tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312159882790612546.post7701856375827437325..comments2023-11-02T08:41:44.231-07:00Comments on The Sanctuary: Weapon of Mass DestructionSpacetravellerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02202131232540121117noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312159882790612546.post-47376776835922088292012-05-16T12:12:57.927-07:002012-05-16T12:12:57.927-07:00b: "I don't really mind people who go thr...b: "I don't really mind people who go through the motions of repentance but don't actually seem to mean it, because the fact that they try at all means that they know in the back of their minds that what they're doing is wrong. You seem to think that unless someone is 100% committed, it does not count. For me, even 0.0001% is enough for hope. And I really believe even the most half-assed attempt to be good will count for something at the hour of one's death."<br /><br />Thats so nice of you, but, it means that our actions don't really count for much. You can spend your entire life in sin and with no remorse, and still be saved. At no point does it cross the line. Well, if that's the case, then I'm going to do the same.<br /><br />In other words, we *shall* sin so grace abounds.<br /><br />I had no problems being a "a good boy", so long as I was under the impression other people were generally good, and that my efforts were respected.<br /><br />Well, I was surprised to find out neither are true.OTCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312159882790612546.post-12413927522175451922012-05-15T09:57:32.772-07:002012-05-15T09:57:32.772-07:00@ PVW,
Aha, so there is a Scottish connection!
...@ PVW,<br /><br />Aha, so there <i> is </i> a Scottish connection!<br />:-)<br /><br />The article reminded me so much of my own convent headmistress (God rest her soul).<br />Nice trip down memory lane for me.<br /><br />Thanks also for Donnie McClurkin's song.<br />I am sure others enjoyed it too.Spacetravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02202131232540121117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312159882790612546.post-69642478648718922032012-05-14T10:51:37.265-07:002012-05-14T10:51:37.265-07:00Spacetraveller said...
@ PVW,
I see. I always tho...Spacetraveller said...<br />@ PVW,<br /><br />I see. I always thought 'Episcopalian' was synonymous with 'Church of Scotland' for some bizarre reason.<br /><br />Thanks very much for your indepth explication.<br /><br />I think it's great that I learn much more here than just SMP issues!<br />:-)<br /><br /><br />My reply:<br /><br />You're welcome. It is funny you mentioned that about the Scottish Church. As far as I understand it, when the American church was getting on its feet, it went to the Scottish Episcopal Bishops to have bishops consecrated for the American Episcopal Church:<br /><br />"the Scottish bishops consecrated Samuel Seabury as the first bishop in the United States. It was a significant act. Before the establishment of the United States, following the War of Independence, clergy serving in America had been ordained in London. The clergy of Connecticut elected Samuel Seabury as their bishop and he sought consecration in England. The oath of royal supremacy proved too difficult a problem, however, and he came to Scotland and was consecrated in Aberdeen on 14 November 14 1784, the first Anglican bishop to serve outside the British Isles. It was the beginning of the world-wide Anglican Communion of Churches."<br /><br />So today, the Scottish Episcopal Church is its own national church, the same way the American Episcopal Church is its own national church; each has ties to the Church of England and the entire Anglican Communion.<br /><br />On another note, I thought you would find the interesting as a former convent girl:<br /><br />http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/14/nyregion/strict-but-trusted-sister-dolores-is-irreplaceable-at-fontbonne.html?_r=1&hpw<br /><br />I wasn't a convent girl, but a number of girls from my Catholic middle school (grades 6-8) went on to Catholic high schools--they were convent girls.<br /><br />As for salvation:<br /><br />Donnie McClurkin:<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3ewPHaPBfA<br /><br />Take care, <br /><br />PVWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312159882790612546.post-80583690038366369832012-05-14T10:13:57.082-07:002012-05-14T10:13:57.082-07:00@ Bellita,
"For me, even 0.0001% is enough ...@ Bellita,<br /><br /><i> "For me, even 0.0001% is enough for hope. And I really believe even the most half-assed attempt to be good will count for something at the hour of one's death." </i> <br /><br />Amen to that, Bellita. Amen to that.<br />Perhaps I should just stop complaining about other people 'ruining' things, including the SMP for the rest of us and concentrate more on my own salvation.<br />Which is ultimately the only thing that counts...<br /><br />As ever, you drag me by the nose to the important issues :-)<br />Thank you for that reminder.Spacetravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02202131232540121117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312159882790612546.post-76454996806419296702012-05-14T09:17:47.450-07:002012-05-14T09:17:47.450-07:00@OTC
By honest sinner I mean one of two things. O...@OTC <br /><i>By honest sinner I mean one of two things. One: an honest heathen like me. Two: A believer who sins, but actually repents. My experience is that the repenting part rarely happens. One of my friends is quite a devout woman, but she's cheating on her husband, and she freely admits she has trouble with the repenting part, always has. I hope to de-convert her!</i> <br /><br />Oh, you passionate missionary! ;-) <i>I</i> would hope for true repentance for her! But of course I'd say that . . . <br /><br />Just so you know where I'm coming from OTC, I don't really mind people who go through the motions of repentance but don't actually seem to mean it, because the fact that they try at all means that they know in the back of their minds that what they're doing is wrong. You seem to think that unless someone is 100% committed, it does not count. For me, even 0.0001% is enough for hope. And I really believe even the most half-assed attempt to be good will count for something at the hour of one's death.Bellitanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312159882790612546.post-57162522418914122852012-05-14T02:13:47.189-07:002012-05-14T02:13:47.189-07:00@ PVW,
I see. I always thought 'Episcopalian&...@ PVW,<br /><br />I see. I always thought 'Episcopalian' was synonymous with 'Church of Scotland' for some bizarre reason.<br /><br />Thanks very much for your indepth explication.<br /><br />I think it's great that I learn much more here than just SMP issues!<br />:-)<br /><br />@ OTC,<br /><br />About the male virginity thing, yes, I see your point.<br />But I think most (sensible) women are not actually repulsed by a male virgin.<br />The issue, or actually, the <i> fear </i> is, is there something wrong with him, <i> medically-speaking? </i> <br />I think women instinctively know that a man will always try to get sex. It's a big part of his biology, and it's not cyclical as it is in women, so he's always 'ready'.<br />If he hasn't so far, she needs to decide if <br />1. He is asexual (not a good thing for a woman who may have been saving herself for marriage, and wants children). <br />2. He was just unsuccessful (well then hooray to womanhood in general - and this is not intended as a slight to men at all. This is a salute to chaste women who have 'done the right thing'). <br />3. He <i> could </i> have been successful but for moral reasons chose not to be (what's his number? Um, <i> phone </i> number, I mean :-).<br /><br />I think only the immature (i.e. very young women, especially in today's 'hook up culture') view male virginity as a negative. Not their fault, they are being egged into this attitude by people who should know better.<br />When I was young, I always envisaged marrying a male virgin. As I got older, I became more of a realist, because of course I recognise that virginity in men in the age group appropriate for me is almost unheard of. And in fact, should I have come across it, it really would have frightened me, for one of the reasons I mention above.<br />I really don't think I am an outlier in this regard.<br />Yes, it is desirable if a man is more experienced than his woman in a lot of different ways, including sexual, but that depends very much on how one views sex. If it is a purely recreational activity then <i> of course </i> it is unsurprising where the mindset of disgust at male virginity comes from. <br /><br />All the above is from my female perspective.<br />If I try very hard to see a man's point of view on this however, I can 'get' that a male virgin would lack a certain confidence, yes, in a way that a female virgin would not. Because of the innate differences between the genders. So yes I guess Bell is right when she says that a man who has not had premarital sex is somewhat unattractive to women. But I think it's really a case of 'cause and effect' playing a role. He does not become attractive <i> because </i> he had premarital sex (although why this might be the case may depend on a woman sharing my alternative view of 'preselection' as depicted in the post 'Preselection: A different take'). <br />Afterall, the confidence he needed to get said premarital sex would have had to have <i> preceded </i> said premarital sex in order to earn him this, no?<br />:-)<br /><br />I am getting my knickers in a twist on this.<br />Sorry.<br />I accept that it is hard for a man in this situation.<br />Lots off 'catch-22s'.<br />I leave the locker room now...<br /><br />@ NC,<br /><br />:-)<br /><br />Nice pun...Spacetravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02202131232540121117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312159882790612546.post-54022089621029161412012-05-13T20:33:12.497-07:002012-05-13T20:33:12.497-07:00Holy crap!
The Navy CorpsmanHoly crap!<br /><br />The Navy CorpsmanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312159882790612546.post-82908013822312090852012-05-13T18:38:43.210-07:002012-05-13T18:38:43.210-07:00ST: "Or do you mean that with 'Christian&...ST: "Or do you mean that with 'Christian' rules a man can't get his usual dose of extra marital sex? Or are you getting stuck with the dishonesty of Christianity which promises 'clean' women for good Christian men for them to discover they are saddled with 'born again virgins'?"<br /><br />The first is obviously silly, and the latter I don't really care about.<br /><br />Bell: "And for the record, churches have honest sinners, too, and they tend to outnumber the hypocrites."<br /><br />By honest sinner I mean one of two things. One: an honest heathen like me. Two: A believer who sins, but actually repents. My experience is that the repenting part rarely happens. One of my friends is quite a devout woman, but she's cheating on her husband, and she freely admits she has trouble with the repenting part, always has. I hope to de-convert her!<br /><br />ST: "Some never recover and are the type of men who remain the church 'beta' and whose only salvation so to speak is actually to leave The Church?"<br /><br />Exactly.<br /><br />Bell: "In that case, even if the pastors got the majority of their men and women not to engage in premarital sex, the catch would be that the women might not find those men attractive! [.. awesomeness all the way to..] He's handicapped even before the churches get to him. And if all he has left to prove himself manly [actually: just attracting some women at *all*, not going full-on PUA] then imagine what it does to his chances when he agrees with the churches that it is a sin."<br /><br />Bulls-eye.OffTheCuffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312159882790612546.post-28472104968239648242012-05-13T14:43:49.222-07:002012-05-13T14:43:49.222-07:00Too many good questions to answer just now. The ca...Too many good questions to answer just now. The captcha here hates me.