Easy-to-make yogurt soup. Should be served cold. Take full fat unsweetened plain yogurt and dilute it with cold water to desired consistency. Add sliced cucumber and boiled eggs (cooled), dill weed and salt. Serve with cheese sandwiches. Enjoy!
Saturday, June 29, 2019
Warm Weather Lunch
Easy-to-make yogurt soup. Should be served cold. Take full fat unsweetened plain yogurt and dilute it with cold water to desired consistency. Add sliced cucumber and boiled eggs (cooled), dill weed and salt. Serve with cheese sandwiches. Enjoy!
Friday, June 28, 2019
Tuesday, June 25, 2019
Woke Capital Makes Your Dreams Come True
(Or, may be, nightmares???)
I mean which one of us hasn't dreamed of eating insects for breakfast or grilled worms for dinner? Especially when you can feel so virtuous about saving the planet from climate, too!
I mean which one of us hasn't dreamed of eating insects for breakfast or grilled worms for dinner? Especially when you can feel so virtuous about saving the planet from climate, too!
Sunday, June 23, 2019
Friday, June 21, 2019
Monday, June 17, 2019
A Short Personal Note
I'll be out of town for a couple of days. Comments moderation will be on till Friday.
Houdoe!
Houdoe!
Sunday, June 16, 2019
Friday, June 14, 2019
My Take On The Game Of Thrones
So because everybody was talking about it, I finally decided to learn more about the series and watched a couple of episodes, read the plot summary and episodes description on Wiki and watched the ending.
On the positive sight: the visuals are great, beautiful scenery, costumes etc create a certain fairy tale atmosphere to the whole show, which is probably one of the reasons so many people watched it.
On the negative side: unnecessary vulgar and unnecessary cruel (as most recent American TV shows). When they killed this poor innocent wolfs cub, that did it for me. I happen to have a weakness for wolf-like dogs:). Plus occult themes, female warriors and the fact, that as far as I could understand, it gets soapier as the story progresses and most interesting male characters die.
For instance, Khal Drogo and his love story with the blond girl made for an interesting plot twist, but then he dies off in the end of the Season 1 and Daenerys turns into some sort of a feminist darling. (I think Vox Day claimed on his blog that J. Martin hates alphas and I think he's on to something).
So the progressives were so disappointed when she got killed in the end that apparently 1 million people signed an online petition to change the ending while the reactionaries rejoiced because Bran Stark became the next king. Yet, as far as I can understand, he's unable to have children so after his death the whole mess will start all over again. The throne should have been inherited by Jon Snow or how is that guy called, instead he's sent off into exile to the Wall and presumably will stay celibate?
I further listened to this audio by VD where he pointed out that Stark sisters hardly have any prospects reproducing, either. One sails off into the West, the other one becomes a queen in her own right, without any marriage candidates in sight. It somehow reminded me of Brideshead Revisited by Evelyn Waugh which tells us the story of a downfall of a noble Catholic family. Of 4 children, one son turns a gay alcoholic, the other marries a woman many years his senior who is unable to bear children any more, one sister turns a nun and the last one after her divorce decides she's too Catholic to marry again, and has all the chances to die childless, too.
If that's a victory for Starks, how does defeat look like? Isn't the whole point of hereditary monarchy to have, you know, heirs? The ending of the whole saga is just as sterile as the whole modern Western worldview. It's hardly a victory for traditionalists. Anyway, that's just my point of view, feel free to share yours in the comments!
On the positive sight: the visuals are great, beautiful scenery, costumes etc create a certain fairy tale atmosphere to the whole show, which is probably one of the reasons so many people watched it.
On the negative side: unnecessary vulgar and unnecessary cruel (as most recent American TV shows). When they killed this poor innocent wolfs cub, that did it for me. I happen to have a weakness for wolf-like dogs:). Plus occult themes, female warriors and the fact, that as far as I could understand, it gets soapier as the story progresses and most interesting male characters die.
For instance, Khal Drogo and his love story with the blond girl made for an interesting plot twist, but then he dies off in the end of the Season 1 and Daenerys turns into some sort of a feminist darling. (I think Vox Day claimed on his blog that J. Martin hates alphas and I think he's on to something).
So the progressives were so disappointed when she got killed in the end that apparently 1 million people signed an online petition to change the ending while the reactionaries rejoiced because Bran Stark became the next king. Yet, as far as I can understand, he's unable to have children so after his death the whole mess will start all over again. The throne should have been inherited by Jon Snow or how is that guy called, instead he's sent off into exile to the Wall and presumably will stay celibate?
