Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

19th Century Marriage Manuals: Advice for Young Husbands

mimimatthews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–115 of 115 posts

Re: 19th Century Marriage Manuals: Advice for Young Husbands

#111

Post by solotronics »

Zelphyr wrote: post #98
jmaistre wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In our society we're seen as weak if we cry. Isn't this the case in most societies? My sense from history is that is only acceptable for men to cry at extreme events -- such as death of a wife/child/brother, or the loss of a kingdom. The other common trope for crying is if a peasant or low-level official is begging the forgiveness from a king who is about to terminate him. But in the modern society such tragedies h…

Actually, I my understanding is its perfectly acceptable in many Middle-Eastern countries for men to cry openly. They'll also hold another mans hand while having a conversation with him apparently.

They also tend to like little boy booty in those countries.. this is said in jest :]

Re: 19th Century Marriage Manuals: Advice for Young Husbands

#112

Post by mattlutze »

jpt4 wrote: post #47
mattlutze wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Luther was still mostly about the Catholic church's canon. His opposition was mostly to the business and political practices of the Church. Or, in other words, against the sale of indulgences for absolution of purgatory-condemning sanctions against living and dead parishioners. In the beginnings of the 95 Theses he actually puts a favorable light on the Pope, in my brief re-reading [1]. Luther's protestants still hel…

The Lutheran Catechism differs from the Catholic on several points of theology, particularly the Lutheran orthogonality of salvation and sanctification [0], which are joint pursuits in Roman Catholicism. Regarding the nature of the hosts, Roman Catholics argue transubstantiation [1], and Lutherans speak "mu" to the question [2]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_presen…

I think sola fide is the concept I ham-fistedly attempted to express with the opposition to the business side of the Catholic church, insofar as it extended to mortals (the Pope included) declaring the sins of and absolving the sins of the people and their dead relatives, yeah? It seemed to all draw from points 10-20ish in the declaration.

And on the transubstantiation vs, dual-state can we call it, of the eucharist... my denomination considered it all symbolic, so I'd always really considered them the same thing (by which I mean, saying "it's just his body" vs "it's both his body and bread" were still "it's his body).

I'm not sure how foundational that distinction was when the schism occurred. Do you know by chance?

Re: 19th Century Marriage Manuals: Advice for Young Husbands

#113

Post by jpt4 »

mattlutze wrote: post #112
jpt4 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Lutheran Catechism differs from the Catholic on several points of theology, particularly the Lutheran orthogonality of salvation and sanctification [0], which are joint pursuits in Roman Catholicism. Regarding the nature of the hosts, Roman Catholics argue transubstantiation [1], and Lutherans speak "mu" to the question [2]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_presen…

I think sola fide is the concept I ham-fistedly attempted to express with the opposition to the business side of the Catholic church, insofar as it extended to mortals (the Pope included) declaring the sins of and absolving the sins of the people and their dead relatives, yeah? It seemed to all draw from points 10-20ish in the declaration. And on the transubstantiation vs, dual-state can we call it, of the eucharist.…

> my denomination considered it all symbolic,

Is yours a Reformed church? The anti-institutional fervor of the later (post-Luther) Protestants led to many such purely mundane interpretations of the host, which Luther vigorously denied [0].

> I'm not sure how foundational that distinction was when > the schism occurred. Do you know by chance?

Though I do not know the relative impetus imparted to the Reformation by differences in belief about the nature of the hosts in the eucharist, it seems to have been a deeper divide within Protestantism than between P and the RC [1]. Charitably, Luther accorded the question of the metaphysical connection between bread and wine, body and blood as axiomatically resolved by accepting the Word of their identical existence as a matter of belief, independent of argumentative investigation (i.e., he "unasked" the question, or said "mu" [2]). Uncharitably, he dodged by declaring the answer uninteresting or irrelevant to Christian faith.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sacrament_of_the_Body_and_...

[1] http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/06/martin-luther-refutes...

Specifically: "Before I [Luther] would drink mere wine with the Enthusiasts, I would rather have pure blood with the Pope."

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_%28negative%29#.22Unasking....

Re: 19th Century Marriage Manuals: Advice for Young Husbands

#114

Post by zensavona »

VLM wrote: post #96
zensavona wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't "claim obedience" from anyone, but I definitely think that (masculine) integrity inspires (feminine) loyalty. I'm not just talking about sexual loyalty, but loyalty of support and confidence. I have on multiple occasions thought about this dynamic and find it really interesting (protection/nurturing). I think it has something to do with women's superior empathetic qualities. It seems to me like (often, in…

Primate authority comes from (at least) two methods or paths, dominance and prestige. I guess if you want a bad one line summary, dominance is management or in its more extreme form its like an overseer with a whip vs prestige is leadership or in its more extreme form its like hero worship. Because of long term memory for revenge purposes, and easy to use lethal weapons have been invented, prestige is way more import…

So much content. Yeah, I've read a bit about the idea that good leadership inherently being owed obedience in the form of evolved social contracts (Pinker's books and "Sex At Dawn", can't remember the author's name..).

but fucking lol:

> This makes it a scaling problem and HN loves scaling problems.

Yep.

Re: 19th Century Marriage Manuals: Advice for Young Husbands

#115

Post by notdonspaulding »

oldmanjay wrote: post #91
notdonspaulding wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The practical consequences of homosexuality and prostitution (STIs and reduced vigor) are of much less concern to Jesus and Paul (and other Biblical figures) than the immediate problem of ignoring God's design and intentions for sex. Here's a quick list of passages dealing with sexual immorality: http://www.openbible.info/topics/sexual_immorality Notice the theme where the immoral person does not get to inherit the k…

so given that the biblical command to suppress and channel sexuality is in direct conflict with modern observation that sexual expression is necessary to be spiritually healthy, do you still find the bible compelling?

    > "the biblical command to suppress and channel sexuality"
You're paraphrasing in a place where it's much more productive to be specific in what the Bible claims.

    > "sexual expression is necessary to be spiritually healthy"
Again, source? I'm not sure I've heard this idea coming from any popular figures. In fact, the impression I get from modern mainstream observations is that spiritual health is a non-concern for most people.

If you didn't intend to make a claim about spiritual health, and instead mean the modern idea that "I should pursue whatever sexual impulses I have", then I would further argue that we haven't walked far enough along the arc of history to see the repercussions of that play out.

    > do you still find the bible compelling?
Certainly. The Bible's position on sexuality is very comprehensive, without being completely descriptive. I'm just as wary of the "modern" (Aristotlean) idea that everything is good in moderation as I am of anyone attempting to limit Christian sexuality to the Victorian ideas represented in the article. The Bible cuts a line between the two that is both more relevant across centuries, and less concerned with creating a monoculture in marital relationships.
Post reply on HN