At “Jesus and Hyperbole,” the professor writes:
Yes, repeatedly throughout history God has condemned and destroyed nations. You owe society nothing beyond responding to evil with good. God’s job is vengeance. Ours is doing good. The fundamental fault with lex talionis is that it tends to assign to us what is ultimately God’s. And, most importantly, you can’t do good by simply not taking God’s job.
The prohibition on violence is not a matter of language (whether literal or figurative) or even rule following. It’s a categorical thing. Violence—as a category—is reserved for God and those to whom God has appointed to hold the sword on his behalf (i.e. governments).
This is the foundation for the Christian concept of the rule of law. Under the system of “Rule of Law” no person has a right to retributive justice. In American jurisprudence, victims essentially have no rights. The accused person has the right to be judged by “blind” justice, by the law itself.
It is thus an imperative that the law be rooted in the Law of God, or else it will be illegitimate (like an individual engaging in violence). Such a nation (like an individual who lives by the sword) will be destroyed.
The only legitimate use of violence for vengeance is on behalf of God.
When we read…
An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. — Exod. 21:24; Lev. 24:20; Deut. 19:21
…we note that Jesus is pointing out these principles were not established so that the victim could seek revenge, or even necessarily be involved in the retributive process at all. Rather, it was the means by which God could enact his justice.
Indeed, reading Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy, it is clear that the rules for lex talionis apply to the people as a whole, and specifically to the magistrates who would judge and hand out punishments. The command in Deuteronomy is addressed specifically to the judges. The command in Levitcus is addressed to the whole congregation, who are to carry out the judgments. Exodus establishes them as ordinances (or laws) of the nation, not commands to individuals.
Jesus’ and Paul’s audience were the common people, not the magistrates. Of course Jesus was telling them that they should not follow lex talionis. He could do this without invalidating the law, because lex talionis didn’t apply to them as individuals! The core error was in thinking that they had any personal right at all to vengeful violence. This must have been a popular notion, because both Jesus and Paul take pains to correct it! The Jews and Greeks had apparently all missed the point.
Charles Cruise commits the error of presuming that the right to violence has ever rested in men:
There is no abstract plus or minus domain of forgiveness.
What Cruise calls “Take nothing, give more” is not stated in scripture. Rather, scripture calls this “do good,” which is the job of man.
What Cruise calls “Take what is owed” is not stated in scripture. Rather, scripture calls this “vengeance,” which is the job of God.
There is no middle ground “take nothing.” This has nothing to do with Jesus using hyperbole, but because scripture doesn’t teach it. Doing good and enacting vengeance are separate categories with no middle category. There can obviously be no compromise between vengeance and doing good, because these are not opposing concepts.
Understanding Jesus is a simple matter. He told us to do good to our enemies and he described doing that good using hyperbole. Obviously, the purpose of the hyperbole is not that people should do good in a hyperbolic over-the-top way, but rather to emphasize the importance of doing good in response to evil. It’s that simple. You don’t need a 21-page paper to tell you that.
If you want to understand Jesus using hyperbole to tell you to strip naked and give your clothing and underwear to your enemies to “heap coals on their head” you can do that too.
Indeed, reading Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy, it is clear that the rules for lex talionis apply to the people as a whole, and specifically to the magistrates who would judge and hand out punishments. The command in Deuteronomy is addressed specifically to the judges. The command in Levitcus is addressed to the whole congregation, who are to carry out the judgments. Exodus establishes them as ordinances (or laws) of the nation, not commands to individuals.
Europeans in America (especially) circa 1600s/1700s started getting the sense they were the new Isreal(as even this Jewish article acknowledges):
”Religion has been an essential “character” in America’s story of civic religion that supersedes even JESUS & his grace. From the time of the Pilgrims, to the founding fathers, and even to later generations, many Americans saw themselves as a chosen people—as God’s new Israel(whom the Divine Butler & Cosmic Therapist must obey)—reliving the Exodus story. The precise contours of the comparison with ancient Israel differed depending on who invoked it and when, but the parallels were often quite elaborate (and sometimes more than a bit forced).
