"When he had said these things, he cried out with a loud voice, ‘Lazarus, come out.' The man who had died came out, his hands and feet bound with linen strips, and his face wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, ‘Unbind him, and let him go.'"  (John 11:43-44; ESV)

A humbling fact of my life is that I have three children.  I say "humbling" because, as many parents know, there are days when it seems no matter how much you ask, urge, cajole, or beg them to do something, they will fight you every bit of the way.  There are days at my house where I can say "JUMP!" and all I hear are crickets chirping.  To put it bluntly, they don't always obey my every command; at least not the first time.  Even more humbling is the fact that I own a cat.  If I thought the children were obstinate and unresponsive, the cat takes it to a different level.  I get the impression that the cat looks at me with a "Are you talking to me?" look on his face.  The fact of the matter is the longer you walk this earth, the more you slowly realize just how powerless you are to affect the world.

This truth is no more evident regarding the issue of death.  Unless I'm mistaken, the death rate is still 100%.  We will all eventually die, and there is nothing we can do to stop it.  We can attempt to delay it, but death will catch up to us sooner or later.  It often amazes me the lengths people will go to cheat death.  You have the fitness freaks that monitor every single gram of food they take in and who exercises feverishly in order to improve their quality of life and extend their time here on earth.  Then there are the cosmetic surgery junkies who spend thousands of dollars in order to keep their bodies looking young.  All of this in a vain attempt to deprive the Grim Reaper his prize.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not down on healthy living, and if people want to spend their hard earned cash on plastic surgery, more power to them.  But as Jesus said, "Which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life?"  Even the healthiest person in the world can still be hit by a bus and die.

When faced with the inevitability of death, many of us, for all intents and purposes, ignore it.  We don't focus on it because there's nothing we can do to stop it.  If we can't cheat death, better to make the most of our lives and not dwell on the certainty of death.  If taken to a logical extreme, this is the mentality Paul spoke of in his first letter to Corinth when he wrote, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."  We might as well live it up!  If death is going to eventually claim me, I might as well go with a drink in my hand and a smile on my face!

Here's the bottom line in all of this:  We fear death!  We fear death because we don't really know whether or not death is the end of all things, or the doorway to another plane of existence.  Philosophers have grappled with this issue for centuries, and for all their philosophizing we have no clue what happens once we "shuffle off this mortal coil."  Therefore the fear remains and we greatly grieve the loss of friends and loved ones who die.

What does the Bible have to say about all of this?  The Bible has a lot to say about death and the afterlife!  We have been progressing through the Gospel of John, and we have been camping out in John 11 that last few sessions.  The 11^th chapter of John's gospel contains the story of Jesus raising his beloved friend, Lazarus, from the dead.  Let's recap the story.  Jesus gets the news from his close friends, Mary and Martha, that their brother, Lazarus, is gravely ill.  Jesus makes his way to Bethany and by the time he arrives, Lazarus has been dead for four days.  While comforting the grieving sisters, Jesus tells Martha a deep spiritual truth; namely that he is the "resurrection and the life," and that anyone who believes in him (Jesus) will not die but attain everlasting life through him.  We now come to the moment of truth.  Jesus is about to perform the greatest miracle of his earthly ministry short of the resurrection itself.  In the passage before us today (John 11:38-44), Jesus will utter three commands and a prayer.  Let's look at each of them in turn. 

The first command is to the crowd to roll the stone away from the tomb (v. 39).  In those days when people died, they were wrapped in linen cloths and typically embalmed.  The dead body was then place in a tomb hewn out of the side of a mountain or hill.  A large circular stone was rolled over the opening of the tomb to keep robbers and animals out of the tomb and to keep the stench of a rotting corpse in the tomb.  After about a year, when the body has fully decomposed, the bones of the dead person were placed in an ossuary (or a "bone box") and placed back into the tomb.  Now when Jesus utters his first command, Martha (the practical one of the two sisters) tells Jesus that Lazarus has been dead four days and there will be an awful stink if the tomb was opened.  Translation:  Lazarus was dead, really dead, and there was no chance of resuscitation. 

There was a hesitation at the command of Jesus (much like my kids as mentioned above).  Why the hesitation?  One is left to speculate.  My guess is that unlike other recorded instances where Jesus raised someone from the dead, Lazarus, as mentioned above, was really dead.  The other miracles could probably be explained away as resuscitations, but there was no hope that Lazarus could be resuscitated.  Martha, and presumably the others, still had not grasped the true reason why Jesus bothered to come.  Jesus didn't come solely to console Mary and Martha, or to pay his last respects to Lazarus.  He was there to display the "glory of God" (v. 40).  When Jesus gives the great "I AM" statement in vv. 25-26, Martha is still thinking of the resurrection at the last day.  Jesus tells her to believe in him and she will see God's glory revealed.

Jesus then begins to pray to the Father in vv. 41-42.  The purpose of the prayer and the purpose of the miracle are so that people will see and believe in Jesus.  That is the purpose of the entire Gospel of John (20:31).  He is praying for people to see the miracle and believe in him, and thereby obtain eternal life through him.  This raises a general point to be said about Jesus' miracles as a whole.  Jesus never performed his miracles to attract a crowd; this wasn't the 1^st century equivalent of the Greatest Show on Earth.  Jesus' miracles served one purpose and one purpose only:  To display the glory of God!

The second command Jesus utters is the command for Lazarus to come out of his grave (v. 43).  Jesus demonstrates his complete mastery over life and death by calling out in a loud voice to a man who is clearly dead.  Unlike the people who were alive and initially balked at Jesus' command to roll the stone away from the tomb, Lazarus was immediately obedient to Jesus' command (I guess dead people are more obedient than people who are alive).  It was St. Augustine who quipped that Jesus had to call Lazarus by name otherwise the entire graveyard would have come forth!  I cannot image the awe people must have felt at witnessing this clear and obvious miracle (if there is a Blockbuster Video in heaven, this is one of the first videos I'm checking out)!  A man who had been dead four days and would have already begun the process of decomposition was restored back to life by a verbal command of Jesus.  Only a fool could ignore this obvious display God's glory.  As we will see next time, even the Pharisees couldn't deny this, which leads them to devise a plot to kill Jesus. 

The third a final command was for the people to unbind Lazarus and let him go.  It would have been very difficult for Lazarus to move being wrapped in his grave clothes.  It is interesting to note that this third command is immediately obeyed by the people.  It is also interesting to note that Jesus involved the crowd in this miracle.  Could Jesus have command the stone to roll away from the tomb?  Of course!  Could Jesus have commanded the grave clothes to "magically" fall away?  Of course!  Yet he brought the people into this miracle.  They were the ones who rolled the stone away; they were the ones who removed the grave clothes.  This is a perfect illustration of how God works.  God doesn't do the things that we can do ourselves; he only does the thing that we can't do ourselves.  By doing this, Jesus was building the faith of the people present.  We do all we can do on our own, and then trust God for the part we can't do.  To remove the stone and to remove the grave clothes would have been cool and would have added to the spectacle, but Jesus wasn't interested in making a spectacle; he was only interested in what?  Displaying the glory of God!

Bottom Line:  I don't typically like to allegorize Scripture.  I think it's a bad hermeneutic and can lead to all kinds of whacko interpretations of the Bible.  However, I cannot help by see this story as a prime illustration of what the new birth in Christ is all about.  Paul says in Ephesians 2:1-10 that we were all dead in our trespasses and sin, yet because of God's great love and mercy, he makes us alive in Christ.  As Peter says it, we are "born again to a living hope" (1 Peter 1:3).  Just as Lazarus was dead physically, we are all dead spiritually.  Just as Lazarus needed to be called out of his tomb, so do we need to be "called out of our tombs."  Just as the raising of Lazarus from the dead was an act of divine grace into which Lazarus had no input, so our spiritual re-birth is an act of divine grace into which we have no input.  Just as Lazarus had to respond to the grace of God by walking out of the tomb, so we also respond to the grace of God by walking in "newness of life" (Romans 6:4).  Jesus truly is the giver of life!

That message was transcribed and made into a 24-page free eBook.

It captures the central thrust of my heart toward the church, mission (the mission of God), and the Christian life.

The eBook is in PDF format. If for some reason, it doesn't download and you can't read it, click here and download the newest edition of Adobe Reader. You will be able to read it then.

The eBook is presently in four languages:

English Version: www.ptmin.org/bethany.pdf
Spanish Version: www.ptmin.org/bethany_spanish.pdf
Dutch Version: www.ptmin.org/Bethany_Dutch.pdf
Albanian Version: www.ptmin.org/bethany_albanian.pdf

Please give it a read and then come back to add your comments. I’d love to know what part of it spoke to you the most and what further insights you may have on the subject.

We shall keep comments open until Monday morning.

I’ll post my promised movie review then.

[caption id="attachment_76" align="aligncenter" width="300" caption="Margarito's house on the island"][/caption]

Elodia a pornit ca o stire de la ora 5, a continuat ca o stire de ora 10 la DD Reluare si Direct la 0TV, a atins cateva sute de episoade (e posibil inca sa continue), dar s-a spart ca un balon de sapun. Nu mai e ca acum juma` de an cand lumea se intreba pe strada unde e Elodia, cine a furat-o pe Elodia, Elodia e moarta sau e la produs in Spania, lui Cioaca i-a fost inscenat totul sau e doar un nemernic criminal? Pornind de la zilnicele preocupari ale pensionarelor/pensionarilor, enumerate mai sus, Elodia a mai ajuns si pe stadioane, unde lumea se intreba `Ole-ole Ole-Ola /unde e Elodia?`. Acum 0TV-ul in goana ratingului care l-a consacrat, incearca sa mai dea cateva lovituri, pornind de la alte stiri banale de Antena1 si Protv, cum este si clipul de mai jos.

Si mai e ceva: chiar daca Elodia ar fi gasita (asta prin presupunerea absurda ca ar fi disparut) ce interes ar avea 0TV-ul sa publice lucrul asta? Magda si cu Tolea de unii singuri nu prea fac treaba..

Ca o concluzie, OTV-ul ar putea fi inscris in unele din penibilitatile de top din Romania (ceea ce este o performanta notabila) cu ale lor titluri de senzatie `Jos labele de pe televiziunea poporului` sau `OTV a cerut sprijinul NASA pentru a rezolva cazul Elodia`. 

N-am inteles ce face doctorul in emisiune, in afara de faptul ca se prostitueaza intelectual (nici psihologul nu mai este ce-a fost, pacat...); cred ca rolul lui ar fi fost mai bine definit daca ar fi primit misiunea sa-l consilieze si sa-l cameze pe Lazarus insusi, acest taietor de lemne ajuns in studioul de televiziune. e un regal sa-l vedem urmind cursul evenimentelor si reconstituind trasee printre babe guralive si birfitoare.

ia uitati-l pe doctor cum hipnotizeaza in direct la http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9xhZPbaYU4

This guy, Mason, who has been coming for the past three weeks stayed after like usual and helped me clean up and we started talking.  We have been talking for a little while about where he is spiritually, he doesn't think of himself as a christian but grew up in a christian home and started coming to the bible study to honestly meet girls.  He know about Jesus but doesn't know him personally.  Well he does TONIGHT.  Mason and I talked for about an hour or so after small group and the Spirit ripped through him heart and in Mason's words said "I want Him in my life", he was broken.  We spent probably 10 minutes praying and talking to God and confessing our need for him in our lives.  

Then I told him we were going to go celebrate.  He looked at me a little weird and said "okay".  I asked him what was still open in Banner Elk.  He laughed and said Food Lion.  So, we went to Food Lion, bought a box of donuts and a 6-pack of Cream Soda and sat in the parking lot and celebrating God's work in his life.  It was so sweet.  

It was so awesome seeing God work in his heart tonight.  We've been talking about the same thing for the past three weeks and God chose tonight to break into his heart and breathe life into him.  Praise God for his mighty saving work in our lives.

