Thursday, June 30, 2005

Busy Busy...

I have been very busy and this is the first time in about 5 days I have been online for more than 10 minutes. It has been very good though, as I have been very productive and my house has been relatively clean for a good stretch.

I plan on being MORE busy, so will be scarce, but have many things to look forward to.

Tonight is the MOMS Club banquet for my local chapter. Tonight it also the night they install new officers, and I'm going to be secretary. It's a very easy job that, for some reason, wasn't filled at the time of elections. I thought, "This position is vacant? Are you kidding me?" Normally it is the difficult positions of president or membership vice-president that are the toughest to fill. So, I volunteered. My husband (Gorgeous Redhead, as I have decided to term him in my posts) is very doubtful that even with an easy position that I still won't be able to avoid stressing myself out. Hmm, I'll take that as a challenge!

Swimming lessons begin next week, the day after a fabulous 4th of July party I plan on attending at a friend's house. I will also have Vacation Bible School to haul the kids to in July, and Dance Ministry continues for my daughter 3 times a week.

By the way, the kids book club had its first meeting last weekend. It was a blast! Everyone loved Holes. However, A Wrinkle in Time has been postponed and we are going to read Hatchett instead. That was the choice of the only boy in the club. The next meeting we will hopefully come up with a cool name, rather than just calling it "book club".

Last night we went to a newly married couple's home for their house blessing and some prayer in the form of Praise and Worship. It was something much needed for both Gorgeous Redhead and I. One thing I have noticed is that whenever I experience deep prayer or spiritual renewal, I also experience intense, romantic feelings towards Gorgeous Redhead. I think that when we are filled with the Holy spirit, we tend to feel renewed and rejuvenated in our lives, work, ministries, and vocations. Well, my #1 vocation and ministry is Gorgeous Redhead, and I think those romantic feelings are God's way of renewing me, if that makes sense. I love it, and of course G.R. does as well. But I find it to be a very interesting phenomenon.

Blessings for now. Hopefully I can catch up on all my regular reads at some point, but the more busy I get, the more elusive that goal becomes.

Friday, June 24, 2005

Additions to my must read list

Along with A Wrinkle in Time and The Confessions of Max Tivoli, I also am planning on reading these titles, hopefully soon:

Good in Bed by Jennifer Weiner

The Second Summer of the Sisterhood by Ann Brashares

The Magician's Nephew (#1 of the Chronicles of Narnia) by C.S. Lewis

Fever Pitch by NicK Hornby

Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West by Gregory Maguire

The Fellowship of the Ring by J.R.R. Tolkein

Thursday, June 23, 2005

An ongoing discussion on the issue of contraception

I am engaging in a very interesting discussion on John's blog about contraception, and have responded to a very long comment by making my own very long comment. I am posting it here mainly for purposes of copying and pasting in case Haloscan cuts me off again:

Dan, some of the things I found very difficult to address regarding your comments comes from the fact that you have a much more Protestant-minded way of looking at issues of Scripture, tradition, faith, and morals. I personally don’t believe that most of us faithful people have the knowledge, understanding, and especially the authority to interpret Scripture in such a way as to make decisions as to what doctrines are to or not to be followed in present-day Chrisitanity, and it seemed to me that you would disagree with me on that. All your arguments about the spirit of the law, changing with the times, exploring other opinions of those outside the faith, etc. are all fine arguments to make, but to me as a Catholic, it still doesn’t matter because I cannot go against the authority of the Church which was given to them by Christ. Until the Church, in a Council, encyclical, Catechism revisal, or in the form of a Papal ex-cathedra statement, changes the teaching on contraception, I and no other Catholic has the authority or right to disobey it. Period.

"Christ went against many of the “rules” of the time, and it became clear that the spirit of the law was what was important. The rules themselves might even have to change to maintain the spirit of the law relative to the times."

Christ had the authority to do whatever He pleased. The Church’s authority to change anything was only given to them by Christ. If the Church does not change something, we as the faithful, trusting in the authority Christ gave to the church, have no right to make our own changes.“ Matthew 16:18-19 says “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

"And we have to explore the teachings – not just of the Catholic Church but other Christian faiths as well, and understand why they decided to make the decisions that have been made."

