PDA

View Full Version : What Turns You Off in a Potential Partner?



Jas
03-09-2012, 21:53
Is anything in life complete? You get someone who is gorgeous, yet they have a horrible personality. Or you find someone whose kind and considerate and never moans- but they got no money!
Some things I can deal with and some things I can't.
I don't like puny and insecure people. I really don't. They tend to winge a lot and it's a huge turn off.

Whether it's a guy or a girl, strength is what really turns people on, both physical and moral.

So as in literature- no one ever loves a wimp!

So guys, what turns you off in a girl?

TolkoRaz
03-09-2012, 22:00
Feminism! ;) Girls should be girls, sweet & innocent and leave the Jack Boots in the wardrobe (apart from special occasions) ;)

Jas
03-09-2012, 22:01
Feminism! ;)


Feminists can be great partners!

Potty
03-09-2012, 22:02
:emote_popcorn::emote_popcorn:

TolkoRaz
03-09-2012, 22:02
Yep, with a lesbian feminist may be? :bookworm:

robertmf
03-09-2012, 22:03
Feminism! ;) Girls should be girls, sweet & innocent and leave the Jack Boots in the wardrobe (apart from special occasions) ;)

:yuk: Diarrhea of the mouth|keyboard

mrzuzzo
03-09-2012, 22:07
Agreed, feminism is by far the biggest turn-off.

A lady needs to be a lady, not some Fascist creature fighting for a pointless cause.

TolkoRaz
03-09-2012, 22:11
I wonder how many true feminists allow their men to wine & dine them, romance them, pay for them, cook for them and generally treat them like a lady etc?

robertmf
03-09-2012, 22:14
I wonder how many true feminists allow their men to wine & dine them, romance them, pay for them, cook for them and generally treat them like a lady etc?

All of them :bong: except for those of the lesbian feminist persuasion.

TolkoRaz
03-09-2012, 22:17
Why are so many feminists lesbian? Is it because they hate men so much?

They don't know what they are missing! ;)

BabyFirefly
03-09-2012, 22:18
Stupidity. I don't require every guy I date to have a PhD, but I was in a long relationship with a guy who didn't know anything about the world, the news, only thing he knew about was sci-fi novels, it was like talking to a child. A huge reason why I left him was because he was just boring to talk to and anyone could lie to him and he wouldn't notice it. Once you grow up, I think, you should have at least some general knowledge to talk about with people...

Guys who are weak; I don't want to feel like I have to tell him what to do or that his mother runs his life, guys (hell, people in general) should have goals and ambitions and not need anyone else to hold their hand while they go after them. On the same note, guys who are afraid of having a successful woman in their life; I'm not about to become simple minded and a house wife just because it's better for his ego. Had to leave my first love because he had this insane notion that I should just be a receptionist or a hairdresser and be happy with myself, ignoring my potential.... no. Equality after all, I'll look like a lady; but I won't be under anyone else's control.

Lastly, religious guys, because they usually believe the above, among other things I can't agree on, and because my experience tells me they are terrible at sex, given they are raised under the "penis in vagina = instant orgasm for her" belief system.

robertmf
03-09-2012, 22:22
Stupidity. I don't require every guy I date to have a PhD, but I was in a long relationship with a guy who didn't know anything about the world, the news, only thing he knew about was sci-fi novels, it was like talking to a child. A huge reason why I left him was because he was just boring to talk to and anyone could lie to him and he wouldn't notice it.

..er.. how long is a "long relationship"? I mean, didn't you figure him out on the first date :question:

You must have persistence .... or be a masochist-a :rofl:

BabyFirefly
03-09-2012, 22:26
..er.. how long is a "long relationship"? I mean, didn't you figure him out on the first date :question:

You must have persistence .... or be a masochist-a :rofl:



I was very young, had just been dumped by a guy I wanted to marry, and was sure I couldn't find anything better. I...errrh... cheated on him intellectually various times.

TolkoRaz
03-09-2012, 22:28
Is anything in life complete?

Without doubt, there are some complete idiots! :D

Jas
03-09-2012, 22:31
I'm not saying I'm easy to be with either, of course. One thing everyone notices about me?

I fidget and never can keep still. Whether it's my feet, my legs, or my hands, I am always moving even when sitting.

peppermintpaddy
03-09-2012, 22:53
i dont like stupidity in women,I like them to know about world affairs,and to be able to hold a conversation,even if their opinions differ from mine.....smokers and heavy drinkers a definite no no.....women who are addicted to shopping and spending money they havent got...women who get turned on by violence/bad boys(theres plenty of them also).... emotionallly cold women....control freaks.....

Potty
03-09-2012, 23:51
For me a great turn off is when a guy wants this
I like them to know about world affairs,and to be able to hold a conversation,

I had enough education in my life and I don't want to prove anything to anybody ever again. I think i deserved to talk about whatever i want even if it is Winnie the Pooh. And definitely I am not gonna be estimated in relationship.

Ice Code
03-09-2012, 23:55
@Jas: who do you look for in that case? You say lots of dont's ))

Why making a hate-thread instead of smth rather positive about people around? )

robertmf
04-09-2012, 00:23
I was very young, had just been dumped by a guy I wanted to marry, and was sure I couldn't find anything better. I...errrh... cheated on him intellectually various times.


Ah, :11030: "on the rebound" you were vulnerable :(

peppermintpaddy
04-09-2012, 00:40
For me a great turn off is when a guy wants this

I had enough education in my life and I don't want to prove anything to anybody ever again. I think i deserved to talk about whatever i want even if it is Winnie the Pooh. And definitely I am not gonna be estimated in relationship.

Why are you so hostile? Did I touch a nerve?Who said anything about education??? I merely would like to converse with my wife/gf about things other than the latest soap opera........you have a serious attitude problem by the look of it.......thats another turn off...severe attitude problems

Russian Lad
04-09-2012, 03:02
Lastly, religious guys, because they usually believe the above, among other things I can't agree on, and because my experience tells me they are terrible at sex, given they are raised under the "penis in vagina = instant orgasm for her" belief system.

Lol, can Rusmeister comment on that?:) I have also heard the religious dudes don't use condoms and as a result make the wife real busy delivering babies - like from 4 up to 10.:))
For me the biggest turn-off is like Pepper's, when a girl is unable to keep up a conversation even on rather general topics that don't directly touch the family.:) I hate club girls also, those who are unhappy without going to a club for dancing at least a couple of times per week.

robertmf
04-09-2012, 03:33
Lol, can Rusmeister comment on that?:) I have also heard the religious dudes don't use condoms and as a result make the wife real busy delivering babies - like from 4 up to 10.:))


Are you saying "the rhythm method" doesn't work for Christians :question:

shurale
04-09-2012, 03:49
Is anything in life complete? You get someone who is gorgeous, yet they have a horrible personality. Or you find someone whose kind and considerate and never moans- but they got no money!
Some things I can deal with and some things I can't.
I don't like puny and insecure people. I really don't. They tend to winge a lot and it's a huge turn off.