<br /><br />ST: "I am intrigued by your term 'sexual loser'. Do you mean that if you follow Christian rules, you don't get sex? Is this really a man's reality? I honestly would like your perspective on this."<br /><br />The church requires celibacy unless you are married. It doesnt say "hey, take it easy, dont bang everything that moves" (which would make sense), it requires celibacy. The problem is women find male virginity repulsive at worst, and neutral at best, so this policy really just serves to weaken men that actually follow the rules. <br /><br />I refuse to consider premarital sex with my wife as a sin anymore. Or any consenual encounter with a woman, for that manner. Since I won't pick and choose which sins I'll avoid and which I will indulge, which is hypocrisy, then I have reject the whole thing entirely.<br /><br />For now, until someone can explain it better to me. Most people don't.OffTheCuffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312159882790612546.post-36855957843808475342012-05-13T14:32:44.627-07:002012-05-13T14:32:44.627-07:00I admit, I find it hard to call a priest "Mot...I admit, I find it hard to call a priest "Mother," and not because of Mary. I think that is where my Protestantism has taken me! I don't believe I have called any of the male priests "Father," not since I was no longer Catholic. I tend to call everyone "Rev.," ie., Rev. Lisa, Rev. John. <br /><br />But I know some older Anglo-Catholic male priests prefer to be called "Father." They also tend to wear the more conservative Roman Catholic priests' tab collar for their clerical shirts, so one can barely tell the difference, except perhaps, when they go walking around with their families!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312159882790612546.post-69981996640525470192012-05-13T14:31:32.672-07:002012-05-13T14:31:32.672-07:00Space Traveler:
Thanks once again for your commen...Space Traveler:<br /><br />Thanks once again for your comment.<br />This is better than the religious education I had at school ;-)<br /><br />"I'm not surprised that you would describe the Catholic church in a way similar to how I described the Episcopal church. We are the closest theologically (and liturgically) to Roman Catholicism than the other Protestants." <br /><br />I thought the 'high Anglicans' had this dubious honour!<br />Are Episcopalians a subset of 'high Anglicans' then?<br /><br />My reply:<br /><br />You're welcome; not for nothing am I coordinator for adult education in my parish! <br /><br />I talk about this kind of stuff all the time as we do comparisons amongst denominations, especially in discussing the denominations our parishioners have come from.<br /><br />And if it is useful for this discussion and the questions you have in mind, I'm happy to oblige!<br /><br />So at the time of the American Revolution, there were numbers of Protestant denominations in the colonies, and Anglicanism was one of them. <br /><br />Once the Americans became independent, they renamed themselves the Episcopal Church; this marked the beginning of its distinct development as a denomination. <br /><br />Yet, the ties to Anglicanism persisted in their own fashion long afterwards, insofar as the major theological developments in 19th c. England spread here--what you refer to as high church Anglicanism. <br /><br />This prevailed with respect to liturgy (styles of worship began to look more like Roman Catholicism's styles). Yet, the theological underpinnings remained--the Book of Common Prayer.<br /><br />By the 1970s, that style of worship became softened, not only in high church Anglican parishes, but in Roman Catholic parishes as well. So today, worship styles in terms of liturgy still resemble each other. Again, that is what makes an Episcopal Church a comfortable fit for former Roman Catholics--they "get it."<br /><br />Now with respect to theology in the 1970s onwards, some American high church Anglican parishes began to become more and more interested in rejecting the direction the Episcopal Church was going into, ie., over women's ordination.<br /><br />Those who sought to break away or whose individual members left on their own became Roman Catholic or became Episcopal Churches under the aegis of Roman Catholic authority. There is a contemporary trend too, with respect to some seeking authority from more conservative dioceses overseas, ie., in Africa. <br /><br />Others, like a few I can think of, keep the much older and formal style of worship, use the older form of the Book of Common Prayer (1928 or the 1979 one) but remain within the Episcopal Church.<br /><br />So it makes for a fun and fascinating diversity of worship; this is why I like visiting different Episcopal churches when I go out of town. In one church you can find a low church style of worship, ie., using prayerbooks and music from outside the American canon (1979 prayerbook, 1982 hymnal), with less of the "smells and bells," (incense and bells). In another, things might be medium to high: more genuflecting, smells and bells with the newer prayerbook or the 1928 one in the highest of the high. <br /><br />Or a parish can use the forms at different times of the month or at different times of the day, or depending on the season.<br /><br />The in-between medium ones might use the 1979 prayerbook but refer at certain services to the "rite 1" forms which more closely resemble the forms found in the 1928 liturgy, at certain services and not others. The rite two service is more modern. <br /><br />Parishes that have an 8am Sunday morning rite 1 service offer these primarily to their older parishioners. These are people who grew up on the 1928 prayerbook. The later services (10am rite 2) then are primarily for the younger folks who grew up under the 1979 book.<br /><br />So yes, the Episcopal church is a subsidiary of Anglicanism, high or otherwise!<br /><br />Pvw, part 1Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312159882790612546.post-80149181201332313012012-05-13T12:53:58.263-07:002012-05-13T12:53:58.263-07:00@ PVW,
Thanks once again for your comment.
