Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVIII: Hyena Central Command 憶ラ

[The Wasatch]

The Wasatch, you are being inconsistent.

In which ways am I being inconsistent?

[Joohan]

Probably because, at least in the west, words like: obedience, submission, and authority, have garnered negative connotations - what with late stage liberalism. But, yes, submission is not only an accurate word, but even the canonically correct word.

It shouldn't be viewed through more jaded contemporary lenses, were in the relationship is akin to master and slave. Rather, it should be thought of in the more conservative and endearing way - all of myself for you.

Obedience and submission to whom though?

It's a rather broad statement. Parents, the state, the clergy, etc. etc.

Though i'm no fan of Nietzsche, he was correct in assessing our general passivity. We are, usually, expected to conform to most authority figures... generally...

[Diopolis]

Have you read the bible?

Ephesians 5:22-24 22 Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord:

23 Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body.

24 Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things.
1 Timothy 2:11-15 [11] Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection. [12] But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence. [13] For Adam was first formed; then Eve. [14] And Adam was not seduced; but the woman being seduced, was in the transgression. [15] Yet she shall be saved through childbearing; if she continue in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety.
1 Corinthians 14:31-35 [31] For you may all prophesy one by one; that all may learn, and all may be exhorted: [32] And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. [33] For God is not the God of dissension, but of peace: as also I teach in all the churches of the saints. [34] Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith. [35] But if they would learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church.
All quotations from Douay Rheims bible

Also a Catholic encyclopedia article on the role of women:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm

The Bible was also divinely inspired, not divinely written, and reflects the beliefs of the times writers. Paul was pro-slavery-- that does not mean that Christ is. Note that none of these quotes are quotes of Christ, but rather taken from the letters of Paul, which while found to be divinely inspired are not literally true in every sense. Much can be learned from these passages, but the Bible and Catholic tradition also teaches of the equality and dignity of every person.

The catechism of the council of trent says:

On the other hand, the duties of a wife are thus summed up by the Prince of the Apostles: Let wives be subject to their husbands. that if any believe not the word, they may be won without the word by the conversation of the wives, considering your chaste conversation with fear. Let not their adorning be the outward plaiting of the hair, or the wearing of gold, or the putting on of apparel: but the hidden man of the heart in the incorruptibility of a quiet and meek spirit, which is rich in the sight of God. For after this manner heretofore the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling hint lord.

To train their children in the practice of virtue and to pay particular attention to their domestic concerns should also be especial objects of their attention. The wife should love to remain at home, unless compelled by necessity to go out; and she should never presume to leave home without her husband's consent.

Again, and in this the conjugal union chiefly consists, let wives never forget that next to God they are to love their husbands, to esteem them above all others, yielding to them in all things not inconsistent with Christian piety, a willing and ready obedience.

Let's note that this is the only catechism actually ratified as infallible by Catholic tradition. Other catechisms are mere summations of theological consensus at the time of publication.

[Diopolis]

Probably because, at least in the west, words like: obedience, submission, and authority, have garnered negative connotations - what with late stage liberalism. But, yes, submission is not only an accurate word, but even the canonically correct word.

It shouldn't be viewed through more jaded contemporary lenses, were in the relationship is akin to master and slave. Rather, it should be thought of in the more conservative and endearing way - all of myself for you.

Is also the husband submissive to the wife, if this is so? (Which I am not questioning the verisimilitude of your statement, but rather posing an additional clarification.)

According to the council of Trent, not necessarily, or at least not in the same way(one could argue that the necessity of providing for his wife is technically a form of submission, as it is regarded by some theologians).

It is the duty of the husband to treat his wife generously and honourably. It should not be forgotten that Eve was called by Adam his companion. The woman, he says, whom thou gavest me as a companion. Hence it was, according to the opinion of some of the holy Fathers, that she was formed not from the feet but from the side of man; as, on the other hand, she was not formed from his head, in order to give her to understand that it was not hers to command but to obey her husband.

The husband should also be constantly occupied in some honest pursuit with a view to provide necessaries for the support of his family and to avoid idleness, the root of almost every vice.

He is also to keep all his family in order, to correct their morals, and see that they faithfully discharge their duties.

[Nakena]

Obedience and submission to whom though?

It's a rather broad statement. Parents, the state, the clergy, etc. etc.

