Realization about the Levitical Cities of Refuge

So . . . I was listening to Torah class this morning and I thought about something. He was talking about the cities of refuge.

These cities were apparently places that anyone who had committed a heinous act could run to for protection from those seeking vengeance. These cities had never made sense to me. How was that fair? I mean, we practice diplomatic immunity today for some cases . . . but the cities of refuge seemed like entire cop-outs. Like you could do any terrible sin--breaking Torah--and still be able to wiggle your way out of it just by running to one of these strongholds. However, step one foot out of the city and you were fair game! It seems like such a strange concept.

But then I thought about it. I'm humanizing it! Isn't this the same thing we do today when we think of heaven? We think of heaven as this place where only "good people" can go. We think of sinners being allowed to enter heaven and this disgusts us. Well, that's just too bad, b/c like it or not, heaven will be full of sinners.

Just as these cities were for sinners who realized their sin cost them their lives, we should realize that our sin costs us our lives. Just as these cities were set up as the Levites only given land inheritance, we as priests of God have not this world, but rather His stronghold of salvation for inheritance. Just as sinners could run to these cities for protection, we can run to Christ for protection. However . . . step one foot out of His stronghold, and we are fair game for the Devil and his wicked plans.

Old Testament. New Testament. It's all one book, guys.

The Bible: Chauvinist Propaganda Pt. 5 (Conclusion)

5. The hint of the Messiah.

My hope with this conclusion is to help others to see just how and where chauvinism probably eventuated. Part of the reason I didn't write all five of these the same week was so that I could give the my thoughts time to germinate. Not that my thinking about something for a long time makes it right, but also I didn't want to answer hastily. There's barely any wisdom in my head as it is, and there is absolutely no wisdom in hastiness.

Before I get to my real point though, I want to point out something else. Feminists like to say that the word "mankind" is chauvinistic. Well. . .maybe it is and maybe it isn't--I think it depends on who says it--but...at least in the Bible, I think we can come to the conclusion that the word "mankind" means both men and women. This point is very clear in Genesis 1:26:

Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." (NASV)

Notice the wording here. God says He will make "man" in His image, but then He says to let "them" rule. This leads me to believe that from the very beginning, "mankind" was just a term for all peoples: men and women.

Now...I am not a Hebrew scholar, but it's a good thing Hebrew scholars have put interlinear helps online for people like me. Hebrew and English are not the same and so when we look at the English translation, we have to realize that we can't just take the pronouns at face value b/c a lot of other languages don't use pronouns nearly as much as we do and/or they don't have the exact shade of meaning. I say all this to preface this point: in English the Bible says "let THEM rule over the [earth]. . .." But we can't just say "oh that means men and women" are included, b/c a few translations say, "let HIM rule." So the pronoun must have either been added when it was translated into English or the Hebrew word used means more than one thing. So we need more information.

First of all, the Hebrew word for "man" in that particular verse comes from the word that most often means "humans" in the Hebrew Scriptures. Well, that's a good start towards getting some understanding; however, if it could mean just the masculine humans, then we are going to need something stronger still. Fortunately for women, it's not a point of us forcing the wording, because the point is already made. Look at the following verse:

27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

So that is how we know that the words "man" and "them" in verse 26 mean both men and women, b/c if it just meant men, then verse 27 wouldn't make any sense. If you have an interlinear Bible you can see for yourself that the first word for man in verse 27 is the same word in verse 26 for "mankind" or "humans" and the words "male" and "female" mean exactly that: "male" and "female." So "mankind" means both men and women equally. Plus, BOTH were supposed to rule over the earth. You know? It wasn't just the men to whom God gave this awesome task.

So . . . why has there always been this concept of male-domination throughout history? Well, I don't want to rehash everything that's been said to this point, but basically. . .I believe "male-dominance" as we know it today was not a Biblical concept, but rather a man-made one.

It couldn't have been from Adam b/c he saw Eve as "bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh"--totally equal to him. It couldn't have been God, b/c He made them both as co-rulers of the earth. We don't know all God's reasons for doing things, but we can at least see why He made woman the way He did. The picture of Christ and the church. The companionship. The glory of man. However, before God we are not male and female, but rather simply beings in His image.

Something interesting to note before detailing the curses in Genesis 3:15-19 . These curses seem extreme, especially when we focus on the curses themselves and not why the curses had to happen in the first place. But notice that God simply punishes Adam and Eve. He promises far more to Satan:

Gen 3:15 "And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel."

A blow to the head is far more detrimental than a blow to the heel. The concept here is that even though Christ would die for sin that Satan affected, Christ would eventually destroy him and all his evil.

God loved Adam and Eve and so He made provision for them, whereas Satan will be destroyed (for specifics, see Revelation). I suppose we could get into an argument about whether or not God loves/loved Satan...and that will make a very interesting future blog, but...it's too far off the topic for this one.

So let's look at the curses individually. The woman's is in verse 16:

To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you."

Basically, the woman now has (1) pain in childbirth, (2) her desire will be for her husband, and (3) she will be under man's rule.

Now let's look at the mans' curse:

17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. 18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. 19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return. (NIV)

So the man's curse is basically (1) that the entire earth is cursed b/c of him, (2) he will have pain when he works, (3) the amount of work he does will significantly outweigh his profit, and (4) he will do this till he dies.

If you look at these curses as what will happen to our accomplishments, you see that actually the man may arguably have it worse off than the woman. Women were to simply have pain in childbirth. Man was to have pain all his life. The counterargument being, "Yes, but women work nowadays, and we suffer just as much pain in the work place--if not more--as the men PLUS the child birth aspect." Well, think about it...who do we have to thank for that? Feminism. Feminism would actually multiply pain to women. Think on't.

In regards to the second part of the woman's curse "your desire will be for your husband (NIV)." If the word "desire" means "longing" or "craving" (which it does) then . . . that's not actually so bad either. I don't mean that women are codependent. But there is a sense of accomplishment for women when we can make a man happy. The verse doesn't mean that we are supposed to be dust mops. We are just told that we need to make men happy. Well . . . Shouldn't we? Isn't that something we should already do? I mean . . . can't we just try to make the world a better place to live in? Isn't being nice a far better answer than fighting for our "rights" that actually put us in a harder position than where we were originally? (I know it's hard. I'm not only writing this...I'm also a member.)

And the last part of the woman's curse: the fact that Adam would rule over Eve . . . that's kinda for Eve's benefit too. I mean, have you ever lead anything? It's not easy. You have to prepare. You have to think of others. I mean, women have to think of men in that they need to desire to meet men's needs. But men have to think of how to take care of women, so it's a give and take thing. The "male-dominance" is dominance--yes--but the reason we fight that word tooth and nail is b/c of what it's become today! Ruling is supposed to be like Christ. The way Christ rules over us is to give Himself for us. That's leadership for the good of the followers.

Okay, so over time, man has taken this curse as a blessing so he can domineer over women, but that's nothing new. We take curses as blessings all the time. Think of clothing. Clothing was actually a curse. We were supposed to be naked, but look at fashion today. We don't just take it as a blessing, we glory in it! Also, look at the pain of working. God told us that work would be hard from now on. Look what we do with that as well. Work is no more a means for sustenance and survival. It has become a way of advancing ourselves. A means of "keeping up with the Joneses"! Another way we glory in our infirmities--as my dad pointed out to me one day--look at the Grand Canyon. We "Oooh" and "Aaah" over it when it was because of the Flood. This world-wide deluge being the direct result of man reaching an alarmingly depraved state. I'm not saying fashionable clothes, bettering yourself, or natural treasures are evil, I'm just saying look what we make of them. We can't just see them for what they are, instead we take pride in them. No wonder we are so unhappy.

Anyways, the curses for men and women were actually quite equal in impact. I mean, yes . . . as a woman, I agree it sucks to have to be "under" someone, but . . . just imagine having the responsibility to be "over" someone when you yourself are a fallen selfish creature? That's tough. The curses were both horrible. But, both were punished according to the way each sinned. Eve's sin was buying into a lie, and so she was cursed with not having leadership. Adam's sin was being a pansy and listening to his wife when he knew she was wrong, and so he was cursed with leadership.

So now we come to the actual point. Why were men ever considered better or greater if the curses were equal? Personally, I think it's b/c of verse 15. Let's look at it again:

And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel. (NASV)

The prophecy says that the end of Satan would come through a "Him" who would be born of a woman. Basically, the coming Messiah would be male. And like everything, we humans get a prophecy like that and what do we do with it? We take it to an extreme, so that over time girl babies are counted as literally nothing more than factories with the potential of making more male babies, in hopes that one of them might be the Messiah. But that wasn't God's intent, b/c of verses like Genesis 1:27 all the way to verses like Galatians 3:28.

