The other night, my husband and I got into a long and somewhat heated debate.  We doggedly went back and forth for over an hour, at the end of which I calmly sat down in a kitchen chair and stated matter-of-factly "I think I'm going to cry now." And then I promptly burst into tears that lasted for nearly as long as the conversation.

So what led to this marital dischord, you might ask. Was it financial woes? A disagreement over household chores? Problems in the bedroom?  Not as such.

It was Noah's Ark.

(In all fairness, the tears were probably more the result of a build up of stress from work and life in general.  But still, crying over Noah's Ark!  This is my life!)

A comment from one of our nieces about how she had been taught in school that Noah's Ark was "just a story" is what sparked the conversation later that evening.  Jim took the side that we should not be so quick to dismiss that Noah's Ark may have indeed been a historically factual event.  I took the skeptical side.  I wish I could have captured the entire argument on tape, because it brought up so many important issues, not just about Christianity and the Bible.

Raised and educated in the Catholic Church, I was taught that it was not absolutely necessary to believe that the events of the Old Testament, particuarly in the books of Genesis and Exodus, were completely historically true.  Without denying that it was possible that these miraculous and bizarre events could have really happened, it was equally acceptable to say that the books of the Old Testament were written in genres not concerned with historical accuracy as much as communicating ideas.  For example,  with respect to the Creation story in Genesis, as long as you accept that God created the world from nothing, that at some point he endowed human beings with souls, that these souls chose to sin and thereby tainted all of creation, etc, it was not necessary to stress out about how many days (or millenia) it took to create the universe, or whether they really ate fruit, whether or not there was really a talking snake, and so on.

This seemed like such a reasonable position, that it has remained my view for all of my Christian life.  It makes it possible to accept the truths of Redemption History without having to trouble my head over apparent conflicts within the Bible, as well as conflicts between faith and science and what my own reason tells me.  This in no way makes me think that the Bible is erroneous or just full of fairy stories - on the contrary, I think that the Bible indeed teaches infallibly, taking into consideration different genres and figures of speech. For example, Scripture says that Creation is the work of God's hands.  Well, God didn't have actual hands when he made the world (as far as we know) - it is a figure of speech. That doesn't mean the Bible contains an error in it though!  Clearly not every word of Scripture was meant to be taken as historical, scientific, observable fact.

Now I realize that many have used this line of reasoning to reject the miracles and even the Resurrection of Jesus. That is one of the reasons so many Christians insist upon the historicity of all of Scripture.  I am sympathetic to that argument, since I DO believe in the miracles of the New Testament.  But my response to the line of thinking that disregards the miracles of the New Testament is that clearly the book of Genesis and the Gospels are not written in the same genre.  The Gospels (especially the synoptics) are biographical/historical accounts.  Whereas the early chapters of Genesis are written in a poetic "mytholigical" style - and I use the word myth carefully.  In our current usage, the word myth has come to mean a lie, a fabrication, or something made-up.  But that is not the original meaning of the word myth.  A myth is a story that combines historical, scientific facts with symbolic elements to teach transcendent truths (as opposed to literal history).  So myths are not UN-true, they are just a type of truth different from pure history or science. But I am getting away from the point I really intended to make.

A POINT. I HAZ ONE!

The discussion I had with my husband has made me question my position.  He argued that science is continually discovering that it was mistaken about past ideas, that we are continually rethinking and reshaping our notions of the universe, and that there is clearly a limit on what we can possibly know about the universe and its past.  All of which I agree with completely.  He then went on to argue that a dead body which had begun to decompose over a couple of days suddenly being restored to life and complete health is equally if not more offensive to science and our senses as the notion of thousands and thousands of animals being placed in a huge boat and surviving a catastrophic flood.  He pointed out that arguments from geology, archeology and evolutionary biology which make the flood seem historically impossible could be based on incomplete evidence or incorrect understandings of those sciences.