Though i'm no fan of Nietzsche, he was correct in assessing our general passivity. We are, usually, expected to conform to most authority figures... generally...

Ah okay, I get it now. I can understand the concept. I thought it was meant specifically in relation to the Church etc.

[Joohan]

Have you read the bible?

Ephesians 5:22-24 22 Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord:

23 Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body.

24 Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things.
1 Timothy 2:11-15 [11] Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection. [12] But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence. [13] For Adam was first formed; then Eve. [14] And Adam was not seduced; but the woman being seduced, was in the transgression. [15] Yet she shall be saved through childbearing; if she continue in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety.
1 Corinthians 14:31-35 [31] For you may all prophesy one by one; that all may learn, and all may be exhorted: [32] And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. [33] For God is not the God of dissension, but of peace: as also I teach in all the churches of the saints. [34] Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith. [35] But if they would learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church.
All quotations from Douay Rheims bible

Also a Catholic encyclopedia article on the role of women:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm

The Bible was also divinely inspired, not divinely written, and reflects the beliefs of the times writers. Paul was pro-slavery-- that does not mean that Christ is. Note that none of these quotes are quotes of Christ, but rather taken from the letters of Paul, which while found to be divinely inspired are not literally true in every sense. Much can be learned from these passages, but the Bible and Catholic tradition also teaches of the equality and dignity of every person.

And does a traditional household, were the husband is typically in control of familial affairs, some how degrade the wife? Is there's, somehow, not an honorable position? According to the Catholic Church, the institution established by God to represent his kingdom upon the Earth, mothers and wives have nothing to be ashamed of. Heck, Theotokos Mother Mary, is considered more important than any human being who's ever lived - bar Jesus Christ himself.

There is nothing degrading about her post, as a mother and as a wife.

[Joohan]

It's a rather broad statement. Parents, the state, the clergy, etc. etc.

Though i'm no fan of Nietzsche, he was correct in assessing our general passivity. We are, usually, expected to conform to most authority figures... generally...

Ah okay, I get it now. I can understand the concept. I thought it was meant specifically in relation to the Church etc.

I mean... you're supposed to be submissive to the Church. What that actually means though is... well...

you know how many denominations there are...

[Duhon]

The Bible was also divinely inspired, not divinely written, and reflects the beliefs of the times writers. Paul was pro-slavery-- that does not mean that Christ is. Note that none of these quotes are quotes of Christ, but rather taken from the letters of Paul, which while found to be divinely inspired are not literally true in every sense. Much can be learned from these passages, but the Bible and Catholic tradition also teaches of the equality and dignity of every person.

And does a traditional household, were the husband is typically in control of familial affairs, some how degrade the wife? Is there's, somehow, not an honorable position? According to the Catholic Church, the institution established by God to represent his kingdom upon the Earth, mothers and wives have nothing to be ashamed of. Heck, Theotokos Mother Mary, is considered more important than any human being who's ever lived - bar Jesus Christ himself.

There is nothing degrading about her post, as a mother and as a wife.

this would be better tackled in the christian thread, i think

[The Wasatch]

The Bible was also divinely inspired, not divinely written, and reflects the beliefs of the times writers. Paul was pro-slavery-- that does not mean that Christ is. Note that none of these quotes are quotes of Christ, but rather taken from the letters of Paul, which while found to be divinely inspired are not literally true in every sense. Much can be learned from these passages, but the Bible and Catholic tradition also teaches of the equality and dignity of every person.

And does a traditional household, were the husband is typically in control of familial affairs, some how degrade the wife? Is there's, somehow, not an honorable position? According to the Catholic Church, the institution established by God to represent his kingdom upon the Earth, mothers and wives have nothing to be ashamed of. Heck, Theotokos Mother Mary, is considered more important than any human being who's ever lived - bar Jesus Christ himself.

There is nothing degrading about her post, as a mother and as a wife.

I was afraid that the use of the term submission implied an inferiority about wives and women, and that they are incapable of understanding and leading a family without male help, which is, of course, a ridiculous sentiment.

[Joohan]

Probably because, at least in the west, words like: obedience, submission, and authority, have garnered negative connotations - what with late stage liberalism. But, yes, submission is not only an accurate word, but even the canonically correct word.

