Many a political campaign has leaned upon the premise of 'change'. Why is that?? Well, largely because we are a dissatisfied group of people ...and are always looking for it. Looking for change that is, but often that which is best, we don't wait long enough for ...and we become deceived by empty promises.

Man and woman are both ever changing ...sometimes, and often ideally, changing together. By necessity, there must be somewhat a consensus to commit individually to that change for it to be a sweeping change.

But, cumulatively growing together is never unanimous ...and some feelings always get swept under the rug.

What does this do??

It causes people to grow apart.

Though inclined to make mistakes, the inevitable make-up of man and woman is, that they may have occasion to succeed and thrive.  Though they will for some generally unknown reason, not find gratification with what may seem small victories, and they return to the mistakes with surprising quickness.

It's as if we get bored with doing what is right, or effective. Or perhaps with an inclination to try something new, we gravitate away from what works ...somehow not realizing that we are repeating already tested areas that at one time did not work. Like it will somehow magically work this time.

There are two directions with growth ...as standing still is stagnation. One is in the direction of guarding the mistakes, or building a vocal defense ...and this is driven mostly by negative growth.  

The other direction is learning, while using mistakes as experience ...and experiencing positive growth. 

There are things that help or hinder the type of growth a person will choose.  One is negative experience.  Yet, if helping to learn, few experiences could actually be called negative ...it's what we do with the experience and how we approach it that matters. Another thing that affects growth is how we reconcile with what our definition of 'mistake' is.

It is often difficult to discern how we view ourselves and how we view others.  Do we view ourselves as growing, while we do not give those around us the same latitude??  

We may tend to excuse our own mistakes, reasoning it out as justification of our behavior ...as well as, often blaming others. But, if we view others differently than ourselves ...to what extent is our concern??  Do we want the best for others, or do we build a defense to keep ourselves from hearing their voices??

Do we have little tolerance for the views of others, no allowances for their mistakes, and no view of any possible growth in understanding??  
Let us not forget to consider that we can grow in ways perhaps undetected by us.  We can grow in proficiency in the blame-game, in our biases, and in bitterness.

The worse can seem to be when we do detect it, and celebrate our wretched ways.  But, perhaps after all, it is not worse. The undetected is difficult to deal with ...as it is seldom acknowledged.

Often a composite image is developed in one's mind ...compiled of a very bitter collection of selective rememberances that fit the composite.  

There is a narrative ...or an explanation of 'why', which explains the attitude, but never really addresses the 'why', as it is part of the premise to assign an explanation in advance.  And the restating of the premise always outshouts any attempt to understand, or especially debunk or dispel the narrative.

The composite image ignores any progress ...as the collection of past mistakes, or isolative incidents sometimes go back a lifetime ...sometimes even much longer.  And all present conditions or exceptional examples are not celebrated, as the composite is not seen for any good ...but only as a lull in the exposure of the bad, that is ever present and likely hiding.

Mistakes are not excused, and certainly not forgiven ...as they are viewed as deliberate.  And to confuse it even further ...mistakes as of yet, have not been defined.

A mistake is when we move further from God, yet the narrative also changes the composite image of God ...as He is often viewed as an emotionally detached Being. We often mistakenly view Him as so removed from being interested in our struggles ...that 'we' so remove Him from our mind, to the largest extent.

What happens when we do not view God as the caring Being that He is??

When this happens, often He is only mentioned in reference to convenience of the narrative ...and is mentioned when presented as "on the side of' whatever narrative is being presented.

When President Lincoln was asked about whether he felt God was on his side, in reference to the stance of the North against the South, and the issues that stood as divisive barriers ....Abe answered that he was not so concerned whether God was on his side, but that he was on God's side.

Sometimes anything political creates a conflict, but I have to agree with my wife ...this is about God, not our diverse agendas. God has always guided Israel. If we disagree, then I feel we must ask ourselves who is guiding us?

Has that made it easy for them??  

On the contrary, it has made it easier on us ...if we allow the truth to enlighten us. Though, often we think we learn valuable lessons that are grounded in falsehoods, and we create value judgments that draw us quickly to conclusions void of thorough thinking or truth.

When we think of how God guided Israel, we often think of Abraham or Moses. Anyone who thinks they had easy lives could stand to reopen the Bible to take a closer read of it.  And the same can be said for David, whom the nation prospered under ...while he was king.

King David loved God, but he didn't understand the world that God had him to live in ...therefore he didn't understand always what he was there for.

And just like us, he didn't understand all he could about God ....but, unlike many of us, he desired deeply to understand.

David ran through the wilderness to avoid Saul ...though David was not just a frightened person.  After all, David killed Goliath, whom everyone else seemed to fear.  And though Saul was attempting to kill David ...David had the opportunity to instead kill Saul, but he would not.  David had a respect for God's anointed.

