I am seeking to meet a Christian Woman to Marry... (USA)

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
May 4, 2014
288
2
0
#21
The Declaration of Independence doesn't contain the phrase "liberty and justice for all," love. Just a little Civics recap. :rolleyes:

As for my original post in response to the OP, the notion of contemporary feminism as a "lie" that's "responsible for X, Y, and Z" is an assertion that ultimately begets a sentiment espousing more traditionally conservative roles for women, which in and of itself is explicitly antithetical to the social and correspondingly political equality between genders that's now deeply rooted in most of western civilization. How one can argue in favor of gender equality from a social perspective while simultaneously advocating restrictive, traditional roles for women, regardless of the institution in question, and on the basis of a traditional Biblical interpretation of gender roles, is comically ridiculous.

What if my potential husband decides to vote for X political candidate and instructs me to do the same one day, regardless of my personal beliefs? What if he decides to purchase a new vehicle against my wishes? What if he instructs my children not to pursue relationships with those of different religious preferences within the context of Christianity in spite of my own personal stance on the matter? Really -- if you're to "commend" feminists for striving toward equality, and if such equality were to exist in a "perfect world," how is it possible to coherently reconcile a textual reference along the lines of 1 Timothy 2:11-12 in any favorable light? Social, economic, and political equality inherently denotes the capacity for women to engage equally in matters pertaining to society or family.

As an aside, asserting that "secular feminism" is a "lie" that's responsible for the purported destruction of marriages and families is hardly speculation. It's a flatly unsubstantiated, positive assertion that attests directly to a belief concerning contemporary feminism's influence on the aforementioned institutions.
 

DanPhu

Junior Member
May 4, 2014
23
0
0
#22
um to be clear, i'm not looking for such a thing either. but since this isn't a dating site, i didn't think there was anything wrong with me making such a joke.

in fact, i have little doubt that you aren't aware that i was simply kidding.

while i'm not here to find a husband, but i suppose there are a myriad of intentions on such a place. if you're going to post a personals ad on a public forum, perhaps you ought to expect some good-natured humor?

nonetheless, i wish you the best on your search, truly. God Bless, brother. : )
If you are a woman in the United States who has a fantastic personality and isn't so narcisstic when it comes to how old I am, private message me! I am a so into boots. Like DA BOOTS! I mean, I might not have a theology degree or anything, but gurrrrrllll if you got dem boots? BAM! I mean BAM! Cuz I believe a woman who has great sensibility, who brings laughter to someone who's saddened by life's circumstances, who speaks truth into somebody's life, and closely walks with God is a woman that can complete a man. Oh, and if she got dem boots? OHHHH YEAHHHH. So if any woman has this timeless quality, let me take her out for a cup of coffee. Oh yeah, and if there's a woman out there that makes great salsa that isn't too spicy? Oh yeah, that's like a super plus.
 

cinder

Senior Member
Mar 26, 2014
4,425
2,416
113
#23
With the disclaimer that I am in one of those moods and this post is for entertainment purposes only and in no way do I believe it to reflect the true heart or intent of the OP:

My clarifications are in blue:

If you are a woman in the United States seeking the same, private message me! I am a philosophy/theology grad student (I've spent a lot of time getting my head filled with theories of how everything should be) aiming to be a teacher (you would therefore be the learner and I'll teach you everything you need to know about how things are supposed to be). I am old fashioned (and if I had any PR skills or tact at all I would have changed this to traditional), willing to be assertive and be the pursuer.(that's why I asked any interested female to pm ME rather than finding ones I might be interested in) As far as the type of person I am seeking, perhaps someone who hasn't bought into the lie of secular feminism which has destroyed marriage and family life in America (I want a woman who wants to stay home, make babies, cook and clean)? Someone witty (make me laugh), athletic (chubby, unattractive ladies need not apply), non-prudish (I say I'm old fashioned but I want to go pretty far before the wedding)... a folky-guitar singer? Okay I shouldn't be so specific (but I'm still looking for my perfect match and I really am this picky), but the first for sure! I am not seeking an internet quickie-bride (I won't marry you just because you pm me), I desire to get to know and befriend a young woman in real life (that's why I'm looking on the internet) to see if the Lord might bless the relationship with a lifelong vocation (being married to me will be a lot of work) mirroring the nuptial (UNBREAKABLE) union between Christ and the Church (I'm a theology major, I'm going to overspiritualize everything, use big words you can't understand, and oh I don't believe in divorce).
 

just_monicat

Senior Member
Jan 1, 2014
1,284
17
0
#24
With the disclaimer that I am in one of those moods and this post is for entertainment purposes only and in no way do I believe it to reflect the true heart or intent of the OP:

My clarifications are in blue:

If you are a woman in the United States seeking the same, private message me! I am a philosophy/theology grad student (I've spent a lot of time getting my head filled with theories of how everything should be) aiming to be a teacher (you would therefore be the learner and I'll teach you everything you need to know about how things are supposed to be). I am old fashioned (and if I had any PR skills or tact at all I would have changed this to traditional), willing to be assertive and be the pursuer.(that's why I asked any interested female to pm ME rather than finding ones I might be interested in) As far as the type of person I am seeking, perhaps someone who hasn't bought into the lie of secular feminism which has destroyed marriage and family life in America (I want a woman who wants to stay home, make babies, cook and clean)? Someone witty (make me laugh), athletic (chubby, unattractive ladies need not apply), non-prudish (I say I'm old fashioned but I want to go pretty far before the wedding)... a folky-guitar singer? Okay I shouldn't be so specific (but I'm still looking for my perfect match and I really am this picky), but the first for sure! I am not seeking an internet quickie-bride (I won't marry you just because you pm me), I desire to get to know and befriend a young woman in real life (that's why I'm looking on the internet) to see if the Lord might bless the relationship with a lifelong vocation (being married to me will be a lot of work) mirroring the nuptial (UNBREAKABLE) union between Christ and the Church (I'm a theology major, I'm going to overspiritualize everything, use big words you can't understand, and oh I don't believe in divorce).
ok cinder, you are officially my hero! i laughed so hard i almost snorted soda water through my nose.

The Declaration of Independence doesn't contain the phrase "liberty and justice for all," love. Just a little Civics recap.
:rolleyes:

As for my original post in response to the OP, the notion of contemporary feminism as a "lie" that's "responsible for X, Y, and Z" is an assertion that ultimately begets a sentiment espousing more traditionally conservative roles for women, which in and of itself is explicitly antithetical to the social and correspondingly political equality between genders that's now deeply rooted in most of western civilization. How one can argue in favor of gender equality from a social perspective while simultaneously advocating restrictive, traditional roles for women, regardless of the institution in question, and on the basis of a traditional Biblical interpretation of gender roles, is comically ridiculous.

What if my potential husband decides to vote for X political candidate and instructs me to do the same one day, regardless of my personal beliefs? What if he decides to purchase a new vehicle against my wishes? What if he instructs my children not to pursue relationships with those of different religious preferences within the context of Christianity in spite of my own personal stance on the matter? Really -- if you're to "commend" feminists for striving toward equality, and if such equality were to exist in a "perfect world," how is it possible to coherently reconcile a textual reference along the lines of 1 Timothy 2:11-12 in any favorable light? Social, economic, and political equality inherently denotes the capacity for women to engage equally in matters pertaining to society or family.

As an aside, asserting that "secular feminism" is a "lie" that's responsible for the purported destruction of marriages and families is hardly speculation. It's a flatly unsubstantiated, positive assertion that attests directly to a belief concerning contemporary feminism's influence on the aforementioned institutions.


oh liza, i have someone who you need to meet. her name is misty77, and i think you two will hit it off!

oh, and you are so very cute!
 
Last edited:
Apr 13, 2014
66
0
0
#25
@ Cinder, Let's be candid here, your disclaimer that you are being farcical is an excuse to vent your own deeply engrained secular feminism. But since I am "in one of those moods" myself, I can go along with the farce :)

(I've spent a lot of time getting my head filled with theories of how everything should be) aiming to be a teacher (you would therefore be the learner and I'll teach you everything you need to know about how things are supposed to be)
Yes, I am going to be a teacher of philosophy and theology, although I wouldn't characterize that as a function of putting "theories" into people's minds. You are confusing these ancient sciences with 'modern scientific methods' post Bacon and Newton. The object of study in my field is wisdom as such (i.e. the light of reality presenting itself to human reason and also promulgated within Christian gift of faith). I fail to comprehend why you choose to ridicule my choice of profession under the cloak of 'good humor'? Is it really a negative thing that I aim to encourage youth to rationally examine the perennial issues of life?

(and if I had any PR skills or tact at all I would have changed this to traditional)
I am not here to be a crowd pleaser. I am well aware that only a minute portion of the readers will be the target demographic I am shooting for; and frankly this kind of [woman] will not give a damn about your distinction.

(that's why I asked any interested female to pm ME rather than finding ones I might be interested in)
Being old fashioned and assertive is not reducible to the initial means of contact as employed online. Why don't you just say what you really mean to express, namely, that you are put off by the boldness and assertiveness that my post actually does exhibit? Just say plainly that you would rather have my original post be neutered of such masculine traits..

(I want a woman who wants to stay home, make babies, cook and clean)?
Yes! Exactly! The one part where you're spot on! I also qualified that statement though, adding the dimension of friendship and love. If you are ridiculing me for this point, would you rather have me be complacent with a woman who will rarely be home, who will employ abortion and or artificial contraception to inhibit making babies so she can keep her career, who will hardly be able to cook a friggin hard-boiled egg, and who will hire servants to clean since she will have been working all day after having dumped off the one or two children we did conceive at day care?? Of course you would. For this is what secular feminism is all about :)

(chubby, unattractive ladies need not apply)
The irony of this here is that you are ridiculing my "traditional" ways, despite the fact that in regards to superficial qualities such as chubbiness, I will actually go above and beyond the average neutered and (w)ussified man who has come to accept the mores of feminism in the culture which you obviously are espoused to. Indeed, I am the type of "traditional" man who naturally foresees and expects that the woman I marry will put on some weight and therefore loose some of her flare (I will be accepting of this because I will also be accepting of the prospect of making many, many babies in all seasons). In contrast, you probably would be more edified if I was foreseeing that my future wife is going to be taking contraception and spending countless hours at the gym thereby prolonging her youthful 'hotness' at the cost of the many possible beautiful children that we could have brought into the world together.