I further listened to this audio by VD where he pointed out that Stark sisters hardly have any prospects reproducing, either. One sails off into the West, the other one becomes a queen in her own right, without any marriage candidates in sight. It somehow reminded me of Brideshead Revisited by Evelyn Waugh which tells us the story of a downfall of a noble Catholic family. Of 4 children, one son turns a gay alcoholic, the other marries a woman many years his senior who is unable to bear children any more, one sister turns a nun and the last one after her divorce decides she's too Catholic to marry again, and has all the chances to die childless, too.
If that's a victory for Starks, how does defeat look like? Isn't the whole point of hereditary monarchy to have, you know, heirs? The ending of the whole saga is just as sterile as the whole modern Western worldview. It's hardly a victory for traditionalists. Anyway, that's just my point of view, feel free to share yours in the comments!
Wednesday, June 12, 2019
Natural Hair Care Update
Some time ago we had a great discussion about natural hair care tips. Soon after this I switched to totally no shampoo method and have tried several things like honey (h/t to Finnish Housewife), chamomile tea and henna.
While I still use henna now and then, to boost the colour a little bit, I have finally decided to just use plain water and nothing else. Well, in my previous post on the topic I recalled how I had done it once before long ago and my hair looked terrible. This time, on the other hand, it worked, probably because I have gone without shampoo for a long time already.
In fact, my hair looks better than with any other methods I have tried so far, I save on the products (honey, e.g., is quite expensive) and cheat woke corporations out of their income:) What's not to like???
While I still use henna now and then, to boost the colour a little bit, I have finally decided to just use plain water and nothing else. Well, in my previous post on the topic I recalled how I had done it once before long ago and my hair looked terrible. This time, on the other hand, it worked, probably because I have gone without shampoo for a long time already.
In fact, my hair looks better than with any other methods I have tried so far, I save on the products (honey, e.g., is quite expensive) and cheat woke corporations out of their income:) What's not to like???
Sunday, June 9, 2019
Saturday, June 8, 2019
Grounbreaking News: Latest Scientific Discovery About Sex
It may lead to pregnancy!!! Who would have thunk????
Researchers at the University of Michigan announced Tuesday that a comprehensive, decade-long study has discovered a strong correlation between sexual intercourse and pregnancy in women—a groundbreaking conclusion that is sure to have far-reaching implications.
According to Dr. Michael Citino, who led the study, nearly every one of the tens of thousands of test subjects had engaged in sexual intercourse at least once in the several months immediately preceding pregnancy.
(Emphasis mine).
Read the whole story over here.
Researchers at the University of Michigan announced Tuesday that a comprehensive, decade-long study has discovered a strong correlation between sexual intercourse and pregnancy in women—a groundbreaking conclusion that is sure to have far-reaching implications.
According to Dr. Michael Citino, who led the study, nearly every one of the tens of thousands of test subjects had engaged in sexual intercourse at least once in the several months immediately preceding pregnancy.
(Emphasis mine).
Read the whole story over here.
Wednesday, June 5, 2019
Is Housework Difficult?
There are some men among us who call themselves anti-feminists and yet, they demand their (prospective) wife works. They will admit that if there is an infant or a pre-schooler in the house he will need a supervisor, but once he goes to school or generally becomes of an age to take care of himself, the mother must work at least part-time, to justify her existence.
One of their chief arguments is that housework in our day and age is easy and doesn't take much time and thus any housewife except mothers of very young children, is just a lazy good-for-nothing.
It once again shows that many of the so-called antifeminist males are just frauds and want to both have their cake (a submissive wife who keeps the house) and eat it, too (and she is a capable breadwinner at the same time), but that's beside my point. I just wanted to look deeper into the claim about modern housework being easier than say, a 100 years ago. Well, it depends.
(Another thing to consider is the fact that most men's jobs are also easier than they used to be, btw. Many of the guys decrying housewives are hardly working in the coal mines, themselves but are some sort of an office drone).
Many households at that period still had servants, including cooks, especially in the countries like the UK. The amount of the housework the well-off women did was minimal. On the other hand, poorer women missed such labour-saving devices as a washing machine. Washing by hand is one heck of a job. But...they also had less clothes and washed them less often, etc etc.
It also depends on your housekeeping standards. I heard that, e.g., in Turkey women are famous for washing all of their windows at least once a week and cooking elaborate meals 2-3 times a day. Obviously, it will take you longer to accomplish your work if your standards are that high and you cook all your meals from scratch.
On the other hand, there is a thing about housework: you can't always calculate the exact amount of time you spend on it each day in the same way you would do if you had outside employment because some things fall into a grey area. Taking your children to and from school (no school bus for us here in Europe, sorry). Helping them with housework. Taking the family dog out. Helping a sick neighbour with shopping. Taking kids to the dentist. Running errands and doing paperwork. Visiting an elderly relative etc etc.
While it's not really hard labour, it takes time AND energy and when you get older, you'll start noticing that your energy levels are going way down (men don't often realise that many women are lower energy than themselves because they are physically less strong and lack testosterone). Another thing men complain about is how bad modern women look. They are all fat, badly dressed etc. Well, taking care of your appearance and gym take time, too, and so does shopping for fashionable clothes even if you do it online. The time which isn't spent in any productive pursuits, but leaves the husband satisfied.
So is housework difficult? It's generally less physically exhausting that it used to be in the past, true. However, there are still lots of things around the house which need to be done and only so many hours in the day. If your wife or girl-friend spends her hours at home chatting with other men online and cheating on you while you work, it's not because housewives are obsolete but because she's a lousy person. That's it.
One of their chief arguments is that housework in our day and age is easy and doesn't take much time and thus any housewife except mothers of very young children, is just a lazy good-for-nothing.
It once again shows that many of the so-called antifeminist males are just frauds and want to both have their cake (a submissive wife who keeps the house) and eat it, too (and she is a capable breadwinner at the same time), but that's beside my point. I just wanted to look deeper into the claim about modern housework being easier than say, a 100 years ago. Well, it depends.
(Another thing to consider is the fact that most men's jobs are also easier than they used to be, btw. Many of the guys decrying housewives are hardly working in the coal mines, themselves but are some sort of an office drone).
Many households at that period still had servants, including cooks, especially in the countries like the UK. The amount of the housework the well-off women did was minimal. On the other hand, poorer women missed such labour-saving devices as a washing machine. Washing by hand is one heck of a job. But...they also had less clothes and washed them less often, etc etc.
It also depends on your housekeeping standards. I heard that, e.g., in Turkey women are famous for washing all of their windows at least once a week and cooking elaborate meals 2-3 times a day. Obviously, it will take you longer to accomplish your work if your standards are that high and you cook all your meals from scratch.
On the other hand, there is a thing about housework: you can't always calculate the exact amount of time you spend on it each day in the same way you would do if you had outside employment because some things fall into a grey area. Taking your children to and from school (no school bus for us here in Europe, sorry). Helping them with housework. Taking the family dog out. Helping a sick neighbour with shopping. Taking kids to the dentist. Running errands and doing paperwork. Visiting an elderly relative etc etc.
While it's not really hard labour, it takes time AND energy and when you get older, you'll start noticing that your energy levels are going way down (men don't often realise that many women are lower energy than themselves because they are physically less strong and lack testosterone). Another thing men complain about is how bad modern women look. They are all fat, badly dressed etc. Well, taking care of your appearance and gym take time, too, and so does shopping for fashionable clothes even if you do it online. The time which isn't spent in any productive pursuits, but leaves the husband satisfied.
So is housework difficult? It's generally less physically exhausting that it used to be in the past, true. However, there are still lots of things around the house which need to be done and only so many hours in the day. If your wife or girl-friend spends her hours at home chatting with other men online and cheating on you while you work, it's not because housewives are obsolete but because she's a lousy person. That's it.
Monday, June 3, 2019
On Bearing A False Witness Or In Defence Of Evangelicals
We went to church yesterday. We often do, on Sundays:) And, we got a guest preacher. Nothing strange about it, either, since our own preacher only works part-time. The sermon was good. Like really, really good. It's not always the case with visiting pastors. Sometimes you come out of the church and think along the lines that you hope never to see the guy again. OK, I'm exaggerating, but you get my point.
The real temptation lies in the fact that once you've heard a couple of sermons like this, you start thinking that may be, the whole church thinks along the same lines and you are just an outlier. You start wondering whether you belong...
And then you get to hear a different perspective and you suddenly realise, that even in a more or less traditional denomination, there will be a variety of opinions and one or even two or three preachers don't represent everybody. And that we don't have to agree on every single thing to worship together.
Of course, it's even more true when we talk about Christians in general, or Evangelicals or Catholics. There is like one billion Catholics in the whole world, and they can't all have exactly same opinions on everything and even the underlying doctrines will probably be explained differently in different countries and situations. There are also many, many millions of Evangelicals and they aren't all alike!
Some fully deserve the name of evangellyfish, while others are really fine, upstanding Christians. Even in more liberal churches, there still will be some people who are saved, while in the more conservative ones there will be an amount of wolves in sheep's clothing. Yet, there is this unfortunate tendency on the internet to take some controversial figure with a vaguely Evangelical background and then extrapolate that every single Evangelical thinks the same!
Evangelicals, btw, are such an easy target precisely because the meaning of the word is so broad and vague. Unlike Catholics, or strict Reformed churches, they often don't have a clearly defined doctrine. Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists both could call themselves Evangelicals. We could be speaking about some mega-TV church providing endless entertainment and little besides that or a strict rural Southern Baptist community. To add to the confusion, some Lutherans and Reformed folks call themselves Evangelicals, too.
We know that the Catholic Church has problems with child abuse. How fair would it be to state that because one (some) priest(s) engaged in abuse, it means that ALL the Catholics support it? Well, it's the same with the Evangelicals. Just because one or even some celebrity pastors preach some nonsense or even false doctrine on the TV, it hardly means that each and every person calling themselves Evangelicals agrees or that ALL churches which have "Evangelical" in their name, are corrupted. Well, some undoubtedly are, while other aren't.
Now I don't at all have any problems with criticising them on some of their teachings, like Rapture or other things. I just don't like blanket statements which I see so often nowadays in certain corners of the internet. Sometimes it borders on giving false witness, imo, which should be a warning sign for any professing Christian that those criticisms aren't genuine and aren't made in good faith.
I'll give you one example so that you know what I mean. Evangelicals are often attacked for their "pedestalising" of women which I would more or less agree with. The tendency is present, but is it really their fault or that of the broad American society? They are also accused of being too soft on women who divorce their husbands claiming some vague "abuse". The funny thing is that their progressive opponents often accuse them of being too harsh on women and teaching them to stay in abusive marriages. (Well, I guess you just can't please everyone).
For instance, the critics claim, Evangelicals and "Conservative" and even "Traditional" Christians in general (have you noticed how the goalposts get moved yet further?) support divorce for viewing p0rn. They then will pull out some obscure statement and parade it as the ultimate proof that EVERY SINGLE ONE Evangelical AND a Conservative Christian agrees. Well, I've done a quick Google search on the subject of "P0rnography and divorce" and the first three results which came out disprove it.
Pure Life Ministries states:
Given the biblical insights into the intended permanency of marriage, I feel it is my first obligation as a biblical counselor to encourage perseverance and offer hope to any wife who’s dealing with her husband’s sexual sin. Even if the Bible offers a way out, that doesn’t make divorce the best option for every person in every circumstance.
When Jesus condoned divorce for reasons of sexual immorality, I believe He was referring to those who were in ongoing, unrepentant fornication with another person. Furthermore, He said Moses only permitted divorce due to the hardness of our hearts, but reiterated that from the beginning it was not so...
Many biblical scholars have concluded that the Scriptures do support divorce in a situation when a spouse is in unrepentant sexual sin, including pornography. However, others say this conclusion is not at all clear. Regardless, I would still encourage you to make sure this is how God is leading you, and also to remember that He really does hate divorce.
Christian Life Resources says that There is the reality in a world of sin that none of us are without sin (John 8:7; Romans 3:23). If we are looking for formulistic justification for divorce, and all of our hearts can be read, could our spouses find justification to divorce us?
And a Southern Baptist pastor offers a similar take: Divorce is always a last resort, and thus we should not immediately commend divorce because a person engages in pornography, especially if the use is singular or even occasional. We must immediately say, from the perspective of wisdom, that any use of pornography is egregious and heinous; there are no excuses for looking at pornography. At the same time, we don’t want to say that any use of pornography justifies divorce.
All three sources are rather evasive on the topic, saying that there could be some situations when divorce would be permitted but they hardly sound enthusiastic about this option. So, their position could be viewed in a charitable light (they are trying to walk a thin line between the reality of the 21st century liberal America and the Scriptures), or in an uncharitable light (They are really man-haters and love divorce).
So why am I writing all this? Because I sincerely believe that this attack isn't only on Evangelicals (I'm not one of them), but on the Christians in general, and it uses really existing social problems like feminism, divorce etc, to make Christians distrust any form of organised religion and further drive a wedge between men and women. Just because some preacher out there is an ***hole, it doesn't mean that you should never go to church again. Not All Preachers Are Like That! And not all the churches, either.
The real temptation lies in the fact that once you've heard a couple of sermons like this, you start thinking that may be, the whole church thinks along the same lines and you are just an outlier. You start wondering whether you belong...
And then you get to hear a different perspective and you suddenly realise, that even in a more or less traditional denomination, there will be a variety of opinions and one or even two or three preachers don't represent everybody. And that we don't have to agree on every single thing to worship together.