This i...@ PVW,<br /><br />Thanks once again for your comment.<br />This is better than the religious education I had at school ;-)<br /><br /><i> "I'm not surprised that you would describe the Catholic church in a way similar to how I described the Episcopal church. We are the closest theologically (and liturgically) to Roman Catholicism than the other Protestants." </i> <br /><br />I thought the 'high Anglicans' had this dubious honour!<br />Are Episcopalians a subset of 'high Anglicans' then?<br /><br /><i> "That is what I'm picking up, that they are members of other denominations, presumably more fundamentalist. <br /><br />Or at least, in their criticism of the churches they speak of, they are targeting the ones that are more fundamentalist (conservative) and evangelical. These churches might be more prominent in their communities. One example is the Southern Baptist Convention." </i> <br /><br />Interesting that you should mention Baptist. This is the only religious affiliation I could find on Glenn Stanton's website...he could well be Baptist.<br /><br />I feel obliged to point out here that I am not interested in some sort of Christian denominational 'witch hunt'.<br />I just would like to work out what it is about the dogma of these other churches within Christendom that is causing such a furore in the SMP.<br /><br /><br /><i> "It is interesting, but in some more conservative style Episcopal parishes, the female priest is called "Mother," the same way a male priest is called "Father." " </i> <br /><br />Um...calling a priest 'Mother' in this way would feel very 'foreign' to me!<br />But only because it has been programmed into me to feel weird about it by patriarchical Catholicism LOL.<br /><br />For me, I guess it's enough to have someone else to call 'Mother', i.e. Our Lady.<br /><br />Strange how religious programming becomes so deeply ingrained in one's psyche like this...Who was it that said 'religion is opium for the masses' (Karl Marx?)<br />By this definition, I am chronically stoned, I suppose :-)<br /><br />*sigh*Spacetravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02202131232540121117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312159882790612546.post-35412845102622970252012-05-13T10:32:58.646-07:002012-05-13T10:32:58.646-07:00Spacetraveler:
Thanks for the beautiful descripti...Spacetraveler:<br /><br />Thanks for the beautiful description of life in the Episcopal Church.<br />I really appreciate that as I have virtually no education whatsoever on this church.<br /><br />My reply:<br /><br />Thanks! I find that because so few know about us yet might have misconceptions about us or Christians in general, presuming that "one size fits all," I do my bit in educating...And especially since the presumptions about the "feminization" of churches means minimization of the masculine, it is important to refute those claims with positive examples. <br /><br />As the priest said in her sermon this morning as she drew upon her own experience in "mothering," there is good mothering and bad mothering. Good mothering nurtures and does not harm, whether in a church setting (a female minister) or in the home. <br /><br />It is interesting, but in some more conservative style Episcopal parishes, the female priest is called "Mother," the same way a male priest is called "Father."<br /><br />Spacetraveler:<br /><br />So from what you say, it would indeed appear that Dalrock's crowd are not Episcopal :-)<br /><br />But then again I would describe The Catholic Church in much the same manner as you describe the Episcopal Church and yet I know that some of Dalrock's people are Catholic.<br />Are these men being 'economical with the truth' to make their point, or do they all belong to other Christian denominations?<br /><br />My reply:<br /><br />That is what I'm picking up, that they are members of other denominations, presumably more fundamentalist. <br /><br />Or at least, in their criticism of the churches they speak of, they are targeting the ones that are more fundamentalist (conservative) and evangelical. These churches might be more prominent in their communities. One example is the Southern Baptist Convention.<br /><br />Or if they are Catholic, they are talking about an experience they see, what happens when there are more women than men sitting in the pews. <br /><br />The priests might pander to women's vanities, needs and interests in ways that don't hold them accountable for their behavior; they encourage the "church sluts" in their behavior by not judging them.<br /><br />But as I said, I don't see that in my "feminized" church. Perhaps that happens in other Episcopal churches, but not in my parish!<br /><br />I'm not surprised that you would describe the Catholic church in a way similar to how I described the Episcopal church. We are the closest theologically (and liturgically) to Roman Catholicism than the other Protestants. That is why I think it is fairly common to find Episcopalians who are former Roman Catholics. <br /><br />For example, of the seven people in our parish yesterday who were at the ceremony (confirmation and reception) 4 had been baptized Roman Catholic. <br /><br />Spacetraveler:<br /><br />What I forgot to say was of course there are lots of unhappliy married men trapped in sexless and loveless marriages with Christian women for whom appearances mean everything...I am sure you know the type I mean.<br />Those men perhaps have it worse than the single Church betas, no?<br />At least the single Church beta can 'alpha-ise' himself and improve his lot in life. The married closeted beta is truly stuck...<br /><br />My reply:<br /><br />I agree the single ones have it better...<br /><br />PVWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312159882790612546.post-4093458688567561562012-05-13T09:59:06.715-07:002012-05-13T09:59:06.715-07:00PVW,
