Grimm’s Fairy Tales or Things More Grim? January 19, 2012

 

I was homeschooled. Yes, and please understand that this is nothing of which I boast. In fact, I seldom admit to it at all. Until I was nine years old, I lived in a home far removed from any metropolitan influence. I had no cable, of course no internet access, very few friends, no modern reading material… perhaps you get the idea.

What I did have were my books and a television plugged into a VCR. With that VCR, I was allowed to watch movies that were dated pre-1970. While other children my age were going to the movies to see Back to the Future 2, Die Hard, and Indiana Jones, I was home watching Arsenic and Old Lace, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, and To Kill a Mockingbird, with the likes of Cary Grant, Jimmy Stewart, and Gregory Peck along with their beautiful and always submissive love interests.

My book collection consisted of age-old children’s literature which some may have called archaic; although, I’ll admit to having enjoyed them. Now when I say age-old literature, I’m including everything from Kenneth Graham’s,  The Wind in the Willows, Arnold Lobel’s, Frog and Toad and  Grimm’s Fairy Tales (illustrated by Arthur Rackham, who is my favorite illustrator to this day. I have, in fact, used two of his illustrations in this very post) to Christian family books from the nineteen-thirties through the fifties. In these books, men were chivalrous. They wore suits and combed their hair impeccably. Their wives respected them, and their children revered them. They didn’t neglect their family for the game, piss on the toilette seat, or retire early in the evenings to indulge in online porn. They were never effeminate, nor were they ever “stay at home dads”.

My dad had a good job, and one that required him to wear a suit and tie. He always opened and closed doors for my mom, and ultimately had the final say in most of the big decisions for the household. He was kind and we felt his love, but when he said jump, we jumped till he said stop (figurative).

I remember riding horses with ease by the age of six; being completely familiar with how to operate my Grandfather’s tractors and other equipment at the age of nine; and being proficient enough with any hunting rifle or shotgun at the age of eight to rival many adults.

The first time I ever touched a girl, I was seventeen. She had taken her shirt off. My god, I remember it so well. I suppose it was nothing really. I bumped into her recently; she was my age, but she looked old. I suspected she had “touched” a few other boys.

 

In short, I was raised in another world. I supposed that the odd choice of style by everyone around me, who never wore suits and seldom bathed, were simply a byproduct of where we lived. Perhaps they were inbred. Surely when my Dad left for work every day, he needed to wear his business suits because… well, out there, everybody wore them. Didn’t they? The world had changed dramatically from the only age to which I was ever exposed, and I was certain that the conflicting view that I saw around me was only a local element.  It must just be here; it must just be the people around Spring Hill, Arkansas.

 

When I made it to college, I befriended Sean. He was worldly and experienced in everything from drugs and women, to serious felonies and jail. He decided that I needed a dose of life; a good dunking in the real world. He was good at that. I learned quickly, and although there were certain lines of misbehavior I simply would not cross, those lines were far over the horizon.

I stood recently at the conference center of that school thinking to myself, if only we had known then. If only Joel would have known then that his future wife would leave him, and he would call me periodically with a gun to his head. If only Sean had known that he would be arrested for operating a drug enterprise and prison would be in his near future. I wish I could tell Amanda that she would drop out after her first semester, and ten years later she would be a single mother waiting tables back in her home town of Berryville. I looked at those old seats where we had all once sat, and I thought those things.

 

I now have a son whose name is Alek. Alek is four. How shall I raise him? Might I expose him to the world as it is, or place a facade over all that is bad? A world of make-believe that hasn’t existed for half a century, or the world as it truly is today?

Alek, wanted to stay up on New Years with me to watch the ball drop in New York from our living room in Berryville. I couldn’t see why not.

“Daddy, why is that boy dressed like a girl?” he’d ask. “Daddy, I think that guy’s a monster?” he’d say.

And when Lady Gaga appeared on the screen, “sang” her “song”, and she had finished, “You know Daddy, I think that lady is sad.”

“How do you think son?”

“I saw it on her face”

 

 

I want to close the curtains, and make everything beyond them disappear – All of the scary things – The monsters and such. I want for my little boy to dream, like his daddy once did, that the world is at peace; that monsters aren’t real; and that men are still chivalrous.

 

Do I dare?

 

 Certain names have been changed to protect the identity of certain people mentioned

Barmy Super-Christians And Codswallop August 9, 2011

Is it just me or does the Christian faith ever seem a bit complex and confusing? One of the greatest pitfalls that I see young Christians facing while attempting to adhere to “Christian standards” is that no two Christians maintain the same standards to be relevant. Every group of Christians that we run across holds to a set of moral standards, none of them are completely consistent with each other, and all of them sneer at either the stringency or the leniency of all the others. I think that it’s important that we as Christians periodically take a step back to examine our moral codes of ethics, comparing them against true biblical doctrine to see if they, in fact, hold water. It may be that If we are unwilling to do so, we risk forming our own sets of extra-biblical rules, attempting to base them on the Bible, and confusing the people around us who are watching to see if there is any relevancy to our claims.  Now understand that I am in no way against maintaining personal convictions which may be extra-biblical. The danger emerges when the Bible is referenced as a source for such personal preferences when these preferences are simply not based on biblical doctrine. In Matthew 15:9 Jesus called this activity, “Teaching as their doctrine the precepts of men”. The indication here is that extra-biblical rules being regarded as biblical doctrine even bothered Jesus, and according to Christian beliefs, He was God. Perhaps we should consider this seriously. I’m going to list some examples, not in effort to put anyone off or to make all of my readers, friends, and family angry. But instead to… Well, just for fun. Examples are bullet-pointed bellow.

