page 7
Author
Topic: Pussified Nation
Wax
Junior Member
posted 01-08-2001 09:32 AM 
It's January what's up with the movement? All I hear is a lot of talk and a lot of whispering. No one knows anything, no one I know of has seen anything. So what's the Deal WWII?MAKE WITH THE MOVEMENT!!!
IP: Logged
William Wallace II
Member
posted 01-08-2001 09:57 AM
It takes a couple weeks to plan for world domination. Our first meeting will be in the afternoon on Saturday February 3rd. More details will be forthcoming...
IP: Logged
William Wallace II
Member
posted 01-08-2001 10:14 AM
This week I will talk about the joys of being a manly man who, though not perfect, walks in God's will.It is a burden to financially provide for one's family. Squatting Bear's posting was particularly salient on this point and is appreciated. In addition to my more than full-time job I've had to take on a second part-time job as well as the occasional one-time couple day contract. We do not waste any money, but my bride and I have decided to arrange our lives around the gospel and not the route which is easiest. Therefore, we have chosen to live in the city near our church, and have a home large enough to entertain (we currently see upwards of 3000 people a year pass through our home), house guests, and practice the fading art of biblical hospitality. As you might suggest the cost of such a lifestyle is quite burdensome to shoulder. In addition to tithing to our church, we also have thousands of dollars in related hospitality costs. It would have been much easier to move out the city far from our church and live a private and simple life disconnected from other members of God's body. But, it is a privilege and honor to open my home and serve the gospel in partnership with my wife and children and to see their spiritual gifts be used by God for His glory and others joy. At two years of age my daughter prayed over a convicted child molester in our living room. My wife frequently meets with young women to follow the admonition in Titus that older women should teach the younger. I have seen my young son become social and hospitable, often sitting on the laps of people who've had a bad day and encouraging them by his affection. We have seen couples decide to marry, unbelievers come to faith, and hundreds of people grow in faith right in our living room. But, none of this would not have been possible if my wife were at work and my children in daycare. Had I remained single out of selfishness or fear I would have learned none of the countless lessons GOd has given me through the life in Christ with my family. I am the head of this little congregation and must function as their pastor, father, and husband. It is a burden, the weight is heavy, but the grace of God is more than sufficient. I love to carry the weight God has given me and see my wife and children loved, cared for, taught, and encouraged to pursue the work of the gospel. If I were not carrying this weight I would likely spend my days in complete self absorption and wander into many sins.
IP: Logged
aztechjohn
Junior Member
posted 01-08-2001 01:14 PM
A friend told me I should check out this site saying Mars Hills has a cool ministry going on here. This is my first experience here. I decided to check out this posting because it is obviously a "Hot Topic".What I found here is disgusting and degrading to this forum and web site.OK, I understand here, someone was trying to make a point. To be honest, I shut off after reading the first 50 postings here. This person's point was no longer valid given the techniques he (or she) used to present it.I dont care what the point of the original posting was! Using foul, rotten language is wrong. Period! It is just wrong. Degrading and putting down others to be scarcastic is against all the teachings of Jesus. There is no room for this style within His love.I know the whole point of Mars Hill is to bring the message of Christ and his love to the community. I read several postings from members who just joined to check out the forums here. Some were Christians. Some were not. What kind of a witness and testimony is this to them? William Wallace II,
I do not know if you are a Christian or not. It is not right for me to judge you personally. I pray that others were not hurt by this disrespect for Jesus and the ministry Mars Hill is trying to promote and the lives they are trying to touch. I do not hold Mars Hill personally accountable for this thread.Additionally, I pray that the Lord grants you the wisdom and discernment to know what is acceptable and what is unacceptable in the eyes of God.I pray for peace in these forums.Blessings...John Starkey
Phoenix, AZ www.mp3.com/poorkids4u
(if you want to contact me)
IP: Logged
Squatting Bear
Member
posted 01-08-2001 01:23 PM
At the risk of sounding like some self-preening peacock, I'd like to restate my point.When scripture commands a man to provide for his own, I don't believe it was referring exclusively to the financial side of things.Exactly where does money rank?
Pretty far down there for the believer (1 Tim 6:9) I believe it is inestimately more important for the husband and father to provide love, attention, guidence, time(!) to his wife and children than being able to purchase for his family the latest Playstation or brandname jeans. A real man places the needs of his family (time and attention) over the "needs" of his employer (can you stay late?). There must be a healthy balance between work and home, but family must always take priority over career.It is a beautiful thing, Wallace, that you can involve your family in your work, that much of your work is done from your home; but yours is a very rare situation, and impossible for many.If I may wax personal, growing up my father for a number of years worked three jobs simultaneously. He would get up at 2 am for his first one, report to his second about 6 am, home at 4 or so to carve molds for machine parts until 9 or 10 pm. He was around very little. Sure, we had food, a roof, and clothing, but no dad; for when he was around, us kids were all too often hiding from his unpredictably violent temper.I can count on one hand all the times growing up that I actually had personal interaction with my dad, and while I'd give him a A+ for his superhuman efforts on the financial end; on the other aspects I'd have to give him an F. No amount of money can be worth this.I'm grown up, no longer afraid of my father, and have a wife of my own. In retrospect, I'd much have rathered that we were homeless than have my father work like he did.I'm not sharing any of this for anyone's sympathy or fuzzy feelings. I am not a victim. I only posted this as: here is what I believe, and here is why. Money is not important. Your relationships are.
IP: Logged
KZA
Member
posted 01-08-2001 06:34 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by skewter:
wallace hapenned to be the one that posted a message about this phenomenon. it struck a chord with a lot of people. this is how God works. who cares if wallace makes a few social mistakes? the point is still clear. you two seem to be arguing with wallace the person instead of taking the time to think about what the point of this discussion might be. what's the significance of the fact that this is the most popular thread on this board? the pussification of men is a real problem, obviously!honestly, i think your aguments are frivolous and tangential, and what's worse, you're preventing this discussion from moving forward and reaching the stage where it could be come a physical reality instead of just a discussion.
---------------------------------This is just the problem. Closing the mind in order to get something accomplished is scary. One of the reasons the culture has such a uniformly negative reaction when they hear the word "Puritan" is because of the way it worked out when Puritans closed their minds. Sin in the community? Must be because people are practicing witchcraft. Theaters? Close them. They lead to immorality. Plus, they're stories. Stories are not true. The Bible is true. Pilgrim's Progress is true. And we can cheat and kill Indians because God predestined us for this land.This is the kind of thinking that has freaked me out about Wallace's party all the way through the discussion. The category "man" is narrow and reactionary, and there is zero sympathy for males legitimately weak and effeminate. (Go ahead--attack my masculinity.) A friend of a friend came to Mars Hill, who considers himself gay (although he is not practicing), who is also relatively open to Christianity. Came and listened, and was not offended by biblical preaching against homosexuality but by a member's testimony. For this member, the acid test of whether a church was orthodox or liberal was whether or not homosexuality was accepted. I don't think it was God's law that drove this friend of a friend away, but the snide, cliquey way the member presented this opinion and the knowing titters of approval from the congregation. The friend came to church and saw another club that refused him entrance, probably the same way he had been rejected in high school or whatever. He didn't see Jesus, who would denounce his sin vehemently and tell him his identity was not "homosexual" but "sinner for whom Christ was crucified." What he got was, "Ha, ha, dumb, sub-masculine, pussified homos--none of their theology here!" I came to Christ, finally, because I realized the worst sinners could come to Jesus and be saved. Jesus hasn't given me a couple of years to get my act together and stop being weak and then come down on me with fire, although he could. He's given me grace upon grace, allowing me to come to him when I knew there was no chance of my being able to live the Christian life.I found a lot of help in Wallace's idea that it's okay for me to be a man and stop feeling guilty for it. I have also found the courage, because of some of the things he's written, to get in here and write instead of cursing people under my breath . But I think, Wallace, this is not an honest look at human beings and how they've been since Adam. Even though I agree that men should start being men (and I should, too), and we should all quit whining, I refuse to close my mind, put on a brown shirt, and start strutting around in the strength of someone else's leadership, as though I were myself strong. If someone here is strong, let him show it by building up the weak, and scrubbing some nasty toes. Some pussified, whining, no-thanks, kick-you-in-the-teeth toes.And if any one of you causes me or some other weak brother to fall by your strength, you'll have blood on your hands before Almighty God.Cell' me has more guts than me and 95% of you, just because he was willing to face off with Wallace alone when Wallace is obviously the better polemicist. You know what's sad? I hear echoes of Nietzsche in the "manly man" rhetoric, far more than Jesus. Jesus loved little children and Zaccheus' pussified, tree-climbing ass; Nietzsche condemned Christianity as "a religion of weakness." [This message has been edited by KZA (edited 01-08-2001).][This message has been edited by KZA (edited 01-08-2001).]
