|
Post by kiwi on Dec 3, 2011 0:09:47 GMT -5
Of course. Redefine the word "cult" to meet your needs! A rather cynical response! True though
|
|
|
Post by apple on Dec 3, 2011 9:39:15 GMT -5
If you say that Paul was in error, then you believe that the bible has mistakes? Asking whether the bible has mistakes is like asking whether "Hamlet" has mistakes. Hamlet cannot be compared with the bible.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Dec 3, 2011 9:58:46 GMT -5
Asking whether the bible has mistakes is like asking whether "Hamlet" has mistakes. Hamlet cannot be compared with the bible. Why not? And since it has many authors perhaps there are going to be contradictions therein for what one sees as one way someone else may see it has nothing to do with it. Plus we have to look to the "translators" of scriptures 2000 years old and from a langauge that is so archaic as to be hard to understand. I think the translators did as good a job as possible though and we must take all of this with a grain of salt. There are some scriptures that are usuable in any day or clime and perhaps these are the scriptures that we should spend our time on, eh? The rest seems to be a lot of history and though that is interesting in an intellectual way, it may or may not have anything to do with our modern day.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Dec 3, 2011 10:16:56 GMT -5
Hamlet cannot be compared with the bible. Why not? And since it has many authors perhaps there are going to be contradictions therein for what one sees as one way someone else may see it has nothing to do with it. Plus we have to look to the "translators" of scriptures 2000 years old and from a langauge that is so archaic as to be hard to understand. I think the translators did as good a job as possible though and we must take all of this with a grain of salt. There are some scriptures that are usuable in any day or clime and perhaps these are the scriptures that we should spend our time on, eh? The rest seems to be a lot of history and though that is interesting in an intellectual way, it may or may not have anything to do with our modern day. Yes, what she said!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2011 10:43:49 GMT -5
This little statement of Paul's is probably one of the greatest contributors to the bondage of women over many centuries. We try to excuse it by attempting to isolate it a specific time and event. Let's face it, women at the time of this writing were second class citizens, not much more than chattels if that. Paul's writing reflected that reality. In the larger spectrum of time, Paul's statements were in error and have no place as perceived wisdom in a civil society. The sooner we can dismiss his words on this, the better. It has only been in the last century that the bondage of women has been breaking down and there is still a fair ways to go regardless of how much equality is built into the law. In Galations 3:28, Paul says that men and women are equal in Christ which was hugely different to the prevaling to women in Jewish society at this time. He even told men to treat younger women as "sisters" and older women as "mothers". In the Jewish world, segregation by gender was the norm, and this is still the norm in many of the more conservative Jewish communities- yet Paul knew the women in the churches he had visited by name, even greeting them in his letters to the community! This was shockingly liberal behaviour for a Jewish man of that time, nevermind a man like Paul who had been a Pharisee. What's more- Paul refers to the women as "sisters" (equals). In 1 Cor 7:14 we see the modern attitude Paul, a bachelor, had regarding marriage. Paul didn't tell husbands to rule over their wives but to love them as Jesus loves the church. If you say that Paul was in error, then you believe that the bible has mistakes? Hey I like Paul and his writings. However, to attempt to portray Paul as the world's first feminist is quite a stretch. A good study of his writings to Timothy reveal someone who doesn't see women as equals in this world, regardless of his views of all mankind's "one in Christ"....which does not, by the way, confirm equality with each other, just acceptance of all by Christ. I think it would be easier to make the case that Paul was a misogynist than a feminist. Personally, I see him as neither but as a fallible man occasionally suffering from clarity of thought......and clearly leaning to the dominance/superiority of men over women, and viewing that the problems of mankind were due to Eve's deceptive practices while good old Adam just got sucked in. " Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." “For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.”
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 3, 2011 13:20:50 GMT -5
In Galations 3:28, Paul says that men and women are equal in Christ which was hugely different to the prevaling to women in Jewish society at this time. He even told men to treat younger women as "sisters" and older women as "mothers". In the Jewish world, segregation by gender was the norm, and this is still the norm in many of the more conservative Jewish communities- yet Paul knew the women in the churches he had visited by name, even greeting them in his letters to the community! This was shockingly liberal behaviour for a Jewish man of that time, nevermind a man like Paul who had been a Pharisee. What's more- Paul refers to the women as "sisters" (equals). In 1 Cor 7:14 we see the modern attitude Paul, a bachelor, had regarding marriage. Paul didn't tell husbands to rule over their wives but to love them as Jesus loves the church. If you say that Paul was in error, then you believe that the bible has mistakes? Hey I like Paul and his writings. However, to attempt to portray Paul as the world's first feminist is quite a stretch. A good study of his writings to Timothy reveal someone who doesn't see women as equals in this world, regardless of his views of all mankind's "one in Christ"....which does not, by the way, confirm equality with each other, just acceptance of all by Christ. I think it would be easier to make the case that Paul was a misogynist than a feminist. Personally, I see him as neither but as a fallible man occasionally suffering from clarity of thought......and clearly leaning to the dominance/superiority of men over women, and viewing that the problems of mankind were due to Eve's deceptive practices while good old Adam just got sucked in. " Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." “For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” But we are different, that is men and women are different, and the way the world challenges our capacity to be idealistic is in direct proportion to our natures. Take for instance the way we relate to possessions. To women, possessions represent security which she knows are vital to the home and posterity; according to her natural characteristics, possessions are inseparable from goodness. On the other hand men, that is men who are not so materialistic so as to be neuter, do not enjoy this same innate and immediate sense of entitlement to their possessions. He understands plainly that competition ultimately and not infrequently leads to strife with his fellow man. Indeed, it becomes tempting to cease competing altogether where the political choices of his fellow man create conditions where he must in effect become ideologically compromised to continue competing. Looking beyond the obvious differences in our physical statures, which sex is "weaker" due to their adaptation in nature and identity in facing the immediate challenges of biological survival and expression? Women are. Putting aside our immediate natures for a moment for reunification, we can behold our respective struggles in the flesh as being one in the same.
|
|
|
Post by apple on Dec 3, 2011 14:12:16 GMT -5
In Galations 3:28, Paul says that men and women are equal in Christ which was hugely different to the prevaling to women in Jewish society at this time. He even told men to treat younger women as "sisters" and older women as "mothers". In the Jewish world, segregation by gender was the norm, and this is still the norm in many of the more conservative Jewish communities- yet Paul knew the women in the churches he had visited by name, even greeting them in his letters to the community! This was shockingly liberal behaviour for a Jewish man of that time, nevermind a man like Paul who had been a Pharisee. What's more- Paul refers to the women as "sisters" (equals). In 1 Cor 7:14 we see the modern attitude Paul, a bachelor, had regarding marriage. Paul didn't tell husbands to rule over their wives but to love them as Jesus loves the church. If you say that Paul was in error, then you believe that the bible has mistakes? Hey I like Paul and his writings. However, to attempt to portray Paul as the world's first feminist is quite a stretch. A good study of his writings to Timothy reveal someone who doesn't see women as equals in this world, regardless of his views of all mankind's "one in Christ"....which does not, by the way, confirm equality with each other, just acceptance of all by Christ. I think it would be easier to make the case that Paul was a misogynist than a feminist. Personally, I see him as neither but as a fallible man occasionally suffering from clarity of thought......and clearly leaning to the dominance/superiority of men over women, and viewing that the problems of mankind were due to Eve's deceptive practices while good old Adam just got sucked in. " Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." “For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” So we just wipe away all the positive aspects about Paul and forget how modern his attitude towards women was?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2011 15:23:52 GMT -5
Hey I like Paul and his writings. However, to attempt to portray Paul as the world's first feminist is quite a stretch. A good study of his writings to Timothy reveal someone who doesn't see women as equals in this world, regardless of his views of all mankind's "one in Christ"....which does not, by the way, confirm equality with each other, just acceptance of all by Christ. I think it would be easier to make the case that Paul was a misogynist than a feminist. Personally, I see him as neither but as a fallible man occasionally suffering from clarity of thought......and clearly leaning to the dominance/superiority of men over women, and viewing that the problems of mankind were due to Eve's deceptive practices while good old Adam just got sucked in. " Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." “For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” So we just wipe away all the positive aspects about Paul and forget how modern his attitude towards women was? Whoa, where did you get that idea from? We were talking about Paul's views of women. Your suggestion is a bit like saying all 2x2 workers are bad because of the actions of a few.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2011 15:38:38 GMT -5
