| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |

This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| Shop: |
| |||||||
|
Sexy.Butt.McDanger Registered: 03/12/02 Posts: 24,855 Loc: Pandurn Last seen: 1 year, 12 days |
| ||||||
Quote: This sense of masculinity is fear. The idea of being a protector implies a power hiearchy, to compensate for fear that their partner is free to make their own choices. It needs to fade away as humans become more evolved and aware.
-------------------- If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
| |||||||
|
I'm NOT a 'he' Registered: 09/01/02 Posts: 3,198 Last seen: 14 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
Agreed. The man-as-protector paradigm is about nothing more than control. If women are kept in a state of fear, each seeking a strong man to protect her from the rest, they are kept in a state of subservience always having to be grateful for the menial security provided. It's like the role of 'bitch' in prison. Some weak men accept it to avoid fighting thier own fights. It's pitiful whether a man or a women submit to the role. It's also pitiful that some men are so desperate to feel a sense of power that they lack that they will assault women. Protector and assaulter are two sides of the same coin.
I'm much more interested in developing a true and equal partnership in which both parties recognize the other's freedom to sever ties at any time, and in which both parties remain only so long as they are satisfied and strengthened by the bond. I don't need a protector, I do just fine on my own thank-you.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 09/24/07 Posts: 767 Last seen: 15 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Nomatter what I say, or how much biblical references I give, you will still say it's heresay. If I back it will scripture, people will say scripture doesn't matter, it's just a fairy tale. They won't consider the evidence for the validity of scripture, and they would rather believe in their own fairy tales with no authority or substantiation. mushroomtrip; Quote: I don't have to debate the way you want me to. I'm not obligated to fit myself into your little mold. I already said I was willing to back myself up. fireworks: Quote: Not true at all. It's worth it just to show that there are people who disagree and they can back it up. When I say nonsense, it is referring to something I believe so obvious there's no need to explain. It's like trying to convince someone white is white, when they've convinced themselves it's black. It's very difficult. Quote:Quote: It's not faulty logic at all. It only seems faulty to a person who is has convinced themselves that Christians are unwilling to consider criticism or, logically defend their beliefs. When you say this, you already presuppose that christians are closed minded. If forgeries can be proven, then forgeries can b proven. If they can't be proven they can't be proven. The 24,000+ manuscripts we have and the internal exegesis do not show any forgeries. Quote: Unless you can site some information for us to consider that they're not all valid, then my arguement remains the same. http://www.tektonics.org/lp/maso Quote: There is proof for this. How much do I need to show you?Honestly, I don't care if I convince you. I care for other readers, who might be looking for the other side, and they can search more on their own. But once again, as i have pointed out, I can go on as long as I need to. I learned an important lesson, it's you can't educate people who don't want to be educated. The best you can do is state the Truth, and point them in the right direction. You're asking me to answer something that would require enormous amounts of information to show in it's entirety. Unless you want to get into an essay debate, where we all type massive essays to each other, then it's not going to work the way you're asking. I think this all started off on the wrong foot begin with. here, educated youself: http://www.ldolphin.org/semir.ht http://bupc.montana.com/whores/w http://www.ldolphin.org/Nimrod.h Let me know if you need more. Quote: Nope. Quote: You pretend like this is reasonable. Quote: Quote:Quote: Yes, like herpes. Quote: Quote: Quote:Quote: I find it so appalling when people go on like this. You can go on about the flying spaghetti monster and whatnot all you like, but it does not adress the evidence given for his divinity; his miracles, his fulfilled prophecy. It does not adress the authority of the world of God, or the evidence given by Christians for it's authority. You can apply whatever false circumstances you want to The God of the bible, but that does not make it true. It's an inaccurate distortion. Quote:Quote: It isn't a baseless judgement. gnosticism seriously has no authority. It cannot be traced back to any of the apostles with any veracity. It has no way of validating itself. There is no evidence for it. period. Not much room for arguement, there's very little to argue over. what do we find when we look back in the history of the church? We find the n.t. was recognised as the word of God by the general people long before it was ever canonized. The canonization was really just about affirming the veracity of scripture and conforming what's false. some read for you: http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocde this is an article on davinci code, but it answers many of the same arguements: http://www.tektonics.org/davinci and here's something on the veracity of the book of John for you gnostics.. http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocde Quote:Quote: i won't argue. It wouldn't do me any good. If you say this is a personalims, I'll try not to do it again. It seems that in actually though, we are allowed personalisms, just not negative ones. Quote: I suppose I have to go in detail now, otherwise you'll never let me live it down. Here we go. Fortunately I had part of this discussion before so I'll just copy and paste, and edit a bit and save myself some time. Quote:
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 02/23/06 Posts: 425 Loc: Arkansas Last seen: 6 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
So this is perceived as fear? I am struggling with what you are saying. Two people come together as one in marriage out of love. There is such a thing as womanhood and manhood. They are not the same thing and not in conflict with each other.
I will say that the concept of dating has been detrimental to male female relationships. Probably one of the many reasons for so many divorces today since there is no responsibility taken on either end. Certainly a relatively new phenomena. The kind of respect that a woman deserves is not shown anymore as a whole. The kind of woman that opposes chivalry is not one I want to be with.
| |||||||
|
I'm NOT a 'he' Registered: 09/01/02 Posts: 3,198 Last seen: 14 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Because to understand the meaning of scripture with any historical accuracy, one must consider translational issues from both the original scriptures as well as in the diffusion of biblical stories from other cultures (babylon, mesopotamia, etc.) One must also understand how scripture was changed several centuries after the fact by people like Augustine - church doctrine was developed long after the fact. It is also vital to understand social/cultural factors at the time including what sort of ideologies were floating around and which of them found home in christianity. Etc, etc. To quote from whatever modern english bible you've got handy is not good enough in regards to the topic at hand, as this topic is completely about analysing source material and historical context. If you cannot engage on those grounds you are not engaging at all, simply talking like a broken record. I don't know how to explain this any more clearly. What is being challenged is modern translations of scripture and church doctrine - you cannot refute arguments against it by quoting it. You have to go deeper. You have to make a case for why you believe your version is accurate. I'm handing this one to you - come on. Do the research - the better for you, the better for our debate. Don't you want some more effective tools in your arsenal of argument?
| |||||||
|
Elder Registered: 12/09/99 Posts: 14,279 Loc: South Florida Last seen: 3 years, 2 days |
| ||||||
Quote: It looks like someone got a personality transplant from 1950s TV sitcoms like 'Father Knows Best,' 'Leave It To Beaver,' and 'Ozzie and Harriet.' How easily Biblical patriarchal bias fits with a semi-modern version. I wonder if this kind of individual refuses to be operated on by a female surgeon, or flown around the globe by a female pilot.
| |||||||
|
Registered: 04/15/05 Posts: 11,089 |
| ||||||
Quote: Amen, sister! Can I get a hallelujah? BTW, the myth of females being the weaker sex is baseless. If we measure weakness/strength by ability to survive, then men clearly do not have the advantage. Women live longer in every industrialized country. The difference in non-industrialized (aka third world) countries is largely due to child birth complications. Male embryos are more likely to be miscarried than female embryos. Male infants are much more likely to die than female infants. Male adolescents are much more likely to die than female adolescents. Women outnumber men in retirement homes & assisted living facilities. As the saying goes, Ginger did everything that Fred did, but she did it backwards while wearing heels.
| |||||||
|
Dr. Teasy Thighs Registered: 12/02/05 Posts: 14,794 Loc: red panda villag Last seen: 2 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
Quote: I will say that your assertion is totally flawed. Tell me exactly how, step by step, dating has been detrimental for relationships? It is where we gather our experience from, it's how we find out what we want and don't want. We get to explore our unlimited variation of feelings, likes, dislikes, sexuality and also develop a sense of knowing how to make a relationship (one that's worth it) really work. The reason why there were no divorces in the dark past is because women were subject to abuse (pretty much like now), but only them they were "educated" to live with it. Submit to a series of crap coming from their early ages, from their parents which taught them to obey their husbands, accept their infidelities, abuses of power and so on. I'll give you a link that you might wanna check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alf And also a small quote from it: Quote: For even more information on how much bull shit and repression both men and women had to endure, only that these problems were never made public until then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin I suggest that you read that because it's a clear prove that SERIOUS problems of communication and coexistence have existed between men and women, and this is because sexual discrimination. Quote: Yeah... about MORE than a lot of centuries.
