The new Nihilism

[Merrill]

Someone sent me this, in an effort to describe what he and other young men are going through. They don't want to get married, feel they can't find good jobs, and that the deck is stacked against them:

"As our society drifts to the political left, and radicalism becomes the norm, this will be the reality:

1. Liberal justices and lawmakers will make sure men are punished in divorce court. Women will be able to make claims on 80% of a man’s property, and take his kids, even if they were at-fault in the marriage. Your wife can cheat on you and a leftist judge will hand of your property to her and her new boyfriend. This is already happening, and will get much worse.

2. A large expansion of DEI and affirmative-action initiatives will disenfranchise white men. You won’t get into top schools, won’t get jobs or promotions. If you do land a job, you will be forced into struggle-sessions, sensitivity training, and DEI workshops. What you say there will be held against you, and you will face professional blackmail.

3. You won’t be able to afford land / real-estate. That will be reserved for Boomers, the wealthy, and politically-connected. A good portion of your paycheck will go towards state pension obligations for Boomers –you will slave away as a supervisor in Walmart so some pensioner can play golf all-day in his retirement. You will rent a roach-infested apartment from Blackrock, or some slumlord. Without a home, you are less desirable as a mate / husband.

4. AI, automation, and outsourcing will make tons of jobs obsolete in the US. Avenues that were once open will be closed."

And I would add to this the declining church attendance and faith in this country ...

We can't afford to have a whole generation of young men give up. Thoughts?

 

[childeye 2]

Someone sent me this, in an effort to describe what he and other young men are going through. They don't want to get married, feel they can't find good jobs, and that the deck is stacked against them:

"As our society drifts to the political left, and radicalism becomes the norm, this will be the reality:

1. Liberal justices and lawmakers will make sure men are punished in divorce court. Women will be able to make claims on 80% of a man’s property, and take his kids, even if they were at-fault in the marriage. Your wife can cheat on you and a leftist judge will hand of your property to her and her new boyfriend. This is already happening, and will get much worse.

2. A large expansion of DEI and affirmative-action initiatives will disenfranchise white men. You won’t get into top schools, won’t get jobs or promotions. If you do land a job, you will be forced into struggle-sessions, sensitivity training, and DEI workshops. What you say there will be held against you, and you will face professional blackmail.

3. You won’t be able to afford land / real-estate. That will be reserved for Boomers, the wealthy, and politically-connected. A good portion of your paycheck will go towards state pension obligations for Boomers –you will slave away as a supervisor in Walmart so some pensioner can play golf all-day in his retirement. You will rent a roach-infested apartment from Blackrock, or some slumlord. Without a home, you are less desirable as a mate / husband.

4. AI, automation, and outsourcing will make tons of jobs obsolete in the US. Avenues that were once open will be closed."

And I would add to this the declining church attendance and faith in this country ...

We can't afford to have a whole generation of young men give up. Thoughts?

I think there is some veracity to this, but to claim it's a product of "liberalism' makes it misguided.

 

[Merrill]

I think there is some veracity to this, but to claim it's a product of "liberalism' makes it misguided.

well it is liberal / leftist policies that involve identity politics and the favoring of women over men in divorce courts

 

[David's Harp]

These young men need a reason as to why things are the way they are, and a hope.

The reason is that we are under attack from spiritual wickedness in high places that seeks to completely pervert and transform humanity as we now know it.

The hope is that in Jesus Christ we have a way out of this, and the promise of a new heaven and new earth where none of this madness exists.

If you're such a young man that feels this way, then look to Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
He is risen; and He calls His lost sheep to Him through His Word and through His Spirit.

I pray these words will touch some of these young men who feel disenfranchised with this world, and that they may begin to explore the life and resurrection of Jesus.

 

[Petros2015]

We can't afford to have a whole generation of young men give up. Thoughts?

Tell them not to read any of this, and I think they'll do fine.

