Secret Women's Business

I like this, a lot:  http://www.theveryworstmissionary.com/2013/04/because-maybe-it-wont-suck.html?m=1

I gather that in hunter-gatherer societies from diverse places around the globe, work frequently is "gendered". Men work together in groups to hunt, and may also fight against neighboring tribes to defend their patch. Women work together in groups to look after young children, to gather fruits, nuts, roots, bulbs etc. and (often) to prepare these items for eating. They often develop some separate cultural rituals for men and women. I wonder whether some stereotypes about men might have some kind of genetic or cultural origin from hunter-gatherer societies? The stereotypes that men are good at navigation (traversing long distances) problem solving (creating weapons and tactics for the hunt and for war) aggressive (courage in a hunt would be an advantage) and less verbal than women (I imagine yabbering away might scare off your prey)... all of these might be helpful if your community role involved hunting and fighting. I wonder whether some stereotypes about women may have ...

One of the most annoying things about online discussions is when "the slippery slope" is evoked to "prove" a point. Slippery slopes often end up with the Nazis! Here is one recent example which circulated on the internet when gun control was discussed in the USA: "Any attempt to restrict access to semiautomatic weapons is a slippery slope toward a totalitarian government... the Nazi's began their reign of terror by taking guns off the populace!" (Indeed, democratic countries with the rule of law and a free press that have introduced tight gun controls in the past, like the UK and Australia, are now totalitarian states... NOT.) When a "slippery slope" is evoked, nothing can be evaluated on its own merits: an imagined diabolical end point "proves" an idea is bad. Cory Bernardi's "gay marriage will lead to bestiality" comments were rather prominent on the news last year as an Australian parliamentarian was tripped up ...

The European Union commissioners have announced that agreement has been reached to adopt English as the preferred language for European communications, rather than German, which was the other possibility. As part of the negotiations, Her Majesty’s Government conceded that English spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a five-year phased plan for what will be known as Euro-English (Euro for short). In the first year, ‘s’ will be used instead of the soft ‘c’. Sertainly, sivil servants will resieve this news with joy. Also, the hard ‘c’ will be replaced with ‘k.’ Not only will this klear up konfusion, but typewriters kan have one less letter. There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year, when the troublesome ‘ph’ will be replaced by ‘f’. This will make words like ‘fotograf’ 20 per sent shorter. In the third year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible. Governments will enkourage t...

I have been noticing a range of views by Christians in the cyber-world on the issue of legalising gay marriage. For the sake of simplicity, I thought I would condense these Christian views into 4 main categories: 1.  Homosexuality is such a vile sin that all homosexual acts should be illegal. 2.  Homosexuality is sinful. However, in a democratic society we legislate less around what is “immoral” and more around that which causes harm or loss to others. Consensual adult homosexual acts are wrong but should be legal: the police have more important things to do with their time than monitor sexual behaviour. However, we draw the line at “homosexual marriage”. Christian marriage is between a man and a woman, and the laws of the land should reflect this for the good of society. 3.  Christian marriage is between a man and a woman. God is the Author of marriage, which existed for millennia before nation-states existed. Legal recognition of a union by a nation-stat...

I have been thinking about the nature of theology. In deference to my last post, let me make clear this is with the posture of a learner rather than the posture of an expert! “Hermeneutics 101” (biblical interpretation) tells us the bible is not “even” but “weighted”. In his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus keeps noting: “You have heard that it was said… but I   say to you”. The teaching of Jesus carries more weight than the law of Moses. When Jesus is asked about the greatest commandments, he notes (or affirms) that loving the Lord your God with your heart, mind, soul and strength, and loving your neighbour as yourself, are the most important commandments… indeed, everything else hangs on these. In Acts, the early church was faced with the issue of whether Gentile believers in Christ were to follow all of the laws of Moses. The church leaders in Jerusalem made the decision the life of the Spirit and faith was the most important thing… that they would simply provide a few guidelines...

What do Mark Driscoll, Billy Graham, Robert Schuller, Jim Bakker, and Bishop Desmond Tutu have in common? Answer... they are (or were) all high-profile Christian ministers, with completed (or part-completed) theological training. My question of the day is... does having a high profile and a teaching platform mean that we should accept what these people teach? My personal answer is... duh... no, not necessarily. It is not profile per se, but expertise , that carries weight in my mind. There are probably a million or more pastors in the world with some theological training... their opinions need to be considered. There exists a much smaller number of biblical scholars, who devote much of their life to researching and publishing about the biblical languages, or the history, customs and languages of cultures in which the bible was written (and how this may influence our interpretation of texts), or textual criticism, or systematic theology, etc. etc. In complex and difficult questi...