| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/21/2010 05:25:25 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
One proof of evil in the world is the rape of a minor. That is truly horrible.
However, should the innocent be killed for the sins of the father? |
Are you seriously asking this?
Message edited by author 2010-04-21 17:25:38. |
|
|
|
04/21/2010 05:32:30 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
A group of people required to submit to another due to race, gender, etc. makes them 2nd class citizens by definition. |
This probably explains a lot about your personality if you view submission as being second class "by definition"... |
Rather than respond with a meaningless personal attack, you could address the issue and try to explain how the subjugation of any class of people does not make them 2nd class by definition? From a dictionary:
second-class citizen. An individual regarded or treated as inferior to others in status or rights, an underprivileged person. For example, In many countries women still are considered second-class citizens. |
|
|
|
04/21/2010 05:41:09 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by George:
The guy doesn't sound like that much of an idiot. |
Yes he does. He's talking about abstinence. Abstinence-only education has been proven to NOT work, and abstinence has been tied to a higher STD infection rate. [/quote]
The truth may not be as clear as it appears in your mind...
Efficacy of a Theory-Based Abstinence-Only Intervention Over 24 Months
A Randomized Controlled Trial With Young Adolescents
John B. Jemmott III, PhD; Loretta S. Jemmott, PhD, RN; Geoffrey T. Fong, PhD
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2010;164(2):152-159.
Objective To evaluate the efficacy of an abstinence-only intervention in preventing sexual involvement in young adolescents.
Design Randomized controlled trial.
Setting Urban public schools.
Participants A total of 662 African American students in grades 6 and 7.
Interventions An 8-hour abstinence-only intervention targeted reduced sexual intercourse; an 8-hour safer sex–only intervention targeted increased condom use; 8-hour and 12-hour comprehensive interventions targeted sexual intercourse and condom use; and an 8-hour health-promotion control intervention targeted health issues unrelated to sexual behavior. Participants also were randomized to receive or not receive an intervention maintenance program to extend intervention efficacy.
Outcome Measures The primary outcome was self-report of ever having sexual intercourse by the 24-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were other sexual behaviors.
Results The participants' mean age was 12.2 years; 53.5% were girls; and 84.4% were still enrolled at 24 months. Abstinence-only intervention reduced sexual initiation (risk ratio [RR], 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48-0.96). The model-estimated probability of ever having sexual intercourse by the 24-month follow-up was 33.5% in the abstinence-only intervention and 48.5% in the control group. Fewer abstinence-only intervention participants (20.6%) than control participants (29.0%) reported having coitus in the previous 3 months during the follow-up period (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90-0.99). Abstinence-only intervention did not affect condom use. The 8-hour (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.92-1.00) and 12-hour comprehensive (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91-0.99) interventions reduced reports of having multiple partners compared with the control group. No other differences between interventions and controls were significant.
Conclusion Theory-based abstinence-only interventions may have an important role in preventing adolescent sexual involvement.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2010 05:48:31 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
A group of people required to submit to another due to race, gender, etc. makes them 2nd class citizens by definition. |
This probably explains a lot about your personality if you view submission as being second class "by definition"... |
Rather than respond with a meaningless personal attack, you could address the issue and try to explain how the subjugation of any class of people does not make them 2nd class by definition? From a dictionary:
second-class citizen. An individual regarded or treated as inferior to others in status or rights, an underprivileged person. For example, In many countries women still are considered second-class citizens. |
It wasn't a personal attack at all, just an observation. If you automatically assocaite "submit" with "2nd class" then I can see why it's important for you to vigorously defend your views and opinions. I would expect that you would most often submit to authority when you agree with their position and have difficulty doing it out of pure submission to their authoritative role when you disagree. At the least you may have more riding on the outcome psychologically than someone who doesn't make this automatic association. Again, these are observations only (now with a hefty dose of speculation) and not an attack.
Submission and subjugation are not synonymous. The wonders or the Christian view of marriage is that the two roles are different but neither is superior. A CEO is not superior to the Board of Directors, but their function is quite different. The marriage that doesn't have a CEO is doomed to strife as there is no tiebreaking vote when the two have a fundamental disagreement. On the other hand, the CEO who is only looking out for his own personal needs will never run a very successful business. Christianity coined the profound, yet oxymoronic, phrase "servant leader". I don't even quite need to have one role always assigned to the husband and one to the wife. However, four thousand years of culture (and perhaps even genetic makeup) probably assign the roles in a "traditional" manner more often than not.
Message edited by author 2010-04-21 17:51:36.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2010 06:00:54 PM · #30 |
| What a lovely veiled challenge to same sex marriage. Equanimity in adult love relationships is not the purview of Christians (or even the norm apparently). |
|
|
|
04/21/2010 06:02:44 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
This from a man who has referred to his wife in such a manner that would indicate that he feels she is at most a possession and at least a second class citizen. |
Originally posted by Nullix:
I assume you're referring to me. I'm offended you would call the mother of my 3 boys 2nd class citizen. Maybe you're referring to my quoting of the bible in another thread (some time ago).
