Jersey, I love being able to count on you for a laugh. You’re one hell of a funny lady.
I gotta say, if anybody should have someone else standing in for their head, it’s you.
Jersey, To me, woman being created for man implies that a woman must therefore have a man in her life. Traditionally, which included the early 20th century in America, a woman has had no independent standing, but only as a man’s wife or daughter. Your belief that woman was created for man had implied that to me, especially given the social context in Christ’s time.
As for Paul’s views on women, as a feminist and Christian, I’m familiar with the verses you cited, all right. Since I’ve found a way to reconcile them and this could lead to a long debate, I’ll save it for another thread, rather than hijacking this one.
CJ
But cj, we can’t go around changing things, or interpreting things! That way lies madness!
(Excuse me while I :rolleyes: . Thank you.)
Esprix
Anytime, Esprix, anytime.
JerseyDiamond, do you think it is possible that those passages are in the Bible because of the cultural climate of the times and not a direct missive from God about the roles of the sexes?
I’ve given up on expecting you to speak only for yourself, but really – speak for yourself.
I’m not married though I wouldn’t mind marrying if I meet Mr. Right, or even Mr. Pretty Close To Right, but my parents have been married for 35 years. They have a partnership. My father gives way on things he knows are important to my mother, and my mother gives way on things she knows are important to my father. They both do those things they are good at and/or enjoy. They consult each other on large decisions and support each other on small ones. And they would laugh their heads off at the idea that my father is “the head” of my mother, or their marriage.
Why on earth would any woman want to wait behind her husband, when she could stand beside him?
Ease those hammers back down, Jodi. When Jersey begins her post with “I believe that” it should be understood that she is speaking for herself. The problem I see here is that whenever she expresses a personal belief, people are yelling at her “How dare you speak for me!” or “How dare you criticize me!”. She’s doing neither.
So she’s a biblical literalist. So what?
Well, Beeble, she’s saying things that are demonstratably wrong. When it is said that the man is the head of a relationship (a fact which would surely come as news to my parents) and it can be demonstrated that this is not true, then expect people to do so. What Jersey believes should be is in this case irrevalent to reality. Stating the way something should be without regard to examples is MPSIMS, not GD, or even Pittish.
Biblical quotes aren’t evidence to lots of us, by the way.
They aren’t really evidence to me either, but again, so what? A religous perspective has its place and should be respected, even if the “evidence” isn’t based upon something verifiable. She hasn’t been proven demonstrably wrong on the “women were created for men” thing because the view isn’t based on something that can be proven or disproven. Faith does have a place in these discussions. Disagree? Go hound Polycarp next time he dares to mention God.
The fact is many religions and cultures are patriarchal. What I see here is tolerance for some cultural viewpoints (homosexuality) and not others (biblical literalism.) Might as well bash the Muslims, the Japanese, and most African tribes for being male dominated as well.
I don’t agree with Jersey Diamind, but too many here are jumping at the bit trying to rip her head off. The proper response to her polite comments is a simple “I disagree”
Maybe she mis-worded again, and what she really meant to say was “the man gives head in the relationship?”
And further, people have explicitly asked her for her views on the subject. Why you hammer her for responding politely to your requests, I can’t imagine. Enjoy being rude, much?
Okay, here it is, yet again, for your reading pleasure…
The reason you see more people tolerating homosexuality than tolerate biblical literalism, is because homosexuality doesn’t hurt anyone. On the contrary, it’s all about people loving each other.
Biblical literalism, however, is about a tiny minority of people imposing restrictive, bigoted laws on people. It’s about bringing about a social order which was outdated centuries ago. Biblical literalism is the driving force behind some of the most destructive aspects of American society today. All in order to make some religious lunatics feel like they’re superior to everybody else.
So, we get down to the basics of morality. Hurting people = bad. Not hurting people = good. Which is why the straight supremacists get piled on in these discussions; they’re advocating discrimination, persecution, and a regressive, basically evil mindset. While the gay people just want to be able to live their lives without being constantly persecuted for being gay.
Some perspectives really are better than others.
How exactly is someone hurt by another expressing a biblical literalist view on an anonymous message board? How has Jersey oppressed you? Mr. Visible, your argument holds all the weight of the “Catholics are evil because they were behind the crusades” argument.
You’re right , there are many things that changed from generation to generation, and from society to society. However, right and wrong have not changed; moral and immoral have not changed, because God himself does not change. I certainly don’t think homosexuals should be burned at the stake, denied housing, fired from jobs, beaten up, etc. But at the same time, that does not make it all ok.
