This originally started as a comment on ReckNHavic's blog, but I realized it was more of a post, so I'm using it here. Reck posted about his grandma, and how she had to step up as a boy scout leader, because there weren't any men in their town who were willing to lead a scout troop with blacks in it. It reminded me of Deborah and I commented about the roles of men and women and how it's good that women step up to the plate when men refuse to take their responsibilities.
"Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was leading Israel at that time. She held court under the Palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the Israelites came to her to have their disputes decided. She sent for Barak son of Abinoam from Kedesh in Naphtali and said to him, "The LORD, the God of Israel, commands you: 'Go, take with you ten thousand men of Naphtali and Zebulun and lead the way to Mount Tabor. I will lure Sisera, the commander of Jabin's army, with his chariots and his troops to the Kishon River and give him into your hands.' "
Barak said to her, "If you go with me, I will go; but if you don't go with me, I won't go."
"Very well," Deborah said, "I will go with you. But because of the way you are going about this, the honor will not be yours, for the LORD will hand Sisera over to a woman." (Judges 4:4-9)
I will talk about leadership in the context of marriage, because I believe that is where it is in the most need of fixing in America today.
Leadership in marriage is designed (by God) to be done by the man. How tasks are broken up and leadership styles are going to differ depending on the personality of both. However (final) decision making needs to be with man, after he has taken input from his wife. This doesn't mean he is a micromanager, but major issues need to be discussed. With good communication a husband and wife can plan what they will do in certain situations etc, so that discussion about the minor details in life is unnecessary.
Every man and every woman have their own strengths and weaknesses. It is very likely that in most marriages, many of the man's strengths are many of his wife's weaknesses and vice versa. (opposites attract) A husband and wife have to do what is best for their marriage, but as Paul says in Ephesians 5 the husband is the head, the decision maker, and ultimately more responsible for successes and failures in the marriage.
"Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body." (Ephesians 5:22-30)
Since the husband is the head, he has final say. However, he doesn't disregard his wife's point of view. If you stub your toe, the toe sends a signal to the head that says, "Hey I'm in a lot of pain". If you are holding a baby the head will say, 'I need to put this baby down before I take care of my toe'. If you are just walking, the head will say, 'let me take care of this now'. If you are in combat and bullets are flying, you may have to ignore the stubbed toe altogether. You understand the signal, you recognize it, but it has to wait. However, the head can't go anywhere without the body taking it there. If instead of the toe being stubbed, the foot is blown off, the head isn't going anywhere. (except hopefully to a hospital)
This is just an example but it is like the way Paul describes the relationship between Jesus and the Church, and a husband and a wife. A good husband loves his wife, takes her input and generally takes her advice. But he has to understand where her mind is. Sometimes the wife is not in a position to make a good decision. He has to listen, but not take her advice. Sometimes the husband is not in a good position to make the proper decision, or it is too critical to wait for the husband's decision if he is not there. In this situation, the husband has to defer to his wife to make a proper decision. With good communication, the wife will likely make a decision the husband would agree with.
In the end, it comes down to love and respect. A husband must love his wife. Care for her, put her needs ahead of his own and lay down his life for her the way Jesus did for the Church. The wife needs to respect her husband and respect the fact that God created her husband to be the leader of their marriage. She needs to understand that she doesn't make the final decision. She gives her input and has a lot of say in the decision process, but when the rubber meets the road, it is up to the husband to call the shots...and take the responsibility for successes and failures.
22 March 2008
18 March 2008
St. Patrick's Day
Well I wouldn't be much of an IRISH Rican if I didn't post something for St. Patrick's Day. I just got back from North Carolina late Sunday night (or early Monday morning if you want to be technical about it) and I worked this evening, so I'm a little behind. Anyway, I didn't drink any beer tonight. I usually like to drink a Guinness on St. Patrick's Day. Maybe I'll have one tomorrow. (which is technically later today) Maybe they'll be on sale!
It's funny. I had heard that the snakes thing (The belief that St. Patrick banished all snakes from Ireland) is untrue. To clarify, I checked with the most reliable source at my disposal at this time of night. ;) According to Wikipedia, (which I strangely trust more than I should) Patrick never drove snakes from Ireland as snakes were never on Ireland post-Ice Age. There is a possibility that this belief refers to Patrick banishing the use of snake symbols in Pagan worship on the island however. Anyway, I can't really think of anything else to post on the subject, and I'm really tired. Good Night.
