Carnival's here!

Join a few ladies that discovered "The Beauty of Technology". Please stop by these blogs and read (and maybe leave a note).

Barbara at Tidbits and Treasures takes a look at "Tasting Technology" in a Personal Way.

God has given us a powerful tool - the internet. Explore with Iris at Sting My Heart the possibilities to edify each other and reach out to the lost in "What Would Have Happened If..."

Michele at ChasingContentment is counting on technology to help "Bridge the Gap" and keep her friendships alive and well when she and her family move to another area of the country later this year.

Have you glimpsed a humpback whale lately off the coast of Mexico? Eaten curry on Fiji? Swam in the tropics? In her post, "Planes, Trains, Boats and Blogs", Heather at Mom2MomConnection shares her fascination with how technology allows us to travel the world via travel blogs that are updated with new content daily.

Ellen at MzEllen & Co. gives us a peek at her life (and into her heart) with a photo essay on a different kind of technology in "Technology For the Rest of Us".

Join us next week when Carol at SheLives hosts "The Beauty of Aging Gracefully". Clicking here for complete information on Carnival.

Each week for Philosophy class we are required to do a "reflection paper" on a specific question... This is mine for this week:

(let me note: This is philosophy class. The object is not to be "right", it's to earn an "A")

Summarize Hume's critique of rationalistic ethics. Then construct a Humean analysis of some contemporary moral issue. What are the advantages of Hume's approach? The disadvantages?

Hume believed that the ethics/morals are largely rooted in personal passions and experience and that many of what we call “morals” is sentiment based on sympathy for those who are affected by a trait or action.

My “contemporary moral issue” is polygamy.

1) Relationships do not scale arithmetically, but exponentially. This is true. With a plural marriage with two wives you have two relationship with the husband and each wife, as well as the relationship between the two women AND the relationship that includes all three.

For example, what happens in a three person marriage if one wants out? Are the two left married or does the whole thing dissolve and the two people have to choose to marry as a couple? What happens if the family cannot agree on some major decision? Suppose a man is sick and cannot make his own medical decisions. What happens if the wives do not agree? Are women allowed to marry multiple men or just men marry multiple women?

However, just because there are different ways for people in the relationship to interact, does not mean the act is morally wrong.

2) Mathematically polygamy ends up producing a 'surplus male' problem. If 1 out of 10 men marry 3 women then that means for the 9 remaining men there are only 7 women. Needless to say the remaining 9 men probably aspire to not one but three wives so there's going to be a core of men who are not able to marry.

Again, this is true. With polygamy, there will be fewer women available for the unmarried men. Although this could cause rioting and other distress, it could also have the effect of forcing young men to be productive in order to compete for the women that are “available”.

3) The Bible says that marriage is “one man and one woman”. Actually, the Bible says that “in the beginning” there was one man and one woman. But very early on, there were polygamous marriage and the Bible (or the Law) never condemned them. The Bible has always been read with one eye on the text and another on tradition. For example, there is no text in the Bible that specifically says Jesus never married. Yet the understanding has been that Jesus never took a wife despite this lack of actual text. We cannot use the Bible (or tradition based on the Bible) to say that polygamy is morally wrong.

4) Since the social benefits do not seem to exceed the social negatives I think the burden is on pro-polygamists to make their case for expanding the law.

Social benefits vs. social negatives may be practical (human) issues, but they are not moral questions.

5) There are numerous possible versions of polygamy and if we decided to have it there's no clear 'default'.

This argument mainly comes from people who fear that allowing homosexual marriage would lead to other formed of marriage that are “outside the norm”. To these people, other versions of polygamy (legal marriage) include “one woman, multiple men”, “multiple same sex partners”, “multiple men, multiple women”, all of unspecified numbers.

Yet again, this argument falls into “human issues” and not moral issues.

To wrap it up, I actually solicited these “arguments” from a variety of people. There are a wide variety of reasons that polygamy would be impractical, unwise, weird or otherwise undesirable, but not objectively immoral.

The benefit to this type of system would be that logic, not passion rules. The disadvantage is that it leaves out one vital component of decision making – God.

I know I have a few people that stop by - I would seriously like some input to give me food for thought.

I have a writing assignment (due tonight).

The question: Summarize Hume's critique of rationalistic ethics. Then construct a Humean analysis of some contemporary moral issue. What are the advantages of Hume's approach? The disadvantages?

My "contemporary moral issuse": polygamy.

In a nutshell, "Hume's position in ethics, which is based on his empiricist theory of the mind, is best known for asserting four theses: (1) Reason alone cannot be a motive to the will, but rather is the “slave of the passions” (see Section 3) (2) Morals are not derived from reason (see Section 4). (3) Morals are derived from the moral sentiments: feelings of approval (esteem, praise) and disapproval (blame) felt by spectators who contemplate a character trait or action (see Section 7). (4) While some virtues and vices are natural (see Section 13), others, including justice, are artificial (see Section 9). There is heated debate about what Hume intends by each of these theses and how he argues for them. They are best understood in the context of Hume's meta-ethical theory and his ethic of virtue and vice."

A couple of years ago I was looking for a new house.

The home that my kids and I were living in no longer "felt right". It was definitely too big, too chilly, to drafty.

We had lived there for 12 years, so moving was not an easy decision to take. It was our home. Yes, there were things that were wrong with it, but at least we knew what they were. There were things that were worse about it - things we couldn't change (money and time were both factors), but hey - how bad could it get?

The "kidlets" were not particularly happy about it (comfort and stability means a lot to teens), but they could see the need for change.

I began preparing to leave my home.

Part of the process was to begin packing. Packing was difficult. It meant parting with some things that I'd grown to love, giving up places that I'd grown to cherish. It meant going through memories - some were beautiful, some were very painful.

It meant preparing to walk away from one old, known home, into a new, unknown one.

It mean looking for a new home.

I knew the things that I needed in a home. Things like 3 bedrooms, plus a place for an office, being close to a bus route, having a small yard (not a big one). It meant having a paved driveway.

I don't remember the order, but I remember some of the "highlights" of the houses we looked at.

One house had children living there and there were signs of love all around. Photos, artwork done by the kids, toys. but...it had "level" problems. The foundation has slipped enough so that you could stand in the basement and see daylight between the cement basement wall and the joists on the floor above. Part of the back yard had fallen into the gully behind the house. There was lots of love, but the foundation had shifted.

Another house was smaller than the old one. It had not been lived in for a while, so there was that "quiet" feeling. There were just as many rooms, but they were way smaller rooms and they seemed to go around and around. The most irritating thing was that there was this wonderful little balconey on the back of the house - the room it was off of would have made a great master-suite. Ok - the irritating thing was that the door to the balconey was inoperable. There was this great area that you could see, but not get into.

Yet another house was very little. The ad said that the house had the right number of bedrooms, baths, etc. But we got there and there was nobody home and there was no keybox. And this nasty little dog had his nose to the picture window throwing an absolute tantrum - growling and carrying on.

Another I remember well. I actually tried to put a bid on it, but somebody beat me to it. There were things wrong with it that would have be solved before I moved there. There were two floors, plus a basement. Three levels, with a bedroom on each level. The furnace was between one of the bedrooms and the only egress. The only thing on the second floor was the master-bedroom area - and it had no door.

Then we came to see this house. The kitchen is "old-feeling", hardwood all over, just enough rooms, not too big, not too small. It's missing a couple of things I would have liked - a garage and a dishwasher. My son and I walked into it and "knew". Yes - for this house, I could live without a dishwasher. I've never in my adult life had a garage, so (while it would be nice) it's not a real issue now.

I put a bid almost immediately. This is our home.

(But What Does This All Mean????) - read on...

Don't worry, I'm not thinking I'm Jesus. I'm just thinking that after I wrote the previous post, you all are thinking "But what does this all mean?" and I'm reminded of the disciples wondering if there really is a message in all that story. (I changed the time stamp so the posts are in the "right" order)

Right now - I'm looking for a new church home. The church that my kids and I are attending no longer feels "right". It's too big (I didn't realize that before) and it's too drafty (things are being let in that shouldn't be in.)

The "kidlets" are not particularly happy about it (comfort and stability means a lot), and this time they don't see the need for a change, but they're willing to go along. The deal is - they still get to go to youth group and college group at the old church.

A while ago, before I even knew I would be looking, I think I was preparing to move.

We're preparing to walk away from one old, known home, into a new, unknown one.

We've visited a few churches (and for the sake of this post, I'm going way back.) I want to make the clear statement that all of these churches have their fans and their congregations that love them dearly. I'm only writing from the standpoint of "what it is that I am looking for" and "where is the church were I fit?"

Today, we visited a church that was like the first house I wrote about. There's lots of friendliness, even warmth. But the foundation is shaky. The message was sort of "devotiony", and although Jesus on the cross was talked about a lot, there was no mention of the WHY, which is the whole point. There was no mention of the "sin" word, no invitation to come to Him. They used "the Message". We had coffee and popcorn in the service and we called it "the Starbucks Church".
The second house reminds me of my previous church. There were a lot of little groups and some of them are very hard to get into. I was told early on that in order to be a part of the music ministry (other than being in the choir), a person has to (very unofficially) be a part of the "right" group. I wasn't a part of that group and I never was able to get into it. That's the balcony. The part you can see into but not get into.

I'm sure that a lot of folks can think of a church that reminds them of the little house with the little dog, protecting its territory. I won't go into that (and I really haven't had that experience in church hunting. But that is something I'm aware of.)

The fourth house brings to mind the church we visited last week. It was nice, I really liked the sermon. It would be ok to attend there. The only thing is...they don't have "their own space". Like the bedroom with no door, this is a church with no building. Again, many people feel very satisfied with this - it is just not what I'm looking for.

I'm still looking for the "right church". I know the things that I need in a church. Things like a choir or a singles group. Those are the "dishwasher" and "garage". They'd be nice, but if I sat through a service and felt "This is the one", I give those things up.

Doctrine
Point to the cross
Use the Bible (not the Message)

Those are the "musts"

The title for this post does not come from an "us or them" mindset. The title for this post is inspired by a program that is being sponsored by a local hospital called "Bikes for the Rest of Us". I'm at the point where I'm going to have to declare a major - special ed or something else - you can tell where my heart is...

Every day as school, I see a different kind of technology - it's a life thing.

For most of us, going to school (even if it's homeschool), eating,
breathing, moving are a normal part of life. For the rest of us, things aren't that easy.

Because of technology, the rest of us can go to school every day.

We have about thirty school buses that come to our school every day. Most of them have lifts like this one.

Some of the students come to school in "ambu-cabs" - but most of them come to school on buses.

Because of technology, kids can go places - a lot of places!There are chairs with all kinds of colors and sizes.

Technology helps the rest of us breathe easier.

It helps the rest of us eat.

Some of our students get all of their nutrition with the help
of this technology, others just need a little help.

But there's so much more to life!

Thanks to technology, kids at my school can walk.This is a walker (I think the brand is Rifton). It can be used with or without the "seat". With this walker, kids develop leg muscles and more)

Thanks to technology, kids can ride a bike.This bike (from Rifton) has a padded "seatbelt" and velcro feet straps so that little feet won't slip. The handle on the front is so an adult can help steer or pull.

They can even ride with a friend.

This "bike for two" is so much fun! It is, however, very expensive.

Kids can walk with a buddy.

(This is less complicated than it looks - really. With the support of
the seat - between the big wheels - a student can "stand" and push
the walker with his or her hands, like a wheel chair, only standing up, putting them at eye level with the person they're walking with.

Sometimes they just need a good squeeze.

This is a "squeeze machine". Some folks with autism or ADD/ADHD come through this feeling more "organized." I don't know why it works...but it works.

And (last but not least) the rest of us like playgrounds, too!

This is a "wheelchair swing". The gate is let down and with both front and
back gates up, the chair is secure. For a lot of kids, just being able to feel the wind in their face as they swing back and forth - the look on their faces says it all.

But for all the technology, for all of the great things it does and lets us do...it will never replace...

I have a request. If you have a desire to be a part of this "technology" - it is so rewarding and there are so many ways to help!

Donate time. Volunteer at a local school - we are a "center-based" program - all of our kids have special needs. Hold a hand, walk with a kid, read a book.

"Fix stuff". The school I work at has a few volunteers that come in every so often to just fix stuff. There are a lot of wheels, a lot of chains. Just keeping them all oiled can be a challenge.

Donate money. This equipment is expensive! Every little bit helps and our governments generally don't provide enough.Donate stuff. "Ensure", diapers, pull-ups, towels, blankets...it's all needed.

This is what I do - it's where my heart is. Most days, I can't imagine doing anything other than what I'm doing (although some of the difficulties in our classroom I could do without).

It's not easy - but it is worth it.

The "girl-child" and I are a "group" in our class and we have a project due. Our subject is "the History of Christian Music", concentrating on the tension between "Contemporary Christian Music Industry" and the independents.

I ran across the words to this hymn by Martin Luther.

"We All Believe in One True God"

1. We all believe in one true God,
Who created earth and heaven,
The Father, who to us in love
Hath the right of children given.
He both soul and body feedeth,
All we need He doth provide us;
He through snares and perils leadeth,
Watching that no harm betide us.
He careth for us day and night,
All things are governed by His might.

2. We all believe in Jesus Christ,
His own Son, our Lord, possessing
An equal Godhead, throne, and might,
Source of every grace and blessing.
Born of Mary, virgin mother,
By the power of the Spirit,
Made true man, our elder Brother,
That the lost might life inherit;
Was crucified for sinful men
And raised by God to life again.

3. We all confess the Holy Ghost,
Who sweet grace and comfort giveth
And with the Father and the Son
In eternal glory liveth;
Who the Church, His own creation,
Keeps in unity of spirit.
Here forgiveness and salvation
Daily come through Jesus' merit.
All flesh shall rise, and we shall be
In bliss with God eternally. Amen.

(This is pretty long, there are three subjects (all related) and the last one has a question (so you'll have to read the whole thing - hah!)

Here are some words from Yahoo News:

The court dismissed today the case against Abdul Rahman for a lack of information and a lot of legal gaps in the case," the official said Sunday...Rahman also told the Italian newspaper that his family — including his ex-wife and teenage daughters — reported him to the authorities three weeks ago.

He said he made his choice to become a Christian "in small steps," after he left Afghanistan 16 years ago. He moved to Pakistan, then Germany. He tried to get a visa in Belgium.

"In Peshawar I worked for a humanitarian organization. They were Catholics," Rahman said. "I started talking to them about religion, I read the Bible, it opened my heart and my mind."

Mr. Rahman needs our prayers. He is receiving the refining fire in a way that very few of us ever will and from other quotes I have read, it sounds very much like he has the peace of the Holy Spirit.

There's a bumper sticker or t-shirt or something like that I've seen that says, "If you were accused of being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?"

(This is all hypothosis, since there really isn't much more than this to go on)

I believe this move on the court's part does NOT say that there is a lack of evidence (to the world) of Mr. Rahman's Christianity. The court is under the scrutiny of the world and by releasing Rahman, they are able to (like Pilate) wash their hands of the affair - being fairly certain that releasing him to the Muslim population would have the same end result as a state execution, only without the black eye for the state.