 

[childeye 2]

well it is liberal / leftist policies that involve identity politics and the favoring of women over men in divorce courts

Any reasoning based on a falsehood ends in hypocrisy. A person cannot assert that the left is about liberal identity politics in favor of women without also asserting that the right is about conservative identity politics in favor of men. That's how left/right dichotomies work. In any left/right dichotomy the objective view is in the center, and the left and right are opposing subjective views. The term liberal does not even belong in the discussion of identity politics since Liberal/Conservative is a completely different Left/Right dichotomy than Pro Female/Pro Male. There are many valid points to be addressed concerning young men in today's society, but seriously, you're undermining the credibility of the argument when you use the term liberal as if it means pro-female over men in divorce courts.

 

[zippy2006]

We can't afford to have a whole generation of young men give up. Thoughts?

I'd say white men need to face the growing sexism and racism the same way other disenfranchised groups have successfully faced it in the past. Form local, tight-knit communities which reject woke racism and sexism, and allow these communities to flourish through human virtue and solidarity. Let the woke ideologues cannibalize themselves and show forth a healthy alternative. Folks of all races and sexes see the problems with the woke mob, and perhaps these white men would do well to take up King's approach of throwing a light on these dark creatures. It's a big problem, but there is plenty of good precedent.

 

[Merrill]

Any reasoning based on a falsehood ends in hypocrisy. A person cannot assert that the left is about liberal identity politics in favor of women without also asserting that the right is about conservative identity politics in favor of men. That's how left/right dichotomies work. In any left/right dichotomy the objective view is in the center, and the left and right are opposing subjective views. The term liberal does not even belong in the discussion of identity politics since Liberal/Conservative is a completely different Left/Right dichotomy than Pro Female/Pro Male. There are many valid points to be addressed concerning young men in today's society, but seriously, you're undermining the credibility of the argument when you use the term liberal as if it means pro-female over men in divorce courts.

well let me ask you this:

a young married man appears in divorce court with his wife. The judge will determine the parameters of the divorce settlement. There are two possible judges and jurisdictions:

1. A female, left-wing feminist judge in Seattle
2. A male, centrist judge in St. Louis

which one do you think will give a fair settlement to the young man? Now you can say both, but you know that is untrue, and everyone else here does too.

Now you say " the right is about conservative identity politics in favor of men", which might be true, but there is a problem with your comparison. There are no affirmative-action policies and / or laws for white men. There are no DEI / sensitivity training programs that liberal woman or minorities are forced to attend that teaches them how to cater to white guys. POC and women are not losing their jobs and being kicked off social media for criticizing white men. Guy like Ibram X Kendi openly call for discriminatory laws targeting white men as a form of "antiracist discrimination". White men who say such things are banished from social media, labeled racists, etc. Kendi gets a job on a major network and a book deal.

Now you can argue with all of this, and dig up the tropes about how this is a racist country, etc. But that is not what this thread is about. The lived reality of middle-class (and lower), young white men in this country is what matters here. There is a video online I watched of white kid, a senior in high school. He has a 5.01 GPA, a 35 ACT, was class vice-president, did sports, volunteer work, etc. He goes through all the rejections from every Ivy League school --he didn't get into any of them, despite an almost flawless academic record. And he just laughs, because this is expected now.

Now you will say "white guys get into Harvard"! --to which I saw, LEGACY applicants who are from wealthy families get in. Many of them are Jewish. Middle-class white kids in Kansas don't go to Harvard regardless of their academic record (and it is hard for Asians as well), and this is why the Supreme Court is arguing the admissions policies of these schools right now.

 

[childeye 2]

well let me ask you this:

a young married man appears in divorce court with his wife. The judge will determine the parameters of the divorce settlement. There are two possible judges and jurisdictions:

1. A female, left-wing feminist judge in Seattle
2. A male, centrist judge in St. Louis

which one do you think will give a fair settlement to the young man? Now you can say both, but you know that is untrue, and everyone else here does too.

In all honesty, I view this as a loaded question intending to leave only one viable answer. I mean, I know exactly what it's like to have a chip on my shoulder about an unfair divorce, and your question as posed is clearly expressing a bias when you describe a "left-wing" "feminist judge" vs. "a male" "centrist judge". I am truly concerned with the conditions that young men have to face in today's society, and I'm willing to have a serious discussion, but I can't even take this question seriously.

Having said that, I will also say this, I feel that the male is generally going to get screwed in the process of a divorce when it's left to the courts, particularly if children are involved. It's been that way as long as I can remember.

