Women and Religion - Does it anger you?

WT, it's off topic and my only response is that all the apostles were God's anointed. Take it for what it's worth.

Try the census bureau's vital statistics. The very last page of the report shows the divorce rates.

---

The Laminator

​

Lam, I didn't find anything in this site about the difference between fundamentalist Christians and others. Did I miss something?

Here's a factor: Unfortunately, most fundamentalist Christians today do not follow the fundamentals of the NT on leadership and submission in marriage, so in this they are not really bonafide fundies. Alas, they have bought into the notion that God doesn't know best as to how the home is to be administrated. Could this be one reason why there's little difference in the divorce rates? Likely so.

Lam, this topic is not so much about morality as it is on how the home is governed and administrated. My personal observation of most, I say most of nature and of the history of mankind is male leadership. Imo, that's the bottom line in this topic.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 05-18-2004 11:01 PM

And you know this how, exactly?Moreover, it doesn't matter. I'm sure that we can agree that no atheists follow the fundamentals of the NT on leadership and submission in marriage, right? I mean, why would they follow a book they don't believe in? And I'm sure we can agree that some fundamentalist - even if not the majority - do follow the fundamentals of the NT on marriage, right? After all, we know at least one fundamentalist does - you.So, we have one group where none of the participants take your position on marriage. We have another group where the only difference between the first group is that some of them take your position on marriage. Therefore we can attribute the higher divorce rates among the second group as entirely attributable to the fact that some of them take your position on marriage, because that's the only relevant difference, right?Seems pretty cut and dry to me. The fact that your position on marriage leads to more divorce is an inescapable conclusion of logic.

CF, I know this to be a fact. I've been in and observed the Biblical fundie circles for 58 years now and believe me, it is a very miniscule minority who observe the Paulist agenda in the home. I've been in numerous funddie circles and churches all these years and very few of the homes in these circles go with wifie submitting and hubby leading. I tell you what, CF, me friend. Go out and do a personal project on this and poll some fundies you know of. Poll as to how many wives feel they should be submissive to the husband and hubbie should be the final authority in the home. It may surprise you to find there's little difference in these and you.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 05-18-2004 11:23 PM

This has everything to do with morality. Also, let me tell you that you've had very limited observation of nature. As far as history of mankind goes, much/most of the 6,000 years of human history were filled with murders, genocides, wars, dictatorships, and just about every bad thing you can think of. Does that mean that those things are right?By the way, stop refering to tradition. It's a logical fallacy. Either provide evidence or else.... You've completely ignored what people have said about the falsity of male dominance in nature. You said "generally" but what the hell does that mean?

---

The Laminator

​

-----------------------------------------------------------------------Buz:--------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan: Mmmm, do I say thanks here or do I consider myself admonished? I guess that depends on whether this excelsior pertains the stuff used in upholstery stuffing or if it pertains to excellency??

And what is the definition of 'is'?Well, I guess the bible sums it up nicely.

Specifically how so? Please educate me.

Mogur, I don't know which translation you are using, but it's flawed. Here's the most correct rendering of this text and I quote from the 1901 American Standart Bible: Note that both shall be punished, not just the woman.

Discusting to me it is, that in this thread topic, WOMEN AND RELIGION - DOES IT ANGER YOU? that Mohammed, his religion Islam and his book, the Quran seems to be getting a free ride. This is what angers me -- how Islam gets off treating women like animals with hardly a peep here in this EvC town.

The question is is it right to treat women the way you want the rest of us men to treat them? It's a moral issue. You seem to think that it is perfectly all right to treat them as inferior. Don't tell me the "loving leader" crap. Our sense of morality has moved beyond that.

---

The Laminator

​

Ok Buz. Let us assume that nature generally have male dominated groups. Base on your logic, we should all eat raw meat, since all carnivores (besides humans) eat raw meat. Do you see the flaw in your argument now?

---

The Laminator

​