new

This is nonsense. It is the Biblical duty of wives to satisfy their husbands.

You people are seeking to take everything away from men, from entertainment to video games. If at the very least your bastardized modern-day version of Christianity cannot guarantee to men that their wives have a duty to satisfy them, as Christianity traditionally did for hundreds of years, then your bastardized modern-day version of Christianity will not have men.

In the ideal world, men would be perfect. Men would be like Jesus. Men would be completely celibate. Men would not marry. As Paul said, it is good for a man not to touch a woman at all (1 Corinthians 7:1) and his guidance on marriage was merely only a concession/permission, not a commandment (1 Corinthians 7:6), because celibacy is preferable and inherently less sinful than sex even within marriage, which is at best just a distraction from prayer and devotion.

However, Paul recognized that a compromise was necessary. There was something extremely obvious to Paul that is apparently not obvious to "Christians" today: most men are not able to withstand celibacy and they have natural uncontrollable lustful urges. Something must be done about this. And something had to be done about this in the first century. Otherwise, Christianity wouldn't have ever attracted men and it would've died off in the first century.

And so:
Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. (1 Corinthians 7:3)

If women are not fulfilling their Biblical role to act as dutiful wives and "personal porn stars" for their husbands, whether that's due to letting themselves go, rejecting marriage in favor of hypergamy, career-chasing, or whatever it is women do to fuck up the sexual marketplace, they are equally as culpable for the sins of lustful men who cannot find wives to fulfil their Biblical role.

The word science is defined as “the state of knowing: knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding.”

Scientific pursuit needs to be broken into two parts: experimental (observable or operational) science and origins (historical) science. Both creation and evolution involve historical science (beliefs) and observational science (such as the study of genetics).

Experimental science that builds our modern technology is accomplished through the scientific method. And origins or historical science is the non-repeatable, non-observable science dealing with the past—which enters the realm of beliefs (really, religion).

In almost all of today’s government-run educational systems, the religion of secular humanism—with its foundation of naturalistic evolution based on man’s word/beliefs about the past (molecules-to-man evolution)—is guised in textbooks, lectures, and secular museums as so-called “science.”

But the same word science is used for the experimental science that helps build technology. Because students aren’t taught the difference between historical and observational science, they are brainwashed into thinking that molecules-to-man evolution is the same science as what has built technology—which it is not. It is what we call a “bait-and-switch fallacy” (a fallacy in logic).

It’s really a conflict between two philosophical worldviews that are based on two different accounts of origins or historical scientific beliefs.
12:43 AM · Feb 7, 2025 · 1,864 Views