|
Your continuous donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics & Religion » Has the world put too much emphasis in gender for ones identity?

Default Has the world put too much emphasis in gender for ones identity?

May 24th, 2013, 16:24
What does a women being feminine have to do with not being mature, competent and responsible? Your response Jemy makes no sense to me as it doesn't address his statement you quoted. Is there even a correlation between feminine/tom-boy(ish) and responsibility? I don't think so.
Toff is offline

Toff

Toff's Avatar
Sentinel

#81

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Houston Texas
Posts: 495

Default 

May 24th, 2013, 16:38
Originally Posted by Toff View Post
What does a women being feminine have to do with not being mature, competent and responsible? Your response Jemy makes no sense to me as it doesn't address his statement you quoted. Is there even a correlation between feminine/tom-boy(ish) and responsibility? I don't think so.
"scared of scary things, more prone to crying at sad things, into girly stuff"

This the description of a child.

Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind. - John F Kennedy
An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind. - Mahatma Gandhi
The world is my country. To do good is my religion. My mind is my own church. This simple creed is all we need to enjoy peace on earth. - Thomas Paine
JemyM is offline

JemyM

JemyM's Avatar
Okay, now roll sanity.

#82

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,028
Send a message via ICQ to JemyM Send a message via MSN to JemyM

Default 

May 24th, 2013, 17:05
Originally Posted by Corwin View Post
Fret, the Bible says those who bless and support Israel, God will bless. Those who curse Israel will be cursed by God. They are still His chosen people, a part of the EVERLASTING covenant He made with them and He is not finished with them. Jer 32 is a reasonable place to start, though perhaps you should begin with 31.
“His blood be upon us and on our children." - Matthew 27:24–25

These people not only denied and continue to deny their saviour, they also embrace a sick and twisted distortion of the old covenant and for all sense and purpose they are no longer "chosen" for anything.

These people do not keep the covenant, they do not worship God, they do not accept their messiah, and they don't even have any blood relation to the ancient hebrews. They don't even have the fucking right to the curse I quoted, being that they are not related to the Pharisees in anything except the origin of their twisted parody of a religion. Even the `Pharisees would not be rotten enough to twist the Old Covenant into a damn blood cult.

Why exactly are they "chosen" for anything except damnation? Their only shot at salvation is accepting Christ as lord and saviour, they are not special in any way, except if you find some prophecy involving khazarian blood-cult converts from the middle-ages. And as the enlightened dude above has mentioned, what has the genocidal aberration now known as "Israel" have to do with the promised land of the ancient Hebrews? Hell, even the most hardline traditional jews deny Israel.

Originally Posted by Corwin View Post
Sola Scriptura makes total sense to me and little else does. What is your problem with it?
Where and how do you think the Bible came to be? Do you think it fell down from heaven one sunny day? Biblical infallibility is the silliest religious notion ever begotten, in line with the stupid "bibliolatry" that you have in religions such as Islam. It is the reason why there are american kids learning at school that the world was created in 7 days and that we all descend from Adam and Eve. It is ignorance. And besides, it doesn't fucking work, as evidenced by the fact that in the U.S alone there are over 12.000 different and conflicting protestant "churches" and most of them can't agree over a letter.

The Biblical canon was only officially established in the 5th century(though for practical purposes it was already pretty much set in early 4th century and late 3rd century) and it was done so by the Apostolic authority which as a protestant you so hate and deny. Christianity is not a "biblioatry religion" such as the Q'ran, it is a religion of tradition. The Bible is a fruit of that tradition and Christianity existed and did well long before there was a Biblical canon.

Christ Himself did not write any book, did not demand that any book be written, and did not mention that an "infallible" book would be the source of the New Covenant. Ironically there is not mention of "Sola Scriptura" in the Bible, which makes this very doctrine self-denying and redundant.

What did Christ establish? He chose 12 apostles and granted the authority of his Church to Saint Peter, the first Pope. And He left his revelation to be transmitted through TRADITION handed down by APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, not scripture(though scripture is surely a VERY important part of that tradition).

