. 

I do not believe in saying that this is completely the belief among humanity, even excluding people like myself from the evaluation of such (meaning people who hold the same views as those which I have addressed already about myself). I cannot deny that there are people who –even if they comply with Fisher’s claim fundamentally- would agree with the science behind the proof of couples who have had relational success apart from physical attraction. However, I think that most people probably favor -with confidence and denial toward the possibility of a more reasonable and correct view- the view presented through the article.

Source for Culture (continued)

A similar thing happened about a year ago when I was people watching at the mall. I saw a man –definitely an exemplary Iowan man: farmer by the plaid shirt, work boots, and toothpick in mouth— titillated toward a clearance rack outside of teenage fashion store. I knew right away what he was headed toward. There was an imitation farmer cap. It was the kind with the high dome that is gridded for ventilation. I laughed because my dad, grandfather, and all my uncles have an endless supply of the those very caps which are taken great pride in, mailed for free or handed out at fair’s and exhibits each advertising seed companies. That man probably had at least a half dozen more at home, but being in a shopping mall where he recognized something familiar was likely complacency. Like the first situation, that cheap cap was a primitive symbol to the lifestyle of simplicity and specified familiarization. To the outsider of this specialized life, this is vivifying and that is flattering.

My mom knows those caps as neither flattering as to the outsider, nor prideful as to the independent farmer but rather as a life on tip-toes where income is never insured and dust is always in the air. However, the success of something of this quality is what makes it intriguing and admirably desirable.

To one individual, the letter “k” may look like just a chicken-scratched symbol formed by three intersecting lines. Another may relate it to something distinct and the letter “k” will ever hold that crossed reference. Perspective is the cause for appeal and awareness is what creates perspective. Culture would not be without this catena.

Source for Culture

Once in every life, the idea of things being visualized differently by different people probably occurs. However, we know because of chemistry, doubtless description, and faultless sensibility that this cannot be. Perhaps it can be that select people –for whatever psychiatric reason- may literally not visually see what is indeed there in physical terms. However, this is not the matter of consideration. What I mean is not false view, but diverse perception- or even taken to the point of diverse perspective.

Perspective is the source for cultural trend. My second post was about the skipping of generations as which allows a name to become appealing once again. Just as the names “Clyde” and “Myrtle” would instantly give a baby-boomer the image of a worn-out novel or an old man and woman, whereas the same names to the new generation would be alluring as a fresh discovery to an unknown vintage or retro era.

A couple weeks ago, an old man named Perry came to speak to my peers and I at a Wednesday night youth group meeting. As he teared up exclaiming in a humbling and very sweet how precious we were, and even at our age- vital to the dedication of Christ’s plan, I found a slight bit of irony. The large and undeniable letters “A” and “E” on his v-neck sweater were without doubt the symbol for the clothing brand “American Eagle”. As he loved on us, I could pick out two kids in the young audience who adopted the now-popular “ugly sweater” holiday party theme as an everyday fashion who were both wearing similar, over-sized, wool v-neck sweaters likely from the local second-hand store. Generations on opposite ends of the current societal aging scale could find the authenticity in something practical which was once –and originally— just the generic necessity and could as a result, now be a symbol of fashion because of its tried and true simplicity. As for the old man, a new sweater sought with that same simplicity was a likely a wonderful and exclusive find after a few generations.

Misinterpretations of the Bible

Two of the greatest reasons that the Bible is probably often misunderstood are either because it is taken out of context, or its translation did not do it justice and the writing was taken at face value. The first would seem reasonably due to the fact that the Bible can easily be taken out of context. I have been personally frustrated reading parts of the Bible, not realizing what was really being said. In order to properly understand the Bible it is more than often necessary to use a commentary while reading. Although I have been reading the Bible since I can remember, I cannot believe that I have never experienced it in its proper format by use of a commentary. This resource utilizes cross-reference which helps to correlate related facts and topics, especially with prophecy. I haven’t found the commentary to be confusing at all as it follows verse for verse with the Bible. It explains any  analogy in terms that make sense.                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

Another common situation is that the Bible not be translated in the correct terms and with fair parallels. To me this makes sense, because the Bible is being taken from Greek and Roman languages which are very different than English. In some cases there is also a middleman between the original language and the one that it is being translated to. Sometimes this will just cause false interpretation which is usually easily addressable; the use of the commentary can assist in this. However, there are times when the Bible in its written format will clearly contradict itself. This may not seem a matter of interpretation, and it often times is not. I can think of one experience where I tried fervently to read between the lines of a true account in the Bible.

