DIVERSITY IS AMERICA'S GREATEST STRENGTH

[Nick_A]

Greta

G.1. Does he believe that women have the right to say no to sex in marriage?

N. Does a woman have the obligation to say yes to sex whenever possible in marriage?


G.2. Does he believe a wife has the right to disobey her husband?

N. Does a woman have the obligation to obey her husband after she has promised to love, honor, and obey her husband

3. Does he believe that it is fine for a husband to hit his wife for disobeying him?

Why should he have to? The ideal man would have the commanding presence that earns her respect. Since in marriage they are as one body so the mind governs the heart rather than the heart governing the mind

The secular mind is obsessed with rights, It has no conception of the relationship between rights and voluntary obligations essential for a free society.

[Nick_A]

Greta

Well said! Nick's posts do have a wistful quality, as if he's dreaming of the world represented by Leave it to Beaver and My Three Sons.

No, I am saying that those like you are joyfully willing to sacrifice the ideals essential for a free society for the cause of statist slavery. I don't share your enthusiasm.

Keep your straw persons to yourself.

The essentials for a free society need not involve adopting the ideology of Iron Age Middle East - we can see how that went for them.

The essentials for a free society do not involve denying women abortions, the freedom to force women to have sex in marriage even when she says no, the freedom for husbands to beat their wives, the freedom to destroy homosexuals for not being normal, the freedom to annihilate the natural environment for "divine man", and so on.

Besides, most of us well know the suspected proclivities of St Paul in shaping Christianity https://qspirit.net/apostle-paul-homosexuality/ - it appears to be a religion started by a gay man in denial that still holds those qualities that attract gay men in denial to this day - hence all the anti-gay campaigners that seem to have more sex with blokes that out gays. Here's a brief list of prominent Christian "anti gay" campaigners caught playing hide the sausage: https://www.ranker.com/list/top-10-anti ... gay/joanne

Hmm, and they don't much like women. Hmmmm.

The irony is that the GOP and their favourite man are the very epitome of statist slavery in their policy-making. Yet a sizeable majority of Christians are too too dim and uneducated to realise how they are being played by both flock leaders and political leaders pretending to be spiritual people. Probably too busy trying not to fantasise about being bonked by blokes

The point is that you don't know what is essential for a free society to function and why the human condition makes it impossible without help from above. You only know how to complain and blame Trump.

You believe Paul was gay. You probably also believe Jesus was gay and Simone Weil was a lesbian. The modern mind has lost its natural understanding of the varied purposes of sex and sex energy. Then advocates of ignorance become experts and everyone suffers.

[-1-]

...Paul was gay...Jesus was gay and Simone Weil was a lesbian. The modern mind has lost its natural understanding of the varied purposes of sex and sex energy. Then advocates of ignorance become experts and everyone suffers.

NO! JESUS WAS NOT GAY!!!

He was, instead, a bi-curious queer pre-op transgender reptile. He wore women's clothing (look at his photographs) and he kissed men.

[-1-]

Answer please, according to the Bible:

Does a woman have the right to disobey her husband when he takes her to atheist wife-swapping meet-ups, and forces her to fornicate and deboucher with strange men she is not married to?

[Nick_A]

Answer please, according to the Bible:

Does a woman have the right to disobey her husband when he takes her to atheist wife-swapping meet-ups, and forces her to fornicate and deboucher with strange men she is not married to?

You are referring to relationships between secular progressives. Women disobey all the time. If they don't they are no longer secular progressives. The problem wouldn't occur in an authentic Christian marriage.

The biggest failing of the secular mind is that it lacks a sense of objective scale and relativity. Seculrists have no idea that concepts like religion, love, and art, for example differ in their objective quality. They must believe this since secularism denies the concept of objective quality.

The ideal is a foreign concept since it doesn't exist for the secularist. That is why Christianity is meaningless for the secularist. Its goal is the conscious evolution of the old man into the New Man which doesn't exist for the secularist obsessed with secularized religion.

[FlashDangerpants]

You are referring to relationships between secular progressives. Women disobey all the time. If they don't they are no longer secular progressives. The problem wouldn't occur in an authentic Christian marriage.

That sounds like a Sharia marriage.

[Nick_A]

You are referring to relationships between secular progressives. Women disobey all the time. If they don't they are no longer secular progressives. The problem wouldn't occur in an authentic Christian marriage.

That sounds like a Sharia marriage.

It will seem that way for all those who cannot distinguish between the goals of the secular and the sacred. Sharia secularizes the god concept into a personal dualistic earth concept, In contrast the purpose of sacred serves to develop our being so we evolve closer to our ineffable source. Unfortunately secularism has sacrificed its ability to recognize the difference for the sake of imagined self justification and self importance. IMO it's not worth the sacrifice.

[Frank N Stein]

You are referring to relationships between secular progressives. Women disobey all the time. If they don't they are no longer secular progressives. The problem wouldn't occur in an authentic Christian marriage.

That sounds like a Sharia marriage.

It will seem that way for all those who cannot distinguish between the goals of the secular and the sacred. Sharia secularizes the god concept into a personal dualistic earth concept, In contrast the purpose of sacred serves to develop our being so we evolve closer to our ineffable source. Unfortunately secularism has sacrificed its ability to recognize the difference for the sake of imagined self justification and self importance. IMO it's not worth the sacrifice.

Which theocracy do you most admire?

[Nick_A]

That sounds like a Sharia marriage.

It will seem that way for all those who cannot distinguish between the goals of the secular and the sacred. Sharia secularizes the god concept into a personal dualistic earth concept, In contrast the purpose of sacred serves to develop our being so we evolve closer to our ineffable source. Unfortunately secularism has sacrificed its ability to recognize the difference for the sake of imagined self justification and self importance. IMO it's not worth the sacrifice.

Which theocracy do you most admire?

It would be a theocracy ruled by Philosopher Kings who have been educated into the knowledge of the objective good and acquired the quality of being necessary to reflect it.

Of course it cannot exist in a secularized society. If there are no public "experts" it is best to create a free society for the sake of avoiding the secularized experts. There is no knowledge of the objective good or philosopher kings in a society in which secularized religion is dominant. Consequently I favor a free society in which people are aware of the human condition and what is essential to deal with it on a personal level. Simone Weil explains:

The combination of these two facts — the longing in the depth of the heart for absolute good, and the power, though only latent, of directing attention and love to a reality beyond the world and of receiving good from it — constitutes a link which attaches every man without exception to that other reality.
Whoever recognizes that reality recognizes also that link. Because of it, he holds every human being without any exception as something sacred to which he is bound to show respect.

This is the only possible motive for universal respect towards all human beings. Whatever formulation of belief or disbelief a man may choose to make, if his heart inclines him to feel this respect, then he in fact also recognizes a reality other than this world's reality. Whoever in fact does not feel this respect is alien to that other reality also.

If people as a whole were capable of what Simone Weil described socialism as understood by those like Einstein would be possible, As we are, diversity just intensifies the problem of the human condition so can only make matters worse.

[FlashDangerpants]

It will seem that way for all those who cannot distinguish between the goals of the secular and the sacred. Sharia secularizes the god concept into a personal dualistic earth concept, In contrast the purpose of sacred serves to develop our being so we evolve closer to our ineffable source. Unfortunately secularism has sacrificed its ability to recognize the difference for the sake of imagined self justification and self importance. IMO it's not worth the sacrifice.

Which theocracy do you most admire?

It would be a theocracy ruled by Philosopher Kings who have been educated into the knowledge of the objective good and acquired the quality of being necessary to reflect it.

Like you hero Socrates ... the dude who married Xanthippe specifically because she was annoying, and had a homosexual affair with Alcibiades, the true man-boy-love of his life.

[-1-]

Greta

G.1. Does he believe that women have the right to say no to sex in marriage?

N. Does a woman have the obligation to say yes to sex whenever possible in marriage?


G.2. Does he believe a wife has the right to disobey her husband?

N. Does a woman have the obligation to obey her husband after she has promised to love, honor, and obey her husband

3. Does he believe that it is fine for a husband to hit his wife for disobeying him?

Why should he have to? The ideal man would have the commanding presence that earns her respect. Since in marriage they are as one body so the mind governs the heart rather than the heart governing the mind

The secular mind is obsessed with rights, It has no conception of the relationship between rights and voluntary obligations essential for a free society.

I did not have the commanding presence, as my wife of 26 years of marriage was taller than I. And she had the right to refuse sex at any time theoretically, but she never did.

The trick is to keep screwing her for ten years before marriage. If her reluctance for sex were real, it would come out in the wash in the first ten years of lovership.

[Greta]

Greta

G.1. Does he believe that women have the right to say no to sex in marriage?

N. Does a woman have the obligation to say yes to sex whenever possible in marriage?

G.2. Does he believe a wife has the right to disobey her husband?

N. Does a woman have the obligation to obey her husband after she has promised to love, honor, and obey her husband[/quotre]

Now Nick makes clear that woman must obey their husbands.

3. Does he believe that it is fine for a husband to hit his wife for disobeying him?

Why should he have to? The ideal man would have the commanding presence that earns her respect.

I am surprised. I didn't think you would be so bad as to condone the beating of a wife is a husband "has to". Plus expectations that wives be their husband's underlings and sex slaves.

Your attitudes are retrograde, misogynist and deeply immoral and unfair.

Why should a superior mind be compelled to obey an inferior mind just because the latter is attached to meat n' veg? That's primitive.

US women take note - the Republicans and evangelical Christians will reduce you to being men's chattel.

[Nick_A]

Greta

G.1. Does he believe that women have the right to say no to sex in marriage?

N. Does a woman have the obligation to say yes to sex whenever possible in marriage?

G.2. Does he believe a wife has the right to disobey her husband?

N. Does a woman have the obligation to obey her husband after she has promised to love, honor, and obey her husband[/quotre]

Now Nick makes clear that woman must obey their husbands.

3. Does he believe that it is fine for a husband to hit his wife for disobeying him?

Why should he have to? The ideal man would have the commanding presence that earns her respect.

I am surprised. I didn't think you would be so bad as to condone the beating of a wife is a husband "has to". Plus expectations that wives be their husband's underlings and sex slaves.

Your attitudes are retrograde, misogynist and deeply immoral and unfair.

Why should a superior mind be compelled to obey an inferior mind just because the latter is attached to meat n' veg? That's primitive.

US women take note - the Republicans and evangelical Christians will reduce you to being men's chattel.

You forget that while you are only concerned with secular relationships I am referring to the ideal of traditional marriage and its goal of receiving from above in order to give to below through the blend of its quality of male and female energies. You don't understand it which is also unfortunately the norm of today.

[Lacewing]

That is why Christianity is meaningless for the secularist.

Christianity is meaningless for anyone who recognizes the thousands of reasons that it's absurd.

I am referring to the ideal of traditional marriage

Of all the "traditional marriage" throughout history, why do you think your contrived version is the ultimate representation?

[Greta]

Greta

G.1. Does he believe that women have the right to say no to sex in marriage?

N. Does a woman have the obligation to say yes to sex whenever possible in marriage?

G.2. Does he believe a wife has the right to disobey her husband?

N. Does a woman have the obligation to obey her husband after she has promised to love, honor, and obey her husband[/quotre]

Now Nick makes clear that woman must obey their husbands.

3. Does he believe that it is fine for a husband to hit his wife for disobeying him?

Why should he have to? The ideal man would have the commanding presence that earns her respect.

I am surprised. I didn't think you would be so bad as to condone the beating of a wife is a husband "has to". Plus expectations that wives be their husband's underlings and sex slaves.

Your attitudes are retrograde, misogynist and deeply immoral and unfair.

Why should a superior mind be compelled to obey an inferior mind just because the latter is attached to meat n' veg? That's primitive.

US women take note - the Republicans and evangelical Christians will reduce you to being men's chattel.

You forget that while you are only concerned with secular relationships I am referring to the ideal of traditional marriage and its goal of receiving from above in order to give to below through the blend of its quality of male and female energies. You don't understand it which is also unfortunately the norm of today.

However, you hide your fear and hatred of women behind a desire to them women and deny them any kind of rights or independent value in life based on a spurious ideology entirely lacking any kind of actually basis beyond "the Bible said so" (never mind the ambiguities).

We know the ancients' idea of male and female energies - the male completely and utterly dominates and controls the female in every aspect of life aside from a tiny sliver of independence in doing what you would call "women's work" - cleaning toilets, servicing men like prostitutes and char-ladies 24/7 on demand, cleaning up garbage and excrement left by men, preparing food and cleaning up after mens' eating, making simple handicrafts and looking after babies.

Meanwhile, men - even the very stupid ones - may do all of the thinking, philosophising, learning that women must not be permitted, unless traitors to their gender. Nick's men make all decisions in all areas with zero input from women who, to you, are like children who should be seen and not heard.

Basically yours is it's a dream of empowerment to make up for a sense of impotence and weakness due to regular rejection by women. So you find an ancient ideology that fits with your fear and hatred of women to use as justification, to fight back and punish them by always advocating against any rights for them.