Abigail

Sudo, I don't think our opinions are so very far apart. I would agree that the traditional marriage would be the ideal for raising children, provided the marriage is one that functions in a healthy manner. I recently was listening to NPR and they were talking about cheating spouses. A survey that was done showed that in the U.S., we don't cheat on our spouses nearly as often as we leave them altogether for someone else. In other countries, having an affair isn't viewed in the same manner it is here - it doesn't equate to the death of the marriage. This would suggest to me that among the cultural differences, the entire marriage partnership is viewed differently in many other cultures. Sexuality is viewed differently in many other cultures. In other words, the married couples in other countries tend to stay together, but they seek out other people to fill those unhappy places left by their marriages. I am not saying this is the ideal solution, rather it tells me that their marriages aren't really any better than the ones here, they just deal with it differently. I still think the best way to reinstitute anything akin to the traditional family is by teaching our children the differences between sexual attraction and a true love built on knowledge and acceptance of another person. Teaching them it is better to wait to get married and have children until they are a bit older, more mature, and more sure of what qualities the do and do not want in a spouse. Regardless of whether they abstain from sex until they are married or not. In other words, fine - go have SAFE sex, use a condom AND spermicides and make sure you protect your body. But don't get pregnant/knock them up and don't confuse sex with love! Sure, ideally I would love it if my son's abstained until they were married. Hell I'd be happy if they would abstain until they were at least half way through college. But I'm not niave either, so I'd rather make sure they are educated in how to protect their bodies and their futures than stick my head in the sand and hope it all works out okay. There is a girl I work with, she is 38 and a single mom. Her husband was killed when they were still a relatively young married couple in their 20's. She has raised a son and is almost done raising a daughter. Our tech guy has a crush on her and has asked her out 3 times now. He is okay looking - not gorgeous but not bad either. He seems to be nice, has a good sense of humor, is divorced and has a son - so he knows a bit about the score on parenting, and he works. She won't go out with him because 'there's no spark.' I asked her, "how will you know if there really is a spark or not unless you get to know him better?" Now, on the other hand, she is dying to go out with her mechanic who has all the makings of the stereotypical "bad boy" because with him there is "a spark." And she wonders why her now 14 year old daughter is "madly in love with" the 18 year old bad boy at school. DUH! See, sexual attraction v true knowledge of someone. I'm not saying the tech guy is the right guy for her. But I am pointing out the mentality that exists - that confustion between desire and love. THAT, IMO, is the downfall of the traditional family unit. You fall in lust, but lust only lasts so long. You grow in love and the desire and sexual attraction will continue to grow also. People don't want to take the time to really get to know each other. They think it should all happen from begining to end in a few hours like it does in the movies or romance novels. It isn't the graphic sex or foul language that causes all the confusion, it is portraying desire as love that causes them. You don't need graphic sex to send out that confusion message - just watch Cinderella, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty - it is ingrained in little girls long long before they ever see a titty shot or hear a swear word.

Wanted to add - I think the one way where you could put some blame on TV and Hollywood with respect to divorce is their promulgation of the confusion between sexual attraction/desire and a real love based on a true knowledge of who the person is combined with the whole idea of riding off to live happily ever after, as if it is just that easy.

Sudo, I would be curious as to what your perception and description of the "traditional marriage" is, beyond the overly simplistic man and woman married to each other and raising their biological kids together. I mean, the day in day out, what it looks like. Here's my thinking, if the "traditional marriage" was such a wonderful, or even fairly good thing for the majority of couples and families, it seems to me the divorce rate wouldn't be so high. We have this idealistsic view of how the good ole days used to be, but perhaps the reality of those good ole days wasn't as great as we'd like to think it was. My guess is there were very very few happy, "leave it to beaver" type families. People don't get divorced just for the hell of it. Divorce is hard and very very painful, even for the person who is requesting it. It is a huge loss, not unlike a death and there is a long grieving process that goes with it. Likewise, I think most women would love to have the father of their children as a true partner in parenting. Raising kids with two parents is hard work and as I am sure you are aware. Doing it right without a partner is twice as hard. I don't think the high rate of divorce and single mother homes can be reduced to a "degredation of society" issue, it is far more complicated than swear words, sex, and violence on t.v.

Story Here CHELSEA, Vt. - A prosecutor dropped charges against a woman who was arrested for staring at and making faces at a police dog. After all, the prosecutor reasoned, the four-legged witness can’t testify. Jayna Hutchinson was about to go on trial this week on charges of cruelty to a police animal and resisting arrest, but the case was dropped Tuesday. “I think it was going to be difficult to prove her conduct changed the dog’s behavior,” Orange County State’s Attorney Will Porter said. “Most of the time (in harassment cases) people would come tell the court what it felt like. Dogs can’t do that.” Hmmm, even though this is a legit news story, maybe it belongs in the silly forums.

STORY WITH PICTURE HERE Published June 7, 2007 [ From LSJ.com ] Man in wheelchair goes on wild ride on grille of truck (911 tapes attached) Midday update Associated Press PAW PAW — A man was taken on a wild ride when his wheelchair became lodged in the grille of a semitrailer and was accidentally pushed down a highway for four miles at about 50 mph, authorities said. Benjamin Carpenter, 21, was unharmed but was taken to a hospital as a precaution. He had been secured to his wheelchair by a seat belt. "The man spilled his soda pop, but he wasn't upset," said Sgt. Kathy Morton of the Michigan State Police. About 4 p.m. Wednesday, a caller told police dispatchers, "You are not going to believe this: There is a semi truck pushing a guy in a wheelchair on Red Arrow Highway," state police said in a release. Authorities initially wondered whether the report was a prank call until others called with similar reports. Officers stopped the truck — wheelchair still attached — at a trucking company. The driver didn't believe officers until he stepped from his cab and saw for himself. "When he saw us, he was like, 'What's going on?'" Morton said. An investigation revealed the man in the wheelchair had pulled in front of the truck at a gas station and it somehow became lodged by its handles to the front grille.

Well I have to disagree with you Sudo. I don't think it is two parents v one parent in the home that makes or breaks a child. It is what kind of parent or parents the child has. Children definitely need GOOD role models from BOTH genders, but I don't believe those role models have to be parents. Nor is 18 years of child support in any way equal to 18 years of being there day in and day out, changing the diapers, going to the doc, participating in school activities, etc. etc. Finally, I most certainly wouldn't want to return to the "good ole days" when divorce was rare and the law turned a blind eye to the rape and abuse of a women simply because the perpetrator was the husband. Having said that, I will absolutely concede on the point regarding children raising children. That is a horrible situation and rarely works out well, unless there is a lot of support from the extended family. Unfortunatly the genie is out of the bottle and it isn't likely that it is going to be put back in. The best solution at this point, IMO, is to make sure we educate our young teens about their bodies and about sexuality - telling them it is wrong isn't enough. Give them a good dose of reality regarding how much work is involved in raising a child right. Keep lines of communication open and honest so you can help ensure they are protecting themselves. In an age of blow jobs in high school bathrooms, you cannot stop your child from having sex if he/she has made up his/her mind he/she is going to. You can make sure they know how to protect themselves. And with all of that, supervise, supervise, supervise. Leaving teenagers to roam the streets, leaving teenagers home alone with no structured activities for hours and hours on end is a recipe for disaster. The old mentality of he-man and barefooted women is also gone and I am glad. Women no longer feel obligated to marry the first suitor who proposes. Ideally, the generations following ours will learn to figure out what qualities will make a good spouse for them BEFORE they get married and have kids. They will marry older, have children later, and be better parents. That to me, is what to enourage in our children - the ideal to strive for. But again, to encourage this requires honest, open communication. Simply forbidding a teenager from doing something, in this day and time, is rarely effective.

I think it is entirely possible there are some who would practice that way, but overall, no that is not how it works. Women are seen as equals, partners. Some of the more orthodox sects have very distinct roles for men and women. Women are the homemakers and men the breadwinners, etc. But women aren't seen as lessor because if it, rather it is an honored and valued role. As you move into the more orthodox branches you will definitely find inequalities among the men and women, but the inequalities sort of go both ways. There are certain things only men are allowed - for instance for many many years only a well studied man over the age of 40 was allowed to study Khabbalah, but this is no longer the case in many branches. Likewise, in very orthodox temples there are separate places of worship for men and women - but again this is not viewed among those who practice it as in inequality but more as a way to eliminate distractions from your worship. Then, there are things that are given entirely to the women. Certain ritual practices are to be performed only by the women or may only be performed by a male if there is no woman present. The sexual relationship between a man and a wife is viewed largely as the woman's domain. She is not told she must make love with her husband, rather it is the husband who is told it is his duty to honor his wife in that manner. So, no, the wife is not submissive, but among the more orthodox there definitely are some distinctive roles for men and women. I was reading something the other day that talked about how Eve is called the mother of all living but Adam is not referred to as the father. It also talked about the women behind the patriarchs. How the men got most of the glory, but if you read the text without the Christian mind set you will realize not one of those men would have earned their fame without the wives who stood by their side.

I remember Aaron coming home from pre-school or kindergarten, proud as punch and showing me his middle finger. Of course he didn't really understand what it meant. I also recall getting a phone call from a teacher when he was in second grade for dropping the C-word a few times, again he had no idea what it meant. There is something to be said for telling our kids ahead of time what words are and are not appropriate and/or when they may be inappropriate, it probably would have saved Aaron some embarassment. Jacob could make a sailor blush when his big brother has pushed him far enough and while I don't like it much, I also recognize he uses it as a defense mechanism because he can't punch Aaron's lights out yet. I don't make a big deal out of it. To me, the bigger issue isn't the words being used but the fact that they are fighting. And Jacob knows he will get in trouble if he says the words at school. He understands if his friend's parents catch wind of him using such language they may not let him play with their kids anymore. I am confident he will figure it all out and get a handle on it - he doesn't use the words with any kind of habit. Sometimes, making a big deal out of these words only encourages kids to use them more. Same thing with sex. Keeping it all hush hush and under the rug may only add to their curiosity. I don't allow my kids to watch sexually graphic shows, although I don't shelter them from all inuendo either. We talk and talk and talk about this topic. I want them to learn from me, not the kids at school. I want them to feel comfortable coming to me with questions. I want them to feel comfortable with being honest with me when they start dating and exploring their sexuality. I would rather know they are sexually active and using proper protection than hide my head in the sand and lose one of them to HIV. I won't encourage them to be sexually active as unmarried young men, but I recognize that ultimately the choice will be theirs and it is better to accept that which I cannot control and keep communications open, than to try to control what I can't and shut all doors to communication.

Mass grave containing bodies of thousands of Jews found in Ukraine Story FOUND HERE

Well I figured I'd go back to the research for a few. Rashi says the section in Genesis 3 regarding the woman's desire being to her husband and him ruling over her refers to the woman'sl desire for intimacy with her husband, but in intimacy the husband will "rule" because it is something that cannot be demanded. In other words, we desire intimacy, but we cannot demand it, the man must give it freely.

You are correct in that is what God told EVE. But was it intended for all women or just her? Some would say it was never meant to have been for all women. In Judaism it is said it was Eve's punishment and it was passed down. Then throughout Genesis various women began the process of undoing that "punishment". Abraham was told to listen to Sarah. Rebecca knew who the true heir was supposed to be, etc.

I vote for all of the above, Roy. Holy kisses to you :)

well I am not sure the "guest rights" is an OT law so much as an OT custom. I will have to see if I can find anything one way or another on that. I tend to view the OT history as just that, history. Not necessarily God's will, but what occured, often in the name of God - right or wrong. From that, we can learn much, but that doesn't mean everything that occured was what God willed.

The flood story is found in a number of religions. Wikipedia has some good information HERE

I'll start with the latter and then go back to the former . . . One theory rests with a sacred code of hospitality regarding "guest-right", that required strangers to be offered food, drink and a place to sleep. There are anthropoligists who believe this duty even extended to providing sexual comapnionship to a guest as well as guarding their lives. Another theory, that would fit with this, is that children, especially daughters, were viewed as property more than as loved ones. However, this would directly contradict everything the Bible says about rape and the legal punishment for it, as well as God's commands to be fruitful and multiply and the Bilbical verses that refer to children as a precious gift from God. The woman who was gang raped and left to die wasn't left so by her father, she was a concubine and interestingly enough, of the tribe of Levite. During the time period when this occured, Israel was in the midst of a political upheaval. The result of her rape and death was an all out war against the tribe of Benjamin. The ironic ending to all of this is, after vowing to NOT allow any of the women from the other tribes to marry any of the men from the tribe of Benjamin because they raped and murdered a Levite woman, the tribes then decide to murder thousands of men, women, and children at the Rock of Rimmon and then allow the tribe of Benjamine to forceably take the surviving virgins as wives. I see all of this as a lesson in politics and religion run amok. I don't see it as something God willed or commanded, but as a lesson in what happens to people who are zealously and fundamentally religious beyond reason and to people who are zealous and hungry for political power. It is also a lesson it the dangers of anarchy.

Well Sudo, I was thinking there were several possibilities, one of them being yes, it does. Another one being no, but man's interpretation of it has. Or perhaps it didn't as origially written, but then as it was changed and passed down it became something that denigrated women.

A few discussion questions from the back of the book (paraphrased). . . Does the Bible really denigrate women? Do you think some of the stories of the Bible could have been attempts to influence the politics of the times and/or translated with changes to do so? and one that really really interests me that isn't from the book How many of the biblical stories can be traced back to "pagan" religions and which ones are they?

I think we should have it in Michigan this year.

I think Simon nailed it last week. In many ways, Blake is more entertaining, but Jordan is by far the better singer. America has voted.

Well I'm not involved and I don't talk about you. It is much more interesting to talk TO you. :wub:

no such thing as a final hike - lol lol. I wish I did understand the measurements part because I have no idea how I will send out our larger envelopes from work now.

There is a key phrase in what you wrote Bagpipes - TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE no one did those things. Is it not possible that it occured and you simply have no knowledge of it?

PS - it is wonderulf to see you here!!!! Thanks for stopping in and posting the link. I know I owe you an email. I got caught up in something and haven't gotten back with you yet, but I promise I will. :)

One of the attorneys here at work uses it. I know absolutely nothing else about the program beyond that, however, I don't think she would use it if she wasn't very confident about the security level.

wow - I'm still reeling over the $145 hairdress trip! LOL Oh my! I had no idea it could be so expensive!! I usually tip 20% at sit down joints. Subway shops and coffee shops, I'll drop my change in the jar. Hair cuts, well . . . I usually only get my hair cut 3 times a year, for the kids maybe 4 and I trim them in between. We do the cheapy places where they mist your hair and cut it - no drying, no styling. I usually tip between $2 - $3 per person (meaning if the boys and I all go together the tip is between $6 - $9). If Jacob is especially squirmey and the hairdresser is patient with him, I'll add extra. If the hair dresser is snotty to him, a little less.