"TradWives" Triggering Unhappy Feminists

SoliFortissimi said:
Because children eventually grow up and stop believing in fairy tales.


You didn't answer my question. Still, it was purely rhetorical.
Click to expand...

My people have been around for over 3,000 years.

We out lived Alexander the greats successer states, the roman republic, the roman empire, the holy roman empire.

Buddism, Christianity, islam, taoism, and numerous other faiths also have centuries of existence under their belt. You are objectively wrong. You have taken a small fraction of human history and a very wierd anomoloy of one at that, and apply it to the whole of human history thinking that this is normal.
 
Cherico said:
My people have been around for over 3,000 years.
Click to expand...
Sure, and Chinese nation is 4000 years old. I suppose you're a Jew or a Hindu? In either case, that's only true if you arbitrarily group together several different cultures that would have killed each other as enemy tribes.
 
SoliFortissimi said:
Sure, and Chinese nation is 4000 years old. I suppose you're a Jew or a Hindu? In either case, that's only true if you arbitrarily group together several different cultures that would have killed each other as enemy tribes.
Click to expand...

Jewish.

And as for china their civilization is that old or even older, but the modern nation state isn't, and while you have been very dismissive you haven't proven me wrong.

You are litterally surrounded by religions that are hundreds and some times thousands of years old, The religious impulse is some thing seen through out human history and through out the entire world. People being religious is historically speaking the norm.
 
Typhonis said:
They don't want the responsibility they don't get the authority. What women have forgotten and the media has downplayed is how soft power works and the fact women once had loads of it. Sure Og went out to hunt or fish or farm but his wife was back home making sure things were good and the next generation was ready with help from the clan. Because those children were important.

Tending house, tending the sick and injured, teaching children, etc, etc, etc, the same job women had for centuries from the queens of Europe to the lowliest peasant.

But now? Hollywood has sold them on hard power and what a heady drug that is forgetting that you also need soft power as well.
Click to expand...


Here is the thing. A key aspect of power is acknowledgment and The majority gives hardly a crap about soft power. Heck they only seem to acknowledge it's a thing when it's no longer there, people will cry out and give alms to it just long enough for it to be a thing again, and then once that dynamic is reestablished the whole thing starts over again.

Let me use a symbolism. If society is a marriage then the King is the husband and the peasent class is the wife. The king is the face of society and the wife is the keeper of the home keeping the land afloat. How often in popular culture does a king ever bow down before the peasants and go "without what you have done I'd have no kingdom" I can only think of one instance and that is in the end of The Return of the King Film where Aragon and the people of Gondor bow before the hobbits in respect of their sacrifices to destroy the one ring. I mean the culture is starting to shift but look how many people for the longest time wanted to be Coders, Social Influencers and political activist as opposed to Blue collar workers, service providers and Tradesmen.

I'm not saying you don't have a point, I'm saying that traditionalist have kinda played a part in their own demise by taking tradition for granted.

There is a reason why a man that loves his wife like Jesus loves the Church is seen as a jackpot among tradwives. Despite the fact that we're commanded to do so and to do otherwise is a sin.
 
Last edited:
Scottty said:
And you declare religion a "lie" based on... what?

Because you, personally, have chosen not to believe in God, and so you want to believe that no one else does?
Click to expand...
He went on reddit and Youtube back in the day you know. he got the fedora and everything. If god was real he would have smote him on the spot when he challenged sky daddy to fisticuffs back in 09. but he was clearly intimidated by his katana which was folded 10,000 times and talking points from Dawkins.
 
Scottty said:
And you declare religion a "lie" based on... what?
Click to expand...
Based on the fact that the Earth was not, in fact, made in a week. That there was no flood that destroyed humanity, except for one dude, his family, and two of every animal on Earth. That humans were not made, they evolved out of apes. That the Tower of Babel myth is bunkum. That there are no flying insects with four legs. That circles whose diameters would make pi =3 do not exist.

And many others:Biblical scientific errors
 
SoliFortissimi said:
Based on the fact that the Earth was not, in fact, made in a week. That there was no flood that destroyed humanity, except for one dude, his family, and two of every animal on Earth. That humans were not made, they evolved out of apes. That the Tower of Babel myth is bunkum. That there are no flying insects with four legs. That circles whose diameters would make pi =3 do not exist.

