Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are The Historical Respective Roles Of The Genders Relevant Today?
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 116 (558472)
05-01-2010 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Kitsune
05-01-2010 10:39 AM


Re: Read Me Before Posting Strawmen!
Kitsume writes:
You see, what happens when you run roughshod over a person's own needs is, it creates resentment. So while outwardly they might say, "Yes dear, do what you want," they may be quite angry inside. These feelings don't go away and they create further problems down the line. I don't want either my husband or me to be resentful, so we hash things out together, and it works.
Kitsume, perhaps if you had read and assimilated my reply to PD which I also said was good, you wouldn't have arrived at the false implication you and your ideological cum bodies are propagating on the world wide web relative to my position which is the Biblical position.
Kitsume writes:
I notice you haven't responded to my post about corporal punishment. In the war of anecdotes mine's pretty good, don't you think? I grew up with a domineering father with anger management issues, who always resorted to verbal or physical threats when he didn't know what else to do (which is what I suspect happens to most if not all parents who claim that their corporal punishment is "loving" and "necessary"), and a submissive mother. I could never identify with her because I craved a strong role model. My father was a bully. Is this really what you want for people, Buzsaw -- is this the Biblical ideal of a family living Christian values? I got head problems from some of this stuff that are taking years to undo. Go ahead, try justifying this lifestyle to me some more.
The Biblical (my position) relative to father and husband is not an angry person who uses verbal or physical threats. Have you been reading the thread? You're message is a strawman, falsely implicating the position I have advocated throughout this thread.
If you had been reading me, you should know that the Biblical position is not that of your father.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Kitsune, posted 05-01-2010 10:39 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Kitsune, posted 05-01-2010 4:29 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 96 by hooah212002, posted 05-01-2010 6:23 PM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 92 of 116 (558474)
05-01-2010 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Buzsaw
05-01-2010 4:08 PM


Re: Read Me Before Posting Strawmen!
By the way Buz, it's "Kitsune" with an "n".
perhaps if you had read and assimilated my reply to PD which I also said was good, you wouldn't have arrived at the false implication you and your ideological cum bodies are propagating on the world wide web relative to my position which is the Biblical position.
Dear me, and it seems you paid no attention to what I was saying about this. You said that when you and your wife can't come to a mutual agreement, you win by default because you are the husband. You said something about how you believe this is handy for everyone in order to break an impasse. I said that when a person repeatedly feels they have to override their own needs in order to cater for another's, there will be resentment, conscious or unconscious, expressed or not. This will be happening in your system as long as the woman is overridden by her husband; the message there still is, "We can't agree on this so I'm having it my way -- now be glad that the argument is over because this is what's best for everyone." The implication is that the woman is a second-class citizen and she is forced to accept this as part of her self image, even if she's taught herself to smile uncomplainingly because hubby knows best. And her daughters must be taught the same. If you truly feel your system is more egalitarian than this, why don't you take turns with who has the final say. Make next week your wife's week to win out when you both disagree. Let us know how it goes.
The Biblical (my position) relative to father and husband is not an angry person who uses verbal or physical threats. Have you been reading the thread? You're message is a strawman, falsely implicating the position I have advocated throughout this thread.
And again you are ignoring the points I was making. How do you think a child is going to see a father who spanks them or threatens to do so -- you don't think there's any element of fear there? Why else do you think the child behaves, if not out of fear? (Other posters on this thread have pointed out that it is actually possible to get a child to behave by earning their respect but you seem to have the deeply confused notion that smacking a child makes them respect you.) What's more, IMO parents smack their children when they themselves are frustrated and don't know what other methods to use, even if they fool themselves that it's about "loving discipline." So yes, your Biblical husband looks to me like a person who is quick to anger and physical punishment, and that is what the child will experience.
What's even more twisted is that you think it is acceptable for the mother to duck her own responsibility for discipline (which the child will also pick up on) and leave the threat hanging that daddy will "deal" with the child when he gets home. Then daddy gets to be the bad guy that the child fears all day long. Everybody loses. You need to think about what this stuff does to a child in his or her head, Buzsaw. Having a well-paying job and a family are, I repeat, no real indicators of a person's emotional or psychological state of well-being.
Edited by Kitsune, : No reason given.
Edited by Kitsune, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Buzsaw, posted 05-01-2010 4:08 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Buzsaw, posted 05-02-2010 10:13 AM Kitsune has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 116 (558488)
05-01-2010 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by purpledawn
05-01-2010 8:23 AM


