> CP wrote --
>> > Then there the women who marry a man to have a kid, then dumps the man and
> wants alimony to support them. Or the man merely as a sperm donor.
>>
>> Thank you, Murphy Brown for putting this into everyone's minds as an option.
> .
> Plus the government that pays women for each kid they pump out, so no
> need for a father in a house.
> So boys have no (or few) males as role models. Or the wrong ones.
Oh, & don't we see the results of this, in rising crime statistics. . . :(
I spent one summer working with inner city kids -- & such HELL they went
through -- boys & girls -- pretty much none had a dad they knew.
Sickening what their moms did (for 'survival'?) like having johns come to her
ghome & even pay her to force the child(ren) to watch as he defiles their
mother, sometimes abusively.
One 7-year-old, an annual top troublemaker at that day camp, per ongoing staff,
had a look in his eyes as I imafgine the returning VietNam vets did (No! Do NOT
dare tell me about Hell. I ****ing KNOW!"
I had no special skills, but my heart broke for him, as I knew this attitude
wasn't part of the plan at his creation/birth. I prayed, daily, for him & the
others, over the 6 weeks, I noticed big changes in him. I also had to take on
the role of male authority once, on a day trip, when I & he were left in the
van while the others did an esdcational walkabout that I couldn't & he wouldn't
do.
He tried to sneak out (to run off who knows where) & I just gave him my best
"Dad Voice"(I was 17; had no idea I had one.) & said, "Turn around, go back to
your seat & sit down NOW."
He stopped trying to open the door, turned to me meekly, said, "Yes, sir," in a
most subdued tone, & sat quietly until they all returned.
Leadimng me to theorize that the two-parent model is a hardwired expectation in
us at birth. Will take research by those in the psychology education fields to
proof it.
> At one time single mothers (and I don't include widows in that) were
>looked down upon, but in the last 60-70 years its more and more acceptable and
> seems odd if its not that way.
True. But most still could recognize when such a widow (especially a young one)
was honestly struggling in a positive direction, & respected her more for it.
>> I go by those who have an unbroken chain of interpretation -- the People of
> the Book (Jewishj practicers of Judaism)
> I go by context.
> What was being presented before and after whatever text. IOW not picking
> and choosing to prove or disprove some point or other.
This, too -- my context is the entire set of books gathered together as a sub-
theme or time, & the entire Bible, too.
But this is, I admit, more about human decisions as to what was God-inspired
specific to their homiletic interests.
I read & I trey to understabnd explicitly what the original writer/speaker was
intending as meaning, & what the original target audience most commonly would
have understood the meaning & contexct to be. Only then am I free to compare
to my current milieu of time & culture.
I do much the same in reading Aesop or other long-known/read writings.
Paul says at one pint & I believe it: (I'll paraphrase to how I understand it):
"All written things that are written with serious & honest intent, & rewritten
several times to capture exactly the author's well-considered thinking are
inspired by God/Creation & useful for the honest believer to use for personal
reflection & growth, as well as useful to help educate others per the same.
for comparisoin, here's the original in thefamiliar to most KJV: 2Tim. 3 Verses
16 to 17
[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: [17]
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
The original Greek word "omni scripturo" is not capitalised nor in any way
implying a specific subset of "all things-written"; "things-written" in that
time did not include pulp fiction, FB commenting, nor protest placards. It was
as I expanded in my test above. Carefully considered multiple times & ways,
before setting pen to expensive paper, or lambskin.
>> For me, it says what it says & the Bible means what it means. Certainly you
> can apply the parts that are uiniversal to any time or circumstance, as it's
> intended.
> Concur.
& that covers religion in a nutshell, without breaching the intent of the no
religion rule in here, eh?
I even accept the Satanic Bible under "omni scriptura" but one, as with
anything, must read it carefully, in context, & determine using common sense &
knowledge of times & cultures that are applicable to the specific reading.
Those who do this have decided, as a sect of "Satanic Church members" that the
concept of Satan is more about making personal choices, commensurate with
responsibilities & an awarenessd of natural & human consequences.
Others, who read only the surface, conclude it's a Bible promoting evil &
killing black cats at midnight.
I've yet to see/read a copy, but I expect I'd lean more to the former's
interprtations.
I'm in no hurry or need to read it at all, actually. I have more interesting &
relevant books to read that I can accept as included in the "omni scriptura"
that Paul told young Timothy of.
What I find most interesting in the Timothy letters(epistles) is Paul telling
him not to be chasrtened by others' view of his youbg age (i.e. good thinking &
teaching isn't restricted to "the elders" but to present your ideas respectful
of their(elders') established culture & expectations regarding a young lad
speaking on matters of political &/or e=religious import.
This aspect is often missed who only use the books of Timothy to teach that
there's Biblical precedent for calling a non-parent "father" as a title of
respect.
I see it differently, but I get where they're coming from, 'though I will only
refer to them as "sir" out of respect for age & education; "father" is reserved
for my biological & heaqvenly fathers (both connected by the 5th commandment)
Oops. . too much? Sorry -- I get thoughts & I just riff with them even as they
pull up semi-related ones. . . (my mind isn't pure linear; I've been told,.
complimentarily, that I think like a woman.)
--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-5
* Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)
|