-------------------- ![]() ![]() ![]() All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
| |||||||
|
Dr. Teasy Thighs Registered: 12/02/05 Posts: 14,794 Loc: red panda villag Last seen: 2 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
Quote: It's not the way "I want to", it's the way a debate takes place. This forum is dedicated to critical analysis which obviously you can't handle.
-------------------- ![]() ![]() ![]() All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
| |||||||
|
I'm NOT a 'he' Registered: 09/01/02 Posts: 3,198 Last seen: 14 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Care to define 'womanhood' and 'manhood' for me? What qualities are inherent to the sexes? Let me guess - the feminine is receptive, passive, nurturing, and emotional while the masculine is active, aggressive, strong and rational? ![]() Have you ever considered that men and women may have these characteristics because they are told from the moment they enter the world that they have these characteristics? Have you ever explored the concept of socialization? Have you ever met anyone that didn't fit the mold? Are there not men who prefer to snuggle, knit and dance and women who prefer to build houses, shoot guns and be study martial arts? Have you ever thought that instead of recieving the penis the vagina surrounds or consumes it? Different paradigms... Perhaps the woman has a more active role than we think. The great thing about life is that we get to pick our values. Why not pick those that offer the most space for developing onself as fully as possible? It's more fun that way.
| |||||||
|
Dr. Teasy Thighs Registered: 12/02/05 Posts: 14,794 Loc: red panda villag Last seen: 2 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Some have to ask permission from good old god
-------------------- ![]() ![]() ![]() All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 09/24/07 Posts: 767 Last seen: 15 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
Quote: The pieces of manuscript we have from the second century to the 6/7th agree with each other almost perfectly. There is very little change , almost all of it is in copying errors, spelling mistakes, that have no effect on doctrine. Quote: http://www.tektonics.org/lp/ntte also page on ot canon http://www.tektonics.org/lp/otca the textual criticism does much more for the validity of scripture than it so it does work against it. There are no textual variants which change doctrine. This is the consensis. Quote: I'm well aware of this. Most people hear there's similar stories to the bible in ancient mesoptiamian religion, and they just accept these "refutations" to the bible as QFT when it is not. People have been aware of this for thousands of years!! They're just ignorant, and they conclude from their presupposition that it must have come from mesopotamian religion, and not the other way around. Well, I'm here to tell you it's not true. If one looks at the evidence you'll see that biblical history humanity goes back farther than mesopotamian religion. And all the evidence when compared and analyzed shows that Babylonian religion is a corruption form the Truthful knowledge and propehcy handed down by Adam and Noah. For instance, look at people like to talk about the gilgamesh epic. But did you know that there are flood legends all over the world? But obviously they had to have come from a common source. Take a look here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/ http://www.answersingenesis.org/ http://www.answersingenesis.org/ And perhaps you'll ask, "why should we believe them? " well how about I ask you the same question about yours, and it really comes down to using your common sense that God gave you. That's why I've given up trying to prove anything to people, except those who are willing. Because you can only prove it to yourself. If you are wise, you are wise for yuorself, and if you are a fool, you alone will pay for it. Quote: There is no proof for that. It's just divinici code nonsense with no proof to back it up. The Roman catholic church has changed their doctrine many times throughout history, but this has no effect on the manuscripts. There is no way they could control ALL of the manuscripts. Quote: It's wise to recognize human nature, but it's also wise to recognize the possibility for the faithful preservation of scripure. Instead of coming up with all sorts of unsubstantiated "what if" stories, look at the real evidence points to. i have posted links to this evidence. Quote: And as I have pointed out there is no disagreement in the manuscripts. And if you want to have an arguement about textual criticism, I first suggest you get a degree, and then don't forget to remind everyone who can't that they're too dumb to understand. Quote: I'm not a broken record by any means. Quote: many people have pointed out to gnostics the results of textual criticism. They just don't get it. Argue till your blue in the face, the results are on the table. The only thing gnostics have against it are unsubstantiated conspiracy fables. I have plenty of tools. Edited by jonathan_206 (10/21/07 06:55 PM)
