Why Real Men Love Jesus

[KnightofChrist]

Kirk Cameron Talks with Gang Members

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVco8t-R8KU"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVco8t-R8KU[/url]

He isnt Catholic but wow what amazing trust in the Lord.

[Justin86]

Puppy-love is what inspires people to risk their lives for Jesus. Because its such a warm and fuzzy concept.

[matthew1618]

The Man has guts.

Edited November 9, 2007 by matthew1618

[cathoholic_anonymous]

But why is Kirk Cameron's behaviour being interpreted as 'masculine', a sign of being a Real Man? Would women have nothing to contribute to this endeavour except a (passive) plate of homemade cookies, before scampering off to sing Kum Ba Yah?

My problem is not with the idea that we need to live out the Gospel in a more radical way. We do. My problem is with the idea that this way of living is worthy of Real Men, whereas the alternative (drippy piano music and lots of flowers) is a female preserve. Not true.

Edited November 9, 2007 by Cathoholic Anonymous

[XIX]

Loving Jesus is not something that should separate men from women.

Put another way: if real men love Jesus, then what should real women do? The answer, of course, is that real women love Jesus too.

[Justin86]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1416552' date='Nov 10 2007, 01:08 AM']But why is Kirk Cameron's behaviour being interpreted as 'masculine', a sign of being a Real Man? Would women have nothing to contribute to this endeavour except a (passive) plate of homemade cookies, before scampering off to sing Kum Ba Yah?

My problem is not with the idea that we need to live out the Gospel in a more radical way. We do. My problem is with the idea that this way of living is worthy of Real Men, whereas the alternative (drippy piano music and lots of flowers) is a female preserve. Not true.[/quote]
You're interpreting what's being said way too literally.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1416552' date='Nov 9 2007, 11:08 AM']But why is Kirk Cameron's behaviour being interpreted as 'masculine', a sign of being a Real Man? Would women have nothing to contribute to this endeavour except a (passive) plate of homemade cookies, before scampering off to sing Kum Ba Yah?

My problem is not with the idea that we need to live out the Gospel in a more radical way. We do. My problem is with the idea that this way of living is worthy of Real Men, whereas the alternative (drippy piano music and lots of flowers) is a female preserve. Not true.[/quote]


I never said that nor did I even mean to imply such a thing. However I apologize if it was seen in such a way. Had it been a woman I would have posted it and titled it "Why Real Women Love Jesus"

Still it can not be forgotten that in todays world Loving Jesus, and going to Church is seen as wimpy for Men, when in fact the reverse is true, not loving Jesus, and not going to church is wimpy.

I really just thought that it was really awesome that he would risk his very life talking about Jesus Christ, and sin to men that could kill him, or beat him to a pulp. He was a brave man, and we need more men, and women like him.

Edited November 9, 2007 by KnightofChrist

[Socrates]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1416552' date='Nov 9 2007, 11:08 AM']But why is Kirk Cameron's behaviour being interpreted as 'masculine', a sign of being a Real Man? Would women have nothing to contribute to this endeavour except a (passive) plate of homemade cookies, before scampering off to sing Kum Ba Yah?

My problem is not with the idea that we need to live out the Gospel in a more radical way. We do. My problem is with the idea that this way of living is worthy of Real Men, whereas the alternative (drippy piano music and lots of flowers) is a female preserve. Not true.[/quote]
Geez Louise! What's up with the radical feminism?!

Certain traits such as physical courage, honor, etc., have always traditionally been considered as specifically proper to a real man. There is nothing wrong with that, and it does not imply that women are all cowards or weaklings.

So whenever someone commends a woman for displaying "womanly virtue," or being a "real lady," are men to get in a tizzy because this would imply men cannot be caring, compassionate, dignified, or whatever?

This modern "feminist" unisexism which balks at any acknowlegment of different roles or attributes to the respective sexes is detrimental and wrong, and I think is part of why modern society is so screwed up.

[Lena]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1416854' date='Nov 10 2007, 12:42 AM']Geez Louise! What's up with the radical feminism?!

Certain traits such as physical courage, honor, etc., have always traditionally been considered as specifically proper to a real man. There is nothing wrong with that, and it does not imply that women are all cowards or weaklings.

So whenever someone commends a woman for displaying "womanly virtue," or being a "real lady," are men to get in a tizzy because this would imply men cannot be caring, compassionate, dignified, or whatever?

This modern "feminist" unisexism which balks at any acknowlegment of different roles or attributes to the respective sexes is detrimental and wrong, and I think is part of why modern society is so screwed up.[/quote]

It's not [i]that [/i] radical. What are the "attributes to the respective sexes"? Besides the gendered constructs.

[jeffpugh]

Blah blah blah, people. How bout the main topic? Like how this guy was brave to face these random guys... he didn't answer the other two guy's questions though. He seemed to be locked in with the one guy.

[jeffpugh]

Oh, and double post.

Edited November 10, 2007 by Sacred Music Man

[Daniel9]

I have to wonder how many of us would place ourselves in that situation. I wonder if I would do that? Thanks, Kirk, for your courage in telling others of the Lord and making me think about my level of courage.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1416854' date='Nov 10 2007, 04:42 AM']Certain traits such as physical courage, honor, etc., have always traditionally been considered as specifically proper to a real man. There is nothing wrong with that, and it does not imply that women are all cowards or weaklings.[/quote]

I know that. I saw this thread as a corollary to the discussion that equates 'sissy Masses' and 'puppy dog love' with 'the feminization of the church', especially as the same phrases are used in boyh. Whether it's intended or not, the implication is that feminization = being sissy, whereas being a Real Man = being courageous. I don't have a problem with the second one. My problem is that so-called 'feminization' is being used as a foil for it.

[quote]So whenever someone commends a woman for displaying "womanly virtue," or being a "real lady," are men to get in a tizzy because this would imply men cannot be caring, compassionate, dignified, or whatever?

This modern "feminist" unisexism which balks at any acknowlegment of different roles or attributes to the respective sexes is detrimental and wrong, and I think is part of why modern society is so screwed up.[/quote]

I'm definitely not advocating unisexism, but I do believe that the different roles and attributes of the sexes rise up from the same wellspring (the Holy Spirit) and that they are both equally valuable to our community. Seeing feminine behaviour directly equated with passivity in the thread about men who leave the church, followed immediately by a new thread on ideal behaviour for a man, makes it sound as though one has to come at the expense of the other. How is arguing against this indicative of 'radical feminism'?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1417065' date='Nov 10 2007, 02:53 PM']I know that. I saw this thread as a corollary to the discussion that equates 'sissy Masses' and 'puppy dog love' with 'the feminization of the church', especially as the same phrases are used in boyh. Whether it's intended or not, the implication is that feminization = being sissy, whereas being a Real Man = being courageous. I don't have a problem with the second one. My problem is that so-called 'feminization' is being used as a foil for it.[/quote]

This thread had absolutely nothing to do with "feminization of the church" until it was injected into it. This thread was only about a brave man who stands up for Jesus Christ, and how more men should take example. Women can also take example, but the thread was directed to men. Because men in todays would [b]falsely[/b] believe loving Jesus Christ and going to Church is for "sissies" that is wrong, real men love Jesus Christ, and risk their lives for Him. God gave men the duty to lead, and again so often in our world today men are in dereliction of that duty.

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1417065' date='Nov 10 2007, 02:53 PM']I'm definitely not advocating unisexism, but I do believe that the different roles and attributes of the sexes rise up from the same wellspring (the Holy Spirit) and that they are both equally valuable to our community. Seeing feminine behaviour directly equated with passivity in the thread about men who leave the church, followed immediately by a new thread on ideal behaviour for a man, makes it sound as though one has to come at the expense of the other. How is arguing against this indicative of 'radical feminism'?[/quote]

Other than the title I have not even read the other thread. So dont know why you jump to the conclusion you do, however it would be false for men to believe only women or "sissies" go to church.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1417106' date='Nov 10 2007, 10:06 PM']This thread had absolutely nothing to do with "feminization of the church" until it was injected into it. This thread was only about a brave man who stands up for Jesus Christ, and how more men should take example. Women can also take example, but the thread was directed to men. Because men in todays would [b]falsely[/b] believe loving Jesus Christ and going to Church is for "sissies" that is wrong, real men love Jesus Christ, and risk their lives for Him. God gave men the duty to lead, and again so often in our world today men are in dereliction of that duty.
Other than the title I have not even read the other thread. So dont know why you jump to the conclusion you do, however it would be false for men to believe only women or "sissies" go to church.[/quote]

I am sorry for misinterpreting your thread, KofC. I did so because I saw the same sort of phrases ('real man', 'puppy dog love', 'fuzzy wuzzies') used in both. In the other thread, these phrases have been used to describe about feminization, so I extrapolated unreasonably.

[KnightofChrist]

It's ok, God Bless!

[Socrates]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1417065' date='Nov 10 2007, 02:53 PM']I know that. I saw this thread as a corollary to the discussion that equates 'sissy Masses' and 'puppy dog love' with 'the feminization of the church', especially as the same phrases are used in boyh. Whether it's intended or not, the implication is that feminization = being sissy, whereas being a Real Man = being courageous. I don't have a problem with the second one. My problem is that so-called 'feminization' is being used as a foil for it.
I'm definitely not advocating unisexism, but I do believe that the different roles and attributes of the sexes rise up from the same wellspring (the Holy Spirit) and that they are both equally valuable to our community. Seeing feminine behaviour directly equated with passivity in the thread about men who leave the church, followed immediately by a new thread on ideal behaviour for a man, makes it sound as though one has to come at the expense of the other. How is arguing against this indicative of 'radical feminism'?[/quote]
Getting upset at the mere instance of someone being commended for being a "real man" to me smacked of a "radical feminist" ideology, and someone with serious issues.
However, it appears you completely misunderstood the point of this thread, and read things into it that weren't there.

Edited November 11, 2007 by Socrates

[ColinAH]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1416528' date='Nov 9 2007, 06:17 AM']Puppy-love is what inspires people to risk their lives for Jesus. Because its such a warm and fuzzy concept.[/quote]


I hope it isnt puppy love which is inspires people that way. I hope it is real love that comes through deep relationships with Christ.