Was called a mean bitch the other day just because I have high standards.

[denise_xo]

It's funny how this is exactly what some feminists wanted and now that they have it they are unhappy. It is it any wonder why men these days feel so confused?

 

I think they're two (and more) different groups of women - it's not the feminists who are complaining. As someone who has always supported equality between genders I'm happily enjoying those benefits every day. It would never in a million light years occur to me to expect a man to pay for a date, or, our life together.

[denise_xo]

I think feminism has been taken way too far in the US.

 

And I'm a woman saying this.

 

How do you define feminism? What part of it has been taken too far? Is there any part of it that you agree with?

[Woggle]

How do you define feminism? What part of it has been taken too far? Is there any part of it that you agree with?

 

I agree with the main goals of the feminist movement and I fully support equality but it can't be denied that some elements that we have today are just outright anti-male. I can't support something that is against me.

 

I also have no issue with chivalry but nobody should be feel entitled to it because of their gender. They are just as bad as men who think women were put on earth to wait on them hand and foot.

[denise_xo]

I agree with the main goals of the feminist movement and I fully support equality but it can't be denied that some elements that we have today are just outright anti-male. I can't support something that is against me.

 

I also have no issue with chivalry but nobody should be feel entitled to it because of their gender. They are just as bad as men who think women were put on earth to wait on them hand and foot.

 

Oh, I fully agree with you. I think it's obvious that feminism, just like any other social movement, has made several mistakes in addition to everything it has accomplished. But when people come with the blanket statement that 'feminism has gone too far', I always get curious what they actually mean. What worries me, for example, are those women of the young generation who appear to take their rights completely for granted and not realise it's the result of their mothers and grandmothers working bloody hard to get there, or the sentiments of the poster in this thread who said that she doesn't care about the right to vote or equal pay.

[Woggle]

I actually think those elements hurt things because feminists would have a whole lot more support if it didn't have such a bad image because of this. I said in another thread that they are to feminism what the religious right is to christianity and what the jihadists are to islam.

[denise_xo]

I actually think those elements hurt things because feminists would have a whole lot more support if it didn't have such a bad image because of this. I said in another thread that they are to feminism what the religious right is to christianity and what the jihadists are to islam.

 

That's right on, I agree.

[LittleTiger]

EXACTLY! And how can a man support an attitude or approach like that if they don't have money?

 

THANK YOU. Finally someone smart enough to get it.

 

Thanks for the compliment but I don't think we're actually in agreement here.

 

When I said it's the attitude not the money, that's exactly what I meant.

 

My man is a gentleman and he manages to support exactly the kind of attitude and approach that I'm attracted to without having a lot of money.

 

You don't need any money to open doors for a lady or give her a hand with the shopping and you don't need much money to treat her to a nice dinner or a small bunch of flowers on special occasions (a couple of times a year) or even to buy her something extra special once in a blue moon that you've worked hours of overtime to afford.

 

I do things for him in return that also don't require a lot of money and I too will save up to buy him something special for his birthday so that he feels as loved and appreciated as I do - as unwealthy as we both are!

 

You don't need money to be a gentleman ......... and you don't need a man with money to make you feel like a lady.

[Disenchantedly Yours]

'Every story' does not lead back to that one...

 

Like most religious texts, the human beings that wrote them sought to describe a state of being that was appropriate to their time... or made sense for their particular social condition. If the one in the Bible speaks to you, that's fine.

 

The universal truths amongst many or most religions have zero to do with gender. None.

 

Some even have female 'gods'... and not all of them are 'nicey-nice' tenders of hearth and home either.

 

Stating that female 'gods" where not 'nicey-nice' tenders of hearth and home does nothing to prove that religious texts are genderless. Some I am still at a loss for what you're trying to say.

 

I can't speak for other religions but through the Bible, gender plays a key role. And the Bible doesn't exactly teach that a woman should be "nicey-nice" and tender and meek all of her days to be a woman. Ester risked her life for her people. She was both cunning and fierce. As was Abiligal who saved her family. Of course, then there are the women that were not "nicey-nice" but where quite currupt, such as Jezebel. Men and women have clear stories and skills/gifts in the Bible that cetainly differentiate them from each other.

 

A discussion about religion is always interesting to say the least!

[phineas]

FS, maybe your standards are not true to who you really are, anyway.