This passage is found in Matthew chapter 15 verses 24-27. Jesus had just fled from Palestine to Tyre which was on the border between Palestine and Gentile territory. He wanted to seclude himself from the Jews so that he could pray and study in peace.

“From there Jesus took a trip to Tyre and Sidon. They had hardly arrived when a Cananite woman came down from the hills and pleaded, “Mercy, Mast, Son of David! My daughter is cruelly afflicted by an evil spirit.”                                                                                                                                                     Jesus ignored her. The disciples came and complained; “Now she’s bothering us. Would you please take care of her? She’s driving us crazy.”                                                                                                                                                    Jesus refused, telling them, “I’ve got my hands full dealing with the lost sheep of Israel.”                                                                                                                                                           Then the woman came back to Jesus, went to her knees, and begged, “Master, help me.”                                                                                                                                                                                          He said, “It’s not right to take bread out of children’s mouths and throw it to dogs.”                                                                                                                                                                 She was quick: “You’re right, Master, but beggar dogs do get scraps from the master’s table.”                                                                                                                                                  Jesus gave in. “Oh, woman, your faith is something else. What you want is what you get!” Right then her daughter became well.”

The woman being a Canaanite was referred to in the socially accepted manner, where Gentiles are called ‘dogs’ and the Jews were considered the children of God. By referring to her as a dog, Jesus meant not the wild dogs of the street but rather a pet dog which would live in the house. The woman was asking for only a small amount of compassion from Jesus and not even that which he would give the Jewish children of God. She complied with her position as a “dog” and wanted only “scraps”. Through her humility and by her faith, she proved her understanding of the situation to Jesus and he in turn granted her request immediately.                                                                                                                                                                     

I never guessed anything as simple but yet as camouflaged as this meaning from the text in its basic format straight from my Bible. This is just one example of how easy it is to misunderstand the Bible.                    

The Literary Context of the Holy Bible

It is quite common I would say that individuals who are simply unaware of the broad usage of diverse context used in the Bible. The many books of the Bible are written in prose and poetry. More specifically the bible can be broken down into prophetic literature, poetry, Old Testament history, New Testament history, the epistles, and apocalyptic literature.                                                                                                                                     

Scattered all throughout the books is poetry, but it is also centralized in several books where it is the sole contact used. Poetry is used in books of wisdom and prophecy as well as history. Preceding the majority of nearly any historical account was prophecy. We are told that the prophets were specifically commissioned to fulfill their role in the recording of prophecy. They must have been men of spirit, interpretation, sight, as well as integral spokes work. As I am young in my study on the actual literature of the Bible, I can just sum the writings of prophecy up as mainly promises to the people of Israel before the coming of the Messiah. The prophetic books, especially in the Old Testament give message to the people of Abraham on hope, instruction for life in their present state (anticipating the Messiah), obedience, faith, and messages on the leadership of God.                                                                                                           

The historical accounts of the Bible are written both as recorded witness and interpretation. Since the Bible is written in a “linear” form from God’s point of view, we are given information which man was not present to witness. These would be considered the interpretations because God told man about them so that they may be recorded. More accounts in the Bible however, are written by witness where man was actually present. God tells of the creation of man and that is the most evident example of the Bible being considered interpretive. In the form of progression is the history of the Bible written where God reveals which in sort of an accumulation, fore-shadowing as it goes. Some books of the Bible are related by prophecy and then actual account of the anticipated. The adumbration of the Messianic Deliverance was written in the Old Testament book of Isaiah (Isaiah 8-9:7). Later, the actual account of Jesus’ anticipated birth was recorded in Matthew.                           

