It would have been the man's job to have dealt with the mountain lion while it was still out in the yard.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
As an overall theme I think it's true. I have never heard of the news story but if a man was there I'd suspect he'd be more pressured to take on that mountain lion. Motherhood certainly has it's protective elements but it's more of a last defense.
I honestly don't know what a "third" gender is. I really only believe in the male and female and the mix in between. If someone wants to call that mix a "third" gender they can, personally I think the term is bizarre.
Transphobia probably has a lot in common with homophobia.
I'm not sure about that. Transexuals call "transphobe" on a lot of homosexuals.
Well, you're speaking of "genders" when, I guess, the concept of "gender" is considered now to be a psychological continuum that only adheres to the physical at certain points. There is considerable debate, however, within the LGBTQ... communities (notice I pluralized it) as to where that continuum adheres to the physical.
If we speak of "sex" (that is, the physical manifestation), the only way there would be a true third sex is if in some way it was part of the reproductive process. There was a Star Trek: Enterprise episode about that. A humanoid species had a male supplying the sperm, a female supplying the egg, and a third sex that supplied the uterus...kind of a naturally evolved surrogate mother.
That's a can of worms I don't feel like opening.
There's a thread on profanity for that question.
No, I think it goes back to the old testament. At least as far as our Western culture goes.
For verily he took not on him the nature of angels, etc. The rendering of the Revised Version gives the true meaning: "For verily not of angels doth he take hold, but he taketh hold of the seed of Abraham." The text starts a very grave inquiry. Why did Christ come to the help of lost men in preference to that of lost angels? Seeing that both were fallen, both were in a state of sin and misery, and neither were able to save themselves, nor had any claim upon his pity and power, why did the Divine Being determine to raise and restore lost men, while leaving lost angels in darkness and ruin? First we will endeavor to answer this inquiry negatively.
I. NOT BECAUSE THAT, WHILE MEN NEEDED HELP, ANGELS DID NOT NEED IT. Man needed Divine redemption. A sinner, he needs forgiveness; lost, he needs restoration, etc. The sacred Scriptures, the history of our race, and our personal experience, unite in affirming our need of the saving help of Jesus Christ. The Word of God assures us that there are angels who also need help. It tells of a number of fallen, sinful, suffering angelic beings who are reserved in bondage and darkness until the day of final account (see John 8:44; 2 Peter 2:4; 1 John 3:8; Jude 1:6; Revelation 20:10). Their need is as great as man's.
II. NOT BECAUSE ANGELS WERE IN ANY WAY INFERIOR TO MEN EITHER IN NATURE OR ABILITY. TO US it would have seemed probable that, if only one of the two races of sinners was to be saved, the preference would have been given to the greater of the two. Regarding the matter from our standpoint, the greater and more glorious a being is the more worthy is he of redemption, and the treasures of wisdom and love expended in his redemption will lead to richer results. It was not on this principle that God, in his Son, came to the help of men and not to that of angels. In being and capacity we believe that angels are greater than men. In our remarks on the preceding chapter we endeavored to show that angels are the highest orders of created beings. And the fall of angels did not strip them of their power. And since angels are greater than men, it follows that their fall must have been greater. Their immense powers being perverted render them mightier for mischief than beings el inferior powers could be. Hence how great was their need of help! And if restored to their original condition, would not their restoration bring greater glory to their Restorer than the restoration of beings who are lower in the scale of being?
III. NOT BECAUSE ANGELS, IF LEFT WITHOUT HELP, WOULD SUFFER LESS THAN MEN WOULD HAVE DONE IF THEY HAD BEEN SO LEFT. The greatest sufferings are not those of the body, but those of the mind and heart. And the measure of suffering endured by any one is regulated by his mental and moral capacity. Therefore, if our estimate of angelic capacity be correct, being left without redemption the sufferings of angels will be greater than man's would have been if he had been so left. Their vast powers must be terrible instruments of self-torture. Their remembrance of the irrevocable past must also augment their misery. Their recollection of their lost heritage must greatly increase the anguish which afflicts them. But we have no such memories. Only two of our race experienced the joys of that Eden from which sin has exiled us. We know not the peace and bliss of the human heart in its original state. Hence we conclude that the sufferings of angels are greater than those of men would have been if they had been left without the saving help of God.
IV. NOT BECAUSE OF AN ARBITRARY SOVEREIGNTY ON THE PART OF GOD. The sovereignty of God is the sovereignty of infinite wisdom and love. To say that he chose to restore mankind and to leave angels to their dread doom because of his sovereignty is unsatisfactory. He made the choice in his sovereignty; but what was the reason for the exercise of his sovereignty in this particular way? He is absolutely independent; but he ever acts from wise and worthy reasons, and never from caprice or for the mere assertion of his sovereignty. We may not be able always to discover the reasons of his decisions and deeds; but there are reasons, and perfect ones, for them all, though we see them not. Thus far, then, we have met with no good ground why the Deity should have determined to save lost men rather than lost angels. Our examination would have led us to conclude rather, that if one race was to be helped and the other abandoned, the angelic sinners would have been elected to the blessing. Let us now answer the inquiry which is before us affirmatively.
I. BECAUSE THE GUILT OF FALLEN ANGELS WAS GREATER THAN THAT OF MAN. We attach much greater guilt to one who commits a crime with little or no temptation, than we do to one who commits the same crime under the influence of powerful temptation. Now, Satan was not tempted to sin by any force without himself. We cannot trace the origin of sin beyond Satan. How inexpressibly guilty must he be who generated the first sinful thought, and that in a universe of light and holiness! But man, in the young days of his innocence, was tempted to sin by a subtle, powerful being. The temptation was presented in a pleasing and persuasive form; it appealed at once to the sense of taste, to the love of beauty, and to the desire for knowledge; and man yielded to it, and fell. But his guilt appears to us to be far less than that of the angels who sinned. Is it not a reasonable conclusion that God marks the degrees of guilt, notes every aggravating or extenuating circumstance, and treats the offender accordingly?
II. BECAUSE EVERY FALLEN ANGEL CONSENTED TO THE TRANSGRESSION BY WHICH THEY FELL, WHILE MAN, THROUGH THE LAWS OF HIS BEING, SUFFERS FROM THE SIN OF THE FIRST TRANSGRESSORS TO WHICH THEY ALONE CONSENTED. The sin of the angels affected only those of their number who were guilty of actual participation therein. But the condition of every man is greatly affected through the sin of the first parents of our race. The way in which men are brought into being differs from that of angels. Generation obtains amongst men, but not amongst angels. We are born with an inclination, a bias, to that which is evil. Were it not for the grace of God, that inclination would be irresistible. If Christ had not come to our help, we must have been utterly ruined by reason of a transgression for which we could not possibly have been in any way responsible. Here, then, we have a very powerful reason why God should provide redemption for man rather than for angels.
III. BECAUSE THE PREFERENCE SHOWN TO MAN FURNISHES A STRIKING ILLUSTRATION OF DIVINE JUSTICE, WHICH EXERCISES A SALUTARY INFLUENCE ON BOTH UNFALLEN ANGELS AND REDEEMED MEN. Had the preference been given to fallen angels it would not have set forth the justice of God. It could not have been just to have provided help for the guiltier race while leaving the less guilty race to perish; or to have redeemed those who individually consented to the rebellion, while resigning to ruin untold millions who took no part in the sin by which their race fell. But in the preference given to fallen man, we have a clear manifestation of the justice of God. The fact that he has left fallen angels to their righteous doom, being known to the unfallen universe, will bind the good more firmly in their allegiance to the Almighty. And a knowledge of the great price with which fallen men were redeemed will so impress the saved with the evil of sin, and the justice of God, and the benevolence of the Divine Law, and the love of the heavenly Father, as to secure their everlasting and ever- growing loyalty to God. Thus even we, with our dim perceptions and feeble reason, can discover wise and worthy reasons for the Divine choice of lost man for redemption rather than of lost angels. "Just and true are all thy ways, thou King of saints;" "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God!" etc. (Romans 11:33-36). Two inferences of great importance are deducible from our subject.
