Random Musings And Links- #2

Here are a few things that I’ve read recently that I think my readers might find interesting.

I found this post about punctuation in ancient Greek to be a fascinating read. It helps to explain some of the troubles with translating Scripture from the original Greek.

Courtesy of Mrs. ktc, here is a discussion on wifely submission at the Thinking Housewife which is very good in my opinion: The Importance of Wifely Submission. The comments especially are worth the read. She also posted a good quote last week of Pope Leo XIII on Inequality.

On a similar note, Deep Strength has a good post up on God and Marriage, examining authority and obedience, with a special emphasis on marriage. I left a few comments there, as did others, which I think are worth reading.

In that same post Infowarrior left an interesting link concerning Eleanor of Aquitane. I believe that she was one of the West’s first feminists, and think that the story in that link provides some good evidence of it.

Elspeth wrote a post a few days back advising husbands that We Will Get Over It. We Will. Trust me. It generated some intense commenting in response, with Empath disagreeing… strenuously. In reply Elspeth walked back a bit when she examined The Chicken and The Egg of relationships. As I was busy (primarily work, but I also have another post in the hopper that will be released later today or tomorrow) I didn’t participate. Having considered the matter some, I think that women can “get over it”… if they want to. The problem is that many (most really) women don’t want to get over it. They like to revel in “emotional terrorism” and don’t want to let go of that power, and the feelings its generates. Personally, I liken rebellious wives to drug addicts- if they don’t want to get better, if they don’t want to help themselves, there is nothing that other people can do to overcome this deficiency.

Allamagoosa discussed why the idea of “pregnancy transfers” isn’t exactly as great as some feminists think it is.

Her husband NSR alerted me to a Youtube sound loop that someone created of the Enterprise-D engines idling. Not bad for a white noise effect, if that is your cup of tea.

Agapoula got hacked recently and had to switch over to a new blog as a result.

Over at Girls Being Girls, a Southern Girl’s Guide to Flirting. I was intrigued by this line/suggestion:

“Be a good listener, but play hard to get.”  I  like that she said both, if you are overly submissive and eager, he might think there’s no challenge.  If you are too aloof and cold, he will be insulted.

I’m curious- are any of my male readers looking for a “challenge” in women. Speaking only for myself, I don’t care for that at all. Finding a good woman to marry these days is hard enough as is. A woman deciding to play hard to get doesn’t make this any easier. Perhaps it is just my INTJ at work, but I don’t like hard to get- at least, not until after I’m already sure that a woman like me. Before that I don’t care for it at all.

Over at Free Northerner’s, an intriguing post on the Traditional Family. If I get time I might respond to it later.

CaseyAnn has a brief, but interesting post about Modern American Posture. This has long been a problem for me, as I used to slouch a lot- although I have gotten much better in the last few years.

A few days back Zippy had a good post up about how Sola Scriptura is Positivist. I think all my Christian readers, Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant alike, would find it thought-provoking.

Apparently July is the month to celebrate all the tasty things that will kill you.

Moving on to things less likely to kill you… I am not a Zucchini person, but if you are then Mrs. C has you covered. Update with picture here.

Finally, Hearthie talks a little bit about her journey to become a better “First Officer.”

Advertisements

36 Comments

Filed under Christianity, Feminism, Marriage, Moral Agency, Red Pill

36 responses to “Random Musings And Links- #2

  1. Thanks for the link, Donal. 🙂

    Insofar as posture is concerned, it’s a vital part of our non-verbal communication. My posture with my husband is soft/submissive, my posture with a strange man is queenly. (AKA how do you act with the plumber? You stand up *very* straight, backbone stiff, look him directly in the eye but keep a bit of extra space, smile and are pleasant but yet distant: authority + pleasantness + no slightest bit of “openness”)

    Interesting book I read this winter – a lady who chose to start wearing corsets and then victorian clothing full-time… of course you can’t slouch in a corset… and suddenly the treatment she gets changes *radically* – as it does when she starts wearing a long skirt and blouses instead of tshirts and jeans. People react to non-verbal signals very strongly, particularly in this age where anything old-school is shocking. (See my post over at TBL about my adjustment to how I am treated if I choose to put out a teensy bit of charm and whimsy).