Thus, the political repression and religious persecution so many early settlers had endured in England, from which they fled, was their Egyptian bondage; the Stuart monarchs (and, later in the revolutionary era, George III) were their intransigent Pharaohs; the treacherous waters of the Atlantic Ocean, which they traversed in search of a promised land, were their Red Sea (or, in some versions, their Jordan River). In the new Canaan, they had to contend, like the ancient Israelites, with a forbidding terrain and hostile inhabitants.
Not a few Americans in the founding era came to regard George Washington as their Moses, who led them out of bondage and into freedom. For these Americans, the providential history of the Hebrew people and the biblical record of Moses’ instructions for creating the political and legal infrastructure needed to govern that people held special meaning and played a key role in directing their own ambitious errand into the new promised land.
That doesn’t explain why so many reject Jesus’ words and authority to this day. Instead, they embrace the civic=national religion of their ancestors, as did the Pharisees of Jesus’s and the Apostles’ day.
Civil religion
Civil religion, also referred to as a civic religion, is the implicit religious values of a nation, as expressed through public rituals, symbols (such as the national flag), and ceremonies on sacred days and at sacred places (such as monuments, battlefields, or national cemeteries). It is distinct from churches, although church officials and ceremonies are sometimes incorporated into the practice of civil religion.[1] Countries described as having a civil religion include France[2] and the United States.[3][4][5] As a concept, it originated in French political thought and became a major topic for U.S. sociologists since its use by Robert Bellah in 1960.
Origin of term
Jean-Jacques Rousseau coined the term in chapter 8, book 4 of The Social Contract (1762), to describe what he regarded as the moral and spiritual foundation essential for any modern society. For Rousseau, civil religion was intended simply as a form of social cement, helping to unify the state by providing it with sacred authority. In his book, Rousseau outlines the simple dogmas of the civil religion:
1.deity(who obeys the people’s wishes)
2.afterlife
3.the reward of virtue and the punishment of vice(eye for an eye and none of that forsaking of lex talionis and embracing of the ”rule of law”which makes us angry at our Divine Butler & Cosmic Therapist AKA the one our ancestors call God or even Providence(especially) if they were more Diestic)
4.the exclusion of religious intolerance unless it matches the local civic religion as closely as possible[6]
The Italian historian Emilio Gentile has studied the roots and development of the concept and proposed a division of two types of religions of politics: a civil religion and a political religion.[7]
What is the point of tradconism?It is fleshly =materialistic=Womanly NOT Spiritual hence why JESUS’s words are ignored-as he said here:
It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh conveys no benefit [it is of no account]. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life [providing eternal life].-Amp John 6:63
This brings us to 11 years ago…
BradA says:
September 18, 2013 at 9:42 am
What exactly does “moral agency” mean?
Women can be saved (transformed into a new life with God) just like men. They can and must put their faith in Jesus and be changed into a “new man” by Him. (II Cor 5:17) How is that not a requirement for moral action of a sort?
> ” The only requirement for entering His Kingdom was living by Honor. ”
Nope, the requirement was that you were reborn by being spiritually transformed by Him after putting him into the Lordship position of your life. Honorable living can and should follow that, but it is not what causes that nor is it the evaluation point of the inner spiritual transformation. (“You must be born again.”)
Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) says:
September 18, 2013 at 9:56 am
There BradA goes again, displaying his epic manginaism and abhorrent corruption of Chirstianity.
BradA tries to transform Christianity into Churchianity–a cult ruled by his mangina tinglelzozlzozlzo.
Listen to Jesus, not to Brad@sshat:
A Tree and its Fruit
(Matthew 12:33-37; Luke 6:43-45)
15Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing (BradA), but inwardly they are ravening wolves (mangina tyrants). 16Ye shall know them by their fruits (BradA’s inability to directly answer questions, like a man, while baring false witness against all men and blaming the murder of 50 million babies on men even though the babie were aborted by women’s choice alone). Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father (LIVING BY THE EXALTED CODE OF HONOR JESUS CAME TO FULFILL!) which is in heaven. 22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name (As BradA claims to do as the mangina man hater)? and in thy name have cast out devils (As BradA claims to do as the mangina man hater)? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity (NOT LIVING BY THE CODE OF HONOR, LIKE BRADA!).
You hear that BradA? Jesus never knew ye, as ye violate the LAWS HE CAME TO FULFILL by bearing false witness against your brother and multitudinous other dark sins and corruptions of Christ and Christianity.
innocentbystanderboston says:
September 18, 2013 at 1:43 pm
Watching the gold price right now… lol. I thought the markets expected the FED to taper, 10 to 15 billion, they promised me, hahahaahahahahaha!
