Do you think a priest would legitimate take time out of his day to talk to me (a non christian) about this? Im not going to convert, but I would love to talk to someone who is an expert in this field about this.
Because if so, this is actually something I’d be very interested in doing.
Yes.
“with a beard, and endowed him, as an attribute of manhood, with a shaggy chest – a sign of strength and rule”
I like this… you’d be surprised as to just how kuch shit I’ve had to cop for excess body hair. I’ve been told to put my shirt back on, I’ve been told I look like a 70’s porn star… I’ve been called gorilla, sasquatch, an abomination, disgusting… I’ve been told my look would have been admired sixty years ago, but today secondary sexual characteristics is off-putting?
To note, prior to TRT I was almost bare… it only took one year for hair to sprout everywhere.
Thus article specifies shaving ones face is inappropriate, but most Christians AND Catholics DO shave. What’s that about? It’s the orthodox Jews who don’t.
Here’s what I got out of the article. Modern society is initating an attack on traditional masculinity, and that men need to start acting like men again. My interpretation… it depends on the society. In Aus/Europe… yes… in the USA, I don’t know… probably. I’ve been in agreement with you on this from day one though.
However this is also occurring with femininity. The narrative “gender constructs are broken, sexist by-products of a toxic era” is being preached. Masculinity and femininity be damned! Women can be masculine and feminine! Men can also be both!
To a degree, this is true. It isn’t a bad thing for a man to be in touch with his feelings. That “tough guy, stoic” nonsense irritates me. But men for the most part shouldn’t be feminine and women shouldn’t be masculine. Biological hard-wiring dictates the HETEROSEXUAL individual isn’t going to be attracted to dynamically opposed gender norms. I’m not attracted to butch (can I say this? This is slang, but it isn’t derogatory… or is it? If it is, notify me and I will remove this) women just as most women aren’t hard-wired to be attractive to girly guys.
However as I’m not a Christian, I don’t believe in Satan (though I do believe in evil) and I’m not feverantly religious and thus portions of this article rub me the wrong way. I understand the message this article is trying to convey and I agree with quite a bit of it… but context matters, I am not CLOSE to being as societally conservative relative to this guy.
There’s a middle ground… we don’t need to go back to biblical times. Look at 1950s America for example. Factory job could string you along, houses were affordable, low rates of unemployment and drug addiction. Imagine that societal paradigm minus the racism! Premarital sex was VERY common in the 1950s, but “screwing around” wasn’t.
If an adult is seriously influenced by a mainstream rap video, they’ve got other problems they need to work out.
I am very much in agreement over the toxicity associated with PUA culture, the problematic elements associated with focusing solely on the individual.
However the conceptualisation of sexual immorality, telling the reader to curtail dating and make sure there is no fornication… reading this actually made me chuckle. This cannot be adapted for the modern man who isn’t religious, and the majority of the world (esp here in Europe) isn’t religious and societally we are far less divisive than that of the USA. We also have far lower rates of abortion and teen pregnancy… what gives?
I don’t agree with the “obedience” narrative. No… not all authority needs to be blindly accepted; even if the orders are coming from a priest.
Discipline and listening to figures of authority entails an important part of growing up, but having morals is also important. Those who blindly obey are easily manipulated.
As to the trans stuff… pardon my language, but I couldn’t give a flying fuck about those who undergo sex chances or those who dress in drag (in private or in establishments where kids cannot attend).
Trans people make up like 0.001% of the population. I have yet to hear a convincing opportunity as to why we should strip homosexuals or transsexual individuals of basic human rights. The “God said its bad” narrative doesn’t sit well with me, though I can respect this narrative as I can see why a devoutly religious individual would think this way if it has been shoved down their throat for a very long time.
