Christian marriage cartoon....

[speed dawg]

As one of the card-carrying married guys on the forum who also is a Christian, just thought I'd get the board's take on this:

http://adam4d.com/wives-husbands/

Thoughts?

 

[Bible_Belt]

The Bible tells wives to submit to their husbands, which makes feminists go insane, but the next sentence tells husbands to submit to their wives. The submission is mutual. It's not based on one gender being superior to the other.

 

[zekko]

Well, I agree with the first two panels, of course.

I don't agree with the bit where it says he should place her comfort and needs above his own, although I guess that's a little open to interpretation. I'd prefer to say he should consider both their comfort and needs.
I agree he should work hard and sacrifice for the good of his wife and family (just remember that he is part of the family).

Unfortunately, no one in the modern world takes their wedding vows seriously, so it's a dead issue.

 

[( . )( . )]

The Bible tells wives to submit to their husbands, which makes feminists go insane, but the next sentence tells husbands to submit to their wives. The submission is mutual. It's not based on one gender being superior to the other.

Where does it say that?

Ephesians 5:22-33

22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

 

[BetterCallSaul]

As one of the card-carrying married guys on the forum who also is a Christian, just thought I'd get the board's take on this:

http://adam4d.com/wives-husbands/

Thoughts?

I don't need to keep reading crap like that which gets regurgitated every so often by people who might be new to married life or are trying to get their marriage in proper order.

I'm the head of the household and I do tend to get the final say in just about everything. Once the decision is made my wife doesn't keep nagging me about it and she helps carry out my decision. I don't say this stuff to exaggerate or try to boost my ego via the internet to a bunch of guys I don't know, but that's how it is at my home. I don't always get my way with everything despite how I phrased the above sentences.

I have responsibilities too which aren't always fun such as providing for the family by doing a job which I sometimes hate. I actually get off my a$$ and fix stuff around the house, not some skimpy crap like tightening a couple screws to fix a leaky faucet or changing the filter on the a/c. I've learned how to do basic mig welding and proper brazing/soldering of copper, I took it upon myself to get my epa license to be able to buy refrigerant for our a/c system and have a contractor's account at several supply houses; I do my own electrical work; I've done complete teardowns of the engine in my wife's car (not mine yet thankfully)...I don't do transmission work though because transmissions work by magic and I haven't figured that sh!t out.

I'm not like a lot of American "men" these days who call a contractor to do the work, pay him, and then sit their fat a$$ back down in the recliner exclaiming how much "work" they just got done doing. I have the money in my bank account to call a contractor anytime I want; I consider the knowledge and experience of knowing how to do this stuff myself far more valuable. All of my neighbors consistently look at me in some kind of awe wondering how I manage to do all of this stuff myself. It's because they're lazy a$$es and choose not to learn and apply themselves.

I work out on a regular basis including quick jogging (not too far, maybe just a couple miles) and weight lifting to maintain muscle tone.

In return I expect my woman, currently my wife but really any woman I'm with, to exhibit similar high value because I will not tolerate laziness especially if I'm killing myself by saving money doing the work myself and also if that work could literally kill me (just last month I had to replace the meter base which involved me working HOT on the mains coming off the transformer!). She's working out on a semi-regular basis and just recently started giving yoga a try and she's also back to school to get a new degree in accounting. She holds down a full-time job too with all of this, but she also handles the traditional stuff too of doing all the cooking.



So anyway my whole point here is that even in a marriage, you have to continue to maintain frame. I don't tolerate women who try to dominate their men, but I despise even more those so-called "men" who let those women do it.

 

[Bible_Belt]

Where does it say that?

Almost everything in the New Testament about marriage came from Paul. The exact wording of the passages changes from one bible version to another.

Ephesians 5:21 (NIV) Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

 

[( . )( . )]

Eve was made for Adam

Almost everything in the New Testament about marriage came from Paul. The exact wording of the passages changes from one bible version to another.

Ephesians 5:21 (NIV) Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Or the author of the NIV just decided to faggotize/feminize it up a bit.

Long was a lifelong devotee of the King James Version, but when he shared it with his friends he was distressed to find that it just didn’t connect.

https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-International-Version-NIV-Bible/

The Bible is pretty clear on male headship and female submission and is chock full of red pill wisdom. Not to mention the fact this failing eqwaaaaaality bullsh!t is a relatively new (Frankfurt school) phenomenon.

 

[speed dawg]

The Bible is pretty clear on male headship and female submission and is chock full of red pill wisdom. Not to mention the fact this failing eqwaaaaaality bullsh!t is a relatively new (Frankfurt school) phenomenon.

I take it this way too. Funny how the Bible/Christianity is often the missing link between the red pill stuff we preach here, and real 'happiness', as gay as that sounds. People wonder "Why marriage".....well, the answers are there if you want them.