If we assume that God isn't lying when He says He created the world. If He tells us this in the Bible. If we then realize that all religions are based off this first religion, then of course male domination will become a world-wide concept. I mean are there any cultures that prize girl babies over boy babies? And furthermore, the farther from God humans get, the more sinful this extreme becomes, the more male-dominated it becomes. Conversely, the female-dominated concept arises out of a desire to counteract this first problem, thus creating a whole new set of problems, both of which are not God's original plan. If we would just work together . . .

The Messiah being male is the best answer for the origin of chauvinism, b/c while all the other Biblical arguments can be accounted for after using our brains, you can't get rid of this one. There is no promise of a female Saviour, so human minds sacrifice the common sense of equality between the sexes for the "safe" answer of men being somehow more important. Listen to what we did: we decided to draw conclusions on the importance of all males and non-importance of all females from a provision that God made to pay for our sin. Great job, human race!

But what about all the laws and regulations that seem so much heavier for women than men in the Torah? . . . Well, for one thing, that's all a matter of perspective, b/c you could easily argue that men had even tougher laws. God gave laws b/c people weren't getting it on their own. I mean . . . look how much time went by from the beginning till God started "ordering people around" --a couple thousand years at least, so I don't think you can say that God wasn't being fair. After time, people harden their hearts, turn from God, and lead themselves into destruction, so God wants to put a stop to it, so He starts spelling E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G out in order that we would see His holiness and follow Him. So if we are stupid, then God has to use stupid words to (hopefully) make us smarter.

Plus, do you expect a holy God to just forgo His holiness? I mean, we need that holy standard. Look what we do with the "goodness" that we have? Imagine if there was no concept of holiness whereby we could measure wrong. This world is bad enough, but I would NOT want to exist in a world where there was no concept of goodness.

Women would really get screwed over in a place like that.

Snapshot of a Cat

This is going to be off the regular vein of this online journal, but I really feel I need to write about it.

My favorite childhood pet died on Monday morning. Her name was Catrina and she was the best cat anyone could ask for. She was born on (or around, we're not sure) March 1st, 1987 and died Monday morning, October 13, 2008. She was born on the day Ohio became a state and died on Columbus Day. Definitely a patriotic little lady. James Thurber would be so proud.

She wasn't really a cat. I mean, of course she was, but . . . she wasn't. There was always something special about her. Something in here that I've never seen in another animal. It wasn't her loyalty or her affability. It wasn't her personality. There was a sort of consciousness about her. She was a presence. A presence very much needed and very much a part of our family.

Of course, like most family pets she started out being an animal. I remember when I was little. All I really ever wanted was a cat. I was never into dogs. Dogs were just too much at once and smelled terrible. I never wanted a pet who needed me that much. To me, the perfect animal you could ever ask for was a white long hair cat. They were like the perfect animal. They were the size of a baby doll, covered in fur (including their tummies, which dogs are not), and made cute noises. Who could ask for more than a white long-hair cat? The kind like on the "Aristocats." I used to draw pictures of this fantasy--a fantasy b/c the landlord wouldn't allow them. I even knew what I would name her: Puffy--not too imaginative . . . but I was a little kid. Give me a break.

I begged and begged for this cat for years. Then, the fateful day came. Mom and Dad had somehow convinced the landlord to allow them to get me a cat. I remember being so excited as we drove to the farm where the kittens were. All I could think of the entire way was how happy I was about to be with my very own kitten. Of course, I would have to share her with the family, but . . . she would be mine.

I don't really remember the details, b/c I remember there was a lot of talking and a lot of . . . no cats. Where were the cats? I was told to just be patient as we waited. I remember seeing a lot of people but . . . no cats. Then, mom told me to look in this one cardboard box and pick out the one I wanted.

I was so excited as I neared the box. I could picture the kitty, all fuzzy and white and happy and cuddly and . . . black? Where was the snow-colored feline of my dreams? This had to be a mistake. I asked mom and she told me to just pick one. How do you just "pick one"? There were two perfectly identical black kittens in the box. They were both exactly the same. I thought I would at least have a choice of ten . . . maybe eight . . . is five cats asking too much? Why only two? How was I supposed to know which one to pick? They were both wrong. Where were the white cats? Everything was wrong. Not only were the cats the wrong color, but they were short-haired. This was supposed to be a specific process. There were too many details here that were not being fulfilled properly.

Pick one.

So I did. I don't remember any specifics about who picked it. I (or mom or dad, I can't really remember) reached into the box and lifted one out. Maybe Bekah picked. I don't remember. Luck of the draw. A brand new--and extremely small--fuzzy black kitten. She was cute. Maybe she could be the family cat after all.

On the way home, I remember my sister and I sitting with a big meowing cardboard box on our laps and seeing the tiny black paw, like a fat caterpillar, trying to work its way out of the box. My sister, Bekah, who was happy to have ANY animal in the house, seemed perfectly fine with the decision. I was happy too, yet . . . I felt like the trip had been counterproductive. Yes, I had a cat. But it wasn't the one I wanted.

We took her home and put her in her litter box, which--as my mom recalled later--resembled the Sahara in comparison to the little black fuzzball digging and running around in it. I named her "Catrina" after a toy cat I had seen somewhere and thought the name appropriate. (She was definitely NOT a "Puffy.") She was unarguably cute, but . . . it wasn't even the coal black hair that was the issue anymore. She seemed to like to hide, and since she was so small, and the house we lived in so big, she hid quite a lot.

That was only the first week or so. Soon she came to be quite a sociable creature. This is definitely to her credit since she had three (and then four) human children to put up with. It didn't matter who you were or what you'd done in your past. You were always welcome to pet her and let her sit on your lap. She was no respecter of laps. Of course she had laps that she particularly liked, but she was always big about it and let everyone have at least a few minutes of time. She was very gracious.

I think she was therapy for us. Some hospitals use cats to help their patients recuperate and I can definitely see why. If you are ever stressed out, pet a cat. Once it starts purring you feel so warm and appreciated, and yet . . . not covered in slobber. It's amazing.

We weren't always nice. She was great fun to joke with. We used to dress her up in baby clothes and put her in a baby carriage. Most cats would have struggled and not allowed it. Catrina, however, got the joke and simply submitted to the torture. She used this time to "sleep." (And by "sleep" i mean: "plotting a clever way to escape when the humans aren't looking.") However, we rarely stopped watching and she would oftentimes fall asleep unawares. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. At least you can catch up on sleep in the meantime. She was efficient like that.

I remember soon after we got her, mom and dad found a family that was getting rid of their long-haired white cat. My parents bought him and brought him home. I was so excited about him . . . for about three minutes. He was the one I named "Puffy" and that was the extent of my interest in him. For one thing, not only was he fully grown, but also he was HUGE. Also, he was a boy cat and boy cats aren't as good--everyone knows that. Furthermore, he was scared of everybody. Catrina never met a stranger. Puffy found even our family to be strangers. He NEVER allowed the smaller kids to touch him. He'd go and hide all day only to come out at night to sit with mom . . . or me, when I wasn't playing or moving around too much. That was not what a family pet was supposed to be.

Catrina was.

There were a few times when we almost lost Catrina, and by lost I mean she almost ran away. She was a fast little bugger too. One time I distinctly remember was when she got out and hid under the porch. Having three younger siblings, it was all mom and I could do to make them remember to shut the door behind them, so the cats wouldn't get out. Well one day, it happened. I remember panicking. Had I lost the best pet ever just b/c my little brother had forgotten to shut a door? I don't remember specifically how we found out that she was under the porch. Did she meow? Did someone think to look under there? I don't remember. All I remember was that we were all trying to chase her out from under without getting horribly dirty. That was when a very nice man in white pants came along and crawled under the porch and rescued her for us. I'm not sure who he rescued more that day: the cat or us, but his pants definitely needed rescuing after that.

Every time she got out, I panicked. What if I'd lost her forever? She was becoming less of the childhood fantasy and more of the childhood companion that you read about in books. She was very important to me. I used to pray and pray and pray that she would just stay in the house and live forever. Not . . . too much to ask, is it?

I remember another time she got out, we had been watching "Thomasina," a Disney movie about a cat who dies and then comes back to life. It made me cry ( . . . apparently I cried a lot as a kid) to think about animals dying or running away or whatever, and then . . . as though testing my last nerve, the inevitable question--"Where's Catrina?" A door had been left cracked open and she had gotten out and was hiding in the bushes. She never got far, just enough to give me a panic attack. Thanks, Cat. What a poetic moment to choose.