IP: Logged
skewter
Junior Member
posted 01-08-2001 08:12 PM
KZA, i never advocated blind acceptance without the backing of scripture. read again what you quoted from me. what i was suggesting was some simple consideration for the implications of a discussion like this. why does it arouse such a reaction from so many of us? maybe because it's important?instead, i have to admit that this discussion has been a huge disappointment to me. all i've seen are clumsy, pseudo-intellectual characterizations of the participants(of which your post is a prime example) and not a single original insight.i'm tired of this.
IP: Logged
William Wallace II
Member
posted 01-08-2001 10:05 PM
Yes, a man should provide much more than money for his family. And, yes he has a right to live simply and minimally and devote a great deal of time to his family. But, this is not an excuse for a man to be less than ambitious or to force his wife to work and carry his half of the curse in addition to her own (the children). What often happens in young marriages is that the woman carries half the load and children are postponed because the woman is not encouraged to think and act like a woman, but is now a breadwinner with her attention directed away from the home. Also, it provides the man a long season of not carrying the full weight God has placed upon his shoulders which then lessens his incentive to find a way to make it all work for good. One of the ways a man shows love is through providing. When my wife and kids eat, that food is the result of my love. If I hung out with them all day and they were hungry I would doubt they would feel well loved. True, in our consumer driven world we could all get by on a lot less. But, trying to obtain as much as possible for the cause of benefitting others seems like an act of kindness. After all, if a few men don't provide more than the minimal requirements to live how will ministries be funded and single moms and kids be assisted?
IP: Logged
William Wallace II
Member
posted 01-08-2001 10:11 PM
The world is filled with a great number of churches and ministries sensitve to feminine (read pussified) men. These men can go there. They can read Gary Smalley and James Dobson. They can go to Promise Keepers. They can hang with Exodus International if they are gay. They can go to most any Christian bookstore and get men's devotional books with really moving stories. They can listen to Christian radio and hear men drone about how they feel. We sit on the other end of the teeter-totter. We don't like those guys, though in Christ we still love them. We don't want to sing their songs, read their books, or cry with them. We think the best place for a gay guy may be with straight guys. He may feel odd, because he is odd. That does not mean that he's not loved. He may just be experiencing male love for the first time. When my little brothers punched me growing up I did not cry and ask why they hated me. I would then punch them back knowing that it was our own little secret language of male affection. Tell your buddy if he got a punch, it might mean he's just a brother.
IP: Logged
William Wallace II
Member
posted 01-08-2001 10:46 PM
Do not knock the Puritans kids. The Pilgrims and Puritans are not the same guys. The Puritans produced some of the godliest Christian community and richest theology in the history of the church. The poor folks always get a bad rap by folks who have not done their historical research. One Puritan church actually brought a husband under church discipline because he was no good in bed, his wife was sick of it, and he was unrepentantly unwilling to be discipled for the bedroom. I'd have paid to be there.
IP: Logged
William Wallace II
Member
posted 01-08-2001 10:47 PM
Aztecjohn - thanks. You have a nice throne and we all were waiting with baited breath to hear from the queen.
IP: Logged
xrizxomiz
Member
posted 01-09-2001 12:58 AM
After reading several of the posts I think I have discovered a new system of logic. This system is grounded in, and finds its source from, the inner-testicular limbic canal (that's the part of the testical that feels the most pain when you get kicked there).
I am going to call this system of logic "Aner-Logico Syllogistic Reasoning". The word Aner is the word for "male" in the greek and is used only when an explicit distinction is being made between those with "ballzacks" and those without. Reasoning this way would go something like this:1) A question is posed (or a threat is made, whichever gets us to wherever we're going the fastest), such as: Am I a manly-man if I tell another manly-man that he's not non-manly enough? 2) Next, a painful syllogism is presented in order to kill whatever remains of "fuzziness" and "happiness" within the bowels of all male-whores:
[AMm & ~(~M)] -> IMm
~IMm
----------------
~[AMm & ~(~M)]So, it's not the case that Another Manly-man who is not non-Manly is such because I am not a Manly-man. I believe in this instance a double negation would imply an affirmative. Therefore, I show my manliness by affirming the manliness of another man. Wrong. That is invalid. You've allowed the sweetness of your bowels to be unequally yoked with your testicular strength.If you couldn't follow my line of thought, it's probably not your fault. . .Isn't that the way you prefer it? Just like every other insurmountable obstacle you've faced that's left you with no limbic system. Just like every other endeavor you've started but never completed. With my man-driven syllogism, I've only succeeded in showing you that your impotence is just the result of a depleted sperm count. You just need to trade in your air-tight panty liners for some free-wheelin' boxers.I love Jesus cuz He knows how to beat ass. He told us in Matthew 24:36-39 that the days prior to His coming will be just like the days of Noah, full of eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage. Their will be a general "peace on earth" prior to His coming and when He shows up He turns that "peace" into wrath for those who rebelled against His kingdom.
Jesus is creating a world where there is no pain, no suffering, no heartache. Just so He can take over this world. . .cuz they never expected it ;)
Whatsmore, the Bride gets to watch (participate in?) her King open up a can of bubbly whoop ass on all the enemies (see Isa 66:23-24, cf. Rev 7:17, and 21:4).Pro Rege (For the King),"When Christ ascended to be at the right hand of the Father in glory, it was God's way of proving that there is not one inch in space and one minute in time that Christ has not said of it, "I own it, its mine!" - Abraham Kuyper
IP: Logged
skewter
Junior Member
posted 01-09-2001 01:16 AM
ok now *that* was funny. "i love jesus cuz he knows how to beat ass" should be on t-shirts.- j
IP: Logged
William Wallace II
Member
posted 01-09-2001 09:23 AM
We also need some bracelets and a praise song to round out the marketing campaign.
IP: Logged
KZA
Member
posted 01-09-2001 02:09 PM
I think it already is on plenty of Tshirts. I think there was an article in the Stranger about it a couple of years back.
IP: Logged
KZA
Member
posted 01-09-2001 04:27 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by xrizxomiz:
1) A question is posed (or a threat is made, whichever gets us to wherever we're going the fastest), such as: Am I a manly-man if I tell another manly-man that he's not non-manly enough? 2) Next, a painful syllogism is presented in order to kill whatever remains of "fuzziness" and "happiness" within the bowels of all male-whores:
[AMm & ~(~M)] -> IMm
~IMm
----------------
~[AMm & ~(~M)]So, it's not the case that Another Manly-man who is not non-Manly is such because I am not a Manly-man. I believe in this instance a double negation would imply an affirmative. Therefore, I show my manliness by affirming the manliness of another man. Wrong. That is invalid.
------------------------------------
What you're describing sounds a lot more like Wallace's sycophants who jump in periodically to repeat something he's already said, with a whole lot less style. As for me, I never had any interest in posturing as a "manly-man"; I rejected the category. In theory, a manly man is supposed to follow sundry precepts Wallace takes from the bible. In practice, observed in this topic, we have a different specimen. In high school, we called them "Jocks." Jocks and their ilk had their herd of hangers-on, fighting over crumbs and the extra seat in the Jock prom limo. So here.God Bless Jocks, thugs, and those who like to bloody each other at Pantera concerts. Or Korn or whatever. Just don't insist that everyone who wishes to follow Jesus must find a spot at the back of the herd.Our God is great. Jeremiah, Jacob, and other wussy men find favor with him. Manly men like Esau and Nimrod (a mighty hunter before the LORD) His soul hates. True, Jehu was a jock. David probably was to some extent. But then again, he says: "Blessed is he who has regard for the weak; the Lord delivers him in times of trouble." (Ps 41)If you are strong, or manly, or good at sports as a Christian, aren't you so for the sake of the weak?"Therefore, for Christ's sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong." I wish I was man enough not to fear insults, weaknesses, and persecutions.Low sperm count, eh? hmmm. I think the hearty reception of the testicle/homo humor by the jocks in this topic is a symptom of two things--A. The Jock, alpha-male thing doesn't work so well after high school. Solution? Buy an old thunderbird and fix it up. Eat some pork rinds in the solicitude of your own prefab suburban living room.B. White Male persecution complex. Well-documented in such movies as "Falling Down" and "Fight Club." Consumer-driven, cookie-cutter, aisle-9 version of reactionary masculinity to compensate for a lack of versatility in approaching the world.Signed,
A crotch-scratching, grunting, non-manly man.[This message has been edited by KZA (edited 01-09-2001).]
