And . . . at risk of interrupting the eventual solving of the world's tattoo and piercings issues, I'm still wondering . . . where, my friends, are the flaws in my logic in the ARE WE NOT MULES essay?
(non-friends also welcome to contribute!)
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
ARE WE NOT MULES . . . WE ARE DEVO
- Thread starter Keith Martin
- Start date
-
- Tags
- meat
(non-friends also welcome to contribute!)
Oh, @Keith Martin.
Only reason for any jewelry on woman's hand is to show it to her friends. Look, a man has bought me this. Someone wants me very much.
Being object of male desire is goal of any woman. They amy also pretend it's no so.
Baptism is an outward sign of an inward change.
And Matthew 5:30 says If your right hand makes you stumble and leads you to sin, cut it off and throw it away.
Removing a tattoo (or a lot of tattoos) is then a sign of an inward change.
Well, the literal translation just says, "if your right hand is snaring you, strike it off and cast it from you," [CLNT] so there's nothing there about sin exactly, but, hey, close enough.
However, before removing tattoos is in order, what people regularly do with the involvement of their hands includes a great many larger transgressions than body marking. I'm not a big believer in promoting rules one would be willing to enforce, especially on oneself and one's loved ones.
And I'm pretty sure we're not seeing a bunch of handless people running around, are we?
Much more likely a sign of a desire to get approval from a different set of people.
Outward sign of an inward change.
I tell the kids that getting a tattoo is like having to wear the same thing every day even after it goes out of fashion. I imagine one day tattoos will run their course because some upcoming generation of young people will say, "This is something old people do!" and that will be the end of it.
In the meantime, if someone is literally covered in sin then they need to get that out of their life. Some choose to do this and they have my respect.
I tell the kids that getting a tattoo is like having to wear the same thing every day even after it goes out of fashion. I imagine one day tattoos will run their course because some upcoming generation of young people will say, "This is something old people do!" and that will be the end of it.
In the meantime, if someone is literally covered in sin then they need to get that out of their life. Some choose to do this and they have my respect.
But only to show it to her female friends -- it's a combination of approval-seeking and competition. Not tjust . . .
. . . but someone wants me more than you.
Acquiring and displaying these items has little to do with exhibiting pride for her man, because she can much better demonstrate such pride through backing his vision and portraying loyalty and respectful cooperation (aka submission). Why bankrupt a man -- and her own family finances -- in advance if one just wants to display one's pride?
I'll agree that it's worthy of respect to do so, but in the context of this particular thread, I feel compelled to note that Scripture does not let men off the hook when it comes to covering leftover women by stating anywhere that men should expect the full removal of sin or its reflection before giving consideration to a woman for inclusion in one's family.
None of us could pass that test.
It doesn't have to be expensive jewelry. Walking through a market a while ago I spotted some nice looking earrings I thought my wife would like. Turns out they were cheap CZ imitation ones, but I showed her anyway and she wanted them. Cost... about the equivalent of $3, so she's not concerned if she loses them. Her colleagues all think I bought her expensive diamond earrings and we aren't saying otherwise.
A guy here bought his new fiance a CZ engagement ring. Cost... $10. It looks nice and she's over the moon happy!
Different mindset among many women here. Not so much presumptuous prideful arrogant selfishness. It would be great if they accepted polygyny more readily.
(Apologies Kieth, but this is BF and derailments are allowed intermittently.)
Do you follow Lev. 19:27 as well? Not shaving the side of your head or cutting the corners or edges of your beard?
No apologies necessary; it's not even a derailment or a detour, because you're addressing something that was in the o.p. -- and you're pointing out a cultural difference. I interpret that to reflect positively on yours versus ours, and it doesn't in any way negate what I wrote, anyway.
The mistake was mine, and I corrected it, because when I've written about this before, the word 'expensive' has always preceded 'gemstone!'
So thanks, Friedrich.
It was never about finances, but some man's investment into her.
Close.
Just a reminder that the forum is not a place to debate Torah keeping. This topic could stray very quickly in to that.
Let me be so arrogant as to presume to answer for @Mark C snd then let’s move on, yes he does obey those verses. His understanding of them may or may not differ from yours but he obeys them as he understands them.
Let’s stay on topic!
Thank you for hounding me through my years in the wastelands!
Here's a link to my latest Substack article, something requested by numerous people in the wake of my September 5 "Are We Not Mules?" essay I used to create the OP in this thread. I wrote the first draft 2 weeks ago and finally finished editing it today:
imnhvn.substack.com
[TL/DR:CAMERA warning]
THE LOGIC BEHIND MY MASCULINITY PRESCRIPTIONS
My incentive is an intention to kill more than two birds with one stone . . .
imnhvn.substack.com
[TL/DR:CAMERA warning]
I think most effect will have acceptance of anarchist ethics. For interactions between people must be voluntary to be moral.Here's a link to my latest Substack article, something requested by numerous people in the wake of my September 5 "Are We Not Mules?" essay I used to create the OP in this thread. I wrote the first draft 2 weeks ago and finally finished editing it today:
THE LOGIC BEHIND MY MASCULINITY PRESCRIPTIONS
My incentive is an intention to kill more than two birds with one stone . . .
[TL/DR:CAMERA warning]
While having proper hierarchy is good idea, what will keep proper hierachy is place? Voluntary means or forceful means?
If forceful means are acceptable, what is stopping tyranny and power abuse? And it will come, especially in larger community. How long before those on top start inventing new rules for their benefit?
Anarchism greatest strenght is wholesale delegimitization of current system. It's judgement is simple: No salvation possible, throw it into fire.
When is society most stable, prosperous etc..? When it is in benefit of everyone to voluntary participate. Voluntarism mandates win-win situation, without force win-lose situation is impossible to hold. And it's voluntarism which massively keeps evil out.
Evil is spreading when it's not punished. Only possible when evil perpetrators can use force to avoid punishment.
Defeating simpism in men is conceptually simple. It's win-lose situation, so why participate? Leave such situation, grow balls and demand dignity for yourself is message young men need.
What's the significant difference between that and my assertion that men should refuse to be the losers (simps) in the win-lose strategy of being Partial Husbands to women who are rewarded by Partial Husbands to continue (a) operating under the delusion that women are independent, and (b) treating men with disrespect?
I see no difference. Partual Husband is win-lose situation, so leave or reform.
By the way, people have three options when they don't like current system. Suffer, reform or exit. Reform and exit are mutually reinforcing. Without exist, reformists can easily be destroyed/severely punished, so only real option is to shut up.
My whole above post is that pushing hierarchy ad primary improvement is unwise since no defence against tyranny exist. It's variant of keep current system, replace current corrupt leadership with better. Won't work since system will corrupt new leaderships.
@Keith Martin, what makes you sad?