The females they were created to be

Yesterday I came across something that I kind of wish I hadn't seen, something that had me confused about what it was at first and then, later, skimming past it and wanting to just put it out of my mind. I'm not sure what to call it, a poster...a flyer...a headline, I don't even know if it was a headline for an article or if what I saw was all their was to it but either way, hours after reading it I wanted to find it again. What I had seen was some kind of...I'll just call it a poster...for feminism.

Before I go any further, let me say that I have no idea what the feminists claim their movement is about. I don't know their goals or agendas. And I don't want to know. What I know about feminism is all I need to know. I know that feminism stands against what Scripture says a woman should be and I know that feminists in the past have ruined what I consider to be a good thing for women. Because of feminists and whatever agenda they were pushing women, as a whole, are not expected to be, nor can they be in a lot of cases, anywhere close to what Scripture says a woman should be.

All my life I wanted to be a wife and a mother. In typical childish fashion there were times I fell heavier on the side of wanting to be a wife and times I fell heavier on the side of wanting to be a mother but somewhere deep inside I always wanted to be both of those things. Trouble was I grew up in a time when it was encouraged for women to be more than a wife or a mother. When I was 19 I met a woman that was very motherly toward me. Our acquaintance was short but she was one of those women that just naturally mothered younger people, I suppose. I recall very well a conversation I had with her. I don't remember how it started or even who started it but at the time I had someone pushing me to go to college and I did not want to go. This person was very insistent that I should go and was willing to pay for me to go.

It was over that situation in my life that I had that conversation with the woman that kind of mothered me for the short time I knew her. I told her that I did not want to go to college, that I wanted only to be a wife and mother. Her answer was to tell me that I should go to college, that I could do both, college/career and be a wife and mother. Looking back, it seems to me that this woman may have been a struggling single mother, or at least had been at some point in her life, but I can't remember for sure. I do know that was why she encouraged me to go to college while it was being offered, because even if I became a wife the marriage may not last and I might wind up on my own, possibly with kids to raise, and a college education would help a whole lot.

She had a point, I suppose, but she missed the point I was trying to make. I wanted nothing but to be a wife and a mother. That was all. I didn't want to have a career while I was a wife and a mother. I didn't want to be in college and be a wife. I didn't want a JOB. I wanted to be a WIFE and a MOTHER. I wanted to be a stay at home wife. That was all I wanted. Nothing else held interest for me, at least not in the college/career lifestyle.

And somewhere along the way, in years long gone, women had ideas, ideas that may or may not have been labeled as feminism at the time, that women should be equal to men. They had the not-so-bright idea that women would be better off working than being a wife and a mother.

Those are my opinions but Titus 2 3-5 states very clearly what women should be and what they should do and nowhere in there does it say that a woman should work in the workplace, go to college, or be equal to men. Although at 19 I didn't know that, all I knew was that something inside me did not want to go the college/career route, even though I had been working off and on since I was 12 and pretty steady since I was 17. I was working but it wasn't what I wanted for my life and it wasn't because I didn't like working. As with everyone I had some jobs I liked and some I didn't. My reasoning went far deeper than a dislike of work, which I did not have, it was like something inside me longed for the chance to be a wife and a mother.

And that was in direct opposition to what feminists have worked for for who knows how many years.

When I was a teenager I had no idea there even was such a thing as a feminist but somewhere along the way I discovered that women in history had a fit over women not being allowed to work and ruined life for women for all time. Today people ask little girls what they want to be when they grow up and expect and answer like doctor, lawyer, or teacher. I'm pretty sure that I have told strangers not to ask my children that very question. Why can't kids be kids and little girls have dreams of being a wife and a mother and nothing else?

Because somewhere along the way someone got ideas about what women should be and those ideas are not what Scripture says they should be and now here we are with all these expectations for women based off 'women's rights' and feminism that directly oppose Scripture.

Which is what I came across yesterday. This poster that I saw was a list of things women do not have to be, I suppose but it simply said, 'women do not have to' followed by this list, in this order:

be thin
give birth
cook for you
have long hair
wear makeup
have sex with you
be feminine
be graceful
shave
diet
be fashionable
wear pink
love men
be the media's idea of perfection

Whew! That's some list and when I first saw it I couldn't figure out what in the world it was even about. So much of what that list says women don't have to do is the very essence of what women are. It wasn't until I saw that it was made by feminists that I began to understand what it was about. At that point I just wanted it out of my sight and I went on with my business but as the hours passed I began to think of that list and to wish I could see it again. I wanted to look with more attention to the things it said 'women don't' and I wanted to write about it. I really wanted to point out the problems with that list to the person who inadvertently brought it to my attention. Instead I found the list again and I'm writing about it. I will probably never say a word about it to the person who is responsible for me seeing that list. Because that person could not be swayed by anything I say on this topic. Not that I'm trying to sway anyone to my way of thinking but to point out the differences between what this poster said 'women don't' and what Scripture says women are.

And so, for my own piece of mind, I'm going to take this list, one 'women don't' at a time...

be thin...Women don't have to be thin. No, I suppose they don't. Women can and are many sizes for many reasons but Proverbs 23:20-21 speaks against being a glutton. I personally know women that have gained weight for medical reasons, as a result of medication they take, and for some reason simply cannot keep from gaining weight no matter how hard they try.

give birth... Women weren't specifically created to have children, although they were created for that reason too. Women were created first to be a wife, a help meet to her husband, and a side 'job', if you want to call it that, is to be a mother. I don't suppose women have to give birth but it is a huge part of being a woman. There are women in Scripture for whom being childless was an awful thing in their own eyes, women for whom barrenness is something akin to a curse, and in fact their are places in Scripture where the Lord does curse a person or nation by making the woman/women barren.

So, no, I don't suppose a woman must give birth to be a woman, not by any definition of the word, but part of being a woman is to have children, and most women, no matter what their beliefs are, want to have babies. There's just something inside women, something that can be seen in most little girls that go all soft at the sight of a baby, that just makes them want to have babies. I have a one year old niece and a one year old granddaughter both of whom get all happy and excited over seeing a baby in any form, even a doll that bears little resemblance to a real live baby. It's just built into females to like babies and most females begin to want a baby somewhere around the time they go through puberty. It is an inborn, or God given, trait of being a girl.

So what happens to make feminists say giving birth is something you don't have to do to be a woman. I don't imagine they are speaking of women who are infertile, and by the way speaking with infertile women, even women who can have babies but their husband cannot, would be eye opening for some. The desire to have a baby and be unable to do so for any reason is a horrible pain to bear and makes women go to great length and spend unending amounts of money to have a child. But I don't think that's what feminists are talking about, they don't seem to be affirming a woman's womanhood in cases where the woman is unable to have a baby, they seem to be saying that women can chose not to have a child and that is fine.

I'm going to hazard a guess here...I also think they are saying that if a woman has an abortion...which by the way, is giving birth...in order to not 'give birth' or have a child then that is perfectly fine and she is still a woman. I am, however, assuming that based on the fact that feminists seem to support murdering babies before birth all in support of women having the 'freedom' to chose to be what they want to be, to chose to experience what they want to experience, and to chose freedom from parenthood over the sanctity of life. And so they say a woman doesn't have to give birth to be a woman.

Well, yes. A woman isn't a woman based on the fact that she has had a child. She is a woman based on the fact that she was created female and she has grown through the childhood years into the adult years and is now a woman and not a little girl. In the beginning He created them male and female...(Matthew 19:4, Genesis 5:2). Women are women because they were created female and not for any other reason.

