Theology III

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Lief - the guy was definitely going for my son, and my husband (all 6'2" of him, and very strong and savvy) wasn't there.

Fine, if I was you rather than me, I'd intervene too. You have Christ on your team, and that makes a huge difference.

I hate that scenario, though.


But I would not say that a woman should feel ethically compelled to attack in a situation like that. Women aren't built to be able to handle physical combat in the way men are, mentally or physically. I'd rather lose one family member than two, and I wouldn't want my wife or children throwing away their lives needlessly.

Would any of you say that if a burglar entered the house and started attacking you, you'd want your children to intervene? Absolutely not (assuming they aren't yet teenagers). They're not physically fit for the fight. You'd rather they ran and hid. I definitely would, and I'd consider it to be immoral and selfish of any of you if you said that they should all pile into the conflict if someone is attacking you.

Neither are women often fit for combat, physically. Or mentally either, often, as I demonstrated with evidence in the Gender Issues Thread. Sometimes women are able to fight very well- there are certainly exceptions. I know one young lady who is a black belt in karate, and she could easily flatten me if she wanted. She'd pretty much certainly succeed if she fought me, but she's the only one I know who would have any chance. I know many other women and could physically overpower any of them.

I'd feel a lot happier if woman scampered, in most dangerous situations. If I was under attack, for example, especially if I was being attacked by superior numbers and the odds were strongly against my success, I'd far rather my wife escaped than stayed and tried to fight alongside me. If anyone would want their wife to stay and fight it out alongside him, I'd consider that to be unmanly.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Fine, if I was you rather than me, I'd intervene too. You have Christ on your team, and that makes a huge difference.

I hate that scenario, though.


But I would not say that a woman should feel ethically compelled to attack in a situation like that. Women aren't built to be able to handle physical combat in the way men are, mentally or physically. I'd rather lose one family member than two, and I wouldn't want my wife or children throwing away their lives needlessly.

Would any of you say that if a burglar entered the house and started attacking you, you'd want your children to intervene? Absolutely not (assuming they aren't yet teenagers). They're not physically fit for the fight. You'd rather they ran and hid. I definitely would, and I'd consider it to be immoral and selfish of any of you if you said that they should all pile into the conflict if someone is attacking you.

Neither are women often fit for combat, physically. Or mentally either, often, as I demonstrated with evidence in the Gender Issues Thread. Sometimes women are able to fight very well- there are certainly exceptions. I know one young lady who is a black belt in karate, and she could easily flatten me if she wanted. She'd pretty much certainly succeed if she fought me, but she's the only one I know who would have any chance. I know many other women and could physically overpower any of them.

I'd feel a lot happier if woman scampered, in most dangerous situations. If I was under attack, for example, especially if I was being attacked by superior numbers and the odds were strongly against my success, I'd far rather my wife escaped than stayed and tried to fight alongside me. If anyone would want their wife to stay and fight it out alongside him, I'd consider that to be unmanly.

Hmm right. Yes. I absolutely agree .

[Tessar]

... did you mean to quote yourself and then say you agreed, or is that something I need to clean up?

[Lief Erikson]

I was just making clear, in case anyone wasn't sure, that I agree with myself.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Your women, if any, won't fight for you.

You'll have to hope Rian is around.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

But I would not say that a woman should feel ethically compelled to attack in a situation like that. Women aren't built to be able to handle physical combat in the way men are, mentally or physically. I'd rather lose one family member than two, and I wouldn't want my wife or children throwing away their lives needlessly.

Well, every situation is unique and you can't generalize here. But if your son's life is in danger, you intervene. You don't think about your own odds, you act immediately. Even if your very strong and savvy husband is there with you, you might act without first alerting him because that would cost you an additional second. Man or woman, you act on instinct and without hesitation to save your son's life and don't think about sending the stronger person to do the work.

But of course you're right Lief, that it's always better if it's the stronger person who intervenes first and not the weaker one. However who acts first, acts firsts.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Would any of you say that if a burglar entered the house and started attacking you, you'd want your children to intervene? Absolutely not (assuming they aren't yet teenagers). They're not physically fit for the fight. You'd rather they ran and hid. I definitely would, and I'd consider it to be immoral and selfish of any of you if you said that they should all pile into the conflict if someone is attacking you.

Children are children and a parent would want them to stay out of danger. But it all depends on the situation of course.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Neither are women often fit for combat, physically. Or mentally either, often, as I demonstrated with evidence in the Gender Issues Thread.