(I say I'm old fashioned but I want to go pretty far before the wedding)
Damn right I do! Unlike the contemporary culture of cohabitation and easy divorce engendered by the prevalent disdain for irrevocable commitments in the context of marriae, I plan on going very far in establishing a bond of unconditional-sacrificial love way before the title of 'husband' is given to me. (I do understand that this may be difficult for you to grasp though, since such deep level of commitment prior to 'shacking up' with a man is hardly expected today amongst middle aged women). By the way, I do wonder why this is so? What recent ideological movement might be behind this phenomena??

(but I'm still looking for my perfect match and I really am this picky) ...(being married to me will be a lot of work)
Again, for an old fashioned guy like me who refuses to go out of his way so as not to take the convenient route of contraception and abortion, easy sex and perpetual hotness in my wife is out of the equation, I do realize why it is difficult for you to grasp why I would be so specific in wanting to seek out a woman whose freedom and intelligence has not been corrupted by the lie of "woman's emancipation" (aka secular feminism).

(I'm a theology major, I'm going to overspiritualize everything, use big words you can't understand, and oh I don't believe in divorce). When I wrote this sentence, I actually avoided using the correct technical jargon, which would be "indissoluble" instead of the pragmatic term I employed "unbreakable." But again, in light of what I have already said, the reasons are clear why my speaking of the prospect of an "UNBREAKABLE UNION" between myself and my future wife would be a concept that is completely unnecessary and irrelevant to marriage in your eyes, Cinder.
 
T

Tintin

Guest
#26
I know Cinder a little better than you do but her post did seem like it was fueled by bitterness rather than humour.
 
Apr 13, 2014
66
0
0
#27
I know Cinder a little better than you do but her post did seem like it was fueled by bitterness rather than humour.
Of course it was fueled by bitterness bro, if you read the nuance of my long winded comments that I inserted inbetween her blue text, I have identified some possible causes behind that bitterness. The philosophers Frederick Nietzsche and Max Scheler called that kind of bitterness "ressentiment," they said that it arises in someone as a non-cognitive-emotion when a positive value that ought to exist in that person's conscience is absent. Cinder may not be aware of it, but even as a Christian lady she is affected by the ideology of feminism. This ideology robs women of a sense of what ought to be rightly valued in masculinity and femininity, and the result is a bitterness that they may or may not realize is there.
 
Last edited:
S

SabbieWabbie

Guest
#28
@ Cinder, Let's be candid here, your disclaimer that you are being farcical is an excuse to vent your own deeply engrained secular feminism. But since I am "in one of those moods" myself, I can go along with the farce :)

(I've spent a lot of time getting my head filled with theories of how everything should be) aiming to be a teacher (you would therefore be the learner and I'll teach you everything you need to know about how things are supposed to be)
Yes, I am going to be a teacher of philosophy and theology, although I wouldn't characterize that as a function of putting "theories" into people's minds. You are confusing these ancient sciences with 'modern scientific methods' post Bacon and Newton. The object of study in my field is wisdom as such (i.e. the light of reality presenting itself to human reason and also promulgated within Christian gift of faith). I fail to comprehend why you choose to ridicule my choice of profession under the cloak of 'good humor'? Is it really a negative thing that I aim to encourage youth to rationally examine the perennial issues of life?

(and if I had any PR skills or tact at all I would have changed this to traditional)
I am not here to be a crowd pleaser. I am well aware that only a minute portion of the readers will be the target demographic I am shooting for; and frankly this kind of [woman] will not give a damn about your distinction.

(that's why I asked any interested female to pm ME rather than finding ones I might be interested in)
Being old fashioned and assertive is not reducible to the initial means of contact as employed online.Why don't you just say what you really mean to express, namely, that you are put off by the boldness and assertiveness that my post actually does exhibit? Just say plainly that you would rather have my original post be neutered of such masculine traits..

(I want a woman who wants to stay home, make babies, cook and clean)?
Yes! Exactly! The one part where you're spot on! I also qualified that statement though, adding the dimension of friendship and love. If you are ridiculing me for this point, would you rather have me be complacent with a woman who will rarely be home, who will employ abortion and or artificial contraception to inhibit making babies so she can keep her career, who will hardly be able to cook a friggin hard-boiled egg, and who will hire servants to clean since she will have been working all day after having dumped off the one or two children we did conceive at day care?? Of course you would. For this is what secular feminism is all about :)


(chubby, unattractive ladies need not apply)
The irony of this here is that you are ridiculing my "traditional" ways, despite the fact that in regards to superficial qualities such as chubbiness, I will actually go above and beyond the average neutered and (w)ussified man who has come to accept the mores of feminism in the culture which you obviously are espoused to. Indeed, I am the type of "traditional" man who naturally foresees and expects that the woman I marry will put on some weight and therefore loose some of her flare (I will be accepting of this because I will also be accepting of the prospect of making many, many babies in all seasons). In contrast, you probably would be more edified if I was foreseeing that my future wife is going to be taking contraception and spending countless hours at the gym thereby prolonging her youthful 'hotness' at the cost of the many possible beautiful children that we could have brought into the world together.

(I say I'm old fashioned but I want to go pretty far before the wedding)
Damn right I do! Unlike the contemporary culture of cohabitation and easy divorce engendered by the prevalent disdain for irrevocable commitments in the context of marriae, I plan on going very far in establishing a bond of unconditional-sacrificial love way before the title of 'husband' is given to me. (I do understand that this may be difficult for you to grasp though, since such deep level of commitment prior to 'shacking up' with a man is hardly expected today amongst middle aged women). By the way, I do wonder why this is so? What recent ideological movement might be behind this phenomena??

(but I'm still looking for my perfect match and I really am this picky) ...(being married to me will be a lot of work)
Again, for an old fashioned guy like me who refuses to go out of his way so as not to take the convenient route of contraception and abortion, easy sex and perpetual hotness in my wife is out of the equation, I do realize why it is difficult for you to grasp why I would be so specific in wanting to seek out a woman whose freedom and intelligence has not been corrupted by the lie of "woman's emancipation" (aka secular feminism).

(I'm a theology major, I'm going to overspiritualize everything, use big words you can't understand, and oh I don't believe in divorce). When I wrote this sentence, I actually avoided using the correct technical jargon, which would be "indissoluble" instead of the pragmatic term I employed "unbreakable." But again, in light of what I have already said, the reasons are clear why my speaking of the prospect of an "UNBREAKABLE UNION" between myself and my future wife would be a concept that is completely unnecessary and irrelevant to marriage in your eyes, Cinder.
So, she can't be chubby and she can't go to the gym???

How did woman who prefer not to stay home and cook and clean and make babies all of a sudden become baby killers (abortion) what?

Seriously though, I am all for the submissive wife, it makes perfect sense in a marriage and balances things out really well. I have always wanted a BIG family, it would be a honour for me to be a mother. Mothers were instructed to teach (read your bible)...she needs some knowledge to do that, so don't be harsh on her if she chooses to educate herself to better educate your sons. My parents have been married 26 wonderful years and so I know this dynamic works well.

BUT, the way you are putting yourself out here is really really boring, husbands were instructed to love their wives, this was not love, it was like a job application that would eventually come with a list of orders YOU want. Though I do believe the man is the head of the house and is meant to lead, a leader doesn't lead with a chip on his shoulder. Imagine 26 years of you treating your wife like your child. (Really that's what you are portraying here)

Sorry to burst your bubble buddy, but the lady you looking for is not looking for you.
 
May 3, 2013
8,719
75
0
#29
So, she can't be chubby and she can't go to the gym???

How did woman who prefer not to stay home and cook and clean and make babies all of a sudden become baby killers (abortion) what?

Seriously though, I am all for the submissive wife, it makes perfect sense in a marriage and balances things out really well. I have always wanted a BIG family, it would be a honour for me to be a mother. Mothers were instructed to teach (read your bible)...she needs some knowledge to do that, so don't be harsh on her if she chooses to educate herself to better educate your sons. My parents have been married 26 wonderful years and so I know this dynamic works well.

BUT, the way you are putting yourself out here is really really boring, husbands were instructed to love their wives, this was not love, it was like a job application that would eventually come with a list of orders YOU want. Though I do believe the man is the head of the house and is meant to lead, a leader doesn't lead with a chip on his shoulder. Imagine 26 years of you treating your wife like your child. (Really that's what you are portraying here)

Sorry to burst your bubble buddy, but the lady you looking for is not looking for you.

Wow!

It hurts, but it´s honesty... You´d better take notes, Mr secular loner.
 
Apr 13, 2014
66
0
0
#30
So, she can't be chubby and she can't go to the gym???

How did woman who prefer not to stay home and cook and clean and make babies all of a sudden become baby killers (abortion) what?

Seriously though, I am all for the submissive wife, it makes perfect sense in a marriage and balances things out really well. I have always wanted a BIG family, it would be a honour for me to be a mother. Mothers were instructed to teach (read your bible)...she needs some knowledge to do that, so don't be harsh on her if she chooses to educate herself to better educate your sons. My parents have been married 26 wonderful years and so I know this dynamic works well.

BUT, the way you are putting yourself out here is really really boring, husbands were instructed to love their wives, this was not love, it was like a job application that would eventually come with a list of orders YOU want. Though I do believe the man is the head of the house and is meant to lead, a leader doesn't lead with a chip on his shoulder. Imagine 26 years of you treating your wife like your child. (Really that's what you are portraying here)

Sorry to burst your bubble buddy, but the lady you looking for is not looking for you.
She took one sentence that I wrote out of context, and interpreted in a way that contradicts the whole of what I did say. Anyone can do that, you go ahead and take notes, buddy ;)
 
Apr 13, 2014
66
0
0
#31
This will be my last post in response to any of the pro-feminatzi taunters, and I mean it... I am responding to Liza at length, as she is the only one who has offered a coherent line or argumentation.

Liza's own words will always be cited in bold. Liza is disagreeing with my thesis that “Contemporary feminism has"destroyed marriage and family life." She offers three premises in support of her argument against me that “there's no credible evidence to suggest that feminism in particular has "destroyed" anything from the perspective of mainstream political science.” I will treat the three premises that she uses successively and individually.

PREMISE I:
The first premise Liza's argument rests on is that any cultural phenomena [such as the breakdown of marriage and family] happens when “Social and cultural evolution progresses on behalf of a number of quantifiable variables, including society's political and economic climate, social liberalism and conservatism and the public sphere's reaction to these ideologies, the presence and proliferation of political countercultures, and the like.”


Liza's argument is as follows: The so called “destruction of marriage” is itself a phenomena that is found in the mix of history (it is a product of the coming together of various “quantifiable variables”). Accordingly, it is arbitrary to identify the historical feminism movement as the cause of the cultural phenomena of the breakdown of marriage and family, since “from the perspective of mainstream political science,” only a plurality of “quantifiable variables” can bring about such an occurance.


There is actually an embedded philosophy that is hidden in Liza's argument. It is my job as a philosopher to expose it for the common good :D Liza is presupposing a method of looking at reality as if nature itself is a mere conglomeration of empirical “quantifiable” parts (this is a peculiarly post-enlightenment modern-way of thinking developed by Sir Isaac Newton, Francis Bacon, and Rene Descartes amongst others). There is nothing wrong with modern science. This way of looking things that exist is fine when you need to figure out how to create a propulsion fuel that will send a rocket to the moon, or when you want to build a bridge or do any kind of utilitarian work involving mechanistic 'parts' that are empirically observable.


But when it is a question of studying the beauty and goodness of human nature, the modern mechanistic science of “quantifiable parts” reaches its limit. Masculinity and femininity is not just an empirical “phenomena” that happened to come to about by chance as a result impersonal forces. The beauty and goodness of manhood and womanhood speaks of another more robust and deeper manner of studying reality and nature (this is the way of western philosophy and Christian theology which used to hold prominence before the dawn of secular humanism following the “enlightenment.”) Main stream political science operates under the assumption that everything we can study in society is simply a product of forces that happen to come together (this is what Liza refers to when she mentions “society's political and economic climate, social liberalism and conservatism and the public sphere's reaction to these ideologies, the presence and proliferation of political countercultures, and the like”). Mainstream political science is incapable (on its own terms) of grasping the essence of Human Nature (and therefore what true femininity is) because it is constricted to operate within its own limited method of analyzing the world in terms of what is “quantifiable” as parts. Only a more profound and lucid way of looking at reality can realize that the proper goodness and beauty of “masculinity” and “femininity” within family life is not just the result a conglomeration of a plurality of worldly-based factors. The cause of the beauty of man and woman and of the goodness of the institute of marriage and the specific gender-roles that it involves is the result of FREEDOM. Only FREEDOM can create beauty and goodness. Quantifiable parts cannot cause beauty and goodness to come to exist out of nothing. A person who is FREE TO CREATE needs to be there to bestow order and purpose to whatever comes to exist as something meaningfull. (Christians and Jews understand this to be God in the original act of Creation). That quantifiable-wordly-phenomena cannot be the original-absolute source of goodness and beauty is evident to human reason regardless of whether or not one is speaking religiously. We do not need “religious faith” to know this, this is a rational point.


Contrary to what Liza is arguing, I hold that the break-down of marriage and family life is not just a occurrence that just so happened to come together from various economic and political factors operative in history in a general sense. Liza's claim that “there's no credible evidence to suggest that feminism in particular has "destroyed" anything from the perspective of mainstream political science” is correct only if we accept that the “perspective of mainstream political science” exhausts all true perspectives. I propose that Liza is wrong in thinking this way. It is reductive. It limits the study of human actions to modern sociology and modern political science (which is rooted in a purely empirical method of analysis). I answer that the break down of marriage and family life can only be caused by specific persons who are endowed with FREEDOM. The demise of marriage and family life is caused by all those who freely reject what is given to us as “femininity” and “masculinity” in its original beauty and goodness (and that is what secular feminism accomplishes).
 
