Whom Should A Christian Chose To Support?

A beautiful picture of someone who - HOPEFULLY!!!! - is going to become a beautiful human when born

Recently I found one of my older notes from Facebook and it set my brain aflame: Someone - i.e. Pastor Dave Barnhart of the Saint Junia United Methodist Church in Birmingham, Alabama - presumably made a very wise utterance about the obligations of Christians in 2018. In these days of American misogyny when women are left to die of gynaecological causes following new insane rules his words offer a new angle to the subject of Christianity that really is needed:

"“The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It’s almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe."

Well put, and as we know, The Bible tells Christians to offer help to "the poor", "the widows", "the orphans", and "the sick" who are people who have been born and live among us .... 

 

Yup, that we should ....

 

Fetus Hero

Well, the fetus, I'm thinking of, didn't know that he or she was born a hero. At the moment of his/her birth he/she just wanted to be alive. The irony is that this new, small Dane most probably wouldn't have had a life had he/she not been born a HERO.

It all started out with the birth of a very sick child who was in grave need of a bone marrow transplant. To succeed the donor should be closely related and very young - I suspect  that it also has something to do with stem cells, but I don't know for sure - and such a donor may best be designed by science if there isn't any which there wasn't in this case. 

I fully understand why the parents of the sick child wanted a cure, but it's a strange situation that child No. 2 is born as some kind of "spare part" of No. 1 and not for his/her own sake. It wouldn't cost the new child his/her life to have his/her bone marrow harvested, but still ....

"Born a hero"? Naaahhh, not without qualifying the word by adding "victim". He/She became a hero-victim ....

 

Bemoaning One's Youth

Live long enough and you too may end up bemoaning what's lost and which can never be retrieved: GONE IS GONE, and not even hard training, tough diets or weird medications can revive one's lost youth. 

However, some people think it's possible - at least up to a point - if one gets hold of stem cells as they are both for regeneration and renewal ....  

There are rumors about rich people harvesting fetus tissues to gain rejuvenating stem cells. Some of these rumors seem substantiated by facts, but even so they look like science fiction of the horror kind that's more than weird. For instance, it has been said that the lovers of a certain fashion designer purposely get pregnant by him to harvest aborted fetuses for him.

Slander? Maybe, and hopefully, yes! The very idea is utterly disgusting as it is some kind of vampyrism ....

 

https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/bone-marrow-transplant/in-depth/stem-cells/art-20048117

Insane Biblical Statements

 

 

Well, I suppose that most of his contemporaries didn't like something that logical - and evident ....

These days people are not all that much into the Biblical teachings - or are they???? On some of the websites I visit I often see people proclaiming a somewhat threadbare religious belief in the teachings of The Bible as well as a deep set fright of Hell. They are clinging to the belief they were brought up to honor as "the truth" out of fear of the presumably eternal torture of those hellish flames. Strangely enough they are not afraid of that old bully, called Yahweh. To me that's a proof that they have never read  The Bible.

Nonetheless this Biblical god who started out as the toyboy of the supreme god, namely the goddess Asherah, comes out as a socipath, and not the Santa-clone that he has been made out to be. For instance: Yahweh sent two she-bears to maul 42 boys for calling a man “baldy.” (2 Kings 2:23-24). Just like that? Yes, just like that ....

Why did Yahweh send a plague that killed a lot of people, not one time, but many times, actually over and over? For instance: Exodus 16:13, Numbers 11:31-35 

As might be expected Yahweh don't like unruly children: Deuteronomy 21:18-21 “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear. - And: 2 Kings at 6:29: "So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him; and she hath hid her son." To be "righteous" in the Biblical sense of the word sure has some grim implications, and this is not the only time The Bible says something about parents eating their offspring: You will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters. (Leviticus 26:27-29) 

Not only murder, but cannibalism seems to be part of Yahweh's philosophy, as it's mentioned over and over, like e.g. here: 2 Kings 6:28-29; Jeremiah 19:1-9; Leviticus 26:27-29, etc., etc.. Murder sure comes easy to this ancient deity, like e.g. when he kills Onan for not getting his brother’s wife pregnant: Genesis 38:8-10. 

It goes on and on with killings of the innocent (e.g. babies or fetuses), but some details about Adam and Eve are interesting, even today as they mirror what we know about gods before this murder-deity attained supremacy. The legend is that Eve was created from one of Adam’s ribs, which is so very, very patriarchal = Man didn't come from woman (which he obviously did, coming out of her vagina!) but woman came from Adam's rib. 

