Missing Boy in the N.C. Mountains Found Alive.

[Ryan Schaecher]

Then don't be surprised when you get there if you are standing outside the gate, being slapped up side the head by that good book held in Jesus's hand as he asks:



Why did you take so much stock in this book by men, when all I ever really asked was that you love each other? Instead you used my words and twisted them into a guide book for ruling women! Okay, now let's look at what good you did...

Uh, first off that ain't gonna happen. For many reasons that if you actually knew what was in "the good book" you'd know why.



Ruling women? Ha. Whatever.

Hand your wife a blank sheet of paper and ask her to draw a bicycle. Most women are unable to do it. It doesn't mean women can not be artistic, nor does it mean that women can not mechanical engineers. It just means women are different than men are.

I like this. I'll add to it. Hand her another piece of paper and ask her to draw a flower. Better yet, ask her how she wants the living room arrainged.



Course if you're like me, not only will she draw you the bicycle, but she will draw the bicycle with flowers on in the living room with the rest of the furniture matching and then ask you for the credit card to go buy it all.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

R Shek said:

100,000 years more or less of history can't be all wrong. Up until the 1940's, there was no question.

I guess I can stop reading right there because if that's the logic behind your beliefs then I don't see me being able to enlighten you.



By the same logic we should still have slavery throughout the world. It's been but a mere fraction of overall time that man (in most parts of the world) hasn't been enslaving others.



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

Slavery is still throughout the world. In some areas it is more open than others.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen states:

Hand your wife a blank sheet of paper and ask her to draw a bicycle. Most women are unable to do it. It doesn't mean women can not be artistic, nor does it mean that women can not mechanical engineers. It just means women are different than men are.

That's a stereotype based like many on a common observation, but not necessarily the norm. But taking your example for a second, do you have any idea WHY women are different than man in such ways?



It's NOT because God made them different, but because men and women evolved differently.



Long before man ever revereed or even knew of the God that we think of today, men were hunters and women the gatherers. That's simply the way it was, and it was that way for 100s of thousands of years...not just the couple of thousand in which we have been revereing the "God of late".



As hunters and warriors men have evolved a keen sense of hand-eye coordination, and women a keener sense of seeing color. Many scientists agree on this theory (it's still just a theory). So, as today's modern man can understand a map, and taking directions, and erecting and drawing things with greater ease (which all require keen spatial abilities), women (generally) are less skilled at this.



That all begs the question as to why did such roles evolve for early man and woman...quite simple, in order to survive. Men were stronger so they were more apt the hunter (or warrior), and women less so, and thuse they had to be the primary protector and care-giver of the children.



Modern men would like to think that they protect and provide for their family, but early man would show that it was quite the opposite and that the majority of the safety, shelter, and substanance provided to children, and even to the woman of the "house" came from the woman of the house. Men of that time were hunting and warring for days, at a time, or longer, and women fed the protected the children. Furthermore, early man was largely vegetarian having meat as an infrequent luxury.



What does all this mean? If looking back and saying that today's gender bias has "been this way since the dawn of man", you are kidding yourself and no doubt ill-informed.



TJR

 

[Mark Grumpy]

R Shek says

If I say no and I don't have much to back it up, further discussion will occur.

So you don't have final say. What you do have is a spouse that listens to reason and valid argument and is capable of letting you think you made the decision.



Sounds a lot like mine.



I've lost track of who said what above, but was that you R Shek that has no divorces in your traceable history and same with your in-laws? Congrats on that - we would all be better off if folks would make better marriage decisions and then honor their commitment. With or without religion involved. I personally just passed 22 married. Best (and last ) decision she ever made.



grump

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen,



I guess I should have said no "widespread slavery" when talking about today's slavery. Note that in the very next sentence I did say "in most of the word", when mentioning the abolishment of slavery today.



You seem to want to debate me on every point. I'm not sure why that is.



Or do you really think that everything should be as it was 10s of thousands of years ago?



TJR

 

[Thomas Rogers]

18 years married this year, 6 years dating before that.



I have no illusion that I have the "final say" on anything.



TJR

 

[Thomas Rogers]

R Shek, I disagree with almost all your 5 reasons for good marriages of the past when divorce wasn't chronic:

1) The parents of the two people getting married actually taught the son and daughter how to act in marriage.

Sure, but how many learned poor lessons from watching their parents. Watching a wife that never questioned her husband, for example? Watching mothers who stood by abusive, adulterous husbands?

2) The parents were not divorced so the kids saw how to work through problems

The 1950s version of working through problems was typically to avoid and deny they existed, or to simply do what the husband says.

3) The community was involved... if a man beat his wife, often times he had a nice "speaking" to by some of the church leaders

Yup, nothing solves a problem better then a church elder with a bar of soap in a sock, or more likely, being shunned by the church community for your bad actions when you and your family probably needs the community the most.

4) People got married for love, not sex.

You are joking, right? The major reason people got married back then was so they could have sex without shame. Today, adults can and do have sex without shame and societal stigma for years into their adulthood...leaving the only real reason TO get married being LOVE.

