Recently I discovered that there was a pretty decent 1980 adaptation of the story which is currently on YouTube. It follows the text rather closely and only changes a couple of relatively minor things (adding a feminist line which wasn't in the original story, btw).
Misconceptions about the role a homemaker plays in the family are probably due to the fact that so many people hardly experience any domestic life nowadays. Since a lot of children grow up in two income households they never get a clear concept of what a homemaker normally does. When they become older and start a family of their own, they may wish to return to the traditional labour division but their difficulty is that while they have a general idea of what the duties of a breadwinner are, they are not so sure about housewives.
Internet can help in such a situation, but here comes another problem. Some domestic and even Christian blogs present a rather distorted view of life at home. I'm not sure what's the reason of it, it may be an American vs European thing, or may be it's due to something else, but frankly, some of the domestic bloggers I encountered sound hyperactive. Take the obsession with home businesses, for instance. Personally I have nothing against home businesses. A woman can sell something as a hobby, or may be she gives music lessons at home to help make both ends meet, it's all fine as long as having a home business is not presented as part of the religious doctrine WHICH IS A MUST FOR EVERYBODY (Prov. 31 feminism, anyone?)
Another thing is having children. Marriage is for procreation, it's true, and most people will go on to have kids, at least one. I also know about the demographic concerns the West encounters and I think generally it's a good thing to encourage western European folks to have more children, but surely it doesn't mean that every family is called to have ten? If you take the Bible versions about growing and multiplying seriously and you go on and have three children, guess what? You did grow and multiply.
Again, I have respect for large families (as long as they don't live from welfare, that is) but it's quite a different thing to turn around and say that every single family should never ever use any form of birth control, even NFP or full abstinence, whatever the circumstances. There are actually busybodies on the internet (many of them male) who go around complaining that some women have only two children who go to school and they dare stay at home and call themselves housewives. One man stated that a woman must have a minimal amount of three children whom she homeschools AND a home business to be allowed to stay home. (Allowed by whom? A committee?)
Which takes me to another point. homeschooling. I think homeschooling is fine and I'm actually quite envious that my American readers are free to make this choice, while it's not the case in some European countries, including my own. I don't believe in nanny-statism and I fully support the right of the parents to educate (or not) their children the way they see fit. The key word here is choice. It's up to each family to decide how to raise their children. There is no law which says that only those women who homeschool are real housewives, at least, not yet.
The real reason that so many people are all upset about what housewives are doing at home is not that they care about children or the survival of the Western civilisation. A woman can homeschool and still will be attacked by others for not doing enough if she so much as allows herself to sit in a garden with a book for half an hour. The subtle and not-so-subtle attacks on homemakers come because of the idea that home should resemble a factory in the way it is run. That's why a housewife will never persuade anyone she works really hard until she has ten children AND homeschools AND runs a business AND cooks three meals every day AND grows her own food etc etc. You see my point, don't you?
The role the traditional woman plays is not so much quantitative but qualitative. Her success is not measured in how many activities she manages to cram into her day, but in the quality of life in the home that she creates. The traditional housewife is first of all, a caregiver of her family. She creates a certain atmosphere at home and sees to it that the needs of other family members are met. She is also the family manager which means that even if she delegates certain tasks to her children or domestic help, she bears the final responsibility for the smooth functioning of the household.
Being a homemaker isn't only about material things, it's about catering to the spiritual needs of others, such as finding time to listen to your children and their concerns, offering a sympathetic ear to your husband, visiting your elderly parents and so on and so forth. And finding time to relax and enjoy because nothing destroys the happiness at home as much as a stressed out, neurotic mistress of the house.
Playing our drum, playing trumpet, Jesus, Jesus we shout! Pray often, brave knight... let us destroy our homeland's traitors, For our poor, beautiful homeland, for our Hungarian crown its time to fight with swords.
Note: translation taken from one of the comments to the original video.
Well, it's not exactly a makeover, just a nice addition. My husband had always wanted to have something like a small pond, in retro style, like those we've seen in Germany where folks used zinc bowls for them. He couldn't find any suitable container though, but finally suceeded in his quest in Valkenburg. So now we have this:
He is very happy and planning to put a goldfish into it:) Just kidding, but I think they are rather cute.
Then why are the churches in the West so liberal???
Why is everything in the West so liberal? Why do schools indoctrinate children in progressive causes instead of just teaching them history and math? Why do the MSM spread propaganda and sermonise instead of just reporting the news? May be, it has something to do with the long march through the institutions which started quite some time ago?
Church invisible is a divine institution but the visible churches consist of men and thus are corruptible just like everything else the man builds.
Now progressivism is pretty much the official ideology of the Western world, which means that the churches which preach traditionalism will necessarily get into problems with the government, so they often choose to at least pay lip service to liberalism. On the other hand, the people in the congregation are getting pretty liberal, too, which often means that the preacher will have to adjust his message accordingly.
