Soxy

What parents are okay with their kids watching this stuff? MTV is just porn with a better beat.

Thank God I have a Visa--I would honestly cancel my damn Mastercard after watching that trash. Ugh.

Probably the same reason no one is pissed off about the highest rate of homicide and rape in the industrialized world. We're a country of apathetics--why should we care about politics?

And that Chelsea is a Rhodes scholar and pretty much all around good girl... Do you really think so highly of politicians that they don't dig the dirt? Puh-leaze, if there was dirt to be had on Chelsea we would have heard it. Rip on the rest of the family, but leave that girl alone.

I've lived with Fins and they are taught English a LOT in their schools, so even a Fin with a hs diploma will have a lot of training in the language. The Scandanavian countries are lightyears ahead in that respect. I lived with a Fin for a year abroad, and she barely had an accent--it I didn't know she was Finnish I would have sworn she was American or at least a native speaker.

Damn right and about time. I would recommend watching Dreamworlds 2 by Sut Jhally--truly, truly shocking and sad stuff. Of course pop videos are just as degrading as well as just about any other genre. But I'm glad to hear some people are trying to do something about it.

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/ Funniest religious satire on the net.

Happy Birthday! I hope you have a birthday that will give you happy and fun memories for the rest of your life (assuming you can remember it....)! :begood

Anyway, PA, one verse? Oh no! You actually cited one verse in support of women in the church--unfortunately you cut it off to early: 1 Corinthians 11:11-12 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man or man independent of woman. For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman; but all come from God. As an interdependent and interconnected group of Christians we must all be part of a support infastructure to each other. Gender relations is part of a circle not a line from man and at the start (and end) of that circle is God. Consequently, there should be no over, but only together. A more tenuous argument for women in Minsitry would be using Corthins 7 to discuss how Paul says women will you save your husbands (something to that extent) which shows that God's mercy, teaching and salvation can be delivered by a woman. As for the other verses in Corinthians I think it is quite helpful to keep in mind that Paul is speaking about specific issues in this church and HELPING them overcome those. He concludes chapter 14 by saying "but all things should be done decently and in order," I would argue this means that we should consider the cultural context in which women appear--and women now have a much different role than they did in Paul's day. Romans 12:1-2 I appeal to you therefore, brothers and sister, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God--what is good and acceptable and perfect. Also, I would argue that both men and women were created perfectly by God (in Paul's theology), so if we are each perfect--and are not distinct in the eyes of God, then by all means we must practice an egalitarian church. Thus, it is God's ultimate and transforming love that makes us all agents of equality and ministry. Philippians 4:3 also argues for the use and centrality of Pauls' mission God are: Yes, and I ask you also, my loyal companions, help these women, for they have struggled beside me in the work of the Gospel.... So here, it is MEN who are asked to play a supporting role to the women... I believe Paul got this idea from the other creation story (not hte Adam's rib one): Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have domination over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle and over all of the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing tha tcreeps upon the earth. So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

Ultimately, I think that these passages go against the overarching egalitarian sentiment preached in Paul and, in my opinion, against those same teaching by Christ. Of the things that Jesus attacked in the temple was, I believe, the domination system of heirarchies--not just the money changing, but the oppression of those that have been put in lower social statuses. I have taken pretty much every theology class at my school except the one on Paul (which I sometimes regret), but it is JESUS' message that these systems of domination are wrong. And, while I understand there are those patriarchal sentiments in Paul, I think that they are unrepresentative of the Paul's message. Paul believed that the community was one that should embrace those principles of rightousness, Justice and inclusion (including in leadership roles). My only response to the passage in Corinthians would be this one in Galations: Galations 3:25-29 But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian, for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. As many of you where baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to the promise. So, if there is no male and female--and if God and Jesus themselves do not discriminate--how can one have authority over the other? I would argue we cannot, since in the Christian tradition we are all under ONE authority--and this Authority views us all with equal eyes.

Hate to say it PA, but my translation is better. And dang, I love the Cor verse so I'm going to have to tell the people how it should be. And this is actually the verse I was referring to: To the unmarried and the widows I say, it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am. But if they are not practicing self-control they would marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion. My wedding verse.

eleni, how about those yankees? oh i forgot...whose in first place of the NL Central and has outscored their opponents 29-3 in the last 3 games? oh snap! Andrew An e-mail from my Cubbie loving friend today. How irritating.

Nope never been there--only time I go to worship in the Twin Cities is when I go a temple or synagogue (never can spell it). Hm, a liberal who went to Bethel--now I've officially heard everything. While I understand those passages you quoted from Paul, I also see that Jesus accepted teaching from a woman (and a GENTILE woman at that--Matt 15). I also know that Paul did NOT preach marriage as the preferable route to salvation (1Cor. 7). And as cw mentioned there are the times when he mentiones that there is no race nor gender in God/Christ. Also, I think it's interesting to see how Jesus included women in his ministry--his was a message of radical inclusion. And that he allowed women to speak to him and his disciples says so much about the egalitarian message and wisdom he possesses. I find Jesus' message and life to be quite contrary to the messages in Paul (the one about women being quiet, submissive, etc). And I find Paul to be quite contrary to himself. I guess it just boils down to two ways to read the same book--we find what is most spiritually beneficial to the us and run with that.

I suppose that's why there are so many denominations with so many different beliefs. I have no problem with them until they start regulating what my relationship with God will be. And, well, I suppose that's one reason why I can never join one of those--if I ever decide to wholeheartedly embrace the Christian tradition. I suppose my only criticism would be that it is a form of violence (against character and self worth of MANY, MANY, MANY women) to not allow her to have the same level of commitment, purpose, and leadership as a man in church. People that don't think so are welcome to join churches that support that their views. I would prefer to belong to a church that accepts Jesus' teachings of radical inclusion and the uplifting of all its members, as opposed to some of the more exclusionary and hierarichal teachings, but then again that is my belief. (And for the record, my parents' especially father;s--although he's stopped talking about it with me since I can kick his butt in a theological and biblical discussion--brand of Christianity is quite similar to the one you describe. And I can say with great certainty both my sister and I struggle constantly with the thought of how can one be loved better, and be more favored in the site of an all just God, when the only difference is gender. It has been a wedge between myself and God for a long time.)

CW--I agree completely, and in a muddled sense that was what I was trying to say. You can find moral and ethical justification for many, many things within Bible. It's a matter of looking at everything as a whole--and since I would argue the Christian faith is one that (hopefully) is founded on love, to pull random verses out of the bible that condem and judge others is contrary to the nature...And I am only recently being able to read Paul again--I think that too often his statements regarding men and women being one and gender differences being gone in the eyes of God are often overlooked. I feel that many of the spiteful verses are added at a later date--and for anyone that would argue the Bible is infallible I would invite those to look at the Beginning of Mark and the prophet that is quoted there--that prophesy isn't actually in Isaiah. I just find it intriguing that when given a book of such magnificient love people look first to whom that love is not extended--or instead of looking at the unifying properties of faith we all too often revel in divisive "truths" that make us somehow better, stronger, or more holy than our neighbor.

Dear heavenly Betsy, why the leotard, why? And who on EARTH would wear a thong worn by someone else. :puke Oh, and anyone who laughed about Taurus Car of Millionares, you're just jealous. My beautiful Taurus Maggie and I turn heads that are green with envy. Once you go Taurus you never go back.

Just some Biblical verses--perhaps not all of it should be taken verbatim. I would argue that it is the spirit of love, acceptance and reaching out that is what is characteristic of Christianity. I think that, for a very large portion of Christians the way that the exculsionary verses (as well as the predestination verses) are looked at is in a form of content criticism. We must look at the overarching message of Jesus, and see if those verses fit in. I would personally hedge my bets with a God of love, but then again, that's me. Anyway, here are some of my faves: Duet. 22: 23-26; 28-29 If there is a young woman, a virgin, already engaged to be married, and a man meets her in the town and lies with her, you shall bring both of them to the gate of the town and stone them to death, the young woman because she did not cry for help in the town and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife. But if the man meets the engaged woman in the open country, and the man seizes her and lies with her then only the man who lay with her shall die. If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the lact, the man who lay with her shall give 50 sheckels of silver to the young women's father, and she shall become his wife. Because he violated her he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives. Mark 3:20-21 Then he (Jesus) went home; and the crown came together again, so that they could not even eat. When his family heard it, the went out to restrain him, for people were saying, "He has gone out of his mind." 1 Cor. 11 2:4-5 Any man who prays or prophesies with something on his head disgraces his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unvieled disgraces her head. 1 Timothy 2:11-12 Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over man; she is to keep silent. Proverbs 23:13-14 Do not withhold discipline from your children; if you beat them with a rod, they will not die. If you beat them with the rod you will save their lives from Sheol. Luke 9:60 But he said, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." But Jesus said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead; but as for you go and proclaim the kingdom of God." Luke 14:26 Jesus said, "Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes and even life itself, cannot be my disciple.

For Sexual Assault Awareness Month I showed Dreamworlds tonight, it's a movie that explores violence, gender, and sexuality in terms of music videos. In the last 20 minutes or so of the film they juxtapose the rape scene from The Accused with music video clips. I have heard everything when it comes to issues like this, but I am never really speechless for a film. When it came time for the discussion I literally could find no words. I was just wondering if anyone had seen it or anything. http://www.mediaed.org/videos/MediaGenderA...ty/Dreamworlds2

Just to add my two cents, and another interesting scholarly take on the "turn the other cheek" phrase. It is not a form of passivism as is often interpreted, but instead can be viewed as a form of civil disobedience. In the ancient world it was considered wrong to strike someone with the right hand--it was unclean or just not done. So, in order to strike someone you would use the left hand. Also, different methods of striking meant different think a "b****" slap left hand to right cheek would be used in situations where you were fighting with an equal or challenging them. But to strike someone lesser than you or someone you wanted to humilate (i.e. Roman slapping Jew, master slapping slave) it was correct to backhand that person. So, the way that people were actually hit during Jesus' day actually says something about their status. In regards to the bible passage you can see that where Jesus actually says, "If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also." Well, by doing so you make it impossible for them to backhand you again. Instead they will have to raise you to the level of an equal by slapping you straight upside the face. So, Jesus here is not activating violence, nor passivism, instead it is sort of a daring way to show that violence is not a means to gain peace or the end of violence (see Wink). Basically, I think that this context is sort of a way to possibly say that Jesus is arguing that violence degrades us.

For those who said no or depends do you have any resounding theological/biblical reasons for why? I just want to make sure I can give voice to both sides...

I'm afraid naming all 7 of your kids George is a tad silllier and stupider. And, I actually like Maggliana...But the naming after yourself (over and over and over) is rather egocentric. But I think you might be underestimating the stupid stuff I have heard in my life.

2 things: 1st, PA it's Loch Ness not Lock Ness, and her name is Nessie. Sorry, just had to do it. And I think that a better example for the negative connotations surrounding a word used for homosexual that is becoming more mainstreamed would be the word Queer. The word was originally hijacked to mean deragatory and condescending things about people with an "abnormal" or "wrong" orientation. Lately it has become more and more reclaimed in the, well, the Queer community--and most of my gay and lesbian friends actually prefer the word queer (which includes both gay men and lesbians). I think that is a more legitimate example than when we use the word gay in a derogative fashion--which is, I think, ripping on people's sexual orientation; whether it is mean in that spirit or not it can still be hurtful.

Thank you Tex, that was exactly how I was feeling. Personally, from studying the New Testament I cannot find any sort of support for the death penalty. My heart goes out to the Sjodin family, and I imagine the hurt, grief, pain and anger will live on for a long time with them--and they will find themselves surprised at benign events that make them question their faith, their forgiveness, and the purpose of their lives. I have never had a close loved one be murdered, but there are some "sins" (if you want to call them that) that murder aspects of ourselves and that people have to live with for the rest of their lives. I have seen and felt the ramifications of those acts in my life and those of my friends. I could never ask for a human life--nor accept one to be taken on my behalf to reconcile some wrong done to me. Violence will not save anyone from the pain they feel--it is a temporary fix. Lock up predatory people who feed on innocent lives, but taking a life only says that violence will save us from violence. And that's something I don't understand.

Intriguing Mr. Jablome! I will make sure to spell your name correctly in the paper and citation. Thank you muchly.

I'm doing my final ethics paper on Jesus and forgiveness, and I'd be interesting to see what you all think--be insightful and you might get quoted in the paper.