DISQUS

It's up to the 2 people in the marriage to choose how they will live. They both need to agree.

Sophia - you are so right!
Geithner is absolutely the wrong person to be Secr. of U.S. Treasury. He also apparently tried to take his kids' time at summer camp as a tax deduction. Also, he played a big part in the first bailout which has had no effect whatsoever.

And I saw him on TV today, reading - Yes, READING - his simple little "apology". Not heart felt at all.

I, too, believe it's immoral for him to head Treasury. But, alas, I can't seem to weild any power here.

Know anyone who can? Because I'd sure love to talk to them!

I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.




Susan



http://www.car-insurance-choices.com

I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.


Susan



http://www.car-insurance-choices.com

I'm keeping my fingers crossed on a short sale property that we currently have an offer on.

Great site. Keep up the good work.

Is the founder of this Websit, George Soros, a socialist? Is he a citizen of the United States? How do you define "Patriot"

Dave,

I would challenge any competent reader to review my posts in search for the slightest hint that I believe my views on homosexuality and the Bible are infallible. You will not find it. What you will find, however, is a high degree of confidence that my views are correct and most reasonable. To some this comes off as arrogant, as though I thought my views on this issue were infallible. I would suggests that those that have understood me to regard my view on this issue as infallible are mistaken and have been given no good reason in my writing to think I would hold such a foolish belief.

--Susan

JEM,

Thanks for the link to that religioustolerance page. These discussions will probably prompt me to look back into these issues again.

--Susan

JEM,

I'm sorry that you think me referring to an infallibilist Cartesian epistemology as "insane" is mean, because I think that's probably close to the truth. If infallible certainty is required for knowledge, then we can't know our own names. And any philosophy that tells me I can't know my own name is, well, insane. People unknowingly and uncritically entertain insane philosophies all the time, and that doesn't make them insane. But of course, it doesn't mean that the philosophies themselves are not insane. It may not feel like a lick of ice cream to hear someone say a philosophy you hold is insane, but if they think that it is, then I suppose they are just speaking their minds. But anyway, I'm not committed to the word "insane" in the first place; "irrational," "unjustified," "plainly false," and "an offense to reason" will all work as well.

--Susan

JEM,

If you're looking for a verse where the Bible condemns homosexuality, I would point to Ro 1:26-27 as an example. 1 Cor 6:9 is another.

--Susan

Dave,

You say, “the point is, you start from a premise that is based on interpretation that is not shared by all of Christianity so you immediately lose those who disagree with your premise, thus rendering your argument useless.”
Some who initially disagree with a premise may come to agree with it when evidence is presented. Just because a premise in an argument isn’t persuasive to the whole Christian community is no reason to think it is not a perfectly good premise worth employing in an argument. The arguments from Scripture that Jesus is divine are very good. The fact that some in the Church dispute some of the premises does nothing to subtract from the fact that they are still good arguments. It just means some people aren’t persuaded by reasonable arguments.
Also, you seem to think the only arguments worth stating are ones whose premises enjoy universal agreement. Well, can you produce an argument for that claim only using premises that everyone agrees on? You probably can’t, so I suppose your own claim enjoys no good arguments by your own standards.
You say, “is there any way to know this [the correct interpretation] for sure? unless you are catholic and you think the magisterium interprets scripture infallibly, you cannot say that the "correct interpretation" can be known. you can express your opinion and i can express mine, but we must acknowledge that we could always be wrong.”
You seem to think that to know something you have to have infallibility, that it must not be possible for you to be wrong. Let me just say that that sort of outdated Cartesian epistemology is almost universally rejected by scholars. You give no arguments for that, but simply assert it. That that standard for knowledge is far too high is immediately obvious. Of course I can know things that I could be wrong about. Right now I know my car is in the parking lot, but I suppose I could be wrong about that (someone may have stolen it). I know how old I am, but I suppose I could have been lied to and actually be a few months younger. I know my name, but I suppose every time I try to recall it my brain tricks me into thinking it’s something else, like Jill or Ted.
And might I ask you this—if you think infallible certainty is the measure of knowledge, then would you claim to KNOW whether any biblical interpretations are true? Which interpretations are you infallibly sure are correct? If none, then you by your own admission don’t know much about what interpretations are correct, which leaves you with very little confidence about most of the Bible, and hardly any grounds to talk to me.
Anyway, I have no interest in digressing into debates in epistemology. If someone is going to say that my argument is shaky because every Christian to come down the birth canal doesn’t agree, then I suppose I will stop the conversation there with a “I think that’s insane.” The way I see it, we should be concerned with these questions—Are there good reasons biblically to think God approves of homosexual relationships? Are there good reasons biblically to think God does not approve of homosexual relationships? After that, we weigh the evidence, and my bet is that it will land decisively against God’s approval of homosexual relationships.
--Susan

Though we should not ordain unrepentant homosexuals actively pursuing homosexual relationships as priests, a case can be made that the ordination of women as leaders in the church is consistent with Scripture and ought to be permitted. For an excellent argument in favor of this position, see N.T. Wright's case by following the link below:

http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Women_Service_Church.htm

--Susan

Just to be clear on that argument above, it would probably be better to state it as follows, since the following is clearly valid (the conclusion follows from the premises):

1.) If homosexual acts are sin, we shouldn't ordain those who unrepentantly and actively pursue homosexual acts as preists.
2.) Homosexual acts are sin.
3.) Therefore, we shouldn't ordain those who unrepentantly and actively pursue homosexual acts as priests.

That little modus ponens is clearly valid, so to contest the truth of the conclusion, the truth of the premises have to be contested. By my lights and the authority of Scripture and the Church, the premises are solid. So, the conclusion is guaranteed to be solid. Those that disagree with the conclusion have two premises to attack if they wish. Stating the argument this explicitly allows us to focus in on our discussion and cut through a lot of rubbish in these debates.

--Susan

Sorry for the double post. I screwed it up...

Anyway, regarding women as bishops, which I suppose is the real issue here, I guess I'll have to look into that a bit more.

Susan

I suppose I'm inclined to agree that merely being homosexual shouldn't disqualify one from the priesthood. The sexual preferences of priests isn’t my concern. It’s their behavior. Those pursuing homosexual relationships certainly are sinners merely in virtue of that. Of course, this doesn’t mean we have to put the spotlight on homosexuality as though it were privileged in every respect. I suppose in many respects it is like many other sins (Oh, and the respect in which homosexuality and abuse are similar is that they are both sins, and that is all I meant. Of course abuse is worse than homosexuality. If you’re offended by my comparison, pick whatever other sin you please, add “unrepentant pursuit” to it, and it should go through all the same).

My reasoning on this issue is that we shouldn’t ordain people who actively pursue sin as priests. Homosexual behavior is a sin. So, we shouldn’t ordain people who actively pursue homosexual behavior. The argument is valid, so to reject the conclusion you’ll have to reject the truth of one of the premises.

--Susan

Arthur French,

I suppose the reason some people keep “banging on” about sex is that these days homosexuals are great scapegoats on which to blame national tragedies (oh, and abortion). And of course you’ll get your fair share of that lecture reading this magazine. And it’s true.

But I guess another reason (a very good reason I would say) some people are banging on about sex is that that’s an area in which the church has chosen to do its own thing without regard for Scripture (well, they will probably interpret their way right into disobedience to God, while still claiming fidelity to Scripture). I guess I can’t come up with a specific text right now that says, “Forbid all homosexuals from the pulpit” (maybe the qualifications in Timothy would come close, the “husband of one wife” part). But then again I can’t really imagine Christ giving the go-ahead to unrepentant homosexuals actively living the homosexual lifestyle without regret or remorse. And of course, Christ wouldn’t give the go-ahead to anyone equally brazen and foolhardy in their pursuit of adultery, lying, stealing, or whatever other sin you’d like. So homosexuality isn’t privileged in that respect I suppose.

So, if in twenty years the church decides to knowingly ordain men who unrepentantly abuse their wives, then we’ll be banging on about how that also is a sin and that someone who actively pursues that lifestyle is sufficiently rebellious to be excluded from the pulpit. A good way to avoid talking endlessly about that is to not ordain abusive men. And a good way to avoid talking endlessly about homosexual priests and pastors is to not ordain them either. In the meantime, I guess those convinced of the absurdity of ordaining active and unrepentant homosexuals as priests/preachers will continue to bang on about sex.

Susan

So beautifully written and evocative, Kathleen.

When I was a child, my mother told me that the reason people have more children, even those who are underprivileged and will struggle to provide for them, is because each child represents hope. As a child, I didn't have any of the sarcastic retorts that now can come to mind. There's still a part of me that believes what she said.