 

Not many people really like deadbeats - but WHY give up your work, which you say is the most important thing in your life, in order to cook, clean, and give lingerie shows to a man in return for his financial support?

 

It really sounds like your values are all confused, and you might want to reevaluate some things.

 

For the record, the USA is full of great men and women, many of whom are fantastic at cooking and all kinds of things you claim here they can't do.

 

I knew a guy who managed strippers.

They have the EXACT same mentality.

 

They do what they do to live very well but all they really want is to find a rich guy to take care of them.

 

My buddy stupidly got engaged to a girl he met at a strip club. She stopped stripping when they got serious, but she dropped him hard when she met a guy with more money.

 

In fact, I play cards once in a while with a couple of ballers. (friendly game with a set buy in) They all know who she is & what she's about (along with a few others in the area) and they just pass these women around like their prostitutes & compare kinky sex stories.

[phineas]

Stating that female 'gods" where not 'nicey-nice' tenders of hearth and home does nothing to prove that religious texts are genderless. Some I am still at a loss for what you're trying to say.

 

I can't speak for other religions but through the Bible, gender plays a key role. And the Bible doesn't exactly teach that a woman should be "nicey-nice" and tender and meek all of her days to be a woman. Ester risked her life for her people. She was both cunning and fierce. As was Abiligal who saved her family. Of course, then there are the women that were not "nicey-nice" but where quite currupt, such as Jezebel. Men and women have clear stories and skills/gifts in the Bible that cetainly differentiate them from each other.

 

A discussion about religion is always interesting to say the least!

 

I have a problem with the way religious texts are viewed today in general.

When they were written women were basically treated like property in that region of the world.

For the most part, they still are.

 

Totally different mind-set back then by the men who wrote them.

[Disenchantedly Yours]

OnyxSnowFall

God states he created everything --- good AND evil.

 

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

 

Yes, and he also said:

 

Gen 1:31 And God saw all that he had made, and behold, it was very good.

 

Timothy 4:4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving.

 

Now lets go back to what you originally claimed: “They *were* perhaps the two stupidest humans to have ever been created...”

 

You are in essence claiming that God is stupid, yes or no? That there was a flaw in his plan perhaps even. Yes or no to both questions? Which goes against everything we know of the Bible.

 

Isaiah 45:7 has been a long discussed verse. And it’s a deeply philosophical one that I even don’t fully understand. I’m not going to sit here and pretend that I have an answer for everything because I don’t. If I did, I wouldn't have faith either I guess. But I do know that what God created was good, that God makes no mistakes, and that God is not stupid.

 

I’ve heard some people say that Evil is the absence of good in the world, that it is not as neat and tidy as it being the polar opposite of Good despite the fact that Evil is just that, Evil. It’s possible and it’s a big thing to wrap one’s head around and I’m still trying to sort this one out on my own.

 

I do know this though, by making good or peace in the world, God also creates a space or opportunity for the absence of good in the world. What God creates is free will. The free will humans live by that give them the choice to choose to follow God's word or not. God could have created and entire race that mindlessly followed him. But we all know that wouldn’t beget real love. We all know that old saying “if you love something set it free”. And what God most desires in a real loving relationship with his creation. But it only means something if his creation chooses to love him back. And for the opportunity to have choice, there needed to be free will. And with Adam’s and Eve’s free will, they sinned. They created a space of absence of good. If they never had sinned, they never would have known evil. God didn’t create stupidity for the sake of it. Neither is he stupid himself. Neither does he make mistakes. However, he gives his creation the opportunity for free will so that *choose* him. Otherwise, it is meaningless to have something follow you if they are doing so because of having no other thoughts of anything else.

 

 

Proverbs 16:4

The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

 

In this proverb, it talks about how God will use both good and evil for his greater purpose. Since Adam and Eve sinned, and there is now Evil in the world, God has the ability to use both Good and Evil for his master plan. To bring people closer to him that ultimately leads to the greater good. Such as with Christ dying on the cross. He used Evil for the greater good for all. I know in my own life, the things I struggled with the most turned to be the things that pushed me closer to God.

 

 

Also, within Christianity,

I am claiming that God is too awesome to be able to relate to humans --- OF course we are inferior to Him.

 

Our inferiority does not block us from relating to God and God relating to us.