| |||||||
|
I'm NOT a 'he' Registered: 09/01/02 Posts: 3,198 Last seen: 14 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
Quote: From the second to the 6/7th century? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the 2nd century quite awhile after the fact? This is the time period in which Christianity was made the official religion of the Roman Empire. This was precisely the time in which alot of the corruption of the original material happened. The displaced officials of a crumbling empire saw something in Christianity that was cooptable, something that would offer them new positions to maintain thier power and influence with the disintegration of the administration of Rome. This is the time of the Council of Nicaea, where the first doctrine of orthodoxy was established. This is precisely when a great deal of material was altered, filtered out and forgotten. Quote: There are pretty large scale translation errors between some of the myths of the old testament and thier original form. Like the 'breath of life' translated into the 'rib.' This is a big deal. Quote: Aspects of Babylonian religion were handed down and modified from the Sumerian which were handed down and modified from previous hunter gatherer societies. This is the way of myth. There is a great deal of interchange between communicating groups of people, and there was a traceable flow between the Sumerians, Mesopotamians, Babylonians, Hittites, Semites and others. People influence each other. This is no big revelation, it is simply a fact of life. People talk to each other, and when they enjoy each others stories, goods, ideas, etc. they adopt them but alter them to make them more suitable for themselves and thier needs. It's called diffusion. Are you trying to argue that Adam and Noah are historical persons? Quote: I'm not saying that anyone should 'believe me,' but if we both have an interest in getting to the bottom of things there are many avenues to follow. There are written records from this time period which is a great help. There is the archaeological record, there is a process by which things may be analysed that helps us get a little closer to understanding what was. We can't time travel, so we can never paint a perfect picture of times past, but we can piece it together as well as we may and make interpretations that appear most likely due to the evidence. Rather than trusting one book and people who are bent on proving that book to be literally True, it makes more sense to look at as many sources of information as possible (including, but not limited to that book) and try and organize and make sense of it all. There will always be debate. That's half the fun. ![]() Quote: There's no proof that Augustine influenced church doctrine? Are you kidding me? Read 'The City of God.' This is a fine example of how Platonism (greek pagan philosophy ) diffused into Christian thought. Augustine also came up with the notion of Original Sin. He was a biggie in the development of dogma. It's irrefutable. Quote: By socio-cultural context I did not mean human nature. This is a misinterpretation of my words. I'm not saying anything about "human nature" at all. When I say we must understand socio-cultural context I mean that we must be aware of the way the culture(s) in question were organized, what thier worldviews were, how thier religious thought affected thier daily lives, etc. To understand what they were talking about we have to understand how it related to and justified thier social structure. This isn't radical stuff. Many faithful theologians would agree. Quote: I'm working on the degree. I'm also not the type to tell people they're too stupid to understand, I really don't think many people are stupid at all. Some just prefer to avoid questions that are uncomfortable. I think that's unfortunate and so I like to pose a challenge. Quote: Lot's of people make 'textual' and other criticisms of the bible. Many of them have no interest whatsoever in gnosticism either. My anthropology teacher once had to count ribs with one of her classes because a student was dead set on the idea that men had one less rib than women, accounting for the rib Adam lost for Eve. Taking scripture literally is a dead end. Recognizing scripture as a metaphor, as our friend Markos has, and as have most of your opponents, may open many doors of self discovery and enlightenment. I'm more interested in exploration than certainty. It's not as scary as it seems.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 09/24/07 Posts: 767 Last seen: 15 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
