Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,833 Year: 4,090/9,624 Month: 961/974 Week: 288/286 Day: 9/40 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Women and Religion - Does it anger you?
mogur
Inactive Member


Message 166 of 311 (108687)
05-16-2004 7:06 PM


Don't make me get my flying monkeys! Women have been trashed since Genesis told us that Eve got the shaft from god for eating of the tree of knowledge. What did men get for violating the same rule? God decided that he would curse the ground, instead of Adam. Is there an appellate court in this judicial system? Who reviews god's actions? At least Eve had the gonads (and she still does), to challenge the rules. Did Adam have any balls? No, if he had simply eaten of the tree of life, we would all be immortal and aware. But talk about pussy-whipped, Adam was god-whipped, and couldn't even bring himself to be inspired by Eve's audacity. No wonder we (cheeto eating slobs that we are), are still pussy whipped. I drink to Eve's courage, and drink to forget Adam's cowardness. Maybe I am a drunk.

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Buzsaw, posted 05-17-2004 1:03 AM mogur has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 167 of 311 (108734)
05-17-2004 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by crashfrog
05-16-2004 4:40 PM


Hi CF. Thanks for being patient in case you were looking for a response.
Mine does. The trick is, you subordinate your personal desires for the good of the union. You know, like you're supposed to in a marriage.
A good husband need not become the subordinate mate in defiance of God's direction in order to allow the desires of his wife to prevail over his own for the good of the union. I've done that many times and my wife appreciates it when I do. There have been times when I don't and she accepts that. It's still give and take, but when agreement can't be reached as is the case at times in all marriages God's plan is for the husband's decision to prevail. This also is for the good of the marriage as it would be in any human organization.
It's funny that you keep saying it doesn't work when, around my home and several of the homes here, it obviously does.
Good! The facts are, and you know it, that all too often it doesn't.
Geez, haven't heard an old fart say that before. Buz, they've been saying things have been going downhill since Plato.
No, I don't think so, especially during and after the reformation until the 20th century.
Moreover I don't understand how you're able to assess the mental state of persons who lived over 50 years before you were born. Did you know that tranquilizing drug use has dropped precipitously among women since the 50's? If your good little housewives were so damn happy, why the hell were they popping so much thorazine?
.........and illegal drug use rose. When a lot of those wonder pills came out the women snapped them up, but after a while many learned the harm they were doing them and backed off.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by crashfrog, posted 05-16-2004 4:40 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Morte, posted 05-17-2004 1:00 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 173 by crashfrog, posted 05-17-2004 2:18 AM Buzsaw has replied

Morte
Member (Idle past 6130 days)
Posts: 140
From: Texas
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 168 of 311 (108735)
05-17-2004 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Buzsaw
05-16-2004 1:23 PM