Hence Catholicism and Orthodoxy make sense. Protestantism doesn't.

Originally Posted by Corwin View Post
I should point out that most of the churches I've been involved with in the last 15 or so years were composed of anywhere from 60-80% FORMER Catholics!!
Vatican II "Catholicism" is not Catholicism. It is a parody of it, as ridiculous as any guitar playing and jump-dancing protestant "church". Except off course, the protestant "churches" actually stand up for something, Vatican II liberals don't stand for nothing. I'm not surprised at all that people are jumping the sinking ship. It is a worldwide phenom and it also involves conversions to oriental religions, atheism and even Islam. "Traditionalist"(a.k.a: "Real") Catholics such as myself are a minority going against the grain and being forced to disobey Church authority and the Pope(many traditional Catholics actually believe the last Pope was Pius XII).

This video explains a lot without needing to say anything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHZtbnaXuGk
FretRider is offline

FretRider

Watcher

#83

Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 54

Default 

May 24th, 2013, 17:10
Ahhhh, If it doesn't fit your narrow description then its incorrect i see. I define a child as a young human. Interestingly, children tend to have narrow views of the world as they do not have enough life experiences yet to see other options.
Toff is offline

Toff

Toff's Avatar
Sentinel

#84

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Houston Texas
Posts: 495

Default 

May 24th, 2013, 17:12
I disagree with Bishop Williamson on several of his opinions over this(including his notion that modern jews are indeed somehow heir to the old israelites), but this is a good source for a traditional Catholic notion over Israel and modern judaism.

You will be hard to find a more honest, sincere and orthodox Catholic Bishop, and hence he is persecuted by all walks of life, including the Church itself. It is worth watching this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QK0vzm-VQaM
FretRider is offline

FretRider

Watcher

#85

Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 54

Default 

May 24th, 2013, 17:13
Originally Posted by Toff View Post
Ahhhh, If it doesn't fit your narrow description then its incorrect i see. I define a child as a young human. Interestingly, children tend to have narrow views of the world as they do not have enough life experiences yet to see other options.
Material relativists such as yourself always gawk and shiver when someone actually claims that truth exists. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.
FretRider is offline

FretRider

Watcher

#86

Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 54

Default 

May 24th, 2013, 17:17
I know, I'm such a bad person. I may need a spanking by a feminine woman.
Toff is offline

Toff

Toff's Avatar
Sentinel

#87

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Houston Texas
Posts: 495

Default 

May 24th, 2013, 21:22
Originally Posted by Toff View Post
Ahhhh, If it doesn't fit your narrow description then its incorrect i see. I define a child as a young human. Interestingly, children tend to have narrow views of the world as they do not have enough life experiences yet to see other options.
Are you serious or just trolling now?

Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind. - John F Kennedy
An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind. - Mahatma Gandhi
The world is my country. To do good is my religion. My mind is my own church. This simple creed is all we need to enjoy peace on earth. - Thomas Paine
JemyM is offline

JemyM

JemyM's Avatar
Okay, now roll sanity.

#88

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,028
Send a message via ICQ to JemyM Send a message via MSN to JemyM

Default 

May 25th, 2013, 00:52
Fret, you don't believe the Bible is infallible, but you do believe the Pope (that word isn't in the Bible either) is? Weird.
To answer your points would take far too long right now, but I'll leave you with 2 references to read after you read Jer 31-32.

2 Tim 3:16 and Mark 7:13

There are many more, but it would take hours to explain in full.

If God said it, then that settles it!!

Editor@RPGWatch
Corwin is offline

Corwin

Corwin's Avatar
On The Razorblade of Life
RPGWatch Team

#89

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 10,450
Send a message via Skype™ to Corwin

Default 

May 25th, 2013, 01:19
Originally Posted by Corwin View Post
Fret, you don't believe the Bible is infallible, but you do believe the Pope (that word isn't in the Bible either) is? Weird.
To answer your points would take far too long right now, but I'll leave you with 2 references to read after you read Jer 31-32.

2 Tim 3:16 and Mark 7:13

There are many more, but it would take hours to explain in full.
Sorry, but none of the passages you quote refer to "The Bible", specially being that there was no such concept back when these texts were written. There was the accepted body of Old Testament scripture and that was it. Some of the gospels circulated in certain regions(i.e: Luke in Greece, John in Egypt) and the epistles of Paul were also known only regionally for quite some time. Curiously, the Mark passage you quote refers to Tradition, which is something protestants deny.

To accept the Bible to be infallible you would need to accept that the tradition and authority from which the Biblical canon came from was infallible. Being that most protestants believe that the Church was already a "pagan cabal" by early 4th century and that Constantine was the devil, I find it very funny that protestants have such notion. I imagine they would at least try to revise the canon such as your dear Luther did. Are you aware that he removed 7 books of the old testament and tried his best to remove 4 books of the NT? Seems he wasn't so sure of the "infallibility" that you cling to. I suggest you acquire a collection of apocrypha and read specially the texts which almost became part of the Bible(i.e: The Shepherd of Hermas) for some idea.

More to the point, Catholics believe that Scripture is only infallible when interpreted in light of tradition.No Catholic believes the Pope to be infallible. In the matter of fact ever since Vatican II he has been failing too much.

Sadly some people just like to shake the term "papal infalibility" around instead of taking some 5 minutes to read what it actually means. Curiously, it doesn't mean that the Pope is "infallible", except under very strict circunstances. In the matter of fact since the determination of this controversial doctrine in the 19th century, "infallible ex-cathedra declarations" has only been used once: to declare the assumption of the Holy Virgin.
FretRider is offline

FretRider

Watcher

#90

Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 54

Default 

May 25th, 2013, 06:42
Fret, if you believe that the passage in 2 Tim only refers to the OT you are still stuck with Genesis which you don't accept. Do you believe in the Doctrine of Original Sin? I seem to recall that Catholics do, but I'm not an expert on Catholic doctrine as opposed to what is in the Bible.

If God said it, then that settles it!!

Editor@RPGWatch
Corwin is offline

Corwin

Corwin's Avatar
On The Razorblade of Life
RPGWatch Team

#91

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 10,450
Send a message via Skype™ to Corwin

Default 

May 25th, 2013, 13:21
I like Genesis.
Good band.
Their song "The Musical Box" is one of their masterpieces.

Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction. (E.F.Schumacher, Economist, Source)
Alrik Fassbauer is offline

Alrik Fassbauer

Alrik Fassbauer's Avatar
TL;DR

#92

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Old Europe
Posts: 15,966

Default 

May 25th, 2013, 14:11
Originally Posted by Corwin View Post
Genesis which you don't accept. Do you believe in the Doctrine of Original Sin? I seem to recall that Catholics do, but I'm not an expert on Catholic doctrine as opposed to what is in the Bible.
Off course I do. What does that have in conflict with anything I said? More to the point I did not said I don't "accept" Genesis, I only don't accept a literal interpretation of the text. Why? Because a literal interpretation of it is retarded. You go back to Augustine, Origen and the other Church fathers, they agreed and the Church has always mantained that it is an allegorical text. But then came along two dumb guys named Calvin and Luther with their "sola scriptura" and "Book infallibility". And so "creationism" came to be in the 16th century…
FretRider is offline

FretRider

Watcher

#93

Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 54

Default 

May 26th, 2013, 00:20
Neither Calvin, nor Luther were dumb; they were both highly intelligent though I disagree with much they wrote. Have you ever read and analysed Luther's 95 theses? I have. It is a brilliant argument which the RC church couldn't answer.

Could you please outline to me YOUR understanding of Original Sin.

If God said it, then that settles it!!