A wise person once told me never to ask a question of a two-year old that can be answered with a "NO!".

This too shall pass...

What is really harmful to the interests of Democracy is when half of the Democratic Party and their interests are totally ignored. Many Clinton supporters have been driven to Fox and other conservative news sourses because of the totally unfair and unbalanced coverage of our TWO Democratic candidates by outfits like MSNBC and CNN. The progressive blogs have become women hating thuggish places. TMP,Dkos, and Huffpo are nothing more than propaganda sites for Obama. Where is your outrage when Keith Olberman says some guy should take Hillary into to a room and come out with out her? Why isn't Brave New films doing peices of the blatent misogyny rampet in both the MSM and on the internet. Why are you not setting the historical record straight when lies are repeated over and over about the Clinton's records.My eyes have really been opened by this race and I think I can speak for many other women who are wondering if they even want to be part of the Democrat Party. I am a lifelong Democrat and a local activist and a monthly contributor to Brave New films and I am so angry at the treatment of my candidate and her supporters I am reevaluating my association with many progressive causes that I have worked for and contributed to over the years .

What would we do without our Kathleen to make us stop and focus on the important things? Thank you, once again, for a well-crafted, intimate and evocative read.

P.S. There is no such thing as taking too many photos of your daughter.

This list of homework tips for parents is a wonderful foundation to build upon. The one aspect of helping children with homework that is rarely addressed is "how". How do I help my child to memorize those spelling words? How do I help him or her to comprehend what is read? How do I help the child with that paper he/she has to write. Parents often end up frustrated and feeling ineffective because they don't know how to help their children to be successful. This is especially true of parents with children who have learning difficulties.


Recent scientific research has confirmed that we all have different learning preferences and that we all learn best with different strategies. Brain research has shown that regardless of learning style, we all process information in specific ways.



For example, here's one of my favorite (and very easy) strategies:



For example, here are some of my favorite (and very easy) strategies:

§ Have children print information to be memorized.

§ Border key spelling words, people, places, etc.

§ Have children use two colors when working alternating the color of each fact they are writing in their notes. Color makes facts stand out as unique. If all notes are in one color, nothing stands out as unique and is therefore harder to remember.

§ Highlight important information, not EVERYTHING.

§ Alternate color gel pens, markers, crayons, etc.



Here's a strategy for studying vocabulary words:

Vocabulary Study Strategy

1. Choose a vocabulary word.

2. Print it on one side of a “flash” card. (Use index cards, heavy paper cut into strips, etc.)

3. it.

4. Ask your child to tell you what he or she thinks it means so that it draws from what your child already knows.

5. Reinforce the correct definition.

6. Print the definition on the other side of the “flash” card.

7. Stand and act out a movement for the word while spelling it aloud three times!



Start the process over with the next word on the spelling or vocabulary list.



If your child’s teacher requires that he or she write the words three times each in cursive, ask the teacher if your child can write the word two times in cursive and one time printed on a flash card. Explain that you are better able to help your child with flash cards. Some children will not mind writing the words four times each. My children, however, objected to the extra work and even insisted, “But the teacher says I have to do it THIS way!” So, I made a deal with the teacher to have one set of words on flash cards and the teacher told my child that it was Okay.



Parents might want to "Look inside this book: Please Help Me with My Homework! Strategies for Parents and Caregivers" at http://tinyurl.com/3626nf.



The book provides the reader with simple, proven tools to help children increase academic performance and make the homework experience more rewarding and productive. It can seriously reduce homework stress.



Smooth Homeworking!



Susan Fitzell

You are welcome. And thank you for reminding us to be grateful.

Loved the story about yours (and your daughter's) voting experience. Honestly, I love all your stories! You are honest and funny. You manage to teach us something, too, every time.

Best of luck to you on your diet, Kathleen! I hope you win the pot every week!

I believe social network is not just social networking, but in fact exposing one's personal information, personal thoughts and beliefs more vigourously than sharing one's thoughts and ideas and information on one's own blog.

On your blog, you can limit or disable RSS feeds that your blog delivers to the outer world. You can limit the content display to different groups of people. Your blog is your own blog, not as in case of social networking platforms. There, its the 3rd part that owns all your information, and it's the members of the platform owned by the 3rd party that even the 3rd party isn't aware of... that have full access to your personal information, such as what's your overall background and who your friends are and what you do!