I'd say that goes for most men as well.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I'd feel a lot happier if woman scampered, in most dangerous situations. If I was under attack, for example, especially if I was being attacked by superior numbers and the odds were strongly against my success, I'd far rather my wife escaped than stayed and tried to fight alongside me. If anyone would want their wife to stay and fight it out alongside him, I'd consider that to be unmanly.

I agree in general, no-one wants their spouse to get beaten up alongside them. But again it depends entirely on the given scenario whether you'd want your wife stand by your side. Like if she would greatly even out the odds. You can't consider it unmanly unless you know the situation.

And wow, you sure had some remarks in your post that some would consider sexist. I hope they don't see the post and leave you in peace

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Tessar

... did you mean to quote yourself and then say you agreed, or is that something I need to clean up?

It just nicely accentuates the absurdist elements of this whole discussion.

[rohirrim TR]

What is this thread about? I didn't read back very far, but I can't find a common thread, (which is probably cause I didn't read back very far )

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

What would be the "friendly" component of "And I dislike the PC-ness" praytell?

I made a factual statement about part of Lief's posting. You chose to see that as a personal attack on Lief. Well, that's your fevered imagination, as far as I can tell. I don't let sexism go unremarked, generally. It's bad for developing minds to be exposed to it.

Lief seems happy pretending he isn't reading my posts...why do you see the urgent need to defend him from imaginary attack?

lol "friendly".

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

And wow, you sure had some remarks in your post that some would consider sexist.

ya think?

I hope they don't see the post and leave you in peace

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Well, every situation is unique and you can't generalize here. But if your son's life is in danger, you intervene. You don't think about your own odds, you act immediately. Even if your very strong and savvy husband is there with you, you might act without first alerting him because that would cost you an additional second. Man or woman, you act on instinct and without hesitation to save your son's life and don't think about sending the stronger person to do the work.

Exactly.

But of course you're right Lief, that it's always better if it's the stronger person who intervenes first and not the weaker one. However who acts first, acts firsts.

Exactly #2

Children are children and a parent would want them to stay out of danger. But it all depends on the situation of course.

Yep! (to avoid an Exactly #3 )

Originally Posted by sis

What would be the "friendly" component of "And I dislike the PC-ness" praytell?

By "friendly", I mean no personal attacks; just comments/critiques/observations etc. on what a person has said. Maybe you can't see the difference between personal attacks and comments/disagreements about a person's statement. I tried to illustrate it with the bit I quoted from you, but maybe you can't see the difference. It might help you to look at brownie and Jonathan's posts. They also disagree with Lief, but don't do personal attacks. I hope you can see the difference eventually.

I made a factual statement about part of Lief's posting. You chose to see that as a personal attack on Lief. Well, that's your fevered imagination, as far as I can tell. I don't let sexism go unremarked, generally. It's bad for developing minds to be exposed to it.

As I said before, I've seen repeated personal attacks and condescending remarks from you, as opposed to remarks/observations/critiques on what a person has said. I didn't comment on most of the personal attacks; I chose to comment today; I hope it will help you see the difference; now I'm done.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Butterbeer left that mirror here. Where is it?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

But what is the soul?

First actuality of a naturally organized (or naturally organized living) body.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

First actuality of a naturally organized (or naturally organized living) body.

preceed the body? Exist beyond it?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

First actuality of a naturally organized (or naturally organized living) body.

I'm fairly sure I don't understand what you're saying here.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan
Well, every situation is unique and you can't generalize here. But if your son's life is in danger, you intervene. You don't think about your own odds, you act immediately. Even if your very strong and savvy husband is there with you, you might act without first alerting him because that would cost you an additional second. Man or woman, you act on instinct and without hesitation to save your son's life and don't think about sending the stronger person to do the work.


Exactly.

So what ended up happening?

Another thing I still fail to understand, which I'm also interested in knowing, is how this relates to the free will vs. predestination debate. It's all very interesting on its own merit, and I'm glad you're sharing it with us, but I'm still also curious about the other .

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Well, every situation is unique and you can't generalize here. But if your son's life is in danger, you intervene. You don't think about your own odds, you act immediately.

The idea of a woman, especially if unarmed, attacking an armed man is still very, very freaky to me.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

I'd say that goes for most men as well.

I don't know, but I'd say it's less true of men than it is of women. The comparative statistics and other data between aggression in men vs. women that I brought up in the Gender Issues Thread is pretty conclusive about the mental aspect of it, and the physical aspect is there for everyone to see.

I don't think that this is sexist, as I don't believe one gender is any better than the other. I do believe that the genders have propensities to different skills, abilities and mentalities. The genders are not only physically different- there are also psychological differences. For details on this, I'd have to refer anyone curious about my arguments to the Gender Issues Thread. It's not that women are worse than men at all. They're different, with different skills and psychologies that come from the different genetics of the gender, but their different psychologies and abilities are equally valuable and necessary for the survival of our species as those of men.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

I agree in general, no-one wants their spouse to get beaten up alongside them. But again it depends entirely on the given scenario whether you'd want your wife stand by your side. Like if she would greatly even out the odds. You can't consider it unmanly unless you know the situation.

I agree, if she would greatly even out the odds. That's why I said I'd especially want her to run if "the odds were strongly against my success."

I agree also that a lot of this depends on the situation.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

And wow, you sure had some remarks in your post that some would consider sexist. I hope they don't see the post and leave you in peace

I appreciate the good wishes.

Did you know that there are actually three different varieties of feminist? One of those varieties tries to assert that women can be men, basically, that they can take on all the roles of men and have their same abilities. I don't remember what the second type of feminist was. But the third type of feminist, rather than trying to basically have women take over men's role in society, instead try to argue that traditionally feminine qualities should be elevated in society and seen as having great value. They argue that women shouldn't be shamed by those qualities and that society shouldn't look down on them.

I highly approve of the efforts of that third kind of feminist, and of their endeavors.

There are exceptions to the rule, it is true, and some women might be very well suited to traditionally masculine roles. But I think that women are trying to make themselves something they aren't to a large extent in modern times, nowadays. They think it's right and best for them, but they aren't suited to it, and they demean qualities that they have more of than most men do, qualities our species badly needs.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I'm fairly sure I don't understand what you're saying here.

Gwai quoted Aristotle
He believed the first thing a body needs to become alive, is a soul.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The idea of a woman, especially if unarmed, attacking an armed man is still very, very freaky to me.

Given the situation, the idea of any unarmed person attacking an armed man is freaky to me

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Lief: Neither are women often fit for combat, physically. Or mentally either, often, as I demonstrated with evidence in the Gender Issues Thread.
Jon: I'd say that goes for most men as well.

Lief: I don't know, but I'd say it's less true of men than it is of women. The comparative statistics and other data between aggression in men vs. women that I brought up in the Gender Issues Thread is pretty conclusive about the mental aspect of it, and the physical aspect is there for everyone to see.

To some extent perhaps. After all, military service in some countries is only compulsory for men.
But instead of "fitness for combat", I'd say statistics rather suggest a greater likelyhood that the lunatic attacker (in this case the knife-wielding person) is a man rather than a woman.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I don't think that this is sexist, as I don't believe one gender is any better than the other. I do believe that the genders have propensities to different skills, abilities and mentalities. The genders are not only physically different- there are also psychological differences. For details on this, I'd have to refer anyone curious about my arguments to the Gender Issues Thread. ...

We're talking semantics really but even if you don't think these views are sexist, others might and it's good if you're aware of that. Just a tip

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Did you know that there are actually three different varieties of feminist? One of those varieties tries to assert that women can be men, basically, that they can take on all the roles of men and have their same abilities. I don't remember what the second type of feminist was. But the third type of feminist, rather than trying to basically have women take over men's role in society, instead try to argue that traditionally feminine qualities should be elevated in society and seen as having great value. They argue that women shouldn't be shamed by those qualities and that society shouldn't look down on them.

I highly approve of the efforts of that third kind of feminist, and of their endeavors.

Yes, those two feminisms you mentioned can be considered the main branches. But it's a very heterogenous ideology with lots of alignments and subgroups.
Your "third" type of feminism is the dominant type among religious feminists. It's pretty marginalized among secular feminists though.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Your "third" type of feminism is the dominant type among religious feminists. It's pretty marginalized among secular feminists though.

If this discussion is going to run on.
There's a modern component of feminism, often referred to as "cultural feminism", which, indeed, celebrates the "intrinsic" differences between men and women. The 'religious feminists' with whom Lief is likely to be familier aren't even part of that. I object to having the term "feminist" applied to that subordination crew, just as some here object to having "Christian" applied to Mormons.

Here's a good link with a brief discussion of types of feminism, complete with doctrinal debate. http://www.uah.edu/woolf/feminism_kinds.htm

But a return to the specifically religious thread here would be nice, and I think everyone wants to hear the rest of Rian's story.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The meaning will die with you, though, or at least with humanity, so it's strictly temporary. So in the long run, it's meaningless. It only has meaning to you and in the short term.

