Prophecied Condemnation Comning To Pass?

[blackstrap]

Maximum range of NK missile is Guam.

OK ,Guam . But according to the little round leader of NK , he can hit the US. He didn't say where.

[thesometimesaint]

That is just range. Actually hitting something requires more technology than NK possesses. That doesn't mean he can't get it, but it isn't something you can go down to your local Radio Shack and pick up. Moreover if the NK beloved psychopath sneezes wrong his entire country will glow, a nice pretty blue, in the dark. His generals are many things but they're probably not suicidal. China, his only partner in the region, is already telling him to cut the crazy talk.

[pmccombs1]

I am referring to the data that show family formation rates and the number of intact families in, say, places like the US.

And we are not the only place in the world where families exist. They are in China, Japan, Brazil, Mexico -- even Germany.

The family is not yet destroyed.

"Formation" rates? I was unaware that "Family" is an event. Just what is your notion of family, anyway? And what do you mean by "intact?"

I tend to agree with one part of your argument: There is probably a greater chance of finding the sort of "family" I am talking about in poorer nations. I have seen some of them years ago.

Edited April 18, 2013 by pmccombs1

[CASteinman]

"Formation" rates? I was unaware that "Family" is an event. Just what is your notion of family, anyway?

I consider formation of a new Family Unit to be an event. It starts when a man leaves his mother and father and marries a wife. That is the start. Its not typically the end though, but it might be.

And what do you mean by "intact?"

By Intact I mean that the the central organizing entity -- the marriage between a man and a woman -- remains functional and is not altered or broken.

I tend to agree with one part of your argument: There is probably a greater chance of finding the sort of "family" I am talking about in poorer nations. I have seen some of them years ago.

I am not sure how you were unable to know my sense of family and yet agree with me that it could be found.

[pmccombs1]

I consider formation of a new Family Unit to be an event. It starts when a man leaves his mother and father and marries a wife. That is the start. Its not typically the end though, but it might be.

By Intact I mean that the the central organizing entity -- the marriage between a man and a woman -- remains functional and is not altered or broken.

I am simply advancing the radical notion that a state of togetherness is fundamental to "family." I suggest that this state is the natural state of the family and is an essential part of the ontological being of the traditional family. In the historical sense, an intact family is a household family--one that is based in the household and can be found in the household. So I am also making the additional claim that household (as opposed to dormitory)is an essential component of family. The traditional family crosses the boundaries of generations and even of bloodlines,

In 1828, Merriam Webster thought that family meant this:

The collective body of persons

who live in one house

and under one head or manager;

a household

, including parents, children and servants, and as the case may be, lodgers or boarders.

The verb, "to live," in this context means, "to dwell," or "to reside." These words signify remaining and abiding, which are things we are too busy, outside of the home, to do anymore.

Here is what Dictionary.com tells me in 2013:

A basic social unit consisting of parents and their children, considered as a group,

whether dwelling together or not

:

the traditional family.

That's the traditional family? Webster didn't think so in 1828.

Here's John Taylor Gatto on the subject:

By mid-[20th] century we had reached a point in this machine civilization where we could so little bear intimate contact with the messy reality of living things – as compared to the clean simplicity of machines – that we became willing to lock up our mothers and fathers wholesale. To create a new investment opportunity in warehousing the old. What a strange thing to do with our unprecedented wealth, using it, that is, to divest ourselves of our closest human ties, getting rid of our history. In doing so a complex circle begun a century earlier when we first locked our young people away in school warehouses is completed.

Warehousing the young; warehousing the aged – good business, I know, but good for what?

Does it really matter or not that our parents die among strangers and our children live penned up by strangers? Does that possibly have an effect on the quality of the lives neither old nor young who are left theoretically free of entanglements? Entanglements are, after all, the core of complete human lives; good lives are all about being entangled with each other.

A place where children are born and the aged die, where the family trade flourishes across generations; such a place is a necessary ingredient for families. I have colleagues who, at this moment, have no idea where their children are sitting or playing, what they are learning (if anything), with whom they are socializing, or from whom they are receiving instruction. Their homes, as often as not, stand empty at this hour, and their neighborhoods are ghost towns. I have no doubt you would consider their families to be perfectly "intact" and functioning, but I deny it and stand by my claim that the traditional family is history. The war is over.

