Monthly Archives: February 2008

It showed up as a "draft" so I deleted the draft...I thought I had posted for real (since Phil twittified).

So here it is again.  I have a sensitivity to peanuts and at this point will be more careful about what I eat with regards to peanuts.

I've started a little allergy blog (to keep track of favorite foods without peanuts - or other allergens); I'll link and update here when I get a couple of posts there.

meanwhile, on the appointments front; I have an appointment with an allergist in April for all of those "poke tests".  I'll ask to have an inhaler prescribed, since that seems to work best and I'm nowhere near needing an epi-pen.

Besides...this gives Phil another chance to twittify.


As a gender role discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving abusers and abuse approaches one.

Godwin's Law:

Basically, Godwin's Law is the natural law of Usenet named after Mike Godwin concerning Usenet "discussions".  It reads, according to the Jargon File:

As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

Fallacy Files says:

In almost every heated debate, one side or the other—often both—plays the "Hitler card", that is, criticizes their opponent's position by associating it in some way with Adolf Hitler or the Nazis in general. This move is so common that it led Mike Godwin to develop the well-known "Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies": "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

No one wants to be associated with Nazism because it has been so thoroughly discredited in both theory and practise, and Hitler of course was its most famous exponent. So, linking an idea with Hitler or Nazism has become a common form of argument ascribing guilt by association. (...)
Playing the Hitler Card demonizes opponents in debate by associating them with evil, and almost always derails the discussion. People naturally resent being associated with Nazism, and are usually angered. In this way, playing the Hitler Card can be an effective distraction in a debate, causing the opponent to lose track of the argument. However, when people become convinced by guilt by association arguments that their political opponents are not just mistaken, but are as evil as Nazis, reasoned debate can give way to violence. So, playing the Hitler Card is more than just a dirty trick in debate, it is often "fighting words".

Let's think for a minute in terms of the gender role "conversation".

try this:

As a gender role discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving abusers and abuse approaches one.

1 Comment

My internet connection at home is toast.  It might be the modem.  Right now, I'm having coffee at Schuler's and enjoying free internet access  😉

I've downloaded all my homework assignments, so that's a good thing and I've done very little other reading.  but my iPod is good to go!

The connection at home has been up and down but today...all down.

so I'm reading Pat Buchanan and Through Matthew for lent.


First, the basic definition of "heresy", since this is a word that has been used in connection with "subordinationism".


From merriam-webster:

  • a: adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma
  • b: denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church
  • c: an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma
  • a: dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice
  • b: an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or standards

I think it is important to understand that in order to have a "heresy", you have to have an authority to proclaim it OR to have an absolute, definitive theory, opinion, practice or doctrine to which to adhere (and be contrary to).

POINT: If you choose to level an accusation of "heresy", you should have an authoritative church body that represents "the Church" as a whole. If you cannot do this, you are choosing, either as a single person or small body, to proclaim orthodoxy and/or heresy outside of the "body" as a whole.

Accusations of heresy are serious business. False accusations are more serious yet. We should be very cautious when using such words as "heresy" or "blasphemy", lest we bear false witness against brothers and sisters in Christ.

I have little trouble examining doctrine against "historical proclamations" of heresy.  There was a time that was much closer to the cross and the apostles then we are now.  There was a time when the church was united; before the church in Rome and the Eastern Church separated.  Before that time, the young church had several councils that gathered together, examined Scripture and proclaimed "orthodoxy".

So...who decides?

A Church Council is an official ad hoc gathering of representatives to settle Church business. Such Councils are called rarely and are not the same as the regular gatherings of church leaders (synods, etc). An ecumenical council is one at which the whole Church is represented. The three major branches of the Church (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant) recognize seven ecumenical councils: Nicea (325), Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451), Constantinople II (553), Constantinople III (680), Nicea II (787). Further ecumenical councils were rendered impossible by the widening split between Eastern (Orthodox, Greek-speaking) and Western (Catholic, Latin-speaking) Churches, a split that was rendered official in 1054 and has not yet been healed. (from

I'll let folks do their own search for the "seven ecumenical councils" - because which of the three major branches will cite different sources, yet all three branches recognize a group of seven councils on which all agree.