Thanks for the beautiful description of life...PVW,<br /><br />Thanks for the beautiful description of life in the Episcopal Church.<br />I really appreciate that as I have virtually no education whatsoever on this church.<br /><br />So from what you say, it would indeed appear that Dalrock's crowd are <i> not </i> Episcopal :-)<br /><br />But then again I would describe The Catholic Church in much the same manner as you describe the Episcopal Church and yet I know that some of Dalrock's people are Catholic.<br />Are these men being 'economical with the truth' to make their point, or do they all belong to other Christian denominations?<br />Which particular churches are the main culprit here?<br />I don't feel brave enough to wander over to Dalrock's to ask...but I guess my answer lies in identifying the church to which Glenn Stanton belongs, as he appears to be a particular target over there.<br /><br />In my last comment to you, I mentioned those men who were lucky enough to be happily married.<br />What I forgot to say was of course there are lots of <i> un</i>happliy married men trapped in sexless and loveless marriages with Christian women for whom appearances mean everything...I am sure you know the type I mean.<br />Those men perhaps have it worse than the single Church betas, no?<br />At least the single Church beta can 'alpha-ise' himself and improve his lot in life. The married closeted beta is truly stuck...Spacetravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02202131232540121117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312159882790612546.post-32131881545099625952012-05-13T06:13:46.186-07:002012-05-13T06:13:46.186-07:00Me, PVW:
I think that it really comes down to the...Me, PVW:<br /><br />I think that it really comes down to theological differences.<br /><br />The priesthood of believers in my branch of Protestantism sees all baptized members as being empowered to do ministry, and this is not limited by gender--no discrimination against men, no discrimination against women.<br /><br />Everyone has a role in the life and governance of the church and its ministry--that is what the catechism says. <br /><br />Going further and considering men being betaized for their sexuality and not following the rules, as I said earlier, no one is running around asking others about their conversion experience and policing them. Everyone seems to live an upstanding and fulfilling life; so who is going to ask about it?<br /><br />Going furhter, in permitting married priests, the historical documents speak to non-betaization, men's godliness in marriage, if anything, as an example, perhaps, for the other men in the community: <br /><br />"Bishops, priests and deacons, are not commanded by God's Law, either to vow the estate of single life or to abstain from marraige; therefore, it is lawful for them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness," 1979 Book of Common Prayer, p. 874, Articles of Religion, no. 33.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312159882790612546.post-42845932520287925662012-05-13T05:58:36.674-07:002012-05-13T05:58:36.674-07:00Space Traveler:
Interesting!
Never thought of it...Space Traveler:<br /><br />Interesting!<br /><br />Never thought of it like that before...<br />So there has to be another factor that beta-ises these men, not just Christianity per se. But the way Christianity has been hijacked by feminism (and now renamed 'Churchianity' by Dalrock's folks), leaving the very same men who might have found comfort in it whacked in the face at the door of the church.<br /><br />My reply:<br /><br />As you know, I'm a member of a denomination (the Episcopal Church) that many would say has been hijacked by feminism in that women can become priests. <br /><br />But has that resulted in beta-ized men?<br /><br />In my specific church, are you kidding?<br /><br />We currently have a female interim priest, all the other priests (dating back over 100+ years) were men. Yet, women have had for a while, significant leadership roles, ie., the "church mother," or other women serving on the church governing board (on the vestry, including as the treasurer).<br /><br />So the men in the congregation have always had a model of male competence in the pulpit. Has that suffered because we have a woman leader or because other women serve on the church governing board and occupy significant leadership positions? <br /><br />There is a difference between being in a community, ie., a church-related one where men are beta-ized and shamed for being men and one where men are respected for being men.<br /><br />There is perhaps one man who might fit that category; an older bachelor, never married, he doesn't seem to have male confidence. Where did that come from? I don't know, but not in our church environment. He has served in leadership roles, although he has come across as obnoxious (when he was on the vestry), so people tend to avoid him.<br /><br />Yet, the other men who serve in leadership roles seem to have more respect as men; they have proven to be competent men who take charge when need be, ie., in their areas of church leadership and management, they prove to be excellent leaders. <br /><br />They don't reject the women's leadership, they admire and respect them. They appreciate the women's efforts towards building up the community. <br /><br />The women don't come across as harpies belittling the men. They treat the men with respect and the men treat the women the same way.<br /><br />So for example, with my confirmation and reception class (adult education) which culminated in the programming yesterday, it began with me chatting with the female minister that there were a whole bunch of people who didn't seem to have a grounding in our denomination's history and theology.<br /><br />We then decided that it is something we should work on, an inquirer's class that would be helpful towards building the community. <br /><br />How did we frame it? Not as belittling, but as something beneficial, ie., to help all the members of the congregation satisfy any curiousity they might have. In chats I had one-on-one, I sold it to the men and women as parents, and as leaders in our community.<br /><br />We had in our class male parisioners who hate reading, who haven't been inside a classroom in years. I think programs like these tend to draw women more, who like to read and talk. <br /><br />But the men came; they realized that PVW was organizing a program which could benefit them, helping them improve their competence, more firmly establish their leadership in the community, and help as they work with their wives in being spiritual leaders in their households. <br /><br />I presented this programming as a "family affair," something to contribute towards nurturing their family life.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312159882790612546.post-53495560711833429132012-05-13T04:17:39.055-07:002012-05-13T04:17:39.055-07:00@ Bellita,
