Ramblin' Tuesday

Matthew 5:32 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain

32But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put

away his wife, saving for the cause of

fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and

whosoever shall marry her that is divorced

committeth adultery.


Matthew 19:9 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain

9And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away

his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall

marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso

marrieth her which is put away doth commit

adultery.


Matthew 19:10 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain

10His disciples say unto him, If the case of the

man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.


Matthew 22:30 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain

30For in the resurrection they neither marry,

nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels

of G-d in heaven.


Enough whining already. What did Jesus have to

say about marriage? Based on a word search, he

didn't have much to say about marriage. The

significance of marriage is probably best seen in

the metaphorical application seen in the hebrew

scripture. It represents the union of G-d with

believers, under a covenant. The evolutionistas

will tell you that the sexual drive is an

artifact of the process of natural selection.

Within that context, marriage has only

utilitarian significance, to ensure reproduction.

In scriptural context, the union represents

something larger than life -- a covenant. Even

THE covenant with G-d. It reaches into the realm

of worship. ( Does that remind you of fertility

deities and pagan religions? ) In a practical

way, sexual desire is often required in order to

reinforce the bond of marriage. Without it, you

have to ask yourself, How many guys would ever

want to get married? Face it. Marriage is a

very impractical arrangement. But it carries a

load of significance.


Do you see how this world has completely debased

the christian concept of marriage?


Do you wonder why modern marriage spends most of

its time trying to get out of the ditch?


For today, I'd like to ramble a bit. There's

alot to ramble about. Yesterday, I did a drive

by about a common situation, that of being an

average white male in modern America. It ain't

what it used to be. I'm exploring the idea that

one of the significant aspects of the dilemma of

the American male is that there is a social trend

to redefine the roles of men and women in modern

times. This should be obvious to anyone who was

born more than twenty or thirty years ago. If

you go back farther than that, the changes are

even more striking. But I have to ask myself,

Has it improved anything by an effort to

restructure the conventional roles of men and

women in our times? It seems to appeal to the

modern mood, but has it really been a productive

effort that began with the women's liberation

movement and the ERA of the seventies and

eighties? Hmmm. I'm not so sure that the

promise has been met, other than the fact that it

has become an entrenched prejudice in the modern

mind, that there is some kind of 'equality' ( a

truely odd concept ) that all this is heading

toward. Personally, I don't want to be equal

with anyone but myself. How can I be anything

other than me? Silly question. But if we just

gave everyone straight A's in school, then we'd

all be equally brilliant. I think that's the

general idea.


I'm thinking that there was another idea of

'equality' in the past. It was the notion that

everyone had the opportunity to earn an equal

wage. It's part of the idea behind labor unions

-- the idea that everyone, whether a broom pusher

or a manager, has an equal claim to a living

wage. Of course, it didn't always work out that

way. But it was possible, back in times past,

for one income to support a family. That's

another version of equality.


Looking at the larger social picture, one of the

greatest interests, is financial survival. Alot

of social activity centers around this one

fundamental interest. The idea of equality in

terms of income, is not such a bad idea. It

works better in the industrial setting, where

everyone has their own part or piece to add to

the assembly line. If any one person isn't there

to add their part, then nothing is produced. You

could apply that model to any organized human

effort. Each part is as important as the next

part. Without each person making a contribution,

nothing gets done. Somewhere down this road lies

Plato's Republic. But the model is only going to

work if everyone has a selfless interest in the

welfare of others. That's one reason why we'll

never arrive at a true Republic.


On the other hand, this is also the defining

characteristic of the christian social model, as

it was described by Jesus, that everyone was to

love their neighbor as themselves. Remember the

story of the 'Good Samaritan'. That's another

model that won't be implemented soon either.

There is a human preference to maintain a social

pecking order. We would rather have conformity

than equality. And that's where I think that we

are at for now. We are confused about the

difference between conformity and equality. A

pecking order is required to enforce conformity.

Everyone has to be kept in their place, and part

of that is the role that the next person up the

ladder has to define the 'proper' role for the

one beneath in order to maintain conformity.

That's why we need sensitivity training these

days. It's needed in order to maintain

conformity. We have to be told what to believe.

The idea of loving your neighbor is more

appealing to me. All it means is to act in the

best interest of others, rather than the best

interest of yourself.


You can see right away that there is alot more

ground to cover in this ramble. It is also

apparent that the christian model is not popular

and never will be. The one aspect that comes to

mind in the christian model is that there is a

prescribed hierarchy. All are equal, but there

is an order. Just as an assembly line requires

order, the social system requires a hierarchy of

order. It's another blurred distinction in the

modern mind. Order does not imply inequality, if

the demands of love are met by the willingness to

do what's best for others.


Funny how this all seems to converge on the

family model -- the basic unit for organization

in every society. I'm thinking that this

relationship between family and social

organization lies at the root of the predicament

that confronts modern society, and the conflicts

within the larger context, stem from the loss of

a coherent family model. In a nutshell, people

are not doing, and are unwilling to do, what's

best for others. With the loss or forfeiture of

rational family organization, the larger social

model is not going to work out very well.


So we end up with the kind of entertainment abuse

that I was subjected to over the weekend and

yesterday's post was rambling about. Here's the

thing to take home. When the average (white) guy

is not given the respect that he deserves, the

social order is going to break down in the larger

context. Oh, it might take a while. It might be

possible to muddle through several generations of

general social decline. But eventually, the

social order, without its proper center, will

lose its way. If you think that I'm stretching

things a bit, just take a good long look out your

window and tell me what YOU see going on.

Because what I've seen, over the years, are

things that I'd never imagined possible. And I

don't suffer from a deficit of imagination. The

futher along we go, the more outrageous and

rediculous are events unfolding. I don't even

have to look out my window to get a hint of this.


As they say in AA, lower your expectations and

increase your serenity. We're gonna' be gettin'

really low expectations to keep that serenity intact.