There are two questions that I think would probably top most lists when it comes to the knowledge most humans desire: "What is my purpose in life?" and "What happens after I die?" The second question is one that causes considerable tension, and anyone alive who says they have the answer is either guessing, selling you something, or basing their answer on tradition handed down through the ages. Whichever of those devices one is using, there is no tangible proof the answer is a valid one. The most common device used to judge what happens after death is religious faith, and though I possess it, I am sober enough to know that even if the tradition I adhere to is over 1500 years old, I can’t be sure where that information originated from. Hence, you will never see me arguing or gloating about how my tradition trumps yours. Unless you possess the ability to time travel, you have taken it on faith that the people who transferred this knowledge down through the ages received it from a primary source who was inerrant. And anyone making the argument that one’s tradition is correct because it is the oldest would have to bow to any number of traditions in which human sacrifice was central. Age is not an argument. All that matters is that we all die, and it is a mystery as to what comes next.
On the question of what happens when we die, I totally agree. While I have faith I'm not fool enough to believe that I have any proof to point to my own intrinsic belief. But when crazy atheists raise the question of "well what if your faith/religion isn't even true?" As if this will change something about me. My answer is always that even if it isn't true, I'd rather simply behave and conduct my life as though it were because it gives one a foundation for a good life both intrinsically and extrinsically.
Service to others, especially when we talk of a wife serving her husband (or at least this is where I notice it the most) has been morphed to be seen in many circles as a sign of weakness or vulnerability. It's preposterous. I remember at a family gathering a few years ago chatting with my cousins wife and at one point she says "no I don't do his laundry, I'm not his slave." It was so weird, I wasn't even sure what to say. But a part of me felt bad for her that this was her paradigm. While I don't enjoy laundry in and of itself, I am happy to do things to help my husband keep our house and life going. He does plenty to serve me, what kind of spouse would I be if I chose not to reciprocate that? After all when one takes marriage vows (if taken seriously, but that is a whole different conversation) they are based on service to one another in all of lifes unpredictable situations; sickness/health, wealth/privation, etc. Life is meant to be lived with and for one another, there is no way to do that if you maintain complete separate identities from each other and from your relationship, to me that's literally the opposite of marriage. Feminism sought to insert weakness into the idea of caring for and serving your husband rather than promoting the idea that there is love in service. It's disgusting.
I'm thankful I had such strong examples in my parents taking care of both each other and other family members to see this indeed was both the purpose and the connective tissue of a strong family.
A good man once said to me; if you’re a Christian man, let your family be your mission field. What does it say about our Christianity if we’re prancing around Brazil building shacks for poor people, patting one another on the back and feeling in the Jesus zone, while our kids are back home jerking off to gay cartoon porn and watching Vaush?
I think the main problem with the idea of "service to others" is that it has in popular culture been diluted across the entirety of humanity, where it doesn't do any good. People get all the good feelz of having done some "activism" without doing anything significant or meaningful.
If everybody's kinda "looking out" for everyone else in a vague "sending good vibes," virtue signaling, and making random charitable donations sort of way, it accomplishes nothing at best and at worst rationalizes complete insanity and evil (see: bombing people for freedom and democracy, mutilating children for the advancement of queer rights).
Family first, clan and tribe second and third. Anyone else conditionally on the basis of mutual interest. A couple days spent doing serious work for one individual or family in your own life can be life-changing for both parties. Sending a dollar a month to starving so-and-so's, after the cut and the grift, makes a difference of a shiny quarter a month. Anything less than that is probably counterproductive.
On the question of what happens when we die, I totally agree. While I have faith I'm not fool enough to believe that I have any proof to point to my own intrinsic belief. But when crazy atheists raise the question of "well what if your faith/religion isn't even true?" As if this will change something about me. My answer is always that even if it isn't true, I'd rather simply behave and conduct my life as though it were because it gives one a foundation for a good life both intrinsically and extrinsically.
Service to others, especially when we talk of a wife serving her husband (or at least this is where I notice it the most) has been morphed to be seen in many circles as a sign of weakness or vulnerability. It's preposterous. I remember at a family gathering a few years ago chatting with my cousins wife and at one point she says "no I don't do his laundry, I'm not his slave." It was so weird, I wasn't even sure what to say. But a part of me felt bad for her that this was her paradigm. While I don't enjoy laundry in and of itself, I am happy to do things to help my husband keep our house and life going. He does plenty to serve me, what kind of spouse would I be if I chose not to reciprocate that? After all when one takes marriage vows (if taken seriously, but that is a whole different conversation) they are based on service to one another in all of lifes unpredictable situations; sickness/health, wealth/privation, etc. Life is meant to be lived with and for one another, there is no way to do that if you maintain complete separate identities from each other and from your relationship, to me that's literally the opposite of marriage. Feminism sought to insert weakness into the idea of caring for and serving your husband rather than promoting the idea that there is love in service. It's disgusting.
I'm thankful I had such strong examples in my parents taking care of both each other and other family members to see this indeed was both the purpose and the connective tissue of a strong family.
A good man once said to me; if you’re a Christian man, let your family be your mission field. What does it say about our Christianity if we’re prancing around Brazil building shacks for poor people, patting one another on the back and feeling in the Jesus zone, while our kids are back home jerking off to gay cartoon porn and watching Vaush?
I think the main problem with the idea of "service to others" is that it has in popular culture been diluted across the entirety of humanity, where it doesn't do any good. People get all the good feelz of having done some "activism" without doing anything significant or meaningful.
If everybody's kinda "looking out" for everyone else in a vague "sending good vibes," virtue signaling, and making random charitable donations sort of way, it accomplishes nothing at best and at worst rationalizes complete insanity and evil (see: bombing people for freedom and democracy, mutilating children for the advancement of queer rights).
Family first, clan and tribe second and third. Anyone else conditionally on the basis of mutual interest. A couple days spent doing serious work for one individual or family in your own life can be life-changing for both parties. Sending a dollar a month to starving so-and-so's, after the cut and the grift, makes a difference of a shiny quarter a month. Anything less than that is probably counterproductive.