 

Shows me the Bible verse that says God is too awesome to relate to humans. This exactly goes against everything the Bible stands for. Which is God’s testament to his love for his creation and the desire he has for a relationship with his creation. Yes, humans are inferior to God, but God created man and woman in his image so that we could relate to him and try to live our lives to be closer to him. The whole idea on God is he wants a relationship with us. And a relationship is a two way street meaning both parties do infact relate to each other. If he didn’t want us to try and relate to him and for himself to relate to us, he wouldn’t have given people the 10 commandments that show how to live up to our potential. And there wouldn’t be such verses as:

 

Zephaniah 3:17 The LORD your God is with you, he is mighty to save. He will take great delight in you, he will quiet you with his love, he will rejoice over you with singing

 

Deuteronomy 33:27 The eternal God is your refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms. He will drive out your enemy before you, saying, 'Destroy him!

 

In the earlier days, people sacrificed things to God to quell His wrath and disappointments etc...

 

I am unfamilar with stories that show people sacrificing “things” to God to “quell his wrath and disappointments”. If you have such a story on hand, please share. I am familiar with people in the Bible being asked to make sacrifices though. Such as when God tested Abraham and asked him to sacrifice his son. Since Abraham was willing to do anything God asked, God spared his son.

 

in the end, I think he threw up his arms (not literally mind you) and accepted that humans are just sad, pitiful dumb creatures.

 

I couldn't disagree more. You’re a fan of quoting the Bible when you think it suits your own purposes by taking quotes what I think our out of context but then you ignore the ones that so obviously go against your other claims:

 

Psalm 130:7 – … put your hope in the LORD, for with the LORD is unfailing love and with him is full redemption.

 

Psalm 33:5 – The LORD loves righteousness and justice; the earth is full of his unfailing love

 

Psalm 107:15 – Let them give thanks to the LORD for his unfailing love and his wonderful deeds for men..

 

There are so many Bible verses on God’s unfailing love. The whole Bible goes against the idea that God has thrown up his hands.

 

 

But only blood (for whatever reasons, I doubt we humans could fathom it) could truly mend His predicament --- hence, Jesus. Yes, Jesus "sacrificed" himself ... "the blood of the lamb"... because humans are too stupid to stop themselves from becoming wayward... from being enticed by this and that and this and that, by taking God and life for granted, by being greedy, by disobeying Him, by being faithless --- and even despite the times God was present and seeing people through arduous times, etc etc etc etc etc.

 

I agree that there are some things we just can't fathom as humans. But it was because Jesus embodied the spirit of God on a level people didn't, that his sacrifice was so crucial. Jesus showed us that a regular man can live in God's word despite sin and temptation. And Jesus experience temptation just like everyone else. He also experience a mix of emotion and broke down to God before he was to die on the cross. He was human but he showed us that even though we are human, we can still relate to God.

 

God sacrificed Jesus. To show his love for the world. Jesus trusted in God’s plan. Jesus didn't sacrifice himself for the sake of it. That was God's doing.

 

To me, it is stupid to go against God. It is stupid to allow desire to overcome you. Inevitable? It seems to be the case... while it can be minimized... humans do seem to be "designed" to "sin".

 

Humans are designed for free will. Even in human sin, God creates the opportunity to have a closer relationship with him. All is not lost just because humans sin. The world as it is now isn't perfect. But everything God does is because his purpose is till fullfill a bigger plan, not just the things we see here on earth.

 

Apparently we simply have different definitions of stupidity. I don't mind admitting I'm stupid (especially at times, and especially relatively speaking... when compared to a far more potent and enlightened Being than myself. Humans are... mostly animals )

 

Yes it does seem like we do have different ideas of stupidity. But I disagree with the idea that human stupidity is okay because we are "animals". We were created with greater knowledge and forsight then other animals be. Not so we could justify the worse things we do on the back of being "animals". But I appreciate the discussion and debate. Thanks for the conversation Oxy.

[Disenchantedly Yours]

No my point is rather that I repeatedly see, especially here on LS, people generalise to ALL men and ALL women based on their personal life experience, which I find to be a very flawed premise. I don't disagree that some people experience life as you see it. But I object to being generalised and defined by other people's life experiences along the lines of 'I have met so many women who are cheaters so therefore the vast majority of them are cheaters and liars', or 'all women struggle with issues of control and think they know best'. I don't see what I 'left out' here. The point is exactly that it was based on your personal experience, and you generalise that claim to an extent which I think is completely unreasonable when you use language such as "In general, men struggle with... women struggle with..." or "if you get to the fundamentals, you see that all stories lead back to that one".

 

So because you don't agree with my own conclusions about the world, I am not allowed to share them but you are allowed to share yours and your opinion about generalisations? That makes no sense!

 

We are all allowed to express what we think. Men and women do fall into stereotypical behaviors a good chunk of the time. We can't sit here all day discussing every varible of "i'm not like that" if we want to discuss basic issues generally. Which is where a lt of these conversations lead because in reality, they have to. Otherwise nothing would ever get discussed and explored on the back of "this sector of people isn't like that so we can't discuss the sector of people that are." To me, this is like an extreme case of political correctness.

[Disenchantedly Yours]

I knew a guy who managed strippers.

They have the EXACT same mentality.

 

They do what they do to live very well but all they really want is to find a rich guy to take care of them.

 

My buddy stupidly got engaged to a girl he met at a strip club. She stopped stripping when they got serious, but she dropped him hard when she met a guy with more money.

 

In fact, I play cards once in a while with a couple of ballers. (friendly game with a set buy in) They all know who she is & what she's about (along with a few others in the area) and they just pass these women around like their prostitutes & compare kinky sex stories.

 

 

Naturally, these men that pass these women around are "better" people then said women. Is that not your implication? That these women deserve what they get and yet your friends, who are using women are really good guys? On top of using said women, they got some kinky sex stories to exploit so it doubly alright to use these women while maintaing the facade that these men are "better" people for it . It's this kind of stuff that fosters bitterness between men and women. Putting in cheeky little "lmao" faces while regaling a tale of both men and women behaving badly but somehow acting as if the women are deserving of what they get while these men are stellar is perposterous and misogonistic.

[Disenchantedly Yours]

I have a problem with the way religious texts are viewed today in general.

When they were written women were basically treated like property in that region of the world.

For the most part, they still are.

 

Totally different mind-set back then by the men who wrote them.

 

There certainly is a male dominated theme with religious texts but within the Bible, men and women are equal. they just have very clear and different gender roles but one doesn't make the other better. I don't think clear gender roles are bad things but in today's world, we've become so gender sensitive that we are closely leaning to a genderless society where you're not allowed to celebrate your differences and that scares me.

 

Also, alot of verses in religious texts are often misinterperted to suit a personal desire rather then a religious truth. Alot of currupt men have twisted the religious word to suit their own purpose, not God's. The Catholic Church based it's power on some very currupt behavior. That doesn't mean you stop believing in the Bible or God if that's what you choose to believe in. People, even obviously in the relgious sector, can be just as currupt. And others can be very good.

[denise_xo]

So because you don't agree with my own conclusions about the world, I am not allowed to share them but you are allowed to share yours and your opinion about generalisations? That makes no sense!

 

We are all allowed to express what we think. Men and women do fall into stereotypical behaviors a good chunk of the time. We can't sit here all day discussing every varible of "i'm not like that" if we want to discuss basic issues generally. Which is where a lt of these conversations lead because in reality, they have to. Otherwise nothing would ever get discussed and explored on the back of "this sector of people isn't like that so we can't discuss the sector of people that are." To me, this is like an extreme case of political correctness.

 

I have never said that you are not allowed to share whatever you want. What I have said, is that I react strongly to people who want to make sweeping generalisations based on limited foundations. That has nothing to do with political correctness, it has to do with fundamental questions about what kind of debates we want to have about society and what they should be based on.

 

Variables are VERY important to discuss, in my opinion, just like statistical aggregates can be extremely interesting and important, too. But with all kinds of knowledge, we have to be very careful with what conclusions we draw out of them, and how broadly we generalise them. Faulty generalisations have historically accounted for a lot of racism, for example, as well as a lot of suppression of women. This isn't a trivial issue of political correctness, it is a deeply political question about who is allowed to define groups of people and on what basis, sometimes with very real life implications for how people are allowed to live their lives.

Edited October 9, 2011 by denise_xo
typo

[Disenchantedly Yours]

Actually Denise, it does appear to me that you suggesting that people were not allowed to talk about their life experiences because they might not be yours or other peoples. Because you don’t believe they hold weight or value in comparison to *your* life. My life experience and my ability to talk about it would never define who you are. Nothing I can say does that. Implying that it does, does infact appear to be the root of having to follow some pc nonsens. Further, you seem to imply that the only way social issues can be discussed is through data and statistics and “variables” in a way *you* personally define as a good enough variable. When I think a more realistic idea is that each person on this board holds the views they hold because of an accumulation of personal experience that’s made them who they are in combination with the facts that support our own beliefs. Whether that’s talked about in generalizations or key variables are picked out for a a specific discussion. Not every comment you make yourself goes back to some statistical fact and variable. And it would be absurd to say it should. Infact, the conversation we are having right now is all in generalities. Even your reference to suppression of women and racism are general examples that have no real specific point of reference picked out. Who gets to define what a good enough “variable” is within a conversation to make it acceptable enough to discuss. You?

 

Some good discussions have occurred on this board that were general issues faced between men and women within relationships. Such as the whole “who pays” debate which was a discussion about who pays. We could get into more specific variables such as in this very post of FrustratedStandard’s that specifically talk about her specific experience. Both hold value and opportunity for good conversation.

 

Lastly, you talk about facts and variables and that being the case, if someone doesn’t say “all”, you don’t get to assume they mean “all” either. Even when they speak in general terms. if you have a question about their meaning, then ask.

[denise_xo]

Actually Denise, it does appear to me that you suggesting that people were not allowed to talk about their life experiences because they might not be yours or other peoples. Because you don’t believe they hold weight or value in comparison to *your* life. My life experience and my ability to talk about it would never define who you are. Nothing I can say does that. Implying that it does, does infact appear to be the root of having to follow some pc nonsens. Further, you seem to imply that the only way social issues can be discussed is through data and statistics and “variables” in a way *you* personally define as a good enough variable. When I think a more realistic idea is that each person on this board holds the views they hold because of an accumulation of personal experience that’s made them who they are in combination with the facts that support our own beliefs. Whether that’s talked about in generalizations or key variables are picked out for a a specific discussion. Not every comment you make yourself goes back to some statistical fact and variable. And it would be absurd to say it should. Infact, the conversation we are having right now is all in generalities. Even your reference to suppression of women and racism are general examples that have no real specific point of reference picked out. Who gets to define what a good enough “variable” is within a conversation to make it acceptable enough to discuss. You?

 

Some good discussions have occurred on this board that were general issues faced between men and women within relationships. Such as the whole “who pays” debate which was a discussion about who pays. We could get into more specific variables such as in this very post of FrustratedStandard’s that specifically talk about her specific experience. Both hold value and opportunity for good conversation.

 

Lastly, you talk about facts and variables and that being the case, if someone doesn’t say “all”, you don’t get to assume they mean “all” either. Even when they speak in general terms. if you have a question about their meaning, then ask.

 

Where exactly have I said that people can't talk about their life experiences?

 

The only things my posts have implied is that we should be careful making generalisations to ALL men/ women/ blacks whatever. When I first started making that point, in was in reaction to a poster who specifically make sweeping generalisations to all genders.

 

I have never claimed that my comments go back to a statistical variable - where on earth have I said that?

 

As to what is a 'good enough' basis for making generalisations, I personally think it's very healthy to have ongoing discussions about that questions. Different kinds of knowledge might be suited for different kinds of questions. I stand by the claim that personal life experiences often are not a good basis for making sweeping generalisations about genders or groups of people. There is also a lot of bogus 'science' making sweeping generalisations that do not hold in reality. Some of the generalisations that have been raised over history, based on both personal experiences and bogus science, include:

 

"All Jews have crooked noses".

"All blacks are intellectually inferior to whites".

"Women are not fit for leadership positions because they are too emotional".

... and the list could go on.

 

This is why I think unfounded generalisations are dangerous and should be questioned. Anyone is more than welcome to question any generalisations I may have made.

 

As for my claim in my previous post about suppression of women and racism, you can look at the following:

- the history of feminism and how women were not allowed to do various things that men were allowed to do purely based on their gender and qualities assigned to that gender (for example vote, participate in sports competitions, or take up leadership positions)

- in terms of racism, the history of European colonialism as well as the history of slavery should provide plenty of examples of generalisations made about particular groups of people that have later been proven false.

There is plenty of evidence in both cases that categorisation and generalisation can be very powerful. I don't see anything 'politically correct' in highlighting that this is an important historical-political dynamic.

Edited October 9, 2011 by denise_xo

[Ojitos]

I was on a date last night with this guy. We began talking about relationships and what we look for in a mate. Since we were being open and honest, I told him I wanted a man without kids, and one who can support me financially.