Hey I like Paul and his writings. However, to attempt to portray Paul as the world's first feminist is quite a stretch. A good study of his writings to Timothy reveal someone who doesn't see women as equals in this world, regardless of his views of all mankind's "one in Christ"....which does not, by the way, confirm equality with each other, just acceptance of all by Christ. I think it would be easier to make the case that Paul was a misogynist than a feminist. Personally, I see him as neither but as a fallible man occasionally suffering from clarity of thought......and clearly leaning to the dominance/superiority of men over women, and viewing that the problems of mankind were due to Eve's deceptive practices while good old Adam just got sucked in. " Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." “For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” But we are different, that is men and women are different, and the way the world challenges our capacity to be idealistic is in direct proportion to our natures. Take for instance the way we relate to possessions. To women, possessions represent security which she knows are vital to the home and posterity; according to her natural characteristics, possessions are inseparable from goodness. On the other hand men, that is men who are not so materialistic so as to be neuter, do not enjoy this same innate and immediate sense of entitlement to their possessions. He understands plainly that competition ultimately and not infrequently leads to strife with his fellow man. Indeed, it becomes tempting to cease competing altogether where the political choices of his fellow man create conditions where he must in effect become ideologically compromised to continue competing. Looking beyond the obvious differences in our physical statures, which sex is "weaker" due to their adaptation in nature and identity in facing the immediate challenges of biological survival and expression? Women are. Putting aside our immediate natures for a moment for reunification, we can behold our respective struggles in the flesh as being one in the same. Men are also different from other men and women are different from other women. Some women are more like stereotypical men while some men are more like stereotypical women. Some men grow up fitting into the stereotype that that is overlaid on them while many women do the same. We have thousands of years of paradigms which are now being exposed. Those paradigms have caused thousands of years of conditioning of the role of sexes, and those enforced roles have even caused physiological differences between men and women. For instance, men typically have better depth perception because of the hunter-gatherer role for men while women perpetuated the species. Inequalities of men and women arose in the beginning because of the need to perpetuate the species and the resultant division of labour between men (producing the food) and women (producing the offspring). In a sense this is a God-created division but the urgency for perpetuating the species (now that we are adding a billion people to the planet every 12 years) is gone and the original "laws" no longer have a necessity. The future is now and all this is changing. It's not against "God's laws", it is merely a natural development and as such could be said to be part of God's plan for mankind. Try as you might, but I doubt that no amount of repetition of old stereotypes will halt the progress of equalization of women to men.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Dec 3, 2011 18:44:11 GMT -5
"Inequalities of men and women arose in the beginning because of the need to perpetuate the species and the resultant division of labour between men (producing the food) and women (producing the offspring). "
Clearday, this is not necessarily the way native people see things as in division of labor. Are there not native folk where the women do the provision of foods AND children? The men were for nothing but "warrior" type things.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 3, 2011 19:18:56 GMT -5
But we are different, that is men and women are different, and the way the world challenges our capacity to be idealistic is in direct proportion to our natures. Take for instance the way we relate to possessions. To women, possessions represent security which she knows are vital to the home and posterity; according to her natural characteristics, possessions are inseparable from goodness. On the other hand men, that is men who are not so materialistic so as to be neuter, do not enjoy this same innate and immediate sense of entitlement to their possessions. He understands plainly that competition ultimately and not infrequently leads to strife with his fellow man. Indeed, it becomes tempting to cease competing altogether where the political choices of his fellow man create conditions where he must in effect become ideologically compromised to continue competing. Looking beyond the obvious differences in our physical statures, which sex is "weaker" due to their adaptation in nature and identity in facing the immediate challenges of biological survival and expression? Women are. Putting aside our immediate natures for a moment for reunification, we can behold our respective struggles in the flesh as being one in the same. Men are also different from other men and women are different from other women. Some women are more like stereotypical men while some men are more like stereotypical women. Some men grow up fitting into the stereotype that that is overlaid on them while many women do the same. We have thousands of years of paradigms which are now being exposed. Those paradigms have caused thousands of years of conditioning of the role of sexes, and those enforced roles have even caused physiological differences between men and women. For instance, men typically have better depth perception because of the hunter-gatherer role for men while women perpetuated the species. Inequalities of men and women arose in the beginning because of the need to perpetuate the species and the resultant division of labour between men (producing the food) and women (producing the offspring). In a sense this is a God-created division but the urgency for perpetuating the species (now that we are adding a billion people to the planet every 12 years) is gone and the original "laws" no longer have a necessity. The future is now and all this is changing. It's not against "God's laws", it is merely a natural development and as such could be said to be part of God's plan for mankind. Try as you might, but I doubt that no amount of repetition of old stereotypes will halt the progress of equalization of women to men. Ah, the theory that In the beginning, He created them neither male nor female but androgynous. Is this the end of the church whose arbitration comes from celibate masters? You've noted an unmistakable progression of traditional culture, but has all of it been progress? Have you calculated the political cost to the culture that does not value the peculiar ability of women to instill Godliness in children, and does not recognize the complementary assignment of men to be providers of their families?