As Captain Capitalism says, “….enjoy the decline.” We are borrowing $85 billion a month that we don’t have, $2,840,000,000 a day, most of which is money just given to single moms to pay for the feeding, clothing, and shelter of their bastard offspring, not to mention financial aid to girls to attend school to someday be HR generalists. But our President, HE has Moxie!
innocentbystanderboston says:
September 18, 2013 at 2:08 pm
Sorry, that should read, “.. would be written entirely for men if women were not expected to be moral agents.”
I believe they have an issue with empathy and deceit but I have never held the position that they cannot or cannot be expected to have moral agency. There would literally be no point for them to be a man’s helper nor companion if they did not.
Well FH….
…either the man is the spiritual head of the household, or he isn’t. And whether you or I like it or not, society holds men to a higher standard of moral accountability.
Think about the almost $3 billion this country borrows each and every day. That is entirely immoral. But we do it because our fearless leaders have been brow-beaten by feminism into believing that we need all these government programs and agencies to subsidize women who have made terrible choices. That is basically where we are at…. and that is not changing.
Jim Duggar is the spiritual head of his household of 19 children. They have no debt. Their children were home schooled so they took (basically) NO government services for all the property taxes that they paid (he has never called for police or fire and I expect he never will.) Just today, there was a comment at yahoo that another one of his daughters is entering “courtship” with a young man. I fully expect that if the two of them marry, that this young man will find a way to scrimp and save and pay cash for starter home (or if not cash, a MASSIVE down payment and a smallish mortgage.) He will be a moral agent. It is that or Jim wouldn’t let him near his daughter. We need more spiritual heads of households who understand that following the Bible not only makes spiritual sense, it also defines moral agency which is critical for men who are responsible for leading their wives. As Sunshine Mary would say she’s going to submit so the person she should be submitting to is her husband and he needs to have moral agency enough for the both of them.
WithOUT him, she is likely to live a Life of Julia because she is NOT a moral agent. She can read the Bible but she will “hamster wheel” away all the moral parameters in that book and justify any behavior on her part without a man’s guidance. She will spend all her money and money she does NOT have and she will make bad choices. And that life (ad the National level, our immoral behavior) leads to $3 billion a day of federal borrowing.
Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) says:
September 18, 2013 at 2:09 pm
BRING DA DOWRY DOWERY DOWERIE BACK!!! LZOZLZO WOMENZ WOMENZ UP BRING DA DOWERY BACK! LOZOZOZZO
zlozozoz
if all da neneoconths wringing tehir handsa about the decline and fall of marirage REALLY WNAT TO BRINGZ back marriage they need to probvide INCENTIVEESZ FOR MENSZ TO GET MARRIIIED. as there is 0 chance dat da neoconctehdodsn will ever stop woemnz form nebing buttcocked and giancocked by hudndedreds of cockas, as the deousling of womenz and comunist destortcutionof teh fmaileiez is their prime agencda, there are otehr aooppaoahces they can take to saving marriage, such as resusnsituiting the DOWERY DOWERIE DOWRY! lzozlzzo
thorughzout all hirstsoiresz it has ever been reladized dat womenz navigatedz not by exalted reason honor code of honor but via butt and gina tinzgzlzlzozzlz lzzozlz
for dis reason, a man had to be compensatedz for marrying one and putting up with the endless flowsz of solipisimsz, ilogical fallacies, pursusit of gina and butt tingzzlzleoelzo satiate sataiatioation satsisfy her butt tizngzzklzozozl intsead of raisng kidz and aborting kidz to sataiate butt tzinzgzlzozlzo, and the curse of eve which meansz dat she will forever be longing for da seprent losstas ockasz cockasz zlzozlzozol and is compeleyetley icncapalble of moral reaosn incapable of moral agency incapaable of s cs lewiws russle kirk’s moreal moral moral moral imagainatinz imagainztzataioznz and instead perfer da serpent temptaonsz butt and gina tianagzlzozlzuzuzzlzlzzlozlzlo zzlzlozozozozzlo tizngalozlzaazlzzlzo
anywho, because this female nature was F@CKNG OBVIOUS to the ancientz, they came up with the dowery DOWERYZ DOWERY to COMPENSATE MENZ for puutinng up with womenz base, cheating, butt and giana tingelelzytzz mtotivated speech and incapacity for reason or moral turtehsz.
