Be honest: How do you view women in the context of your faith?

[Tsiyu]

I promise not to bash a soul.

Happy Everything:)

[rwenos]

1. 52 Yr Old Male Deist

Views women as powerful, intelligent (when I'm lucky) and DAMNED INTERESTING!

[leftstreet]

2. How do you view them in the context of your faith?

[Tsiyu]

3. Spiritually, I see no difference in either gender

or anybody in between. I don't have any "faith" per se in a certain divine being, but I am curious as to the number of humans taught by women or influenced spiritually by women.

That might have been a better way to put the initial question, but there you go...

[leftstreet]

10. That's cool

I don't think it's easy for anyone raised in most traditional faiths to not see females as "less than" males. That subjugation appears to be the basis of many faiths. Takes some experience and re-learning at the very least.

[Erika]

4. Mormon women can go to heaven only if their husband calls them

Being raised Mormon, with a Bishop as my brother, I feel that I can discuss the issue. My elderly mother also had my brother, the Bishop, as her spiritual advisor.

Much like Muslim women, Mormon women must have the OK and approval of the males in her family to proceed in any venture. A man is placed above any woman in the spiritual advisor capacity. Again, if their husband does not call them up to heaven, they won't go.

Islam and Mormonism both control women.

[katejones]

92. Well you know,

I am Mormon too and that is not how I see it all!

My husband does not control me in any fashion whatsoever. Your Husband doesn't have to "call you" up to heaven. The men need the women and the women need the men for exultation.

Maybe that was just your family.

And I certainly do not wear a Head scarf or Burka. :)

[Momgonepostal]

100. That is my experience, too, Kate

I have never heard the phrase "call you up to heaven" in any context, and definitely not in the way the poster above you described.

Welcome to DU, Kate! We can use all the Mormon democrats we can get. :-)

[leftyladyfrommo]

106. And it helped if you had lots of children.

[Fovea]

5. 50 Y.O. Pagan

thinks that women encapsulate the Yin side of the divine.

Not that women are the Goddess, but that they mirror her divinity. Of course, I feel that men mirror the Yang side of the divine as well.

You can only regard one as it moves with the other.

[roguevalley]

6. equal to men spiritually it is why I can't be a practicing Christian

anymore, the way women are treated. women were among the first believers, teachers and supporters of Christianity. too bad they forgot that. the Goddess/God are for me now. they actually fill my soul without the tension of conflicts of who is good enough, where your place is, etc that Christianity gave me.

[Tsiyu]

7. Interesting, roguevalley. You are not alone as you probably know

Many have rejected Christianity on the same grounds. I'm glad you've found peace.

[rwenos]

8. But the 11 Left Behind Had to Get Women Back into the Box

So Jesus dies, or is resurrected, or whatever YOU believe happened.

Then there are the apostles left behind. Lots of questions, much powerful faith, no leader.

They can't let one of the women take over. So they figure out a way (particularly Paul) to put 'em back into the box. The women take care of business, the men make speeches.

John wrote that a man is responsible for his wife's relationship with the Christ.

Christianity as enunciated by Paul and John is as sexist as Islam -- it's just been ignored by the liberal Protestants. This sexism is embraced by most Fundamentalist and Evangelical Christians, and many Roman Catholics.

One of the many reasons I can't sign on to Christianity as THE ANSWER.

[funflower]

24. That was always the big rock in my shoe when I was a Xian, too.

It seems that, for conservative Christians anyway, female submission is truly the core of their belief system.

It's so wonderful to be free of that!

[bperci108]

95. That's quite a broad brush you are using...

Not all Christians view women thusly.

In my particular faith (Eastern Orthodox) many of the Saints are women, some of the first martyrs were women and a woman is considered to be the most righteous human being and the original Christian believer: Mary, the Theotokos.

The western churches (Protestant, Roman catholic, etc.) indeed DO have a bit of anti-female bias, with the Fundie-mentalists viewing them as little more than property. I have no idea how these "biblical literalists" can justify such a position.

[pennylane100]

9. It is because of my ex-faith's view of women that I left the church.

I was a catholic and my parents were so catholic that they almost went on a disobedience campaign when the church stopped using Latin for Mass. I eventually ended up becoming what is known as a "cafeteria catholic for a while.

I was educated in a convent school in England run by French nuns, (and that's really a trip). However, the older I got, I realized that I could never belong to any organization that saw me as a second-class citizen. That, and the fact that so many of the priest were either pedophiles or pedophile enablers and so many of the nuns were sadistic misfits made me realize that I had to leave.

I had also stopped believing in the catholic version of God and I just walked away, in time to take my three children with me.

[cdsilv]

12. I'll have to echo the first reply....

Views women as powerful, intelligent (when I'm lucky) and DAMNED INTERESTING!

Women are people too.... way too many guys forget this.

[Hardrada]

14. I wanted the church to keep on using Latin

and I'm a non-theist anarchist. Purely for aesthetic reasons. As a devout anarcho-syndicalist I view women as COMRADES! And we all go the barricades together!!

[pennylane100]

17. Actually I very much agree.

It is a mystical experience to listen to Gregorian (sp) chants in a dimly lit chapel late at night. If you didn't know it was all hocus pocus, you would certainly think it was music from heaven.

[Hardrada]

19. Same with J.S. Bach (organ and choral music)

as I experienced in my Lutheran younger years.

