How to discipline your wife, yes, the christian approved way!

Folks, I guess some of my readers are christian and I have good news for them. I hear they believe in the traditional marriage [I don’t know what that is] and now a christian group has come up with what I don’t know where to classify. It can qualify as soft porn or domestic violence depending on where you stand on this matters. It is called Christian Domestic Discipline and their statement of objectives, if we can call it that reads

This website is intended to provide a refuge for those interested in a Christian Domestic Discipline marriage. Here they might find information and share fellowship with other CDD couples without having to wade through pornography, warped practices, or distorted ideals of what we believe God created for marriage. This site is not the typical “spanking” site prevalent on the web. This site focuses mainly upon improving marital relationships by sharing the guidelines and marital roles listed in God’s Word.

For those of you who haven’t heard of this wonderful site, please if you allow me

CDD

Spanking for Jesus

Advertisements

No, you don’t get it.

In the recent weeks, here in the neck of woods, transgender issues have received national spotlight as a result of one person’s struggle for sex change. In today’s paper, a columnist writes

So it makes sense to oppose the LGBTI agenda, not because we hate the individuals espousing it before us, but because we love the families we are protecting behind us.

which is an appeal to intolerance towards others based on claims written in an old goat herders narrative. He writes elsewhere

The moment we ignore the biblical admonition, “male and female he created them”, together with its genetic, anatomical, psychological, spiritual and societal manifestations

It is evident here, that his objections are based on his religion. He appeals to a slippery slope that is simply non existent. He writes

then nothing is left to halt the slippery slope that compels us all to ignore sexual differences in any personal or social reality.

There is no slippery slope. Allowing the LGBT to live their lives and at the same time enjoy the same protections from government as heterosexual couples get doesn’t threaten your job, your work or your family.

The author of the article, though appearing to be well read, appears to me to have missed the points in some of the works he claims to have read. Take the case of Plato’s republic. In this philosophical discourse, Plato presents the ideal state. It is utopian only to the extent that such an ideal does not exist but it doesn’t mean that members of our race can’t aspire to such a state. Unless our author has a problem with aspiring to ideals, I don’t see how Plato fits in with his bigotry.

In 1984, Orwell tells the story of a state where big brother monitors your every movement and where your neighbor can spy on you. Dissent isn’t allowed. There isn’t room for individual expression or even free thought. Whereas, the world has not gone to this level, it appears that it is not far off  what with reports of governments monitoring private communication?

Related articles

The end result of dystopian rights is mass suicide. It makes sense to oppose their agenda to protect life now and in future

Don’t be a pussy, ditch the qualifiers

How search for true self drove Audrey Mbugua to suicide bid

How minister cut short Audrey Mbugua’s dream of fully becoming a woman

Audrey Mbugua takes transgender case to Medical Board

No we don’t need prayers.

There was a national prayer day held here I think yesterday where the leaders ask god to come and intervene and bring a solution to all the problems they manage to get us into between one prayer day to the next. It is a day that makes financial sense to the hotel owner whose hotel is hired for this purpose, the pastors who come to pray and those different teams that are invited to do one thing or other. It is a waste of time and money to sit to do nothing except talk to yourselves in the hope that some sky daddy is listening and cares about your shit and is going to send some angel your way to solve the mess.

It is time people realized they have a duty to change things and we would start by reducing the size of government, removing redundancy, checking on corruption, and reducing the public wage bill among other things than wasting time in prayer.

So please Messrs Uhuro, we have bigger problems and the solutions can’t be found sitting down appealing to some sky daddy invented by Hebrew goat herders. No, the solutions are elsewhere, they will be found in schools of higher learning through research development, developing sustainable ways to produce food, community policing, better education, provision of better health care and equal opportunities for wealth acquisition and generation and lastly promoting local talent in the different fields among others.

Blog break 8: Help needed

Folks, I have discovered that my mind plays tricks on me. It seems to me that it is quite able to deal with, what in many cases are, difficult concepts but find what everyone else considers simple and normal problematic to say the least. It is in connection with one of such problems that am calling  for help.

My problem has been to find a reason why our species really must get married and I will start by saying I have asked a number of friends for answers. I will list the answers below and what I thought about them, and I could be wrong- the more reason am asking for help.