In short...if these seven councils agree that a doctrine is "heresy", all three major branches of Christianity today (Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) will agree.

The Seven Ecumenical Councils:

  • The Council of Nicea, 325
  • The Council of Constantinople, 381
  • The Council of Ephesus, 431
  • The Council of Chalcedon, 451
  • The Council of Constantinople II, 553
  • The Council of Constantinople III, 680
  • The Council of Nicea II, 787

To wrap it up, these seven ecumenical councils of the early church met to BOTH unite the church on essential doctrine and to separate those who teach heresy from those who teach truth.

I believe that if a teaching is not found (or condemned) in these seven councils, it becomes more difficult to level an accusation of "heresy". Again, we should be very careful when doing so.

1 Comment

The "quiz" in the "Take a Step Forward" link. These are questions that appear to indicate "privilege". I would not have stepped far, but I answered the questions fairly and honestly. The memories they brought made me smile...although I am NOT privileged by their definition. (oh...and the questions are for "when you were in college" - which is now, so I just went back to my childhood...)

NOTE: As I look at some of these things that make a person "privileged", they enable a person to become isolated from family...your own room, a TV in your own room, a telephone in your own room...

The importance placed on "STUFF"...not one of these questions asked about "did your mom/dad/family LOVE you?" What privilege are we looking for? God's or man's?

(WAY MORE BELOW:) ...continue reading


From Complegalitarian:

So if the relationship is sour, it *must* be because she's not acknowledging his leadership well enough. If she agrees with everything he says and complies in every single way, then there won't be any problems, now will there?

(No problems, but not much of a REAL relationship to speak of, either)... 🙁

I see that particular emphasis as being abusive in and of itself, even if the guy does not resort to physical violence, the emotional violence done to a woman in that kind of a "relationship" is enormous. In effect she ceases to exist.

I guess I would need to ask what "kind of 'relationship'" is being referred to?  Complementarian?  If it is complementarian marriages in general, it becomes more difficult to believe that egalitarians do not see all complementarian men in general are abusive.

If there is a different "kind of 'relationship'" being referred to, it would be helpful to know exactly what is being referred to?

I do have a few thoughts on "ceasing to exist".

Do we "cease to exist" when we are in Christ?  (Since Scripture refers multiple times in both New and Old Testaments as God / Christ relating to His peoples as husband and wife, it's a reasonable thing to do).

Is God / Christ being abusive when He gives us His commandments?

ALSO:  is dying to one's self necessarily a bad thing?  If the giving up on one's self leads to a greater tie of "one-flesh", why is that bad?  Especially since BOTH parties may be required to do exactly that.



How submissive should a wife be?

In what way should a wife BE submissive to her husband?

Whether or not the husband leads, whether or not you call your husband "leader", what does the Bible say about the submission of a wife?

Submit unless he tries to lead, in which case all bets are off?

Submission until submission is hard?

Submission until you don't agree on something? Anything?

Submission to the point of where he asks you to sin?

Submission to the point where he sins against you?

Submission until he is abusive?

Submission to the point of death?

If a wife is to submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ, what does that mean?

Does the church submit to the Lord Jesus Christ as her authority?  What example does that set (or does not set) for wives?
There is a point to the questions. Submission of a wife is a tenet of both egalitarian and complementarian marriages. The difference (as I see it anyway) is the way the husband relates to (submits to the needs of)  the wife, not the submission (or not) of the wife. Egalitarianism does NOT say the wife should not submit. (I think) that egalitarianism teaches that the wife and husband should submit equally to each other and in the same way (if there is a difference in the way that egalitarians believe that a husband and wife (in general terms, not in a particular relationship) submit to one another), this is something I would like to learn of - with sources from CBE).

AGAIN: the questions are about how a wife relates to her husband. PLEASE do not speculate or comment on how you believe husbands are to relate to their wives.