Read 'em and Weep
-
The writer of the article is a marriage counselor.
And whether you'd like for them to fuck off or not, I think it does most folks good to hear a little Bible. One should never take what somebody else quotes as gospel, but should take those quotes and look at them for their own education and edification.
As Americans, we tend to have a pretty intense dislike for authority, but authority is not always bad. That's why I quoted Judges. Without some type of authority, man dissolves into anarchy, which is unstable and without justice.
@Jolly said in Read 'em and Weep:
The writer of the article is a marriage counselor.
He's not mine.
And whether you'd like for them to fuck off or not, I think it does most folks good to hear a little Bible. One should never take what somebody else quotes as gospel, but should take those quotes and look at them for their own education and edification.
Here's my rule: I'll gladly take advice, either supportive or critical, from people who (1) know enough about me to accurately assess where I'm at, and (2) want me specifically—not humanity generally, but me specifically—to succeed.
He doesn't know me. So he's 0 for 2.
As Americans, we tend to have a pretty intense dislike for authority, but authority is not always bad. That's why I quoted Judges. Without some type of authority, man dissolves into anarchy, which is unstable and without justice.
I've no problem with that as a principle. But in terms of my own life, this guy's not an authority. So, sorry, when it comes to his sermonizing, I'll make up my own mind about what I think I should consider or ignore. And he'll take no part in my attempt to understand God's intentions.
Please love yourself.
-
Read the article, folks.
It's written from a Biblical perspective, but there is a lot of common sense in there. A large part of why so
much of society is in turmoil, is because people have no sense of place. Not in gender, not in desired behavior, not in relationships, not in families and not in responsibilities.As was written in Judges... In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
That's a recipe for disaster.
@Jolly said in Read 'em and Weep:
Read the article, folks.
I read it. I found it patronizing; it was difficult to get past the finger wagging.
It's written from a Biblical perspective, but there is a lot of common sense in there.
Why the “but”? Does the Biblical perspective normally lack common sense?
A large part of why so much of society is in turmoil, is because people have no sense of place.
Perhaps going back to an agrarian society with a feudal monarchical system of governance would cure that. People certainly knew their place then. After all, when the Bible was written it was a time when agriculture was a society’s economic driver and kings ruled the land and people. No feudalism mind you, that came later and was still quite consustent with Biblical teachings.
I take it then you do not subscribe to the libertarian views of Thomas Paine or, say, Rand Paul.
-
@Jolly said in Read 'em and Weep:
Read the article, folks.
I read it. I found it patronizing; it was difficult to get past the finger wagging.
It's written from a Biblical perspective, but there is a lot of common sense in there.
Why the “but”? Does the Biblical perspective normally lack common sense?
A large part of why so much of society is in turmoil, is because people have no sense of place.
Perhaps going back to an agrarian society with a feudal monarchical system of governance would cure that. People certainly knew their place then. After all, when the Bible was written it was a time when agriculture was a society’s economic driver and kings ruled the land and people. No feudalism mind you, that came later and was still quite consustent with Biblical teachings.
I take it then you do not subscribe to the libertarian views of Thomas Paine or, say, Rand Paul.
@Renauda said in Read 'em and Weep:
@Jolly said in Read 'em and Weep:
Read the article, folks.
I read it. I found it patronizing; it was difficult to get past the finger wagging.
It's written from a Biblical perspective, but there is a lot of common sense in there.
Why the “but”? Does the Biblical perspective normally lack common sense?
A large part of why so much of society is in turmoil, is because people have no sense of place.
Perhaps going back to an agrarian society with a feudal monarchical system of governance would cure that. People certainly knew their place then. After all, when the Bible was written it was a time when agriculture was a society’s economic driver and kings ruled the land and people. No feudalism mind you, that came later and was still quite consustent with Biblical teachings.
I take it then you do not subscribe to the libertarian views of Thomas Paine or, say, Rand Paul.
Human nature is the same in ancient Egypt, Israel in Jesus' day and in modern day America. Those words in red or those letters to the early church are just as valid as they were thousands of years ago.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion.
-
@Jolly said in Read 'em and Weep:
The writer of the article is a marriage counselor.
He's not mine.