Now you say " the right is about conservative identity politics in favor of men", which might be true, but there is a problem with your comparison. There are no affirmative-action policies and / or laws for white men. There are no DEI / sensitivity training programs that liberal woman or minorities are forced to attend that teaches them how to cater to white guys. POC and women are not losing their jobs and being kicked off social media for criticizing white men. Guy like Ibram X Kendi openly call for discriminatory laws targeting white men as a form of "antiracist discrimination". White men who say such things are banished from social media, labeled racists, etc. Kendi gets a job on a major network and a book deal.

I want to correct something. I never intended to indicate that I believe that "the right" is about conservative identity politics in favor of men. I only intended to convey that when you or anyone else characterizes "the left" as being about liberal identity politics in favor of women, then by default they set up "the right" to be the opposite because that's how a Left/Right dichotomy works. So, I simply don't accept that articulation as a whole because, politically speaking, the base Left/Right dichotomy of all politics is Democracy/Autocracy. Any political iteration of female vs. male, or white vs. black is an obfuscation and a false premise primarily used for propaganda. That's why it's repeated often on social media.

Other than disagreeing with your articulation, the problems you intend to point to are real. But people can't make compelling political arguments based on false premises whether self-expressed or introduced by one's political opponents. One has to establish a healthy dialogue based on facts and avoiding any divisive rhetoric founded on negative prejudice, which often involves not letting others push your buttons, and trying not to push the buttons of others. That's not always easy to do. You make valid complaints which in reality do not have easy solutions, because the carnal world is unfair, and the carnal legislative process is impotent when it comes to instilling a spiritual morality in a people or its judges or mankind as a whole.

Now you can argue with all of this, and dig up the tropes about how this is a racist country, etc. But that is not what this thread is about. The lived reality of middle-class (and lower), young white men in this country is what matters here. There is a video online I watched of white kid, a senior in high school. He has a 5.01 GPA, a 35 ACT, was class vice-president, did sports, volunteer work, etc. He goes through all the rejections from every Ivy League school --he didn't get into any of them, despite an almost flawless academic record. And he just laughs, because this is expected now.

Now you will say "white guys get into Harvard"! --to which I saw, LEGACY applicants who are from wealthy families get in. Many of them are Jewish. Middle-class white kids in Kansas don't go to Harvard regardless of their academic record (and it is hard for Asians as well), and this is why the Supreme Court is arguing the admissions policies of these schools right now.

I don't think it's anything new that rich people have influence in this world where poor people do not. Young men need to seek for hope in the Kingdom of God, because I believe it's absolutely true that God will take care of our needs if we first seek the righteousness of the Kingdom of God.

To that end, we must either conform to Christ, which is about loving others as oneself (where skin color is not an issue), or conform to a world that is all about do it to them before they do it to you. And to conform to the Christ means taking the crap end of the stick rather than handing it to someone else, in faith, that God will bless that behavioral attribute. One's heart must have its hopes in heavenly and eternal things rather than in the views of success and fortune according to worldly definitions. I'm saying there is a way to rise above the fray.

 

[Merrill]

In all honesty, I view this as a loaded question intending to leave only one viable answer. I mean, I know exactly what it's like to have a chip on my shoulder about an unfair divorce, and your question as posed is clearly expressing a bias when you describe a "left-wing" "feminist judge" vs. "a male" "centrist judge". I am truly concerned with the conditions that young men have to face in today's society, and I'm willing to have a serious discussion, but I can't even take this question seriously.

Having said that, I will also say this, I feel that the male is generally going to get screwed in the process of a divorce when it's left to the courts, particularly if children are involved. It's been that way as long as I can remember.

I want to correct something. I never intended to indicate that I believe that "the right" is about conservative identity politics in favor of men. I only intended to convey that when you or anyone else characterizes "the left" as being about liberal identity politics in favor of women, then by default they set up "the right" to be the opposite because that's how a Left/Right dichotomy works. So, I simply don't accept that articulation as a whole because, politically speaking, the base Left/Right dichotomy of all politics is Democracy/Autocracy. Any political iteration of female vs. male, or white vs. black is an obfuscation and a false premise primarily used for propaganda.

Other than disagreeing with your articulation, the problems you intend to point to are real. But people can't make compelling political arguments based on false premises whether self-expressed or introduced by one's political opponents. One has to establish a healthy dialogue based on facts and avoiding any divisive rhetoric founded on negative prejudice, which often involves not letting others push your buttons, and trying not to push the buttons of others. That's not always easy to do. You make valid complaints which in reality do not have easy solutions, because the carnal world is unfair, and the carnal legislative process is impotent when it comes to instilling a spiritual morality in a people or its judges or mankind as a whole.



I don't think it's anything new that rich people have influence in this world where poor people do not. Young men need to seek for hope in the Kingdom of God, because I believe it's absolutely true that God will take care of our needs if we first seek the righteousness of the Kingdom of God.

To that end, we must either conform to Christ, which is about loving others as oneself, or conform to a world that is all about do it to them before they do it to you. And to conform to the Christ means taking the crap end of the stick rather than handing it to someone else, in faith that God will bless that behavioral attribute. One's heart must have its hopes in heavenly and eternal things rather than in the views of success and fortune according to worldly definitions.

I see what you are saying, and I partially agree.

But I would point out that while identity politics (race, religion, cultural group, etc.) has always been present, it is the political left that uses it as a foundational principle currently. Its political and ideological initiatives are based on race and class warfare. White males are considered "privileged", which is a way of saying they have rights and immunities that POC do not have (which is untrue), and committed to disenfranchising and victimizing minority groups.

This is an extension of Marxist class distinctions to race and gender.

so for the young white guy growing up in the US, especially in blue states, there is a sizable portion of the society, including those in charge, who view him as the enemy.

Liberation theology is Marxist class-warfare extended to Christianity

It is easy for use older people who grew up in a very different time, and who enjoyed more freedoms and opportunities, to dismiss the problems young white guys are facing.

 

[childeye 2]

I see what you are saying, and I partially agree.

But I would point out that while identity politics (race, religion, cultural group, etc.) has always been present, it is the political left that uses it as a foundational principle currently. Its political and ideological initiatives are based on race and class warfare. White males are considered "privileged", which is a way of saying they have rights and immunities that POC do not have (which is untrue), and committed to disenfranchising and victimizing minority groups.

I think it's partly true and partly untrue. I grew up in the sixties so it's no surprise to me to hear about black people being oppressed throughout our history or women seeking equality. When I think of being privileged, I doubt I would ever recognize it as such. I imagine one would probably have to be a person of color or a female to see it that way. So, how much of this is true seems to me to be a matter of degrees since certainly some percentage of it is true, and the term privileged is a matter of semantics. In this circumstance the occasion for hypocritical judgment to occur abounds.

This is an extension of Marxist class distinctions to race and gender.

so for the young white guy growing up in the US, especially in blue states, there is a sizable portion of the society, including those in charge, who view him as the enemy.

Liberation theology is Marxist class-warfare extended to Christianity

It is easy for use older people who grew up in a very different time, and who enjoyed more freedoms and opportunities, to dismiss the problems young white guys are facing.

There was unequal treatment of black people by some white people, and there is even now a distrust of white people by some black people. I think some of that suspicion may still be valid, and the rest is just another form of negative prejudice that ends up being projected back and forth in what looks like the devil's playground. Cynicism can be self-fulfilling in that way. The remarkable thing about the Spirit of Christ is that by grace through faith, he bore our grievances upon himself undeservedly, and yet forgave us without reviling against us or complaining about his lot in life. I see an incorruptible Love there on the cross which is why I think we have to pick up our cross and persevere in loving our enemies just as he did.

 

[Merrill]

I think it's partly true and partly untrue. I grew up in the sixties so it's no surprise to me to hear about black people being oppressed throughout our history or women seeking equality. When I think of being privileged, I doubt I would ever recognize it as such. I imagine one would probably have to be a person of color or a female to see it that way. So, how much of this is true seems to me to be a matter of degrees since certainly some percentage of it is true, and the term privileged is a matter of semantics. In this circumstance the occasion for hypocritical judgment to occur abounds.

There was unequal treatment of black people by some white people, and there is even now a distrust of white people by some black people. I think some of that suspicion may still be valid, and the rest is just another form of negative prejudice that ends up being projected back and forth in what looks like the devil's playground. Cynicism can be self-fulfilling in that way. The remarkable thing about the Spirit of Christ is that by grace through faith, he bore our grievances upon himself undeservedly, and yet forgave us without reviling against us or complaining about his lot in life. I see an incorruptible Love there on the cross which is why I think we have to pick up our cross and persevere in loving our enemies just as he did.

When looking at the current state of the country and our economy, we can see some interesting things:

1. The ethnic / racial group with the highest annual income per family are Indians. Chinese, Japanese, and other Asian groups are right below them. White Americans are 9th on the list, and earn a little over half what Indians do:

Indians are highest-earning ethnic group in USA: Harsh Goenka explains why

70% of the Indian-American population in America holds a bachelor's degree.

www.livemint.com

2. Asians have much higher college attendance and graduation rates than whites:

College Graduation Rates by Race 2025

Discover population, economy, health, and more with the most comprehensive global statistics at your fingertips.

worldpopulationreview.com

3. Asians and Indians have better health outcomes and longer lifespans than whites in the US

If being a POC means suffering discrimination and being relegated to second-class citizenship in the US, why do dark-skinned Indians stand atop the socioeconomic ladder in this country? If white have special privileges that no one else has, why are we way down the socioeconomic ladder from other ethnicities?

I would also ask what right or immunity do I possess as a white man that a black man does not possess in this country under our laws? The answer is none.

The term "white privilege" is not based in any kind of reality, and amounts to a Neo-Marxist slogan. This isn't the 1950s, it is a very different world now

 

[studentinprayer]

Someone sent me this, in an effort to describe what he and other young men are going through. They don't want to get married, feel they can't find good jobs, and that the deck is stacked against them:

"As our society drifts to the political left, and radicalism becomes the norm, this will be the reality: ...

We can't afford to have a whole generation of young men give up. Thoughts?

All 4 points listed are yet another version of the same insidious identity politics lies which have ravaged and angered so many xyz cultural communities. Let us call them collectively grievance culture. Their design is simple: destroy society. Burn it to the ground. Abandon hope all ye who enter here.

Liberal justices and lawmakers will make sure men are punished in divorce court. Women will be able to make claims on 80% of a man’s property, and take his kids, even if they were at-fault in the marriage. Your wife can cheat on you and a leftist judge will hand of your property to her and her new boyfriend. This is already happening, and will get much worse.

Those who lord over us but do not submit to God(hold themselves accountable) are ministers of their own vanities. The civil courts shall praise their justice and piety well robbing you blind as they have done for all of history. Give it to them, every dime, their blindness to their own damnation is the only tragedy. For all the hurt that comes from having all you have built ripped from you, I assure you it is still worth the price compared to looking back at your life and only finding resentment, empty words and make believe.

A joyful heart is worth any price.

Marriage is an example of a beautiful thing. If you are someone who upon seeing that beauty instead of reverence makes it a tool of violence, what beautiful things can remain in your heart? If you must divorce and you are able give generously and part amicably. If instead you are divorced violently, be humble and be glad to pay a heavy price to be rid of those nasty-evil people. If you are ordered to give even long after you are able, walk away and embrace the curses they level against you as proof it was losing battle.

If you choose to be joyful, you will find joyful company even if that means losing everything you knew. In such company you will not feel stingy as you do in the company of the vane. It it those that persecute you that want you to surround yourself with their resentments, pride and greed perhaps so theirs is not so obvious in comparison.

A large expansion of DEI and affirmative-action initiatives will disenfranchise white men. You won’t get into top schools, won’t get jobs or promotions. If you do land a job, you will be forced into struggle-sessions, sensitivity training, and DEI workshops. What you say there will be held against you, and you will face professional blackmail.

Forced to educate yourself verse recite sophistry. Forced to work for yourself instead of an indifferent scheme and false sense of security. Forced to not participate in a dying empire rather than go down with the ship. These are gifts one will appreciate with time. Their empire of lies is poison. Run from it or when called do your duty reject their mystic as it will only lead to regret.

Truth can be dejected but not removed. A lie can be expanded but never lasts.

3. You won’t be able to afford land / real-estate. That will be reserved for Boomers, the wealthy, and politically-connected. A good portion of your paycheck will go towards state pension obligations for Boomers –you will slave away as a supervisor in Walmart so some pensioner can play golf all-day in his retirement. You will rent a roach-infested apartment from Blackrock, or some slumlord. Without a home, you are less desirable as a mate / husband.

A story as old as time:
A great game is built in honest sportsmanship.
Some cheat and raise to the top.
Their followers don't understand there are limits to cheating.
The game loses it's appeal.
A great game is built in honest sportsmanship.

AI, automation, and outsourcing will make tons of jobs obsolete in the US. Avenues that were once open will be closed."

Jobs which fewer and fewer liked doing....

I would add to this the declining church attendance and faith in this country

Men of great faith build beautiful rituals of gratitude and fortification in the Spirit.
A jealous brother promotes one ritual over another chastising those who don't practice it.
More and more come to practice empty ritual. In a stale communities without the Spirit people flee.
In darkness, men of great faith bring back the light, gratitude and fortification in the Spirit

 

[childeye 2]

When looking at the current state of the country and our economy, we can see some interesting things:

1. The ethnic / racial group with the highest annual income per family are Indians. Chinese, Japanese, and other Asian groups are right below them. White Americans are 9th on the list, and earn a little over half what Indians do:

Indians are highest-earning ethnic group in USA: Harsh Goenka explains why

70% of the Indian-American population in America holds a bachelor's degree.

www.livemint.com

2. Asians have much higher college attendance and graduation rates than whites:

College Graduation Rates by Race 2025

Discover population, economy, health, and more with the most comprehensive global statistics at your fingertips.

worldpopulationreview.com

3. Asians and Indians have better health outcomes and longer lifespans than whites in the US

If being a POC means suffering discrimination and being relegated to second-class citizenship in the US, why do dark-skinned Indians stand atop the socioeconomic ladder in this country? If white have special privileges that no one else has, why are we way down the socioeconomic ladder from other ethnicities?

I would also ask what right or immunity do I possess as a white man that a black man does not possess in this country under our laws? The answer is none.

The term "white privilege" is not based in any kind of reality, and amounts to a Neo-Marxist slogan. This isn't the 1950s, it is a very different world now

Well, remember we're dealing with semantics when parsing the term white or male privilege. I don't feel privileged, but I didn't grow up black or female, so I'm not going to discount that maybe I was in that sense. In other words, I don't think it can be concluded that as a white male, I had no right or immunity under our laws in the context of being discriminated against, since I'm not black and laws do not simply make prejudice disappear. This may not be the 1950's, but like I said I grew up in the sixties. The fact alone that black people suffered oppression and my family didn't, doesn't mean I had no advantages compared to them. Anyway, I don't see any reason to take it as a personal attack against my ethnicity or whites in general, I simply respect and admire any people who would persevere through such discrimination.

If being a POC means suffering discrimination and being relegated to second-class citizenship in the US, why do dark-skinned Indians stand atop the socioeconomic ladder in this country? If white have special privileges that no one else has, why are we way down the socioeconomic ladder from other ethnicities?

Well, for one thing I would think that white privilege is an expression coming from a Black point of view. "Black" in America, in that context, refers to descendants of slaves, which should not be conflated with Indians or Asians. Since the term privilege comes from a "Black" point of view, one has to try to understand what they mean by it.

So, I don't think the annual incomes prove anything about Indians or any other race being more privileged or less privileged. There can be many reasons that explain why the incomes are the way they are, least of them being the color of their skin. I'm certainly not going to entertain a grievance through a prejudice and believe it was non-white privilege.

 

[returnn23]

A lot of what is happening today is based on lies, and conflicts that were created. Examples:

Women - the eternal victims class.
Men - the eternal enemies class.

White heterosexual males - the 100% Bad class.
Blacks, Asians, other non-white people - the eternal victims class.

Young men today need time-honored values and to learn about proper forms of relationships. The examples I mentioned are based on Classic Marxist Class Warfare. All people should be treated with respect.

Rule number one: Look for a good job after getting a good education. Have a backup plan consisting of other jobs you could do.

Rule two: Creating a relationship with a woman involves time. Respect, mutual respect, is earned. Do you have things in common? I don't mean everything but some things. Do you actually like the other person for the way they are, not just the way they look? If the two of you are compatible then there is a way forward. Should marriage be considered, set an engagement period. Talk about what both of you want. For Christians, the two of you should be on the same page.

Rule three: Premarital sex is right out. Don't even think about it. Living together before marriage actually lowers your chances of having a marriage that lasts. Because once you're married, you should be able to just enjoy each other's company and talk about things. Ideally, anything. That's what makes a complete marriage. And when you're older, and beauty fades, you're still with her because of the marriage bond and because you truly like each other.

 

[kdm1984]

I have a 15 month old son. Husband is agnostic, and generally leftist. I'm Christian and more conservative, particularly theologically. He and I met when I was going through a period of doubt. My dad was fine with us being together; husband and I married in 2016 after a number of years engaged. Christians have generally been disapproving; patriarchal types blame my dad for allowing the marriage and not taking more control (they also have anger at him for teaching a heresy that people can be saved after they die, which is partly why he was fine with a marriage to an unbeliever in the first place), while other Christians have said I was the one who should have taken more initiative and not married an unbeliever, regardless of whether my dad approved or not. Christians have also pointed out to me that children who come from households where the father isn't a believer, have only a 2% chance of retaining the faith into adulthood. There aren't many examples beyond Monica and St. Augustine. Stuff like this is why I seldom post on Christian sites anymore; I'm almost always bound to run into this thing no matter where I go.

So no matter what, my son has a tough road ahead of him, and that's not counting some of the societal changes listed here in the OP. Nonetheless, for all the negativity and disapproval that's been thrown my family's way, my son has some advantages: despite the differences in belief between my husband and I, we have a great marriage, we're solidly middle class, and I have the ability to be a full-time SAHM. Most children nowadays don't even come from households that have such things, so it's not all gloom and doom despite what the naysayers like to harp upon.

I'll teach him about the faith and what I believe. I'll also teach him that, due to changes in society, it may be harder for him to find a mate. Husband and I are planning to encourage STEM and being a disciplined, focused person, regardless of the changes in today's society. Our son doesn't need women's or society's approval to be dedicated in his vocation. He doesn't even necessarily need the church's or statisticians' approval to retain the faith, either. If I believed every criticism and stat and community's negative viewpoints, I wouldn't be here with him in the first place. Sometimes people need to tune out the voices of the masses and just move forward in life, focusing on the things that REALLY matter.

 

[returnn23]

"...things that REALLY matter." Vagueness is the current plague.

Since you are a Christian, you should know this:

1 Corinthians 7:14

"For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy."

 

[kdm1984]

"...things that REALLY matter." Vagueness is the current plague.

Since you are a Christian, you should know this:

1 Corinthians 7:14

"For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy."

My dad and I did use those passages, but many Christians counter-replied with 2 Cor 6 where it talks about being unequally yoked. We believe the unequally yoked context passage didn't apply to marriage, whereas they said 1 Corinthians 7 only applied to people who were in unions before a wife's conversion (but since I met my future spouse when I was agnostic, it would still apply, no?).

Nonetheless, since my husband and I have been married since 2016, as much as some Christians continue to voice disapproval, it's certainly NOT Biblical to just go out and get a divorce now to placate these people who continue to be angry about the marriage. Besides, my husband and I are pleased to dwell with one another, which is another area 1 Corinthians 7 applies to.

 

[returnn23]

Yes, I am aware of that. You should talk to your pastor or minister. "Those people" do not have sufficient knowledge.

It is very important to go to an ordained minister as opposed to those people - whoever they are.

 

[kdm1984]

Yes, I am aware of that. You should talk to your pastor or minister. "Those people" do not have sufficient knowledge.

It is very important to go to an ordained minister as opposed to those people - whoever they are.

Agreed. The pastor at the WELS church I go to is aware, and I've never had issues with it at that church. Much harder is being in generalized Christian communities, particularly online ones (though I can't recall if I've ever had a dispute about it here on CF). There are many reasons I seldom post on Internet fora or social media anymore, but that one is probably tops.