Not all prose writing in the Holy Bible –even of the stories— are literal accounts of occurrence. There are some stories which are intended to teach a lesson or convey a poly-applicable moral. These are most specified in the Parables of the New Testament. Because the analogies are were not things that necessarily happened, they were crafted especially in every detail to illustrate a general theme which is what makes them the most comparable and applicable to more modern-day life. Some of the Parables which are well-recognizable, especially important to the theme of a Christ-fearing life, and most pliable in point are The Prodigal Son, The Wise Man & the House upon the Rock, The Sowers & Seeds, and the Parable of 3 Talents.                                                                                                

Love to Death

After reflecting on uses of “love” and the feeling itself, a minuet realization has come to mind pertaining to the sentiment.

It often seems that those things which I could insert in the blank from the article below, are easily exhausted, almost trendy, thus contributing to the demeaning of the term. The things I deem to be in love with, really do appeal to me. I don’t mean to say that “love” isn’t applied to things that aren’t loved by any means but just that “well like” would typically better appropriate most stances. Assuming this, I dare to bargain that utilizing the word alone can cause thinking to be likewise geared.

I have often caught sight of something –for me it may be a pair of nike running shoes- and I claim to love them. After a while, because I “love” them so much, that (more honestly coined) liking loses rarity. It’s almost as if their so greatly appealing color scheme and exact structure becomes too perfect to the point of spoilage. Sometimes the shoe I would find very intriguing but not one that perfects my appeal and that I would thus not even think about buying, I end up really liking more, because it’s as if there’s that little bit of non-occupancy that they can only get just that little bit more better. It is a low goal with high potential.

Perhaps the common situation is that we hallucinate ourselves so to speak, thinking that if we really, really can like something, we can love it, and because love is so highly sought for its virtue, we wouldn’t mind making it easier and more likely to attain. It isn’t until we realize that the term love is much more exclusive than that and is to be handled with regard. It should be savored and treasured for sparse acclamation. As a result, we can enjoy things in their imperfection, because we are sinful people in an imperfect world. It may be more amazing than we might realize, that being the effect of the ill use of a word.

Love Put in Context

So often we hear others as well as ourselves say “I love _____”. We say it about food and clothes, about brands and styles. We say it in the same manner about people we don’t even know such as towards talk show hosts, artists, and designers. When placed in context with our most favored hobbies and self-symbols, the term “Love” is nearly as respected as if it is almost beside the love we hold for the people and relationships which are most important to us. Considering this, it would seem to a third-party of life that love is a common-felt. The term in particular ought to also come across as easily applicable.                

It is not arguable however, that the effect of the word “love” should come first as a feeling and as a result be considered a noun. In the broad context that we use the word, one might think it was the other way around, and that “love” was a simple and practical noun in terms of language.                                      

The flippant use of a word alone can be deceiving to the interpreter, and I believe that it can likewise become eventually confusing to the user or the person who is supposedly experiencing the emotion of love. I believe we now may have faced ourselves with a social issue on the matter. Unless there was a disruption in the variation of our use of the word which placed it back within its primitive confines, we may need a new word to take the place of the old which used to define a most sacred liking and near obsession for passionate pursuits of great importance. As this is not extremely convenient, we may alternatively choose by free will and rather not by laws of the English literary bounds to utilize slightly more historical words which were the origins and the first expressers of the feeling. The most popular of those are from the Greek language. I have examined those Greek words –as there are several from the Greek language which define love— and they are: agape, eros, philia, and storge. The intent of there being more than one of these is to compartmentalize the variations of the single, general feeling. This way, they may be more specific and better define that which is being specified, without confusion.    

