Janelle's Journal
My Podcast Link
07/09/2008 19:39 #44914
Pastor Wife Humor07/06/2008 15:25 #44880
Jim List of Christian Beliefs(e:Drew) responded to (e:Jim)'s post with a little code explaining what he believes and doesn't believe. I thought it seemed fun to see where I stand on these things versus Drew as a non-seminary educated Christian.
I wanted to use the same key as Drew, but I am introducing a category of, I believe something but do not see it as essential to the faith which will be @
@ = I believe this but don't necessarily see it as an essential of the faith.
X = I do not believe this
+ = This belief really is central to the faith, as I see it. (maybe or maybe not necessary, depending on who you ask)
+ That God exists.
+That God is still involved in the universe he created.
+That God cares about us.
@That God cares what religion you are in.
@That God guided the oral history of the Jews.
@ That God wrote the Bible, indirectly.
@ That God edited the Bible into its present form, indirectly.
X That God prevents textual errors from being introduced during copying, indirectly.
X That God would not allow the Bible to mislead us, but would allow other religious texts to mislead us.
+ That Jesus was born to Mary as the Son of God.
+ That Jesus is in fact, God.
+ That Jesus could redeem sins through his death and resurrection.
X The editing process to sort everything out was also guided by God, again, indirectly.
X That the Gospels were then transmitted down with no textual errors in copying or translation thereafter, thanks to God, indirectly.
XThat the parts of the Bible and the Gospels that don't make sense don't contradict any of the above.
X That if you choose wrong, despite this inconsistent and inexplicable chain, you are damned to hell.
I think I definitely might come off as more conservative. Boy, that's a switch from the days when we were dating.
I wanted to use the same key as Drew, but I am introducing a category of, I believe something but do not see it as essential to the faith which will be @
@ = I believe this but don't necessarily see it as an essential of the faith.
X = I do not believe this
- = There is a nuance to this belief.
+ = This belief really is central to the faith, as I see it. (maybe or maybe not necessary, depending on who you ask)
+ That God exists.
+That God is still involved in the universe he created.
+That God cares about us.
@That God cares what religion you are in.
- That God is the Christian God, not the Jewish, Islam, Baha'i, Mormonism, etc.
- That all other religions are in grave error. (despite those faiths having equally compelling claims and theology to lay claim to this honor)
@That God guided the oral history of the Jews.
@ That God wrote the Bible, indirectly.
@ That God edited the Bible into its present form, indirectly.
X That God prevents textual errors from being introduced during copying, indirectly.
X That God would not allow the Bible to mislead us, but would allow other religious texts to mislead us.
- That sins are against God, instead of against other humans.
- That we have original sin that needs to be redeemed.
+ That Jesus was born to Mary as the Son of God.
+ That Jesus is in fact, God.
+ That Jesus could redeem sins through his death and resurrection.
- That Jesus' death is the only way to cause that to happen.
- That the story of Jesus was accurately told orally for a hundred years.
X The editing process to sort everything out was also guided by God, again, indirectly.
X That the Gospels were then transmitted down with no textual errors in copying or translation thereafter, thanks to God, indirectly.
XThat the parts of the Bible and the Gospels that don't make sense don't contradict any of the above.
X That if you choose wrong, despite this inconsistent and inexplicable chain, you are damned to hell.
I think I definitely might come off as more conservative. Boy, that's a switch from the days when we were dating.
drew - 07/06/08 15:53
yeah. It really is a switch, isn't it?
As your heart hardens, mine softens? (waiting for the smack)
For the record, on my post, no X is equivalent to an @
yeah. It really is a switch, isn't it?
As your heart hardens, mine softens? (waiting for the smack)
For the record, on my post, no X is equivalent to an @
06/30/2008 11:14 #44829
Buffalo Philharmonic OrchestraSECOND REMINDER!!!
For those of you who enjoy classical music, the orchestra will be playing at Bidwell Parkway, Tuesday July 1st, 7pm.
(e:Drew) and I will be meeting folks at Lafayette Presbyterian Church in the parking lot at Elmwood ave and Lafayette ave. at 6:30pm to walk down together...if you don't want to meet us at the church, we'll catch up with you at Bidwell.
Hope to see you there!
For those of you who enjoy classical music, the orchestra will be playing at Bidwell Parkway, Tuesday July 1st, 7pm.
(e:Drew) and I will be meeting folks at Lafayette Presbyterian Church in the parking lot at Elmwood ave and Lafayette ave. at 6:30pm to walk down together...if you don't want to meet us at the church, we'll catch up with you at Bidwell.
Hope to see you there!
06/26/2008 14:55 #44792
My Supreme Court HobbyI look forward to the two times of the year when the Supreme Court reads its decisions.
After taking an intense graduate level class in Criminal Justice and Law in which I plowed through several Supreme Court decisions and wrote several papers, I have an appreciation for and understanding of how decisions are made to a small extent. And because I've read a number of cases, I am sometimes familiar with the prececdents preceding a current case. It really is a fun hobby.
