Two Fire Trucks and an Ambluance for a False Alarm
Not much exciting happens in Sussex, so when I saw a fire truck drive past my office window tonight, I had to go out and see what was happening. It seems the other neighbors on the street had the same idea I did, because pretty soon the street was filled with curious onlookers. Some were in their lounge clothes, they obviously had not planned to leave the house again tonight. One lady was not from our street. She lived just around the corner. She had gotten in her car when she saw the fire truck pass her street, not knowing how far they would go. She was feeling a little silly when they stopped not even one street over. I'm sure the people in the household the vehicles were called to were also feeling silly when word got out that two fire trucks and an ambulance came for a fire in a barrel, a result of a marshmallow roast gone awry. None of the neighbors seemed to mind. it was something exciting on our otherwise average street. I also enjoyed seeing all the neibors together, even if it was as a result of a fire. As far as I know no one was hurt so othert than the lose of time for the firemen, no one was worse for the wear.
So long since I've posted, so much to say. I should try to make this a daily thing, even if I basically say nothing, that way I wouldn't have such a volume of things to say each time.
My sister visited for an extended weekend and it was wonderful to have her. She came Friday afternoon and left tonight. She has not taken a real vacation from work this summer. She works a four days on, four days off schedule, but even then she is always taking extra shifts so she really never has four days off. She was taking her full four days this rotation though, and making her trip here a mini vactiuon of sorts for her. Talk about pressure. I think she she thought it was worth it though. The visit happened to coincide with a babysitting comittment we had, but it all worked out. We were babysitting Josh forbes, and since he is the cutest child on earth, (my sister's word's), the two visits went spendidly.
I fear that my blog is one of the ones referred to by my dear friend Jo in a post awhile back. Shje was lamenting over the fact that girls tend not to post about veryt intellectual things. It is eaither all about weddings, (guilty there), babies, (not there yet thankfully), or other typically female things. Only the men she concluded post about meaty issues, or even just gender neutral ones (It's been awhile since I read that post, so don't shot me if I'm not quoting her exactly). I would like to rectify this by posting about something that is meaty and gender neutral: The gay marriage issue. So much has been said, that I feel like I could just be muddying the waters further with my basically-the-same-as-everyone-else's-already-been-said-opinon. I have lots that I could say, but for the above mentioned reason, I will keep it to one statement that I have not heard anywhere else. Ypu need some backgroud before I say it however. The day of district conference during Beulah, an idea was brought forth by one of the district pastors of pastors in the district handing in their marriage licences. This means, their right to preform marriages in the eyes of the Canadian government. What they would be able to do would be marry people "in the site of God". Many insights were brought forth by many people on this issue. One that I initially agreed with was the question of the marriages that they did. if they could only marry in the site of God, how would one keep track of these "In the site of God" marriages? How does that differentiate the couples they marry from common-law couples who are also not recognized as married in the eyes of the law. Now we would say they were living in sin. Could the same be applied to us if we were to go that route? I know that the difference lies in the fact that we are having a service in the eyes of God, but something about that doesn't sit right with me. I guess it's because having both a legal and religious ceremony has been the way it has always been done. After the discusseion at Beulah I have heard a few people say that the solution to that problem is easy; Anyone who wants to be married by a minister who has turned in their licence, but also wants to marry under the law, can go to a justice of the peace and get legally married, and then go to the minister and become one under the biblical definition as well. This seems to be the answer at first. It even solves the problem of keeping track of who is married and who isn't, an issue brought up by one of the ministers at the conference that is created if the government is taken out of marriage. To me however, the idea seems a bit contradictory. If a pastor does not want to marry people under the Canadian law because of it's definition of marriage, why would he encourage a couple to get married under that same law? it doesn't make sense to me.
Well, This post would be longer, but lucky for you I am heading to bed. More to come in the next post.
So long since I've posted, so much to say. I should try to make this a daily thing, even if I basically say nothing, that way I wouldn't have such a volume of things to say each time.
My sister visited for an extended weekend and it was wonderful to have her. She came Friday afternoon and left tonight. She has not taken a real vacation from work this summer. She works a four days on, four days off schedule, but even then she is always taking extra shifts so she really never has four days off. She was taking her full four days this rotation though, and making her trip here a mini vactiuon of sorts for her. Talk about pressure. I think she she thought it was worth it though. The visit happened to coincide with a babysitting comittment we had, but it all worked out. We were babysitting Josh forbes, and since he is the cutest child on earth, (my sister's word's), the two visits went spendidly.
I fear that my blog is one of the ones referred to by my dear friend Jo in a post awhile back. Shje was lamenting over the fact that girls tend not to post about veryt intellectual things. It is eaither all about weddings, (guilty there), babies, (not there yet thankfully), or other typically female things. Only the men she concluded post about meaty issues, or even just gender neutral ones (It's been awhile since I read that post, so don't shot me if I'm not quoting her exactly). I would like to rectify this by posting about something that is meaty and gender neutral: The gay marriage issue. So much has been said, that I feel like I could just be muddying the waters further with my basically-the-same-as-everyone-else's-already-been-said-opinon. I have lots that I could say, but for the above mentioned reason, I will keep it to one statement that I have not heard anywhere else. Ypu need some backgroud before I say it however. The day of district conference during Beulah, an idea was brought forth by one of the district pastors of pastors in the district handing in their marriage licences. This means, their right to preform marriages in the eyes of the Canadian government. What they would be able to do would be marry people "in the site of God". Many insights were brought forth by many people on this issue. One that I initially agreed with was the question of the marriages that they did. if they could only marry in the site of God, how would one keep track of these "In the site of God" marriages? How does that differentiate the couples they marry from common-law couples who are also not recognized as married in the eyes of the law. Now we would say they were living in sin. Could the same be applied to us if we were to go that route? I know that the difference lies in the fact that we are having a service in the eyes of God, but something about that doesn't sit right with me. I guess it's because having both a legal and religious ceremony has been the way it has always been done. After the discusseion at Beulah I have heard a few people say that the solution to that problem is easy; Anyone who wants to be married by a minister who has turned in their licence, but also wants to marry under the law, can go to a justice of the peace and get legally married, and then go to the minister and become one under the biblical definition as well. This seems to be the answer at first. It even solves the problem of keeping track of who is married and who isn't, an issue brought up by one of the ministers at the conference that is created if the government is taken out of marriage. To me however, the idea seems a bit contradictory. If a pastor does not want to marry people under the Canadian law because of it's definition of marriage, why would he encourage a couple to get married under that same law? it doesn't make sense to me.
Well, This post would be longer, but lucky for you I am heading to bed. More to come in the next post.
posted by Sarah Beth at 11:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home