It's funny. I had heard that the snakes thing (The belief that St. Patrick banished all snakes from Ireland) is untrue. To clarify, I checked with the most reliable source at my disposal at this time of night. ;) According to Wikipedia, (which I strangely trust more than I should) Patrick never drove snakes from Ireland as snakes were never on Ireland post-Ice Age. There is a possibility that this belief refers to Patrick banishing the use of snake symbols in Pagan worship on the island however. Anyway, I can't really think of anything else to post on the subject, and I'm really tired. Good Night.
Road Trip
Well, I have been out of town for awhile. My mother lives in North Carolina and she fractured her hip about two weeks ago. After a hospital experience that would probably have Glenn Beck saying 'I feel your pain', she came home and is healing very well. We went to spend a week there to help with cooking, cleaning and taking mom to the numerous doctors appointments. I hope that we were more of a help than a burden, because sometimes having 4 extra people staying with you is worse than being alone. The kids were good overall, but being stuck without their toys was probably hard. I did really enjoy where they lived though. People let their dogs outside, the kids can play outside without supervision and there is no fear of them being kidnapped. It was almost like being flashed back to my childhood. The weather was mostly nice this past week and we got some great views of the Blue Ridge Mountains. I considered for awhile if it was a place I could live. But I would have to spend more time in Asheville to see. The small town my parents live in is not very ethnically diverse, and that is something that is important for us. Its been a long time since I've gotten the 'watch out, it's a Puerto Rican' look from people, and I'd prefer to keep it that way. (actually many people may say Mexican, though I look nothing like a Mexican)
The trip wasn't bad, with the exception of the gas prices. We didn't hit any traffic except a brief bit in Baton Rouge on the way home, but that was only for about 5 minutes. I didn't get pulled over which is impressive. That makes 4 straight long distance trips without being stopped. The two previous trips I got pulled over each time in West Texas. But in my defense, there is NOTHING in West Texas. I had to push it a little. They've even raised the speed limit to 80 out there. (I've heard at least, maybe Reck can verify this) Well, I hope I won't be making any road trips like that soon, but all in all, it wasn't bad.
The trip wasn't bad, with the exception of the gas prices. We didn't hit any traffic except a brief bit in Baton Rouge on the way home, but that was only for about 5 minutes. I didn't get pulled over which is impressive. That makes 4 straight long distance trips without being stopped. The two previous trips I got pulled over each time in West Texas. But in my defense, there is NOTHING in West Texas. I had to push it a little. They've even raised the speed limit to 80 out there. (I've heard at least, maybe Reck can verify this) Well, I hope I won't be making any road trips like that soon, but all in all, it wasn't bad.
03 March 2008
What's Wrong with America Part II a : Liberalism
Continuing on my liberalism theme, I'll now talk about socialism. We have in our choices for president of three levels of socialists. The most dangerous I believe is Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton would be next and then John McCain.
Why is socialism bad? I'm glad you asked. It gives little to no incentive for people to work harder. The problem with socialism isn't poor work ethic, it's the fact that profits, ownership, wealth etc. are great incentives for people to work harder. When you take these incentives away, work ethic follows. Now maybe you're thinking, those things (profits, ownership and wealth) are BAD! Taken to excess, I would agree, however there is nothing inherently wrong about striving for success. It is what has made America great for centuries. People from all over the world have flocked here; why? Because of our wonderful social security benefits? No. How about our free health care? Nope. People have come here because if you work hard enough and make the right choices, you can be successful. It doesn't matter who you are, with hard work you can succeed in America.
What does socialism carried out to a more full extent do? It says, 'you are smart enough to work these types of jobs'. It says, 'do your job and you can get a place to live just like everyone else as 'good' as you'. You get so many rations for food (regardless of whether or not that food is available) and work this job for the rest of your life. You don't really own anything. You get the same things whether you work hard or not, so why work hard? Why strive to be better? If you run a store, you will get the same things whether you sell 1 item or 100, so why strive to be successful. If you are a farmer and you give all of the food you grow to the government only for them to give you some rations back regardless of how much you grow, why would you spend time breaking your back working the government's fields? You would just grow enough to keep the government off of your back. Now you might say, 'those people just have poor work ethic', but most people in those conditions will do the same thing eventually.