Re: Becoming Blessed, Wise & Mature
Purple Dawn writes:
But a family isn't a company. Divorce and separation will still happen if a woman or man feels oppressed.
From what you've described, you have a partnership. My guess is that those things that cause an impasse, your wife has already decided she can live with either decision since you've already said she has no problem correcting you when you're wrong.
Sigh. I understand (correct me if mistaken) that one of the differences in the genders is the number of words the respective genders speak in a given period of time. If I remember correctly, the average difference is about 8 for female to one for male. I'm not sure what it is here at EvC, but perhaps somewhat relative.
1) Anyhow, PD, FYO:
Online Dictionary #1 definition of company:
Online Dictionary writes:
1. A group of persons.
That, madear is the #1 simple definition of company. So much for that.
2) What I have described is not a partnership. In a normal partnership, neither partner is the final authority having the authority to brake an impasse.
3) All humans of both genders have times of depression, particularly the female in times of menopause, etc. The Biblical position is the traditional marriage vow of til death do we part. Now, in these times of higher divorce rate etc, such Biblical positions are becoming less frequently applied.
My wife and I are very different. There have been times when if the wedding vow were not honored, we would likely have separated or divorced. We both stuck it out in times of depression or disputes. We soon got over it. We've made the best of it and the longer we go, the dearer we become one to another and the more we think alike.
My wife did not come into this relationship with me blindfolded, so to speak. We discussed this thing about the male leadership role and she agreed to it. God has blessed us greatly on the long haul because we both honored his precepts.
One of the first issues was diet. My wife knew my position well before we were married. Nevertheless, when it came to reading the labels before purchase and other holistic things there were some rather unpleasant encounters but she knew my position and at first reluctantly acquiesced. It wasn't long before she was so into holistic that I have, for a long time called her Dr. as in doc. I now refer to her when I want info on the herbs and other nutrients. She now apprises others on how holistic living can help them in their ailments, etc.
PD writes:
The partnership isn't what makes for continual bickering, unrest, violence, separation, misery, and divorce.
In all cases, Buz, whether the leadership role or 50/50 it is the personalities of the people that determines if the marriage will work.
I have just explained to you that a partnership 50/50 thing would have likely resulted in continual bickering, unrest, separation and/or divorce with me and my wife. I've observed it time and again in others who are not committed to the Biblical principles.
You have just admitted that the personality of the people determines whether marriage works. Now you, me and all of us know that often personalities are often very different in marriage relationships. Having a leadership role, coupled with the Biblical traditional marriage vow in place in the relationship has traditionally resulted in a relatively low divorce rate compared to that of today. No?
If you weren't a man who could take correction from a woman, your marriage would be more difficult and your wife would have to suffer through your mistakes.
As a matter of fact there have been times when we both took it on the chin due to my mistakes. As the drill sargent said in USAF boot camp, "I'm not always right, but don't forget, I'm the sargent." Anarchy where there are multiple equal authorities rarely ( I say rarely) works.