da only broo problemz these daysz is dat as womenz have been pre-buttcoked an dginaocked and splooged in der outhhole and anuthhole and ginahole MORE THAN ANY TIME EVER IN THE HISTORY OF MANKINDZ, da DOWERY IS GONNA HGAVE TO BE HUGE AND VASTZ VAST VAST and HUGESZ to simply compensate menz for all the risk they take on in marryying a butccoekd multi-butccoked benrnakified womenz who hath been deousledz so as to be more loyal to the bottomm bottom bernankez line lzozziz (bottm=buttholeizlzio line) than she is to the higher ideals and god, man, and famileyzlzoz zlzizi
BradA says:
September 18, 2013 at 2:15 pm
No GBFM, you are the one who is an idiot here. Read the Scriptures you claim to esteem. Humans need an inner transformation (“You must be born again”) to come into God’s Kingdom. No works are sufficient and those works only proceed from the relationship, not cause it. You can’t do enough good things to get into heaven, you must be transformed.
Be an idiot and call me what you will. I follow the Scriptures. Not sure exactly what you follow other than your own rhetoric.
[Jhn 3:3-7 NKJV] 3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 “Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’
[2Cr 5:17-21 NKJV] 17 Therefore, if anyone [is] in Christ, [he is] a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. 18 Now all things [are] of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. 20 Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore [you] on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God. 21 For He made Him who knew no sin [to be] sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
Note especially verse 17. Pure Scripture here. Sounds more like GBFM is the one twisting things. Is that how you get your kicks, insulting those who hold to the Scriptures? You may want to look at the beam in your own eye first and apply the Scriptures you used to yourself.
Note that you never addressed my point, which shows you have no argument, just insults. I was literally asking a question at the first part after reading in the start of this thread the discussion of “moral agency” and I didn’t see a good definition of what was being defined. We all have some responsibility to God to take what He has presented, whether we are male or female. This is independent of the current argument, but it looks like you can get past your own hamster.
Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) says:
September 18, 2013 at 2:28 pm
Note how manginA BradA fears to quote Jesus Christ, just as he fears to answer the question, “Are women responsible for their actions?”
A Tree and its Fruit
(Matthew 12:33-37; Luke 6:43-45)
15Beware of false prophets (BradA), which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves (mangina man-haters and Christ-haters). 16Ye shall know them by their fruits (BradA’s bearing false witness against men and blaming them for the over 50,000,000 babies murdered via womens’ choice alone via abortion). Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit (BradA only provides EVIL FRUIT and deceit and false witness). 18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them (BradA is incapable of answering questions with a simple yes or no. He is doing Satan’s work.) .
21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord (Like BradA the beaerer of false witness and worker of iniquity), shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven (which BradA does not do). 22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name (as BradA will do)? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
BradA will be judged not on his faux “haalaeuuljah! halalalalaujah!” and white-knighting man-hating manginisms, but upon his bearing false witness against men.
Jesus will say to BradA, “I never knew ye,” and cast him away.
innocentbystanderboston says:
September 18, 2013 at 2:30 pm
BradA,
No GBFM, you are the one who is an idiot here. Read the Scriptures you claim to esteem. Humans need an inner transformation (“You must be born again”) to come into God’s Kingdom. No works are sufficient and those works only proceed from the relationship, not cause it. You can’t do enough good things to get into heaven, you must be transformed.
He doesn’t have a problem with this Brad. The problem he has with you is the same problem we ALL have with you, you refuse to answer any of our challenging questions. Instead, you try to REFRAME everything according to your worldview that way you don’t get pushed outside your very limited comfort zone.