I was a bit melodramatic as a child--I mean, she only got out maybe five times in her life--but it scared me to tears whenever it happened. I would sit and hold her and cry and cry and tell her not to leave and that I loved her.

We have always had all our cats declawed in the front, and as inhumane as that may sound, we never let them out of the house, so it didn't ever hurt them. It's just that fleas are such a problem to take care of, and also cats tend to live longer when they are totally house cats. Apparently, it worked b/c Catrina was 21.

She was obedient . . . in her own way. The other cats we owned always jumped on the table--not actually to eat anything, but b/c for some reason, unbeknownst to them, they were not supposed to be there, and so therefore the table was the only place to be. At least Catrina had the decency to jump on the table after we went to bed.

She was really the only cat we had who even tried to pull her own weight. Of the three cats we've owned, she's the only one who ever caught and killed mice.

She loved Christmas. Christmas meant many things. First of all, all the tinsel you could eat. Secondly, catnip. Thirdly, the cooked guts of the turkey. Mmmmmm.

She was a famous pack-rat. I have few toys from my childhood save some Barbies and My Little Ponies. You would be hard-pressed to find any entire pairs or sets of shoes among them, however. We'd often find these little "stashes" years after their contents first went missing. What was she keeping them for? Did she need a pair of plastic red pumps for a night on the town? Only she knows the answer.

One day Puffy died. That was a scary day. I mean, I was sad that Puffy was gone, but . . . on the other hand, he was just a cat. What really scared me was if he had contracted something contagious. We were all sad that he was gone, but we were relieved that it hadn't been Catrina.

She always knew when you were having a bad day. Somehow, I don't know if it was a sixth sense or what, but if you were sad, and especially if you were crying, she would find you. It was probably just b/c she knew that with you crying, she was sure to get much love and attention. I used to shut my door when I was sad about something and cry very very quietly, and sure enough a few minutes later there would be a scuff scuff at my door. Somebody wanted in. And somebody was always welcome. Sometimes, I shut the door to test her. It always worked.

She was not just a cat. The cats in our family had to stay on the floor. The dogs too. Catrina however was allowed to sit on the dinner bench next to us during dinner. Even when she got too old to eat very much "people food" she was still welcome. This was among the various reasons her name was often changed to "Queena."

She was a very clean little monster. She gave herself regular baths and never felt the way some peoples' cats do--all "cat sticky." We rarely in her 21 years of life took her to the vet. I'm fairly sure we had taken her to the vet maybe once since she was declawed as a kitten till she was about 14 when we got a new cat, Alley. Alley (or "Alleybeans" as she is often referred to due to the beans rolling around in her head) is my littlest sister's cat and fuzzy as a bunny, cute as a button, but dumb as a rock. This came as a low blow to Queena. Was she not enough? Was she being phased out? She had already out-lived one cat and through the various annoyances of hamsters, gerbils, mice and interim dogs. Couldn't she just live out her golden years in peace? You may laugh, but . . . she actually became clinically depressed and stopped eating b/c of this. I remember telling people that she needed to go to the vet, but no one would take her until they finally realized something was up. She was becoming incredibly listless and wasn't getting better. The doctor affirmed my suspicions and put her on "Kitty Zoloft." That cleared up the problem (incidentally, I've never heard of anti-depressants being that successful in people). I think she just wanted to know that we still loved her. It's a hard thing to deal with when you feel you might be replaced.

There were of course the times when she was annoying. A sociable cat (and especially one fed from the table) is bound to feel entitled to your food more than you would like. Many times she would find herself locked in the bathroom during Sunday evening movie/snack time. She would just deal with these things, though. Her meow was never very annoying. It was always really cute. Mom may disagree b/c Catrina NEVER left her alone in the kitchen . . . however, Mom was the one who fed her "people food" more than the rest of us. There was a reason Queena was so demanding. ;o)

She loved when she knew you were busy with something. Her favorite times to jump into your lap were when you were (a) reading a book (she'd help you along by turning the pages . . . yes, I'm serious), (b) playing the keyboard, or (c) on the computer. These were opportune times, you see, b/c she knew that (a) you were going to be sitting for awhile, and (b) your hands needed to be put to better use. She was very much a love-junkie.

I was a really timid kid, but I had always loved acting and music. Fortunately, Catrina liked music too. She was quite an accomplished pianist and taught me many songs. I would play them for you, but . . . you may not appreciate them. I'm afraid they are quite ahead of their time.

She never got very big. My sister, Bekah, claims that she weighed "two pencils." She was, in violin terms, what you might call a "3/4" size cat. This made her sociability all the more endearing. You may be disinclined to have a huge mammoth-sized cat on your lap, but a little fuzzy one is just cute. Plus, she was always very petite. You had to be very careful with her, so she didn't get shooed away as much as other cats.

She loved to sleep with people. I think b/c she was always so small, she needed immense amounts of body heat that she herself could not provide. When I was younger, she'd sleep on my feet, but too much rolling around and she'd leave to find a better person to sleep with. I figured out a way to make her stay, though. If I let her sleep on top of the covers, but between my legs, she liked that better, b/c it was more of a walled-in heat bed. I would lay like that even to the point of "no longer comfortable" just b/c I wanted her to stay.

Later, she realized that she could get even warmer if she crawled under the covers with you. This was VERY annoying and was only good for those Sunday afternoon naps where Mom and Dad are making you lay down and so there is no way you are really going to sleep anyway. She would stick her head under the blankets and push them up with her head as she crawled under, and then a few minutes later crawl back out, only to crawl back under a few moments later. This was her way for a few years until she figured out how to get the best of both worlds: spoon against the person and lay your head on the pillow like the people do. This way you can be warm and still breathe. Efficiency, efficiency, efficiency. I'm sure the day she figured this out, she found a new respect for humans who had been performing this practice for millenia . . . but she never showed it.

She did a lot of things that most cats never even try. For one thing, she had her own version of fetch. Mom used to save the rings off the top of gallons of milk and Catrina would play with these for hours. Either by herself, or if she could convince a human to stop what they were doing for a few minutes, she's play fetch up and down the stairs. The game stopped when she said it stopped, though.

A great game for when we were littler was to get a very long string and just start tearing through the house like mad. Like magic, this would ALWAYS get her to come out of hiding. A running string is simply irresistible. Also, the sound of the can-opener, even in the midst of a deep sleep. Sometimes, even the refrigerator.

In her later years, she figured out a way to call people to come play with her by making this terrible moaning-like-she-was-dying sound. As she was a very ancient cat, this always scared the life out of us. Was she really dying? No. This sound only meant that she had her mouth full with a milk ring. I told you she was efficient. It definitely got our attentions.

People want to say that dogs are so loyal or playful or whatever, but I never needed a dog. Catrina was all the pet I needed. She would come when I called her. She'd follow me all over the house. Sometimes she was a little hard to convince--she was a cat after all--but in the end, she knew she'd rather be sitting on my lap than on a cold kitchen table chair. Even when she lost her hearing a year ago, she would still respond to "kitty sign language." She was jumping up into laps until her dying day. Sleeping. It was one of her favorite pastimes. We used to say that even though she was so old, she was actually only a kitten of three-years if you counted the time she'd actually spent awake. Hey, sleeping is a precious time. She knew what it was about.

She was very important in the formative years as well my early adult years. I worked a year after high school to pay for college and it was a really hard time for me. She was there through it all. During college, my parents went through a divorce and she was right there. After college, I had to come home to work again which was REALLY hard b/c I had been on my own at that point and was coming home. Once again, she was there. Every time I came home, she remembered who I was.

It's so weird to grieve over a cat. I mean . . . after all, it's just a cat, right. It's not like it's human. You find yourself talking to very few people about it, b/c you are sad but you also feel silly. Yes, Catrina was not human. But you know what? She filled a void that a human could never fill. I learned many things from her: confidence, unconditional love, sarcasm, how to survive a messy break up, and that black cats do NOT mean bad luck. If only I'd listened when she was teaching about the evils of sleep deprivation. I really think she was onto something there.

It seems strange to say this, but her passing happened at probably at the best time for me that could have been. My younger sister, Bekah, got married this past summer and I, living and working in Korea, will not be able to make it home for Christmas this year. That means we were all home under one roof for her last Christmas. This blog wasn't necessarily about God at all . . . but you can definitely see His hand at work on that one. Not only in that area, but also . . . sometimes I wonder, 'What if I had chosen the other cat in the box?' How different my life would have been.

I know now that I didn't need the white fluffy cat of my dreams. I needed a friend.

Goodbye, Baby. I'm crying yet again and I wish you were here.

The Bible: Chauvinist Propaganda? Pt. 4

1. God is referred to as "He."

Sounds logical, doesn't it? He is God the Father. There is no God the Mother...So God must hate women. Are women being slighted? No, this is not God trying to keep women under His very holy thumb.

This is something that I had to think about when I started listening to music by artists like Tori Amos. From her earliest albums, she has proclaimed this "Anti-Male-God of the Bible" stance. Look up the lyrics to her song "God" from "Under the Pink." This is a song from a very imbittered, searching-yet-rejecting young woman. I wish that she and people who think like her would just realize once and for all that it's the concept of a "male" God that they have a problem with, and that the Biblical God is not actually like that at all. Unfortunately, people confuse the Real God with this "made-up" god, and therefore reject the Real One. There is a reason God is referred to in masculine terms, and it's not b/c He hates women. I hope to point it out in this blog.

First of all, we need to keep in mind one important point. It may make sense that even though animals and people on this planet are male and female, God must be male or female or both. However, God is not any of those. The Bible refers to God as "He"; however, God is not actually a "He." The Bible says that God is a Spirit (John 4:24). ....However, this verse goes on further to explain God as "He"...so am I making a contradictory point? I hope not. Please let me explain.

First of all let me point out one even greater point: God CREATED male and female. (Gen. 1:27, Mt. 19:4) This means that He's not actually either one. He's not both. He's not a yin or a yang. He's just God. God is God. "I Am." WE were created with genders, b/c:
1.) Marriage is a picture of Christ and the church (first verses of Rev. 19).
2.) He wants us to reproduce (Gen 1:28).
3.) For companionship (Gen 2:18).

God does not have a gender. He is complete as He is...And even saying "complete" is not probably accurate. God has no needs, and if He had, He has already met them. So...why do we call God a "Him?" This is b/c He is our Father...and as a general rule, fathers are "he's," right?

"But isn't that circular reasoning?" you ask, "To call God our Father, you would also have to already assume that He is a 'He.' Besides that, why can't God be our Mother? Or...why not avoid gender at all and be an 'It'?"

First things first. Why is God not "The Supreme 'It'"? Simply this: God seeks to have a personal relationship with us the way a father has with his children. Think about it. Do you feel a particular personal closeness to electricity? What about gravity? Do you sit and chat with inertia? Um...No. If God were an "It" we would probably think of Him as a force of nature rather than Someone we can know on a personal level and furthermore talk to. That's the way we humans think. I mean...we have a hard enough time understanding the Holy Spirit as a "He." In our minds, a being is never an "it" unless you are talking about Science Fiction.

(Sub point: It wouldn't work if He switched genders (i.e. Zeus), b/c He must be constant--Someone we can trust at all times. Zeus was not trustworthy. People were warned against trusting him, in fact.)

So now we come to the ever nagging question: Why not "She?" Now, there may be many reasons. One that I've heard is that women sinned first and since God is all-knowing, He knew women would do it, so as punishment, He picked man. I hope that you can see by now that this is not backed up by Scripture, and if you can back it up with Scripture please do. Maybe I haven't read it all very well.

Another reason I've heard is that women are weak. In some ways, yes I would totally agree. However, in other ways, women are far stronger than men. That's not enough proof.

Another reason I've heard is that men are more logical and reasoning............yeah...........I will refrain for the purpose of, as a friend of mine puts it, "preserving the peace."

And the list goes on. Let me tell you the main reason I believe that a God--who is NOT actually a "He"--has revealed Himself as "He."

Okay...remember when I discussed the differences between the strengths of men and women? (see: http://andnarrowistheway.blogspot.com/2008/04/bible-chauvenist-propoganda-pt-1.html ) We are going to have to go back in time now to a few months ago, b/c . . . I've been dragging my feet with this "series" and so if you forget what I'm talking about, it's my fault for taking so long. Sorry for the delay.

Basically, I pointed out that men tend to be more straightforward and physically strong. Women tend to be more subtle and aesthetically beautiful. Both of these can be for good. Both of them can be for evil. However, they are for good in completely different ways and evil in completely different ways. So, with the understanding of men's and women's strengths, let's figure back into the equation why God would present Himself as a Father and not a Mother.

I find the answer simple. We can see why He didn't choose "She" already. Think of every goddess you know...Think of any of them that don't have to do with sex in some way. This is because when venerated to divine status, women become all-powerful sex-objects. In order to be close to a goddess, some sort of sexual rite or aspect must be performed or explored. Now, is God simply not "Mother" b/c He hates sex? Absolutely not. He created it, remember? But He wants a personal relationship with us, not a sexual one. He wants "Agape" not "Eros." Therefore He chooses to describe Himself as the gender that most fits that desire.

Let me explain. This is what Paul is referring to when he says that man was created in the image of God but woman was created in the glory of man. Men are easier for humans to venerate to positions of strength and authority--our little minds can wrap around a "Great Protector" as someone who wants our trust, that's the desire of God. Women are created in the glory of man, which means she is the desire of man. Sex isn't a ritual God wants from us. He doesn't require sex, b/c He created it specifically for a husband and wife. It's a special gift to us. (Incidentally, look what we do with it. Like everything nice we get from God, we abuse it in every way possible.)

This doesn't mean that women are more base or more sinners or whatever. It just means that in order to reproduce, God wanted us to be attracted to each other. This is probably why men are more attracted to what they see--b/c women are aesthetically beautiful and graceful, and women are attracted to what they hear--sweet words from a strong confident man (Oooohh...chills just now....but I digress...).

Now let's bring up the counter argument. First off, what about great rulers in the past who were women? Think of Elizabeth I. She was an exemplary national leader, right? Yes. She was also nicknamed "The Virgin Queen."....Think about it.

Also, Cleopatra was an Egyptian queen famous for her political dealings with Rome. . .and even more famous for her affairs with the leaders of Rome.

Secondly, What about Mary the mother of God? To some (not all) Roman Catholics Mary is "Co-Redemptrix" and almost equal with God the Father. Some would rather pray to her than to the Father or to Jesus, b/c she is "less threatening" and "more gentle." And, I suppose you could argue that to ALL Roman Catholics, Mary is not an object of lust . . . However, how did Mary even become important in the first place? Her reproductive system. I don't mean to be disrespectful. She was a very honorable person, but her importance in history comes from her distinctly female ability to reproduce.

There is some talk of Mary Magdalene as venerated (which really only happens in gnostic circles), but also with her: she receives this status b/c of having some supposed kind of "more than disciple, a la Da Vinci Code" relationship with Christ. Surely no one intelligent is still using the Da Vinci Code to discount the Bible anymore, are they?

Thirdly,...I know I know...there's some obscure goddess out there that you read about in college that wasn't sensual. Whatever. She was obscure. God doesn't want to be obscure either. God wants to be huge in our lives.

Of course, women can make good leaders and not have sex involved. Look at Judges 4 with the story of Deborah. Here was a married woman who was leading a very sinful nation of Israel. She was a prophetess and was instructed by God to tell Barak to go into battle against Sisera. Barak would only go if she went with him and as a result, Deborah prophesied that God would not deliver Sisera into Barak's hands, but into the hands of a woman. That woman was Jael who invited a tired, battle-weary Sisera into her tent and after he'd fallen asleep, drove a tent peg through his head....Something interesting to note: Would Sisera have fallen for the trap if the invite had been from a man? I guess we will never know. . .however, even if it wasn't a sexual invite (which there is no reason to think it was), it seems to make sense that a woman's invitation would be significantly less threatening, and therefore the the ONLY reason the ploy worked was because of Jael's feminity.

Even nowadays, sex isn't necessarily associated with female leaders. Madeleine Albright, Hillary Clinton, Margaret Thatcher, etc.--Even if you don't agree with them politically, you must at least give them credit for being strong leaders. However, I'm not just talking about strong female leaders, I'm mostly talking about venerated women. When women are queen of a world leading empire or higher (as in goddess) their sexuality is always an issue. God is even more than that, hopefully we can begin to see why He chooses to represent Himself in masculine terms?