"Remember the little girl who to...@ Bellita,<br /><br /><i> "Remember the little girl who took your purse at Mass? ;) I asked you how many quiet, well-behaved children were in the same sanctuary at the same time, and you couldn't answer, could you? Hahahaha! It's very much like that." </i> <br /><br />So true... Your point is well taken!<br />:-)<br /><br /><br /><br />@ PVW,<br /><br /><i> "These types of men are not seen as undesirable; more often than not, they are the happily married men, whether lay or ordained, who are snapped up off the dating market, because women notice and they want to be snapped up!" </i> <br /><br />Interesting!<br /><br />Never thought of it like that before...<br />So there has to be another factor that beta-ises these men, not just Christianity per se. But the way Christianity has been hijacked by feminism (and now renamed 'Churchianity' by Dalrock's folks), leaving the very same men who might have found comfort in it whacked in the face at the door of the church.<br /><br />Some recover quickly=snapped up into happy marriages with good Christian girls.<br />Some take longer.<br />Some never recover and are the type of men who remain the church 'beta' and whose only salvation so to speak is actually to <i> leave </i> The Church?<br />Is this what OTC was hinting at?<br /><br /><br />Is this a good summary of what you say, PVW?<br />Or have I got it horribly wrong?Spacetravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02202131232540121117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312159882790612546.post-28125650512180020892012-05-13T03:30:53.426-07:002012-05-13T03:30:53.426-07:00that was just me, pvwthat was just me, pvwAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312159882790612546.post-40088116386796155752012-05-13T03:30:06.547-07:002012-05-13T03:30:06.547-07:00Bellita:
OTC's point that church is very &quo...Bellita:<br /><br />OTC's point that church is very "betasizing" to men. In that case, even if the pastors got the majority of their men and women not to engage in premarital sex, the catch would be that the women might not find those men attractive! Calling out the men might just make the problem worse. <br /><br />But I do think the problem has more roots than just the one the churches seem to be feeding. I don't think a man's ability to get premarital sex would have the inflated value it does now if society hadn't become so darn comfortable and lost so many of the traditional dangers and hardships that used to separate the men from the boys.<br /><br />Spacetraveler:<br /><br />I hope you are wrong that a woman who was once married but who had a genuine reason to part ways with her husband is judged in the same manner as a woman who never married but had a collection of kids with many different men. That cannot be the case, even for The Manosphere. I think where they appear to be harsh with divorced women, this is very much directed at those who divorced for frivolous reasons, of which there are many, and rising in numbers in today's MMP.<br /><br />My reply:<br /><br />But it is easy to see why someone might take that perspective. Nothing in their responses over there were nuanced and so...what are we left to say?<br /><br />My reply:<br /><br />I think that post had some commentators noting that men in church seem to be "fags and pansies," totally unappealing to women and seen as inferior by other men. <br /><br />On the other hand, I don't see all of the men in church like that. Instead, I'm seeing something akin to an earlier movement in American Protestantism, "muscular Christianity," at an earlier time when Protestant theologians were concerned that young men in church were becoming pansified mama's boys. <br /><br />These men embody an ideal they are teaching their sons. Boys should be raised to become godly men of leadership, ie., athletic, accomplished in traditional male fields, clearly heterosexual. <br /><br />These types of men are not seen as undesirable; more often than not, they are the happily married men, whether lay or ordained, who are snapped up off the dating market, because women notice and they want to be snapped up! They take pride in being married men with families undertaking leadership roles in the community.<br /><br />At the confirmation/reception programming yesterday, I saw men who are in one group or the other, so it is a mixed bag.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312159882790612546.post-10597650085065800062012-05-13T01:27:36.012-07:002012-05-13T01:27:36.012-07:00@ST
Which makes them attract more attention?
Re...@ST <br /><i>Which makes them attract more attention?</i> <br /><br />Remember the little girl who took your purse at Mass? ;) I asked you how many quiet, well-behaved children were in the same sanctuary at the same time, and you couldn't answer, could you? Hahahaha! It's very much like that. <br /><br />@PVW <br /><i>I did find an aspect of the discussion interesting in the post you referenced, that modern American Christianity has had to deal with more and more people having no problem with premarital sex; can any pastor reasonably call out women for it? </i> <br /><br />I was going to ask, "Why just the women? Why not both sexes?" (because it does take a woman <i>and</i> a man to have sex), and then I read further down your comment . . . <br /><br /><i>Or do they presume women who have premarital sex are only doing so because they are pressured by men to do so or they feel they must to get a man? Can they call out the men? Are the men even there to be called out? </i> <br /><br />It's not just about singles of both sexes wanting to sow their wild oats (so to speak) before getting married, is it? It's a very complex issue, and one that brings us back to OTC's point that church is very "betasizing" to men. In that case, even if the pastors got the majority of their men and women not to engage in premarital sex, the catch would be that the women might not find those men attractive! Calling out the men might just make the problem worse. <br /><br />But I do think the problem has more roots than just the one the churches seem to be feeding. I don't think a man's ability to get premarital sex would have the inflated value it does now if society hadn't become so darn comfortable and lost so many of the traditional dangers and hardships that used to separate the men from the boys. I once read a synopsis of a John Wayne movie in which Wayne's character, who had struggled for many years to establish and run his ranch, refused to leave it to his grown daughter and her fiance, because he wanted