IP: Logged
hopeful
Member
posted 01-09-2001 11:05 PM
originally posted by KZA."Our God is great. Jeremiah, Jacob, and other wussy men find favor with him. Manly men like Esau and Nimrod (a mighty hunter before the LORD)His soul hates."I'm sorry my friend but you have it all backwards. Esau was the wuss. Esau liked to hunt, he was a good hunter, and his father favored him because of the good meat he brought home. God despised him, god passed him up and granted his birthright to Jacob. He was honored by men but despised by the LORD. Esau traded away his birthright for a bowl of red stew! (Gen 25:30) How foolish was that! He was driven so much by his stomach that he gave away his most prized posession. What a wuss!Jacob on the other hand was a manly man. Gen 25:27 says "Jacob was a quiet man, staying among the tents." The Hebrew word translated quiet here is 'tam', which is translated elsewhere as 'perfect' and 'morally complete'. Jacob did not stay at home with mommy, Knit sweaters, and clean up the tents. The fact that he cooked good food only proves he was after the LORD's own heart because loves good grubbin. And i would guess that if Jacob and Esau went toe to toe Jacob would kick his ass! Why, well he wrestled with God all night till daybreak and God didn't win untill he resorted to a supernatural act of jacking up his hip. (Gen 32:24-26) Jacob was also a man of enourmous strength, he rolled away the stone from a well in Gen 29:10, something that usually required many shepards. And Jacob had God's blessing. He was a manly man.therfore, i don't think your argument has much biblical weight. Maybe you should check up on Nimrod and Jeremiah aswell.
IP: Logged
KZA
Member
posted 01-10-2001 12:46 AM
So which is it, Hopeful? Does "manly-man" simply mean "morally complete?" Or does it mean being able to kick ass and roll big heavy stones? You don't seem to be sure. The fact that you claim to know Hebrew isn't helping you any.If it wasn't for your Hebrew, I'd figure you were just stupid. I feel, well, my feelings are a little hurt. I don't think you respect me enough to read my post seriously, and yet what you wrote makes no sense at all. You use the term "manly" to mean one thing in the first paragraph and another in the next. The stuff about Nimrod is only a couple of verses, so I'll check myself on it here in front of you, okay?"Cush became the father of Nimrod; he was the first on earth to be a mighty man. He was a mighty hunter before the LORD; therefore it is said, 'Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the LORD.'" (Genesis 10)I think I was saying that Nimrod was a "manly man." Admittedly, the RSV says "Mighty man," but you'll grant it was close, right?It goes on to tell us that Nimrod built 7 cities. He was industrious, intelligent, charismatic, obviously. He also could kick ass--he was a mighty enough hunter before the Lord that they made up a saying in Israel about him. One commentator says that his "hunting" before the LORD was another way of saying that he terrified and oppressed other men. The Hebrew word for his name means "rebel," that is, a rebel before God. If you mean "powerful" or "macho" when you say manly, Nimrod was your "man." And yet inspired scripture calls him a rebel against God. I know God destroyed at least two or three of the cities he founded--Babel, Nineveh, and Resen. So Nimrod works as an example for the point I was making--manliness, machismo, human industry and strength--it's a joke to God, at best. Do I really have to quote all the verses that show our frailty, weakness, and depravity as the places at which God is willing to meet us? Thank God I am not a manly man! Otherwise I would never be aware of my need.What's my point? I think you made it for me when you were talking about Esau--what is highly regarded by men is detestable to God. It's because we are men--and therefore wicked--that we are so willing to believe that God loves it when we kick ass and assert our competence. But any strength we have, according to the flesh or the spirit, is because God is merciful and gracious.[This message has been edited by KZA (edited 01-10-2001).]
IP: Logged
Xavier
Junior Member
posted 01-11-2001 12:56 PM
Hiya Mr. World War II,I think you're very funny (not sure what this has to do with the Gospel).However, you have strong entertainment promise, have you ever considered stand up ?For whatever it's worth, i thank you for making me laugh.Cheers,Xavps: I'll refrain from making fun of you, you're entertaining and never claimed to be a serious Christian, and I, like you, am in it for the fun. Mocking serious people is a wholly underrated form of entertainment, mind you.
IP: Logged
xrizxomiz
Member
posted 01-11-2001 05:18 PM
KZA: >What you're describing sounds a lot more like Wallace's sycophants<
. . .sounds scary. Is it related at all to that twitching of the eyes I get after I've been studying for 8 hours straight?>who jump in periodically to repeat something he's already said, with a whole lot less style.< I try to be original but my style only begets the ordinary and the everyday. I'm just too secular to compete with the sacredness of others. I guess my home is here on earth with the other mundane men :(>As for me, I never had any interest in posturing as a "manly-man"<Point well taken. I don't think anyone on this list is confused about what your posturing as ;) >I rejected the category.<
. . .In practice as well as in thought?>In theory, a manly man is supposed to follow sundry precepts Wallace takes from the bible. In practice, observed in this topic, we have a different specimen