• “I don’t smoke because of my Christian faith. After all, my body is a temple of God, and I will not defile it. Hey, I’m feelin’ a Quarter Pounder, some greasy fries and a bucket of Coke! I’m already 40 pounds overweight, but who cares, let’s go!”

If this is you then really what you are concerned with is maintaining a “Christian” image. You base your moral animadversion against tobacco products on the Biblical idea that our bodies are a temple of The Lord and thus we must keep them healthy. Then you, at least to some degree (admit it), condemn people around you for smoking while you don’t condemn (or at least not to the same degree) others around you who are indulging in another unhealthy practice. The Bible says absolutely nothing against tobacco products specifically. What it does talk about is the importance of not defiling our bodies which are indeed His temple. Christians have rightly considered unhealthy habits to be one source of defilement. The problem emerges when Christians regard one unhealthy habit as somehow being worse, according to God’s standards, than another unhealthy habit.

• “I am a woman who does not wear makeup because of my Christian faith. After all, the Bible mentions Ol’ Jezebel and her face painting and that’s condemnation enough for me.”

I think that there was more to Jezebel’s evil ways than “face painting”. This one is really funny to me because, in the story of Jezebel, the Bible never says anything against makeup. It simply mentions that she was wearing it. To say that the Bible’s mentioning Jezebel’s face painting is an indication of the sinful nature of painting one’s face is a little like saying that partaking of The Lord’s Supper is a sin because the Bible mentions that Judas did so. And he was a bad one.

• “I give my pastor complete authority over what spouse I choose, what car I drive, what clothes I wear, how I spend my money, etc., because of my Christian faith.”

Really? Either explain the biblical basis for this or stop looking down your noses at everybody else who disregards what you consider to be a super Christian example, and labels it “legalistic horse crap”. Mmmm, a little harsh, huh? I’ll tone it down. I promise.

• “I don’t drink because of my Christian faith.”

Did Jesus drink?

“Yes.”

This should end the discussion, but I’m aware that it simply never does.

• “I believe that the Bible is the only acceptable work of literature because of my Christian faith; therefore, I only read the Bible rather than cluttering my mind with the simple opinions of others.”

Obviously, if you’re reading this, then you’re not one of these people. Nevertheless, remember that many books of the Bible were not initially written to be part of the Bible; they were added later. I believe that God knew as they were being written that these books would be used in His Bible, but the authors most likely didn’t know. Consider that, even though the books were not necessarily written to be part of the Bible, they were still written. And why do we write books? We write them because we expect people to read them. Thus we deduce that even the writers behind the Bible itself wrote and most likely read outside of the specific books of the Bible. Again, what did they know?

• “I am a stay at home mom because of my Christian faith”.

What about the proverbs 31 woman? The proverbs 31 woman is one who does the following: Selects wool and flax and works with eager hands: She brings her food from afar: She gets up while it is dark and provides food for her family and servant girls: She buys a field and out of earnings plants a vineyard:  Her arms are strong for tasks, her trading is profitable.

Kind of hard to do all of that from the house don’t you think?

“Well, I didn’t say I was a Proverbs 31 woman. I said I was a Christian woman! And my faith compels me to stay at home.”

Now we’re getting somewhere! If this is a personal rule that you’ve set for yourself, great! Really. But regarding this personal rule as biblical doctrine which is set in stone spawns confusion for young Christians who are watching you closely, and are having a hard time finding any such standard in the Bible itself.

These were just a few examples that I could quickly think of. If I were to really think about it, I’m sure the list of examples would be endless (e.g., I only study out of the King James text: Hymns are the only form of worship songs approved by God: Wearing a ball cap in church is an abomination: Girls can’t wear pants: No PDA: No birth control: No dating: No coffee in the sanctuary: God likes darn better than damn: All truth can be found in the scriptures, etc.)

At this point, I can assume that many of you may be asking yourselves, “Wouldn’t it be better, if we are going to err on one side or the other, to err on the side of too legalistic rather than too lenient?” I used to work with a guy who believed this to be true. And perhaps I should admit that I do as well, but only if the erring is unintentional. It may be that while trying to interpret modesty for herself, a woman will err unintentionally to one side or the other, and erring toward a little too modest is probably better than erring toward a little too immodest. I could think of other for instances, but the point is that the woman’s erring, whether to one direction or the other is unintentional. She has not discovered for herself what may be the biblical standard for modesty and decided to turn it up a notch or two. Instead, she is simply on the path of discovery. Perhaps soon she will develop a better balance in this area. I think we lose balance when we read our Bibles and discover what it says about how we should dress, eat, speak, learn etc., and we determine that it is our Christian duty, in a sense, to outperform the Bible. Then we begin to intentionally develop a legalistic standard of living that transcends the example given by the Saints and even Christ!

