 |
| Dance at Bougival, 1883 Pierre-Auguste Renoir, France |
Notice) This was written by my own "personal" viewpoint, hence can "never" be an "absolute" criterion to say about. Plus it is not that I intentionally pen to define what it is a man and woman, its definition.
* Quoted the Bible: esv version
🌻 Lately, I'm drifting(falling) into the thought of what a man and woman are, and what love is between them...
That said, it sounds like an ambiguous(equivocal), unanswered, and a needless question like these query; e.g. what life is, what death is, what love is, who I am... and so on.
Thus I have struggled not to recount(express) about that issue "at all ", for it looks tremendously convoluted(intricate) issue, which looks unanswerable...forevermore...
Nevertheless, what I made a decision to write about that issue is, on the one hand, I might have felt a suffocating and painful sentiment that I have struggled not to write about that, on the other hand, I might want to put my scattering and complicate ideas in order, and express (not define) its mind and heart through writing...
Most importantly, my personal thought can never be an "enforcement(coercion)" that you should think it the same as the way I assume. Hope no one is brainwashed by my personal(subjective) standpoint...
Besides, hope readers don't judge regarding my " personal viewpoint "; just hope they know that "someone" has such a mind and heart regarding the issue of man and woman and what love is between them...
 |
| Wedding Rings |
Another reason that I had to think about the issue was caused by the news article in my country, the headline was, this: " To live alone is a fantasy."
What do you think about that? ...
In any case, I was personally faced with that issue as well. Lots of comments were added concerning the issue, and the news article looked like a subjective fiction a little bit.
I read some of their comments, these are samples that they wrote comments on the news comment section; I partly translated some comments.
When I read it again so as to post, I spotted(discovered) that most people supported(advocated) an unmarried life, I could not even find many positive comments about a married life. This is their comments:
Initial ID, false names
B : Oct 10, 2020. Time: 14:29
Becoming a couple per se is a fantasy! Just "money" is the best.
B: 14:06
If the "euthanasia" đźš‘ (assisted suicide) is legitimately accepted, to live alone is the best of the best, when I'm sick and aged.
23gram: 13:57
Taking comfort from other people was already gone. Can we be really consoled from other people? In my case, never...
Love? friendship? family? They have never consoled my deep heartache, on the contrary, I might be exploited from them.
People are getting more and more wicked and selfish, whereas should I become an unselfish person alone? If so, will they like me?
Never, I will be treated as an idiot. It is possible to debate an " ideal desk theory" as many as one likes!
In short, the more people live with others, the more we are suffered by.
W: 13:56
Wedding is the very fantasy, we were all fooled by that marriage custom, so that we were bound by husbands or wives or families, losing our work experience.
P: 14:46
To quietly live alone is the best and then to die like so is the best.
H:
Who said like this? ; Sharing one's sadness is to be a half, sharing one's pleasure is to be a double? Never! Sharing one's sadness is to be a "sore point", and sharing one's joy is to be a "jealousy."
P: 15:38
A manifold(unmarried or married) lives might have to coexist.
H: 15:38
No one has loved me.
There was labeled as the three opinions about an unmarried life in their midst.
1) Few negative opinions about unmarried life
2) Many positive opinions about unmarried life
3) Sit on the fence: both negative and positive opinions about unmarried life
In conclusion: They advocated an unmarried life like this; To live alone is the best.
In My Personal View
To begin with, when I have mused (pondered over) about this issue, I had to search for the Bible of what it was recorded. But yet, the Bible looks provocative, paradoxical(contradictory), and obscure, etc. in my eyes...
- Summing up, the Bible, as far as I know;
(1) Genesis
1:27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
1:28: And God blessed them. And God said to them. " Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heaven and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
2:18 ..." It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him."
2:21~23 : ... So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh ; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."
