A SHOUT OUT TO DEMOCRATS

I often think about the division of the parties in the U S, and how I am STUCK voting Republican or independent mainly, because I cannot agree to vote for a party member who does not believe that a fetus inside its mother's body is alive and human.
Yesterday I realized that the Dems don't have to have as a plank in their party platform what amounts to the condoning of abortion as a legitimate thing.
Even if "abortion rights" IS the "law of the land",  the Dems don't have to make their party odious to persons such as me by explicitly siding with abortion rights people. (Who is brave enough to tackle again the reasoning that US Supreme Court put forth in Roe vs. Wade decision. Science and technology have ripped the original "boundary" of thought that the fetus is not " alive" or "human" because it cannot live outside mother and is therefore only a possession of mom.)

Recently, I've wondered what JFK and Martin Luther King, whom the Dems point to as the heritage of their party, would have said about abortion rights being the"law of the land" and their party being the champion of abortion rights.

ONE LITTLE PREPOSITION

IN CHRIST
those words are used in the new testament more than once. One scripture is "in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, male nor female."
That particular scripture is used by some Christian denominations to validate having women in the same leadership positions as men in the Church and elsewhere in society.
So the Church leaders are saying that those of us who have become followers of Christ need to leave behind those fallen attitudes such as that women are different from (and less than) men.
Let me point out that the Bible new Testament gives instructions for "bosses" and for those in the employ of or enslaved (according to the world's system) by another; also , Paul, in fine tuning instructions for Christians as he continued the Church, distinguished between Jewish Christians and gentiles who became followers of Christ. Furthermore, some of Paul's rather specific instruction (such as in 1st Corinthians) could be interpreted as giving guidelines to people (individuals, congregations and leaders of congregations) to avoid trouble that would occur when followers act in imperfect (fallen) ways.

So my interpretation of "in Christ there is neither . . ." is that in God's eyes there is no difference between these people; and at our best, we , as godly,  Spirit filled followers of Christ interact with one another in this godly way; and the verses that seem to contradict the verses such as this in fact rather give guidelines addressing the reality that we imperfect people do not always maintain that most godly attitude towards one another.

So the passages in the new testament that limit the roles of women are loving limits that protect men and women from going in the ditch by flying too close to the sun.

(To Be  Continued)

GOD'S HELP FOR 13 COLONIES

I am listening to Andrew Wommack's teaching of June 8, 2016 on humility. A story from his son's childhood included God telling Andrew that just as daddy Andrew couldn't help little 3 and 1/2 year old son open the heavy door because son had his hands on the handle and knob and dad would have squeezed and hurt son's hands if he had tried to pull on knob with son.  So, too, our God has to wait for us to take our hands off of something before He can help.
I think of this as another indication that our Lord desired us to pray for our enemies and ourselves when we were down and oppressed under the British law in 1700's  colonies.

WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY

These maybe days of sadness for U S citizens , with both the Republican and Democrat parties not very good.
I lost faith in the Dem party when they made abortion rights a permanent part of their mission and identity.
My faith in the Rep party is dwindling in response to their having been overwhelmed by the secret and not-so-secret influence of the Koch brothers. (the "citizens united" decision of the US Supreme Court paved the way for their humongous power in election s.)

What this time in our political history CAN be is a parable, an analogy, a way for us all to understand what the dynamics of the Jewish religion may have been at the time of Jesus' rejection by the Jewish establishment.

This is important, because Jews who will not considered Jesus' claims have made that decision- not to consider . . .- based on their belief that the Jewish leaders that were on the scene and made the decision to reject Jesus, made their decision in good faith , and "to the best of their ability. "

We can all see that during this time, campaign 2016 and the 1 or 2 years leading up to it, there has been a chokepoint , pinchpoint, a layer of leaders who have held too much power and have not had the best interests of the many in their heart s.

Can anyone other than me see a parallel here? Please say yes.

Can this be a way to encourage our precious neighbors, the Jews, to consider Jesus, that Jew? I pray so.

So I ask that Christian leaders and other leaders  use this present political situation in US to encourage individuals to consider that some decisions that were made in the past by past community leaders were not the best.

LET'S TRY THIRD PARTY AGAIN, PART 2

Continuing about the aberrant dynamics of the current 2016 presidential contest, I believe that :
1) the Citizens United decision of the US Supreme Court was ruinous because of allowing mega rich people to make decisions that never should be theirs to make, and that we need to not let that truth fade out- that the Citizens United decision is evil- by continued public speaking against it and by legislation to correct.
and
2) the primary system of the Republican party, at least needs drastic change.

Election season! LET'S TRY THIRD PARTY AGAIN!

Well, our country seems seriously in the grip of two parties, both of which are hostage to abortion division and traditional moral standards division and corporate and big money.

I want to express here my idea for breaking the unhealthy lack of options in the political realm.

Since the constitution has  established ELECTORAL COLLEGE as inextricable part of the election of u.s. president, causing all the dynamics we've seen thru the years, I propose a third party that has as a part of its platform the stated decision that that party will NOT field a presidential or vice presidential candidate until the party has succeeded in having elected from same party one third (or some solid specific portion) of Representatives in Congress.

The reasons for this aspect of my proposal :

1.  There need to be in Congress, representatives and senators who are not bound by the powers of the two major parties and who can loosen up the grip of big money or jingoism and open up the middle ground in government negotiations.

2. Even if candidates from this proposed third party are not successful in being elected, the voters of this country need options other than the two current main parties.  I personally -as a Christian - cannot in good conscience vote for a Democrat. However, the Republican party, thru recent years (since 1973?), has become decreasingly representative of what I would want my nation's govt to be and do.

3. Recent "loyal opposition" candidacies for pres and v.p. such as Nader's and Paul's, while being launched with the truest hopes of changing the u.s. govt for the good, only muddled the outcome of those specific elections. One could conclude that the money and immense effort put into those campaigns was wasted. Money could be better spent to influence govt decisions by electing a small (but hopefully increasing) number of minority party legislators to speak for those who vote them in ( and possibly be a bridge bringing the major parties together?)

4. By focusing its (our) efforts on electing national legislature candidates to represent the wishes of those who vote them in, such a third party could perhaps change the mindset of the national psyche away from focus on the president as superstar, celebrity, savior, lightning rod.

JULY 4,2015

july 4, 2015 just passed. whenever this holiday comes around, I feel I should try to get my unique message out: the message that we Christian Americans need to rethink the 1776 decision of our native country forefathers to rebel against the government over them-to think about how that lines up with the teachings of Jesus. This particular time includes some new events that are connected with the ideas contained in this blog. 1) The Supreme Court of the u.s. decided that the constitution compels the government to recognize homosexual marriage as marriage. 2) the deaths of 9 African americans at the hands of a racist white (young) man have caused thought leaders in this country to express that now it is time to deglorify the civil war and rename buildings and things named after famous participants in the confederacy that fought the government of the u.s. in the civil war. what I would like to add to this discussion is:  1) that our nation's idolizing of the Constitution and freedom have inevitably led to our citizens believing that freedom to engage in variant moral behavior and seeking legitimize that behavior is valid and "good"; 2) that the war that freed the slaves had to be fought because the forefathers a century earlier could not bring themselves to do the right thing at THAT time, all the while (hypocritically) speaking as noble freedom fighters. I plead with my fellow American (Christians) to reconcile the divergent parts of our history and heritage.