Now our three candidates aren't proposing the Soviet Union for America. (at least not yet) But they are proposing things that are leading us down the road to hard core socialism. All three have either said they want to raise taxes or (in the case of McCain) have voted against tax cuts. The liberal doctrine says, 'those tax cuts are just for the rich.' Well how many poor men (or women) have you ever worked for? If the rich are taxed higher, they can't afford as many employees, meaning they will spend less money and save more which means less jobs, meaning less people paying income taxes, meaning less revenue for the US Treasury. The very wealthy won't be too affected though, because they can live off of the interest of their savings and investments. If you have $20,000,000 in the bank, the interest is pretty decent money and even though you are paying taxes, you are paying tax only on the interest. You can withdraw all of the interest every year, which is probably $1,000,000, live very nicely and you will always have $20,000,000 in the bank. But you won't invest much money in expanding your wealth because the tax penalties are too high. You sit it out, live off of interest and wait for a more favorable environment to begin growing your business again.
So who suffers? The middle class. Those who depend on their jobs. Those who depend on rich people to create new jobs. Those who don't have $20,000,000 in the bank. The people who have six months living expenses in the bank or less. Why is John McCain the least dangerous? Well his base believes that high taxes are bad. He will be forced to not go too far from the conservative camp, though he likes to do whatever he feels like doing, even if it's spitting in the face of the people who put him where he is.
Hillary Clinton. Though she is further left than she is portraying herself, I think she will be looking to correct the negative legacy of Bill Clinton, and build on what is seen as his strength. She will look to solidify that the Democrats were responsible for the successful economy of the 90's instead of the Republican Congress with their tax cuts and their curbing of spending. Since Bush 43 (and the Republican Congress he controlled) spent money like water, she can probably convince the masses that the democrats are better when it comes to fiscal responsibility if (and only if) she and a Democratic Congress can reign in spending. She will have a hard time, but I think she will give it a shot.
Barack Obama. He is the worst in this area in my opinion. Every time I hear him speak he is talking about money for this, money for that. We already have a massive deficit. We need to STOP spending. Raising taxes will not make up for what we are short, because Treasury revenues will decrease. The only way to fix what is wrong with America is to STOP SPENDING. I'll paraphrase a quote from Warren Buffett that I read once that says something like, "If you are in a financial hole the first step is to stop digging." Yet the liberal mentality is to dig some more with the belief that by digging a little more we can bring in more dirt. Now Obama in my opinion is the most likable candidate. He is certainly the best speaker and that can't hurt when you're following the president who is probably the worst speaker in modern presidential politics. Of the three, he is the only one I could see myself sitting down with and hanging out with. But, I see him following in the mold of FDR and bringing in massive expansions of government, higher taxes, and less freedom. For liberals who are all about freedom, why would you accept bigger government which only leads to less freedom?
To be continued.
Why is socialism bad? I'm glad you asked. It gives little to no incentive for people to work harder. The problem with socialism isn't poor work ethic, it's the fact that profits, ownership, wealth etc. are great incentives for people to work harder. When you take these incentives away, work ethic follows. Now maybe you're thinking, those things (profits, ownership and wealth) are BAD! Taken to excess, I would agree, however there is nothing inherently wrong about striving for success. It is what has made America great for centuries. People from all over the world have flocked here; why? Because of our wonderful social security benefits? No. How about our free health care? Nope. People have come here because if you work hard enough and make the right choices, you can be successful. It doesn't matter who you are, with hard work you can succeed in America.
What does socialism carried out to a more full extent do? It says, 'you are smart enough to work these types of jobs'. It says, 'do your job and you can get a place to live just like everyone else as 'good' as you'. You get so many rations for food (regardless of whether or not that food is available) and work this job for the rest of your life. You don't really own anything. You get the same things whether you work hard or not, so why work hard? Why strive to be better? If you run a store, you will get the same things whether you sell 1 item or 100, so why strive to be successful. If you are a farmer and you give all of the food you grow to the government only for them to give you some rations back regardless of how much you grow, why would you spend time breaking your back working the government's fields? You would just grow enough to keep the government off of your back. Now you might say, 'those people just have poor work ethic', but most people in those conditions will do the same thing eventually.
