Discussion in 'Comparative Religion' started by wellwisher, Dec 30, 2012.
Real Eyes Realize Real Lies!
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
No more major earthquakes overnight.
Nightmarish dreams of the gang trashing my place. There was going to be a rumble, metal bars, trouble was brewing,. I'd had enough of dreaming. Now to face the real world!
"Wellington shaken by severe earthquake"
That is a real war-time mentality. I have heard that sentiment before. In NZ we'd say "Oh he is a good Catholic" if they more than four kids in the family.
The other one coming to mind was the expression "lie back and think of England", doing the duty of breeding more soldiers.
I might look up the origin of that expression.
Yahoo Answers has covered the topic, and their chosen best answer was
I believe that men and women complement each other. The role of the Christian female was as the complement of her man, while the role of the Christian male is as the complement to his woman.
Men do better in chaos where there are no rules. This is why inventors and pioneers are usually men (outside the box of rules). Women do better after things are settled and there is organized structure.
If we got rid of all the dual standards, quota laws, and ever increasing rules, regulations and procedures (knowledge of good and evil) then culture would head away from what optimizes women. The men would be better able to adapt since they would invent anew. Conservatism is more masculine and teaches self reliance and small government. This brings out the best in the men. Liberal is dependency on larger and larger government for structure; feminine.
Define complement as it is used in your post please?
The complement is the amount you must add to something to make it "whole".
For example, in geometry, two angles are said to be complementary when they add up to 90°. One angle is said to be the complement of the other. "
So does that mean in a relationship with a strong female the male has nothing much to do?
But they don't. Yes, men will share in the cost for specific woman's issues, as will women share in the cost for male specific diseases. All will share in all the costs.
For one, women are not part of the expenses for 200,000 cases of prostate cancer each year, yet the company pays this premium for all its employees regardless of gender. There are other typical male diseases that are shared by all, there is nothing unfair about equal protection for women as for men, that is the nature of equality.
This seems narrow-minded at first reading.
Read it in context.
It depended on what wegs was referring to as "benefits"
I probably should butt-out for the US system would be different to ours.
That's definitely one for the linguistics moderator Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
This is what I want someone to explain, for I definitely don't think all marriages add up to one or 1. It would be like comparing one elephant to one mouse still one but each has hardly the same impact.
The reason modern marriages don't work as well. is men and women don't act as natural complements, so the team becomes weaker. In baseball you have the pitcher and the catcher, with both complementing each other. If both decided to swap roles, the team degrades; divorce.
There is a simple logic to this. Women are more likely to be perfectionists. Women dress for other women, with far more attention to details than men. The make-up alone has a lot of extra detail. This female activity is social training toward perfection since everything needs to be just a certain way or perfect women will point it out.
Men are more about completeness instead of perfection. This is why boys take longer to learn structure, such as the rules of school. It is not immaturity as much as the urge toward completeness with structure incomplete. The boys don't like this cage of perfection, but will push at the walls seeking completeness.
Men chase many women, because combined, they are one complete women. Women would prefer the perfect man based on whatever the social criteria happen to be at that time. Currently the perfect man has to cry, clean diapers and kiss her needs. Guys will do this for sex, but will get restless and will try to get out of the cage with the result being divorce.
This important difference has to do with the personality firmware, with the levels of firmware, staggered within men and women, like the teeth of two meshing gears. It is highly optimize to have perfection and completeness working as team. Perfection offers structural capacitance, while completeness offer change, to the order of things, which is then integrated by perfection.
When men and women switch roles, you have structural perfection leading completeness. The economy suffers when you have all the rules of structure, caging business in perfection, when it needs to leave the box to invent and push boundaries. The Christian way was completeness leading structure or husband leading the wife. The creative principle is out front, bringing new things to be assimilated into perfection. Such a culture moves forward faster, which is Christianity lead the way, from the middle ages, to first world cultures and economies. The Muslims have the men leading but they lead via perfection which is an accident waiting to happen.
In these forums, I try to show alternate points of view, since my nature is completeness, not perfection. I also have a tendency not to complete anything to perfection. Many in the forum tends to be more by the book of perfection, teaching that which is closest to perfection in the sense of having been polished by many people. If completeness leads, there are new angles for research. If perfection leads there is nagging censor slowing the rate of change within a box without windows or doors.
Completeness and perfection does not preclude high intelligence by both men and women. One has structured intelligence and the other has more common sense and blue sky. Both can work as a team to advance culture, while maintaining structural continuity between past, present and future. The crystal of perfection never fully melts into solution, but only partially melts via the heat of completeness, ready to crystalize back out with a new surface/perimeter. That is the Christian way.
"The reason modern marriages don't work...." and basically you say they weren't complementary. At what point do two potential partners look at the facts and say "are we complementary? Are we sufficiently complementary?"
Have you explained what you mean by complementary? I want to know. It is important. It feels like at the moment it is important to have a partner that has a similar goal, looking for the similar expectation and destiny. Complementary could be useful in that each would allow the other the support to meet that goal.
Support may not be the best word, encouragement maybe? Certainly if you want to go in one direction and the other doesn't want to complement that direction, that brings out aspects of loyalty. You can hear the arguments already.
"You never supported me! You always tried to change my direction"
But shouldn't it be a two-way street where both have a say? Theoretically at least, but won't one dominate? Can it really be that both contribute 45 degrees to the right angle?
I haven't had a successful marriage. A Christian is unwise to link up with an atheist, if both have strong views on the subject. Were we destined to fail so as to learn a lesson? Handed a lemon he made rather good lemonade. It certainly didn't taste good at the time.
I'm still standing, but will I get in the ring again for another hiding?
At some point the silly and clueless stupidity of the religiously enforced misdescriptions of human nature becomes a vicious and unprincipled insanity.
That gives me a headache - silly, clueless stupidity, vicious, and insanity all in one sentence.
This made me chuckle. I've never seen marriage compared to 'getting in the ring' for another 'fight.'
Probably not a good idea to view a potential spouse as an adversary.. Just sayin! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I've noticed some are pretty feisty. Like prior to an up and coming wrestling match the two contestants are challenging each other, testing their resolve, trying to unnerve each other. It is a battle of wits as well as bodies.
Wow, Not sure what or how I should reply, I guess maybe what are you implying so that I may get a better perception of your view and thought ?
It would have helped had you edited your post. To me didn't read right.
I think you are asking: What are you implying so that I may get a better perception of your view and thought?
But who is the "You" are referring to?
Separate names with a comma.