Uncomfortable Truths and how we deal with them

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

The “nuclear family” wasn’t that traditional until relatively recently when a couple could afford to go off on their own and raise their children without the help of extended family.

The "nuclear family" WAS the "extended family". Look at Abraham and his tribe/family. The family shared child care etc. No need for women to work "outside the home". Men did strength/agression related tasks, women brought the civilizing influences of teaching, creating etc.

Bringing economics into the picture is a common Marxian teaching. 

I learned it myself from Angela Davis.

WWII encouraged it when the family breakdown was already happening after emigration to the US during the industrial revolution, and then the war solidified it.

Then Marxists blamed it on capitalism

[Chum]

15 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The "nuclear family" WAS the "extended family"

I've been spending a lot of time recently on census centered around 1910. It is striking how common it was:

To have large families at one address (non-rural), all working.

To have half or more of a birth family live together and work until old - often into their 70s.

To get married and start having children in their 30s.

There's so much of 1910s US history that parallels today, I'm surprised it isn't regularly referenced.

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I agree. From the day I was first endowed in 1975, I knew immediately that this is precisely what Paul was referring to in these verses. And rather than imagining that these words of Paul speak to some unjust and outmoded traditions of a barbaric patriarchal past, they actually point to an unchangeable reality: that it is God’s will and design that men should preside in the home. But as long as there are those who insist on mingling the teachings of uninspired men and women with scripture there will be attempts to transform the Church to conform with the wisdom of a fallen, spiritually unenlightened world rather than adhere to the unalloyed word of God. Just look at the unmitigated mess we now have to live in because the “enlightened” modern world has strayed so far from the divinely ordained model of the traditional nuclear family. 

Okay, so these verses about head coverings have to do with the temple. That seems to explain it.

So wearing a head covering (or being bald) is required for women in the temple. Then it follows that in the next verses men are to wear nothing on their heads during temple rites which is exactly……..wait a minute………APOSTASY! WE ARE ALL IN APOSTASY!

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Chum said:

I've been spending a lot of time recently on census centered around 1910. It is striking how common it was:

To have large families at one address (non-rural), all working.

To have half or more of a birth family live together and work until old - often into their 70s.

To get married and start having children in their 30s.

There's so much of 1910s US history that parallels today, I'm surprised it isn't regularly referenced.

Yes I am doing the same

Very clear. Jewish families especially, 10 people living in an NYC tenament was common in that era.