All of the present ills facing the family are directly related to the loss of togetherness and household from the de-facto definition of family. We can tilt at windmills and fight for abstractions, I suppose. Perhaps Family Home Evening ™ and railing against sexual immorality will strengthen our symbols and our representations. I am wishing for something a little more concrete, however; and I know of only one way to get it: Go home.

I am not sure how you were unable to know my sense of family and yet agree with me that it could be found.

Because those two things are logically unrelated. I might not know about, or I may disagree with what you consider to be a family, and yet still accept your argument to be valid in some sense for my own understanding of family. Yes, I've seen families that play out the entire spectrum of human experience largely within a single household, but not in America. I'm trying to get to that point with my own family.

Edited April 18, 2013 by pmccombs1

[CASteinman]

I am simply advancing the radical notion that a state of togetherness is fundamental to "family."

Not so radical. It is what was said to be the case long ago:

Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

That is "together". "one flesh".

Edited April 18, 2013 by CASteinman

[Stone holm]

I am simply advancing the radical notion that a state of togetherness is fundamental to "family." I suggest that this state is the natural state of the family and is an essential part of the ontological being of the traditional family. In the historical sense, an intact family is a household family--one that is based in the household and can be found in the household. So I am also making the additional claim that household (as opposed to dormitory)is an essential component of family. The traditional family crosses the boundaries of generations and even of bloodlines,

In 1828, Merriam Webster thought that family meant this:

The collective body of persons

who live in one house

and under one head or manager;

a household

, including parents, children and servants, and as the case may be, lodgers or boarders.

The verb, "to live," in this context means, "to dwell," or "to reside." These words signify remaining and abiding, which are things we are too busy, outside of the home, to do anymore.

Here is what Dictionary.com tells me in 2013:

A basic social unit consisting of parents and their children, considered as a group,

whether dwelling together or not

:

the traditional family.

That's the traditional family? Webster didn't think so in 1828.

Here's John Taylor Gatto on the subject:

By mid-[20th] century we had reached a point in this machine civilization where we could so little bear intimate contact with the messy reality of living things – as compared to the clean simplicity of machines – that we became willing to lock up our mothers and fathers wholesale. To create a new investment opportunity in warehousing the old. What a strange thing to do with our unprecedented wealth, using it, that is, to divest ourselves of our closest human ties, getting rid of our history. In doing so a complex circle begun a century earlier when we first locked our young people away in school warehouses is completed.

Warehousing the young; warehousing the aged – good business, I know, but good for what?

Does it really matter or not that our parents die among strangers and our children live penned up by strangers? Does that possibly have an effect on the quality of the lives neither old nor young who are left theoretically free of entanglements? Entanglements are, after all, the core of complete human lives; good lives are all about being entangled with each other.

A place where children are born and the aged die, where the family trade flourishes across generations; such a place is a necessary ingredient for families. I have colleagues who, at this moment, have no idea where their children are sitting or playing, what they are learning (if anything), with whom they are socializing, or from whom they are receiving instruction. Their homes, as often as not, stand empty at this hour, and their neighborhoods are ghost towns. I have no doubt you would consider their families to be perfectly "intact" and functioning, but I deny it and stand by my claim that the traditional family is history. The war is over.

All of the present ills facing the family are directly related to the loss of togetherness and household from the de-facto definition of family. We can tilt at windmills and fight for abstractions, I suppose. Perhaps Family Home Evening ™ and railing against sexual immorality will strengthen our symbols and our representations. I am wishing for something a little more concrete, however; and I know of only one way to get it: Go home.

Because those two things are logically unrelated. I might not know about, or I may disagree with what you consider to be a family, and yet still accept your argument to be valid in some sense for my own understanding of family. Yes, I've seen families that play out the entire spectrum of human experience largely within a single household, but not in America. I'm trying to get to that point with my own family.

Gave this a bump although I don't necessarily agree with everything in it, I think it hits the major points..