And though there was much David was yet to understand, those around David  stood to learn much from his example.

David learned much, and showed others much of his good character.

When David did not show good behavior, he was a repentant man. This also showed exemplary behavior.  But still, though he did not always have the sensitivity towards others that showed true understanding, God still continued to mold his character.

While he was much in Saul's presence, before Saul took after chasing him, David married Saul's second daughter. David truly understood Michal's love ...as she clearly showed herself as a loving wife.  And when Saul, Michal's dad, the king, plotted to kill her husband, she helped her dear David slip out a window.

As David was on the run, he met a certain woman who was married to a wicked man ...yet this woman was kind to David. When her husband died, as the Bible says, the Lord smote her husband, David felt some obvious compassion for this kind woman, Abigail, who now seemed alone, and took her as a wife.

David also did not part compamy with Ahinoam, and took her as a wife. Moving on, David went into battle, and later took the daughter of King Geshur as his wife.

David was such a gracious man ...yet had spread his emotions among many who were not compatible to each other, though he loved each of them.

Michal had been given as a wife to another man ...and the man loved Michal.  After much time, Saul died ...and David became king.  He felt it was safe to call to have his wife back. The man who had her for a wife, wept bitterly.  

Yes, the Bible shows that emotion ...I can only imagine the emotion of the others involved, but I will imagine what it could have been.

Michal had been used to the love of the one man to whom she was given to by her dad.  She obviously saw that David had amassed several wives since he'd been forced to leave her.

Force was also not uncommon in that household, as the children of David grew. Amnon forced himself upon his stepsister, the sister of Absalom. Absalom let his anger simmer for about three years before he had some servants kill Amnon.

And when he got older, Absalom even conspired to kill his own dad, King David ...something he could not avoid if he planned on taking over the kingdom by force.

David fled Absalom, not wanting to do battle against his son ...yet, the battle ensued despite David's efforts to stay out of it.  And he grieved deeply upon hearing of Absalom's death.

His son's did not seem to share this same love for each other. Even after David's death from old age...his sons continued to do battle after his passing.

King David had treated women well ...and though it can be argued that one cannot treat a woman too well, one can treat too many women too well.

There is a society of people, a culture, or religion ...it's difficult to say what it is exactly, other than very distant from God.  The men often don't treat the women well, and often treat them very badly.  Some factions of these men rely on various justifications for doing so ...and some of them progressively even treat the women more badly.

Yet, there are those who have granted, as if they have the right to grant anything, the privilege of better treatment for women.  What I mean by granting, is that they should have the responsibility to have always treated women well, and if they do them better, that is also well.  But, it should be understood that God is the One who grants us life, and no person should put themselves in the position to degrade that life. Each of us has the same privilege of it as any other.

So, yes, we are thankful when we see improvement ...and when women are treated better.  But, when the women are given their rightful respect and honorable position in our society ...they should not look with bitterness on all those years when they had been rather looked down upon.  They should not in return look down upon the men and wish upon them the same wrongful treatment.

And in many Middle Eastern countries, we do see a bit more joy in the added liberties allowed, where in times past these freedoms were not allowed.  

They can be thankful for progress, and their thankfulness is also living proof that there can be mature growth ...not looking at it as past loss or a hindrance, but only as a benefit as a result of those liberties.

Likewise, I can't see a poor child who sees a rich kid down the street (assuming any poor kids can ever live in the same neighborhoods, or any rich parents choose to live humbly in a rather poor neighborhood) ...the rich kid getting a car for his birthday, and viewing that as humble (unless the parents give their child a junk heap to tinker with). Anyway, if the poor kid's parents scrape up money, and save for several years, then buy their son a car ...the son should not then say he is upset with his parents for having not bought him a car years ago.

And I don't quite understand in our country, the United States of America, how we can make more progress than we ever have (granted we will never be perfect as a society), but when we've advanced beyond what years ago could have imagined ...how we could then claim that we have not, and attempt to resurrect the emotions of past or isolated incidents where no one would admit to approving of, nor would any sane person support it ...

Past errors are certainly often grievous errors ...yet, they should be looked at to be forgiven, and to progress with an understanding of reconciliation.  It is the old movies of organized crime rings and bosses, who disdain any sense of attempted intimidation other than what they themselves solely participate in, and then respond to any degree of challenge or being in question for their actions, by responding quite threateningly, "Now you are going to get it!"

Getting even, and revenge are not the words of healing ...and to rebuild our nation, if we have to first tear it down, the good with the bad, and leave ourselves with worse ...then what benefit is that?  None, except perhaps a temporary quell in the anger of those who will not stop there, but will only suffice to justify fueling an angry mob.