But Scripture does say that we are to be fruitful and multiply. Now I know that that is taken out of context a lot, when the Lord said that, he said it to a particular people not to all people throughout all of time, but we can look at that and see that it was His intention for babies to be born and we can see in His creation of people and animals that it was his intention for females to have the babies. He also said...children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward (Psalm 127:3).

If children are a heritage and a reward, and if the Lord used barreness as a punishment in Scripture (which we know he did) than what does it say for women who are going around eagerly flaunting the fact that women (presumably the one's that can have babies) don't have to give birth to be a woman?

cook for you...Presumably this means that a woman doesn't have to cook for a man to be a woman.

Umm...I would guess that that would go without saying. Again, a woman isn't a woman because of something she does, she is a woman because she was CREATED as a female. There is no other reason why she is a woman.

She does, however, have certain roles as a woman whether she likes it or not, whether she believes in the Lord, believes in Scripture, or not. Women don't have to cook for men to be women but as a whole, not just among Christians, women tend to be more hands on with household chores and child raising than men. That is the nature of our society, although it is a society that has already changed to almost beyond recognition and one that will continue to change far more than it already has.

But, that being said, the very nature of this statement and of this entire list of what women aren't is in direct defiance to what the Lord says a woman is. I don't know if the person that made this list, someone that presumably is a woman, realizes that just about everything in this list of what women aren't is in direct opposition of what their, most likely unacknowledged, Creator made them to be.

Titus 2 tells us what women should be, more specifically Titus 2:3-5 tells us what women should be...

Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, 4 and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled,pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.

THAT is what a woman is, what she should be. If we take that, or rather if we start with Genesis 5:2, they were created FEMALE and add to it Titus 2:3-5...women (female) are to be reverent, not slanderers, not drunks. They are to teach what is good to younger women, to love their husbands and children, be self controlled, pure, working at home (or in the home) kind, and submissive to their husband...we see what women should be. And well, that all seems to be the direct opposite of what this list of what women aren't is. 

And in keeping with that direct opposition to Scripture...if a woman to to work at home, which should naturally take in cooking, than the opposite is that she doesn't have to cook.

have long hair...There's only one way to respond to this...

but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?  1 Corinthians 11:15

Again, direct opposition to Scripture. Now, I know there are many reasons why a woman might not have long hair. I have personally known two girls, they were kids, that simply could not get their hair to grow past their shoulders no matter how hard they tried. I have also known women that had no hair due to medication for illness, usually cancer. I understand their is a disease that causes hair to simply fall out. I have also known women who have had to cut their hair due to having headaches fromt he weight of their hair. I know their are extenuating reasons why a woman might have short hair or even no hair, but I also know the majority of women that have short hair do it for their own personal reasons which have nothing to do with health. 

And I highly doubt the objection to long hair in this list is speaking of medical reasons why a woman might have short hair. This list is speaking purely of a woman's CHOICE to have short hair or even to shave their heads. 

A while back I read something that said you can often tell feminist women by simply looking at the way their hair is cut and styled. After that I began to kind of notice women's hair. And I did notice that there are some hair cuts that women wear that if you spend any time around that woman, even in a passing way in the grocery store, it's not hard to notice that they do have a way about them that defies what womanhood should be.

wear makeup...Honestly, I can't recall ever seeing anything that says that a woman has to wear makeup to be a woman. In a strictly secular way, makeup is not required to be considered a woman. I have never been able to tell a difference in the way people treat me from the times I wear makeup and the times I do not. Most people don't really seem to care.

It's kind of like our shoes, unless someone happens to like our shoes and takes the time to comment, or if they really don't like our shoes and either comment or think those comments to themselves, no one really cares what shoes we wear.

In the same manner, no one really cares if a woman wears makup or not. As a woman you aren't treated differently based on whether or not you wear makeup. Now, I have noticed that certain groups of people tend to wear more makeup, or wear it in a certain way and I guess among those circles they might get treated a certain way based off their makeup, but since I have never run in those circles I really can't say for sure.

I do think the point behind this particular item being on this list is the fact that men, as a whole, tend to favor the look of women wearing makeup. And since feminists seem to be very anti-man I would assume that this was added to the list to be in defiance of men that like to see women in makeup.

As for Scripture...As far as I know there is nothing in it that specifically says a woman should not wear makeup. There are many verses that speak against adorning ourselves in gold, pearls, costly array , of putting on of apparel, or of loving the things of the world, all of which I would assume could take in makeup. There are, however some verses that do speak of makeup in a less than favorable light...

And [when] thou [art] spoiled, what wilt thou do? Though thou clothest thyself with crimson, though thou deckest thee with ornaments of gold, though thou rentest thy face with painting, in vain shalt thou make thyself fair; [thy] lovers will despise thee, they will seek thy life. Jeremiah 4:30 KJV

2 Kings 9:30 speaks of Jezebel painting her face and well, Jezebel wasn't exactly a woman that is to be looked up to.

But again, It would seem that putting women not having to wear makeup on this list seems to be more of a defiance thing than anything else. In our society makeup has been traditionally seen as a woman thing and men have been known to appreciate that thing in a woman. It's more about the role of women, as in women wear makeup because they are women, than anything else. Or so it seems to me.

have sex with you... Oh, boy. Do I even want to touch on this one. The answer is No, I do not want to touch this but since it's on the list...here goes.

Let's start with...Women should not be having sex with 'you', whoever 'you' happens to be. Here is another perfect example of how feminists have ruined womanhood for everyone. Gone are the days when purity was prized. Gone are the days when men expected, and demanded, to marry women that were virgins, when they prized having a woman that was untouched by any man but them.

Today men are happy to have a woman that will have sex with them and they are more than happy to get what, in many cases, amounts to an unpaid prostitute. When I was in high school I went to school with a girl that at 16 or 17 announced to the entire class that she had already had sex with 8 different boys. There was no shame in her announcement, no disgust in those that heard her announce it. It was simply accepted as matter of fact, as normal, and nothing was said against it.

There was a time when purity was prized, valued, and women that were chaste were considered to be upstanding women while women that were not virgins at the time of marriage were fallen women, ruined. If a woman lost, through any means, her virginity before marriage than most men did not want her. In some cases she would have no choice but to resort to prostitution to support herself because she was not seen as a woman of morals, a woman of value.

Today, there almost seems to be some kind of pride in women jumping from man to man, having sex with all of them. And the men, for the most part, see nothing wrong with having a woman that has been with innumerable men before them.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and make the assumption that the 'you' in this statement could also refer to other women, since it seems that most feminists support and even encourage homosexuality, although, due to the feminist anti-man agenda, I would guess it applies more to men than to women. But even that...how many men or women put a value on the 'innocence' of their partner? And even for those that do value that...do they value it to the exclusion of women that have been with multiple partners (of either sex)?

All that said...Scripture says that women are to be chaste, to be pure. It does not specifically say that that refers to sex but generally speaking those two words are applied to virgins. We do know from Scripture, though, that being pure of heart is a sign of the elect. Still...could a woman that jumps from man to man, or, from woman to woman for that matter, possibly be pure in any sense of the word?

Does a woman have to have sex with anyone? No, Paul says that it is good for the unmarried to remain that way so long as they can do so without sexually desiring anyone but because most people are unable to do that he says that people should marry. Why? To avoid sexual immorality. So that they don't sin in their desire.