This doesn't mean that male gods aren't perceived as sexual, though. Many cults and sects and mythologies out there believe such (i.e. Zeus and Shiva...however they both changed genders whenever they felt like it...). It's just that, for female deities, sex is a major--if not main power. Think of the greatest human love you can experience...This is typically observed as the love between a man and a woman (if it's not, then why is Hollywood making so much money off it?). That closeness is great and wonderful, but that's not how we are to view God. If He made sex for us, He requires something else for Him, and so that means picking a relationship we can most define as: "not sex related." Father has much more the connotations to describe His character and how we are to view Him and honor Him.
Something important to notice: as God portrays Himself in masculine terms, He also portrays Himself in "un-masculine" terms as well. For instance, He is called "Wonderful Counsellor;" also, His protection is like that of a mother hen's; He sometimes talks in a still, small voice; He clothes the lilies; His eye is on the sparrow; "Prince of Peace"; "Lamb of God"; and the list goes on. He is not "being feminine" with these attributes, but likewise He is not a "male" Father. He just is. And we are to understand that we are to have a deep relationship, devoid of sex, with Him.

That's basically what it comes down to. Man was created in the glory of God. God's love for mankind is agape. Woman was created in the glory of man. The love between a man and a woman is eros. God doesn't want eros with us. He wants agape.



Okay, I want to clear up a seeming contradiction before I go on. It seems I am saying two different things. First, I'm saying that the Bible is not chauvinist--but at the same time, I'm admitting that women were viewed as second class citizens by early humanity. I'm actually not contradicting. The fact that humans messed it up since the beginning of time, just happens to be recorded in the Bible--but that wasn't God's plan. That is exactly what I'm trying to figure out...WHERE did society get the idea that men were better than women? ...Read on.

Last installment: 5. The hint of the prophesied Messiah.

Heaven . . . Is Not a Place on Earth

Last night, my friends and I were approached by a Korean business man who ostensibly was wanting to practice his English while at the same time wanting to discuss the flaws of Christianity. He just kind of wanted to talk and not listen . . . although, who am I to say, maybe He was listening. He was killing two birds with one stone, so we can at least applaud him for efficiency.

He just seemed to ask questions that he thought would stump us, and when we'd actually answer his questions, he'd ignore the answers and start asking new ones.

I can't get all "high and mighty" about his behavior. He was just acting normally. How often when we feel we are right about something do we actually stop and listen to what is being said on the other side? So we can't really blame him for acting this way. Not if we are honest with ourselves, at least. It's the old nature not wanting to accept that there just might be another perspective that we didn't think of initially.

Least ways, it made me think of something.

He brought up the old argument that if you are a good person, you will have a good afterlife. I brought up the old counter argument that if you had a glass of water and someone added three drops of poison in it, would you still drink it even though MOST of the water was pure? Then he told me that I was using an analogy that didn't relate to the issue at hand. That made me think about something.

While the water analogy is arguably not relatable to this issue, I think it still . . . holds water . . . not b/c water and holiness are the same, but b/c holiness and unpoisoned water both have to do with purity.

Let me explain without analogy for a second. Think of the word heaven. Do you think of:
(a) a perfect place,
(b) a place just like here where there are good things that happen and bad things that happen, or
(c) a bad place?

Chances are you would rule out "C" right away, b/c we have another word for a place like that: hell. Now, the next pass over "A" and "B" should give us the answer "A" b/c the word heaven has been integrated into our minds and even every day vocabulary as something way better than we can know now. A place of divine ecstasy. Somewhere where happiness abounds evergreen. A place of zero sadness.

However, although most people would choose "A" as the correct no-brainer answer, quite a sizable group of naysayers would say that in order to get to such a place, one merely needs to be "mostly good." While critical thinking is a necessary skill, sometimes people regard nay-saying as the same thing--which it isn't in this case. Being "mostly good" doesn't make any sense. How can anything but perfection dwell in a perfect society? The second someone or something flawed enters a perfect society, the society ceases to be perfect. Think of a diamond. A perfect diamond is almost priceless; however, just one tiny speck--not even distinguishable by the layman's eye--and the diamond is decreased considerably in value (and would actually be worthless except for "the man" wanting to take your money). You can't have imperfection in perfect or perfect would not exist. Saying that imperfection can dwell in perfection is not "deep thinking." It's the Emperor's New Clothes.

Now . . . let's assume that you immediately saw through the "A, B, C" ploy and instead of answering "A" like a naive child, you were a highly educated intellectual and answered "B." Answering "B" actually becomes a much harder problem for you, and not just b/c of what I've already discussed (imperfect does not = perfect). If you answer "B" that heaven is actually just a place much like here, then you need to explain why the word heaven has such a good, Utopian, fantastic connotation. I suppose you could explain it away like Freud does for terms like guilt. (He says it only comes from the fact that we ultimately desire power, and so when we kill those in power we actually suffer from not having protection anymore...but that doesn't actually explain why we feel guilty--we just feel bad. But it's more of a selfish "I shouldn't have done that, b/c I now need protection" bad, not a "I shouldn't have done that b/c it was wrong and I know I am to blame" bad. In other words . . . he actually doesn't answer the question of guilt at all.)

Heaven is a much harder conundrum than guilt even and here's why. If we currently live in a society of good and bad and if everything happened b/c of natural causes . . . then why would we ever expect anything to be better than it is now? How would we ever have known that anything COULD be better? How would we ever long for heaven? . . . Or intellectually: How would we ever know that heaven was something we could overcome by explaining away? This is something my mother calls the "Eden Syndrome." We all have a hidden memory of Eden and how perfect it was and how we all messed it up, and this is the reason we are all unhappy and discontent.

Anyways . . . why does heaven have such a positive connotation? Well, you have to explain that if you are going to choose "B." Are you up to it?

Personally, I'm going to stick with "A."

Fortunately, the work has been done for us. Just believe and trust in Jesus. He did everything necessary for you to get to heaven. It's really the only way. Just think about it. Get all the information you can and think about it (Proverbs 4:7).

The Danger of Extreme Calvinism

I know that my actions have consequences, . . . however, why do I so often seemed doomed to fail? How can God love me when I am just a pawn?

We can debate and convince and debate and convince. But when all is said and done . . . those nagging questions come right back. Why? Because our convincing is based on emotional surface logic rather than well-thought out truth.

Freewill. The first wrong argument downplays predestination by saying that God simply just knows the future and what we are going to do before we do it. Predestination is simply reduced to a prior knowledge, and that basically the real power lies within us. While this really makes us aware of our responsibility as people, it is heresy. We are told time and again of God's absolute power and complete authority over His creation. We can't just forget that for the sake of not making Him seem as terrible as He really is--even in the New Testament, God is still pretty terrifying. Revelation, anyone?

Predestination. The other side completely downplays our choice in the matter at all. They claim that God does it all and we have no real say. This makes logical sense. If a mouse were in a battle against a lion . . . there would be no battle to speak of. However . . . that's not the concept here. The only way we could make this analogy work is if the lion had created the mouse and allowed the mouse to have a freewill. This is the point I think pastors with this thinking skim over: It's not a matter of might. It's a matter of truth--God has told us that we have a choice. You'd think a good pastor would know that.

In truth, downplaying either side for the sake of the other is just plain wrong. Both sides cannot be denied. Even if it "makes good sense" to downplay freewill, it's wrong. We have responsibility for our actions, but God is in control of everything. However, it's not a matter of who does MORE work in my life--the Spirit or me?--as though you can break it down into percentages. As though God keeps a scoreboard. No. There is no scoreboard, b/c we would be nowhere on that board. If God were self-serving and a score-keeper, would He give His own Life for us? I suppose the sadists would say "Well, of course He would, and that's exactly why He did!" But think about that for a second. When you give something--expecting something in return--do you give EVERYTHING you have? No. We all withhold something. God didn't.

Becoming totally Calvinist (no freewill), I believe, is wrong-thinking b/c it scares people the wrong way. The only thing we are to fear is God--period. Nothing else. We are not supposed to fear whether or not we are the chosen. That is misplaced fear. Many times churches will use this misplaced fear to control their congregations. It's little wonder the world sees the church as it does--a closed-minded guilt forum. To sit and wonder, fret, and worry if we are chosen or not is not an issue. It's a fairy tale. It's like wondering what would have happened if we'd married our boyfriend in sixth grade. Who cares. It's fantasy. It's not real. It may be a provoking thought for five minutes, but it's not truth. If we understand God's salvation and we trust Him, then there is no more debate. We are chosen. End of story.

There is a fear that arises sometimes when we read passages about God dying for "the elect." I used to worry about this as a child. It used to keep me up all hours of the night. As though God only shed enough blood for those precious few, and none of the others. What if I wasn't elected? There are many things wrong with this thinking, and I will only cover a few. First of all, while there are many passages that say that God redeemed the chosen ones, there are just as many saying that God died for the entire world. God didn't just die for a percentage. That's human logic. If someone paid the bail for everyone in prison and you stayed, who would actually be redeemed? Well...the ones who took up the offer, of course! You wouldn't! You'd still be in jail--even though your crimes were paid in full. Redemption is a two-person transaction.