An angry mob may seem to want to take their turn at ruling, yet mobs don't rule ...they only provide the framework for those waiting in the wings as wannabe leaders who are way more cunning than most of us could ever imagine.  They can only be elected if they highly deceive, or are very proficient at cheating ...but, mostly are too impatient to wait to gain support, and would rather gain it by fear or force.

Let's look at the intertwined emotions that express a bit of anger over the discussion of Heaven ...and the opinions concerning who goes there.


First of all, let's begin by not discussing the list of all the Supreme Beings, along with the associative afterlife conditions and properties. Let's just talk about God, and Heaven.


If you don't believe in God and Heaven, then you can have another conversation somewhere else ...this is not where you want to be.


I'm assuming those of you who are still here want to be in Heaven some day. The conversations I hear where people usually say they don't want to go to Heaven ...usually have an "if" attached to their statements.


I'll give an example to which there are usually variations on the way it is phrased, but it usually means close to the same thing: "If Heaven is not going to let those people in, then I don't want to go there either!"


I believe that if you believe in Heaven, you have to believe in God. And if you believe in God and Heaven, it seems logical that you'd also have to believe in Hell.


But, many of you say you believe in Heaven, yet you don't believe in Hell. And I don't see how that can be. I want all of Heaven, just like I usually want all my cake. But, I'm told I can't have my cake and eat it too. Truthfully, I'd give up all my cake if everyone could go to Heaven ...but, I'd also give up my cake if everyone could be peaceful here on earth.


But, then the conversation becomes one of asking, "Why don't I give up all my cake?" And I say, that I do like my cake, and I like my ice cream even more ...and I don't believe that eating all my cake has anything to do with one's going to Heaven, nor denying anyone else access there.


I guess, it could be said that I don't like it when someone tries to take my cake, without first of all asking. My wife likes cake too, and if she particularly likes a certain cake, she will ask for part of mine ...and I always give it to her, since I believe she is grateful for this ...and I see that when I give her some of my sweets, she gives me more of her sweetness in return. (I won't go into how the government takes some of my cake before it is even handed to me, but let me say I don't particularly like it if someone takes my cake without asking.)


I am losing myself here, so likely I'm losing you also ...if you are trying to follow me. What I'm trying to say, is that I can't see there being a Heaven without there also being a Hell.


If I am going to be in a Heaven where all my frustration or impatience ...along with all my mistaken behaviors are no longer in existence, then why can't I be in that place now. Why do I have to be in the place that I am now, where all those problematic emotions and behaviors exist?? And I can't just dismiss my actions, and say that in Heaven I won't feel like that simply because all the people won't make me feel like that ...because those people are likely going to be there also.


So, if we figure that God would not have a separation of people, especially as devastating as a separation of Heaven and Hell ...then why is there not that same separation here on earth?? For many people, this life here on earth is rather devastating ...or rather hellish.


Yes, for some people, life on earth is just as bad as they could imagine Hell would be ...seeing women and children tortured, raped, and murdered. And yes, in many areas it is rather a wicked existence for men too, being beheaded for their faith.


Some women would have substantial reasons for thinking Heaven would be a place where there are no men. And in fairness, men may at times think there would be less frustration without women ...


But God designed the family unit beginning with the man and the woman ...and each without the other, there would be no children. Love is not often what we make it out to be ---and not limited to what some think the physical act is ---it is also the extension of both giving and putting others first, with that commitment being magnified with the addition of children.


It may be difficult to wholly define (or holy) by saying God is love ...but, through Him, we understand it more fully.

There are many types of sharing, but the most intense should be in our own household ...hopefully intensely good. And it does not work good if we attempt to minimize the interaction. In other aspects of life, it is often good to remove ourself from a situation. But, within the household we are to work it out.


We may find it easier to not let the outside world affect us too much. But, it's not good to ignore, and not be affected by it at all either.Many feel this is a good argument against capitalism, and the widening gap between the wealthy and the poor. They feel capitalism is an evil system ...which greedily takes, at the expense of the poor. But, I view this as a communist dictatorship ...which does not allow any allocation of goods and services, unless it is by their controlling hand. There has to be capital for there to be giving ...and I would rather it be given freely, than taken from everyone, with much less given back to everyone.


So, let's not view capitalism as the opposite of love ...as it is more often involved in the supporting of loving missions, to help those who are in dire need.


Back to the terror that is dealt out by wicked people, I would think that if we say that a loving God would not create a Hell, then could we likewise say a loving God would not have created earth?? Why would there not be only Heaven, and our existence here on earth could have been bypassed??


Yes, we may want all people to be able to go to Heaven ...or do we?? Why not call here on earth ...our heaven?? Would it be heaven enough?? Certainly not for many of us.


And if that same wickedness that pollutes the earth is allowed in Heaven, then why would Heaven be much different than earth??



Likewise, if the wicked struggles are eliminated in Heaven, why also are they not eliminated on earth??


The answer to that seems to require another question: If our choice is eliminated in Heaven, then why is it not eliminated on earth??


Well, the simple answer to that seems rather clear ...choice is not eliminated. It is at the center of it all. And it has to do with who we put in that center.

You can say, that everyone would have everything they wanted in Heaven, and they would have no reason not to be pleasant and satisfied ...but would that be true, if it was populated with the same people who live on earth??  
What if I was eating cake in Heaven, and someone ran by ...shoving me to the ground after stealing my cake??  If they already had their own cake, but wanted mine too ...why would it be any different than how they may have acted on earth??

Then do we say, "Oh, no, we can't have that! Certainly they can't go on stealing cake."  Would we also say then, that all people who steal cake don't go to Heaven??

Certainly if it was a loved one of mine, I would hope the criteria for going to Heaven would not be so strict. Though, if we make an exception for my loved one, how about someone else's.  So, now we'd have to remove the criteria ...and all cake stealers would be given access to Heaven.

We could say the criteria should be for terrible things, yet there are repentant people who we feel should be forgiven.

Two things:  We don't make the criteria, and secondly, it is not about what we do.

So, do we then say that anyone can do anything ...and still get to Heaven??

Again, we don't say ...

Let me put it this way: Suppose I've committed a crime, and I stand before the judge.  The judge asks me if I'd like representation ...that I can ask for my own representation, or one can be assigned to me.  Some of you may even say you'd rather represent yourself.

The judge leans over, whispering, "I suggest you plea guilty, and it would be in your best interest to take the representation I've assigned."

I am scared ...as I never thought it would come to this.

I sit in the lobby outside the courtroom ...trying to block out all the clatter.  It seems rather hopeless.

People are rushing back and forth ...at first, I don't realize that three well-dressed men had stopped, now standing over me.

The tallest, best-dressed man smiles, "I'd like to represent you!"

Not knowing what to say, I say nothing.

One of the other men, leans over to whisper, "I'd accept his offer ...he's the best."

I simply am overwhelmed, "I'm sure I can't afford you ...I can't afford anyone."

The third men speaks with a low tone, "You can't afford not to accept his offer ...their is none better, and we are the best team around."

I sigh, "Like I said ...I can't afford anyone."

The first gentleman smiles, "But, I've already said, my services are free?"

There must be a catch, "That doesn't make sense, to be the best, you have to be able to afford the best ...and no one can afford to offer these kind of services for free."

The gentlemen nods, "Actually, you are so right. But,I am offering it to you for free.  It's the publicity that I need. It may come as a surprise to you, but business has slowed down a bit."

I'm still confused, "But, I am not a writer or reporter ...and I have no publicity firm that I can turn to, so, how can I help you?"

The gentleman sits beside me, talking in a confidential matter, "Well, some people call it negative publicity, but, I call it telling the truth ...and informing the public. You do believe the public should be informed, don't you?"

I think a second, "Well, under other circumstances, I'd tend to say, yes ...but, I'd prefer the public not know about me.  I am guilty, you know."

The gentleman laughs, "Aren't we all guilty of something? When it comes down to it, people like you, and me, and even the judge ...we're all the same.  The judge doesn't like the public to know about him either."

I do not grasp precisely what he is saying, "Okay, you can represent me ...and maybe you can get me a lesser charge."

The gentleman is insistive, "No, no ...you have to plea not guilty!  Otherwise, the judge will run everything, and no one has a chance. You can't plea guilty."

I ask, "So, you think this judge is a bad judge?"

Fear comes to the eyes of all three men, as they whisper in unison, "The worst!!!"

I seem to be catching on, "And you feel he must be stopped?"

All three whisper in a low tone, "Absolutely."

I lower my head, "Well, I can't be a part of all this. Who am I to stop him?"

The tall man sits tall, even while slouching, "No, not just you ...but, all of us together.  We represent many people. All we are asking, is that you agree with us, follow what we tell you to say, and don't give in ...that's the most important, don't give in, no matter what the judge says."

I am uncertain about all this, "I don't know."

The gentleman seems frustrated, "Well, it's your choice ...stand with us, or you're against us.  If you don't commit now, you can just take your chances with that overbearing judge.  Do you want to stand alone against him?"

I feel the hair bristle on the back of my neck, "No, I admit I'm scared ...I guess you guys have been doing this for a long time."

The gentleman smiles, "You have no idea how long."

(The judge is God, and He send Jesus, His Son, to represent us.  WE have to choose who we want to represent us on Judgment Day.  And I guess it could be said that we decide who represents us here on earth, and who we choose to stand with.)

As well as we think we stand, we don't want to stand alone.  We decide who we stand with ...and I hope you stand with Jesus.  God is a fair judge, no matter what anyone else says.  Don't let anyone convince you otherwise.