Masculinity: A Mental Health Issue

[Psychic Missile]

There is an urge, not necessarily with just liberals, but with all people, to undermine the family by first bringing in a sexual revolution, followed by a feminist uprising, followed by a homosexual revolution. This stems not from any liberal mindset, but from a sinful mindset, which we all suffer from.

Breakdown of family, breakdown of authority, breakdown of democracy.

It's nothing personal, PM.

Plenty of people opposed those events and didn't have an urge to do otherwise. Are they without sin? How did the sexual revolution, feminism, and the acceptance of homosexuality result in harm to the family?

[Starlight]

Study the Roman Empire much?

I did Classics at school and I've learned a bit about the Roman empire in my studies on historical Christianity.

Do you think your bizarre claims applied to the Roman Empire? I don't see any way of matching them against history at all.

[mossrose]

Sex and Culture; J.D. Unwin.

It's even free.

https://archive.org/details/b20442580

n Sex and Culture (1934), the ethnologist and social anthropologist J. D. Unwin studied 80 primitive tribes and 6 known civilizations through 5,000 years of history and found a positive correlation between the cultural achievement of a people and the sexual restraint they observe. "Sex and Culture is a work of the highest importance," Aldous Huxley wrote; "Unwin's conclusions, which are based upon an enormous wealth of carefully sifted evidence, may be summed up as follows. All human societies are in one or another of four cultural conditions: zoistic, manistic, deistic, rationalistic. Of these societies the zoistic displays the least amount of mental and social energy, the rationalistic the most. Investigation shows that the societies exhibiting the least amount of energy are those where pre-nuptial continence is not imposed and where the opportunities for sexual indulgence after marriage are greatest. The cultural condition of a society rises in exact proportion as it imposes pre-nuptial and post-nuptial restraints upon sexual opportunity."

According to Unwin, after a nation becomes prosperous it becomes increasingly liberal with regard to sexual morality and as a result loses it cohesion, its impetus and its purpose. The process, says the author, is irreversible:
"The whole of human history does not contain a single instance of a group becoming civilized unless it has been absolutely monogamous, nor is there any example of a group retaining its culture after it has adopted less rigorous customs."

But I betcha you won't agree with any of it since it doesn't fit your mindset.

[Cow Poke]

We're just trying to set people like seer right concerning their confusion with regards to gender.

Bless your heart.

[mossrose]

Plenty of people opposed those events and didn't have an urge to do otherwise. Are they without sin? How did the sexual revolution, feminism, and the acceptance of homosexuality result in harm to the family?

Everyone is sinful, PM. The difference in people is in whether or not they acknowledge their sinful nature and come to Christ for forgiveness. Certainly many people opposed those events but they, and we, remain sinful and unregenerate without Jesus.

Please read the resource I told Starlight about. Sex and Culture by Unwin.

[Starlight]

But I betcha you won't agree with any of it since it doesn't fit your mindset.

I suspect I won't agree with it since I will be aware of evidence that disproves the thesis.

Of these societies the zoistic displays the least amount of mental and social energy

What on earth is "mental and social energy" when it's at home? According to other mentions of this book on the internet, the author apparently thinks people have a finite desire of 'energy' that can be used to fulfill desires. Am loving the pseudo-science already.

According to Unwin, after a nation becomes prosperous it becomes increasingly liberal with regard to sexual morality and as a result loses it cohesion, its impetus and its purpose. The process, says the author, is irreversible

Er, Israel's polygamous founders were polygamous. The nation became more prosperous later in its history and later switched to monogamy. One doesn't even have to look further than the bible to see this guy is wrong.

Or, let's take the Roman empire. Coming up to the height of it's power (early 2nd century), the empire was choc full of sexual 'deviancy'. Nero had married two men in his lifetime. Pretty much all the first century Emperors had gay lovers. And yet Rome expanded its power and empire. Then, the empire became Christian in the early 4th century, and started instituting Christian morality. The decline and fall of the empire took place subsequent to that.

So from the two most-obvious case studies: Biblical Israel, and the Roman Empire, we can see this guy's thesis is 100% wrong.

But that guy wrote in the 1930s when serious anthropology was only in it's infancy. Anthropologists have since analyzed thousands of tribes and historical peoples, so have they confirmed his weird thesis?
2004 statement by the American Anthropological Association:

The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.

Apparently they think the research of anthropologists has utterly disproved the bizarre notions you're peddling here.

[mossrose]

Just like I thought. You won't even read it because it might say something that doesn't agree with your life and motives.

You, it, (because I am not allowed to assume gender), are the very personification of the reprobate mind that Paul speaks of in Romans 1.

Like God, I give you over to it. Have at it however you wish, I certainly don't care.

You will, however, when you stand before Christ on the day of judgment.

[Starlight]

Just like I thought. You won't even read it because it might say something that doesn't agree with your life and motives.

You, it, (because I am not allowed to assume gender), are the very personification of the reprobate mind that Paul speaks of in Romans 1.

Like God, I give you over to it. Have at it however you wish, I certainly don't care.

You will, however, when you stand before Christ on the day of judgment.

Wow, the sanctimonious and judgementalism is strong with you isn't it. I seem to recall that in Romans 2 Paul criticizes those who pass the Romans 1 judgement on others.

I'd add your crazy book to my reading list, however as I've mentioned it's pretty clear his thesis is empirically wrong. The only part of it that looks right to me given what I'm aware of from the findings of modern anthropology, is that once nations become prosperous they tend to start caring about human rights for all and equality etc, whereas when they are struggling for survival they are too busy focusing on trying to survive from one year to the next to give much thought to or have much interest in human rights or equality or environmentalism etc. It's just Maslows' hierarchy of needs: Once the bottom layer of the pyramid of needs becomes guaranteed then public interest and focus moves up to attaining the next layer of needs.

[mossrose]

Wow, the sanctimonious and judgementalism is strong with you isn't it. I seem to recall that in Romans 2 Paul criticizes those who pass the Romans 1 judgement on others.

Read it right, o mighty biblical scholar.

3 But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God?

So typical of wannabe scripture interpreters. Make it say what you want it to.

Anyway, carry on, as I said before. Wallow in your muck.

[Starlight]

Read it right, o mighty biblical scholar.

Well as far as biblical scholarship goes it's my personal view that in Romans 1:18-32 Paul is quoting from his opponent with a view to mocking his opponent's position. Douglas Campbell lays out many of the relevant arguments in his 1000-page tome on Paul, which I don't expect you to have read, The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul, although naturally I don't totally agree with Campbell in all the details.

However, even if you hold the more standard view that it's Paul himself speaking in Romans 1:18-32, you should be aware that accusing others of sin is pointless when you yourself stand condemned under God's just judgement of sin.

Anyway, carry on, as I said before. Wallow in your muck.

You'd make a great Pharisee. So smug in your holier-than-thou, judgmental, self-righteousness. When in practice, you're utterly hollow on the inside and full of evil of every kind, as your nastiness toward gay people, liberals, atheists, etc demonstrates.

[mossrose]

Well as far as biblical scholarship goes it's my personal view that in Romans 1:18-32 Paul is quoting from his opponent with a view to mocking his opponent's position. Douglas Campbell lays out many of the relevant arguments in his 1000-page tome on Paul, which I don't expect you to have read, The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul, although naturally I don't totally agree with Campbell in all the details.

However, even if you hold the more standard view that it's Paul himself speaking in Romans 1:18-32, you should be aware that accusing others of sin is pointless when you yourself stand condemned under God's just judgement of sin.

You'd make a great Pharisee. So smug in your holier-than-thou, judgmental, self-righteousness. When in practice, you're utterly hollow on the inside and full of evil of every kind, as your nastiness toward gay people, liberals, atheists, etc demonstrates.

Your personal view of scripture doesn't interest me. As I said previously, you make it say what you want it to say in order for it to fit your lifestyle choices.

And as I also said before, I don't much care what you think about me. I am covered by the righteousness of Jesus Christ, and there is no more condemnation for me.

As for you..........better be sure you are right.

[Tassman]

Study the Roman Empire much?

Your attempt to equate homosexuality with the decline of civilisations is self-serving and wrong. Homosexuality in classical Greece was not only common, it was the norm, and yet our western civilisation arose from this great civilisation and it's culture. As for the Romans, Gibbon, in his mighty six volume 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' attributes its decline and fall to Christianity and its preoccupation with other-worldly things, not the homosexuality which was commonplace.

[NorrinRadd]

Yeah, and if I want to eat quiche, I will!

Mmm, spinach quiche. Been about 35 years since I had it.

[rogue06]

Your attempt to equate homosexuality with the decline of civilisations is self-serving and wrong. Homosexuality in classical Greece was not only common, it was the norm

Essentially, being "the norm" means at least 50% were homosexual. You really think that? I mean I know the left likes to greatly inflate the numbers of how many people are gay, but this is ridiculous.

[NorrinRadd]

So, in my Facebook Newsfeed, there's this.

I'm an egalitarian/mutualist, meaning I see Scripture teaching equal status and equal partnership of man and woman, with no positions of authority being limited to only one sex.

I don't believe men who are rather "nerdy" or in some other way depart from "traditional" views of "manliness" should be derided as "beta males." But I also don't believe those men who by nature *do* fit the "traditional" views of "manliness" should be castigated for "toxic" masculinity.

It's hard to find a good middle way, either inside or outside the Church.