Is Christmas, December 25, really a humbug, as Ebeneezer Scrooge said it is?
There is no mention anywhere in the Bible as to the true birth date of the Lord Jesus Christ. The date of December 25 represents a compromise between year-end Roman pagan festivities and the early Christian church. The church sought to appease Roman paganism in order to stave off intense persecution at Roman hands, by adoption of December 25 as the date of celebration of Jesus Christ's birthday.
More important is the modern role of Christianity in society. Is it just a one-day, one-time flurry of kindness and good-will in an otherwise mean-spirited and ferocious dog-eat-dog world? Or does that one special day serve as a role model for ideal interpersonal relations throughout the entire year? The true value of Christmas is decided by the extent to which we permit the spirit of Christmas Day to permeate our lives daily all year long. Do we always love our neighbors as ourselves? "I am going to raise your salary, Bob Cratchet! Put some more coal onto the fire!"
-LKM
Monday, November 29, 2010
Sunday, November 28, 2010
LKM Epistle To The Distaff Side
In an earlier BLOG article, I quoted John Wayne a.k.a. "The Duke", to say I totally agree with his pronouncement on the role of women in our society, that they should be free to do anything they want to----as long as they have supper ready for us men when we come home from work! Also, my BLOG article concerning the limits of freedom apply equally to both sexes as per the U.S. Constitution 14th Amendment. In no way should women be prevented from their pursuits of happiness, so long as by so-doing, they inflict no injuries upon the persons or properties of men.
This writer has on numerous occasions entertained the fascinating question in his mind: what if we male chauvinist pigs indeed turned over every ruling socio-political and financial institution in America over to the women--lock, stock and barrel--to run completely their way, while we male chauvinist pigs just rolled over in the mud of our pig styes and went back to sleep? Would the women of America--and even of the world--then be happy? Or, do women, at the end of the day, confess that they want--and even need--the good-old-boys' club to be around, to spice up their lives and make them interesting? This writer has doubts about any inevitable feminine felicity at the prospect of sexual segregation in our society, to the clear advantage of women. This is because women are just as individual and just as divided as men are, concerning their goals, tastes, preferences/prejudices, motives and tempraments. In total absence of men, there would be female power-and-prestige struggles of equal frequency and ferocity as those seen among men. Differences in age and generation would be a major contributor to such struggles, and intergenerational conflict knows no boundary of gender. That is because old people have within their memory vivid recollections of experiences, of which the younger have no-such recollection for similar chronological point-of-reference.
What about the issue of sexual freedom? Here again, freedom cannot be separated from individual responsibility. Whatsoever a woman may choose--be it monogamous or polygamous sexual relations--she cannot and should not expect the general public to relieve her of any adverse consequences visited upon her by her own choice of behaviour. She must pay for her own abortions and STD medical treatments--if any--as it is not the role of government to rescue people from the consequences of their own idiotic and fool-hardy choices. Government must protect people from the ferocities of one another, but not from the foolishness of themselves. I will get my hands off the woman's body if government, acting on her behalf, will get its hands out of my bank account.
Women size up men to assess their sexual desirability just as much as men do towards women. Monica did not choose Bill ("I did not have sex with that woman.")Clinton for nothing! In the Garden of Eden, Eve pulled Adam down into sin first! So, feminists in vain play the role of innocent victim here, whether or not they know, in this case, what "is" is!
What about women and military service for America? This question harks back to the issue of whether or not women are the "weaker sex", and so whether men should protect them from various evils and dangers. Feminists scoff in abject contempt at this idea as something rooted in romantic legends from days of yore, not in step with modern realities. It is they, who push so hard for equality between the sexes, for both opportunity and responsibility in the military. In such case, the military should make no categorical concessions for women, pertaining to combat training and readiness if, as feminists claim, there are no fundamental differences besides reproductive mechanism, between men and women. Equality means equality of obligation, as well as equality of priviledge. QUESTION: Would American politicians be so quick to commit America to war, if prospects were likely for equal number of both male and female dead military personnel returning home in flag-draped caskets? Are women's lives more valuable than those of men, such as to exempt them from this possible scenario? If so, why?--if equality between the sexes is the American ideal? Or, does the chivalrous male dragon-slayer rescuing the fair but helpless damsel in distress still occupy a higher level in American socio-political consciousness than mere children's story-book fables from Never-Neverland? Several foreign countries have full equality between the genders in their respective militaries, without second thought.