Editor@RPGWatch
Corwin is offline

Corwin

Corwin's Avatar
On The Razorblade of Life
RPGWatch Team

#94

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 10,450
Send a message via Skype™ to Corwin

Default 

May 26th, 2013, 01:09
Originally Posted by Corwin View Post
Neither Calvin, nor Luther were dumb; they were both highly intelligent though I disagree with much they wrote. Have you ever read and analysed Luther's 95 theses?
I have. I was extremely disappointed. I had learned in high-school history class That Luther was a "supreme rebel" who "nailed scandalous defiance" into the cathedral doors and "bravely challenged the papacy".

Just so happens that the 95 thesis are innocent questionings about the abuses of Johann Tetzel and Luther doesn't challenge the papacy at all. He also didn't "nail them" in any Cathedral door, he just posted them at some university bulletin board. I mean just look at this:

Accordingly, the Holy Spirit, acting in the person of the pope, manifests grace to us, by the fact that the papal regulations always cease to apply at death, or in any hard case.
The same power as the pope exercises in general over purgatory is exercised in particular by every single bishop in his bishopric and priest in his parish.
The pope does excellently when he grants remission to the souls in purgatory on account of intercessions made on their behalf, and not by the power of the keys
This is just a few, I could go on. The guy sure changed his mind once some war hungry princes bailed him out of jail and offered him money and power. This is a far cry from believing the Pope to be the antichrist.

As for lack of intelligence, I will quote the man himself:

Idiots, the lame, the blind, the dumb, are men in whom the devils have established themselves: and all the physicians who heal these infirmities, as though they proceeded from natural causes, are ignorant blockheads.
Our bodies are always exposed to Satan. The maladies I suffer are not natural, but Devil's spells.
Some [demons] are also in the thick black clouds, which cause hail, lightning and thunder, and poison the air, the pastures and grounds.
Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight.
The winds are nothing else but good or bad spirits. Hark! how the Devil is puffing and blowing
Sorry, but I prefer to read Saint Thomas Aquinas.

[QUOTE=Corwin;1061199786]Could you please outline to me YOUR understanding of Original Sin./QUOTE]

I don't like what you are doing. You don't reply to my arguments(I assume because you have no reply to them and concede they are truthfull). You just ask me to keep on writing.

To answer your question, Original Sin is basically a prehistorical event which caused man to have a fallen nature, be subject to evil and need redemption. Further description could take pages. Chesterton was brilliant though, when he said this: "Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved."

Genesis is a nice myth and certainly expresses the truth, but to imagine that there was actually a "first couple", talking snakes and a "tree of knowledge of good and evil" is beyond the confines of a good intelligence. Hence educated people of the 3rd and 4th century accepted it was an allegorical text. Too bad two ignoramuses living well into the renaissance turned on it.
FretRider is offline

FretRider

Watcher

#95

Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 54

Default 

May 26th, 2013, 05:01
I believe Corwin is simply trying to understand your beliefs at the moment. He probably wont try to correct you because you are Catholic and because there is a mismatch of beliefs. It is not his place to change ones beliefs here on this forum I think.
Damian is offline

Damian

Sentinel

#96

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 401

Default 

May 26th, 2013, 05:10
What was this pre-historic event you mention? I have a reply to all your beliefs, but you won't accept them because you doubt the infallibility of the Bible. My God is able to ensure His Word, the Bible, is true and infallible so that all people can know and understand His will. I'm trying to find some common ground for discussion. If there's no Adam, there's no Fall and therefore no need for Christ to die on the cross. As someone who teaches the Bible, I realise that all its patterns begin in Genesis. I see the Bible as an integrated whole and I support the basic hermeneutical principle of Scripture interpreting Scripture within the context of it being an integrated whole.

Luther always considered himself a Catholic; he really didn't want to break from Rome. You are totally correct when you say he posted his theses on the notice board for discussion, but why didn't the church respond to his challenge? I have many issues with his writings and views so I'm not trying to defend him in any way. I also realise that large parts of the 'Protestant Reformation' were more political than religious. Church and State manipulation is to be found on both sides.

Damian you are basically correct.

If God said it, then that settles it!!

