View Single Post
Old 05-16-2019, 06:59 AM   #66
dark_crystal
Infamous Member

How Do You Identify?:
jenny
Preferred Pronoun?:
babygirl
Relationship Status:
First Lady of the United SMH
 
dark_crystal's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 5,445
Thanks: 1,532
Thanked 26,587 Times in 4,690 Posts
Rep Power: 21474856
dark_crystal Has the BEST Reputationdark_crystal Has the BEST Reputationdark_crystal Has the BEST Reputationdark_crystal Has the BEST Reputationdark_crystal Has the BEST Reputationdark_crystal Has the BEST Reputationdark_crystal Has the BEST Reputationdark_crystal Has the BEST Reputationdark_crystal Has the BEST Reputationdark_crystal Has the BEST Reputationdark_crystal Has the BEST Reputation
Default Still ranting about Christian hypocrites

Quote:
Originally Posted by dark_crystal View Post
Men want LOTS of partners, but they are only going to take responsibility for one, then they want to limit the options of the non-primary partners who have to take responsibility for the results of their insistence on having lots of partners.

It's money, isn't it? Men want a variety of partners, but they would be broke if they had to support them. Best way to avoid that is to put women who could make claims on them in jail.
We now live within a Christianity that places the fight against various kinds of sex above any other fight, although Jesus himself seems to have prized humility above all virtues and deplored hypocrisy among all sins.

One thing he did not spend much time on was any kind of sex. Christians need to leave sex alone. Even if fornication and homsexuality were wrong, their concern with these issues should not extend any further than His did. He mentioned sex twice. He mentioned hypocrisy in 159 verses, and humility in 254--more than any other topic. What would really be the consequences of laying the "biblical" sexual rhetoric on the ground and just backing away? What if they fought hypocrisy and promoted humility instead of fighting promiscuity and promoting heterosexual monogamy?

They do not do this because promoting humility and fighting hypocrisy threatens wealth, while fighting promiscuity and promoting marriage preserves wealth. The Red Letters contain 122 verses against materialism, but humans cannot resist it, so they find a scriptural justification for its continual pursuit. If our culture says that supporting one’s family is a Christian man’s highest calling, this provides an excuse to build wealth.

Pro-life ethics are actually pro-wealth ethics. Family planning gets women out of the home and puts them in competition with men, meaning the wealth pie gets cut into smaller slices. If the women are kept home and the man is encouraged to prove his virtue through how well she is kept, that is a license to ignore everything Jesus said about camels and the eyes of needles.

The thing that prevented me from seeing this for awhile is the fact that men are not capable of monogamy. Like, don’t they see that outlawing abortion means they are all about to get a lot more kids? And that's expensive? I now think 25% of your income is less expensive than economically competing with women. Child support is a loss leader for men.

Further, if supporting one family is virtuous, supporting multiple families can also, eventually, become virtuous. From there it’s a short step to polygamy, which takes even more women out of economic competition AND eliminates the need to pay child support to the state-- if all your co-parents are your legal wives and live in your home, you can dole out money as you see fit.

I saw this tweet last night (@willwilkinson):
The claim that abortion is murder implies that the conditions for women's social, political & economic equality come at an intolerable moral cost. It's no accident this view got traction with conservative Protestants as institutionalized gender hierarchy started to break down.
__________________
dark_crystal is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to dark_crystal For This Useful Post: