<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Count the number of female presidents. Count the number of females in top jobs. Go and read about the sufferagets.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Throughout history, women have rarely been the leaders. The reasons for these are simple and biological - males are stronger and therefore can force themselves into positions of leadership, and women have tasks like childrearing that would take up practically their entire lives.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Pagan religions worsiped the sacred feminen, as the great child bearing gift of life, where as early christians demonised women for the commiting original sin, therefore leading the there second class role in modern society.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When you say early Christian, I think AD100. You are obviously referring to AD1000 or there abouts when the Catholic church flipped its lid and started blaming women for everything. Christian's do not put women in a second class role, they merely claim that women have different roles to men. Men are supposed to lead, love their wives and earn for their children. Women are supposed to support their husbands and raise children. Each is equally as important and respected.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Modern sociological studies show the majority of active church members are women, thus women are constantly subjected to the message that they have a duty to atone for Eve's original sin and redeem themselves as "the devil's gateway," as an early church Father kindly noted. The informal and social norms of any civilization are so closely tied to religious teachings that the church must be considered a major influence on human values and role expectations. Even after the advent of women's liberation and biblical criticism, women are plagued by behavioural expectations that have their origin in the Bible.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nineteen years in the church, and yet I somehow missed this? I hate to snipe at sources - but an undergradutes paper on modern Christian religion is a lot like a Communist synopsis on Capitalism, or research into the effects of homosexuality on the family conducted by Scientists for Christ. I have been in around several churchs in my life, from many varying denominations, baptist, catholic, church of christ to name a few. And NEVER have I met anything like this. Nor, in my reading of the Bible, have a read of a woman being "The Devil's Gateway". Doubtlessly this was Paul or someone condemning prostitution that was leapt upon and distorted.
In short, that's a hell of statement for which I can see no backing in reality what so ever. I have never met any woman in the church who feels like that, or would even give ideas like that a second look. I suspect the author is suffering from some extreme bias issues, probably finding some obscure Christian cult with warped ideas so as to tar the whole religion.
Yet still I see no correlation between your above arguement and the claim that a verse explaining how women came to have childbirthing pain is responsible for repression of women.... They really have nothing to do with each other.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->*edit* oh, and please dont lauch an attack personal attack upon me, when you clearly know nothing about the subject.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Meh, 19 years in the church and neverending debates with people on this sort of matter and I've obviously got no idea.... wth do I have to do - get uni degree in apologetics? And what's this about personal attacks - I havent said a single thing that could relate to you directly.....
EDIT
Lol silly rabbit - that wasnt a personal attack. You might notice this thread is very old - and one of the original poster's was a guy named Twex who has since left the community. I hit quote to reply to you, but started it off expressing my near surprise that I thought Twex had made a comeback. That comment was definately not aimed at you - it was a by the by made with no relevance to anything you said.
<!--QuoteBegin-JimBowen+Sep 13 2004, 10:56 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (JimBowen @ Sep 13 2004, 10:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> *edit* oh, and please dont lauch an attack personal attack upon me, when you clearly know nothing about the subject. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Irony at its finest.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Sep 13 2004, 06:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Sep 13 2004, 06:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Throughout history, women have rarely been the leaders. The reasons for these are simple and biological - males are stronger and therefore can force themselves into positions of leadership, and women have tasks like childrearing that would take up practically their entire lives.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> please notice the irony of Marine 01, himself a 'church go'er' demonstarting exactly the steriotypical completely ignorant view of women of which I was talking about.
<!--QuoteBegin-JimBowen+Sep 13 2004, 07:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (JimBowen @ Sep 13 2004, 07:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Sep 13 2004, 06:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Sep 13 2004, 06:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Throughout history, women have rarely been the leaders. The reasons for these are simple and biological - males are stronger and therefore can force themselves into positions of leadership, and women have tasks like childrearing that would take up practically their entire lives.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> please notice the irony of Marine 01, himself a 'church go'er' demonstarting exactly the steriotypical completely ignorant view of women of which I was talking about. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> If you are going to quote Marine, make sure you quote him properly. He goes on to clarify:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Christian's do not put women in a second class role, they merely claim that women have different roles to men. Men are supposed to lead, love their wives and earn for their children. Women are supposed to support their husbands and raise children. Each is equally as important and respected.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As for being completely ignorant and steriotyping? I call it "noticing the obvious". I am larger than my wife, I am larger than most women. I am likewise stronger than most. In my family, I will have the stronger leadership role. My wife will be better at childrearing and keeping a home.
Now, does that make me a male chauvinist? No. The Bible clearly outlines roles that are "supposed" to be there - and it isn't just to put women down. It is to show not only the relationship between men and women, but between God and his Church. We are the Bride of Christ, and as such, we depend on him for things - just as our earthly brides depend on us. We depend on him for leadership, for provision, for protection, a roof over our heads, etc etc.
So saying this, am I persecuting my wife, or persecuting other women? Just because roles are different doesn't make them less important.
<!--QuoteBegin-JimBowen+Sep 13 2004, 07:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (JimBowen @ Sep 13 2004, 07:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It would appear my degree in philosophy and Religious studies is worthless….. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> it would have been more appropriate had you a degree in history. but i digress. the irony was not that you didn't appear to know what you're talking about, but the fact that you made a personal attack on him while telling him not to make a personal attack on you. Read the forum rules.
A degree in Religious Studies involves the history of religion, in the UK at least.
Anyway.
How do those of us who believe in the roles of man and women feel about equality of the sexes? Physical strength doesn't mean a great deal nowadays; for possibly the first time in history, it's all about smarts, and women are a match for men in that respect.
<!--QuoteBegin-JimBowen+Sep 14 2004, 12:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (JimBowen @ Sep 14 2004, 12:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It would appear my degree in philosophy and Religious studies is worthless….. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You said it, not me <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I think degree's like that can give you a good overview of multiple religions - but can tell you nothing or next to nothing about any of them in specifics. Its probably never happened to you - but its most apparent went someone tries to explain to you what they think you believe.
It goes along these lines "But Christians believe .... X". Its why I am hesistant to say "Muslims believe X" - because I'm not silly enough to read one saura from the Koran out of context and sum up all Muslims. People outside the church are very very very rarely interested enough to read the entire Bible to get a real picture of what Christians believe, so they take their preconcieved notions, find a Bible verse that appears to support it, then dismiss us all as idiots. Unless the guy explaining Christianity to you is a Christian, I am going to assume he knows little beyond surface history.
Comments
Throughout history, women have rarely been the leaders. The reasons for these are simple and biological - males are stronger and therefore can force themselves into positions of leadership, and women have tasks like childrearing that would take up practically their entire lives.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Pagan religions worsiped the sacred feminen, as the great child bearing gift of life, where as early christians demonised women for the commiting original sin, therefore leading the there second class role in modern society.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When you say early Christian, I think AD100. You are obviously referring to AD1000 or there abouts when the Catholic church flipped its lid and started blaming women for everything. Christian's do not put women in a second class role, they merely claim that women have different roles to men. Men are supposed to lead, love their wives and earn for their children. Women are supposed to support their husbands and raise children. Each is equally as important and respected.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Modern sociological studies show the majority of active church members are women, thus women are constantly subjected to the message that they have a duty to atone for Eve's original sin and redeem themselves as "the devil's gateway," as an early church Father kindly noted. The informal and social norms of any civilization are so closely tied to religious teachings that the church must be considered a major influence on human values and role expectations. Even after the advent of women's liberation and biblical criticism, women are plagued by behavioural expectations that have their origin in the Bible.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nineteen years in the church, and yet I somehow missed this? I hate to snipe at sources - but an undergradutes paper on modern Christian religion is a lot like a Communist synopsis on Capitalism, or research into the effects of homosexuality on the family conducted by Scientists for Christ. I have been in around several churchs in my life, from many varying denominations, baptist, catholic, church of christ to name a few. And NEVER have I met anything like this. Nor, in my reading of the Bible, have a read of a woman being "The Devil's Gateway". Doubtlessly this was Paul or someone condemning prostitution that was leapt upon and distorted.
In short, that's a hell of statement for which I can see no backing in reality what so ever. I have never met any woman in the church who feels like that, or would even give ideas like that a second look. I suspect the author is suffering from some extreme bias issues, probably finding some obscure Christian cult with warped ideas so as to tar the whole religion.
Yet still I see no correlation between your above arguement and the claim that a verse explaining how women came to have childbirthing pain is responsible for repression of women.... They really have nothing to do with each other.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->*edit* oh, and please dont lauch an attack personal attack upon me, when you clearly know nothing about the subject.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Meh, 19 years in the church and neverending debates with people on this sort of matter and I've obviously got no idea.... wth do I have to do - get uni degree in apologetics? And what's this about personal attacks - I havent said a single thing that could relate to you directly.....
EDIT
Lol silly rabbit - that wasnt a personal attack. You might notice this thread is very old - and one of the original poster's was a guy named Twex who has since left the community. I hit quote to reply to you, but started it off expressing my near surprise that I thought Twex had made a comeback. That comment was definately not aimed at you - it was a by the by made with no relevance to anything you said.
*edit* oh, and please dont lauch an attack personal attack upon me, when you clearly know nothing about the subject. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Irony at its finest.
Throughout history, women have rarely been the leaders. The reasons for these are simple and biological - males are stronger and therefore can force themselves into positions of leadership, and women have tasks like childrearing that would take up practically their entire lives.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
please notice the irony of Marine 01, himself a 'church go'er' demonstarting exactly the steriotypical completely ignorant view of women of which I was talking about.
Throughout history, women have rarely been the leaders. The reasons for these are simple and biological - males are stronger and therefore can force themselves into positions of leadership, and women have tasks like childrearing that would take up practically their entire lives.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
please notice the irony of Marine 01, himself a 'church go'er' demonstarting exactly the steriotypical completely ignorant view of women of which I was talking about. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you are going to quote Marine, make sure you quote him properly. He goes on to clarify:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Christian's do not put women in a second class role, they merely claim that women have different roles to men. Men are supposed to lead, love their wives and earn for their children. Women are supposed to support their husbands and raise children. Each is equally as important and respected.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As for being completely ignorant and steriotyping? I call it "noticing the obvious". I am larger than my wife, I am larger than most women. I am likewise stronger than most. In my family, I will have the stronger leadership role. My wife will be better at childrearing and keeping a home.
Now, does that make me a male chauvinist? No. The Bible clearly outlines roles that are "supposed" to be there - and it isn't just to put women down. It is to show not only the relationship between men and women, but between God and his Church.
We are the Bride of Christ, and as such, we depend on him for things - just as our earthly brides depend on us. We depend on him for leadership, for provision, for protection, a roof over our heads, etc etc.
So saying this, am I persecuting my wife, or persecuting other women? Just because roles are different doesn't make them less important.
it would have been more appropriate had you a degree in history. but i digress. the irony was not that you didn't appear to know what you're talking about, but the fact that you made a personal attack on him while telling him not to make a personal attack on you. Read the forum rules.
Anyway.
How do those of us who believe in the roles of man and women feel about equality of the sexes? Physical strength doesn't mean a great deal nowadays; for possibly the first time in history, it's all about smarts, and women are a match for men in that respect.
You said it, not me <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I think degree's like that can give you a good overview of multiple religions - but can tell you nothing or next to nothing about any of them in specifics. Its probably never happened to you - but its most apparent went someone tries to explain to you what they think you believe.
It goes along these lines "But Christians believe .... X". Its why I am hesistant to say "Muslims believe X" - because I'm not silly enough to read one saura from the Koran out of context and sum up all Muslims. People outside the church are very very very rarely interested enough to read the entire Bible to get a real picture of what Christians believe, so they take their preconcieved notions, find a Bible verse that appears to support it, then dismiss us all as idiots. Unless the guy explaining Christianity to you is a Christian, I am going to assume he knows little beyond surface history.