Here's where we're headed - Sioux Falls, South Dakota. The questions is, "will we ever get there?" Right now we are in Rochester, MN getting ready to head out again! 
Hopefully we'll make it to Sioux Falls about 2pm our time to get ready for the 4pm wedding. So, why would we drive all the way to Sioux Falls, SD for a wedding - to share the joy of these two! Meet the soon to be Mel and Tim Murray!
Tim gets the award for the most innovative proposal method ever - he took Mel to a park where they had their first date, had a chess set ready and waiting, but missing the queen. The queen was in a box 
sitting beside the board, but it wasn't the regular queen, it was a hand made queen that had a removable part, allowing Tim to put the ring on it for presentation with his proposal. Way to go Tim! We are excited for these two - may they have a marriage that honors God in all things and great joy.
sitting beside the board, but it wasn't the regular queen, it was a hand made queen that had a removable part, allowing Tim to put the ring on it for presentation with his proposal. Way to go Tim! We are excited for these two - may they have a marriage that honors God in all things and great joy.
56 comments:
i like that very creative proposal
Lovely posting, pic and story about those two. And "Amen!"
Checkmate!
As the definition goes, it is either a "Complete victory" or "A chess move constituting an inescapable and indefensible attack on the opponent's king".
In all seriousness, I wish them well.
checkmate- says it all ahahahahahahahah-
Checkmate, indeed!
And Lauren here likes it, and says it was smart.
Amen, Ltl Luther!
AND BOTH OF THEM WIN!!!
That is very sweet! (I got my "proposal" in a fortune cookie, on a night when I chose to eat Chinese. All the fortunes were the same that night. : )
I had to propose to Jaya's pastor to get permission to propose to her! There is no dating here. There is the few “rebellious” who do but it is rare. I needed the pastor’s permission or we would have not married. I barely got to know Jaya at all before our wedding day, but I knew she loved the Lord wholeheartedly and uniquely; that's all that really mattered. Ours was basically an arranged marriage (though one which I arranged). Her pastor could have pulled the plug at any time....Jaya could have too. They wanted her honest consent, but she pretty much agreed to marry whoever they thought was best for her. "Love marriages" are still usually frowned upon in Nepal as rebellion. Both Hindus and Christians prefer to let the elder generation decide who is best for their children to marry....But with a divorce rate around 1% maybe they know what they are doing.
Peter proposed to me in a bar over a pint!
We were in Venice and he had intended to do the necessary, as it were, on the Academia bridge at sunset. However, it was pouring, so he took me to this bar.
I answered, 'err, yes. Can I have another pint?'
Wow! What a way to propose, I proposed to Jackie by email ... not really, emails were not around back then.
Hope the wedding goes well!!!!!!!
Bye me old fruit!
lLuther - that actually sounds pretty good to me - I've said, tongue in check, but with more sincerity that is realized, that if I got married again it would require God dropping someone in the lap of the elders and after they approved, then I'd go out for coffee. But, there seem to be no likely candidates - AT ALL. So I guess I'm single for quite awhile!
Susan: Come to Kathmandu. I'm not only ordained (i.e. can officiate your wedding), but I have also recently become an elder at a prominent church here. We could arrange a marriage for you in no time! :)
sounds like a plan lLuther - but would I be as happy with your choice as you and Jaya have been?
Who knows? Lightning can strike twice.
;o/
My brother in law had a marrage arranged by elders- now its utterly worhtless and he is utterly miserable...
Simon: many of us had marriages that weren't arranged by elders. We arranged it ourselves. These marriages also became worthless, apart from the offspring produced, which makes any worthless marriage valuable.
Happy July 4th!
Happy 4th of July Susan and can us poor little English people have out tea back now that you threw in to the Boston river all those years ago!
All is forgiven, kissy kissy lets make up!
Have a great day!
Love Martin & Co
Good point Llama dear - children give a bad marriage a wonderful redeeming quality, don't they?
And yes litl-luther - lightning can and does strike twice, even in the same place! So, we shall see; perhaps when I look for a new job, or I should say as I'm looking for a new job, I should put Nepa on my list!
I'm curious, how do the British textbooks explain our "Independence Day"? I "heard" (I don't know if this is so) that in British school books, you are told that we refused to pay for your thoughtful protection. Is this true? Sounds a bit like our mafia to me, forcing people to pay for "protection". ...I also heard our "Boston Tea Party" didn't make it into British textbooks. Is there any truth to the rumors?
Sometimes I wish we weren’t independent. At least then we could take advantage of the British national healthcare system. Jaya and I don't have any insurance. ...But I would hate to give up all my handguns (I have three stored in my dad's gun safe) or give up my concealed weapons permit!
