Social Degradation and Religious Decay (Split from "Life on Europa")
Pages
| Author | Topic: Social Degradation and Religious Decay (Split from "Life on Europa") |
|---|---|
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Thursday, July 12 2007 04:24
Profile
When context has such influence on doctrinal interpretation, isn't it then the case that the religion is actually changing to accommodate the mores of the wider society/culture? I could see where they wouldn't necessarily be independent, but it seems as though churches lag a little behind before ultimately accepting what has become the status quo. Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Thursday, July 12 2007 04:55
Profile
Homepage
Build me a quote ziggurat, and I will live in it! I mean a quote ziggurat built in dreams, of course, not a shantytown of mislaid words in a topic destined for doom. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4248
|
written Thursday, July 12 2007 05:34
Profile
quote:There was a quote in my old religion textbook about atheism, contributed to one of the earlier well-known atheist (can't remember who, plus they took our books away at the end of the school :( ) It's hard to get the wording right, but the translation would be something like this: "Atheism is not denial of god, it is the unability to understand the whole concept. An atheist, when asked whether he believes in God, does not say 'no, I don't'; instead, he asks to define 'God', as he has no clue what such creature should be." Because of this, I've never considered people who have a grudge against a certain definition of God or gods (judeochristian, hinduist etc.) true atheists. Heck, I consider myself to be more of an atheist than they are, and I almost see existence of God as a mathematical necessity! -------------------- I have nothing more to do in this world, so I can go & pester the inhabitants of the next one with a pure concscience. Posts: 617 | Registered: Tuesday, April 13 2004 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Thursday, July 12 2007 05:59
Profile
If there was never a Christ then there certainly is not now. But, if there was then he is still here. So I guess the question is “Is the God of the Bible real.” Christian morals are based on him and his son. They have been from the start and they are now. God is absolute, unchanging, the ultimate reality. What he requires from his worshippers is not affected popular thought. In fact, popular thought is the wrong way since the road to destruction is broad and spacious and the road to life is cramped and narrow with few finding it. If God is not real then of course “Christian” can be whatever you want it to be and has no real meaning. “Our technology has improved and there are more people to kill” is not acceptable as an excuse for “the best times in history” when 57 times as many people were killed than in the centuries before it if you average them out. Maybe for you it’s OK, not for me. It’s also not OK to keep seeing genocide rear it’s head. ” Since 1989, 97 out of 103 armed conflicts were internal. And 70 percent of all war casualties since World War II have been civilians, rising to more than 90 percent in the 1990s.” This is from the same study that I quoted from earlier. This is also quite troubling. And it’s not like we’re learning, because at this very moment the country that I live in is engaged in this very type of war where anywhere from 70-100,000 (and possible more) civilians have died. In the country in which I live there is slavery. In the area I live in, Detroit, living standards are decreasing for the majority. The middle class and the poor are getting poorer. Children are having sex at a younger age, getting pregnant, diseases, are emotionally ill-equipped, and are more violent than in just a few decades ago. More people divorce than stay married. And these are just a handful of the problems. Thuryl asked a fairly good question, would I rather be me or a random person in some other time. The answer to that is “me.” My faith gives me focus and hope, and based off of Jesus prophecies I think there may be a chance for me to see the end of this system. Also I’m rich based on global standards. I’m fairly healthy. And I’m in a relatively safe pocket of the globe. A better question would have been: Would you rather be a random person now or a random person some other time? I would absolutely choose another time for quality of life. I somehow think you all are looking at a middle/upperclass life in America and thinking that translates to average in the world. That’s nowhere near accurate. Half of the population lives on less than 2 bucks a day. So please answer my question and tell me why you answer. quote:So does nature. Men and women are different, physically and mentally. The Christian standard gives me an absolute reason to view women as equals. Both men and women have dignified roles. And there is moral interchangeability. The things that are considered moral for women are the same as with men. In this culture they are not equal. It preaches equality, but women are still abused, enslaved, and treated like sex objects. quote:SoT, you see conflict where there is none. This doesn’t literally mean that there is no difference between men and women or a free person and a slave. This means that God does not discriminate on who he selects to be unified with Christ. Women are chosen just like men are and Gentiles just like Jews. This does not mean that a man is not obligated to care for and serve his family or that he is no longer the head of it. If I looked at the family in our society and saw it thriving by applying modern views I would have nothing to say. It is not though. That's the funny thing about people. Sometimes we can be so bent on our own way being right that we will miss the obvious. Divorce rates are at their "peak" - that's for sure. That's a very strong indication that society is not as families are the basic unit of it. Families and marriages where Christian standards are applied have longevity and are happier, though. I know very many of them personally and am in one myself. Divorce still happens but it is much more rare. As I said before, you can tell a tree by the fruit it bears. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Thursday, July 12 2007 06:13
Profile
Homepage
quote:You neglect the possibility that Christ existed - historically - and was a normal, mortal human. The advance of technology leading to greater suffering and death in war is an explanation, not an excuse. Genocide and ethnic cleansing have been around for thousands of years, they are not a recent invention. They have merely been made more deadly. On the other hand, technology has also helped to reduce suffering and danger in other areas. So neither the decline of religion nor the advance in technology is a bad development that should not have happened. It just means that we have to become more responsible as we become more powerful. -------------------- Encyclopaedia • Archives • Members • RSS [Topic / Forum] • Blog • Polaris • NaNoWriMo Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair. | I have a love of woodwind instruments. "That damn meddling eskimo." --WKS about Alorael Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
Post Navel Trauma ^_^
Member # 67
|
written Thursday, July 12 2007 06:13
Profile
Homepage
quote:Care to back that up with actual numbers? -------------------- Barcoorah: I even did it to a big dorset ram. New Mac BoE Posts: 1798 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Thursday, July 12 2007 06:31
Profile
Stillness, advances in technology and demographic changes are almost completely accountable for the increases in combat casualties in the past century versus other times. I could make a similar argument that fewer people died in conflicts that came about prior to the rise of "Christian morals" than afterward. None of your arguments are compelling. It is a simple fact that bombers, tanks, missiles and machine guns are better at killing people than a Spartan phalanx or trireme. Naturally, nations, tribes, organizations, etc. understand that losing a conflict is a bad idea, so of course arms races have occurred, and more lives are devoted to trying to win, though the stakes are the same. The market of competitive commerce is similar. How do we account for estonishing increases in worker productivity over the past century? It's not predominantly on account of employees working harder or faster from year to year; rather, it is because of improvements in technology. It is also uncompelling to argue that the world is more morally bankrupt because modern conflicts are occurring within the borders of nations. As is most often the case, the population within those "national" borders is hardly homogenous, and frequently composed of different tribes or ethnic groups, so in essence, it really is pitting different factions against one another. Furthermore, genocide has always existed; it's certainly not new to the last hundred years. Stillness, if Christianity gives you every reason to consider men and women equal, then why do so many Christian traditions bar women from being pastors, priests, etc.? What is evident is that your viewpoint is completely skewed to the notion that your interpretation of your faith is absolutely correct, and that variance from it leads to moral bankruptcy. Unfortunately, the facts don't line up that way. In fact, many people attribute the rise of Christianity as a major contributing factor to the fall of the Roman Empire; what does that say about the influence of your Christian morals on the world? I am curious to know whether you were raised this way, how far you've ever ventured out of your community let alone whether you've seen the other parts of the world you so casually dismiss as horrendous, or whether any life tragedy has ever affected you, because man, does it ever seem like you have led a sheltered existence with the Bible blinders on. [ Thursday, July 12, 2007 06:56: Message edited by: Drew ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Thursday, July 12 2007 06:46
Profile
Homepage
Stillness, a few basic points: * Even if Jesus was everything that you think that he was, you still have to admit that he doesn't talk to people in quite the same way as he did 2000 years ago. That's why he can't be the one calling the shots anymore. Apparently you think that you're the one who gets to decide what Christian values are and what they are not, in consultation with some sources, but that is plainly ridiculous. * War is not new. We just have the ability to kill more than we did before. Read up on the Thirty Years War sometime; if WWI was a world war and demonstrated the brutality of total war, the Thirty Years War did, too, and it was several centuries earlier. (Moreover, the Thirty Years War was a war arguably over religion. Everyone involved believed in the Christian God.) Nor is genocide new; the Roman Empire practiced it regularly (Carthage, anyone?). As has been pointed out, more people have been killed recently partly because more people are alive now than have ever been before, and by numbers that are staggering (a world population of a billion was unthinkable not too long ago). * The average world standard of living now is vastly higher than it was a few centuries ago. The percentage of people who live in abject poverty today is large and saddening, but the percentage of people who lived in abject poverty, say, a thousand years ago was nearly 100%. * One reason that divorce rates are high now is that people have the ability to get out of bad marriages, and in particular, women have the power to get out of abusive relationships. Divorce rates are more of a sign of individual (and particularly female) empowerment than of declining morality. But being Christian or not doesn't make any difference in longevity of marriage, as Khoth has pointed out, unless you define being a Christian in a way that is totally unworkable. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Thursday, July 12 2007 06:54
Profile
You know, I think his definition is unworkable, because when has society ever conformed to the moral standards he claims as Christian? Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Thursday, July 12 2007 07:30
Profile
Religion changes, indeed, or at least it should. The changes need not, however, simply be slavish accommodation to secular trends. There is in principle nothing impossible or inconsistent in the ideal of changing in order to more faithfully represent the religion's own essential tenets. Christianity, for one religion at least, has always been explicit about this idea, because Jesus preached this kind of reform of Judaism. Christianity was about how religions reform themselves before it was even Christianity. There is inevitably a temptation to change just to pander to popular attitudes. There is a converse temptation to knee-jerk rejection of popular attitudes. Both should be resisted, of course, because the question isn't really whether re-interpretations are initially prompted by insiders or outsiders. It's just whether they seem to be right, as best we can discern. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Thursday, July 12 2007 07:40
Profile
quote:Please, cite that study on war casualties. It is something I've been interested in about this conversation since it began. But overall I am in agreement with some previous posters, including Kel, Thuryl, SoT, and Drew. You seem to be drawing some conclusions based on available evidence without letting the conclusion be examined. We are offering different, and far more compelling, conclusions, but those don't seem to fit with your need to have some drama and righteous offense. Sure man, Christianity (that religious stance taken from the stories written about (not by) a guy named J C) is a worthwhile code by which you can live your life. It appears better than some other codes, but also worse than some. What it does have is a huge marketing campaign, fear-based propagation, and a heck of a back story. It seems almost easier to fall into that religious sect than any other, at least in this country, merely for the sake of convenience. After all, we humans like being told what to do in our lives. Being a fellow NPR flunkie, you must have listened to Fresh Air yesterday (7/11/07) and heard the two authors talking about their book on Victor Bout. He's an arm merchant who habitually supplies to both sides of a conflict (Gaiman? Gaiman? Gaiman?) and has been characterized as a thoroughly amoral man. He seems an extreme example, but is this what you mean about the 100% disciple of Christ world being better than the 100% real world? -------------------- WWtNSD? Synergy - "I don't get it." Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Thursday, July 12 2007 07:45
Profile
It is not precisely conflict that I am seeing between the 'neither male nor female' and 'wives obey' verses. It is a question of which one gets taken most literally and broadly, and which one gets hemmed in with contextual limitations. Stillness evidently takes the 'neither male nor female' passage rather narrowly, insisting that the equality it prescribes is limited to one specific sense. He takes the 'wives obey' as a straightforward prescription of a universal ideal. He does not reconcile the two verses any more or less thoroughly than I do, but he weights them differently. Some people consider that there is no subjectivity or ambiguity in interpreting the Bible, that its literal meaning is always plain. Everyone who admires the Bible finds many passages that do seem wonderfully plain to them. Yet every Bible student or teacher I have ever known finds many problem passages in there as well, whose plainest interpretation is repugnant, and which are therefore interpreted in more elaborate ways. People can differ on which are the plain truths, and which are the hard sayings. I spent an instructive hour once, for example, exchanging seemingly trinitarian and seemingly unitarian verses from the New Testament, with a fairly senior Jehovah's Witness minister. I have to admit that he had about as many on his side as I had on mine. I still think mine are the clearer and more highlighted ones, but one can't cite chapter and verse for an impression like that. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Thursday, July 12 2007 09:59
Profile
I always see people yell, "Don't double post" but I've got a lot to say and don't want it all jumbled together so I'm prepared for the attacks. :( Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Thursday, July 12 2007 10:00
Profile
I'm 31, went away college when I was 18, have had four jobs before the one I have now which is my own business, have been married for seven years, was born and raised in the hood, live in the burbs (where my neighbors are prejudiced against my race), I haven't been out of the country except Canada and the Bahamas, I am a minister and come in contact with many people from all over the world with all different sorts of religions and cultures. I was raised as a Christian, but abandoned my faith in my late teeange years and early 20's and even doubted the existence of God. It was actually in college studying physics that I had a bit of a turning around when I saw the orderliness of the universe, but most importantly started to realize the depth to which we can peer into it, understand it, and shape it. I then knew that we were designed for the universe or it for us. I started to search for God and came back to the faith of my mother because it is logical, answered all the questions I had about life, is practical, I saw God's direction in it, and saw that it contained prophecy that no man could have been responsible for. I have family from different branches of Christendom and Islam, but their faith is either illogical to me, lacks any real power in their lives, or both. I'm not a world traveler and explorer, but I don't think I'm sheltered. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Thursday, July 12 2007 10:01
Profile
quote:No, I included that. He would have just been Jesus, not God’s Christ. That wouldn’t account for the growth of the Christian congregation, which was truly founded after the death of it’s leader based on very public miracles such as the resurrection of Lazarus who was dead for four days and the speaking in tongues which caused 3000 foreigners to convert and be baptized on the first day in Jerusalem. quote:You all tell me we’re at the height of civilization. I say, then why is it so violent. More people and more ingenious ways to kill them is not an acceptable. I say, why is the basic unit of civilization in trouble. More freedom for women to get out of bad relationships is a poor. Why are they in bad relationships? Whatever the reason it doesn’t change the fact that something like 45% of marriages will end in 15 years. I don’t have hard figures for what that rate looks like in marriages where both mates follow the Bible. My faith is strict on that but it is small, with only about 6.5 million - 1 million of those in the States. It doesn’t keep track of marriage and divorce rates. I know that it’s nowhere near that high though. There was actually a study done in Russia that found it to be less than 5% compared with 40% in the general populace. In Germany it’s 4.9%. I would guess that would just about correspond to what I see in the States. http://www.jw-media.org/region/europe/russia/english/releases/religious_freedom/rus_e030523.htm When I mentioned genocide, I recognized that it has always happened. I had written more but took it out and forgot to add it back in. Have we ever seen the “your race is inferior and unclean” variety? I don’t remember that from history. I remember religion, land, power, etc, but not that. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Thursday, July 12 2007 10:04
Profile
quote:God’s arrangement in the congregation and the family is the same – men take the lead. But even then not all men qualify. That doesn’t mean that those men aren’t equal, they simply don’t qualify to take the lead in the congregation. The same goes for women. In the Bible there were prophetesses and God used Christian women as much as men on the day when 3000 were baptized and after. In my faith women do preach and are actually responsible for most of the preaching. They just don’t have positions of headship because it not allowed. Somehow this translates to inequality in your eyes and that is not so. It is like a body that has different parts that work together harmoniously. “There should be no division in the body, but that its members should have the same care for one another. And if one member suffers, all the other members suffer with it; or if a member is glorified, all the other members rejoice with it.” (1 Corinthians 12:25, 26) That how we see it. quote:Excellent Drew! It never has. I think you’re going to get it. quote:Do you think you are incorrect? What do you think you are incorrect on? Is your viewpoint skewed? Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Thursday, July 12 2007 10:06
Profile
quote:Prove this. I’m intrigued by this statement. A thousand years ago Native Americans dominated this landscape. I don’t think they lived in abject poverty. In fact I think they were better off in general. I doubt that Africans lived in abject poverty either. I’m not sure about Eurasia, but I’d definitely like to see your information on this. quote:I have. http://www.worldwatch.org/node/1650 I missed the NPR story so I can’t comment on it. I think you all are missing my point. It’s probably mostly because I’m withholding what I really think from you all because I don’t want to get into a long debate and I doubt anyone here would accept it. I’ll say this and try to be a bit more clear: My point is not that war or immorality is a result of religious decline. Some religion is bad. I’m saying that wars in these times have become more intense and have taken a darker tone (e.g. amount of dead, civilian deaths, genocide because certain races are unfit to live, ability to wipe humanity off the face of the planet). Morality has also declined. There is a connection, not a direct correlation, between those things and lack of religious faith. If you can’t see it I guess I’m not really prepared to make it more clear by getting into a deep Biblical discussion on the details of the connection. Sorry if I got anyone worked up to be let down. I spent humungous chunks of time in Biblical discussions in forums when I became a Christian and had very little to show for it. I suspect that you all aren’t really interested in that sort of thing anyway. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Thursday, July 12 2007 10:10
Profile
quote:SoT, have you read the section of scripture this quote occurs in? In particular verses 15-29 of the third chapter of Galatians. It’s discussing the covenant God made with Abraham that all the nations would be blessed by means of his seed. There’s also discussion of the law given to Jews as a continuation of this covenant being what would prepare them to receive the seed, who’d be none other than Jesus. The conclusion is that this seed would not just be Jesus, but Christians unified with Jesus with God showing no regard to race, sex, or social status in his choosing. “YOU are all, in fact, sons of God through YOUR faith in Christ Jesus. For all of YOU who were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor freeman, there is neither male nor female; for YOU are all one [person] in union with Christ Jesus. Moreover, if YOU belong to Christ, YOU are really Abraham’s seed, heirs with reference to a promise.” There’s nothing here that contradicts or changes the headship arrangement. I honestly can’t see where you get any inkling that it does. If you feel that arrangement doesn’t apply to us in this society, I actually understand that. But neither this scripture, nor any others support that view. I take them all as they're written and see no conflict whatsoever. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Thursday, July 12 2007 10:54
Profile
quote:This pretty much addresses my assertion of patriarchy in Christianity, which I think is a bad thing, because I think it is a baseless distinction arising more from (as SoT mentioned above) cultural considerations around the time passages in the New Testament were drafted than Jesus' underlying message. But whatevs. Do I have a bias? Sure. I'm biased against any faith tradition to the extent that it makes assumptions it cannot prove, and then crafts policy/doctrine based on those assumptions. Unprovable assumptions are the breeding ground of hubris, which is dangerous for the assumer and those around him. In addition, because the assumptions are unprovable, they are unfalsifiable, and thus very difficult to challenge. As a former student of physics, you should be able to appreciate this. I guess in some senses I assume that Christianity is fiction, because I have witnessed no evidence that any of what it claims is true, and to me in most significant ways it seems no more valid than any other faith tradition that many Christians would assert are untrue. There have been thousands of organizations over the history of civilization of comparable size, goals, and assertions, so it's not like the church is all that different. The whole "mote/log in one's eye" lesson comes to mind there. I am ready to be proven wrong, but as you say, the "proof is in the pudding." In the mean time, while I appreciate the wisdom behind many of the morals, I prefer that they be vetted by temporal sources, based on agreement of a liberal democratic society. [ Thursday, July 12, 2007 10:58: Message edited by: Drew ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Thursday, July 12 2007 11:58
Profile
quote:Let's explore this. You're a man of logic so before you hold a belief you'll have proof. What proof do you have that what you call patriarchy in Christianity is based on cultural considerations and not natural law? Physical nature itself tells us that men and women are different and have different roles in the family arrangement. We now know that our brains even work differently (as if we needed science to tell us that). It's clear to me that when the roles are dictated by the Bible, which says that men and women are complementary but different pieces of a whole marriages are stronger than when the values of this society are followed. Just like two brains on one body or two steering wheels in a car, two leaders in a family would be bad. One leader who does not abuse his authority, loves his wife, considers her first, and follows Jesus' example in self-sacrifice and serving others works beautifully. Women and men are both happy and satisfied. I see it and live it. That's the kind of logic and proof that I used when I selected the religion I wanted to be a part of. If it wasn't practical I wouldn't go for it. I really do understand where you all are coming from though. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Thursday, July 12 2007 12:28
Profile
Hmm. Well, it's pretty well documented that society contemporary with the birth of Christianity was organized around a patriarchal system, where women had very limited rights to property and virtually no participation in government. However, this has not always been so, but probably was the result of the fact that men are physically bigger than women, which is a fairly amoral distinction. Why aren't women allowed in leadership positions in your faith? You'll have to pardon me for finding "it isn't allowed" to be an uncompelling rationale. I also think you'll have a hard time justifying this physiologically, and even if you could, such a rationale would be distinct from any religious consideration, outside of "that's the way God made us," which I also find uncompelling. You and I also probably have different ideas of what natural law or the the state of nature are. :) [ Thursday, July 12, 2007 12:38: Message edited by: Drew ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Thursday, July 12 2007 15:50
Profile
quote:"Family" is about roles. There are plenty of societal influences which trump anything natural. You seem to be throwing these words around without understanding that in most cases they don't work. Men and women are different, but at a biological level. Like the male and female of most mammalian species, they play different roles in propagation of the species. There are superficial differences in size and shape, and the chemistry is different at the post-fetal stage. It is interesting to note that we start as single celled organisms which lack gender. If nothing else, that one fact must tell you that we are equal. About brains working differently at a gender level, I gotta say that it seems brains work differently no matter what. There are math people, art people, detail people, people people, loners, leaders and subservients. It doesn't matter a bit whether they can bear children. But hey, if you and your wife are happy with the roles that you have accepted, then great! Like Drew's wife, mine would have a few pretty choice words with me if I ever tried to pull that on her. We each choose a life role to portray, and only when we start trying to enforce roles do we get in trouble. And we don't want any trouble 'round these parts... -------------------- WWtNSD? Synergy - "I don't get it." Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 73
|
written Thursday, July 12 2007 17:30
Profile
quote:  MORE THAN ONE LEADER IS BAD  MORE THAN ONE LEADER IS BAD  MORE THAN ONE LEADER IS BAD  MORE THAN ONE LEADER IS BAD -------------------- My Myspace, with some of my audial and visual art The Lyceum - The Headquarters of the Blades designing community The Louvre - The Blades of Avernum graphics database Alexandria - The Blades of Exile Scenario database BoE Webring - Self explanatory Polaris - Free porn here Odd Todd - Fun for the unemployed (and everyone else too) They Might Be Giants - Four websites for one of the greatest bands in existance -------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Posts: 2957 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Thursday, July 12 2007 18:27
Profile
Homepage
There are many differences between men and women, and we seem to be uncovering many more (and debunking a few) every year. The fact is, though, that many of the differences are a matter of statistics. To take an obvious one, men tend to be larger and stronger. But a woman can be larger and stronger than a man, or most men. The variation among individuals far outweigh the statistics. —Alorael, who concludes that claiming that all men are equal to all women is absurd. Claiming all men are equal to all other men is absurd. But this is "equal" in the sense of "identical to" or "interchangeable with." The important sense of equal is the tabula rasa: a man or a woman cannot and must not be judged in any way simply based on sex. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Thursday, July 12 2007 18:48
Profile
Drew, you’re not understanding my question. You made two points that I’d like you to clarify. 1) Men being the head of the family and taking the lead in the congregation stemming from a “baseless distinction” 2) And that it was based on cultural considerations not Jesus teachings. What are you calling “baseless” and why? Why do you say Christian teachings are based on culture and not Jesus teachings? When I said it’s not allowed I meant Biblically and took it for granted that you knew. (1 Timothy 2:11, 12) Let a woman learn in silence with full submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach, or to exercise authority over a man, but to be in silence. All rules for Christian living come from the Bible. I mentioned physical differences not to draw conclusions about authority, but only to point out that there are differences and that we’re not equal in every way. Sometimes I think I look like a mule (no jokes please) to my wife because she simply looks at me when something heavy is to be moved or carried, as if to say, “you know whos job this is.” I don’t feel belittled because she expects me to do grunt work or even question it. That’s what my size and strength are for. Her strengths lie in other places and she uses those for our benefit. quote:Of course she would! You aren’t a Christian man and she’s not a Christian woman. Your views are more influenced by modern western values. A lot of those values are good, especially in this country. Marriages can do ok using them, especially if you have good upbringing and similar backgrounds. It’s just a little more difficult. My wife and I were married before we were Christians and we did ok. quote:Very funny…Unless you’re seriously making a point, in which case it’s still funny, but poorly made. quote:I agree. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |