U
Ubenedictus
Guest
so many things, slaves revolutions and the harse laws enacted to curb such e.t.c. The slaves hardly loved, respected or truly obeyed their master. It was more of fear.
Ubenedictus
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Ubenedictus
U
Ubenedictus
Guest
nah, nah, nah. You had a problem with another poster views and u though it was more like a dady child relationship. I mentioned sugar dady and went on to talk about security. The picture you are painting isnt mine.Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
I frankly see something a bit disturbing about the idea of a woman seeing her husband as her new Daddy.
PS-Sorry everyone, I just noticed Nilla Bean is Banned and therefore cannot reply.
Yes, what’s your point?
Do you approve of rich men keeping mistresses?
There are so very many things wrong with this post.
For one thing, many (if not most) women don’t want or need their husband to be a father figure for them.
Because making the husband a wife’s new parent (i.e. Daddy) basically reduces her to the status of a child. Then there are the incestuous overtones that frankly creep me out.
But that is not what you said.
You specifically said that a husband is like a* Daddy*.
Ubenedictus
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear AngryAtheist,Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
I agree, that was a rather disrespectful thing for Saint Paul to say.
Of course.
I have no reason to interpret his words in the best possible light and can simply take them at face value.
As I recall Portrait, you have also advocated interpreting the Biblical text as literally as possible here at CAF (when debating me no less).
Cordial greetings and thankyou for your response.
Indeed, you are liberty to take them at face value, dear friend, but you must allow for the possibility that your understanding of St. Paul’s words may just be mistaken. Moreover, given that the spread of Christianity and the example of Christ transformed the status of women in every society that accepted it, would seem to sugest that you have misunderstood St. Paul.
What I have always advocated is using the ‘literal sense’ when this makes good sense, but this is not the same thing as interpreting the bible literally. “The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, *following the rules *of sound interpretation: All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 116, added emphasis mine). In other words, dear friend, it is the usual way in which to interpret the bible, unless another sense is called for such as, for example, the allegorical sense. Both the context and the type of literature will help us to determine in which sense a particular passage of the bible should be read. Since the passage from Ephesians occurs in a passage that treats of practical exhortations given by St. Paul, then it follows that it should be interpreted using the literal sense.
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
U
Ubenedictus
Guest
yeah i had to restate d same basic point because you seem to b missing those point. Im telling you that im not presenting an oppressive system but a xtain one, you continue to site example of people who arent following d xtain example. I really cant discuss if we are talking about two different things.Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
If the man is in charge it doesn’t matter how the wife defines love (or if she’s following the Christian system) it only matters whether or not the husband chooses to be good (because he’s the decison-maker not her).
That implies movement.
You have simply been re-stating the same basic point over and over again.
Ubenedictus
M
Mintaka
Guest
This is a thread full of ignorance and trolling.
We know that St. Thomas Aquinas came from a family full of strong personalities, including several sisters and cousins who were just as scrappy and prone to fight as the men were. (And I don’t just mean verbally.) Given that the men were built like tanks, this is saying something.
Part of his family locked him into a room for a year and tried to throw in prostitutes after him, to convince him not to be a Dominican. Part of his family lowered him out of the castle and down the mountainside in a basket on a rope, so he could run off and be a Dominican. Part of the family tried to take the Dominicans to court for accepting him as a novice. There wasn’t anybody in his whole family who lived a cowed life. So yeah, his model for womanhood was a woman with wealth, power, and physical strength, who gave as good as she got in every department. Welcome to the d’Aquino family.
We don’t know much about St. Albert the Great, St. Thomas’ teacher. But we know he too had sisters, and that he wrote an entire book On Women. (Not to be confused with the fraud occult medieval book “On Women’s Secrets”, which isn’t by St. A or anybody he knews.) Practically the first page of the book On Women is dedicated to explaining that Eve was made from Adam’s rib so that woman would neither be under man’s feet nor over his head, but that rather they should stand side by side. The structure of the book is dictated by the Valiant Woman verses in Proverbs, describing good women as smart businesswomen and householders who make their own decisions and are queens of their house; and who are prized by their lucky, blessed husbands above their own good right hands. Tough women are constantly praised (and hey, everybody’s tough in Swabia, where he was from).
Yeah, I know, I gotta finish translating it sometime. I was just getting to the part about pirates.
Finally, a word on “subiectio”, subjection. In medieval Latin at the period we’re talking about, it generally doesn’t mean “forced into a groveling position” or anything of that nature. It means being lower in the command structure than somebody else. A lord in “subjection” to a king isn’t someone who’s just been burned out of his castle and forced to eat dirt; he’s a normal lord who’s a subject of the king. A vice president of the US is subject to commands from the president, and pretty much everybody but God was subject to multiple people in their families, town government, business and guild interests, and so on – just as most people had other people subject to them. Nobody’s subjection was absolute; everyone was subject to the laws of various levels of government and/or lords, and to God above all. People who had subjectio over other people were subject to a lot of preaching and teaching (and taking to court and punishing) when they tried to take their being in charge too far; and that included domestic cases.
Generally (though not always), medieval law opined that a wife was subject to a husband, but everybody else in the household was subject to the wife. There were cases where the wife was the husband’s feudal overlord in all public and household business, and the husband only had command in the most private family matters.
Now, when “divine right” and “might makes right” and “religion follows the prince” got fashionable after the Middle Ages ended, a lot of preachers made a big point of exalting the husband into a king and lowering a woman’s status to being a quivering slave. But that’s not the spirit of the Middle Ages.
We know that St. Thomas Aquinas came from a family full of strong personalities, including several sisters and cousins who were just as scrappy and prone to fight as the men were. (And I don’t just mean verbally.) Given that the men were built like tanks, this is saying something.
Part of his family locked him into a room for a year and tried to throw in prostitutes after him, to convince him not to be a Dominican. Part of his family lowered him out of the castle and down the mountainside in a basket on a rope, so he could run off and be a Dominican. Part of the family tried to take the Dominicans to court for accepting him as a novice. There wasn’t anybody in his whole family who lived a cowed life. So yeah, his model for womanhood was a woman with wealth, power, and physical strength, who gave as good as she got in every department. Welcome to the d’Aquino family.
We don’t know much about St. Albert the Great, St. Thomas’ teacher. But we know he too had sisters, and that he wrote an entire book On Women. (Not to be confused with the fraud occult medieval book “On Women’s Secrets”, which isn’t by St. A or anybody he knews.) Practically the first page of the book On Women is dedicated to explaining that Eve was made from Adam’s rib so that woman would neither be under man’s feet nor over his head, but that rather they should stand side by side. The structure of the book is dictated by the Valiant Woman verses in Proverbs, describing good women as smart businesswomen and householders who make their own decisions and are queens of their house; and who are prized by their lucky, blessed husbands above their own good right hands. Tough women are constantly praised (and hey, everybody’s tough in Swabia, where he was from).
Yeah, I know, I gotta finish translating it sometime. I was just getting to the part about pirates.
Finally, a word on “subiectio”, subjection. In medieval Latin at the period we’re talking about, it generally doesn’t mean “forced into a groveling position” or anything of that nature. It means being lower in the command structure than somebody else. A lord in “subjection” to a king isn’t someone who’s just been burned out of his castle and forced to eat dirt; he’s a normal lord who’s a subject of the king. A vice president of the US is subject to commands from the president, and pretty much everybody but God was subject to multiple people in their families, town government, business and guild interests, and so on – just as most people had other people subject to them. Nobody’s subjection was absolute; everyone was subject to the laws of various levels of government and/or lords, and to God above all. People who had subjectio over other people were subject to a lot of preaching and teaching (and taking to court and punishing) when they tried to take their being in charge too far; and that included domestic cases.
Generally (though not always), medieval law opined that a wife was subject to a husband, but everybody else in the household was subject to the wife. There were cases where the wife was the husband’s feudal overlord in all public and household business, and the husband only had command in the most private family matters.
Now, when “divine right” and “might makes right” and “religion follows the prince” got fashionable after the Middle Ages ended, a lot of preachers made a big point of exalting the husband into a king and lowering a woman’s status to being a quivering slave. But that’s not the spirit of the Middle Ages.