I can assure you that the Boston Tea Party made it into the English History Books. We learned about the ungrateful Americans throwing all our good English tea into the harbour. Independance Day came about because our good King George III decided the let the colonies rules themselves.
For a full account go to Martin's blog.
Hi Lorenzo,
And here all along I thought Mel Gibson was a reliable historian, by virtue of his movie "The Patriot"! ...but if it is true that good King George III simply allowed the colonies to rule themselves, why did so many British and American men have to die in the process?
Wikipedia (which is usually unbiased) answers the above question saying: "In London King George III gave up hope of subduing America by more armies while Britain had a European war to fight. 'It was a joke,' he said, 'to think of keeping Pennsylvania.' There was no hope of recovering New England. But the King was determined 'never to acknowledge the independence of the Americans, and to punish their contumacy by the indefinite prolongation of a war which promised to be eternal.'"
Good ol' King George III !
It sounds similar to our modern times: Good President George Bush would like to punish Iran for its contumacy, but with our troops already stretched thin in Iraq and Afghanistan, we don't have the manpower to fight another war. Maybe the two Georges aren't that different.
i just wanted to poke in and say hello as the summer is proceeding a little too quickly for my taste:) i hope all is well with you all!!
no- its snowing in the mountains and it is interupting my Mountain bike training....
Simon,
your winter doesn't look all that bad from the photos. not much salt dumped everywhere on any ice or snow!
no you are right. we get very little.. but its still horrible...
OO Luther! The only similarity between Good King George III and Good King George Bush is that they are both mad!
Lorenzo: Touché!
bush mad?
I think he is a top bloke prepared to take up the "hard yards" for what he believes in-
Oil
It makes good business sense if you ask me.
Reduce the poulation, keep the oil flowing, so we can all enjoy our western life styles.
Its a pity he has not got another term- then he could encourage Israel to attack Iran, send more troops to Afganistan and then invade Pakistan..
Again to secure oil lines...
perfect business plan don't you think?...
I'm glad we had a strong president to fight back after 9-11. Keery would have whimped-out, and the terrorists would have kept up blowing up innocent people here.
It's funny how people will blame Bush, and all kinds of things for the horrible troubles we have. but don't blame those who would love to slice your throat, and ever woman, child and baby in the USA, and Britian.
George Bush, to me, is not a very good president. he was a good owner of the Texan Rangers, and a pretty good govenor.
But Kerry would have made it even worse than Bush has.
Just my thoughts, for what they're worth. Not much perhaps.
I do wich this country would drill for some oil, and bring these prices back down. Adn most of all, strengthen the dollar, instead of weakening it, by just printing money. Man! How stupid is that?
my goodness - we've been busy here and I forgot to check in on all of you - and now you've become a politicians! Guess I'd better pay closer attention!
Sorry about the winter Simon - it is hard on the joints I'm quite sure!
Oh I agree with Simon. Of course.
I don't believe he was a very good Texas Rancher either. Wasn't he always drunk?
Hey llama,
George quit drinking a long time ago, I'm pretty sure.
He was a party hound "Desparado", but Laura pulled him down from ridin' the fences and he came to his senses, and he opened the gate.
"And freedom, oh freedom well, that's just some people talkin'
Your prison is walking through this world all alone" -Eagles
lorenzo- there is nothing wrong with a drunk leader! look at Boris Yeltson. An incredible man.
Look at Winston Churchill! what was that famous quote of his when the cleaning lady said ( when stumbling on him intoxicated) " Mr Churchill you are DRUNK!!!" he replied
" I may be drunk madam but in the morning I will be sober but you will be still ugly"
Or words to that effect... What about Bob Hawke? Aussie prime minister- and a drunk...
I think a man who never gets drunk cannot be a good and effective leader. I mean even Jesus turned water into wine!
ahahahahahahahah!
( BTW the words expressed here are not always what the writer thinks!) ;o)
PS- Susan yes the joints are really sore! :o)
So I am riding everyday now- it helps
Riding horses Simon?
Tap, tap, tap.
yes lorenzo-I have owned a few horses!
:o)
Don:
Instead of drilling for more oil, I wish they would invest in battery technology to make electric cars a truly viable option to replace gas powered engines. Then there would be no need to depend on the Middle East.
We have more than 1000 electric cars and electric public vehicles right here in Kathmandu operating on our roads everyday! Moreover, I, along with the average Nepali middleclass people, have solar panels on almost every roof for producing the hot-water in our homes (and it works great all year round and doesn’t cost a cent, and it only cost us about $750 total!)