24: Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
In this passage, personally I wonder why it was not recorded in advance about this passage; "a helper fit for him (Adam)"-2:18 in place of this phrase; " Be fruitful and multiply..." -1:28
If a human has to be fruitful and multiply, then there must exist an opposite gender first. If so, I think that this phrase, "a helper fit for him", should have recorded ahead of time in order to be fruitful and multiply between a man and woman. Thus the meaning of "helper fit for him(Adam)" might simply not mean a "sex partner" like the apostle Paul stated;
1 Corinthians 7: 1~2 : ..." It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.
Well, even so, God already created a male and femaleă…ˇthe Bible was recorded like this; 1:27 "God created man" ă…ˇwhy was it written like this?
It looks incomprehensible(strange) in my eyes, this is not "a" man, nor is "men", but was recorded that God "created man." In other words, it seems that God is man is him is; male and female become themă…ˇ they are God Himself.
Does it mean that God has an intersexuality?... So, is it the reason that was recorded that way?
Beyond that, when God said, " Be fruitful and multiply... -1:28, It seems that this word was not to be spoken to a visible Adam and Eve directly and practically, but seems to be spoken to an invisible(nominal, conceptual) male and female in the image of God;
1:27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
1:28: And God blessed them. And God said to them. " Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heaven and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
Along those lines, it seems that God already created a male and female in the image of God. But the Bible said, God created Adam and Eve later again, further, a woman was created later than a man as below;
2:7 Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.
2:22 And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.
It looks conceptual that God already created the male and female in the image of God.
Then, who are they really, which was recorded 1:27ă…ˇIn the image of God he created him; male and femaleă…ˇ" him; male and female" in the image of God? Does it mean that God Himself is the male and female?
Was it simply a conceptual(nominal) sex-division, but didn't they exist in practice like a visible(earthen) Adam and Eve?
The Bible stated; male and female in the image of Godă…ˇ as we see, it was recorded; "male and female", whereas when the Bible described Adam and Eve, it was differently written like this; man and woman.
What is different from between a man/woman and a male/female? I think that it is the same meaning in English, isn't it ?...
If it mentions just a conceptual gender, then God might have an intersexuality in Him; male and female simultaneously...
(2) 1 Corinthians 7:1~40
The apostle Paul states;
1~2 : ..." It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.
10~11: To the married I give this charge(not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband. (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.
To The Unmarried and the Widowed : 26 : I think that in view of the present distress it is good for a person to remain as he is.
28: But if you do marry, you have not sinned, and if a betrothed woman marries, she has not sinned. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that.
39: A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.
40: Yet in my judgment she is happier if she remains as she is. And I think that I too have the Spirit of God.
(3) The relationship of the Groom and the Bride-esv
The Eternal Covenant of Peace: Isaiah 54:5 For your Maker is your husband, the LORD of hosts is his name; and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer, the God of the whole earth he is called.
2 Corinthians 11: 2 For I feel a divine jealousy for you, since I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ
Walk in Love: Ephesians 5: 23 : For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body(His people), and is himself its Savior.
24: Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.
25: Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.
Revelation 19:9 ...."Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb."....
And in this section, Ephesians 5:24~25
24: Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.
25: Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.
In honest, no one might be able to submit in "everything" for one's husband, and love one's wife to give himself up for her like that...
So, in my eyes, this might be figuratively emphasized on " the being of Christ" as the head of the Church(His People) rather than a bodily husband and wife word for word.
Besides this, it looks that we people cannot submit in everything to Christ, nor can we people love Christ to give ourself up for Christ either. Instead, Christ might have to let us be submitted or let us give ourself up for Christ.
The book of Genesis describes that; "It is not good that the man should be alone", so that God created the helper(woman) fit for him(Adam).
In this passage, I don't know the meaning of "helper" of what it manifestly means if a woman is simply a sex partner or not, like the apostle's perspective.
According to English dictionary that I have refers to a
" helper" like this;
1) a person who contributes to the fulfillment of a need or furtherance of an effort or purpose.
2) a person who helps people or institutions(esp. with financial help)
Anyway, the apostle Paul states that; " It is good for a person to remain as he is." like Paul himself.
For why? ....above all, God said that " It is not good that the man should be alone."
I don't fully understand this statement that the apostle Paul proclaimed like that..." It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman."
If so, what about women? Is it good for a woman to have sexual relations with a man? Because, a woman is not a man?
