Posted on 09/20/2013 4:29:03 AM PDT by spirited irish
The collapse of the family, along with everything else was caused by the creation of government schools, which were created for precisely that purpose.
Children belong in the home, not in the cesspool.
I agree that the government schools are crap and that they are designed to produce obedient leftist drones, but they existed throughout the 20th century. The extremely high 50% divorce rate of America (mostly initiated by women to extract cash prizes out of the ex husband's backside) appeared in the late 1960's and early 1970's when the modern family and divorce court system was created. Comedian Bill Burr leaves the American Christian Right in the dust when it comes to identifying the real cause of more and more men boycotting marriage 2.0.
My questions should be easy to answer, unless you were de-balled by the evangelical American princesses
It doesn't matter if the children are kept at home or not. All it takes is for the American wife to make that one phone call to kick the husband out and rape him at divorce court for petty reasons. No wonder why more and more men are boycotting marriage 2.0. Bill Burr was spot on.
LOLOL!
Yes because raping men at divorce court will encourage men to play the marriage 2.0 game. It’s so much easier to blame da gayz than it is to blame the ball busting Western women.
betty: I’ll only add that the “logical consistency” you require seems to be available only on the basis of the reductionist model, with which so much of contemporary science seems to be embroiled.
Spirited: Methodological naturalism or natural science requires from the outset the exclusion of the supernatural or unseen half of reality: Jehovah God, creation ex nihilo, miracles, Imago Dei, Heaven, hell, holy angels, unholy angels.
Reductionism is the method of reducing the supernatural to the natural (biological), i.e., spirit (mind and its abilities) to firing of neurons and movement of chemicals. Thus it can be said that man has no soul/spirit because it cannot be weighed, measured, tested, touched, etc.
The Biblical view of reality posits two interfacing, interacting halves of reality: seen (body, brain) and unseen (soul/spirit and abilities of mind).
After much thought C.S. Lewis concluded that natural science and its primary doctrine evolution is devised not to seek truth but to keep God (and the supernatural half of reality) out:
“More disquieting still is Professor D.M.S. Watson’s defense. “Evolution itself,” he wrote, “is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or...can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” Has it come to that? Does the whole vast structure of modern naturalism depend not on positive evidence but simply on an a priori metaphysical prejudice. Was it devised not to get in facts but to keep out God?” (CS Lewis, The Oxford Socratic Club, 1944)
Eric Voegelin addresses the following fallacies: immanentism (pantheist conception of God), evolution, biological reductionism in general and tacticalogic’s reductionist ‘reasoning’ in particular:
“...the biological theorists don’t know that Kant has analyzed why one cannot have an immanentist theory of evolution. One can have empirical observation but no general theory of evolution because the sequence of forms is a mystery; it just is there and you cannot explain it by any theory. The world cannot be explained. It is a mythical problem, so you have a strong element of myth in the theory of evolution.” (Eric Voegelin, CW Vol. 33, The Drama of Humanity Conversations, III, Myth as Environment, p. 307)
If scientists adopted that philosophy, the logical conclusion would be for them to abandon their research as futile and seek a different line of work.
Is that what you'd like to see as the solution to the problem?
But I also suspect your ire is misplaced because divorce law varies greatly by State.
For instance, spousal maintenance is difficult to obtain under Texas law. As I recall it is based on one's inability to obtain employment, is limited to three years and can only be made indefinite if the spouse asking for maintenance is handicapped.
Also, Texas District Court judges I have personally known have only two concerns in a divorce proceeding: the custody of the children and the interests of the creditors. As I recall, in a custody dispute the Texas judge speaks to the children age 10 or over to see where they want to live and will try to make it so on the theory that they are at risk of becoming runaways.
Also on personal knowledge, I aver that Texas judges will distribute debt obligation according to the spouse's ability to service the debt. A wife who makes the lion's share of income will be saddled with the lion's share of debt.
Concerning marriage per se, I observe that many of today's marriages are merely contracts and not Holy matrimony, despite the title of the person who conducted the marriage ceremony.
God alone can make anything holy. And no minister has power over God.
A Holy matrimony occurs when God brings two people together and makes them one in His eyes. Adam and Eve, for instance, were united by God Himself.
And when God brings two people together, woe begets anyone who separates them:
Another important part of Scripture than ruffles many a feminist's feathers is that God appointed the man to be the head of household. And He in fact holds them accountable for the whole family (Ephesians 3).
To the feminist who feels like a second class citizen in this decree by God, I hasten to add that God requires a husband to love his wife. Three times He commands this in Ephesians 3. And His command to the wife is to submit herself to her own husband as unto the Lord - which is to say, not submit to every male but her own husband.
As I recall, you consider yourself to be atheist and may discount my words by your presupposition.
But I testify to you that God is not a hypothesis. He lives. His Name is I AM. I've known Him for over a half century and counting.
Indeed, I know Him better than I know my own brother. You most likely would not doubt my testimony that I have a brother. Likewise, you should not doubt my testimony about God.
Well said; marriage now-a-days is pretty much contract of EN-LUST-IFICATION..., GOLD-DIGGING.., -or- a FRANCHISE in some social Crime...
Marriage is totally about the children otherwise why GET married?..
Several businesses exist wholly because of marriage.. like: lawyering.. and clergy... and witch-doctoring..
"God" does not seem to require "a marriage license" the lawyers do...
Three entities in a marriage.. 1) man.. 2) woman.. 3) God..
Common law marriage is a mental game.. and pal-i-moaney is a legal scam..
Any "SOCIETY" is based on how marriage is treated.. the "quality" of it's Morality is born in that treatment..
Marriage is the corner-stone of a society NOT THE capstone..
NO GOD........ no marriage.. it's serial fornication..
Very, very well said, dear hosepipe! There’s a lot of wisdom in your post.
marriage now-a-days is pretty much contract of EN-LUST-IFICATION..., GOLD-DIGGING.., -or- a FRANCHISE in some social Crime...
Spirited: For people dissatisfied with ‘self’ (homosexuals)marriage is coveted in the vain hope that possession of it will resolve dissatisfaction with ‘self.’ But as the real source of dissatisfaction is the human condition, after the initial euphoria of marriage wears off, dissatisfaction with self will once again rear its ugly head.
Is that what you’d like to see as the solution to the problem?
Spirited: Foolish ‘scientists’ who in support of methodological naturalism reduce their own minds and cognitive abilities to movement of chemicals and firing of neurons cannot be expected to offer ‘solutions’ nor have anything worth saying since by their own admission they are walking dead bodies that somehow talk.
I don't see you doing it better.
If you’ve come here for matriculation, perhaps Jim can send you a bill.
LOLOL!
Even the state of Texas rewards paternity fraud by forcing men to pay child support for children that are not theirs. I see that you're trying to defend the corrupt family law system. And you wonder why more and more young men don't take the Christian Right seriously. The Christian Right panders to women because it is mostly women who attend church nowadays. Comedian Bill Burr has more credibility on this issue than any churchian pastor.
And it is apparent that you oppose biblical morality.
tacticalogic responded: "If scientists adopted that philosophy, the logical conclusion would be for them to abandon their research as futile and seek a different line of work.
Is that what you'd like to see as the solution to the problem?"
Tacticalogic, maybe spirited irish should invest in a burka and a prayer rug since she believes that God can change the truth in much the way the Islamic religion conceves of God... In contrast to what Christianity conceives of God.
Spot on. When many conservatives started viewing marriage as a romance/love based institution instead of a reproductive contract between two families, the argument against gay marriage was neutered. When society doesn't incentivize men to get married, men will abandon the institution of marriage as they are doing now.
Examples of such disencentives is the (anti)family court and divorce court system that overwhelmingly punishes husbands, no matter what the husbands do.
Another disincentive against men is the anti-dowry. What do I mean by anti-dowry? In societies where real family values exist such as India, a prospective woman for marriage comes with a dowry and virginity, in order to encourage men to marry these women in an arranged marriage with the woman's father's family. In anti family societies, such as America and Europe, the woman (who probably had sex with the football team at high school, and dated several tatted-up thugs while she was in college pursuing her worthless liberal arts degree) comes with an anti-dowry such as student loans and consumer debt.
What man would want to marry in the Western World?
The Christian Right's obsession with "gay marriage" is just an example of moral cowardice. They refuse to confront the real issue
>> “ than any churchian pastor.” <<
.
Could this raging misogynist be a disciple of Michael Rood?
You don’t sound like one, but...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.