| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/20/2009 02:01:13 PM · #2751 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
There's a frightening culture of willful ignorance around us, and it's name is religious fundamentalism. |
And to the psychologists it's called "cognitive dissonance", and it's not limited to fundamentalist Christians or even to religious people in general.
R. |
|
|
|
08/20/2009 04:04:52 PM · #2752 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
In the end people just see what they want to see. If you want to see a misogynistic, antiquated religion, I'm sure you can. |
Unfortunately, as I have seen in all too many churches TODAY......that antiquated, misogynistic view *IS* held, and in matters that are of critical importance, women are not permitted to be heard.
In all too many cases, the scripture quoters are the ones that perpetuate the 'head of" scenario.
Most of the churches around here will not have female elders.
On the other hand, the church I belong to has a man & wife team of ministers.
And currently, the president of the board of directors is a woman.
Jason, you know that I have a tremendous amount of respect for you, how you live your life, and your willingness to try and wrap your head around others' ideas, but unfortunately, in my experience, you're a rarity. |
While I appreciate the strokes Jeb, I know I am actually not that unusual. I run into people like myself every place I live (and I've lived in a lot of places). Perhaps I am unusual in my willingness to fully engage (by both listening and sharing) with people who completely dismiss Christianity, but my personal beliefs about things are not out of the ordinary. I'm sure there were literally millions of Christians who voted for Obama. Millions who have never owned a gun. Millions who would vote for Tina Fey before Sarah Palin. You get the picture. I also have seen many, many churches which pay mere lip service to the idea of women not being elders. While they maintain this stance to be (in their minds) consistent with Paul's teaching, they have women who, in effect, carry out all the roles of elders anyway (without the name). They preach from the pulpit, they minister to the congregation, they run departments, etc. So while you and I share the common belief that it's silly to forbid women from official eldership (I don't even think it's scriptural if you dig), the good news is the real situation is not as bad as it may seem for mainstream Christianity. Many mainstream denominations do away with this rule altogether.
Message edited by author 2009-08-20 16:05:33. |
|
|
|
08/20/2009 06:00:05 PM · #2753 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Mousie:
There's a frightening culture of willful ignorance around us, and it's name is religious fundamentalism. |
And to the psychologists it's called "cognitive dissonance", and it's not limited to fundamentalist Christians or even to religious people in general.
R. |
While I agree that cognitive dissonance is not just a phenomenon of the religious conservative, I think that when it's expressed as literal demonization, to which I was referring, it is absolutely a religious conservative phenomenon.
I don't know any atheists who push facts away by claiming they're 'of the devil' or an attempt to send them to hell. I DO know religious people who do this. Not a scientific sample, granted, but do I really need one?
I, as a gay man, am literally demonized every day. Not to my face, but all I have to do is look. We live in a very connected world. |
|
|
|
08/20/2009 07:03:03 PM · #2754 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Mousie:
There's a frightening culture of willful ignorance around us, and it's name is religious fundamentalism. |
And to the psychologists it's called "cognitive dissonance", and it's not limited to fundamentalist Christians or even to religious people in general.
R. |
While I agree that cognitive dissonance is not just a phenomenon of the religious conservative, I think that when it's expressed as literal demonization, to which I was referring, it is absolutely a religious conservative phenomenon.
I don't know any atheists who push facts away by claiming they're 'of the devil' or an attempt to send them to hell. I DO know religious people who do this. Not a scientific sample, granted, but do I really need one?
I, as a gay man, am literally demonized every day. Not to my face, but all I have to do is look. We live in a very connected world. |
I understand what you're saying and I appreciate it, but I was responding to your more generalized statement about "a frightening culture of willful ignorance", and this is by no means restricted to religious fundamentalists. The *literal* demonization of which you speak is not even restricted to religious fundamentalists, or at least not in the way we use the term in America, because it refers specifically to "bible thumping" protestants, and it is in fact the Catholics that led the charge (so many centuries ago, and even unto more modern days) in demonizing secular phenomena when it suited them to do so; and the protestants learned from this (see the Salem witch trials for one well-known example).
But that's neither here nor there, we're on the same page here.
R.
|
|
|
|
08/20/2009 08:24:37 PM · #2755 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think you were just making a cute retort, but for clarification the Taliban doesn't recognize the New Testament as scripture at all... |
It wasn't intended as just a cute retort. The Bible, Koran and Torah all share a great deal of common source material, and the idea that "wives are instructed to be submissive to their husbands, because the husband is head of his wife as God is head of the Church" is shared by all three. The Taliban takes that concept very seriously, and with dubious consequences. The larger issue is that it shows equality as a fundamentally foreign ideal (or at best a new concept) within religion. Women are considered inferior to men by all three major religions â automatically demoting one half the population to second class citizens with lesser rights. Even within Christianity, the principle has historically been applied to deny women property, education, votes, positions of authority, and even basic human rights. |
I think you just have to be careful because you are almost directly quoting a New Testament verse when you are getting your idea across ("For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church" Eph 5:25.) You will not find such a direct statement in the Old Testament. In fact, a read of Proverbs 31 shows us the wife is a valuable member of the family for her work, business skill, and wisdom. The Old Testament is also a treasure trove of stories of empowered women. Esther would be a good example.
Message edited by author 2009-08-20 20:25:37. |
|
|
|
08/20/2009 08:31:35 PM · #2756 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think you were just making a cute retort, but for clarification the Taliban doesn't recognize the New Testament as scripture at all... |
Originally posted by scalvert:
It wasn't intended as just a cute retort. The Bible, Koran and Torah all share a great deal of common source material, and the idea that "wives are instructed to be submissive to their husbands, because the husband is head of his wife as God is head of the Church" is shared by all three. The Taliban takes that concept very seriously, and with dubious consequences. The larger issue is that it shows equality as a fundamentally foreign ideal (or at best a new concept) within religion. Women are considered inferior to men by all three major religions â automatically demoting one half the population to second class citizens with lesser rights. Even within Christianity, the principle has historically been applied to deny women property, education, votes, positions of authority, and even basic human rights. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think you just have to be careful because you are almost directly quoting a New Testament verse when you are getting your idea across ("For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church" Eph 5:25.) You will not find such a direct statement in the Old Testament. In fact, a read of Proverbs 31 shows us the wife is a valuable member of the family for her work, business skill, and wisdom. The Old Testament is also a treasure trove of stories of empowered women. Esther would be a good example. |
Yes, but there's a difference between the women in history who have transcended their stereotypes and place in society to make their mark, but by and large it's been discouraged throughout history.
The mere fact that women can and do rise above their limitations of societal dictates speaks volumes of their strength, character, and resiliency.
|
|
|
|
08/20/2009 10:35:10 PM · #2757 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Yes, but there's a difference between the women in history who have transcended their stereotypes and place in society to make their mark, but by and large it's been discouraged throughout history.
The mere fact that women can and do rise above their limitations of societal dictates speaks volumes of their strength, character, and resiliency. |
But don't you think that Proverbs 31 is a clear example of encouraging a woman toward something rather than just noting the exceptions? |
|
|
|
08/20/2009 11:05:20 PM · #2758 |
Two more interesting points for you Jeb.
In its origins, Christianity was denigrated as a religion of "women, children, and slaves". (see the writings of Celsus, a Christian critic of the 2nd century: ""Like all quacks they gather a crowd of slaves, children, women and idlers. I speak bitterly about this because I feel bitterly. When we are invited to the Mysteries the masters use another tone. They say, Come to us you who are of clean hands and pure speech, you who are unstained by crime, who have a good conscience towards God, who have done justly and lived uprightly. The Christians say, Come to us you who are sinners, you who are fools or children, you who are miserable, and you shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven: the rogue, the thief, the burglar, the poisoner, the despoiler of temples and tombs, these are their proselytes."