And whether you'd like for them to fuck off or not, I think it does most folks good to hear a little Bible. One should never take what somebody else quotes as gospel, but should take those quotes and look at them for their own education and edification.
Here's my rule: I'll gladly take advice, either supportive or critical, from people who (1) know enough about me to accurately assess where I'm at, and (2) want me specifically—not humanity generally, but me specifically—to succeed.
He doesn't know me. So he's 0 for 2.
As Americans, we tend to have a pretty intense dislike for authority, but authority is not always bad. That's why I quoted Judges. Without some type of authority, man dissolves into anarchy, which is unstable and without justice.
I've no problem with that as a principle. But in terms of my own life, this guy's not an authority. So, sorry, when it comes to his sermonizing, I'll make up my own mind about what I think I should consider or ignore. And he'll take no part in my attempt to understand God's intentions.
@Aqua-Letifer said in Read 'em and Weep:
@Jolly said in Read 'em and Weep:
The writer of the article is a marriage counselor.
He's not mine.
And whether you'd like for them to fuck off or not, I think it does most folks good to hear a little Bible. One should never take what somebody else quotes as gospel, but should take those quotes and look at them for their own education and edification.
Here's my rule: I'll gladly take advice, either supportive or critical, from people who (1) know enough about me to accurately assess where I'm at, and (2) want me specifically—not humanity generally, but me specifically—to succeed.
He doesn't know me. So he's 0 for 2.
As Americans, we tend to have a pretty intense dislike for authority, but authority is not always bad. That's why I quoted Judges. Without some type of authority, man dissolves into anarchy, which is unstable and without justice.
I've no problem with that as a principle. But in terms of my own life, this guy's not an authority. So, sorry, when it comes to his sermonizing, I'll make up my own mind about what I think I should consider or ignore. And he'll take no part in my attempt to understand God's intentions.
The guy may not be your authority, but the Bible is, just as Jesus is the ultimate authority.
Now, you can certainly nibble around the edges of the author's argument. In fact, I encourage you to. Take his cited Scripture and read it in context. Then see if you can find where he's wrong or where Scripture is not clear or contradicts itself.
-
@Renauda said in Read 'em and Weep:
@Jolly said in Read 'em and Weep:
Read the article, folks.
I read it. I found it patronizing; it was difficult to get past the finger wagging.
It's written from a Biblical perspective, but there is a lot of common sense in there.
Why the “but”? Does the Biblical perspective normally lack common sense?
A large part of why so much of society is in turmoil, is because people have no sense of place.
Perhaps going back to an agrarian society with a feudal monarchical system of governance would cure that. People certainly knew their place then. After all, when the Bible was written it was a time when agriculture was a society’s economic driver and kings ruled the land and people. No feudalism mind you, that came later and was still quite consustent with Biblical teachings.
I take it then you do not subscribe to the libertarian views of Thomas Paine or, say, Rand Paul.
Human nature is the same in ancient Egypt, Israel in Jesus' day and in modern day America. Those words in red or those letters to the early church are just as valid as they were thousands of years ago.
Human nature may very well be intrinsically the same as it was in antiquity however many of the cultures and societies are quite different today than in ancient Egypt or when Jesus lived. Not saying there are no valuable lessons to be learned from studying the wisdom of the ancients, but I am saying that not all the wisdom of the past can or should be taken as immutable truth or entirely relevant in the modern world.
-
Human nature may very well be intrinsically the same as it was in antiquity however many of the cultures and societies are quite different today than in ancient Egypt or when Jesus lived. Not saying there are no valuable lessons to be learned from studying the wisdom of the ancients, but I am saying that not all the wisdom of the past can or should be taken as immutable truth or entirely relevant in the modern world.
@Renauda But what is immutable? Consider:
"I have just three things to teach: simplicity, patience, compassion. These three are your greatest treasures."
-- Lao Tzu, 500-? BC“Those who educate children well are more to be honored than they who produce them; for these only gave them life, those the art of living well.”
― Aristotle. 384-322 BC“The things that we love tell us what we are.”
