I don't disagree with your hopes and dreams of future america, but I guess I really don't see how hating parts of yourself is at all a feminine attribute, that's all.
The most masculine men I know are not those who hide behind curtains of "msculinity" and feign confidence and strength; it is those who openly show weakness and emotional frailty, as Jesus did.
In my opinion, "true" men cry when they feel like it, as Jesus did. They do not play emotional fakeness in the form of being "tough for your woman" like American culture approves of as we see in countless action movies.
If we men are to truly love women as Christ loves us, then we should constantly be open to our emotions and inner feelings.
If anybody seeks to follow and be like-Christ, why wouldn't they feel negatively about parts of them-self that go against Christ? That to be, again, is a feeling and idea that is above gender. It is ubiquitously human in nature.
Like a lot of vague general statements aimed at describing one particular gender, that doesn't seem to be at all exclusive to women. Being imperfect, all people have parts of themselves that they recognize as bad and making such an observation invariably leads one to dislike those parts of oneself. It's not like men are emotionless robots, while women are helpless to their emotions. This seems much more to be a ubiquitiously human experience than a female one.
I'd probably say it often does, but at the same time there are millions of married atheists and nonbelievers around the world who have strong marriages. It's not like you have to be a Christian to have a relatively strong marriage. Divorce rates among Christians are really no better than among non Christians in america.
Let's be logical here....A little bit of analytic philosophy incoming:
(1) Assume: Drinking is a sin
(2) Jesus was sinless: proof bible
(3) Jesus drank often at parties and gatherings: proof bible
(4) If someone drinks then they have sinned (1)
(5) Jesus sinned (combining 3 and 4)
(6) Contradiction between (2) and (5)
(7) Therefore assumption must be incorrect (6)
For those who don't know, this is called a proof by contradiction. It's well known, especially in mathematics classes.
Drinking is not evil. Alcohol abuse, on the other hand, is a sin, but it's independent of the alcohol and more about abusing anything in general.
From a scientific standpoint, a drink of red wine every day is actually healthy for you and can increase one's lifespan. Not true for all alcoholic beverages, but some are good in moderation.
Disregarding that for a moment, if we assume that any habit that might decrease one's lifespan must be designated as 'evil' then that means that eating lots of bacon and red meat must be 'evil' too, since that is scientifically known to be unhealthy and leads to clogged arteries and loads of other problems like obesity. By this strain of logic, eating these things must be evil too.
I have only begun to fully explore what this kind of thinking would lead to, but ultimately it is a life guided by fear. God does not want us to live our lives so afraid to make a mistake because of how many sins there are in life. Life is not about sin avoidance, it is about doing good. A person can live their life avoiding sin and making sure not to do any of the things on the naughty list, but that life can still be unfulfilled and totally empty.
I agree with the general sentiment that if you have problems you should seek God and Godly advice, but I also think it's important to understand that knowledge is true only because it is true. Truth is independent of the mouth it was uttered from.
It's not like a Christian who teaches you the Pythagorean Theorem is automatically any more correct than the wicked man teaching you the same thing. All that matters is who is actually telling you the truth. After all, if Satan himself discusses math in an accurate manner, it's not like it would make that math any less true.
It's also worth noting that since we are all sinners, we are all wicked in our own ways, so it's more important to individually analyze the truth of what people are saying, than labeling them as righteous or wicked and then blindly believing the righteous and blindly dismissing the wicked. With the obvious exception of believing Jesus, you will only be disappointed by blindly following anyone.
Before we irrationally cast judgment on those we do not understand or differ from, let's actually attempt to understand why hiding knowledge is such a prevalent .
First and foremost, it's about control of flow of information. This is somewhat obvious, but stating it this way illuminates the action in a certain light.
It certainly shows that the person has a respect for the value of information. This is a positive feature.
It shows that the person is mistrustful of releasing personal information on a website that does not even require membership to access. To me, this is also a plus.
However, it can also point to a person who desires a one-directional flow of information; a giver and not a taker. This is a negative.
To build on that, it may also point to a jealous person who wants to know what you look like and what you are doing, but doesn't want you to have the same knowledge. Likewise, this is a negative.
So you asked why? Why would someone keep their cards close to their chest? It's about risk analysis. A person makes a smaller emotional investment if he chooses to veil their online information when making decisions. There is less pressure to simply act and more time to think about your actions before acting. You don't feel as bad visiting somebody's page and not sending a message if they never knew you were there.
We can't know what somebody's history was before coming to this site. Maybe they have social anxiety disorder and have enormous problems dealing with people, which is why they pursued online dating. Perhaps they got burned in the past by revealing too much information and their naivete caught up to them. There could be many legitimate reasons why somebody is acting the way they are.
What's more important is to not psycho-analyze them too much or to inflect their behavior back on you too much. It's not necessarily a reflection of you, nor is it necessarily a bad sign of them.
Intelligence, honesty, and kindness if you want an answer more interesting than 'Christ-like" since that's basically an undefeatable argument, haha. :ROFL:
Some men like to underestimate the importance of the first and act as if that's what men bring to the table, and many women like to act as if the feminist movement eliminated the need of the last one. Both couldn't be more mistaken if they tried.
Society in general doesn't care about the second one. It hasn't....ever really. Honestly is one of those things that people only ever do if its in their own best interest, very few people will be honest against their own interest.
Intelligence, honesty, and kindness if you want an answer more interesting than 'Christ-like" since that's basically an undefeatable argument, haha. :ROFL:
Some men like to underestimate the importance of the first and act as if that's what men bring to the table, and many women like to act as if the feminist movement eliminated the need of the last one. Both couldn't be more mistaken if they tried.
Society in general doesn't care about the second one. It hasn't....ever really. Honestly is one of those things that people only ever do if its in their own best interest, very few people will be honest against their own interest.
I think people in general are naive, and I'm no exception. The only relevant difference is that some people are self-aware enough to realize it and other aren't.
It's not a horrible trait, there's a a certain beauty and innocence to it, but it can get you into trouble quickly if you don't control it.
Either that, or young people in general are naive. I don't exactly socialize with a whole lot of older people.