Some men recoil in deep resentment at the thought of having a wife earning much more money than they do. This BLOG writer, however, rejects the notion of money as the measure of a man--or of a woman. Capacity to love, in complete disregard of that financial consideration, is far more important. After all, pornography king Larry Flynt is undoubtedly among America's wealthiest citizens, but is still a slime-and-scum bag anyway!
Finally, the writer of this BLOG basically loves women and wants only the best for them. Still, oddly, he does not trust them beyond his fingernails, to love him in return. The feminist movement of the 1970s and the 1980s persuaded him to write off a priori without second thought all possibility of marriage to any fellow-American woman. Guilt-by-association, for how some other men horribly mistreat women, was also a powerful dissuader to his mind. Et tu, Brute? America's 50% national divorce rate likewise persuaded this writer not to marry in haste and repent at leisure! He freely acknowledges himself to be eons away from being adequately possessed of traits by which to commend himself to the female world, in context of the national divorce rate. Marriage was for 46 years his Mission: Impossible, but he did finally decide to accept it--hoping and praying to God he would not self-destruct later for having done so.
-LKM
This writer has on numerous occasions entertained the fascinating question in his mind: what if we male chauvinist pigs indeed turned over every ruling socio-political and financial institution in America over to the women--lock, stock and barrel--to run completely their way, while we male chauvinist pigs just rolled over in the mud of our pig styes and went back to sleep? Would the women of America--and even of the world--then be happy? Or, do women, at the end of the day, confess that they want--and even need--the good-old-boys' club to be around, to spice up their lives and make them interesting? This writer has doubts about any inevitable feminine felicity at the prospect of sexual segregation in our society, to the clear advantage of women. This is because women are just as individual and just as divided as men are, concerning their goals, tastes, preferences/prejudices, motives and tempraments. In total absence of men, there would be female power-and-prestige struggles of equal frequency and ferocity as those seen among men. Differences in age and generation would be a major contributor to such struggles, and intergenerational conflict knows no boundary of gender. That is because old people have within their memory vivid recollections of experiences, of which the younger have no-such recollection for similar chronological point-of-reference.
What about the issue of sexual freedom? Here again, freedom cannot be separated from individual responsibility. Whatsoever a woman may choose--be it monogamous or polygamous sexual relations--she cannot and should not expect the general public to relieve her of any adverse consequences visited upon her by her own choice of behaviour. She must pay for her own abortions and STD medical treatments--if any--as it is not the role of government to rescue people from the consequences of their own idiotic and fool-hardy choices. Government must protect people from the ferocities of one another, but not from the foolishness of themselves. I will get my hands off the woman's body if government, acting on her behalf, will get its hands out of my bank account.
Women size up men to assess their sexual desirability just as much as men do towards women. Monica did not choose Bill ("I did not have sex with that woman.")Clinton for nothing! In the Garden of Eden, Eve pulled Adam down into sin first! So, feminists in vain play the role of innocent victim here, whether or not they know, in this case, what "is" is!
What about women and military service for America? This question harks back to the issue of whether or not women are the "weaker sex", and so whether men should protect them from various evils and dangers. Feminists scoff in abject contempt at this idea as something rooted in romantic legends from days of yore, not in step with modern realities. It is they, who push so hard for equality between the sexes, for both opportunity and responsibility in the military. In such case, the military should make no categorical concessions for women, pertaining to combat training and readiness if, as feminists claim, there are no fundamental differences besides reproductive mechanism, between men and women. Equality means equality of obligation, as well as equality of priviledge. QUESTION: Would American politicians be so quick to commit America to war, if prospects were likely for equal number of both male and female dead military personnel returning home in flag-draped caskets? Are women's lives more valuable than those of men, such as to exempt them from this possible scenario? If so, why?--if equality between the sexes is the American ideal? Or, does the chivalrous male dragon-slayer rescuing the fair but helpless damsel in distress still occupy a higher level in American socio-political consciousness than mere children's story-book fables from Never-Neverland? Several foreign countries have full equality between the genders in their respective militaries, without second thought.
