PDA

View Full Version : The Church orders Wives to Submit to their Husbands



IAN 2411
02-13-2010, 05:01 AM
Now the question I am asking is, has the church now really lost the plot, in a time when the church is saying that the congregation is very low, were these the right words to say. In a time of sexual equality has this Vicar the right to say these things in public, is he now guilty of bigotry? Is it time to say that the church has no place in modern society, because it is obvious that the church cannot move with the times? Since when have any of Gods laws been higher than the law of the land since the UK repealed capital punishment?

Church orders Wives to ‘submit’


A VICAR has offended his parishioners by encouraging women to "be silent" and "submit" to their husbands.
Vicar Angus MacLeay issued a leaflet to churchgoers saying that women should "not speak" if questions could be answered by their husbands.
The leaflet, entitled "The Role of Women in the Local Church", adds that wives should "submit to their husbands in everything".
It continues: "Wives are to submit to their husbands in everything in recognition of the fact that husbands are head of the family as Christ is head of the church.
"This is the way God has ordered their relationships with each other and Christian marriage cannot function well without it."
The leaflet — under a section called "more difficult passages to consider" — continues: "It would seem that women should remain silent...if their questions could legitimately be answered by their husbands at home."
Dozens of women have cancelled their subscriptions at St Nicholas Church in Sevenoaks, Kent, where married MacLeay is rector after the leaflet was handed out.
Last Sunday, the curate at the same church delivered a "medieval" sermon called "Marriage and Women", telling women to "submit to their husbands" to make marriage work.
Reverend Mark Oden, a married father-of-three, told the congregation: "We know marriage is not working.
"We only need to look at figures — one in four children have divorced parents.
"Wives, submit to your own husbands."
During the sermon Rev Oden also blamed "modern woman" for the high divorce rates in the UK.
Speaking after it was revealed that many women had cancelled their church subscription and vowed not to return to the church, Rev Oden said he was "passionate" about saving the institution of marriage.
He added: "I am passionate about helping people to have healthy marriages.
"I did not set out to unnecessarily offend people, but I stand by what God has said in his word the Bible."
One female member of the church said she was "disgusted" by the sermon, adding: "How can they talk that way in the 21st Century?
"No wonder the church is losing touch if this is the kind of gobbledegook they want us to believe in.
Advertisement
"I will not be going back to that church and will have to seriously consider my faith if this is the nonsense they are spouting now."
Another, who didn't want to be named, said: "We're supposed to let our husbands talk for us and remain silent?
"What kind of medieval sermon is that — we are not in the 15th Century. I have already cancelled my direct debit to the church."
A spokeswoman for the church today admitted the leaflets had been handed out to the congregation.
She said: "The leaflets were handed out to members of the congregation but Angus is not available at the moment."



Regards ian 2411

thir
02-13-2010, 06:35 AM
Now the question I am asking is, has the church now really lost the plot, in a time when the church is saying that the congregation is very low, were these the right words to say. In a time of sexual equality has this Vicar the right to say these things in public, is he now guilty of bigotry? Is it time to say that the church has no place in modern society, because it is obvious that the church cannot move with the times? Since when have any of Gods laws been higher than the law of the land since the UK repealed capital punishment?

Church orders Wives to ‘submit’

A VICAR has offended his parishioners by encouraging women to "be silent" and "submit" to their husbands.
Vicar Angus MacLeay issued a leaflet to churchgoers saying that women should "not speak" if questions could be answered by their husbands.
Rev Oden said he was "passionate" about saving the institution of marriage.


Regards ian 2411

I do not think one idiot is enough to sink the church.

The only reason for a woman to submit to her husband is if she wishes to have a TTTWD relationship with him. It is a choice, not a religios obligation.

As for the high divorce rate, I think it has to do with the whole institution of marriage. It is too frail a construct and not, in my mind, how we are designed to live. We would do much better in larger units.
Just my opinion.

denuseri
02-13-2010, 08:47 AM
If that’s how they like to do things in that particular community or church or whatever that’s their business as far as I am concerned. So long as one is in accordance with the laws of one's society and not causing others harm I pretty much believe in do as thou wilt.

If its one asshole going against his religions current interpretation of dogma or biblical lore etc, I am sure that the respective elders of his organization will censure him when they see fit. (Same goes for his government)

As far as the church, well churches come and go, things change, but as for debating weather or not human spiritualism has a place in modern society or not…that points pretty much moot, its here, just like its always been here in one form or another and probably going to stay here (unless forced underground for a while as has happened in some atheist driven communist nations in the past only to re-emerge later), its perfectly natural for some form of spirituality to exist in human beings, one might even go so far as to say its hardwired into us (at least that’s what they are beginning to find out; that most if not all of the behavioral functions of our body and mind's physiology are a direct result of our related anatomical structures).

