Rainiers are great. Of course, I ate way too many of them following an organic cherry sale, and that did me in for the whole season.

I was wiser with the blueberries, and froze a bunch (about 4lbs, I think).

Now it is peach season, and soon, I shall be eating peaches until I want to puke.

Given my habits with fruit, it's a good thing I'm not in Hawaii.

I don't think I've ever had Ranier cherries.

Where is DH going, Laura?

Back from the airport, and going back to bed. Brendon is in Philly for a couple days. Half business, half visiting a friend.

I hope you sent the letter Susan. I see nothing objectionable except the behavior describled.

G'night, again.

I don't think I've ever had Rainier Cherries, either. Sad now.

I understand that. It just seems to me that I remember that at least some scholars argue that someone mentioned briefly in the NT that many assume to be male, was not. But this is a vague memory, and even my not-so-vague ones don't seem that great right now, so I'll have to check. Perhaps it is, after all, wishful thinking.

libkitty, that would be Junias, who scholars believe ought to be rendered as Junia, which is a female name. From what I understand, Junias wasn't referred to as male (much? at all?) until the 13th or 14th century.

There's a translation difficulty that has prompted questions about Junia(s). From what I've read, there was no m/f difference in the spelling of this name. A diacritical mark would have indicated Junia(s) was male, but these aren't in most of the early manuscripts. FWIW, she is actually referred to as an apostle. Origen (and I believe all the church fathers until the 13th century), John Chrysostom, Jerome, and others spoke of this person as female. There are questions though, because there's one manuscript fragment which does have the diacritical.

Here are some interesting articles on the issue. Beware, they're long: (Paul and women) >[link] (Women in the early church) >[link] (On the historic lit. of the Apostolic circle) (In>[link] the ministry of Jesus) [link]

Also, here's an index of articles from the same site, on the role of women in the whole Bible [link]

There are sincere biblical scholars who take both sides of this issue, with no other agenda than trying to understand and interpret scriptures. Although I believe the interpretation that sees the Timothy passage as prohibiting all women for all time from teaching is an incorrect understanding, because I believe it ignores the full context of scripture, I don't have a problem with people who are making a sincere analysis that says otherwise.

There are also opportunists on both sides of the issue--trying to use scripture as a soapbox for their own agenda. I take issue with that, even (maybe especially) when they otherwise agree with me. I feel like this about the use of scripture to support/critique most contemporary social issues.

Possibly. Bear in mind that in the culture of the time, simply allowing women to attend the services with the men was a radical step. It wasn't a particularly emancipated society that Christ and Paul operated in.

It was, as was praying with them. It was radical that the apostles even evangelized women. But women did teach and speak in the early church. The I Timothy 2:11 is problematic as a proof text on the issue, for a few reasons. That epistle was written to correct false teaching. It's also problematic, because in other places (I Corinthians 11, which is a chapter otherwise problematic for women) Paul (who wrote Timothy) talks about women prophesying in the assemby. There are women recorded as prophetesses, in non-Pauline books, too (Luke, or possibly Acts, I think). Jesus ministry, and the apostolic ministry was supported by women (financially), and a few women are mentioned as running house churches. Priscilla is cited as teaching Apollos (Romans 16). Phoebe (about whom there is no dispute over the fact that she was a woman) is actually referred to as a deaon (male form of the title), in Romans 16.

White House denies existence of Karl Rove

"None of these allegations are supported by the facts," McClellan said. "The opponents of this administration have created a mythical figure in order to discredit the president. All they have done is divert attention from the important work at hand—the war in Iraq and the war on terror. In doing so, they have dishonored the sacrifices of our brave men and women in uniform."

"This time," he added, "the Democrats have gone too far."

Of course, you can tell that's fake because no one in the Administration would say "war on terror" anymore.

Jesse, where's your tag (She's just not the most feminine bitch on the planet.) from?

Um, that Showdog Moms And Dads show that was on Bravo? I'm pretty sure.

Oh, so it's about a dog?

That's somehow disappointing.

See, that's what makes it fun!