 

He called me a mean bitch and said that I am shallow for not considering a man who perhaps isn't wealthy, but has "lots of love". He said I only want a man for money. His best argument was "Men with money don't know how to love women. They just buy them diamonds and expensive things and think that's enough". He said that men without money are the better kind, because they aren't shallow.

 

I'm beginning to think that the only reason I ever questioned my standards was because every man I have ever met didn't meet them.

 

Why does every guy think that if a woman wants a man with money, that she ONLY wants the money and nothing else?

 

Well, If a woman can't already support herself on her own and do fairly well then I don't even bother to date her. I'm not into subsidizing, nor as a nurse do I make the $$$ to not have girlfriend or wife who makes peanuts or wants to stay at home as a mom indefinitely. Just not going to happen.

Why would a guy want this kind of arrangement ? A man can elsewhere in the world and get what you are offering for a lot less money and get treated a lot better.

Just curious, How much money does a guy have to make to make you "interested"

[ThsAmericanLife]

Stating that female 'gods" where not 'nicey-nice' tenders of hearth and home does nothing to prove that religious texts are genderless. Some I am still at a loss for what you're trying to say.

 

I can't speak for other religions but through the Bible, gender plays a key role. And the Bible doesn't exactly teach that a woman should be "nicey-nice" and tender and meek all of her days to be a woman. Ester risked her life for her people. She was both cunning and fierce. As was Abiligal who saved her family. Of course, then there are the women that were not "nicey-nice" but where quite currupt, such as Jezebel. Men and women have clear stories and skills/gifts in the Bible that cetainly differentiate them from each other.

 

A discussion about religion is always interesting to say the least!

 

I'm not debating whether religious texts were genderless. They certainly weren't.

 

I'm debating a cookie-cutter definition of femininity/masculinity that you seemed to be promoting via your chosen religious text.

[ThsAmericanLife]

I knew a guy who managed strippers.

They have the EXACT same mentality.

 

They do what they do to live very well but all they really want is to find a rich guy to take care of them.

 

My buddy stupidly got engaged to a girl he met at a strip club. She stopped stripping when they got serious, but she dropped him hard when she met a guy with more money.

 

In fact, I play cards once in a while with a couple of ballers. (friendly game with a set buy in) They all know who she is & what she's about (along with a few others in the area) and they just pass these women around like their prostitutes & compare kinky sex stories.

 

I'm finding it hard to discern who is the 'winner' and 'loser' in this little game...

 

Both sound rather pathetic....

[OnyxSnowfall]

Yes, and he also said:

 

Gen 1:31 And God saw all that he had made, and behold, it was very good.

 

Timothy 4:4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving.

 

It *was* very good :x --- or, perhaps He was also defining "good" as both "dark" and "light"... in essence, He was acknowledging the importance of "evil" and all that it can encompass -- if not just to cause him to shine in contrast to it.

 

However, if stupidity certainly exists, it is also something God created, presuming He created all things. That does not mean it is an extension of Himself! It could be, but it does not insist such. I do not find God to be stupid. I have at times pondered whether or not He is sadistic (much like plenty of people likely have), but never stupid.

 

And beyond stupidity... there is the capacity for people to feel anguish and to endure great suffering and to inflict such things upon themselves and others. God also then created ugliness... that's not to state He is ugly, for He also created beauty. Is He both? Perhaps, or perhaps neither...

 

Which brings us to:

 

You are in essence claiming that God is stupid, yes or no? That there was a flaw in his plan perhaps even. Yes or no to both questions? Which goes against everything we know of the Bible.

 

I still do not know where you get that because I believe God has created humans which are, especially relatively speaking, stupid in my eyes --- that implies He is somehow stupid.

 

Another way of trying to look at it is: Have you produced something with opposite results? Certainly this is different than "creating" a life form, but I have produced both ugly and beautiful paintings --- neither can independently define me. Even if I could only create nasty ones... that could simply mean I am a terrible painter, not necessarily a terrible _writer_musician_enter whatever else here.

 

So God created humans, but I don't see how the results could ever accurately define Him. In comparison to Him, humans are stupid. Ignorance was likely better for us, for we are so stupid, we continue to seek knowledge at our own expense, indeed (what about those scientists attempting to create black holes on Earth?! Lol!) Ironic? I think so...