U
Ubenedictus
Guest
i cant and wont dismiss it because it is not part of my arguement. There are very many thing in the old testament that arent followed the reason is because the coming of christ abolish d mosiac law for xtains. D mosaic law is follow in area where it agrees with d natural law. So stating d law of moses is just a diversion to aviod a xtain discussion. If you really want to discuss those points then ask a jew.So why is it then is it included in the Bible if it is irrelevant to Christianity and the thinking which influences its opinion of women?
Also, call my “style” whatever you like, you can’t dismiss my argument by labelling it.
Ubenedictus
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear AngryAtheist,Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
We have an appropriate term for this in the secular (i.e. non-religious) world.
Equal in Name Only.
A sentiment that is contradicted by your own endorsement of Catholic Planet ideas about women (link to source: catholicplanet.com/women/roles.html) in another recent thread (link to thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=670412&highlight=AngryAtheist8&page=19).
Hello again and thankyou for your response.
How do you think that my sentiment contradicted my agreement with the *Catholic Planet *article, dear friend? You are, I think, imposing upon the discussion your own pre-conceived notions of what is denoted by a truly ‘emancipated’ woman.
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
L
LemonAndLime
Guest
I can’t understand your post. It would help if you used grammar, full sentences and typed the words out in full. We’re not texting.i cant and wont dismiss it because it is not part of my arguement. There are very many thing in the old testament that arent followed the reason is because the coming of christ abolish d mosiac law for xtains. D mosaic law is follow in area where it agrees with d natural law. So stating d law of moses is just a diversion to aviod a xtain discussion. If you really want to discuss those points then ask a jew.
Ubenedictus
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear AngryAtheist,More devout perhaps, but not necessarily a better person.
As all the recent Church scandals prove.
Hello again and thankyou for your response.
The recent Church scandals, dear friend, only prove that fallen man has a deeply wounded nature and this means that you will always get some rotten apples in the barrel, be it in the religious or the secular world. This is not to make excuses, but to simply state a fact of the human condition in this world.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Do not project your own concerns onto me.
I am not rationalizing it.
I am actively denying that its that big a deal.
Being a virgin doesn’t make you a better person.
I think how someone treats others is a better indication of whether or not that individual is a good person than if they have ever had sex
Ask yourself who would you rather live with:
Violent virgins
or
Peaceful hedonists
Let me give you an example.
Let us say there is a holy hermit with malice towards none and nothing but compassion for the rest of mankind. He lives in the middle of nowhere and spends all his time alone praying to God. Now according to your definition this is a very good person.
But has he made the world a better place?
No.
Has he improved the world in any real way?
No.
People like this might live and die all the time and no one would notice (and why should they?).
Now compare this to a more ordinary person who helps out the poor, is kind to his friends and family, and tries to be nice to strangers. But has all the normal human failings such as Envy, Lust, Greed, etc. but he overcomes them (or at least suppresses them) to do what he believes he ought to.
Do such people make the world a better place?
Yes, in fact the world probably couldn’t function without them.
Do such people improve the world in any real way?
Yes.
Would people notice if a man like that died?
Of course (at least among his friends and family).
I honestly think its far more impressive to overcome things like fear and greed than to simply not have them.
Do not project your own concerns onto me.
I am not rationalizing it.
I am actively denying that its that big a deal.
Being a virgin doesn’t make you a better person.
I think how someone treats others is a better indication of whether or not that individual is a good person than if they have ever had sex
Ask yourself who would you rather live with:
Violent virgins
or
Peaceful hedonists
And the evidence indicates that’s its the only one that matters (generally speaking).I think how someone treats others is a poor indication of whether or not they’re a good person. Some people are the victims of abuse and subsequently may be fearful or aggressive towards others. Some people are really good BSers and can be the most hateful bigots in the world, yet treat people nicely. It is remarkably easy, way too easy, to put on a facade and false persona, and to treat people nicely when you are a rotten person at core. It is much, much, much more difficult, as I said requiring much more disciple and self-control, to remain a virgin, than it is to treat people nicely.
What makes a person good or bad is what is in that person’s heart. What is in that person’s heart may be revealed in the sum of their actions. This is not limited to how one treats people, but includes all of the thoughts that person has, and ALL of the decisions one makes. Refusing sex is one of those decisions, and is one of the more challenging offers to turn down, requiring steadfast commitment, self control, discipline, clarity of thought, and above all the ability to rebel against one’s biochemical instincts. The latter is exceedingly challenging. Even if you want to rationalize away virginity as being an indicator of goodness and purity, you must at least concede that it is indeed revealing of one’s character. Much as a person who abstains from any desire or inclination demonstrates a true sense of discipline.
To your question, I’d rather live with violent virgins. I would find them easier to help and treat than peaceful hedonists (peaceful hedonists, as others have pointed out, is an oxymoron). There are many ways to help those who struggle with anger and aggression, and help for those people has been available and successful for decades. I haven’t a clue how to cure hedonism. Moreover, I find the crimes of violent virgins to be much less severe than those of peaceful hedonists, though you will inevitably do your little eye rolling, shrugging emo face in response to this statement.
Let me give you an example.
Let us say there is a holy hermit with malice towards none and nothing but compassion for the rest of mankind. He lives in the middle of nowhere and spends all his time alone praying to God. Now according to your definition this is a very good person.
But has he made the world a better place?
No.
Has he improved the world in any real way?
No.
People like this might live and die all the time and no one would notice (and why should they?).
Now compare this to a more ordinary person who helps out the poor, is kind to his friends and family, and tries to be nice to strangers. But has all the normal human failings such as Envy, Lust, Greed, etc. but he overcomes them (or at least suppresses them) to do what he believes he ought to.
Do such people make the world a better place?
Yes, in fact the world probably couldn’t function without them.
Do such people improve the world in any real way?
Yes.
Would people notice if a man like that died?
Of course (at least among his friends and family).
I honestly think its far more impressive to overcome things like fear and greed than to simply not have them.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
Incorrectly.I think how someone treats others is a poor indication of whether or not they’re a good person. Some people are the victims of abuse and subsequently may be fearful or aggressive towards others. Some people are really good BSers and can be the most hateful bigots in the world, yet treat people nicely. It is remarkably easy, way too easy, to put on a facade and false persona, and to treat people nicely when you are a rotten person at core. It is much, much, much more difficult, as I said requiring much more disciple and self-control, to remain a virgin, than it is to treat people nicely.
What makes a person good or bad is what is in that person’s heart. What is in that person’s heart may be revealed in the sum of their actions. This is not limited to how one treats people, but includes all of the thoughts that person has, and ALL of the decisions one makes. Refusing sex is one of those decisions, and is one of the more challenging offers to turn down, requiring steadfast commitment, self control, discipline, clarity of thought, and above all the ability to rebel against one’s biochemical instincts. The latter is exceedingly challenging. Even if you want to rationalize away virginity as being an indicator of goodness and purity, you must at least concede that it is indeed revealing of one’s character. Much as a person who abstains from any desire or inclination demonstrates a true sense of discipline.
To your question, I’d rather live with violent virgins. I would find them easier to help and treat than peaceful hedonists (peaceful hedonists, as others have pointed out, is an oxymoron). There are many ways to help those who struggle with anger and aggression, and help for those people has been available and successful for decades. I haven’t a clue how to cure hedonism. Moreover, I find the crimes of violent virgins to be much less severe than those of peaceful hedonists, though you will inevitably do your little eye rolling, shrugging emo face in response to this statement.
Unless you think sex is by nature violent.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
Oh, it deserves a response far stronger than that.I think how someone treats others is a poor indication of whether or not they’re a good person. Some people are the victims of abuse and subsequently may be fearful or aggressive towards others. Some people are really good BSers and can be the most hateful bigots in the world, yet treat people nicely. It is remarkably easy, way too easy, to put on a facade and false persona, and to treat people nicely when you are a rotten person at core. It is much, much, much more difficult, as I said requiring much more disciple and self-control, to remain a virgin, than it is to treat people nicely.