If Christianity was so anti-woman, why were they flocking to the religion? Historian Jo Ann McNamara writes "Christianity was founded at about the same time as the Roman Empire was established, and for the next three centuries the imperial government and the Christian religion developed on separate but converging tracks. As an outlawed sect, the new religion was peculiarly susceptible to the influence of wealthy and noble women. Their participation was so energetic and prominent that critics often labeled Christianity a religion of women and slaves."
The second point is back to the question about elders. If you ever ask someone why women shouldn't be elders they will invariably point to 1 Timothy 3: "Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect." So in their literal interpretation women do not qualify just as single men do not qualify. It's not that they aren't capable, but rather they are not called. And while you and I disagree with them, one must see that this argument is quite different from "women are inferior" as the reason they should not be elders. (I've had lots of these conversations and I've just now wondered what the answer would be if you asked if elders must have children since the last phrase would literally imply that. |
|
|
|
08/20/2009 11:40:17 PM · #2759 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church" Eph 5:25.) You will not find such a direct statement in the Old Testament. |
That's because Christ didn't exist yet in the Old Testament to enable such an analogy, and you're reversing the usual position that the New Testament is more relevant to modern "rules." Pointing out that the Bible holds women in lower regard than the Koran (where men and women are both considered equal before God) doesn't exactly help your argument, either. Interestingly, there's no requirement for veils in the Koran, but there IS in the Bible â
1 Corinthians 11:6: "For if a woman will not veil herself then she should cut off her hair, but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil...for man was not created from woman but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman but woman for man."
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you ever ask someone why women shouldn't be elders they will invariably point to 1 Timothy 3... |
1 Timothy 2:11 is a bit more direct: "Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men. She is to keep silent, for Adam was formed first then Eve, and Adam was not deceived but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor."
1 Corinthians 14:34-35 also applies: "As in all Churches of the saints, the woman should be subordinate as even the law says...for it is shameful for a woman to speak in church." |
|
|
|
08/20/2009 11:49:55 PM · #2760 |
No offence Doc, but we seemingly have strayed somewhat from the subject matter.
Ray |
|
|
|
08/21/2009 12:55:14 AM · #2761 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
No offence Doc, but we seemingly have strayed somewhat from the subject matter.
Ray |
Well, it was an interesting side topic and I just love pointing out when Shannon tries to slip one by us.
At this point, I'm not as interested in having an argument as just trying to open the window a little for others to peek in. If Shannon wants to continue to think Christinaity is bottom-of-the-barrel when it comes to women, he's welcome to it.
You guys can get back to the main topic though...cuz I think the 2672nd post is the one that's gonna crack it! ;)
If anybody wants to continue the women in relgion talk, they are welcome to PM me.
Message edited by author 2009-08-21 01:03:46. |
|
|
|
08/21/2009 06:28:04 AM · #2762 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
No offence Doc, but we seemingly have strayed somewhat from the subject matter. |
Well, that would have been my fault for having pointed out to one of the participants that his deep-seated & discriminatory views against gays seemed to correlate with his views toward women.
Sorry for the diversion.....
|
|
|
|
08/21/2009 07:41:28 PM · #2763 |
Yeah, stop diverting people away from my questions!
Why would a non-religious straight couple want to get married?
Why would an unmarried straight couple with kids NOT want to get married?
Until both of those questions are answered, I feel no obligation to further justify my own desire for marriage (although I have done so over and over and over in these threads).
|
|
|
|
08/21/2009 08:01:13 PM · #2764 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Why would a non-religious straight couple want to get married? |
Legal and tax considerations.
Originally posted by Mousie:
Why would an unmarried straight couple with kids NOT want to get married? |
Legal and tax considerations. |
|
|
|
08/21/2009 08:08:44 PM · #2765 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Mousie:
Why would a non-religious straight couple want to get married? |
Legal and tax considerations.