Looking at it personally...
quote:
I am nearing three score and ten. If you were an adult living 50 years ago and suddenly were plunged ahead in time into the here and now, you would consider the whole feminist agenda to be ultra extreme, be appalled by the manners and attitudes of children, shocked at the divorce rate and breakup of so many homes, furious about the sudden loss of basic personal rights and freedoms and wonder what ta heck happened to our culture in general.
It's interesting you should mention age. While I certainly am not from the same era as you, my parents both were. Let me give you a quick view of my home when I was young. My mother worked for a large company in the nearby city; my father worked at home. He was still the "breadwinner" but for convenience he was generally the one who managed the "women's jobs" of cooking and taking care of me and my siblings when we were sick, etc. They shared some of the other tasks, such as cleaning and washing clothes. All decisions were generally made through compromise and agreement. Now from what you say later in your posts, this arrangement invited strife, argument, and divorce. On the contrary, I don't believe I've ever heard them argue, nor seen a happier couple than them. And from what you say in this post, their behavior should have been shocking at the time - but it wasn't. Perhaps they simply lived in a more tolerant neighborhood... Tolerant, by the way, is not a four-letter word.
I do agree about personal rights, though I strongly suspect we are thinking of different ones.
quote:
1. The alternative of constant bickering under the watch of the kids about what's to be done and absense of a leader in the home has been a major factor in the breakup of the home, imo.
What I was exposed to wasn't constant bickering, it was compromise and progress. Hardly what I would call bad examples.
quote:
2. If the roles were to be reversed, the physically stronger of the two would be the subordinate. The one who's brain has been designed by the creator to lead would be subordinate. The brain of the one who's brain has been designed to play the responsive role would be the one to lead. The one less able to defend, to provide and to lead would be at the controls, so to speak.
Wow... Just wow. So first of all, all women are physically weaker than men? And physical strength should be the determining factor in leadership? No wonder Arnold is governor...
The brain argument, ironically enough, recalls memories of the early Scientific Revolution (or perhaps it was the medieval viewpoint prior to the Scientific Revolution that was based on classical theories? I remember my old European Studies textbook mentioning it in the same chapter, but I'm afraid I cannot remember the context). The size of the skull was used to argue for male dominance. Can you not see what's wrong with this argument? As has been pointed out earlier, men are far more likely to take brash, silly risks and generally less adept at reasoning than women. Which of these sounds like leadership qualities to you?
Not that I'm arguing for female dominance of the household either (only equal partnerships) - just responding to your assertions about the inequalities in brains.
quote:
There was a time when the honorable role of a woman in the home was not considered to be restrictive, but alas, the feminist agenda so permeating society today has fed that lie into the minds of men and women alike.
There was a time when the honorable role of serfs and slaves in serving their superiors and their country was not considered to be wrong, but alas, they began receiving education, standing up for themselves, and fighting back against a system that forced them into a role they didn't accept.
Not to equate homemaking to slavery - but it's basically the same thing, a statement wistfully thinking of those grand ol' times before progress occurred.
There is nothing wrong with a woman wanting to pursue a life beyond the home, not any more than it is for a man to do so. I'm not arguing against the role of women (or men) who wish to work in the home; I'm arguing against the assertion that that should be their only role. See the difference?
quote:
Familiar foolish firey falacious fabrications flowing forth from frustrated fabian females fevorishly fomenting offensive feministic fanaticism.
To which I say, "Always avoid alliteration."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Buzsaw, posted 05-16-2004 1:23 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Morte
Member (Idle past 6130 days)
Posts: 140
From: Texas
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 169 of 311 (108736)
05-17-2004 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Buzsaw
05-17-2004 12:57 AM


As long as I'm here...
quote:
A good husband need not become the subordinate mate in defiance of God's direction in order to allow the desires of his wife to prevail over his own for the good of the union.
I'm pretty sure that what crashfrog is arguing for is equal partnership - in other words, there is no subordinate mate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Buzsaw, posted 05-17-2004 12:57 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Buzsaw, posted 05-17-2004 1:13 AM Morte has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 170 of 311 (108737)
05-17-2004 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by mogur
05-16-2004 7:06 PM


Hi mogur. The cursing of the ground made a lota hard sweating work for Adam and the rest of us. One preacher once said "when I get to Heaven, the first thing I'm gonna do is kick Adam in the shins for being stupid and getting the rest of us into all this hard labor." No, he and the rest of us men didn't get off any easier than the housewife and childbearer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by mogur, posted 05-16-2004 7:06 PM mogur has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 171 of 311 (108739)
05-17-2004 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Morte
05-17-2004 1:00 AM


Re: As long as I'm here...
I'm pretty sure that what crashfrog is arguing for is equal partnership - in other words, there is no subordinate mate.
Have you been reading me, Morte? I'm fully aware of that and have been debating as to whether it works, by and large as well as one head. For the reasons already given, I don't think it does and neither have all the cultures of humanity thought so in all the history of mankind until recent decades when the greakup of homes is on the rise.
Most business advisers advise against equal partnerships in business as well, for some of the same reasons. Too often, two people just aren't that compatible and unsolvable problems arise. That's not to say there's not exceptions, of course.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Morte, posted 05-17-2004 1:00 AM Morte has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by nator, posted 05-17-2004 1:06 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 182 by Morte, posted 05-17-2004 6:15 PM Buzsaw has replied

DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3803 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 172 of 311 (108740)
05-17-2004 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by nator
04-30-2004 10:01 AM


hmm...what have we here?
Hello Schraf,
I just thought I would add a new name to your list. The largest democracy in the world, India, just held their elections for Prime Minister. The new Prime Minister will soon be Sonia Gandhi. She also happens to have the unanimous backing of India's Congress.
so...
Sonia Gandhi, Prime Minister of India
{edited for spelling}
This message has been edited by DBlevins, 05-17-2004 12:18 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by nator, posted 04-30-2004 10:01 AM nator has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1494 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 173 of 311 (108744)
05-17-2004 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Buzsaw
05-17-2004 12:57 AM


Good! The facts are, and you know it, that all too often it doesn't.
You might not be too sure about what I know. What I know is, eveybody who gets married and does it my way - assuming they're mature enough to get married in the first place - winds up with a happy, successful, healthy marriage.
What I know is, everybody who gets married your way seeths with resentment for their partner under the surface. They may look happy, but it's grave happiness. It's makeup on a corpse - the hollow shell of their marriage.
Those are the facts, as far as I know. The higher divorce rate among people who do marriage your way would seem to confirm that.
No, I don't think so, especially during and after the reformation until the 20th century.
You don't think Plato said what I'm saying he said? You don't think folks have been complaining about waning morals and declines from the "good ol' days" throughout history? I just want to be sure that's what you're saying before I bury you in quotes from people saying exactly that.
You're saying that nobody's complained about society's decline before now?
.........and illegal drug use rose.
Among married women? That is who we're talking about, after all. I'm saying that women's use of tranquilizers declined with the rise of women in the workplace and in professional careers. Maybe that's not proof that women love the progress they've been making but it's certainly proof that maybe being a man doesn't give you the right perspective on what it was like to be a woman in the 50's.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Buzsaw, posted 05-17-2004 12:57 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Buzsaw, posted 05-17-2004 10:42 PM crashfrog has replied

Mespo
Member (Idle past 2912 days)
Posts: 158
From: Mesopotamia, Ohio, USA
Joined: 09-19-2002


Message 174 of 311 (108800)
05-17-2004 12:10 PM


I Second CrashFrog
I'm pretty sure that what crashfrog is arguing for is equal partnership - in other words, there is no subordinate mate.
Have you been reading me, Morte? I'm fully aware of that and have been debating as to whether it works, by and large as well as one head. For the reasons already given, I don't think it does and neither have all the cultures of humanity thought so in all the history of mankind until recent decades when the breakup of homes is on the rise.
I like to keep things simple, Buz. If it works for us (my wife and I) then we do it. An equal partnership works for us. I don't CARE what other people say we are SUPPOSED to be doing. I don't care what some BOOK says we are supposed to be doing. I've only been married to the same woman for 35 years, so I'm still wet behind the ears.
What it comes down to is this. My marriage is a work-in-progress. It is a dynamic on-going dance with the woman I love. So, simply stated, it's about love and respect. When you keep simple principles in mind, then you don't get hung up on the rules.
Equal partnership worked for my parents for 52 years.
Male head-of-household worked for my wife's parents for 50 years.
But NEITHER set of parents tried to tell my wife and I what was good for us. And for that, they had our undying respect until the end of their days.
(:raig

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 175 of 311 (108801)
05-17-2004 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Buzsaw
05-16-2004 1:23 PM


quote:
Familiar foolish firey falacious fabrications flowing forth from frustrated fabian females fevorishly fomenting offensive feministic fanaticism.
Excelsior.

"As the days go by, we face the increasing inevitability that we are alone in a godless, uninhabited, hostile and meaningless universe. Still, you've got to laugh, haven't you?"
-Holly

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Buzsaw, posted 05-16-2004 1:23 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Buzsaw, posted 05-19-2004 12:36 AM Dan Carroll has replied

MonkeyBoy
Inactive Member


Message 176 of 311 (108803)
05-17-2004 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by coffee_addict
05-16-2004 6:39 PM