Sex is a beautiful thing. A wonderful thing. And I doubt even the feminists can deny that it has it's place in the continuation of the human population. But...it is only beautiful, only wonderful, when it is between one man and one woman inside the bonds of marriage.

Sex was created by the Lord to be used among a certain people, married couples consisting of one man and one woman. It fulfills certain physical needs, placed in us by the Lord, and is the means through which the Lord brings a new person into the earth.

So no, women do not have to have sex with 'you' and they should not have sex with 'you'. Not unless the 'you' spoken of is a woman's husband in which case 1 Corinthians 7 says that a woman's body is not her own and that she should have sex with her husband.

be feminine...This is another one of those that makes me almost want to cringe as I look at it and attempt to counter it. No, we don't HAVE to be feminine. Scripture does not say a woman should be feminine. But the Lord made us as females and as females we already are feminine unless a woman is trying to be something other than what she was created to be. There are certain traits that make women more feminine. A woman in a modest dress or skirt is much more feminine than a woman in pants or shorts. A woman with long hair is more feminine than a woman with short hair. A woman with a clean vocabulary is much more feminine than a woman with vulgar speech.

Just the other day my husband was commenting on the recent so-called women's march in Washington. He spoke of the conversation that President Trump had, a private conversation, in which he spoke in very vulgar terms about women. That conversation sparked much outraged among the so-called women that took to the streets to protest the statements, and the man that made them, that spoke of women with such vulgarity. The thing is that those women were just as vulgar, and in fact, to me, more so, than President Trump ever was. I'm not saying what Trump said was right, not by a long shot, but a man, in what was a private conversation, saying something is not nearly as bad as thousands of women taking to the streets to scream out the same vulgarities while wearing costumes depicting female genitalia.

Is that what it means to not be femine?

My husband's final comments on that so-called women's march was to say that he'd heard many women speak just as vulgar as Trump did in his private conversation. That they aren't any better in their thoughts or their speech than the men are. And yet the women protest something that one man said, something that is no different that things most men say every day, if possibly in slightly different context.

And the same women that took to the streets dressed as women's genitals, the same women that screamed vulgar words, the same women that waved signs with vulgar sayings ont them and claimed to be 'nasty' women...those very same women say that women don't have to be feminine. And the women that supported those vulgar women being about as nasty as a woman can get say the same thing from their computers at home.

If that's what it means to be not feminine...why would any decent, self respecting woman not want to be feminine. And what Christian woman would not want to be feminine?

I honestly don't know how feminists define feminine. I don't know what they consider to be feminine and what they don't but I do know their are some things that are classically seen as being feminine. I enjoy my long hair. I like to wear long skirts, there's just something...fun about feeling them swirl against my legs. I like flowers. I like pretty things. I like not having vulgar words coming from my mouth or vulgar gestures from my hands. I like dainty things.

And...

I like being the weaker vessel to my husband. I like being held in his arms. I like feeling safe and protected when he hugs me. I like hearing him say sweet things to me, things only a girl would appreciate. I like being the feminine to his masculine.

be graceful...I know there was a time when being graceful was a part of being a woman. Actually, it was part of being a lady because there was, and still is, a big difference in being a lady and being a woman. There are very few ladies left in America. They are endangered to the point of being extinct. And being graceful is just a small part of being a lady.

I don't know in what context the feminists consider being graceful. When I was a kid I took ballet for a number of years. We were taught to be graceful in those classes. Being graceful in ballet means moving your body in a certain kind of slow deliberate way, even when you're twirling across the floor so fast the world around you is a blur. But that is a certain kind of gracefullness that isn't easily applied to life outside the dance of ballet.

In times past girls were taught how to be ladies. There were even schools to teach them the art of being a lady. Believe it or not their were also classes that taught 'the art of courting'. They were taught things like how to glide into a room, how to hold a tea cup, and how to bat their eyes at a man.

We no longer learn things like how to walk, how to glide, or how to bat our eyes. We don't even teach our little girls to sit like a lady anymore, something I can remember being told numerous times buy numerous people when I was a kid. Back then little girls, and women, did not turn a chair backwards and straddle it to sit, that was only for boys. Girls were expected to sit with their legs folded under them a certain way when they wore a dress. I can even remember when a female sitting with her knees apart was considered and invitation to men. Yes, I was actually taught that as a kid. And no, I'm not an elderly woman.

So, what exactly does it mean to be graceful? I can't combat a statement that I don't fully understand the meaning of the person making it. I do believe that any female not living in defiance of what she was created to be has a certain gracefulness about her, especially once she leaves childhood behind. There is just a way about females that males to not have, and there is a way about males that females to not have. It's the way it should be. Women act and move a certain way...or maybe I should say ladies move and act a certain way because the kind of adult female I am referring to cannot be compared with the kind of women that marched in that protest in Washington or write lists like the one that prompted this post. So...Ladies have a natural way about them that has a gracefullness to it that men simply cannot imulate.

We are graceful because we were created female. And it takes some work to get that gracefullness out of a female. Girls walk different than boys. Women walk different than men. If a woman doesn't want to walk as a woman she must work hard to remove the gracefullness of being a female from her walk. Women move differently than men do. To move like a man a woman must try hard to remove the female from her movements.

There is a television show that used to come on t.v. when I was in my teens. One episode, that I have seen in the last year, has the woman trying to enter a horse race that is for men only. To be in the race she must pretend to be a man. There is a scene in that movie where the woman's adopted son's and her husband-to-be are trying to help her act more like a man. They instruct her on everything from how to walk to how to hold her head and hide her hands. The woman not only had to change from her clothes to men's clothes, she had to have a shadow of a 'beard' painted on her face, chew tobacco, learn to spit like a man, hold her body a certain way, tilt her head a certain way, and to change the very way she walked because women just walk differently than men.

That woman had to go to extreme lengths to not be feminine. It is simply built into who and what a female is. We can no more remove the gracefulness of being female from who we are than we can remove the more delicate features of our bodies that girls tend to naturally have.

shave...um, okay. Scripture doesn't say that we should shave so there is no Scriptural response to this one. In fact, I believe their is no more Scriptural responses to most of the rest of this list beyond the simple fact of what it appears the list stands for and that it defies Scripture.

Shaving hasn't always been something women did. As I understand it women started shaving their legs in the 1920's when shorter dresses came into fashion. It was more of a fashion statement than anything else. And...I'm just guessing here but I believe that this particular fashion statement came in more under the so-called enlightened women, possibly the feminists, that wanted to dress and act in a more risky way than most women of the time did. As I understand it, all through word of mouth from older generations, the flapper style dresses, the short skirts, and whatever else went along with the wome of that time dressing and acting in the manner that they did wasn't a popularly accepted thing of the time. I don't know for certain, and I can't find out even with an internet search, but I would guess that the feminists of the 1910-1920s era encouraged women to shave. It would seem to fit with the general agenda of the way feminists have acted throughout history. Which is to basically protest whatever is natural about womanhood and to encourage living in defiance of that nature.

I did find it odd that when trying to research women shaving and the feminist movement, or beliefs, at any given time all I could find was what the feminists are doing now. Granted, I did not try too hard to find this information, just a quick internet search which brought up only current feminist trends.

But I did find something interesting on shaving...

As far as armpits are concerned, we can pinpoint it almost to the day. In May of 1915, the upscale magazine Harper’s Bazaar ran an ad featuring a young model in a sleeveless, slip-like dress posing with both arms over her head.