Regardless of cultural influence, who chooses to submit to whom and when, has always been decided on an individual situational basis and although some biological factors play a much larger role in it than we would most likely wish to admit its still a much more fluid dynamic dependent upon much more than the will of one vicar over his congregation (half of which apparently told him to “go to hell” when they heard him anyway)

Bren122
02-13-2010, 09:26 AM
Instead of picking and choosing from the pamphlett it might have been more enlightening to have just put up the whole pamphlett.
FYI, the relevant scripture goes on to explain the duties of the husband to the church and to their wives. Far from being a blanket prescription suggesting that wives totally submit to their husbands regardless of the husband's beliefs or actions, the wife is encouraged to speak out where the beliefs or actions of the husband are against the teachings of the church; so a wife should speak out if she is being abused. Simply because men have interpreted this to mean something other than it says does not invalidate the passage.

Thorne
02-13-2010, 09:46 AM
If that’s how they like to do things in that particular community or church or whatever that’s their business as far as I am concerned. So long as one is in accordance with the laws of one's society and not causing others harm I pretty much believe in do as thou wilt.
And what if the men of the community agree, but the women do not? Who do you think gets the choice? Would the men allow the women to leave the church and form their own? I kind of doubt it. "Do as thou wilt" has to apply to everyone, male and female.


as for debating weather or not human spiritualism has a place in modern society or not…that points pretty much moot, its here, just like its always been here in one form or another and probably going to stay here (unless forced underground for a while as has happened in some atheist driven communist nations in the past only to re-emerge later), its perfectly natural for some form of spirituality to exist in human beings, one might even go so far as to say its hardwired into us (at least that’s what they are beginning to find out; that most if not all of the behavioral functions of our body and mind's physiology are a direct result of our related anatomical structures).
Yes, they are beginning to learn that spirituality is an evolved trait of the human mind, possibly incurring some kind of survival advantage. No one's quite sure how, but it does seem true.

But spirituality and faith are not the same as church and religion. Spirituality and faith involve your personal beliefs and relationship with your god, if any. Church and religion are about trying to get everyone to believe the same thing. While good for bringing people together, they are not so good for independent thought. And a weekly community party would be just as good at bringing people together, and probably be much more enjoyable.


(half of which apparently told him to “go to hell” when they heard him anyway)
I suspect this would be the reaction of my wife, as well. I would be more than happy to have her submit and keep silent. Some day, when I'm tired of living, I might even tell her so!:rolleyes:

Thorne
02-13-2010, 09:53 AM
so a wife should speak out if she is being abused.
What if the abuse is part of the teachings?

Quran 4:34 - "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them."

IAN 2411
02-13-2010, 10:08 AM
A spokeswoman for the church today admitted the leaflets had been handed out to the congregation.
She said: "The leaflets were handed out to members of the congregation but Angus is not available at the moment."

I’ll bet he wasn’t, he was probably over in the Vicarage getting a hiding off of his very Domme wife. She probably had him by his white collar and was beating his ass with his shepherds crook, and serves him jolly well right for his disrespect. LoL

MMI
02-13-2010, 05:30 PM
"Submission is powerful, beautiful, hopeful and courageous"

Actually, I don't think he was being anti-feminist, just trying to apply 1st Century standards to 21st Century life.

How many subs here feel they grow thorugh submission and service? Which of them feels they add something worthwhile to their Dom's life?

... just asking.

If you want to hear the sermon, and regardless of the rights and wrongs of what Rev. Mark Oden says, if you want to comment further, you should, then go to http://www.stnicholas-sevenoaks.org and click on Marriage and Women

You'll need about 25 minutes to hear it all - if you can stomach it. (He sounds like Tony Blair, so that got him off to a very bad start with me!)

denuseri
02-13-2010, 06:02 PM
"Submission is powerful, beautiful, hopeful and courageous"

Those words I do agree with in and of themselves though I havent listened to his sermon yet, nor do I intend to..

How many subs here feel they grow thorugh submission and service?


I like to think I have.

Which of them feels they add something worthwhile to their Dom's life?

You would have to ask him that one but I am pretty sure he keeps me around for more than just sucking cock and cleaning the house. lol

MMI
02-13-2010, 06:14 PM
You would have to ask him that one but I am pretty sure he keeps me around for more than just sucking cock and cleaning the house. lol

You clean the house too?? If he tires of you, let me know, you can be maid here .... I can get my cock sucked any time ...(I wish)

thir
02-14-2010, 07:51 AM
"Submission is powerful, beautiful, hopeful and courageous"

How many subs here feel they grow thorugh submission and service? Which of them feels they add something worthwhile to their Dom's life?

... just asking.


I do not understand what you are saying here - what has BDSM got to do with a religious obligation?

denuseri
02-14-2010, 09:42 AM
Perhaps he is implicating a connection between spiritualism and the arts of dominion and submission.

I seem to recall a thread about it not too long ago.

Fiddles around on the back shelves of the scriptorium for a few moments and returns...Ahhh yesh, here it is:

http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19264

<<goes back to sucking cock and cleaning house.

Oh I allmost forgot pssst, MMI, I also cook and do yard work. Winks

IAN 2411
02-14-2010, 11:14 AM
<<goes back to sucking cock and cleaning house.

Oh I allmost forgot pssst, MMI, I also cook and do yard work. Winks[/QUOTE]

Surly not at the same time, wow that really is multi tasking.

Regards ian 2411

IAN 2411
02-14-2010, 11:20 AM
I do not understand what you are saying here - what has BDSM got to do with a religious obligation?

Submit to your husbands in not a religious obligation, if that was what you were refering to. It is an outdated command, that has no part in the 21st centuary, when equality of the sexes is abundent. I thought the whole point in life was to go forward in life not to go back.

Regards ian 2411

denuseri
02-14-2010, 11:25 AM
If the idea of submision is so outdated ian why do so many people in the world still practice it?

And yes I have had the occassional privelege to suck cock and do other things while scrubbing a floor, vacuming, dusting, and even doing dishes at the same time, though I normally would pause in my labors to focus on the task at hand (or mouth/other opening), I have occassionally been ordered to continue working or multitask as you put it. lol

IAN 2411
02-14-2010, 12:00 PM
If the idea of submision is so outdated ian why do so many people in the world still practice it?

I didn't mean that submission was outdated, and as a submissive i know that is not the case. What i was refering
to was a blanket command for women to submit, and that goes against their rights as an equal to do as
they please within the law of the land, but i have to admit only in the free world.

Regards ian 2411

Bren122
02-14-2010, 01:26 PM
What if the abuse is part of the teachings?

Quran 4:34 - "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them."

What book of the Bible is the Quran? Call me stupid but I thought that Christian Vicars read from the Bible and Muslims read from the Quran? Aren't we just talking about a priest from Scotland?

Flaming_Redhead
02-14-2010, 10:15 PM
Now the question I am asking is, has the church now really lost the plot, in a time when the church is saying that the congregation is very low, were these the right words to say. In a time of sexual equality has this Vicar the right to say these things in public, is he now guilty of bigotry? Is it time to say that the church has no place in modern society, because it is obvious that the church cannot move with the times? Since when have any of Gods laws been higher than the law of the land since the UK repealed capital punishment?

I've listened to the sermon, and I heard absolutely nothing going against the Bible. Therefore, they were the right words for the church to say, and unless the UK lacks free speech and freedom of religion, the vicar has a right to say them. The vicar is guilty only of teaching God's word to Christians. Do a Google search on the city of Corinth during the time of Paul. It was a thriving metropolis, bigger than Athens, with many self-made men and women as well as male and female athletes, etc. I don't think times are so different now that what the Bible says is irrelevant. If one is a Christian, there is no law higher than God's law.

IAN 2411
02-15-2010, 01:28 AM
Lets get things back into focus, how did God say in the bible that woman had to submit. God never wrote the bible, it was man, and unless this man had some kind of portal to speak with this mythical higher authority, then God never said anything like that. I am a Christian but not by choice, but for all any one of us knows the first half of the bible could have been written by a complete nobody. Even in the 21st centuary the world is still getting these so called priests calling themselves the sons of God, they are all spouting the same rubbish, dont do as i do, but do as i say. Then a few thousand people that are as mad as he is, go and build a comune. Where is your proof that god said all that the Vicar is talking about, and dont say Christ, because him being the son of God is now debateable in the 21st centuary, he could have been an early version of Paul McKenna, an extremely good illusionist. There are healers now that i know of that can with a touch help people in pain, so i will leave that to your own imagination.

Regards ian 2411

Thorne
02-15-2010, 07:06 AM
If one is a Christian, there is no law higher than God's law.
And THIS is what scares the hell out of atheists. THIS (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/says_about/religious_tolerance.html)is what let's men think it's okay to drive planes into buildings. THIS (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/31/george-tiller-killed-abor_n_209504.html)is what let's self-righteous lunatics kill doctors in the guise of saving lives. THIS (http://www.childrenshealthcare.org/question.htm)is what lets parents torture their children instead of giving them medicines.

Anyone who places a god's law above man's law is opening the door to hatred, intolerance and bigotry.

God's law allows you to kill your enemies, right down to the last man, woman and child, saving only the virgins for your own amusement. (Numbers 31:1-18)

God's law allows the owning of slaves. (Leviticus 25:44-46)

It is MAN'S laws which make us civilized.

Thorne
02-15-2010, 07:11 AM
I am a Christian but not by choice,
This line intrigues me. Are you being held captive in a church?

But in all seriousness, if this is not your choice, what would your choice be? I was raised a Catholic, but I chose to turn away from the church, from all religions. I would really like to know why you feel you don't have a choice.

IAN 2411
02-15-2010, 08:59 AM
I am a Christian but not by choice,



This line intrigues me. Are you being held captive in a church?
But in all seriousness, if this is not your choice, what would your choice be?

I suppose that was the wrong way to say things, I was Christened Church of England Christian.
I have never changed my religion, but I have grown out of it, I am not a firm believer, I have beliefs but they are more Pagan,
and have more to do with the old Gods and nature. No Christianity is not my choice, because that was taken away at birth.

Regards ian 2411

Flaming_Redhead
02-15-2010, 09:07 AM
Lets get things back into focus, how did God say in the bible that woman had to submit.

In Genesis, chapter 3 tells of the fall of man. Verse 16 says, "To the woman he (God) 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."

In the New Testament, Paul, an apostle of Christ, wrote a letter to the Ephesians on a number of issues, one of them being wives and husbands. Verses 22-24 say, "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." He said it again to the Colossians; chapter 3 verse 18 says, "Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord." Peter, an apostle of Christ, wrote to the early church on wives and husbands, also; 1 Peter chapter 3 verse 1 says, "Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives."


God never wrote the bible, it was man, and unless this man had some kind of portal to speak with this mythical higher authority, then God never said anything like that.

In Christianity, it is believed that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God. It is not merely one book but many books and letters written by many authors over the course of many, many years. It is a miracle in itself that when all the books were eventually compiled together they complimented and agreed with each other.


I am a Christian but not by choice

You always have a choice.

Flaming_Redhead
02-15-2010, 09:43 AM
Anyone who places a god's law above man's law is opening the door to hatred, intolerance and bigotry.

It is MAN'S laws which make us civilized.

Frankly, I don't see what the Quran has to do with this thread, but anyway, civilization is as subjective as the god(s) people worship and the laws they obey.

1 Peter, chapter 2 verses 13-14 say, "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men."

Thorne
02-15-2010, 09:51 AM
It is a miracle in itself that when all the books were eventually compiled together they complimented and agreed with each other.
When did this happen? Aren't there two contradictory versions of Creation? Isn't it true that the four Gospels, supposed to be the teaching of four men who actually walked with Jesus, don't agree on so many things?

In truth, the Bible was pulled together by various factions of Christianity from numerous competing beliefs. Those which most supported the powers-that-were remained in the Bible. Those which did not were not only excised but ordered destroyed, to reduce the possiblitly of people thinking there might be other paths to heaven.

Thorne
02-15-2010, 09:56 AM
Frankly, I don't see what the Quran has to do with this thread, but anyway, civilization is as subjective as the god(s) people worship and the laws they obey.
While the OP dealt with a Christian Vicar, the idea of women subordinating themselves to men runs through many other faiths. And unless you are claiming that Christianity is the only true religion, and therefore it is only the Christian God's law which must be followed, then the Quran, the Book of Mormon and any other religious text is just as valid a reference as the Bible.

Thorne
02-15-2010, 10:10 AM
I suppose that was the wrong way to say things, I was Christened Church of England Christian.
I have never changed my religion, but I have grown out of it, I am not a firm believer, I have beliefs but they are more Pagan,
and have more to do with the old Gods and nature. No Christianity is not my choice, because that was taken away at birth.

Regards ian 2411
It sounds to me like you have, indeed, made a choice. Your belief system has diverged from the Christian church by your choice, has it not? Whether or not you were baptized into the Church of England shouldn't have any bearing on that choice. It may be that you have not yet shaken off the teachings of that Church. I can understand this, as I still find myself struggling against my Catholic training. But I would think that once one decides to abandon one path in favor of another, he has made a choice and severed the ties which bound him.

Out of curiosity, if you were filling out some form of paperwork which asked you to list you religion, what would you put down? I only ask because of my own experiences. It took me a long time before I felt comfortable writing "none" instead of "Catholic". And I could certainly understand if you were reluctant to put down "Pagan".

And please understand that I'm not trying to ridicule or belittle you. I'm truly stunned by the idea that you would consider yourself to have no choice in your religion simply because of an accident of birth.

denuseri
02-15-2010, 11:11 AM
One may wish to keep in mind that the religion of christianity in and of itself isnt the original source for the idea of female submission.

Though bashing people for not believeing as one does, does seem to be a common theme through history, and bashing the church, the christian church in paticular seems to be in vogue nowdays.

Dualistic paradoxical wonders of the bible aside...one may wish to keep in mind that not everything being said by the church nor the collection of works they use as cannon is allways wrong for everyone.

If it was they wouldnt have so many followers now would they.

The old testement btw is superseeded by the new testement for many chirstians, and the two laws that Jesus said about having no other gods and loving one's nieghbor as oneself are often looked upon as the only nessesities when you get down too it, becuase with them you dont need to go into any of the others.

The idea of there being a dominance heirarchy relationship dynamic between man and woman is some thing we have brought with us long before the advent of written history or monotheism for that matter.

So its no wonder to me that it was incorperated into the dogma of most of the worlds religions in one way or another once people started writing things down.

And since its probabely biologically hard wired into us somehow to one degree or another, much like most of our other commonalities of behavioral conditions such as a need for spirituality, one shouldnt be so surprised that there are people out there still saying that for a marriage to really work that hierarchy should still be followed.

Further more, one may also wish to keep in mind that white, eruocentric ideals of cultural norms recently developed (historically speaking in the past 100 years) and allowed to dominant ones capitalistic society expoused by the west such as equality in general especially in the form of feminisim etc etc, are not allways shared by the rest of the world as being really nessesary or even desirerable, even by the women of those places you may think your "liberating" by pushing your culture on theirs.

And please don't bother to call us all ignorant or kept in the dark against our will eaither, such derogatory stereotyping isnt going to convience us.

Just becuase we choose to reject your eurocentric ways, especially after having tried a taste of some of them for ouselves and having seen what its brought you in the end doesnt mean we are in favor of them or wrong becuase we choose not to follow them in our own lives or wish to see them forced upon our culture by yours.

Bren122
02-15-2010, 11:11 AM
When did this happen? Aren't there two contradictory versions of Creation? Isn't it true that the four Gospels, supposed to be the teaching of four men who actually walked with Jesus, don't agree on so many things?

In truth, the Bible was pulled together by various factions of Christianity from numerous competing beliefs. Those which most supported the powers-that-were remained in the Bible. Those which did not were not only excised but ordered destroyed, to reduce the possiblitly of people thinking there might be other paths to heaven.

The Council of Nicea was organised by Constantine the Great to end the Gnostic Schism that challenged the general teaching of the trinity by claiming that because Jesus was a man he was therefore less holy than God or the Holy Spirit. The first meetings defined the Niscene Creed which was basically a set of rules for what Christians believed in and then the Bible, which had grown to several dozen gospels, was culled of anything that disagreed with the Creed.
The Council was attended by all the Bishops of the Eastern Church and half the Bishops of the Western Church together with three legates from the Pope in Rome; even the Celtic Church of Ireland sent Bishops.
The decline of the Western Church was already in evidence for many of those attending were more administrators then theologians and the discussion was dominated by about six senior Eastern Bishops.
Although keeping two bodyguards for personal protection, Constantine did everything in his power to try and keep it a wholly clerical discussion, even going so far as to send half the city garrison away as a sign he didn't want the bishops to feel compelled to any particular view of his- other than that the Schism be ended one way or the other.
The Western Church was unsatisfied with the outcome and added the Apocrypha to its Bibles. Until the final break between East and West, the Pope maintained the fiction that these were not officially part of the Bible. Because this was a Papal decision the Lutherans and Calvinists ditched the Apocrypha as one of their first acts.

IAN 2411
02-15-2010, 11:12 AM
[QUOTE=Flaming_Redhead;846989]In Genesis, chapter 3 tells of the fall of man. Verse 16 says, "To the woman he (God) 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."

Please explain to me who wrote Genesis? Answer is a man. Now he really had his head screwed on right, he was not going to let his wife get the better of him. How does he know what God said, we are talking about the time when only Adam and Eve were on earth, are you trying to tell me that Adam wrote the bible? If so what on and how.



