Tags
blogging, insanitybytes, opinion, politics, Scalzi/Day, scripture, theology
I’ve been following several interesting discussions and opinions on Syrian refugees and Christian values from all possible angles, from the perspective of propaganda and social engineering to just plain insane, to some sound and well reasoned theology.
I’ll just link to a couple of diverse opinions. First we have Chris Martin who makes an emotional appeal in A desperate plea from a father and husband. Where is our mercy, our compassion?
Than we have Luther Siler, sci/fi guy, non believer but with a masters degree in biblical studies who writes, In which I tell you how your religion works.
Then we have the middle school mean girls and the never ending drama between Vox Day and John Scalzi, in which they compete for the honor of who will look the most foolish. VDs post is here, McRapey Tries Theology.
Never let it be said that I don’s access diverse sources and “chose to live in my little echo chamber.” Actually that was said again just yesterday and I found it somewhat amusing. I don’t think so.
Let me share my opinion on these 3-4 blog posts. Martin’s compassion and love is admirable, but it is an emotional appeal not rooted in reason, but rather desperation and dire circumstances. Heart breaking yes, but devoid of much more than “do something, this hurts.” I empathize deeply there, but that is seldom the way to go about solving problems.
Next we have Luther Siler who says, “All religions concern themselves with charity…” and than goes on to say, “That said, though, this is really, really, crystal clear.” Uh yeah, clear as mud. Sorry to say, not all religions concern themselves with charity. Some concern themselves with chopping off people’s heads. This theme however, the one were non believers lecture Christians about how they ought to behave and think, is a common one. It always begs the question, if you advocate for these values, if you perceive them as such desirable qualities that you would preach to believers about the importance of following them, why are you not a believer yourself? …..Never mind, I can only go down so many rabbit holes at once.
Which leads me to Scalzi and Day. John Scalzi the non believer appeals to emotion and Christian values with a story about the Good Samaritan. Vox Day mangles scripture with an attempted attack using the Canaanite woman from Matthew 15:21-28. Except he leaves off the most important part! He ends with, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” Hey buddy, we don’t get to edit scripture to make it more to our liking. The next two sentences don’t exactly support your theory of refugees being nothing more than dogs, hardly entitled to crumbs. The next words in that passage are, “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.” Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.
I’m reminded that even the enemy knows scripture and that he has spent thousands of years whispering in people’s ears, “did God really say that?” Didn’t he tell you to lay down before your enemies and let them kill you? Didn’t he say it’s okay to engage in hatred of those you perceive as foreigners? Didn’t he say this issue is clear as mud? Didn’t God say…..
Didn’t God say you must be kind to the widows and orphans, even those who desire to make widows and orphans of you? Aren’t you people supposed to be entertaining strangers, aren’t they angels?
To which I can only reply, aren’t you an angel, too?
Luther M. Siler said:
Zakat, or almsgiving, is one of the Five Pillars of Islam, which are kind of important to being a Muslim. Head-chopping, sadly, does not appear to have made the list.
And the answer to your question is quite simple. If Christianity were just about how to treat others I’d likely be a Christian. The God stuff, unfortunately, does tend to get in the way of that.
LikeLiked by 2 people
insanitybytes22 said:
“Head-chopping, sadly, does not appear to have made the list…..”
Well obviously if we simply do exactly what you have done and explain to them, “let me tell you how your religion works,” we shall have the problem resolved in no time.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Luther M. Siler said:
Your inability to distinguish extremists from normal people is somewhat disturbing.
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
Not at all, it’s simply irrelevant. Only about 10% of Germans were Nazis, but that had no bearing on the threat Nazis posed.
Our own governments seem to be having trouble distinguishing between “extremists” and “normal” people.Hence the problem we now face.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Luther M. Siler said:
Good rule of thumb: the non-head-choppers are running from the head-choppers. If Islam was remotely as violent as the worst among us want us to think it is, we actually WOULD be in a world war right now, and tens of millions of heads would have been chopped. This is not very difficult. It is also, incidentally, the last I have to say on this at the moment, as I suspect you’re unreachable.
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
” It is also, incidentally, the last I have to say on this at the moment, as I suspect you’re unreachable.”
Alas, I am once again “unreachable.” The refugees however, should always be given the benefit of the doubt and assumed to be full of good intentions, one and all.
LikeLiked by 2 people
theasdgamer said:
Luther, I’m sure your judgment centers will mature some day.
LikeLike
theasdgamer said:
IB, since Luther has shown great ability at reaching, I think that he might be able to reach you after all.
LikeLike
Rebecca LuElla Miller said:
You left out the fact that Islam is selective. Muslims are not required to treat those of other faiths, or no faith at all, the same they are to treat other Muslims. So in that regard, “charity” doesn’t mean the same thing to all religions.
“Head chopping” does make the list for any Muslim who takes the Qur’an literally.
OK, it’s not one of the five pillars, but it Muslims are tasked with making converts and any who won’t convert are condemned to die: “The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called ‘hypocrites’ and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.” Example: “Quran (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them” ”
But most Muslims are “progressive” (the term a lot of Christians have taken for themselves) and spiritualize or contextualize such passages. Hence, all Muslims aren’t advocating for this method of spreading Islam. But I don’t think there’s an argument that they nevertheless do want to spread Islam.
Hey, Christians want to spread Christianity, too, so I understand where they’re coming from.
Becky
LikeLiked by 3 people
authorleighmichaels said:
True Christians don’t want to “spread Christianity.” We want all to know and believe in God’s grace and the sacrifice He has given to save them. We are not tasked with making converts, nor are we tasked to kill all who don’t believe.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Rebecca LuElla Miller said:
Maybe not converts, but we are tasked to make disciples. Not sure there’s a great difference in the outcome. When there are more disciples, Christianity spreads. It’s the way the world works. It may not be biology (tip of the hat to IB, there), but it works the same way.
I mentioned the “progressive” Muslims because I think a lot of Christians fear Islam. First, Muslims, like Christians, don’t all think alike, even those who practice Islam faithfully. If we react in fear, we are less likely to pray for them, I think.
Second, God is doing a work in a number of places with people living under Islamic influence. I think we should rejoice that the Good News is spreading to places that have been unreachable for far too long.
And most importantly, as Elisha reminded his servant, “Those who are with us are more than those who are with them.” He who is in us is greater than he who is in the world. God is still sovereign. When we are afraid, we can say with David, “I will put my trust in you. In God, whose word I praise, I will put my trust. What can mere man do to me.”
Becky
LikeLiked by 1 person
john zande said:
@authorleighmichaels
“nor are we tasked to kill all who don’t believe.”
Really? Perhaps you should read your bible:
Kill Nonbelievers: They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)
Kill Followers of Other Religions: 1) If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)
Of course, there’s also Numbers 25:1-9 where 24,000 people are murdered for non-belief.
Kill False Prophets 1) Suppose there are prophets among you, or those who have dreams about the future, and they promise you signs or miracles, and the predicted signs or miracles take place. If the prophets then say, ‘Come, let us worship the gods of foreign nations,’ do not listen to them. The LORD your God is testing you to see if you love him with all your heart and soul. Serve only the LORD your God and fear him alone. Obey his commands, listen to his voice, and cling to him. The false prophets or dreamers who try to lead you astray must be put to death, for they encourage rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of slavery in the land of Egypt. Since they try to keep you from following the LORD your God, you must execute them to remove the evil from among you. (Deuteronomy 13:1-5 NLT)
Death for Blasphemy One day a man who had an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father got into a fight with one of the Israelite men. During the fight, this son of an Israelite woman blasphemed the LORD’s name. So the man was brought to Moses for judgment. His mother’s name was Shelomith. She was the daughter of Dibri of the tribe of Dan. They put the man in custody until the LORD’s will in the matter should become clear. Then the LORD said to Moses, “Take the blasphemer outside the camp, and tell all those who heard him to lay their hands on his head. Then let the entire community stone him to death. Say to the people of Israel: Those who blaspheme God will suffer the consequences of their guilt and be punished. Anyone who blasphemes the LORD’s name must be stoned to death by the whole community of Israel. Any Israelite or foreigner among you who blasphemes the LORD’s name will surely die. (Leviticus 24:10-16 NLT)
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
Zande, you are so boring and redundant sometimes, you make going to work feel like a great relief. Thank you for that kindness.
LikeLiked by 1 person
john zande said:
No worries… Always happy to help out the Christian who’s never read their bible 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
Actually Zande, you encourage me to read my bible even more, and to do my yoga…so I can contort myself into awkward positions so as to try to see the world through your eyes.
LikeLiked by 3 people
john zande said:
“World through my eyes”? I’m just quoting scripture! LOL!
LikeLiked by 1 person
ColorStorm said:
Your magazine ms bytes never empties of the ammo………… , but it’s only rubber bullets, stings nicely but isn’t fatal, and doesn’t leave scars. 😉
Then again, if pride were only fatal…….
(btw, love that word ‘babble’ used elsewhere)
LikeLike
anitvan said:
You have made an error in exegesis, sir. These particular scriptures are written either to, or about, a particular audience at a particular time and place, and there is nothing in them to indicate that they are meant to be prescriptive to all people at all times.
Perhaps you have an issue with the events described. Fine. But you cannot say that “death to unbelievers” is a tenet of Christianity, not without doing violence to Scripture.
LikeLiked by 3 people
john zande said:
Hi Anitvan
I’m afraid you’re mistaken. Christians have not been “released” from the OT commands. Here is an excellent article written by a Christian theologian on the matter.
http://appliedfaith.org/2015/10/06/can-christians-carry-concealed-weapons/
LikeLike
anitvan said:
I’ve had an unexpected visit from the grandkids which has turned into an impromptu sleepover. I must go indulge them – I’m sure you understand – but I’d like to respond later. Thanks for your patience with me!
LikeLiked by 1 person
john zande said:
No problem. Enjoy the glorious chaos
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
So that will be how many chapters now? Five or six?
Maybe if John continues to highlight your abject ignorance you may end up reading all of it one day and realise what utter nonsense it really is?
Perhaps you should ready a few ”Bless you, Johns?”
LikeLike
Pam Witzemann said:
Christ carries out His redemptive work one individual heart at a time. When applying the values He gives us, I think we have to work that way too. Whatever the government decides about the refugees, we will have to make the choice of reacting in a way that pleases God. That’s really the only, thing we have control over. I don’t know where I will find myself in this but I want the choices I make to come from the position of trust in God and the desire to do what pleases Him and not be choices made out of fear. I don’t want to feed the beast.
LikeLiked by 4 people
insanitybytes22 said:
Ultimately that is what we shall all have to do I suppose, trust in God and do what we think will be pleasing to Him. Those are our individual choices. As to the greater issue at large from a political perspective however, I can’t even imagine how we get ourselves out of this.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Pam Witzemann said:
No, I can’t either. It’s a disaster and there is blood on all hands. May God have mercy. He is the only hope.