Apr 13, 2014
66
0
0
#32
(Response to Liza Continued)

PREMISE II


She writes: “Irrespective of one's religious preference, the philosophical concept of liberty and justice for all in any society that values equal rights should be upheld and respected in the highest degree... What women do with themselves within the context of this society is then up to the woman in particular, and that's exactly how it should be. Period.”


She is presupposing that the modern system of a democratic state is correct in placing all the emphasis on the fulfillment of the individual who is acting. This is a direct inheritance from the political philosophy of John Locke and Hobbes. It's logic is similar in as much as it bars out the relevance of the freedom of a person who lies BEYOND any worldly force, namely, the freedom of GOD who wills to create what is good and beautiful. It is certainly true that people [who themselves are free] are capable of deviating from the will of God, it is certainly true that every individual human being has the capacity to exercise his or her own freedom to do as they please: but that does not justify Liza's point that “What women do with themselves within the context of this society is then up to the woman in particular, and that's exactly how it should be. Period.” What if the women want to kill their own unborn children in the womb? What if women want to have success and a career more than they want to be a sacrificial presence for their family? When Liza says that “the philosophical concept of liberty and justice for all in any society that values equal rights should be upheld and respected in the highest degree”, she means the modern post-enlightenment concept of liberty developed in John Locke and Hobbes and applied in contemporary American constitutional-law. Liza apparently does not realize that the modern democratic forms of government and its accompanying language of “individual rights” is not fool-proof morally speaking. The “ individual freedom” of a democratic republic can error, and it does (it did when it made child-murder a recreational activity under the feminist guise of “a woman's right to choose” when the U.S. supreme court ruled in “Roe vs Wade” for example). Under the post-enlightenment “philosophical concept of liberty” that Liza is apparently so committed to, in the United States over 50 million innocent lives have been lost in the name of the feministic “right to choose.” Under the same “philosophical concept of liberty,” Marriage itself has been re-defined by the state so that homosexuality is no longer considered immoral by the vast majority of the public. Soon, the legalization of polygamy is likely to follow... I think both you (and modern secular-humanist democracy) are missing something from the equation, Liza. Goodness and beauty does not originate in human freedom, it originates in the intention of a Divine Creator. The lie of secular-feminism is that women can individually re-create for themselves what it means to be a good and beautiful woman-- even if to 'such and such' an individual it means murdering their own child so that they can have a lavish career. Again, my criticism of Liza's 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] premise is not simply a “religious” argument that owes its credibility to faith, my criticism is entirely based on reason, I have not quoted scripture once.
 
Apr 13, 2014
66
0
0
#33
(Last Response to Liza)

PREMISE III


Theology has nothing to do with the intrinsically social nature of the status of contemporary marriage and family structure. Theologians deal predominantly in spiritual matters pertaining to God and the nature of religious beliefs, not extrapolations from religious beliefs. Theology may offer an opinion on a given social matter, but it can't markedly associate anything without alluding to political science, demographics, or the like.”


Huh? Let me get this straight: The reality of God [if indeed the pagan philosophers Plato and Aristotle were right in positing through the use of their human reason that One God who orders the cosmos does exist] and the discipline which studies the link between God and the whole of nature (i.e. Theology) has nothing to do with the “intrinsically social nature of the status of contemporary marriage and family structure” as you say? I might be tempted to call your reasoning absurd, but I understand where you are coming from. It is important that anyone else who follows this thread understands as well. Lisa stated that “Theology may offer an opinion on a given social matter, but it can't markedly associate anything without alluding to political science, demographics, or the like.” This reveals that Liza is thoroughly taken in by the false secular-human ideology that wants to reduce everything to a purely human science, so that the transcendent and divine has no real relevance or importance to practical human civilization. In the old-world, before globalized atheism took affect in all modern world governments, Theology was considered the Queen of the sciences, so that any human affair (political, spiritual, domestic, whatever) found it's ultimate order and principle in the goodness and beauty of a Logos (Greek) or Ratio (Latin) which transcended the world: GOD. Today, contemporary western society may pay lip service to a “God” by having his name inscribed on our currency or perhaps having invoking his name at baseball games, but on the grand scale human freedom has ousted any transcendent cause from human affairs. Most evident of what I am saying is the current conditions of marriage and family life in America. People who think with Liza that “spiritual matters pertaining to God and the nature of religious beliefs” has nothing to do with the intrinsic identity of gender-roles and family structure certainly must have SOMETHING to do with the break down of marriage and family life in the culture. It has EVERYTHING to do with it.
 
Apr 13, 2014
66
0
0
#34
[h=2]I did not write the following, I am leaving it as a supplement to what I have written in opposition to my feminist opponents, I figure it will be could to post a woman's pespective. I will no longer be responding to the issue of feminism after this :) The original source for the following article is a blog called "ladies against feminism" found here

http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/feminism-related-issues/feminism-qa/

[/h] Posted By Anna T on November 30, 2010
The following article was written in response to several questions I received by email from a young lady who is currently attending college. I wrote about feminism numerous times, and, however I look at it, the conclusion that is reached is always the same: feminism is not what it claims to be.