A backward, third-world toilet like Kathmandu is much more equipped with these technical advancements than the world's superpower: the USA! This can only be the result of money hungry corporations (oil companies mainly) keeping the technology from spreading throughout the States and the World to keep their own pockets fat. It is sad.
Recently, a program titled "Who Killed the Electric Car?" was about to be aired about how several electric cars popped up in the 70's-80's and worked great, but now not a single one is on the road today. But the program got pulled from the airwaves before being broadcast! It is amazing to me; but oil companies seem bent on keeping us using obsolete technology (like the gas powered engine) until the day comes when we have to take oil from every Muslim country or till the earth runs out of oil, or both.
Good points Triston. Hopefully the USA is doing both: Drilling and looking to the future.
For right now I have four trucks I need to drive throughout Maryland and Pennsylvania in order to keep my company working and keeping the bills paid for a few families.
I wouldn't mind getting weaned off oil, but lets think of the families here in the USA who depend on it for now.
if the USA has millions and millions of barrels on their own soil, then lets use it.
Thanks my thinking.
I agree many corrupt people are involved in all this. From the government to the oil companies. But I hope America doesn't become a Socialist State, or even Communist within the near future.
Seems we may be headed that way.
Communism says all are equal. George Orwell said, "All are equal, but some are more equal then others."
I agree Luther re electric cars
GM is releasing a chevrolet called a VOLT.
Basically has a 600km range before re-charge. and a very small motor to recharge if you do not have access to a power point.
The only problem with batteries is that mining for the cadmium is highly toxic to the environment.
Even if you are a global warming sceptic- not using Middle eastern oil would solve a lot of problems....the west could let them have their deserts and goats....and leave them to just kill each other rather than us..
We use a lot of solar here-
BTW GM announced that they are no longer going to produce the Hummer..
So thats a good move.
Greed is a terrible western illness
Hi Don,
I'm not against drilling for more oil. I have no problem with that really. Like you said, if we have it on our soil why not use it instead of having to use Iran's? I’m sure for long haul vehicles (and perhaps for businesses like yours), Diesel would remain necessary, even with the introduction of electric cars, but surely they could come up with a battery for the daily commute. We’ve advanced in so many other ways but not in this area. Makes me wonder, that's all.
Hi Simon,
I do think electric cars is probably the answer, but battery technology is still not where it needs to be. The reason electric cars and electric public vehicles are viable in Kathmandu is because it is a very small place, and the roads move at a slow pace. It probably wouldn’t work well in America (or Australia) at this point (though that 600km range car you mentioned sounds awesome!!). Surely they can come up with a better battery and if they do, that could completely change the way people get to work in the States and Australia, and like you said, it would end most of the pollution on the roads and help lesson the impact of global warming, a very good thing, and make it so we don’t need to ally ourselves with Saudi Arabia and other Islamic states. I feel like the way battery technology has already come along way for laptops, a little more investment in that area could make the difference in making batteries that are smaller, lighter and keep their charge and life expectancy longer, and that could really mean the end of the gas powered engine, at least for family vehicles. I hope that is the way forward. The silver lining in higher gas prices is that it is making people look for alternatives.
Global Warming?
I don’t mean to make waves with my Christian brethren, but I honestly don’t understand why some are denying global warming. I don’t see how the truth of global warming could have any impact on the truth of our faith in Christ. Global warming seems so apparent, arguing against it reminds me of the Roman Catholic Church’s idiocy, against all evidence, in condemning Galileo for his belief that the earth revolved around the sun and not the other way around. The Catholic Church “thought” it was defending Christian faith, but the earth revolving around the sun does not contradict Scripture nor our faith. Neither does the fact that humans can influence events on earth (such as manmade inventions causing global warming.) conflict with Scripture or Christian faith.
If I’ve missed something, please enlighten me, but I see no reason to deny global warming.
I'm not so sure about it, global warming. There are excellent scientist on both sides.
The whole Al Gore thing is full of lies, and that really says a lot to me.
I know back in the 70's they had a "Global Cooling" thing going strong, but it faded out.
I wait and see what it looks like in 20 years from now. I'm think the whole thing is way, way, too hyped up.
Is there human polution that hurts the Earth? Sure.
But Global Warming? I fing it hard ot believe. After reading many who disagree, who are not kooks, BTW.
Triston, if you check around for those who disagree, you'll find some who are well balanced. Christians, and Non-Christians.
Don, I haven't really looked into it, to be honest. I guess I've bought into some of the hype...but I enjoy the heat any way and have no intention of buying land in the Netherlands or in New Orleans :-)
global warming is real, and has been going on for thousands of years
it is the RATE of warming that is of concern, as it has suddenly jumped. Recently russian scientists had to be rescued of an ice flow which suddenly melted from under them.