  2. They won’t all kill you, Donal – (except maybe the gummy worms, but they’re disgusting anyway) 🙂

  3. I’m curious- are any of my male readers looking for a “challenge” in women. Speaking only for myself, I don’t care for that at all. Finding a good woman to marry these days is hard enough as is. A woman deciding to play hard to get doesn’t make this any easier. Perhaps it is just my INTJ at work, but I don’t like hard to get- at least, not until after I’m already sure that a woman like me. Before that I don’t care for it at all.

    I like some sass from my women in terms of back and forth banter and willingness to engage in otherwise pickup or competitive athletic activities and horseplay.

    But if they want to play games where they’re looking for me to continue pursue them with attention “hard-to-get” I’m going to laugh in their face.

  4. Elspeth

    As usual, appreciate the linkage. You’re right that I did walk it back a we bit in the second post after Empathological’s thoughts made me think I should get my husband’s take. There are about 5 of you whose words I give a little more weight to and he is among them.

    That said, I am not totally convinced that I was wrong, but that I may have been wrong to say what I said at all.

    [DG: I think it would have been more appropriate if made by your husband, or clearly with his “blessing.”]

  5. My daughter kissed a boy when she was in kindergarten. She likes to chase him around at recess too 🙂 I told her she wasn’t allowed to kiss boys anymore till she was sixteen.
    I know there are many boys who would take her kisses, who would let her chase them around; but I know few boys who would put out the effort of pursuit. Many boys would take from her, few are willing to be givers. I want the few. I want the boy who shows effort.
    My parents never allowed me to call boys when I was a girl. If they called me I could talk to them, but I was never allowed to call them or I’d get in big trouble. I hated that rule as a girl, but I’m so glad for it now.
    After many years of marriage, a woman may forget her husband loves her, that he thinks she is worthy of being his wife. It is nice to remember the courtship years and remember what he did then. It is easier to believe she is loved when he pursued her.
    After many years of marriage, a man may not believe himself worthy of being married to. It is nice to look back and remember what he did for her in those beginning days. To remember that he began the relationship in a worthy way, an honorable way. Or perhaps, he may think she is not worthy of being married to anymore, it is good to remember that at one time he did believe she was worthy.

  6. Thank you Donal. 🙂 .

    There are some great other links I look forward to reading later. 🙂

    The hard to get post, my opinion as I understand women must be sweet but also hard to get(before marriage.) It is not playing games as such I think, it is more that you have not yet married him, so you have not submitted to him yet.

    If a woman is busy for example and can not answer the phone or can not see him on a certain day, she should return call when she is done, and say why and be sweet to him.
    It is not consciously playing hard to get, it is just not making a man your whole life before you are married. It shows you are not desperate. Maintaining other interests. 🙂 .

    And many women are naturally clingy, (I am.) and if I had my way I would spend more time with him than I do, and speak on the phone more than we do. So cutting back on the natural inclination clingyness, for the sake of both man and woman is beneficial. But also not be cold or mean, just be sweet and caring.

  7. “It is easier to believe she is loved when he pursued her.”

    I agree. 🙂 .

  8. Neguy

    I don’t think Zippy gets sola scriptura. Not surprising since neither do most Protestants. I found these charts, targeted at Protestants, helpful:

    http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2014/06/five-views-of-traditions-role-in-the-christian-life/

    The Protestant tradition has usually resolved conflicting possible interpretations through the catholic principle. The word catholic in its root means “according to the whole.” Thus you interpret a particular scripture in light of the totality of scripture as well as how the church has always since its earliest days has interpreted the verse. Thus in my view the rejection of infant baptism by many Protestant denominations is an incorrect interpretation of scripture because there’s no clear textual proof that credobapitism is intended, scripture is consistent with infant baptism and since the second century at the latest, infant baptism was the universal practice of the church (until various anabaptist movements).