My wife accepts that I'm not perfect and that there will be times when I was mistaken. She knows as well, that usually my leadership has been good for us both.
Before we married I had a girl friend who I loved. That relation ship didn't work out, but had I married her, likely she would not have died of cancer at the age of 48, since I would have required a holistically healthy diet void of the toxins and junk food which is conducive to the growth of cancer cells.
Give me an example of an impasse.
I just did.
Even if you make the final decision, I see three ways it can play out.
I assume you mean on impasse.
1. You decide your way is best.
2. You decide to let your wife have her way.
3. You come up with a compromise if one is available.
One side if not both have to bend. Problems arise when neither side wants to bend in either setup.
So do you end the impasse with compromise or deem one side or the other the winner?
If compromise is offered by your wife, do you take it?
I do what any good presiding person in any organization would do. I do what I deem best for the family unit, after prayer and application of Biblical NT principles of "Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it."
I'm repeating stuff I've already said and advocated at least one or more times throughout this thread, PD.
PD writes:
From my understanding, in the Bible, women weren't allowed to divorce if the arranged marriage didn't work. The men could though in Judaism. Property can't reject its owner, but the owner can reject his property. Jesus taught that they shouldn't except for infidelity.
Women are no longer property, so they can divorce a man should he become abusive, oppressive, or unwise.
Bottom line: People need to learn how to choose the right mate the first time around, learn how to argue/disagree constructively, and learn how to compromise when necessary. Deeming one person as the "authority" doesn't solve serious problems.
But we all know that all too often that immature young minds full of mush and infatuation do not choose mates wisely.
Traditionally, in scriptural cultures and most others, the parents had a significant role in choosing compatible mates for their children. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case in most Western cultures. It wasn't in my case, nor in any of my five bothers and sisters. It wasn't with my own two boys.
However, if the two apply Biblical principles, loving husbands will not abuse their wives, regardless of differences. The Bible does not say, "husbands love loveable wives." It says, "husbands, love your wives, period, be she fat or be she cantankerous and rebellious." Love goes a long way towards compatibility. Love grows fonder relationship. The word the NT uses here is the agape(Greek) highest form of the three words depicting love. Interestingly there is only one time in the entire NT where it admonishes the wife to love her husband. This love is that unconditional form of love. I don't remember the text but can get it up if needed. The Greek word here is phileo, the second highest form of love which is a responsive love in which love is returned for the one who initiated the love process.
The third and lowest Greek rendition of love is eros, i.e. that physical form. Unfortunately, this is the only love some men know or apply to their male/female relationships.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by purpledawn, posted 05-01-2010 8:23 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-01-2010 6:20 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 103 by purpledawn, posted 05-02-2010 12:09 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 108 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-02-2010 7:08 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 94 of 116 (558494)
05-01-2010 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Buzsaw
05-01-2010 3:30 PM


Re: Becoming Blessed, Wise & Mature
Hooah, usually, I'm expected to either refute falehoods or shut ta heck up.
No, Buz. You are wrong. All you are doing is claiming shit to be true with no evidence. For the millionth time: it is not up to us to prove your false claims wrong. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
As for your 2nd demand which is nothing but meanspirited yada, I don't waste my time on nonsense from smart asses. I acknowledged that I read your message. That's what you're getting from me unless you become a tad more respectable and sensible, whether or not you agree with my position.
I'm sorry you are such a sensitive pussy Buz. I was being serious. Thank you for proving to me that you pick and choose which of your biblical rules to live by. It's all or nothing old man. Now I know for sure you are just full of shit.

"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Othersfor example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einsteinconsidered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."-Carl Sagan
"Show me where Christ said "Love thy fellow man, except for the gay ones." Gay people, too, are made in my God's image. I would never worship a homophobic God." -Desmond Tutu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Buzsaw, posted 05-01-2010 3:30 PM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-01-2010 6:28 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 116 (558495)
05-01-2010 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Buzsaw
05-01-2010 5:44 PM


Re: Becoming Blessed, Wise & Mature
My wife and I are very different. There have been times when if the wedding vow were not honored, we would likely have separated or divorced. We both stuck it out in times of depression or disputes.
I think too many people throw away a marriage too easily now or days. I won't dispute that. However, some people have no business being together and they are prolonging not only their own misery, but are also imparting that misery to their children, by staying together for the misguided sake of staying together.
Some people make mistakes getting married to one another because of youthful indiscretions. Sometimes when you are young you just cannot reasonably conceive the scope and magnitude of many things, including marriage.
A lot of people in the past got married to alleviate feelings of sexual guilt, so that their lust for one another was over-riding more sensible thinking. Is that better in your eyes?
My wife did not come into this relationship with me blindfolded, so to speak. We discussed this thing about the male leadership role and she agreed to it. God has blessed us greatly on the long haul because we both honored his precepts.
Look, it is no ones business what you and your wife do and what you agree to privately. I think the only issue is if you had things your way, you would get in everyone's business and outlaw divorce. For me it is a matter of personal freedom.
I have just explained to you that a partnership 50/50 thing would have likely resulted in continual bickering, unrest, separation and/or divorce with me and my wife. I've observed it time and again in others who are not committed to the Biblical principles.
If there is no compromise then it sounds like it is essentially "your way or the highway."
Traditionally, in scriptural cultures and most others, the parents had a significant role in choosing compatible mates for their children. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case in most Western cultures. It wasn't in my case, nor in any of my five bothers and sisters. It wasn't with my own two boys.
Unfortunately? Why is that unfortunate?

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Buzsaw, posted 05-01-2010 5:44 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Buzsaw, posted 05-01-2010 9:08 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 96 of 116 (558496)
05-01-2010 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Buzsaw
05-01-2010 4:08 PM


Re: Read Me Before Posting Strawmen!
my position which is the Biblical position.
No buz, it's not. You pick and choose what parts of which book, then tell others to live by it. You are bearing false witness, old man.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Othersfor example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einsteinconsidered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."-Carl Sagan
"Show me where Christ said "Love thy fellow man, except for the gay ones." Gay people, too, are made in my God's image. I would never worship a homophobic God." -Desmond Tutu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Buzsaw, posted 05-01-2010 4:08 PM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 116 (558498)
05-01-2010 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by hooah212002
05-01-2010 6:19 PM


Re: Becoming Blessed, Wise & Mature
I'm sorry you are such a sensitive pussy Buz. I was being serious. Thank you for proving to me that you pick and choose which of your biblical rules to live by. It's all or nothing old man. Now I know for sure you are just full of shit.
Holy crap, man... Were you sodomized by a priest with a crucifix as a child or something? I can understand being rightfully upset by the sheer hypocrisy often associated with Christians, but you seem excessively pissed.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by hooah212002, posted 05-01-2010 6:19 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by hooah212002, posted 05-01-2010 6:35 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 98 of 116 (558501)
05-01-2010 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Hyroglyphx
05-01-2010 6:28 PM


Re: Becoming Blessed, Wise & Mature
No. I'm not upset at all. I'm just calling him out and I am sick of the "woe is me" garbage.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Othersfor example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einsteinconsidered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."-Carl Sagan
"Show me where Christ said "Love thy fellow man, except for the gay ones." Gay people, too, are made in my God's image. I would never worship a homophobic God." -Desmond Tutu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-01-2010 6:28 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


(1)
Message 99 of 116 (558505)
05-01-2010 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Buzsaw
05-01-2010 3:30 PM


Quit Being a Coward
Buzsaw writes:
I don't waste my time on nonsense from smart asses.
Is that because you have deemed such replies nonsense, or from asses.....or is the problem that they are smart and knowledgeable, perhaps even more than you?
IMO just blowing off any legitimate criticism with some phony whining about disrespect to the almighty Buzsaw just shows us you are incapable of supporting your positions.
Answer hooah212002 or just admit you are wrong.
So where is that Biblical justification of your position concerning the etched in stone 'women are always supposed to be subservient to men'?
So where is that historical justification?
So where is that biological justification?
So where is that psychological justification?
You made the claim, the burden is upon you to support your position.
Anyone can make some stupid claim about anything from the space between their ears. Like this or that race is inferior, this or that religion should be exterminated down to the last newborn child, or that human slavery is just hunky-dorey.
It takes character to admit when one is wrong, and even you did it before when you claimed Jerry Falwell never told a lie and I proved to the satisfaction of all that he did.
So the deal is, this is your thread. Now put up or shut up lest people think you an ass or full of nonsense.