Now that you've learned reality via the red pill, what's next? Now you have to learn how to deal with this sh*tty world around you.

 

[Kevin S Briefcase]

The Bible tells wives to submit to their husbands, which makes feminists go insane, but the next sentence tells husbands to submit to their wives. The submission is mutual. It's not based on one gender being superior to the other.

I rip up bibles in my spare time between business meetings.

 

[( . )( . )]

Woman says "we need more manly Christianity, not feminized" , weak whyte millennial faggot procedes to eyeroll and wow, just wow the fvck out of her coz screw you dad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULGynrLnLq0#t=36

Nuke it from orbit.

 

[LiveFreeX]

Nuke it from orbit.

Its the only way to be sure.

 

[Poonani Maker]

One thing no one dares question is the fundamental tenant of Christianity that sterility is ideal. But that ideal of sterility cannot be questioned because it is also the basis of a Christian culture endorsement of the idea that a good white is a white who is committed the higher morality of whites breeding out of existence.

But there remains the fundamental puzzle of how the hell we managed to get the idea that chastity was an ideal, and chastity unto sterility was the main ideal?

Well, the way you get the question away from where the hell this sterility ideal came from is to talk about how it was actually a Women’s Lib issue. So it isn’t sterility that is at issue, because sterility — aka, perfect chastity — is at the basis of both Christian and liberal ideas. The only issue is the persecution of women.

How the HELL did we get to this rejection of women that is so fundamental to the thinking of Saint Paul and the early church?

It certainly has nothing to do with the Old Testament.

The Da Vinci Code touched on the fact that a Jewish father who did not find his son a wife by age thirty had a LOT of explaining to do, and no such explanation about Jesus is in the New Testament. No one who insists Jesus was a good Jew and that circumcision and Israel are both holy ever asks this question AT ALL.

The Protestants are as desperate to avoid this question as are the Catholics who require unmarried priests.

No one dares to question the Ideal of Sterility.
The DaVinci Code talks about how women were persecuted, the male conspiracy against women. It does not question The Ideal of Sterility. The DaVinci Code naturally had to use the code term, women’s lib.

 

[Stagger Lee]

That reminds me of the Shakers sect. Brought to America by a crazy woman from England in 1774, who thought she was the female version of Jesus and advocated complete celibacy and commune living from her followers. There were males and females in the sect's communes and they would have these dances, but no physical or sexual contact

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/shakers.htm If you go to link you can read a brief eye-witness to history account of their strange and celibate lifestyle.

Early nineteenth century America witnessed a proliferation of a number of utopian experiments in communal living that strove to construct a society in which people could live in perfect harmony surrounded by the bountiful plenty of Mother Earth. The Shakers were one of the most successful of these attempts


An offshoot of the Quakers, the Shaker concept was brought to America from England in 1774 by Ann Lee. Originally a member of the Anglican Church, Ann converted to the Shaker sect and expressed her religious zeal by disrupting Anglican services. She was arrested and during her imprisonment experienced a number of visions that revealed to her that sexual intercourse was the source of mankind's woes. Her visions further informed her that she was the embodiment of Christ's Second Coming charged with the duty to take the Word of God to the New World. Upon her release from prison, "Mother Ann" (as she was later referred to) and eight fellow Shakers sailed to America and established a Shaker community near Albany, NY.

Mother Ann died in 1784 but the Shakers thrived. Numerous communities were established throughout New England, the Midwest and as far south as Florida. Shaker life was based on a repudiation of the outside world, self-sufficiency, communal ownership of all possessions and the strict separation of the sexes. They stressed hard work and a life style of elegant simplicity. An important part of the Shaker experience was the dance - as it liberated the soul and invited the temporary possession of the individual by spirits from the Beyond.

Their rejection of sexual relations between men and women necessarily forced the Shakers to rely on converts to perpetuate their movement. This eventually led them down the road to extinction. Following the Civil War, the number of Shakers steadily dwindled. One community consisting of fewer than 10 members still survives in Maine.

When you think about it just about every social experiment was tried in America since the 1600's, all sorts of Christian sects, communism/communalism, libertarianism, unregulated and regulated capitalism, nationalism, isolationism etc and with 1945-1959 society being the pinnacle, and some people in the '60's through today wanted to keep radically changing it.

 

[speed dawg]

the fundamental tenant of Christianity that sterility is ideal.

Not really.

That is why marriage was given to humans. You are not supposed to be sterile. You are supposed to take a wife and create children. You need to re-think your indoctrination.

 

[LiveFreeX]

Agreed Speed Dawg.

Shaker life was based on a repudiation of the outside world, self-sufficiency, communal ownership of all possessions and the strict separation of the sexes.