You may be thinking, “So what?” Well, up until that time, fashion – and propriety – dictated that women were covered to the wrist and to the ankle. A dress that exposed the underarms was nothing short of revolutionary. In fact, just the utterance of the word “underarm” out loud was enough to call for the smelling salts mere weeks earlier. Now, it was becoming perfectly acceptable. It also meant since underarms were body parts that had always been covered, whether or not they needed shaving had been a moot point and little discussed. If it didn’t show, why bother? And yet, here was an ad cajoling women that it was necessary to remove “objectionable” hair. To think just days earlier women had no idea such a problem even existed!...

The leg shaving phenomenon was a lot slower to catch on. It’s true that during the 1920s the flappers brought with them a decade of much shorter dresses coming into vogue, but by the 1930s hemlines became much longer again. There were some fashion and beauty writers loudly proclaiming that leg hair was on a par with leprosy, boldly referring to it as a “curse”. Regardless, it seemed that the majority of women were content to leave well enough alone and not worry about shaving their legs. The fashion mavens just couldn’t stir up the same frenzy this time around as they had with armpit hair.   It seems that most women were a tad more hesitant when it came to shaving and therefore drawing attention to their legs, as opposed to their underarms. After all, the leg’s closest neighbors are the “private” bits. You wouldn’t want anyone to think you were that kind of girl, or give men any kind of wrong impression.

Then World War II erupted, and that iconic pin-up picture of Betty Grable became part of popular culture almost overnight. It’s only a slight exaggeration to say that the women of America have been shaving their legs ever since. Why, you ask? Because Betty’s legs looked amazing, and to emulate that look, you had to wear a short skirt and sheer stockings. You also had to shave your legs, as nothing killed the effect you were trying to create more than leg hair poking through your silky stockings. (http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/04/the-history-of-shaving/)

So it would seem that the very notion of women shaving wasn't always embraced by the more reserved, and it might be said, upstanding women of their time. Women shaving was something that had to be pushed and encouraged, much as the ideals of the feminists today. I don't know where the feminists stood on the matter during those years when women shaving was scandalous and not for the 'good' women but the very act of women shaving does appear to have come about through less than upstanding means and wasn't embraced by the majority of women at the time.

And today we have women, under the guise of feminists, trying to tell women that they shouldn't shave. I can only ask...why?

Presumably because men appreciate a clean shaven leg and armpit. In fact, those very things, it would seem, have always been considered sexy to men. Something that appears to have been both desirable and undesirable when women shaving first took hold.

diet...Again, I have no Scripture to refute this. We can look to the same verses about gluttony to support the concept of dieting but then again...dieting isn't something that would have always been needed, for women or men either one.

It's our modern food and our modern sedentary lifestyles that have created the biggest need to diet. And from having watched my grandmother spend the better part of her life dieting...I can tell you that no diet truly works. Those that diet may loose a few pounds but as soon as they come off, or more often, fall off of their diet...back on go the pounds.

But...why would feminists be opposed to women dieting? Or are they opposed? Maybe they're just saying a woman doesn't have to diet and I've never heard of anyone thinking all women should diet. Women themselves have put the idea into people's minds that dieting is a woman thing and that most, if not all, do it. I, for one, have never been on a diet.

So, is dieting another one of the anti-men movement...er, belief, that is femism where these women that don't really want to be women think in their made up worlds that all men believe that all women should diet?

be fashionable...I simply have to ask, who is it that is pushing so-called fashion on women? My husband could care less about fashion and would probably object if I started trying to dress in what modern America is calling fashion for women. I have a sister that has always valued 'in-style' clothing but as far as I can tell her husband could care less. I don't know exactly what his feelings on her clothing choices are but I do know that he valued sensible clothes when she was expecting their first child over current trendy maternity clothes. He told her it would be better to buy clothes that she could wear after the baby arrived than clothes that were only usable for a few months.

I know there are men, young and old, that appreciate women wearing 'fashionable' clothes but I also know that there are men that could care less and from what I've seen it's usually the women desiring the 'fashionable' clothes to impress the men.

wear pink...Again, who said women have to do this? I get that pink is, in America, a traditionally female color. Pink is for girls, blue is for boys. I tell my husband often that boys should not wear pink because it's a girl color. But I don't know of any rule, written or unwritten, that says girls of any age have to wear pink.

I do know, through seeing news headlines, that the color pink was somehow used in that so-called women's march in Washington. I do not know in what context they used the color, and I don't want to know any more about that sickening display of 'women' so I'm not going to research it to find out, but I do know that women that were against that march said that because of it they would never wear pink again.

So somehow, those that line up on the feminist side, must have supported the color pink in some way during that march.

It does amaze me that the feminists are against certain things one day and promote them another. Much like that so-called women's march...they marched for women, I guess for the right to be women and to be treated...what....better...equal, I don't know because I deliberately tried not to know what took place in that disgrace of a march. But those same women that wanted women to have whatever it was they were protesting are the same women that want men who think they are women to be treated as equal to men. And yet those women promoted female genitals in their protest, something men, no matter how much they may dress, act, or even mutilate their bodies, can never have except in the most superficial, unnatural way.

love men...I get this one...

 sort of.

Well, maybe not.

I understand that feminists are anti-men and therefore they stand in objection to everything that is for men in any way. They are saying here that women don't have to love men. But...what does that mean? Are they saying women can live out their lives single? Ever talked to a woman that has done just that? 99% of them will tell you it's a lonely life. Are they saying that women can be in relationships, even marriages, without loving the man they are with? Society is showing us that a good portion of women are doing just that. They use and discard men like fast food to-go cups. Or are they saying that women can skip men altogether and have sexual relationships with women?

I suspect they are saying, or implying, all of the above. And I suspect that they are saying that a woman shouldn't be 'tied' to a marriage with a man.

Scripture says otherwise to all of that and more. So much more. Women were CREATED...made...designed...to be wives. Their sole reason for being put on this earth is because 'it is not good that man should be alone'. But the feminists don't want to hear that. Because they live in defiance of God. They abhor Scripture. And they do not want to be corrected in any way.

The women that marched in that disgusting example of what they want womanhood to be refused to allow pro-life women to join them. Why? Because being pro-life defies what those women stand for. They are for the rights of each individual woman to the exclusion of all else...even the life of a tiny, unborn baby.

Women were put on this earth for the purpose of being wives. They are here to help men. Scripture says that a woman is to marry, or rather to remarry, if she's widowed under the age of 60. It says that she is to be subject to her husband.

That same television show I saw where the woman was entering a men's race had a scene in it where a man asked that woman if she was married. When she said she was not the man told her that was what her problem was and to 'get a husband'.

That was a fictional t.v. show set in the 1800's when society was different. When men were different. When women were different. But there is so much truth in what that man told that woman. And much to understand in the scene where the woman tried to turn herself into what would pass for a man.

Scripture tells us that women were created to be wives. It is our number one reason for existance. We are on this earth because it wasn't good for men to be alone and so that we can be a helper for him. Now we should take note that God did not create even 2 men when he made Eve. He had made only one man at the time that he said man should not be alone and made Eve to aleviate that aloneness in Adam. Eve was created EXCLUSIVELY for Adam. She was his wife and his alone. She was there to help him, to be his best friend, his help, his everything on earth. It was to Eve that he was to cling to and it was with Eve that he was to go through life with.

