When a Christ centered marriage places the man in the headship?
If you take the Bible literally as some claim to do, then a marriage between a man and a woman should be based on the man being the head and leader. This would mean that the woman would have to submit to his decisions. Of course as with lots of other scriptural topics, many "literalists" do not pay attention to the verses in the Bible which call for this sort of partnership in marriage. (But don't dare say they "pick and choose"!) The reality for those strong enough in faith to admit it is that we have evolved on many issues and we do not do precisely as the Bible commanded or suggested. Slavery is a prime example. Most people have also evolved in their concept of the way in which a marriage should work, although admittedly not as many men have evolved their beliefs on this as women. I would say that most people in America view marriage today as more of an equal partnership in which both parties have an equal say and both parties contribute to the child rearing efforts. In practice, it's not always equal, of course, but our concepts and thoughts on equality are moving in the right direction. I feel equality would make a marriage better, because both human beings were created by God and both should have equal say and give equally to the best of their abilities for the success of the overall partnership.
Why do you disagree with conservatism generally?
I disagree with conservatism in the US because, in most important respects, it fails to be truly “conservative,” in any sense of the word.In terms of behavior, many US consernatives are anything but. They are loud, they shout down those they disagree with, they make conservatism so important in their lives that it becomes more of a lifestyle than a set of political beliefs. Granted, this can happen on both sides of the political spectrum, but frequently conservatives refer to themselves as though they are some sort of chosen people.Economically and environmentally conservatives are anything but conservation-minded. It seems odd to me that a political movement for which religion has become an increasingly central part does not act humbly toward the natural world created for us. Frequently, they seek instantaneous economic growth even at the cost of environment, or the livelihoods of disadvantaged people. Conservative politicians are largely responsible for racking up tremendous amounts of debt with military spending and tax cuts as well, which is not exactly aimed at financial conservation.Conservative is supposed to mean “in opposition to change,” yet many US conservatives seek to change quite a great deal about how the government has worked for the past century or longer. Regulation of private industry by the state was a necessary step forward which was taken in the lare 19th/early 20th centuries in the US. It has worked fine, yet many conservatives seek to undo that step forward, amongst other things. It's highly perplexing to me.In a general sense, I think a movement largely based on looking to make the future more like an idealized past is doomed to failure and stagnancy from the outset. Conservatism tends to view the past too uncritically, and to cling to the past in all the least important ways.I think conservatism as a movement COULD be an excellent and valuable contributor to American politics, just not in its present state which is akin to manic insanity. If conservatives can, with intellectual honesty, recognize and rectify the absurdity of their representing political party it could heal a wide partisan gulf and ultimately benefit people of all political orientations. The Democrats need a kick in the pants as well, don't get me wrong, but we cannot even begin a healing process if we can't agree about the reality we live in, which the GOP propaganda machine is largely responsible for distorting.
Is revenge ever justified?
Some things in life have no concrete answers. There are moral quizzes that you can take, but people's individual views determine the extent of the perceived wrongdoing. Revenge for spite versus revenge to teach a lesson is still a moral dilemna. Some people may believe that revenge has no justification. Others may subscribe to the biblical, "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" as justification. When is revenge justified though? Did someone in your office take your pencil, borrow it, break it, buy themselves a new one, and tell you sorry your pencil is gone? If so, you might feel justification in breaking their new pencil. However, revenge lives on a slippery slope. Actions have consequences. Although you want to be made whole, at what further cost to you? Do you need to break the law to do it? Will you need to stop to a degrading moral low, and thus become the same as them? The revenge may make you equally as bad of a person. Ask yourself. Will this revenge make me feel temporarily better? Possibly. Will this make you feel whole again? Probably not. Can you suffer further consequences legally, or will they try to seek revenge on you and hurt you again? What's the best case scenario, and what's the worst?Revenge stems from anger, jealousy, or hurt. These things happen in life. Some people are terrible. They have no conscience, or regard for others. If you can seek resituation in a court of law then that is the best route. If you cannot, is it something even worth any further thought? Let those feelings go when you can. Learn your lesson. Be more cautious in the future. If you can resolve this legally, then do so. If you must reach a new low, or break the law to enact your revenge, then will you ever actually feel justified? Don't hurt yourself in trying to hurt them. You will suffer twice. If you were wronged I hope you quickly heal from the emotional pain inflicted on you. Rise above it. Good luck.