Whether it's a guy or a girl, strength is what really turns people on, both physical and moral.

So as in literature- no one ever loves a wimp!

So guys, what turns you off in a girl?

A beard.

rusmeister
04-09-2012, 06:31
The trouble with the term "partner" (used instead of traditional terms like "husband", "wife", and "fiance") is that it is and remains a term of commercial affairs and contracts, and when used, it contributes to the formation of a business/contractual attitude toward the relationship. It also has the effect of an "evil euphemism" in covering immoral relatinships with a respectable sounding term).

In any event, it is contrary to the romantic spirit which strives to establish a lifelong relationship, and which is the foundation for a healthy society and healthy families, relationships based on a lifelong vow, which create the stability essential to raise children for at least a couple of decades and to provide for continued companionship and support for the couple and for their children and grandchildren afterwards.

It is a term opposed to true commitment; that says, "I'll be with you as long as the road is easy - when I start having problems with you all bets are off." Having figured this out, I no longer use the word.

NotMe
04-09-2012, 09:09
For me a great turn off is when a guy wants this

I had enough education in my life and I don't want to prove anything to anybody ever again. I think i deserved to talk about whatever i want even if it is Winnie the Pooh. And definitely I am not gonna be estimated in relationship.

It depends which goals in life you set yourself. :)

MashaSashina
04-09-2012, 09:10
A beard.
Agree!

Inola
04-09-2012, 13:09
The trouble with the term "partner" (used instead of traditional terms like "husband", "wife", and "fiance") is that it is and remains a term of commercial affairs and contracts, and when used, it contributes to the formation of a business/contractual attitude toward the relationship. It also has the effect of an "evil euphemism" in covering immoral relatinships with a respectable sounding term).

In any event, it is contrary to the romantic spirit which strives to establish a lifelong relationship, and which is the foundation for a healthy society and healthy families, relationships based on a lifelong vow, which create the stability essential to raise children for at least a couple of decades and to provide for continued companionship and support for the couple and for their children and grandchildren afterwards.

It is a term opposed to true commitment; that says, "I'll be with you as long as the road is easy - when I start having problems with you all bets are off." Having figured this out, I no longer use the word.

Rus, why do you spend your time on an answer completely off topic?

It is obvious that OP used the term "partner" to make question as general as possible to include everybody in the discussion, not only married and engaged people... Don't you agree that before getting married you actually have to choose your future wife/husband?

So, the question is what exactly (in caracter, in attitude, etc.) tells you immediately that this particular person will never be a runner for the next "at least couple of decades"?

mds45
04-09-2012, 13:18
The trouble with the term "partner" (used instead of traditional terms like "husband", "wife", and "fiance") is that it is and remains a term of commercial affairs and contracts, and when used, it contributes to the formation of a business/contractual attitude toward the relationship. It also has the effect of an "evil euphemism" in covering immoral relatinships with a respectable sounding term).

I'm intrigued by this, are you saying that without standing before god and being married two people cannot be together and in love, you seem to be saying they don't love each other as much as married people and that their relationship is a busines matter and that only married people have a real relationship - have I misunderstood, if so please clarify, or is this your real belief.

Unmarried people in relationships are only immoral to you because of your beliefs not because they are !! it's an insult to accuse people who don't believe in god and therefore not married of being lacking in morals - a ridiculous statement !!

Potty
04-09-2012, 13:53
you have a serious attitude problem by the look of it

I'm gonna buy a notepad to record all my diagnoses made by wise people from this forum :D

peppermintpaddy
04-09-2012, 20:52
I'm gonna buy a notepad to record all my diagnoses made by wise people from this forum :D

Well,put that top of the list..

1.Severe attitude problem

TolkoRaz
04-09-2012, 21:33
I'm gonna buy a notepad to record all my diagnoses made by wise people from this forum :D

You will need more than a Bloknot! ;)

This might be of more use........

Potty
04-09-2012, 22:20
This might be of more use........

You must have looked for that picture for a very long time :D Thanks

TolkoRaz
04-09-2012, 22:21
Potty, No task is too large for you! ;)

rusmeister
04-09-2012, 23:37
Rus, why do you spend your time on an answer completely off topic?

It is obvious that OP used the term "partner" to make question as general as possible to include everybody in the discussion, not only married and engaged people... Don't you agree that before getting married you actually have to choose your future wife/husband?

So, the question is what exactly (in caracter, in attitude, etc.) tells you immediately that this particular person will never be a runner for the next "at least couple of decades"?

Hi, Inola,
Why do you think it "off-topic"? It directly addresses an idea expressed in the OP, though perhaps not the idea you were assuming and therefore probably not thinking about.

It IS obvious to me why pele use the word "partner" in our time to apply to a relationship the word was never appropriate for. What would anybody at all of any Christian confession from the distant west of the Americas to the Far East of Russia have said about a sexual relationship that was outside of marriage across most of the second millennium after Christ?

I did not speak about choosing a wife or husband. Such a thing was called "courtship", an evidently forgotten word, and not at all "partnership".

You must define "runner". It is the very lack of definition and the refusal to keep vows that enables widespread large-scale divorce, and makes nonsense of the vows and makes all sexual "relationships" temporary, except by wild chance. If by "runne" you mean "pleasant and problem-free", I can tell you there IS no such marriage and people of the past expected no such thing, and so, were more sensible than we are today.

Inola
05-09-2012, 00:01
Hi, Inola,
Why do you think it "off-topic"? It directly addresses an idea expressed in the OP, though perhaps not the idea you were assuming and therefore probably not thinking about.

It IS obvious to me why pele use the word "partner" in our time to apply to a relationship the word was never appropriate for. What would anybody at all of any Christian confession from the distant west of the Americas to the Far East of Russia have said about a sexual relationship that was outside of marriage across most of the second millennium after Christ?

I did not speak about choosing a wife or husband. Such a thing was called "courtship", an evidently forgotten word, and not at all "partnership".

You must define "runner". It is the very lack of definition and the refusal to keep vows that enables widespread large-scale divorce, and makes nonsense of the vows and makes all sexual "relationships" temporary, except by wild chance. If by "runne" you mean "pleasant and problem-free", I can tell you there IS no such marriage and people of the past expected no such thing, and so, were more sensible than we are today.