But it's cowardice! Probably yes, to a degree. And what have you done in the real life to challenge the status quo? Most of the folks gathering on the New Right sites and blogs don't have enough guts to sign their own name and the only thing they do is to *itch on the interwebz how life sucks in general and their own in particular. So I'd like to ask these internet warriors a question: why do you expect others to fight your battles for you? Why don't you go out and try to change the world?
Well, you'll say, but I have a lot to lose, including my job and I have my family to think of. You know what? And so does the preacher!
Let's look at the famous "turn the other cheek" verse. What does it really mean? Does it forbid self-defence? Let's examine the context in which the verse appears in the Bible. This verse is a part of the famous Sermon on the Mount where Jesus presents the new Christian doctrine:
Two things are addressed over here. First, an eye for an eye was meant as a legal principle, meaning that punishment had to be proportional to the crime committed (not an eye for a tooth or a life for an eye), it was not meant to be taken literally neither was it to be used as a license to personal revenge, yet that's exactly how it had been interpreted by some people in those times.
Second, slapping some on his cheek is an insult, not an assault, though nowadays it's viewed as one. After all, the Scriptures don't say: "And whosoever rapeth thine wife, give him thine daughter also", do they? Another unfortunate tendency of those times was to start law suits at the slightest provocation including small personal insults which could best be forgotten. The very next verse deals with it, warning against litigiousness.
Since our society is increasingly pacifistic, feminised and liberal it's probably difficult for us to understand that not so very long ago, it was normal in some cultures to start feuds about most trivial things. While I'm sure that this verse is not to be taken literally (after all, Jesus himself didn't turn the other cheek but rather confronted the one who hit him, cf. John 18: 22, 23) I'd like to give an example involving exactly the same situation described in the verse.
In Njals saga beautiful Hallgerðr refuses to help her husband when his life is at stake, because he had once slapped her (after being thoroughly provoked, as far as I can remember), which leads to his death. In fact, it becomes extremely difficult to maintain a form of civilisation when all the citizens are either busy running to the courts because someone somewhere may have hurt their feelings, or cutting each other's throats for the slightest offence. And that, imho, is the real meaning of the verse.
Claim: Christianity is a universalist religion. There is a verse in the Bible which says in Christ there is no Jew or Greek. It means that Christians are against borders and nation-states and for one world government. If they don't admit it they must be hypocrites. Christian religion teaches ethnomasochism and unlimited immigration. It's a suicidal cult.
Answer: The same Bible verse also says in Christ there is neither male nor female, yet most people don't claim that it abolishes human sex. The existence of human males and females is biological reality just as existence of various nations and ethnic groups. The verse deals with spiritual, not biological reality. Anyone can come to Christ if he chooses. Further on, there is a story in Genesis about Tower of Babel:
The apostles were speaking in different languages so that believers from many nations could understand their message. Languages weren't abolished and neither national distinctions. National divisions will persist in eternity:
Whether you are a believer or not, one thing is clear: the Scriptures don't teach the New World Order or one world government or any such thing. In fact, they do point out that when mankind is united, naughty things start happening.
This will be one of the several posts discussing whether the current demise of the West is due to Christianity. Apparently, according to some people, it was the Christian religion with its concepts of reward or punishment in the afterlife which guilt-tripped Europeans into pathological altruism we are all witnessing today. Those macho Vikings, on the other hand, didn't believe in Heaven or Hell and hence, wouldn't allow themselves to be manipulated in this manner.
Of course, a more or less educated person must have at least heard the word "Valhalla", the warrior paradise, where the best and the bravest half of the slain on the battlefield were welcomed by Odin himself and spent their time in feasting and military exercise, with Valkyries serving them the food and mead.
The other half of fallen heroes went to Folkvangr, the home of goddess Freya. According to Noorsche Mythen (by H.A. Guerber) Freya also gathered there all the undefiled virgins and chaste wives so that they would be united in death with their husbands and sweethearts. Thus, our North European ancestors had very clear ideas of virtue (courage for men, chastity for women) and believed it was rewarded in the afterlife. But did they believe in Hell?
The word "Hell" is, in fact, of the Germanic origin, since the Bible speaks about Gehenna, Tartarus, Hades or Sheol. Hell was the Kingdom of Hel, goddess of death, Loki's daughter, and it was situated in Niflheim, the underground world, the land of mists.
Who went to Hell? First, all those who died a peaceful death, from sickness or old age. They were treated rather friendly by the goddess, though her palace was still considered a joyless place and to avoid it, both men and women sometimes would fall upon their swords or jump from the cliff (women were given swords upon their marriage), to avoid going there.
However, those who had committed various crimes during their life, such as murder, adultery and oath-breaking, were banned to Nastroend, where they underwent various tortures.
As we see, though there certainly is the difference between Christian ideas about life and death (suicide being a major sin) and the Nordic ones, Northern Europeans generally had such concepts as afterlife, sin, virtue and consequently reward and punishment.