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman Rushdie
This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Buzsaw, posted 05-01-2010 3:30 PM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 116 (558519)
05-01-2010 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Hyroglyphx
05-01-2010 6:20 PM


Re: Yet Another Strawman
Hyroglyphx writes:
......you would get in everyone's business and outlaw divorce. For me it is a matter of personal freedom.
Hyro, where ever did I say or even imply that divorcement should be outlawed? This is another blatant strawman. There was a time when you were a sensible good spirited counterpart, but it appears some of the meanspiritedness of some of the others has rubbed off on you.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-01-2010 6:20 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-02-2010 11:30 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 104 by Son, posted 05-02-2010 1:17 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 116 (558566)
05-02-2010 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Kitsune
05-01-2010 4:29 PM


Re: Read Me Before Posting Strawmen!
Kitsune writes:
If you truly feel your system........
My apologies for the misspelling, Kitsune. My system? How about the system which has served most cultures of humanity for nearly all of of human history until our times when youth gangs are prevalent, children are disobedient to and sas their parents, children are violent, unruly and disrespective of elders, and the prisons are running over, so full that they're releasing some back on the streets.
Kitsune writes:
.......is more egalitarian than this, why don't you take turns with who has the final say. Make next week your wife's week to win out when you both disagree. Let us know how it goes.
Why change a good Biblical principle, tried and true which is humming along fine already and which is cool with my wife as well. Why opt for a system that obviously is not working with the divorce rate ever rising and bratty children?
Kitsune writes:
How do you think a child is going to see a father who spanks them or threatens to do so -- you don't think there's any element of fear there? Why else do you think the child behaves, if not out of fear?
Fear? What's so bad about a little fear? Fear protects. Fear of police and doing evil at every level of society is healthy. Did you miss the message where I said that after mild corporal punishment the first thing my little boy would do is come up and buddy up to me, realizing that he was forwarned and that the stingy spanking on the butt with a small stick was deserved? Did you read where I said my boys both thank me and my wife for making them mind when children for their own good and their ability to respect authority, etc?
A child who has no fear of the parent will have less respect and behave worse than a child who fears the consequences of doing wrong. Nothing works better than a stingy painful spanking which does not physical harm.
Kitsune writes:
(Other posters on this thread have pointed out that it is actually possible to get a child to behave by earning their respect but you seem to have the deeply confused notion that smacking a child makes them respect you.) What's more, IMO parents smack their children when they themselves are frustrated and don't know what other methods to use, even if they fool themselves that it's about "loving discipline."
First off, smacking is not the Biblical or logical way to discipline. The Biblical way is via a rod/stick and the butt is the place where there's plenty of flesh to prevent from damage. When it is needful to go and get a stick, thought and composure can be better kept before administering the punishment.
Secondly, no kind of punishment will work for parents who can't control themselves or who do not love their children. Whether a parent uses corporal punishment or not, a child's perception will tell him/her whether he/she is loved or not. My boys never doubted that they were loved by their parents. By the time they were teenagers, we had their respect and obedience established to the point that we all had a very good relationship. They knew that sassing us was off the table and there was none of it allowed.
Our boys were exemplary in public. When folks asked how we made them mind, we simply said that we gave them no choice, from the time they were infants. Now, well behaved children are all to rare in public. Nothing makes a restaurant experience more miserable than bratty loud children running around or sassing their parents while you're dining etc.
When we visit relatives or friends who don't use corporal punishment, all too often the visit is marred by the unruly bratty children WHO HAVE NO FEAR OF THEIR PARENTS.
Kitsune writes:
So yes, your Biblical husband looks to me like a person who is quick to anger and physical punishment, and that is what the child will experience.
One of the fruits of the Holy Spirit is self control. Galations 5:23. The Biblical husband, (and I believe most husband, for that matter) who use corporal punishment punish their children because they love them and want to keep them from doing things that will lead to harm to them, all the way from running in the street as a child to associating with the wrong peers in adolencence etc.
Kitsune writes:
What's even more twisted is that you think it is acceptable for the mother to duck her own responsibility for discipline (which the child will also pick up on) and leave the threat hanging that daddy will "deal" with the child when he gets home. Then daddy gets to be the bad guy that the child fears all day long. Everybody loses. You need to think about what this stuff does to a child in his or her head, Buzsaw. Having a well-paying job and a family are, I repeat, no real indicators of a person's emotional or psychological state of well-being.
My wife did the most disciplining, including corporal punishment. It was in the more serious instances when she would have me take care of it. A little healthy mental anguish is fine. That is just another deterant to repetetive disobedience.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Kitsune, posted 05-01-2010 4:29 PM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Kitsune, posted 05-02-2010 1:56 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 116 (558569)
05-02-2010 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Buzsaw
05-01-2010 9:08 PM


