Consistent with [named] Faith

Vain Jangling
What I believe is conistent with [named] faith.

Organized faiths, religions, denominations, cults, etc. have at least a basic set of foundational beliefs, confessions, catechisms; whereby, they are often known and distinguished from the others. One may find various discrepancies among individuals, but it does not change the consistent, core principals of said faith, etc. 

One cannot rightly say, “The fundamental tenets of my faith compel me to…” say or do something that does not aligned with that faith’s core tenets. That is mere vain jangling. It is true that you may believe it (whatever it is), but you cannot associate it with the faith whereby it disagrees. It would be a personal conviction (or preference), which may or may not align itself with said faith.

Example: (baptism)
Some faiths believe in infant baptism and others do not. Some practice full immersion and others sprinkling. I am free to say I believe in infant baptism, immersion, or sprinkling, but I cannot say my belief is one of my faith’s “fundamental tenets” if it is not. That is vain jangling.

If my belief is condemned by my said faith, then I should change my said faith or change my belief. I cannot nor should not expect said faith to validate or accept my departure from their core tenets.

The Other Side Extremists

Vain Jangling
The other side are extremist and intolerant.

Sometimes it is hard to determine who the real extremists are.
Of course, it is not you or me. It’s the other guy with the differing viewpoint.
And listening to conversations —if such can be called that— can get confusing.

The person labels their challenger the extremist, as they make demands.
The group cries for equality yet displays intolerance for another’s views.
The call for conversation while redefining terms and working to silence their opposition.

This is all mere vain jangling.
A way to avoid the facts and rational, intelligent thinking and conversation.
What we believe and how we feel must subject itself to truth, facts, and reality. Along with self-control and kindness, “always with grace, seasoned with salt.”

White Women Obey

Vain Jangling
White women need to stop following their white husbands to fight racism.

There seems to be an attack on white women to stop following, obeying, submitting —perhaps even agreeing— with their white husbands. (The mention of ‘white’ husbands is because it appears that only ‘white’ men can be racist.) Failure to do so (apparently) only encourages or continues racism.

White women are accused of having a desire for their husbands, sons, children, and themselves to do well. These sound like good desires, for any wife, mother, grandmother, etc. What person would not want their family, friends, neighbors, etc. to do well? An unloving person (regardless of skin color).

White women are accused of wanting to protect the patriarchy because it benefits them. Well, it is biblical (Ephesians 5:22-33), and the wife does benefit from, “Husbands, love your wives…as your own body.” The children likewise benefit from a father/mother home. So, wives (all wives) benefit from a loving husband and biblical home. (Not that all women must get married.)

The vain jangling: That a white woman (or any woman) has to vote the way someone wants them to (differently than their white husband), to prove they are not just (obediently, submissively) going along with their husband (with no thought or freedom of their own).

The truth: The individuals spouting this just want women to be obedient, subservient to how they want them to talk, act, and vote. To go along with policies that lack rationale and are harmful to their children, families, and society. They simply want women to leave one “patriarchy system” to join another (in which they —the individuals, not the white women— “hold power”).