What about the word "POTENTIAL" that you seem to have decided to ignore in the OP? There is no relationship, let alone sex or marriage yet... You have just met the person (hope this neutral word won't raise any objections)... What would turn you off? (Your being married with 4 kids and not looking for a new wife not taken into account, of course...)

And, please, stop explaining obvious things like "problem-free marriage does not exist"... I am not 5 y.o.

rusmeister
05-09-2012, 15:25
What about the word "POTENTIAL" that you seem to have decided to ignore in the OP? There is no relationship, let alone sex or marriage yet... You have just met the person (hope this neutral word won't raise any objections)... What would turn you off? (Your being married with 4 kids and not looking for a new wife not taken into account, of course...)

And, please, stop explaining obvious things like "problem-free marriage does not exist"... I am not 5 y.o.

Trying not to lose your comment in the shuffle...

I never intended to imply that you were 5. My apologies for the unintended impression!

I am not paying attention to the word "potential" because it is irrelevant to what I am saying about the word "partner". By all means, keep the word "potential"! I'm saying, in simplest form, that the word SHOULD be "husband" or "wife", NOT "partner". After all, what is the potential object of the, *ahem*, "relationship"?

In sane and healthy societies, it is always to establish a lifelong relationship that is stable, that will not dissolve tomorrow, where children can count on their parents staying together and they can all go and visit their actual (biological) grandparents, who ALSO have worked through their differences and stayed together.

In an unhealthy society, it can be just to get quick and temporary sexual and emotional satisfaction, and screw that bit about reliable and stable families, in-laws, etc. They choose the instability, chaos, broken homes, single-parents, and lonely old age, for the sake of that freedom to change sexual "partners" every six months. Screw the kids, the in-laws and the grandparents. Me, me me! I want what I want!!

Since you are NOT five, I hardly need to point out that while problems exist even in societies where the family is strong and stable, they are greatly multiplied when it is not.

I hope that clarifies my point a little. (and that you get that I am NOT trying to insult you...)

rusmeister
05-09-2012, 15:35
Stupidity. I don't require every guy I date to have a PhD, but I was in a long relationship with a guy who didn't know anything about the world, the news, only thing he knew about was sci-fi novels, it was like talking to a child. A huge reason why I left him was because he was just boring to talk to and anyone could lie to him and he wouldn't notice it. Once you grow up, I think, you should have at least some general knowledge to talk about with people...

Guys who are weak; I don't want to feel like I have to tell him what to do or that his mother runs his life, guys (hell, people in general) should have goals and ambitions and not need anyone else to hold their hand while they go after them. On the same note, guys who are afraid of having a successful woman in their life; I'm not about to become simple minded and a house wife just because it's better for his ego. Had to leave my first love because he had this insane notion that I should just be a receptionist or a hairdresser and be happy with myself, ignoring my potential.... no. Equality after all, I'll look like a lady; but I won't be under anyone else's control.

Lastly, religious guys, because they usually believe the above, among other things I can't agree on, and because my experience tells me they are terrible at sex, given they are raised under the "penis in vagina = instant orgasm for her" belief system.

"Religious guys usually believe the above..."
I look at "the above" and I see "stupidity", "weakness", "fear", "ego", "control", ("selfish sexual equation")...

I object. I'm a "religious guy", and I don't know ANY "religious guys" that "believe in the above" (and I know an awful lot); in fact, they have strong bases to believe the opposite. You are casting the general opposite of thevtruth. I doubt you've ever met a mature "religious guy" in your life. (Teens, maybe, or Moonies)

No doubt you've known unreasonable men. It is improbable in the extreme, though, that the problem was in their religion.

Inola
05-09-2012, 15:55
Trying not to lose your comment in the shuffle...

I never intended to imply that you were 5. My apologies for the unintended impression!

I am not paying attention to the word "potential" because it is irrelevant to what I am saying about the word "partner". By all means, keep the word "potential"! I'm saying, in simplest form, that the word SHOULD be "husband" or "wife", NOT "partner". After all, what is the potential object of the, *ahem*, "relationship"?

In sane and healthy societies, it is always to establish a lifelong relationship that is stable, that will not dissolve tomorrow, where children can count on their parents staying together and they can all go and visit their actual (biological) grandparents, who ALSO have worked through their differences and stayed together.

In an unhealthy society, it can be just to get quick and temporary sexual and emotional satisfaction, and screw that bit about reliable and stable families, in-laws, etc. They choose the instability, chaos, broken homes, single-parents, and lonely old age, for the sake of that freedom to change sexual "partners" every six months. Screw the kids, the in-laws and the grandparents. Me, me me! I want what I want!!

Since you are NOT five, I hardly need to point out that while problems exist even in societies where the family is strong and stable, they are greatly multiplied when it is not.

I hope that clarifies my point a little. (and that you get that I am NOT trying to insult you...)

I am not very touchy, don't worry :) and I certainly understand what you mean, just don't understand why you decided to express your very valuable thoughts in this thread as you don't really seem to be willing to give a direct simple answer to a direct simple question but prefer picking at terms used in the question instead...

Let's leave it at that. It's a pity though, to be honest - because your answer would let us know more about you as a man... something beyond your beliefs and ideals.

mrzuzzo
05-09-2012, 16:28
I don't understand why rusmeister feels the need to rub in his beliefs on all of us in every single thread on this forum, whether it has anything to do with religion or not.

TolkoRaz
05-09-2012, 17:05
Only God knows! ;)

Inola
05-09-2012, 17:09
I don't understand why rusmeister feels the need to rub in his beliefs on all of us in every single thread on this forum, whether it has anything to do with religion or not.

Nope, "анекдоты..." thread is free of rubbing in :D

rusmeister
05-09-2012, 17:29
I am not very touchy, don't worry :) and I certainly understand what you mean, just don't understand why you decided to express your very valuable thoughts in this thread as you don't really seem to be willing to give a direct simple answer to a direct simple question but prefer picking at terms used in the question instead...

Let's leave it at that. It's a pity though, to be honest - because your answer would let us know more about you as a man... something beyond your beliefs and ideals.

The beliefs and ideals ARE what makes the man. The man who betrays you or is faithful to you does so because of his core beliefs - what he REALLY believes, not necessarily what he professes. He abandons his children - or keeps his vows - BECAUSE of those beliefs.

The term establishes the philosophical attitude. Get the right attitude, and it is harder to commit a wrong action and more obviously wrong if you do. The reverse is equally true. Get the wrong attitude, and it is easier...

rusmeister
05-09-2012, 17:53
I don't understand why rusmeister feels the need to rub in his beliefs on all of us in every single thread on this forum, whether it has anything to do with religion or not.