[Erika]

11. Women are seen as equally spiritual or capable in few Christian

religions to men. Their whole viewpoint is that Adam was the man and the woman was only made out of a part (rib) of the man. Inferior to start.

[realisticphish]

16. that's wholly untrue

personally, many men are sexist. But essentially all mainstream protestant churches view women as equals as far as theology and capability goes.

[Lars39]

75. I heard some "righteous" sob refer to his wife as 'prime rib' last night.

ha ha. :puke:

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

13. I'm a Christian, and as far as I can see, women are equal to men

in basically every respect that they possibly could be. I think the Scriptures supposedly banning woman preachers have been misinterpreted. As far as marriage goes, husbands and wives are submitted unto each other, and unto Christ.

[realisticphish]

15. 20 yo ELCA Lutheran

women totally equal; low percentages in clergy, but no opposition to them at all (I've had 3 female interns/assistant pastors and 1 female pastor in my congregation just in my time there)

[Hardrada]

18. I spent a year at a Lutheran (ALC) seminary

ages ago and it was all guys! That was a drag and I'm glad that stuff changed now. I'm not a theist at present but I have had really good talks with women in the ministry.

[funflower]

26. I think there are a lot of women in ELCA seminaries these days.

I know a couple of them personally. Sadly, it's harder for them to find jobs upon graduation then it is for men.

[Skarbrowe]

20. As a Sam Harris fan, author of "The End of Faith", I say, USE REASON!

I've always felt the correct thing to do was respect the beliefs of any religion. But, NO MORE. In my heart and gut I have always felt that there was an inherent danger in every religion. Besides the fact that not one of them makes any sense at all, the subjugation of women has been one of religions most repulsive human against human acts that any reasonable person could imagine.

Sam Harris gave an example of a man that worshiped a supposed diamond the size of a refrigerator buried in his backyard. No one had ever seen this diamond. EVER. But, the man said that he could not imagine living in a world that didn't have this giant diamond buried in his back yard. He also didn't want anyone to try and ruin his families celebration of digging for it a few times a year. He had FAITH that is was there and that's all he needed. To stay on subject, he probably made his wife and kids do most of the digging, because that's what the diamond would want. It makes as much sense as an invisible god or gods.

Oy

[unschooler]

65. Amen! Reason rocks! Open your eyes, people!

:headbang:

[More Than A Feeling]

21. I couldn't have a faith that did not support my politics,

so I will quote Paul:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. -- Galatians 3:28

[Maat]

22. I left my church at 15, breaking my beloved paternal grandma's

heart (she was essentially my mom growing up); she had taken me to the Presbyterian church for many years. I told her, "I am feminist. It's not compatible with the beliefs."

30 years later, I found a church that has no holy text that condemns this or that, and I joined! I'm a Religious Scientist now, and my pastor is a female, and the head of the international church is a female. Pastors are both female and male, GLBT and plain ol' hetero, tall and short, and from all cultural and ethnic backgrounds. And, we explore many different spiritualities. THAT works for me.

[Zebedeo]

23. I have the traditional Christian view

To me, women are an awesome and wonderful creation of God (dare I say God's greatest creation of all), and man and woman are one in Christ.

As I understand it, in their ESSENCE, man and woman are equal. However, their ROLES in this life are different, and complementary.

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. Ephesians 5:22

Scripture says that a wife should submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ. If this were all that it said, it might seem unfair to women, burdening them with this seemingly one-sided responsibility.

But if you read on, husbands are given the immense burden of loving their wives "just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her." The husband has the responsibility to put the wife first in everything he does, and to at all times sacrifice his own interests in favor of hers. If necessary, the husband must even lay down his life for his wife, just as Christ did for the church.

So women and men have been assigned different roles, but that does not make one superior to the other. Christian men and women are EQUAL members of mankind, and are one in Christ.

[funflower]

25. I see a lot more women submittin' than men givin' their lives for their

womenfolk.

Power corrupts.

[Zebedeo]

31. I don't disagree

Christian men have a lot of room for improvement.

[trotsky]

40. Do you approve of the Promise Keepers movement? n/t

[Zebedeo]

42. Don't know enough about them

I heard something about them in the early 90's in relation to Colorado Univ. football coach Bill McCartney, but I don't know anything specific about their beliefs or practices.

[trotsky]

46. Well here ya go.

http://www.promisekeepers.org/

Read up - if you feel that good Christian men are failing to put their wives and families into the proper place in their lives, perhaps you might approve of what Promise Keepers is doing. Maybe you might even feel like joining!

[Zebedeo]

48. Thank you

I skimmed the site, read their mission statement, their statement of faith and their seven promises, and skimmed their eight principles.

I didn't find anything objectionable. Did you?

[trotsky]

50. You bet your patootie I did.

NOW did a pretty good job summing things up.

http://www.now.org/issues/right/promise/mythfact.html

[unschooler]

67. Great link. The only good thing I can say about the PKers is

that responsible misogynists are better than irresponsible misogynists. The possibility of putting women on an equal footing with men doesn't seem to occur to these people.

[trotsky]

89. Hehe, that's about it.

It's simply a way to justify sexism. And push for increasing religious influence over the government, of course.

[Crunchy Frog]

107. I've had personal encounters with them before.

I've personally seen them ogling young girls and generally behaving like pigs. A statement of principles is a nice thing. Actually living by those principles is another matter entirely.

[trotsky]

28. "Christian men and women are EQUAL..."

It's just that men are a little MORE equal, at least in the eyes of some Christians. :eyes:

[Zebedeo]

32. Perhaps some Christians do believe that way

But I don't.

By the way, do you suppose it is possible that some atheists are misogynistic? I doubt that Christians have a monopoly on misogyny.

[trotsky]

36. No changing the subject.

So men and women are equal, but women should submit to their husbands.

What about a lesbian or gay couple? Who should submit to whom?

[Zebedeo]

44. What about a lesbian or gay couple?

What about a lesbian or gay couple? Who should submit to whom?

That's up to them.

[trotsky]

45. Oh, where in the bible do you find that?

And if homosexual couples can choose, why can't heterosexual ones?

[Zebedeo]

47. Free will.

if homosexual couples can choose, why can't heterosexual ones?

They can.

[trotsky]

49. But if they choose differently, then they're not Christians. Correct?

Because above you said "Scripture says that a wife should submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ."

If a couple chooses differently, then they are violating scripture. Is that OK? Can they still be good Christians?

[Zebedeo]

51. Yes, they can

If a couple chooses differently, then they are violating scripture. Is that OK? Can they still be good Christians?

Of course. Being a good Christian doesn't require doing everything exactly as the Apostle Paul says you should do. Paul says husbands and wives should behave in this way. Many Christians believe that it is best to do so -- that it makes for a more harmonious marriage. Others disagree. Ultimately, it is up to each of us as individuals to make our own choices about such things.

Now, as for your comment about "violating scripture":

If being a good Christian required doing everything that Scripture says to do, without fail, there would be no "good Christians" in the entire world. If that is the definition of a "good Christian," I think it is a useless definition, because it excludes everyone.

A central tenet of Christianity is the knowledge that we as humans are prone to failure in keeping God's Commandments. That's why we need God's grace to receive salvation.

Once again, I think you may have some misconceptions about what Christians believe. We do not regard ourselves as better than anyone else. Quite to the contrary, Christians believe that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23 As a sinner, I am no more worthy of salvation than the most foul criminal. As such, I am utterly dependent on the grace of God for my salvation, and cannot rely on my own good works.

Certainly, if breaking the Ten Commandments does not disqualify one from being a Christian, then failing to follow Paul's marital advice does not so disqualify one.

JMHO

[trotsky]

53. What you say doesn't even make sense from a Christian standpoint.

The central message of your type of Christianity is that we are all sinners, all fall short of the glory of God, and even by following the bible to the letter one cannot escape the original sin that taints us all. Only by the grace of God and his "gift" to us may we be allowed to bask in his presence for eternity.

Okey dokey. We sin, it's our nature, but we will be forgiven. Doesn't it defeat the "system" to willfully engage in sin, seek forgiveness, then go out and sin again intentionally? Does god not care if you do that, or does he realize that you're gaming the system so you can have your cake and eat it too?

So the question becomes, if you ignore this part of scripture, then ignore another part, and so on, just how much can you do that before god gets pissed and smites you? Even if you keep coming back for forgiveness?

[Zebedeo]

54. First of all,

I don't think that failing to follow Paul's prescription for a harmonious marriage is necessarily sinful. It might be unwise, but I'm not sure I would characterize it as going out and sinning again intentionally. To me, sin is more related to breaking the Ten Commandments.

But your questions are broader in scope than just the issue of the relationship between husband and wife. You raise some valid questions, and I don't claim to have all of the answers.

However, this is my understanding:

"Gaming the system" doesn't work. To receive God's grace, a person must be truly repentant, and must not only confess with her mouth but believe in her heart. Here's the passage I am referring to:

That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. Romans 10 : 9-10

Basically, my understanding is that a person must be earnest and genuine in believing on Jesus. Setting out to "game the system" will not achieve the desired result.

Paul was a terrible sinner and murderer, but was genuinely repentant. He received forgiveness. Here is how Paul put it:

Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe on him and receive eternal life. 1 Timothy 1:15-16

[trotsky]

56. But if Jesus/God has "unlimited patience"

then it would indeed seem possible to game the system. Enjoy all your hedonistic pursuits, then go and confess and sincerely seek forgiveness.

I'll take my atheistic humanistic moral system over that any day.

[Zebedeo]

59. It's a free country

then it would indeed seem possible to game the system. Enjoy all your hedonistic pursuits, then go and confess and sincerely seek forgiveness

Those who have Christ living in their hearts have no desire to game the system. Nor do I believe it would be possible, because gaming the system would involve insincerity.

I'll take my atheistic humanistic moral system over that any day.

That's the beauty of living in a free country. You are free to believe, or not believe, as you wish. I am similarly free.

Although we seem to disagree on many issues, each of us, with our own individual, incompatible beliefs, can work to increase goodness and justice in the world.

Now that's cause for celebration. Here's hoping you and yours enjoy this wonderful season.:hi:

[bperci108]

96. I think you're missing the point...

"then it would indeed seem possible to game the system."

To what purpose?

That would be like cheating on the math test, the grade would be meaningless and you didn't really learn anything.

The object of life isn't a "game" at least not in Christianity; it's "partaking in the divine nature"; the Theosis of man that is the goal.

"Enjoy all your hedonistic pursuits, then go and confess and sincerely seek forgiveness."

If one believes that salvation is merely having "Not Guilty" stamped on your file, I suppose so. But if the goal is to really "finish the race" (as St. Paul called it) then you have to roll up your spiritual sleeves and get to work cleaning up the mess.


;)

[unschooler]

64. What on earth could Paul have known about "harmonious" marriage?

Personally, my marriage has been a TON better since my husband and I gave up that fundy "complementary roles" BS and just accepted each other as we are: no "servant leaders," no "helpmates" just two completely equal human beings. You should try it some time. You'll be amazed how much more "harmonious" your marriage will be when you aren't trying to follow some 1st century misogynistic nonsense prescription written by a guy who wasn't even married.

[Zebedeo]

77. It's interesting how people have different experiences

My experience has been the exact opposite. My wife and I used to get into huge arguments over what were really small issues. Hurtful words were spoken by both parties, and our small issues became big problems.

Since we accepted Christ into our hearts, and began our new lives together, we have come to realize that the problem was that we had been competing over our roles in the marriage. I had felt disrespected, and she had felt unappreciated.

Now we have a much, much more harmonious marriage. My wife describes me as a "new man." My love for her has increased immeasurably.

Lest you think that this is some kind of "Stepford Wives" situation, I can assure you that it is not.

I was surprised to read your post, because my experience has been so different. But it sounds like you have found what works for you and your husband, so congratulations!

[unschooler]

79. Disrespected/unappreciated. Sounds like the Dobsonian

"love/respect principle" where in the man supposedly needs respect while the woman supposedly needs love. See Dobby's explanation, which is pretty much identical to yours.

http://troubledwith.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/troubledwith.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=1043

I have no doubt you are very sincere, and you are obviously very patient and unfailingly polite! I also have no doubt your marriage may well have improved over its prior state. The problem with following these "principles" for a "harmonious marriage" is that you just can't put on a book you read somewhere (even one that is supposedly based on the Bible) as if it were a new dress and fit yourselves or your marriage into it in the long run. You wind up lying to yourselves and living inauthentically, particularly as you increasingly conform with the expectations of your fellow church members.

Did you know the word for "helper" used in Genesis to describe Eve is the same word used repeatedly throughout the Old Testament to refer to God? What does that tell us about who should be respecting/submitting to whom? (Actually, I don't believe women should be "as God" to their husbands, but that's just me.)

I applaud your efforts to find the "true path." When interpreting scripture, I think it's valuable to view words such as Paul's advice here through the lens of eternal principals such as honesty, which is repeatedly enshrined in the Bible, but is frankly out the window when conforming Christians start to "seep" out of the molds they believe they must fit in order to be happy or spiritually succesful.

Be there. Done that. Now I just want to be honest with myself and with everyone around me.

[Zebedeo]

84. Interesting

Thank you. I appreciate your response, and all of your posts in this thread. It is interesting to exchange ideas with others, particularly (I think) when the others have different experiences and different points of view. The truth is that I am becoming quite addicted to this forum. So many intelligent people who take the time to respond to each other and hash out these interesting issues.

It has been a pleasure discussing this issue with you, but now I am afraid I must depart, so that I can pack my things to return to my wife after a business trip.

I wish you and your husband all the best of happiness and fulfilment both this Christmas season and throughout the year.

[funflower]

87. With respect, I think you are making my point. People DO have different

experiences, as well as different talents, attributes, weaknesses and circumstances. This is why the idea that a one-size-fits-all approach has been mandated by God Himself is just not tenable. We cannot say on the one hand that God Almighty has written down his "plan" for marriage and then turn around say "Oh, well, to each his own." Either Paul's writings are NOT God's plan (although I suppose it's possible they were radically modern in the first century), or those of us who do not believe that wives should "submit" to their husbands (or that husbands should ever ask them to do so) are wrong and are living in a manner that is in contravention of God's plan.

Personally, I cannot believe in a God who would arrange the world in a fashion that is so patently unjust and that squanders the talents, education and hard-won insights of 50% of the population.

:crazy:

[Zebedeo]

33. Also, FWIW,

I believe very strongly in equal rights under the law for men and women.

[trotsky]

37. As long as women remember their place,

and submit to their husbands, right?

[Zebedeo]

38. Wrong

I don't believe that the Christian admonition for wives to submit to their husbands should be in any way enforced by the government. Men and women should be equal before the law.

[trotsky]

39. Equal before the law,

but not at home.

Understood.

[Zebedeo]

41. Wrong again

I said men and women are equal. They just have different roles in a traditional Christian marriage.

It seems to me that the roles that a husband and wife occupy in a marriage is a private matter between the husband and wife. If that husband and that wife decide that they want to have a traditional Christian marriage, why would you want to intrude on their marriage and impose your non-Christian views?

I can't imagine why you would have any desire to do that.

[trotsky]

43. Sounds much like "separate but equal."

If I recall correctly, our enlightened secular democracy struck down that principle as inherently UNequal.

Oh sure, I don't mind if a Christian couple chooses to live under that arrangement. Whatever floats your boat.

What I object to is a person like yourself calling that situation "equal."

[unschooler]

69. Exactly.

:toast:

[The Magistrate]

52. As Is Usually The Case, Mr. Zebedeo

The matter is more complex, and the note of persecution struck in your comment quit beside any real point.

Equality before the law renders untenable any private arrangement involving submission as a religious duty: that is unavoidable with the civil authority, and not the church, being the sole repository of lawful authority. At least it renders it untenable the instant the party supposed to submit decides not to, and to avail herself of legal remedies available. Tnis is not a question of religious persecution, but rather one of liberty and prson rights as a human being. It reduces any such arrangement, as a matter of practical fact, to a delicious private game, such as some are wont to play with dedicated costumes....