“So what, in your opinion, is feminism?”
Before I get to answer this rather complex question, you must keep in mind that I’m an Orthodox Jew, and therefore believe men and women are inherently different, and have different roles as outlined in the Bible. These roles are easy and natural for most men and women to assume, and, indeed, throughout history men have been doing most of the outside pursuits, leading their families and providing for their wives and children, while women were centered on their role as wives and mothers, took care of the practical and spiritual aspects of family and home and leaned on their husband as leader and provider.


Now, I know feminism is a vast movement, and not all of it can be tarred with the same brush. Some feminists accept the fact that men and women have different inclinations and capabilities in various fields (though I must say most do not realize the extent of the difference) and claim their only goal is equal opportunities for people of equal capabilities, disregarding their gender. Some are egalitarians and deny that men and women have any inherent differences at all, claiming that the different inclinations we see in men and women are merely the product of social stereotypes (I do have to say I find it striking that some people actually think the dramatic differences in our biological structure bear no influence on our minds).
Some are radicals, such as a certain group of Israeli feminists who infiltrated the army and conducted biased research, on the basis of which women were entered into combat units which were previously men-only. The fact that combat training did irreversible damage to the health and fertility of some of those young women, and that the presence of women acted towards the lowering of standards and the detriment of military performance, was apparently of no concern to them. They didn’t care that they are basically putting their own country at risk, as long as their ideals were promoted. Fortunately some sane people woke up and spoke against it.


For the sake of the discussion, I’ll say that feminism is any movement that distracts a woman from her natural role as a wife, mother, nurturer, and guardian of the home. Even those movements that claim they only speak about the creation of “equal opportunities” practically continue the damage to the social structure which was caused by feminism. For example, once efforts are done to make entering the work force more feasible for mothers (such as, by lowering the cost of daycare), it becomes expected of women to take advantage of this marvelous “opportunity.”


“Where did you learn about feminism?”
You don’t have to take a special course in feminism to know about it. All you have to do is observe how things are done in all aspects of life today, compared with past generations. I’m 25 years old; for me, feminism was the norm – I grew right into it, thinking women should go into battle and sad and furious when I heard a woman gave up her career for the sake of her family, without even thinking it was feminism. For me, it was simply the right direction in which “women’s rights” were evolving. It was not until later that I realized just how different men and women are and how beautiful and harmonious is the plan of G-d, which includes men and women complementing each other in their different roles. So I suppose you could say I didn’t learn about feminism, but, rather, I un-learned it (still in the process of it) later.
“Do you think a young girl could benefit from some aspects of feminism these days?”
I think the key here is to look at what feminism has actually done. Has it promoted the overall happiness of women, stabilized the social structure of families, created a healthier (both physically and mentally) generation of children, contributed to economy, reduced the levels of stress and anxiety for both men and women? No, no, and, again, no. Feminism robbed countless women of the fulfillment they could easily and naturally have had as wives and mothers, leading them to the false belief they must do something “greater” to be happy, and causing the average “modern” human being to believe that the existence of a woman as “just” a wife and mother is illegitimate. This is now ingrained very deeply in us. Even many of the women who do stay behind to guard the hearth and home, often fret about proving they are “doing enough” at home in order to justify their presence as homemakers.


Of course, I realize that feminism as a social movement did not spring out of nowhere. There was a deep grain of social injustice and therefore dissatisfaction, but was it because there were flaws in G-d’s design for men and women? No, rather, it was because faulty human beings failed to keep up with what was so beautifully outlined for them. I firmly believe that, had all husbands treated their wives in the fair and kind way they were supposed to, the utter concept of feminism would seem laughable. And I must say that at least in the Jewish tradition, men were never permitted to abuse their wives and were required to treat their wives with respect and affection, and provide for their wife to the best extent of their abilities.
I often hear, “but there were always some who did not feel inclined to marry, and they found themselves in a terrible situation because there were no other options for them. Isn’t it so much better now, when a woman can do meaningful things such as work or study, and support herself in the absence of a husband?” and to this, I’ll say that humans are complex and lives are complex, and I cannot attempt to cover any and every scenario here – but overall, I’m speaking of social trends. Staying single was not a trend, it was more of an oddity. With the onset of feminism, what happened was not that going into the man’s world of academic competition and work was secured as a valid option for the few women who didn’t marry. Rather, it was turned into the expected path for the many, many, many more who wanted to, and did marry and have children, and were then expected to juggle it all so as to “enjoy the best of both worlds” (side note: without truly being able to fully dedicate themselves to either path, as human resources are limited after all).