Even it looks nonsensical(unmet) in my eyes... , since it is different from what God said; " It is not good that the man should be alone."
Doesn't he, the apostle Paul, have a sexual desire at all? How is it possible to be, If he is also a human and male ?
I guess that the apostle Paul would have been announced its proclamation to the unmarried because of "his own sexual temptation." (sexual immortality) For he was none other than an unmarried man.
Hence, he might have been only obsessed the sexual desire all the time than any one else, so he might have been confined the definition of a marriage like this; But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.
If so, he should have not proclaimed like this; " It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." , which looks like his "self-contradiction" and "self-righteousness."
And it seems to be his(Paul's) own pride by which he can abstain from a sexual immorality unlike the married people who have a sexual desire in them, and who are likely to do sexual immorality by the sexual desire unlike unmarried Paul himself, in fact, everyone seems to have an intrinsic sexual desire.
Even so, "everybody" seems not to transgress a sexual immorality(e.g. sex crimes) in practice, even if they don't get married...
I wonder about the "specific meaning" of the "sexual immorality" that the apostle Paul proclaimed. Does it mean an adultery?...
Well, if so, Jesus already responded about that;
Matthew 5: 27~28 " You have heard that it was said, " You shall not commit adultery. " But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Then what good is it to mention about the sexual immorality that the apostle Paul stated?ă…ˇ"It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." , which looks like a rigid ascetic...
Because, everybody is already adulterers. It's meaningless to mention it to the married or unmarried...
In addition, if the apostle Paul didn't feel the sexual temptation at all, then he would not have been able to express "the temptation to sexual immorality " itself, in other words, he might have felt the lustful desire as an ordinary people.
The apostle Paul seems to simply confine the definition of marriage is, ''because of the temptation to sexual immortality'', so to speak, for fulfilling a lust for sex through a bondage of marriage. Is it really true like the apostle Paul said?... Humm...
If it is true, then all human beings must not have(desire) a lustful mind any longer by means of marriage, or must not commit adultery, whereas have been committing adultery...
Because it looks that a humanity can never be satisfied with such a sexual desire by a married life "only between husband and wife."
Plus, the apostle Paul said to the unmarried; wedding is not sinned;
28: But if you do marry, you have not sinned, and if a betrothed woman marries, she has not sinned. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that.
38: So then he who marries his betrothed (engaged) does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better.
Why is said that; " if you do marry, you have not sinned, and if a betrothed woman marries, she has not sinned." ?
But yet, as far as I know, everything humans do is to be sinned...
And the apostle Paul seems to hint at the thing, saying this:
7: 7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God , one of one kind and one of another.
7: 17 Only let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches.
Namely, it seems to mean that; " Do live as God only leads, if it is married or unmarried." By the way, humanly speaking, a married life looks impossible to be "one flesh" like below;
Genesis 2: 24: Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
And we people seems not to know this expressionă…ˇ "become one flesh" of what it actually means... Does it simply mean a sexual relationship? If not, what does it mean really ?...
In fact, even people say that wedding is a crazy thing.
According to the Bible, it seems to state that husband and wife are married (or exist) for symbolizing the relationship of Christ and His people "as a husband and wife", so that a customary marriage might not be able to attest one's "love result" and one's " sexual relation."
But rather, we people might have to realize that a bodily husband and wife can never be united through a bondage of marriage vice versa, thus God might have allowed such a marriage custom to human to realize the very fact that we people can never be achieved the thing that God wants as a means of marriage between a bodily husband and wife.
In that context, a marriage might be matched up with a false image, beyond that, might not exist for the sake of human, such as : honeymoon, happy married life, childbirth, family, sexual life, overcoming loneliness, getting over dying alone, etc.
Even God exterminates one's family behind, such as: murder case, divorce, bankruptcy, adultery, husband's or wife's early death, children's death, incest, disease, etc., even if the apostle Paul said that do not divorce, giving its charge;
10~11: To the married I give this charge(not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband. (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.
The apostle Paul said, "To the married I give this charge(not I, but the Lord)" , which means that it was not said by Paul himself, but was said by the Lord. But God Himself seems to let it(everything )happen behind...