[Zebedeo]

55. The love of a good Christian wife

It reduces any such arrangement, as a matter of practical fact, to a delicious private game, such as some are wont to play with dedicated costumes....

No gratification derived from a sex game could possibly compare to the joy of being loved by a good Christian wife.

As for your other statement, to the effect that the law should not permit Christian marriage, I must say that I cannot agree.

There is an Amish community near where I live. I don't know for sure what the Amish believe or exactly how their marriage relationships are structured. But I would guess that they probably believe that the husband is to occupy the traditional role as provider and protector, and the wife is the nurturer and the one who raises the children. Are you saying that the government should conduct a raid on the Amish community and force them to comply with your different view of how a marriage should be organized? Because if you are, I think that your view is inconsistent with the concept of religious liberty that is at the foundation of this country.

In light of your many otherwise thoughtful posts, I cannot believe that you actually hold this view.

[InaneAnanity]

58. Dude

Have you seen my sex game??? Have you seen the immense gratification I derive from it???

Before you say that "no gratification derived from a sex game could possibly compare to the joy of being loved by a good Christian wife", I challenge you to come watch me have sex with multiple hedonistic whores at once. I want you to quantify my enjoyment, and compare it to yours.

I will win the battle of gratification, hands down and no butts about it.

[Zebedeo]

60. I understand

Although I cannot accept your kind invitation to observe you having sex with multiple partners, I understand where you are coming from.

The difference between the type of pleasure that you are talking about and the love of a good Christian wife is like the difference between candy and a satisfying, wholesome meal. No matter how much candy you eat, it can never give you the fulfillment and satisfaction that you would derive from a hearty meal.

Anyway, I wish you the best, and hope you find what makes you truly happy.

[InaneAnanity]

61. With respect...

...you have no idea, or even concept, concerning the sexual pleasure I regularly experience.

Without the experience of having a harem of your own, with women willing to serve your every need, at any time of day, to any extent you desire (and clean up afterwards), you have no clue.

It's similar to an eclectic drug cocktail, except without the damaging side effects. I live in an orgasmic heaven, surrounded by feminine heathens who worship me in a manner you might appreciate.

Don't purport to understand my sexual life when you live a depraved and monotonous one, simply because a book told you that was the right thing to do.

Furthermore, if you are unwilling to accept my invitation to visit with me and observe my harem in action, you should admit, in any discussion of this nature, that you are a sexual neophyte, as ordered by god, and that you don't understand the sex life of uninhibited individuals in the slightest.

[Zebedeo]

62. It's all about love

I suppose that you believe you will leave me shocked and appalled with your description of your sexual practices. This is because you have a misconception of me.

I am no prude. I have been around the block and seen many things. My point is that sex is no substitute for love. Love is it, man. If you haven't experienced it, you cannot possibly know what I am talking about. As the Apostle Paul put it:

"If I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing." 1 Corinthians 13:2

:loveya:

[InaneAnanity]

63. Love is just a chemical reaction in our brains

It isn't anything special.

Really, I just enjoy using my penis in a sexual manner as often as possible, in a variety of fun and unique ways. Love has nothing to do with it.

[The Magistrate]

73. Laying It On A Little Thick, Lad, Eh?

[beam me up scottie]

97. My thoughts exactly, Magistrate.

My theory: lap pinkie :evilgrin:

[unschooler]

70. Much better choice of Paul's writings!

O8)

[unschooler]

71. So explain to me again what this has to do with religion?

Sorry, Hugh, but I think you and your vestal virgins are on the wrong message board.
:boring:

[The Magistrate]

66. You Present A Caricature Of My View, Sir

And perhaps the fault is mine for inexact expression.

My point is not that, and my expression hardly urged that, government take any action against anyone, and you will find it difficult to support any such claim on close reading of my comments. My point is that a condition of equality before the law renders any arrangement involving submission of one partner to another unenforceable by lawful means, and hence artificial in every sense of the word. Maintaining any such arrangement will require a degree of enforced isolation that your perhaps unfortunately chosen example illustrates, because anyone in such an arrangement who is also exposed to the full range of choice and empowerment available in the civil society around us will find ample means available to alter their circumstances should they become displeasing, and also is likely to find a variety of examples that may serve to make their circumstances seem displeasing by comparison. The fact is that people tend to avail themselves of choices that are available to them, and so there is a steady erosion of marriage on the "submit to your husband" model, simply because a great many woman do not wish to do so, whatever the man might want, and if she does not, she cannot be compelled to do so, but rather will find ready assistance in doing what she would rather do. My view of how a marriage should be organized does not come into this analysis at all, and has not been disclosed in this exchange, nor is it likely to be.

Gratification in love, of course, being such a personal thing, is hardly susceptible to comparison between cases, so you are in no better position than me to comment on what might possibly bear comparison concerning it. People find a wide variety of things not only immensely gratifying but positively essential to their happiness that make no appeal to me whatever, and it would seem to me a waste of breath to tell them that these things cannot possibly compare to those things that gratify me....

[Zebedeo]

74. My apologies

I certainly did not intend to present your view as caricature.

You are correct in pointing out that many women make a choice to reject traditional Christian marriage. It is also true that many women embrace traditional Christian marriage. In fact, there is a growing movement known as "covenant marriage" that many American women are now embracing. Any time you are dealing with a large number of people, you are likely to find many examples of people doing one thing, and many doing another.

By the way, you are a wonderful writer. I must say that I thoroughly enjoy reading your posts, even when I do not agree with your point of view. If you authored a book, I would buy it, just to enjoy reading your prose.

[The Magistrate]

76. So Long As The Mis-Understanding Is Resolved, Sir

Think nothing of it. My firmest conviction is that people have every right to convey themselves to the hell of their own desire in the handbasket of their choice without interference from others, and if a couple freely chooses and voluntarily maintains any form of relationship that is their own damned business, and none of mine.

For the rest, you are too kind, Sir, but the compliment is gratefully accepted.

"Bigamy is one wife too many. Monogamy is the same."

"The bond of matrimony is so heavy it often takes three to support it."

[unschooler]

68. Equality is not necessarily for atheists only. Lots of religious folk

also believe the Apostle Paul's prescription might have been progressive when it was written but is incredibly misogynistic in the light of modern knowledge about men and women.

[Zebedeo]

78. I believe in equality

As I stated in my posts above in this thread, particularly in my first post, I believe men and women are equal in their essence. Neither is superior to the other. Nor should the law permit discrimination against one or the other on account of their gender. Equality is not being questioned by anyone in this discussion.

Marriage is a partnership between two equals. However, in a traditional Christian marriage, the two partners do not occupy the same role. Perhaps it is worthwhile to analogize to a business partnership. Partner "A" may occupy the role of marketing the business and dealing with the public, while partner "B" handles the management of the accounting and deals with suppliers. Both are 50% owners of the business and share 50/50 in the profits thereof. Yet each occupies a different role. Their roles are, in fact, complementary, and their business prospers from the combining of their talents.

Now, you may not want to enter into such a partnership, and no one says you have to. Your partnership with your husband may prosper more readily under a different arrangement. More power to you.

[unschooler]

80. So who "submits" in the business, Partner A or Partner B?

In your hypothetical business analogy, you are describing a division of labor.

"Submit" (which the dictionary defines as "To yield or surrender (oneself) to the will or authority of another.") is not about the division of labor but about who has the power and who doesn't.

A business relationship involving one person consistently "submitting" to the other occurs between an owner and an employee, not between two 50/50 partners.

[Zebedeo]

83. But this occurs in business partnerships all the time

It is very common in a business partnership for one partner to be given responsibility for making the executive decisions. Often, such partner is called the "managing partner." The other partner willingly agrees to this arrangement for many reasons, including:

1. He/she has no desire to be the managing partner, with all of the responsibility, work and stress that come with that role;

2. He/she determines that the other partner is better suited to manage the business because of relevant experience, education, training or disposition, or has more time available to do so.

In my view, marriage should not be a struggle for power. It should not be about "who has the power and who doesn't."

But as I have said, whatever works for you and your husband is fine with me. I am glad that you found an arrangement that produces a harmonious marriage for the two of you.

[funflower]

85. There is a difference between delegated power and presumed power.

I work in a law firm where, as in many law firms, the partners periodically elect someone to serve as "managing partner" for a period of time. However, the "managing partner" is very well aware that his/her "non-managing partners" can easily remove him/her from power. Despite the absence of a single permanent authority figure (and perhaps because of it), my law firm does not experience ongoing power struggles between the partners. This is quite different than in a marriage arrangement where one partner has all of the power on a permanent basis, while the other partner has the pleasure of obeying the powerful partners edicts so long as they both shall live.

I agree that a marriage should not be about "who has the power." However, human nature being what it is, I think it is very dangerous to place all of the power in one partner in any relationship.

Just my two cents.

[InaneAnanity]

102. So misguided

Even the "nice" Christians really are delusional.

[JerseygirlCT]

98. Oh please.

First, you're reading Paul's words, not God's. Or probably not even Paul's for all we know.

Secondly, as we're still apparently learning in this country, separate is never equal. Putting flowers on it doesn't make it any better when you talk of "different roles".

Any situation in which women are, by virtue of their gender, assigned to secondary roles is not of God, but of man. Emphasis on the "man".

[freestyle]

27. Completely equal. Episcopalians have female priests and bishops.

We did not come to this point until the 1970's, but my parish has been served by several female priests who remain friends. There are many female clergy in the Diocese of Maryland, and I think women now make up a majority of seminarians. There are also a fair number of bishops. As for the most of the rest of the Anglican Communion, that's another story. In 30 years, they haven't gotten over equality for women(of whatever sexual orientation) and they completely can't deal with GLBT equality.

[kwassa]

90. however ... individual churches refuse to recognize female priests

and bishops, within otherwise liberal diocese.

There are extremely conservative groups in the Episcopal Church of the USA, too, and conservative bishops as well, though the liberals have the numbers.

[JerseygirlCT]

99. There's still plenty of room to grow, but that's why I'm

and Episcopalian, too.

[neoblues]

29. When I was Protestant...

There was a real, seemingly wholesome, pressure for men and women to fit in the traditional roles. Men as protectors and providers, women as mothers, homemakers and wives to their men. This meant real distinction in traditional dress, women were allowed to wear pants--but only in informal situations and even then it was sort of just tolerated rather than accepted. It was acceptable for women to work outside the home, but only in the most modest jobs (clerks, tellers, child-care, checkers, secretarys etc.). Women were also expected to defer to their husbands. Young women were expected to marry young and begin their families.