Quote:Quote: I'll correct you. Yes, second century is a while after the fact. But the manuscripts themselves are not the only things we have. There is a reason why historians have the gumption to place the n.t. letters within the time frame the the apostles lived in. It's called secondary and tertiary evidence. When you say "this is a the time a lot of the corruption happened" as if that means the gospels were somehow mysteriously distorted by some secret mystery cult or something, that is an assumption. You have no proof to back it up, and this is what the numerous books easily refuting the davinci code have pointed out all along. The evidence shows quite to the contrary as the article I posted, and many books have pointed out. It's just a conspiracy theory that is convenient for gnostics, but has no historical evidence to back it up. the real historical evidence shows that no, alot of the corruption didn't just start out of the blue in Rome, it was building up for many many years prior to that. Gnosticism was part of this corruption, and that's why the n.t. refutes gnosticism. http://www.nisbett.com/sabbath/h Even if the gospel as is given in the new testament is false, and we had none of the pauline letters or any of the letters we have now, gnosticism would not fit. It does not fit the o.t. It does not fit the doctrine, prophecy, context. The whole bible is written as historical narrative. If the original writers intended it to be taken generally symbolic in it's entirety, then that would be a massive deception. There's just no room for that interpretration. It's like taking the simple statement "the sun is shining very brightly. I closed the door so the rays would not blind my eyes. I went down on the couch to take a nap" And turn it into something totally symbolic . I'll sure you could turn it into something, but that is not how exegesis works, plain and simple. And the fact of the matter, is the Hebrews took it as literal history also. And gnosticsm does not address the o.t. prophecies, it does not address the core of the God's plan, which is salvation from sin and death. It does not fit. Christianity fits, because it adresses and fits the old testament. If we look at something strictly from a historical perspective, it is worthless. There has to be more, the historical timeline is supportive, but you also look at the internal evidence. Because people could fit whatever they want into history and pass it off as truth, it's been done before. That's why we rely on other types of evidence, such as evidence concerning origins,secondary and tertiary evidence,archeology, and ultimately Spiritual evidence. When it comes to the past, we just wern't there. You can imagine whatever you want, but you have to go with the evidence you do have, not the evidence you don't. But as far as the councel of nicea..I really wish you would read that article I posted on the davinci code. Here is a portion relevent: Quote: Although I will quickly say I don't agree with mr. Holdings opinion on the borrowing of pagan symbology and his opinion on the shifting of the sabbath from saturday to sunday (and probably other things too)in his article there. Can't always agree on everything.. Quote:Quote:
| |||||||
|
Dr. Teasy Thighs Registered: 12/02/05 Posts: 14,794 Loc: red panda villag Last seen: 2 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
|
I can't believe I read all that post and I'm still alive from so much
and and also and again ![]() I must reward myself
-------------------- ![]() ![]() ![]() All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
| |||||||
|
I'm NOT a 'he' Registered: 09/01/02 Posts: 3,198 Last seen: 14 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
Because of your magical, groundless persistence in believing in a literal bible, we have absolutely nothing further to say to one another. You will believe any pseudo-intellectual babbling that seems to defend this position. There is such an incredible wealth of evidence to the contrary that it is utterly beguiling that anyone with any access to it still believes in a literal interpretation. A good many Christians these days are not so naive, as they are capable of grasping the concept of metaphor. I think we're done here.
I just find it rather funny how often you accuse me of "imposing [my] own bias," as if you weren't doing that yourself. And now moving on... I'd like to get back on topic please! Sorry for contributing to the disintegration of your awesome thread, Markos.
| |||||||
|
Alive Again Registered: 11/10/05 Posts: 9,230 |
| ||||||
|
I agree with everyone on some points, and maybe I disagree with everyone on some points. These are my views. Some of you guys will get a kick out of this, some of you may think I'm Satan. I "appreciate" all viewpoints.;) Feel free to disagree on even the smallest detail. I like to learn new things and this is a favorite subject of mine.