There is the Gentile-convert-to-Judaism-convert-to-Christianity called Nicolas of Antioch, chosen as one of the seven stewards in Acts chapter seven- along with Stephen, the first martyr. Nick from Antioch- what was his story then? Spiritual gypsy perhaps? A bit of a hippy? But considered trustworthy enough to be given a role as a servant of the embryonic church, and mentioned by name for thousands of years to come...

Later recorded though (By Irenaeus- see here) as starting another Gnostic sect and getting his doctrine all Hippy-shaken.

Then there is Simon the Leper. Mentioned a few times, including as providing a feast for Jesus in his house in Bethany (Mark chapter 14)- you may remember this as the time when a woman broke an alabaster jar of expensive perfume and poured it on the head of Jesus- almost as if she had some idea that soon he would be anointed for burial... who was she- and what motivated her towards this act of excess- what had she seen in Jesus- how had he touched her life?

But back to Simon the Leper. How did he get his name? Was it because he was an extremely spotty kid and the cruel nickname stuck?

Or perhaps he really had been a leper?

If so, why was he mingling with people and not away in a leper colony with the other unclean people, outcasts, not party throwing?

Could it be that Jesus healed him? And after he showed himself to the priests, and was declared clean, he returned home, and his story was known far and wide?

We know that Jesus had some other friends in Bethany, whose story is more well known- the wonderful story of Lazarus, perhaps the most hen-pecked of people in the Bible, sandwiched between Mary the starry eyed dreamer, and Martha the houseproud (if grumpy) hostess.

It is the stories behind the stories that are fascinating- the filling out in three dimensions of these half glimpsed characterisations. Mary, who in many traditions was the same woman who broke the jar of perfume, and was known as Magdelene, from whence she had returned to live with her brother, under some kind of shameful cloud.

And after the events of the story- what happened to these people? Did they make the journey to Jerusalem to watch the triumph and tragedy and then glory of what we now know of as the Easter story?

Were they in the upper room when the Spirit came in power?

Was Lazarus the same man who went as a missionary to what is now Cypress, and whose bones still lie in a shrine there? Did his sisters go with him? Did Martha give those Cypriots what for when they trod dirt onto her clean floors?

So here is something I stumbled on that retells some of Lazarus' story again- enjoy!

What did Lazarus have to do with his healing and resurrection? Think about that for a minute two... If you are like me, I couldn't come up with anything that Lazarus actually had to do with his healing.  In fact, he was DEAD!  It was Mary and Martha who prayed believing God for his healing. Because of Mary and Martha's faith, Jesus showed up, intentionally after Lazarus had died to show the power and glory of God!

What this shows me is that we are to NEVER GIVE UP  in our prayers and belief when it comes to our friends and loved ones who are either wandering from the cross, sick, or perhaps still yet to come to know Him personally.

God is giving us opportunities to believe in Him and grow our faith when we committ to praying for difficult situations. This is when His power is perfected!

So the next time you struggle with wondering if your prayers are making difference, turn to the story of Lazarus and BELIEVE!

This Lord's Day, take a few minutes out and read the story of Lazarus and consider the alternate title, THE STORY OF MARY AND MARTHA's belief in JESUS! Even though they wavered in their faith, Jesus showed up and strengthened them with a MIRACLE they once EXPECTED!

Scriptures to read John 11:1-44 & Luke 18:1-8  (never give up in prayer)

-Jason (what an awesome role we "get to" play in God's grand story of redemption)

fragmente din bloggul de mascul al aceluiaşi autor.
Ca şi argumentaţie la investigaţiile şi articolele cazului "Curvette e un el." stau sfintele reguli ale internetului (care reguli? :D ) şi libertatea de expresie a fiecărui individ. Tradus, el/ea (noi suntem convinşi că e un el) poate scrie despre ce-l taie capul şi imaginaţia. Extrapolat, noi, avem dreptul să comentăm cum vrem cele scrise de către el. Nu?
Dacă se va dovedi că ne-am înşelat, nu ne cerem scuze pentru niciun prejudiciu de imagine sau calomnie, pentru că pe internet şi eu pot fi Curvette. La fel cum şi Curvette poate fi Ionuţu. ;)

Bevor wir jedoch zu Eclipse selbst kommen, sollten wir vlt. meine Erwartungen etwas definieren...

Die wichtigste Frage ist wohl, wie schnell ich mit dieser Umgebung programmieren kann, also wie gut ich beim Finden von Funktionsnamen, bei reinen Syntaxfragen oder der Verwendung von SVN/CVS/Wasauchimmer unterstützt werde.

So ist mir z.B. eine Erleichterung wie Code-Completion einiges wert, da es mir beim Programmieren viel Zeit mit dem Nachschlagen von irgendwelchen Funktionsnamen erspart. Wichtig sind dafür natürlich auch sprechende Funktionsnamen, z.B. PHP als Sprache eignet sich dafür überhaupt nicht, da alle gängigen Funktionen unsortiert auf einem Haufen liegen und teilweise Bezeichner haben, deren Sinn sich mir auch noch verschließt wenn ich weiß was sie tun. Wirklich überzeugt hat mich dies jedoch bisher selten, einzig Delphi/Lazarus haben bisher wirklich zeitweise eine Befehlsreferenz für mich unnötig gemacht, Visual Studio.Net versucht dem nahe zu kommen, scheitert jedoch an den verwendeten Sprachen und Bibliotheken. (VCL und das Free-Pascal-Pendant waren halt wirklich sehr auf derartiges ausgelegt und wurden nicht erst nachträglich angepasst.)
Selbst wenn man diese Funktion hat, gibt es natürlich immer Funktionen deren Name und Kurzbeschreibung nicht alles aussagt, in diesem (und vielen anderen Fällen) ist sehr praktisch wenn man eine gute Hilfefunktion zur Verfügung hat. Erneut können Delphi und Artverwandte hier punkten, bei einem Druck auf F1 sofort die Beschreibung des Elementes unter der Cursorposition zu erhalten liegt ziemlich nahe am Optimum.
Hier finden sich allerdings auch schon viele andere Umgebungen die das ähnlich gut können. Namen zu nennen sprengt hier fast schon den Rahmen, erstaunt war ich jedoch besonders über die Qualität dieser Funktion bei einigen Prolog-spezialisierten Umgebungen.
Die Liste derartiger Funktionen lässt sich beliebig fortsetzen, wichtig wären z.B. noch die grafische Erstellung von GUIs, Syntax-Hervorhebung (Welche IDE kann das heutzutage nicht?), automatisches Einrücken oder die Anzeige von Syntax-Fehlern direkt im Code.