It didn't seem like oppression or repression of women and the demands on men were considerable--they were fully expected to take care of business, work hard, discipline the children, fix the house/car, make the important decisions, be leaders in the church and community, and more. The level of responsibility was very considerable and would naturally occupy and consume all of a man's time and energy. It was enough to break some of the men. Likewise though, the women were fully occupied too--between being mothers, cooking, cleaning, organizing, handling the family's social schedule and assisting with church events, they too had not a moment to spare.

The general level of busy-ness along with social pressures at church (everyone knew everything about everyone), along with the real fellowship derived from such involvement--but probably mostly the fact that men and women, husband and wife were so busy they scarcely had time to argue seem to me to be the likely reason divorce was rare. I must say though, that between this and small town life, most of the kids were the beneficiaries of pretty healthy childhoods.

All in all, it didn't seem such a bad arrangement and way of living one's life. The different roles between men and women, while it can be seen as repressive towards women, had some real advantages. There wasn't such a confusion between the sexes as there is in general society now. The roles did also reflect somewhat the different strengths of the sexes.

Of course, those were different times too. As we've become technolically advanced, the economy and world are such that to make a home doesn't require one of the parents to cook and sew clothing--or even to spend all that much time parenting (now given over to video games, TV, sports teams, martial arts, and scores of extra-curricular activities where the parent's job is nothing more than chauffeur). The economy is such that women can find lucrative jobs and few jobs involve harsh physical labor, besides women have been raised in such a way that they now have skills in most areas that are equivalent to those given unto men. Alas, without gender roles, more and more women have concluded they don't need a man or marriage and live single lives--many of whom are unhappy/unfulfilled and they don't know why.

Not that the new unstructure social order is necessarily bad, but it's not had time to sort itself out. The former order provided by the 'traditional' lifestyle at least provides a roadmap by which to live life--and it was good enough for generations of people, so it does have it's redeeming characteristics. Perhaps a fusion of the two, that is, a modernization of the traditional and yet retaining some of the old ways would be best. Who knows.

Of course, any Christians who take their cues directly from the Bible without revision must not take women seriously. They are second class beings in the Bible and so have few rights and are statutorily expected to obey their men. Naturally, that would mean not taking jobs that surpass those of men, not being in charge of men, and not taking jobs that otherwise would have been taken by men. Women are, to quote a crude euphemism, in a sense, supposed to be 'barefoot and pregnant'. That is, they're there to make and keep a home for a man and his children, to cook and clean for them and see to it they have clothes as well as handly most of the day to day parenting.

It's no wonder that those who buy into such a belief system are horrified at the way the world's going since it means major changes. Still, I think they can adapt to women having full equality (and often more than equality), so long as they can accept that the Bible reflects the values of the ancient societies to which the writer's belonged--although that can be a problem if they insist on literal interpretation and the inerrancy of the Bible.

[unschooler]

72. Explain to me again how this does not constitute "repression"....

(snip)
There was a real, seemingly wholesome, pressure for men and women to fit in the traditional roles. Men as protectors and providers, women as mothers, homemakers and wives to their men. This meant real distinction in traditional dress, women were allowed to wear pants--but only in informal situations and even then it was sort of just tolerated rather than accepted. It was acceptable for women to work outside the home, but only in the most modest jobs (clerks, tellers, child-care, checkers, secretarys etc.). Women were also expected to defer to their husbands. Young women were expected to marry young and begin their families.
(snip)


:hurts:

[neoblues]

82. Well... so long as...

Well, so long as you buy-into the delusion... to you, it's not.

However, insofar as my own sense of things, having mostly recovered from that mindset... and furthermore, having no wish to defend repression in their society beyond merely describing their lifestyles and/or worldview which, for them, is not only accepted but vigorously defended, I concede. Looking from the outside with as much objectivity as I can, I would have to describe some of the treatment of women therein as repressive. It's primarily the repression of women's potential for actualization with respect to career choices. Alas, it's but one of many forms of repressive thinking affecting both sexes in such communities. Of course, there is no actual, formal repression in the legal sense; it's merely a form of peer pressure. People are as free to do or believe as anyone in the country, they would merely have to decide that they aren't going to let the opinions of others control their choices. Of course, it's also a likelihood that for any real pursuit of more worldly goals for the women (and to a considerable degree, the men too), relocation would be necessary since the educational and enconomic/career opportunities for most more desirable careers exist beyond the horizons of small towns where this type of culture is most prevalent.

Then, being exposed to more advanced education, better educated people and more enlightened thinking and lifestyles... to some degree they'll be faced with a choice. Join the society of greater freedom or run back home to their familiar, comfortable (if formally repressed) community. The thing is, even if the repression is what they've grown up with and see as normal, once they've reached their majority, it's a personal choice. And while that choice may be made more difficult given their roots and the fact that it would probably involve having the courage to leave their familiar world behind, it's still a choice.

To say that groups like these have no right to their beliefs doesn't work. It's also true that since just about everything has it's advantages and disadvantages, it wouldn't even be valid to criticize them unless you've lived in their shoes in order to compare for yourself--even then it would amount to only an individual opinion. To wish from the outside that their culture wasn't repressive to women in any way accomplishes nothing and certainly means nothing to the people in those communities. If you wish to focus your efforts on remedying this problem perceived from the outside, perhaps you could work to find some way to reach, to communicate with the women in small towns across the country to make your argument and try to convince them they're being repressed and show them they have options.

Yet, again, I agree that it is repression. I suppose my continued, if ineffective, efforts to explain (or is it apologize for) the situation within these groups is mostly because relative to most of the kinds of repression affecting women in the "real" world by nations/societies/economies and religions is just so much more substantial as to make this seem quite small indeed. Perhaps it's to raise the point (and perhaps ask the question--by opening myself up to other's insulting my remarks, whatever) that it's hard to save people from a problem they (a) don't consider to be a problem, (b) don't consider to be a valid concern for outsiders, and (c) don't want to be saved from. Perhaps they need to be saved in spite of themselves. Perhaps even the smallest examples of repression are as deserving of efforts to correct as are serious ones. I don't know.

Furthermore, as a male, all I can do is give my impressions and observations which by definition cannot be as intimate and complete as those of the women who live in such circumstances. I endeavored merely to give examples of repression of women, which I did. The question of how my examples of women's repression aren't repressive of women wasn't quite accurate; the criticizm implied in the question was intended to criticize my efforts to explain/apologize for the examples I gave. Alas, the question of repression isn't as black and white as some might think. Furthermore, though it may defy my abilities or even the language itself to express it, I consider the men in such societies to be every bit as "put upon" as the women, in some ways moreso, in some ways less so. Consider the anecdotal evidence that people in such communities still have the comparative life spans wherein women outlive the men as opposed to the more open society in which women's lifespans are declining towards that of men (what with women dying of heart failure at ever greater rates). It seems that says something about the stress levels people live under, and their social structure and gender roles appear to be related. Nevertheless, and regardless of the repression of women and the stress on the men, it should also be mentioned that it's my experience that the majority of individuals who were the most satisfied with their lives, came from this group, and that more of them were women as opposed to men. It may seem surprising, but so too it was the women who most strongly defend this lifestyle--and not one of them was unhappy with the repression I mentioned--indeed, you'd never even guess there were examples of repression such as those I listed (which were my own observations) from talking to the women in these communities. Go figure.

[funflower]

86. I think the repression is wrt self-actualization in more areas than career

choice, although that is an important one. In my experience, conservative religious communities repress women's freedom of choice (primarily through strong peer pressure but also through direct action on the part of church leaders at times) in their manner of dress, what they read and listen to, in their decisions about whether and how many children to birth and rear, in their very concept of own identity.

I realize that women inside of these communities don't complain; perhaps a good reality check would be to talk with women who have left conservative religious groups. Very often, they describe having their "eyes opened" and being able to ask themselves honest questions for the first time.

WRT women in "simple lifestyle" religious communities such as the Amish, I think there are a number of positives that affect their longevity and health (churning butter has got to be healthier than surfing the internet, after all!). My personal experience is not with unusual groups such as the Amish but with common religious conservative groups, such as the Baptists. I'd be very surprised if the average Baptist suburbanite woman enjoys greater longevity than her irreligious Manhattan counterpart.

[Strong Atheist]

30. In the context of MY faith?

They are desirable, and infuriating, and beautiful, and confusing, and exotic, and nagging, and exciting. Dudley Moore once had a quote on this that basically said he wanted to do everything to and with women. I sort of agree (on the good parts, at least); women are the most beautiful things to see in the world ( wish the whole world was clothing-optional).

[InaneAnanity]

34. I like their mammary glands

And in the context of my beliefs, I like to squeeze them.

[Tsiyu]

35. LOL

Thanks for the levity! :P

[BiggJawn]

57. I'm an Atheist, but I'm distrustful.

Remember that hill-jack song "She took my Heart and STOMPED that Sucker FLAT"?

Happened just a few times too many to me.

I really don't have a clue anymore how to view 'em. I read the front cover of "Cosmo", then I think about how my ex treated me, and how my present ESSO looks at things (strong feminist) and I think "WTF?"
Let's just say I don't think they ought to be kept barefoot, preggers, and chained to the stove.

[unschooler]

81. Sorry you had it rough, Jawn. We're just people, some good,

some bad....

[BiggJawn]

88. Thanks...We're just people, too.

Believe me, I don't get an annual membership directory/buyer's guide from "The Patriarchy" or "Domestic Abuse Illustrated" magazine.

I'd LOVE to meet a good female people who wasn't out to grind an axe against some swinging dick that done her wrong...

[PassingFair]

91. I've got something to grind....

and it's NOT an axe!

Ooops! Got carried away with your prose.

[BiggJawn]

94. Oooh! Naughty AND Nice!

Happy Festivus!

[Tsiyu]

93. Thank you to all who posted here

I think it's vital to have many dialogues about faith and gender issues. All over the world, these issues are affecting the lives of men and women and their children.

I am grateful to all who responded and for the gracious way you folks stated your arguments and how you really tried to understand where the other person waas coming from.

I love DU :grouphug:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

101. Equal partners

In my Order, there are women who are senior teachers (Murshida, shaykah) and who lead zikar, our ceremony of remembrance. The prayers we say are not gender specific (for example, Family, not Brotherhood). Of course, we allow anyone to come and join us in our ceremonies. Sometimes men and women are seperated, but this is to feel the different force of energy there is praying amongst those of your own gender (and it is a different feeling). But segregation is an exception, and not a rule.

[unschooler]

103. Sorry for my ignorance, but are you a liberal Muslim?

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

104. yes

I am a Sufi initiate. Some even consider Sufis heretics for their liberal views.

[unschooler]

105. I don't know much about Islam, although I read Karen Armstrong's

"History of God," which devotes large sections to Sufism and Islam in general. But, I applaud all religious folk who support equality and anyone who is willing to take on the label of "heretic"!