There are some fundamentally wrong things going on and one of them concerns definitions.
A Catholic friend has just called me a heathen [oh ho ho, here we go] and on what basis? That I called out the current Pope and those CINOs at the top of the hierarchy for documented behaviour and for symbolism which is non-Christian?
I also called out Welby for his non-Christian and anti-scriptural stance and statements, plus the entire CofE hierarchy [and let’s throw in the sanhedrin while we’re there] – does that also mean I’m a heathen?
Atheists do not consider me a heathen at all – they consider me a bible basher, “guilty” of “proselytizing”, LOL.
So which is it to be? Oxford Dictionary of “heathen”:
For what it’s worth, I am an adherent of a faith – look at my About page:
Privately Christian, detesting fundamentalist bigotry, it’s not a major theme at the blog but [I] will attack any bollox written about it by those with an agenda.
Now look at the derivation of “heathen”:
In other words, committed to a belief system but in open country, questioning the human hijacking of that belief system. So in that etymological sense, yes, a heathen. So, what are we going to do? Catholics on one hilltop, open Christians on another, atheists on another, all bellowing mutual excommunication at each other across the valley?
And this blog’s mission statement?
The idea is that if it’s humbug, on whatever side, then it’s going to be taken apart here, no beg pardons.
However, all that is by-the-by, what I do is hardly important in anyone’s life. What is important though is this thing called “love”, this much abused term used for people’s personal political ends, even within marriages.
There was a Playboy page [or one of those rags] which we saw as lads which had a picture of the Mai Lai massacre – horrific picture of napalm – and the caption: “Make love, not war,” as if the content of that rag was “love”.
Definitions are constantly being abused, constantly, it is the staple, for example, of the global left, even calling itself “liberal”, which it is anything but. “Liberal” concerns freedom but leftism concerns political correctness and toeing the “party line”, on pain of punishment and ostracism from society for being a heretic to the ideological cause.
As bad as any man-controlled, top-down theocracy, as bad as Big Science and the Royal Society.
So, what is love? Well consider this from DforDoom:
There are several major problems with the romantic love ideal. The biggest problem is that it implies that marriage is only really valid as long as True Love still flourishes. If True Love starts to fade, or if the sexual passion that is the unfailing indicator of True Love starts to falter, then marriage becomes oppressive.
And surely it’s wicked to expect people to stay married if there’s no True Love any more? Romantic love therefore, in practice, implies that marriage is temporary and that it should be approached from a purely selfish perspective. It’s all about feelings. It’s all about me!
Very difficult to argue with that and the corollary is that people should marry for other than just love if the marriage is to last, as it used to be before the era of courtly love. And the institution of marriage is critical, politically, for a society to maintain, which is why the Roman hedonistic society was still monogamous.
And in whose interests was the literary fashion of “love” based marriage? Why, women of course. Otherwise you get this:
As part of the moral legislation of Augustus in 18 BC, the Lex Iulia de adulteriis (“Julian Law concerning acts of adultery”) was directed at punishing married women who engaged in extra-marital affairs.
The implementation of punishment was the responsibility of the paterfamilias, the male head of household to whose legal and moral authority the adulterous party was subject. If a father discovered that his married daughter was committing adultery in either his own house or the house of his son-in-law, he was entitled to kill both the woman and her lover; if he killed only one of the adulterers, he could be charged with murder.
While advertising the father’s power, the extremity of the sentence seems to have led to its judicious implementation, since cases in which this sentence was carried out are infrequently recorded — most notoriously, by Augustus himself against his own daughter.
And all the while, a man could carry on adulterous relations with “approved” parties, including boys. There was the legal side of property to consider too – the wife was the big loser in this.
So it was obviously in her interest that “love” came into it and Russian society was similar [we’re chronologically jumping all over the place here – after all, this is virtual SF].
This clip below by these girls is again a traditional song about lost “lubov” or love and it’s difficult not to heed that plaintiff cry and the outstretched palms, particularly when they get onto to “slyoz” [tears] near the end at not being able to get him back and the one in the middle* puts a finger to the track of her tears on her cheek. They know how to trigger protection all right.
Cutting through all the above [continuing the time travel] is Matthew Chapters 5-7, the Sermon on the Mount, and Paul’s later advice for a man to cherish his wife and vice-versa. The issue of course is the word “obey”.
Add to that the mediaeval concept of chivalry, however fictional, the notion that a damsel is to be rescued and a woman never touched in anger and women were afforded some protection by those who subscribed to the ideal. DforDoom mentions that it only came about later in history but that’s no bad thing in itself – it was clearly needed or would not have caught on.
Remember the Python scene where Zoot, in Castle Anthrax [can’t believe I’m typing this], says to Michael Palin: “You would not be so ungallant, would you? [As to disobey me?]” “Well … ah … er …”
The alternative is today where women have boldly rejected men, obeying their satanic originating feminist ubermistresses and are turning into loose slappers with multiple partners, being raped in their thousands, beaten and bloodied, disrespected and relying on the government to beat men down for them. Hatred spilleth over. Relying on government to do anything for you? Sad.
Incidentally, I was looking for that clip on youtube and there was one by some student theatre group doing the Castle Anthrax scene but unlike the Grail film itself, where they were as soft as silk, the girls in this one were loud, aggressive and domineering, entirely different voices, entirely different powerplays – a knight would get out and run as fast as his steed would take him, thankful for his lucky escape.
I don’t want a woman as a chattel but I do want her loyalty and fidelity in perpetuity. Reality says it’s not possible in this climate but it was possible earlier, with a previous generation.
An older chap I knew in my 20s was married and he said that once that initial fire has diminished, it hasn’t really diminished – it’s just replaced by a different, deeper love and emotional interdependence, which is able to ride out the bumpy patches. If it can’t, if lust is the sum total or it’s based on power plays, then it’s doomed. D for doom.
This older chap used the words “give and take”. He referred to both parties just being sane about it and ignoring outside pressures.
* That girl in the middle who seemed the odd one out in last evening’s post – she just seemed far more assured and demonstrative than the others – think she’s the teacher or at least the leader of the ensemble. At university, the Russians used to allow the best of the ex-students back to “student-teach”, often with a view to becoming an official teacher down the track. That one in the middle above seems to be one of these – not quite a teacher, not quite a student any more. One of these became my translator at official functions.