arapahoepark
Puritan Board Professor
Don't know much about Zoomers do you?
Per the OP: what is manly? Certainly not all the virtue signaling among many, be it liberal or conservative.
The good and the bad of "Patriarchy"
- Thread starter Pergamum
- Start date
- Status
Per the OP: what is manly? Certainly not all the virtue signaling among many, be it liberal or conservative.
Video games are an easy target folks always like to bash...and then sit on the PB for hours or watch the news every night for an equal amount of time. I would even say excessive reading is almost as bad if it allows your health to fail or gets in the way of works of mercy or charity. On the Day of Judgment we will not be asked what books we have read. People are free to relax as they wish to a certain point. I know an old guy who spends hours bird-watching....so boring and unproductive....but he loves it. At least you can break things playing Angry Birds. To each his own.
arapahoepark
Puritan Board Professor
Indeed. I have always thought of this too.
The way I see many men and even women ramble on about sports (I'm always lost among the guys on this because I've never seen the attraction despite some good athleticism on my part) has led me to believe they watch way more TV than I spend playing video games.
Last edited:
I've done it myself many times (back when I was an idiot and still had social media), and I know quite a few people who are still worse even now. To say that social media is not immersive or that one cannot lose track of time when addicted to it is just not true. Social media is the most addicting and immersive thing I have ever engaged in. It's real life to many, many people. That's it's very design. Just watch The Social Dilemma. Hence why I quit.
MountainPilgrim
Puritan Board Freshman
Any criticism of video gaming can be likewise applied to any other form of leisure. The principle is keeping leisure in its proper place and fulfilling one's duties. I know men who have neglected their responsibilities for the sake of backcountry hunting, and others who have a healthy and balanced gaming schedule. I believe it to be more profitable to focus on the principles at hand, rather than one's own particular proclivities or opinions on the matter. This applies not only to the topic of gaming/leisure, but to physical fitness, as well.
My profession requires a level of physical fitness without which I would be in a very real way endangering not only my own life, but others' lives, as well. It would be irresponsible for me to not pursue a high level of fitness. Yet that is no reason to neglect fitness of mind, another critical component in dangerous situations. One man may be naturally weaker, another more athletic, but the principle stands that each should be master of his own body. That mastery will look different for each man, but the principle is the same: do not neglect your physical well-being. I for one find it very difficult to respect a man's expertise, regardless of his field, when I can see with my own eyes that he is unhealthy and neglects the mastery of his own body.
Likewise, one man may be gifted with intellect, and another, less-so. The principle stands that neither is to neglect his mind, but master and cultivate it according to his own abilities. Again, what that looks like will vary, but each is responsible to feed his mind. I find it difficult to respect a man who - though supremely fit - is obviously too lazy to sharpen his mind. (I am not speaking of natural intelligence here, but the man who - though otherwise capable - chooses to be stupid).
We need not pit physical and intellectual fitness against each other, as both are necessary for a godly man. A man of great physical strength and fitness but no desire to stimulate and improve his mind proves intellectually lazy. A man of great mind and education who neglects his body proves physically lazy. Laziness is the issue for each. Men must seek fitness of both mind and body, to whichever degree their circumstance allows and requires.
Let's be honest, gentlemen, it does not require a significant amount of time to maintain oneself, physically or mentally. If one finds himself "too busy" to improve either his body or his mind, then perhaps we do indeed need to address his priorities and leisure.
My profession requires a level of physical fitness without which I would be in a very real way endangering not only my own life, but others' lives, as well. It would be irresponsible for me to not pursue a high level of fitness. Yet that is no reason to neglect fitness of mind, another critical component in dangerous situations. One man may be naturally weaker, another more athletic, but the principle stands that each should be master of his own body. That mastery will look different for each man, but the principle is the same: do not neglect your physical well-being. I for one find it very difficult to respect a man's expertise, regardless of his field, when I can see with my own eyes that he is unhealthy and neglects the mastery of his own body.
Likewise, one man may be gifted with intellect, and another, less-so. The principle stands that neither is to neglect his mind, but master and cultivate it according to his own abilities. Again, what that looks like will vary, but each is responsible to feed his mind. I find it difficult to respect a man who - though supremely fit - is obviously too lazy to sharpen his mind. (I am not speaking of natural intelligence here, but the man who - though otherwise capable - chooses to be stupid).
We need not pit physical and intellectual fitness against each other, as both are necessary for a godly man. A man of great physical strength and fitness but no desire to stimulate and improve his mind proves intellectually lazy. A man of great mind and education who neglects his body proves physically lazy. Laziness is the issue for each. Men must seek fitness of both mind and body, to whichever degree their circumstance allows and requires.
Let's be honest, gentlemen, it does not require a significant amount of time to maintain oneself, physically or mentally. If one finds himself "too busy" to improve either his body or his mind, then perhaps we do indeed need to address his priorities and leisure.
ZackF
Puritan Board Professor
It is interesting you liked LHotP. I enjoyed the books growing up. The series didn't do as much for me. I think LHotP specifically and life on the Great Plains in those days generally was a mixture cultural things worth looking at. Folks in those days covered a lot of bases. Gender may have been the starting point for each others roles but it didn't stop there. Men and women had to learn to pull off each others tasks in a pinch or while children were young. The earthiness of day to day life doesn't didn't allow for endless discourses on "roles". A middle/upper class, squeamish, park and parasol ladylikeness wasn't very practical. Rather, life was rough and I think looked more like ways of Biblical times. Maybe men did most of the hunting but who cleaned the game? Most all of the women on my dad's side of the family born before 1930 that I knew could clean domestic/wild game, fish and handle large cuts of meat. Watching my great-aunt wringing a chicken's neck is something I can never get out of my head. Many women could handle firearms. They also could drive grain trucks during harvest. Men handled most of the mechanical work but it was not considered unseemly for a woman turned a wrench to help if needed. I don't think any of them considered themselves feminists though I don't' remember the subject coming up. My grandparents parents and grandparents were settlers in Western Kansas. My great-great aunt was the first white women born in the county. Visiting her in the hospital with my granddad is one of my earliest memories. She died in 1977. I was three. I can't remember how old she was. I recount all of this as I doubt the lifestyle of women on the prairie and their successors would pass muster of some contemporary patriarchalists. In farming and ranching for women to not to be able to conduct any business would have been absurd even though most often men took care of things. Just for a thought experiment, if a woman of my grandmother's generation while pulling up to the grain elevator with a load wheat would get 21st century lecture about the 'created order' from the attendant, I think she would die of laughter. Many egalitarians would balk too as I doubt there much chatter about "fulfillment" of women in their relationships. Some relationships were unpleasant, even violent especially if booze was in the picture. The men in some families, like nowadays, were tyrants and philanderers. Women could also be homewreckers. Nothing new under the sun. My granddad was a raging alcoholic in the early 1950s but licked it and became known for trying to get others to quit for the rest of his life. Many men were tender toward their families resembling "Pa" from LHotP. Making a life out of nothing or not screwing up the one your parents built was seen as "success". Even as late as the 80s and 90s many boys at my high school thought it was odd that my brother and I were not interested in farming. Dad sold it in 1994.
What are the differences in virtue between a man and a women? I would think none except for maybe appearances. The cardinal virtues of old are prudence, fortitude, justice and temperance. Faith, hope and charity are the theological virtues. The Decalogue is the same for both. My wife stays home and schools our daughters. At the same time we don't judge or rebuke couples (or singles) who do otherwise. Either way, women work.
MountainPilgrim
Puritan Board Freshman
My wife and I both hunt, kill, field dress, pack-out, and butcher our meat. True egalitarians, we.
C. M. Sheffield
Puritan Board Graduate
I think this should be stated clearly: All forms of leisure are not equal. There are more or less good and bad ways to spend your free time. We should not assume that if it's leisure time, any discussion about what it is spent in doing is irrelevant. It isn't. It should at a minimum answer the duty of love to God and neighbor and of being genuinely beneficial for ourselves. I realize that is not a hard and fast line to distinguish. But I stand by my opinion that video games do not pass that test. I've yet to see any good that comes from playing them. You are welcome to your opinion, but this is mine.
Duties are different. The Bible differentiates. The virtue of one is to lead and protect and the other to submit and nurture.
Last edited:
I guess the question would be, as a pastor, can you let your people pursue their own consciences on this, or do you try to determine this for them?
I’m confused by this, as there are so many things I can think of that also fail this test: fishing, doing a crossword puzzle, knitting a cup holder, reading fiction, painting, playing a game of solitaire, sitting at the park and watching birds, and innumerably more activities. How is this not teaching as doctrine the commandments of men? Where in Scripture does it teach that every single leisure activity must meet the two requirements of love for God/neighbor and genuine benefit to ourselves? And who defines what it even means to fulfill these requirements? I am no apologist for video games, and I agree they have caused a good many issues. My own brother is wasting his life playing them right now. But I feel this is an instance where I need to ask, “Where stands it written?”
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
I think it is clear to the disinterested reader that this thread has transgressed the bounds of Christian charity. I respectfully request that it be closed. Call me old fashioned, but Christian manhood should embody the virtues of avoiding gossipy judgmentalism, not judging (unfairly) according to the outward appearance, and not being a busybody in other men's matters. It is clear to me that some of us need to "man up" with respect to cultivating such virtues.
Done
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
