Before sadly departing from my trip to Spokane to see the fantastic woman bestowed upon me, miss Radke, she gave me a great gift, a baby monkey made of socks. Here, I let him out at the airport so he could look out the window and enjoy himself. He much enjoyed seeing the big planes parked outside for boarding.
But it came time to end this pursuit, and so I stuffed baby sock monkey back into my suitcase.
He wanted rather to stay out and play. “No no! I wish to play and not to be stuffed into your smelly suitcase, full of clothes that are worn much and washed little!”
But I had to be firm and show baby sock monkey his place.
And so I used some of this time to review and format my notes, adding headings, and a summary and a vocab section: all the garnishes that make notes “notes.”
. . . but as it were, baby sock monkey managed to poke his head out once again, and upon proudly solving the conundrum of the closed zipper, he set about a much naughtier and more audacious plan: to explore the airport and to partake in ventures native to this novel and foreign land.
“Ah!” said baby sock monkey, “A nice oasis for swimming and drinking!”
“This is a large bottle of soda. The natives appear accustomed to adorn their soft drinks quite lavishly here. It must be either a very fine bottle of fizz or the natives here are perhaps very silly, wasting all this fancy packaging and calligraphy all to veil what is merely a bottle of Shasta.”
Upon failing to understand how to open the finely adorned bottle. Our baby sock monkey friend, finding himself now very thirsty, got quite literally stuck trying to find other sources of liquid refreshment.
“A cave!” cried baby sock monkey. “I shall descend into it, and shall uncover it’s ancient tales. The bones of beasts! A fire burning with native airporters around it, telling the tales that native airporters tell.” And so he began his unwise descent.
His head getting stuck briefly, but he found more discomfort . . .
after his head became unstuck and his head hit the bottom of this mysterious plastic-lined cave.
And so he began a long ascent from the cave and in all his adventuring and exploring he grew enthusiastic and went forth boldy, and took it upon himself to climb a great sign. “Ah! I now command a vantage point extending far throughout the land!” said baby sock monkey. “I suppose I assert an intimidating presence from here!” said baby sock monkey, finding himself now equating height with power. However, as his foot slipped, so did his grand vantage point.
And upon this fall baby sock monkey’s pomp left him very quickly.
And so baby sock monkey wandered into one of the various snack stores.
and observed the grand selection of the delegacies native to the airport.
He was speechless.
But only for a moment. “CHIIIIIPS!!!!!” yelled the monkey. “Pretzels! popcorn! Oh goodness!” and so he gave himself over to his own desires. This is the sad position I found him in, stuck fanatically licking the packaging of a Doritos bag. I brought him on the plane, and stuffed him completely in the middle of my suitcase and found that he was able to be restrained in such a position in my bag for the rest of the flight.
Upon coming home, I had someone very special to introduce to him. “Hello?” said baby sock monkey. “Hello?” a voice returned. “Where are you?” said baby sock monkey. “Up here.” said the voice.
So baby sock monkey clambered up the desk. “Are you up here?” “Higher.” said the voice.
“Here?” asked baby sock monkey. The voice did not respond.
It didn’t need to respond.
They were looking right at each other.
And no more needed to be said. They were united at first sight.
The decline of respect for marriage, and the great parade of individualists that think that a “unique” relationship that “defies boundaries” is more honest than a couple striving for greatness, can all be solved if we only told people about the greatness of Rossini’s operas.
People who listen to a wide-variety of music are all-around better people. People want to say “more intelligent,” but the truth is, that it’s not completely about intelligence. People who appreciate all different kinds of music are experiencing more different emotions. Someone who appreciates jazz can be jazzy, someone who appreciates folk music can be a better neighbor. The person who has a well-rounded repertoire of musical appreciation has a well-rounded appreciation for life itself. Music is an expression that is very close to being itself. I can’t back this up very scholarly, but it seems that music expresses the essence of something faster than anything else. You could live during the romantic era and never hear a piece of music. However, if you lived through that era, and then heard a piece by Schubert, I think you would say, “This is what the Romantic Era was all about.” Of course there is better and worse music as well, you ought to avoid the more debased genres of music that in their very sound itself speak vices. There is a legitimate communication in the sound itself. What the music says matters, and you can say something immoral in a beat. That’s why intelligent people don’t let their kids listen to rap or heavy metal, even if the lyrics aren’t vicious. Perhaps if you are attracted to such music you ought to ask yourself why, at least if you are intelligent enough to admit that their is meaning in the sound of music, and you are willing to take that point all the way down it’s logical destination, which is, maybe some music is evil, or reflects evil (is there a difference?) in the way it sounds.
Lately, I have been extremely interested in God’s roles for men and women. I want to know how they differ, and how they are similar. I think some of the things God has showed me are worthwhile to the reader of this blog, whoever they may be. I am, however, only a human and I am hopelessly ignorant and wrong in many ways that will never be fixed during my lifetime on earth.
In my pursuit I done my best to assume as little as possible. Most importantly, I am not assuming that women are equal to men. I am beginning this pursuit for knowledge with as little prejudice as is realistic. I realize it’s extremely offensive to not consider women as equals to men, and perhaps justly so, but I want to justify women’s equality to man with scripture, and nothing else.
