30 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by kirksey957Many women today are in the role of leadership because there is no man to take care of them, or that the man does not want to take the resposibility himself so he leaves it to who ever takes up the slack he leaves. Or it is because the woman is too selfish and wants to be the one in charge.
OK, here's my point. If you want women to be in a submissive role with their husbands, it opens up many problems and I want to name a few of them and you can respond if you like.
The first problem is that many women today are in the role of leadership in their home out of necessity. They should be praised for this. For whatever reason, women perform the door.
God bless, and learn to play some chess. You have my male-dominant permission.
Yes childern need a strong woman role modle. Don't you think if a woman stays in her God given role then that would make her a stronger woman? Estser was a strong woman and did as the King said, and when the King asked her what to do he did it, however, he didn't have to ask her in the first place, he did because he loved her. It is the same as when a husband ask for the wife's thoughts on matters within the home.
I will grant you that if a man is comfortable whith himself he is never threatened by a strong woman. However, the woman should never take advantage of that.
Aww I defend this position based on the Bible yes. However, being silent was refering to in a church setting and this is not a church setting by far.
I do play some chess whith my husband every once in a while. I am just not good at it. He wins everytime. 🙄
01 Jul 08
Originally posted by pritybettaWell then stop sitting here and get your ass back in the kitchen where it belongs!
Many women today are in the role of leadership because there is no man to take care of them, or that the man does not want to take the resposibility himself so he leaves it to who ever takes up the slack he leaves. Or it is because the woman is too selfish and wants to be the one in charge.
Yes childern need a strong woman role modle. Don't you think i ...[text shortened]... chess whith my husband every once in a while. I am just not good at it. He wins everytime. 🙄
ðŸ˜
01 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by dryhumpNo, no, no. That's not the same as human war at all. Wolfs hunt in groups
google as the wolf turns for a story about warring wolf packs in yellowstone. Nature is full of wars. It only makes sense that humans would wage war too.
and they can be incredibly vicious to their prey and even amongst
themselves when fighting over territory or mating rights. But they never
take more than they need to survive, and they don't form alliances to
defeat other wolf 'societies'. This kind of studious malice is purely a human
concept born from our fear of people we can't control. Those we can't control
are potential enemies that might one day undermine our "great civilisation"
and thus we must hump their sorry arses into submission. This is a purely
human concept.
01 Jul 08
Originally posted by JigtieSo you don't think the killing of the alpha male of another pack and all his male off-spring is an attempt to "hump that other pack into submission?" I guess they only killed those wolves for food, right? To say that animals don't wage war is totally wrong. Fighting over territory or mating is still fighting. What makes human wars so much worse than this is technology. We can kill thousands with a single bomb. If we were still fighting with sticks and rocks we could never achieve this mass slaughter. You should blame science for it.
No, no, no. That's not the same as human war at all. Wolfs hunt in groups
and they can be incredibly vicious to their prey and even amongst
themselves when fighting over territory or mating rights. But they never
take more than they need to survive, and they don't form alliances to
defeat other wolf 'societies'. This kind of studious malice is purely ...[text shortened]... d thus we must hump their sorry arses into submission. This is a purely
human concept.
01 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by dryhumpI still disagree with you that what other animals do on instinct can be
So you don't think the killing of the alpha male of another pack and all his male off-spring is an attempt to "hump that other pack into submission?" I guess they only killed those wolves for food, right? To say that animals don't wage war is totally wrong. Fighting over territory or mating is still fighting. What makes human wars so much worse than this ...[text shortened]... icks and rocks we could never achieve this mass slaughter. You should blame science for it.
labelled war in the human sense. For one thing, we're the only animal
set on not only defeating our enemies when we run across them
haphazardly, but also to seek them out and strike before they do; to
make them suffer and preferably convert them to our own ways. We
want to control others for the benefit of our own self-satisfaction. Other
animals usually just kill each other if the territory grows too small, and
they might kill each other during the establishment of a new hierarchical
order within a social group, but it hardly classifies as war. They don't
form nations and fight over ludicrous things such as invisible men or to
divert attention from a failing societal elite. It doesn't work that way at
all between other animals.
War is not just a conflict, but a well thought through maniacal plan to
defeat any group that doesn't agree with your own specific group whether
or not there's food and territory available for both groups.
I will give you the fact that other animals also occasionally fight amongst
themselves, sometimes with a deadly outcome.
So let's say that I hear your argument. You wanted to say that, hey, if
animals fight and kill each other within their own species on occasion,
then why shouldn't we humans? We are only animals right?
Well, despite being animals, aren't we supposed to be higher on the
scale of intellect than any other animal? We have subjective and
objective thought at our disposal as well as an amasing gift for
sympathy and even empathy toward others, and we believe that no
other animal possess the former quality to the extent that we do.
Shouldn't that help us avoid the useless conflicts that war always
is? Or are we fooling ourselves here? 😕
You want to blame science? I say you can't blame the gun for the
absolutely deranged mind that decides to use it on others.
01 Jul 08
Originally posted by pritybettaDo you think Hillary Clinton was violating God's law in running for president?
Many women today are in the role of leadership because there is no man to take care of them, or that the man does not want to take the resposibility himself so he leaves it to who ever takes up the slack he leaves. Or it is because the woman is too selfish and wants to be the one in charge.
Yes childern need a strong woman role modle. Don't you think i ...[text shortened]... chess whith my husband every once in a while. I am just not good at it. He wins everytime. 🙄
01 Jul 08
Originally posted by kirksey957Hillary Clinton has violated God's law in many ways including running for president. Though we are living in a world where not too many do live by God's Word, rather by their own lust and greed.
Do you think Hillary Clinton was violating God's law in running for president?
01 Jul 08
Originally posted by pritybettaI'm going to throw out some names of some women. Could you rank these in the order of the most godly to the least godly?
Hillary Clinton has violated God's law in many ways including running for president. Though we are living in a world where not too many do live by God's Word, rather by their own lust and greed.
Oprah, Paula White, Cindy McCain, Laura Bush, Michelle Obama, Katie Couric, Martha Stewart, Amy Winehouse, and Celine Dion.