Evidence dating back 10,000years at Mungo National park- was once a lakes system.. drying out 5000years ago. Then white settlers farmed the area and removed up to 6 feet of top soil causing a desert to be created in under 100years.. See? its the rate of change.
i spent a week with scientist in spain ( including Maalie) I was a global warming sceptic until i saw just how we have destroyed so much of this beautiful planet.
What will the result be? Mass stavation for the poor. lack of water in countries like Australia (already happening)
But rich people will be able to enjoy the new tropics in Siberia and antarctica....
frankly I think it will be too late.
BTW Australia is introducing Carbon taxes and is the only nation to do so....( sa far)
Oi Luther! Quit knocking the Catholic Church! Protestants hadn't been invented then!
Global warming as a phenomenon is not in dispute: mean average annual global temperatures are rising; a fact is a fact. What is under discussion is whether it is anthropogenic, i.e. due to our own burning of fossil fuels. I agree with Simon, it is the rate which is disconcerting, it is truly unprecedented. Also the undeniable statistical correlation with the output of emissions.
I have contempt for people who are sceptical because of what they call "hype". Just how much warning do you require if we are threatening life on earth as we know it? It is akin to disputing Richard Dawkins because he appears "arrogant". Personally I would prefer an arrogant person who is right than a humble one who is wrong (consider this of an pilot flying your plane, or a surgeon operating on you!).
The world's best climatologists (the IPCC), independent of any government or business interests, consider that there is a 90% likelihood that anthropogenic global warming is real. That is good enough for me, not to mention my own ecological research over 40 years. If there are any climatologists here who really understand the mathematics of it all, I will be pleased to listen to them.
Sure, Al Gore overstated the case in some aspects, but for God's sake don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
I'd like to read more hard data on global warming, though that the earth is warming in itself is indisputable. And for evidence, we note the melting of glaciers.
Though maybe no one can say for sure that fossil fuels are a culprit, I would think they are. Though again I'd like to see more hard data on it.
More and more evangelicals are concerned about the environment and earth and our proper stewardship of this gift from God. While Gore does seem to paint what most scientists see as a worse case scenario, I think it is only prudent for us to work on alternative power (wind power is a favorite of mine, and solar energy sounds good, as well). And cut back on fossil fuels. And I read recently that even nuclear power is finite, has an end. Fascinating.
The point here for me is that God has made humankind to be stewards of this good creation, or of nature. And we need to think in terms of that, along with other responsibilities we have.
This also makes me want to read some more on this, but I do think the United States should be a leader in this, since after all, we do emit the most, at least per capita.
"Personally I would prefer an arrogant person who is right than a humble one who is wrong"
I have to amen that.
Jesus told His disciples to obey the religious leaders in what they tell you, HOWEVER, don't be like them, they are proud and arrogant, and self-righteous.
Maalie, what are your thoughts on the "Global Cooling" that we were alarmed of in the 70's?
Maalie wrote:
"Mean average annual global temperatures are rising; a fact is a fact. What is under discussion is whether it is anthropogenic, i.e. due to our own burning of fossil fuels. I agree with Simon, it is the rate which is disconcerting, it is truly unprecedented."
Who would have thought that I would ever be in full agreement with both Maalie and Simon? But that day has come. I agree. Facts are facts.
My goodness you all have been busy bees in my absence. Since Lorenzo has express, by email, concern for my well-being, I thought perhaps a post was in order - and what do I find - quite a few comments that weren't here last time I looked!
Bravo for you all!! And thanks for keeping a conversation going in my absence!
Triston, you may want to check out Patrick Michaels.
" In interviews Michaels has said that he does not contest the basic scientific principles behind greenhouse warming and acknowledges that global mean temperature has increased in recent decades, though he is widely regarded in the media as a global warming skeptic who contends that the changes will be minor, not catastrophic, and even beneficial in many cases. He has written extensive editorials on this topic for the mass media, and for think tanks and their publications such as Regulation."
He's a little more reliable than Gore methinks.
Though the opposition is quick to shoot him down.
And Walter E. Williams, of George Mason University has a good study on this subject.
It's way over my head, but seems there is a debate over much of this, which you'll never find in the Media. The Media at large is very dumbed down, and biased.
More concerned with their agenda, then the facts.
And the same can be said for conservative humanism sometimes diaquised as Christianity.
Here's the link to Dr. Williams: http://www.ncpa.org/globalwarming/GlobalWarmingPrimer.pdf
Post a Comment