Just because something is temporary does not mean that it is meaningless. In fact, I'd argue that the very temporary nature of life makes it all that much more precious. In my mind, this one brief chance at existence is all I have, and I'm going to make the most of it.

On the flipside, looking too much towards the eternity of afterlife seems to lead to the kind of Jihadish mentality that has little or no concern for the here and now, as long as one is convinced that they are following a path that will lead them to eternal glory. A path which is, by the nature of the questions involved, completely relative to the individual, and thus promotes the "us and them" over "all of us".

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

From my perspective, God, in his wisdom and righteousness, has the right to create some people for destruction and others for paradise. He is high enough, as all-knowing and loving Creator, to have the knowledge to make some creations for higher purposes and others for lower purposes. If he makes some creations to be evil and deserving of wrath because of their twisted personalities and actions, and then he destroys them afterward, that is his sovereign right.

God might make people deserving of destruction, and bear their contemptibleness. He might create people to be deserving of judgment and hard justice because their natures absolutely reject God and goodness. If he makes people evil and deserving of judgment because of being evil, he has the right. He has the right to have mercy on whom he will, and to harden whom he will, for his purposes. He is fully loving and good, and all-knowing, and so knows that this course of action is best and will have very good results.

That's all fine and well (though a bit depressing ), but it doesn't address my main point that it is crazy to assign any real "responsibility" to god's creations in such a universe, unless you decide to come up with your own definition of responsibility, like you did for free will.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Gwai quoted Aristotle
He believed the first thing a body needs to become alive, is a soul.

Oh. Okay, well I personally have no problem with that perspective .

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Given the situation, the idea of any unarmed person attacking an armed man is freaky to me

Yes, but men are more likely to be physically and mentally capable of dealing with it, so the idea of it being a woman is freakier. But that discussion belongs in the Gender Issues Thread, so I'll say no more about it here.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

To some extent perhaps. After all, military service in some countries is only compulsory for men.
But instead of "fitness for combat", I'd say statistics rather suggest a greater likelyhood that the lunatic attacker (in this case the knife-wielding person) is a man rather than a woman.

I'd say they'd probably show both. I know that they show that men tend to be more aggressive than women. That logically would lead to both a greater likelihood of a man having a superior mental "fitness for combat," and a greater likelihood that the "lunatic attacker," would be a man. So I bet that both are true.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

We're talking semantics really but even if you don't think these views are sexist, others might and it's good if you're aware of that. Just a tip

Yeah. I've been warned by a college professor too that my views could easily get me into trouble if I broadcast them. Though that was actually because of his knowing my views on a different issue that I haven't ever gone into on Entmoot, because it has never come up, and my views there too are very non politically correct.

I'm still personally somewhat unclear as to when I should keep my mouth shut and when I should speak my mind. Doing the latter often gets me some abuse, which I'll accept to a degree, but sometimes doing the former is a better course. I'm not sure exactly how to draw the line between the two.

If I always kept my mouth shut on my non-politically correct views, I'd be allowing views I disagree with to freely proliferate, and I'd be failing in a major way to contribute to our democracy. That absolute silence, I know I'll never involve myself in.

But I know that sometimes keeping my mouth shut would be better. I currently try to only keep my mouth shut if I know that speaking will do no one any good, because the people involved are too set in their own ways to listen, and all I'll get is abuse by talking, with no one coming out of the situation the better for it. If it's lose-lose, I keep my mouth shut. Thankfully, that kind of situation is pretty rare.

Do you think, Jonathan, that that's the best time to remain silent, or are there other times also when one should?

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Yes, those two feminisms you mentioned can be considered the main branches. But it's a very heterogenous ideology with lots of alignments and subgroups.

Most major modern ideologies seem to be that way.

Gwaimir, does Catholicism have much in the way of internal divisions and subgroups?

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Your "third" type of feminism is the dominant type among religious feminists. It's pretty marginalized among secular feminists though.

Sad.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

But I would not say that a woman should feel ethically compelled to attack in a situation like that.

You think its more ethical to leave your baby to an attacker with a knife then attempt to protect them?

Would any of you say that if a burglar entered the house and started attacking you, you'd want your children to intervene?

Why would a burglar break in to attack me? If he was stealing stuff (which is what burglars do) I wouldn’t want ANYONE to intervene. Because the likelihood is he wouldn’t attempt to hurt us anyway. Just take stuff. But if some lunatic randomly broke in to attack me then I would want my kids to call 911. And yeah the girlfriend would come at him with a meat cleaver whether I wanted her to or not. Not cower in the corner reciting prayers.