Lam
You pretty much describe the marriage that my wife and I share. I cannot imagine being in a situation where I was always dominate and had the "last word".
I'm convinced it comes down to respect for the other person; without it, how can their be equality?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by coffee_addict, posted 05-16-2004 6:39 PM coffee_addict has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Buzsaw, posted 05-17-2004 10:57 PM MonkeyBoy has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2197 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 177 of 311 (108804)
05-17-2004 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Buzsaw
05-16-2004 5:50 PM


quote:
1. To be subordinate is to be under the headship of another. That's biblical. For the wife to be childlike towards the husband is not. They are equals in status so far as their relationship to God.
They are? That doesn't seem to be what the Bible says.
1 Cor 11:3
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
But if you really think that God's relationship with the woman is equal to the man's relationship with God, then what happens when they both pray to God about some descision, and God tells the woman one thing, which she is very sure is what God wants them to do, and the man also prays to God and gets a very different answer?
quote:
The wife has as much clout with God as does the husband. Each are favored by God according to how they fulfill the God given role for them to play in life. If the husband abuses his position as head and does not behave lovingly towards his wife, the wife has recourse by complaining to God whom she has equal access to.
What if God doesn't do anything about it, and he continues to abuse and control her to her grave?
What kind of life is that? What kind of justice is that?
quote:
If the wife seeks to usurp the head position designated to the husband, the husband has no instruction by God to punish the wife as do the Muslims and as is taught in the Quran.
But buz, there doesn't have to be a leader at all.
The only argument you have made is by analogies to businesses or clubs, which is not valid. A marriage is a PERSONAL relationship between TWO people, not a business.
quote:
The Bible, neither Old Testament or New instructs the husband to punish the wife physically as does the Quran. His biblical response to insubordination is to also complain to God and continue to lovingly assume his position as head.
The Bible also has instructions about how we should treat our slaves.
Does this mean that we should have slaves today?
The bible makes it clear that women are chattel, and are part of the spoils of war, to be taken and used.
Is this how we should conduct ourselves in times of war now?
Or, could it possibly be that Biblical proscriptions are outdated for a great many social institutions, including marriage?
quote:
If either partner cannot accept this biblical role for Christians it may cause a breakup, but neither should relinquish the God given role, regardless.
...or it may cause an adult relationship where wants and needs are negotiated out of mutual respect and love.
quote:
2. The more lovingly the husband treats the wife, the easier it is for the wife to accept his leadership.
A prison made out of diamonds and gold is still a prison, buz.
Why would an intelligent, self-respecting adult ever want to be led, like a child, through life instead of having just as much say in what happens in their life than their life partner does?
quote:
The more the wife honors the headship of her husband the easier it becomes for him to love her and to designate more authority to her in the family unit.
What is creepy to me is that the love and caring and respect of your "Biblical" marriage model seems to be just the "grease on the wheels" to facilitate the power of the man as leader.
The male power trip seems to be the most important thing in your ideal marriage, and how people are treated in the marriage serves to maintain the higerarchy.
quote:
...Golden Rule...
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
I want to be treated as an equal partner in my marriage, so I'll treat my husband as an equal partner.
The Golden rule doesn't work for your ideal marriage, though, because if you treat your wife as a subordinate, able to dominate her will if you deem it appropriate, she cannot do the same to you, correct?
Begging like a CHILD.
A CHILD.
YOU said the man was reduced to being CHILDLIKE.
quote:
I see your point here. Perhaps I exaggerated some here as it really hasn't happened as much as I've implicated, but over the years as I've been in the retail business, this has,on occasion been the case with wimpy husbands for the most part and rarely has a woman begged the husband for money in my 40 plus years in business.
A pretty sad backpedal here, buz.
You have insisted that the your Biblical marriage model, with the male as leader and woman as follower did not constitute a parent/child relationship.
Then you slipped up in your effort to show how wrong marriages could go when the men abdicated their rightful place as Grand Pubah for Life of the marriage. You very correctly characterized the pathetic, CHILDLIKE behavior the man was forced to display when he was in the subordinate role, which was exactly the point I was attempting to make clear to you.
You do obviously understand the point, because it was obviously quite distasteful and pathetic to you that a man would ever have to reduce himself to behaving like a child in his marriage to get what he needed or wanted.
Do you understand that this is exactly what the majority of women feel about your marriage model.
That it is demeaning and insulting and humiliating to be treated as anything less than an adult in any relationship, but especially in her marriage?
When a marriage is not an equal partnership of adults where wants and needs are negotiated out of mutual love and respect, a parent/child relationship is inevitable, as you just illustrated.
quote:
That's ok so long as agreement can be reached, but especially early in marriage mutual love and respect negotiations don't always cut the mustard and breakup ensues or the more dominant of the pair play the leadership role.
Evidence, please.
Upon what do you base this claim, buz?
quote:
I wouldn't want to start up a club, church, lodge or business on that basis.
A MARRIAGE isn't a club, church, lodge, or business, buz.
It is an intimate personal friendship/love relationship between two people who make vows to each other to stay together for life.
quote:
I'd want an established chain of command established at the onset to better insure smooth operation.
But then why do Evangelical Baptists, who certainly admonish their women to submit to their husbands, get divorced more frequently than Atheists and Agnostics?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Buzsaw, posted 05-16-2004 5:50 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 05-17-2004 2:51 PM nator has replied
 Message 187 by Buzsaw, posted 05-18-2004 12:03 AM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2197 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 178 of 311 (108807)
05-17-2004 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Buzsaw
05-17-2004 1:13 AM


Re: As long as I'm here...
quote:
Have you been reading me, Morte? I'm fully aware of that and have been debating as to whether it works, by and large as well as one head. For the reasons already given, I don't think it does and neither have all the cultures of humanity thought so in all the history of mankind until recent decades when the greakup of homes is on the rise.
Buz, here are some other traditional beliefs about women, many from our own culture:
That women are stupid.
That women are dirty.
That women are weak.
That women should be owned as property.
That women should have their clitorises cut off and their vaginas sewn up.
That God didn't want them to be educated.
That they shouldn't be allowed to vote.
That they shouldn't be allowed to own property.
That they shouldn't enjoy sex.
That widdows should throw themselves upon her dead husband's funeral pyre.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-17-2004 12:10 PM

Critical thinkers and skeptics don't create answers just to manage their anxiety--Karla McLaren

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Buzsaw, posted 05-17-2004 1:13 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3075 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 179 of 311 (108823)
05-17-2004 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by nator
05-17-2004 12:48 PM


Schrafinator:
Can I have a crack at this while Buzsaw is occupied ?
Please read this text from Ephesians:
21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
I interpret this to mean that the husband is SUPPOSED to treat his wife as Christ treats His church, and the wife is SUPPOSED to treat her husband as the Church treats Christ.
IF both parties conform to this directive then the marriage will prosper as it should.
Schrafinator quote:
______________________________________________________________________
What if God doesn't do anything about it, and he continues to abuse and control her to her grave?
______________________________________________________________________
Then this "man" is not a man. The woman should find the courage to get rid of him and start anew with someone else. The Ephesians text already cited ONLY applies to persons who recognize the word of God to be the "Constitution" of their marriage. If either party wants to suddenly violate the contract then the other party is not scripturally obligated to remain with that person.
Schrafinator quote:
______________________________________________________________________
The Bible also has instructions about how we should treat our slaves.
Does this mean that we should have slaves today?
______________________________________________________________________
Of course not.
The proper interpretation and application is to substitute "employees" for slaves, OR anyone who you have power over.
Those instructions about slaves all end in one conclusion: Treat them well because you yourself are God's slave. Again, this directive will only impact bosses who recognize the authority of Scripture.
Men who cannot get their wives to naturally want to follow them are defective. To resort to taking advantage of/and abusing the womans "subordinate" nature reveals the man aint a true man. IF both parties are IN love then why shoudn't the way it was in the beginning always be ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by nator, posted 05-17-2004 12:48 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by jar, posted 05-17-2004 3:55 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 188 by nator, posted 05-18-2004 12:38 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 421 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 180 of 311 (108848)
05-17-2004 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Cold Foreign Object
05-17-2004 2:51 PM


Let me handle this one.
WT
The answer is simple. At times, Paul was a complete asshole. If you doubt me, just ask James and Peter.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 05-17-2004 2:51 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 05-17-2004 4:58 PM jar has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024