LikeLiked by 2 people
insanitybytes22 said:
Amen.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rebecca LuElla Miller said:
I think our problem with this issue is exacerbated because our government is confused by its role. As I understand it, our Constitution tasked the federal government with protecting the nation. It didn’t give Congress or the President or the Supreme Court the role of doing good, here in America, and certainly not throughout the world. Consequently, that job falls on we, the people.
But our government has decided to step in and do a lot of stuff that we the people are supposed to do. Like feed our children breakfast.
All that to say, I don’t think there’s really a conflict if the government did what it was supposed to do (protect the nation) and the people did what we’re to do (for Christians this would include loving our enemies).
Unfortunately it’s unlikely we’ll get those roles sorted out any time soon, so some individuals are wanting the government to act the way they expect people to act—loving and forgiving and nurturing and caring.
Well, the government isn’t supposed to be the opposite and it should reflect the values of its people. At the same time, it should not sacrifice its primary role of protecting the nation.
If our government took care of that first, then we could make plans for showing compassion and providing charity.
Becky
LikeLiked by 3 people
insanitybytes22 said:
Great points, Becky. Our government is actually charged with protecting us from all enemies foreign and domestic, not feeding our kids breakfast. It’s really gotten crazy, we’re supposed to take in all these refugees, but we’ve got our own kids, our own veterans living on the street.
Some people try to claim we shouldn’t be “rich and greedy,” but guess what? They aren’t the ones that will be dealing with the collateral damage and fallout here. They’ll go back to their little bubble world and gated communities, while everyone on the bottom rung of society will be asked to sacrifice jobs, housing,and safety so other people can feel “compassionate” about having saved refugees.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Rebecca LuElla Miller said:
Great points, IB. Plus, I have my doubts that a government can be generous or compassionate. So the segment of our society that wants these things to be true about us should simply go about being generous and compassionate people. If those are values of our society, then lo and behold, we’ll discover that many more acts of generosity and compassion will take place than if we sit around and prod the government to do what we aren’t willing to do ourselves.
Becky
LikeLiked by 2 people
David said:
“But our government has decided to step in and do a lot of stuff that we the people are supposed to do. Like feed our children breakfast.”
Minor quibble, but in a democracy, we, the people, are the government. You know, government of the people, by the people, for the people? So, if the government is feeding children breakfast, then we, the people, are feeding children breakfast.
LikeLike
Rebecca LuElla Miller said:
Well, David, that’s the way it was set up, and I would love it if it was ours in reality, but sadly, more today than ever before, we have a government that goes its on way, not the way the people will it to go. But that’s a different subject altogether and I don’t want to go off! 😉
Becky
LikeLike
David said:
“We have a government that goes its on way, not the way the people will it to go.”
Maybe on some occasions, but the part of the government that feeds people is a part that can be considered “of the people.” I think that we, the people, can take a little credit here.
But I understand that desire to not “go off,” so I’ll leave it at that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Eric said:
Yesterday, France launched a retaliatory airstrike against ISIS, and learned afterwards that our ‘compassionate’ Pentagon had dropped leaflets on ISIS warning them of the attack. Now, France has announced they will coordinate with the Russians instead.
Meanwhile, these same Left-Wing whackos who want to force us to accept ISIS refugees (the same idiots who tell us that accepting homo marriage is our Christian duty) are denying refugee status to Middle Eastern Christians. The State Department even issued a decree barring Christian testimony as to atrocities committed against them. And this follows the Pentagon orders, gagging Christian chaplains while trying to ‘integrate’ more Jihadists and Queers into the military.
At this point, I’m for letting the Moslems have this damned country. Christianity, masculinity, heterosexuality—none of these things are welcome or wanted here anymore, anyway.
LikeLiked by 4 people
insanitybytes22 said:
“At this point, I’m for letting the Moslems have this damned country. Christianity, masculinity, heterosexuality—none of these things are welcome or wanted here anymore, anyway.”
I’m sorry Eric, it is a frustrating situation. However, I’m not sure those things have every been welcome anywhere in the world. We’re very comfortable and complacent here in the West, and I think we’ve forgotten that the world has never welcomed or wanted us. It’s been a fight every step of the way and a whole lot of people have lost their lives protecting and defending those ideals.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Eric said:
Think of it this way: if the Jihadists took over the United States, what would change? What would they do? Take away our freedoms? Impose political correctness on us? Teach anti-Americanism in the schools? Groom young boys for the homosexual elite like they do in Afghanistan (or here in Seattle)? Tear down Christian symbols and force Christians out of public arenas? Control the media? Purge the military and police and replace them with their own toadies? Disarm the populace? Flood the country with drugs? Break up families?
The Liberals have been doing and promoting these things since the Clintonista Regime and the Ameroboobs roll their eyes, effect a cynical sneer and line up behind the latest ‘New Normal’. They’d oblige the Islamic Jihad the same way. Heck, there’d be even more ‘exciting bad boys’ for our women to breed with—and they could be part of harem too.
The Liberals tell us that those values our forefathers defended and protected don’t count anymore. OK, since this country belongs to the Left now—and their hangers-on—in the interest of ;diversity’ and ‘fairness’ maybe it’s time we let them fight and die for THEIR country and THEIR value system for a change.
LikeLike
David said:
“If the Jihadists took over the United States, what would change?”
Seriously? So, thing are just as bad here in the U.S. as they are in the ISIS-held territories? Nothing would change if ISIS took over here? Liberals would be happy to oblige the new rulers?
C’mon, ‘fess up. You’re a Poe, right?
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
Perhaps you should stop and consider where these people actually get their arms from, Eric?
LikeLike
Emily said:
Honestly Insanity, I feel that people who think negatively of Islam and Muslims don’t know many Muslims. I know many of them, and I consider them, in general, to be good, God fearing, conservative people.
Does their religion teach violence? I don’t think we can say that until we’ve properly read their holy book. Condemning Nazism is fine, because at it’s core Nazism is a belief of racial superiority and jingoism. Some forms of Islam are like that, but what is it in truth? And are we helping the Islamic reformists by insisting that it is a religion of violence?
Certainly there are problems in Islam, we can see that. But whether these problems are religious, or political/cultural, we don’t really know. The head of the Taliban for example was illiterate, so he was hardly influenced by the Koran.
Accepting refugees… I’m a Christian, all I have to ask myself is what would Jesus have to say on this matter? And everyone knows that Jesus would not support wealthy, safe people closing their doors on frightened refugees, running from a group that WE created. Personally I think we should accept them, but give priority to women and children. Surely they are not a danger.
People are also ignoring the fact that the attack in Paris was organized by a European.
There needs to be more love in the world…
LikeLiked by 1 person
theasdgamer said:
Emily, reform in Islam is a smokescreen, for the most part. Islam is always poised to take advantage of weakness. “Moderates” can be quickly radicalized. The terrorists of 9/11 fame were mostly moderates who were radicalized for the attacks by a few of the devout fanatics. Study islam’s history–that is what it has done, time after time. Islam is a military-political ideology masquerading as a religion. Very little theology or apologetics and a very simple metaphysic. Bare minimum of religious content.
LikeLiked by 2 people
theasdgamer said:
Close our doors on refugees? Like most of the “refugees” are young men of military age? Like the Boston bombers? Look at all the “refugees” wanting in to our countries…
http://www.dangerandplay.com/2015/11/14/the-syrian-refugee-crisis-and-paris-shooting/
LikeLiked by 1 person
theasdgamer said:
Christians are often useful idiots used by cynical machiavels in power to expand the power of the machiavels. Terrorists give machiavels an excuse to expand the power of the state at the expense of the freedom of the citizens.
LikeLike
Emily said:
Aren’t you the guy posting continuously on theRationalMale?
So you go from misogyny to bigotry.
Expel the hate from your heart! Any group can be demonized by considering it’s worst examples.
Also, I never said he was a WHITE European. A muslim who has a Belgian citizenship is a European. I know you don’t consider him one, but that’s irrelevant. My point was he wasn’t a recent refugee.
LikeLike
theasdgamer said:
Stay in your place, woman. Quit trying to judge men’s hearts. That is reserved for God.
LikeLike
Emily said:
To clarify, I dont think we should accept many muslim male refugees. Prioritize the families and orphans.
If anyone advocates closing doors to children and orphans because they are muslim, then I really think they should reevaluate their faith and what Jesus Christ has taught us.
LikeLike
theasdgamer said:
So, families don’t include male refugees? I guess men don’t count in what you consider a family. Your misandry is showing.
Are you supporting any orphans? Why should you impose your values on the rest of us? Christian orphans should be supported first, if you are a Christian.
Women can be used as suicide bombers–and have been.
http://www.newsweek.com/isis-uses-first-known-female-suicide-bomber-western-europe-395959
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
It’s a complex issue, Emily, because children are being trained as soldiers and martyrs, as are women. Those are Western values you’re speaking of, where we protect women and children. It is not like that in much of the world.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave said:
Emily, then we also shouldn’t let Muslim women come too and the way you complain about someone who usually comment in other blog reminds me of feminists who demand safe space in campus and it’s very ridiculous
LikeLiked by 2 people
Emily said:
“Stay in your place, woman. Quit trying to judge men’s hearts.”
Oh that nerve! A regular commentator on TheRationalMale has the nerve to tell ME not judge men! Oh dear.
That entire website, and the manosphere in general, is about judging women.
Stay in your place, man.
LikeLike
theasdgamer said:
lol, silly girl
LikeLike
Emily said:
Just go away, man. We don’t want you here, man. Go back to theRationalMale and make up stories about all the women you’ve been with, man.
Speaking of which, the whole red pill thing is so ironic. You judge us and hate us, but your whole life revolves around us. It’s amusing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
theasdgamer said:
No, girl, I don’t hate you. I don’t judge you. I don’t accuse you of having bad thoughts. You amuse me and entertain me.
The Red Pill is the truth about women–not the pretty lies. Women are just as sexually sinful as men, but men have been taking all the flak. Women are sexually responsive, but because men initiate sex, society blames men when women cheat because the man supposedly took advantage of the woman. It takes two to tango.
LikeLike
Emily said:
“Women are just as sexually sinful as men”
Yes…
“Women are sexually responsive”
Who says they aren’t?
“Society blames men when women cheat”
Which society? Women always blame other women when their man cheats. It’s f***d up, but true.
“It takes two to tango.”
Indeed, which is why it’s confusing that Rollo and Dalrock want to reduce women to objects for their sexual desire, not worthy of equal respect.
I realize it may have started as anti-feminism, which is fine. But now it’s full blown misogyny.
