Thursday, March 29, 2012 at 6:01AM Wednesday, March 28, 2012 at 6:01AM My Linkedin membership has sent me another link to an article that suggests it is time to buy a house. I bet a lot of my readers are considering it, so I decided to blog about it again. The link was to CNN Money:
Our Real Estate Future? There are several reasons. Home prices are falling. Mortgage interest rates are at historically low levels. And rents are on the rise.
...
The nation's cheapest buyer's market is Detroit, where purchasing is only 3.7 times more expensive than renting.
Brilliant, move to Detroit. Could there be a reason prices are so cheap there? The article continues:
Housing markets, even within a single metro area, typically have local submarkets. Take New York City, for example. Renting in Manhattan is more affordable than buying. But in suburban Westchester County just miles to the north, buying is the more affordable option.
The article ignores anything but the cash flow of the rent vs. own situation where you live. But it ignores a lot of very important factors.
If the following is true, it might be a good idea to buy a house.
You are secure in your income stream.
You do not plan to move in the next 5 years.
Housing prices will not continue to fall.
I have been predicting another crisis. How certain are your answer to the above questions when, not if, the crisis hits? Charles Smith reminds us what is going on:
In constant (2005) dollars:
GDP in 2007 (pre-recession): $13.23 trillion
GDP in 2008 (recession starts): $13.31 trillion
GDP in 2009 (recession officially ends in mid-2009): $12.88 trillion
GDP in 2010: 13.04 trillion
GDP in 2011: $13.3 trillion
In constant (2005) dollars, the economy actually shrank in the three year span of 2008-2010 and is back to 2007 levels. That's what we bought with $6.1 trillion in additional debt and Federal spending.
The economy has basically been stagnant for 5 years. Will we look back at these last 5 years with nostalgia?
We are due to add $5 trillion to our Federal debt level over the next few years. This is not sustainable. GDP, gross domestic product, is a rather simple formula. Here is how Wikipedia describes it:
GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports), or
Government spending is going to take a dive. I hope these cuts will be from careful planning and not a necessary response to the inability to sell bonds. But when the cuts come, GDP will go down, by definition, as government spending goes down. The cuts will come, and when they do it will not be pretty.
Do you really want a 30 year loan, even at 4%, when the fecal matter hits the circular air circulation device?
While you expect me to be trolling for the answer of no, my answer is I do not know. If you live in a state where you can walk away from your house debt, and you think that inflation is coming that will make the 4% look ridiculously cheap, then maybe buying makes sense. If you are wrong about inflation, then you can walk away from your house and rent. The decision to buy a house or not depends on your location, age, job security, and a lot of other factors. Most of the psychological factors favor home ownership. The numbers and the objective facts of your situation may say something different.
Real Estate Monday, March 26, 2012 at 9:55AM 
There is a tradition in many churches that if a woman enters a church she must cover her head with a scarf. In some churches you can borrow a scarf for this purpose, sometimes for a small fee. This idea comes from the 11th chapter of 1 Corinthians.
2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. 3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,[a] and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.
7 A man ought not to cover his head,[b] since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own[c] head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.
13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.
Several theories have been advanced over the years.
One is that in Corinth the temple prostitutes shaved their heads, so Paul is saying that women should not shave their heads like prostitutes. You may even see this repeated in some commentaries. However, I have never seen any evidence for this. It is also suggested that male prostitutes would have long hair. Again I have seen no evidence for this.
While there are no examples of bald women prostitutes, there is this from the 4th century council of Ganga, canon 17:
"If a woman, from supposed asceticism, cuts of her hair which has been given her by God to remind her of her subjection, and thus renounces the command of subjection, let her be anathema."
I found this quote from an interesting article on hair coverings. Click here if you want more information on this topic.
Of course, this council was written after 1 Corinthians was written and 1 Corinthians might have influenced the council, but still it shows a custom of ascetic religious hair cutting that might be in mind here in 1 Corinthians.
But whatever is going on seems to have something to do with hair. The conclusion of the section lends support to this.
13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.
In other words the covering Paul seems to be advocating is hair under this theory.
Another option is that Paul is following Jewish custom which had a woman cover her hair with a scarf, but her face remained visible. Here is one Jewish commentator on the issue:
The author I quoteHistorically speaking, women in the talmudic period likely did cover their hair, as is attested in several anecdotes in rabbinic literature. For example, Bava Kama (90a) relates an anecdote of a woman who brings a civil suit against a man who caused her to uncover her hair in public. The judge appears to side with the woman because the man violated a social norm. Another vignette in the Talmud describes a woman whose seven sons all served as High Priest. When asked how she merited such sons, she explained that even the walls of her home never saw her hair (Yoma 47a). The latter story is a story of extreme piety, surpassing any law or communal consensus; the former case may also relay a historical fact of practice and similarly does not necessarily reflect religious obligation.
There was debate among the Jews as to whether or not this was commanded by Moses or not.
The Mishnah in Ketuboth (7:6), however, implies that hair covering is not an obligation of biblical origin. It discusses behaviors that are grounds for divorce such as, "appearing in public with loose hair, weaving in the marketplace, and talking to any man" and calls these violations of Dat Yehudit, which means Jewish rule, as opposed to Dat Moshe, Mosaic rule. This categorization suggests that hair covering is not an absolute obligation originating from Moses at Sinai, but rather is a standard of modesty that was defined by the Jewish community.
So this leaves us with these main possibilities:
1. Paul is advocating that hair be a woman's covering.
2. Paul is advocating that women should wear a head scarf in deference to Jewish customs, and we should continue to do so today.
3. Paul is advocating that women should wear a head scarf in deference to Jewish customs, and we should not continue to do so today. While it is best to conform ourselves to societal customs, when those customs change, we change with them.
There is a 4th option I want to suggest. Remember the pattern that I discussed with regard to 1 Corinthians 6 and 7? A rather odd statement is made that seems problematic, that is followed by something that seems to be its opposite. Does this pattern appear here?
7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels.
To me this section of the passage is very odd. First it seems to be saying that the woman has no control over whether or not she should wear a scarf over her hair, while at the same time saying she does. It must be something like this:
It is for this reason that a woman ought to have a scarf as a symbol of the authority of her husband over her own head.
In a footnote the NIV suggests this as correct. Then the rest of verse ten "goes off the rails." I do not understand how an angel catching a glimpse of some woman's hair is going to be offensive to the angel. But when one understands that the Gnostics so clearly in view in 1 Corinthians 6 & 7 worshiped angels, then the whole thing may make more sense. Rather than offend the angels they worshipped the Gnostics wanted women to wear head coverings. You see Gnostics had this rather strange idea that angels were turned on by human women. (The Gnostics based this on the apocryphal Book of Enoch's interpretation of Genesis 6.)
If this is correct then verse 7 to 10 is a quote from the Gnostics that had made Corinth such a mess. If the pattern we have been seeing in 1 Corinthians continues then the next verse should repudiate it.
11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.
Verses 7 to 10 say that women are dependent on men, but verses 11 and 12 say that both are dependent on each other, a direct contradiction of the previous verse. Paul continues:
13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.
Paul seems to be saying that each person should decide this for themselves.
While I no longer sell video games, If you want a hammer I will be glad to sell you one in my hardware store!It seems to me that I have "nailed" the proper interpretation of this scripture. But as I draw back my hammer to pound in the nail, I remember the old proverb, "If all a man has is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Oh. Am I sure that my nail is not in fact a screw? Or maybe a wood dowel? Am I sure?
Let me tell you what a relief it is to say this: I have no idea what this passage is saying. It is a great liberation to me to be able to say this. My former mindset was to try to understand and have an answer for everything! There are things that we just do not know. This passage is one of them.
While I think I have made an excellent case for Paul quoting the letter he received from Corinth in chapters 6 & 7, and a very good case for Paul quoting the letter in 1 Corinthians 14, my case here is much weaker. Should I let the fact that we have no idea what Paul meant by "because of the angels" influence my interpretation in the Gnostic direction? Maybe, but I am not sure.
I have no word of criticism for any woman who looks at this scripture and decides to wear a scarf to church. I do not think that is what this passage means, but since I am not sure, who am I to decide for someone else?
What I am sure about is that we follow the advice of Paul and judge for ourselves what the passage means.
This series will have one more part, and then I will, interspersed with the continuing series I am doing on war, do a series entitled "Men Wearing Kilts."
Bible 