🚀 go-pugleaf

In <344581EE.D26513BA@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> Alan Davis
<adavis@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> writes: 
>
(edit)

>Service is not power.  It seems to be a conceptyou do not find a great
deal>of familiarity with,>either in discussions of military service or
spouses>serving each other.

        ---------
            Who has more power, the military spouse SERVING his
            country or his stay at home--follower wife who can't
            secure a career because they move from post to post.
        --------------
>
>> >> >>  It also means to contribute>100 percent of ones effort to the
>> >> health> and hapiness>of the family.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>             ----------
>> >> >>       That's simply not possible...realistically.  One must
>> >> >>       also contribute to one's employers, one's friends, etc.
>> >> >>       Nice thought tho.
>> >> >>             ---------------------------
>> >> >
>> >> >One must find a balance among them all.  A spousewho spends too
>> much>> time>in service to an employer>will find that the family
>> relationship> suffers-all too>common, eh?
>> >>
>> >>             --------
>> >>        Very true;  my comment was only concerning your unrealis-
>> >>        tic idea that one can give 100% to family.
>> >
>This is not 100 percent of physical labor or dollars; the factors you
 seem>to consider.  this is 100 percent of>one's love.  Most folks can
 recognize when they are not>loved.  The challenge is to find the love
>> in each person's>heart and use it for good.
>>
>>             ----------
>>             I don't give 100% of my love to my family.  I also have
>>             friends I dearly love.
>
>I meant, you love them 100%.  If you lovea friend, does that mean you
>withold love from>family?

            -----------
            No.  I don't see what any of this has to do with
            the limitation of roles.
            ----------
>
>
>>                   In fact, love is something over
>>             which most people have little control.
>
>Really?  When Christ says "love one another", did
>>he mean "when you find it within your power?"

                ---------
                It goes with the territory.  A mentally imbalanced
                person might have a difficulty knowing what that
                meant, let alone fulfilling it.  "Love one Another"
                looks great on a greeting card;  in practice it's
                quite complex, is it not?
                -----------

>
>>                   How we invest
>>             in that love is more easily controled.  Certainly ex-
>>             pressing love for one's family is important.
>>             -------------------------------
>> >>
>> >>            Because it's
>> >>           physically impossible to do that, you are now talking
>> >>           about "balance" which most everyone favors.  Balance in
>> >>           all things, including the division of roles...not by
>> >>        gender, but by balance.  If either mother or father spends
>> >>         too much time on work or family, balance is not provided.
>> >>             ---------------
>> >
>> >Money roles, labor roles-I agree with you.
>> >
>> >The role PK talks about is love, one men have
>> >(in general) not done well at.
>>
>>             -----------
>>             Men are certainly free to develop that which they need
>>             to improve, but they don't need CONTROL over their wives
>>             to learn to love.
>
>Who said they did?

            -----------
            From what I've heard, Pkers who have told men to go home
            and TAKE the authority in their family.  
            ------------

>
>> The only thing control teaches is
>>             more control.
>
>Who said control was an objective?

                ----------
                Telling men to go home and explain to thier wives
                that allowing them to have authority in the family
                was wrong.....to retake that authority.....that
                is the desire for CONTROL, for good or ill.
                -------------------------
>
>           > When you love someone, really love them,
>>             the primal motivating factor is not control.  You want
>>             the best for that person without control.  There is an
>>             old saying that if you have a bird on a string, if you
>>             free that bird, and it comes back to you, it is yours
>>             forever;  I subscribe to that theory.
>>             ----------------------------------------------
>
>Gestalt is bunk.  It addresses desires only,
>>without any of Maslow's "self actuallization"
>or realization that acts of charity can be
>healing, even enlightening.

                -----------
                I don't see it as an act of charity.  I see it as
                a lifestyle without the need to subscribe to blame
                (or guilt) for perpetuation.
                ------------
>
>> >> >> ><snip>
>
>> >> >And you have only guessed that it is so.
>> >> >It is not, yet you continue your mindless mantra
>> >> >making up myths.
>> >>
>> >>             --------
>> >>         .....and you always end your posts in denigration rather
>> >>             than real argument.
>> >>
>> >>                 Lefty
>> >> >
>> >
>> >Your comments about submitting are a mantra.
>> >Repeated again and again in spite of reasoned
>> >arguments to the contrary, to which you don't
>> >respond.  I think these myths you try to shout
>> >through are more denigrating than my feeble
>> >attempt at figurative language.
>>
>>             ------------
>>              I have seen no reasoned argument to the contrary.
>
>You have not acknowledged any comment,quote, or suggestion to talk
>personally with>those about whom you make claims.
>
>>              You have not been able to refute the one of the
>>              tenets of PK is that the husband must submit to
>>              god while the wife must submit to the husband.
>
>Did, too.  You made this up, I gave references.
>
>You snipped them or ignored them.

            ----------
            Isn't it true that PK wants men to be the authority
            in their homes?  Isn't it true that they encourage
            spiritual submission of women to their husbands?
            That's what I've heard.
            -----------

>
>>              You continue to say that they submit to each other;
>
>And provided evidence.  Where is yours?
>
>>              I've heard you;  you still haven't answered my
>>              arguement.
>>              -------------
>>
>>                 Lefty
>>
>
>Answered it more times than I can count.

            ----------
            You have stated that each submits to each, but you
            have not been willing to admit that the submission
            is a division of power where men are accountable to
            god and wives are accountable to husbands in the
            roles prescribed.  Or, are you trying to tell me
            that PK has a new agenda?

                Lefty