That’s all Folks!

It was real, it was fun and it was real fun!  We’ve moved to our own sites (which we actually had in addition to the J & P show), so there will be no more postings from this blog.  At least I don’t think so.

If you want to find us separately, Jen is at http://ohharumph.blogspot.com/   “Was That My Outside Voice?”  It’s a personal site with lots of great writing, views and opinions.

My blog is at http://paigesprattle.blogspot.com/ “Paige’s Prattle”.  My posts are all over the map and will likely offend most readers at one point or another.

God Bless you and keep you and happy blog reading!

Ooh Hell is a Place On Earth...(Sung Like Belinda Carlisle)

Paige and I have both finished reading "Love Wins" by Rob Bell. Here are our (sight unseen to each other) reviews.

PAIGE'S TAKE

Rob Bell would like his readers to believe that Heaven is for everyone and that no one goes to Hell. He’d also like those same readers to believe that Heaven will be here on our present earth. That’s a lovely and generous belief, but wholly unscriptural.

If there is no judgment day and no Hell; then what exactly is a Christian to strive for? Why do we set ourselves apart from others in our life, our practices, and our actions? If no one goes to hell, then why a judgment for any one at all? If the Heaven that we look forward to is based here on this imperfect, desecrated, crumbling earth, why are there verses about a New Heaven and a New Earth?
For the record, Rob Bell uses this belief of Heaven on Earth as his basis for ecology and earth-friendly practices. I’m not against being eco-minded, or in being good stewards of our earth. There’s no reason to trash the place we currently live in; but to base our stewardship on the (faulty) promise that this will be our new Heaven is, at best, limiting God. At its worst, it’s misleading and not scriptural.
I wanted to hate this book with its touchy-feely, God is Love and everyone is welcome forever message. It’s even worse than that as I read the preface. JUST THE PREFACE,

According to this book, God is so loving that he isn’t about tough love or curfews, rules, laws, guidelines or morals. God is Love and it doesn’t matter if you believe in his Love or not – you’ll always find room at the inn. Even after you’ve died, thrown away all your chances, denied his power and strength in your physical body and earthly life. Because a God that is so loving couldn’t possibly draw a line in the sand and expect people to make a choice.

Page 2 “Does God punish people for thousands of years with infinite, eternal torment for things they did in their few finite years of life?”

Yes, Mr. Bell, he does and he will. Bible verse after verse shows that God’s glory, power and creation are fully evident in everything we see and have. People that refuse to see this evidence have made the choice to refuse the truth. I will admit I still have questions about people who have not heard the gospel, but there is evidence that a higher being/power exists.

Atheists and Agnostics constantly deny the existence of God or a higher power. They refuse to acknowledge the creator, the power of God. This is a choice that God gives them; He loves us enough to let us make our own choices, but is saddened at the loss of just one from his kingdom.

Another point that disturbs me about the book is that he picks the gospel apart, but doesn’t see the picture as a whole. Grace is no good if it’s not a gift. It’s not good news if it’s not accepted. And if the gift of grace isn’t accepted voluntarily, God certainly isn’t going to force it down our throats.

Let me digress just a moment to say that throughout this book, Mr. Bell (or his editor) does not capitalize the pronouns referring to God. If this doesn’t bother you, I’d like you to think about it the next time someone doesn’t capitalize “Mr.” or “Mrs.” or your name.

I could go on and one, point by point to dissect Mr. Bell’s theology; but this would be a very long “review”. If you’d like a more detailed analysis of the book, you can check out my blog where I’ll put the long drawn out opinion of my review.
Briefly, let me say this: Mr. Bell’s theology (and the theology of others like him) is scripturally in error and factually incorrect. He points out everything that is true and false about Christianity, Grace, hope, love, God and Jesus, including Heaven and Hell and then sugars it up to make it more palatable to a world that doesn’t want to hear no. Because he’s educated and can translate Greek and Hebrew, he sounds candid and comes across to his readers as knowledgeable. He is knowledgeable, but incorrect. Look at it this way, you can know where the Eiffel Tower is and let people know all the details you can find about it; but unless you’ve actually driven there and visited the Tower itself, you would likely lead a lot of people astray with your opinions and beliefs based on the facts that you use.

I admit I skimmed through the last 5 chapters of the book because it was confusing, circular and just plain misleading.

I’m not sure how Mr. Bell can factually and truly believe in a God that gave us his Bible, but doesn’t expect us to read, absorb and live according to that same Bible.
My prayers are for Mr. Bell and the host of people he has and will lead astray because I believe he will be held to a higher standard of accountability for his misinformation than would a person who followed his teachings.
In the end, we have been given the love and grace and gift of God, through the death and resurrection of His son, Jesus. What we work for on this earth is the salvation of everyone who accepts that gift; so that we may spend eternity with them and our Lord in the new heaven that is designed for us, his heavenly children. We are joint-heirs with Jesus in the riches and glory that wait for us in that Heaven.

JEN'S TAKE

So I just finished reading this Rob Bell book. Heard of it? If not, you were either raptured yesterday or have been living under a rock. The book in question is “Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived.”

Oh. Well that seems simple.

So anyway, for you who are raptured and/or living under a rock, Rob Bell is one of these newfangled progressive preachers who don’t really believe in things like sin, or repentance, or heaven. Or, apparently, hell. So in other words Bell preaches the Gospel without actually touching on, well, the Gospel.

Let me start by saying that I know Paige took pages and pages of notes while reading and so I’m sure her review will be much more in-depth than mine. I didn’t take notes except for in my head, and we all know how that turns out most of the time.

But anyway.

Bell’s premise is simple, if flawed. He believes, if I understand him correctly, that Jesus will extend salvation—and entrance into heaven--to everyone upon death. And if we don’t accept Him prior to our death, we’ll get another chance, after we’re dead. And if we don’t accept Him then, we’ll get another chance. And another. And another. Until Jesus simply just lets us in, because that’s really all He wants.

Well. It sounds fantastic, but I’m left wondering something. If Jesus saves us all, in the end, anyway, doesn’t sort of remove the whole free-will aspect from it? And if we don’t make the CHOICE to accept or reject Jesus, does it even mean anything?

So Bell contends that since Jesus lets everyone into heaven, there’s really no need for anything called “hell.” (Interesting, then, that in the NT Jesus talks about hell more than He talks about anything else. He must have had quite the imagination.) And while it’s true that one cannot earn one’s way into heaven, because it is by faith and faith alone, this passage made me almost not continue with the book:

Think about the single mom, trying to raise kids, work multiple jobs, and wrangle child support out of the kids’ father, who used to beat her. She’s faithful, true, and utterly devoted to her children…She gets a few hours of sleep and then repeats the cycle of cooking work, laundry, bills, more work, until she falls asleep into bed late at night, exhausted. With what she has been given she has been faithful…She never gives up…She is kind and loving even when she’s exhausted.