Now our three candidates aren't proposing the Soviet Union for America. (at least not yet) But they are proposing things that are leading us down the road to hard core socialism. All three have either said they want to raise taxes or (in the case of McCain) have voted against tax cuts. The liberal doctrine says, 'those tax cuts are just for the rich.' Well how many poor men (or women) have you ever worked for? If the rich are taxed higher, they can't afford as many employees, meaning they will spend less money and save more which means less jobs, meaning less people paying income taxes, meaning less revenue for the US Treasury. The very wealthy won't be too affected though, because they can live off of the interest of their savings and investments. If you have $20,000,000 in the bank, the interest is pretty decent money and even though you are paying taxes, you are paying tax only on the interest. You can withdraw all of the interest every year, which is probably $1,000,000, live very nicely and you will always have $20,000,000 in the bank. But you won't invest much money in expanding your wealth because the tax penalties are too high. You sit it out, live off of interest and wait for a more favorable environment to begin growing your business again.
So who suffers? The middle class. Those who depend on their jobs. Those who depend on rich people to create new jobs. Those who don't have $20,000,000 in the bank. The people who have six months living expenses in the bank or less. Why is John McCain the least dangerous? Well his base believes that high taxes are bad. He will be forced to not go too far from the conservative camp, though he likes to do whatever he feels like doing, even if it's spitting in the face of the people who put him where he is.
Hillary Clinton. Though she is further left than she is portraying herself, I think she will be looking to correct the negative legacy of Bill Clinton, and build on what is seen as his strength. She will look to solidify that the Democrats were responsible for the successful economy of the 90's instead of the Republican Congress with their tax cuts and their curbing of spending. Since Bush 43 (and the Republican Congress he controlled) spent money like water, she can probably convince the masses that the democrats are better when it comes to fiscal responsibility if (and only if) she and a Democratic Congress can reign in spending. She will have a hard time, but I think she will give it a shot.
Barack Obama. He is the worst in this area in my opinion. Every time I hear him speak he is talking about money for this, money for that. We already have a massive deficit. We need to STOP spending. Raising taxes will not make up for what we are short, because Treasury revenues will decrease. The only way to fix what is wrong with America is to STOP SPENDING. I'll paraphrase a quote from Warren Buffett that I read once that says something like, "If you are in a financial hole the first step is to stop digging." Yet the liberal mentality is to dig some more with the belief that by digging a little more we can bring in more dirt. Now Obama in my opinion is the most likable candidate. He is certainly the best speaker and that can't hurt when you're following the president who is probably the worst speaker in modern presidential politics. Of the three, he is the only one I could see myself sitting down with and hanging out with. But, I see him following in the mold of FDR and bringing in massive expansions of government, higher taxes, and less freedom. For liberals who are all about freedom, why would you accept bigger government which only leads to less freedom?
To be continued.
23 February 2008
What's Wrong with America Part II : Liberalism
This is part II of my What's Wrong with America series. The first of about 35 posts ( ;-) ) on liberalism and how liberalism is destroying America.
"Thus says the LORD, "For three transgressions of the sons of Ammon and for four I will not revoke its punishment, Because they ripped open the pregnant women of Gilead In order to enlarge their borders." (Amos 1:13 NASB)
Roe vs. Wade. One of the Holy Grails of Liberalism. So desperately clung to, yet what is the meaning? Why the unwavering devotion to this institution of death? I am really at a loss. They say; 'it's a woman's right to choose' or 'it's about privacy'. The decision written by 'Justice' Harry Blackmun cited the right to privacy. So a woman's right to privacy apparently supersedes the right to life of a child. The problem with this argument is that privacy rights are superseded by laws protecting the health and welfare of others. As one of my friends often says, 'You have a right to privacy in your bathroom, but you can't build your bathroom any way you want. It has to be built to code because of the health and welfare of your neighbors.' A woman has a right to medical privacy, but is her right to privacy greater than the health and welfare of the unborn child? If a pregnant woman is murdered, (especially if she is obviously pregnant) the murderer is charged with two counts of homicide. If the unborn child is a person then, why not during an abortion?
The only justification I can come up with for abortion is in the event of an ectopic pregnancy where both mother and child will die as a result. In the case of rape and incest it is tougher, but I believe that giving the child up for adoption is far better than abortion.
Some statistics on abortion. From: The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform
Worldwide there are 46 million abortions per year, 1.37 million in the U.S.
That's 126000 per day and 3700 per day in the U.S.
Strictly U.S. Stats
While many abortions are on those with incomes of $15,000 (28.7%), over 50% are on those with incomes of greater than $30,000.
93% of abortions are because the child is 'unwanted or inconvenient'.
80% of all abortions are by those 20 years old or older.
These worldwide and U.S. numbers are staggering and I honestly fear for God's judgment on America because of it. For while God judged the heathen nations, he judged Israel and judges those who know or who have the opportunity to know Him much more harshly. Abortion is an abomination. It destroys a human life. The liberals will say; 'it's not human until it's born' but I say garbage. It is a human at conception. The DNA in the single celled embryo is the same as that in every cell of the newborn child and the same as in an adult. What do we say next, 'you're not a full human until you're 18, so if you become burdensome we'll just have to get rid of you?'
No. I agree with choice. The choice to wait until you are married to have sex. The choice to accept that the act of sex often results in the birth of a child. I also believe in the choice to either raise the child that you conceived, or if too burdensome, to give it up for adoption so that someone who is unable to have children or who wants another will take care of the child. This is part of the liberal religion that needs to be stopped. It destroys a life. Who knows the contributions to society that are lost due to abortion. Who knows the wonders that are missing in families due to this monstrous practice. I pray that this nation will come around and end this abomination.
"Thus says the LORD, "For three transgressions of the sons of Ammon and for four I will not revoke its punishment, Because they ripped open the pregnant women of Gilead In order to enlarge their borders." (Amos 1:13 NASB)
Roe vs. Wade. One of the Holy Grails of Liberalism. So desperately clung to, yet what is the meaning? Why the unwavering devotion to this institution of death? I am really at a loss. They say; 'it's a woman's right to choose' or 'it's about privacy'. The decision written by 'Justice' Harry Blackmun cited the right to privacy. So a woman's right to privacy apparently supersedes the right to life of a child. The problem with this argument is that privacy rights are superseded by laws protecting the health and welfare of others. As one of my friends often says, 'You have a right to privacy in your bathroom, but you can't build your bathroom any way you want. It has to be built to code because of the health and welfare of your neighbors.' A woman has a right to medical privacy, but is her right to privacy greater than the health and welfare of the unborn child? If a pregnant woman is murdered, (especially if she is obviously pregnant) the murderer is charged with two counts of homicide. If the unborn child is a person then, why not during an abortion?
The only justification I can come up with for abortion is in the event of an ectopic pregnancy where both mother and child will die as a result. In the case of rape and incest it is tougher, but I believe that giving the child up for adoption is far better than abortion.
Some statistics on abortion. From: The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform
Worldwide there are 46 million abortions per year, 1.37 million in the U.S.
That's 126000 per day and 3700 per day in the U.S.
Strictly U.S. Stats
While many abortions are on those with incomes of $15,000 (28.7%), over 50% are on those with incomes of greater than $30,000.
93% of abortions are because the child is 'unwanted or inconvenient'.
80% of all abortions are by those 20 years old or older.
These worldwide and U.S. numbers are staggering and I honestly fear for God's judgment on America because of it. For while God judged the heathen nations, he judged Israel and judges those who know or who have the opportunity to know Him much more harshly. Abortion is an abomination. It destroys a human life. The liberals will say; 'it's not human until it's born' but I say garbage. It is a human at conception. The DNA in the single celled embryo is the same as that in every cell of the newborn child and the same as in an adult. What do we say next, 'you're not a full human until you're 18, so if you become burdensome we'll just have to get rid of you?'
No. I agree with choice. The choice to wait until you are married to have sex. The choice to accept that the act of sex often results in the birth of a child. I also believe in the choice to either raise the child that you conceived, or if too burdensome, to give it up for adoption so that someone who is unable to have children or who wants another will take care of the child. This is part of the liberal religion that needs to be stopped. It destroys a life. Who knows the contributions to society that are lost due to abortion. Who knows the wonders that are missing in families due to this monstrous practice. I pray that this nation will come around and end this abomination.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)