LikeLiked by 1 person
theasdgamer said:
Focus on the Family, Dennis Rainey, etc. Fireproof. etc. Don’t you read Dalrock’s blog?
LikeLike
theasdgamer said:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/justice-schanfarber/why-women-leave-men-they-_b_8511584.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
What’s your gripe about that article, gamer-guy? I thought it was rather good.
LikeLike
Emily said:
I read it sometimes.
One amusing thing I noticed on Dalrock’s blog recently was that he explicitly had to tell his readers to not talk about adultery and corporal punishment.
Dalrock should pause and reflect on that. Because the only reason he is attracting nutters who believe that they should be able to cheat on their wife and beat her, is because he himself is saying crazy, misogynistic stuff that attracts these characters.
You will note that Insanity doesn’t have to explicitly tell her readers to not say monstrous things.
LikeLike
theasdgamer said:
Emily, Feminism IS a monster…and it is in control of almost all the culture. You say monstrous things all the time, love.
When a woman acts like a child, she should be treated like a child. You know you all do act like children at times.
A woman who withholds sex is cheating. Period. Women are encouraged to cheat all the time in the culture, lol. Where is there shaming of women for withholding sex? Hell, withholding sex is part of the “You go gurrrrl” philosophy. It’s monstrous.
*edited for language
LikeLike
theasdgamer said:
IB, that article is awful. It tells men to pay MORE attention to their wives–to act like beta orbiters–which kills attraction. Attention should be given sparingly to women. Men are already giving women too much attention. Look at all the bozos on Facebook giving women’s selfies likes. And husbands tend to pedestalize their wives.
Women value what is rare much more than what is common. If a man’s attention is common, it won’t be valued.
I again mention my post about relationships. https://theasdgamer.wordpress.com/2014/10/23/managing-your-relationship-with-your-wifegirlfriend/
Some attention must be paid to wives, obviously. The problem is, an article like schanfarber’s is without any calibration–men will assume that if a little attention is good, more is better. “Oh, no, I spent all day shopping with my wife–that’s not enough–I need to give up my game night, too, so that we can cuddle.” So the man loses his edge, the woman loses attraction, the relationship starts to crumble, the wife starts losing weight and doing GNOs, wife meets Frank Fratboy and cheats, divorces husband, etc.
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
Hmmm…I’m going to have to ponder that for a while and perhaps post about it. I think you are trying to say that familiarity breeds contempt.
LikeLike
theasdgamer said:
No, when a man submits to a woman’s frame or even to the frame that society tells him he should, the woman will sense it and perceive it as a loss of masculinity.
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
Fascinating. I read your article on relationships. I really believe you are saying nearly the same thing that article is. Women need an emotional connection, they need a husband to be present. You’re thinking that means a man acting needy, clingy, subservient. Regardless, I will do my best to post about it very soon, okay?
LikeLike
theasdgamer said:
The way Schnfarker presents it, he means clingy, etc. “Women leave because their man is not present.” Nonsense. Women leave because the man they married feels more like a little brother they can bully than like a husband.
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
I’m working on a post right now. I’ll do my best to explain it.
LikeLike
theasdgamer said:
I think that I may do a better job of explaining the Red Pill in a way that women can understand it than some other bloggers.
LikeLike
theasdgamer said:
If men need to do anything, it’s to flirt with their wives more. That kind of attention is sorely lacking, but Schanfarber misses that elephant in the room. Again, my post touches on the importance of flirting in relationships.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Emily said:
I say monstrous things? Like women should not be abused and reduced to objects? Oh, how monstrous of me!
“You know you all do act like children at times.”
Everyone does, including men.
“A woman who withholds sex is cheating.”
Read the definition of cheating.
She is committing a sin, yes. But it could be that she is a human and doesn’t desire sex at the time because she is in pain, she is under stress, she is depressed etc.
LikeLike
theasdgamer said:
Lol at “abuse” and reduced to objects. “Abuse” means “I feel bad, so it must be a man’s fault. I have no responsibility for managing my own feelings.” How very adult and mature. And when it comes to physical abuse, women instigate it about half the time…according to 200 studies. It’s monstrous to assert that women should not be abused and omit that men should not be abused either. But you omit that because you’re misandrist. (Just heaving your own horsehockey backatcha.)
Of course, you’re trying to get every advantage for women that you can–which necessarily comes at the expense of men.
Women spend hours putting on makeup so that men will see their inner beauty and won’t view women as sex objects. Sure, women don’t want to be seen as sex objects.
A woman who withholds sex is cheating her husband. She is defrauding him and breaking her vow “to have and to hold”.
But it could be that she is a human and doesn’t desire sex at the time because she is in pain, she is under stress, she is depressed etc.
In severe pain, sure. That’s uncontroversial. Under stress or depressed? lol, that’s sin and rationalization. Monstrous!
One common reason that a woman gets depressed is because her man no longer excites her.
See, there’s this thing called biology. Biology doesn’t care about your steaming, equalist, feminist meadow muffin.
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
Gamer-guy, look at what Emily said, she admits with holding sex is a sin and than proceeds to try and explain that perhaps also “she is human..” That unwillingness to consider that women may actually be human, therefore not just evil and flawed and deliberately hurtful to men, seems to elude many red pills.
You said, “In severe pain, sure. That’s uncontroversial.”
Sadly no, no it is not uncontroversial. There are some real wankers out there that genuinely seem to believe that her health and well being is completely irrelevant.
LikeLike
theasdgamer said:
Gamer-guy, look at what Emily said, she admits with holding sex is a sin and than proceeds to rationalize it. There, fixed it.
I’m human, too, so my committing adultery can be explained by that, assuming that I commit adultery.
Sadly no, no it is not uncontroversial. There are some real wankers out there
And there are serial killers. BFD You’re talking about an infinitesimal slice of the population.
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
“You’re talking about an infinitesimal slice of the population.”
Oh, you have no idea how badly I want to believe that. However, biology is what it is, and in the sexual pursuit, a whole lot of men have the ability to perceive their own sexual needs as vastly superior to what is in her best interests. Consideration, compassion, empathy, are learned behaviors having to do with social mores and a man’s sense of honor, not his biology.
We’re in a thread about Syrian refugees, kind of ironic to be speaking about gender relations and biology, but is it not true that women don’t fare so well in the ME? In the absence of social mores, culture,and religious values, we revert right back to basic biological rules where might makes right and men’s sexual needs take precedence over women’s. That is why we are often stoned, executed, denied any rights, or imprisoned in the ME. It is about control.
Not everyone is as considerate as you, gamer-guy. You are trying to perceive all men through your own eyes.
LikeLike
theasdgamer said:
WGAF about the ME
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
Sweetheart, you are in my thread about Syrian refugees. I’m going to have to declare that ME culture is probably more relevant to this discussion than intimacy in marriage is. I have another thread up about that article you posted that is discussing relationships exclusively.
LikeLiked by 1 person
theasdgamer said:
Thanks, Doll.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Emily said:
“It’s monstrous to assert that women should not be abused and omit that men should not be abused either”
Why are red pill men so sensitive? You guys so badly want to paint yourselves as the victims.
Anyway, of course men shouldn’t be abused. We focus on women being abused because there is a loong history of that. You only have to look at the Middle East or India to see how common it is. Thanks to women rights, we don’t have that here.
LikeLiked by 2 people
theasdgamer said:
“The purported mastermind, Abdelhamid Abaaoud, was previously linked to smaller terror plots in Europe, including foiled European train and church attacks earlier this year. After a gun-battle with police in another Belgian suburb that reportedly killed two suspected extremists in January, he told an ISIS magazine he was able to escape into Syria. He’s believed to still be there, where one French official said he’s considered a “high-profile terrorism figure.””
http://abcnews.go.com/International/paris-attacks-organized-belgium-hotbed-terror/story?id=35239548
European? Suuuure…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rebecca LuElla Miller said:
Emily, some on the left are blaming the US for the mess in the Middle East, but the truth is, the dictatorial rule and the conflict between Islamic factions and hatred for the Jews and abuse of women and cultural biases and mistreatment of other people groups was all in place before the US went into Kuwait to rescue them from Iraqi aggression. We did not create this problem. We did leave a power vacuum when we left the region prematurely, however, so you can say we haven’t done much to make the situation better. But Bashar al-Assad, Qaddafi, Saddam Hussein, the former dictator in Egypt—these dictators hadn’t solved any problems. They were simply keeping a lid on things by their mafia-like tactics.
So, no, the problems in Syria and the development of ISIS is not the fault of the US. That’s a political narrative democrats espouse because they want to win the next election.
Becky
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave said:
Well Rebecca, ISIS wouldn’t be so strong without funding and weapons. Where do you think ISIS get weapons from? US and many western countries always play ‘heroic’ actions as if they are saviors. In fact, they are not.
LikeLike
Rebecca LuElla Miller said:
Dave, that’s more false narrative. I remember Secretary of State Clinton discussing in a TV interview the danger of arming the rebels. It turns out she was speaking for Mr. Obama, as a Sec. of State should. After she left that office, she clarified that she felt our NOT arming the “right” rebels was the cause for the growth of ISIS. So where did ISIS get their weapons? From arms dealers, no doubt. I’m guessing there were a number of Russian made weapons among their store.
Here’s a link to one article that covers Sec. Clinton’s views: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/hillary-clinton-failure-to-help-syrian-rebels-led-to-the-rise-of-isis/375832/
Becky
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tricia said:
Good stuff Becky. Also, the Balkans are swarming with AK47s and other powerful weapons that ISIS easily smuggles out.
LikeLike
Emily said:
Rebecca, I am not talking about oppression of women and mistreatment of other groups. We are talking about terrorism, ISIS.
I am not a leftist. But it the truth is very obvious, and I have many analysts – left and right wing – who support this opinion; that ISIS would not exist if we had not attacked Iraq, if we had not supported the ‘free syrian army,’ and if we had not supported Saudi Arabia.
It’s not left wing blabbering, and we have to know that before we send more brave soldiers to die in a war that will backfire on us.
LikeLike
Liz said:
“But it the truth is very obvious, and I have many analysts – left and right wing – who support this opinion; that ISIS would not exist if we had not attacked Iraq, if we had not supported the ‘free syrian army,’ and if we had not supported Saudi Arabia.
It’s not left wing blabbering, and we have to know that before we send more brave soldiers to die in a war that will backfire on us.”
I have to agree with you here, Emily.
Per able-bodied adult Syrian refugees, I present history:
The Poles had the Home Army and the Polish Armed Forces. There were Free French Forces, the 1st Czechoslovak Independent Armoured Brigade Group, the Jewish Brigade, ect.
If their homeland is worth us fighting for….it’s worth them fighting for it.
LikeLike
theasdgamer said:
Liz, in the third world, the clan/family/religion are much more important than the nation for identity. National cohesion and identity don’t exist. Without those, people won’t fight for the nation as citizen soldiers.