Explore teaching of those who left the faith or who are outside the faith making decisions that go against doctrine and sound theology and authoritative teaching? Fine, explore. Agree with, hmmm, maybe for some. But to implement those as a part of our Catholic lives and commit an act of disobedience? No, not that.

You gave you own opinions as to what the Genesis passage regarding Onan meant. However, by what authority? Have you studied Old testament writings, languages, cultures, etc.? I know I haven’t. And so to hand over my trust to you or anyone else in regards to what that scripture means would be ridiculous on my part. Personally, as a Catholic, I trust more in the Magisterium of the Church, which is filled with Biblical scholars who have devoted their lives to the study of not only the Scriptures, but to upholding the truth and teachings of Jesus. I trust more in their authority, which has been given to them by Christ Himself. And in Catholic teaching resulting form this authority, they have interpreted that passage to be a reference in the condemnation of contraception.

"...and therefore basing one’s entire reproductive philosophy on this passage may not wise."

No one, not even the Church bases their entire reproductive philosophy on that passage. There are many other passages, including some in the New Testament, that reinforce the Church’s teachings on contraception. I’ve mentioned this subject in previous comments.

You pointed out that Humane Vitae says: (emphasis mine)
“Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, propose, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible”

It also then later says:
“If, then, there are serious motives to space out births, which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions, the Church teaches that it is then licit to take into account the natural rhythms immanent in the generative functions, for the use of marriage in the infecund periods only, and in this way to regulate birth without offending the moral principles which have been recalled earlier”

Then it clarifies by saying:
“In reality, there are essential differences between the two cases; in the former, the married couple make legitimate use of a natural disposition; in the latter, they impede the development of natural processes.”

As John has stated in his blog it does appear that the first two statements are in conflict. The first makes a blanket statement, the second makes an exception.”

The first does not make a blanket statement against preventing conception. I emphasized the word “action” in the first statement because it is saying we must not take any “actions” to interfere with the sexual act. It is not a blanket statement about never preventing coneption…with an exception later stated. There is no inconsistency in Humane Vitae.

"The last and a large part of humane vitae on this subject seem to place the emphasis on that fact that NFP is OK because it does not interfere with the natural order. This seems to be largely based on tradition and not on scripture."

For one thing, as I have said before, the teachings on contraception do have root in Scripture. However, Tradition with a capital “T” and tradition with a small “t” are different. Traditions such as the ones on contraception, Mary the Mother of God, the Mass, etc. are not minor things which can be disregarded. This is where I see things from a primarily Catholic point of view. You seem to minimize the role Tradition plays in the Catholic faith. It is essential to our faith.

"Some argue that the allowance for birth control is a slippery slope, but in reality that has not been the case in protestant faiths… The slippery slope of contraception has been experienced not so much by active people of faith as by those that are not actively involved in faith institutions."

That is a whole other topic, but I strongly disagree that the introduction of the widespread use of contraception in our society has not caused a slippery slope. We certainly cannot separate the “secular” people from the “active people of faith” when it comes to issues of divorce, abortion, sexual sins and the like. The statistics show that these problems range equally among Christians as well as non-believers.

"Whether something is natural or not, as Humane Vitae discusses, does not seem to me to be an argument for whether it is moral."

You are correct in this, hence why the reason the Church condemns contraception is NOT BECAUSE IT IS ARTIFICIAL, because it also condemns natural forms of contraception like pulling-out. Once again, the Church approves the use of artificial devices such as glasses, braces, prosthetics, etc. and so to claim it is the unnaturalness of contraception that is the issue is inaccurate. The Church condemns contraception because it interferes with the sexual act in a perverted way.

"Furthermore I do not see how scientifically determining when you are not fertile and only engaging in sex during infertile times is any more “open to life” than using a barrier."

Once again I agree with this in a sense, because one could easily experience failure in the use of contraception and say, “well, if it fails, we will accept the child that comes and therefore we are open to life”. However, once again the issue is misunderstood. The Church does not condemn not wanting children at different points in a marriage or preventing conception at particular times, but condemns interfering in the act of sex in order to do so.

"I love the concepts and backgrounds of NFP. If it worked for us we would probably still be using it. But there are people for whom this method CANNOT and WILL NOT work. This leaves us and those people in a moral quandary."

Based on information I have received, what you have said is probably true. There are some people out there who just can’t find success using the typical methods of NFP. However, this does not mean that there are no alternatives in family planning for these couples that also fall within the boundaries of Church teaching. Here is some of what my friend, a certified NFP teacher with an extensive background in medicine, said was an option for these situations:

“…there are morally acceptable means of avoiding pregnancy.

One is a fertility monitoring device sold in Canada and Europe called Persona which is a pee-on-a-stick type thingy with a little monitor that measures the levels of reproductive hormones in the woman's urine. It is respectably effective (96% I think - better than barrier contraceptives), but is not designed for women with VERY long cycles.

Women with very long cycles would do better with a different fertility monitoring device called the Ovarian Monitor (manufactured and sold in Australia) which is more complicated to use, but also measures hormones via the woman's urine and is EXTREMELY accurate and reliable.

If you go here and look near the bottom there are desciptions and contact/purchasing info for both devices.

Probably this will just open up a debate about why fertility monitoring devices are any different than contraception because they are technology and the answer (as I think you already know) is that contraception is wrong not because it is artifical or technological (after all a thermometer is technology too), but because it alters intercourse (or the parts of the body intended to be involved in intercourse) falsifies the 'language' of the marital act.”

This friend of mine writes numerous articles on almost every aspect of NFP and the teachings against contraception. They can be found on and here is also a link to an article written for Envoy Magazine that addresses some of the things you brought up:

Some additional comments made after the one above:
As far as disagreeing versus disobeying. All of your examples do not lead to a moral conflict of conscience to go ahead and obey even though you disagree. It is a different story if obeying goes against your conscience. In the end when you stand before God, it is you, God, and your conscience, and "the Church said so" will not cut it.

The Catechism of the Catholic church has a great section talking about the moral teaching authority of the Church and its infallibility in "elements of doctrine, including morals..." in sections 2032-2040. The above quote was from 2035. But in section 2039 it specifically says "As far as possible conscience should take account of the good of all, as expressed in the moral law, natural and revealed, and consequently in the law of the Church and in the authoritative teaching of the Magisterium on moral questions. Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church."

More on obedience of conscience in 1790-1794.
"A human being must always obey the certain judgement of his conscience. If he were to deliberately act against it, he would condemn himself. yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgements about acts to be performed or already committed. (1791) This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin." In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits...(1792) ...assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church's authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors in judgment in moral conduct."

And finally, in regards to teaching by the Magisterium, it says in section 891: "...the faithful are to adhere to it with religious assent..."

Off topic issues brought up:

"I would even go so far as to say that perhaps Paul’s view on women was so colored by the understanding of women in the time that some of his teachings on women are flat out wrong. Or at least wrong in today’s world where women are now educated."

Which teachings of Paul on women are you referring to, because he really upholds the dignity of women in his Epistles, particularly regarding marriage?

"It took the Protestant reformation to bring the church to the realization that Vatican 1 and 2 were necessary"

Where did you hear this, out of curiosity… I’ve never heard of the Protestant Reformation as being the “inspiration” for anything regarding Catholic teaching.

"and I would argue that the Church places an overemphasis on tradition sometimes to the detriment of quickly changing teachings that are obviously incorrect - for example Indulgences, The Inquisition, and the Crusades."

As I’ve said, the Crusades and Inquisition and such are not “teachings”, doctrines, disciplines, etc. of the Church whatsoever. And the teachings on Indulgences have remained the same. The problem was that the corrupt priests of the time where abusing and taking advantage of the parishioners who lacked knowledge in knowing that Indulgences should have nothing to do with money. It was a wrong in the actions of the priests, not a teaching that had to be remedied.

The Guys' Rules

Got this from a post on Catholic Mom Community.

Today's humor:

Men always hear “the rules” from the female side.
Now here are the rules from the male side.

These are men rules! Please note... these are all numbered “1” ON PURPOSE!
1. Learn to work the toilet seat. You’re a big girl. If it’s up, put it down. We need it up, you need it down. You don’t hear us complaining about you leaving it down.
1. Sunday = sports. It’s like the full moon or the changing of the tides. Let it be.
1. Shopping is NOT a sport. And no, we are never going to think of it that way.
1. Crying is blackmail.
1. Ask for what you want. Let us be clear on this one: Subtle hints do not work! Strong hints do not work! Obvious hints do not work! Just say it!
1. Yes and No are perfectly acceptable answers to almost every question.
1. Come to us with a problem only if you want help solving it. That’s what we do. Sympathy is what your girlfriends are for.
1. A headache that lasts for 17 months is a problem. See a doctor.
1. Anything we said 6 months ago is inadmissible in an argument. In fact, all comments become null and void after 7 days.
1. If you think you’re fat, you probably are. Don’t ask us.
1. If something we said can be interpreted two ways, and one of the ways makes you sad or angry, we meant the other one.
1. You can either ask us to do something or tell us how you want it done. Not both. If you already know best how to do it, just do it yourself.
1. Whenever possible, please say whatever you have to say during commercials.
1. Christopher Columbus did not need directions and neither do we.
1. ALL men see in only 16 colors, like Windows default settings. Peach, for example, is a fruit, not a color. Pumpkin is also a fruit. We have no idea what mauve is.
1. If it itches, it will be scratched. We do that.
1. If we ask what is wrong and you say “nothing,” we will act like nothing’s wrong. We know you are lying, but it is just not worth the hassle.
1. If you ask a question you don’t want an answer to, expect an answer you don’t want to hear.
1. When we have to go somewhere, absolutely anything you wear is fine... Really.
1. Don’t ask us what we’re thinking about unless you are prepared to discuss such topics as baseball, the shotgun formation, or monster trucks.
1. You have enough clothes.
1. You have too many shoes.
1. I am in shape. Round is a shape.
1. Thank you for reading this; Yes, I know, I have to sleep on the couch tonight, but did you know men really don’t mind that, it’s like camping.

Wednesday, June 22, 2005

Saw The Sisterhood...

The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants was a good movie, and I cried in the same parts of the movie that I did in the book. They did change a lot, but the basic concepts and storylines were the same, except for Lena's. Her storyline was completely revamped, but I think it was to give one of the girls a love story that lasted more than 2 minutes in the movie. But, for the most part, well done. It was PG, but not for little kids due to some of the content.

Tuesday, June 21, 2005

Let Parents Be Parents

Whenever we think of children having fun, being free, being childlike, we think of them doing things like jumping on the beds, swinging from the trees, singing silly songs in loud, nasally voices, tying each other together the way pirates do with a jump rope, building indoor forts with every blanket and pillow in the house. And yes, these are the classic things kids do to have fun.

And then, in the background we always see the wet blanket, aka Mom, with hands on her hips and scowl on her face. "I said, no jumping on the bed! One of you could fall off and hurt yourself." "SIGH! I just folded all that laundry, and you've taken it all and messed it up!" "If your going to sing, please do it quietly." "Jump ropes are for jumping with, not tying each other up! One of you could get rope burn."

We always feel sorry for the kids, saying, "Let kids be kids". But I am taking a new approach. Why don't we "Let parents be parents?"

I mean, we had our fun as little ones making tents our of our Barbie/GI Joe sheets. We know what its like. But let's face it, we couldn't fit into one of those homemade forts now even if we wanted to. And we know all too well what sorts of nasty crumbs are residing in the needs-to-be-vacuumed floor and don't really want to be playing house down there anyway.

We've seen Dateline and 20/20 too many times to know that kids do fall off their beds and crack their skulls open, or at the very least, split their lips or heads open leading to a trip to the emergency room and the shelling out of a $50 copayment that you really don't have right now. Does this objection dampen the monkey-mood of the house? Sure, but is it unreasonable or unrealistic? Absolutely not.