What makes a person good or bad is what is in that person’s heart. What is in that person’s heart may be revealed in the sum of their actions. This is not limited to how one treats people, but includes all of the thoughts that person has, and ALL of the decisions one makes. Refusing sex is one of those decisions, and is one of the more challenging offers to turn down, requiring steadfast commitment, self control, discipline, clarity of thought, and above all the ability to rebel against one’s biochemical instincts. The latter is exceedingly challenging. Even if you want to rationalize away virginity as being an indicator of goodness and purity, you must at least concede that it is indeed revealing of one’s character. Much as a person who abstains from any desire or inclination demonstrates a true sense of discipline.
To your question, I’d rather live with violent virgins. I would find them easier to help and treat than peaceful hedonists (peaceful hedonists, as others have pointed out, is an oxymoron). There are many ways to help those who struggle with anger and aggression, and help for those people has been available and successful for decades. I haven’t a clue how to cure hedonism. Moreover, I find the crimes of violent virgins to be much less severe than those of peaceful hedonists, though you will inevitably do your little eye rolling, shrugging emo face in response to this statement.
As for myself, I would much rather live among people who might try to seduce me than those who were all too likely to murder me.
Besides, real life isn’t that simple.
In places where female chastity is starkly demanded (such as Saudi Arabia and Iran) male on female rape is often excused or only lightly punished.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Based on what?
Why would someone be loyal to a master that saw them as nothing but a beast of burden?
The institution of slavery always existed for the benefit of the masters, NOT the slaves.
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Based on what?
That’s kind of the point of slavery.so many things, slaves revolutions and the harse laws enacted to curb such e.t.c. The slaves hardly loved, respected or truly obeyed their master. It was more of fear.
Ubenedictus
Why would someone be loyal to a master that saw them as nothing but a beast of burden?
The institution of slavery always existed for the benefit of the masters, NOT the slaves.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
Actually it is.nah, nah, nah. You had a problem with another poster views and u though it was more like a dady child relationship. I mentioned sugar dady and went on to talk about security. The picture you are painting isnt mine.
Ubenedictus
Here’s one of your earlier posts to prove my point:
May 17, '12, 8:12 am
Ubenedictus
Junior Member Join Date: November 26, 2011
Posts: 433
Religion: Catholic
Re: Are women still considered in a “state of subjection?”
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
I frankly see something a bit disturbing about the idea of a woman seeing her husband as her new Daddy.
PS-Sorry everyone, I just noticed Nilla Bean is Banned and therefore cannot reply.
Yes, what’s your point?
Do you approve of rich men keeping mistresses?
no i dont. But it seems it is necessay for ladies to feel secure. In that case in some situation your husband may be a kind of new daddy.
I hope you wont get me wrong.
Ubenedictus
P.S. There are actually quite a few other posts of yours in this thread where you refer to husbands as being Daddy-like.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
I agree, that was a rather disrespectful thing for Saint Paul to say.
Of course.
I have no reason to interpret his words in the best possible light and can simply take them at face value.
As I recall Portrait, you have also advocated interpreting the Biblical text as literally as possible here at CAF (when debating me no less).
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
I agree, that was a rather disrespectful thing for Saint Paul to say.
Of course.
I have no reason to interpret his words in the best possible light and can simply take them at face value.
As I recall Portrait, you have also advocated interpreting the Biblical text as literally as possible here at CAF (when debating me no less).
As interpreted by you (for instance, you claimed that Pope John Paul II’s words praising women who work didn’t contradict the idea that women shouldn’t work).Dear AngryAtheist,
Cordial greetings and thankyou for your response.
Indeed, you are liberty to take them at face value, dear friend, but you must allow for the possibility that your understanding of St. Paul’s words may just be mistaken. Moreover, given that the spread of Christianity and the example of Christ transformed the status of women in every society that accepted it, would seem to sugest that you have misunderstood St. Paul.
What I have always advocated is using the ‘literal sense’ when this makes good sense, but this is not the same thing as interpreting the bible literally. “The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, *following the rules *of sound interpretation: All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 116, added emphasis mine). In other words, dear friend, it is the usual way in which to interpret the bible, unless another sense is called for such as, for example, the allegorical sense. Both the context and the type of literature will help us to determine in which sense a particular passage of the bible should be read. Since the passage from Ephesians occurs in a passage that treats of practical exhortations given by St. Paul, then it follows that it should be interpreted using the literal sense.
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
U
Ubenedictus
Guest
i am not interested in dismissing your arguement because it does not have anything to do with my points. There are many things in the old testament that are not followed in the new testament because christians believe that the old law and it precepts no longer apply unless it follows the natural law. So using the old testament to create an ad hominem against the christain teaching is really a diversion from the discussion. If you really want to discuss the mosaic law them talk with a jew.i cant and wont dismiss it because it is not part of my arguement. There are very many thing in the old testament that arent followed the reason is because the coming of christ abolish d mosiac law for xtains. D mosaic law is follow in area where it agrees with d natural law. So stating d law of moses is just a diversion to aviod a xtain discussion. If you really want to discuss those points then ask a jew.
Ubenedictus
Hope this is clear.
Ubenedictus
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
I am not sure how seriously to take the ideas expressed in this post.This is a thread full of ignorance and trolling.
We know that St. Thomas Aquinas came from a family full of strong personalities, including several sisters and cousins who were just as scrappy and prone to fight as the men were. (And I don’t just mean verbally.) Given that the men were built like tanks, this is saying something.
Part of his family locked him into a room for a year and tried to throw in prostitutes after him, to convince him not to be a Dominican. Part of his family lowered him out of the castle and down the mountainside in a basket on a rope, so he could run off and be a Dominican. Part of the family tried to take the Dominicans to court for accepting him as a novice. There wasn’t anybody in his whole family who lived a cowed life. So yeah, his model for womanhood was a woman with wealth, power, and physical strength, who gave as good as she got in every department. Welcome to the d’Aquino family.
We don’t know much about St. Albert the Great, St. Thomas’ teacher. But we know he too had sisters, and that he wrote an entire book On Women. (Not to be confused with the fraud occult medieval book “On Women’s Secrets”, which isn’t by St. A or anybody he knews.) Practically the first page of the book On Women is dedicated to explaining that Eve was made from Adam’s rib so that woman would neither be under man’s feet nor over his head, but that rather they should stand side by side. The structure of the book is dictated by the Valiant Woman verses in Proverbs, describing good women as smart businesswomen and householders who make their own decisions and are queens of their house; and who are prized by their lucky, blessed husbands above their own good right hands. Tough women are constantly praised (and hey, everybody’s tough in Swabia, where he was from).
Yeah, I know, I gotta finish translating it sometime. I was just getting to the part about pirates.
Finally, a word on “subiectio”, subjection. In medieval Latin at the period we’re talking about, it generally doesn’t mean “forced into a groveling position” or anything of that nature. It means being lower in the command structure than somebody else. A lord in “subjection” to a king isn’t someone who’s just been burned out of his castle and forced to eat dirt; he’s a normal lord who’s a subject of the king. A vice president of the US is subject to commands from the president, and pretty much everybody but God was subject to multiple people in their families, town government, business and guild interests, and so on – just as most people had other people subject to them. Nobody’s subjection was absolute; everyone was subject to the laws of various levels of government and/or lords, and to God above all. People who had subjectio over other people were subject to a lot of preaching and teaching (and taking to court and punishing) when they tried to take their being in charge too far; and that included domestic cases.
Generally (though not always), medieval law opined that a wife was subject to a husband, but everybody else in the household was subject to the wife. There were cases where the wife was the husband’s feudal overlord in all public and household business, and the husband only had command in the most private family matters.
Now, when “divine right” and “might makes right” and “religion follows the prince” got fashionable after the Middle Ages ended, a lot of preachers made a big point of exalting the husband into a king and lowering a woman’s status to being a quivering slave. But that’s not the spirit of the Middle Ages.
Because what you describe as NOT being the spirit of the Middle Ages DOES sound like the running theme of the Middle Ages according to a lot of sources.
Of course most of those sources are Protestant so their obviously biased.