And many others:Biblical scientific errors
Click to expand...
In order

1. The Genesis account never defines the 'week' and within scripture it's often said that "A thousand years is a day to God."
2. There is a lot of evidence that there in fact, was a worldwide flood. Part of that is backed up by evidence, and part of it is that every single ancient civilization has legends of a worldwide flood.
3. Macro-evolution has been debunked multiple times by microbiologists and by mathematicians.
4. The Tower of Babel did exist. We've found archeological evidence for it. And it is in fact in the area with the earliest known recorded civilizations.
5. That own article shows why the insect anatomy thing would be different.
Is this an error -- since insects have six legs, not four, and since "fowl" have two legs, not four? The reference to "fowl" is thought by some skeptics to refer to birds, but the word used here is 'owph, which merely means a creature with wings -- it is the same word used in verse 21 (flying). The reference in both cases is to insects. But there is an even better - and more correct - answer.
Quite simply, the big back legs on the locust, etc. were not counted as "legs" in the same sense as the other legs. Let's use an illustration from our popular literature, George Orwell's Animal Farm. In this story, Snowball the pig invented the slogan, "Four legs good, two legs bad" so as to exclude humans from Animal Farm society. The geese and other fowl objected, because they had only two legs. Snowball explained (more clearly in the book than in the movie) that in animal terms, the birds' wings counted as legs because they were limbs of propulsion, not manipulation, as a human's arms and hands were.
Now note the differentiation in Leviticus above -- referring to "legs above the feet" for leaping. The "feet" are being differentiated from the "legs above the feet" because of their difference in function. They are legs, but in a different sense than the "four" legs which are just called "feet." We are being told of two types of legs: The "on all four" legs (which are nowhere called legs; they are only called "feet" [v. 23]), and the "leaping legs." It is clear that the Hebrews regarded the two large, hopping hind limbs of the locust and the other insects of the same type, which are the only types of insects mentioned here (we now translate "beetle" as "cricket"), as something different than the other four limbs - perhaps because they were used primarily for vertical propulsion, whereas the other limbs were for scurrying around. (Shifts of terminology like this happen even today; check this proposal to redefine "planet".)
Click to expand...
6. We didn't even have the number zero as a placeholder until the last thousand years. Having an ancient civilization round down to three for a circle isn't something I'd be too worried about.

Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean that it's wrong or a lie.
 
MarkWarrior said:
The Genesis account never defines the 'week' and within scripture it's often said that "A thousand years is a day to God."
Click to expand...
6000 years is just as bad as six, matey. And it explicitly talks about how it took six days, and God rested on the seventh.

MarkWarrior said:
here is a lot of evidence that there in fact, was a worldwide flood. Part of that is backed up by evidence, and part of it is that every single ancient civilization has legends of a worldwide flood.
Click to expand...
Cool, not the point. Now unless you can prove that all life is descended from just one surviving couple in the Levant....
MarkWarrior said:
Macro-evolution has been debunked multiple times by microbiologists and by mathematicians.
Click to expand...
Ah, an evolution denier. Neat.
MarkWarrior said:
he Tower of Babel did exist. We've found archeological evidence for it. And it is in fact in the area with the earliest known recorded civilizations.
Click to expand...
Stop watching Ancient Aliens. There were probably lots of towers in Babylon, but not one of them was struck down by divine wrath because all its builders spontaneously evolved different languages.

MarkWarrior said:
That own article shows why the insect anatomy thing would be different.
Click to expand...
Basically just copium, and continuing the article proves that:
What the above explanation so clearly misses is the fact that when the Bible mentions that "All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you" [Group A] this group does not include those with leaping legs as shown by the fact that the very next passage states "There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground." [Group B]

Now if the passages lacked the first half discussing Group A, evangelical apologists such as J.P. Holding may have some ground. But as the biblical text clearly differentiates Group A (those with no jointed legs) as separate to Group B (those with said jointed legs) and yet both groups are defined as having four legs, this argument can be of no defense. Even if J.P Holding were correct on the still unsubstantiated basis that the ancient Hebrews defined crickets and similar insects of Group B as having four typical legs and two "jointed legs" for leaping,that still would not explain the missing legs of the beetles and other non-leaping insects from Group A which are discussed separately.
Click to expand...
MarkWarrior said:
We didn't even have the number zero as a placeholder until the last thousand years. Having an ancient civilization round down to three for a circle isn't something I'd be too worried about.
Click to expand...
But it's not they who calculated that this needs Pi to be 3, we did after reading the measurements. The given measurement explicitly makes no sense.
 
