Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Author Louise Perry says that while Christianity is now associated with repressing female sexuality and bodily autonomy, its historic legacy is precisely the opposite: In the context of a highly patriarchal ancient Rome, “What Christianity did, which was very revolutionary, is say, ‘No, actually, women are the spiritual equals...

54,888 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce •via X (Twitter)

4 Yorum

Trig profil fotoğrafı
Trig1 yıl önce

@Louise_m_perry And this is why Louise Perry is one of my heroes. She makes what has become strange familiar and what is currently familiar strange. God bless her!

Standing for Freedom Center profil fotoğrafı
Standing for Freedom Center2 yıl önce

One hundred years ago, American universities still formally affirmed their Christian character and Christian values had a natural and expected place in American higher education. What happened?

Alex Knight profil fotoğrafı
Alex Knight1 yıl önce

@Louise_m_perry The Christians in Rome, and elsewhere, in the first century, understood their lives did not belong to them. Their lives belonged to God. By creation and redemption their lives belonged to God. Their did not think of themselves as autonomous.

Rayce Jacobson profil fotoğrafı
Rayce Jacobson1 yıl önce

@Louise_m_perry There is a false dichotomy between Christian chastity culture and pagan/postmodern hookup culture, and it needs to die. Having sexual standards and applying rational ethics to our sex lives doesn't require Christian chastity and guilt.

Benzer Videolar

“You can't get to Christian nationalism from the specific articulations of state-supported Christianity in the early Republic, because they do not want the state making determinations about what Christianity is.” — Miles Smith IV (Miles Smith IV) “In the early Republic, across the board, there is a real sense that we do not want Christianity associated with the idea of an American nation.” “Christianity was something other than the government.” “Our idea — especially insofar as people on the right articulate what gets called Christian nationalism — is an anachronism. You can only think of Christian nationalism as downstream from what we might historically call liberal Protestant assumptions. And I'm not saying all of those liberal Protestant assumptions are heretical per se.” “You can't get to Christian nationalism from the specific articulations of state-supported Christianity in the early Republic, because they do not want the state making determinations about what Christianity is. “Think of it this way: they're happy with the church telling them what Christianity is, but they don't want the state telling the church what Christianity is.” “In that sense, there's actually a pretty capacious place for ecclesiastical influence in the early Republic. I think people see that and say, "See, that's Christian nationalism." No — I think what's happening now is that we want the government to do the leading on that.” “When historically, at least in the United States, it was churchmen, educational institutions, and civic celebrations that aren’t even necessarily state-supported that were doing that. In the early Republic, there were many people speaking to the state. Now what we tend to want is actual politicians and government officers doing this.” Watch: Listen:

Sola Media

25,698 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

The natural progression of women wanting to copy men is that British Vogue article. The crux of it is that women are jealous of other women being in relationships while they are not, and they use the masculine “boss babe” agenda to hide that fact. Make them believe the latter to deny the former. So it is the collective way for unsuccessful women to shame those who are successful in their personal lives. Women who are winning will then be influenced into believing that something is wrong with them. The single-female-friend-group self-sabotage is now operating on a grand scale through the networking effect of social media. Another example of the female self-stirring “shitshow” the more we give them a voice. The opposite is not true for men, as men are judged on their accomplishments first and foremost. If a man makes his whole or main identity being a husband, he is falling for the feminine value matrix through association in mating. This is how women are currently trying to frame men as accessories - as evidence of their own success, the same way men do with trophy wives. The copying here happens when women don’t want to come across as “less than” within a relationship, because we have entered a matriarchal and gynocratic society where the approval of other women outweighs the approval of the man they are with. This is further evidence of why “husband material” is an insult toward a man and an early sign of his future emasculation by her, in the same way women are being made to feel. Another effort of the mainstream is to eliminate any degree of polarity between the genders.

French OG

37,506 görüntüleme • 9 ay önce