Salt

Bush's Plan for Social Security

By David Wessel "Today's 25-year-old average wage earner would retire with benefits about 28% lower than under current rules." The article explains how this will happen.

Dancing in Church

"There's power, deliverance, healing and declaration in dance," said one dancer, "Lady" Michelle Nurse. "It's a form of praise and worship."

Said one pastor, "If I had three or four good-looking women with great bodies, I'd be guaranteed an audience." from the WSJ

Gay Gene Linked to Women

The nature nurture debate continues. And I don't know why I care. Is it the rabid anti-intellectualism in my opponents? The lack of sympathy? The broad generalizations used to describe homosexuality?

Apparently hyper-heterosexual women might pass on their genes to their male children. From now on, when I meet a gay man, I'll be sure to get his sister's number.

The Debate

Update: Mystery Pollster [via Brad Delong] concludes that Kerry "won" the debate by comparing several instant polls and adjusting for initial partisanship.

I went to a friends house to watch the Kerry debate. Lots of Kerry supporters there. My friend, an economist, said he was at the point that he merely wanted a president who could talk in complete sentences. He talks about moving to another country with better economic policies.

After listening to David Brooks spin, I'm not sure how to gauge if Bush lost or won. Bush questioned the credibility of two papers that refuted the GOP's questions about Kerry's tax plan, I think as a swipe to the liberal media. He pounded on the lectern continuously. He talked a lot about education, even when it didn't seem to be the question. It was passionate, but forced. I'm not sure how the federal govt affects local education anyway.

After Kerry promised he would increase minimum wage gradually, Bush suggested better education for all, describing how unemployed people can now get more training. I can see his point. Too many busboys just don't speak English that well. We need smart people who are paid nothing.

Real Questions

Here are some better questions to ask Frank, that don't set him up.

1. What are the sources of your understanding of homosexuality? If possible, describe how they accurately represent, complement or differ from the Christian witness.

2. Please explain the method(s) you use to understand the Christian witness: how do you choose what texts you use to interpret an event in your life? When does a preacher misrepresent the Gospel? Under what criteria would you best judge your mistakes?

3. How do you see ethics generally differing from or similar to "Christian" ethics?

4. Explain the legitimate limits a Christian demands of sexual behavior. How do you justify those boundaries? How is the scriptural witness similar and/or different to your understanding? If different, upon what basis do you disagree with scripture? How do you justify this?

5. How does the church establish who is included in the Kingdom? Is it merely baptism or the taking of the eucharist? What are the fundamental criteria for discerning the difference between false and gospel teaching? How do you interpret scripture so that the written Word does not apparently contradict the Word?

5. How would you limit communion with another church? When is it justifiable to demand repentance from another church? How would this be enforced?

6. When might catholicism contradict or affirm republican or democratic polity?

These are real questions.

Questions to Frank Griswold

The Anglican Communion Think-Tank has come up with some questions for the Presiding bishop. They are all leading questions. They are not meant to help people understand the liberal perspective. They are meant, solely, to divide. Here is one progressive atttempt to answer them.

1. Do you not agree that the primary basis of Anglican theology is the teaching of Holy Scripture and that half a century of reappraising scholarship has failed to overthrow the classical view that scripture consistently views homosexual activity as sinful?

No.

What I learned from The Cat

His name is "poacher"

Sometimes you have to chase after things that don't exist.

If you rub against your provider, you'll eventually get some mackerel.

If you scratch at the door long enough get to sleep on the bed.

Squirrels are the enemy.

The cat next door deserves a spanking. So does the dog.

Feeling good is alright.

I'm cool. Just looking for birds.

That wine glass wasn't there a minute ago.

What are you reading?

Move On and Christians

Chuck Currie makes a good point about Move on's organization of Christians.

Progressive clergy might help Move On by using the web to unite!

Lambeth 1998

Imagine a story like this

A group of Bishops gather together to discuss a topic over which they have moral authority, but little understanding. In this discussion, gay people are compared to dogs. Homosexuality is equated with necrophilia and bestiality. As the discussion progresses, this group of heirophants begin feeding off each other's anger and resentment, questioning the integrity of the another, smaller, progressive, richer, and less organized group. Only one bishop, a woman, has the strength to ask how it is possible that civility has so easily been discarded as the toher bishops spew forth their arrogant ignorance.

Liberal bishops are startled at the amount of resentment addressed against them. Clearly, as the conversation unfolds, the archbishop has no power, authority or charisma to focus the conversation prayerfully. Instead of seeking mutal understanding, a vote is taken hastily, not upon the moderate, truly Anglican proposal carefully crafted by a commission that had been addressing the issue for years, but upon a punishing, intemperate and fearful one drafted by a self-selected, yet popular, few. It wins the day. The progressive bishops shake their heads, outmaneuvered and outshouted by the angry and afraid, those who stand in fear of perpetual judgement. Obviously, God does not always work through voting.

Gnosticism, Etc

Every now and again, a discussion will arise that is tedious yet necessary. At Titusonenine, they are discussing gnosticism. Gnosticism is a broad term for a set of beliefs that were condemned by the church for a variety of reasons.

So, are you a gnostic? Are liberals "gnostics"? Gnostics, it is said, elevate self "knowledge" above all. And there is a lot of discussion about "knowledge" and what that means. There is less discussion of what a "self" is, and that, to me, is the root of the confusion.

How intellectually useful is the "self"? Are we autonomous, in any way, constructing private languages and making intricate, rationally chosen economic decisions every moment of our lives? I submit, merely bodily. Our consciousness is always linked to the consciousness of others. But I move to fast, dear reader. Would you recognize a gnostic if they said "hello" or asked you for a dime, or invited you to a poker game?