It shouldn't be viewed through more jaded contemporary lenses, were in the relationship is akin to master and slave. Rather, it should be thought of in the more conservative and endearing way - all of myself for you.

Is also the husband submissive to the wife, if this is so? (Which I am not questioning the verisimilitude of your statement, but rather posing an additional clarification.)

It's different. The husband is generally expected to be the head of the household - so he couldn't really be submissive as the familial lead. With that being said though, as the head, he has obligations and duties. He must provide for his family ( to the best of his ability, no matter what ), he must be fair, compassionate, and faithful. He's not just allowed to be some tyrant - he actually has to live up to what it means to be a husband and a father.

[Joohan]

And does a traditional household, were the husband is typically in control of familial affairs, some how degrade the wife? Is there's, somehow, not an honorable position? According to the Catholic Church, the institution established by God to represent his kingdom upon the Earth, mothers and wives have nothing to be ashamed of. Heck, Theotokos Mother Mary, is considered more important than any human being who's ever lived - bar Jesus Christ himself.

There is nothing degrading about her post, as a mother and as a wife.

this would be better tackled in the christian thread, i think

Secularism is left wing poison.

You're on RWDT - As above so below baby!

[Diopolis]

And does a traditional household, were the husband is typically in control of familial affairs, some how degrade the wife? Is there's, somehow, not an honorable position? According to the Catholic Church, the institution established by God to represent his kingdom upon the Earth, mothers and wives have nothing to be ashamed of. Heck, Theotokos Mother Mary, is considered more important than any human being who's ever lived - bar Jesus Christ himself.

There is nothing degrading about her post, as a mother and as a wife.

I was afraid that the use of the term submission implied an inferiority about wives and women, and that they are incapable of understanding and leading a family without male help, which is, of course, a ridiculous sentiment.

Families really ought to be led by men. I'll post The Garbage Generation again because everyone really should read it.
That being said there are some single mothers and other exceptional circumstances which do a very good job of raising their children, although they usually seek the help of a man with their children.

[Nakena]

Ah okay, I get it now. I can understand the concept. I thought it was meant specifically in relation to the Church etc.

I mean... you're supposed to be submissive to the Church. What that actually means though is... well...

you know how many denominations there are...

Well, since I - from your perspective that is - play for the opposing team that isn't an issue for me though. Its nevertheless an interesting topic however.

[The Wasatch]

this would be better tackled in the christian thread, i think

Secularism is left wing poison.

You're on RWDT - As above so below baby!

Well, the government and religion must be separated to ensure not the just the health of the government but also the health of religion.

[The Wasatch]

I was afraid that the use of the term submission implied an inferiority about wives and women, and that they are incapable of understanding and leading a family without male help, which is, of course, a ridiculous sentiment.

Families really ought to be led by men. I'll post The Garbage Generation again because everyone really should read it.
That being said there are some single mothers and other exceptional circumstances which do a very good job of raising their children, although they usually seek the help of a man with their children.

This is what I was worried that "submission" implied: that women are incapable of managing a family without a man to help them. While I am in favor of healthy marriages, of course, the idea that a woman is helpless without a man seems quite regressive. Additionally, I was looking in the Catechism for anything that used the term submission relating specifically to women and marriage and couldn't find anything. Did I miss it? I am actually curious whether there is a section of the Catechism that I can't find on this topic.

[Joohan]

Secularism is left wing poison.

You're on RWDT - As above so below baby!

Well, the government and religion must be separated to ensure not the just the health of the government but also the health of religion.

In that they shouldn't be the same institution? I agree. The HRE was a great example of why one should not have direct control over the other. With that being said though, I do believe that the church should definitely influence the government - and that likewise the government should recognize the church.

We don't need patriarchs and governors strangling each other, but I wouldn't mind seeing the president take communion.

[The Wasatch]

Well, the government and religion must be separated to ensure not the just the health of the government but also the health of religion.

In that they shouldn't be the same institution? I agree. The HRE was a great example of why one should not have direct control over the other. With that being said though, I do believe that the church should definitely influence the government - and that likewise the government should recognize the church.

We don't need patriarchs and governors strangling each other, but I wouldn't mind seeing the president take communion.

I would certainly appreciate leaders who don't call themselves "the chosen one," but the President can not take Communion officially as the President, but rather as an individual. The government cannot espouse any religion, and unfortunately many seem to forget that this protects not just the government, but also religions themselves, as it keeps secular politics and religion out of religious and doctrinal decision.