We needn’t have this conversation however as this is a hot topic for me that I am liable to get angry over in the same manner you’ve specified abortion is a hot topic for you. I’m not homosexual or bisexual, however for a prolonged duration throughout Middle school my name was a slur used to discriminate against homosexuals. So instead of “hey unreal24278” I was addressed as… well… you get it
I don’t have a torch in this game, however I feel very strongly about this. I’m not woke or PC, however I don’t see the need to systemically persecute someone over their sexual orientation as homosexuality/whatever is NOT a choice. Paedophilia isn’t a choice either, however the ramifications are far more damaging. You scar a child, you don’t scar a grown adult.
This guy can say "no transgenderism’'… bet that’s easy for him to say considering he isn’t trans. Trans people are frequently suicidal prior to getting a sex change. I’m talking about real gender dysphoria (very rare), not woke kids talking about gender fluidity.
I feel as if believing gays ought to be locked away or exterminated equates to an individual having a profound lack of emotional intelligence. Put yourself in the shoes of the homosexual for a minute. It’s not a choice, conversion therapy doesn’t work… and this is aroind 2% of the population you’re looking at. Now imagine you’re on the other side of the stick… how would you feel if all of these religious individuals were trying to drive you out?
Btw, feminine societies don’t turn men gay, however it may very well contribute to a decline in fertility and virility. It’s almost certainly genetic. There are variables that increase the likelihood of being gay… after the first child a woman bears, each subsequent child has a higher likelihood of not being straight. To note, I don’t think being gay ought to be glamorised or put up on a pedestal… but I do think people shouldn’t care about it because it doesn’t matter…
My biggest gripe here is… why do you care if some men are feminine… how does this affect you, or your family? It’s never going to become a sizable majority large enough to screw up fertility (testosterone decline will do that though).
The world’s population isn’t going to start decreasing due to lack of births anytime soon.
You could say “feminine men are less likely to start a family”. Perhaps, but most men don’t deviate towards being predominantly feminine. Once again… how does this affect you/your family. I am of the opinion beyond the effect societal variables have on YOUR/your families well being, it’s no longer your/my business.
These articles are flirting with extremes, not to say this is necessarily a bad thing. But you’ve specified I have a penchant for extremes… these guys also have a penchant for extremes.
If the right way to run society is to abide by an ultra conservative catholic doctrine, why aren’t more people shifting over? It appears the Nordic countries, certain EU nations are doing very well for themselves. The happiest countries in the world aren’t theocracies or monarchies. What gives? If religion was the answer, religious countries would rank higher wouldn’t they?
Another question… do you believe Catholicism is the only valid religion? If so… why? Considering various religions existed across the globe during the era of Catholicism (and before catholicism).
Another question… WHY is having sex before marriage wrong? Can you provide me with a straightforward answer? I’m not talking about screwing around… I’m talking about someone dating someone for a few months, they start having sex… then they break up a few months later.
Not everyone wants to get married young, as a matter of fact most don’t. There is no reason as to why they should be forced to do so. For a societal construct to integrate effectively, the population for the most part has to WANT said construct to be integrated.
Much of this is very idealistic. My answer to this is to set up communities specifically set up to cater towards various niches. Similar to what you have in Israel with secular communities and ultra orthodox communities co existing, inhabitants from the two communities very rarely interact with one another.
They can, but as they have very little in common there is typically no need to do so. I don’t think your ideal here would pan out to be quite as utopian as you’d hope it to be. Just as my perceived ideal would also be an absolute disaster. But that is because my perceived ideal would serve to benefit ME
With my unique circumstances (almost certainly being unable to have kids and all) my utopian ideal would be far from optimal for most… but optimal for me, hence why I acknowledge my preferred way for society to be run is NOT the way a society should be run.
So long as people leave me alone, I’m happy to leave others alone. For instance, if someone were to tell me you don’t agree with some of the things I’ve done, but they aren’t going to harass me about it… fine… if someone starts badgering me about say… having a mőtorhead or shining tattoo and they get all up in my face about it we have a problem.
all is good. Hopefully this isn’t permanent, though I’d fully understand if it is.