Even the concept of "adultery" might be different from a human's(including Paul's) perspective;
Jesus said: Matthew 5: 27~28 " You have heard that it was said, " You shall not commit adultery. " But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
In this passage, the adultery that Jesus said looks it was only recorded for men, but it will correspond to women, tooă…ˇwomen will also have a lustful mind(intent), looking at men...
Accordingly, we, everybody, are already all adulterers, if so, what good is it to get married, or to literally mention "do not divorce" , which the apostle Paul stated based on the intention of the Lord?....
The Bible's statement looks confusing, paradoxical, provocative, and fickle, etc. in my eyes...
Nevertheless, why should we people get married , or should not get a divorce, despite we people are already all adulterers like Jesus said?
Well, in the bigger picture, it might be the same with this status and question; ultimately we human live in order to die, despite why do we have to live?... True be told, to live is meaningless... Moreover, we human are "only sinned" day by day. Regardless, we human might have to live until the day we die... For God seems to want it, which also looks contradictory...
Why do we human have to live sinning? It might as well die, or it is better not to be born from the beginning... But according to the Bible, being sinners and sinning as sinners are for the "Salvation" by Christ's atonement... It seems that His creature(humans) must be intentionally and forcibly(unilaterally) sinners for it.
God created His people(creature) to be His sinners(enemies), slaves(generally, people know it as servants, but as far as I know, it is right to originally interpret/translate as slavesă…ˇ " Doulos "), sons, brides(women), bodies, children, friends, fishermen...etc. How many do we humans have to play the multiple roles at the same time like that...? Who are we among them really?
...No, if His people become (another) Christ in Him, playing the multiple roles for Him, then Christ Himself will have to do the same thing for His people. Because His people are to be Christ Himself.
So, God might have been a human; as the sinners, as the slave(servant) of man, as the son of man, as the fisherman who only catches His people in the world, as the groom, as the sheep(sacrifice) for the atonement, as the Father, as the friend of man...etc. According to the Bible, God did its every roles in person not as God, but as a human, putting on a man's flesh in order to be same with humans(His people). If so, His creature(His people) will have to become Christ Himself, too, putting on His flesh, and letting His blood circulate, and being only His woman with His own rib...
In short, if God became a human, then His people will have to be Christ Himself in Him in order to be the same with Him; not I, but Christ, so they are "we." And if God already set it up to play the multiple roles to His people, then it will have to be done...like God all did it.
In general, regardless of the notion of the Bible, I think that either married life or unmarried life, both are distressed by worldly troubles... Beyond that, to live alone is also selfish to avoid worldly troubles and relationships between husband and wife, or among other people.
But the apostle Paul stated not to get married to the unmarried and the widowed owing to the present distress and worldly troubles;
" I think that in view of the present distress it is good for a person to remain as he is."
"Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. "
Is it not selfish, either?
If so, what about unmarried men or widowers(single fathers)? Is it okay that they get married or remarried unlike unmarried women or widowed women?.... Why would the apostle Paul say it to "only" unmarried women and the widowed? It looks unfathomable, too...
Well, even some say that "Do not be logical before God", believers(I don't even know if I'm a believer or not) must believe in God without any questions, rebellions, etc.
If so, why did God give a thinking power to human? Is it possible to believe in God without any questions like those who boldly address in that manner?...
Such a mindset looks like an eyeless faith(blind loyalty) and the factor that they are likely to be brainwashed by pastors or the theology of Christianity vice versa like they are a "yes-man" who is a person of unquestioning obedience, which I was fooled by...
On the other hand, the Bible says:
Acts 17:10~11 The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
In other words, it might be meant that people(these Jews) in Berea examined the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so in the Jewish synagogue, when Paul and Silas preached their words(the words) in.
If so, why don't they examine the Bible to see if these things are so in churches, when preachers(pastors) preach their words?
Because, they are a yes-man who don't like to think itself... They might want to believe
invisible pastors to be their God... The way looks more easy than intricately(complexly) think what it is, even if it seems not to be solved such questions, thus it might be a futile waste of time in some ways...