LikeLike
Rebecca LuElla Miller said:
Respectfully, Liz and Emily, this position leaves out the bulk of the history of the Middle East. First and foremost, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is a result of a power struggle between Sunni and Shia Muslims. Here’s a good article that takes a brief look at the history, with this conclusion:
So ISIS wants to claim the position to speak for the Muslim world, and the liberal leaning politicos here in the US want to blame our government, particularly when led by a conservative President, for all the ills of the world. Both groups are happy with the narrative that it’s the US’s fault for starting the Iraq war because that’s fuel for ISIS’s fight against the West and fuel for the liberals’ fight against the conservatives.
The problem is, it simply isn’t true. While American involvement in the Middle East had an influence on the events, it certainly wasn’t the cause of ISIS.
Here’s an article (from the Tony Blair Faith Foundation) that looks in more depth at the recent history of ISIS. A couple key statements are critical for this discussion. First
Emily said:
Becky, dictators like Assad and Saddam Hussein, while terrible people, were controlling the situation in their country from disintegrating into sectarian violence. I mean, we support other dictators, like the Saudi monarchy, who are terrible extremists, but then oust others who are a stabilizing force in the region.
Think about it logically, before our interventions in Iraq and Syria, were there large extremists groups killing tens of thousands of civilians there?
No, and the ones in Afghanistan (The Taliban) were created by another war, the Russian invasion of Afghanistan in the 80s.
I don’t know why its so necessary to avoid any blame. It seems to be an attempt by the media to support more wars in the future, and I am not willing to send any of our young men to die in another war, and then close our eyes when it backfires on us.
I can provide sources later, but now I’m quite busy.
LikeLike
Rebecca LuElla Miller said:
Emily, you’re missing the point. I don’t know if you read those articles I linked to, but they make it quite clear that everything we see going on now had its beginnings long, long ago. Yes, into the vacuum the US created by leaving Iraq too soon, the extremists stepped (but that didn’t mean they weren’t already in existence). That’s clearly explained in one of the articles, too. But the US didn’t act in a reprehensible way that caused extremism that didn’t exist to suddenly spring up. Think about it. The Iranians took our embassy in the 70s. The Libyans committed how many attacks on US targets, Iraq overran Kuwait. These forces, whether operating as underground movements or part of the ruling government, have been focused on gaining power and control in the region long before we fired a shot in Iraq.
I don’t know why the US has to be painted as the evil empire here in our own country.
Becky
LikeLike
Emily said:
I am actually very patriotic, and my family has ties to the military.
But being a patriot doesn’t mean supporting your country blindly. In fact, true patriots are able to examine their countries faults and change them, they can examine their countries mistakes and prevent them. Among my generation (I’m 20), it will be difficult to find a single person who thinks Iraq war was a good idea.
I know of the history of the middle east. Iraq didn’t invade Kuwait cause of extremism, but politics. Middle East has always been politically unstable. That doesn’t change the fact that Assad and to a lesser extent Saddam were stabilizing forces, and we removed or partially removed both of them.
ISIS has a small army, they would have easily been crushed by well equipped Syrian and Iraqi armies. But no, we had to intervene in Syria? Why? What has it gotten us? What did Iraq get us? Dead soldiers, and nothing more.
But you think we left Iraq too soon… a hundred soldiers died every year until 2010, and thats a price I’m not willing to pay. Those are somebody’s sons, dying in a war we dont need to fight.
LikeLike
Rebecca LuElla Miller said:
Emily, I don’t think Iraq was a good idea either, and I’m not 20. That’s not a position that a certain age group owns exclusively. I was praying that President Bush would not go into Iraq. I didn’t think Afghanistan was in any condition to be on its own, and there’s great history against fighting on two fronts.
But that doesn’t change the facts. All the roots of ISIS already existed. Our actions did not birth the movement. That’s not me turning a blind eye to the faults of our nation. It’s reality! Truth! Facts that are being rewritten by the narrative ISIS and the liberals want to sell to the American public. Apparently they’re doing a good job!
WE did not start the civil war in Syria! But when their dictator started shooting at his own people many wanted us to get involved. As I pointed out, Sec. Clinton explained publicly that we were not arming rebels because we didn’t want those arms to end up in the hands of radicalized jihadists. Only when ISIS emerged did the Obama administration decide something needed to be done.
And yes, we left Iraq too soon. It was stable. The soldiers were no longer dying, but the government wasn’t strong. We left it the same way the allies left the German Wiemar Republic. It was too weak to withstand Hitler and he took over. Apparently we have now become ignorant of the past and refuse to pay attention to what worked and what didn’t work in another time.
As far as the dead soldiers, another bit of revisionist history–the intelligence community convinced the executive and the legislative branches of our government that Hussein had nuclear weapons. This was not a war to “gain” something but to prevent something. And the time was soon after 9/11. How many more thousands will die if terrorists acquire a dirty bomb? It was a legitimate fear, though based on bad intelligence and poorly timed. I’d even say it was poorly executed, because the army was in such a hurry to reach Baghdad that stores and stores of arms were left for jihadists to raid. Apart from that, it went just fine!
Emily, this will be my last post on the subject. I’m starting to repeat myself, and I’m really pressed for time. Plus I don’t know that we’re getting anywhere. Feel free to respond. I will read whatever you say, but I encourage you to become a student of history and not simply a person who repeats the popular narrative floating around in the media or cyberspace. You’re too intelligent for that.
Becky
LikeLike
Tricia said:
“People are also ignoring the fact that the attack in Paris was organized by a European.” Yes, his name is Abdellhamid Abaaoud, a son of Moroccan immigrants who grew up in an area of Brussels well known for Islamic radicalization which he apparently reached the point if no return with after traveling to Syria in 2014 and fighting for ISIS. Radical Islam is the problem and it’s a growing threat, being spread more rapidly and dangerously than it need be because the West has allowed political correctness to take precedence over sound decision making and protecting its citizens. Until we overcome the latter we have no hope against the former. I give it a 50% chance we succeed but this drops every time Imy President opens his mouth on the subject.
LikeLiked by 2 people
theasdgamer said:
So the mastermind was a 2nd gen immigrant…bringing in immigrant families is a potential problem. Can the fanatics be screened out? And will screening even work? What if moderates are allowed in, but fanatics fly in on tourist visas and radicalize the moderates?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tricia said:
“Can the fanatics be screened out?” Well that is a good question. I would argue in places like France and England where many gobs of Muslims have emigrated with no expectations of assimilation from their host countries that it’s too late. Many live clustered together in slums and are constantly barraged with messages of hate and resentment from their local Mosques and elders and its not long before a few become radicalized and start running with others of like minds and they grow and grow.
We are not there yet in the U.S. although there are pocket communities of radicalized Muslims, particularly in Michigan, that would set your hair on fire if you dug in to the details. It boils down to being sensible and discriminatory about who we allow in the country. Unfortunately though the Syrian refugee issue has become another opportunity for the moral tisk tiskers to preach from their high horses to the rest of us about intolerance.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Emily said:
Oh, and I was banned from BGR! Yay 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Rebecca LuElla Miller said:
You must have committed the shocking and unforgivable sin of voicing an opinion! 😉
Becky
LikeLiked by 2 people
insanitybytes22 said:
Her comments were great! I’d like to write a post around a few of her sentences, if she returns and says it’s
okay?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Emily said:
Yes Becky, I criticized a man who regretted his entire marriage simply because his wife occasionally denied him sex. Apparently that was wrong of me… smh
Sure, Insanity 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
theasdgamer said:
If a woman withholds sex, then a man is justified in withholding commitment…attention, privileges, money, and if those don’t work, then sexual exclusivity.
The primary marriage vow is “to have and to hold”. The secondary vow is “forsaking all others”. If the woman fails to keep the primary vow (defrauding the man aka “cheating”), then the man’s secondary vow is no longer binding.
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
I’m not buying it, not in a Christian context, because we are not playing games of tit for tat here, but rather seeking God’s favor. There are many,many spouses of both genders who remain together through cancer,impotency, or psychological issues. Love is not supposed to be entirely conditional.
Is sex important? Of course. Should we withhold it in a punitive manner? No, that is actually psychological abuse.
LikeLiked by 1 person
theasdgamer said:
Well, in my view, God’s favor means that I get my kicks from many other broads…like King David did. Not many men enjoyed God’s favor as much as King David.
Should women be allowed to withhold sex to manipulate? To force the man to make changes? Or is it to be freely and lovingly shared with each other without manipulation?
You will be judged based on your response.
LikeLike
Emily said:
You know the funny thing about BGR and the red pill guys, they think it’s fine for a man to withhold money, attention and even sexual exclusivity (REALLY?) if their wife refuses them sex, but don’t think a wife has the right to deny men sex for denying them money, attention and sexual exclusivity. And I’m quite certain that at least some, if not most, of the women BGR has talked about have denied their men sex because the husband wasn’t giving them proper love and attention. Certainly a person like Jeff, who has always regretted his entire marriage, never truly loved his wife, and I’m sure his wife noticed that.
Anyway, loving your wife and taking care of her is a command by God, and serving your husband is also a command by God. As Insanity said, it’s not a game of tit for tat.
LikeLiked by 2 people
theasdgamer said:
Emily, I know that God commands wives to submit to and obey their husbands and husbands to love their wives. I don’t recall any command for a wife to serve her husband.
they think it’s fine for a man to withhold money, attention and even sexual exclusivity (REALLY?)
YaReally, lol.
And I’m quite certain that at least some, if not most, of the women BGR has talked about have denied their men sex because the husband wasn’t giving them proper love and attention.
These women have committed major sins…”proper love and attention” as defined by the women…who, of course, are the pedestalized goddesses who have replaced God. No, girls, you don’t get to decide if your husband is loving you like God wants…that’s up to God, not you. As to attention, that is a nice-to-have, not a requirement. Attention =/= love. You may be sure that Jesus on occasion ignores the Church when she gets bitchy. The Church doesn’t get to judge whether Jesus is showing her enough attention.
And if your husband earns $1, you don’t get to spend it like you want. Or spend $2 for every $1 your husband earns.
Denying sex is a major covenant violation…grounds for divorce. Not being exclusive is a lesser violation. Really? YaReally!
LikeLike
Rebecca LuElla Miller said:
Actually that’s not true, gamer. Scripture says we are to obey the gospel, that children are to obey their parents and servants, their masters. We’re to obey Christ and the leaders in our church. Do the word search. You won’t find the Bible telling wives to obey their husbands. On the other hand, it clearly tells husbands to honor their wives as fellow heirs of the grace of life. (1 Peter 3:7) Please explain how calling your wife names, or even insinuating that she is the filthy things you suggest, and complaining about her in public forums is showing her honor. Peter goes on to say that husbands who do not show their wives honor will be hindering their prayers. So God isn’t going to change your wife (presuming that you’ve even prayed for that) because you, the leader of your home, have not stepped up to fulfill your God-given role. Call that “man bashing” if you want, but that’s just your excuse for not listening to the council of Scripture. I’m not telling you to honor your wife. God is.
Becky
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave said:
Rebecca, Bible told women to submit to their husbands, which is almost no different than ‘obey’ at all. Submit is just a soft word from obey
LikeLike
Rebecca LuElla Miller said:
We’ll have to agree to disagree on that one, Dave. But setting the word issue aside for a second, I don’t think “obeying” is a problem when the authority is all about serving sacrificially. That’s what the Bible says the husband is supposed to do—love his wife like Christ loves the Church. He lay His life down for His bride. A husband willing to do the same and treating his wife accordingly would not be so very hard to submit to, wouldn’t you agree?
Becky
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave said:
Twisted word Rebecca, I don’t think loving and honoring your wife will be problem if the wife submit and obey perfectly.Actually, marriage is not religious issue as well. I find marriage nowadays as joke. Marriage gave nothing to men, in fact they must prepare to lose everything, like kids or house if something won’t work.
LikeLike
Dave said:
and I finally understand why marriage is considered as security for women
LikeLike
Dave said:
but, since I’m not a religious, then I won’t debate about what bible said about marriage, because to me bible is just an old book same like ancient Roman’s law. But, it’s 2015 now and it’s not someone’s job to sacrifice for someone. It’s not women’s job to make men happy and it’s not men’s job to sacrifice their life for women, or to protect women. If you want to do that, then it’s up to you, but when you tell your wife that she owed you sex and when you tell your husband that he has to love you unconditionally, then that’s out of line. Human has free will and I will speak for men that men are not always to love you all the time and there will always many times that it’s better for men to live in their own or maybe ignore you, same like when a woman can’t give sex to their husbands all the time
LikeLiked by 1 person
Emily said:
Attention does have a lot to do with love though. If your husband is neglecting you and your children, is he showing you proper love?
The answer should be obvious, but then again you are ‘red pill.’
So yeah, the wife must submit to the husband, and he must give her love. And by the way, if BGR and Jeff ever tried to properly show love to their wife, they would realize they don’t have to manipulate and discipline her to have sex with her. But no, I don’t think they ever properly loved their wives. A man who has always regretted his entire marriage because his wife ‘stole his youth’ because she didn’t have sex with him as frequently as he wanted it, never loved his wife.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave said:
As a human, we have limits and we can’t give attention and love all the time, especially when children are around. I agree about children, they are still not stable yet before they reach mature age. But a wife and husband are 2 different adult and can take care their own thing. A wife can’t provide her body all the time, and a husband can’t provide love all the time. For a man, there is a time that a man doesn’t want to be bothered even by their own wives.
I don’t know about 2 guys you spoke about, but I assume according to these guys, marriage is about sex. Well, sex can be purchased in brothel house and even much cheaper. In fact, I still question the logic of marriage at all, what’s the benefit of marriage, especially for men? to have companion? to bond with someone? well, we don’t need marriage to have these if those are the answers.
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
“….what’s the benefit of marriage, especially for men?”
Companionship, bonding, to produce children, to enjoy better health, to build a community, to leave behind a legacy, love, romance, frequent access to sex, spiritual growth, sacrifice, the opportunity to provide protection and provision, joy, intimacy, status.
Or not, I suppose not everyone must be interested in marriage, but to flush the entire concept down the drain, is also to deprive ourselves of all the benefits.
LikeLike
Dave said:
you can get that without marriage actually. Produce children? you can do that without marriage, companionship, bonding, etc can also be got without marriage. I still don’t get any answer what’s the benefit of marriage because marriage is only written on the piece of paper. But I do know that the advantage of marriage for women are security. Why security? Because once you are married to a man, a woman will get everything, including children, and most will get alimony and child support. But for men?? It’s not even good answer that a man needs to sign a piece of paper just because he wants companionship
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
David, I cannot persuade those who do not have the eyes to see, who wish only to confirm their own biases. However, there are many men in the world who are married, who see the wisdom to be found there, and many more who desire to be married.
LikeLike
Emily said:
There is a reason that every government around the world encourages their citizens to get married, it is very stable for society.
For men there are many benefits. Married men are statistically far more successful than unmarried men.
LikeLike
Dave said:
Many men desire to get married because they still have no idea the risk they will take when they get married. And to Emily, I think you still don’t know the difference between marriage and relationship. Marriage is an institution, you just sign a piece of paper for the commitmen and agreement. For women, of course, it benefits them because it gives them security by both of their husbands and GOVERNMENT. But men? no, marriage gives men nothing.
Btw, married men are more likely to commit suicide than single men for your information. It actually has given me more reasons about marriage coruption
LikeLike
theasdgamer said:
“For men there are many benefits.”
lolololololz
Divorce-rape, baseless accusations of abuse, loss of employment due to baseless accusations, imprisonment for non-payment of child support due to losing a job, cuckolding, diminishing sex, among other “benefits”
LikeLike
Emily said:
theasdgamer:
Let me reword it:
For sophisticated, intelligent, mature men, there are many benefits. For men like you who never grew out of their teenage phase, there aren’t any advantages to getting married. That’s for adults.
There is plenty of research that shows this.
Dave:
Well.. The difference, at least for me, is both legal and spiritual. For Catholics marriage is extremely important, and it’s spiritual significance completely changes a relationship.
If you are talking strictly about the legal aspect, I guess I sort of see your point.
LikeLike
Dave said:
Emily, even in Catholic, or religous marriage in general, marriage still doesn’t benefit men. When you get married, it was in in the church, but when you divorce, it’s in the court judged by family court. No, when you bring your Catholic teaching about the benefit of marriage to men, you are just bringing fantasy benefit. Those benefits never exist
LikeLike
Emily said:
There is no divorce in Catholic marriage.
In my view, a traditional marriage, where the wife takes care of the home, the children, and provides emotional (and financial if necessary) support to the husband provides stability to the husband, and to society. The spiritual aspect causes us to attach immense importance to the marriage, eliminating thoughts of divorce or adultery, and encouraging gender roles to maintain stability. Plus, the government provides many marriage benefits in taxes and etc.
Admittedly, that’s the ideal model, not always the reality.
As for your second point, it really depends on why you don’t want to get married. If you are avoiding marriage because you want to have sex with many women, not just one, or because you have an irrational fear that your wife will just leave you after a few years and take all your money… well then you certainly have some growing up to do.
LikeLike
Dave said:
In marriage, women are the ones who are favoures and always will and it’s very STUPID to say to say that there is no divorce in catholic church, very stupid and i find it very stupid again whe n you bring the involvement of the government as govenment is also the one who corrupts marriage. Emily, you still prove nothing to me about the benefit of marriage to men. Financial and emotional support can be got even without beimg married. Maybe Emily, you need to learn more that this world is not fantasy just like what you imagine
LikeLike
Emily said:
It’s not stupid. It’s merely the truth. The Church does not and never has recognized divorce. Jesus and St.Paul taught that marriage is permanent. You can get a civil divorce but the Church won’t recognize it. You can get an annulment but not for things like sexual denial, you have to prove the marriage was never valid.
Okay, let’s start with LTRs, do you think they have benefits for men? If so, marriage, from a Catholic perspective, is merely a permanent ‘LT’R, with a far less chance that your partner will break the relationship -> more stability.
As for the government, I understand why you think it may corrupt marriage. But the gov does provide many benefits. Also, the belief that the wife will get everything in the case of divorce is not really true.
LikeLike
Dave said:
Emily, even when the church said that marriage is forever, but it’s not the church who marries. Even when the church won’t recognize the divorce, it won’t give a single damn effects about divorce. So, according to church, when someone divorces, remarry with another spouse, and they marry in the church, but at the same time the church still don’t recognize the previous divorce.
Btw, LTR stands for Long Term Relationship, am I correct? see, relationship? do you think relationship won’t work without marriage? relationship will work if these 2 people want to work to make it, not just sign a piece of paper. You said LTR will give your spouse less chance to break the relationship, but it was just a word. Same like when you said “until death do us apart”, it was just a word, but practically it’s usually far from the words.
LikeLike
Emily said:
Umm wrong again. I guess you aren’t familiar with the Church. If I marry my bf, and then, God forbid, I divorce him, I will not be allowed to marry again in the church. Neither will he.
Yep, words, vows and religious beliefs, but these things are what make us attach importance to marriage. I don’t think you understand the significance of that. I mean, even a diamond would have no worth if no one attached importance to it. Our religious beliefs, and the vows we take, just elevate the importance of marriage and make it something more permanent. 80% of Catholics never divorce and stay together until death. How many non-marriage relationships last until death? 1%?
LikeLike
Dave said:
So, what’s the benefit then? Im asking you the benefit of marriage for men about marriage? compared to non-marriage? What do married men get that men who are just in relationship don’t get? Until I know something what men will get that non married men dont get, then marriage is still a joke. Even when you bring your God in this case.
LikeLike
Emily said:
“What do married men get that men who are just in relationship don’t get?”
Either I am not explaining it well, or you are making no attempt to understand.
A marriage is merely a permanent and more stable relationship compared to an LTR. So whatever benefits you get in an LTR, you also get in a marriage, except with the added bonus of permanence and much more stability.
LikeLike
Dave said:
permanent and stability? hmm, I know some couples who are not married, just LTR but they have been in relationship for long time (18 years). Well, maybe these types are not very common, but actually it can be done without marriage. The difference, if something won’t work, the government has no involvement and men are not likely to lose at least their properties.
LikeLike
Emily said:
It can be done but it almost never has been done…
I dont know, why am I even trying here? It’s not like anyone has ever been convinced of anything over the internet
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
Hang in there, Emily and don’t let the naysayers get you down. 😉
LikeLike
Dave said:
Ok Emily, no need to answer again. Both of you and Insanity actually dont give even a single damn thing abot marriage benefit for men. Just a fantasy. Marriage is a joke because most women are jokes
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
Dave, I married a man I love dearly, gave birth to and raised a man, paid honor to my father, and now spend much of my time focused on blogging about men, women, and relationships. So your accusation about not giving a damn is misplaced. However, if you’re going to insist that marriage is a joke, that women are a joke, then there is not much that I or anyone else can do to convince you otherwise. I’m sorry, I would prefer to see you happy, but that is something that you have to do for yourself. The first step is usually to stop relying on your own preconceived notions and perceptions.
LikeLike
Wally Fry said:
Hey Dave
Look, just for the record, you are about on my last nerve here.
All women are jokes? Really? Are you single Dave? You seem quite the marriage expert, but yet from what I gather you have never been married. I find that odd. You have been cruising too many sites which have skewed your thinking about relationships to the point where you assume they all must suck.
Ok. Married guy here, about to tell you what is really cool and good about it. Oh, and Dave…I am divorced after 25 years and honestly, I was not really treated that good. Yet, I still feel the way I do. Prepare to be shocked. If anybody had room to be a bitter hater, it would be me.
I remarried. Great woman. My helpmeet. The perfect counterpart to me in every way. Soft where I am hard. Organized where I am chaos. Smart where I am not. Let’s me take care of her and protect her. Lets me lead her. Adores me as if I hung the moon, and thinks I can do anything. Tells me that, anyway. Treats me like a baby, too. Cooks my supper every day, even picks my clothes out when we get dressed up. Oh, but I do the gross stuff like take out the garbage and scrub the house off. I lead, she follows, yet we work together. And other stuff that frankly is none of your business but you and Gamer boy seem really fixated about.
What to I do for her It’s not hard really. I just love her more than I love me. So simple I can get it. That doesn’t mean she is getting over on me, because I am more than willing to do that.
Hey Gamer guy? Around here, a bunch of your friends would all take you out to the deer camp to hang out, and when we all got back, you’d really be a nicer guy.
You are both idiots and a poor representation of what real manhood is about, but a good representation of what self loving blowhards are about. From what I have seen, the way you treat your wife is pathetic. You “play” your own wife? Wow.
LikeLike
Dave said:
Insanity, if you prefer me to be happy, then i will tell you that i cant be happier more. I have a good paying job, surrounded by great friends, etc. Marriage will always be a joke for most men bacause they will be the one who will take greater risk. Losing properties, their wives prevent the kids to meet their fathers and many things. Yes, not all women do that, but they do have power to do that and that power which make marriage is like prison for men. Both of you dont give anything about marriaga advantage that ummarried men dont have except just a fantasy that church doesnt allow any couple to divorce. Well, church has NO power except just saying “divorce is not allowed” .
LikeLike
Dave said:
Hey Wally, first i didnt say all women, but MOST women, but it doesnt matter it almost has no different btw. Second, I dont care about your life as a married man, but let me tell you, all of those things can be gotten without even being married as long both parties want to do that, and men dont have to think about alimony if something bad happened. Emily btw, tell that stability and permanent are 2 benefits of marriage, i mean come on, I dont know, but it’s not even benefit at all. Communists believe that communism is good for economy stability, that was what most communists supporter SAY, but then USSR collapsed
LikeLike
Wally Fry said:
Most..all..most..all. Let’s split a few hairs shall we? You either missed or ignored my point entirely. Not only that, but apparently I am stupid because I miss the connection between marriage and the USSR. You must get a lot or exercise grasping at those straws, Dave.
Again, my point. You are not married, you have never been married, and your outlook on how men and women are is drawn from, let us say, questionable sources.
Now, I won’t engage in protracted debate with you on this, because frankly you don’t make much sense and will give me a really big headache and waste my time.
Just two things. Real mean don’t treat women like crap like you are being taught to do. Pansies and weaklings do that. Truth hurts, but there it is. And it really pushes my buttons to see it.
You know zip about marriage, so quit presenting yourself as an expert.
Peace
LikeLike
Dave said:
Well, i read all of your words very clearly Wally, but I dont need to respond because you will give same crap answer just like Emily did. Btw, yes real men dont treat women bad, but too bad there is almost NO real woman to be respected
LikeLike
Wally Fry said:
Ah………..dang I keep forgetting those pesky, screwed up women. Sigh, if they would just straighten out, all us real men could act right too. You won’t respond because I would just give you the same answer another person gave you? Maybe you don’t want to respond because there is no response that makes sense.
Bottom like Dave, and hear this carefully. If I misrepresent your position, you tell me. You seem to think because some women, or most women, act stupid, you are thereby released from your responsibility to behave correctly toward them. Yet, the fact that you frequent the manosphere blogs would tell me you think you have the authority to lead the women in your life. Hate to break this news to you friend, you have a problem.
Number one. What provides you the authority, other than it being simply how you think things ought to be, to be the leader of the women in your life? You have already said you think The Bible is stupid, so the only authority you have is your own opinion. Not much weight there my friend, as opinion is generally based on what works for us.
Number two. If any person wants to be a leader, newsflash, they have to ….um….lead? That means teach and show and guide. It only means the imposition of will in very rare circumstances. Very, very, very…did I say very? Rare. Part of teaching and showing involves setting and example. Hate to break this to you, but if you demand the position of leader, then in large part, you become responsible for the conduct of those under your leadership. Does that mean I release women from their responsibilities? Heck no, even I get that feminism in general is turning the world around us upside down. What I mean is, those how lead have to set the tone and those who follow will react accordingly. You want the women to be the women they should be? You be the man you should be first and watch what might happen. Will it happen instantly and without heartache? Nah, that is stupid to even suggest. But being a man also means being able to stick it out when times are tough.
Heard the expression when the going gets tough, the tough get going? That’s manhood, friend. Try it you might like it.
LikeLike
Emily said:
Ah I see now..
Dave is a product of The Red Pill. His mind has been filled with that poison. He thinks marriage is a joke, thinks women are a joke, holds an irrational fear of divorce etc. etc.
It’s actually quite sad. I’ll pray for you Dave.
LikeLike
Dave said:
Btw Emily, I know many mature and the most intelligent men who are not interested in marriage. Oh, maybe you will say these men I just mentioned are not intelligent and mature, because intelligence and maturity of a man must be based on your criteria
LikeLike
Sky said:
The Quran:
Quran (2:191-193) – “And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing…
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)” (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to “fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you” leading some to believe that the entire passage refers to a defensive war in which Muslims are defending their homes and families. The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, however, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). Verse 190 thus means to fight those who offer resistance to Allah’s rule (ie. Muslim conquest). The use of the word “persecution” by some Muslim translators is disingenuous (the actual Arabic words for persecution – “idtihad” – and oppression – a variation of “z-l-m” – do not appear in the verse). The word used instead, “fitna”, can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. This is certainly what is meant in this context since the violence is explicitly commissioned “until religion is for Allah” – ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.
Quran (2:244) – “Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things.”
Quran (2:216) – “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.” Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.
Quran (3:56) – “As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help.”
Quran (3:151) – “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”. This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be ‘joining companions to Allah’).
Quran (4:74) – “Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward.” The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, who were led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. This is the theological basis for today’s suicide bombers.
Quran (4:76) – “Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…”
Quran (4:89) – “They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”
Quran (4:95) – “Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home). Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward ” This passage criticizes “peaceful” Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah’s eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that “Jihad” doesn’t mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is this Arabic word (mujahiduna) used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man’s protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad, which would not make sense if it meant an internal struggle). According to the verse, Allah will allow the disabled into Paradise, but will provide a larger reward to those who are able to kill others in his cause.
Quran (4:104) – “And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain…” Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense?
Quran (5:33) – “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement”
Quran (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them” No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.
And it goes on and on like this in the Quran, the holy book belonging to EVERY Muslim whether they conform to societal mores and folkways and appear “nice” or become more extreme. To me, the issue then becomes their own personal accountability to these words if they claim to be believers. I’m not claiming special insights at all nor do I understand what’s happening but something is largely amiss.
LikeLiked by 6 people
Dave said:
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)
“If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)
Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)
will make Mount Seir utterly desolate, killing off all who try to escape and any who return. I will fill your mountains with the dead. Your hills, your valleys, and your streams will be filled with people slaughtered by the sword. I will make you desolate forever. Your cities will never be rebuilt. Then you will know that I am the LORD. (Ezekiel 35:7-9 NLT)
LikeLiked by 2 people
theasdgamer said:
testing
LikeLike
theasdgamer said:
Guess I’m out of the mod zone.
LikeLike
theasdgamer said:
Martin’s compassion and love is admirable, but it is an emotional appeal not rooted in reason, but rather desperation and dire circumstances.
Let’s simplify this to “Martin has his head up his @$$.” Nothing admirable about being a dumb@$$. Your post would have more punch without the endless triangulating.
LikeLike
theasdgamer said:
Weren’t the Boston bombers also muslim refugees?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave said:
What does Bible say about slavery? Looks like bible even are not a good book to be read
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised..”-Luke 4:18
The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;
-Isaiah 61:1
“Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.” 2 Corinthians 3:17
I’m pretty sure that liberty, freedom, and the delivering of captives has nothing to do with promoting slavery.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Wally Fry said:
Totally apropo of nothing on this post IB, but that is the verse that woke me up and made be give in finally. Preacher quoted both passages in fact and it was all over…because I was all of those things.
Back to the post. I am so tired of hearing God condones slavery. Sheesh. He had people record the fact of it, which hardly constitutes an endorsement.
@ Dave. May I ask you a question? Have you read this book you critique in it’s entirety? What you are saying has all the hallmarks of cut and paste commenting. If that is not the case, I apologize, but those words seem to come up often. As if they come from the Handbook for People who want to tear up the Bible.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave said:
Wally, actually most religious especially Muslims and Christians always attack each other by quoting their opponent holy book. Christians throw insult to Muslims by quoting some abusive verse from Koran and vice versa. There are many reasons why people nowadays find religion as a joke. In this section, I saw a comenmenter who quoted vere from Koran to prove that Muslims has trouble with their own scripture, but at the same time Christians even don’t see a mirror and read that there is also problem with their own book
LikeLike
Wally Fry said:
Soooooooooooooo? Have you read it Dave? Not looking to fight here, but critiquing a book you have not read, but only been told about really doesn’t have a lot of credibility. Because your references to slavery quoted have been wrenched so far out of context as to render them meaningless.
You do understand that sometimes the Bible just reports what is, and not what God necessarily condones. Slavery did not exist because God decreed that it should. It existed because of the fallen nature of man which made him think owning another person was okay. God just provided some guidelines to make man’s foul up a little better for those victimized by it.
So, again…have you actually read the Bible? Or the Koran for that matter? I think if you are going to speak with authority on either or both that is a very valid question.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave said:
I have read it very clearly Wally, that’s why I said Bible is not a good book to read
LikeLike
Wally Fry said:
Ah ok..I was just confused by your lack of understanding of the context of the verses you quoted. It is actually a great book Dave. I reveals just who we are, why we are who we are. And we are who we are because of just what I see from you, which is rebellion against the God we all clearly know exists. For no other reason than we just don’t like His plan, or the idea of submission to Him. Soooooooooooooo…we read into His Word whatever it takes to justify our rejection.
But, if you say you know it, then I guess you do.
Peace
Oh…God is patient. Read it again. Start somewhere else perhaps. Might I suggest the Gospel of John? If you can find something in there that bothers you, I will gladly eat my hat.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave said:
What if I say God is the one who guides me to quit religion?
LikeLike
Wally Fry said:
Well Dave, the first thing I would says is…huh? Because I have no clue what you mean by that.
Then I would say…what god? How do you know of him? What is your source on information for who he is what what his attributes are?
Then I would say…awesome…because we all know, by the things that are created, that God exists, leaving us without excuse
It’s a start.
LikeLike
Eric said:
Dave:
The head of ISIS, Dr. Aboo-Bakr al-Baghdadi has a PhD in Islamic Theology from the University of Baghdad. I think it’s safe bet that he’s not misinterpreting the Coran; and a safer bet that the Liberal pundits in paid sinecures apologizing for Islam are misinterpreting it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave said:
Eric, hate to tell you man, but there are tons of Muslims who earn Islamic theology and also are good people. Your logic is very stupid. Have you ever heard other Islamic scholar except Al Baghdadi? let me give you example of Nouman Ali Khan who always denounce terrorism.
LikeLike
Rebecca LuElla Miller said:
Dave, I don’t know how this discussion about slavery developed, but the fact is, what people in the 21 century AD call abuse people in the 4000 BC called punishment. The tendency is to think that these poor, innocent slaves (because they should not be slaves, therefore they are innocent) did nothing wrong. They didn’t steal or neglect their responsibility or disobey or have sex with the master’s daughter or anything that might actually be criminal. That’s a narrative written by people who think humankind is good—except the ones who don’t act in a PC manner.
Today we don’t believe in corporal punishment. We just lock everybody up where they can learn better tricks to break the law. Interestingly, I don’t see anything in the Bible about prison until the 1st century when the Romans were in charge. Of course they still beat people and even crucified the ones they really didn’t like. Or they fed them to the lions. Or burned them like candles at Caesar’s parties. But were the Romans “abusive”? No, that tag gets placed on God’s chosen people.
Why is that?
Becky
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave said:
Becky, then I’m 100 % right when I said Bible is not a good book to read. The book is obsolete and need to be reformed as times goes on.
LikeLike
Rebecca LuElla Miller said:
Dave, I have no idea why you reach that conclusion. Those of us who believe the Bible find it to be supremely relevant, providing answers to all kinds of questions and conflicts and mysteries. Like, where did evil come from? No atheist I’ve talked to has an answer. Or, what is the purpose of life? Or what happens after we die? Or, where did we come from? Or even, Who am I?
Perhaps reading it with an open mind, considering that it might actually be true affects the end result.
Becky
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave said:
You said that in 4000 BC, abuse was considered punishment, yes, you are absolutely right and that’s why it wasn’t allowed again these days. The human’s law have been reformed through ages because of human’s rights issue and by seeing that there are many verses in bibles which condone violence in modern world, then there is something need to be changed with the book. Sorry Becky, I have read bible thousand times and the book is nothing but an old and obsolete law which is not even valid to be used in nowadays world
LikeLike
theasdgamer said:
Illiterati are gonna illiterate.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave said:
You may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT
Exodus 21:20-21 – “If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.”
LikeLike
theasdgamer said:
Do you have a point? The Bible talks about slavery and how to treat slaves.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave said:
Exodus 21:20-21 really convince me how a slave should be treated
LikeLike
theasdgamer said:
You’re still about as clear as mud. What does Ex. 21:20-21 have to do with anything?
LikeLike
Dave said:
It’s very clear that Exodus 21:20-21 tolerates abuse toward slaves if the slave still alives after you beat him/her
LikeLike
theasdgamer said:
And what does Exodus 21:20-21 have to do with me? Nothing!
LikeLike
theasdgamer said:
Dave said, “It’s very clear that Exodus 21:20-21 tolerates abuse toward slaves if the slave still alives after you beat him/her”
It doesn’t say anything of the sort. You inferred that. The only thing that the text says is that the slave’s owner can’t be punished for murder if the slave lived. That code likely came about because some slave took the owner to court for being beaten and attempted to have his/her owner executed.
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
@Wally Fry
Well based on your comments, you most certainly have not read it or you have a some sort of mental block that prevents you from understanding the term slavery.
There is no ”context” it needs to understood as. It is what it is and your god condoned it. It is in the bible.
All this is somewhat ironic, of course, considering the primary economy of your country was largely built upon human slavery.
You had a civil war, in part, over it.
Perhaps because you have been blinded to your own history is the reason you are giving your god a Free Pass?
The level of ignorance you display is only equaled by your level of hypocrisy.
LikeLike
theasdgamer said:
“There is no ”context” it needs to understood as.”
…says one of the Illiterati.
“… the primary economy of your country was largely built upon human slavery.
You had a civil war, in part, over it.”
No. The War of Northern Aggression (WNA) was fought to force the South to pay taxes since so much of the federal budget depended on Southern taxes. Slavery was a minor side issue. You know, of course, that slavery existed in the North after it was abolished in the South.
The Confederacy was formed because the slave states would soon lose their political power. However, the WNA was started by the North over taxes.
And you accuse poor Wally of ignorance. smh
LikeLiked by 1 person
Arkenaten said:
I wrote, ”in part”. Maybe you don’t read so well?
LikeLike
theasdgamer said:
Still wrong…maybe you don’t think so well?
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
Wrong? So there was no slavery in the US? There was no dispute with the south?
How’s that indoctrination working for you?
LikeLike
theasdgamer said:
Slavery existed in the North at the time of the WNA. smh
Indoctrination? I think that you’re looking in a mirror.
LikeLiked by 1 person
theasdgamer said:
As I explained before, slavery was an important issue in the Confederacy being formed. It wasn’t an important issue in the WNA.
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
Perhaps you would also like to explain the ”context” of the slavery in the bible?
You seem quite adept at hand-waving it should be a doddle, right?
LikeLike
theasdgamer said:
Slavery in the Bible was two fold–foreigners were slaves indefinitely. Foreign slaves could be inherited. Israelite slaves had to be freed every Year of Jubilee.
This only applied where the Law of Moses was in force…which is nowhere in the world today.
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
Moses was a fictional character.
Now explain how your god condoned and sanctioned slavery.
LikeLike
theasdgamer said:
lol
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
Are you laughing because you doubt the veracity that Moses was a fictional character?
LikeLike
theasdgamer said:
You wouldn’t know veracity if it bit you on the ass.
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
Well, thank goodness I have a dictionary then?
Although it would seem your understanding of the term is somewhat clouded by your religious indoctrination.
Might I suggest you read a bit of William Dever or Israel Finkelstein?
Or even a lain old encyclopaedia would be a good start.
Look up Moses.
Or even Martin Noth.
LikeLike
theasdgamer said:
Religious indoctrination? You’re not even close to understanding how I think.
You may suggest reading shit. Such suggestions will be filed appropriately.
The epistemology of testimony is one of my areas of study. I’m autistic. Obsessive. Consider what that implies when I say that I have studied something.
You pinged my bullshit-o-meter hard when you said that Moses was fictional.
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
Ark’s one claim to fame is his ability to shoot off his mouth, gamer-guy. He has a big chip on his shoulder and I think it may be the sound of his own voice.
Also, anyone who comments here is perceived by that crowd to be religiously indoctrinated and incapable of rational thought. It’s somewhat amusing, that stereotype is applied to anyone they don’t know, regardless of that person’s belief or non belief.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Arkenaten said:
You pinged my funny-bone when you suggested he was a real historical character.
You ought to consider taking the carrot out of your backside. It seems to be causing a blockage.
Once this is done, you won’t be quite so full of shit, Gamer, eh?
I realise that for you it must be quite frustrating having to battle against the experience and expertise of almost every genuine archaeologist on the planet, not to mention a considerable number of rabbis and an ever-growing number of Christians who also realise that the Exodus is nothing but a geopolitical myth.
It must be doing your head in to know that there is actually a verifiable alternate history of the Jews, the evidence for which flies in the face of the bible story.
So you will please forgive me if I choose to accept the findings of the likes of Herzog, Devers, Finkelstein, Wolpe and the myriad highly qualified professionals – scholars and scientists – that form much of the global consensus in these matters rather than following the Pie-in-the- sky ranting of an indoctrinated whining insolent little tit like you.
LikeLike
theasdgamer said:
Revisionist historians who rely on bullshit are just sooo compelling. I recommend that you get a cranio-rectotomy.
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
Ah … a Conspiracy Theorist, I venture?
Psst! I know …let’s all deny Moses and Gang-up on the Poor Persecuted Christians. Remember when we buried all those make believe fossils? That was a hoot an’a half. Those poor fundies.”
Isn’t there someone close at hand to help you with that carrot, Gamer.
Any minute now you will be making claims that dead men once went walkabout in Downtown Jerusalem.
LikeLike
theasdgamer said:
You’re a Moses denier, lol.
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
Big Carrot, I’m guessing.
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
Here you go ….
http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/onlineex/uscivilwar/origins/origins.html
”Historians continue to debate the balance of causes underlying the origins of the Civil War, but the issue of slavery remains central in any explanation of the great disunion which almost destroyed the United States. It is almost impossible to imagine the Civil War erupting without the passions aroused among Northern abolitionists and those in the South who saw slave-holding as central to their way of life. The abolition of slavery itself was never a direct Union war aim until 1863 when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, declaring freedom for over three million slaves in the South.”
LikeLike
theasdgamer said:
More bullshit
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
The typical conservative Christian – ignorant of history and afraid of the truth. Indoctrination on full display.
You are the poster child for denial.
LikeLiked by 1 person
theasdgamer said:
Piling shit higher and Deeper, I see.
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
Well, you’re standing in it, gamer, and it is of your own making. If you wish to turn a bind eye to history, then so be it. … and … if it looks like shit, and smells like shit. Well then, who am I to disagree?
I would just like to say at this point thank you to IB for extending an inordinate amount of latitude on this thread.
LikeLike
theasdgamer said:
lol
LikeLike
Wally Fry said:
Ark it just tears you up to see a believer and a non believer have a rational conversation huh? If Dave wants to talk to you I don’t care but I have no plans in my future to argue with you
LikeLiked by 1 person
Arkenaten said:
Tears me up? *Smile*
Your sheer ignorance never ceases to amaze me, and you show no shame about it either and make no effort to change.
And you have no humility, either.
Indoctrination personified.
LikeLike
David said:
The Civil War was fought because of tax issues?
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
*Smile*
LikeLike
Rebecca LuElla Miller said:
Ark, I don’t know what gamer is going on about–a revisionist history, it appears. Of course the US Civil War (started when the South fired on Fort Sumter) was primarily a power struggle, but slavery was hardly a peripheral issue. It was heart and center of the southern way of life for which the South was fighting. With another free state entering the Union, the balance of power was shifting and the South could no longer control the government and insure that slavery would remain legal.
But Ark, gamer is right about the context of slavery in the Bible. The verses you quoted were written to Israel, a people ostensibly governed by God. I don’t know why God didn’t prohibit slavery. He did when it came to Jews enslaving each other. I do know that the Jewish law is not a list of commands for Christians. We can learn some things about God from reading it. We can understand the Jewish people better and see how far they fell from obeying God. But we aren’t to take the commandments regarding the sin offerings or the peace offerings or the guilt offerings as our own. We aren’t to celebrate Passover and the Day of Atonement. We aren’t to execute a blasphemer. Christ said He fulfilled the law. And Scripture teaches us that the Law was actually a tutor to show us just how impossible it is to please God by our actions. In fact the Law shows us why we need God’s grace. We can’t do all the right things, no matter how hard we might try.
Becky
LikeLiked by 3 people
Arkenaten said:
There is NO context to Slavery – it is immoral, period, and your god not only condoned it but set out rules governing it.
You can hand wave all you like Becky, try to rationalize it til the cows come home but it is there – in the bible.
God Condoned Slavery. Period.
LikeLike
Rebecca LuElla Miller said:
So you do believe in God, Ark. Good to hear!
Becky
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
Er …no, dear, but you believe do and when communicating at a remedial level such as this I have found one often has lower one’s standards.
Unfortunate, but true, I’m afraid.
The fact is, Christians have used the disgusting diatribe in the bible to justify all manner of heinous behaviour under the mantle of such gems as: ”Well, if slavery’s good enough for God then as sure as us God-fearin’ bible believin’ Christians raped, abused, murdered and used niggas to pick cotton, it’s good enough for us.”
Ye haw?
And God bless Ermerica, right?
LikeLike
Rebecca LuElla Miller said:
Such an ignorant position, Ark. Educate yourself about the abolitionist movement. I won’t be commenting again since you must insult the person at whom you’re throwing your opinions.
Becky
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
**Edited for personal insults. Knock it off, Ark.
Christians used the bible to justify slavery for a long long time, just as the NGK church used the bible to justify Apartheid in my country.
I thnk you need to do some serious historical research. Take off your blinkers, replace your rose tinted glasses for clear lenses and begin to truly understand the level of degradation and human suffering religion has imposed and still imposes on human kind.
Ask a deconvertee.
LikeLike
theasdgamer said:
“There is NO context to Slavery – it is immoral”
in your opinion…or are you claiming perfection in ethics…that you are God?
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
There is no evidence for gods.
Next ….
LikeLike
Liz said:
The military has just issued a travel ban for troops planning to go to Paris.
I’ve noticed the travel ban cascade starting from very few countries to more and more over the past ten years.
It’s a giant list now, but I never thought I’d see Paris on that list. These are troubling times.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wally Fry said:
IB. Hey, me and Dave have gone way off topic, sorry. Tell us to shut up if you want to.
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
Not at all, Wally. Feel free 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rebecca LuElla Miller said:
Heheh! I was just thinking that this post has gone sideways. It has about as many tentacles as an octopus! 😉
Becky
LikeLike
Wally Fry said:
Hey you gotta take the chances to preach when then come along!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Tricia said:
Great post IB and thank you for going down a few of those rabbit holes so the rest of us don’t have to. 😉 I was about tearing my hair out reading the most ridiculous Facebook posts on the Syrian refugee issue today, I had to unplug completely for awhile or I’d have gone bald.
LikeLiked by 2 people
insanitybytes22 said:
I hear you, Tricia, I was reading some of that FB stuff and tearing my hair out too. I’m not sure what’s happened to us, but the collective clutch seems to have disengaged from the brain cells.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: breaking news: bible translation errors discovered | violetwisp
insanitybytes22 said:
I have no idea what Violet is babbling about now, something about a gay Centurian and my alleged lack of empathy? I’ll have to get back to you on that one, Violet, if I can make heads or tails out of what you are trying to convey. Or not, I am more easily distracted by shiny objects on the ground that actually make some sense.
LikeLike
violetwisp said:
Apologies the satire went over your head, Insanity. In the original story in the Bible, Jesus helps the foreign warrior with a servant (most likely his gay lover, given the historical context) in need. He doesn’t question his own personal security, he doesn’t criticise what the warrior is fighting for, and he doesn’t take the opportunity to condemn gay sex.
There are other stories of Jesus that convey the same obligation to care for others, even over and above our own personal concerns. Ruth helpfully quotes Matthew 5 in the comments section:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’h But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
My ‘babble’ was questioning where the attitude of many on this post, including you, can be reconciled with the stories of Jesus from the Bible. Any thoughts?
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
“Any thoughts?”
Yes. It is virtually impossible to discuss these issues with people who are seeking only to confirm their own biases. You have labeled me un-empathetic and delusional, two stereotypes that are so false as to be rather amusing. I actually suffer from the precise opposite, empathy and reason overload.
Which does beg the question, if you cannot even judge me properly, what makes you believe you’re qualified to judge scripture?
LikeLiked by 2 people
violetwisp said:
I think the term I used was ’empathetically challenged’. I don’t recall saying you were delusional.
I’m not judging scripture, I’m stating what’s written and asking what your understanding is, given your attitude towards refugees. Any thoughts?
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
You wrote a satire mocking scripture, falsely accused me of being empathetically challenged, and declared my stand on refugees to be wrong. Now after the fact, after having made all those preconceived judgements about me and my alleged attitude towards refugees, you finally get around to asking what my understanding actually is??
Given I’m attempting to address someone so closed minded, intolerant, and prone to assign false stereotypes to people, I have to just assume “my understanding” is going to be whatever you and your scoffers chose to perceive it as.
LikeLike
violetwisp said:
“Our government is actually charged with protecting us from all enemies foreign and domestic, not feeding our kids breakfast. It’s really gotten crazy, we’re supposed to take in all these refugees, but we’ve got our own kids, our own veterans living on the street.
Some people try to claim we shouldn’t be “rich and greedy,” but guess what? They aren’t the ones that will be dealing with the collateral damage and fallout here. They’ll go back to their little bubble world and gated communities, while everyone on the bottom rung of society will be asked to sacrifice jobs, housing,and safety so other people can feel “compassionate” about having saved refugees.”
I can see what your attitude is to the refugees. I’m just asking how you reconcile them with the examples of Jesus. When the centurion came asking for help, did Jesus say, “I feel compassion for your plight and I’ll pray that the god God helps you, but I’ve got fellow Jews to heal!”?
LikeLike
ColorStorm said:
— I’m just asking how you reconcile them with the examples of Jesus.—
V, if I may and insanitybytes apologies for the un-asked for two cents.
There is very little to reconcile. Buy a sword, sell a sword. Talk, shut up. Peace, war. Spiritual need, physical need.
Eat, fast. Context is rather valuable.
But here is a better question for you violet to consider. When the head of the greatest prophet born among women was called for, what did the Lord do? Nothing. Surely you must chastise they who did such a thing…………….. and surely your compassion must flow for the disciples…………………. and surely you must criticize the government……………….and surely you must be critical of they who did nothing……………..and surely you must chastise the Lord Himself for not calling down fire from heaven……………..or for not calling legions of angels……………. for allowing the death of a good man…………..a very good man of whom the world was not worthy.
See, there is something greater, it’s called context. It’s called rightly dividing the word of truth. There are no inconsistencies with scripture, but to leave you with this: When you speak of ‘Jesus,’ do you have in mind the buddha of most, or is He the Lord Jesus Christ of heaven and earth? If the second, then everything else is much easier to understand.
LikeLiked by 1 person
violetwisp said:
Thanks for your input ColorStorm.
LikeLike
ColorStorm said:
Sure V; I tried to be polite in pointing out you are out to lunch about the centurion son thing.
But ib22 has given you a few gifts in those insightful comments
LikeLike
theasdgamer said:
Stupids gonna stupe.
LikeLike
violetwisp said:
Thanks for your thoughts.
LikeLike
Emily said:
Violet, I don’t think you are being quite fair to Insanity on this topic.
I’m sure she feels empathy for the refugees, but she weighs that with her concern for our security. It’s a fair position.
So no need to insult her.
personally, I do agree with you… I certainly agree that Jesus would tell us to care for the refugees. That is quite obvious, at least from a Catholic perspective.
But you know.. it’s crazy how the some people can change the meaning of Jesus’s words to suit their own biases. Not saying anyone here does that but… I mean I was talking to a lady who was suggesting we stop caring about civilian casualties in wars and kill as many muslims as possible. I was like, how can you reconcile that with Jesus’s teachings? And she started misusing quotes from Jesus to justify her position. It was quite disturbing.
LikeLike
violetwisp said:
Hi Emily, thanks for your thoughts. I’m not sure where I insulted Insanity – that’s something I would avoid, given she’s one of my best blogging buddies, and certainly my biggest muse. She’s not devoid of empathy generally, but I think it’s fair to say she’s ’empathetically challenged’ on this issue. Her political/cultural biases are conflicted with her religious beliefs and humane instincts.
LikeLike
Emily said:
I suppose… I see many Christians rejecting the refugees and it horrifies me, because Jesus’s teachings on this matter are clear as day.
But yes, when issues become politicized, people tend to stop viewing it as a moral matter.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Hypocritical Excuses | Mere Atheism
theasdgamer said:
Insanity, tell Emily to stop pinching me! It’s like I’m back in 6th grade all over again.
LikeLiked by 2 people
theasdgamer said:
Owwwww! Emily just pinched me again! [whine]
LikeLike
Opinionated Man said:
Reblogged this on HarsH ReaLiTy and commented:
Here is a spirited debate! Give it a read! -OM
Note: Comments disabled here, please visit their blog.
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
Thank you for the reblog, OM, much appreciated.;)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Opinionated Man said:
No worries! 🙂
LikeLike
any1mark66 said:
I maybe crazy but not all Christians are the same, not all Muslims are the same. Wasn’t there an Abraham that fathered both religions? Simple answers don’t apply universally. Historically, how long would a Sunni Muslim group take to equal the killing of the Catholic warriors? Yes widows and orphans should be welcomed. So should anyone willing to live in peace. The crime is using the name of Christian values to not do on to others as we would have others do on to us. Great thought provoking piece. I appreciate reading it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jack Curtis said:
If you own a home, how many unknown migrants are you morally compelled to add to your family at your expense? If any, for how long? To what degree must you support them?
With those answers, perhaps the discussion could be scaled up to the national level. General reactions from emotion (whether compassion or repugnance) overlook the reality of trees when discussing a forest, seems to me.
You pinned the tail to the propaganda donkey!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Memories From The Mad Hatter’s Tea Party | See, there's this thing called biology...
Pingback: WHAT QUALIFIES AS CHARITY AND WHO IS WORTHY OF OUR CHARITY? – Citizen Tom