Editor@RPGWatch
Corwin is offline

Corwin

Corwin's Avatar
On The Razorblade of Life
RPGWatch Team

#97

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 10,450
Send a message via Skype™ to Corwin

Default 

May 26th, 2013, 05:56
Originally Posted by JemyM View Post
"scared of scary things, more prone to crying at sad things, into girly stuff"

This the description of a child.
My wife is hardly a child, she's a computer scientist with a bachelor's degree in something that actually is meaningful and will earn her a living.

That said, yes she's a girly girl - scared of spiders and scary movies. She's more likely to be sniffling at a sad film than me. She likes flowers, and kitty cats, and sexy lingerie. She's a woman, and that's what I like.

Seems to me that if you like the opposite of all that, you need to just accept the reality that youre possibly into men. Just sayin
xSamhainx is offline

xSamhainx

xSamhainx's Avatar
Paws of Doom

#98

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Diego, Ca
Posts: 4,664

Default 

May 26th, 2013, 10:21
Originally Posted by xSamhainx View Post
Seems to me that if you like the opposite of all that, you need to just accept the reality that youre possibly into men. Just sayin
Heard that before. It's false. What you do is to pass on your own taste as "man". You could have used "white", "American" as well and you could have spoken about your taste in hamburgers, you would still speak out of your own insecurity. People who falsely associate their personal taste with some attribute they have are just inexperienced. But it's when they try to pass it on as "the real deal" they reveal their insecurity.

Men who prefer strong women aren't particularly rare, one have to be very inexperienced to not know one. We aren't lesser men than you are. To the contrary. The taste presented by you xSamhainx seem to be rooted in your own situation. You seek someone who can make you feel greater than you are, and a person who is afraid of spiders and cry to movies can allow you to feel large. But you also wish to have recognition for this from others, so you pass it on as a "real man" with "real taste" in women.

But all that tells me is how you see yourself and it does make you seem rather small doesn't it? Not being afraid of spiders and not crying to movies? These are your achievements? Nah. You're a man, but not one I would say is confident about himself. I am sure your wife is ok. The only problem is the justification from other men you seek here in this thread, that tells me about you and your own fears.

Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind. - John F Kennedy
An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind. - Mahatma Gandhi
The world is my country. To do good is my religion. My mind is my own church. This simple creed is all we need to enjoy peace on earth. - Thomas Paine
Last edited by JemyM; May 26th, 2013 at 13:06.
JemyM is offline

JemyM

JemyM's Avatar
Okay, now roll sanity.

#99

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,028
Send a message via ICQ to JemyM Send a message via MSN to JemyM

Default 

May 26th, 2013, 13:09
Originally Posted by JemyM View Post
Heard that before. It's false. What you do is to pass on your own taste as "man". You could have used "white", "American" as well and you could have spoken about your taste in hamburgers, you would still speak out of your own insecurity. People who falsely associate their personal taste with some attribute they have are just inexperienced. But it's when they try to pass it on as "the real deal" they reveal their insecurity.

Men who prefer strong women aren't particularly rare, one have to be very inexperienced to not know one. We aren't lesser men than you are. To the contrary. The taste presented by you xSamhainx seem to be rooted in your own situation. You seek someone who can make you feel greater than you are, and a person who is afraid of spiders and cry to movies can allow you to feel large. But you also wish to have recognition for this from others, so you pass it on as a "real man" with "real taste" in women.

But all that tells me is how you see yourself and it does make you seem rather small doesn't it? Not being afraid of spiders and not crying to movies? This seem like the achievements you try to present yourself with. Nah. You're a man, but not one I would say is satisfied with his self-image. I am sure your wife is ok. The only problem is the justification from other men you seek here in this thread, that tells me about you and your own fears.
I think he was trying to say those characteristics are feminine and he finds them sexy and are female traits. Not necessarily that he thinks she his inferior. Do you find muscle women sexy Jemy M? I am curious where you draw the line.
Damian is offline

Damian

Sentinel

#100

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 401
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics & Religion » Has the world put too much emphasis in gender for ones identity?
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 14:08.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch