| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/22/2010 09:22:08 AM · #101 |
Originally posted by Simms:
"You`re an idiot because you don`t believe in what I believe in." |
What have I asked anyone to believe in here? Read my posts again. Somebody was "offended" that his wife was referred to as a 2nd class citizen just because he believes wives are always subordinate, and I pointed out that this IS the definition of 2nd class citizen (quoting it straight from a dictionary). That might have been the sum total of my participation if not for the direct personal attacks by Achoo. |
|
|
|
04/22/2010 11:01:40 AM · #102 |
Originally posted by Simms:
However, I would love to know if DrAchoo thinks the original post (about the muslim cleric blaming women for Earthquakes) is a load of nonsense or actually has some merit? |
Oh yeah, for the record it's a load of crap. It's obviously pestilence, not earthquakes that women are responsible for.
Message edited by author 2010-04-22 11:01:51.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2010 11:18:37 AM · #103 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Simms:
However, I would love to know if DrAchoo thinks the original post (about the muslim cleric blaming women for Earthquakes) is a load of nonsense or actually has some merit? |
Oh yeah, for the record it's a load of crap. It's obviously pestilence, not earthquakes that women are responsible for. |
"He said, with a deadpan expression on his face." :-)
R. |
|
|
|
04/22/2010 11:23:22 AM · #104 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Just what is your point here Doc? Three individuals feel that their rights were trampled upon and are asking the courts for redress...just how does that make them or anyone else stupid?
Ray |
Well, the thread was talking about people being stupid. I thought there was a bunch of stupidity in this article. Probably the most humorous is the rule that you couldn't have more than 2 non-gay players on your baseball team. Did nobody think that at some point someone was going to challenge a team on this rule. What method was going to be used to determine the "gayness" of a player? Ummm, John, this is Bill. We're gonna leave you two alone for twenty minutes to verify the legal standing of the team. Less humorous, but equally stupid is the idea that a group which has been viewed as oppressed is now being accused of oppressing another "less worthy" group.
That's all. It's a throwaway article. I could have posted the one about the Whatcom county (the county where I went to undergrad) felon who was running a farm which provided a place for clients to have sex with animals. |
Any time you get people together as a large group (religion, politics, the deaf community, the gay community, college, tupperware parties), you get people that begin to believe they're better than everyone else, that want everyone else to do everything THEIR way, and become massively stupid about the whole thing. Believe me, I've been involved in a bunch of gay communities in a couple of cities, and they're all the same. If you don't act gay enough, or acquiesce to their demands, you are basically black-listed. You weren't open enough to certain people's advances? Good luck ever getting invited to another community event. You didn't laugh appropriately enough at a joke about straight men? Bye-Bye chance to be on the GALA council. You like sports and wearing manly clothes? Be prepared for daily and open derision from the Metro-sexual gardeners.
It's the same from any community that decides that they only want people that are like themselves, to be a part of themselves. That these men were discriminated against is in no way surprising, and the actions of the people running the baseball tourney or league are, indeed stupid, but it's also commonplace and generally accepted among gatherings and groups of all kinds.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2010 11:27:01 AM · #105 |
Originally posted by Jac:
Originally posted by Nullix:
On the other hand, should the innocent unborn child be killed because their father is a rapist? |
Yes! Without a second thought.
Can you imagine being told your father is a rapist and you were the product of his crimes? To bring this child into this world would be cruel and very egotistical and selfish by the mother or her church. Funny how the religious want to save little two week old foetuses but can't grasp the awkwardness and difficulty of raising a child of rape. Truly incredible when you think about it. To me it's revolting, disconcerting and just plain ignorant of the facts to even think of not having an abortion. |
Isn't it equally "revolting, disconcerting and just plain ignorant" to think killing a 2 week old unborn child will unrape the victim.
Rape is a horrible evil (especially when a minor is involved), but you cannot correct an evil (rape) with another evil (killing an innocent voiceless victim --the unborn).
If anyone should be kill, it should be the rapist.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2010 11:36:17 AM · #106 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Any time you get people together as a large group (religion, politics, the deaf community, the gay community, college, tupperware parties), you get people that begin to believe they're better than everyone else, that want everyone else to do everything THEIR way, and become massively stupid about the whole thing. Believe me, I've been involved in a bunch of gay communities in a couple of cities, and they're all the same. If you don't act gay enough, or acquiesce to their demands, you are basically black-listed. You weren't open enough to certain people's advances? Good luck ever getting invited to another community event. You didn't laugh appropriately enough at a joke about straight men? Bye-Bye chance to be on the GALA council. You like sports and wearing manly clothes? Be prepared for daily and open derision from the Metro-sexual gardeners.
It's the same from any community that decides that they only want people that are like themselves, to be a part of themselves. That these men were discriminated against is in no way surprising, and the actions of the people running the baseball tourney or league are, indeed stupid, but it's also commonplace and generally accepted among gatherings and groups of all kinds. |
You more eloquently summed up what was probably my reason for wading into this thread (certainly it wasn't a conversation about Christian marriage). All groups are made up of people and all people are capable of stupidity (as we're terming it in this thread). I will openly admit that religioius leaders can be stupid. The Catholic church will take a long time to recover from the inexcusable actions committed by those in leadership. My very original comment (about the tomatoes and hills of stone) was to point out that Jac, a participating atheist in discussion, is quick to point out the stupidity of those that don't agree with him. I was merely trying to say "enough". Wouldn't it be refreshing if we were all forced to post an article pointing out something good and constructive the "other side" was doing be it atheist, religious, muslim, gay, straight?
|
|
|
|
04/22/2010 11:55:45 AM · #107 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by Jac:
Originally posted by Nullix:
On the other hand, should the innocent unborn child be killed because their father is a rapist? |
Yes! Without a second thought.
Can you imagine being told your father is a rapist and you were the product of his crimes? To bring this child into this world would be cruel and very egotistical and selfish by the mother or her church. Funny how the religious want to save little two week old foetuses but can't grasp the awkwardness and difficulty of raising a child of rape. Truly incredible when you think about it. To me it's revolting, disconcerting and just plain ignorant of the facts to even think of not having an abortion. |
Isn't it equally "revolting, disconcerting and just plain ignorant" to think killing a 2 week old unborn child will unrape the victim.
Rape is a horrible evil (especially when a minor is involved), but you cannot correct an evil (rape) with another evil (killing an innocent voiceless victim --the unborn).
If anyone should be kill, it should be the rapist. |
You're not looking at the whole picture here. The victim IS a child. A fully functioning, thinking, feeling 9 year old. By not aborting the fetus' she carries, she will most likely die. Is her life worth less than that of the unborn to you? |
|
|
|
04/22/2010 01:18:30 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I was just talking to Jenn about how difficult it is f or those outside the Church to understand these passages. She told me, "I don't think it's worth it to get all stressed out about that if they don't get it." |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Oh.....we get it, it just doesn't work in real life. |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Seems to work just fine in Jason's life, and his wife's. |
If she's willing to play the role he designates for her, super, I just would not want anything of the kind for my daughter.......nor would she.
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
For a guy that always takes such massive exception to people that force their morality on other people, your personal grudge here seems a little bizarre and out-of-line. (and funny as hell). |
Well, that's not actually the situation here, but it wouldn't be a lively discussion without your trying to put the most negative spin on it, would it?
I have no grudge, and perhaps you could enlighten me as to why my being amazed that any woman would be okay with these archaic ideas is bizarre.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2010 01:57:41 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I was just talking to Jenn about how difficult it is f or those outside the Church to understand these passages. She told me, "I don't think it's worth it to get all stressed out about that if they don't get it." |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Oh.....we get it, it just doesn't work in real life. |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Seems to work just fine in Jason's life, and his wife's. |
If she's willing to play the role he designates for her, super, I just would not want anything of the kind for my daughter.......nor would she.
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
For a guy that always takes such massive exception to people that force their morality on other people, your personal grudge here seems a little bizarre and out-of-line. (and funny as hell). |
Well, that's not actually the situation here, but it wouldn't be a lively discussion without your trying to put the most negative spin on it, would it?
I have no grudge, and perhaps you could enlighten me as to why my being amazed that any woman would be okay with these archaic ideas is bizarre. |
What annoys me the most is that you think you have my relationship all figured out. You stereotype me and assume I fit into your pigeon hole. If you met us I don't think our marriage would look different than any other healthy marriage. I certainly don't view Jenn as being a lesser part of the union. Isn't that why we call our spouses our better half? You wouldn't want me to assume that because you live in West Virginia that you met your wife at a family reunion, would you?
What part of what I'm describing would you not want for your daughter? I guarantee whatever your answer, it's not what I'm trying to describe. That her opinions don't matter? That she shouldn't participate in the work of a relationship? That she can't make decisions? I didn't say any of those things. What else are you worried about?
Message edited by author 2010-04-22 14:02:54.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2010 04:05:02 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I was just talking to Jenn about how difficult it is f or those outside the Church to understand these passages. She told me, "I don't think it's worth it to get all stressed out about that if they don't get it." |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Oh.....we get it, it just doesn't work in real life. |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Seems to work just fine in Jason's life, and his wife's. |
If she's willing to play the role he designates for her, super, I just would not want anything of the kind for my daughter.......nor would she. |
I think this is where you have missed the mark, Jeb: I would think that Jenn had an active part in negotiating the role she plays in that relationship. It's not up to us to judge, or try to poke holes in it, or look down on it, or whatever. Doc's marriage works. So does yours. Your daughter will be able to choose what sort of a marriage works for her, if all goes well :-)
R.
Message edited by author 2010-04-22 16:05:31. |
|
|
|
04/22/2010 04:12:34 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I would think that Jenn had an active part in negotiating the role she plays in that relationship... |
That's not the sort of relationship that the Bible mandates, which is what Jeb was referring to. |
|
|
|
04/22/2010 04:14:14 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What annoys me the most is that you think you have my relationship all figured out. |
Nope! I'm merely responding to what you tell me based on your beliefs and the scripture/verse/biblical references that you state that you live yopur life by. You were the one who told me that those rules of marriage apply in your case. Correct?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You stereotype me and assume I fit into your pigeon hole. |
No, you stereotype yourself when you trot out how you live according to the book.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you met us I don't think our marriage would look different than any other healthy marriage. I certainly don't view Jenn as being a lesser part of the union. |
That may be so, but I do think your marriage looks different if what you're telling me about the decision making "role" is how it works. I'm sorry, but to me that just isn't a healthy relationship. That may work for you, but certainly not me.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Isn't that why we call our spouses our better half? |
That's a colloquialism that hardly has much merit in this discussion.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You wouldn't want me to assume that because you live in West Virginia that you met your wife at a family reunion, would you? |
One, I don't live in WV, and two, I have no control over what you try to assume......there has been much history of that in these discussions.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What part of what I'm describing would you not want for your daughter? I guarantee whatever your answer, it's not what I'm trying to describe. That her opinions don't matter? That she shouldn't participate in the work of a relationship? That she can't make decisions? I didn't say any of those things. What else are you worried about? |
As long as you would feel that she should submit to her husband, that she is not responsible for the decisions in the marriage, as God would have it......your words.....that is what I don't want for my daughter. The God I believe in and respect views men and women as equasls.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2010 04:14:58 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I was just talking to Jenn about how difficult it is f or those outside the Church to understand these passages. She told me, "I don't think it's worth it to get all stressed out about that if they don't get it." |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Oh.....we get it, it just doesn't work in real life. |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Seems to work just fine in Jason's life, and his wife's. |
If she's willing to play the role he designates for her, super, I just would not want anything of the kind for my daughter.......nor would she.
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
For a guy that always takes such massive exception to people that force their morality on other people, your personal grudge here seems a little bizarre and out-of-line. (and funny as hell). |
Well, that's not actually the situation here, but it wouldn't be a lively discussion without your trying to put the most negative spin on it, would it?
I have no grudge, and perhaps you could enlighten me as to why my being amazed that any woman would be okay with these archaic ideas is bizarre. |
a) what negative spin?
b) If you have no grudge, you wouldn't be trying to impose your personal views on DrAchoo's life, something you've been very vocal about other people doing, time and time again. This isn't something I just made up.
c) You don't even KNOW what ideas Jason or his wife HAVE. You are assuming things based on your own narrow view of what is right for women. Equality, believe it or not, means being able to CHOOSE the life you wish to live. No matter what that life is.
Here's a shocker for you: Your beliefs don't get to dictate what that choice is.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2010 04:22:25 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I would think that Jenn had an active part in negotiating the role she plays in that relationship... |
That's not the sort of relationship that the Bible mandates, which is what Jeb was referring to. |
My point is, even IF their relationship is one of book-bound traditionalism, that will have been her choice. They will have negotiated this going in.
R. |
|
|
|
04/22/2010 04:26:50 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I would think that Jenn had an active part in negotiating the role she plays in that relationship... |
That's not the sort of relationship that the Bible mandates, which is what Jeb was referring to. |
My point is, even IF their relationship is one of book-bound traditionalism, that will have been her choice. They will have negotiated this going in.
R. |
Exactly.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2010 04:45:13 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
My point is, even IF their relationship is one of book-bound traditionalism, that will have been her choice. They will have negotiated this going in. |
Even though I don't know them personally, I can absolutely guarantee that the relationship bears little resemblance to the Biblical concept he purports to defend. The portrayal of a marriage of equals, with the husband getting the final word in a stalemate, is a quaint modern-day caricature of the "he-shall-rule-over-thee" rules supposedly declared by God where it's shameful for women to have short hair, to pray without a head covering, or to even speak in church, that they must not teach and are never to have any authority over men. I suspect THIS is the sort of thing Jeb is saying does not work in modern society, and it's a pretty safe bet that Jason's wife didn't "negotiate" wearing a veil or allowing him to sell his daughter. |
|
|
|
04/22/2010 04:45:15 PM · #117 |
Would it surprise people that I have serious conversations with church leadership trying to change their idea that the elders of the church should be men? I very much disagree with them. I do not think it is biblical and we are neglecting the talents of half the congregation.
As far as my relationship, Jenn is every bit as active in deciding the dynamic of our relationship as I am. You've never met Jenn and there is no way I could strongarm myself into such a position and have the marriage survive as long as it has. As Jenn put it in yesterday's conversation. "Your job is to sacrifice yourself for the family to the point you would die for us. Why wouldn't I want to submit to that?" The words that I see describing how you think it works just tells me that you just don't get it.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2010 04:48:40 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Would it surprise people that I have serious conversations with church leadership trying to change their idea that the elders of the church should be men? I very much disagree with them. I do not think it is biblical and we are neglecting the talents of half the congregation. |
It seems like you're the one who doesn't get it...
"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." |
|
|
|
04/22/2010 04:54:15 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
My point is, even IF their relationship is one of book-bound traditionalism, that will have been her choice. They will have negotiated this going in. |
Even though I don't know them personally, I can absolutely guarantee that the relationship bears little resemblance to the Biblical concept he purports to defend. The portrayal of a marriage of equals, with the husband getting the final word in a stalemate, is a quaint modern-day caricature of the "he-shall-rule-over-thee" rules supposedly declared by God where it's shameful for women to have short hair, to pray without a head covering, or to even speak in church, that they must not teach and are never to have any authority over men. I suspect THIS is the sort of thing Jeb is saying does not work in modern society, and it's a pretty safe bet that Jason's wife didn't "negotiate" wearing a veil or allowing him to sell his daughter. |
You are quite right. My marriage does not resemble the most cynical, negative interpretation of the Bible possible. If the "real" way things should work is your interpretation, why in the world was Christianity a draw to women? Why was it known as a religion of women? It makes little sense and you, naturally, neglect the other side of the coin with passages that empower women and raises them to a position beyond what they were used to. Proverbs 31? Galatians 3? blah blah blah.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2010 04:55:07 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
My point is, even IF their relationship is one of book-bound traditionalism, that will have been her choice. They will have negotiated this going in. |
Even though I don't know them personally, I can absolutely guarantee that the relationship bears little resemblance to the Biblical concept he purports to defend. The portrayal of a marriage of equals, with the husband getting the final word in a stalemate, is a quaint modern-day caricature of the "he-shall-rule-over-thee" rules supposedly declared by God where it's shameful for women to have short hair, to pray without a head covering, or to even speak in church, that they must not teach and are never to have any authority over men. I suspect THIS is the sort of thing Jeb is saying does not work in modern society, and it's a pretty safe bet that Jason's wife didn't "negotiate" wearing a veil or allowing him to sell his daughter. |
None of that really matters Scalvert. The point is, nobody has the right to say that Jason's relationship is in any way 'wrong', or 'not as close' as another, or anything else that has been spouted off. You also don't KNOW what biblical concept Jason purports to defend. If I've learned anything since I've been here about you, it's that you take pleasure in trying to match your own preconcepts about something to someone that might have some leanings in those beliefs. For instance, here, just because Jason takes some teachings from the bible, you are automatically assigning EVERYTHING (or, more specifically, as Jason has pointed out, everything NEGATIVE) in the bible to his beliefs. That just doesn't work, and I think you know it. You just like taking it to the nth degree. heh.