And yes, I remember how fun it was to sing, "When your riding in a Chevy and your pants are kind of heavy, DIAHRREA!" But when you are trying to pick out the best tomatoes in the crowded grocery store with a cart full of rambunctious kids surrounded by others adults also handling food items, do you really want your kids to be loudly singing, "Scooby Dooby Doo, took a poo, and Shaggy thought it was chocolate! Then he took a bite, it wasn't right, and now he's in the hospital!" Inside, do you laugh? Of course. Heck, you might even be putting your hand over your mouth to hide the involuntary chuckle trying to come out. But does that make it wrong when you say, "Kids, please do not sing that song in public! In fact, don't sing it in my presence at all!"

I'm all for kids being kids. I know they need to be carefree and rowdy and loud, but could I please get some props here? I have a house to run and sanity to maintain, which was already compromised when I pushed those bundles of joy out in the first place.

Besides, what fun is it to jump on the beds when your mom says, "Go ahead, we need a new mattress any way." What fun is it to sing gross songs if your dad bends over and says, "You think that was gross, watch this..."

And even into the teenage years, what fun is it to sneak out every once in a while if you have no curfew? What fun is it to sneak a kiss behind the gym at the Friday night game if your mom calls out "Remember, safe sex!" when you leave the house?

Being a kid just wouldn't be any fun if it weren't for parents laying down the law. There would be no rules to break, no house to mess up, no one for whom those actions would drive insane. And let's face it, the kids have to admit how much fun it is to jump up and dash to the nearest hiding spot when you hear the shrieking, piercing yell speed through the house saying, "Who spilled this paint all over my newly-mopped kitchen floor!"

So yeah, give your kids a break. Let them be kids. But to all those movie-makers, authors, storytellers, psychologists, and idealists who give us moms and dads a hard time I say, "Let the parents be parents!"

Monday, June 20, 2005

Latest Reading

I read, and finished, Holes by Louis Sachar last night. I personally loved the story, the coincidences, the mystery, and the messages in this book. Basically, it is about a young boy sent to a juvenile detention camp where the "campers" must dig a hole, five feet deep and wide, every day. Although the idea is for this exercise to build character, we soon find out that all is not as it seems, and that time has a way of making up for generational wrongs.

This book was for the book club my sister-in-law and I started, and this upcoming Saturday we will have the children and 3 adult participants over to my house for discussion and then we'll all watch the movie together. I can't wait, and have been online all day finding discussion questions, games and activities for the gathering. For snacks I hope to serve lots of "hole"-y goodies (donuts, olives, and such) and of course, in spirit of the book, peaches and onions. Although not too many onions because I don't think many will eat them. We also will be discussing a name for our book club and future selections. Our immediate future selection: A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine l'engle.

I also finished The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time by Mark Haddon, a good book coming from the perspective of an autistic teenager. I thought it would be a mystery all the way through, but the mystery was actually solved about half-way through, and the remainder of the book was the consequences and emotional turmoil the main character had to confront as a result. I thought the point of view of an autistic person was such an interesting world to enter into, although quite exhuasting. The book is very humorous as a result of the extremely literal and logical viewpoint of the teenager, who points out many things us "normal" folks say and do that really make no sense whatsoever.

This book was for my MOMS Club book club, and up next for us is The Confessions of Max Tivoli by Andrew Sean Greer, about a man who goes through his life aging in reverse. Tomorrow night we head out for a girls' night to watch The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants by Ann Brashares, which was a fun and easy read about four girls bonded together by friendship and a pair of pants that magically fits them all perfectly.

Monday, June 13, 2005

Dance Ministry

I took my daughter to her first Dance Ministry class today. Basically, it is a summer program just like any other dance class, except it is all to Christian music and each class is begun with prayer. The emphasis is not on performing in the typical sense, but rather the theme is "Praise Him with Dance!" My friend started it a few years ago as a way to do some kind of ministry in her parish that she loved and had enough knowledge in. I love this idea, and I greatly admire my friend, Francine, the coordinator of it all. She started this program because rather than sitting down and looking through the Church bulletin at the typical ministries she could have volunteered for but wasn't really excited about, she started something completely new. She brought a fresh idea to the parish, and they responded excitedly. I participated last year in the adult women's dance, but this summer I am much too pregnant to do so. My daughter's song for her dance is "Awesome God", and she is also doing a Polynesian dance, but we won't find out that song until tonight. The performance is in August, with practices twice a week until then. It is also nice because us moms can sit and have some great fellowship with other Catholic moms while the girls are practicing, and the kids are introduced to other Catholic kids from around the area. All around, it's a spiritually beneficial committment we will gladly make every summer.