You are being political, not spiritual.
innocentbystanderboston says:
September 18, 2013 at 3:10 pm
for dis reason, a man had to be compensatedz for marrying one and putting up with the endless flowsz of solipisimsz, ilogical fallacies, pursusit of gina and butt tingzzlzleoelzo satiate sataiatioation satsisfy her butt tizngzzklzozozl intsead of raisng kidz and aborting kidz to sataiate butt tzinzgzlzozlzo, and the curse of eve which meansz dat she will forever be longing for da seprent losstas ockasz cockasz zlzozlzozol and is compeleyetley icncapalble of moral reaosn incapable of moral agency incapaable of s cs lewiws russle kirk’s moreal moral moral moral imagainatinz imagainztzataioznz and instead perfer da serpent temptaonsz butt and gina tianagzlzozlzuzuzzlzlzzlozlzlo zzlzlozozozozzlo tizngalozlzaazlzzlzo
anywho, because this female nature was FUCKNG OBVIOUS to the ancientz, they came up with the dowery DOWERYZ DOWERY to COMPENSATE MENZ for puutinng up with womenz base, cheating, butt and giana tingelelzytzz mtotivated speech and incapacity for reason or moral turtehsz.
It has occurred to me, that in today’s culture and climate, Hollywood would not be permitted to make a movie like “Fiddler on the Roof.” The whole concept of culture/customs and where they came from (the ancientz as GBFM so aptly put it) could not be shown if it was shown in a way that was hurtful to women (as is the whole concept of the “dowery” in that 1971 movie.) And yet the principle behind it is the same today as it was 4000 years ago, women are a burden and have no moral agency.
With “science” we have “Jumped the Shark” with regards to Doweries in China and India. They just abort all the girl babies instead of having them and worrying about supporting them from now until forever. This (following science wherever it leads which is amoral) is what happens when you reject Christ and His teachings.
Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) says:
September 18, 2013 at 4:17 pm
Men are moral agents who wrote the Bible.
Women are moral vessels who are capable of behaving morally via moral choices, but generally only if they have been taught how to do so by men.
How many strippers had a strong father?
As the FED/bernnakifiersz wanted to destroy the family and profit off the welfare state spawned by women’s natural “alpha fckzkzukz beta bucks” hypergamous instincts, they simply put women in charge. And voila! Da GBFM were replaced by books centered upon butt and gina tinagalalaoauaalzozo in our universities, and MEN were replaced by BradAs in our churches.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
zlzozlozozz
BradA says:
September 28, 2013 at 3:40 am
@IBB,
> “He doesn’t have a problem with this Brad. The problem he has with you is the same problem we ALL have with you, you refuse to answer any of our challenging questions. Instead, you try to REFRAME everything according to your worldview that way you don’t get pushed outside your very limited comfort zone.
You are being political, not spiritual.”
Exactly which questions have I refused to answer? The only one I recall now is if women are responsible for their actions. I said “yes”. I initially noted that we all are responsible for our actions, since sex has nothing to do with that, but a few clearly had logic challenges and couldn’t realize that “women are responsible for their choices” is a subset of “men and women are responsible for their choices.”
I may miss some responses at the ends of threads as I don’t live here. Hopefully I will remember to check back here, but a lot of this is a big circle jerk at times.
I don’t fit any mold.
Note that my comment about salvation is a spiritual issue. That is the ultimate issue. You go to heaven if you are reborn, you don’t if you aren’t. You may or may not have power of some kind on this earth with that, but the line determining your location in the next life is clear and far outside my control.
It does show me a bit how much some here are idiots in their thinking if they label me a white knight and mangina, etc. But go on living in your fantasy land if you wish. I speak the truth best as I see it. I will change if someone shows me that I am clearly wrong, especially via the Scriptures. I have not seen any of that though, just a lot of insults. That tends to show a lack of the ability to think.
”This (following science wherever it leads which is amoral) is what happens when you reject Christ and His teachings.”
”You are being political, not spiritual.”
See now what the war /debate with tradcons is really about?
The fleshly=worldly/Political Seed versus the Spiritual Seed.
This is supplemental to the above:
Cultural Christians are those who received Christian values or appreciate Christian culture. They may or may not be non-practicing Christians, non-theists, apatheists, transtheists, deists, pantheists, or atheists. These individuals may identify as culturally Christian because of family background, personal experiences, or the social and cultural environment in which they grew up.[1]
Contrasting terms are “practicing Christian”,[2] “biblical Christian”,[3] “committed Christian”,[4] or “believing Christian”.[5]
IOW? Ad hominists like the ”Woe is mez” tradcon troll who comes here, just wants to emulate aesthetics of the success of the past without caring about emulating the spirit of the success of the past.
& from a f@rmer tradcon who eloquently explains why most Churchs & the ”Christian-Manosphere” is having such a hard time getting new recruits:
r/exchristian icon
Go to exchristian
r/exchristian
•
1 yr. ago
JarethOfHouseGoblin
Bruh, tradcon evangelical Christian dating is fuxxing WILD!!!
Rant
My dad has a friend who’s a deacon at his church. Now, the deacon is just a straight up @sshole(like most tradcon trolls). Which, as I understand it, is a requirement to be a deacon at a Southern Baptist church. The deacon’s wife, however, is…….something. She was the one I talked about some time ago who shared an anecdote on FB about this unfortunate woman who admitted that she didn’t really like her husband-to-be on their wedding day but “learned to trust the lord” and loves him now and they’ve been married 20 something years. Now, that may be an indirect admission of emotional abuse. Or, that whole anecdote she shared could be entirely bullshit. It was from an evangelical newsletter like CBN. Growing up around evangelicals made me extremely distrustful of evangelicals. But, I responded to that post asking about compatibility. The deacon’s wife responded “that’s a bullshite term woke feminists came up with as justification for heathen women to sleep around without committing to a godly man.”
So it should be no surprise that she took to FB yesterday and made a post basically auctioning off her granddaughter as if she were chattel. After all, in evangelical circles, women are not but property. Akin to livestock. Her post said “my granddaughter (name) is 20 and looking for a godly man. She loves the lord and is eager to get married. She wants to have and raise at least 2 God-fearing children. If you’re in our area, message me. God bless!”
It blew my fuxxing mind and I just had to ask a follow up question. I responded to her post saying “I’m not in that area and plus I’m 30. Which means, in my opinion(by way of 1950s traditional”conservative” feminist thinking), I’m a little too old for her, so I promise I’m not asking for myself. But, I did wanna ask as a general question. Why not go into more detail about what she’s like as a person? What her interests are, does she keep it relz,Business in the front -partay in the back et.etc.etc.?”
Her response? “She loves the lord. That’s all anyone needs for a successful marriage. I’m getting really tired of your stupid, woke questions. Your dad needs to have a serious talk with you one day. I heard you’ve not given your parents grandchildren yet and you need to start working on that. Find yourself a godly woman soon. Blessings.”
That statement speaks for itself. But going back to her initial post, what in the human trafficking?!?! No, seriously. This is sex trafficking with extra steps and a Jesus filter or trademark=TM on it like St.Rollo used to say at Dalrock. Change my mind.
Remember: these are the “traditional family values” conservative evangelicals represent.
Compatibility? Woke and bad
Talking about a potential partners’ personality and interests? Also woke and bad
Getting weirdly and creepily involved in your relatives’ dating life? Based and cool
Pushing marriage and childbearing/rearing on a 20 year old who obviously grew up sheltered and likely knows NOTHING about the world around them or even who they are as a person since they have no life experience? Also based and cool and red pill approved by watered down gamers.
The @ss backwards morality of the tradcon universe boggles my fuxxing mind.
And I grew up in this $#ite as a traditional cultural ”Conservative”!!!
ComprehensiveOwl9727
•
1y ago
•
It’s so infuriating that a small but significant portion of the American population continues to insist we live like it’s 1823 and not 2023.
Upvote
412
Downvote
u/JarethOfHouseGoblin avatar
JarethOfHouseGoblin
OP
•
1y ago
•
that a small but significant portion
The scary part is this small minority possesses an inordinate amount of legislative power. Especially in the Bible Belt. It’s basically a minoritarian gerontocracy.
Upvote
271
Downvote
Award
Share
Share
12 more replies
Scrabble_4
•
1y ago
•
Setting her up for abuse
Upvote
150
Downvote
u/JarethOfHouseGoblin avatar
JarethOfHouseGoblin
OP
•
1y ago
•
Edited 1y ago
•
I don’t take the cynical perspective of marriage itself being a prison. But tradcon evangelical Christian marriage is absolutely a fuxxing prison! I’d argue that, in spite of traditional Christian marriage being a system intended to uphold the social patriarchy of modern feminism, it’s mutual harmful to the men and the women. The harm to the woman is obvious: she’s trapped and is emotionally broken down to not want to be anymore than a bang maid and baby factory for her husband-who talks gibberish and lies about his d@ng all day to his fellow failorous tradcon ladz.