That was a specific man and woman in Scripture but they are the original example of marriage. They are what marriage is. Eve was made for Adam. A wife was made for her husband. We were put on earth for a reason. We are not to love men but to love a man, our husband.

I can tell you from experience that a woman is a different kind of person in this world when she is alone than when she has a husband. Women without husband's must face everything alone. And yes, they are alone. No amount of friends or family can give a woman what a husband can.

A couple of years ago a married friend of mine told me that there is lots of security in having a husband. She then kind of stumbled over her explination but I understood what she was saying. This friend is a Christian. She believes that women should have husbands, that girls were born to become women who should become wives. She believes that a family is incomplete without a husband and a dad in the home. And when she said there is much security in having a husband she said so much.

And before anyone things I'm speaking of financial security...I'm not, although that does factor in also. I don't recall the exact numbers but statistics on divorce say that divorced women become much poorer after divorce and divorced men actually rise in income level. There is a financial security in being married. At least there is in a Christian marriage. Scripture lays out the responsibilities of a husband and a wife. I have already given the summary of a wife in Titus 2 and 1 Corinthians 7 but husband's also have a role and a good part of that role is to provide for and protect his family, that would include his wife.

In fact Ephesians 5 says that a husbands role is to love his wife and to sacrifice for her. There is much security in having a man that follows Scripture and tries to be what a man, what a husband, should be. But it goes so far beyond finances that money is just a drop in the bucket of that security.

But an unmarried woman, particularly an unmarried feminist, could never understand that.

You see, they live in defiance of the Lord and do not embrace Scripture. Therefore they would laugh at anyone woman that tried to tell them their is security in marriage. Or that they should not love men...only one man. Their man. Their husband.

Years ago I saw an online conversation between several women where they were discussing something about how the married stay-at-home wives did not understand why the married (or not) working women could not just take off for a day out with their friends, shopping and dining, or even to go on girls only vacations the way the stay at home wives could. I remember quite well that one of the working women made the statement that the stay at home wives didn't mind taking those shopping trips or vacations because they were spending someone else's money, meaning the someone else was their husband.

I have had a relative tell me that my husband's money is not my money. I guess that relative was correct in some ways but the thing is they were wrong in other ways. My husband is the one that earns the income in our family. He is the one that works and makes the money that provides for us. It is, by virtue of him earning it, his money. However he does not consider it to be such. He never says 'my' money, he always says 'our' money.

I am a stay at home wife. I am what those women in that online conversation all those years ago would have spoken against because the money I spend comes to me through my husband. I have also seen some women refer to wives like me as prostitutes because we accept money from our husbands.

They all miss the point.

A man and woman are not individuals once they are married. Marriage makes them one body, two people that go through life together. And Scripture says that women are to stay home and men are to provide for and protect the family.

A woman becomes her husband's responsibility the moment they marry. She is his to care for, his to look after, his to provide for, his to love, his to enjoy. She was CREATED for him.

I belong to my husband.

I can hear the feminists gasping now. The idea of a woman belonging to a man is in direct opposition of everything they stand for. But it is in direct obedience of everything Scripture says.

I do not love men. I love my husband. I understand that men have a role in life and women have a role in life. I happily live in the role I was appointed to by the Lord. And I have great security in my husband. Not because he provides for me financially but because there is security in simply being his wife.

I belong to my husband.

My identity is swallowed up in his. I have a place in this life. I have a role as his wife. I know my husband will do his best to take care of me in all ways but even that isn't all of the security that I have in being married. And that is where my friend stumbled in her explanation and where I understood what she was trying to say even though it's very hard to put into words.

You see...

There is, quite simply, a security in being what I was created to be. There is security in being...

Wife.

And no feminist would ever embrace that. They cannot embrace anything that is light, or of the Lord. They live in darkness. Wallowing in it. Wrapping themselves in it. Grabbing hold of it and flaunting it before all. And to say that women do not have to love men...is in direct opposition to what Scripture tells us women are.

be the media's idea of perfection...and here's the last of what the feminists say a woman doesn't have to be. Which, to me, is another example of something they imagine someone is telling them they should be. For as long as we have had an entertainment industry there has been this idea that perfection, in male or female, in family, in jobs, in homes and possessions, in everything.

I once wrote fictional books and understand well that when you're creating something for entertainment purposes you must give people the ideal of what they wish their lives were. Romance books must make the male character out to be the kind of man their intended audience wants to marry. Bad guys in a book, or movie, must seem like bad guys, they shouldn't come across as the kind of man a woman wants for a husband or the dependable man next door. There is a perfection to be achieved to create the 'dream' world that the audience wants to escape into.

And I'm guessing it's this made up world that the feminists say women don't have to be like.

But overall, this entire list is an anti-man list that the women behind it probably think is what they are against. They want to be whatever it is that men say they can't be. If men want pretty skinny women, with shaved legs in flowing dresses then they want to be ugly women, covered in body hair, wearing men's clothes. But beneath all of that the feminists are living in direct opposition to their Creator. They do not want to be the females they were created to be.

The Bible they read

I was recently party to a conversation where someone accused those that prefer only the King James Version of the Bible to a cult. That single statement started a very long conversation with many different people voicing their opinions. Because this conversation happened online there was a varied mix of people that were replying, some were against KJV onlyism, others wouldn't read anything but a KJV Bible, and many more fell somewhere in the midst of the two.

As with many online discussions I didn't get involved, I simply sat back and read all the comments because, quite honestly, some of them are really good and because I enjoy reading the differing opinions on certain topics and seeing what people have to say about it. This topic happened to be one that interested me but that I felt no need to voice my own opinion on.

I've met a few KJV only people in my life. My grandmother was one. So much so that I'm not sure she's ever held any other version in her hands. And I once had a very brief online friendship with someone that was one. My grandmother was the type that had her chosen Bible and as far as I know pretty much kept her opinion on the version to herself except for when one of her children or grandchildren started promoting a different version. The person I knew online...well, that person was very vocal about supporting and promoting the KJV Bible.

I don't suppose I have anything against the KJV Bible in and of itself. It is one of a handful of better Bible versions being marketed in English today. I do have my reasons for not caring for it, mainly the history behind how it came to be in print. But even though I have some objection to that version I still use it sometimes. Which is a statement I can't say about very many Bible versions.

About this time last year I had someone ask me which Bible version is the best version to use. I wound up giving them my preferred versions (ESV and NASB) then told them that beyond my own two preferred versions there were only two other versions I would consider using (KJV and NKJV). I did tell them that I do not care for one of those versions (NKJV) and would only use it if it was the only one of the four versions I had available. I explained that I favor those versions because they aren't what amounts to paraphrased versions like the other English versions on the market are. But I also told this person that the best Bible is the one that a person will use. It does someone no good if they own a KJV Bible but will not read it because of the out dated English used in it. I also told the person asking that the best Bible is the Bible that they have available. If the only Bible available at the time isn't one on my list I would use it so long as it wasn't a completely off base Bible (see my post titled The not-bible). There are other Bibles that make my list of versions that I will read, the original Geneva Bible being one of them. I enjoy the very old English used in writing that version. It has it's own beauty and it is fun to decipher what is almost a foreign language. It also has the ability to force me to slow down as I read Scripture, something I don't always remember to do.

As with everyone that reads even a small bit of Scripture, I do have my preferred version. And I have preferred back up versions. But it never fails to amaze me what some that support KJV only will say in support of their beloved Bible version. My personal favorite...our country was founded on this Bible. Ummm....No, it wasn't. The Pilgrims brought a Bible to America with them but it wasn't the KJV, it was the Geneva. The founders of America came to America to escape religious persecution and the KJV was sort of a part of that persecution. What most proponents of KJVonlyism don't seem to know, at least the ones that claim America was founded on the KJV, is that the Pilgrims refused to use the KJV Bible.

The Pilgrims used the Geneva edition of the Bible, first published in English in 1560. The translation and footnotes of the Geneva Bible were made by early Calvinists more trustworthy to the Pilgrims than the later King James Bible (first published in 1611) whose translation and footnotes were written by the Anglican church hierarchy.  (http://mayflowerhistory.com/religion/)

But I have no real opposition to the KJV Bible. What I found amusing was the ongoing discussion that followed one persons single sentence comment. Some promoted the KJV, others spoke against it, and some...some just said that a person should read whichever version they believed to be accurate. There were those that said that the version you use has a direct result on your soul. I found myself agreeing with them and disagreeing with them all at the same time.

I have done quite a bit of research into Bible versions and the history of the Bible. Like some, I have wondered which was the most accurate version. There was a time when I knew nothing about the different versions except that if I walked into a store selling Bibles I would have plenty of different versions to choose from. But those days are long behind me and I now approach different versions through a different understanding of what each one is. And I have to agree that if a person gets hold of a book that's labeled as a Bible and it's one of those heretical paraphrased books that twist and change Scripture to turn it into what the author wants Scripture to say...well, that very well could have eternal consequences on one's soul. However, I also believe that the Lord will save those that are His no matter what. That means He will save them despite the friends they have, the family they grew up in, the country they live in, their hobbies, habits, and even the Bible they use, or the Bible they don't use. But just as we can't turn an apple into an orange, we can't get Scripture out of heretical nonsense that goes around calling itself the Bible. 

That doesn't mean the Lord can't save a person...even from their very own bible.

And so I sat there, reading comments that I found amusing, entertaining, and slightly educational and wondering why it mattered so much to the people that argued so hard for a certain version of Scripture. 

I know someone that chooses a 'church' building off a single set of beliefs. If the people in that 'church' do 'this' than they think it's a good 'church'. It's no wonder this person is always leaving one 'church' and going to another one. Some of the people arguing for certain Bible versions reminded me of that person. They picked a version based on whatever made them support that version and there was no changing their mind on whether or not it was right or wrong, and it wasn't just the KJVonlyists doing it. 

What seemed to escape most of the people leaving these comments was that the Lord can and will save a person no matter what Bible they use provided that person is one of His people. 

It also seemed to escape their notice that some people only have one version available or can't understand a certain version or... there's no end of reasons why a person might reject one version and accept another. 

So long as they are given the Truth in their Bible....what does it matter the Bible they read?

Hustling Christ

About this time last year I began receiving letters in the mail and emails from a Reformed Christian ministry. This ministry began to beg for over three million dollars in the weeks leading up to Christmas last year. I wrote a post on that ministry because what they were doing struck me as very wrong.

If that same Reformed Ministry began begging for money before Christmas this year I somehow, thankfully, managed to miss it. But today I opened an email with the subject line of 'Your final opportunity' (as if it was a great privilege for me) from that Reformed Ministry.

Inside that email I found THIS...

But in His providence, we can’t make the most of ministry opportunities without your support. 

'Your support' was a link to what I assume is a place on their website to donate money. This is supposedly a Reformed Ministry. The people running this ministry presumably believe that the Lord is sovereign in all things. And yet...they claim in their email, an email that informed me it was my final opportunity to give them money, that they can't 'make the most' of their ministry without my money...by God's providence. 

Really?

If the Lord wanted their ministry to accomplish something does this Reformed ministry not believe that the God that created the earth and everything in it can't accomplish all He has in store for their ministry without them begging for money?

I wish I could say that that is the only Reformed company that I have encountered doing that but it's not. Over the last week or so I have been getting multiple emails PER DAY from another company 'offering' me the opportunity to help them with their ministry. This is yet another company that sells books, and at extremely high prices, among other things, and yet they are somehow considered a ministry and they find it necessary to badger those on their email list as they beg for money to meet whatever goals they supposedly have.

I know we all have our own opinions on ministry and what is worth our time, money, or even our prayers. Personally, I happen to be opposed to any organization that aligns themselves with Christ and then goes around begging people for money.

I can't help thinking that Christ came to earth, performed His own ministry, without begging for a dime. Yes, He was God. Yes, He could perform miracles that people cannot but these ministry's claim to be doing His work...would our Lord have anyone perform a work that He did not give them the means to do?

And if we really want to get down to the basics...ministry in Christs time consisted of giving the gospel, repent and believe. That is what John the Baptist did, that's the gospel Christ gave, and that is the Gospel Christ told His disciples to give. And yet...people today, people with a tax exempt status, claim that they need to 'minister' to people by writing books, distributing...whatever it is that they distribute...making radio broadcasts, and whatever else it is that they do. Wouldn't a ministry for Christ, the Christ of Scripture, be based on the same ministry that Christ and those that followed Him in Scripture do what He did? I know He performed miracles that we can't perform but...if our Lord didn't feel the need to write out stories and hand them out, only taught the gospel, shouldn't ministry's of today do the same thing?

I recently saw a familiar picture, a picture of what is supposed to be Jesus, and discovered that that picture is based on some evil leader in history's son but as with many articles and things I see online, it wasn't the article that caught my attention as much as it was the comments left at the end of the article. There were many varying comments of all different beliefs, feelings, and understandings. But one particular comment asked why people thought we need a drawing of a supposed 'Jesus'. My husband has said a number of times that if Christ had wanted a picture of Him to survive wouldn't we have one? There were artists in Christ's time, people that could have drawn or painted his picture. We have scrolls and biblical texts that have survived through many, many years...couldn't a picture of Christ have done the same thing, if the Lord had willed it?

And just as a photo of Christ could have survived all of time if it had been the Lord's will...wouldn't a ministry have all the money it needs to do exactly what the Lord wants it to do without begging for money?

I admit that it's my own fault that I have found myself on the mailing lists of these ministry's. I subscribed to something that one of them produces and I placed an order with the other one. But I DID NOT sign up to be badgered and bombarded with emails and letters that beg for money for a ministry that I can't see have much, if anything, to do with spreading the Gospel of Christ. And yet...simply because I gave these companies my email address when I placed an order with them, they have taken it upon themselves to send me multiple letters and emails that all but demand that I give them money.

I know that that is standard procedure for most, consumerism based businesses, but it should not be acceptable or supported in any business that aligns themselves with Christ.

I have written before of people that are out to sell Christ to line their own pockets and honestly I can see no difference in a preacher that uses his sermons to rake in the tithes, an author that writes a book about Christ and sells it for the highest profit, and a ministry that badgers everyone that winds up on their contact list into giving them money so they can reach their ministry goals.

It would be real nice if people, even Reformed Christians, would stop hustling Christ and just be content with the money that the Lord sends their way. What ministry they can do on the funds He gives them...that is the ministry He wants them to do.

How we see things

A while back I had someone comment on my blog, in their comments they said that if a person approaches Scripture with a certain lens in place, they would see in Scripture what they want to see. I agree with them completely. A few years ago I had a conversation with someone that I could easily see the result of approaching Scripture with a lens in place, although I wouldn't have called it that then, and in truth, I don't call it that now. I generally refer to it as reading Scripture with a certain set of beliefs in place which allows someone to see Scripture through those beliefs, whatever they may be. But calling it a lens is the same thing.

We have recently come through yet another presidential election. This election basically tore people in two, those wanting this candidate to win on one side, those wanting that candidate to win on the other side. Personally, I have less than zero use for politics. I do my best to avoid all things political at all costs. Normally I succeed but this year, despite my best efforts to stay far from the political upheaval our country experienced with this presidential election, I could not avoid all of it. I have a social media account and it was filled with the opinions of others on which candidate should be president. I have family that followed the candidates. I heard it spoken of in town. I saw it every time I got on my computer or smart phone. It was, quite simply, everywhere. And that's not even getting into the signs in people's yards or on businesses. There was no escaping it, although I did my best to do so.

Once the election was over, and things were in a whole new level of upheaval, I had a visit with a family member that supported one of the candidates. Because I don't intend this to be a political post, I'm not going to get into which candidate this person supported but they had their favored person and they had strong feelings about why that candidate should be president and why the other one should not be president. During this visit with this family member we had another family member join us, the other family member supported the other candidate. These two family members sort of argued among themselves about why this candidate should be president and that one should not, and they both were arguing against each other. Now, this took place after the election so none of it mattered anymore anyway but they both had strong beliefs, and strong arguments, for their chosen candidate.

Again, I'm not trying to get into politics, only using them to support my point. You see, after the election I heard or read, can't remember which, somewhere that the news media had been very good at misleading the people that supported a certain candidate. I even read where someone said they would never again believe anything written in the news. But...here's the thing. It seems that certain news outlets supported one candidate while others supported the other, with most mainstream news outlets supporting the same candidate and spinning all articles to support that person.

I did not follow any of this. I tried hard to avoid all the political...nonsense. In fact, I went so far as to avoid social media at times and when I wasn't avoiding it there were a number of times that I blocked certain messages from showing up in my account. I DID NOT want to see any of it.

But here's where all this political stuff meets the lens through which we view Scripture, not because the two connect but because they are approached the same way. The people, and I can use my two relatives as an example of this, that listened to certain media outlets were fed a steady stream of support for a particular candidate. That relative then, hearing nothing but support for their chosen candidate, began to believe everything they heard and read about that wanna-be president. The other person leaning toward the other candidate leaned toward media sources that promoted their chosen wanna-be president. I, on the other hand, approached the whole election from yet another lens, or view point, I simply wanted nothing to do with it. I did not care which candidate was being promoted, who was in what state, what they said, wanted, or lied about. I did not care about any of it except for how soon it would all go away.

That is three different views, or lenses, through which three different people approached the recent presidential election. I don't know how my relatives came to be supporting the candidate they did....I simply did not want to hear their explanations for why they chose the one they did so I did not ask them. But there, on that day, all three of us, with three different lenses firmly in place, came together, after the election was over, in the same room. And as I sat there, glad it was over and wishing everyone would just accept things the way they were and get on with their lives, listening to my two relatives argue back and forth between themselves about why this one should have won, why that one should not have won, and why, in each of their perspectives, the opposing side was a monster.

Now, I happened to know a little (not so secret) secret about these two relatives, a secret that kind of negated the whole argument. In my eyes at least. And so I stepped between these two relatives who were now standing about two feet apart and held my hands out toward them. I, probably rather rudely, interrupted their argument, and asked relative A if they had voted, a question I already knew the answer to, and got the response that, no, they had not voted because without them realizing it their voter registration had expired and when they went to vote they were turned away and not allowed to vote. I then turned to relative B and asked the same question. From relative B, I was told, no, they didn't vote because they missed the deadline to register to vote, not realizing that there was a deadline.

So, through my lens of avoiding politics at all costs, I saw this whole argument as ridiculous, and the election was over so let's just forget it, kind of view, I pointed to relative A and said, "You wanted __________ to win, you would have voted but they wouldn't let you because you weren't registered". Then I turned to relative B and said, "You wanted ___________ to win, you would have voted but you didn't get registered in time and couldn't vote." Then I looked between them both and pointed out what seemed so obvious to me, "Neither one of you voted but if you had, You (I pointed to relative A) would have voted for _________, and you (I pointed to relative B) would have voted for _________. You would have voted against each other and cancelled each others vote out. The results would be exactly the same only each side would have one more vote. So it wouldn't have mattered in the least, Trump would still be president. Can we please eat our ice cream and forget all this political nonsense?"

So there we stood, three people approaching politics from three different sides, or lenses, in the middle of the living room. I looked at the two of them, both passionate about their chosen side, one glad their candidate won, the other upset, hurt and worried because their candidate did not win. And I pointed out something that seemed obvious to me, 'neither of these candidates is what you think they are, they say what they want you to hear to get elected.' I admit I've lived through, maybe survived is a better description, more elections than either of these relatives have, it could be that that makes a difference, I don't know.

But I stood there, between these two people that I love, hearing them argue, seeing their feelings for why they supported the person that they did, and couldn't help thinking that it's all for nothing. Politics isn't going to make the world a better place. A so called better president won't make America a better place. Undoing what the last president did isn't going to make America great again. Scripture tells us that things in the world will only get worse...and worse...and worse. There is no better.

I have seen many, many things on social media about how America needs to put God first again so that America can be great again. America is about as good as it's going to get, sad as that is. As with the winning president, it no longer matters what we want, we must simply accept what is. Scripture tells us that in all things we must be content. Americans believe that the voters in America chose the new president, or they believe the voters college chose him, but in reality, God in his sovereignty chose the new president, He only used people to make it happen. It is what it is and we must accept it.

With the exception of a handful of people, all friends or family, all of the people I am connected to through social media are 'Christian' authors or are somehow tied to the 'Christian' writing world. It was a world I was a very small part of for a short time. These 'Christians' come from every denomination conceivable. The good news, for me, is that because almost all of my friends at least claim to be 'Christian' the content of their posts is usually restrained. They all view life from some sort of 'Christian' viewpoint. I am very grateful for that. But even among these 'Christians' I often see foul language, sin-filled movies supported, and idolatry to the extreme.

And I see something else too...I see their opposing sides. I see the denominations coming out in them. I am even a part of a reformed group through social media and I often see the opposing sides in comments on posts on that group. Somehow, Armenians have filtered into the group. That's a good thing for them, they can see Truth as it is written in Scripture, but it's a bad thing for those trying to have a conversation from a reformed point of view. The Armenians never fail to throw in all the false teachings that you hear in most 'church' pulpits.

Like politics, Scripture is approached through a lens. The Arminians approach it from their beliefs and the reformed approach it from their beliefs. And quite honestly, it doesn't stop there. The Baptists approach life through the Baptist doctrines they have been taught, the Roman Catholics approach it through what they have been taught. The Presbyterians...the Pentecostals...the Methodists...the Episcoplians....well, you get the idea. However many different denominations there are, they all approach Scripture and life through what they have been taught in their denominational beliefs.

And they all will argue in support of what they believe.

Because they approach any given situation with a lens in place. As I write this, I know I have written on this topic before. I know a good part of what I'm writing now may well be repeated in another post but it's what has been on my heart to write so I'm going to write it. Maybe it's the recent political unrest, maybe it's something else, but whatever the reason, I feel the need to write this.

Just the other day my husband received a text from a family member. There is a long, personal, story behind what was happening at the time and why this relative text my husband but the gist of the text messages that passed between my husband and this relative was that said relative had some trouble with another relative (and just for clarification, these relatives are not the people I wrote of earlier) and the family member texting claimed not to have done what they were accused of doing and wondered if we had been told the whole story, which they filled in.

I couldn't help thinking later that those texts and the situation that those family members found themselves in, and thereby pulled us into, was much like viewing Scripture through a lens, or seeing politics in a certain way. A certain situation came up between those two people and each one had a story to tell about how it happened. I wasn't there, wasn't a part of what happened, and only became involved because my husband and I were pulled into it. I don't know the truth of what happened and it really has no relevance for me. I must simply navigate through the aftermath. It's kind of like my relatives conversation about the presidential candidates, it mattered not to me what happened that had them both so excited and upset, it only mattered what was happening in front of me.

Last year my husband encountered someone that did something that resulted in the man my husband met going to prison. This man told my husband repeatedly that he was innocent of what he was accused of doing. This man had a story to tell, a story he told my husband many times. I am sure if you were to speak to the police or others involved in what this man did, you would get a different story. They all have their lens through which they viewed the situation.

A victim in a crime will always view the situation through the eyes of a victim. The perpetrator will view it through their eyes. Law enforcement will view things through their eyes, eyes that have seen all sorts of things, experienced who knows what, and are trained for just about everything.

Just yesterday I saw something on social media that said something to the effect of 'you are the movies you watch, the books you read, the friends you surround yourself with so choose wisely'. I didn't particularly care for that statement but it had a ring of truth to it. We are what the Lord intends us to be, we are the result of experiences that turn us into what we are...but what are those experiences? They are the things we do and see, the experiences we have, the way we are raised, the family members we have, the friends we make. We tend to surround ourselves with people who think much like we do.

I have a small, six inch doll, that I enjoy sewing for and photographing in different scenarios. This little doll is my hobby. I use this little doll to occupy my free time, to spend time with one of my daughters, who has a similar doll that she enjoys, to connect with other people that have one (or many) of these little dolls. There really is nothing special about this little doll. Those that have these dolls see plenty of specialness in them but in reality...they are dolls. They are fun only because we make them that way. But these little dolls bring people together that would never have become friends if not for this little doll. It isn't because the doll is in any way special but because the doll is the connection that helps perfect strangers find a middle ground that they enjoy together. In short, here we are, adults that play with dolls. We make them clothes, some have dollhouses for them, we set them up in scenes and take pictures of them. We travel with them and take pictures of them in various places. And in doing so we share them, and their adventures, yes, these dolls go on adventures, with each other. They are the connection between strangers...strangers that approach at least part of their lives through these little dolls that give us a lens that we view certain scenarios through.

I have a daughter that thinks my playing with this doll is strange. This daughter plays with a lizard. We all have something that we do to pass the time, something that gives us a break from the reality of this fallen world and the stresses it causes. I have a doll, and have made friends because of this doll. My husband plays golf and has friends that share his enjoyment of what I see as hitting a ball with a stick, something that makes you tired and sore. I have played golf with my husband, will probably do so again. I have enjoyed my daughters lizard, will no doubt do so again, but I enjoy those things only because my loved one enjoys them. You will never catch me out playing golf just because I wanted to do so, nor will I own a lizard just because I want to do so. But I do have a doll just because I want to do so. My daughter has played with my doll because she was sharing that with me and my husband has admired the dresses I make for my doll and the scenes I set her in. We cross paths in our interests but we do not truly share those interests with each other. But there are people that we each know that truly share our interest in each of these things, people that we can share our enjoyment with, knowing that they are truly enjoying the things we are and not just humoring us to spend time with us in our enjoyment.

These things...these hobbies...these seemingly insignificant things in our lives, while mostly unimportant, hold big importance for each of us. Not so much because they are that important. I could give away my little doll, her clothes and the supplies I have for making them, and go on with my life. Would I miss her? Yes, but she truly isn't that important in the whole scheme of things. This little doll is something to do. Something to pass the time. But she is also something that has effected me, at least at some level. What was it about that doll that made me like her in the first place? I don't know the answer to that but I do know that there are people, even adults, that enjoy dolls and there are people that can't stand dolls in any form. Just as some people like certain sports over other sports and some people don't like sports at all.

We are the product of certain things in our lives. Those things are all things that the Lord used us to turn us into what we have become but in becoming what He wanted us to be, we also formed lenses through which we view the world.

Last year my husband and I had a discussion on how our choices affected our children and what they became. This discussion was the result of my own thoughts, thoughts I shared with my husband. I can see in my children the influence I have had on them. I can see in other peoples children the influence they have had on them.

I have a nephew that is what, I guess, could be called sweet and sour all at the same time. He has a very sweet nature. That seems to be his own inbuilt personality but he also has another side, a side that is the result of his upbringing. Part of that upbringing has instilled a sweetness in him that I never instilled in my own children and part of it has instilled a difficult to deal with type of misbehavior. It all adds up to what my nephew is...at least so far.

I've heard the argument on children and their behavior and personalities many times before, the argument on whether or not its the nature of the child or the result of their upbringing, or what they refer to as the nature verses nurture debate.

Scripture says that the Lord has assigned everyone a life and that we must live the live we are assigned to. That negates the argument of nature verses nurture but it does pull both situations into play. It's not nature or nurture. It's an inbuilt personality, given by the Lord, to each person, a personality that we begin to see in children when they are babies. I have the opportunity to see this first hand in my grandchildren. I have a granddaughter that has been doted on from birth, a granddaughter that should, by all reasoning, be a sweet baby, and she is, in her own way, but she is also a very unhappy baby. There is no logical reasoning behind this unhappiness. She is loved and cared for. But this baby is simply an unhappy baby. I have a niece that should be an unhappy child but is, for the most part, happy with the littlest things. She will content herself with a scrap of paper and she's only a baby. There are nature and nurture issues at work in both of these babies. But realistically these baby's have the nature that the Lord gave them and that nature is being shaped into what these babies are and what they will become by the nurturing that they are receiving. They are both a product of what was inside them before they were born and of what has happened in their life since they were born. The Lord is molding them into who they want them to be.

Children are born the way they are, they have their own personalities even at birth but they also become what they do because of the experiences in their lives that shapes them into what they will one day be. I have a relative that in her teens she became friends with another teenage girl that led her onto a bad path. Scripture says that path was the life assigned to that relative but there was an earthly experience that got her started on that path.

And it is all those experiences in life, good or bad, and our inbuilt nature that makes us view everything through lenses. Recently I have been seeing just how those lenses play into things. One 'Christian' belief verses another one will have two people that claim to be 'christian' at each others throats, arguing about which of them is right. Differing political beliefs have turned America into something that reminds me of the aftermath of the civil war. I have heard of people that have disowned parents, children, and siblings because their family members voted for the other side in the presidential election. I have seen people argue about the best way to diaper a baby, about the best way to feed one.

We all approach life through our experiences and beliefs and because we do we see all of life in a certain way. I can't enjoy so much of what many consider fun entertainment because I see the sin that is promoted in movies and music. Others see no problem with those same movies and music and love to enjoy those things. I believe what Scripture says as it is written and do not believe that we should change anything to suit our own beliefs. I believe that my beliefs should be changed to follow Scripture. Others read Scripture and change it to support the things they believe.

It's all in how we see things.