To take liberty with a Chestertonism - the paradox of the Christian life is that is it bigger on the inside than the outside.
In The Power of Obedience, my friend Anthony Esolen shows us how and why.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Saturday, August 7, 2010
It's pronounced "heresy"
Doing a last update on the cloud of gnats calling themselves the, "Freedom for Christian Women Coalition" I ran across an explanation for something I had been wondering about but hadn't yet looked up. One of the supporters of this demand for an apology is also a listed blogger for CBE's blog but also for their newsletter. She uses the neologism, "godde" and this is her explanation:
I was recently queried on whether or not I was being too strong and perhaps I should consider calling them merely, "unfaithful". Well, that is certainly one word for it. However, calling what we have here in this example merely "unfaithful" is a bit like saying Judas was simply misguided about where to go for some extra pocket money. Here, in a CBE-published author, we have the open syncretism of paganism and Christianity. We have the hermaphroditic gawdy-godde. And when our authoress writes, "I will lean more towards feminine references to Godde on my blog as masculine references are just about all you hear in church and society to refer to Godde." you'll forgive me if all I can hear is an echo of a seminary professor, a vocal defender of religious feminism who, when questioned about why he taught "Egalitarianism" in all his classes responded, "Because you get the other side in every other class."
Offended? That's one way to put it.
nb: Once again, I have removed capitalization of the false deity the quoted author serves.
Why godde and not God? godde is combination of God and goddess to show that the Divine transcends gender: godde is neither male nor female and both male and female since godde created both men and women in the image of godde. I believe that godde is Mother as well as Father. Instead of using the standard Lord that’s used to translate Yahweh in the Hebrew Scriptures, I use Sophia-Yahweh or Sophia. I will lean more towards feminine references to godde on my blog as masculine references are just about all you hear in church and society to refer to godde. I use exclusively feminine pronouns for godde for this reason as well. You’ll be seeing Sophia and Mother a lot on this blog, and I hope it doesn’t offend you. I hope it will help you to see godde in new ways and start to walk on new paths with this godde who cries out like a woman in labor to bring forth her people and nurses them at her own breast (Deut. 32:18, Psalm 22:10; 131:2; Isaiah 42:14; 49:15; 66:13).
I was recently queried on whether or not I was being too strong and perhaps I should consider calling them merely, "unfaithful". Well, that is certainly one word for it. However, calling what we have here in this example merely "unfaithful" is a bit like saying Judas was simply misguided about where to go for some extra pocket money. Here, in a CBE-published author, we have the open syncretism of paganism and Christianity. We have the hermaphroditic gawdy-godde. And when our authoress writes, "I will lean more towards feminine references to Godde on my blog as masculine references are just about all you hear in church and society to refer to Godde." you'll forgive me if all I can hear is an echo of a seminary professor, a vocal defender of religious feminism who, when questioned about why he taught "Egalitarianism" in all his classes responded, "Because you get the other side in every other class."
Offended? That's one way to put it.
nb: Once again, I have removed capitalization of the false deity the quoted author serves.
Friday, August 6, 2010
Just DON'T do it
Don't be stupid. Don't be a slow learner. Don't think you're cured. Don't ask 972 friends the same question, hoping to get a different answer. Don't think you can win fighting on the enemy's turf. Don't think it's your business to save the useful idiots. Don't think you can reason with those whose minds are darkened. Don't hang on to dead friendships (such folk were never your friends to start with). Don't forget that ideas have consequences. Don't discount the wisdom of age or the vision of youth.
Do listen to the wisdom of your friends, family and those in authority over you. Deliberately and joyfully place yourself under the authority of the wise and discerning souls who God places in your path. Be a parent as well. When you hear the same thing from unrelated sources, give it serious consideration. Think twice. No, think three times before discounting such advice. Listen to your gut. And your heart. And your head. And especially the Spirit that dwells within you. When someone tells you something that stops you in your tracks and makes you pause in thought - listen carefully.
Do listen to the wisdom of your friends, family and those in authority over you. Deliberately and joyfully place yourself under the authority of the wise and discerning souls who God places in your path. Be a parent as well. When you hear the same thing from unrelated sources, give it serious consideration. Think twice. No, think three times before discounting such advice. Listen to your gut. And your heart. And your head. And especially the Spirit that dwells within you. When someone tells you something that stops you in your tracks and makes you pause in thought - listen carefully.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
How Simcha Fisher almost got me kicked out of the library . . .