1. That the guilt of those who reject the proffered help of Christ is greater than that of fallen angels. How great soever the guilt of demons may be, they have not incurred that of rejecting the gracious offers of pardon and restoration. But those men who neglect the great salvation must quench the Holy Spirit, harden their hearts against the drawings of the Savior's love, and the Mace of the Divine Father, etc. Of such sin even demons are not guilty.
2. That the blessedness of those who accept the help of Christ will be greater, in some respects, than that of holy angels. Angels have many joys, but the joy of redemption they know not; man alone knows that joy; and it appears to us that of all joys it must be the deepest, tenderest, intensest. Let us personally avail ourselves of the redemption which is in Christ Jesus. - W.J.
Yeah, something which surprises me. You'd think some transgenders would want more ground on gender having real physical realities (in the brain), yet many go for the idea that gender and the like are a result of mostly culture. Which is pretty laughable.
The consequence of the transgender community having to adhere to the wishes of the feminist community. I know of one transgender woman who had a more biological view but after being lambasted by fellow feminists she suddenly switched her position and said gender is more of a cultural construct. Something that probably kills her inside.
That's interesting.. yeah there's not reason for a 3rd anything to have any evolutionary basis. 3rd gender seems more like terminology that is used by people who want to seem more deep and interesting than they actually are.. lol.
I don't think that's true. What's true is that elements of masculinity have been identified as "toxic" while toxic elements of femininity have merely been doffed off as "being female."
I don't know what you mean by that.
Why do you think certain syonoyms have words with a certain nuance that only apply to one gender? A womanizer is a man who objectifies women. I don't think there is an exact female equivalent, as there just aren't near as many women who objectify men.I thought I already explained this? Some men are, but not to the same extent. Psychologically a woman taking on a man's role isn't going to have the same anger as a man taking on a woman's role. Although there is still blowback with the former, it's just a wall that's more easily defeated.
Most of us would agree that "baby" is usually affectionate, even though it refers to a young person as something like an infant. And it normally is reserved for someone who is actually close to you, not women in general.So, does my sister and her husband. I understand that.
Women saying the c word or homophobic jokes or being promiscuous is not seen as bad as men who do the same exact thing.Most of us would agree that "baby" is usually affectionate, even though it refers to a young person as something like an infant. And it normally is reserved for someone who is actually close to you, not women in general.
"Chick" IMHO is also used of a young woman, so that's why "lady" wouldn't usually work well, but it doesn't carry with it the same sort of affectionate overtone that "baby" does.
That's either a good thing or a bad thing, depending on how the language police choose to look at it.
Yes, "chick" is disrespectful, and our young people here are instructed not to speak of women in that fashion.Sorry, I wrote this in another section, but I don't think that section is very active. So, I am going to repost it here.
Do you find it disrespectful when young men or any man refer to women as chicks? I don't understand why they do this. There is this chick outside and she was like this or that, is what I hear a lot. My brothers refer to women this way.
Why can't they just say there is this lady outside?
It sounds like it's a reference to women having eggs.Yes, "chick" is disrespectful, and our young people here are instructed not to speak of women in that fashion.
Most of us would agree that "baby" is usually affectionate, even though it refers to a young person as something like an infant. And it normally is reserved for someone who is actually close to you, not women in general.
"Chick" IMHO is also used of a young woman, so that's why "lady" wouldn't usually work well, but it doesn't carry with it the same sort of affectionate overtone that "baby" does.
That's either a good thing or a bad thing, depending on how the language police choose to look at it.
Why wouldnt the term lady work well? I hate the term young lady it just sounds like trying to mix two different categories.
Sammy,
I prefer lady as a term of endearment or descriptor used by strangers. Baby implies a measure of intimacy that’s inappropriate for general use in my opinion. Young lady is fine too.
It’s the intent behind the remark that matters most. When we wish to convey kindness and respect we know the appropriate words for each. If you want to be flippant or suggestive you’ll choose words along those lines.
Yours in His Service,
~Bella
I use the term "chick" just to antagonize my female friends.
In linguistics, I regard it as informal. Using an informal term when formal is warranted can be regarded as disrespectful. But in a familiar context it can be not disrespectful--just informal.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?