|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Women and Religion - Does it anger you? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 506 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
Try the census bureau's vital statistics. The very last page of the report shows the divorce rates.
The Laminator
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Lam, I didn't find anything in this site about the difference between fundamentalist Christians and others. Did I miss something?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Buzsaw, I find it very amusing that you are trying to use animal examples (which you incorrectly used anyway) as a basis for human morality. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
And you know this how, exactly? 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 506 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
buzsaw writes:
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? 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.
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------Buz:---------
Familiar foolish firey falacious fabrications flowing forth from frustrated fabian females fevorishly fomenting offensive feministic fanaticism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Dan: Excelsior. 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??
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mogur Inactive Member |
Leviticus 19:20-22 writes: And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him. And what is the definition of 'is'? Well, I guess the bible sums it up nicely.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
This has everything to do with morality. Specifically how so? Please educate me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
And what is the definition of 'is'? 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:
And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman that is a bondmaid, betrothed to a husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; they shall be punished; they shall not be put to death..... Note that both shall be punished, not just the woman.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 506 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 506 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024