Secondly, if God has such a hand in His creation to reach down and save some and not others, isn't that diabolically sadistic of Him? Well, Paul talks about this in Romans when he talks about God loving Jacob and hating Esau. God can choose whomever He wants. The fact that God chooses some, when all deserve hell . . . well, . . . you get the idea.

But we still come back to this problem of how God could choose some and not others. Personally, I see that as a lie. I see it as a diversion from the real stakes. Let's use the jail analogy again. Do you remember word problems? Well, figure this one out: If you'd committed a crime and were thrown into prison along with 40 other people, and someone came and paid the bail for all of you, but only 3 people left the jail b/c the "payer" came and bodily grabbed them out of the cell and threw them into a limo that would take them to a new house, but everyone else stayed--even though to stay would mean the electric chair, . . . could you really use the excuse, "well, why should I leave when there are 37 other people getting the electric chair? Why didn't the bail payer come and grab all of us?"

Now let's talk about the convincing argument. As Christians, I think many times we go down the Hallmark Family Movie aisle b/c those are the only "kid-tested/mother-approved" things to watch and then we apply that touchy-feeliness into our apologetics. For some reason, that kind of argument works for a lot of people and they never question the logic, b/c they feel their faith is all they need. This is to their credit. However . . . not all the world thinks like that--especially not those who fancy themselves to be "intelligent."

Fortunately, God covers His bases . . . unfortunately, it's hard to see those bases when so many people blindly follow and cannot give an argument any more convincing than, "Well, Jesus said it! So that settles it!" This may be true . . . but Jesus never answered anyone like that. Who do we think we are when we say it?

Now, you may be able to convince and explain predestination/freewill away in your own mind without coming to grips with post-modern humanistic thinking, but let me tell you something. The graduate student down the street studying Nietzsche doesn't agree. And let me tell you something else. God loves that graduate student and wants you to be able to talk to him. If your logic has one little hole in it, some may let themselves buy it, but many will not listen.

Sooner or later, people figure things out. For instance, if you tell someone, "you have the power inside you to overcome anything!" that may empower them for the time being--and it's a nice Disney thing to say; however, once they start to see how limited their "power" actually is, they will see the flaw in the logic and may not trust your advice again. I believe this is the greatest cause of clinical depression--nothing works, nowhere to turn, and I've tried everything.

Unfortunately, people will use this same "empowering" logic and call it God--which is how Christians get depressed. When they don't feel empowered by God, they turn against Him b/c "He didn't work." But . . . He does work. Perhaps the problem is not that God doesn't work, but rather that people don't actually need empowering. Maybe people just need to trust God whether or not they have some kind of "successful" or "happy" life. God never commands us to be successful; He commands us to trust Him. God never commands us to be happy; He commands us to be content.

Instead of feeling the "i can do anything!" mentality, which will eventually fail, maybe we should think, "Jesus died for my sins, so anything good I get from this life is bonus!"

If you really sit and think about it . . . you come to the realization that trusting God and being content is actually much more freeing than being successful and happy.

The reason is because of limits. Success is not something that can be measured. The most "successful" person may feel successful for 99% of the time, but . . . that nagging one percent . . . that nagging one percent. It doesn't go away, b/c success is something we continually desire in greater and greater amounts. If we are honest with ourselves, we would admit that we really only feel successful when we compare ourselves to those we don't find as successful. And there is another word for that: pathetic.

The same goes for happiness. Think of the last thing that made you happy. Now picture doing that all the time. At first, that notion may seem like heaven on earth . . . however, human nature gets bored with anything. I think of that "De Motivational Poster" with the guy sitting next to a beautiful girl and looking really bored. The caption says something like, "next to every beautiful girl sits a bored average-looking guy who would have killed just to be near her three months ago."

Really, success and happiness are wolves in sheep's clothing. They are chains. They just cause more and more problems. However, if we trust God and are content, we can be truly free. If we trust God and are content even when it seems He's destined us to fail and have hard times, nothing can touch us. I'm not talking about a "good ship Lollipop" mentality. That is just faking happiness. I'm talking about true trust and contentment. The kind of contentment that caused Horatio Spafford to pen the words to "It is Well with My Soul" in the wake of losing not only his finances but nearly everyone dear to him. The kind of trust that gave the blind hymn writer, Fanny Crosby, the faith that she would one day see her Savior's face. Compare these with celebrities today and then tell me who has contentment and who is just faking happiness. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the truth.

Perhaps, just like we don't need empowering, we also don't need to know everything. You know what? It's probably not even that we don't need to so much we just can't. We can't know everything, b/c we live within time. We can only know the past and the present. Anything about the future we know b/c God loves us enough to tell us. If we knew all the future, we'd go insane. We don't like being left in the dark and we like to think that God is a big mean ogre for doing that to us . . . but look what we do with money. Look what we do with our children. Look what we do with power. Do we really think we can be trusted with knowledge of everything? Doesn't it make more sense to trust in a Perfect Being who has everything laid out and planned and allows us to make free choices within His plan?

This is why we need to be serious when talking about predestination and freewill. People can see through the argument when you side with one or the other. People can see that there are consequences to their actions, so predestination sounds like a lie. People also can see that sometimes, circumstances are beyond their control, so predestination seems like an inescapable frustration. Above all, people are choosing to die and we feel we can simply WATCH them b/c of "predestination"??? We cannot simply say one or the other. They BOTH need consideration. Don't bring holy things down to our level and then sugar-coat them, b/c that has proven to be wrong thinking. Predestination and freewill are both present. They are both true. Stop fitting God into a little box of patriotism so you and your golfing buddies can have something to make you proud of discussing. God isn't the Olympics.

The Bible: Chauvinist Propaganda Pt. 3

3. Woman committed the first sin.

Once upon a time, Eve ate the fruit first and doomed woman-kind to inferiority for all time.

Now let's look at the Bible.

Gen 3:6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. (NIV)

Now, if the verse ended here, we'd actually have a basis for saying that the Bible claims female inferiority, but GUESS WHAT! It doesn't end here. This is the rest of the verse:

She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

Adam was right there the whole time. Now...let's think about this, b/c I've heard men and women alike who use passages like I Tim. 2 to say that women are totally to blame. I will get to I Tim. 2 in a second, but before I do consider this:

Adam did not for one second think that Eve was inferior to him. Remember an earlier discussion that Adam was overjoyed at her creation? Well, he definitely didn't think of himself as superior when she offered him fruit! He joined right in! Many people say this is b/c Adam loved Eve, and they criticize God for disciplining this love: that Adam would choose his wife's desires over his own death. How romantic.

This is an example of human "surface logic." (Hint: "Surface logic" ALWAYS starts: "What kind of a God would....") As in: What kind of a God would reward Adam's love for Eve with death? Well, for one thing...he didn't do it out of love. This is plain in verse 12.

12 The man said, "The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it." (NIV)

Adam had a choice. If he really loved Eve so much, then why did he blame shift? A man who actually loved his wife more than God would have taken the blame for her. But I really like his wording, b/c it is just so...human. He is ultimately blaming God! He does it in a progression. First of all: blame God b/c if He hadn't given me this woman, I wouldn't have done it. This is a huge slap in God's face, b/c Eve was made SPECIFICALLY for Adam's needs. God says she is, and Adam admitted it in Genesis 2. Secondly, he blames Eve herself--which is such a pansy (and definitely not loving) way of handling it. Then, finally he admits that he ate it, but he does it in martyr fashion. "I'm a victim of my circumstances!" basically. So...what is the logical answer? Adam knew exactly what he was doing--he bought the lie and ate the fruit despite the consequences. I mean...also notice Gen 2:16-17! Who did God forbid to eat the tree? Eve? No! He directly told Adam. In fact, Eve doesn't even enter the picture until verse 21!

Now...I suppose you could guess that at some point God told Eve the same thing...however...that's not exactly stated in the Bible. The Bible only records Adam being told. Anyway, that's neither here nor there. We do know that she knew about the command b/c of what she told the snake in Genesis 3:2-3.

2And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, 3but God said,^(B) 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" (ESV)

I've heard that Eve adds "neither shall you touch it, lest you die" on purpose. I'm not sure that she did--especially in light of passages like I Tim. 2 that say she was deceived. Maybe this is evidence of the earlier thought that she wasn't directly informed by God. Who knows. However, before assuming anything, realize that the Bible says that she was deceived in I Tim 2, so she probably wasn't purposely adding to the law so much as trying to be "safe" (or else Adam relayed the message wrongly...but that's assuming a lot, so let's drop it). Her perspective may have been that it is better to abstain totally--don't even touch it--let alone eat it and die.

