Are we literal yet?

• An example of one of the Biblical definitions of marriage - Deuteronomy 22:28-29 says that if you rape me and I'm engaged, then you get stoned (b/c obviously my man might still agree to marry me even though I'm ruint). BUT if I'm NOT engaged when you rape me then I have to marry you & you have to pay my daddy some money. Unless of course my daddy finds a different way to provide for me, then according to Exodus 22:16-17, I don't have to marry you. Whew!!! (so glad there's a loop hole there) 

  Holy jumping Jesus I'm glad all of our laws aren't Biblically based!! I don't think my own daddy would have sold me out, but if he couldn't afford to keep me then I might be married to a really short pilot right now - and raising his babies... Lets get literal y'all!!! Yeeehaw!

  I could do this all day, but the above scripture references were far and away my favorites. I like how there are some things (especially from the Old Testament) that we're supposed to look upon with great consideration given to the time period and context upon which it was written. Of course women today can make a living for themselves and don't need a husband to provide for them, so obviously it wouldn't be socially relevant or even necessary for women to marry their rapists.

  Then there are things we're supposed to take quite literally, like the very few passages remarking on homosexuality (a word that didn't even exist then). We're supposed to believe that loving relationships between two committed same-sex partners is the same as the forced sodomy committed against young boys that Paul was referencing in a majority of his scornful passages. (It's true, look it up!)

  Fundamentalists believe that the mass cultural (what they see as a breakdown) shift in our value system is due to the break up of the family, and maybe it is. But not for the reasons they think. Divorce and feminism they feel, have set us up for national failure. In Ephesians 5: 23-32 it says plainly that the husband is the head of the wife, and like the church submits to Christ, we ladies must respect and obey our husbands. And if more of us did that and left all the leadership stuff up to the men, then things would be juuuust fine, like they were in the 50's - when men could still beat their wives half to death and spent nary a night in jail for it. Back when things were good, silence about rape and incest were the best way to handle those sorts of things. Looking the other way when (some) men abused and tortured their wives and children is how we kept the status quo... But then women began to demand equal rights and look where that got us. We started earning degrees, working full time and supporting ourselves. The next thing you know, we're no longer listening to you, we're filing for divorce, and we're voting too!! And some simple minded, Biblical brained, short sighted barbarians, are still under the impression that where this country went wrong, began when women stopped submitting to their husbands. I counter that and suggest that where we went wrong was in asking women to lock-step behind some men who weren't worthy of being followed in the first place.

  I'd follow my own husband into Hell if he asked me to, simply because I know he'd have a damn good reason for asking it of me, and would only ask if he believed he could lead me safely through to the other side. I suppose it's all about who's reading what and what they're reading into things. But when I see: "As the church submits to Christ, so you wives must submit to your husbands in everything. And you husbands must love your wives with the same love Christ showed the Church. He gave up his life for her to make her whole and clean, washed by baptism and God's word. He did this to present her to himself as a glorious church without a spot or wrinkle or any other blemish. Instead, she will be holy and without fault. in the same way, husbands ought to love their wives as they love their own bodies. For a man is actually loving himself when he loves his wife." I don't find that I am bound by God to follow any man's word as though it were God's, or that I am to obey what my husband commands because he holds a higher authority than I do. I read from Ephesians and I think, God made men strong, brave and filled with the desire to provide for and protect his own family. He gave them sound logic and the confidence to stack reason onto good judgment. God made women gentle, kind and filled with the desire to nurture her family. He made her loving and emotional and able to tend the needs of the heart. In this, I see that God created us as a balance for one another. Should we choose to marry, I am to set aside my emotions and trust my husband that he will lead us according to God's will. Likewise, he will set aside logic and listen to my heart, trust that my emotions are genuine, that I will protect his heart (their hearts are fragile, you know?) and he will love me for it, the same as he loves himself. And just as my husband trusts that I would go to the ends of the Earth for him, I trust that he will only ask of me what he believes in his soul, will keep me safe and coming home to him. And as sad as it is, not all men inspire that kind of trust. But they should... Because that's how God designed them. He might not have made women as strong as men on the outside, but he made us mightily brave on the inside. 

  So if when you look around you, you don't see people living up to what the Bible says, ask then "What makes them defy it?" Perhaps Christians aren't being "persecuted" after all. Maybe... Just maybe, they're not living up to God's design for them. And if they did, the changes we wished to see, would surely come.

  If we all partnered with trust, extending it and deserving of it, I can only imagine what good would come of it. So let's leave judgment to our God, and worry more about living up to our design.