With all due respect to single moms, this passage made me ill, because of Bell’s implication that, well, the poor little single mom HAS to go to heaven, because her life has been “hell.”

WHAT?

If someone, like Bell, doesn’t believe in hell, but believes in “salvation”…WHAT are those receiving salvation saved FROM?

It literally makes no sense.

Well, it does to Rob Bell. Because, you see, to “Pastor” Bell, hell is not eternal torment, or separation from God; no, hell is life on earth. That’s essentially what he’s saying. He’s saying we’re all living in one form of hell or another here on earth, so naturally when we die the only alternative is heaven, because we’ve already seen hell.

I ask again…what, then, is the purpose of salvation?

I don’t know. Most of this book just left me…befuddled. Not only does he seem to have a bone to pick with Paul (you know, Paul, the apostle, who wrote most of the epistles in the NT…that Paul) because he severely misunderstands his intent while picking apart the majority of what he’s written. Uh, Mr. Bell? It’s THE BIBLE. It is YOUR JOB to preach it. If you don’t like what it says, I suggest you find a new job. And stat.

But I think the biggest thing that bothers me is, well, the title. “Love Wins.” Essentially he’s implying that a LOVING God doesn’t send people to hell, that a LOVING God doesn’t “judge” people, that a LOVING God wouldn’t “force” someone to worship Him.

Did Mr. Bell have a father? Does he understand parental love? That’s like God’s love, how I see it. My father loved me, but his JOB as my father was to make rules, correct me when I went astray, make rules, tell me “As long as you live under my roof”, make rules…get the idea? As a young child, when I messed up—and I did, because, really, I thought the rules were stupid—I’d get spanked. Or I’d get my mouth washed out with soap. According to Mr. Bell (I won’t call him “Pastor” Bell because he DOESN’T PREACH THE GOSPEL), my father didn’t love me. Because he punished me. So in my house, love didn’t win. Hmm. Could’ve fooled me.

So when Bell says “Love wins,” what he means is that there can’t POSSIBLY be a hell. Because God, who LOVES us, wouldn’t send us to hell.

Newsflash, Bell: God doesn’t send anyone to hell. We send ourselves.

And it saddens God when we do.

So I’d say love DOES win, in the end.

We're Going to Talk About WHAT? Are We Still Friends?

This episode is about finances. You've been warned.

JEN'S TAKE

If there is one thing Paige and I cannot discuss without fighting, it’s finances. So much so that she has come up with a mantra for herself: “I will not discuss finances with Jen, I will not discuss finances with Jen, I will not…” You get the idea. For this JNP episode, though, we’ve (recklessly) abandoned that mantra.

This could be very bad.

I like to think I have a pretty good grip on my family’s finances. I haven’t always, though. I’ll give you a brief history/synopsis of us before getting to “the point”.

When we were first married (10 and a half years ago) and both making good money, we spent like crazy, and then spent some more. When we lost my income, we felt a huge blow to the lifestyle to which we had become accustomed. The summer after our first child was born we had to count change to buy groceries one week. That’s when we realized we were living beyond our means and we needed to change that. We started cutting out nonessentials like cable (I know, shocking, but you don’t need it), cell phones (we use prepaid now), foo-foo coffees (drip coffee plus milk and sugar is just fine), and on and on and on. Making cuts, we were able to slowly pull ourselves out of the hole and barely break even each month.

Then I got pregnant.

Then the baby was critically ill and racking up medical bills that we could not pay.

Then we got more serious. We sold our new-ish car, which was costing us a whopping $400 a month and bought a car that cost a total of $400. (It ran for three years by the way, and last I saw it—about a year ago—it was still running.) We started shopping at the “value” grocery store. My husband took on a second job to fund those medical bills. (Shortly after he did, we received a charity donation that covered the open heart surgery and all of our son’s meds…I often think that had we not been proactive in taking care of our finances, we would not have been blessed in that regard. But I digress.)

Our son got healthy, we were mostly out of debt (with some credit card usage and student loan payoff still in there) and I got pregnant again. Three kids? How would we afford THREE kids? (Of course now I think if you can afford one you can afford a zillion, but that’s neither here nor there.) Surprisingly, we did well enough. I breastfed our daughter, which saved a ton of money her first year. We used our remaining credit card “for emergencies” and didn’t rack up a ton of debt on it. We were careful.

Then we found Dave Ramsey.

If you haven’t heard of him, I’m not going to bother to link you to him or anything; you must be living under a very large rock. We started applying his debt free principles in April of 2009 (the aforementioned third and last child was 15 months old at the time) and became debt free (except for our home mortgage) in April of 2010, when we paid off the last of my ten year old student loan (thanks, Grandma). Because of this, we often find ourselves recommending and lauding Dave Ramsey to our friends, parents, and anyone who will (or won’t) listen.

But I’m going to let you (and Paige) in on a secret. I don’t agree with everything Dave Ramsey says. In fact, a good portion of it, I disagree with.

I agree with his principles for getting out of debt, because they’re tried, and true, and if one is willing to invest the necessary discipline, one can get out of debt fairly quickly. But that is where the Ramsey train stops in my brain.

See, this has been something I’ve been convicted about for a while and, to be honest, it’s hard to be convicted about something if your spouse isn’t on the same page. And mine isn’t. But I digress.

I’ll try to make this as simple to understand (as in, from my point of view) as possible. Getting out of debt is a great idea, and easy if you’re willing to take an honest look at yourself. I think people don’t think that society sets us up to live debt free, and those people would be right, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t strive for it. I also think, however, that the rest of Ramsey’s principles lend themselves to a selfish and hoarding mentality as far as saving (as in, putting in the bank) money goes. And I don’t think that’s what God intends. (I bring that up because it’s well known that Ramsey is a Christian and bases his principles on that.)

God tells us to store up our treasures in heaven, not on Earth, and for good reason. IT’S NOT OURS. Even the money that we don’t spend, that we “put away for a rainy day”…it’s all His. Every last cent. And I don’t hoarding it makes him happy. I’ll go one step further and say that hoarding money ala Dave Ramsey in an attempt to “be prepared for the future” is removing God from the picture almost completely. We’re putting the responsibility for our unknown future in OUR hands, not His.

This is something my husband and I argue about. A lot. He has really jumped on the “saving” part of Ramsey’s plan, moreso than on the “get out of debt” part. We don’t “allow” ourselves any spending money because we “can’t afford to spend until we’ve saved enough.”

Well.

What is enough? I mean, is there a magic number? At how many thousands of dollars will we be able to stop, take a look around, and say “Ok, Lord. I guess You can be in control from here.”

Yeah, no.

Maybe I should bottom line this for you.

Getting out of debt is a fantastic idea. Dave Ramsey’s method works if you’re willing to work it (most people aren’t). Saving for a rainy day is an extraordinary idea, but I don’t think God wants us to save for the Great Flood of Noah. He wants us to realize that He is the provider; that He gives and takes away; that it’s all His and He can take every last cent away no matter how “prepared” we are.

I, in fact, have a theory, that the more we hoard (this is different than saving and has to do with attitude involved, in my opinion), the worse off financially we’ll be, and I’ll back that up with a story from my own life. My husband, as I mentioned before, has two jobs. He doesn’t need two jobs, anymore. We have a decent savings and no debt except our home, which is minimal. But he works his second job, which takes him away from us more often than he is home, because he doesn’t feel there’s “enough” in savings. I beg to differ and I think God does too. And my point (I’ll get there) is wrapped up in this: In the last two years, since he’s been working so much without regard to family “needs”, every.single.major.appliance and every.single.system in our house has failed and needed repaired or replaced. I personally think God’s trying to get his attention. I often wonder how loud He’ll need to yell.

Clearly, louder than He’s yelling now.

At any rate…I am passionate about finances, and I feel there’s no excuse why someone can’t cut nonessentials (which are not as relative as some people think they are) and make a solid attempt to live within one’s means. I think it’s do-able, but people don’t want to do it. But I feel that excessively saving money removes God from His place at the head of our lives. And I feel that’s where Dave Ramsey goes very, very wrong.

PAIGE'S TAKE

Jen wants this blog post to be about finances. Crud. Of all the things we disagree about – and there are a few; this is the one that we most often fight about publically and privately. She’s really good at living within her means; me not so much. She’s not afraid of math and finances and calculations; the word budget throws me into a cold sweat. She does the “Dave Ramsey Plan”; I think the guy’s not really clued into reality.

So, because we’re friends and we repeatedly agree not to argue about it; and because she attempts to patiently answer my over-thought questions; I’ve agreed to write about finances for this post. Crud.

I don’t know how to actually live within my means. I try and try and try. And try. And, most months we break about even. We have no savings to speak of; a couple of IRA’s, a bit of retirement from Russ’ previous job and whatever social security will be available when one or both of us retire. We have no college plan for our kids – the two older girls put themselves (or are currently attending) through college. Our house is mortgaged; we have a HELOC and a small savings account for both boys. We have one credit card, which I use to cover the ‘shortfalls’ like the unexpected auto repair (at this point Jen is hyperventilating). We have life insurance through Russ’ work which would pay off the mortgage if he died, but nothing on me.

For Christmas, Jen gave me two Dave Ramsey books – no I haven’t had a chance to read them yet – but I will. I balance our checkbook on Quicken and download our transactions two or three times a week from our bank. I pay the bills and file the taxes and play bad-cop when money is being spent.

Here’s what I know:

· We tithe 10% of our income every month through actual tithing, donations, charity or volunteer work. If I count actual volunteer hours, it’s closer to 25%.

· Credit cards are bad (for us) because it gives the illusion that we have more money than we do. Until it’s time to pay the cards/invoices/bills and then it’s a never-ending battle.

· I’m not sure we’ve ever recovered from his lay-off almost 12 years ago. He was unemployed for almost a year and under-employed for another year or so. We lived on credit during that time, borrowed some from his parents and mine and somehow didn’t lose cars (paid-for) or the house (mortgage first).

· The cycle that we’re in now is we try to save; but something unexpected always comes up which completely throws off the plan. Recently it’s been two vet visits (Raisins and jumping off the kennel which required x-rays); a ‘clock’ spring in one of the cars (not that makes the clock work, but that makes the airbag work); and well, the taxes we knew we’d have to pay (and did) on money we took out of the IRA’s I had from my inheritance from my mom.

· We’re down to one credit card (and the HELOC). I’m cutting back on expenses that we can; but I get tired of always being the one that says no.

· Children are expensive; and as hard as I try, I can’t seem to get a handle on when expenses will come due. The shoes I bought last month are too small and I purchased them too-big so that he’d have some growing room. There’s $40 or so; sometimes less if we can find them at Value Village or I don’t need to buy new football or baseball cleats too.

· I look at prices for items in the store; but to be honest; if I need it I’m going to buy it. I did say need – this doesn’t apply to the BMW I “WANT” or the fencing that would be nice, but we can live without a few more months.

· I hate shopping for groceries, clothing, pretty much anything except books or music. The thought of going to several stores to get the best deal exhausts me and drains my time and gas.

· I have all these ideas on ways to cut back, but so far, only one of us agrees on them and I can’t get past the disobedience it would involve forcing my hand.

So, here we sit no retirement to speak of, four great kids, two grandkids, a dog, two cats and a bearded dragon. We’ll work until we’re not able to anymore and hopefully be raptured before it’s necessary to put us in a home.

But I’m not holding out much hope there will be an inheritance for our kids, other than a lot of bills and memories.

Crud.

Debate This!

This week our subject is debate...

Jen's take:

Recently I started a fan page for myself on Facebook.  (Ok, so it's a debate page, but as I'm a big fan of my debates and discussions and deep thoughts, I thought it appropriate.)  Unfortunately, my reasoning was not just me being a big fan of myself.  My debates and discussions get heated because people take things personally, so I decided to take a step back and make a separate page to avoid some of that heat. 

        I very clearly posted the rules for debating on the sidebar on my page (which seems to have conveniently disappeared, but I digress).  I very clearly stated that name calling by anyone to anyone was not and never would be appropriate.  It didn't take long before some poor soul decided my conservative views were bigoted, and called me a bigot.  It brought me no sorrow to select the box next to her name that said "ban permanently."

        But that got me thinking. What, exactly, IS a debate?  My personal Facebook page, up until now, has been known as a place wherein deep discussions/debates take place on a daily basis.  In the past, though, I have angered people by, in their words, "pressing" the issue after they have spoken their piece. This seems odd, to me.  I always have thought the point of a debate was to win.  As in, you say your side, I say my side, and someone presents the best evidence/statistics/facts/reasoning and wins.  Is that not what a debate is? Perhaps I'm clueless in this regard.  Enlighten me, if so.

        In any case, here is how I debate and/or discuss, on my debate/discussion page:

        I post a topic, link, or question that I find interesting.  Some of these are suggested to me by my friends; some are based on conversations I've seen on other pages or message boards; some are just things that I think people will find controversial (although, admittedly, people seem to find controversy in areas I never thought possible).  When the topic, link, or discussion is posted, it's open season on whatever it is.  Have at it. Argue, fight, present your side, present your facts, do whatever it takes.  But do NOT call me, or anyone else, a bigot, a hater, a racist, or any other host of names. That's not fair fighting.  But know this: if you present your side, I will then continue presenting my side.  That's how it *works*.  That's what a debate or a discussion is.  If I "press the issue", this does not make me "always having to be right" or any such thing.  It's called a rebuttal.  Look up the word, if you'd like.

        I've also, often, been accused of "always thinking my opinion is the right one".  Um, duh? Does anyone really espouse an opinion about something that they *don't* believe to be true? What would be the point of that? I'm asking, honestly. (I believe this was referred to as "outlandish bullshit" by one of my friends/readers, and "egocentrism" by someone else.)  Though I CAN successfully argue "the other side" of something I feel strongly about, I don't unless I'm telling you.  Repeat: I will flat out tell you if I'm arguing a side I don't agree with.  Anything else…well, what you see is what you get.  For shame!  I am egocentric enough to actually believe that the opinions I hold are correct.  Really, this flabbergasts me.

        So, really, I have one rule for my debates/discussions: no. name. calling.  It's very simple.  Name calling is a pathetic way to argue.  If you are frustrated with the person's argument, find another way to get your point across. Don't just assume their argument is judgemental, bigoted, ignorant, or full of hate. 

        Perhaps they just believe differently than you do. Last I checked, that was not a crime.

Paige's Take:

Debate or attack?

(Borrowed from the comments guidelines of PajamasMedia.com)

1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.

2. Stay on topic. 

3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.

4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement

5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.

And, a brief definition (dictionary.com):

ad ho·mi·nem

–adjective

1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.

2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

I have been accused of not being willing to accept debate on topics.  I have been charged with being hateful, fearful, and ignorant, a bigot, extremist and a list of other names.   The difference between a bar fight and a debate is how the subjects are discussed (and the proper usage of the beer bottle as a weapon).  What gets it all in a twist is that people don’t know or remember how to debate. 

I did not take debate in High School or college; I was however in speech classes and had to give a few extemporaneous (spontaneous) speeches.  I think I’m fairly good at debating topics (and have been told so by a few people, as well as my own opinion) and feel that when debating I attempt to be fair, avoid name-calling and stay on subject.  However, that is not the case with most debates I have been involved in lately. 

“Debate” is defined (Wikipedia) as a ‘formal method of interactive and representational argument’.  As with most speaking styles, there are rules or guidelines that should be followed to avoid intimidation.  Debate is not conversion, nor is it bullying the other person(s) into retreating or agreement.  Debate is a way to present a factual and evidential argument for or against a specific subject. 

Debate should be about two (or more) adults discussing a subject – not necessarily with the intent of converting the other – with opinions, evidence and facts.  Emotions are not involved, nor appreciated.  Name-calling (ad-hominem attacks) is in bad form and changes the debate into a contest (read: “pissing match”).

Debate is not bashing the other person with personal comments (or attacks), insulting them in order to change the subject or create hurt feelings.  Opinion is an important aspect of a debate; again, the point is not to necessarily change the other person’s opinion.  There is a fair exchange of ideas, information, facts, exhibits and evidence.  Although the proof used may appear biased to the outlook of one debater; a good debate should include corroboration as well as challenges to the opinion of the others involved.

For instance, if we are debating that the most efficient cars on the road are the Toyota Prius; the persons that believe this to be true could offer up EPA statistics and other studies that have been done to prove the point.  However, they could also present the facts that even though the cars are more fuel efficient, the cost to purchase new, keep repaired and (in some cases) charged might override the actual efficiency.  It is also not a car to drag the soccer team in, or your trailer or boat behind.  Some might find the negative attention disloyal to the cause; however in the search for unbiased opinion, the information would be ultimately correct in both instances.

On the other hand the owner of an older, paid-for SUV maintains the need for the vehicle because of lifestyle and employment.  With adequate seating and cargo room, the vehicle is more appropriately suited for hauling loads of children, groceries, camping gear or vacation travel (not to mention towing a boat or a trailer).  The day-to-day use of the vehicle requires that the tank be filled only once each month (instead of weekly), and maintenance is minimal if kept up.  Receipts for fuel and maintenance, matched against the safety record of the vehicle (from the EPA or other institution), would satisfy the evidence portion of the question. 

To argue the point that because one owner drives a “gas-guzzling SUV, they must care less about the environment and must therefore be a hateful and inconsiderate bigot” is merely mud-slinging and not addressing the point of the discussion; which is (might I remind you) efficiency.

Neither party is right or wrong in their beliefs that their vehicle is the safest and most efficient vehicle for their lifestyle.  The Prius owner has a lifestyle that doesn’t demand a large amount of space; probably commutes to work at a distance and takes few camping trips or drives that require the room of a larger SUV.  This does not make the Prius owner a better human being, or a more careful steward of the planet.  It also doesn’t make the Suburban owner a “gun-toting, extremist militia member”.

Life isn’t Jr. High and not every battle needs to be fought to win.  Sometimes there is more than one way to peel an orange; and they might just both be right.  Quit with the useless personal attacks and get on to making a stand for your opinions.  You don’t have to WIN to be correct.

Episode 4: Facebook. Love It, Hate it, or Love to Hate It?

Sorry for the long delay between episodes. One of us has been on the injured reserve list. Regardless. This week we are discussing one of our favorite topics: Facebook.

PAIGE'S TAKE

Why Facebook?

I don’t exactly remember when I got on Facebook, but it’s my Cousin Lisa’s fault that I started the descent into madness. She posted photos on the site and sent me a link. Of course I had to ‘join’ to view the photos of my cousins; and so began the tale of Paige and the social networking site.

At first I thought it would be an awesome way to share photos of our life: Our newly landscaped backyard & deck, the family trip to Disneyland, miscellaneous family photos in one spot. It was a bit addicting and motivating to scan the “old” photos (you know the ones on PAPER) and transfer the digital ones into neat little photo albums by category or event or type. It was like scrapbooking, but not.

And then I started looking for people I knew; it was a bit heady and mysterious at the same time. Is that REALLY the same person I went to high school with? That’s what became of my elementary friends? She married HIM? (Insert canned laughter here)

And THEN the friend requests started coming in. It’s amazing to me that 20-plus years after high school I have more people that I’m ‘friends’ with than I thought actually knew me in High School. (Yes, I’ll repeat I was shy and mostly a wall-flower type).

I joined a few ‘Groups’, “Liked” a few pages, tagged some photos, trolled photo albums and friend pages. I began playing some games, which of course required that I invite other people (with similar amounts of time to waste) to play in order to attain yet another level.

I began using phrases like “do you have a Facebook page?” and “I’ll see you on Facebook” frequently. It is actually quite scary. I think I’m using Facebook more than email. Facebook is the 2^nd screen I log into every morning – the first being email. Then I log into “Blogger” (another thing I would never have considered without friends suggesting I start my own Blog, and then putting up with my many questions) and read all the blogs I’m subscribed to.

Somewhere along the line I’ve picked up friends of friends – people I’ve never actually MET in real life – but through comments and beliefs (real or inferred) we’ve found a commonality. Some of them have been suggested to me through their friends and others just spontaneously asked to be my ‘friend’ (I’m sure most of them regret that decision every. day).

My friend “count” doesn’t matter to me, although I do occasionally, narcissistically check the number just to see how many people I’ve ticked off (see below) or encouraged or completely pulled the wool over. I notice that after I’ve been particularly mouthy regarding a subject (read: correctly opinionated) or outspoken about something that others find offensive (read: judgmental, bigoted and hateful), my friend count drops by about 5%. But then in another few days it bounces back again because people find me.

Facebook has been a spectacular way for me to connect with people that I feel I’ve known forever, but I haven’t been able to talk to regularly, due to growing up, geography and that pesky work-thing. I’ve caught up on other people grandkids, met new cousins and re-connected with people I haven’t seen in decades.

My grandson is almost 11 months old. Through the miracle of Facebook, my friends were able to enjoy the announcement of his coming, follow and support us all through his health challenges and the blessings and testimony of his heart transplant and recovery. I’ve been able to share photos with friends across the country so they can see my kitchen remodel from the first destructive hammer blow to the final (I’m still waiting) placement of the crown molding. We all share our fears, surprise, hopes and grumblings about weather, teenagers, child-rearing, spouses and schools.

And, then there’s the elephant in the room. There are those people who like to stay current on current affairs. I actually READ 5 newspapers (online) in addition to about 5 blogs each day; I like to try to actually back my opinions up with other opinions – not necessarily like mine. Some days the postings (links) are related and some days I’m all over the map. I love the banter and the conversations, and yes, the debates, that happen over the simplest of posts. And yes, sometimes, the comments go astray; people get mean or snitty and the conversation gets heated. I’ve “lost” a couple of friends that way. I’ve had people “hide” or “block” me because of it. but it’s pretty much me right now, so although I’m not going to bash you over the head at the baseball park or the school parking lot because of illegal immigration or same-sex marriages; I’m also not “making” you read what I post on my page; your choice.

Some of the best recipes I use on a regular basis I’ve gotten from FB friends. I’ve kept in touch with friends and friends of friends from all over the country (and outside of the US too) through the miracle of the internet. Want an instant audience to anything you do? Need an opinion about a peeve or a rant? Want to know if it’s snowing 2 miles from your house? How about passing on local news or helping a friend sell a house? Outraged about a specific policy or wondering where the best pizza in town is? Facebook is your place.

And you don’t even have to get dressed.

JEN'S TAKE

A few years ago a friend of mine sent me an invitation, via email, to join a site called "Facebook." Being appalled by the very idea of MySpace and assuming it was something similar, I balked. On first look it looked absurd. Why on EARTH would I need to be subjected to the thoughts of people I know, all day, every day? What on earth? But, my friend wanted me to play Scrabble with her, so I signed up. (BTW I suck at Scrabble, even though I am a wordsmith and a darn good one at that. Humble, too. Go figure.)

At first I didn't use it very often, if at all. This was back when the status-line was pre-filled in with "is" so you had to find a way to sum up what you were thinking using only that particular to-be verb. Boring, and limited. (Jennifer is boring. And limited. That would have worked. Heh.) So I'm pretty sure my status line read "is pregnant and tired" for 3 or so months. (Now, of course, the status box asks "What's on your mind" and can that REALLY be summed up in 320 characters? Not likely.)

After the 2008 election, the way I use Facebook completely changed. Just as some were outraged at the results of the 2004 election, I was outraged at the results in 08. And I wasn't going to silently sit by, either. However, being "stuck" in the house all day with three children under the age of 4, how would I keep myself from not sitting silently by? I know! Facebook!

Somewhere within election week of that year, I started using my Facebook page as a way to voice my opinion (to which I am entitled) of our new government, and the reactions of America, and just life in general. I've never been a shallow person and I've never much cared for giving everyone around me the lowdown on my day to day thoughts or what I had for breakfast. (Which is probably why I balked at FB in the beginning. WHO CARES??????) But darn it, I was ANGRY at what I knew, then, would happen to our country.

Since I began using Facebook in THAT regard I've had quite a bit of time to reflect on its purpose (in my life, and others') and popularity, and on how it can affect aspects of our life of which we may be unaware.

I have had a variety of experiences--some good, some bad-with Facebook in the three-plus years since I signed up. I have met people I would never have known otherwise due to Facebook posts. (Ahem. Paige.) I have furthered relationships with people that I never would have had the opportunity to further relationships with. (My brother is a good example of this. We rarely talked, which my mother found odd, mainly due to geography and/or time and/or lack of family functions and now we interact daily on Facebook. Which of course my mother finds odd. Go figure.) And I have had people that I have known for years walk out of my life (on Facebook and otherwise) simply for me having the audacity to speak my mind.

And I think that's where a lot of my feelings for and about Facebook come from. I view it as a conversational tool. Though I realize not everyone views it as such, I am NOT--repeat NOT a shallow person. Nor can I ever pretend to be. I simply do not want to bombard my Facebook friends (or "followers" depending upon whom you ask; more on that in a sec) with ridiculous posts about what I'm fixing for dinner (though sharing recipes is always good) or where my children and I went today or plan to go tomorrow (also not a bad idea as a whole, mind you, but it's not something I generally talk about in everyday conversation so why would I limit my FB posts to that regard?) or weather reports. (I have a Facebook friend who updates his page several times a day with weather reports. No, he is not a meteorologist. Yes, I am highly capable of looking up the weather myself. What I want to know about is his life. His thoughts, his feelings, his emotions. Because he is my FRIEND. Jeff Renner can tell me the weather, but I don't really care about Jeff Renner's personal life.

Anyway. Back to my use of Facebook. After the election shock and anger subsided (assuming, I suppose, that it has in fact subsided) I continued using Facebook on a daily basis to share whatever was "on my mind." And this, friends, is where I ran into (and still run into) trouble.

My mind is always "on". I'm always thinking about this or that or the other thing, and often this, that, or the other are too profound (in my humble opinion) not to share. Some--some would argue *most*--of my thoughts are not "safe" for "public" consumption. But I disagree with that line of thinking in regards to my line of thinking for a couple of reasons. First and foremost, my Facebook page is MY Facebook page. I have it set at the highest privacy setting possible. No one can see my page unless I confirm them as a friend. And I'm ultra picky about my friends. (Sometimes I'll take a chance on someone and be surprised…sometimes I'll give someone a chance and drop them if they don't meet my expectations.) But unless you're an idiot, it's pretty easy to NOT have your Facebook page be public knowledge. So in that regard, I'm not sure why it matters to any of my friends why I post the things I post (which I'm asked, daily). Perhaps it's because I am a deeply relational person (and, honestly, I feel the sum of our life experiences come from how we relate and to WHOM rather than what we do) but I feel that the only way to truly *know* someone and to *relate* to them is to know their innermost thoughts and how their mind works. Secondly, most of the time my thoughts aren't "safe" because they are what most people view as controversial. This is where a lot of the, well, controversy comes from on my Facebook page. I believe there are people on my page (can't speak for others) who don't understand the meaning of "debate" or even "discussion." I do post things that are debate and discussion-worthy, and sometimes a large number of comments appear in response. (I had one thread get over 160 comments, once. Most average 40-50.) So if someone disagrees with me and I give a rebuttal, I'm labeled "argumentative", "rude", or "bitchy" for continuing the discussion. This has actually happened! And I've had people say to me that I need to not post such controversial statements that allow my friends to corroborate my negativity. True story! (I fail to understand how I am responsible for the thoughts, feelings, actions, and re-actions of my friends. Please explain it to me, if you need to.) I've even had people say they can't be my Facebook friend, but will remain my real-life friend. Oddly, have I heard from these people since they removed themselves from my Facebook?

I suppose my bottom line is this: Facebook is my place to share what I *want* to share. I realize not everyone wants to hear what I have to say. That is their choice. Hide me, delete me, whatever. It's cool. (Although if you make a comment like "I'll still be your real life friend" upon deleting me, you'd damn well better pick up the phone and see how I'm doing every once in a while.) But it is MY place. And I will share what I want, when I want, how I want. And I am not responsible for the thoughts and opinions of my friends. All opinions are welcome on my page. But I reserve the right (as in any good discussion) to offer a rebuttal. I don’t, personally, delete people very often. If I do it is because they blatantly insult me, my children, or my friends. I have, once that I can think of, deleted someone to SAVE a real-life relationship (and it worked). Basically what I'm saying is this: just because I debate with you on Facebook doesn't make me like you less. Please give me the same courtesy if you call yourself my "friend."

Episode 3: Book Review, "The Shack"

PAIGE'S TAKE:

This week we decided to review a book that we’ve both read. Jen frequently recommends books to me; so far I’ve read three she’s suggested. We read for different reasons and tend to read different genres: Jen reads for education, information and a bit of pleasure and I tend to read solely for pleasure with an occasional jump into trying to inform myself. Her ‘pleasure’ reads are Judy Piccoult; mine are Nora Roberts. So, it’s a bit remarkable that I’ve enjoyed two of the books she’s recommended; the other one was kind of a “maybe”. (By the way, I still have about three others I may never get to read as there just aren’t enough hours to read between laundry, Facebook, and being a mom.)

There was quite a discussion that ensued over the theme and spirituality of the book; and whether works of religious fiction should go so far as to change the scope and accuracy of the God outlined in the Bible. As I read for fiction I was pretty certain I wouldn’t find the book blasphemous or sacrilegious; I have, in comparison, read the “Left Behind” series; which cannot under any suggestion be considered anything but fiction with some truth interwoven in their pages.

I don’t believe any modern writer can adequately write a book dealing with the certainty of God’s character, meaning, teachings or truths without involving a bit of their own fiction and personal beliefs of God. God chose to directly intervene and speak to the writer’s of the true Bible, using his voice and his power – I don’t believe modern authors can claim that same authenticity without a bit of skepticism being considered by any reader.

People of any faith (or no faith), believers or not, should read any book pertaining to religion, with a bit of doubt; as a starting point to study and learn more about the subject they are reading about. History books are not to be taken at face value; websites, news articles and many publications are usually written with a great deal of bias, as well as truth (I won’t quantify the amount of truth – it will depend on the author, the facts and research used and the subject). So, if a book presents a specific belief, it should not be taken at face value, but investigated and verified using true sources of knowledge – a dictionary, Bible dictionary, a Hebrew translator, a trusted pastor or your own insight and / or knowledge of God.

When Jen recommended this book to me, I was fairly certain I wouldn’t like it, but within a few pages I was pretty swept up in the story. Writing style is a lot to me and the characters were likeable and real. The story itself is set in the Pacific Northwest, so the visual descriptions were easy to imagine as well as mind-pictures I could identify from personal experience.

*POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT???*

Mack had a horrid childhood and it’s remarkable to me that he seems to have a fairly “normal” adult life; a stable marriage to a hard-working, Christian woman, and children than are well-liked, friendly and with no obvious issues, until the “Great Sadness” hits their lives. He doesn’t seem to have a close relationship with God, but he’s not completely against the idea or availability of God, either.

Over the course of one weekend, Mack has an opportunity to speak with God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit through an invitation he receives in the mailbox. The three are personified in a complex and interwoven personality that clearly explains and yet completely mystifies the reader and Mack. There is clarity in the discussions with the three that explains, although in human knowledge, the beauty, the intricacy and the power of God that I think many search for but may not find through church, relationships with others and solely reading the Bible. Throughout the weekend, Mack comes to grips with religion, salvation, relationships, love, grace and learns to heal and grow because of his past and into what can be his future.

This is a very deep book with a lot of religious and spiritual teachings that would benefit a great many Christians in their lives. It is troubling that the author uses gender to assign personality to the Triune, although I know that as humans we tend to personalize God (and the trinity) in male format; Biblically, God is always referred to in the male pronoun. I have to say that I appreciate the author’s vision of the trinity and the explanation that each character of the triune gives for their appearance in their meetings with Mack. I’m not sure that Mack, in his pain and struggles with religion and family would have accepted any other appearance of the God-head than what was presented. Through his time with the three; his healing begins and he is more able to relate to the God that we all associate and characterize.

There is some profound wisdom regarding friendships and relationships that make the book far more than just a ‘religious’ book or retelling of a story; fascinating in the intricate yet simple ways we relate with others as well as God.

I would not recommend this book to a person looking for God or struggling with God’s power in their life; although those may be the exact people the story was written to touch. It IS a fictional account; although the author says it’s based on a true story.

I would however recommend this book to someone who is searching for a deeper meaning of God – although it should be remembered that my opinion is that it is not a book written by God through the author, it is the author’s perception of a man’s struggle with God and our identity in God.

JEN'S TAKE

Whenever the entire world reveres a “Christian” novel, I’m exceptionally wary. When a “Christian” novel jumps to the top of the national bestseller list, I’m nervous. After all, Jesus told us that if the world agrees with us, we’re doing it wrong. If the world hates us, we’re doing it right. (That’s reassuring since I’m frequently hated.)

And so it is with “The Shack” by William P. Young. For three years or so I’ve avoided reading this book for the reason above. Though reviews from friends and family have been along the lines of “This book changed my life” and “I’ve never understood God until I read this book”, the skeptic (see above) in me refused to read it.

Then it came up in a “What are you reading” discussion on Facebook, and though I’d never read it, I went off about the horrible doctrine and absurd theology contained within. But I’m smart enough to know that an argument won’t hold water unless I have something to tread with, so I admitted I hadn’t read the book, and that I would read it to see if my opinion had changed.

(I was, I have to admit, insulted when a Facebook friend asked me within the discussion “Do you read much fiction?” as if to imply that I couldn’t possibly understand that this book was fiction and, therefore, the bad theology could be discarded. More on that later.)

I read it.

My opinion did not change.

(Stop reading here if you haven’t read the book because it’ll likely be spoiled for you. If you’re ok with that, continue. You’ve been warned.)

The premise of the book is a man, Mack, wrestling with a grief he’s been unable to shake since his 6-year-old daughter was abducted and presumed murdered a few years before. (Disclaimer: I am not implying his grief should be shaken, not at all. I’ve never lost a child and can’t presume to know how it would feel at any given hour or moment. I imagine that, like Mack, I’d likely hate the killer for a good long time.) So a few years after the abduction, Mack arrives home one afternoon to find a note in his mailbox. It implores him to meet him at “the shack” and is signed “Papa.”

(I found it odd that Mack instantly believed that the note came from God. I mean, really? I mean, we knew that his own father was dead, but to automatically assume that “Papa” was God was a jump that I don’t think we were ready to make. But I digress.)

So let’s continue. Mack. Note. God. He gets this note and, after a discussion with a friend, decides to go to the shack. To meet God. (The shack is a rundown building in the middle of nowhere in Oregon where it’s assumed his daughter’s murder took place.) But he feels he can’t tell his wife so he lies to her while she’s away with their other children. He lies to his wife about going to see God. Mmmmkay.

So he borrows a jeep, works his way through the Oregon wilderness, and arrives at the shack, looking for God. He is greeted by—I am not making this up—a big black woman (my aunt told me to think of Della Reese in “Touched By an Angel” and I have to agree that’s an accurate description). This—this big black Della Reese looking woman—is God.

Really.

Now. I’m not saying that God does not appear in human form, or that God cannot appear however He needs to appear. This is true, to a point; it may be that when He “appears” to us as someone we have known or loved, for example, He’s not sending you Himself, He’s sending you that person, with a message from Him. But I digress

But. God. Is. Not. A. Woman.

Regardless of your “interpretation” as to whether or not God is actually genderless (He is genderless but there is a reason He is referred to as a “father” and not as a “mother” in the Bible) it’s a form of blasphemy to attempt to give definition to God.

Ok, fine. But this is fiction you say. (Or, at least, my FB friend suggested…with the implication that I, a writer and holder of an English degree, could not distinguish fiction from non.)

And I think that’s really the crux of the whole debate for me: just because something is fiction, must it still hold to good theology and doctrine? Does it make a difference if the work is fiction or not if the theology is bad?

I argue no, and my gut says that Paige is going to argue yes.

Paige will say that, if that’s the case, every book ever written will be blasphemous, heretical, and full of false doctrine. I’m not so sure that’s the case. Every book ever written is not selling itself as an allegorical story of forgiveness, salvation, and redemption, as “The Shack” is doing. I mean, if I pick up a romance novel (and I don’t know anyone…cough cough, Paige…who reads those regularly) I’m not expecting the hero with robust loins to be patterned after my Lord and Savior, and I’m not expecting the heroine to represent all of fallen mankind. That’s the difference. People have been writing allegory for centuries, and I am and have been perfectly fine with that. It’s just that usually when writing allegory, one does not give a Godly name and human shape to the being meant to be the allegorical savior. Furthermore, not all fiction is directly about God the father and His relationship with both Jesus and us. It’s that distinction that I believe sets “The Shack” apart from all other fiction, even Christian fiction, and it may be where Paige and I disagree.

In “The Shack”, Papa is not only meant to represent God, but the author tells us point blank that Papa is God. And the author also gives human form to Jesus—certainly fine, because, after all, Jesus was God in human form; and to the Holy Spirit, an Asian woman who floats through the scenes. It is her that perhaps leaves the greatest effect on Mack, and it’s her personification that I think I take the greatest issue with. The thing about the Trinity—Father, Son, and Spirit—is that we are not meant to understand it. In the Bible, God never even describes Jesus but to give details regarding where He was born and his heritage, which can lead one to imagine what He may have looked like. The reason God doesn’t tell us what God looks like, or why He doesn’t give definition to the Holy Spirit (other than the fact that it is, you know, a spirit), is because we’re simply not meant to know. And to claim that we do know, or even to pretend we know, is blasphemy at worst, heresy at best.

There were certainly things that I did not take issue with in this book. The overall theme of forgiveness and letting go is one that I think everyone needs to be exposed to. It’s difficult to forgive someone who has hurt us so badly, and I think someone would be lying if they said they’d never had trouble forgiving someone, and not many people have gone through what Mack has, to be honest.

So I get that. I get that it’s a powerful theme, and one that probably needs to be explored on a deeper level and on a regular basis. I get that what we are supposed to take away from the book is not, in fact, the possibility that God could be a black woman (He’s not), that Jesus claims He doesn’t care about sin (He does), and that the Holy Spirit is in fact flesh and blood and a woman who speaks with an Asian accent (it’s not).

But I worry. I worry that someone who reads this book who is not well-versed (no pun intended) in the Scriptures or doesn’t even really have a solid understanding of what is and isn’t sound doctrine, if a Christian, is going to come away from this book thinking that William P. Young’s (fictional) God—the God who says sin is its own punishment and there is, therefore, no hell; the God who says that all people of all faiths eventually wind up with Him anyway; the God who loves with the love of a nurturing mother and not a loving father (and if you think there is no difference and that a parent is just a parent you are dead, dead wrong)—is the God they worship. And I fear if they believe this is the God they worship, they’ll wind up in hell rather than the heaven they believe in. (Of course, they wouldn’t think there was a hell or that people go there, so….) I worry even more, though, for those that read this book—more than likely the majority of readers—who are not Christian will get “saved” through this book. They’ll be saved without a mention of the Gospel, without a mention of the Garden of Eden and our basic need for salvation, without an understanding of what God can do for us. Instead, they’ll be saved into a faith where they spend more time thinking about what they can do for God. That sort of faith implies God needs us. He doesn’t. If He did, He would not be God.

As my pastor is fond of saying, what you win them with will be what you win them to. And for that, because of this book, I am fearful.

Why Get Married?

This week, Jen and I wanted to talk about why marriage is important and why 'everyone' wants to be married. 

Jen's Voice:

          When my husband and I were dating, 12 years ago, I remember one morning he was over at my apartment before work.  (No, he hadn't slept there, he came over to…well, I can't even remember. But we didn't live together.  He'd often come by in the mornings and we shared most meals together in the evening too.)  Anyway, we were brushing our teeth in my bathroom and he said to me, with a mouthful of toothpaste, "Some day we'll be doing this in the nude."  My silly 22 year old self thought that sounded great.  We laughed and thought about how cool that would be, said goodbye, and went to work.

         

          Well you know what?  12 years later, 10 years into our marriage, most days we're fighting over the one bathroom in our house so we can brush our teeth in private.  The only time we ever see each other nude is when we…well…need to.  If you get my drift.  (Even that, really, you just need to be *partially* nude…and if the lights are out, that's a big bonus.) 

         

           All that to say, that *feeling*, that "Holy cow, we could do this naked and be married and have SO much fun" feeling, it wears off.  There will come a time when you'll think "My gosh, if I have to look at that man one more second today…" and your thought won't really complete itself.

         

            I think a lot of people go into the idea of wanting to be married thinking that it's always going to be like it is right now.  In fact a celebrity (if I may use that term loosely) said recently of her broken engagement, "The best your marriage is going to be is how it is when you're dating" and the problem is that I think most people *believe* that, which accounts for not only the astronomical divorce rate, but the rampant desire (almost infatuation-ish) homosexuals have for marriage.  They want what they feel NOW for the REST. OF. THEIR. LIVES.

         

          That's simply not going to happen.

         

          So here's the thing:  marriage is HARD.  Marriage takes work, every minute of every day.  Marriage is not just about getting to brush your teeth in the nude with that person whenever you want.  (Really, who wants that?  Ick.)  Marriage is not about fulfilling your sexual desires.

         

           (I'll give that a minute to sink in.)

         

           And that's where my opposition to gay marriage lies.  Ask any homosexual and they'll say "But this is who I'm *attracted* to."  They won't say "This is my soulmate" or "this is the person I can see myself growing old with" or anything else. They'll say "This is who I'm *attracted* to."  Well. Bully for you.  And I suppose, really, that that's my point.  At some point, people, it is statistically probable that you will no longer be *attracted* to your spouse, whether heterosexual or otherwise.  If that is your basis for wanting to be married, why should I grant you that "right". Most people--even heterosexual people--marry based on whom they are *attracted* to.  Twelve years ago, I thought the best thing in life would be to brush my teeth in the nude with my then-boyfriend/now-husband.

          I'm not down on marriage by any means.  I just don't think people who are fighting for marriage realize what it *is*.

          It's living with the same person and their same quirks year after year after bloody year.  Amazingly, in 10 years, my husband *still* has not learned how to close a cupboard door when he's done with it.  (I thought he would have learned that by now.)

          It's having children and, in doing so, watching any time you might have enjoyed spending as a couple being used, instead for his-and-hers alone-time type tasks.

          It's trying to remember all the cutesy things you did and said when you were dating and thinking "My gosh that was so long ago."

          It's trying to remember why you even wanted to *get* married in the first place, anyway.

          And it is loving your spouse through the weight gain, the wrinkles, the bad moods, the frustrations, the not being attracted to them anymore, the them not being attracted to you anymore, the open cupboard doors, the days where the children have left you curled up in a fetal position waiting for the men in white coats.

          You marry them because of who they are.  You marry them because of how they make you feel.  You stay with them, most of the time, in spite of who they are.  You stay with them in spite of how they make you feel. 

          But.  I could just be cynical.

          What is marriage to *you*? 

Paige's Voice:

“Mawwage is what bwings us togwether today....”

Why does marriage matter?  Why does anything really matter?  If everyone could have a Ferrari or a castle, would anyone find them appealing?  If what was available to only a few was granted to everyone, would it be as special or as important?

Originally, the purpose of marriage was to legally bind a man and a woman together for legal and property purposes, as well as children and wealth.  Love didn’t come into play in many marriages – in several countries marriages are still arranged by parents or family for the purpose of lineage or financial advantages.   

Not everyone could marry; but it wasn’t reserved just for wealthy or royals, either.  The Act of Marriage was a privilege sanctified by the laws of God and legalized by the laws of man.  Contracts were drawn up, vows were made, papers were signed, and witnesses were required.  Even elopements had regulations that were followed. 

So why do we romanticize marriage so much in modern day society?  Today marriage seems to be all about “love”.  I love this person, so the natural progression is to marry and have kids (although, sadly not always in that order).  But is marriage just about love; that gooey feeling that causes stars in your eyes and butterflies in your stomach? What happens, when that gooey feeling goes away? 

In the news (if you Google “Strange Marriages”) you’ll find people – humans – who have married: The Eiffel Tower, Himself, The Berlin Wall, A DS Game Character, a Fairground Ride, a dead ex-boyfriend, a pillow, a snake…. And the list goes on and on.  So, what was the reason they married these things?  They had formed an attachment to the item and felt attracted to remain with them forever.  (I’m not going to necessarily touch on the physical aspect of these relationships).  There was no intent, desire or possibility of having children with their new spouse.  There was no need to leave an estate or worldly possessions to that spouse – although I do know that people have left millions to their living animals – but they didn’t marry them to do so.

 Marriage is about more that the dating relationship; it’s a lifelong commitment to that other person.  To be a better person by being with them, caring for them, staying with them, loving them when neither of you deserved to be loved.  It’s about more than children – many couples don’t have children in their marriages and stay married forever. 

Marriage should be the give and take of everyday life.  Getting up in the morning because you’re the morning person, while your spouse is not; finishing the argument (or letting it go) because it’s really important to the other person.  Standing up for each other regardless of what the parents, kids or friends say.  Marriage is a lifetime commitment. Yes, I have friends that are divorced; and yes, there are valid reasons for divorce; but that’s not this post.

Marriage has been in the news because it’s been declared a right of all – not just for one man and one woman, but for any consenting adult that chooses to marry another consenting adult.  Those that oppose changing the description of marriage as being “between one man and one woman” are called religious extremists, haters, bigots, homophobes.  People who are in favor of changing the face of marriage forever are said to be people just fighting for their rights and equality.

If marriage is such an important entitlement, then I agree that everyone should be allowed to marry whomever they choose.  But that leads our country and our people down the banks to a very slippery slope of legal questions and rules.  As I see it, if we re-define marriage to include anyone who has a whim to marry, then the laws must be changed regarding gender, age and plurality  of marriage.  If marriage is no longer confined to one man and one woman (it IS STILL illegal in the United States to be a polygamist), then marriage will become available to all.   The consenting age would need to be changed to reflect the maturity age of a person, not just the chronological age on the cake.  And, as referenced in my opening paragraphs, who is to say that the pillow or the deceased boyfriend didn’t consent to the marriage anymore than marrying one’s goat or tractor?

The problem with equality is that not everyone is equal.  Not everyone has the same body or thoughts or beliefs or abilities.  Legalizing marriage for every person would do more than just damage the ‘sanctity’ of marriage, change the layout of the family and bring equality to minority groups.  It would completely destroy the necessity of marriage. 

So, I ask again, if everyone can do it, then why would anyone want to?