none of the above

quote:

---

do any evos here believe in God

---

Since I believed in God first, I don't know that I constitute an evo who believes in God or a believer who thinks evolution is true.Either way, I believe, I love my God, and I think evolution is one of the neatest things I have ever gotten to study. The evolution of life is complicated and impressive--very impressive, but I love the evolution of stars more. If I was looking for "design," I'd choose the stars as my favorite evidence. (That's not a debate offer; I concede in advance that there is no "proof" of design in the stars.)Oh, and I think the Scriptures are "in-spired" (breathed into) by God, and I still believe in evolution.

[quote]I can't possibly be the best person to make decisions in every single instance, nor the best possible person to "represent" my family in every instance.[quote] Unless, of course, God exists and is very active in the lives of those who are his people. In that case, the best person to make the decision is the one God has chosen, because that is the one he will give the instructions to. The same is true concerning the "postition" of shepherd (pastor).However, that sounds pretty d*mn silly, because almost no one in America has ever seen any sort of Christian disciples except very "natural" ones, whose decisions are clearly based on their own emotions and mind and which obtain no apparent supernatural intervention in support of them. Those same "natural" Christian disciples tend to be as hard-headed, closed-minded, and unkind as any other human would be in a position of too much power, and that is what everyone has seen.In reference to your quote again, you used the phrase "to represent my family in every instance." Why not? The ambassador to France represents our country to them in virtually every instance? Why is he trusted to do that? Because he has the interests of the country in mind (let's assume he's a good ambassador), and because the President tells him our stance. A leader is not necessarily a dictator, and no good leader always dictates. Sometimes he listens to his followers and agrees, because while he can be the best person to represent his followers in every instance, he cannot possibly be the only one with a good idea in every instance.Even spiritual leaders have to listen to those who are not leaders.If there is a God that Christianity promotes, one thing that has always been true of him is that he has always selected a people to lead. He deals with the leader of that people, helping him make decisions. I realize that Moses' decisions are pretty unpopular nowadays, and I understand why, I nonetheless am quite convinced that I have seen God select leadership, supernaturally provide support and guidance to that leadership, and even overthrow that leadership when it ruled God's people in cruelty.Of course, I don't believe that Christianity in general has anything at all to do with God's people, so I'm not surprised that you've seen nothing that's a good example of what I just described. I think I could show you something different than you've ever seen, though, that would at least give you pause to think. Unfortunately, I doubt I could convince you that it's worth coming to Tennessee for a couple weeks or a month to ask questions, poke around, and find out.

Schraf, I wonder if this is really a justifiable statement.Let's start with: I don't think you can say "in the Bible" here. It is true that in most of the Tanach (OT), women were more or less owned. It is also true that this was the way in the Middle East for that time period and long after. You can tell the improvement even under Roman rule in the early centuries A.D. The Middle East progressed somewhat, and "the Bible" with it, which is not really one book, anyway.This is evidenced even by Jesus' changes to the divorce laws. You may not like his, either, but they're definitely different, and surely better in your eyes, than the ones in the Torah. I don't think this is fair and accurate, either. Much of Judeo-Christianity has developed with culture. I believe in roles for men and women that are different and important, so you probably wouldn't like my views much, but even my views are progressive compared to the New Testament writings of 2000 (okay, some 1900) years ago. Some of Christianity is so progressive that even NOW wouldn't object to their views on women.I understand your being offended with the past. I understand your disagreement with a relatively small segment of modern Christianity, but it's just not true that "the Bible and Judeo/Christianity...simply use God to justify male dominance and superiority."The Bible and most of Judeo/Christianity reflect the times. They are not propagating male superiority. Even most of the strong emphasis on wifely or womanly submission is in the South, where the culture leans that way, anyway. It's also emphasized in very literalist churches (but only very literalist), but that can't be changed.

A lot of what you say is true, Schraf. I was really just trying to tone down your previous post.The only thing I want to pointedly disagree with is: I don't think that's always true. In fact, I believe there is a great deal of power in a proper submission, and it can overthrow a bad authority without force.I'll leave it at that. I doubt I could make you agree, and I'm pretty sure you can't make me agree. We've obviously had very different experiences.

Sorry, Schraf, it's possible I should have kept my mouth shut (uh, my hands off the keyboard).I didn't like the negative picture of submission, because I think it can be very powerful. I'll explain in a second. However, I sounded way more concrete than I should have.I believe some wives ought to dump some husbands, not just submit to them. I believe some leaders of groups, whether religious, social or whatever, ought to be fought (I mean verbally, administratively, or legally, not with fists or weapons).However, I also believe there are times that a smile and a "no problem," repeated to a leader of whatever form changes things, at least over time. That can mean tolerating things I don't like or bearing some mistreatment. It doesn't mean violating my conscience, which I won't do for anyone. In such a case submission means taking whatever the consequences are of not submitting, whether that be being fired or whatever.I guess I just believe it's a principle that works. I have no good natural explanation to offer for why you should trust that it works, but I've sure seen a lot of people dropped from high places after mistreating me (or others). I've tried it, because I'm a religous man who believes in certain principles. I don't know that it's necessary to share the stories, as you would probably call them coincidences, and I have no way to prove they're not.Sorry that's so vague.[edited to correct some pitiful grammar][This message has been edited by truthlover, 06-19-2003]

Ok, Schraf, I'm happy to leave it there.