 

I can see "intelligence" in His works i.e, blatantly intended and intricately functional designs --- in several life forms. Even inanimate ones. Even the human is sewn together with intelligence --- that does not mean that I find the ways in which humans use or do not even use, their life and gifts as true to what they are. We seem to have so much at our disposal, so much that is accessible to us, and yet we know not what to do with it all... we in fact perverse so much of it, I don't even know where to begin.

 

God created more than just humans too --- it would not only be narcissistic to imply that because God created humans who are inferior to him that He is indeed inferior Himself but... in the face of other creations, it would indeed just be "stupid" to claim something like that... I don't know if God has ever created something that is equal to him or better --- or even that He is capable of such. Generally, when I think of "God" (and my definition does not fall into modern Christianity), I tend to envision a very lonely Being... maybe He splattered Himself and we each hold a piece of Him, and when we die we do recede into one larger source or --- maybe God indeed has flaws and we are manifestations of His desire to work them through or --- who really knows?

 

Stupidity could be an aspect to God, but it may not be a part of Him at all.

 

I’ve heard some people say that Evil is the absence of good in the world, that it is not as neat and tidy as it being the polar opposite of Good despite the fact that Evil is just that, Evil. It’s possible and it’s a big thing to wrap one’s head around and I’m still trying to sort this one out on my own.

 

Just as though "cold" is the absence of heat (motion... many things can affect motion --- people can't help but attempt to define and label things).

 

Or darkness is the absence of "light" --- but as far as light goes, that does not explain black holes nor dark matter. IN fact, things can exist where nothing seems to.

 

I personally do not accept the theory that "evil" is the absence of "good" --- good could mean God, or it could simply mean love. I do see the merit in it, but I also believe that a human's senses are deceiving and a human's mind is prone to trying to make desperate sense of the things around it... beliefs are very often lies... it's always perplexed me that beliefs are more powerful than truth too. I'm wary of formulating beliefs, though not immune to them, for better or worse.

 

There are forms of light that the human eye cannot see (among other things). Plenty of other forces cannot be seen and or truly felt either (gravity?! attraction?!) --- but yet, we have come to acknowledge them. There's likely so much more to be (re)discovered. The "absence" of something may just cause a reaction to something else... something that does indeed exist. There is still a presence that is not there, but perhaps other things are reacting to its leave--- why does it have to be the "empty space" it has left behind?

 

I do know this though, by making good or peace in the world, God also creates a space or opportunity for the absence of good in the world. What God creates is free will.

 

Free will is something that is heavily debatable. I certainly think that choice makes something more meaningful --- but choices are often sought out of dreary and selfish places. Making it, yes, more meaningful when they come from a far more admirable and loving place.

 

Still, some things are just about probability --- some people are born into horrible environments and do not receive nourishment or support but somehow survive --- what kind of choices do you think these people are going to make later on? What "chances" do they stand at being a "good" person?

 

To me, the concept of free will is one within limitations... and I'm not even sure if everyone truly has much to work with. I don't like making excuses and I believe in accountability, but I have learned over the years that others don't always have the same advantages I do and that I cannot rightfully presume they could have "helped" something (and vice versa). Even if it's believing in something I can't...

 

Some people are brought up to believe in "aliens"/multiple Gods or brought up to extol "sins". I can't believe in a God who would punish people when the odds are utterly against them... at the same time, one is supposed to have "faith" that He will judge their hearts accordingly.

 

If modern Christianity turns out to be the truth, I think some of the most abominable people will be forgiven, and that some people may be unable to forgive them... or forgive perhaps even God for forgiving them... and that THOSE people, the ones who fanatically stood by Him in life -- who went without, who sacrificed, who turned their cheeks --- will be many of the ones who will not embrace Him later on. How will they... when someone who raped and murdered their loved ones, who openly despised their values etc --- is warmly accepted just the same?

 

Choosing to believe in the Christian God entails far more than pretending to believe --- one has to really love Him, and in that love, they forgive... most self-proclaimed "Christians", in my experience, are incapable of forgiving --- let alone refraining from judging harshly.

 

Shows me the Bible verse that says God is too awesome to relate to humans.

 

The verse? The entire bible is littered in it. Besides, I do not believe the "image" He created humans in has anything to do with mental faculties. Emotional? Perhaps... but I don't think God is very similar to humans. It is okay if you do, but I simply cannot.

 

I do agree God can be a refuge, though.

