Define faith?

quote:

---

If a certain doctrine is vulnerable to abuse because there is nothing to prevent controlling people from taking advantage of it, then the doctrine may reasonably be regarded as flawed for practical purposes, no matter how attractive some may find it as an idea.

---

By this definition there is no doctrine, biblical or otherwise, that is not flawed. Do you find the tenents of the 10 commandments to be flawed? You don't have to be a Judeo-Christian to know that it's not cool to kill people or steal their stuff. It's not a fair assessment to say that because people are murdered, the commandment "Thou shall not kill" is a flawed doctrine.

John, you do not understand the "hierarchy" of the Bible. Witness Christ washing his disciples' feet (a painfully subservient posture) and death for his servants in the most shameful way imaginable (the cross). Who ranks highest in this example? If Jesus was higher, why didn't he just avoid the unpleasant stuff? If he was lower, how could he be God and why would we worship him? Your whole theory of hierarchy doesn't make sense in the context of Christianity.The Bible recognizes men and women as different. But it is not obvious or even correct that men rank higher than women in some sort of hierarchy. Nobody would argue that Joseph was greater than Mary, although Joseph was a man. Why was a woman given the honor of giving birth to the Savior, and not a man? Couldn't God have made an exception for his favorite gender? And why does the Bible (and the Catholic Church) focus more on Mary than on Joseph? Why did Jesus start his ministry by talking to a woman (unless he thought she was a man)? Why are there no examples of Scripture that you can cite that say that women are inferior to men? Why do Christians who have read the Scriptures disagree with you? And why does Paul write,"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." He could have left out the gender issue and left the implicit hierarchy you cite intact. There is just no way you can justify a subservient female gender in the Bible.C'mon, John. The West was founded on Judeo Christian values and it is the only place in the world in which women have anything near equal standing with men. The inherently separate but equal standing of women in the Bible led to this. You cannot love your neighbor as yourself and discriminate against them at the same time, regardless of their sex (unless you disregard this fundamental teaching of Christ, which much of the West has from time to time). The teachings of Christ lead, and have led in the Western world, directly toward equal social standing for women. The same goes for racial minorites, the elderly and infirm, and the mentally disadvantaged (within the limits of their capabilities).That is why most of the Middle East (Islam) and Africa (Paganism) are backwards wastelands in regards to social equality and Asia (Eastern Religions) has a long-standing tradition of raising subservient women that is only changing now as a result of increased exposure to the West.[This message has been edited by zipzip, 02-05-2003]

Thank you for your honesty.So, do you respect your wife as a person?

quote:

---

C'mon, John. The West was founded on Judeo Christian values and it is the only place in the world in which women have anything near equal standing with men.

---

What about most of Europe, where they have a much more representative number of women in government, and have (gasp) actually had women presidents and prime ministers. The US ranks quite low compared to Europe in infant mortality.Granted, the US is great compared to places like Rwanda and Afghanistan, but it is far, far from "the only place in the world in which women have anything near equal standing with men." That is overstating things by a great deal.

quote:

---

The inherently separate but equal standing of women in the Bible led to this.

---

quote:

---

Why are there no examples of Scripture that you can cite that say that women are inferior to men?

---

You have got to be kidding, right?In the Bible, the rape of a woman is considered a crime not against her, but against her male relatives; i.e. a crime against property.Menstruating women are considered filthy and sinful, and women are routinely taken as the spoils of war.Luke 2:23 (As it is written in the law of the LORD, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the LordNotice that it is only the males that are holy. This is pretty plain.Corinthians 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 11:8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.This passage seems to want to make it VERY CLEAR who is more important. Man is the glory of God himself!, but woman is not. She is only the glory of man. She is made for men. To be of use to men. How should I understand this hierarchy other than the very clear wat in which it was written?Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.This is also very clear.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-06-2003]

Of course. People and the institutions they create are not perfectible. For that reason, it's best to arrange things so that temptation is not put in anyone's way. The question is not whether to prevent killing but how. The question is not whether to promote stable relationships for the purposes of child rearing but how. The devil - so they say - is in the detail. A doctrine which led people to prevent killing by the use of blood feud would be wrong. I have doubts that women's interests are best served by doctrines of assymetric status in marriage.

quote:

---

The question is not whether to prevent killing but how. The question is not whether to promote stable relationships for the purposes of child rearing but how. The devil - so they say - is in the detail.

---

Excellent point. The Bible is filled with the details on how to be a Godly husband and a Godly wife...and moreover, how to life a Godly life. The details are in the book. The problem is, that the secular world has difficulty putting these tenents into practice because they miss a crucial element...Jesus.You can be as nice as you want, showing respect, showing generosity, being an overall "good" person, but without the "spirit", you are still a sinner with a sinful nature. Unfortunately, sin is like cancer...doesnt matter how healthy you eat or how much exercise you get, you are still infected...and ultimately your efforts are for naught. The same is true for a "good" person unsaved from sin. He may "do" all the right things, but without Christ, he is doomed for failure.Let's be clear: You don't have to be a Christian to be a good person. In fact, I know more good people who are NOT Christian than otherwise. But a Christian (in my opinion) is centered in his spirit...his heart is correctly in line with the Creator's will.