Re: Yet Another Strawman
Hyro, where ever did I say or even imply that divorcement should be outlawed? This is another blatant strawman.
I meant to phrase it as a question, not as a statement. I apologize for that. I am asking if you had it your way, would you outlaw things like divorce for the sake of preserving the institution of marriage?
There was a time when you were a sensible good spirited counterpart, but it appears some of the meanspiritedness of some of the others has rubbed off on you.
I'm sorry you feel that way, it's certainly not my intention to be mean for the sake of being mean. It would be helpful if you have any specifics because I don't feel any different. But I will give you the benefit of doubt because perhaps I can't see the water I swim in.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Buzsaw, posted 05-01-2010 9:08 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 103 of 116 (558572)
05-02-2010 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Buzsaw
05-01-2010 5:44 PM


Re: Becoming Blessed, Wise & Mature
quote:
Having a leadership role, coupled with the Biblical traditional marriage vow in place in the relationship has traditionally resulted in a relatively low divorce rate compared to that of today. No?
There are no marriage vows in the Bible.
Respect and common courtesy isn't restricted to the religious. It's common sense.
Divorce rates in the U.S.:
"There is consensus that the overall U.S. divorce rate had a brief spurt after WW2, followed by a decline, then started rising in the 1960s and even more quickly in the 1970s, then leveled off [in the] 1980s and [has since] declined slightly." 7 However, such gross statistics are misleading. There are a number of factors involved that obscure the real data:
*The normal lifestyle of American young adults is to live together for a period of time in a type of informal trial marriage. These relationships frequently do not endure.
*Couples enter into their first marriage at a older age than in the past.
*A growing percentage of committed couples have decided to live in a common-law relationship rather than get married. This is particularly true among some elderly who fear reduction in government support payments.
1997 - U.S. divorce rates for various faith groups, age groups, & geographic areas
Religion % have been divorced
Jews 30%
Born-again Christians 27%
Other Christians 24%
Atheists, Agnostics 21%
2008 - New Marriage and Divorce Statistics Released
Religion % have been divorced
Atheist or agnostic 30%
All born again Christians 32%
All non born again Christians 33%
I don't see that assigned authority or ancient gender roles makes a difference. It still comes down to personalities and how a couple deals with issues and problems. If neither side bends, there will be problems.
Excerpts from: "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Judaism".
God took a portion from Adam's rib so that man would always remember his mate must stand at his side as an equal, neither higher nor lower.
Bone is Stronger than Dust
The Midrash takes note of another difference between mean and woman: Man was created from the dust of the earth, woman from a bone of Adam. Bone is stronger than earth; and earthenware jar when it falls shatters into man pieces; a vessel of bone remains firm and whole. Woman, concludes the Midrash, is blessed with greater emotional inner strength. A remarkable observation for an ancient text considering that Ashley Montagu, the respected American anthropologist and social biologist, wrote the following in the twentieth century: "Though women are more emotional than men, men are emotionally weaker than women; that is, men break more easily under emotional strain than women do. Women bend more easily, and are more resilient."
And when the Talmud wonders why, at the time of Revelation, God told Moses to first "speak to the daughters of Israel" before addressing the men, and to ask them whether they wished to received the Torah, the response is: "Because the way of men is to follow the opinion of women."
Nature of Women
I did a search on Christian rules for a successful marriage. I haven't found one yet that says make sure one person is in charge.
Ten Biblical Rules for a Happy Marriage
Keys to a successful Marriage
Other than childbearing and suckling, the gender roles of ancient civilizations aren't relevant today. Today the roles fit the needs of the couple, the family and the environment/culture in which they strive to survive.
The man who needs to be the leader, better find a woman who will let him.
The woman who needs to be the leader, better find a man who will let her.
Those who want a partnership, better find a mate that wants the same.
Find the right mate and the roles will set themselves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Buzsaw, posted 05-01-2010 5:44 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Son
Member (Idle past 3829 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 104 of 116 (558576)
05-02-2010 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Buzsaw
05-01-2010 9:08 PM