That tingling means it's working!
Don't forget to watch the linked video.
I'm rotflshipmp (not really, that last part doesn't happen any more since the surgery!)
Don't forget to watch the linked video.
I'm rotflshipmp (not really, that last part doesn't happen any more since the surgery!)
I'm confused
Well, quite frequently about many things, if I am going to be honest. But today, I am confused by the religious feminists who prefer to call themselves, "Egalitarians" or "Evangelical Egalitarians"
It's bad enough that folks got their knickers all twisty over Ken Buck's (Senate candidate, Colorado Republican primary) crack about not wearing high heels. Honestly, if you can't take the rough and tumble and an occasional "sexist" comment, why are you in the race at all? Apparently, it's only bad if men are sexist. If women are sexist and want to specifically elect women, then that's just peachy keen-o. The religious feminists are just fine with that. Personally, I thought Buck's comment funny and his point a valid one.
Exhibit A. Margery Dannenfelser of the Susan B. Anthony fund is charged with getting conservative women elected to office. She has sent out a letter in support of Jane Norton, Ken Buck's opponent in the Colorado Republican Senate primary. Notice that it's all about electing women. Not electing conservatives or pro-life candidates, but specifically women who fit those two categories. That's ok, that's Margery's job.
But why is a religious feminist concerned about specifically electing women when they profess to be all about gifts and talents and elevating people based on those qualities and not based on whether they wear high heels or not?
And why is it ok to be sexist when supporting women and not ok for men to make sexist comments when opposing women?
And they say they're not the sexist ones? Nah, I'm not confused at all. It's just a case of flummery!
It's bad enough that folks got their knickers all twisty over Ken Buck's (Senate candidate, Colorado Republican primary) crack about not wearing high heels. Honestly, if you can't take the rough and tumble and an occasional "sexist" comment, why are you in the race at all? Apparently, it's only bad if men are sexist. If women are sexist and want to specifically elect women, then that's just peachy keen-o. The religious feminists are just fine with that. Personally, I thought Buck's comment funny and his point a valid one.
Exhibit A. Margery Dannenfelser of the Susan B. Anthony fund is charged with getting conservative women elected to office. She has sent out a letter in support of Jane Norton, Ken Buck's opponent in the Colorado Republican Senate primary. Notice that it's all about electing women. Not electing conservatives or pro-life candidates, but specifically women who fit those two categories. That's ok, that's Margery's job.
But why is a religious feminist concerned about specifically electing women when they profess to be all about gifts and talents and elevating people based on those qualities and not based on whether they wear high heels or not?
And why is it ok to be sexist when supporting women and not ok for men to make sexist comments when opposing women?
And they say they're not the sexist ones? Nah, I'm not confused at all. It's just a case of flummery!
Monday, August 2, 2010
Chivalry at work . . .
It's been rather nice to sit back and not feel I have to defend myself. On another blog, something I wrote has been indirectly questioned and denied. I was going to respond quickly and pointedly but decided to sit back in my chair and watch for a day or two.
It's nice to see gentlemen leaping into the breach and correcting the impression left by the questions this respondent had asked.
That's one of the nicest things about patriarchy. Even though I'm not married, it's nice to be able to sit back and watch men do the heavy rhetorical lifting. Rather nice not to feel as if I have to defend myself against every question, criticism or slight. I once knew a religious feminist who declared she would never, ever let anything like that go unanswered.
I used to think that as well. But now I don't have to.
It's nice to see gentlemen leaping into the breach and correcting the impression left by the questions this respondent had asked.
That's one of the nicest things about patriarchy. Even though I'm not married, it's nice to be able to sit back and watch men do the heavy rhetorical lifting. Rather nice not to feel as if I have to defend myself against every question, criticism or slight. I once knew a religious feminist who declared she would never, ever let anything like that go unanswered.
I used to think that as well. But now I don't have to.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Jason Bourne, she ain't
OK, let's clear the air, get it out of the way and then forget it was ever mentioned. Right?
Angelina Jolie isn't worth her Salt.
There. It's done and we don't need to mention it again.
I had to get out of the house this afternoon and, picking from the movies available at the newest theater in the area (which I hadn't been to as yet), I chose the 2:10 showing of SALT. As I suspected, it was a female version of the Jason Bourne movies.
SPOILER ALERT!
The premise doesn't exactly hold together here. Does anyone still believe there are late Soviet-era sleeper agents just waiting for the right moment to start WWIII so Russia can rise from the ashes and dominate the world?