U
Ubenedictus
Guest
please till you understand what it means to be a hermit dont talk about one unless to ask questions. That you do not believe in prayers is not a reason to tell me that a hermit adds nothing meaningful to the world. Beside to be remembered isnt alway the criteria xtains use in accessing those who added something to their world.Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Do not project your own concerns onto me.
I am not rationalizing it.
I am actively denying that its that big a deal.
Being a virgin doesn’t make you a better person.
I think how someone treats others is a better indication of whether or not that individual is a good person than if they have ever had sex
Ask yourself who would you rather live with:
Violent virgins
or
Peaceful hedonists
And the evidence indicates that’s its the only one that matters (generally speaking).
Let me give you an example.
Let us say there is a holy hermit with malice towards none and nothing but compassion for the rest of mankind. He lives in the middle of nowhere and spends all his time alone praying to God. Now according to your definition this is a very good person.
But has he made the world a better place?
No.
Has he improved the world in any real way?
No.
People like this might live and die all the time and no one would notice (and why should they?).
Now compare this to a more ordinary person who helps out the poor, is kind to his friends and family, and tries to be nice to strangers. But has all the normal human failings such as Envy, Lust, Greed, etc. but he overcomes them (or at least suppresses them) to do what he believes he ought to.
Do such people make the world a better place?
Yes, in fact the world probably couldn’t function without them.
Do such people improve the world in any real way?
Yes.
Would people notice if a man like that died?
Of course (at least among his friends and family).
I honestly think its far more impressive to overcome things like fear and greed than to simply not have them.
Ubenedictus
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
We have an appropriate term for this in the secular (i.e. non-religious) world.
Equal in Name Only.
A sentiment that is contradicted by your own endorsement of Catholic Planet ideas about women (link to source: catholicplanet.com/women/roles.html) in another recent thread (link to thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthrea…heist8&page=19).
Speaking of which…
You never answered these questions of mine in the thread under discussion (despite my asking you repeatedly):
What legal rights and protections would women have in your ideal society?
What political rights would women have in your ideal society?
Would women and girls have the right to an education in your ideal society?
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
We have an appropriate term for this in the secular (i.e. non-religious) world.
Equal in Name Only.
A sentiment that is contradicted by your own endorsement of Catholic Planet ideas about women (link to source: catholicplanet.com/women/roles.html) in another recent thread (link to thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthrea…heist8&page=19).
Because if all the Catholic Planet ideas you endorsed were implemented in Western society women would basically be reduced to the status of chattel again.Dear AngryAtheist,
Hello again and thankyou for your response.
**How do you think that my sentiment contradicted my agreement with the *Catholic Planet ***article, dear friend? You are, I think, imposing upon the discussion your own pre-conceived notions of what is denoted by a truly ‘emancipated’ woman.
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
Speaking of which…
You never answered these questions of mine in the thread under discussion (despite my asking you repeatedly):
What legal rights and protections would women have in your ideal society?
What political rights would women have in your ideal society?
Would women and girls have the right to an education in your ideal society?
U
Ubenedictus
Guest
that is what i said, i talked about being daddy-like in terms of making his woman feel secure and went on to ask you to tell me about your friend who never thought about their husband as security. I clearly said not to get me wrong.Actually it is.
Here’s one of your earlier posts to prove my point:
May 17, '12, 8:12 am
Ubenedictus
Junior Member Join Date: November 26, 2011
Posts: 433
Religion: Catholic
Re: Are women still considered in a “state of subjection?”
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
I frankly see something a bit disturbing about the idea of a woman seeing her husband as her new Daddy.
PS-Sorry everyone, I just noticed Nilla Bean is Banned and therefore cannot reply.
Yes, what’s your point?
Do you approve of rich men keeping mistresses?
no i dont. But it seems it is necessay for ladies to feel secure.** In that case in some situation your husband may be a kind of new daddy.**
I hope you wont get me wrong.
Ubenedictus
P.S. There are actually quite a few other posts of yours in this thread where you refer to husbands as being Daddy-like.
I will like to see other post where i said the husband and wife relationship should truly be the replica of daddy child relationship. I can only remember talking about it in terms of security only.
Ubenedictus
- Status
- Not open for further replies.