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Dec 3, 2011 19:36:16 GMT -5
Men are also different from other men and women are different from other women. Some women are more like stereotypical men while some men are more like stereotypical women. Some men grow up fitting into the stereotype that that is overlaid on them while many women do the same. We have thousands of years of paradigms which are now being exposed. Those paradigms have caused thousands of years of conditioning of the role of sexes, and those enforced roles have even caused physiological differences between men and women. For instance, men typically have better depth perception because of the hunter-gatherer role for men while women perpetuated the species. Inequalities of men and women arose in the beginning because of the need to perpetuate the species and the resultant division of labour between men (producing the food) and women (producing the offspring). In a sense this is a God-created division but the urgency for perpetuating the species (now that we are adding a billion people to the planet every 12 years) is gone and the original "laws" no longer have a necessity. The future is now and all this is changing. It's not against "God's laws", it is merely a natural development and as such could be said to be part of God's plan for mankind. Try as you might, but I doubt that no amount of repetition of old stereotypes will halt the progress of equalization of women to men. Ah, the theory that In the beginning, He created them neither male nor female but androgynous. Is this the end of the church whose arbitration comes from celibate masters? You've noted an unmistakable progression of traditional culture, but has all of it been progress? Have you calculated the political cost to the culture that does not value the peculiar ability of women to instill Godliness in children, and does not recognize the complementary assignment of men to be providers of their families? No longer needed. Marriage is open to one and all. Plurality in marriage, plurality and marriage. Or no marriage. Children don't need to know who their parents are. Family in the traditional roles is passe. God's natural law and natural order is outdated. C'mon. Get with the program.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 3, 2011 20:03:32 GMT -5
"Inequalities of men and women arose in the beginning because of the need to perpetuate the species and the resultant division of labour between men (producing the food) and women (producing the offspring). " Clearday, this is not necessarily the way native people see things as in division of labor. Are there not native folk where the women do the provision of foods AND children? The men were for nothing but "warrior" type things. Uggh, me kill food, woman cook it. We work as team.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2011 22:13:21 GMT -5
Many men have abilities to instill godliness in children, and many women have abilities to instill demons in children. There is no monopoly on parenting skills or lack of such.
Many men are peculiarly useless at being providers for families, and many women are peculiarly adept at being providers for families. Take a look a male/female ratios of university enrollments lately.
Individuals have peculiar skills and abilities, not genders.... except the peculiarities instilled into them by their prejudiced cultures.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Dec 3, 2011 22:25:42 GMT -5
Many men have abilities to instill godliness in children, and many women have abilities to instill demons in children. There is no monopoly on parenting skills or lack of such. Men are to be the spiritual head of their family. There is no monopoly on parenting skills - those of the father and the mother are desirable. While that is true, where we as a society have progressed to in the majority is that children are being raised in daycare - for the major portion of the waking hours of the day.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2011 22:33:48 GMT -5
Many men have abilities to instill godliness in children, and many women have abilities to instill demons in children. There is no monopoly on parenting skills or lack of such. Men are to be the spiritual head of their family. There is no monopoly on parenting skills - those of the father and the mother are desirable. I pity many families where the father is the spiritual head. It's frightening just to think of a few of them right now. At age 5 we put our children into school for the major portion of the waking hours of the day. According to your formula, we made a big mistake for 13 years of our parenting.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Dec 3, 2011 22:44:19 GMT -5
Men are to be the spiritual head of their family. There is no monopoly on parenting skills - those of the father and the mother are desirable. I pity many families where the father is the spiritual head. It's frightening just to think of a few of them right now. Evil is evil and is not to be confused with God's natural laws. And you know that. I remember when most children were home with their mothers until they started school at age 5, Kgt. or age 6, First Grade. (I was an exception. I started Kgt at age 4 and wasn't 5 until December. Probably what's wrong with me.) I even remember when we ate real food, whole foods.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2011 0:50:42 GMT -5
I pity many families where the father is the spiritual head. It's frightening just to think of a few of them right now. Evil is evil and is not to be confused with God's natural laws. And you know that. What I do know is that some families fare much better when the wife is the spiritual head of the family. Good parenting does not consist merely of a mother at home until a child is age 4 or 5, but it is the devoted effort of two loving and focused parents for 18 years. I remember when my kids ate real whole foods.....wait....they still do..... as do many of their friends. The number of fantastic parents and kids that I know is quite large. The number of disastrous families I know is just a very small percentage of the good ones. Some of those good ones went to daycare for a couple of years, and some of the disastrous ones did not.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 4, 2011 0:58:03 GMT -5
Asking whether the bible has mistakes is like asking whether "Hamlet" has mistakes. Hamlet cannot be compared with the bible. Certainly not as literature.