Re: Yet Another Strawman
Well, if the husband take the final decision in everything and doesn't want to divorce, will the wife be allowed to divorce? Wasn't it this way in "biblical times" ? You said it should be exactly like in old times, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Buzsaw, posted 05-01-2010 9:08 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 105 of 116 (558580)
05-02-2010 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Buzsaw
05-02-2010 10:13 AM


Re: Read Me Before Posting Strawmen!
How about the system which has served most cultures of humanity for nearly all of of human history until our times when youth gangs are prevalent
Two things wrong with this. Firstly, you are once again appealing to tradition; you have been called out on this several times and have so far not explained why you follow some rules from the Bible and not others. Apparently being the head of the household works for you but owning slaves doesn't, but you won't explain why. Lots of chaps in the Bible had several wives and concubines as well. They could also sell their children into slavery, though the daughter's price was set lower than the son's. Why aren't you following these sacred Biblical precedents?
The other thing is that people banging their moral gong always blame society's ills on whatever it is they are preaching against. Darwin, according to creationists, is apparently responsible for liberals, women who don't know their place, governments that tell them what to do, litter on the highway and whatever else winds them up. At the moment it isn't Darwin though, it's families that don't try to live like Hebrew tribes did thousands of years ago.
Pardon me if I don't stone my daughter to death when she loses her virginity.
What's so bad about a little fear?
What's bad about making your children afraid of you because you hit them with a stick or threaten to do so? If you're actually asking this question then I think it speaks for itself.
By the way, I'd lose my job if I hit my students. Curiously, I get them to behave just fine using other methods. They don't fear me, they respect me. The same goes for my daughter. Even curiouser, she is not a "bratty" child, she behaves fine when we go out, she knows where the boundaries are and they are consistently enforced. All this and no hitting with sticks. Funny, that.
Nothing works better than a stingy painful spanking which does not physical harm.
Yes that really taught me my lesson over and over when I was little. [/sarcasm]
after mild corporal punishment the first thing my little boy would do is come up and buddy up to me, realizing that he was forwarned and that the stingy spanking on the butt with a small stick was deserved?
And you seem to have missed the bit where I pointed out that as his father, you would have been one of the most important people in his life. A little child depends on its parents for love, approval, and safety. This is ironically why, even when a parent is the instigator of some kind of pain, the child will go right back to that parent for comforting. Just something to think about.
It was in the more serious instances when she would have me take care of it. A little healthy mental anguish is fine.
This is deeply disturbing.
Edited by Kitsune, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Buzsaw, posted 05-02-2010 10:13 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024