    I’m a Protestant but I believe the Eastern Orthodox church adheres fairly closely to this approach. I could probably submit to the authority of the Orthodox church but not the Roman Catholic one in part because of this matter. In practice, in the Orthodox Church the infallible tradition was complete and closed centuries ago, whereas the Pope could always call another council and pronounce many more new dogmas as has happened up through recent times. Many of the areas where Protestants disagree with Roman Catholics are areas where the Orthodox either conform to the Protestant view (e.g., on purgatory, or papal authority and infallibility when speaking ex-cathedra) or where the specific items in question are not dogmas that must be submitted to (e.g. the Assumption of the Virgin Mary).

  9. @ hearthie

    You are ever so welcome.

    As for posture, it makes a huge difference, as does dress. I know that the response I get from people is quite different when I’m standing ram-rod straight and wearing a suit than it is when I slouch and wear a t-shirt plus shorts.

  10. @ Maeve

    They will if you eat them all at once! 😉

  11. @ Jenny

    I think there is a world of difference between playing hard to get, and then playing the huntress (like your daughter). Of course, I don’t agree that women shouldn’t approach men- the objection to it is based on human tradition/culture, not Scripture or Tradition.

    As for the latter part of your comment, well, something just seems “off” with it. But lets accept for the moment that it has merit. Even with that in mind, I don’t think that it compensates for the added difficulty that men face now in the present Marriage Marketplace. Women really don’t seem to understand just how brutal it is for men right now, especially “good” men. This is not the kind of environment where you want to throw up roadblocks and obstacles in our way. Many of us are inclined to check out anyways, and forgo marriage given the current situation.

    Honestly, the challenge right now is just in finding a woman worth marrying to begin with. We don’t need to look back to a “pursuit” to consider ourselves blessed.

  12. @ Agapoula

    I think there is a difference between being “hard to get” and not being clingy. One involves making a man work for her attention/affection, while the other involves giving him space to breath. Not the same at all.

    It is not consciously playing hard to get, it is just not making a man your whole life before you are married. It shows you are not desperate. Maintaining other interests.

    I don’t think this is playing hard to get, conscious or otherwise. Again, playing hard to get is an active stance of making a man “work for it.”

  13. @ Neguy

    Thanks for the thoughtful and respectful response.

  14. Elspeth

    Agree with both Jenny and Agapoula. Pursuit demonstrates love, but so also does allowing the chase to resolve satisfactorily and without ambiguity. In other words, it takes two.

    @ Donal:

    You are correct. The first post was all me. The second was heavy with husband’s input and direct thoughts. Which is why I think it was the better of the two.

  15. Elspeth

    Correction:

    The first post was all my interpretation of what my husband thinks. Which I wrote without talking to him first.

  16. Neguy:

    The Protestant tradition has usually resolved conflicting possible interpretations through the catholic principle. The word catholic in its root means “according to the whole.” Thus you interpret a particular scripture in light of the totality of scripture as well as how the church has always since its earliest days has interpreted the verse. Thus in my view the rejection of infant baptism by many Protestant denominations is an incorrect interpretation of scripture because there’s no clear textual proof that credobapitism is intended, scripture is consistent with infant baptism and since the second century at the latest, infant baptism was the universal practice of the church (until various anabaptist movements).

    To the extent sola scriptura asserts a complete hermeneutical system capable of resolving all conflict between good faith interpretations of necessary doctrine, it concomitantly asserts its own rational incoherence (call this SS[1]). To the extent it doesn’t assert that (call this SS[2]) it has literally nothing to say against the claims of Roman Catholicism, including (e.g.) papal infallibility and the dogma of the Assumption. There may be rational arguments against papism, but SS isn’t one of them.

    You can have either SS[1] or SS[2], but you can’t assert [1] against the authority of the Church and then switch to [2] when defending SS, despite the polemical popularity of weaponized nihilism.

    Mind you, this isn’t the most easily understandable argument against SS. I only used SS as an example to explain positivism to Catholics, who already reject SS. There are better arguments as a matter of general persuasion; but I’m not an apologist and persuading people generally that SS is wrong (it actually isn’t even wrong, because it is rationally incoherent) isn’t the objective of my post. I can easily get fellow Catholics to see problems with SS; but explaining positivism to them can be quite a challenge.

  17. A Visitor

    Donal,
    Thanks for the links! Tomassi just pointed me to your site. I recently read his book and have lurked around his and another manosphere blog for a while. Needless to say, as a Catholic, I’m really happy to find your and Dalrock’s place, trying to put it into Christian context. Looking forward to reading and commenting.
    “I’m curious- are any of my male readers looking for a “challenge” in women. Speaking only for myself, I don’t care for that at all. Finding a good woman to marry these days is hard enough as is. A woman deciding to play hard to get doesn’t make this any easier.” I don’t like “challenges” and hate “the chase.” As you said, it’s hard enough to find a decent woman to marry these days.

  18. @Jenny:

    “After many years of marriage, a woman may forget her husband loves her, that he thinks she is worthy of being his wife. It is nice to remember the courtship years and remember what he did then. It is easier to believe she is loved when he pursued her.”

    If the husband affirms his committment and love for her in their marriage (regularly), how can the woman (his wife) forget? There’s no dating in Christianity. There’s no pursuit either. It’s courtship.

    “After many years of marriage, a man may not believe himself worthy of being married to. It is nice to look back and remember what he did for her in those beginning days. To remember that he began the relationship in a worthy way, an honorable way. Or perhaps, he may think she is not worthy of being married to anymore, it is good to remember that at one time he did believe she was worthy.”

    Maybe you’re trying to strike a balance here by taking on the man or husband’s perspective, but, respectfully, you can’t because you’re not one.

  19. I’m vastly amused that no one reads to my posts about economics or law, but dive right into Shatner singing Queen or drunk people doing drunk stuff. Perhaps there’s a sign here indicating how I should continue on.

    Thanks for the link, and no, I still haven’t checked it for pranks.

  20. @donalgraeme

    Playing hard to get shows a lack of being considerate (and may I add, poor parenting). It’s not a challenge I, as a man, appreciate. Not returning calls or answering texts (or even a few days later) without any explanation shows a lack of consideration and respect. Cancelling an appointment at the last minute or when/after the agreed time shows a lack of consideration and respect. Leaving the man’s offer of a date unanswered for days on end shows a lack of consideration and respect. Not giving a proper answer to a man’s question about her or even lying shows a lack of consideration or respect.

    And given women’s default mode of solipsism, I won’t expect any of them to be a good listener.

  21. @ A Visitor

    You are welcome. While Rollo and I disagree on a lot of things, I’ve learned a lot from him since I first found this part of the web and respect his work.

    Glad you found your way here, always nice to see a new “face.”

    Check some of the blogs in my links section out when you get a chance, I think you’ll like a fair number of them.

  22. I think that we have the oft cited apex fallacy here.

    Most of the Christian wives are married to ‘alphas’ which means they were strongly attracted to the men, and if they didn’t play “hard to get” they would’ve fallen for him right away. They also need to know that the alpha is invested in them because many other women are interested in him.

    In contrast, most of the men here in the manosphere are relatively “beta” (or less if you want to use Vox’s categorizations). Obviously, women are not aplenty and this is quite obvious as such men don’t have the pick of the litter of devout, beautiful Christian women. Thus, most of us don’t like the “hard to get” attitude from women.

  23. Perhaps “hard to get” is a flaw of the modern dating system. it is the father’s job to protect, yet he is sending her out alone without chaperone. It used to be the suitor’s job to prove his worthiness to the father, but now the daughter has to take that job also because true love.
    I would prefer for the father to take that role again, but then we would be really weird and scare suitors away. Our daughters would probably hate us too. Much easier to teach “hard to get”.

  24. Neguy

    Zippy, I don’t agree with your fundamental approach.

    Firstly, I don’t think it’s necessary to have a system to infallibly interpret every aspect of every verse. Just because I can’t understand how Ezekiel’s temple fits into the big picture doesn’t invalidate sola scriptura as an approach. We should in fact expect a lack of clarity, given that Paul says that for now we see as through a glass darkly.

    Secondly, in terms of essential doctrines such as the bodily resurrection of Christ, there’s very little lack of clarity. Even if there are some marginal debates, that won’t serve as an excuse. After all, Paul again writes that the world will be held guilty because creation itself provides sufficient evidence of God’s existence and laws to leave us without excuse even apart from scripture or the church. Practically speaking, most intra-Protestant disputes such as Calvinism vs. Arminianism have no practical impact whatsoever on how we are called to live our lives or trust in Jesus (though I’ll admit they have profound worldview impacts, which ultimately shapes how we respond to events).

    Ultimately the safeguard of the Protestant hermeneutic is the same as that on which the Roman Catholic Church relies: the Holy Spirit. I don’t know any Protestant who would even assert a Christian or group of Christians could possibly infallibly interpret scripture or that this is required. That’s exactly why tradition, though often relied upon, is not considered an infallible authority. Rather, we rely ultimately on the Holy Spirit to defend the church such that the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

    Your positivist assertion would appear to be recursive as well and apply to everything. After all, I have to believe I can interpret reliability the catechism of the Catholic Church or the words of a priest in order to have certainty that I got it right. But why aren’t these likewise open to multiple meanings? Thus requiring a theory or system independent of the church in order to establish what is really meant. To me your system sounds somewhat post-modern in its approach. In the passage where Paul says that “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless” it doesn’t require any equivalent of the Copenhagen interpretation to figure out what he’s saying.

    I’m not sure what your apologetic intent is here. But I doubt it’s likely to win many converts. From what I’ve seen, very few people convert between Catholicism and Protestantism because they were convinced by someone of theological truth. Nor do most people stay attached to their faith for that reason. (Realistically, most of us inherited our faith). Frankly, I doubt most Protestants can even come close to correctly defining what sola scriptura means. Protestants who are theologically trained are unlikely to be responsive to these type of apologetics. It’s like when a Democrat shows up and tries to tell a Republican what they should be doing to authentically follow their own conservative beliefs. Regardless of the merits, that type of “advice” is rarely heeded. There’s an old saying that until you meet someone where they are, you have no right to lead them anywhere else. I think that applies to these types of things. You have to earn relational credibility first (which in fairness you may have done with the people you generally debate with and I’m just unaware of it).

    One question I think worth asking is whether conversion in toto is the only thing worth pursuing, or whether Protestants might benefit from learning from select areas of Roman Catholic teaching. I think the Roman Catholic church has actually down a great willingness to learn from Protestants. The Council of Trent cleaned up the disgrace that the Roman church had become, and Vatican II was quite radical. Too many Protestants in my view sadly still channel the idea of many of the Puritan types that the Pope is the anti-Christ and Roman Catholics aren’t Christian and certainly have nothing to teach Protestants. I think that’s wrong headed.

    While I think the Roman Catholic Church frankly gets some things wrong, I’d happily say that those who practice its teachings are genuine Christians and I don’t need to try to convert them to my way of thinking. In fact, I know a woman who recently returned to the Catholic Church after years in Protestantism and who is having quite a spiritual renaissance as a result. I’m all in favor of it.

    I think there are a lot of areas where contemporary Evangelicalism and fundamentalism have gone off the rails and could benefit from Catholic teaching. I’d suggest church tradition and history, the authority of the church, and sacred aesthetics are some of these. I’m pleased that Donal is sharing the stories of the saints, for example. We need to be reminded that we are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses. I think Protestants take an overly gnostic view towards physically mediated grace. I myself am challenged by the high view of the Eucharist long held by the church, for example.

    Showing the relevancy of Catholic teaching to Protestant experience in my view is something I’d selfishly love to get more of from Catholic writers moreso than trying to address systems comprehensively.

  25. Thanks very much for the link.

    Just to add to the discussion I’ve never known what “hard to get” was supposed to mean, other than perhaps rebuffing an overly eager man’s advances. Either that or being overly shy and therefore forcing things to go more slowly.

    @Jenny: “Much easier to teach “hard to get”.” But is it more or equally successful at keeping the girls chaste? If they aren’t that way naturally, it could be difficult for them to keep it up when a particularly charming man comes along.

    On the note of introducing to parents, I was just thinking last night that if we have daughters, they will be advising their suitors, “Dad is the one who looks scary, Mom is the one who is scary”.

  26. “if we have daughters, they will be advising their suitors, ‘Dad is the one who looks scary, Mom is the one who is scary’.”

    This is her song, with a bonus cooltastic bass solo…

  27. Elspeth

    Been thinking about this a bit, Jenny. I think the more aggressive/confident the man, the more you can get away with the hard to get stuff. I played it for a while with my husband, then I had to swallow my pride to stay in the game.