Message edited by author 2010-04-22 16:56:53.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2010 04:58:41 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
None of that really matters Scalvert. The point is, nobody has the right to say that Jason's relationship is in any way 'wrong', or 'not as close' as another, or anything else that has been spouted off. You also don't KNOW what biblical concept Jason purports to defend. If I've learned anything since I've been here about you, it's that you take pleasure in trying to match your own preconcepts about something to someone that might have some leanings in those beliefs. For instance, here, just because Jason takes some teachings from the bible, you are automatically assigning EVERYTHING (or, more specifically, as Jason has pointed out, everything NEGATIVE) in the bible to his beliefs. That just doesn't work, and I think you know it. You just like taking it to the nth degree. heh. |
Amen! Can I get a witness?!?
|
|
|
|
04/22/2010 05:04:08 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Would it surprise people that I have serious conversations with church leadership trying to change their idea that the elders of the church should be men? I very much disagree with them. I do not think it is biblical and we are neglecting the talents of half the congregation. |
It seems like you're the one who doesn't get it...
"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." |
And yet Paul greets Phoebe as a deacon of the church. What gives? I'll openly say I don't particularly like this verse and would chalk it up to a cultural choice or even having a specific reason within that church for such a prohibition.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2010 05:15:44 PM · #123 |
Had to trim. It's getting a little long.
Originally posted by Nullix:
Isn't it equally "revolting, disconcerting and just plain ignorant" to think killing a 2 week old unborn child will unrape the victim.
Rape is a horrible evil (especially when a minor is involved), but you cannot correct an evil (rape) with another evil (killing an innocent voiceless victim --the unborn).
If anyone should be kill, it should be the rapist. |
Originally posted by Kelli:
You're not looking at the whole picture here. The victim IS a child. A fully functioning, thinking, feeling 9 year old. By not aborting the fetus' she carries, she will most likely die. Is her life worth less than that of the unborn to you? |
My first thought is, "Hey, this is 2010, nobody dies from child birth anymore (or at least few do)." But this is Brazil and the health care probably isn't as advanced as it is here (where most life threatening births can be treated). If you actually read the article, the 9 year old did have an abortion. The church excommunicated the parents and doctors (not the child). Excommunication isn't a death penalty.
Also, the article notes a 13 year who was impregnated (the article's term not mine) by her father. She's asking to carry the baby to term, Lindidalva Santana, an attorney representing the child, said, "The greatest right of the child is the right to life." Good for her!
|
|
|
|
04/22/2010 05:25:49 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
None of that really matters Scalvert. The point is, nobody has the right to say that Jason's relationship is in any way 'wrong', or 'not as close' as another, or anything else that has been spouted off... |
Read the posts. I never suggested his relationship was wrong or inappropriate. His relationship is irrelevant to the question at hand because it bears little resemblance to the questionable precepts we're discussing as the will of God. Jason is arguing from his personal concept of God's will to defend questions of what the Bible actually says, and those are not equivalent. As much as he'd like us to look at only the "good" side of the Bible (why would there be any bad side?), the role of women is indisputably subordinate to men (also evidenced by his own observation of church leadership). Galatians' claim that all people are equal does nothing to dispel that women must submit in all matters— they cannot have any authority over men, period. At best, it directly contradicts the "word of God" that all are NOT equal, but of course that would whiff right over the heads of the faithful. Walk into an elementary school and loudly proclaim that women are never to teach, and I'll wager it becomes crystal clear what modern society thinks of a woman's place as mandated by the Bible... we mostly ignore it.
To answer the weak question, though, women of the time would prefer the Biblical concept over alternatives of the day for the same reason slaves did: it required that they be treated decently. Of course, they were still slaves, and this doesn't help your argument. |
|
|
|
04/22/2010 05:27:04 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And yet Paul greets Phoebe as a deacon of the church. What gives? I'll openly say I don't particularly like this verse and would chalk it up to a cultural choice or even having a specific reason within that church for such a prohibition. |
Simple... you're reading the Word of Men. |
|