Friday, June 10, 2005

I don't want to be picky....

I am glorifying in the Spurs win over Detroit last night, the first game of the NBA finals, which opened with Alanis Morissette singing the national anthem, and Will Smith then performing his latest hit "Switch" for the crowd. Now, I don't want to be picky, but what is the NBA thinking by having the most watched series of the year set in the southern United States state of Texas open with a Canadian singing the national anthem and a Philadelphia fan performing a hip-hop song (please, this is no offense to Canadians, Philadelphians, or hip-hoppers)? I mean, I love Alannis and I think Smith is alright, but where was the country tunes? Where was anything resembling San Antonio? Even something resembling Tex-Mex would've done. Am I wrong here?

Book Clubs

My sister-in-law and I are beginning a children's book club for us and our children to last through the summer. Our first pick is Holes by Louis Sachar. I am really excited about this because as a kid, I didn't take advantage of the wealth of possiblilities in literature that I should have. I have always loved to read, but my immature choices are something I totally regret about my childhood. I started off, of course, with typical girls' fare such as Sweet Valley Twins, Sweet Valley High and The Babysitters Club. Oh, of course I read the classics when assigned to in school. I also read all the Judy Blume and Beverly Cleary books. However, my regular choices were the stupid, and sometimes immoral choices offered to many young readers these days. I was hugely into Christoper Pike in my pre-adolescent years, then moving on to Stephen King and Dean Koontz (back when he still used his middle initial in his name) by the time I was eleven years old! I had never even read the Anne of Green Gables series until 4 years ago, along with Jane Eyre and Little Women! I know, horror of horrors. These latter three are now on the list of my absolute favorites.

So, I am making up for lost time. After Holes, I think we plan on reading A Wrinkle in Time, which I have fortunately read (I'm not a complete literary savage), and we will determine future reads as the weeks come.

My sister-in-law is working towards becoming a teacher with her emphasis in English Literature, and has been opening up these children's classics throughout the past year or two. Fortunately, her children have been introduced to proper literary choices for kids, so my neices and nephews are excitedly joining us in this venture. We also have some children of other family and friends' joining us, as well as one other mom.

I also think it would be neat to have movie nights with some of the movies made from the books we read, but only the worthy ones. I hear Holes was a good adaptation. Does anyone know how A Wrinkle in Time fared? I can just imagine me and my two female companions surrounded by a group of children under twelve beneath fleece blankets with bowls of popcorn interspersed throughout the group. Sounds like fun to me.

Meanwhile, I am continuing with my book club that I have belonged to for about 4 years now with the local chapter of the MOMS Club that I belong to. There's five of us ladies in it currently, whom I adore and will probably always be reading with throughout my life. Our current selection is The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time, which I am so far loving. It is a murder mystery as seen through the eyes of an autistic boy. It is an easy read, but following the boy's line of thinking can be quite tiring at times. We also read The Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants this month. We like to read books that have been turned into movies in order to have an excuse for a movie-night out with the girls (and dinner of course). We are still waiting on Shopgirl to be released, as we read that book almost 2 years ago in anticipation of the movie. Anyway, our book club is a mixture of treasure and trash, depending on our mood. It is a most casual book club with much variety, and perfectly suited to my tastes and mood swings in reagrds to reading.

Thursday, June 09, 2005


OK, Lost fans, there are so many great clues and goodies on the Oceanic Airlines website. I have spent WAY too much time pouring through the site trying to find them all, and here is a link to the Lost message boards that pretty much describes every clue to be found on the site. Great fodder for those of us desperately trying to get through the summer until season two starts. For starters, there's a preview of season 2, hidden messages from survivors, a page from a first draft of the season finale script which describes the monster, Kate's mugshots, the Marshall's ID, and more!

Addition: A new interview with "Sawyer" (Josh Holloway) is up on MSN news page, and he says...(don't read if you don't want to know a cool clue from the season finale about "the others")......
Sharp-eyed viewers may have noticed something about the people on the boat, but if not, Holloway says, "There were twins, which I don't know if you could tell. They were identical twins, which was really spooky. There again, that wasn't emphasized."

