I just read that coffee has a protein that reacts in the body in the same way gluten does. If gluten keeps me from losing weight, is drinking coffee defeating the weight loss goal of going gluten free.
Think I'll try going Yerba Matte for a while to see.
The "slutwalk" is a series of rallies that started when a police constable in Toronto suggested that one way for women to stay safe is to avoid dressing like sluts.
The feminist firestorm was quite impressive. The beat of the drum began..."we can dress any way we want to."
From Wiki
There have been a number of responses to the SlutWalk phenomenon, not all of them positive. For example, Australian commentator Andrew Bolt observed that guidance on how to dress in any given context is simply risk management, and such advice need not exclude opposition to victim-blaming.[20]Rod Liddle agrees, saying "...I have a perfect right to leave my windows open when I nip to the shops for some fags, without being burgled. It doesn’t lessen the guilt of the burglar that I’ve left my window open, or even remotely suggest that I was deserving of being burgled. Just that it was more likely to happen."
But Jessica Valenti says: "The idea that women’s clothing has some bearing on whether they will be raped is a dangerous myth feminists have tried to debunk for decades."
Mary Kassian responds with Five Problems:
Using an example from her own hometown, Kassian reinforces the idea that looking like a victim often results in being a victim.
One aspect that was missed in both articles is the statistic (I'm also reading "Rid of My Disgrace") that many women who are sexually assaulted know their attackers.
On one hand, if the attacker is a person who is seen every day, it doesn't matter how a woman dresses. If the attacker is about power and violence, that will come out, no matter who modestly the woman dresses.
On the other hand, if the attack is what we call "date rape" - if you dress like an invitation, you might get an RSVP.
Here's the thing - in the world, sex IS power. In a world where sexual harassment is defined by how a woman perceives the situation, not by how the man intended it, sex is power.
In a Christian book, where sexual assault is so broadly defined that a man who asked twice for sexual intimacy from his wife, after being refused one is guilty of "assault" - sex IS power.
Is it right? No, but it IS.
In dressing like sluts (it's the term they want to use) these women who participate are stating that they can openly display their sexuality in any public forum they wish, while men have to deal with it in silence, they are claiming the power.
3. It teaches girls it's cool to be crass
This is the paragraph where Kassian decries the crassness of the word "slut" - I'm not sure I disagree, but there are way worse words out there. The word has a valid meaning and it's part of our language.
The protesters want to "reclaim" the word. Considering what the definition is, I'm not sure why all that many people would want to reclaim it.
Get rid of male privilege and you'll get rid of the problem. (...) Female to male domestic violence is statistically just as prevalent as male to female.
Kassian is correct here. The problem is not male privilege. it's violence.
Again, correct. but I think that she gets it a little sideways.
Okay, let me get this straight. SlutWalk thinks that we live in a culture that's too permissive with regards to men forcing women to have sex. But it also thinks that it's healthy for women to be sexually permissive.
She's treating it as a false dichotomy- I don't think it is.
I don't agree with the world's permissive sexual standard, but I see past Kassian's portrayal.
Permissive sex is okay according to the world. Being FORCED is not.
The final paragraph is spot on.
Sexual violence is a horrific sin. But SlutWalk isn't helping matters any. Sadly, I think it's just shooting women in the foot. It's creating a mindset and culture that exacerbates the very problem it says it wants to solve.
I just purchased the book, and already I've got concerns.
Sexual assault is a serious crime, it wrecks people. It needs to be addressed, it needs to be stopped. Women who have been sexually assaulted need to be ministered to with the utmost of love and care.
BUT>>>
when the definition of "sexual assault" is so broadened to the point where anything qualifies, the term becomes meaningless.
Those people who have been sexually assaulted - it undermines the seriousness of what they truly have been subjected to.
I have a friend who was "gang-raped" when she was 12 years old. She had a child as a result. She is affected to this day. That qualifies and it is REAL.
When I was a pre-teen, I was "pantsed" by a neighbor boy. We were in a field (I think pulling weeds in a bean field or something of the sort) and he was messing around and grabbed my shorts and yanked them down around my ankles, underwear and all. Under this broad definition, that qualifies.
Please, don't undermine the reality of my friend's pain, but telling me that a childhood prank was "sexual assault."
Two important ones; both of them are integral to the "who" of who I am.
"Complementarian or Egalitarian?"
Search this blog for "gender" issues, I am a firm Complementarian - this is a deal breaker. I am convinced from Scripture that the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. That Christ is the role model for a husband's love, and the church is the role model for a wife's submission.
"Reformed? Or what?"
Not a deal breaker, but darn close. I want a home of peace, and I cannot be at peace with somebody who is constantly at war with my beliefs.
In the first chapter, Kruger frames the direction of the book.
If "heresy" (divergent thinking) was the order of the day in the first and second century, and it wasn't until Rome had enough power to vote orthodoxy into place, heresy came first - and was the norm. The idea that there was and "orthodoxy" was heretical (outside of common thinking)
However:
If the writers of New Testament Scripture were unified in doctrine (although not necessarily practice), then there was an "orthodoxy" ("conforming to established doctrine especially in religion" - per Merriam-Webster) before the word "orthodoxy" was used.
