Women and the Fundamentalist View of Marriage

i'm pleased to say in this day and age that less and less women are prepared to be the subserviant member of a relationship, be they christian or otherwise.
there is no reason for either member of a truly loving relationship to be in anyway superior to the other. its about give and take. mutal sacrifice and benifit.even if the bible explicity said (and i know it doesn't) 'smack thy women twice and day and let her know her place becasue she is not as good as a man', would you do it? right now in the 21st century with all the advances of human kind, would you do it because the bible (which was written by MEN hundreds of years ago and is horribly out of date) said so?i'd rely more on what your common decency and sense of justice tell you than a book.

To fiddledydee:Welcome to the forum fiddledydee.Reply to your post:I agree totally. Here's my two cents:All attempts to divide humanity must focus on the differences between groups: whether the differences lie in race, colour, sex, religion, or another other attributes, it really doesn't matter.The idea behind political-correctness and maturity is that we must acknowledge the underlying EQUALITY within everyone when our understanding penetrates the shallowness of mere appearance and status.Whether we accept a point of view or not should, in my opinion, be based on whether it is objectively moral or fair to do so. Of course, when you bring religion into the arena, the concepts of morality and fairness are predefined by dogma and ultimately (if I may dare use this word) skewed towards the bias of the individuals who created the religion.I sincerely believe that unlike laws (canonic or otherwise), the concepts of morality and fairness transcends time, and it is up to the intellectuals and "thinkers" of the time to determine where the point of justice reside.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

cheers.people is people is people. that's what i think. i don't pretend to like everyone i come across, but i try not to make judgements on them because of what i think they might be or represent.if we all gave each other a little more time and respect the world would be a lot better.christains don't have a monopoly on morality you know.

Oh no man, your possesed with this whole omniscience obsession. I don't know, maybe it would look better on canvas. Maybe he chose to not "see" Abraham's decision, he is omnipotent afterall. It still takes a great trust/faith in God. If you trusted your father and he asked you in a serious voice to kill your son for him, would you trust him? The destruction of the wicked though. They were told by Moses to "let his people go". Do you think God should have let them butcher his children? The Egyptians were evil to enslave people like this anyway, and sinful to go against God. They were not forced to follow Moses, they chose themselves to cross. I don't see wars as a result of specific sin. I see them as the fault of man. I don't think God starts wars, he came to forgive sin. No one could change a nazi's mind, it is evil that causes murder and killing, and the sin is the war. For if we all loved our enemy and neighbour, what war would their be? Why do you blame God for man's device? Remember what I said though? About filthy rags. You have just said you don't adultery/fornicate, yet have you ever even lusted in your heart, and even only "thought" of these things? What then shall you do? If you live for yourself then you live for the flesh, hence you do worship it, and you have admitted you don't live for God. "Faith" is a important part of the fruit of the spirit, what then shall you do? But can you achieve faith without having faith? How can you have the fruit of "faith" if you don't have it. You say you lack one thing, and you are right, for you now say that these things aren't Godly, even though they are the fruit of the spirit. If they are from God, how can you attain them on your own? Besides this, you still have mud that is stuck, despite your cleanly efforts. The fruits are worthless and rotten, for they are no left alone, nor do they exist, without God. Where did I say that the christian is more moral? Didn't I say, a repentful sinner was pleasing to God? Aren't I saying how I have failed the law? Haven't I chosen to humble myself? You have chosen to exalt those things you think you have completed, concerning the fruit of the spirit, yet what is your atonement for not having faith?
For only one is good, - God. You say you don't break the law, have you ever lied? stolen? Divided the cloth? Have you ever worked on a sabbath day? Have you continually sacrificed for atonement? If you want to say that you are moral and I am not, go ahead I won't stop you, for I am not anyone that I should boast. So you can claim a moral victory if you wish, you'll find I won't argue.As for the contradictions, I have always said everyone is sinful, and we sin daily. For there are things which are not in the law, yet they are sinful. The fruit of the spirit is only good things, therefore it cannot fail any law, if you backslide as a christian, then obviously you need to gain full hold of these fruits. Have you noticed that I have only ever said, "If I have the fruit of the spirit"??As for women, I have already said that Christ treated them equally.

To mike_the_wiz: To "not see" something, even if omnipotent, would violate the assumption of omniscient. Furthermore, God is consistent, so to make Himself "not see" anything would be logically impossible. Sound to me like you're not very familiar with the God you worship. No I won't, because killing is wrong, and I don't have a "trust" or "faith" that tells me otherwise.However, if anyone were to tell me not to kill, and then personally instructed me to kill, then I would consider this individual a shifty character and will probably lose faith in him/her. I hope you're not implying that your God is such a pathetic figure. Ouch! You DON'T want to go THERE! Are you implying that it is ok to kill as long as they are evil? Shit! I hope I never appeared evil in your eyes! Stay away from me!Special note: the terrorists responsible for 911 believed that they were killing/murdering in the name of ridding the world of evil too. Perhaps you would be more careful in what you say? Please reconcile your viewpoints in the above comments. In the former, it is quite clear that war "came upon them" as a result of sins. Sounds to me like a punishment, alright. In the latter, you seem to have contradicted yourself. Please explain. Ok, let's put this in perspectives:Christians go good deeds.
-I also do good deeds.Christians think bad thoughts (lust in the heart).
-I also think bad thoughts (lust in the heart).Christians restrict their lust and bad thoughts from being acted on by their faith.
-I also restrict my lust and bad thoughts from being acted on, however, not by faith but instead by my education, maturity, and social etiquette.Christians believe that they will be saved by their God.
-I scratch my head and cock an eyebrow.Christians beleive that the "fruit of the spirit" is a conglomerate of divine attributes that only God can provide.
-I see it as a collection of respectable and commendable attributes (aside from faith) that is good for you and the society. I see no divinity in them, since many followers of other religions (or no religion) obviously display these qualities also (more so than Christians, in some cases).Christians believe that they are inherently "dirty" and need to be "cleaned" through their beliefs.
-I have a higher regard for the integrity and hygiene of humanity.Given the above comparisons, I don't see the reason for pursuing Christianity from a PHYSICAL or SOCIAL perspective. No I can't, but I am saying that for living in the real world, faith is not important for abiding laws. You said that if you have the fruit of the spirit, then you won't break laws. I'm saying that I won't break laws even if I don't have the fruit of the spirit. What's the point of Christianity from a social perspective if the "fruit of the spirit" is not essential for preventing crime? You stated that Christians possess the fruit of the spirit which prevents them from breaking laws. This implies that non-Christians, who do not possess the fruit of the spirit, are LESS moral (relative to Christians). If this is not your point, explain yourself.Patiently awaiting your next post.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

From username thread Schraf, you try to bullring my nose and lead me around this town to the threads you want me in so you can malign and distort by false implications and outright lies. Then you whine and moan to no end when I don't follow with repetitive responses. This's why I hate dialoging with you publicly in these threads.I didn't participate in this thread of yours because it was all covered in the women/anger thread from which this thread of yours emerged. The following is from that closed thread and is representative of my positon and posts on that thread. I'm notagona change your mind and you're notagona change mind, but don't say I didn't address the issues by you repeated implicative lies that I didn't address the issues set forth. That thread went on page after page after page. Go back specify where buz hates Muslims or advocates oppression to women.representative post from women/anger thread, buz post #8:This message has been edited by buzsaw, 07-19-2004 12:57 PM

for the convenience of treating women like shit, are things found in scripture to augment that view.
God made Eve from Adam's rib. To be a helpmate, not a slave, from him, to him. He didn't take the rib from Adam's foot to be under his foot, he didn't take the rib from Adam's head, to be over his head. He took the rib from Adam's side, signifying exactly that self-same equality. Anyone who say other is a maroon.

---

"Let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit!"
2 Cor. 7:1

you start your posts' first sentences in your subject, that one was great. Up for Post of the Month because that's some good literary observation!

Genesis 3:16 "To the woman he (God) said, I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in sorrow you shall bring forth children; and your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you."This message has been edited by buzsaw, 07-20-2004 10:50 PM

But doesn't the fact that it's listed along with the other parts of what is essentially a curse mean that it's not God's intention that man rule woman, but rather, a degenerative result of the presence of sin in the world?I mean, the same passage says that giving birth will hurt like a sonufabitch, but that doesn't mean that giving a woman an epidural is a mortal sin. It simply means that it's a symptom to be ameliorated.Likewise the tyranny of men over women isn't God's perferred way; it's a natural tendancy that all persons must seek to overcome towards equality.This passage doesn't mean that the ruling of women by men is God's will, any more than God mentioning that men must till the fields for food means that it's God's will for us all to be farmers.

exactly.in case buzz missed it, here's the verse

quote:

---

Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed [is] the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat [of] it all the days of thy life;
Gen 3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
Gen 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return.

---

the other question is, of course, since adam+eve are meant to be the archetypal man and woman, does the curse even extend to all men and women? or just them specifically?

Thought I'd give this a little bump for hangdawg...

Buzsaw, do you believe that having a leader/follower type marriage leads to the "follower" being reduced to engaging in childlike behavior, such as begging for money?

quote:

---

Genesis 3:16 "To the woman he (God) said, I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in sorrow you shall bring forth children; and your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you."

---

You quote the above to contradict Pecos' claim that women and men are equal.You are actively promoting the idea that men should RULE OVER WOMEN....and thus, you support the oppression of women, buz.

How could that be?
The woman got decieved first, so she was wrong first, which by itself is not an issue. Instead of correcting her mistake, she then proceeded to decieve Adam.
Typical woman lol.By I guess it was unavoidable, and probably doesn't matter how it happened.