But rather, even thinking, expressing(speaking), communicating, something like that, all these things might be sinned...
For the Bible states;
James 3:6 And the tongue is a fire, a world of unrighteousness. The tongue is set among our members, staining the whole body, setting on fire the entire course of life, and set on fire be hell.
But it looks impossible people are not to express something by the tongueă…ˇincluding music, writing, dance, painting, movie, book, letter, etc., all the things. Such mediums and expressions are like the tongue, but indirect tongues(languages).
In contrast, people are not a "log" and "machine", they have each of their own mind and heart, but all is sinful, which will be a common point. Namely, expressing itself is to be sinned by our(human's) inherited sinful nature, further the tongue is set our members;
James 3:6 The tongue is set among our members, staining the whole body, which might be meant the one of our members(sinful flesh).
If we people are sinned by the tongue, then it might as well become a log or machine per se, however, it looks that God doesn't want people to be such a log and machine, although He seems to want people to be His Cyborg (robot: programmed-machine) as if His slaves who must not have their own volition, desire, hope, mind, heart, etc. as they wish, but as God only wishes and programs. What a contradictory it is!
 |
| A Cyborg Image source: Google |
In one sense, God might want His people(creature) to think and express through the tongue (or indirect tongues: every expressions, such as: art, literature, music, etc.) like God Himself is the Word itself;Even God might want to disclose(express) Himself among His creature and to communicate with them... So that, the Bible might have been repeatedly recorded this expression; " Thus says the Lord..." ă…ˇIsaiah 43:16
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
To return, everybody might as well become the blind, the deaf, and the mute not to be sinned, expressing something by their tongue... But God made the tongue to speak as well... The tongue is this;
Of course, what the focus that the book of James stated in this passage is, might be meant that "do not become teachers" who will be judged with greater strictness (with the flaming tongue, which is very small among our bodies, but is deadly destructive...)James 3:6 And the tongue is a fire, a world of unrighteousness....omitted...and set on fire be hell.
8: But no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.
James 3:1 Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.
Further, I wonder why many pastors boldly(without fear) teach(preach) the Bible unlike the statement of the book of James;Such a flaming tongue might brainwash other people... that's why the tongue turns out a tinder to make fire... thus, in my eyes, in a manner of speaking, not only Christians under Christianity, but also all believers under their religions seem to be brainwashed by the tongue that sets on fire be hell.
If they pastors were not crazy by something invisible power, then they would not have been able to boldly teach(preach)the Bible, drawing other people thereby... Well, in fact, both pastors and followers(believers) might have been drawn to do like that "by God" as well...
Just they look crazy through the teaching of the Bible and listening its sermons by pastors.... I don't even know whether my perspective(as above) is right or not...
Actually, we everybody looks crazy because of our(man's) sinful nature...
Sometimes, I understand unbelievers' condemnation against them; they write comments on the news comments section due to believers' "face to face worship" (its infection) in churches amid coronavirus pandemic; they wrote;
In short, "All pastors are impostors who don't want to do hard work as common people, instead, they are only crazy for money(offering), and their believers are crazy to go into heaven receiving the eternal life, all they are crazy people!"
From time to time, unbelievers seem that they know what the truth is than pastors and believers... In contrast, believers seem to condemn such unbelievers who will go into Hades(hell) unlike believers themselves..., which is said by believers...
Anyway, a pastor whom I know in my country answered against such unbelievers' insistence through his church homepage like this;
" Never mind, what they are barking, they are possessed by the devil, and have no Jesus' spirit in them like we are, so they are like dogs, pigs, and the dead bodies that have no Jesus' spirit in, thus we believers who received the Holy Spirit may ignore their objection and presence as many as one likes(without limit). We believers must cling to meet in church at any cost( like grim death). In a way manner, believers must be crazy only for the gospel and Christ. If we believers don't congregate in churches, then we are the same as such unbelievers who are afraid of dying by coronavirus, and we are those who are afraid of dying before the Cross."
But the pastor answered, using his church's nameă…ˇit was not his real name, but was a hidden name...