Nahezu ebenso wichtig ist mir, wie schnell ich eine IDE zum produktiven Funktionieren bringe. Was habe ich schon davon dass ich mit einer IDE wahnsinnig komfortabel Ook! schreiben kann, wenn ich für das nächste Projekt Malbolge verwende, für das übernächste Whitespace und ich für jeden Wechsel die IDE länger Einstellen muss, als ich für das ganze Projekt an Zeit benötige.
Hier muss man natürlich zwischen Sprach-/Systemspezifischen und generell verwendbaren Umgebungen unterscheiden, Delphi ist sicher schnell verwendbar, kann jedoch außer für Object Pascal/Delphi nur noch für C++ verwendet werden (zumindest bei den älteren Versionen die man noch ernsthaft verwenden konnte und auch C++ benötigte dort eine komplette Neuinstallation fast des selben Programms unter einem anderem Namen). Ein einfacher Texteditor mit Shell-Tools auf der anderen Seite kann nicht nur fast unter jedem System für jede Sprache (natürlich mit Einschränkungen, z.B. wird nicht immer jede Sprache von jedem Editor für Syntax-Hervorhebung unterstützt) eingesetzt werden. Auch die Zeitdauer die ich zum setzen aller Einstellungen benötige ist meist überschaubar (was zum Teil auch an der geringen Menge der Funktionen liegt).

An dritter Stelle meiner Erwartungen würde ich darauf achten wie stabil eine Umgebung ist (es nervt ungespeicherten Quellcode zu verlieren) und wie solche Dinge wie Ladezeiten die Arbeit verzögern. Die relativ späte Platzierung rechtfertige ich nur damit dass die meisten Systeme stabil und schnell genug sind, man verbringt heute einfach nicht mehr 2/3 der Zeit mit dem Anblick eines Ladebildschirmes.

Nun wollen wir mal Eclipse in Relation zu diesen Anforderungen setzen...

Was die Funktionsbandbreite betrifft lässt Eclipse wohl wenige Wünsche übrig, es gibt Erweiterungen für Code-Vervollständigung, für SVN-Unterstützung, für GUI-Erstellung und was auch immer ein Entwickler sich sonst noch wünschen kann.
Diese Funktionen sind jedoch fast alle frickelmäßig Programmiert, Eclipse ist eine der wenigen Umgebungen unter der ich lieber von Hand meine Button-Positionen eintippe als sie im Fenster zusammen zu schieben (wer das mal unter Java und Eclipse versucht hat wird wohl wissen was ich meine). Auch ist die Code-Vervollständigung und Hilfe für die meisten Sprachen einfach unbrauchbar oder nur über Drittsoftware zu ermöglichen. Was wirklich nicht ganz schlecht funktioniert sind Dinge wie CVS/SVN-Unterstützung und Syntax-Hervorhebung. Dieser kleine Triumph hat leider nur einen kleinen Makel: so ziemlich JEDES andere System kann das auch.
All diese Funktionen werden natürlich über Plugins realisiert, wo wir dann auch schon beim Zweiten Punkt sind. Eclipse für eine neue neue Sprache um zurüsten ist grauenvoll. Man hat schon eine IDE die den Anspruch stellt für so ziemlich jede Sprache verwendbar zu sein, doch dann braucht man für so ziemlich jede Sprache zum Einrichten länger als wenn man eine neue IDE installiert.
Man hätte die Plugins auch über die Paketverwaltung des Betriebssystems abhandeln können, doch Eclipse verlässt sich lieber auf sein eigenes Paketsystem. Ich habe inzwischen einige Eclipse-Distributionen verwendet, doch das einfache Installieren von weiteren Funktionen über das dafür gedachte Menü (das übrigens im Punkt "Hilfe" so ziemlich an der bescheuertsten Stelle seit "Start->Beenden" platziert ist) funktionierte nur in den wenigsten Fällen "out-of-the-box". Das Ganze ist so umständlich zu verwenden, dass ich irgendwann angefangen habe mir lieber für jede(s) Sprache/Framework/API eine spezielle Eclipse-Distri parallel zu bereits vorhandenen zu installieren. Eine eigentlich wirklich bescheuerte Idee.
Auch das Einbinden eines neuen Projektes dauert extrem lange. Natürlich hat man das passende Plugin für SVN oder welche Quelle man auch immer gerade braucht nicht bereits installiert und natürlich hat man vom letzten Projekt her keine Ahnung mehr über welches der 10 Dutzend Projekt Anlegen/Importieren/Öffnen-Menüs man es das letzte Mal geschafft hat das Projekt so einzubinden dass es möglichst wenig Probleme gab. Auf der Konsole wäre man mit diesem Vorgang sicher um Längen schneller gewesen, im Notfall tippt man halt mal ein "svn help" ein um auf ca. 1-2 Bildschirmseiten die wichtigsten Kommandos zusammengefasst zu lesen.