Originally posted by Mousie:
Why would an unmarried straight couple with kids NOT want to get married? |
Legal and tax considerations. |
While a somewhat dry reason, that's definitely a part of anyone's decision when getting married... unless they're dumb and don't think about the future. :)
|
|
|
|
09/02/2009 06:19:06 PM · #2766 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Yeah, stop diverting people away from my questions!
Why would a non-religious straight couple want to get married?
Why would an unmarried straight couple with kids NOT want to get married?
Until both of those questions are answered, I feel no obligation to further justify my own desire for marriage (although I have done so over and over and over in these threads). |
Well, we seem to be stumped.
I have no clue why non-religious straight couples would get married. Marriage is to create a family, so I don't understand how unmarried straight couples with kids don't get married.
If you already have kids, you're pretty committed. |
|
|
|
09/02/2009 06:30:23 PM · #2767 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
I have no clue why non-religious straight couples would get married. Marriage is to create a family... |
You've stumped yourself, courtesy of a wacko definition. Marriage is, and always has been, a vow of commitment between two people. Plenty of married couples can't or choose not to have kids, and some couples with kids choose not to get married. For bonus points, you also apparently imply that non-religious straight couples can't have children. :-/ |
|
|
|
09/02/2009 07:42:41 PM · #2768 |
An interesting essay by Sara Sarasohn, who is married to Ellen Degeneres, in today's New York Times fashion and style section. One particular quote, I think, sums up nicely the utter complexity of the issue for both sides. I just thought it was an interesting thing to share. Take away what you want. I'll give you the intro and then italicize the paragraph I thought was interesting:
__________
This summer, Ellen and I took the kids to a water park in San Jose, Calif. I went off by myself to ride this crazy slide that Ellen calls the Toilet. You have to go two at a time on big double inner tubes. The guy working at the slide found me another woman to go with.
She and I were standing in the line, chatting. She asked, âWhere is your daughter?â
The answer, of course, was that she was with Ellen, but I had to decide how to refer to Ellen to this stranger: wife or partner. I was going to have to stand in line next to this woman for 20 minutes and then go down the slide with her. When we shared the double inner tube, she would tuck her legs under my arms, and we would touch, intimately.
There werenât many markers for me to read to try to discern her attitude toward gay people: she was in her late 30s, toenails polished, ears single pierced, no tattoos, white or perhaps Latina. After the water slide I probably was never going to see her again, so if I shocked her with âwife,â so what?
I said, âMy daughter is with my partner.â
She nodded.
I am pretty sure she knew what I meant, that my partner was my daughterâs other mother. Still, saying âpartnerâ gives us plausible deniability. She can pretend that it means something else and we can get through the water slide without social awkwardness. She doesnât have to think about my being gay if she doesnât want to, and she doesnât have to think about the term âwife,â either.
This is exactly the opposite of what Ellen and I intended when we decided to use the word âwifeâ 13 years ago. We wanted to make people think about it. We didnât want to give them an out. We wanted to make a statement, every time we talked about each other, that our relationship was traditional and subversive at the same time.
Message edited by author 2009-09-02 19:43:18. |
|
|
|
09/02/2009 08:51:59 PM · #2769 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This is exactly the opposite of what Ellen and I intended when we decided to use the word âwifeâ 13 years ago. We wanted to make people think about it. We didnât want to give them an out. We wanted to make a statement, every time we talked about each other, that our relationship was traditional and subversive at the same time. |
Essentially what this tells me is that she tired of the "in your face" approach and opted, at least in this instance, to provide an answer that was acceptable to all in its vagueness, and interpretive latitude. It shows that one can be tactful, even if somewhat deceitful.
Ray |
|
|
|
09/02/2009 09:26:52 PM · #2770 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This is exactly the opposite of what Ellen and I intended when we decided to use the word âwifeâ 13 years ago. We wanted to make people think about it. We didnât want to give them an out. We wanted to make a statement, every time we talked about each other, that our relationship was traditional and subversive at the same time. |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Essentially what this tells me is that she tired of the "in your face" approach and opted, at least in this instance, to provide an answer that was acceptable to all in its vagueness, and interpretive latitude. It shows that one can be tactful, even if somewhat deceitful.