TheDinkerson

That Curious State Before Life

This is not a subject that I would categorize as a favorite of mine about which to write. I would far rather spend my writing hours on subjects that carry much less weight. It should be noted that, in writing this essay, I do not purpose to incite “trouble” on my blog, or to make anyone feel small about whatever choices they may be facing at present.  That being said, this is indeed a troublesome subject; Nevertheless, one that you and I might do good to consider slowly, and with much patience. Before we begin, allow me to note that if you happen to be someone who is dealing with the question of whether or not to end your pregnancy via abortion, and you would like someone to talk to, I will certainly make myself available through my “comments” option below. I may do no good at all, but I will certainly not be judgmental, and I myself know what it is like to need to talk to someone. Now, I’ll begin my essay.

Let’s consider the origin of the word, “aspiration”. Noah Webster had a very clear definition of this term. In one of Webster’s original dictionaries from 1828, he defines the term aspiration as, “The act of aspiring or of ardently desiring what is noble or spiritual”. How odd, then, that one presently accepted definition of the word aspiration is, “To suck puss”. This is an egregious adaptation indeed, but perhaps there is more Devil’s work taking place here than simple etymological evolution. Should someone be held accountable for this cynical degeneration of what was once a beautiful term into something so morbid? What was the bleeding void suddenly formed in our language which could only be remedied through the augmentation of the term aspire into such filth? Perhaps there was no void. Perhaps the absence of a void in our language is where the Devil’s work is manifested.

The most common type of abortion procedure is one that was developed in 1958, but was not introduced into the United States until close to fifty years later. Performance of this procedure involves a tiny vacuum which is inserted through the woman’s cervix, into the uterus, and directly up to the baby. The vacuum is then used for the purpose of dismembering the baby and tearing it into tiny pieces as it is sucked into the vacuum’s small opening. The method of abortion which I’ve just described is called the “Aspiration Procedure”. Doctors favor this type of abortion procedure because it is non-surgical and can be performed with very little dilation of the cervix. It takes approximately five minutes to “suck the puss”, and the woman is able to leave the clinic feeling normal as she resumes her previous activities. No follow up visit is necessary. Come on in girls, for an Aspiration! Incredible isn’t it, the power of a seemingly insignificant play on words.

There are two pictures below. The object depicted in the picture on the left  may frighten you. Scientists along with our president are confused as to exactly what it is. Even though it continuously wiggles its toes, suckles at its mothers breast and sneezes, scientists have assured us that it is certainly not alive. The other picture – the one on the right – is of my beautiful daughter taken just days after she was born. I took the liberty of placing the picture of my daughter just to the right of the image of the hideous, lifeless form to better demonstrate the distinction between the two. According to science, one is a baby; the other is puss.

I suppos we all know, or can assume, that the image on the right is that of a small child. But what of the other image? The one on the left. What exactly do you suppose it is? The picture portrays an object so baffling that even our president claims it would be above his pay scale to attempt to determine whether or not it is alive, let alone what species it may be. Allow me to enlighten you; The picture on the left is of what scientists and Planned Parenthood call “puss”. At least that is what it would be called if it were still inside its mother’s uterus like it was just moments before this picture was taken. According to scientists, just moments ago while still in utero, this was a lifeless 24-week-old fetus. Moments ago, inside its mother, it was not a baby, it was not a life, it was a clump of puss aspiring to be human but at risk of being aspired. Now that it is born and its parents actually want to keep it, scientists are baffled, along with our president. They feel strongly that these parents should be locked up and put away. Imagine the audacity of such parents wanting to take a dead fetus, or clump of puss, out of the hospital and home with them. After all, it will still be several weeks before the thing develops life and becomes a baby.

Please understand that I have utmost respect for life and I understand that this is a baby that I’m calling puss. Really, I’m only mimicking the philosophy of Planned Parenthood and scientists around the globe. It is they who refer to the picture above as a clump of puss. Perhaps in their minds the picture below depicts a more appropriate demise for something so repulsive. Before you turn your eyes away, let me make you aware that the baby below was 22 weeks old and was not considered human nor was it considered to be alive before it was killed. On the other hand, the baby above was born at 24 weeks to loving parents, and survived.

Readers, it’s time we started holding our scientists and our politicians accountable for their research, and their actions. The same scientists who say that life began because of fairies riding in to earth on magic crystals, and the same scientists who claim that we evolved from monkeys – While offering no follow up explanation as to why the species that supposedly evolved into humans still exists – are allowed to determine what life is, and who has a right to it. When will we take the reins back and say to the scientist, “Your Research is faulty, and your conclusions lack evidence. For too long you’ve used the name of science as if the word itself possessed some divine power rather than the simple promise of sound, laborious experimentation. We demand research based science rather than politically based agendas”?

Perhaps it is too much to ask.

Thank you.

Nathan Gray