them to have the love that can only come from growing together through hard times. (Perhaps he also knew that unless she could watch her husband struggle to provide for their family, she would not appreciate him as much.) <br /><br />Discounting the recent recession for a moment, there has not been much of late to allow a decent, family-oriented man to prove his worth to women--or to teach a young woman what is really worth valuing in a man. Today's suburban bachelor rarely has to defend his home with anything more than an electronic alarm system. He's handicapped even before the churches get to him. And if all he has left to prove himself manly is the racking up of a high premarital sex count (however ridiculous a standard), then imagine what it does to his chances when he agrees with the churches that it is a sin. <br /><br />And I've just realized, PVW, that I missed your point entirely by picking up on OTC's point belatedly! I'm sorry about that and am certain my reply to you will come later in the thread . . . buried in a response to someone else! ;)Bellitanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312159882790612546.post-71331648617236034642012-05-13T00:30:43.119-07:002012-05-13T00:30:43.119-07:00@ Danny,
Maybe that's the solution for me too...@ Danny,<br /><br />Maybe that's the solution for me too - to keep religion out of this blog!<br />If only I could manage that...<br />:-)<br /><br />But seriously, I think you echo JV's (initial) thoughts on Dalrock very well. You could just avoid Dalrock's blog, I think, because you are a man.<br />For us women, sometimes even avoidance doesn't solve the problem!<br /><br />Could Dalock really be described as 'bitter' though? He is a happily married man with children! In many ways, <i> he </i> of all people shouldn't care what goes on in the current SMP. Perhaps he is just in a mentor role...which is a laudable position for an older man to be in.<br />Or perhaps you are referring to the kind of reader/commenter he attracts?<br />In which case, sure, some of those can be exceedingly bitter, yes.<br />Pure venom, I agree.<br /><br /><br />@ PVW,<br /><br /><i> "Or do they presume women who have premarital sex are only doing so because they are pressured by men to do so or they feel they must to get a man?" </i> <br /><br />Yes, of course I have a lot of sympathy for this line of thinking...Of course I do!<br /><br />I am referring however to the repetitive nature of this and the idea that a man should cater for the consequences of this, because it is his <i> duty. </i> When the woman does not see that she is asking for a lot.<br />I think Dalrock's crowd are sensitive to this aspect: the fact that these women are using a twisted form to 'empowered Christianity' to bully them. As JV said, of course a man who doesn't want this type of woman need not get involved with her. But the problem is, this is often hidden from men on first encountering a women, and secondly, it galls them to be asked to take on women like this in the first place. Nevermind that they may not necessarily be 'innocent' in all this...but that's the double standard thing we have all come to understand in life. A man's sexual past is not as damaging as a woman's, unless it is so excessive as to raise major red flags for any woman considering him as a longterm partner. Men are judged other ways, just not in <i> this </i> way.<br /><br />I also think that the good girl who has been led astray by an alpha cad exists. Her attitude is however very different from the recidivous bad girl who is 'not ashamed to say it' to all and sundry, <i> except </i> perhaps the one man who really needs to know.<br />I think even Dalrock's crowd are astute enough to spot the difference.<br />But of course, it is always safer for a woman not to count on this happening.<br /><br />Yes religion is for the broken. We are all broken. I think the more broken, the more religious we can be (hehe).<br />But somehow, misuse of religion to pull the wool over someone else's eyes makes every other relgious person seem a hypocrite. And that's what causes the resentment, because all of a sudden, broken people no longer have their usual haven. For those who choose not to care what other people think about their religion, that's fine. But there are some people who care too much and get into all kinds of emotional turmoil as a result of this kind of insult to their religious pysche.<br />As an example, I had a little taste of this when at a younger age I could not bring myself to sel-identify as a convent girl even in situations where it mattered because it suddenly appeared to be true that convent girls were not exactly the angels they were once believed to be. I was shocked and offended...and long after I got over that my sensibilities about this were still fragile. These days I have tough(er) skin, so most things don't bother me, at least not to that degree. But my point is, had I been more sensitive when I was impressionable, I could have really been needlessly hurt.<br />That's life, I accept that now.<br />But shouldn't we attempt to correct an ill in society when we see it?<br /><br />I love your last paragraph by the way.<br />That's my motto too. At least it should be :-)<br /><br />If I might just add to that: 'Don't make it harder for me to get to said salvation.'Spacetravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02202131232540121117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312159882790612546.post-89514939627434337152012-05-12T19:35:43.714-07:002012-05-12T19:35:43.714-07:00PVW here, oh and something else again, in my denom...PVW here, oh and something else again, in my denomination, we are not big on talking about the conversion experience, that one must express to the world that one has been converted and saved. It is a different theological framework.<br /><br />For me, it reeks of hubris; "are you really know you are saved"? That is why I did not gravitate towards those types of churches when I left Catholicism. <br /><br />I prefer the humble, "I know I'm broken (whether or not I admit it), as to be human means one is broken; I will just work towards salvation and hope I'm saved."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312159882790612546.post-12391016848493891092012-05-12T19:13:19.327-07:002012-05-12T19:13:19.327-07:00Hi,