This is very interesting for two reasons. First of all, realize that there was only one sin to be committed in the Garden. That means everything else was fair game. Things that we consider sins now in our fallen world, either were not thought of as sin, or weren't thought of at all, since there was no sin but one. I find this very interesting b/c it seems that the first "sin" was when Satan fell. In this sense, there were two "falls." One for the angels and one for man. However, the only "fall" that warranted atonement was the fall of man. Obviously, we as men are very different spiritually and have a completely different import to God than angels. Anyway...at some point that first "fall" directly influenced the second...however, the second fall didn't happen until Adam and Eve decided it would happen. They heard the lie. Eve was deceived by it, even though she knew the command and ramifications. Adam was completely conscious of it. They both chose to fall, but the fall didn't happen until they ate. The lie being told to them was not their sin. Their choice was their sin.

Second of all, we as Christians and non-Christians like to add to God's law all the time. Christians do this, like Eve (possibly), to be "safe," and non-Christians do this so they don't have to obey a God they can classify as unreasonable. For instance, Christians will take verses like Romans 12:1-2 and James 4:4 and then say that any contact with the world is wrong--that only going into "Christian Ministry," only having contact with Christians, and hating the world and everything in it is right. That is taking those verses to a sinful extreme. God says, "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world." There is a difference between "don't love" and "hate." We are not to hate and think ourselves better than the people of the world. We are to hate the sin of the world and realize we are capable of those same sins. Also, the people of the world can ONLY come to Christ through God's Spirit working. The way God has chosen for the Spirit to work is through people who wrote down His Word in the past and through people reading and sharing that Word today. If we shut ourselves off from the world in order to be "safe," we are disobeying one of the greatest commandments we've been given (Mr. 16:15). One cannot take a doctrine to the extreme and nullification of another doctrine.

Non-Christians add to the Bible so that they don't have to believe it. They quote those "Crazy Deuteronomic" laws out of context and then explain that there is no reason to follow any of God's laws based on the "unreasonableness" of Deuteronomy. Non-believers also point out all the contradictions in Christians themselves, call that "Christianity," and then reject God. However...this is flawed thinking. If a child gets hit by a car, one cannot blame the parent who warned and furthermore put him or herself in harms way on behalf of the child.

There is another reason we can't credit Adam for "loving" Eve so much that he disobeyed God. This is directly related to the problem with the "brotherhood of man" mentality. From the beginning, God's chief end for us has always been to glorify Him, not to glorify each other. Besides, the only true way of loving each other is to love God first. Then we are free to love others without regret. This is not God being selfish. This only makes sense. You see, if you love someone or something over God, you have just made them an idol. Think of how you should love a Being who is The Way, The Truth, and The Life. The only form of love for that Being should be selfless, adoring worship.

If we love someone or something more than God, we have put that fallible being in a place of worship. This is misplaced affection and can only cause a painful life. Imagine when that person dies! Who do we become embittered against the most? God, of course. That's painful. The One we should have trusted the most, we now see as our worst enemy, all because we didn't love the person in the context of God, but rather we loved God in the context of a person. We can't see God's plan, b/c we refused to see it the second we idolized that person. When we love people above God, we focus too much on this life and not on the next. It is building a house with the roof at the bottom and the foundation at the top--it's not what we are made to do. If Adam had truly loved his wife, he would have loved God first and obeyed Him. If he had truly loved his wife, he would have stopped her hand as she reached for the fruit.

Now let's look at that I Timothy 2 passage. This passage seems to say that sin entered the world because women were too stupid to know better and so the serpent lead them astray, but man wasn't lead astray, so to punish women we won't let them be pastors, and we're going to make women shut up and get me a beer and the remote while I watch the game.

Okay okay okay...However...isn't that the basic idea we are so often told when this passage comes up? I've read commentaries that say basically, "Perhaps Paul was a bit of a chauvinist by our standards; however, if you look at how women were treated as a whole back then, Christianity actually treated them much better." That's kind of a load of baloney since historically women were well-respected in secular Roman culture. Furthermore, I don't buy that Paul was chauvinist at all b/c of the adamance of Galatians 3:28!

I also have heard many many theologians say that the reason Paul tells women to study in silence is because, of a few mouthy, overbearing women he had to deal with at the time and so Paul was fed up and just told all women to be quiet. However...that doesn't sit well with me either, b/c (1) the Bible isn't a place for opinion and Paul of all people would have known that (even when Paul says, "this is what I think" it's still in the inspired Word, you know?), and (2) I've heard PLENTY of mouthy disrespectful men nowadays, and I know that Paul wouldn't like that either because of what he says in I Tim. 2:8--which we can and should apply nowadays. I don't think we can just write it off as an archaism. Therefore, there has got to be a better interpretation.

Before we delve, remember in a former discussion about men's and women's strengths? Men's inward strength is efficient, linear thinking. Men's outward strength is physical strength. Women's inward strength is multi-perspective, subtle thinking. Women's outward strength is physical beauty. Keep these God-given traits in mind as we go through these verses.

8I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling;

Notice that hands are something that men use physically. This verse clearly shows that men are not to use them to fight. Instead, they should be used to the glory of God. What about men's inward strength? Should he assume the worst and get angry without listening to all sides of an argument? No. He should exhibit wisdom and fortitude.

Now...that covers the men's verse. The next seven verses instruct the women. So...why only one verse for men and seven for women? Well, if someone thinks linearly, you only have to say, "don't do this" and that's enough for them to deal with. What if someone thinks in layers? You probably have to explain things a little more so that they will get a good understanding of what you mean and why you say it. Interesting, b/c that's exactly how most women think.

9likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, 10 but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works.

Basically Paul is telling women to make the outside match the inside. If you are going to say you are a Christian, then people should be able to see it.

There are two extremes we need to deal with here. First of all, the obvious one is not to dress like a sex object. But also, notice there is nothing in this verse about dressing plainly. Modestly, yes...but what are the exact words? "with what is proper for women who profess godliness." So, is godliness true inner beauty? Yes. Is godliness plain and boring? No! So why dress like it? There is nothing wrong with being pretty, as long as women are doing it within the realm of modesty. Everyone's definition of "beauty" may be different within that realm, and that's fine, but you are allowed to be beautiful, Ladies! Just don't take it to a sinful extreme. That's all. Besides, cults and male-dominated false religions follow weird oppressive codes of dress for their women. Don't you think we should be different?

11Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. (ESV)

First of all, let's realize that verse 11 says that women are to learn. Other translations say "study." This is important, b/c a lot of women use this passage as leeway to turn their minds off and just blindly follow whatever the menfolk say rather than inductively reasoning out what God is trying to tell them. God commands women to study and learn about Him. This is huge, and we need to keep it in mind when we get to verse 15. I'll tell you why in a second.

For now, let's cover these verses. I found something interesting that I hadn't considered before. Notice the last word in verse 11: "submissiveness." Until now I had thought that that word meant submissiveness solely to the men in charge of the church...however, that's not necessarily what it's talking about. It's talking about submissiveness to God. Let me explain this...is she learning about the men in the church or about God when she is studying? She is learning about God. So when she is learning about God, is she answerable to the men of the church or to God Himself? To God Himself. This is why she is in submissiveness to God. Just like verses 8-10 tell everyone that they are supposed to be in obedience to God. Of course within the church a woman should submit to the church's authority...but if she is studying about God...then she is submissive to God.

(Of course the passage in I Cor 14 says that women are not to speak at all in the church. The context is talking about tongues, however. So...if you believe tongues and prophesy are dead, then you definitely can't use this as a basis for women not speaking at all in the church. Tongues are another discussion. This blog is too long already.)

Now verse 12 and following is where many Christians believe God doesn't want women as pastors. That since women sinned first, they are being punished by not being allowed to preach. I have heard others who say that women are allowed to preach nowadays, and that this verse is only to be taken in historical context of the women at that time. Well...let's look.

If we read this verse by itself, it seems to say that under no circumstance should a woman speak or give instruction to a man; however, we would be contradicting other verses as we do that. Miriam was a prophetess. Deborah was a judge. Anna was a teacher in the synagogue. Eve was created to help and complete Adam. Priscilla had direct influence in the new testament church. Etc. It is true that men generally do the teaching; however, if women were not supposed to instruct at all, the women I just mentioned would have been recorded as unrepentant sinners, not the godly women they were. Think of Rahab. She ended up being a godly women, but the Bible mentions that she was a harlot--not a good thing. Also, Mary Magdalene is said to have been a woman of ill-repute at one time. My point is that the Bible shows sin for what it is. If Deborah had been sinning for being a judge, the Bible would have said it. However, she is painted as a hero and courageous leader.

Let's look at verses 11 and 12. I looked up the words in the Greek and the word "Quiet" doesn't mean "shut up," it means "not meddling in the affairs of others." "Teach" means "to teach" but it also means "to discharge the office of a teacher and act as a teacher." The word "authority" means "one who acts on his own authority" an "absolute master" or "one who exercises dominion over another."

What I am suggesting, and what I believe to be a better interpretation is that this verse is simply saying that a woman is not to be an autocrat. Let's think about this, though...when is a man ever commanded to have dominion over women? We are told that man is to have dominion over the animals. However, men are commanded to love their wives. Who is to have dominion over men? God. Who is to have dominion over women? God. Who has God made to be the leader in the family and the church? Man. There is a difference between dominion and leadership. God has both positions over us; however, in the case of the family and the church, only one person can make final decisions and God has given that position to men. He keeps the dominion position, because only a perfect Being should have absolute dominion over fallible beings. Neither men nor women have absolute dominion--and definitely not women, since men at least have been given the leadership position.

But why is Paul giving this warning to women and not men? Well, for one thing, he does give it to men in passages like I Cor. 7 and Eph. 5. However, in this case he is specifically warning women about being overbearing and authoritarian. He gives his reasons in the following verses:

13 For God made Adam first, and afterward he made Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived by Satan. The woman was deceived, and sin was the result. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing, assuming they continue to live in faith, love, holiness, and modesty.

We've already discussed this "birth order" controversy from verse 13 in a past blog, so let's move on to 14 and 15. Here we see the point that I discussed earlier about Eve being deceived. Obviously, being a woman I don't like to admit that women could ever possibly be deceived. I generally like to think of us as free-thinking, wise individuals. However...think about this. Think of how many women are in church as opposed to men. 44% of women versus 32% of men. Why is this? I am venturing a guess here...but I think it directly relates to this passage. Women are more susceptible to convincing arguments. This is good when it comes to believing in Christ. This is bad when it comes to believing Satan's lies.

But wait! Doesn't this point out that men are stubborn and generally hate being told what to do, many times to their own detriment? The fact that only 32% of men are in church certainly isn't to their credit. This is unfortunate and true. However...if men and women do what God tells them to do, it is much better to give the leadership to the one who generally doesn't back down from their position as much. Of course there are weak men and strong women...but I'm talking about the norm. A leader should be the one who is built to protect rather than nurture. If someone attacks the family, say a robber or a molester, who does the family hide behind? The one who nurtures or the one who protects? There must be a leader and it makes most sense for that to be the one who is built to be the protector.

As Paul says in verse 15, women will be saved in childbearing. This is a very interesting choice of words, b/c it means literally bearing a child, but it also has the ramifications of nurturing and instructing that child. It doesn't mean that woman can only go to heaven if they have children. People who interpret the verse that way are ignoring verse 11 and the command for women to study--there would be no point for a woman to study if she was simply a baby-factory. Women are to learn about God so that when they have children, they can raise them the right way. It means that even though Eve messed up through being deceived, she was given the promise that through childbirth would come the Messiah who would pay for her sin. Also, she was given the job of raising godly children who would grow in God's grace.

I want to make a direct application of this passage with my own life this past Sunday. This past Sunday a woman gave the teaching in my church. At first, I had a problem with this, b/c I was thinking about how only men are supposed to teach. Then I realized that I was allowing society's tradition to overcome correct Biblical thinking. The head of my church is a man. Men lead my church...however, this woman was introduced to us by a man who told us that she had some very good points on the particular passage to be covered that day. Would it be better for a man to plagerize her research or let her speak for herself? She is not placing herself in the leadership of the church if she expounds on the Truth that the whole congregation agrees with anyway. If a woman is running her mouth and keeping men down and publishing her own agenda, there is definitely a problem...but...be careful...ask yourself...is it really right for men to do that either? Men should lead because Christ leads the church. Women should not lead the church, b/c the church does not lead Christ. But neither men nor women are the absolute leader. That position is reserved for God alone.



P.S.

Sometimes you hear people say things like, "If Adam hadn't eaten the fruit, there is a good chance that God would have just destroyed Eve and made a new woman for Adam." I find this hard to believe on the basis that once Eve ate the fruit, mankind had fallen. There was no going back. God couldn't and wouldn't have gone back on one of His promises! He said that if anyone ate of the tree, death would come to them. Sin would enter the world by any one person's actions. In a morbidly sick sense, it's to women's advantage that Adam did eat the fruit after Eve offered it to him, b/c...just imagine if Adam HADN'T eaten the fruit! Feminists, you wanna talk about male oppression?? There'd be NO living with men if Adam had left the fruit alone! Okay...so...that was just for laughs...I'm done...

Next: 4. God is referred to as "He."

Intelligence Irony

A visit to the zoo today made me think about something:

Have you ever noticed that


The intellectual say that they came from unintelligence.

Yet, the simple say that they came from Intelligence.



Neither here nor there, but...isn't that weird?

Free Will Is Not 50/50

This morning Acts 9 stood out to me--Paul's conversion. I began to think about how this conversion really throws a wrench into the sadistic view of free will.

God gives us free will to choose Him. As good little Christians we've heard it time and again...We've heard it so often that it becomes cliche. God gave us choices so that we could make the right ones. God desires our love, and He can't get that from a bunch of robots. Yes, we understand. It makes sense...but on the other hand...

What about that weird gut-wrenching feeling that free will is just one big sick joke? That God gives us choices--desiring us to choose Him--knowing full well that we are going to do what we want instead. Why would a loving God allow people NOT to choose Him? If those who don't choose Him go to hell, then how can God even remotely call Himself loving? Free will is a sick joke, so...we might as well decide to believe that there is no God since we've sufficiently explained Him away enough to feel proud of ourselves...

This reminds me of something my students say every time they have a question on a test with only one of two possible answers--such as true/false or "A or B" questions. They say, "Miss Stephens! There is only a 50/50 chance we will get these right!" They say that the odds of choosing the right answer as opposed to the wrong answer are exactly divided down the middle. I used to say the same thing when I was a student. However, this point is completely ridiculous.

The chances are not 50/50. The chances are EXACTLY 100%! Why?...Because ONLY ONE ANSWER IS RIGHT! The problem in not getting the right answer is insufficiently studying or incorrectly reading the question.

Now let me apply that reasoning to free will. Every person on the planet is given a brain. No person on the planet had anything to do with deciding to be here. We choose to get wrapped up in other things like fame, money, sex, etc...BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO--especially since we never feel totally fulfilled with these things. We always want more money. There are always people with more friends and more notoriety than us. People have sex so much that they no longer find pleasure in it once they are married. The list goes on...

This point ALONE makes God a shoo-in for our 100% devotion; however, the fact that there are even more powers at work in the universe to help us make the right choices infinitely increases the odds in our favor. Look at Paul! His desire was to kill every Christian he saw! That didn't matter to God! God supernaturally intervened. He may not strike us with physical blindness, but He does deal with us individually. We would have to purposely REJECT God in order not to choose Him...and...That's what we do...because we would rather revel in the faulty logic of teenage test-takers than in reality.

Even the "tribes in Africa" conundrum fits this point. There are countless stories of tribes in remote places finally "waking up" and realizing that their methods of nature-worship or human sacrifice are empty, meaningless, and immoral. They call out to the true God to reveal Himself...and so He sends a missionary to them. It happens all the time. Testimonials all around the globe.

But I'm sure you want a little more proof than just hearsay...so...I encourage you look around yourself. Christianity is everywhere in some form. The Bible is the most accessible book of all time. This is because people in remote areas called out to God and God heard them and revealed Himself to them through His Word. I'm in Korea right now. South Korea is second only to the U.S. for Christian mission work. Less than a century ago it was almost 100% Buddhist.

Christianity has spread so much worldwide that there are hardly any people left who don't know of it. This global Christian influence is precisely what the Bible said would happen. God will not return until all people have heard His name. Until that time, His Word will spread, and all men will either accept or reject.

Choosing God as a part of free will seems completely impossible for humans. That's because it is. If it were up to us, no one would figure out this "God thing" and we'd all be atheistic nihilists...except we wouldn't even be here in the first place, b/c there would be no point to being here and we would have died out before we even began. However...put God in the picture and you find that He's been there all the time and waiting for you to desire Him.