Of course, it's even more true when we talk about Christians in general, or Evangelicals or Catholics. There is like one billion Catholics in the whole world, and they can't all have exactly same opinions on everything and even the underlying doctrines will probably be explained differently in different countries and situations. There are also many, many millions of Evangelicals and they aren't all alike!
Some fully deserve the name of evangellyfish, while others are really fine, upstanding Christians. Even in more liberal churches, there still will be some people who are saved, while in the more conservative ones there will be an amount of wolves in sheep's clothing. Yet, there is this unfortunate tendency on the internet to take some controversial figure with a vaguely Evangelical background and then extrapolate that every single Evangelical thinks the same!
Evangelicals, btw, are such an easy target precisely because the meaning of the word is so broad and vague. Unlike Catholics, or strict Reformed churches, they often don't have a clearly defined doctrine. Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists both could call themselves Evangelicals. We could be speaking about some mega-TV church providing endless entertainment and little besides that or a strict rural Southern Baptist community. To add to the confusion, some Lutherans and Reformed folks call themselves Evangelicals, too.
We know that the Catholic Church has problems with child abuse. How fair would it be to state that because one (some) priest(s) engaged in abuse, it means that ALL the Catholics support it? Well, it's the same with the Evangelicals. Just because one or even some celebrity pastors preach some nonsense or even false doctrine on the TV, it hardly means that each and every person calling themselves Evangelicals agrees or that ALL churches which have "Evangelical" in their name, are corrupted. Well, some undoubtedly are, while other aren't.
Now I don't at all have any problems with criticising them on some of their teachings, like Rapture or other things. I just don't like blanket statements which I see so often nowadays in certain corners of the internet. Sometimes it borders on giving false witness, imo, which should be a warning sign for any professing Christian that those criticisms aren't genuine and aren't made in good faith.
I'll give you one example so that you know what I mean. Evangelicals are often attacked for their "pedestalising" of women which I would more or less agree with. The tendency is present, but is it really their fault or that of the broad American society? They are also accused of being too soft on women who divorce their husbands claiming some vague "abuse". The funny thing is that their progressive opponents often accuse them of being too harsh on women and teaching them to stay in abusive marriages. (Well, I guess you just can't please everyone).
For instance, the critics claim, Evangelicals and "Conservative" and even "Traditional" Christians in general (have you noticed how the goalposts get moved yet further?) support divorce for viewing p0rn. They then will pull out some obscure statement and parade it as the ultimate proof that EVERY SINGLE ONE Evangelical AND a Conservative Christian agrees. Well, I've done a quick Google search on the subject of "P0rnography and divorce" and the first three results which came out disprove it.
Pure Life Ministries states:
Given the biblical insights into the intended permanency of marriage, I feel it is my first obligation as a biblical counselor to encourage perseverance and offer hope to any wife who’s dealing with her husband’s sexual sin. Even if the Bible offers a way out, that doesn’t make divorce the best option for every person in every circumstance.
When Jesus condoned divorce for reasons of sexual immorality, I believe He was referring to those who were in ongoing, unrepentant fornication with another person. Furthermore, He said Moses only permitted divorce due to the hardness of our hearts, but reiterated that from the beginning it was not so...
Many biblical scholars have concluded that the Scriptures do support divorce in a situation when a spouse is in unrepentant sexual sin, including pornography. However, others say this conclusion is not at all clear. Regardless, I would still encourage you to make sure this is how God is leading you, and also to remember that He really does hate divorce.
Christian Life Resources says that There is the reality in a world of sin that none of us are without sin (John 8:7; Romans 3:23). If we are looking for formulistic justification for divorce, and all of our hearts can be read, could our spouses find justification to divorce us?
And a Southern Baptist pastor offers a similar take: Divorce is always a last resort, and thus we should not immediately commend divorce because a person engages in pornography, especially if the use is singular or even occasional. We must immediately say, from the perspective of wisdom, that any use of pornography is egregious and heinous; there are no excuses for looking at pornography. At the same time, we don’t want to say that any use of pornography justifies divorce.
All three sources are rather evasive on the topic, saying that there could be some situations when divorce would be permitted but they hardly sound enthusiastic about this option. So, their position could be viewed in a charitable light (they are trying to walk a thin line between the reality of the 21st century liberal America and the Scriptures), or in an uncharitable light (They are really man-haters and love divorce).
So why am I writing all this? Because I sincerely believe that this attack isn't only on Evangelicals (I'm not one of them), but on the Christians in general, and it uses really existing social problems like feminism, divorce etc, to make Christians distrust any form of organised religion and further drive a wedge between men and women. Just because some preacher out there is an ***hole, it doesn't mean that you should never go to church again. Not All Preachers Are Like That! And not all the churches, either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)