Kommen wir nun zum dritten Punkt, bei dem es für Eclipse wirklich peinlich wird.
Eclipse läuft auf Java-Basis und das merkt man auch sehr deutlich, die Ladezeiten sind immens... Warum zum Henker verwendet jemand Java für ein Programm das permanent auf dem System laufen soll? Habt ihr zu viel RAM? Sind euch Ladezeiten egal? Warum muss eine Java-IDE unbedingt in Java geschrieben sein?
Bitte kommt jetzt nicht mit diesem Scheinargument dass Eclipse unbedingt Platformunabhängig sein soll, das kann so ziemlich jede andere Sprache auch. Im schlimmsten Fall bastelt man halt eine Portierung für die 3-4 wichtigsten Systeme, wenn man sich die verwendeten Bibliotheken gut ausgesucht hat hält sich der Aufwand dabei auch in Grenzen.
Ich sehe durchaus ein dass Java seine Daseinsberechtigung hat, aber es gibt da draußen Leute die würden dieses Bibliothekenmonster auf Precompilerbasis wirklich für jeden blöden Texteditor verwenden. Dafür wurde die Sprache nicht optimiert! Es gibt bessere für sowas und man sollte das auch einsehen. (Das gleiche Argument trifft übrigens auch auf die ganzen IDEs mit .Net-Basis da draußen zu. -.-)

Eclipse verwendet exzessiv Plugins, für jede kleine Standardfunktion ist ein Plugin zuständig. Wer schonmal was von der Neigung komplexer Systeme gehört hat, komplexe Probleme zu verursachen, dem muss ich die Schlussfolgerung daraus wohl nicht mehr nennen.
In der Tat hatte ich bei einigen Projekten permanent mit Eclipse-Abstürzen zu kämpfen, da hilft es auch nicht unbedingt weiter wenn man z.B. das hängen gebliebene Fenster für einen Commit mit einem Tastendruck in den Hintergrund bewegen kann (das Fenster verschwindet wirklich und wird durch eine kleine Anmerkung in der Statusleiste ersetzt), wenn man mit der IDE dann dennoch nicht weiterarbeiten oder sie gar regulär beenden kann... es läuft ja immerhin noch ein Vorgang.
Was in solchen Fällen bleibt ist dann also den ganzen Eclipse-Prozess zu killen und erneut zu starten... Die Ladezeiten (die übrigens manchmal länger sind als die meines ganzen OS inkl. grafischer Oberfläche) lassen grüßen.

Das alles zusammen ergibt dann eine Punktzahl irgendwo zwischen 0 und 0.5 von 3... Sehen wir es positiv, Eclipse hat viel Raum für Verbesserungen.

Lk 7:14-17 Then he went up and touched the coffin, and those carrying it stood still. He said, "Young man, I say to you, get up!" The dead man sat up and began to talk, and Jesus gave him back to his mother. They were all filled with awe and praised God. "A great prophet has appeared among us," they said. "God has come to help his people." This news about Jesus spread throughout Judea and the surrounding country.

In our previous meditation we pondered on the imponderable, why some things happen to some people and not to others, and why God seems to turn up for some people and not for others. Over the years I have pondered another issue – why is it that God turns up in revival at certain times in history and brings utter transformation, but mostly doesn't? My only conclusion, and it may only be very partial, is that even if He did keep on turning up in power, the sinfulness of mankind would still distort it or fail to appreciate it. I have travelled in parts of the world where revival has come and have been in villages where 100% of the village population were Christians, yet somehow there was almost a lethargy there that did not seem good. When I compare that with the reports from the underground church in China , struggling against fierce persecution, there is not the same vitality that is present when there is opposition, it seems. It appears that when God's presence is constantly there, it needs less on our part and, this side of heaven, we do better when there is some opposition or God's power is relatively limited. That may sound incredible to say, but that is how it seems in practical reality.

I say these things in the light of the miracle that we observe in today's verses. Jesus, moved by the plight of this woman who has just lost the second important person in her life, steps up to the funeral procession and puts his hand on the coffin being carried. Those carrying it sense something is about to happen, so stop and Jesus calls to the dead young man to get up – and he does! Immediately he sits up (which supposes that the coffin was an open topped one) and starts talking. It is patently obvious that he is alive, and everyone sees it and comments upon it.

Now the point that comes to mind is that this is one of only three instances of those who Jesus raised from the dead, the others being Jairus's daughter (Lk 8:40-56) and Lazarus (Jn 11:38-44). Why, with the power available to him, didn't Jesus raise more people from the dead? The answer to that has to be, surely, that God allowed him, or guided him, to do these three for what have to be specific reasons that fitted the will of God. Now that may sound a bit bland but everything Jesus did, he did for a purpose – his Father's purpose: “Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.” (Jn 5:19). The Father, in His wisdom, obviously sees that simply bringing lots of people back to life, i.e., extending their lives, does little good either for them or for others, but on rare occasions He does do it to reveal His power and, indeed, His compassion.

The Bible thus reveals to us a God who does have the power to bring back the dead, prevent people dying and healing them and utterly transforming lives physically, but He appears to do it sparingly most of the time. There are times and places where He comes in mighty power and healings etc. are seen in great abundance, but taking the world as a whole, they are relatively few. Does the Lord delight to bring healing? Yes, He clearly does, looking at the numbers of people who were healed by Jesus. Does He heal today? Yes, He clearly does. What seems to be a vital ingredient for this to happen? Well as John Wimber used to point out, faith was always present in one person at least in all the situations in the Bible where people were healed, but then faith is simply responding to what God says, and so in every case where healing occurred, and does occur, first of all there is God's expression of His intent to heal. Our faith, our response to His words of prompting, give Him the space to do it.

Does Jesus raise people from the dead today? Yes, he does. I have heard of rare instances where I trust the integrity of the reporters. However, when we come to this subject, let's be careful to check our hearts out, because such happenings reveal the state of our hearts. Those who are critical will criticise and say, “Well why doesn't He do that all the time?” and will thus reveal the short-sightedness of their thinking. Those who are open-hearted to God will find themselves stirred by such events as in today's verses and will ‘come running', in their thinking at least, and will want to learn more of this one who can do such things. Those who are utterly given over to God will just praise and thank Him for every token of His goodness expressed in such instances as this.

After all Jesus didn't have to raise us this young man. He just did it as a token of his Father's love for the widow and her family. He obviously saw that here was a situation where ongoing life of this young man would truly benefit this family. That isn't always so although, if it is our family, we will almost certainly think it would be. Why did God allow my loved one to die? I don't know, but I just have to trust that when God weighed the alternatives He considered that in the long term this indeed was the best option. It may take us a long time to see that because in the immediate, grief blinds us to the bigger picture, and anyway it may take a long time to see the good outcomes. We may not see it even until we get to heaven and see the big picture through God's eyes. In the meantime we would do well to join with Job who declared the classic phrase: “The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised.” (Job 1:21 ) Amen.

what if we looked at every tear as a miracle?
maybe we wouldn't wipe them away so hastily
but let them rest on our skin to warm our insides
one pore at a time.
how beautiful would pain be then?
perhaps too magnificent to even look at it
for too long,
so we would have to peer through holes in cups
like we learned to do at eclipses
because the power of the catalyst to tears
is too much to fathom,
too profound to "ooh" and "ahh" at
so the wise ones accept as fact
that times of tears will come.

but those who refuse to cry
miss out on the magic that they possess inside.
the holding in of tears precedes the curse
of never being able to witness and experience
the miracle of connection,
the beauty of suffering,
and the pleasure of release.
even Jesus wept
before raising Lazarus from the dead.
the shedding of tears is a blessing.

"Now when Mary came to where Jesus was and saw him, she fell at his feet, saying to him, ‘Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.' When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in his spirit and greatly troubled. And he said, ‘Where have you laid him?' They said to him, ‘Lord, come and see.' Jesus wept."  (John 11:32-35; ESV)

One of my favorite movies of all time is Rudy.  If you haven't seen it (and I can't imagine why not!), it's based on the true story of Daniel "Rudy" Ruettiger.  Rudy was a Joliet kid who had dreams of playing college football at prestigious Notre Dame University.  The only problem was that Rudy was lacking in a few area, such as money, grades, size and talent.  However through the benevolence of a parish priest at Notre Dame and a lot of determination and hard work, Rudy was able to enroll at Holy Cross (a junior college affiliated with Notre Dame) and eventually transfer to Notre Dame.  He then joins the football team as a walk-on.  After impressing the football coaches with his effort and heart, he manages to make the practice squad.  After two seasons on the practice squad, Rudy convinces the head coach to allow him to suit up for one game; the final game of Notre Dame's season.  I love the movie because it's a great story of how dreams can become reality through hard work, determination, and a little providence from above.

Why do I mention this movie in the context of the gospel of John?  Well, first of all, I really LOVE this film.  I can't tell you how many times I've watched this movie, and it still gets me choked up at the end when all the players and fans are chanting "RUDY! RUDY! RUDY!"  (In fact, I'm getting choked up just thinking about it.)  The point being even though I know how the movie ends, it still evokes the same emotional response from me.  I am reminded of this fact when I consider today's passage from John's gospel.

The setting for this story is the death and resurrection of Lazarus, a close friend of Jesus.  Jesus had been ministering in the region of Perea (east of Jerusalem across the Jordan River).  He receives word from Mary and Martha that their brother, Lazarus, is gravely ill.  Upon hearing this news, Jesus delays two days in his current location before heading over to Bethany.

This decision to delay has puzzled many Bible students.  John 11:5 says that Jesus loved Mary, Martha and Lazarus.  This is followed by John 11:6, which says that Jesus waited two days before heading off to Bethany.  If Jesus loved this family, why didn't he drop everything to rush to Lazarus' side?  Some commentators suggest that by the time news reached Jesus of Lazarus' illness, he was either dead or dying and would not survive long enough for Jesus to arrive.  That's plausible, but there are hints in the text that suggest otherwise.  In John 11:4, Jesus says that Lazarus' illness does not lead to death; suggesting that he was still alive when he heard the news.  Besides, we already know that Jesus can heal at a distance when he healed the centurion's daughter (Matthew 8:13).

A more theologically plausible (but perhaps "harder to swallow") solution is that it was God's will to allow Lazarus to die in order to perform the miracle that was about to happen.  The Bible is thoroughly clear that God loves us and will work things out for the good of those who love him (Romans 8:28), but our definition of what's good for us often differs from God's definition.  We feel that if God doesn't give us what we want when we want, it he doesn't love us.  Often times though God will withhold what we want in order to give us what we need.

OK, so what did Mary and Martha and the other disciples need?  They needed to see Jesus glorified through the resurrection of Lazarus.  They needed to have their faith in Jesus as the Son of God solidified through this miracle.  They needed to know that this Jesus whom they followed had the power of life and death in his hands.

Back to the story....Jesus arrives in Bethany and he consoles Mary and Martha.  He then gives us the famous "I AM the resurrection and the life" line in John 11:25.  Jesus is then confronted by Mary who says, "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died."  Notice when Jesus heard this rebuke (and it was a rebuke), he did not lash out at Mary, but he grieved with her ("When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in his spirit and greatly troubled").  Finally, when they take Jesus to the place where Lazarus was buried, we see that he wept (11:35).

Now as I read this story, I wonder to myself, why did Jesus weep?  Why was he "deeply moved and greatly troubled?"  It's not as if he didn't know that Lazarus was going to die.  More importantly, it's not as if he didn't know what he came there to do-namely raise him from the dead.  Jesus, being deity incarnate, knew how the story would end; why the emotion?  For the same reason I always get emotional when I watch Rudy, even though I know how the movie ends-I'm human!  And so was Jesus.  Jesus wept because he was outraged over the effects of sin in this world.  Jesus wept because a dear friend he deeply loved had died.  Jesus wept because Mary and Martha were heartbroken over their brother's death.  Jesus wept because despite the fact that he was deity incarnate, he was human too; just like us!

Bottom Line: The writer of Hebrew mentions the fact that Jesus was made "like us" (i.e., human) in every way (Hebrews 2:17).  It is because of this fact that Jesus, in his role as the great high priest, is able to "sympathize" with us (Hebrews 4:15).  The word, "sympathize," in Hebrews 4:15 in the Greek means "to be affected with the same feeling as another."  In fact, our English word "sympathize" is a transliteration of the Greek word.

Why am I saying all of this?  Here's the point:  Jesus was a human being and as such he had feelings and emotions just like Mary and Martha and just like you and me.  Since Jesus is the divine Word (Gk. Logos) made flesh, he was the living breathing incarnation of God himself!  Therefore God has feelings and emotions, just like you and me.  Jesus is eminently qualified to be our Counselor because he knows what it's like to be us.  As the old saying goes, "to know how another person feels, walk a mile in their shoes."  Jesus did that, and more!  He not only walked a mile "in our shoes," he went beyond that to the cross!

