Square Circles: Undefining Ancient Concepts

-------

I was thinking today... Why do all circles have to be round?

It just doesn't seem fair, restricting "circularity" that way. What if a triangle wanted to be round, too? Or a square?

I realize the very definition of what it means to be a circle--since eternity--requires roundness. And, I know most people say anything with angles just isn't a circle. It's "impossible." But think outside the box with me! Get with the 21st century! Just because we've always defined something one way doesn't mean it can't change...

From now on, I'm going to push for acceptance of the "square circle."

I'll picket at the courthouse and call my congressmen. I'll talk about square circles every time I'm in public. I'll put "square circles" in the newspaper and on TV, so everyone can see square circles are funny and they have good fashion sense. Actually, they're really not much different from regular circles.  (Or, as I sometimes differentiate, "traditional circles.")

Come to think of it, just putting "square circles" and "traditional circles" in two different categories constitutes inequality. Why should there be a separate title for circles with angled-tendencies? Notify the press! Spread the word! Using a special adjective for one circle or another is narrow-minded and bigoted. It's time to move on and forget we ever prevented square circles from being circles at all...

Sorry if I'm going on and on about something you think is unimportant (or even downright nonsensical). My aim isn't to offend. I only want to be heard. And to have a couple holidays devoted to circularity. And to have my agenda taught in schools. And to be signed into law.  Is that so bad?

I guess you could say it's very dear to me--the issue of square circles.
Or, as I like to call them:
"CIRCLES."  

Hitler, Holocaust, and Her House is on Fire

Some of you may remember when I posted a fictional story about a woman making the most difficult choice of her life: waiting in a smoke-filled room with her infant child--possibly to burn to death--or throwing her baby to the flames as an "act of mercy," then saving herself.

Today, I watched a video which tells the same story a different way. It's the time of Hitler, and a Nazi puts a woman in a bulldozer, in front of a pit of Jews. Then, that Nazi holds a gun to her head and says, "Bury the Jews alive or I will kill you."  What does she do?

The video is only 30 minutes.... Find out what answers average people gave.

Just a Clueless Kid

Why would any self-respecting young person listen to the teachers, doctors, and politicians making excuses for them?

Supposedly, if kids see a cartoon camel on a pack of cigarettes, they will have to smoke. If their bodies desire sex, they probably will give in. And if their friends drink or use drugs, we expect our children to run alongside, like so many sheep. This offended me as a teenager, and it should continue to offend youth today.

Where is the faith in our young people? And, if kids really are incapable of making good decisions, where is that magical line between grown up and "too stupid."

When I was sixteen, I gave a speech in public speaking class outlining why I thought the death penalty should be extended to teens. I don't remember all the details, but my biggest point was, "You don't turn 18 and suddenly become aware of right and wrong." Even a toddler, I argued, knows when he or she is forbidden to do something, and will act appropriately sneaky when approaching the cookie jar. Can we really say a 13 or 14-year-old simply misunderstands that killing is a no-no?

You might as well say they're stupid.

Well, friends, (and especially my young ones), the Bible says let no one look down on you because you are young, but set an example for other believers..."  It would be nice if we had a get-out-of-trouble free card--and many adults are trying to hand us one. They call us immature and impulsive. But God says, even in our youth, we are not clueless.  We can set an example.

Nothing in Scripture suggests that kids aren't smart enough, informed enough, or controlled enough to be accountable. Be wary of people who say otherwise. 

In fact, be ANGRY.

Insurance

To what extent should Christians prepare for the "just-in-case" scenario? Where is that line between faith in God and taking unnecessary risks?

It's complicated. And, I have no doubt, it MUST be an individual decision.

This topic was brought up by a friend, who is weighing the pros and cons of vaccinating young girls against HPV--a disease contracted through sexual contact which often leads to cervical cancer. Without dispute, two individuals who come together as virgins and remain faithful to each other will not get HPV. But the question becomes: how often does that scenario play out? Can you be sure your child will conform to the plan?

Everybody knows teens experiment with sex, while STDs among them reach epidemic proportions. So, wouldn't a caring mother elect to vaccinate her daughter out of concern she will make a mistake?  Shouldn't I, as a Christian, teach Cami what God desires and then prepare for the worse?

I don't believe so.

Personally, I believe the vaccine is unnecessary if I'm trusting God has a plan for her life. I believe encouraging my daughter to get a vaccine reveals to her that I don't trust her--which sends a mixed signal. That said, I should mention my own mother argues with me.

When I was 20-years-old, I visited the gynecologist for the first time, for a premarital check-up. (This was about 6 months before the wedding.) The doctor really tried to sell me on the Gardisil (HPV) vaccine, and I remember being frustrated by the way he worded things:

 "It only takes having sex one time to catch it!"
"So some people are just born with it?" I asked for clarification.
"No, it's an STD. But it's spreading like crazy, and having sex with an infected person once puts you at risk."
"But, my fiance and I are virgins," I told him.
Again, he repeated, "The virus causes the most common cases of cervical cancer, which could put your unborn children in danger. Is it something you're willing to gamble?"
Finally, I demanded a straight, this-is-the-situation answer: "If two people have sex with ONLY each other, for life, is there a risk for HPV?" I asked.
"No."
"Well, then that sounds like a prenup to me. Thank you, I will opt out." 

I felt comfortable with my decisions, but my mom wasn't happy. She asked, "Are you willing to risk your life on the belief that Luke will be faithful?!" I was dumbfounded. Uh, yeah, that's why I was marrying him. It wasn't just my physical life at stake--my emotional and spiritual health were being invested in him as well. We would become one flesh, eternally united, dependent on each other in every, single way. This way my vote of faith in him--and in the God who oversees our lives. But Mom made the point many, many others are making: "What's wrong with just-in-case protection?"

-----
Now I'm a mother, too, and this issue will present itself AGAIN when Cami is about 9 years old and a candidate for the shot.

The control-freak in me wants to make SURE my baby stays out of trouble. I want to take precaution to guarantee her safety. But the Holy Spirit in me knows that's impossible.

First of all, none of us takes EVERY precaution to ensure physical safety. Kids die in car wrecks all the time, but we still drive with them. Kids choke, but we still feed them. If we wrapped our children in cotton and never let them out of the house, we'd be considered paranoid. So, clearly, there is a fine line between good, protective mother, and clinically insane. So, which risks are worth risking?

Of course, those who say I can't be sure my daughter will remain a virgin until marriage are correct. But those trying to keep their daughters from every pitfall cannot do so, either. Thankfully, it's not my job to worry about it! I'm supposed to teach Cami Jo what God expects of her, and then trust HE will guard her heart and body. Even at 9, I can have an age-appropriate conversation with her about the shot and why Mommy is refusing it. Something to the effect of: "If you follow God's plan for your life, you won't need to worry about getting sick." The rest is up to her...and her Savior.

But, I recognize than many--even other Christians--feel differently, and that is why I stressed the need for an individual choice. This push to pass a law requiring the vaccine for all girls assaults my parental rights. Throughout history, mothers have disagreed about what is best for their children, and no law forcing us to make the same choice will solve the problem. (Some people think feeding a kid fast food is akin to child abuse. Should we outlaw it? Some mothers think it's appropriate to let a boy wear dresses. Should we make a national vote of it?)  

But, specifically about the vaccine. How do you feel? And, while we're at it, how do you feel about Christian couples signing prenuptial agreements? They promise to be together until death, but prepare for the possibility of breaking that promise... Is this wise or wrong?

I Don't Understand How Someone Could...

All of us get worked up from time to time, and the temptation to rant about it can be irresistible. (Believe me, I know.) But, when we lash out, unrestrained, at any person, organization, or practice--as if any other view were completely crazy--we often just appear ignorant.

Consider: the commenter, Alison Cummins, at the bottom of this article, whose pseudo-question "What's Bible-Based Business Education?" was just a way to introduce her verbal tirade about why we should avoid anything faith-based. Or, to criticize the other side equally, consider the (many) Christians who call post-abortive women "evil and unforgivable," or who find nothing in common with "monsters" locked in prisons...  

I believe, if we can't find at least one positive thing to say about the person/thing upsetting us, then we probably don't know enough.

That's not to say you have to change your opinion to be credible. (The male commenter on the above article calls himself an atheist and still allows that not ALL religious organizations are scams.) But, when we find ourselves saying, "I just don't understand how someone could _____," then maybe we need to find out. (And I mean actually find out. Not ask questions we don't want answered because we already "know" Bible-based business training must be as bad as we "know" christian marriage counseling is.)

If you really don't understand how/why someone could abort their child, then do some research! I just can't believe that all who've made the decision are simply out-of-their-minds, so why not find out what they were thinking? Maybe you'll still conclude abortion is murder. But a little empathy never hurt. If you can't imagine why a woman would allow her husband control over her, then ask about the "submission" principle. Maybe, at the end of the day, you'll discover you have the facts wrong. And maybe your understanding of Bible-based business instruction is equally confused.

I'm writing this for myself as much as for anyone. I once told my dad I "just don't understand" how anyone could vote Obama in for a second term. He replied: "I can...They honestly think he's doing a good job."  Now, both of us happen to disagree--but it's important to understand where others are coming from. We do this by assuming they aren't completely insane and they DO have their reasons.

When we find ourselves filled with rage over a situation, and we believe we'll never understand it, that's when we must stop spouting off long enough to find some common ground.

Faith in Faith

 Here's a devotional by Kenneth Copeland I stumbled upon which--quite frankly--gave me the creeps. Ever since I wrote a research article on the Word of Faith movement back in high school, teachings like his make me shiver...

I've talked about idols before, and specifically the human tendency to decide what kind of attributes they want God to have before worshiping Him, instead of looking for what He's really like.  This happens when we stray from the truths of Scripture and start imagining what WE would do if WE were God. Many of our ideas probably would have a taste of the Word. But the less we consult our Bibles, the more likely we are to pollute its message, little by little, over time. Inevitably, if we continue to accept and believe fractured pieces of truth, we will end up not worshiping God at all--but something of our own creation.