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Dec 4, 2011 0:58:45 GMT -5
Evil is evil and is not to be confused with God's natural laws. And you know that. What I do know is that some families fare much better when the wife is the spiritual head of the family. Good parenting does not consist merely of a mother at home until a child is age 4 or 5, but it is the devoted effort of two loving and focused parents for 18 years. I remember when my kids ate real whole foods.....wait....they still do..... as do many of their friends. The number of fantastic parents and kids that I know is quite large. The number of disastrous families I know is just a very small percentage of the good ones. Some of those good ones went to daycare for a couple of years, and some of the disastrous ones did not. I cannot see what relevance this discussion has to the question asked on this thread or is this a diversionary tactic?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 4, 2011 1:00:55 GMT -5
I even remember when we ate real food, whole foods. What would you classify as unreal foods? Partial foods?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 4, 2011 1:28:22 GMT -5
What I do know is that some families fare much better when the wife is the spiritual head of the family. Good parenting does not consist merely of a mother at home until a child is age 4 or 5, but it is the devoted effort of two loving and focused parents for 18 years. I remember when my kids ate real whole foods.....wait....they still do..... as do many of their friends. The number of fantastic parents and kids that I know is quite large. The number of disastrous families I know is just a very small percentage of the good ones. Some of those good ones went to daycare for a couple of years, and some of the disastrous ones did not. I cannot see what relevance this discussion has to the question asked on this thread or is this a diversionary tactic? We've all learned how schizophrenic conduct can be useful over the years, you will also.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 4, 2011 2:06:23 GMT -5
I cannot see what relevance this discussion has to the question asked on this thread or is this a diversionary tactic? We've all learned how schizophrenic conduct can be useful over the years, you will also. What is schizophrenic conduct? Paranoid delusions? Auditory hallucinations? I don't see how it applies here.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 4, 2011 2:20:42 GMT -5
We've all learned how schizophrenic conduct can be useful over the years, you will also. What is schizophrenic conduct? Paranoid delusions? Auditory hallucinations? I don't see how it applies here. No sense of humor. It was to say in jest that 1)we were all crazy and 2) it follows that we pay no attention to tread titles
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Dec 4, 2011 2:54:54 GMT -5
Uggh, me kill food, woman cook it. We work as team. Doesn't this start with "Me, Tarzan. You, Jane?"
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Dec 4, 2011 11:24:46 GMT -5
"Inequalities of men and women arose in the beginning because of the need to perpetuate the species and the resultant division of labour between men (producing the food) and women (producing the offspring). " Clearday, this is not necessarily the way native people see things as in division of labor. Are there not native folk where the women do the provision of foods AND children? The men were for nothing but "warrior" type things. Uggh, me kill food, woman cook it. We work as team. Oh I see you're not a warrior then? Life seems to be quite settled and running smoothly?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 4, 2011 14:59:48 GMT -5
Uggh, me kill food, woman cook it. We work as team. Oh I see you're not a warrior then? Life seems to be quite settled and running smoothly? Uggh. Me a warrior. Life go good .. except when T-Rex around cave.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 4, 2011 15:01:55 GMT -5
What I do know is that some families fare much better when the wife is the spiritual head of the family. Good parenting does not consist merely of a mother at home until a child is age 4 or 5, but it is the devoted effort of two loving and focused parents for 18 years. I remember when my kids ate real whole foods.....wait....they still do..... as do many of their friends. The number of fantastic parents and kids that I know is quite large. The number of disastrous families I know is just a very small percentage of the good ones. Some of those good ones went to daycare for a couple of years, and some of the disastrous ones did not. I cannot see what relevance this discussion has to the question asked on this thread or is this a diversionary tactic? It's very simple to get a thread back on topic: post something on topic.
|
|