Jesus christ man, FEMINISTS ARE SHAKERS... mind blown.

This is my take on things. We are a creation of 'god' and sex is a creation of god so that more of his creation can inhabit the universe he created for life. Anything that goes against the natural order of things is part of 'evil' or 'satan'.

Certainly the SHAKERS go against god's natural order and that is why not all women identify as SHAKERS. Women are god's vehicles for life on Earth and women inherently know this to be true, embracing any dark-sided behavior is really embracing wholesale the forces of evil. Living under a good 'Christian' society is what BUILT the countries we have in place today. Before CHRIST roamed the Earth other societies rose up under 'natural order' and were all struck down by a type of Shaker movement from the Greeks to Babylon, Sodom and Gomorrah. We have been fighting this same enemy since the beginning of time and their appearance and popularity in our current society, signal the re-approach of the end time for first world countries.

In the bible they say that lesbians/gays and anyone who indulges too much in 'freedoms' shall not inherit the kingdom of god.. they are very specific about that. If history is cyclical it could just be guidance from the old world to the new one to be able to survive the coming 'societal Apocalypse'.

 

[Poonani Maker]

Not really.

That is why marriage was given to humans. You are not supposed to be sterile. You are supposed to take a wife and create children. You need to re-think your indoctrination.

Priests used to take young boys who had a high aptitude for Reading under their wings and raise them as monks (the Ideal life of No Life, locked away in a monastery). If this is not Immoral, I don't know what is. It's as if a homosexual took a boy under his wing and made him homosexual for life. There is not much difference. St. Paul said that "it would be better to marry, than to burn..." ALL of his teachings were of absolutely celibacy being the Ideal, but marriage if you must (procreate or LIVE in this "evil, wicked, terrible" world). He was anti-life. Jesus never said ANY of that and in fact, blessed the wedding at Cana. Jesus said, as a joke, that Peter (married), not Paul (never married), would be the "Rock." Peter means "rock." Paul perverted Christianity from the get-go, and turned it into a degenerate, life-denying religion (as ALL Religions eventually turn into).

 

[Bible_Belt]

I've never been a Paul fan, either. A lot of his writings about sexual immorality were from Corinthians I & II, which were letters to the church in Corinth. At the time, the competing religions offered temple prostitutes and pagan orgies as part of church. It worked well to attract new followers and their money. Those were the people he was talking to, and that was what he meant by sexual immorality. And to his credit, in an age long before condoms and antibiotics, telling guys to not fvck the pagan church's hookers was sound advice.

 

[Stagger Lee]

I've never been a Paul fan, either. A lot of his writings about sexual immorality were from Corinthians I & II, which were letters to the church in Corinth. At the time, the competing religions offered temple prostitutes and pagan orgies as part of church. It worked well to attract new followers and their money. Those were the people he was talking to, and that was what he meant by sexual immorality. And to his credit, in an age long before condoms and antibiotics, telling guys to not fvck the pagan church's hookers was sound advice.

I agree. I not a Paul fan either. It seems a lot of Christian are though, and worse they take his writings way out of context and misconstrue and exaggerate it.

 

[speed dawg]

Priests used to take young boys who had a high aptitude for Reading under their wings and raise them as monks (the Ideal life of No Life, locked away in a monastery). If this is not Immoral, I don't know what is. It's as if a homosexual took a boy under his wing and made him homosexual for life. There is not much difference. St. Paul said that "it would be better to marry, than to burn..." ALL of his teachings were of absolutely celibacy being the Ideal, but marriage if you must (procreate or LIVE in this "evil, wicked, terrible" world). He was anti-life. Jesus never said ANY of that and in fact, blessed the wedding at Cana. Jesus said, as a joke, that Peter (married), not Paul (never married), would be the "Rock." Peter means "rock." Paul perverted Christianity from the get-go, and turned it into a degenerate, life-denying religion (as ALL Religions eventually turn into).

One thing you need to get out of the habit of doing, is criticizing Christianity based on human action/choice. There is not a single Christian person out there (or non-Christian) that you could not criticize for doing something wrong.

Again......sex within a marriage is promoted within Christianity, as is having many children. How do you not understand this? It is very simple, and your examples of messed up catholic priests (who are more concerned about their own power than God's) don't mean a thing to me.

 

[Kevin S Briefcase]

One thing you need to get out of the habit of doing, is criticizing Christianity based on human action/choice. There is not a single Christian person out there (or non-Christian) that you could not criticize for doing something wrong.

Again......sex within a marriage is promoted within Christianity, as is having many children. How do you not understand this? It is very simple, and your examples of messed up catholic priests (who are more concerned about their own power than God's) don't mean a thing to me.

The bible is a book of garbage and I spend time between important business meetings ripping up bibles.