PVW here. This is interesting; I read the po...Hi,<br /><br />PVW here. This is interesting; I read the post, and it got me thinking.<br /><br />Mainline Protestants don't seem to be big on talking about sin, on some level. Is it that nothing is a sin? Some would argue that is the reason why, because we are heretics!<br /><br />On the other hand, I would argue there is something else going on. <br /><br />In the Episcopal church I attend weekly, it seems to me that people are very bougie in living lives that give the appearance of being upright and upstanding; nothing is apparent in their lifestyle on the surface to prove that they are anything but godly. <br /><br />Am I saying they are hypocrites and living ungodly lives? No, all I'm saying is that there is no reason to believe otherwise. <br /><br />So, there are no single mothers, mostly everyone is married, and no one is howling about they can't be judged for their sinfulness, as nobody seems to be sinful. <br /><br />For example, I was a sponsor today at the diocesan confirmations and receptions for the churches in my cluster--3 clusters, 200+ people (our parish included), children getting confirmed and adults getting confirmed or received (ie. going from Catholic to Episcopalian). <br /><br />A fair number were from the wealthy suburbs, and I could see the "leave it to beaver appearing lifestyle" of those parishioners--mothers and fathers with children.<br /> <br />I did find an aspect of the discussion interesting in the post you referenced, that modern American Christianity has had to deal with more and more people having no problem with premarital sex; can any pastor reasonably call out women for it? <br /><br />Or do they presume women who have premarital sex are only doing so because they are pressured by men to do so or they feel they must to get a man? Can they call out the men? Are the men even there to be called out? <br /><br />And because they so want to avoid women being shamed into abortion, they support single motherhood.<br /><br />But this model only works, as someone mentioned, if we presume all Christian girls who have premarital sex are really "good girls" who have been led astray or been taken advantage of by alpha cads. <br /><br />But the "bad girls" get to hide behind this ideal model as though it is theirs to start off with. Thus, the beta types are pissed off they are left to pick up the mess made by the bad girls and their alpha cads.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312159882790612546.post-54249655893505188552012-05-12T16:20:22.732-07:002012-05-12T16:20:22.732-07:00I'm a practicing Catholic.
I keep religion o...I'm a practicing Catholic. <br /><br />I keep religion out of my blog. But God is a very big part of my life. However, I refuse to let religion validate my actions. I do what I do because I feel it's the right thing to do. I believe what believe because I was taught that and have placed my faith in it. <br /><br />Thank my Mexican/Cajun Catholic mother for that. I stay away from Dal's site btw. I sense bitterness, and well...I've learned something about the sphere being behind the curtain of it. <br /><br />So I avoid a lot a blogs.dannyfrom504https://www.blogger.com/profile/15213546987325424741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312159882790612546.post-58842870997112618832012-05-12T16:16:03.187-07:002012-05-12T16:16:03.187-07:00@ JV,
I know why I believe you are such a good w...@ JV,<br /><br />I know why I believe you are such a good woman!<br />I wanted to commiserate with you about the nasty comments that come your way (and the way of any woman in fact) when I just saw your latest comment.<br /><br />Thank you for taking the time to check Dalrock's blog again.<br />I must confess I don't read every or even most of his posts. But occasionally, something makes me sit up...like the post in question.<br /><br />In return for your good sportsmanship, I will (readily) admit that there are some rather vitriolic comments that seem to emanate from certain quarters of The Manosphere...It seems the tactic is 'shock and awe'. I do not believe however, that women who are really trying are their intended target.<br />It's funny, I just had a similar conversation with Dogsquat today on his post: <br />http://consideredcarefully.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/on-blue-pill-expectations/.<br /><br />He gave an excellent explanation to my 'problem'.<br /><br />@ OTC,<br /><br />I agree with you that Christian and non-Christian women are not intrinsically different.<br />But Christian women should perhaps show a better example. I include myself here of course.<br />Dishonesty is bad enough. When there is a religious spin to it, everything looks worse.<br /><br /><i> "You see, they lay out a bunch of rules, and if you are so stupid as to actually follow them, you're a sexual loser." </i> <br /><br />OTC, I am intrigued by your term 'sexual loser'. Do you mean that if you follow Christian rules, you don't get sex? Is this really a man's reality? I honestly would like your perspective on this.<br />Or do you mean that with 'Christian' rules a man can't get his usual dose of <i> extra </i>marital sex? In which case is this a massive problem? Dalrock's friends are all over the place denouncing women who have extramarital sex. Given that not all women do, and men say they want a woman with a low partner count, should not (true) Christianity be embraced by The Manosphere?<br /><br />Care to explain further?<br />Are you helping to make JV's point above?<br /><br />Or are you getting stuck with the dishonesty of Christianity which promises 'clean' women for good Christian men for them to discover they are saddled with 'born again virgins'?<br />Is this an irrational fear that men have, or is it a frequent reality? It would be great if you could elaborate further, to clear up the confusion I have about this.<br /><br />@ Bell,<br />As usual, well-argued points.<br />I agree with you that the dishonest Christians are in the minority. That <i> has </i> to be statistical reality, right?<br />However, why does it feel so much like the dishonest ones are so jolly ubiquitous? Which makes them attract more attention?<br />Is this simply a function of their character that they <i> do </i> attract more attention than those quietly going about their daily routine?<br /><br />In which case you would be right about OTC's apex fallacy.<br /><br />But...are we both wrong in making this assumption? I am starting to wonder...Spacetravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02202131232540121117noreply@blogger.com