For why?
He seemed fear as to his answer, if he would be attacked by others(not his tame church members) or not, is it not the fear of death without the Cross, which he proclaimed that way?...
He, the pastor, was well known for the one who only preaches the very "gospel of the Cross"ă…ˇthey are called it like this, and who teaches the so-called non-religious items;
e.g.) Do not contribute money(offering, tithe), the religious building of church must be destroyed, all kind of religious deeds can never be saved, believers must be thoroughly dead their sinful nature in Christ...etc.
Above all, he receives money(offering) through his followers(or church members), whenever he preaches the so-called gospel. And he has his own church(building), and preaches the Bible messages in there. Plus, he has been inviting to deliver sermons to many gathering amid this crisis of coronavirus pandemic, and even he used to be invited from his followers who have lived in abroad.
.... I don't even know what it is the very truth... only God will know it...
To return, that said, I think that it is not only the tongue, but also every human's bodies(members)are sinned with their brain, eyes, ears, fingers, hands, and legs...etc. These are a restless evil, full of deadly poison, too... like I have been blogged with my fingers(my indirect tongue), brain, and eyes..., which is a restless evil, full of deadly poison...
But God created a man's brain to think, eyes to see, ears to listen, mouth(tongue) to speak, fingers to do something, legs to move... the whole body to do work for... Along those lines, everything looks paradoxical(conflicting) what God wants...
By the way, how can we people know something without thinking, questioning, and expressing?...
Anyway, the question about God(including the Bible)looks like an endless and unfathomable riddle and mystery... The Almighty God is different from humans who are all sinners, so we people cannot even know God as such sinners... Just many things look unfathomable with much recondite(abstruse) conflicts, paradox, and dilemma in the Bible and in our lives... Therein lies too much contradicting dilemma(conflicts or controversies)...
And everything seems to have a double-sideness in, even time has the dilemma; as a killer and healer, which is quoted from other author.
What if it is possible that humans don't sin, then trying not to be sinned is, might also be sinned, because we humans must be sinners in the presence of God, God saves such sinners only. Phew....
Just pigs cannot eat the pearl, but rather, "trample" it like "me"...
Matthew 7:6 ...Do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.
I am none other than the dirty pig that tramples the precious and holy pearl in the dungheap... despite I might be still alive by the Mercy of God... What if I lived in the age of the Old Testament, I would have been already killed by God...
 |
| A Black Hog In The Dungheap... Image : Pixabay |
At any rate, if it is unmarried or married, both are also selfish, because those who want to be unmarried want to avoid the suffering of relationships, and those who want to be married want to exploit a husband or wife based on money and other various benefits under the bondage of marriage.
Contrariwise, to live alone is suffered by worldly troubles, and to live together is also distressed by earthly troubles until the day we people die...
For example, whether I blog or not, both let me be suffered...
What God created a man and woman is, He might want to reveal Himself through the opposite gender, so that theyă…ˇa man and woman, or husband and wifeă…ˇseem not to be fully satisfied through such relations with the opposite gender, including lust for sex, like a thirsty sugared water. For people usually say that;
"We are lonely, even if we love a beloved. We miss a beloved, even though we are looking at them."
Above all, willingly or unwillingly, people might have to be married or unmarried, not for their happiness, as God wishes, seemingly it looks that they are agreed to get married together, or someone decided to live alone, but it will be their predestined fate through which God leads that way...
To sum up my personal view, according to the Bible, God created man; male and female, in the image of God Himself, before Adam and Eve was created. Such a God seems to symbolize as a man(Groom), and His creature(people) are to be His woman(bride).
So, a bodily man and woman might not exist for the sake of themselvesă…ˇ it will not be for satisfying sexual desire through a different gender under a marriage, or for being fruitful and multiply word for word like those who gave birth their twelve children more than that... In one sense, they might regard it as God's blessing...
What is more important is, to be united with Christ again as one flesh like this; so to speak, " It is my flesh and blood and rib."