So, when a young girl today enters university or starts a promising career, it may be said that she is “taking advantage” of the opportunities feminism provided for her, but we mustn’t forget that she is also doing what is now expected of her – again, thanks to feminism. Academics and career are not a “treat;” they are now an obligation, and the reason why this is not fair to women is easy to see when you observe women juggling career with marriage, motherhood, and homemaking.
It goes without saying that not all women have “careers,” just as most men do not have careers, but simply jobs aimed at putting bread on the table. (And many feminists who hold themselves aloof don’t realize just how snobby and elitist it is to talk about “self-fulfillment” and “self-realization” and “empowerment.” Only a select few can afford that!). Many just work because it is now the expected norm for a woman to be doing “at least something” outside the home, and also because the flooding of the market with female labor force caused a sharp drop in salaries, so that living on one income immediately became much less comfortable than before (though certainly still feasible). Husbands began to feel that it is their right to expect the wife to generate an additional income, forgetting that it is their obligation to provide (again, in the Jewish tradition). All of this created a vicious cycle, the breaking of which requires conscious decision and quite a leap of faith.
All of this is just the tip of the iceberg and in no way a full account of why I see feminism as nothing short of a tremendous social disaster and the cause of terrible tragedies in countless families and society as a whole. Truly, I could continue talking on and on about rampant divorce, promiscuity, abortions, the downfall of the father’s authority, and general confusion and misery that sadly, now plague the women of my generation. But perhaps I’ll leave that for another day.
 
H

HeavenAwaits

Guest
#35
I love it! Women are usually the ones that do not date "chubby" guys but that's ok. If a man feels the same it's just not right!
 

tourist

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2014
42,571
17,039
113
69
Tennessee
#36
I really could care less for the ridicule this post may elicit, and I am not asking for anyone's advice on making this post either...

If you are a woman in the United States seeking the same, private message me! I am a philosophy/theology grad student aiming to be a teacher. I am old fashioned, willing to be assertive and be the pursuer. As far as the type of person I am seeking, perhaps someone who hasn't bought into the lie of secular feminism which has destroyed marriage and family life in America? Someone witty, athletic, non-prudish... a folky-guitar singer? Okay I shouldn't be so specific, but the first for sure! I am not seeking an internet quickie-bride, I desire to get to know and befriend a young woman in real life to see if the Lord might bless the relationship with a lifelong vocation mirroring the nuptial (UNBREAKABLE) union between Christ and the Church.

When I first joined this site my motives were that of your own. God has led me to a beautiful woman and we are currently exchanging letters. Only time will tell how it plays out but the person that I am writing to is always in my thoughts and on my heart. Only time will tell whether she is a keeper or not as I am allowing God to direct me in this most special relationship. What ever happens will be God's will and desire for both of our lives. This is my prayer for the both of us.

May God be with you in your pursuit. Life can be an adventure for those brave enough to allow God to direct their paths. I would caution you to allow God to make the selection for you as to your future wife, one that is suitable for you and satisfies your hopes and desires as well as her own. You have cast your line upon the waters and must now patiently wait for that special woman to take a nibble.

Please take the time also during the chase and allow God for you to respond also to those that He may send your way. This site is full of lonely people who are hurting deep inside and they are worthy of consideration and respect.
 

tourist

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2014
42,571
17,039
113
69
Tennessee
#37
Thank you for clearing that up.

Let me try this again.

Hiiiii :)
Sorry about earlier, i buy into so many lies it's hard to keep them all straight. Ok, so when do you want to get married?? I'm free now actually.

P.s. Can Animus come to our wedding?
The guy has to propose first. And then there is the matter of the ring.
 

tourist

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2014
42,571
17,039
113
69
Tennessee
#39
um to be clear, i'm not looking for such a thing either. but since this isn't a dating site, i didn't think there was anything wrong with me making such a joke.

in fact, i have little doubt that you aren't aware that i was simply kidding.

while i'm not here to find a husband, but i suppose there are a myriad of intentions on such a place. if you're going to post a personals ad on a public forum, perhaps you ought to expect some good-natured humor?

nonetheless, i wish you the best on your search, truly. God Bless, brother. : )
This very much is a dating site and other important matters as well.
 

cinder

Senior Member
Mar 26, 2014
4,425
2,416
113
#40
I know Cinder a little better than you do but her post did seem like it was fueled by bitterness rather than humour.
Well, when someone whose opinion I have come to respect says this about me, it is time to admit that I took it a little too far (note to self: sarcasm does not translate well over internet). I will admit to feeling feisty and slightly annoyed since this is the OP's second thread asking "hey who wants to apply to be my wife". He has already been informed this isn't a dating site. (See this thread).

But I truly don't wish any ill on the OP (or any men in general for that matter). Should he meet a woman who wants to marry him, I am sure he will do his utmost to be a good husband and take his marriage vows more seriously than most. And I really didn't want to get into it with him so much as give people a good laugh along the lines of the what we say vs what we mean variety, point out the extreme negative way this could be taken by the readers, and point out that there are some things I see as possible inconsistencies.

I will admit to letting attitudes that were less than godly get the better of me, but please kind enough to side with me that it did not merit the negative characterization the OP responded with. He makes me out to be little better than a shallow, selfish, extremely bitter, family hating feminazi which anyone who knows me at all would know is completely inaccurate.