Now the question, “Are men and women equal?” is one of the first questions I want to answer, since it seems one of the most central questions to answer, and the answer to that question can be used as a premise in answering other questions. I want to answer that question with scripture, and not argue from Western premises. I am going to go off of the premise that everything in the Bible is Truth.
Before I answer the question, “Are men and women equal?” I must ask, “In what?” I think most people would assume I am talking about equal in some kind of inherent value, and that is what I mean when I say it too. Let’s narrow the question, and give it enough context to be meaningful and not ambiguous. To implement this idea, let’s make the question, “Are men and women equal in their own respective intrinsic values?” That shows us how the question is the same as the first with only different wording. Let’s clean that up though. Let’s ask, “Is the intrinsic value of a woman equal to a man?” What is intrinsic value though?
By scripture, I would argue that all value is reflecting God. God gives value. The intrinsic value is reflecting God, but it is still intrinsic in that humans are not valuble only because other humans can use him for something. He is “made in the image of God.” That seems to be what gives us our intrinsic value. We are like a great painting by God Himself. A great painting made by a man is of great value. It doesn’t just physically reflect some kind of image. It reflects a spirit. There is something metaphysical reflected in a great paiting. For instance, if a painting can capture some specific kind of love very well, it captures humanity well, even if no humans are in it (though a very great painting reflecting love would, I imagine, include people in it).
Likewise, with God, we are made in his image. It is that and that only that gives us value. We emanate his glory.
So on being made in the image of God, the Bible says,
“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”
So does that mean that women are made in the image of God? I am staying true to my first commitment. I will not assume they are only because that is so central to modern culture. I want to justify it or disprove it, only by looking at scripture. Looking at this verse it says that God created “him,” but follows up with male and female he created “them.” Take care to note that He first says, “him” and then “them.”
However, let’s start at the beginning, at the creation of man.
“the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.”
I want to just name some facts. I realize that in saying that it can feel like I am trying to imply that I am being importial. That’s not true. I am select certain facts to say, but nonetheless they are facts, and they cannot be denied, even if their significance can.
Here are the facts: A. God created man in a combination of two things exactly. 1. The earth that He already created ex nihilo. 2. His breath
B. The breath of God (whatever that may be) was not something He had already made. That came directly from Him!
C. Man did not live when he was only dust on the ground. He was however, alive after God gave him breath.
So those are the facts I want to bring right now. Looking at the last one, perhaps this thing called life is more metaphysical than we act like it is. Biology makes life seem like some kind of completely physical phenomenon, but I have to disagree. The life of man, if it comes from the breath of God, seems like it must be more than just base biology. I am assuming, of course that the “breath of God” is not physical, but metaphysical. Also, God created man out of the earth and his breath. Does that mean that man is a dual entity? That is, does he consist of two parts, soul and body? That seems to be indicative of that.
More on this philosophical expedition later.
The answer to this question is always swing dancing.
What should the answer be? Is there a best answer to this question, or is it arbitrary what you look forward to? Maybe it’s not wrong to look forward to something most, but perhaps it evidences something bad (or good).
People have certain needs. God can fulfill them all. God can fulfill the soul. Does he use the world to do it? Yes. He does that very often. God has fulfilled a need for a community in me through swing dancing. He has also done that using the young adult group. By being with people as a community, I feel fulfilled. Everyone says Christianity is not meant to be undertaken alone. However, Paul, alone in prison felt fulfilled. However even he wrote letters. Surely God could have simply sustained him and helped him to contentment without any worldly means at all, but he chose to give him the earthly sustenance of human contact through writing letters. But what happens when all of a person’s needs are fulfilled literally directly from God. What happens if we literally don’t need to eat because God sustains our bodies. We don’t fellowship, because God gives us whatever the physical act of talking to each other did. Who does God fulfill in this matter? This is what is so complicated about faith. We plant a garden and reap the fruit, and it appears that we are sustaining ourselves, but really God is giving us food to eat.
So to take it back to the subject of swing dancing. What do I say about the fulfillment I find in the Swing Dancing community? What do I say about what I do not have? What about the lack of a wife, that I want but do not have? Will God give me everything that a wife will give me? Surely he won’t, but couldn’t he?! I will still get married. I don’t expect God will give me all the satisfaction and contentment that a wife or children will give me.
God sustains us divinely, but he uses earthly means. Friends, Sisters, brothers, mothers, wives, and humanity in general are dear to the good Christian. Does he need them, or does he only need God? Surely he only needs God, but God, who made man, said, "It is not good for man to be alone." Fellow human beings give us something that God does not give us directly. Doesn’t it sound like deism? It’s not though.
It’s an incredible riddle, and I can’t solve it. Do I pray that God gives me contentment or a wife? Contentment or kids? Should he sustain me directly or through earthly means? I can almost guarantee that God will not give me all the feelings that a wife will give me, or kids will give me. When I have kids, I don’t believe that I will say that they gave me no joy. If God had already fulfilled everything in me, then what other joy is there? What joy can’t he give? None. But then how can these fellow humans give me joy?
I have been thinking about this a whole lot lately. I don’t know the answer to this question. All my prayer is, is that God would show me the way, whether by conscience or law, and that I won’t invent an answer to the riddle, but that God would give it to me as a gift.
Today I searched for “I hate Duck Tales” on Google, and there were only six results. This made me very sad. I am making this post so that there may be at least one real result for “I hate Duck Tales” on google.
BTW, I hate Duck Tales