[Duhon]

this would be better tackled in the christian thread, i think

Secularism is left wing poison.

You're on RWDT - As above so below baby!

mods might think otherwise
also, there are nonchristian rightwingers lingering in this thread
there's hana and fahran and uh

[Nakena]

Secularism is left wing poison.

You're on RWDT - As above so below baby!

mods might think otherwise
also, there are nonchristian rightwingers lingering in this thread
there's hana and fahran and uh

And me. Amongst others.

[Diopolis]

Families really ought to be led by men. I'll post The Garbage Generation again because everyone really should read it.
That being said there are some single mothers and other exceptional circumstances which do a very good job of raising their children, although they usually seek the help of a man with their children.

This is what I was worried that "submission" implied: that women are incapable of managing a family without a man to help them. While I am in favor of healthy marriages, of course, the idea that a woman is helpless without a man seems quite regressive. Additionally, I was looking in the Catechism for anything that used the term submission relating specifically to women and marriage and couldn't find anything. Did I miss it? I am actually curious whether there is a section of the Catechism that I can't find on this topic.

Those quotes from the Catechism of the council of Trent don't use the actual word submission, but they do use the term subject to, which is synonymous. I don't know about the new Catechism.

[Joohan]

In that they shouldn't be the same institution? I agree. The HRE was a great example of why one should not have direct control over the other. With that being said though, I do believe that the church should definitely influence the government - and that likewise the government should recognize the church.

We don't need patriarchs and governors strangling each other, but I wouldn't mind seeing the president take communion.

I would certainly appreciate leaders who don't call themselves "the chosen one," but the President can not take Communion officially as the President, but rather as an individual. The government cannot espouse any religion, and unfortunately many seem to forget that this protects not just the government, but also religions themselves, as it keeps secular politics and religion out of religious and doctrinal decision.

I know, at least in the United States, the president is prevented from doing so in his official capacity, but think that he should be able to. This certainly wouldn't be too radical a move, plenty of modern countries even today have relations between the state and national churches. Heck, the British Monarch also doubles as the head of the Anglican church. It wouldn't be too radical a transition - but I think an affirmation of a nations' faith would mean the world.

[The Wasatch]

This is what I was worried that "submission" implied: that women are incapable of managing a family without a man to help them. While I am in favor of healthy marriages, of course, the idea that a woman is helpless without a man seems quite regressive. Additionally, I was looking in the Catechism for anything that used the term submission relating specifically to women and marriage and couldn't find anything. Did I miss it? I am actually curious whether there is a section of the Catechism that I can't find on this topic.

Those quotes from the Catechism of the council of Trent don't use the actual word submission, but they do use the term subject to, which is synonymous. I don't know about the new Catechism.

Well, "subject to," and "submission" do have different meanings, and, while similar, have different connotations. I am honestly curious about the Church teaching on this; I have witnessed varied explanations and interpretations.

[Nakena]

I would certainly appreciate leaders who don't call themselves "the chosen one," but the President can not take Communion officially as the President, but rather as an individual. The government cannot espouse any religion, and unfortunately many seem to forget that this protects not just the government, but also religions themselves, as it keeps secular politics and religion out of religious and doctrinal decision.

I know, at least in the United States, the president is prevented from doing so in his official capacity, but think that he should be able to. This certainly wouldn't be too radical a move, plenty of modern countries even today have relations between the state and national churches. Heck, the British Monarch also doubles as the head of the Anglican church. It wouldn't be too radical a transition - but I think an affirmation of a nations' faith would mean the world.

Thats the difference between a secular republic and a monarchy with state religion such as the UK.

[Bear Stearns]

When has the alt right ever started a war that killed 1 million+ people based on a lie?

World War II comes to mind.

The alt right didn't exist then. Nope.

[Xuloqoia]

Secularism is left wing poison.

You're on RWDT - As above so below baby!

mods might think otherwise
also, there are nonchristian rightwingers lingering in this thread
there's hana and fahran and uh

I mean, it depends on how willing one is to place me in the philosophical tradition of the Abrahamic faiths; some folks (who I've since ceased contact with) referred to me (in a rather dismissive tone) as merely a sophisticated Christian apologist.