Woman cleric hails 'breakthrough'

[phoenix_fire]

You can look and look for all the "equality" passages you want, but you can't ignore all the ones that are filled with the degradation of women in the early Jewish and later Christian society.

I did address that somewhat. Even though Christ set some pretty great standards, not everyone who called themselves by His name followed them. You can't fault Christianity itself for that, because all groups have those that make everyone else look bad.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

I did address that somewhat. Even though Christ set some pretty great standards, not everyone who called themselves by His name followed them. You can't fault Christianity itself for that, because all groups have those that make everyone else look bad.

So you're really not a Christian, just "kind of a Christian"? Since you're not following Christ, just kind of by your own way?

[phoenix_fire]

Err...no. Where did you get that idea? I am a Christian. I am following Christ. My point was that people don't always. A lot of times, they malign the Bible and twist it into doctrine that is totally in conflict with what the Bible actually says. Even widely held beliefs can fall into this.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Err...no. Where did you get that idea? I am a Christian. I am following Christ. My point was that people don't always. A lot of times, they malign the Bible and twist it into doctrine that is totally in conflict with what the Bible actually says. Even widely held beliefs can fall into this.

The only proof of what Jesus has to say is located in the Bible. Thus, if you don't follow exactly what the Bible says, you're not following exactly what Jesus believed. Thus, you are not a Christian, just "kind of" a Christian.

[phoenix_fire]

I do follow the Bible. I was just saying that some people take it way out of context and claim that they are following the Bible. Are you being deliberately obtuse? Or is this the part where you say that I need to go kill women and children because it happened in the Old Testament? Do not confuse modern dogma and doctrine with the Bible: often they are somewhat incompatible.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

I do follow the Bible. I was just saying that some people take it way out of context and claim that they are following the Bible. Are you being deliberately obtuse? Or is this the part where you say that I need to go kill women and children because it happened in the Old Testament? Do not confuse modern dogma and doctrine with the Bible: often they are somewhat incompatible.

I am doing nothing more than arguing your original statement that gender equality and Christianity go hand in hand. Now you are making assumptions about my own feelings of the Bible and the modern world. Let's keep the argument straight and simple: female degradation should be expected in a religion so bent up on conserving its ancient values. If you go against one value, what's the point in keeping the rest if you believe in them all for the same, universal reason?

[Technosoul]

[QUOTE=phoenix_fire]

The original reason women did not take part in some so-called religious rituals, in the begining days, was because they used brews and mind expanding plant life, and mushrooms, for their vision quests, that is why if someone gets spiritual people will laugh and say "pass me the joint".

Are you still sour about your poem?
[/QUOTE).

Remember me when you partake of some sour grapes at the last supper. Yoohoo (just clowning around) - No hard feelings on my part, you have a perfect right to express whatever opinon you wish in these debate forums, so have fun or whatever. But you are right, that was a little jab at one of the posters who visited "into the blue".

[Technosoul]

I do follow the Bible. I was just saying that some people take it way out of context and claim that they are following the Bible. Are you being deliberately obtuse? Or is this the part where you say that I need to go kill women and children because it happened in the Old Testament? Do not confuse modern dogma and doctrine with the Bible: often they are somewhat incompatible.

I am doing nothing more than arguing your original statement that gender equality and Christianity go hand in hand. Now you are making assumptions about my own feelings of the Bible and the modern world. Let's keep the argument straight and simple: female degradation should be expected in a religion so bent up on conserving its ancient values. If you go against one value, what's the point in keeping the rest if you believe in them all for the same, universal reason?

In the Native American culture the women always had to walk three steps behind the men, and so people thought that was degrading to the womenfolk. But then Rolling Thunder explained why. Because if there was a rattlesnake of some other danger in the pathway the woman would be kept safe, and the man who's role it was as a protector, would have to deal with the dangers.

In another religion the women had to wear clothing to cover their whole body and even most of their faces, that was thought by Westerners to be degrading to "women's rights". But this girl told reporters that the reason for such wardrobe was to protect the skin of the women from the harsh sand storms and overbearing sun, because their beauty was concidered sacred and therefore should be thusly protected.

Now I do not know all the biblical passages that people think are degrading to women, but they could also have logical reasons beyond the motive to put women down or to shut them out.

We would have to review them one at a time.

For ages men and women had different roles in society, but that did not really mean non-equal roles, just different kinds of roles.

Who plays the most important roles - men preaching in a Temple, or women who raised the children at home all day giving them guidance and instructions?

Equality and diversity should go hand and hand, like the right hand and the left hand.

Was not the Shepherd also the Lamb?

[Technosoul]

In the 1950s men always had a place to go to get away from the women, perhaps the pool hall, or the garage. My dad belonged to the Masons which was like a club for men only, they could go there and play cards (gamble) and even learn "secret stuff".

I recall one day I was coming home from school (early 1950s) and I looked into the window at this bowling alley, and when I got home I told my mom and asked why we never go bowling. She got a little cross and told me "that is where warward men hangout and they use bad words, so don't you go around looking in that window again".

Nowadays bowling alleys and pool rooms are "for the whole family" - not sure about the Masons?
Men have fewer places to hang out at when "you bug me bady". But the point is that they did the same thing back in biblical days, the church was a place where men could hang out and feel important about who they were, even if they were a mouse in their own house.

No doubt women had the same kinds of hang outs where only other women were present, a little gossip bee at the backfense, or whatever.

Is it poltically incorrect to belong to a golf club for men only? Is it really morally incorrect? Is there a difference?

Not sure if it has to do with equal rights, those hang outs, it is just how things are - and such was invented because men always had to be polite around women and could not say stuff like "hey dude, how's it hangin'.

And women like to talk a lot, and some men are not good at listening to what they are interested in yakking about, so women get together with other women and - yabba dabba doo. Diversity yes, non-equality, not sure.

[Boetie]

When a crowd of men were going to stone a woman, Jesus said to the men, "he that is without sin," and as the men were walking away, he never said to them, "oh and by the way go and sin no more."

But what does Jesus say to the woman? he says, "go and sin no more," which is a jab, it's a way of saying "whore, bitch, slut."

A double standard if there ever was one.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

In the Native American culture the women always had to walk three steps behind the men, and so people thought that was degrading to the womenfolk. But then Rolling Thunder explained why. Because if there was a rattlesnake of some other danger in the pathway the woman would be kept safe, and the man who's role it was as a protector, would have to deal with the dangers.

In another religion the women had to wear clothing to cover their whole body and even most of their faces, that was thought by Westerners to be degrading to "women's rights". But this girl told reporters that the reason for such wardrobe was to protect the skin of the women from the harsh sand storms and overbearing sun, because their beauty was concidered sacred and therefore should be thusly protected.

Now I do not know all the biblical passages that people think are degrading to women, but they could also have logical reasons beyond the motive to put women down or to shut them out.

We would have to review them one at a time.

For ages men and women had different roles in society, but that did not really mean non-equal roles, just different kinds of roles.

Who plays the most important roles - men preaching in a Temple, or women who raised the children at home all day giving them guidance and instructions?

Equality and diversity should go hand and hand, like the right hand and the left hand.

Was not the Shepherd also the Lamb?

There's also the Muslim religion that makes women wear those scarfs for no reason. And what a stupid excuse for women to degrade themselves...hiding their beauty? Sure, whatever you say...

Here's some Biblical passages. They are pretty self-explanatory:

Gen. 3:16 To the woman he said,
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."

Genesis 20:17-18 Then Abraham prayed to God, and God healed Abimelech, his wife and his slave girls so they could have children again, 18 for the LORD had closed up every womb in Abimelech's household because of Abraham's wife Sarah.

Exodus 21:7-11 "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, [b] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

(aw that's sweet, he must grant her the rights of a daughter...)

Deut 21: 10-14 hahaha
When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

Deut 22:28-29 (my personal favorite)
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. [c] He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Wow, I didn't even think the Bible was this harsh to women. This is halarious.