Hey, Mr Z,
You may not realize it, but you do, too. You expect ME to take YOUR beliefs for granted, and may be surprised and irritated when I don't.

The thing is, religion, like irreligion, represents a world view. World view has everything to do with everything. A world view is not one aspect of life. It is the understanding of ALL aspects of life. How we understand dancing, traffic fines, overeating and overdrinking, is all within the framework of our world view. You CANNOT exclude it from a conversation, for it is all of the assumptions behind all of the value judgements you make about everything. it is not one subject out of many, a piece of the pie. It is the whole subject, the whole pie.

My world view is consciously held. I can give direct and immediate answers on what the nature of man is, and what his purpose in life is, and from there proceed to consider dancing and traffic fines within those understandings. That's why you see the references to religion. But then you immediately respond with irreligion.

mrzuzzo
05-09-2012, 18:16
Hey, Mr Z,
You may not realize it, but you do, too. You expect ME to take YOUR beliefs for granted, and may be surprised and irritated when I don't.

The thing is, religion, like irreligion, represents a world view. World view has everything to do with everything. A world view is not one aspect of life. It is the understanding of ALL aspects of life. How we understand dancing, traffic fines, overeating and overdrinking, is all within the framework of our world view. You CANNOT exclude it from a conversation, for it is all of the assumptions behind all of the value judgements you make about everything. it is not one subject out of many, a piece of the pie. It is the whole subject, the whole pie.

My world view is consciously held. I can give direct and immediate answers on what the nature of man is, and what his purpose in life is, and from there proceed to consider dancing and traffic fines within those understandings. That's why you see the references to religion. But then you immediately respond with irreligion.

Blah blah blah, for your information I wear a cross around my neck, but for some reason I don't feel the need to mention it to every single random stranger that posts on this forum.

rusmeister
05-09-2012, 18:20
Blah blah blah, for your information I wear a cross around my neck, but for some reason I don't feel the need to mention it to every single random stranger that posts on this forum.

I have never said whether I wear a cross around my neck...

mrzuzzo
05-09-2012, 18:26
I have never said whether I wear a cross around my neck...

Being religious, believing in God, and being a fanatic are three different things.

People like you that try to force their beliefs upon others on the basis of religion are the reason people hate religion and the church. Just saying...

rusmeister
05-09-2012, 19:17
Being religious, believing in God, and being a fanatic are three different things.

People like you that try to force their beliefs upon others on the basis of religion are the reason people hate religion and the church. Just saying...

People like you that try to force on everyone the idea that what you believe doesn't matter (which is actively done in public education, which most here are probably graduates of) are a reason I became a Christian.

Ice Code
05-09-2012, 19:46
@rusmeister: I'm truly impressed with clarity of thoughts. Are you aware of an existing society that is less exposed to the discussed context of "partnership"?

rusmeister
05-09-2012, 20:18
@rusmeister: I'm truly impressed with clarity of thoughts. Are you aware of an existing society that is less exposed to the discussed context of "partnership"?
Hi, Ice Code,
My thanks, but I give all credit of clarity of thought to my teachers. :)

In my experience, almost NOBODY thinks of the philosophy of words and how that affects how they see the world.

I also think that there is natural resistance to any conclusions that would require one to change how they live. if a thing is true, and they have been living according to falsehood, then some adjustment - sometimes unpleasant - is called for.

mrzuzzo
05-09-2012, 23:29
People like you that try to force on everyone the idea that what you believe doesn't matter (which is actively done in public education, which most here are probably graduates of) are a reason I became a Christian.

Cool dude, I'm glad I can be so inspiring!

BabyFirefly
06-09-2012, 00:36
"Religious guys usually believe the above..."
I look at "the above" and I see "stupidity", "weakness", "fear", "ego", "control", ("selfish sexual equation")...

I object. I'm a "religious guy", and I don't know ANY "religious guys" that "believe in the above" (and I know an awful lot); in fact, they have strong bases to believe the opposite. You are casting the general opposite of thevtruth. I doubt you've ever met a mature "religious guy" in your life. (Teens, maybe, or Moonies)

No doubt you've known unreasonable men. It is improbable in the extreme, though, that the problem was in their religion.

Maybe, I'm willing to admit that was a possibility, but also, they were of a different faith and culture than you, and I think that might have had to do with it.

Russian Lad
06-09-2012, 01:05
I can give direct and immediate answers on what the nature of man is, and what his purpose in life is

:rofl::7525:No kidding, heh? Great minds have purposes, others have wishes, right? On the other hand, there is a saying - You want to make God laugh? Tell him about your plans...

rusmeister
06-09-2012, 05:25
:rofl::7525:No kidding, heh? Great minds have purposes, others have wishes, right? On the other hand, there is a saying - You want to make God laugh? Tell him about your plans...

I didn't say that I came up with them myself.
Only that I can answer them. And it's what God tells ME, not what I'm telling Him.

Inola
06-09-2012, 10:43
How many forum members does it take to kill a light funny thread?

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Answer 1: Two (or more) usual online enemies when they feel like mud-slinging each other.
Answer 2: just one (operating under His instructions apparantly...)

Russian Lad
06-09-2012, 10:53
And it's what God tells ME, not what I'm telling Him.

Does HE talk to you often? :watching:

peppermintpaddy
06-09-2012, 20:39
I didn't say that I came up with them myself.
Only that I can answer them. And it's what God tells ME, not what I'm telling Him.


Does HE talk to you often? :watching:

I wonder would you tell a potential partner that God talks to you ?
Try going along to your nearest hospital and telling them God talks to you

..............they wont even let you go home to get your pyjamas

Inola
06-09-2012, 20:42
I wonder would you tell a potential partner that God talks to you ?
Try going along to your nearest hospital and telling them God talks to you

..............they wont even let you go home to get your pyjamas

PP, you do not pay attention... There are no potential partners around Rus, only potential wives...

RichardB
06-09-2012, 20:56
How many forum members does it take to kill a light funny thread?

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Answer 1: Two (or more) usual online enemies when they feel like mud-slinging each other.
Answer 2: just one (operating under His instructions apparantly...)

Answer 3: Me :D

rusmeister
07-09-2012, 13:06
How many forum members does it take to kill a light funny thread?
*
Answer 1: Two (or more) usual online enemies when they feel like mud-slinging each other.
Answer 2: just one (operating under His instructions apparantly...)

Let's start a light funny thread about abortion or the Holocaust! How many members will it take to kill that?