The bodily Adam might symbolize Jesus Christ Himself will be a new spiritual Adam, so that Adam(Christ) might have needed a woman(Eve) who is His People... Anyway, God, as a male, created a female(His People) to be united with Himself. Therefore, it would be this;
Spiritually speaking, there is only a man and woman, two persons(not the population of 7 billion) in this world; they are Adam and Eve are Christ and His people. And they are one flesh. There is no other men and women or husbands and wives in this world.
Well a long time ago, I watched this movieă…ˇThe Bridges of Madison County , was screened based on a real love story(roman a clef). But now I don't clearly remember, I think that this movie might be proper to exemplify our(human's) lives, its situation: the dilemma, the conflicts...something like that...
I would like to briefly tell the synopsis, for it is not a focus that I want to describe on this page.
 |
| The Movie: The Bridges of Madison County Image: Google |
At last, when the photographer was about to leave that village(nearby the bridge of Madison County, the state of Iowas, USA), she was vehemently swayed by the desire that would follow him, turning away her husband and childrenă…ˇwho would want to reject the moment ?... Even her children were not babies who needed to be cared by their mother.
Similarly, we people seem to distrust an invisible(impractical) love itself, instead, might want to choose the very visible(practical) reality of life. Perhaps people may know that love is not everything in our lives...
Just she and the photographer might have been faced with the situation by God's will. Accordingly, they might have been a victim(sacrifice) for the sake of God Himself, not for the sake of them. Perhaps, they would have been suffered by such a complicated sentiment(conflict, dilemma), which looked love...
In conclusion:
I would like to think about "a man and woman " and "their love" like this;
True be told, I assume that we people cannot truly love other people, for the so-called love might be supposed to only focus on " I ", not " You", is a self-centered love, an egoistic love...
Despite what if we people love him or her, even if it becomes a self-centered love or lustful desire, then its love would not come from our mind and heartă…ˇeven a hate would not come from our mind and heart. But God might stir up all the mind and heart like we are possessed by something invisible spirits for every single moment.
A man and woman, the different gender, might only exist for God's purpose as He only needs and wants, thus they might simply be an instrumentality(carrier, vehicle) to only reveal something God's will.
Just it looks like when God leads a man and woman to be married, then they have to get married, if not, they have to live alone.
Regardless of unmarried, or married, or divorced, or remarried, whatever it is, if God leads someone to fall in love(the definition of love by which is generally called by people), then he or she will have to be done... and if God wants them to be separated from, then they will have to be done at any time, on that day God wishes.
All it looks like a blowing wind...
Dust cannot blow on their own, but when the wind blows, it only reacts by the power of the wind...
And someday such a dust might have to be gone like the movie title: "Gone With The Wind..." , in other words, what they have to do after faced with the situation is, might be forsaken from the wind like a nonessential shell...
Because, God might only take something His needs(substance, essence) from them... that's all... perhaps...
Dust is not this, nor is that... that's why they are called a dust...
The author Virginia woolf also expressed it like this; " We are nothing, I said, and fell.ă…ˇThe waves. "
And there might not exist a specific aim and reward like blowing dusts in the wind... Instead, they might have to be victimized by that situation which is like the marks(signs) of wind; either broken, or disappeared, or fallen, or drift, or ...
In the movie, only the memories of their love might have remained in their heart with much heart-pang..., which looks like they were a victim by the situation that God deliberately stage-managed behind...
Despite they might have to be grateful of such a God's intervention... Sometimes it looks good to be one's slave who must not have their own volition, endeavor, decision etc., instead, just everything is to be done by his owner... the freedom out of somethings by which he has to do on his own... and the lightness of existence like dusts blowing in the wind...
A human's life might be the same with a fiction, which looks real and something similar seems to happen like so, but is not true in our lives as if a phantom...
This morning, I remember the movie title: " The English Patient" ( winner 9 academy awards, 1996 ), but I don't know well about the movie, for I just partly watched it a long time ago.
Well, Jesus answered about "be born again",
" The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit." ă…ˇ John 3:8
Just everything might be done...
Not to do, but be done...
 |
| A wild chrysanthemum beside the untraveled railroad... Image: pixabay |