Men and women are different but equal. We're all just trying to survive and thrive. We need each other. We're in this together. We all have a chance to explore the meaning of existence, and we all have the right to be treated with respect and dignity. We all have souls. It's a difficult thing to explain because it's so simple. We are all people. Sex makes us different. I used to hear that everyone has a masculine side and a feminine side. I had no idea what it meant, but I thought it was silly. Now I know it's true. Not only do we have masculine and feminine thought processes, We literally have physical masculine and feminine sides. The emotion that manifests in the front of the body is feminine. The emotion that manifests in the back of the body is masculine. In this way, we are still similar. But here is where the similarities stop. Women generally have a feminine physical core. They want to be seen and noticed. They want to sparkle and shine. Makeup isn't forced onto the majority of womens faces today. They like it. Women want to look good, and there's nothing wrong with that. Men share these qualities. We want to be seen, noticed for the things we do. We make polite gestures to others out of nothing but joyfulness. We want to love. Jocks slap each other on the ass. We even take pleasure in dancing if we can move beyond self scrutiny. This is feminine stuff, but females are naturally MUCH BETTER at it than men. It seems quite obvious to be that most men have a masculine physical core, even from a very young age. Masculinity is not so much about the enjoyment of life as it is about controlling and understanding life. It is about creating finality and conquering things. Larger muscles and a tendency to think for longer periods on single subjects are masculine traits. It was a man who has lifted the most weight. It was a man who finished the final level of Pac Man. Why the hell would men want to do these things? Because they are men. Keeping in mind that we are "in this together", women have come to rely on men, but the reliance goes beyond physical. Women want strong, stable, masculine men. This allows them to relax into their feminine core. Women ARE more sensitive and ENJOY being that way. A woman may choose security over masculinity, but it isn't her first choice. Many women won't admit it, but they need to cry on a regular basis. This is their way of removing stress from their bodies. Many men won't admit it, but they need to yell a mighty roar and kill stuff on a regular basis. This is their way of removing stress from their bodies. Again, we share both traits. Men can cry and women may want to punch things, but our core nature when dealing with stress release will be one of the two, and it's generally determined by whether we have a penis or not. Having said that, I like women that can be strong. Because I believe most women have feminine cores, I'm not worried that strong, for her, will mean going outside to chop wood when she's upset. Because i believe most men have masculine cores, I'm not worried about whether my friend is gay because he cried over Scruffy's death. Masculine and feminine are appropriate at different times, and I like women who know how to take care of themselves. It's the ability to create polarity during intimate encounters, where the man acts like a man, and the woman acts like a woman, that counts. Which came first? The feminine nature has always been around IMO. It's like asking which pole of a magnet sprang into action first. The luxury of soft curvy bodies, and a tender heart may have well came second, but the intent was always there. Being feminine is the expressive joyful nature of existence, and what point would there be to life if the only goal was to reproduce, struggle and find death? When a man becomes jealous of another man, if his core is masculine, he will want to kill the other man. When a woman becomes jealous of another woman, if her core is feminine, she will want to have sex with the man to reaffirm her relationship. We may experience both desires when jealousy arises, but our strongest desire will align with our core. Women get wet with jealousy. Men see red. Because of this, it is easy to see why a relationship between two masculine men and a feminine woman will not work. However, women can be quite happy in a multi-partner relationship. The horny men of yesterday only had it half right. It is natural for both men and women to want multiple sex partners, but men were only satisfying their own desires. In a "normal" polygamous relationship, the women aren't allowed to make love with each other. It will not work in a marriage of ownership. Men owned women. Anyone think women appreciated this fact? Hell no. They were resentful. If the man let his wives make love to one another, they might conspire against him. So we just tightened the rope and ignored their pain because we were so consumed with our own. Yin is compatible with yin. Feminine women are bisexual by nature. This is a fact men have been suppressing for thousands of years. Many women are afraid, to this very day, to admit, even to themselves, that they are bisexual. This is a product of how strongly the feminine nature has been suppressed. Marriage as a statement of fact, is also a means of control. When two (or more) people decide to share exclusive intimacy, they are married (though I wouldn't normally use that term). The desire for exclusiveness is an emotional bond, and is dictated by want, not a social duty, or some twisted egoic desire to be bonded at the hip forever no matter what. When a person discovers they no longer have an emotional desire to be with the other person, and aren't willing to try and fix things, they are divorced. Two people can live for many years, divorced from each other, while holding a piece of paper that says otherwise. Again, any attempt to use marriage as a guarantee of lifelong fidelity is egoic fear. If we must rely on a piece of paper, and consequences, there is no love. There is no real marriage. Marriage is to blend together as one. Trusting ones partner, and being honorable by sheltering and defending the others feelings, is fairly essential to a REAL marriage. Running around having sex with people outside a relationship is a very hurtful thing to do. The use of a license to prevent this is laughable. If you treat a woman like an animal, she will act like one. Then you must keep her in a cage. What can a piece of paper do? It's the same for men. People are either building trust, or confirming their fearful suspicion that trust is a lie. For better or worse, if two people are in a relationship together, they deserve whatever they get. So let's not worry about who came first, or if one sex is more pure than the other. The truth is that on a soul level, women don't need men, and men don't need women. But perhaps we should honor our bodies and cherish our differences, and see if we can have some good orgasms during the process.
-------------------- rahz comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace "You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 09/24/07 Posts: 767 Last seen: 15 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
And to get to this.
Quote: I really am trying to understand what you're referring to. The closest thing I could find was this blatantly feminist bible study page "for women", which says: And so I go to the rib "word study page" and here is what is says: Quote: No, this is absolutely false. Here is the correct translation. Quote: It means rib, side, or beam, . That's what it means. And if that's not what you're talking about I have no idea. If you go to blue letter bible, and look up H6763, the verses listed fit this definition.
| |||||||
|
Elder Registered: 12/09/99 Posts: 14,279 Loc: South Florida Last seen: 3 years, 2 days |
| ||||||
Quote: Thank you for your eloquent defense of 'the' position. The Fundamentalist view in Christianity or Islam is tantamount to insisting upon a pre-Copernican view of the solar system in its insistence upon a long obsolete position. To rigidly maintain obsolete positions is nothing less than obsessive-compulsive delusional thinking. Unfortunately, the suspension of common sense let alone higher level thinking is taken by Fundamentalists to be proof of their faith - the ability to suspend reality-testing in favor of delusional thought (e.g., believing that dinosaur fossils are demonic props planted to test the faith of believers in a 5700+ year world-age, and there were no dinosaurs on Noah's ark). Recommendations to everyone: stay out of people's [collective] delusions. Do not engage in debate. -------------------- γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself
| |||||||
|
The Minstrel in the Gallery Registered: 03/15/05 Posts: 95,368 Loc: underbelly |
| ||||||
|
Nomatter what I say, or how much biblical references I give, you will still say it's heresay. If I back it will scripture, people will say scripture doesn't matter, it's just a fairy tale. They won't consider the evidence for the validity of scripture, and they would rather believe in their own fairy tales with no authority or substantiation.
Finally you got something right. I'm pretty sure you missed it though. Everyones beliefs are subjective. It all comes down to what you base your subjective beliefs on and can you admit that your beliefs are subjective or are you too afraid. -------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
| |||||||
| |||||||
| Shop: |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
The Fundamental Masculine And Feminine Intelligences – And Stupidities | 978 | 8 | 05/27/17 07:24 AM by sudly | ||
![]() |
God and the masculine pronoun ( |
4,852 | 26 | 03/27/07 11:33 AM by mr_kite | ||
![]() |
Masculine / Feminine ( |
4,217 | 33 | 11/03/05 03:26 PM by Icelander | ||
![]() |
Masculine or Feminine? ( |
3,255 | 25 | 10/17/07 02:52 PM by MarkostheGnostic | ||
![]() |
The Masculine/Feminine Energy of Uniqueness | 519 | 1 | 01/09/04 01:12 PM by TrueBrode | ||
![]() |
is the world really too masculine/yang? | 1,381 | 16 | 07/21/03 11:44 AM by infidelGOD | ||
![]() |
Robert Bly On Mythology and Masculinity, What It Means To Be Male | 882 | 4 | 01/21/11 05:49 PM by Icelander | ||
![]() |
Getting in touch with your feminine/masculine side... | 191 | 0 | 12/19/08 06:29 AM by |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum 9,020 topic views. 1 members, 14 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||

Now please, don't forget it.











and again