Some men recoil in deep resentment at the thought of having a wife earning much more money than they do. This BLOG writer, however, rejects the notion of money as the measure of a man--or of a woman. Capacity to love, in complete disregard of that financial consideration, is far more important. After all, pornography king Larry Flynt is undoubtedly among America's wealthiest citizens, but is still a slime-and-scum bag anyway!
Finally, the writer of this BLOG basically loves women and wants only the best for them. Still, oddly, he does not trust them beyond his fingernails, to love him in return. The feminist movement of the 1970s and the 1980s persuaded him to write off a priori without second thought all possibility of marriage to any fellow-American woman. Guilt-by-association, for how some other men horribly mistreat women, was also a powerful dissuader to his mind. Et tu, Brute? America's 50% national divorce rate likewise persuaded this writer not to marry in haste and repent at leisure! He freely acknowledges himself to be eons away from being adequately possessed of traits by which to commend himself to the female world, in context of the national divorce rate. Marriage was for 46 years his Mission: Impossible, but he did finally decide to accept it--hoping and praying to God he would not self-destruct later for having done so.
-LKM
Sunday, November 21, 2010
The Utter Futility of Christian Denominationalism
"There is none righteous; no, not one.....for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.(Romans 3:10-23)" "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.(James 2:10)"
The Bible declares with these words total human incapability to win justification to God's salvation by his/her own works and devices. Sin is sin, and so it makes no difference in the sight of God, which or how many sins we commit: committing one sin is breaking the whole law of God, even as a rock thrown to impact a glass window at just one point will smash the entire window. Certain church denominations claiming to be Christian declare only their fellow co-religionists, under the protection of their denomination, can and will be saved by virtue of their church denomination affiliation. But this notion is belied by the scripture of Luke 23:42-43, recounting the act of pardoning of sin by Jesus Christ for a criminal on a cross next to Him who, in all likelihood, had never before been to a church, temple or synagogue religious worship service a day in his life.
"No man can come to me, except the Father which has sent me draw him, and I will raise him up at the last day.(John 6:44)" Words attributed in the Bible by this scripture to Jesus Christ. Justification and salvation of man, then, is entirely the prerogative of our Lord Jesus Christ. Human contribution to it is a big zero, as man has no power to oblige God to "keep His end of the bargain" in exchange for anything men may do. It is by faith alone, and not by works--including affiliation with a "correct" church denomination, to the exclusion of all others--that God confers His divine favor upon us, "lest any man should boast.(Ephesians 2:9)"
There is no way to build any perfect church out of sinful and imperfect people.
-LKM
The Bible declares with these words total human incapability to win justification to God's salvation by his/her own works and devices. Sin is sin, and so it makes no difference in the sight of God, which or how many sins we commit: committing one sin is breaking the whole law of God, even as a rock thrown to impact a glass window at just one point will smash the entire window. Certain church denominations claiming to be Christian declare only their fellow co-religionists, under the protection of their denomination, can and will be saved by virtue of their church denomination affiliation. But this notion is belied by the scripture of Luke 23:42-43, recounting the act of pardoning of sin by Jesus Christ for a criminal on a cross next to Him who, in all likelihood, had never before been to a church, temple or synagogue religious worship service a day in his life.
"No man can come to me, except the Father which has sent me draw him, and I will raise him up at the last day.(John 6:44)" Words attributed in the Bible by this scripture to Jesus Christ. Justification and salvation of man, then, is entirely the prerogative of our Lord Jesus Christ. Human contribution to it is a big zero, as man has no power to oblige God to "keep His end of the bargain" in exchange for anything men may do. It is by faith alone, and not by works--including affiliation with a "correct" church denomination, to the exclusion of all others--that God confers His divine favor upon us, "lest any man should boast.(Ephesians 2:9)"
There is no way to build any perfect church out of sinful and imperfect people.
-LKM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