The Greek word for love which represents affectionate and typically lustful love is Eros. It is the love which is motivated by physical attraction, it is felt between people, and is greater than Philia. To me the most interesting philosophy on what could be meant by Eros, is that which was thought by Plato in his theory of Platonic Love.  He believed in a parallel which is assumed between divinity and the intimate love of humans. Divine love in his definition, has first to be sought before the love of humans can exist with sincerity. At this point, it is Eros love.                                                                                                        

Love with the divine is Agape love, as Agape is the greatest expression for love. However, in this deep state, it can be felt toward humans and by humans of any relation. Storge, is the love had between family members. It is naturally present, non-sexual, and present with long suffering. This third form of love described by the Greek language is contained within this final form and is therefore miniscule to the broader Philia. Brotherly love or loyalty, is what defines Philia. Inclusive of any form of enjoyment whether towards things or people, Philia is the most general of them all.                                                             

As the diversifying theme in these terms is not a present amenity in English, I think the best thing we could do is be careful to protect the term love which –with respect— quite remarkably may be distinguished by a medley of applications. The English love does not have a hierarchy. It’s greatest significance is indeed very great. More than a feeling or emotion, it is the swathe for life.

My Testimony

Part5This relationship is current and that time until now, I have been spiritually stable. The growth I made at that point was a sort of leap which is no round-trip. I cannot go backwards from where I left off. However there was one more less-important thing remaining which I felt compelled to act upon, and it was indeed received as a feeling of being compelled. Referring again to baptism in the New Testament, I knew from which teaching that I needed to be Baptized. I think my fear in doing so was caused by the dread of the steps I would take to commit. It was something that I had to do on my own, for myself, but was completely and pointedly public. Those are not a good combination of things when compiled also with my personality type. It is not my fear of public appearance, but the fact that I had to facilitate this for myself and for the good of myself that procrastinated taking action. As a result, I waited. I suppose I had the hope that somehow the opportunity would present itself to me. Either that was the case, or whenever the situation was brought up I would find a reason to avoid it. I prayed about it quite a bit and it was so silly that I made the effort to evade it, but it was another six years before I confronted myself with actually making the decision to be baptized. The opportunity was almost presented to me actually as we returned from an out-of-country mission’s trip. Many others had expressed the interest in being publicly proclaimed as Christ-followers and so my youth pastor organized a miniscule preparation class. I joined in and was baptized the following week in the local Palo Lake. I was not nervous at all, and I actually ended up being glad that it happened to be later rather than sooner that I made the representative action. I really enjoyed the process and it was actually meaningful and although it was comfortable, it was still very symbolic with a little bit of anxious mixed in.

Since then, I have had only one situation where I have felt betrayed by God. That experience made me even more spiritually sound and I know without doubt that there is nothing which could deviate me from the Holy Spirit for the rest of my immortal life. I live daily to worship my Heavenly father in every aspect of my life. I continue in my practice of falling completely in love with my maker. The area I struggle the most in, is being a disciple of Christ. We are called to be fisher’s of men, and I know that full well. I know that this is second to loving the Lord my God with all my heart.

My Testimony

Part4After that awakening week, I returned home with a fresh feeling and new outlook about me. However, this was not as comfortable with time. Eventually, this would turn into a burden. With my desire to know God more along with my habit slightly more adapted to do so, it became a routine before bed to do my devotions.  Several nights in, I was at a spiritual high and the presence of God seemed more and more real. A transfer was made between what used to be self-enforced by control, to a more intellectual and cognitive understanding. He revealed himself to me in a new and very extreme way and it was as if He was physically present as I had never felt before. It scared me and yet was the most reassuring feeling I have ever experienced. At this new level, I felt as though I needed to rededicate my life to the Lord and I could not be at peace until I did. I did so to myself, but I wanted someone to witness this. This isn’t unnatural that I felt this need as the gospel of John holds the history of Jesus baptizing people as a public form of their new life in Him. This was the conclusion of my foundation in Jesus Christ. I believed fully and realistically in Him, I had a desire to know Him more, and my desire and goal in life was to serve Him by being a witness of Him and sharing the story of my salvation with others. My daily “devotions” have since then developed into meetings and reading the Bible is a knowledge experience, prayer time a constant conversation with Jesus Christ.