Ray |
It's just a shame that there is a need to practice this type of deceit.
That's so wrong.... |
|
|
|
09/02/2009 09:45:33 PM · #2771 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
I have no clue why non-religious straight couples would get married. |
Read carefully now........It's a little thing called commitment. It is the ULTIMATE statement that you can make to each other and the world as to your commitment to your partner.
NOW can you understand why Mousie wanted to be married??????
Originally posted by Nullix:
Marriage is to create a family, Marriage is a commitment between two people who love each other.. |
Where did you get the idea that it has anything to do with being about creating a family?
I swear you make these obtuse statements just to be ornery.
You really aren't this clueless and dense, I just *know* it.
Originally posted by Nullix:
so I don't understand how unmarried straight couples with kids don't get married. |
Guess what......I know quite a few couples who didn't get married precisely because they feel that the institution of marriage is so riddled with flaws and concepts that they won't be a part of it.
One couple I have in mind have been together for over twenty years, have six kids, are blissfully happy, and both have a total disdain for the institution of marriage because of the litany of horrors they experienced as children of broken, dysfunctional marriages.
Originally posted by Nullix:
If you already have kids, you're pretty committed. |
Well, gee.....that must mean you're married then, right?
That statement is another of the ridiculous things you've said that is such an erroneous conclusion.
An accident of biology does not a parent make, and unfortunately, just because you had a child does not make you committed.
I really hope that your children have a chance to grow up and meet people in the world that are outside of the very narrow spectrum that you operate within.
I hope that they get the chance to meet people of other mindsets than yours, and have the opportunity based on *their* relations and experiences with these people to draw their own conclusions as to what type of people they are.
And I hope that you respect their right to their own thoughts and conclusions based on their experiences. |
|
|
|
09/03/2009 12:06:36 AM · #2772 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
An interesting essay by Sara Sarasohn, who is married to Ellen Degeneres, in today's New York Times fashion and style section. One particular quote, I think, sums up nicely the utter complexity of the issue for both sides. I just thought it was an interesting thing to share. Take away what you want. I'll give you the intro and then italicize the paragraph I thought was interesting |
Ellen Degeneres is not married to Sara Sarasohn... she is married to Portia De Rossi. Not sure where you got your information. |
|
|
|
09/03/2009 12:25:12 AM · #2773 |
Originally posted by pjangel:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
An interesting essay by Sara Sarasohn, who is married to Ellen Degeneres, in today's New York Times fashion and style section. One particular quote, I think, sums up nicely the utter complexity of the issue for both sides. I just thought it was an interesting thing to share. Take away what you want. I'll give you the intro and then italicize the paragraph I thought was interesting |
Ellen Degeneres is not married to Sara Sarasohn... she is married to Portia De Rossi. Not sure where you got your information. |
HAHA. LOL. OK, my bad. I think I made the assumption because it was The New York Times and she referred to her only as Ellen. Like there could be no other Ellen in the NYT Fashion and Style section... |
|
|
|
09/03/2009 01:02:24 AM · #2774 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by pjangel:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
An interesting essay by Sara Sarasohn, who is married to Ellen Degeneres, in today's New York Times fashion and style section. One particular quote, I think, sums up nicely the utter complexity of the issue for both sides. I just thought it was an interesting thing to share. Take away what you want. I'll give you the intro and then italicize the paragraph I thought was interesting |
Ellen Degeneres is not married to Sara Sarasohn... she is married to Portia De Rossi. Not sure where you got your information. |
HAHA. LOL. OK, my bad. I think I made the assumption because it was The New York Times and she referred to her only as Ellen. Like there could be no other Ellen in the NYT Fashion and Style section... |
She's married to Ellen Evangeliste, formerly employed by the National Gallery of Art.
|
|
|
|
09/03/2009 06:53:52 AM · #2775 |
| Gay scientists isolate the Christian Gene... |
|