 

I am unfamilar with stories that show people sacrificing “things” to God to “quell his wrath and disappointments”. If you have such a story on hand, please share. I am familiar with people in the Bible being asked to make sacrifices though. Such as when God tested Abraham and asked him to sacrifice his son. Since Abraham was willing to do anything God asked, God spared his son.

 

Be enlightened then:

 

Leviticus 17:14

"For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said to the children of Israel, You shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whoever eats it shall be cut off."

 

Hebrews 13:11

"For the bodies of those animals, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned outside the camp."

 

Hebrews 10:3-4

 

"But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year."

 

Leviticus 16:27

"The bull and the goat for the sin offerings, whose blood was brought into the Most Holy Place to make atonement, must be taken outside the camp; their hides, flesh and offal are to be burned up."

 

There is something, I've noticed anyway, intimate about blood. Jesus's blood was intended to "cleanse" ours... if God wasn't angry and disappointed, why did He demand sacrifices? Why did Jesus need to sacrifice himself? If God was so "pleased" with us all the time, I guess it was just all for fun and amusement? God also LIKED the animals He created... but yet, people were told to kill them and burn them etc? Hmm... and the animals were not even sinning?

 

I couldn't disagree more. You’re a fan of quoting the Bible when you think it suits your own purposes by taking quotes what I think our out of context but then you ignore the ones that so obviously go against your other claims:

 

I didn't write the bible, the contradictions are not my doing ;)

 

Yes it does seem like we do have different ideas of stupidity. But I disagree with the idea that human stupidity is okay because we are "animals". We were created with greater knowledge and forsight then other animals be.

 

We do have a greater knowledge than other animals, but sometimes I think other animals have a better understanding than we do... still, our instincts are more animal-like than divine.

Edited October 10, 2011 by OnyxSnowfall

[TaurusTerp]

Repulsive.

[Disenchantedly Yours]

At this point Denise, I find this conversation with you petty so I'm going to stop arguing with you on things I find a bit ridiculous.

 

 

I'm not debating whether religious texts were genderless. They certainly weren't.

 

I'm debating a cookie-cutter definition of femininity/masculinity that you seemed to be promoting via your chosen religious text.

 

Where did I promote a cookie-cutter idea about men and women? I certainly think that there are common traits that women as a whole are known to showcase. I certainly think that there are common traits that men as a whole are known to showcase. But that doesn't mean I think men and women are only one way. Women can be fierce and strong and men can be vunerable and kind. And actually, there are many examples of both of these in the Bible.

[denise_xo]

I'm finding it hard to discern who is the 'winner' and 'loser' in this little game.

 

Yes, that was my reaction, too.

[FrustratedStandards]

Thanks for the compliment but I don't think we're actually in agreement here.

 

When I said it's the attitude not the money, that's exactly what I meant.

 

My man is a gentleman and he manages to support exactly the kind of attitude and approach that I'm attracted to without having a lot of money.

 

You don't need any money to open doors for a lady or give her a hand with the shopping and you don't need much money to treat her to a nice dinner or a small bunch of flowers on special occasions (a couple of times a year) or even to buy her something extra special once in a blue moon that you've worked hours of overtime to afford.

 

I do things for him in return that also don't require a lot of money and I too will save up to buy him something special for his birthday so that he feels as loved and appreciated as I do - as unwealthy as we both are!

 

You don't need money to be a gentleman ......... and you don't need a man with money to make you feel like a lady.

 

That's what i'm saying though. Some men can't even afford to spend a couple dollars on ONE rose because they don't have enough money. That's why i'm complaining so much. I'm not asking for diamond rings here. And like you said, to save up for a small gift is nice. I haven't ONCE gotten a gift for my birthday. And its my birthday, a small box of chocolates and a handmade card would have sufficed, it's the thought that counts.

 

Their excuse? "I don't have money, I can't get you something nice". Fck man, ONE rose doesn't cost a fortune.

 

I agree with the last part. A man doesn't need money to make a woman feel like a lady, you're right. But I have yet to meet such a man. Maybe thats why I want a man with money, because that's the only time I feel like a lady for their lack of being able to do anything else nice.

 

Hmm....

 

Just curious, How much money does a guy have to make to make you "interested"

 

I've mentioned this in a previous post. At least as much as I make.

 

You can live in the basement with me and my dog.

 

I don't like to downsize. But thanks anyway