  • Love

This is a difficult concept for me to wrap my head around. When someone says they are in love, what does this mean? Is its meaning universal or does it mean different things to different people. One then has to find someone where this concept means the same thing and find heaven on earth!  I find it is one of those concepts that have been bandied around that maybe it has lost the meaning it originally had.   Does the original concept go like “Love is patient, kind, always protects, trusts, hopes and perseveres”?  In your opinion, which of these theories are practical and how then can we measure adequate love to amount to marriage (what are the thresholds involved?).  what happens when it wears out… what can replaces the love that you once felt…. A dildo maybe?  So am hoping that those friends of mine who have been married several years will help here.

  • Companionship

By this I understand it’s someone to talk to or share with. Do you require this person daily or just on occasions and what happens if this one person is no more? Do you get a cat or do you get the second replacement?  To add to this, is that why we have cases of spouses plotting to kill another?  When the partner finds another to share and talk to – is this void after the person is no more, is too much to bear?

  •  Security

This has been the most difficult to make sense of. Many of the people I have talked with by this mean financial security which I find to be ridiculous because the person could lose their jobs or better still die. Is this a valid reason to get married?

  • Procreation

Unless the package includes staying together to raise the children, I think this is not sufficient reason to get married. One can adopt a kid What if both are not possible due to financial and suitability constraints, does that occur to any married couples? Besides I truly think the time when the maxim go yea and fill the earth made sense is way gone. There are enough of us already and I think the earth could do with a little break from births for a few years, just dreaming :-P.

  • A sense of Responsibility

Does one being in this institution make them work harder than one who isn’t?  A theory or a myth, that I wish my dear friends would help me understand.   Don’t we all meet at the bus stop at the same time and return back home almost by the same bus?  How is someone in marriage more responsible than one who ain’t…. what weighing scale can we use to measure this responsibility?

  • Society and family obligation

In many cultures one is expected to get married at some point.  This builds up a cultural pressure when both reach this desired ‘marriageable’ age (ripe for marriage).   To fulfill this egocentric, belittling notion, my friend had to oblige and get a bride!  A bride that has to be acceptable by the community and his family.  Is the bride for the society/family… makes me wonder, is she really your bride at the end of the day? Are members of the species getting married because of these societal pressures?

  • Gods command and love

Really? Does God therefore hate the single ladies and senior bachelors who have made a choice to remain as they are?  For the god believers, please tell me, is your god’s loves so limited that he/she can’t distribute it equally among his brood and what happens then to those who are married? Do they lose out on this supposed love since I had someone say that god loves those who are in perfect? marriages!  Please educate me here?

Lastly I don’t know whether this happens elsewhere or just here in the neck of woods. Many times aspiring couples invite friends for committee meetings where the friends are to help with planning for the wedding they should help fund this enterprise. Now am not against those who feel enamored by this contributions, but seriously why should someone else fund your fancy? Why not have a wedding that you can afford besides it is a one day affair? Maybe am missing something here and I really need help.

There is the very last bit that I think happens in many East African cultures and in the east where bride price or dowry is paid. I don’t know if it still happens in the west or it has been dropped. I have listened to all the reasons for paying either and in my view they all come short. In my view, it boils down to seeing a woman as something to be possessed, just as we possess our other gadgets. I get it that it is cultural. In my anthropology class at the university one of the things I learnt about culture is that it is adaptive, fluid and not cast on stone. Isn’t it time for the committees, whoever the members, looked into this matters and advised or proposed a way forward. I don’t see why people should be slaves of the dead men and women who came before them. I realize by saying this it will be said of me to be a person without roots, and just so you know, I don’t really care much about roots. Soon I will be dead, I see no need of living my life as a slave of a man or woman who died several years before my parents met and their parents before that met. That is my way and I want to keep it that way.

To sum up my little survey, marriage simply equals to a lot of expectations, that many a times are not met and hence the frustrated lot you find talking to themselves in the streets.  Get married if you may, and as the great Nietzsche said, if you get a good wife you will be happy if a bad one you will become a philosopher.  Live and enjoy life and look pleased like a cat with two tails (hopefully)!!

***************************

Related articles

Couples who engage in pre-marital sex considered married- court

Philosophical discussions

Prayson has posted a quote from the writings of Hume on his blog, a post that has elicited quite a bit of comment but which I think do not respond directly to what he[Hume] was alluding to and it is my intention to try to address the question here briefly and invite further comments.

A little philosophy, says lord BACON, makes men atheistsA great deal reconciles them to religion. For men, being taught, by superstitious prejudices, to lay the stress on a wrong place; when that fails them, and they discover, by a little reflection, that the course of nature is regular and uniform, their whole faith totters, and falls to ruin. But being taught, by more reflection, that this very regularity and uniformity is the strongest proof of design and of a supreme intelligence, they return to that belief, which they had deserted; and they are now able to establish it on a firmer and more durable foundation.

– David Hume, (NHR 4:329, Hume’s emphasis)

Cited: Natural History of Religion, in The Philosophical Works,ed. T .H. Green and T. H. Grose, 4 vols. (Dannstadt, 1964)

This quote here alludes to the design argument for the proof for the existence of god. Unlike other arguments that attempt to show the existence of god can be proved with the aid of pure reason alone, such as the Ontological argument, this argument starts with alluding to experience, that is, that we observe in the world of experience things that display regularity, uniformity and an appearance of design and then shifts to the ontological argument in its conclusion that there must exist a supreme intelligence. This conclusion, however, doesn’t follow from the premises. All that can be granted to the proponent of this argument is that there could exist an architect for the order in the universe but as an argument for the existence of god it is insufficient.

As a general comment, I need to add that if the existence of god were provable, only one argument would have been sufficient. The fact that there exists so many arguments attempting to prove that a god exists goes to show that they have all been insufficient in the course they set for themselves.

***********************************************

One of the comments on the post is irrelevant to say the least and commits a logical fallacy. He writes

You are on the loosing side. Atheists comprised an estimated 2.01% of the world population, according to The World Factbook in 2010. Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

The Christian share of the world’s population has stood at around 33% for the last hundred years, which says that one in three persons on earth are Christians.

Christianity, in one form or another, is the sole state religion of the following nations: Costa Rica (Roman Catholic), Denmark (Evangelical Lutheran), El Salvador (Roman Catholic), England (Anglican), Finland (Evangelical Lutheran & Orthodox), Georgia (Georgian Orthodox), Greece (Greek Orthodox), Iceland (Evangelical Lutheran), Liechtenstein (Roman Catholic), Malta (Roman Catholic), Monaco (Roman Catholic), and Vatican City (Roman Catholic). There are numerous other countries, such as Cyprus, which although do not have an established church, still give official recognition to a specific Christian denomination.

Western culture, throughout most of its history, has been nearly equivalent to Christian culture, and many of the population of the Western hemisphere could broadly be described as cultural Christians. Though Western culture contained several polytheistic religions during its early years under the Greek and Roman empires, as the centralized Roman power waned, the dominance of the Catholic Church was the only consistent force in Europe. Until the Age of Enlightenment, Christian culture was the predominant force in western civilization, guiding the course of philosophy, art, and science. Christian disciplines of the respective arts have subsequently developed into Christian philosophy, Christian art, etc..

I want to point out that we are not in competition with christianity or any world religion for numbers. It is the religious who need numbers in their congregations for various reasons, atheism only calls for you to be rational and whether you chose to do so is your business. It has been noted that rationality is not for everyone since there are people around the world whose only concern is how they will get the next meal and as such do not have the luxury to spend their time thinking about philosophy.

The second problem with this argument is that the author isn’t concerned with whether the claims of christianity are true but rather with the number of the adherents of his particular sect. I would like to tell him that a false belief doesn’t become true because it is held by many people. The only thing that the numbers show, is that a significant part of the human population have bought into the story of some Hebrew goat herders set in the Middle East. Nothing more.

*************************************************************

The same fellow lists two [he claims] there are ten facts that show that evolution is false.  Yours truly is not a biologist and as such will invite comments by those who are well versed on this subject. He writes

Scientific Fact No. 1 – Human Egg and Sperm Proves Evolution is Wrong

The evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The female egg contains the X-chromosome and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a male or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a female. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother’s womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons.

I honestly don’t get what he is saying.

Scientific Fact No. 2 – Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong

There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible. Evolutionists prove that getting a college education does not impart wisdom.

If I understand what he is saying, it appears to me, he believes he evolved from a monkey which I don’t think is what is taught in evolution. Last I checked the theory of evolution posits that we share a common ancestor with other primates. I would be interested in knowing if he means by scientifically impossible that it is not possible in nature over long period of time for changes to occur?

******************************

Related articles

Hume on religion

Blog post 7: A question

For readers in Britain, you may have more details on this case than I do, and that fortunately is not the question. It is a case between a married 30 year old teacher and his 15 year old student who had a crush on him and from what I gather from the report exchanged explicit texts, went to France where they were on the run for a few days. I gather the teacher is being accused of abduction.

The question here is, when is a girl/boy mature enough to consent to sex? Though the teacher isn’t on trial for any sex offence as far as I can tell, I think this relationship between the two of them forms a good basis for dealing with the question of consensual sex.

Jeremy Forrest trial: Teacher’s ‘multiple sex sessions’