Originally posted by Ephesians 5:21-25:
Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.
Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her
|
Are you aware what Christ did for the church? He sacraficed himself and died for his church. So who has it better?
The wife who submits herself?
The husband who sacrafices himself and dies for his family?
I think both have it better since both are giving themselves fully to each other.
|
First, yes, I was referring to the archaic manner in which you view women which is to say the least insulting and decidedly offensive.
Second, I would never on any level refer to, or think of a woman as a second class citizen.....I leave that to those of you who cannot seem to understand that on no level should a woman be considered to be anything less than equal. The emboldened part, over and above being just plain flat wrong, *is* offensive, and I doubt very seriously you'll find a woman with any sense of self who would agree with those passages.
And just to clear it up, it would take someone who has no grasp of the English language to infer from what I said that I consider your wife a second class citizen. I feel badly for her. Personally, I am offended that you feel about women the way you do, and I'm embarrassed for you since you obviously don't have the sense to see how offensive the whole concept outlined by your scriptural spoutings truly is.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2010 06:07:48 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I would expect that you would most often submit to authority when you agree with their position and have difficulty doing it out of pure submission to their authoritative role when you disagree. |
Your comparison is, unsurprisingly, fatally flawed. Authority figures are not a class of people in the same sense as gender or race. The latter are set by genetics and have nothing do with authority. Assigning rights and privileges on that basis alone is much closer to a caste system. Women are just as capable of leadership and sacrificing themselves for the good of loved ones. When people are declared "CEOs" at birth, so to speak, it has nothing whatsoever to do with looking out for the "interests of the company," superior knowledge, skills or leadership. It is purely a continuation of those in power trying to maintain their position.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The wonders or the Christian view of marriage is that the two roles are different but neither is superior. |
The wonder of Christian marriage is that people who are supposed to remain celibate can even be taken seriously as authorities or arbiters of marriage and parenting. |
|
|
|
04/21/2010 06:09:43 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It wasn't a personal attack at all, just an observation. If you automatically assocaite "submit" with "2nd class" then I can see why it's important for you to vigorously defend your views and opinions. I would expect that you would most often submit to authority when you agree with their position and have difficulty doing it out of pure submission to their authoritative role when you disagree. At the least you may have more riding on the outcome psychologically than someone who doesn't make this automatic association.
Submission and subjugation are not synonymous. The wonders or the Christian view of marriage is that the two roles are different but neither is superior. |
Really????
Explain how that applies to this verbiage. It sure seems to me that it's saying that the wife is to defer to the husband, as it states.....in everything.
Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.
Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
And I don't want to hear a bunch of johnnyphoto-style posturing about context and interpretation. This is pretty clear that the wife is to always yield to the husband.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2010 06:30:02 PM · #34 |
It is so funny to see how people get soooo worked up over these verses. They just aren't willing to see how the relationship REALLY works. Quote the very next verses Jeb.
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her...In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies.
If the husband is the CEO, then the buck stops with him. He has the ultimate responsibility to God for the decisions made in the marriage. If he is carrying out his role correctly and loving his wife to the point of giving himself up to death, what is the fear for the wife? Who's got the better end of the deal? I don't really think it's the husband.
Of course if one side isn't doing their part, then the other half becomes much harder and unfulfilling. That's obvious.
But I think most will just want to hold on to the idea that this is somehow derogatory to women.
Message edited by author 2010-04-21 18:30:49.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2010 06:32:39 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The wonders or the Christian view of marriage is that the two roles are different but neither is superior. |
The wonder of Christian marriage is that people who are supposed to remain celibate can even be taken seriously as authorities or arbiters of marriage and parenting. |
Well, I scratch my head a bit at that too, but this is of course a Catholic thing rather than a Christian thing (ie. a sect within the whole group).
|
|
|
|
04/21/2010 06:33:08 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
He has the ultimate responsibility to God for the decisions made in the marriage. ...But I think most will just want to hold on to the idea that this is somehow derogatory to women. |
If the shoe fits. I suppose women can just count their lucky stars that they have no responsibility to God since they cannot make decisions, and should just wear their veils in silence as, um, equals. |
|
|
|
04/21/2010 06:38:21 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
He has the ultimate responsibility to God for the decisions made in the marriage. ...But I think most will just want to hold on to the idea that this is somehow derogatory to women. |
If the shoe fits. I suppose women can just count their lucky stars that they have no responsibility to God since they cannot make decisions, and should just wear their veils in silence as, um, equals. |
Do note I said that personally I don't care if one role is always assigned to one gender or not. Did you miss that part on purpose?
|
|
|
|
04/21/2010 06:41:14 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It is so funny to see how people get soooo worked up over these verses. They just aren't willing to see how the relationship REALLY works. Quote the very next verses Jeb.
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her...In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies.
If the husband is the CEO, then the buck stops with him. He has the ultimate responsibility to God for the decisions made in the marriage. If he is carrying out his role correctly and loving his wife to the point of giving himself up to death, what is the fear for the wife? Who's got the better end of the deal? I don't really think it's the husband.
Of course if one side isn't doing their part, then the other half becomes much harder and unfulfilling. That's obvious.
But I think most will just want to hold on to the idea that this is somehow derogatory to women. |
Of course it's derogatory to women! Do you think that this was discussed with women, and that there was back and forth discussion? Of course not! Women were not consulted in these important matters.....they're too busy submitting!!!!
Jason, to hold these standards from 2000 years ago to women of today is absurd, as well as derogatory, and it's a shame that isn't patently obvious.
There is no reason for any woman to "submit" to her husband. It's supposed to be an equal relationship of give and take, mutual discussion, and concern and respect for the other.
Ultimate responsibility to God for the decisions made in the marriage? Are you SERIOUS??????
Absurd.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2010 06:44:38 PM · #39 |
Well, I still love ya Jeb. There's no need to keep talking. You obviously have your mind set on the matter.
Seeing that Christianity was a religion of "women and slaves" they probably had more say in it than you think...
|
|
|
|
04/21/2010 06:47:27 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Do note I said that personally I don't care if one role is always assigned to one gender or not. Did you miss that part on purpose? |
Your lack of caring is duly noted, however why would you even think such a role can't be shared? How you treat your wife really has no bearing on whether women are subjugated to a lower class. The bible also declares that men should treat their slaves well, and women are held in roughly equal regard (see Exodus 21:7-11). Perhaps you'd like to explain how slaves are also not second class citizens if their treatment is your benchmark?
Message edited by author 2010-04-21 18:49:15. |
|
|
|
04/21/2010 06:50:30 PM · #41 |
Whatever Shannon. You inability to keep one line of conversation going is a pleasure as always.
Do you think men are exactly the same as women in all aspects of brain physiology and how we tick? If so, you are an idiot. If not, how is this not the potential root for the traditional roles of marriage?
|
|
|
|
04/21/2010 06:52:14 PM · #42 |
| Another religion thread. Ho hum, the excitement of DPL seems a distant memory already. Nice to see the same people involved in it as always. |
|
|
|
04/21/2010 06:53:58 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Do you think men are exactly the same as women in all aspects of brain physiology and how we tick? If so, you are an idiot. If not, how is this not the potential root for the traditional roles of marriage? |
The line of conversation has not changed, you're just trying to dodge around it with red herrings and personal attacks (epic fail, BTW). Minor differences in brain physiology is not an excuse to for expecting one group of people to submit to another as a birthright.
Message edited by author 2010-04-21 18:54:50. |
|
|
|
04/21/2010 06:54:32 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, I still love ya Jeb. There's no need to keep talking. You obviously have your mind set on the matter.
Seeing that Christianity was a religion of "women and slaves" they probably had more say in it than you think... |
Wait a minute!!!
My wife is my slave? Really? When did that happen? When I get home from work, I'll remind her of her servitude. I'll let you all know how it went.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2010 06:55:36 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Whatever Shannon. You inability to keep one line of conversation going is a pleasure as always.
Do you think men are exactly the same as women in all aspects of brain physiology and how we tick? If so, you are an idiot. If not, how is this not the potential root for the traditional roles of marriage? |
Wait a minute!
You're not addressing either of our points.
You cannot see that in the contexct of 2000 years ago women were decidedly less than men in most ways socially?
For crying out loud, are you going to pretend on any level that there hasn't been, and still is gender inequality?
You're just being ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2010 06:57:51 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Whatever Shannon. You inability to keep one line of conversation going is a pleasure as always.
Do you think men are exactly the same as women in all aspects of brain physiology and how we tick? If so, you are an idiot. If not, how is this not the potential root for the traditional roles of marriage? |
Wait a minute!
You're not addressing either of our points.
You cannot see that in the contexct of 2000 years ago women were decidedly less than men in most ways socially?
For crying out loud, are you going to pretend on any level that there hasn't been, and still is gender inequality?
You're just being ridiculous. |
I don't understand Jeb. Do you have a problem with the concept of a "servant leader"? I'm not sure what the point is I'm not addressing.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2010 06:58:15 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
My wife is my slave? Really? When did that happen? When I get home from work, I'll remind her of her servitude. I'll let you all know how it went. |
Please do, I'd hate to try that one without a few trailblazers to chart the right path. |
|
|
|
04/21/2010 06:59:01 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by Simms:
Another religion thread. Ho hum, the excitement of DPL seems a distant memory already. Nice to see the same people involved in it as always. |
I'm guessing your wife sits home barefoot, pregnant, and knows her place, right?......8>)
|
|
|
|
04/21/2010 07:01:07 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
(epic fail, BTW). |
LOL, how old are you? |
|
|
|
04/21/2010 07:02:35 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by Simms:
Originally posted by scalvert:
(epic fail, BTW). |
LOL, how old are you? |
My kids just asked me to show them "epic fails" (DPC brown ribbons) an hour ago, so it was on my mind. ;-) |
|