5) Getting divorced was much harder than working out the problems

Yes, getting divorced was harder then than it is today. But that doesn't mean it was any easier to work out your problems. Problems then were denied and swept under the carpet, mostly. There are many more resources available today for resolving marital problems, and resolving them in a more healthy manner than there were 40 or 50 years ago.





No, divorce is more prevalent now because people (especially women) recognize they don't have to stay married, and there isn't as much stigma with not being married.



Also, consider this, that DIVORCE PROBLEM we see today may actually not be as big a problem as we might think. We have all heard the alarming statistics of more than 1/2 of all marriages today end in divorce. Okay, right...but I ask, what would happen if you only looked at FIRST-TIME marriages and rate of divorce? I bet it is a lot lower. There are a lot of people that seem to be just not right for marriage, and they get married and divorced two or three times. Back when divorce wasn't prevalent, REPEAT divorce was ESPECIALLY rare.



TJR

 

[Steve M 2]

Main Entry: hi·jack

Variant(s): also high·jack /'hI-"jak/

Function: transitive verb

Etymology: origin unknown

1

a : to steal by stopping a vehicle on the highway

b : to commandeer especially by coercing the pilot at gunpoint

c : to stop and steal from

d: to steer a discussion thread so far away from the original topic that most readers would be hard-pressed to figure out how it got there!

e : KIDNAP



2

a : to steal or rob as if by hijacking

b : to subject to extortion or swindling

- hijack noun

- hi·jack·er noun



Ok... I made up 1d... however...



The reason behind placing the subject of a thread on the front menu is so that a reader can view the subjects and decide what does or does not interest him.



Had this thread been properly titled "Why or why not gays will burn in eternal damnation", I most certainly would have avoided it. When I'm looking for a discussion based in religion, I talk to my wife or our Pastor.



I cannot remember ever sitting in a diner and thinking "Hey.. that guy drives the same kind of truck as me. I wonder what his views on God are like?!?!?"



I have, on occasion, said to myself "Hey.. that guy drives the same kind of truck as me. I wonder if his truck has that same odd noise when it goes 110mph?"



Take a look at the Middle East. Arguments based in religion NEVER end well. No matter how well meaning the original intentions. I have been in many a pub that bans all discussion of religion and politics. "Stay, drink, talk sports, have a good time. Looking for a fight? Go elsewhere."



We are all from vastly different upbringings, in different regions of our great nation, and we have unique views. I will continue to believe what I want to, and I will forever stand up for your right to believe what you want as well. Just don't feel too compelled to tell me all about it.



btw... has there been any additional news about our original boy scout wanderer? Hope that isn't too far off topic by now.





ttfn campers!

 

[Thomas Rogers]

This thread wasn't hijacked by man, it was an act of God, and he works in mysterious ways.

 

[Steve M 2]

oops.... accidental double-post.



sorry

 

[Rodger Tellefson]

I have to agree with TJR on marriages pre-dating the 1950's. Case in point is my birth mother, yes I was adopted and met her, who was married (best we can summize) around 26 times. That was due to the fact that she was raped by her father/stepfather (unclear), and fortunately she was strong enough to leave him and put him in jail. My point is it ruined her for life because counseling was fround upon in the 40's & 50's as well as divorce, but divorce is exactly what she did.

 

[Gavin Allan]

re: Missing Boy in the N.C. Mountains Found Alive. by TJR,4/3/2007 13:38 CT



This thread wasn't hijacked by man, it was an act of God, and he works in mysterious ways.

No one is at fault here. The devil made us do it! We are all victims!!!

 

[Nelson Atwell]

I think this thread has gone on longer than the boy was missing. I am glad he was found.

 

[Gavin Allan]

Thanks be to GOD!

 

[Mark Grumpy]

Yes, Thank God the little angel is safe. That God he has ADHD. Thank God the kid has such discipline that he thinks only of himself. Thank God no one went out of their way or was put out or upon in any way. Thank God he's not a selfish brat who needs a good kick in the a$$ to keep him from doing it again. Hopefully, God willing, he got a good spanking when he got behind closed doors.



grump

 

[Gavin Allan]

Thank God a homosexual scoutmaster didn't get him... :lol:

 

[Josh Langel]

WOW!! 237 posts!!!

 

[Rodger Tellefson]

Gavin, My preferences are that I personally would have him found by a homosexual than some heterosexual child molester. Just because one is homosexual does not automatically make that person a child molester. As stated above, homosexuals are not allowed into the Boy Scouts at all whether scout or scoutmaster. But, he was found by a search & rescue dog who picked up the scent if anyone actually paid attention to the news.

 

[Tom Schindler]

F-150 guy. This is an off-topic post. What that means is that the topic has NOTHING to do with the Sport Trac. That is why the overall topic of this website is Sport Trac's and when you make an off-topic post, that means it can have NOTHING to do with the Sport Trac, hence the name "Off-Topic".



I just hope that the dog's owner was not gay. You know, if he was gay, he might have wanted to take away that boy's "purity".





Tom