Let's forget about religion for a second. Can you scientifically disprove men are better than women?

I think women are better to snuggle with...but that's just me. I haven't been willing to try the other side so my opinion is slanted....so yeah, women ARE better.

quote:

---

Menstruating women are considered filthy and sinful, and women are routinely taken as the spoils of war.

---

Whoa, slow down there little sister. In the OT days there was a lot less sanitation and sleeping with a bleeding woman really increased your chances of getting disease. Chicks weren't considered sinful because of their menstral cycle.

quote:

---

In the OT days there was a lot less sanitation and sleeping with a bleeding woman really increased your chances of getting disease.

---

Would you mind posting some proof of this claim?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Here we go again...do you really need proof that in 2000 BC sanitation wasn't up to today's standard?? Use common sense, John. I can also tell you that there wasn't indoor plumbing and refridgeration...do you need proof of THAT too? Are you expecting to find a bible passage that says "thou shalt not crap indoors"??Besides, providing proof of anything to you has become an act of idiocy. If I called you a guy, you'd argue and say that your a chick.Just for kicks, tell me what proof you'd find as exceptable to your standards. I'd really be interested in knowing what passes for gospel in your eyes.BTW, smurfs aren't real, but im damned if I can prove it to you.

quote:

---

Here we go again...

---

Yes. I asked a simple question about a specific claim. Damn me!!!!

quote:

---

do you really need proof that in 2000 BC sanitation wasn't up to today's standard??

---

I'm not disputing the sanitation part. It didn't even occur to me to edit that out. Sorry to confuse you.

quote:

---

I can also tell you that there wasn't indoor plumbing and refridgeration...do you need proof of THAT too? Are you expecting to find a bible passage that says "thou shalt not crap indoors"??

---

That's nice. But all I asked about was the claim that sex with a menstruating woman was more likely to transmit disease than sex with that same women when she is not mentruating.

quote:

---

Besides, providing proof of anything to you has become an act of idiocy.

---

So you don't have any proof then? Oh, wait, you didn't even have the question...

quote:

---

Just for kicks, tell me what proof you'd find as exceptable to your standards.

---

In this case, a study published in a reasonably respectable journal suggesting a link between disease transmission and menstruation. You made the claim, I assume you have some evidence to support it. If not, just say so.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 02-06-2003]

quote:

---

Witness Christ washing his disciples' feet (a painfully subservient posture) and death for his servants in the most shameful way imaginable (the cross). Who ranks highest in this example?

---

Christ did what he wanted to do. This is not the same as being required to do something. Christ didn't submit to the disciples, and they certainly didn't demand submission of him. The analogy is flawed. Women are required to be subservient.

quote:

---

There is just no way you can justify a subservient female gender in the Bible.

---

The greek word used in, say I Peter 3:1, is [/i]hypatasso[/i] means total subjection. I can find case after case.

quote:

---

C'mon, John. The West was founded on Judeo Christian values and it is the only place in the world in which women have anything near equal standing with men.

---

It is only very recently that one could honestly make this claim. This equal(ish) standing has come about only after time and reason has loosened the strangle-hold Christianity has had on the west. Even fifty years ago your statement would have been patently false.

quote:

---

The inherently separate but equal standing of women in the Bible led to this.

---

Unbelieveable....------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

But all I asked about was the claim that sex with a menstruating woman was more likely to transmit disease than sex with that same women when she is not mentruating.

---

I Suppose I'm asking too much to ask you to actually READ the post. We are talking about OT days... Not NOW... THEN. Do you get that part??? Can we agree that there were some legitimate health concerns prior to modern medicine? For example: If you stubbed your toe you could catch gangrene and die. A simple case of pinkeye could be fatal. Many foods could not be eaten a day after it was prepared due to various strains of food poisoning. Do you get that? Does that make sense? Can we agree, or must I prove to you that people used to eat food back in the olden days?Certain diseases such as Chlamydia, Herpes are guaranteed to be passed by a menstruating woman who have these conditions wereas a non menstruating woman with these diseases may not pass them at all. Now for the gammut of research you require...its a little place known as the Center for Disease Control. Hey, and check this out...they have a website! Centers for Disease Control and Prevention If you'd like more references, try Google And search "menstruation"" sexually transmitted" I bet even YOU can find at least ONE disease that you can get from a menstruating woman..and that's with women TODAY...It was far more risky to sleep with a bleeder back in OT times.Okay, here's the part were you don't agree and all the facts are bunk 'cause your mom told you that cooties come from kissing girls and blah, blah, blah. Make us proud.

Can one surmise that, having gone so far as finding a website for the Center for Disease Control and also how to use google, Arachnid nevertheless failed to actually find any evidence for his assertion that certain diseases can be transmitted by menstruating women but not non-menstruating women? I mean, having gine so far, he fails to give specific references.