― St. Thomas Aquinas, 1225-1274"It is not enough to have a good mind. The main thing is to use it well." -- René Descartes, 1596-1650
“It is not the length of life, but the depth.” -- Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1803-1882
"If it's your job to eat a frog, it's best to do it first thing in the morning. And If it's your job to eat two frogs, it's best to eat the biggest one first." -- Mark Twain, 1850-1910
(And if that ain't wisdom, I don't know what is!)
Any one of these men could have said these things to you whilst sitting next to you on the bus. True in our time, and understood in theirs!
I've always believed that human nature is unchanged throughout our history. You're right -- practically everything else under the hand of man has changed (in one direction or another) but wants, desires, ambitions, grief, craftiness, sacrificial love -- you name it, are unchanged from their time to ours.
Success is measured by your discipline and inner peace. – Mike Ditka
-
What about women?
Has the nature of women changed?
Do women not want to be able to decide what they want to do themselves now?
Did women not want to be able to decide what they want to do themselves back when the various books in the Christian Bible were written? -
Basic nature has not changed. What turned a woman's head in ancient Greece will still do so today.
-
What about women?
Has the nature of women changed?
Do women not want to be able to decide what they want to do themselves now?
Did women not want to be able to decide what they want to do themselves back when the various books in the Christian Bible were written?@Axtremus said in Read 'em and Weep:
What about women?
Has the nature of women changed?I wonder if that isn't a harder question to answer. Men's nature has always been more overt, more out there. More plainly acknowledged universally. Women have had more reason to be more circumspect. It's always been more "a man's world".
I'm kind of spitballing here, I don't know how valid that is . . . women have always had more to lose, have always been more at risk. They've had more cause to be political. The dynamics are different.
I don't know. Women have had to use more care, more guile -- not always in a bad way -- have had to be less direct than men to get what they want. Possibly different times, different eras, have guided women to behave differently from one age to another, and that has not been as evident, as easy to see.
Success is measured by your discipline and inner peace. – Mike Ditka
-
@Renauda But what is immutable? Consider:
"I have just three things to teach: simplicity, patience, compassion. These three are your greatest treasures."
-- Lao Tzu, 500-? BC“Those who educate children well are more to be honored than they who produce them; for these only gave them life, those the art of living well.”
― Aristotle. 384-322 BC“The things that we love tell us what we are.”
― St. Thomas Aquinas, 1225-1274"It is not enough to have a good mind. The main thing is to use it well." -- René Descartes, 1596-1650
“It is not the length of life, but the depth.” -- Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1803-1882
"If it's your job to eat a frog, it's best to do it first thing in the morning. And If it's your job to eat two frogs, it's best to eat the biggest one first." -- Mark Twain, 1850-1910
(And if that ain't wisdom, I don't know what is!)
Any one of these men could have said these things to you whilst sitting next to you on the bus. True in our time, and understood in theirs!
I've always believed that human nature is unchanged throughout our history. You're right -- practically everything else under the hand of man has changed (in one direction or another) but wants, desires, ambitions, grief, craftiness, sacrificial love -- you name it, are unchanged from their time to ours.
-
@Axtremus said in Read 'em and Weep:
What about women?
Has the nature of women changed?I wonder if that isn't a harder question to answer. Men's nature has always been more overt, more out there. More plainly acknowledged universally. Women have had more reason to be more circumspect. It's always been more "a man's world".
I'm kind of spitballing here, I don't know how valid that is . . . women have always had more to lose, have always been more at risk. They've had more cause to be political. The dynamics are different.
I don't know. Women have had to use more care, more guile -- not always in a bad way -- have had to be less direct than men to get what they want. Possibly different times, different eras, have guided women to behave differently from one age to another, and that has not been as evident, as easy to see.
@Catseye3 said in Read 'em and Weep:
women have always had more to lose, have always been more at risk.
Up until very, very recently, only men fought in wars.
Please love yourself.
-
True, but women didn't fare too well if they were on the losing end.
During the Roman siege of Jerusalem, women ate their children...
-
@Catseye3 said in Read 'em and Weep:
women have always had more to lose, have always been more at risk.
Up until very, very recently, only men fought in wars.
@Aqua-Letifer said in Read 'em and Weep:
@Catseye3 said in Read 'em and Weep:
women have always had more to lose, have always been more at risk.
Up until very, very recently, only men fought in wars.
Unless they were Boadicea...
I was only joking
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Read 'em and Weep:
@Jolly said in Read 'em and Weep:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Read 'em and Weep:
Ignoring the somewhat bizarre and extreme nature of what he's saying, what I did notice about both articles is that he seems to be blaming the problems on groups which he doesn't belong to. He's saying that the police are pretty much responsible for all the violence, and the wimminz are shouldering much of the blame for not knowing their place.
He uses the phrase 'getting the mote of your own eye first', and then proceeds to blame everybody else.
In the first article, you may find that bizarre, but it used to be a common way of life. It's still not uncommon down here.
And if finances permit, it actually makes for a pretty decent home life.
Of course, that's not the only thing mentioned in the piece...
Funnily enough, Mrs. Phibes has looked after our kids their whole lives, and hasn't worked other than part-time work a few years back. It was her choice, and we made a number of sacrifices on that basis.
The point isn't whether somebody does it or not. It's about some guy, or bunch of guys, telling people how to live.
The way he talks about women is pretty creepy, if you ask me. Feel free to disagree, but he's still pretty creepy.
I don't find it creepy, I find it Biblical. It lays out tasks and and responsibilities. The husband is tasked to be the provider. He should provide for his family's needs. In return, the woman also has her tasks and responsibilities. She is tasked to be the "help meet" of the family.
According to the author, neither should allow the lusts of the eyes, the lusts of the flesh nor the pride of life to undercut the role of either.
The author also talks about the introduction of debt into a marriage and who is responsible for it. He goes on to talk about frugality and eradication of debt within a home, which both husband and wife have part in accomplishing.
And he makes another statement, which many might disagree with, but can certainly wreck a home...If a woman wants or feels like she needs to work outside of her home, it should be a joint decision of husband and wife.
Lastly, the article is written for everybody, but I feel it has a certain emphasis for the black community and the dissolution of the black family.
@Jolly said in Read 'em and Weep:
She is tasked to be the "help meet" of the family.
Speaking of “help meet”, here you have a bunch of male GOP candidates trotting their wives out to meet the voters in attempts to “soften” the candidates’ images after the candidates made strident anti-abortion statements and lost support, bigly, among women:
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/06/skeptical-female-voters-gop-senate-00054747
-
And what is wrong with that?
-
@Jolly said in Read 'em and Weep:
And what is wrong with that?
The Craw article, as you have acknowledged, makes it a point to distinguish “needs” from “lusts.” Whether there’s anything “wrong” vis a vis the Craw article may depend on whether the wives were put in public spotlights to help meet a “need” or to help chasing after a “lust” (e.g., for power or prestige of elected offices).
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Read 'em and Weep:
@Catseye3 said in Read 'em and Weep:
women have always had more to lose, have always been more at risk.
Up until very, very recently, only men fought in wars.
Unless they were Boadicea...
@Doctor-Phibes said in Read 'em and Weep:
Unless they were Boadicea
Or Joan of Arc. Or Molly Pitcher.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Read 'em and Weep:
Unless they were Boadicea
Or Joan of Arc. Or Molly Pitcher.
@Catseye3 said in Read 'em and Weep:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Read 'em and Weep:
Unless they were Boadicea
Or Joan of Arc. Or Molly Pitcher.
You've named 3.
(Of which, all 3 are embellished legends, by the way.)What do you suppose the guy/girl ratio is on the Ukraine front?
-
@Catseye3 said in Read 'em and Weep:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Read 'em and Weep:
Unless they were Boadicea
Or Joan of Arc. Or Molly Pitcher.
You've named 3.
(Of which, all 3 are embellished legends, by the way.)What do you suppose the guy/girl ratio is on the Ukraine front?
@Aqua-Letifer said in Read 'em and Weep:
(Of which, all 3 are embellished legends, by the way.)
They are?
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Read 'em and Weep:
(Of which, all 3 are embellished legends, by the way.)
They are?
@Catseye3 said in Read 'em and Weep:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Read 'em and Weep:
(Of which, all 3 are embellished legends, by the way.)
They are?
You have a habit of citing things in your posts you haven't looked into yourself.