The point to take away from this is that we should never think that while going through the trials of life that God is unfeeling and uncaring; that he is just a detached deity observing the comings and goings of humanity.  As the apostle Paul wrote, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort" (2 Corinthians 1:3).  God is able to comfort us because he knows what it's like to be a human being.

Simona

" Prima emisiune va fi difuzată în 22 septembrie, de la ora 19.30, tema fiind povestea unei femei care susţine că a fost agresată de către preotul din sat " In numele poporului tribunalul va hotari :

- invitarea ambilor parti pe canapeaua dr Andrei pentru o reconstituire  live

- spanzurarea moliftei cu capu'-n jos si biciuirea la fundul gol

- in functie de material, o cafea cu victima dupa emisiune

Bafta carcotasilor, cum ziceam v-a scutit conducerea postului de cautat materiale.

(Si nu intrebati de ce vor aia doi din foto sa ne dea microfoanele, nu stiu, nu-s din cartier...)

Honestly, I am not even sure how to introduce the issue, but let me try. There is this disturbing story in the Christian Scripture that goes something like this (in the NIV translation):

"There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'

But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'

He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'

Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'

'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'

He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "

Now, I don't know about you, but I find this to be perhaps the most disturbing piece of Christian Scripture there is. Each time I read it, I can't help but feel like I am definitely not the guy at the gate...I am certainly the Rich Man.

What to do if you are Lazarus

Usually, I read the passage and I think to myself, "I need to give more," and usually I do in some way, if it is convenient. And that seems the right response. God is clearly showing a special deference for the poor in the passage. Note that the passage does not require any effort towards any goal in order for Lazarus to find his way into heaven. Lazarus, on the basis of his suffering and poverty is blessed.

What the passage really seems to mean for the Rich Man/Woman

But, lately, I've begun to think more about the passage. The question does not seem to be whether or not the Rich Man gave to Lazarus at all, even though there is no evidence that he does. The question does not even seem to so much be the amount of anything the Rich Man did or did not give. No, because it stands to reason that even the occasional meal to Lazarus from the Rich Man's table would seem somehow insufficient in this context.

Testing the thought

To make the point, what do you think would be the Rich Man's fate had he done exactly as he did, but occasionally he asked a servant to bring Lazarus a meal? What if he occasionally brought Lazarus a meal himself. Is that somehow any better?

What if there were more than Lazarus?

Take it a step further. What do you think the Rich Man's fate would have been if there were two people, Lazarus and his sister Lazarette, at his gate suffering day after day, month after month, year after year, decade...ok, you get the idea.

The Plight of the Very Generous Rich Man/Woman

What if, out of the largeness of his extremely huge heart and wallet the Rich Man fed one of the two for his whole life--let's say Lazarus, but did not lift a finger for Lazarette (he had done his share of giving/tithing/whatever, right?). What do you think the Rich Man's fate would be? Would he be partying with Abraham? Or, would he, in hell, 'lift up his eyes' from his burning?

I can take it even further. What if the extremely generous, wealthy Rich Man was so kind as to take care of both Lazarus and Lazarette for their entire lives, bringing them into his home, teaching them to read and write, adopting them even as his children, setting them up in business and life, even giving them each homes to start their own families in.

Any Conclusions?

What if this still wealthy man (even after all this giving--his wealth was not exhausted), with all his generous tendencies, knew of the suffering of another ten siblings of Lazarus and Lazarette, but did nothing to help them. What do you think the Rich Man's fate would be? Did he not know of a need he could met, but fail to do so? According to this Scripture, what seems to be his responsibility? Do you think God will hold him responsible for not at least attempting to meet the need of the other ten? Why or why not?

Is it legalistic to say that Jesus would condemn those who repeatedly neglect the needs of others when they live in abundance? What other interpretation is possible? Have I twisted the text? If so, how? How on earth can I, in my comfortable suburban life of luxury, avoid such a fate? What practical steps would I have to take?

...I seem to be coming to the conclusion that the only truly generous rich man/woman will be a poor one...a standard I don't even come close to meeting...

 2 (It was [that] Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.) 

 3 Therefore his sisters sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick. 

I'm not sure why Jesus had a special love and affection for Lazarus.   There must be a reason.  

 4 When Jesus heard [that], he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby.

 5 Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus. 

 6 When he had heard therefore that he was sick, he abode two days still in the same place where he was. 

 7 Then after that saith he to [his] disciples, Let us go into Judaea again.

 8 [His] disciples say unto him, Master, the Jews of late sought to stone thee; and goest thou thither again? 

 9 Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in  the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world. 

 10 But if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth, because there is no light in him.

Jesus emphasizes that if people will follow his light, his example, they will not stumble.   Without Christ, we will stumble as we walk in ignorance.  

 11 These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.

 12 Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well. 

 13 Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep. 

 14 Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.

 15 And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe; nevertheless let us go unto him.

This is an important miracle.  It demonstrates that Christ does indeed have the power to restore life.  

 16 Then said Thomas, which is called Didymus, unto his fellowdisciples, Let us also go, that we may die with him. 

 17  Then when Jesus came, he found that he had [lain] in the grave four days already. 

 18 Now Bethany was nigh unto Jerusalem, about fifteen furlongs off: 

 19 And many of the Jews came to Martha and Mary, to comfort them concerning their brother. 

 20 Then Martha, as soon as she heard that Jesus was coming, went and met him: but Mary sat [still] in the house. 

 21 Then said Martha unto Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. 

 22 But I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give [it] thee. 

 23 Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again.

 24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day. 

 25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: 

 26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? 

 27 She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world. 

 28 And when she had so said, she went her way, and called Mary her sister secretly, saying, The Master is come, and calleth for thee. 

 29 As soon as she heard [that], she arose quickly, and came unto him. 

 30 Now Jesus was not yet come into the town, but was in that place where Martha met him. 

 31 The Jews then which were with her in the house, and comforted her, when they saw Mary, that she rose up hastily and went out, followed her, saying, She goeth unto the grave to weep there. 

 32 Then when Mary was come where Jesus was, and saw him, she fell down at his feet, saying unto him, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. 

 33  When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping which came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled, 

I wonder why he groaned in the spirit?  Was it because the lack of faith that those closest to him had?  

 34 And said, Where have ye laid him? They said unto him, Lord, come and see. 

 35 Jesus wept. 

 36 Then said the Jews, Behold how he loved him! 

 37 And some of them said, Could not this man, which opened the eyes of the blind, have caused that even this man should not have died? 

 38 Jesus therefore again groaning in himself cometh to the grave. It was a cave, and a stone lay upon it. 

 39 Jesus said, Take ye away the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been [dead] four days. 

 40 Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?

Jesus reminded Martha what he would do.   He probably groaned in the spirit because of the lack of faith.  

 41 Then they took away the stone [from the place] where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up [his] eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me.

 42 And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said [it], that they may believe that thou hast sent me.

 43 And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth.

 44 And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go.

 45  Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him. 

 46 But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done. 

Those that were driven by wickedness went to the Pharisees. 

 47 Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. 

 48 If we let him thus alone, all [men] will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation. 

 49 And one of them, [named] Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, 

 50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. 

 51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; 

 52 And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad. 

It is interesting that Caiaphas, the (?chief) High Priest should outline the important role of the Savior.  Why they counseled together  to put him to death - given Jesus' role is beyond comprehension.  We do know they were worried that Jesus would be seen as a threat to the Romans and their location and nation would be moved.

 53 Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death. 

 54 Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews; but went thence unto a country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim, and there continued with his disciples. 

 55 And the Jews' passover was nigh at hand: and many went out of the country up to Jerusalem before the passover, to purify themselves. 

 56 Then sought they for Jesus, and spake among themselves, as they stood in the temple, What think ye, that he will not come to the feast? 

 57 Now both the chief priests and the Pharisees had given a commandment, that, if any man knew where he were, he should shew [it], that they might take him. 

In case you've been in a hole somewhere, I'm talking about quotes like this from the Telegraph in the United Kingdom: How can she reconcile such a high-profile job as "veep" - a "heartbeat" away from leadership of the free world and all that - with bringing up five children, the oldest of whom is about to serve in Iraq and the youngest of whom is just five months old and has Down's Syndrome?

Or this, same source:  The former beauty queen with the myopic gaze, who traded pageant chic for power suits and designer specs to stalk the halls of power in the 49th state, a breast-pump under her arm and a BlackBerry in each hand...

Or how about this from the New York Times: In interviews, many women, citing their own difficulties with less demanding jobs, said it would be impossible for Ms. Palin to succeed both at motherhood and in the nation’s second-highest elected position at once.

Impossible?

Really?

While I don't agree with Palin's politics, I take issue with anyone who says a mother cannot hold any job as long as she has the physical capabilities to do so.*  What is it that a vice president does that is more taxing than the life of a governor of a state one-fifth the size of the whole country, complete with natural resource issues, international borders, and budget crises? There is travel, of course, and late-night meeting times and other inconveniences, but these could be accommodated. How many other high-level families inside the Beltway have household help to deal with basic family issues? All the Nannygate stories we've heard over the years would indicate that it's no sin to find help to make sure children are well-supervised (unless you hire the undocumented).

And not to burst anyone's bubble, but everyone who thinks George W. Bush does all his own work every day, raise your hand now!

That's what I thought. Presidents and vice presidents have "people," assistants and staff who perform triage and make sure their executive has the right information at the right time, drivers, planners, secretaries....you name it. Any busy mother I know could only benefit and bloom in such a situation, not get bogged down.

As for having a special-needs child, I have to say that since I've had mine, I've had to become smarter about time management and more efficient with resources to accomplish all the tasks I want to in a day. The many parents in similar circumstances I've met, both in real-life and online, manage their families' lives with a sharp eye, making doctors' and therapy appointments, trying medication schemes, advocating their child's cases at school, seeking out social situations that benefit their child. All the while, they work and take care of significant others and other children--some even care for parents as well.

I mean, imagine my surprise to find I agree with Phyllis Schlafly!

“(Motherhood) changes your life and gives you a different perspective on the world,” said Phyllis Schlafly, the conservative organizer who helped defeat the equal rights amendment nearly three decades ago.

“People who don’t have children or who have only one or two are kind of overwhelmed at the notion of five children,” Ms. Schlafly continued, mentioning that she had raised six children and run for Congress as well. “I think a hard-working, well-organized C.E.O. type can handle it very well.”

That being said, I'm not sure Palin as a mother is making good decisions at this particular juncture. Would I have put myself in a national spotlight when my teenaged daughter was having a painful personal crisis, knowing how the media sharks would devour her? Not likely. That's a decision she'll have to live with.

Women have had to balance many issues as they've made progress through the years, and Palin may have rationalized that to move women forward a step in the ranks of equality, that this sacrifice was worthwhile.

Robert A. Heinlein, in his persona of Lazarus Long, says, "Whenever women have insisted on absolute equality with men, they have invariably wound up with the dirty end of the stick. What they are and what they can do makes them superior to men, and their proper tactic is to demand special privileges, all the traffic will bear. They should never settle merely for equality. For women, "equality" is a disaster."

Perhaps this will be the outcome of Sarah Palin's choice in the long run.  On the other hand:  Will she be good for women or an awful embarrassment? Too soon to tell. But, heck, she can't be any more embarrassing than a vice president who gets indicted like Spiro Agnew, can't spell potato like Dan Quayle or shoots his buddy like Dick Cheney.

It's Sarah Palin's choice to make, not naysayers in the media and the political parties and the religious extremists-- hers.  I, for one, support her right to make it. You go, girl.

*For example, a pregnant woman would have a heck of a time shinnying through an 18-inch diameter pipe. But women who have the strength, endurance, intelligence or any other skill it takes to fulfill a job description (and there really aren't many that list "penis" as a requirement), should absolutely be equally considered and hired.