Believe me when I say that I am very sympathetic to and fascinated by science - and yet I cannot argue with my husband's points. And just to let you know, Jim does not hate science, he does not harbor conspiracy theories about scientists getting together in a plot to kill God or anything like that.  We both enjoy watching NOVA and reading Scientific American.  We love science!  But he is absolutely right, human beings are fallible and our scientific knowledge is imperfect and incomplete.

So the question is, if I really do believe in miracles, if i really do think that God has sovereign power over matter and history, then why do I arbitrarily draw the line on what kinds of miracles God could and did perform?  Is it because I don't want people, even other Christians, to think of me as an ignorant fool? Is it because I don't want to think of myself as an ignorant fool?  Is it because maybe I arrogantly love science a little too much?

I have not come away from this discussion fully convinced that Noah's Ark HAD to have happened exactly as it was written in the Bible, but I am much more willing to believe that it did happen.  The universe is a marvelous and mysterious place, and I don't want any smallness of mind to rule out what God may be doing or may have done.

Permalink | 5 Commented |

____________________________________________________

What with my life, and all the craziness, it has been a while since I posted some of my favorite things from Etsy.  I'm going to try to resume doing this on Tuesdays, because at the very least we could all use a little more prettiness and creativity in our days, no?

Crochet Flower Headband - emilyknitsandcrochet

Cracked Mittens in Vanilla - celapiu

Handmade Crochet Dishclothes - New Moon Crochet

The Accidental Cowl - murano & tagua

Soft Green Roses - craftaria

Permalink | 4 Commented |

____________________________________________________

I just got finished listening to Obama's speech on health care. I like a lot of what he said, and had questions and doubts about some stuff too. I don't know what we should do about health care in America.  I JUST DON'T EVEN KNOW.  I know, like everyone else, that it needs to be fixed. I know that my husband and I pay a crap ton (that's a technical term) out of pocket for insurance, and we would have so much more in savings if we didn't.  I know several young people who can't get coverage because of pre-existing conditions, and I know at least one lady whose insurance refused to pay for her treatments when she got very sick with lyme disease.  We all know it's broke, it's broke real bad.

And as I already said, I don't know how to fix it.  These are just some of the thoughts jangling around in my head.

• Pre-existing Conditions - Look, this is one of the issues that gets me riled up as much as anyone else. You get sick one time, and there is a blight on you the rest of your life! That sucks! Believe me, I am sympathetic! And yet. Just using common sense, from a business point of view, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me to make it illegal to deny coverage to people with a history of or current health problems. I only have the most cursory knowledge of actuarial science, but I know that the whole concept of insurance is based on risk.  Sick people aren't even a risk, they are a sure loss! Forcing insurance companies to cover people who already sick are or who are likely to get sick is like forcing someone playing poker to go all in when they only have a pair of twos. It makes no sense! Now, there is a limit to what I am saying. Denying coverage because of things like acne or gallstones or asthma is patently absurd. But what about bigger problems like cancer or other serious diseases? Does it make sense that I be able to call an insurance company after I know I have cancer and they be required to cover me? Isn't that what outlawing the refusal of coverage on grounds of pre-existing conditions is going to amount to?  That is fiscally irresponsible, that is just terrible business! Of course, I agree with Obama that once a person is covered, it should be illegal to drop them or reduce their coverage after a diagnosis. As long as a person's premiums are current, they should be covered for whatever illness comes along. But really, thinking about all this makes me question the whole system of insurance altogether.
   
• Employer-based Insurance - GET RID OF IT. ENTIRELY. If companies want to offer health care as a benefit, let them do it in the form of a voucher or reimbursement, or let them hire in-house nurses or something. My boss reimburses me each month for a portion of my health insurance premium, and I am so thankful he is willing to do so! It makes no sense to me that your health care should be directly tied to your job, so that if you lose your job or switch jobs, seamless coverage is immediately lost.
   
• Crossing State Lines - Similarly, why should insurance be bound by state lines, particularly when we live in such a mobile society?  Some things are better left to states to handle, but health care and insurance should not be one of them.
   
• Food and Health - Dude! Duuuuuuude! I can't believe Obama didn't even mention this! I can't believe how this is not even part of the discussion for most people (with exceptions). The way we eat and live as Americans has EVERYTHING to do with health care. Just a few of my many ideas on this subject: stop subsidizing corn, thus skewing the real cost of food and making junk food so cheap; limit the use of food stamps to whole and healthy foods, and find ways to make them usable at farmers markets; make student lunches at schools out of fresh, whole, healthy foods.  The fact is that some of the biggest health care costs in this country (diabetes, heart disease, certain cancers, etc) are directly linked to the way we eat and the way we live.
   
• Tort Reform - Glad Obama mentioned it, although just in passing. I don't know how much money it will save, but I've heard from enough doctors to know it is an important key to keeping costs down and good doctors in practice. I am intrigued by the idea of a whole court system developed for medical legal issues - having lawyers, judges and courts expert in such issues seems wise to me.
   
• Prescription Drug Commercials and Pharm Rep Bribing - I think these should both be outlawed! I know that a massive chunk of pharm company profits goes towards research, which is good, and that is part of why medicines cost so much. But their marketing budgets must also huge, and must be adding to the cost as well! First of all, the way in which pharm companies woo doctors and hospitals with free food and trips and tchatchkes is just unconscionable. A doctor should choose which medicines he is going to prescribe based on SCIENCE, not on how much free stuff he gets from good looking pharm reps. And as for the TV and magazine commercials - I have to think that they are contributing to unnecessary doctor visits and over-medicating. Plus, they annoy the everliving crap out of me. Now I am all about being an advocate for your own health, just as you would be an advocate for yourself in any other consumer situation. Don't let doctors push you over or ignore you! But also - they are the ones who went to medical school! I do not need medicines to be marketed directly to me. Period. And lest anyone squawk that this is an infringement on the free speech or business rights of the pharm companies, let me point out that prescription drugs are controlled substances. We have laws about the advertisement and sale of other substances like cigarettes and alcohol. So I think it is perfectly legitimate for there to be regulations about the marketing of any controlled substance.
   
• Requiring Health Insurance - Obama mentioned making health insurance coverage mandated. He likened it to auto insurance. How in the world will that be enforced? If you drive without insurance, your license can be taken away, and if you can't afford the insurance, too bad so sad, then you can't drive. But if you can't drive, there is always the bus or a bike or walking on your own two legs. So what will they take away if you don't or can't buy health insurance? Your life? Seriously, will it be jail time, or garnished wages, or what? I just don't get how it will work. Also, what about folks like the Amish who are content to stay off the grid? Will this law infringe upon their religious convictions not to partake of the world of business and government assistance that most of us take for granted?
   
• Networks - Does anyone even know why doctors are in certain health insurance networks?  What is that even all about? Why can't you just go see whatever doctor you want to go see, so long as they are in good standing and legally licensed to practice medicine? 
  

Permalink | 4 Commented |

____________________________________________________

So, this morning they were talking on The Diane Rehm Show about the recent data on household income and poverty released by the Census Bureau. Part of the discussion addressed those at the highest end of the income spectrum. It got the rusty wheels of my brain turning.

When I think about what I would do if I were suddenly outrageously wealthy (which I don't do all that often - only, like, a few times a day), I usually assure myself that I would never be so spoiled and precious as to have a weekly maid or personal cook or private pilates instructor, etc. No, I would live below my means, in such a way that no one would even know just how rich I was. I'm so theoretically down to earth, aren't I?!

Instead, if I were suddenly weathy, I would make giving my money away a full-time job. Honestly, nothing would make me happier! And nothing would be more virtuous or good for society, right?

But then, the many years of being raised in a Republican household kicked in, and I started to wonder.

I have problems with huge disparities of wealth within a society, and I gravely wonder about the validity of living an extravegant lifestyle, particularly for a Christian. And yet, is there not something to be said for the ability to give someone a job? If I were able to hire a maid or a cook or whatever, and if I paid them very well and treated them very well, would that not be a good gift to those individuals that I would be employing?  I hope that doesn't sound condescending, as though it would make me some kind of generous fairy godmother simply for deigning to allow someone to vacuum my rug. But do you get my point? If I can give someone a legitimate and respectful job, isn't that a good thing? I don't mean that I would do that instead of giving to charitable causes. But wouldn't creating jobs also be a blessing both to the economy in general as well as to the individuals? It made me think that part of my "charitable" activities ought to foster job creation.

Not that any of this is ever going to happen for me personally. In fact, this is probably a really dumb and boring post - but hey, these are the things I think about when I drive to work in the morning.  Iam probably not taking all important points into consideration. It's Monday morning. Give me a break, it is amazing I am writing complete sentences at all.

Permalink | 2 Commented |

____________________________________________________

I just heard a guy on NPR say that insurance companies should be tightly regulated so that they would not be allowed to make the kinds of profits that they are making.

Hmm.

Now just the other night, my father, who is an extremely smart man and is also Republican to the core who gets most of his news from Faux Fox, was explaining to me that insurance companies are required by the goverment to make a consideral profit based on actuarial mathmatics.  In other words, they HAVE to have a certain amount of cash reserves that come from profits to be able to pay out, even if their business is shrinking.

If insurance companies are going to pay for when we get sick, don't they need to have lots of money?

(I know that this is very closely tied to issues like denying coverage to those who get sick - of course that should be made illegal - and whether or not healthcare should depend on for-profit companies. I know. That is not what I am asking about.)

Permalink | 5 Commented |

____________________________________________________

This weekend my mother gave me one of the several cross-stitched Wysocki pictures that she handmade while I was growing up. In honor of that very sweet and precious gift.

Leaf Wall Wear - nea

Green Folk Earrings - Pin Pal

Owl Love You Always - Chez Sucre Chez

Pumpkin Flower Sampler - TC Witchcraft Factory

Orla Modern Cross Stitch - Wall Work

Permalink | Comment? |

____________________________________________________

For a doosey of a discussion about Predestination and Free Will, head on over to Rachel Held Evan's blog (one of my favorites).  Be sure to check the comments, yo.

For those who would rather get a root canal, I offer this:

Permalink | 3 Commented |

____________________________________________________

"We [Christians] make the mistake, and our culture makes the mistake, of thinking that if I see clearly the folly of something or the sin of something or the problems of something, that then cynicism is the right response.  

God sees our follies and weaknesses and sins with absolute clarity and he never becomes cynical about us."

- Jerram Barrs, from a lecture on Postmodernism

Permalink | Comment? |

____________________________________________________

Oak Leaf and Acorn Necklace - Little Green Room

Pumpkin Pi Handmade Soap - Epically Epic Soap

The Woodgrain Clutch - Sew Lola

Pumpkin Hat - Karlen Knits

Flora Flat - Hydra Heart

Permalink | 1 Commented |

____________________________________________________

The weather outside is absolutely perfect.  Clear blue sky. Chilly. The leaves haven't quite begun changing yet, but I can tell they are on the brink. One morning I will wake up to an eruption of red and yellow and orange!

But I am in here, not out there. I'm here in this office. I'm Stuck. I'm doing what I have to do.

But I can't really talk about that here. The stuckness, that is. Not right now. And that frustrates me, more than I can say. Mostly because I HATE vague blog posts! I mean, why write anything at all if you can't explain what you are talking about? (Because I just needed to, that's why.)

But that's not the only reason I'm frustrated.  I am longing, ACHING for the day when I can feel free again. Free to be totally honest. Free to be using the gifts that God gave me. Free to feel like I am really living instead of just getting by.

I try to keep it all in perspective, to count my blessings, to realize that I can be (should be) using my gifts where I am right now. "Bloom where you're planted." That sort of thing.

But I can't explain why that isn't working. Why that isn't enough.

My life is fuller now than it has been in a long time, and I am happy and grateful for that, I really am! And I am going to write more about all that soon. But there is just one huge piece that isn't fitting, and it's hard not to let that blot out the sun.

Permalink | 1 Commented |

____________________________________________________