For the other major complaint about the movie: Salt takes as many or more physical risks as Bourne but gets injured less seriously and recovers more quickly. Although the way she controls the police car during the chase/escape is quite clever. I never saw THAT bit coming. But, puhleeeeze, do we have to have the obligatory ladies' room scene where the dispenser is kicked from the wall and the contents thereof used in a, ahem, nontraditional manner (as in a wound dressing)? I could do without that scene.
It sounds awful, but I didn't come away thinking I'd wasted $8 even though I wasn't really surprised at any point by the plot turns. I'd guessed the denouement about 1/4 of the way in and even though my iced tea had taken its inevitable effect, I sat until the closing credits began, just to make sure I was right about it all.
Salt succeeds in a nice little bit of misdirection which is revealed at the last moment, just when you might begin to wonder if you were wrong all along. The ending sets things up for a sequel which might actually be better than this first movie, given the premise of this one.
Of course, try as the world does -- even Hollywood has to recognize that women are different. It was all for love of a good man after all.
Angelina Jolie isn't worth her Salt.
There. It's done and we don't need to mention it again.
I had to get out of the house this afternoon and, picking from the movies available at the newest theater in the area (which I hadn't been to as yet), I chose the 2:10 showing of SALT. As I suspected, it was a female version of the Jason Bourne movies.
SPOILER ALERT!
The premise doesn't exactly hold together here. Does anyone still believe there are late Soviet-era sleeper agents just waiting for the right moment to start WWIII so Russia can rise from the ashes and dominate the world?
For the other major complaint about the movie: Salt takes as many or more physical risks as Bourne but gets injured less seriously and recovers more quickly. Although the way she controls the police car during the chase/escape is quite clever. I never saw THAT bit coming. But, puhleeeeze, do we have to have the obligatory ladies' room scene where the dispenser is kicked from the wall and the contents thereof used in a, ahem, nontraditional manner (as in a wound dressing)? I could do without that scene.
It sounds awful, but I didn't come away thinking I'd wasted $8 even though I wasn't really surprised at any point by the plot turns. I'd guessed the denouement about 1/4 of the way in and even though my iced tea had taken its inevitable effect, I sat until the closing credits began, just to make sure I was right about it all.
Salt succeeds in a nice little bit of misdirection which is revealed at the last moment, just when you might begin to wonder if you were wrong all along. The ending sets things up for a sequel which might actually be better than this first movie, given the premise of this one.
Of course, try as the world does -- even Hollywood has to recognize that women are different. It was all for love of a good man after all.
In which some take themselves too seriously . . .
At the end of last year, Lars Walker wrote a post at MereComments about The Post-Ironic Age, in which he observed:
and,
Unfortunately, this means such statements as, "The System worked.", uttered by our Secretary of Homeland Security after an alleged terrorist on the no-fly list purchsed a one-way ticket for cash and boarded a plane for Detroit where he tried to light himself up on landing -- such statements are taken seriously.
Conversely, intended ironies, satires and sarcasm are also taken seriously. Take, for instance, responses #16 and #17 in this post at FirstThings, intended as a send-up of Anne Rice's rejection of the Catholic Church, "I Refuse to be Anti-Undead"
addendum: In answer to David Goldman: I hope not, but for now I am content to sit at the feet of a master and learn.
"The Post-Ironic Age” describes our times to a nicety, it seems to me. We've reached a point where statements are made by public officials and institutions which, only a couple decades ago, would have gotten the speaker laughed off the stage. But today such pronouncements are unremarkable.
and,
I think we live in the first age in history in which such nonsense is possible on a worldwide scale. There have always been totalitarian societies where the subject of the emperor's clothing deficit has been dangerous to bring up, but only today is such delusion acceptable everywhere. And not merely among the “ignorant masses,” but most especially and vociferously among the intellectuals.
Unfortunately, this means such statements as, "The System worked.", uttered by our Secretary of Homeland Security after an alleged terrorist on the no-fly list purchsed a one-way ticket for cash and boarded a plane for Detroit where he tried to light himself up on landing -- such statements are taken seriously.
Conversely, intended ironies, satires and sarcasm are also taken seriously. Take, for instance, responses #16 and #17 in this post at FirstThings, intended as a send-up of Anne Rice's rejection of the Catholic Church, "I Refuse to be Anti-Undead"
addendum: In answer to David Goldman: I hope not, but for now I am content to sit at the feet of a master and learn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)