Given who Rahman's are, it would also appear that (like many other parts of the world), the power of an ex-wife to wreak havoc on a man's life and to turn his children against him is in play here. If his Rahman's ex-wife is the one who is testifying, there may not be much more "information" or evidence that would stand up in a court. This could be where the "lack of information" is coming from.

The fact that Rahman is confessing his Lord and Saviour doesn't seem to be coming into play, except that if the state wants to extricate itself from a sticky problem, his confession needs to be dealt with. The solution? Label him insane.

Christians in the West don't know what form persecution will take - is this it? Not "you can't buy food" or "you'll be beaten in the street" (although these may certainly happen). But could persecution of Christians come in the form of marginalizing them by simply declaring them mentally incompetent? This was an interesting thought for me, in the middle of Mr. Rahman's perserverence and the danger that he is in (whether the danger comes from the state or from the mob).

But...on to discussions on other blogs.

BoarsheadTavern has been discussing the "L" in TULIP. What does this mean to Mr. Rahman? He said, "Somebody, a long time ago, did it for all of us..." He obviously isn't a universalist, but this isn't the standard "L" of the Calvinist, either.

We don't know how he came to be a Christian. Here's one possibility: He talked to Catholics, they gave him a Bible, he read it and believed.

Rahman said, "I read the Bible, it opened my heart and my mind."

There are a couple of folks out there who are not putting "Christian" (yes, in quotes) when writing about Rahman, as though they are questioning his Christianity because he first talked to Catholics.

I say: based on Rahman's testimony, "I read the Bible, it opened my heart and mind," it seems to me that anybody who would question his Christianity is questioning the sufficiency of the Scripture.

A couple of the same folks said that Rahman's impending martyrdom would be "sullied" by bloggers who he does not know discussing the "L" in TULIP.

On one day - these bloggers were defending Rahman's martyrdom from the mere DISCUSSION of a theological point - two days later they are questioning his very Christianity.

Which sullies the martyrdom more? Discussing the "L"? Or questioning the martyr's very salvation? (By the way, one of the things that I truly appreciate about Reformed theology is that God gets to pick!)

This is a man who (from his testimony) has the Bible. Are there Calvinists telling him that "all doesn't mean all"? Are there Arminians telling him that "elect" doesn't really mean "chosen"? (This is as much supposition as anybody else is committing, but I'm going by what the man was quoted as saying.) I don't know if his Bible was even in English - and if you can get the "all means all", or "elect means chosen" or even the "L" from the text that he was reading!

The man is standing firm - he's declaring publically that he follows Christ and he's endangering his life by doing so. I'm not going to question that.

On John 3:16:

This is the passage that sort of started the whole thing...the "whosoever" part.

My daughter and I took a Greek class together last summer and one of our class assignments was to translate a verse. I knew it was John 3:16, but I was a little confused.

The Greek text didn't have the "whosoever" in there! Translated, it went something like "For God loved the world (kosmos, creation) that He sent His son - His only Son - so that those who are found in Him might have the life eternal."

The question then becomes NOT "are you one of the whosovers?" It becomes "are you found in Christ?"

I'm not sure if there are different Greek texts to translate from, or how "whosoever" got in there, or whether that's just something that I'm going to have to take 3 more years of Greek in order to figure out...

A long, long time ago I went backpacking in Arizona to see some ruins. It was a great trip and we did the overnight thing...

There was a sign on the outhouse door, "Please do not let the door slam - you will disturb the peace of our valley."

Tonight, that came back to me. There are video games, laptops and cd players all running in the living room. I also have an extra (loud) teenager (I enjoy having him around, but he is loud).

A particular obnoxious song began playing and I remembered that sign.

"Boys, you are disturbing the peace of my valley!"

Devon said, "you don't even have a valley."

"If I did, you'd be disturbing it."

😉