Well, just as Yahweh was an old deity with roots in former religions so was Eve. She appears to be moulded on the ancient Sumerian goddess Ninti, the so-called "Lady of the Rib" also called "The Lady Who Gives Life". That figures and the more I think about it, the more interesting that part of it gets ....

I think that religious people of today have got into a habit of not READING what The Bible says. They just browse those parts of it that confirm their beliefs, and they never, never, never put it into a historical context which actually is where it belongs: 

 

The Double-Mirror

"I'm still looking good!"

Yes, you are, but you're neither looking your best nor how you think you are looking. To some that's an unforeseen tragedy, but to others it's nothing to worry about as looks aren't everything - or so they say .... However, without knowing it we often judge each other by looks. One of the places to see this system in action is many of the so-called "women subs". 

In these subs we may find an ongoing - and never-ending? - litany about men. This flow of words may turn into torrents about abuse, bad marriages, creepy sexual expectations and blatant sexism, but the point is that so much/most of it is a signal of focusing on anything, but what makes them strong and happy. It's a kind of going around in circles that doesn't bring any solutions to the main problem: These women NEED the feeling of accept, also by other women, but mostly by men, and a lot of their complaints go on their own insecurity, especially when it comes to looks and body value.

The truth is that we (i.e. most or many of us) tend to let our worth as a human being be set by others or what we feel they think about us. Men count as some sort of status symbol in the world of women as they themselves count as symbols of success and value in the world of men. However, to let this system gain status as the ultimate evaluating system is crazy. We know it, but still, it's to be seen in all these women subs that should be denouncing it, but which only is up to a certain point: That's not good in the long run ....

 

Thoughts About Crocodiles

Teasing the croc - WHAT FUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I saw a program about crocodiles some days ago, and I learnt something that made me think about the dangers of sizes: One big, tank like male croc sometimes  mistakes a female for a convenient snack. However, that doesn't happen all that often as the female really is FEMALE in looks, as well as in movement. First of all she may outsmart him, but also she may out-run him. Being muscular and tank like makes the male heavy and not limber: He can't catch her for all that surplus muscle weight as she is much more agile than him.

The same goes for someone like this poor man with a ruined body (which he most probably is very proud of!!!!). MEN have competed with MEN about being bigger than big more often than women. Big is something special with many men, dreaming of that elusive Alpha status, but to most women it's sort of hilarious to watch someone like this guy: He is not a dream beau to most women.
 

I have a very strong feeling that the ballet dancer Anna Pavlova would beat the muscle guy in a fair fight, using the weapons they are born with, including evasion and flight. To fight him, muscle to muscle, so to speak, would be stupid, also because he is much heavier than she is. Just like the hungry male croc he might subdue her by sitting on her, but she - being smart - would avoid something like that AND BEAT HIM ....

 

"The Love Game of the Patriarchy"

 

Is a wedding every woman's dream? No, it's not, but in most patriarchies it looks like a necessity because so much has been set up against the freedom - even the barest of bare respect - of women. Without freedom a woman can't make her way in a patriarchy, and without respect she may even hinder herself in gaining SELF-RESPECT. Tough rules need tough girls not to be totally unacceptable.  

From a time period that OPENLY operated with double-standards, one standard for him and one standard for her. For him to take advantage of a girl (of the "lower classes"?) and still get a bride of a "good family" for more than fun, she would have to accept this system of lies and social limits, depicting herself as "good", and the cum sock-girl of a "lower class" as "not good" girl. Maybe she never even questioned such a system because she had gained the status of "good"/"respectable" which to her was the guarantee of love

Having guarded her virginity for ages - actually, her entire life - she kept her market value and thus might marry into an even higher status: She went from a "Miss" to a Mrs.

As it is this system would never have had any success had it not been for the initial downplay of anything not supporting it, especially women's self-respect as human beings and not solely as "one of the female sex who may advance to the status of a Mrs". Being a woman she has been taught that she NEEDS a strong man to sort of giving her the "good enough-stamp" to become anything but a specimen of the "inferior sex".

However, times have been changing, and women have not kept subdued which is the crucial part of the system: Without that it doesn't work, and women have proved - over and over again, and not least to themselves - that they are and want more than something like that. They know that they are not the weak vessels who need male protection at all times, even though men have proved that they are not what they have been set up to be ....