Full shot of the garden


Cucumbers vining on the trellis.


Cucumbers ready to pick!


Okra blossom


First hint of okra...really excited, never grown it before. Can't wait to fry it in cornmeal batter.


The sturdy squash plant rapidly taking over the garden


Plenty of squash to come.


I finally have peppers growing rather successfully. In my first attempt two years ago, my peppers were consumed by some sort of blight. Last year when I tried to grow pepper plants from seed and puzzled over why they weren't growing, I discovered the cat peeing in the pot!


The fruits of my labor...two yellow squash and one cucumber which I promptly cut up, salted and peppered, sprinkled with balsamic vinegar and consumed. Sweet, juicy, seedy cucumber.

(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

• = 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 interacted directly with humanity in the past, and chose the Jews as his people above all others.
@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 virgin births can occur.
+ 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 Jesus rose from the dead.

• That the story of Jesus was accurately told orally for a hundred years.

X That the hundreds of contradictory written fragments and letters from the time after that don't matter, because:
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.

SECOND 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!

I 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.