    If you really like a guy and he is the more reserved type, you probably (maybe most certainly) need to make it clear that you’re very interested. In chaste and acceptable ways of course, but hard to get may run him away.

    You can have a life and not behave too wife-like without playing hard to get.

    I also have some thoughts on the notion that parents send their kids off alone, but you’ll have to read my post tomorrow for more on that. 😉 .

  28. I’m tempted to write a stand-alone post on playing “hard to get” next week. At this point I still haven’t formulated a clear idea about it yet, so another, separate post seems appropriate. Thank you to everyone who has contributed thus far, I hope you don’t mind speaking up again when I eventually get to that post.

  29. @Jenny

    It appears to me that you are flagging out the father’s role but there was nary a mention of the mother/wife’s. You are right that a father should do all of that, including protecting his daughter (and son) as long as they are part of his family. But have you wondered why aren’t men (fathers, husbands) taking up this role in our “modernity”, especially when the roles of fathers are explicity mentioned in the Bible as important being the head of the family?

    Feminism has invaded Christianity. We have Churchianity. We have men not being mentored (at all) to be future husbands and fathers (note: I used mentored, not preached). We have men being undermined by the pastors, leaders, culture, media and society to be bumbling idiots in the Homer Simpson category.

    So what can wives/women do to help their husbands/men? Respect the men (which means giving them more of the benefit of the doubt than what you are comfortable with, especially if he has his heart in the right place — with God). Not undermining their decisions. Not arguing with them because you, projecting your thoughts towards a male perspective when you’re far from being a man, think otherwise. Submit to your husbands. Be a good First Officer, not the Female Rebel with Any and Every Cause.

  30. @Jenny

    Just to add:
    1. It’s only weird because our modern culture feels/thinks it’s weird.
    2. It’s not so much to scare potential suitors but to sieve out the ones who are flippantly disrespectful and dismissive of a father’s role in the family and the life of the girl.
    3. You may want to check out Cane Caldo’s analysis of a music video and tell me how scary that girl’s father is (as depicted in a secular medium) and how she is responding to his (her father’s) protection.

    http://canecaldo.wordpress.com/2014/06/11/the-bewitching-rudeness-of-magic/

  31. Pingback: Summer Post-a-Palooza | Loving in the Ruins

  32. I think in a day and age when the majority of women are sleeping with men and moving in with them before marriage, telling them to play a little “harder to get” is a good idea.

    @Choking, I liked Cane’s analysis. What the parents should have done is to ground their daughter and not allow her to leave the home.

    @Choking. I’m remembering how amazing my father was at protecting me. I hated him at the time, but the older I get, the more I love him for it. He actually greeted one of my suitors by cutting wood out front with a chainsaw. He just happened to need to be doing that that evening, yeah right, Dad

    “Not returning calls or answering texts (or even a few days later) without any explanation shows a lack of consideration and respect.” this isn’t hard to get, this is plain rude. I’m talking about not offering herself to him on a silver platter. Not calling, texting, emailing, chasing, following him around like a puppy….. be a little hard to get.

  33. Guest

    “I’m curious- are any of my male readers looking for a “challenge” in women. Speaking only for myself, I don’t care for that at all. Finding a good woman to marry these days is hard enough as is. A woman deciding to play hard to get doesn’t make this any easier. Perhaps it is just my INTJ at work, but I don’t like hard to get”

    I think women just project their own feelings onto men when they play hard-to-get. They like “being chased,” and so rationalize that men would enjoy it as well. Hence, women want to play hard-to-get to give their emo-brains a hit of drama, and men are forced to decide how much drama a given woman is worth dealing with.

    Personally, I hate it! I would much rather keep things simple and clear. Playing hard-to-get is just saying one thing while doing the opposite. It isn’t loving or kind!

    Plus, I doubt as many women were playing hard-to-get before romanticism messed-up arranged marriages. Society would have done a better job keeping those behaviors in check.

    Saying that women should play hard-to-get is just saying that women should prioritize their own emotions above others. The irony, then, is hoping to receive what one wants from others, even while hurting and confusing them.

    Oh, and it falls under that whole “Manipulation” thing as well, so that’s no good.

  34. I didnt aee the question on hard to get till eslpeth linked here, but heres my take.

    I’ve d9ne both modern dating and have started edging into very traditional styles of courtship. I think people need to clarify what they mean by ‘hard to get.’

    women seem to generally mean that they have expectations of seeing their potential suitor overcome a challenge or two – yo rise up to the occasion and show his potential for growth and his character.

    Men seem to generally mean that the woman is adding in unnecessary drama into the courtship/dating process.

    Most men will go through the first if they have a reasonable idea that the woman is interested. A little coy, chaste fun will make a man go through that. In fact, many men love to see how much a Muse of Feminine energy can make them achieve.

    what we don’t put up with is drama. As anything other than a dash of seasoning to the dish, it invades and ruins the whole process. Like adding too much salt, we would rather just spit the whole thing up, never look at it again, and make ourselves a PB&J than eat the dish with drama as the main flavor.

    women simply have a poor understanding of what constitutes drama vs challenge to the eyes of men. The main dividing line is whether a man can take a position of leadership he enjoys in pursuit of a beautiful outcome. If he can, then he’ll do it. If all that lies at the end of it is a wish that we had just planned a night of whiskey and cigars with our friends….

    well, the next time the woman asks we’ll likely be doing just that

  35. Neguy:

    I don’t think it’s necessary to have a system to infallibly interpret every aspect of every verse.

    That isn’t what I am talking about though. I am talking about just those doctrines that are essential to Christianity – label them as you like (infallible, necessary, whatever).

    in terms of essential doctrines such as the bodily resurrection of Christ, there’s very little lack of clarity.

    Why all the (for example) Trinitarian heresies and conflicts in the first few centuries of Christianity then? Or do you consider the Trinity non-essential?

    Your positivist assertion would appear to be recursive as well and apply to everything.

    That is what positivists think, because they think that meaning can be fully specified by (finite) texts. It can’t though. In any case we went through this in detail in the thread at my blog.

    I’m not sure what your apologetic intent is here.

    I don’t have apologetic intent, as I already said. I am using sola scriptura as an example to help people who already reject SS understand positivism. There are plenty of apologetics books and resources out there for folks interested in that sort of thing. Mark Shea’s By What Authority and Making Senses of Scripture are great intros, for example. And they don’t discuss subtle errors like positivism.

    While I think the Roman Catholic Church frankly gets some things wrong, I’d happily say that those who practice its teachings are genuine Christians and I don’t need to try to convert them to my way of thinking.

    Well, I think every single human being would be far, far better off receiving the Eucharist than not: that full communion is hands down the most important single thing for the life of every single person on earth who is not now in full communion. The body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ truly present is the source and summit of the Christian faith, can only be found in churches with valid apostolic succession, and is found most perfectly in non-schismatic churches in communion with the bishop of Rome.

    But I am not here to convince anyone of that.

    Showing the relevancy of Catholic teaching to Protestant experience in my view is something I’d selfishly love to get more of from Catholic writers moreso than trying to address systems comprehensively.

    That’s fine, but I am probably not your guy. Mark Shea’s trilogy on Mary is also very good, and if you don’t like the style then the Radio Replies by Rumble and Carty are also excellent.

  36. mdavid

    Zippy, Well, I think every single human being would be far, far better off receiving the Eucharist than not: that full communion is hands down the most important single thing for the life of every single person on earth who is not now in full communion. The body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ truly present is the source and summit of the Christian faith, can only be found in churches with valid apostolic succession, and is found most perfectly in non-schismatic churches in communion with the bishop of Rome.

    That’s a nice speech. Thanks.

    Nitpick: not every human would be better off receiving the Eucharist (e.g. non-believers, non-baptized, or those in mortal sin, 1 Cor 11:27). But tweak it to “better off receiving the Eucharist worthily” and I’m down with that.

    For clarity: the Eucharist itself is absolutely perfect at a schismatic church with apostolic succession. I do agree it’s better to receive this perfect gift of Christian unity at a non-schismatic church. Your statement is correct, just easy to misinterpret.

    I apologize for the nitpicks, but something written so well should be perfected. For future quotation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s