Examples:
Adultery.
In the OT, adultery was punishable by stoning.
In the NT, adultery was called (by Jesus) the only acceptable grounds for divorce.
The punishment was different and less severe, but it’s still wrong.
Assault and various other crimes against your person.
OT: Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life.
NT: Turn the other cheek and forgive your brother 70 x 7 times.
Lesser consequences, more forgiving attitude, but still wrong.
Sexual sin, including homosexuality.
OT: Punishable by stoning, etc depending on severity.
NT: Called immoral and prohibited.
More forgiving attitude, but still wrong.
We aren’t supposed to condemn or abuse anyone, but that doesn’t mean that what used to be wrong has suddenly become right.
Right. Do I need to go through the thread and quote all the shitty, hateful, venomous posts by all the loving, wonderful, happy homosexuals again? Maybe we could compare them to Jerseydiamond’s posts and see who is the more hate-filled, you think?
Once again, please feel free to show me where she has imposed restrictive, biblical laws on anybody, or even advocated doing so. I must have missed it. Or, maybe you’re just full of crap, making baseless accusations as you foam at the mouth.
If you don’t want to be persecuted, maybe you should look at your own behavior. I think when people like you and kirkland get beaten up and persecuted, it’s not for being gay. More likely it’s for being an asshole.
Beeblebrox, Ace0Spades, Polycarp, thanks for keeping a cool head and a sensible outlook, and for demonstrating that you don’t have to agree with somebody in order not to attack them.
You know, this is an example of the pathetic behavior that causes people to hate conservatives. Blaming the victim is never right.
Get a fucking clue, observe the real world- you might notice that real world morality has absolutely nothing to do with a fucking book, it has to do with not hurting people needlessly, with treating others with respect.
Wow, you’re going to get handed your ass for that one. I will enjoy watching it, but I’ll leave it up to others better qualified than I.
For myself, let me just say thoughts of similarly colored cookware come to mind. And with full knowledge that you will take this as one more example of hateful atheist hypocrisy: Fuck you.
Strike the word conservatives from that last post, I would hate to insult most conservatives by comparing them to Joe.
It’s been said before, but the position of the various nutters we have seen these past threads is inherently, well, rude, for the lack of a better word. People very politely informing me that becuase I do not worship their God du jour, I will suffer eternal torment may well be trying to be save my soul, but their position is inherenly offensive.
Look, my I suggest a comprimise? Do the various people who feel homosexualiy is wrong feel it should be prohibited, or that those who do subject so sacntions. I feel, for example, that all religious systems that have been presented to me are factually inconsistent, logically unlikely, or flat-out wrong. But I do my best to preserve freedom of religion, and I know many people (many from this board) whom believe things I believe to be wrong, but are wonderful people. So, if you feel homosexuality is wrong, please also bring out your position on it’s legality. Can we accept that people will always hold beliefs we disagree with, and yet accept their right to hold said beliefs?
Oh, yeah, since I started this thread: Insert gratitous profanity directed at Joe_Cool. People have the right to be assholes and not be beaten. People have the right to be gay and not be beaten.
Oh, bugger. Joe_Cool, you are a smeghead.
I apologize for my outburst and inappropriate language.
Not for the anger behind it, only for the inappropriate expression.
grendel, Ferrous, before you take me to task for treating people with respect, why don’t you take a look at the seven pages (give or take. I forget how many pages the other thread went) filled with rabid, hate-filled attacks from all the wonderful, tolerant homosexuals who are just all about love?
I’ve been polite and patient at every turn, making sure to remain calm, and I’ve gotten nothing but venom for my trouble. And now I’ve had about my limit of crap from them. Even Christians have limits and get fed up, and not all of us are as patient as Jerseydiamond.
And since you seem oblivious to the fact up to this time, a person’s behavior influences the way they are treated (I’m amazed though…I learned long before I could read, let alone type, that if you’re a jerk to people, they treat you badly). If people like MrVisible and Kirkland1244 act in real life the way they do on the board, then it comes as zero surprise to me that they get beaten up and abused.
And guess what: If that’s the case, then it ain’t for being gay. It’s for the way they treat people. I would never tolerate these people talking to me face to face the way they talk online. But it’s always easy to be rough from behind your keyboard, I guess.
Oh, and grendel, I have a news flash for you: somebody who gets beaten up for hateful and persistent verbal attacks is not a victim. He’s an instigator.