Inola
07-09-2012, 13:16
Let's start a light funny thread about abortion or the Holocaust! How many members will it take to kill that?

I'm sorry, I don't see even a remote connection between the OP and the Holocaust...

rusmeister
07-09-2012, 15:10
I'm sorry, I don't see even a remote connection between the OP and the Holocaust...

The connection is that there is a serious idea that you evidently don't want to see, know or think about, just joke about. The purpose of the word "partner" is to express sexual relationship without marriage. To say that sex is a mechanical, purely physical act that one does as an activity, and not a transcendent metaphysical act whose prime purpose is the creation of life.

And yes, if I were not married, then there would be potential wives, not partners. The word is an evil euphemism aimed at disguising immorality. People do not USE it with evil intent; we speak the language we are taught, like parrots, unless we ever learn to free our minds enough to think about what is true and decide whether language expresses truth or falsehood. But the effect IS evil, though we realize it not. And so 3rd wives, single parents, children without fathers, STDs, all kinds of sexual perversion (and we haven't hit bottom yet - as long as a few things are still taboo, at any rate), mass loneliness amid millions of people, and so on are all normal now, when once they were exceptional, are now practically the rule. I don't need to say a word about religion. I can talk about practical effects.

My marriage almost fell apart because I had bought into the ideas popular here; thank God I was able to save it, put it together again and almost completely restore it. Almost. Some traces still remain from the break. But they don't dominate, and I am father to my own children, not somebody else's, and they HAVE a father, because I returned to the sanity that traditional morality defends (again, without people realizing it). One wife, parents with their own kids, no STDs, no "protection" from each other, because I accept the ideas our ancestors for a hundred generations before us accepted and reject the modern insanity that tells us that we must not deny our sexual appetites, that marriage is not essential for that, and to speak of "partners" and "relationships" instead of "husbands", "wives" and "marriages".

harrycallaghan
07-09-2012, 15:30
I do not understand why protection is frowned upon by religions, a mans "seed" (for want of a better word) being cast away or whatever is not a sin he will make more... A woman is born with a certain amount of eggs, which once she reaches an age are cast away naturally every month.

MashaSashina
07-09-2012, 15:32
Ok, let's speak rusmeister's language!
I prefer husbands without a beard! :) What about you?

Inola
07-09-2012, 16:29
The connection is that there is a serious idea that you evidently don't want to see, know or think about, just joke about. The purpose of the word "partner" is to express sexual relationship without marriage. To say that sex is a mechanical, purely physical act that one does as an activity, and not a transcendent metaphysical act whose prime purpose is the creation of life.

It is YOUR definition of the term "partner" with which I do not agree. For me it is a broad term which, when used in relation to intimate (not business) life, includes both married and not married people at different stages of their relationship. And for the matter, it is YOU who choose to give the words PARTHER and RELATIONSHIP the pejorative connotation that they do not have and that other people (me, for instance) are free not to accept.

And I disagree that the purpose of a union is procreation: some people can not have children, but it doesn't mean their relationship is all about mechanical sex...

rusmeister
07-09-2012, 17:47
I do not understand why protection is frowned upon by religions, a mans "seed" (for want of a better word) being cast away or whatever is not a sin he will make more... A woman is born with a certain amount of eggs, which once she reaches an age are cast away naturally every month.

Hi, Harry,
All of these things depend on your understanding of reality, the nature of man, and what sex and sexual relations are within that (aka "your philosophy/world view). Any assertion about anything springs from that, including what "protection" is and what exactly sin is.

Out of time...

rusmeister
07-09-2012, 20:45
It is YOUR definition of the term "partner" with which I do not agree. For me it is a broad term which, when used in relation to intimate (not business) life, includes both married and not married people at different stages of their relationship. And for the matter, it is YOU who choose to give the words PARTHER and RELATIONSHIP the pejorative connotation that they do not have and that other people (me, for instance) are free not to accept.

And I disagree that the purpose of a union is procreation: some people can not have children, but it doesn't mean their relationship is all about mechanical sex...

Hi, Inola,
I'm scratching my head thinking how to say what I think important and true without having it sound like personal insult where none is intended.

I know that the word "partner" encompasses many things, some of which are certainly outside of the narrow use I am talking about. And that's my objection. It works out to be an evil euphemism because it is very often used as a bait-and-switch term, because it HAS meanings that are not about sexual relationship. So I wasn't defining the word, I was talking about how it is OFTEN used.

Similarly, your use of the word "union". I'd ask you to define it. I think it does the same thing. It can be shown that its purpose as applied to sexual relationships is SPECIFICALLY to be used instead of "marriage" - precisely because the people are NOT married - just as "partner" is used instead of "husband" and "wife" for the same reason. Why? To legitimize such relationships. That is why they were coined in the first place. DH Lawrence coined the term "have sex" in 1929. How do you think our ancestors got along for centuries before that without Mr Lawrence's help?

What I'd challenge anyone to do is think how people spoke 50, 100, and 150 years ago; when words appeared and WHY. The reason is obviously the abandonment and denial of traditional morality. And the coiners were wildly successful, and so shaped our views via language without our knowing about it. We don't think sex outside of marriage is OK because we reasoned our way to it; we think it because we are TAUGHT to, just as people were taught the opposite 200 years ago. And language is the first and most powerful tool in shaping thought. We know they were successful because most of you think it is OK where your great-grandparents generally did not.

The question of procreation is a bigger one, too big for this post. I'll only say that anyone who thinks the prime reason we have a sex drive in the first place is so we can "have fun" is really messed up in their thinking - not that you think that, but we have to begin by acknowledging the main purpose of the activity, and then that most people in our society in our time take for granted the deliberate bypassing of nature and deliberate interrupting of the natural functioning order to frustrate that prime purpose. That said, we DO think there is a place for sex when children are not possible.

rusmeister
07-09-2012, 21:24
I do not understand why protection is frowned upon by religions, a mans "seed" (for want of a better word) being cast away or whatever is not a sin he will make more... A woman is born with a certain amount of eggs, which once she reaches an age are cast away naturally every month.

Trying to squeeze this one in...

We're not legalists, counting sperm and eggs and going "Omigod, I just spilled one!" it's a philosophical question - how do we see what we are doing when a man and a woman come together in sexual intercourse? - (which I would say should be properly called marital relations when applied to humans - the act of marriage DOES distinguish us from animals - animals don't get married.)

I can only speak in metaphors and hypotheses when so much is not granted. But IF any sexual union among humans DOES result in becoming one flesh as Christians insist, (which we admit is a Mystery), then a permanent metaphysical bond is created. I saw an unsavory literary illustration of that in a book by Yulia Voznesenskaya called "My Posthumous Adventures" (Мои посмертные приключения) where, in the "toll house - think "part of hell" - for sexual sin, the people guilty of sexual sin were all physically bonded to ALL of the others they had "done it" with - by the body parts they had used in the joining.

As to "protection", if a couple is joining in that intimacy, it ought to be obvious to anyone that "protection" is antithetical to intimacy and trust. It is the opposite. It is distrust. We protect ourselves from enemies, not our friends, let alone the person we are closer to than anyone in the world.

I know the reasons why people do it - it is unnecessary to mention STDs or unwanted pregnancies. I am saying that it is a bad philosophy of life, one that is fundamentally, even if unconsciously selfish, opposed to family and to life. With the right philosophy, one need fear neither STDs nor children, and can practice self-control rather than "birth control" - which means that there shall be no birth and no control of one's own sexual desires.

Ulyana.de.fine
07-09-2012, 23:06
The trouble with the term "partner" (used instead of traditional terms like "husband", "wife", and "fiance") is that it is and remains a term of commercial affairs and contracts, and when used, it contributes to the formation of a business/contractual attitude toward the relationship. It also has the effect of an "evil euphemism" in covering immoral relatinships with a respectable sounding term).

In any event, it is contrary to the romantic spirit which strives to establish a lifelong relationship, and which is the foundation for a healthy society and healthy families, relationships based on a lifelong vow, which create the stability essential to raise children for at least a couple of decades and to provide for continued companionship and support for the couple and for their children and grandchildren afterwards.

It is a term opposed to true commitment; that says, "I'll be with you as long as the road is easy - when I start having problems with you all bets are off." Having figured this out, I no longer use the word.

what nonsense! i dont know what origin words wife, fusband etc have, but word partner has a "part" part in it. So you are a part of somebody. If this does not implicate comimtment, well...

scd167
07-09-2012, 23:17
That said, we DO think there is a place for sex when children are not possible.

Does that mean you are finally coming out of the closet?


:celebrate:

carly
08-09-2012, 04:06
I wonder how many true feminists allow their men to wine & dine them, romance them, pay for them, cook for them and generally treat them like a lady etc?



that's why I believe in privileges for women, not equality.

carly
08-09-2012, 04:08
Stupidity. I don't require every guy I date to have a PhD, but I was in a long relationship with a guy who didn't know anything about the world, the news, only thing he knew about was sci-fi novels, it was like talking to a child. A huge reason why I left him was because he was just boring to talk to and anyone could lie to him and he wouldn't notice it. Once you grow up, I think, you should have at least some general knowledge to talk about with people...

Guys who are weak; I don't want to feel like I have to tell him what to do or that his mother runs his life, guys (hell, people in general) should have goals and ambitions and not need anyone else to hold their hand while they go after them. On the same note, guys who are afraid of having a successful woman in their life; I'm not about to become simple minded and a house wife just because it's better for his ego. Had to leave my first love because he had this insane notion that I should just be a receptionist or a hairdresser and be happy with myself, ignoring my potential.... no. Equality after all, I'll look like a lady; but I won't be under anyone else's control.

Lastly, religious guys, because they usually believe the above, among other things I can't agree on, and because my experience tells me they are terrible at sex, given they are raised under the "penis in vagina = instant orgasm for her" belief system.


THIS.

rusmeister
08-09-2012, 07:11
that's why I believe in privileges for women, not equality.

Amen!
(the shortest way to say it)

I don't imagine anyone here would suggest that there not be equal pay for equal work. The trouble in the word "equality" arises when it effectively means "identicality".
"Vive la difference" is a healthy attitude, but we live in an atmosphere of "tuer la difference". (kill the difference)

rusmeister
08-09-2012, 07:22
what nonsense! i dont know what origin words wife, fusband etc have, but word partner has a "part" part in it. So you are a part of somebody. If this does not implicate comimtment, well...

Hi Ulyana,
Do you honestly not get that the word is used to mean things other than sexual relationship? And from that, that people use the ambiguity of the term because it allows them to avoid saying "lover" (also a euphemism, but at least a little clearer on the nature of the relationship).

The word was not used for sexual relationships until maybe twenty-five years ago. I am old enough to remember when it was not used at all. It was used primarily for commercial relationships and temporary activities, which is precisely what marriage is not supposed to be, but is in line with what modern sexual relationships most often are.

And that's probably the most important point. It seems like most people can only see and understand how we talk today. Nobody seems to think about how we used to talk and why change happened; why people stopped using the old words and started using the new words. It's a lack of historical vision, like having blinders on that only see what is "now" (a slippery moment that seems to keep changing every second or so).

iancarisi
09-09-2012, 22:35
Feminism! ;) Girls should be girls, sweet & innocent and leave the Jack Boots in the wardrobe (apart from special occasions) ;)



Agreed 100%. Hence why I will not date American Women :cool:

PeteD
09-09-2012, 23:35
And that's probably the most important point. It seems like most people can only see and understand how we talk today. Nobody seems to think about how we used to talk and why change happened; why people stopped using the old words and started using the new words. It's a lack of historical vision, like having blinders on that only see what is "now" (a slippery moment that seems to keep changing every second or so).

Rus, It's about communication.

I despair about the perpetually lowering standard of grammar, elocution, enunciation, vocabulary and other non-institutional standards. I think about it, but I understand that it is changing, and, for the most part, there is very little, if anything, I can do about it.

On the occasions when I have been able to make a slight difference, usually when it comes down to making a choice about employing candidate A or B, then my personal standards take a front seat.

On the occasions when I know that I don't make any difference, I believe that it is better to communicate - on any level - rather than lock myself in the past and refusing to accept the here and now.

I am sure you are familiar with the "serenity prayer", although I would prefer to call it a "statement of serenity"

robertmf
09-09-2012, 23:51
Rus, It's about communication.

On the occasions when I know that I don't make any difference, I believe that it is better to communicate - on any level - rather than lock myself in the past and refusing to accept the here and now.

Exactly. Even though there are many Engrish teachers on this board, it's still comprised of multi-linguals with differing levels of language. So there must be some flexibility; 'getting the point across' is more important than being a grammar nazi.

rusmeister
10-09-2012, 05:54
Rus, It's about communication.

I despair about the perpetually lowering standard of grammar, elocution, enunciation, vocabulary and other non-institutional standards. I think about it, but I understand that it is changing, and, for the most part, there is very little, if anything, I can do about it.

On the occasions when I have been able to make a slight difference, usually when it comes down to making a choice about employing candidate A or B, then my personal standards take a front seat.

On the occasions when I know that I don't make any difference, I believe that it is better to communicate - on any level - rather than lock myself in the past and refusing to accept the here and now.

I am sure you are familiar with the "serenity prayer", although I would prefer to call it a "statement of serenity"

Hi Pete,
Yes, I AM familiar with that prayer. And I think it wiser to see it as a prayer, to see that we ARE created beings and cannot possibly be our own gods - and make truly awful gods of ourselves at that.

Your comments do not really address my thought - except for the disparaging crack about "locking myself in the past". That idea assumes positive progression in a definite direction, and I think you yourself admit regression and not progress, in vital ateas of our lives.

What we can decidedly do about regress is to change our own personal direction. If everyone is going the wrong way, the first person to backtrack to the point of error - "going back", so to speak, is the most truly progressive.

I agree that we may be forced to reduce our level of communication, even to speak wrongly, if thecreason is compelling - I may, for example, HAVE to speak of "gays" to peoplecwho cannot possibly understand any other form of reference, due to the Christian law of charity (agape), though not due to the insistence of activists.

But I give most people more credit for brains, the potential use of them at least, than that. i think that many people CAN be challenged to think, and that they can rise to the occasion. Maybe that makes me slightly optimistic, but I think that a greater level of respect for others than to condescendingly treat them as stupid and only speak the wrong language - most of the time. We speak the way we do, after parental instruction, because of effective machines of mass propaganda - public education and the media - which repeat words over and over again until we repeat them ourselves. That is the path of the non-thinking man. If we learn that some forms of speech are wrong, reflect and encourage false understandings, then we should want to correct our speech, no matter how popular the current popular terms are. A 19th-century American might find himself surrounded by people who call black people "niggers". Running with your idea, he ought to "grin and bear it"; hey, it's "the here and now". But if he thinks the word expresses false attitudes toward what he is convinced are his fellow human beings, then he ought to insist on language that affirms their brotherhood, their common humanity, however unpopular.

What I do is NOT "locking myself in the past", but finding what is good and true in the past (the future being rather inaccessible) and replacing the false and untrue of the present with it. Truth - absolute and eternal truth - is not
determined by a given time. Times may "change", that is, the modern becomes the past, (and so the modern should never be admired for its modernity, or I may more clearly say, its temporariness, though that is our dismal habit), but truth (see above) does not.

rusmeister
10-09-2012, 06:09
Exactly. Even though there are many Engrish teachers on this board, it's still comprised of multi-linguals with differing levels of language. So there must be some flexibility; 'getting the point across' is more important than being a grammar nazi.



Hi, Robert,
I've mostly answered this in my response to Pete. To what you've added I'll say that this is not about English learners - who I teach and have a good deal of respect for - but about communication that is both clear and true. I'll refer to my example of language describing black people in my last post. If the point gotten across is wrong, if blacks are not a lower class of people and sexual relations OUGHT to be contained in marriage (the one being a 19th century error now condemned, the other a modern popular error), then the error is perpetuated. People in the 19th century thought there was nothing wrong with the term "nigger", people of our time think there is nothing wrong with the term "partner". When I look at it that way, speaking of flexibility becomes irrelevant, to put it mildly. It is a question of what is true, what is important, what effects language has, and I think you eminently capable of grasping that. The one word has definite impact in how we see racial relations, the other definite impact on how we see sexual relations. I grant that any idea that challenges any modern popularly-held notion might jar, surprise or shock. Historical vision - thinking about not only how our ancestors spoke, but WHY they spoke as they did, and WHY changes were implemented (and if possible, by whom). Learning who coined the term "have sex" and when told me volumes about the term.

PeteD
10-09-2012, 10:16
Hi Pete,
Yes, I AM familiar with that prayer. And I think it wiser to see it as a prayer, to see that we ARE created beings and cannot possibly be our own gods - and make truly awful gods of ourselves at that.

I am happy to agree to differ on what we call it. It is the philosophy of the words, rather than religious / deific reference which interest me.


Your comments do not really address my thought - except for the disparaging crack about "locking myself in the past". That idea assumes positive progression in a definite direction, and I think you yourself admit regression and not progress, in vital ateas of our lives.

I don't follow your logic here, and don't make the same assumption.



What we can decidedly do about regress is to change our own personal direction. If everyone is going the wrong way, the first person to backtrack to the point of error - "going back", so to speak, is the most truly progressive.

I agree, 100%


I agree that we may be forced to reduce our level of communication, even to speak wrongly, if thecreason is compelling - I may, for example, HAVE to speak of "gays" to peoplecwho cannot possibly understand any other form of reference, due to the Christian law of charity (agape), though not due to the insistence of activists.

This seems to be a paradox, if not a contradiction of what you are saying.


But I give most people more credit for brains, the potential use of them at least, than that. i think that many people CAN be challenged to think, and that they can rise to the occasion. Maybe that makes me slightly optimistic, but I think that a greater level of respect for others than to condescendingly treat them as stupid and only speak the wrong language - most of the time.

You have been accused, on many different occasions, by many different people, on this forum, of condescension and patronisation. There is a hypocritical element to this statement.


We speak the way we do, after parental instruction, because of effective machines of mass propaganda - public education and the media - which repeat words over and over again until we repeat them ourselves. That is the path of the non-thinking man.

Again, I am unable to follow the logic. Parental instruction and public education encouraged ME to think for myself.



If we learn that some forms of speech are wrong, reflect and encourage false understandings, then we should want to correct our speech, no matter how popular the current popular terms are. A 19th-century American might find himself surrounded by people who call black people "niggers". Running with your idea, he ought to "grin and bear it"; hey, it's "the here and now". But if he thinks the word expresses false attitudes toward what he is convinced are his fellow human beings, then he ought to insist on language that affirms their brotherhood, their common humanity, however unpopular.

Interesting analogy. Firstly, I am not prejudiced. Secondly, it is my opinion that the term "nigger" could only have originated from an educated source, because of the similarity to the latin word niger, from which the country, Nigeria (and its river - Niger), was named. I don't think there is anything wrong with the term - it is the connotation which has been distorted and become derogatory.


What I do is NOT "locking myself in the past", but finding what is good and true in the past (the future being rather inaccessible) and replacing the false and untrue of the present with it. Truth - absolute and eternal truth - is not determined by a given time. Times may "change", that is, the modern becomes the past, (and so the modern should never be admired for its modernity, or I may more clearly say, its temporariness, though that is our dismal habit), but truth (see above) does not.

I agree! :)

rusmeister
10-09-2012, 13:12
I am happy to agree to differ on what we call it. It is the philosophy of the words, rather than religious / deific reference which interest me.



I don't follow your logic here, and don't make the same assumption.




I agree, 100%



This seems to be a paradox, if not a contradiction of what you are saying.



You have been accused, on many different occasions, by many different people, on this forum, of condescension and patronisation. There is a hypocritical element to this statement.



Again, I am unable to follow the logic. Parental instruction and public education encouraged ME to think for myself.




Interesting analogy. Firstly, I am not prejudiced. Secondly, it is my opinion that the term "nigger" could only have originated from an educated source, because of the similarity to the latin word niger, from which the country, Nigeria (and its river - Niger), was named. I don't think there is anything wrong with the term - it is the connotation which has been distorted and become derogatory.



I agree! :)

I'm glad we can agree on some things. I suppose I'll take what I can get. :)

Maybe it's the bit about charity that would clarify what seems to be contradiction. But paradox is all over the place in the Christian world, and it is theveye of the paradox where truth is found. Anyway, I might have to use a word I think wrong - and have done so here - if I think the person I'm talkingto simply won't hear the correct language; when it is necessary that they understand something but will not be open to understanding everything.

And that segues into patronization. Thinking others wrong is NOT patronization. There is a difference between being convinced that people do not know something on the basis of what they do say and expounding on that, and treating them like stupid children. I have said many times that I thought like many of you until I was 38. I am therefore not surprised at finding people who think the way I used to think. And that means that I understand that mode of thinking, because I shared it. I said the same things. I'm the one that changed, now I have to explain how I came to do an about-face and begin progressing the other way, and it is evident that almost no one knows how one could come to do that.

On the analogy, I admit that word origin is where it breaks down. But the purpose of that analogy was not word origin, but usage related to truth. And that's the only common point I need for the analogy to be valid.

Thanks again for pleasant disagreement! :)

shurale
12-09-2012, 09:18
The connection is that there is a serious idea that you evidently don't want to see, know or think about, just joke about. The purpose of the word "partner" is to express sexual relationship without marriage. To say that sex is a mechanical, purely physical act that one does as an activity, and not a transcendent metaphysical act whose prime purpose is the creation of life.

And yes, if I were not married, then there would be potential wives, not partners. The word is an evil euphemism aimed at disguising immorality. People do not USE it with evil intent; we speak the language we are taught, like parrots, unless we ever learn to free our minds enough to think about what is true and decide whether language expresses truth or falsehood. But the effect IS evil, though we realize it not. And so 3rd wives, single parents, children without fathers, STDs, all kinds of sexual perversion (and we haven't hit bottom yet - as long as a few things are still taboo, at any rate), mass loneliness amid millions of people, and so on are all normal now, when once they were exceptional, are now practically the rule. I don't need to say a word about religion. I can talk about practical effects.

My marriage almost fell apart because I had bought into the ideas popular here; thank God I was able to save it, put it together again and almost completely restore it. Almost. Some traces still remain from the break. But they don't dominate, and I am father to my own children, not somebody else's, and they HAVE a father, because I returned to the sanity that traditional morality defends (again, without people realizing it). One wife, parents with their own kids, no STDs, no "protection" from each other, because I accept the ideas our ancestors for a hundred generations before us accepted and reject the modern insanity that tells us that we must not deny our sexual appetites, that marriage is not essential for that, and to speak of "partners" and "relationships" instead of "husbands", "wives" and "marriages".

Rus, I beg your pardon, what is moral and immoral for you?
Is something moral anything that your church deems moral and immoral what it deems immoral?

rusmeister
12-09-2012, 18:32
Rus, I beg your pardon, what is moral and immoral for you?
Is something moral anything that your church deems moral and immoral what it deems immoral?

I you're trying to suggest that I may not think with my brain about what is moral, it won't work.

Of course, the Church teaches, and I accept the Church's teaching - because I find, when I use my brain, that it is right and speaks the truth. So when the Church teaches that something is immoral, I ask "why?" and I get perfectly sensible answers, and I say, "Oh, I get it."

Which is more likely to have a good grasp on what is moral - a fifteen, twenty, thirty or forty year old, with the limits of his personal experience, or a 2,000-yr old institution where these questions have been hashed out thousands of times by millions of people just like you and me?

shurale
13-09-2012, 16:25
I you're trying to suggest that I may not think with my brain about what is moral, it won't work.

Of course, the Church teaches, and I accept the Church's teaching - because I find, when I use my brain, that it is right and speaks the truth. So when the Church teaches that something is immoral, I ask "why?" and I get perfectly sensible answers, and I say, "Oh, I get it."

Which is more likely to have a good grasp on what is moral - a fifteen, twenty, thirty or forty year old, with the limits of his personal experience, or a 2,000-yr old institution where these questions have been hashed out thousands of times by millions of people just like you and me?

So, do you want to say that a group of theocrats and olygarchs 2,000+ years ago had a better grasp on what is moral and they all wrote it down?
I say that they wrote down what served formost their interests, then the inteests of their supporters.

rusmeister
14-09-2012, 07:36
So, do you want to say that a group of theocrats and olygarchs 2,000+ years ago had a better grasp on what is moral and they all wrote it down?
I say that they wrote down what served formost their interests, then the inteests of their supporters.
"Theocrats" - hmmm, people who believe God should rule us. OK, I can accept that definition - only we think that His Kingdom is NOT of this world.
"Oligarchs"??? Huh? 2,000 years ago? Who? Where? Which "oligarchs" wrote about morality? How were they oligarchic? Can you possibly show their "interests"? Looks to me that they were interested in a kingdom not of this world, and so refused to give up the truth of what they had found even at the cost of torture and death. Since that was their interest, what upsets you about it?

Yes, later there WERE, and even ARE worldly people in the Church - when the Church is legal, that's always a danger - that's why persecution strengthens the Church, because it clears out the hanger-on-ers, and leaves the people who really will play hardball - which is what the ancient martyrs - and (for example) the Russian New Martyrs did.

shurale
16-09-2012, 11:46
Let's create a thread in the Religion section and not hijack other people's threads in the cafe section.

TolkoRaz
16-09-2012, 11:59
Let's create a thread in the Religion section and not hijack other people's threads in the cafe section.

Shurale, Good idea, but that won't work - We all know that religion is about spreading the word! :book:

rusmeister
16-09-2012, 15:20
Let's create a thread in the Religion section and not hijack other people's threads in the cafe section.

If the meaning of the word "partner" has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of partners, addressing that could be conceived as "hijacking". Except that it obviously has everything to do with it.

As it is, if you can't beat 'em (if their point stands the toughest scrutiny), try to claim their point is "off-topic".