I am currently reading through the majority opinion of the court on the DC handgun case. I'm fascinated to read that, to date, Supreme Court cases have addressed the right to bear weapons in terms of the types of weapons (i.e. restrictions on assault rifles) and the types of persons (i.e. offenders). But this case explores whether the constitution intended for the right to bear arms to be a collective right (i.e. a militia) or individuals (Joe Schmoe down the street owning it for self defense). The decision to go down in history is that the constitution provides this right to the individuals.
I've only begun to dig in, but so far the majority opinion seems dead on, but I'm sure once I read the minority opinion, it will give me something to chew over.
So far, I am pleased that Scalia made clear that the right of the individual to bear weapons does not negate the laws that exist to regulate the types of weapons and who possesses those weapons (i.e. it's perfectly reasonable to make illegal the possession of nuclear weapons by the dude who has spent time in a psych hospital - my example, not Scalia's, lol).
I have a few more thoughts on the topic, but I want to finish reading the decision. Here's the link if you want to join me.
After taking an intense graduate level class in Criminal Justice and Law in which I plowed through several Supreme Court decisions and wrote several papers, I have an appreciation for and understanding of how decisions are made to a small extent. And because I've read a number of cases, I am sometimes familiar with the prececdents preceding a current case. It really is a fun hobby.
I am currently reading through the majority opinion of the court on the DC handgun case. I'm fascinated to read that, to date, Supreme Court cases have addressed the right to bear weapons in terms of the types of weapons (i.e. restrictions on assault rifles) and the types of persons (i.e. offenders). But this case explores whether the constitution intended for the right to bear arms to be a collective right (i.e. a militia) or individuals (Joe Schmoe down the street owning it for self defense). The decision to go down in history is that the constitution provides this right to the individuals.
I've only begun to dig in, but so far the majority opinion seems dead on, but I'm sure once I read the minority opinion, it will give me something to chew over.
So far, I am pleased that Scalia made clear that the right of the individual to bear weapons does not negate the laws that exist to regulate the types of weapons and who possesses those weapons (i.e. it's perfectly reasonable to make illegal the possession of nuclear weapons by the dude who has spent time in a psych hospital - my example, not Scalia's, lol).
I have a few more thoughts on the topic, but I want to finish reading the decision. Here's the link if you want to join me.
tinypliny - 06/29/08 02:31
An extremely interesting epidemiological perspective amidst all this legalese:
:::link:::
An extremely interesting epidemiological perspective amidst all this legalese:
:::link:::
janelle - 06/27/08 10:12
Jason, Scalia makes really clear that regulations are entirely reasonable. The line he uses is whether or not it is reasonable to own a particular weapon for self defense. So it would be reasonable to regulate a weapon that is incredibly powerful and would far exceed the need for self defense. For example, a handgun would do the job whereas a fully automatic would be a bit excessive. However, that regulation, I assume, is up to state legislators.
I have a feeling that we're going to see one or two more cases that will define the types of weaponry that can be banned or regulated. Already the NRA is planning on challenging other city's ordinances that they find similar to DC's hand gun laws.
Jason, Scalia makes really clear that regulations are entirely reasonable. The line he uses is whether or not it is reasonable to own a particular weapon for self defense. So it would be reasonable to regulate a weapon that is incredibly powerful and would far exceed the need for self defense. For example, a handgun would do the job whereas a fully automatic would be a bit excessive. However, that regulation, I assume, is up to state legislators.
I have a feeling that we're going to see one or two more cases that will define the types of weaponry that can be banned or regulated. Already the NRA is planning on challenging other city's ordinances that they find similar to DC's hand gun laws.
jason - 06/26/08 21:49
Nope, I stand corrected, I'm not 100% sure on the details but I'm told you CAN buy a fully automatic in the US, but the distribution of licenses is limited, and they are fairly expensive.
Nope, I stand corrected, I'm not 100% sure on the details but I'm told you CAN buy a fully automatic in the US, but the distribution of licenses is limited, and they are fairly expensive.
jason - 06/26/08 20:54
I believe the line is drawn at military hardware. For example, I don't think you are allowed to have a fully automatic M4, but you can buy a semi automatic AR-15.
I was surprised at how inexpensive it is to buy a semi automatic rifle. I could be wrong on this, but the DC ban was on handguns. I'm sure an AR-15 would make any intruder poop.
I haven't read the opinions yet, but I wonder how it could have been close. I believe in the 2nd Amendment, but also responsible regulation.
I believe the line is drawn at military hardware. For example, I don't think you are allowed to have a fully automatic M4, but you can buy a semi automatic AR-15.
I was surprised at how inexpensive it is to buy a semi automatic rifle. I could be wrong on this, but the DC ban was on handguns. I'm sure an AR-15 would make any intruder poop.
I haven't read the opinions yet, but I wonder how it could have been close. I believe in the 2nd Amendment, but also responsible regulation.
jim - 06/26/08 19:31
Sorry for the jokes. :)
Sorry for the jokes. :)
jim - 06/26/08 19:30
But, what about my right to keep armed bears?
But, what about my right to keep armed bears?
janelle - 06/26/08 18:38
While I find gun ownership to be constitutional, e-Drew and I don't care for guns. You won't find one in our house, even though I grew up with guns in the house.
While I find gun ownership to be constitutional, e-Drew and I don't care for guns. You won't find one in our house, even though I grew up with guns in the house.
janelle - 06/26/08 18:36
I'm not sure how you find the definition of "arms" to be circular, Ajay. I'll have to go back and reread, I guess
And I don't understand what you mean when you say it doesn't cover machine-guns, guns with silencers, etc...
The main point of argument seems to be whether or not the individual or the collective has the rights to bear arms.
Other cases have already defined the right to bear certain types of arms.
I'm not sure how you find the definition of "arms" to be circular, Ajay. I'll have to go back and reread, I guess
And I don't understand what you mean when you say it doesn't cover machine-guns, guns with silencers, etc...
The main point of argument seems to be whether or not the individual or the collective has the rights to bear arms.
Other cases have already defined the right to bear certain types of arms.
jim - 06/26/08 18:21
I call shotgun!
I call shotgun!
ajay - 06/26/08 17:41
While I agree with the decisions, I find it interesting that "arms" is defined in a circular way. Why doesn't it cover machine-guns, gins with silencers, etc.?
Again: I'm not against gun ownership (and am looking forward to getting a couple of sweet pieces myself real soon), but I wonder where the line needs to be drawn...
While I agree with the decisions, I find it interesting that "arms" is defined in a circular way. Why doesn't it cover machine-guns, gins with silencers, etc.?
Again: I'm not against gun ownership (and am looking forward to getting a couple of sweet pieces myself real soon), but I wonder where the line needs to be drawn...
joshua - 06/26/08 16:23
Incidentally, I also agree with the other SCOTUS decision this week regarding capital punishment for people who did not kill somebody. The majority (5-4 again!) struck down death sentences for people on death row who didn't actually kill anybody. They suggest the punishment is disproportionate... I agree, but only barely. Should a child rapist be given the same sentence as a serial killer? Apparently Obama is more hardline than I am on this one!
Incidentally, I also agree with the other SCOTUS decision this week regarding capital punishment for people who did not kill somebody. The majority (5-4 again!) struck down death sentences for people on death row who didn't actually kill anybody. They suggest the punishment is disproportionate... I agree, but only barely. Should a child rapist be given the same sentence as a serial killer? Apparently Obama is more hardline than I am on this one!
joshua - 06/26/08 16:21
It is a LONG opinion... I don't have time to read it while I work. :( Overall though, I think the majority were correct in this case, particularly with the point Scalia made that you've highlighted.
The opinions are interesting insofar as they provide a window into the process SCOTUS undertakes - thats the big thing for me anyway. It is nice to learn about how these guys and gals formulate their final thoughts.
It is a LONG opinion... I don't have time to read it while I work. :( Overall though, I think the majority were correct in this case, particularly with the point Scalia made that you've highlighted.
The opinions are interesting insofar as they provide a window into the process SCOTUS undertakes - thats the big thing for me anyway. It is nice to learn about how these guys and gals formulate their final thoughts.
06/16/2008 22:35 #44683
How far will we go to save money ....on gasoline?
We rode our bikes home tonight from Pearl St. Brewery three miles in the rain!
Apparently, these are the memories that will make life seem so precious when we're old.
We rode our bikes home tonight from Pearl St. Brewery three miles in the rain!
Apparently, these are the memories that will make life seem so precious when we're old.
metalpeter - 06/17/08 18:22
It was nice to see you two come out. When you two left I didn't know it was raining. That being said when you ride your bikes to save money understand that it takes more time and time is money in a lot of cases. So I say start riding your bikes for the exercise and to help the planet if you think of it that way also you might never drive again, well or at least not as much. If more people acted as you two did then when the demand for oil drops then so will the price.
It was nice to see you two come out. When you two left I didn't know it was raining. That being said when you ride your bikes to save money understand that it takes more time and time is money in a lot of cases. So I say start riding your bikes for the exercise and to help the planet if you think of it that way also you might never drive again, well or at least not as much. If more people acted as you two did then when the demand for oil drops then so will the price.
james - 06/17/08 11:06
Oh god, and it was not a gentle rain either.
Oh god, and it was not a gentle rain either.
ladycroft - 06/17/08 08:05
I'm glad you did come out, it was nice to see you again!
I'm glad you did come out, it was nice to see you again!
That is freakin hillarious. I never thought about it. I guess this is not a problem in the catholic church, lol.
can we please get a discussion going on hot pregnant pastor wives?
hahaha that is so cute!
Not usually. Drew almost always asks before mentioning something about us at church.
Hey! You cannot, in fairness, answer that question! :)
BTW, one of the singers actually looks quite a lot like you (e:Janelle)!
No, it isn't.
hahah.. that was hilarious!
It that really true in your case? ;)