In the case of Kenneth Copeland and other proponents of the Word of Faith movement, their creation is a god called Faith.  Oh, they will use Scripture to back up their teachings, and they will approach the Truth so closely that, sometimes, it's difficult to detect the problem. In fact, 90% of the above devotional is perfectly fine.

But then he slips in things like:

Faith is a powerful force. It always works. It’s not that our faith is weak and needs strength, but without the power of patience, we stop its force from working in our lives because of our negative words and actions. It’s our faith, and we can either put it into action or stop it from working.

When you start saying, "Faith is a force," and (he has been quoted as saying) "It is spiritual substance which has the ability to effect natural substance" things start to get hazy. And, pretty soon, "faith" is given so much power it trumps God Himself.

Copeland has said in other places, "God cannot do anything for or against you apart from faith" and "God's on the outside looking in...he doesn't have any legal entree into the world. The thing don't belong to him."  In the above devotional, he hints at these beliefs when he says:

Without the substance of faith, that kind of praying will not produce results. You can see that in a critical situation this would be dangerous. We need to have our thinking straightened out according to the Bible, so we can use these forces properly and produce God’s perfect will in our lives.

 In other words, it's up to us to make things happen. God has nothing to do with it. It's the human's job to use faith (the REAL power) to get what we want. And, if we do it wrong, it can even be "dangerous!" We could accidentally cause bad things to happen, through the power of our faith-filled words. Faith is a tricky, unforgiving god...

*Shiver*

Here is a pretty good video outlining the problems with Copeland's theology and others of the Word of Faith movement. (Ignore the annoying host, and listen to the guy he's interviewing.)  :)   As for me, I choose to put my trust in the one true God, who answers to no one--especially not a fictitious god called "faith."

Burnt Toast. Yes, Please.

I've discovered it's difficult to spend even 30 minutes writing every day when I have a 3-month-old. She likes to take 15-minutes catnaps throughout the day, so I find myself throwing something in the microwave or grabbing a quick shower when she's asleep. I fully intend to write regularly again, once her sleep is more predictable...or when she's old enough to understand the phrase, "Mommy Time." Whichever comes first.

Meanwhile, I'll throw in a post when I find something I deem post-worthy. For instance, I've heard some buzz about Teri Hatcher's new book, Burnt Toast and Other Philosophies of Life, but I find myself unimpressed with her overarching "philosophy." This article offers an excerpt, and I encourage you to read it

Basically, the title of the book comes from Teri's experiences watching her mother eat the burnt toast during breakfast, so no one else would have to do it. I think all of us have a grandmother, aunt, or mother who does the same type of thing: eats the "defective" entree, takes the smallest piece of cake, or serves herself last--after the food has gone cold. And Teri thinks this is a shame!

"Up 'til now, I ate the burnt toast. I learned that from my mother -- metaphorically if not literally. I can't actually remember if she even likes toast or how she eats it. But what I know for sure is that although she was a loving and devoted wife and mother, she always took care of everyone and everything else before herself. This habitual self-sacrifice was well intended, but ultimately it's a mixed message for a child. It taught me that in order for me to succeed, someone else had to suffer. I learned to accept whatever was in front of me without complaint because I didn't think I deserved good things."

I understand the point she's trying to make. Women, don't consider yourselves second-class. Do things for yourselves every once in awhile! Blah, blah, blah.  But, I think Teri sort of misunderstands the principle behind eating burnt toast. And she certainly doesn't grasp the positive side of self-sacrifice. 

It's in a mother's nature to do anything for her family. We make grand claims, like, "I would take a bullet for my baby" and "I would move mountains to make sure they're safe," because our families are our number one concern. The protective instinct is God-given, love-driven, and--for the most part--applauded by society. Good moms will lay down their lives for their loved ones, and that's as it should be.

So, why do we scoff at a more practical example of that principle? Most of us will never get the chance to prove our love in martyrdom (thank God!) But all women will come face-to-face with the chance to be sacrificial at the dinner table. Comparatively, this is easy! Why does it make Teri's skin crawl?

I'd rather have a few cold dinners than brag about mountains I'll never actually be able to move.
I'd MUCH rather say, "I love you" with a piece of burnt toast than with that bullet we always reference. 

 Self-sacrifice is part of motherhood, but I don't think that's a bad thing. Self-sacrifice is necessary for true love. If "There's no love like a mother's,"we shouldn't be surprised when women volunteer for the raw end of the deal now and then, and we shouldn't pity them for that, either.  There is a certain joy in knowing you're loving your family the best way you can. And if it's a simple as burnt toast, I hope I get the chance to eat a LOT of it...


(Note: I want to reiterate that I have not read all of Teri's book, and that she says her aim is to empower women who feel they "don't deserve" anything good in life. There is a difference between sacrificing due to low self-esteem, and sacrificing out of love--which builds high self-esteem. I simply wished to make the point that--perhaps--Teri misunderstood her mother's motivation, and that sacrificially eating the burnt toast can be another kind of empowerment...)