~~~
My thinking is that if God, through the Holy Spirit, inspired the writers, He would not have inspired them to say conflicting things. (1 Corinthians 14:33 - For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.) There is no conflicting doctrinal statements in Scripture.
Yes, there was divergent thinking in the early church. Paul addressed it.
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. Gal 1:6-7
So there were doctrinal differences, but it was not a good thing.
What Walter Bauer misses is the men who codified "orthodoxy" He treats the topic as if they all just got together one day and decided to vote on what they liked best, and "orthodoxy" is no more correct (or incorrect) than the "different gospel."
In this case, "heresy" became heresy because of orthodoxy.
But...if what happened was that false teaching was becoming more prevalent and needed to be addressed by church leadership as a whole, they would have gathered together in prayer and study, in order to determine from Scripture what "orthodoxy" was. They weren't looking for what was most popular, they were looking for what was most true. Orthodoxy was codified in response to heresy - but it was present from the start.
In this case, "orthodoxy" came before heresy.
This was from the sermon this morning. Everybody knows the "wings of eagles" verse, but I have seldom seen the whole passage used.
Why do you say, O Jacob,
and speak, O Israel,
“My way is hidden from the Lord,
and my right is disregarded by my God”?
The pastor noted that this was a person who was telling the Lord that he had been wronged...why wasn't God paying attention?
Have you not known? Have you not heard?
The Lord is the everlasting God,
the Creator of the ends of the earth.
He does not faint or grow weary;
Our God is a good God, the Creator, He knows...He knows.
his understanding is unsearchable.
He gives power to the faint,
and to him who has no might he increases strength.
Even youths shall faint and be weary,
and young men shall fall exhausted;
Where I am weak, He is strong.
but they who wait for the Lord shall renew their strength;
they shall mount up with wings like eagles;
they shall run and not be weary;
they shall walk and not faint.
If this is my third life, let me start here.
I've been attending a Lutheran church, which is where I needed to be. Fed by the liturgy, I got the gospel every week.
But, in that liturgy, was only old songs. This church brought new songs to me.
The sermon was drenched in the Gospel. The Spirit was there.
It was good.
This is a bit from "God's Glory in Salvation through Judgment: A Biblical Theology" (I have a few comment underneath)
The Center of the Theology of the New Testament Letters: The authors of these twenty-one letters are radically united in the proclamation of bizarre ideas.
To see this, let us engage in a bit of contrastive analysis, contemplating what these authors did not do and what their letters do not advocate.
Rome was not their kingdom, and they were not trying to make it home. They sought the city that is to come. Not one of these authors gave his life to address the systemic injustice of the Roman Empire by means of political reform. Not one of these authors went the way of Josephus and sought to cozy up to the emperor, though Paul seems to have had opportunities to seek such “influence” with some high-ranking officials. Not one of these authors did or said anything about trying to stop Rome from fighting its wars. Not one of them championed the idea that the government should take money from the rich and redistribute it equally to the poor, nor did they leave the ministry to advocate a government of greater fiscal responsibility, lowered taxes, and increased national security. Not one of these authors taught that the way to change the world is by initiating a universal, government-funded education program. Not one of these authors was out to make as much money as he possibly could. Not one of these authors embraced one of the popular philosophies of the day, nor did they seek to synthesize the message of Jesus with the spirit of their age. None of them advocated higher moral standards in society at large (outside the church), nor did they lobby for universal health care or a revised definition of marriage that would legitimate same-sex unions. None of them seem to have cared whether anyone reading their letters would be perceived by the broader culture as hip, savvy, chic, or cool. They had a different program.
These authors believed that the decisive event in the story of the world had taken place. God loved the world by sending his Son, condemned sin in the flesh of Jesus, poured out all his wrath on Jesus at the cross, and accomplished salvation through that ultimate display of justice. God raised Jesus from the dead, and Jesus commissioned his followers to make disciples by proclaiming the good news.
How did they go about carrying out this commission? They all basically did the same thing. None appears to have sought to carry out the commission through political or educational institutions. According to the book of Acts, they simply told people, whether groups or individuals, who God is, what he had accomplished in Jesus, and what this implied for them. God accomplished salvation through judgment in Jesus, and the implication for every auditor of the message is that they would either believe and be saved or disobey (be unpersuaded by) the gospel and be judged. Through the announcement of judgment, the saved rejoiced in and glorified God. The converts, those who believed the message, were gathered into congregations, churches. Paul, Peter, and James all refer to elders who led these churches.
The authors of the letters studied in this chapter wrote what they did to form, instruct, and protect the churches. Their message is that God has glorified himself by working salvation through judgment in fulfillment of the Old Testament in the death and resurrection of Jesus. Their message is that there is a way of life that evidences belief in that message, and a way of life that does not. Their message is that God has sent the Spirit, who has given new life to those who believe; and the Spirit will keep them to the end, so that on the last day, when Christ comes to save through judgment, they will be those who glorify God for his mercy. The center of the theology of the letters of the New Testament is the glory of God in salvation through judgment.
I think where this goes sideways is the apparent false dichotomy between political activism and spreading the gospel. Does spreading the gospel rule out being politically active?
If one of the messages of Scripture is that Christians should pursue justice, one way to do that is through the political system.
Other than that...the authors of Scripture wrote exactly what the Spirit wanted them to write. No more, no less.