Last edited:
For someone who claims to want to honestly debate, you don't do it very well. I have never once attacked you for being an atheist or someone who believes in Evolution. And, I'll correct you.

There has never been a proven case of one species evolving into another. There is however, proven adaptation of species within their own genome. (That's how we get things like people becoming more acclimated to different climates, etc.)


SoliFortissimi said:
Try all that apologia on little children who don't know better. It doesn't work on educated, annoyed adults that escaped the brainwashing in their youth.
Click to expand...

Saying stuff like this just makes me believe that you were hurt by someone close to you in your youth. And for that, I apologize. But that doesn't mean that you are right about everything. I'm not claiming to be right about everything, but I'm also not going to stand aside for what amounts to slander.
SoliFortissimi said:
No, because there wouldn't be any left.
Click to expand...
In reference to religious people is just denying reality. Gen Z and Alpha are actually turning towards religion to get away from the sheer amount of wishy-washy bullshit they're seeing in Western Culture today. And while I wish they were all converting to Christianity, there are a great many that are turning to Islam, Mormonism, and others.

If I'm wrong about my faith, all that I've cost is my time. I've not wasted yours, I've not set out to harm you. If you're wrong, there's a whole lot more at stake here.
 
MarkWarrior said:
For someone who claims to want to honestly debate, you don't do it very well. I have never once attacked you for being an atheist or someone who believes in Evolution. And, I'll correct you.
Click to expand...
True enough, I'll remove the personal attacks.

The rest I'll leave as it is. Including your very honest denial of evolution, something that is common knowledge even to backwards farmers who see how breeding for certain traits works.
 
SoliFortissimi said:
True enough, I'll remove the personal attacks.

The rest I'll leave as it is. Including your very honest denial of evolution, something that is common knowledge even to backwards farmers who see how breeding for certain traits works.
Click to expand...
'Evolution' and 'selective breeding' are inherently different processes.

It takes an intelligent committed hand to selectively breed for a deliberate result.

Beyond that, with every increase in our scientific understanding of the biological processes of life, the concept of macro-evolution becomes more and more absurd.

I'll just drop the quote from Berlinski, an Agnostic, here:

"Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence? Not even close.
Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close.
Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close.
Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough.
Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough.
Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even close to being close.
Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough.
Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even ballpark.
Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on."

The theory of evolution as a justification for the origin of species, is nothing more or less than the dogma of radical atheists who were seeking to cloak themselves in the cultural legitimacy of science in order to fight a cultural war against Christians. Unfortunately, they were very successful in this regard, and have been tearing down the foundations of western society ever since.

If you want to try to argue this issue, let's go ahead and talk actual biology, physics, fossil record, and etc, but do so on a more appropriate thread.
 
LordsFire said:
It takes an intelligent committed hand to selectively breed for a deliberate result.
Click to expand...
Not at all. Just a lot of random chance. Some men and women get to pass their genes on, others don't. It's really that simple, and you'd need to be wilfully blind to ignore that.

For example, imagine if there's a disease that only kills redheads and it devastates a region? Well, that would mean that the next generation would have less redheads. What if it kills everyone except redheads? Well, more redheads in that region.

There you go. Evolution 101. All organisms will change in a way that makes their survival and reproduction more likely.
 
SoliFortissimi said:
Not at all. Just a lot of random chance. Some men and women get to pass their genes on, others don't. It's really that simple, and you'd need to be wilfully blind to ignore that.

For example, imagine if there's a disease that only kills redheads and it devastates a region? Well, that would mean that the next generation would have less redheads. What if it kills everyone except redheads? Well, more redheads in that region.

There you go. Evolution 101. All organisms will change in a way that makes their survival and reproduction more likely.
Click to expand...
No, that isn't evolution 101. That's 'survival of the fittest 101.'

Attempts to conflate that with macro-evolution are a deliberate deceit by hardline ideological atheists. There's a whole host of such things claiming that this is how 'evolution works,' and 'just so' stories like that that are grossly simple, easy to understand, and have next to nothing to do with how the process is supposed to work, are extremely common in 'proofs' of evolution.

Do you want to discuss the actual biological and physical processes required for abiogenesis, speciation, etc, or do you just want to share the polemics of your religion?
 
Not much of one. There are people even I won't argue with, and Creationists are near the top of that list. Right after Maoists, Greens, and nationalists of ex-colonies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top