There also may be more footage showing what happened when everyone was forced off the raft. "They filmed some stuff of us in the water that they cut out," Holloway says. "I'm wondering if they're saving that for the premiere. I'm hoping that it wasn't for no reason, because it was cold and it was 3 in the morning when we got there."

Tuesday, June 07, 2005

Oh. My. Gosh: Attention Lost Fans!

Attention: DO NOT go to my link to Kristin's column if you wish to remain spoiler-free on your favorite shows, including Lost and Veronica Mars! Or, to read more about what's below, just skim through the column until you hit the info on page 2.

Got this from page 2 off of Kristin's column. So cool! Can't wait to do some more surfing around on this find!

Here's what you do:

1. Go to the "official" Oceanic Airlines Website.
2. At the bottom, where it says "Travellers," enter Hurley's unlucky lottery numbers: 4, 8, 15, 16, 23 and 42.
3. Click the "Find" button.
4. Click on the row numbers on the flight's seating chart that match Hurley's numbers.
5. Don't blink.
6. Change shorts.
7. Figure out what the hell it all means.
8. Email me.
9. Keep digging. The site has much more to spill

I read her column every week, and love the info, although I try to skip over the spoilers. I'll be checking in with her to see if this site has more to offer.

Edited to add: OK, I've had some tell me the site is no longer working right. Basically, when all the above was done, there was a really cool preview of season 2 that was very ominous, intense, and had some phrases that may give a hint as to what exactly the direction of the show will be next season. It was good stuff; sorry if no one else caught it.

Monday, June 06, 2005

Energizing Grace

I haven't been around lately. I've literally had three weeks of visiting family and lots of gatherings and parties to attend, with more coming this weekend as well. I tried to skim a few blogs, but there is just no way I will catch up on everyone's posts on my blogroll. Hopefully I can at least nurture my blog once or twice a week throughout the summer.

Speaking of summer, which I was hoping would be restful, I have much to do with swim lessons, Vacation Bible school, dance classes, etc. At least there isn't the constraint of having to be at all these places by 8:10 in the morning.

I've been struggling a lot with some of my relationships, but God has been really good to me by speaking truth to me in the silence. I haven't been online, or watching TV, or listening to much music, which gives me lots of time for conversation with God.

One thing revealed to me was how self-centered insecurity truly is. In some of my relationships, I have been feeling very insecure. I question every move I make, every word I say. I read into others comments or body language too much. I dwell on what others must be thinking of me, and replay situations that have happened throughout the day over and over in my head, wondering how I looked in others' eyes. And when thoughts turn negative or bitter, my first reaction is to distance myself and withhold my affections from those people.

God really showed me how this line of thinking is so self-centered and egotistical. Have I once thought of the needs of my friends? Have I thought of how I could love them or care for them? I have been thinking of how bad I feel, never once questioning whether or not they may also be experienceing some dark times, maybe even worse than mine.

It is hard to break out of oneself and "love your neighbor as yourself". And Satan uses insecurity very much in my life as a means for breaking that ever-important commandment. Sometimes we tend to be insecure and see it as a cry for some love to be thrown our way, but God has revealed to me that insecurity is a sure sign that I'm the one that needs to be throwing some love around. The trick is getting past the emotions that make me whine, "but I don't wanna!" or "I just don't feel like it."

Which brings me to yet another truth God has allowed to seep into my mind. In one of these insecure moments, I actually was trying really hard to be loving to my "neighbors", but I found myself just settling into my selfish comfort zone saying, "Lord, I just don't have the energy today to do this." And it was as if He shouted to me over an invisible loudspeaker, "If you had a consistent prayer-life and your spiritual life was better cared for, I would give you the grace AND the energy to do this." Now, that wasn't really what I wanted to hear, but He was right. Grace is such a vague, intangible term, and I don't claim to know a lot about it. But it does give us the energy we need to do the things we must, especially when it comes to loving people. Grace gives us the energy to love.

I guess my break from electraonic media has done me some good. Now if I could just put it to use in my daily life and my relationships.