In Christianity, it is believed that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God. It is not merely one book but many books and letters written by many authors over the course of many, many years. It is a miracle in itself that when all the books were eventually compiled together they complimented and agreed with each other.

Who told you that the priests? Half the Bible is missing and that is also a belief, what are the same priests keeping from you.


[QUOTE=Flaming_Redhead;846989]In the New Testament, Paul, an apostle of Christ, wrote a letter to the Ephesians on a number of issues, one of them being wives and husbands. Verses 22-24 say, "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." He said it again to the Colossians; chapter 3 verse 18 says, "Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord." Peter, an apostle of Christ, wrote to the early church on wives and husbands, also; 1 Peter chapter 3 verse 1 says, "Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives."
Now correct me if i’m wrong, but wasn’t Paul a man? [an early sexist] He was only saying what was written in Genesis, it was nothing new, he was just repeating what another man had written.


Regards ian 2411

Bren122
02-15-2010, 11:16 AM
While the OP dealt with a Christian Vicar, the idea of women subordinating themselves to men runs through many other faiths. And unless you are claiming that Christianity is the only true religion, and therefore it is only the Christian God's law which must be followed, then the Quran, the Book of Mormon and any other religious text is just as valid a reference as the Bible.

The original OP was a discussion of a particular Biblical text; the views of other religions on the matter are irrelevant.

Thorne
02-15-2010, 12:56 PM
Though bashing people for not believeing as one does, does seem to be a common theme through history, and bashing the church, the christian church in paticular seems to be in vogue nowdays.
I don't believe that bashing the church, any church, should be done simply because it's fashionable! It should be done, however, to point out the hypocrisy and injustice which has shown itself to be so ingrained in so many different religious groups. A church which endangers millions of people because of archaic ideas of morality should not be given a free pass. They should be held accountable.


Dualistic paradoxical wonders of the bible aside...one may wish to keep in mind that not everything being said by the church nor the collection of works they use as cannon is allways wrong for everyone.
Absolutely. And the flip side is that it's not always right for everyone, either.


If it was they wouldnt have so many followers now would they.
How many followers really know what they are following, though. The large majority of religious adherents remain within the religion they were born into, and many have little or no understanding of what that religion truly means. I was raised Catholic, yet I've learned more about the Bible, both good and bad, since turning away from religion than I ever learned in all those years of religious teaching. I have a lot of respect for those who have turned away from their "birth religion", even when they turn to something else, because it generally means they have thought about what they are doing, rather than just accepting what they are told. (Not always, though: I have some relatives who switched from one religion to another just because they preferred one set of rituals over another.) I can even respect someone who, after turning away from his birth religion and studying others, returned to his birth religion, because it met his own belief system better. But someone who remains Christian, or Baptist, or Mormon, or Muslim simply because they were born into that religion, without really understanding what the real meaning of that religion is, are simply followers, not necessarily worthy of respect.


The old testement btw is superseeded by the new testement for many chirstians, and the two laws that Jesus said about having no other gods and loving one's nieghbor as oneself are often looked upon as the only nessesities when you get down too it, becuase with them you dont need to go into any of the others.
And there are other Christians who take the entire Bible as the literal word of God, to be followed resolutely without variance. (Except, of course, where it is inconvenient for them to do so.)


Just becuase we choose to reject your eurocentric ways, especially after having tried a taste of some of them for ouselves and having seen what its brought you in the end doesnt mean we are in favor of them or wrong becuase we choose not to follow them in our own lives or wish to see them forced upon our culture by yours.
I agree with you completely here. You have the right to choose. We should not force our culture on anyone else, just as they should not force their culture on us.

But how many cultures actually give the women that choice? How many women submit to their husbands (or to men in general) not because it's what they want, but because it's what they've been told, repeatedly since they were children? How many such women are even aware that they do not have to submit?

Yes, given the choice some will submit. That is their right. But to spend years telling young girls that it is evil for them to want freedom, how many will choose that freedom even when it is offered?

denuseri
02-15-2010, 01:20 PM
All of us make choices. Just as we have each and every day of human history. We do raise our own children you know.

We don't need to be able to vote in governement to do it eaither. Or be told by you that we are being brainwashed or stupid becuase we may not want to embrace what your selling.

Like I said before, you presume much to think that we all choose from ignorance. Or than we need you to push your culture upon ours and bring us your version of so called "freedom" so that we can see the so called error of our ways.

Thorne
02-15-2010, 02:30 PM
All of us make choices. Just as we have each and every day of human history. We do raise our own children you know.

We don't need to be able to vote in governement to do it eaither. Or be told by you that we are being brainwashed or stupid becuase we may not want to embrace what your selling.

Like I said before, you presume much to think that we all choose from ignorance. Or than we need you to push your culture upon ours and bring us your version of so called "freedom" so that we can see the so called error of our ways.
Yes, we all raise our own children. Some of us raise them to think for themselves. Others raise them to think just the way they themselves think. I don't advocate forcing anything upon parents, but I have to ask, which is better?

I don't claim that anyone is stupid just because of what they believe. Brainwashed? Possibly, but not necessarily. But I'm not selling anything. Just asking questions and, when appropriate, pointing out contradictions.

Ignorance is not necessarily any person's fault. It's simply a lack of knowledge. I know some things about a lot of topics, but there are some in which I admit profound ignorance. But given the opportunity, ignorance can be remedied. I believe in giving people that opportunity. I believe everyone should have the opportunity, if he or she wishes, to study religious texts from around the world, whether it be the Bible, or the Quran, or the Bhagvad Gita, or any of the thousands of other scriptures. They should also be allowed to study those books and topics which might contradict those religious texts. How many of those religions have banned books which run counter to their beliefs?

And I don't claim that your ways are in error, either. They may be perfectly suited to your culture, your lifestyle. I have no quarrel with that. All I'm saying is that you cannot be sure if you don't have the freedom to examine other cultures and lifestyles. I don't want to force anyone to embrace any particular culture. I just believe they should have the opportunity to make an educated choice. It's been my experience that most fundamentalist religions, especially, do not permit that opportunity. They do not give their followers that choice.

thir
02-15-2010, 02:57 PM
Out of curiosity, if you were filling out some form of paperwork which asked you to list you religion, what would you put down? I only ask because of my own experiences. It took me a long time before I felt comfortable writing "none" instead of "Catholic". And I could certainly understand if you were reluctant to put down "Pagan".



Why would putting down "pagan" be a problem?

Thorne
02-15-2010, 09:27 PM
Why would putting down "pagan" be a problem?
It wouldn't be a problem for me, but if, for example, you were applying for a job it might present a problem. Even though employers are not supposed to discriminate based on religious convictions, some still do. In South Carolina, some employers are devout Baptists and would be unlikely to offer a job to someone who identified themselves as a pagan, or an atheist, or Jewish, or Muslim. Or even Catholic! I once had a woman refuse to even rent me a room because I told her I was not religious. If I'd said I was a Pagan, or Satanist, I'm quite sure she would have called the police.

denuseri
02-15-2010, 11:01 PM
There are also quite a number of places right in the old blue blood heart of downtown Charelston SC where being a pagan or wiccan or coven member will get both feet in the door and then some and being a Baptist will get your resume sent to the circular file under the desk.

IE allmost allways discrimination goes both ways.

Flaming_Redhead
02-15-2010, 11:58 PM
When did this happen?

The Council of Trent on April 8, 1546, approved the present Roman Catholic Bible Canon, including Deuterocanonical Books, and in 1647, the Westminster Confession of Faith was issued which decreed a 39-book Old Testament and 27-book New Testament, the others commonly labeled as Apocrypha excluded by Protestant churches.


Aren't there two contradictory versions of Creation?

Not in my Bible, which is the New International Version. I can't speak for any other version.


Isn't it true that the four Gospels, supposed to be the teaching of four men who actually walked with Jesus, don't agree on so many things?

I've noticed some variation of wording but not outright contradiction, which is to be expected seeing as how those 4 men didn't sit down together and copy each other.


In truth, the Bible was pulled together by various factions of Christianity from numerous competing beliefs. Those which most supported the powers-that-were remained in the Bible. Those which did not were not only excised but ordered destroyed, to reduce the possiblitly of people thinking there might be other paths to heaven.

Actually, those books which had been recognized as the Hebrew Bible for centuries are accepted as scripture while some later texts are considered Deuterocanonical (not doctrine but good to read) by the Catholic church. The choice whether to include them or not was based on many factors, including the language they were written in, whether passages were referenced in other books, etc., to determine if they matched previous works.


While the OP dealt with a Christian Vicar, the idea of women subordinating themselves to men runs through many other faiths. And unless you are claiming that Christianity is the only true religion, and therefore it is only the Christian God's law which must be followed, then the Quran, the Book of Mormon and any other religious text is just as valid a reference as the Bible.

While the idea of women subordinating themselves to men runs through many other faiths, the OP dealt with a Christian vicar. Therefore, for the purpose of answering the OP, other religious text than the Bible is not valid as a reference.


Please explain to me who wrote Genesis?

It had been believed until the 20th century that Moses wrote the Book of Genesis, either dictated to him by God or surviving relatives in oral tradition, but there are now numerous competing theories.


Who told you that the priests? Half the Bible is missing and that is also a belief, what are the same priests keeping from you.

As a matter of fact, I'm not Catholic, and most of what I've learned has been on my own.


Now correct me if i’m wrong, but wasn’t Paul a man? [an early sexist] He was only saying what was written in Genesis, it was nothing new, he was just repeating what another man had written.

Paul was a man, but I'd hardly call him a sexist as you seem to imply all men are. This so-called sexist said, "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. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church--for we are members of his body. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. Ephesians 5:25-33

"Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them." Colossians 3:19

Thorne
02-16-2010, 06:53 AM
There are also quite a number of places right in the old blue blood heart of downtown Charelston SC where being a pagan or wiccan or coven member will get both feet in the door and then some and being a Baptist will get your resume sent to the circular file under the desk.
It wouldn't surprise me. You could probably find similar places in almost any large city.


IE allmost allways discrimination goes both ways.
Absolutely! No argument from me!

Thorne
02-16-2010, 07:43 AM
Not in my Bible, which is the New International Version. I can't speak for any other version.
Around here (South Carolina) the King James Version seems to be the "only TRUE version" of the Bible. Doesn't the fact that there ARE different versions argue against the Bible as the literal word of God?

In the KJV, Genesis 1 says that people were created after the animals, and that Adam and Eve were created separately. Genesis 2, on the other hand, Adam was created first, then the animals, and then Eve.

I've noticed some variation of wording but not outright contradiction, which is to be expected seeing as how those 4 men didn't sit down together and copy each other.
Matthew (Ch.2) and Luke (Ch.1) both say that Jesus was born during the time of King Herod, before 4BC. But Luke (Ch.2) says it was during the taxing, when Cyrenius was governor of Syria, placing it some time after 6AD.

Matthew (Ch.2) says that Joseph took Mary and Jesus to Egypt, while Luke (Ch.2) claims that they went back to Nazareth.

These are only two contradictions which I found quickly. Many more, throughout the Bible, can be found here (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html).

denuseri
02-16-2010, 03:02 PM
Look, we are starting to get way off tangent here. Debating the validity of the bible or any religious texts inconsestiansies (and I do agree its a big confussing mess full of paradox in some cases, who's religions text isint) isnt the crux of the matter.

From what I can tell, the op is mad at a church leader in his country for promoting female submission to one's husband. Which btw is the traditional stance of all the magior religious faiths through reccorded history, not just a Christan thing.

Which when we recognize the actual goal of the Church or any religion that promotes this aspect of human duality (yes even Islam) we find that the intention is to establish a mutually supportive relationship in which the roles are well established betwen the different partners.

Submission doesn’t imply in a Biblical nor in the Quran or otherwise any where to my knowledge that women are inferior to men or that one must be totally subservient like some kind of objectified subbie doormat.

You people who are trying to say that it means the man is allowed to walk all over the wife are litterally missing the boat.

It's quite the opposite in fact, and those who interpret the scriptures to be saying otherwise even after they have been explained to them are not doing so with the spirit of those scriptures intention in their heart but purposfully taking a stance for their own agenda to try and pick away at the institution of not only the church but marriage itself or in the case of the husband that trys to use it as an excuse to do whatever he wants, are in fact commiting a sin by ignorance or on purpose against said faith.

Thorne
02-16-2010, 06:18 PM
those who interpret the scriptures to be saying otherwise even after they have been explained to them are not doing so with the spirit of those scriptures intention in their heart

But isn't that the whole problem? You may interpret the scriptures one way, while I may interpret it differently. Who's right? Why would my interpretation be any better, or worse, than yours? Ultimately, as a member of a religious organization, you are relying upon the interpretation promoted by that organization.

As a non-religious person, I interpret Biblical scripture, and all other scripture, as outdated and ultimately harmful in the modern world. Am I wrong? If so, why? Who gets to be the final arbiter on what scripture really means?

denuseri
02-16-2010, 10:49 PM
I guess your choosing to allow your own misconseptions about how the church itself interpets its own theological doctrine and or your own agenda of converting everyone to be atheist to rule your preceptions then Thorne.

Are you saying the church doesnt promote harmonious unions between husband and wife?

No ones making you join any religious organization or live by its rules are they?

The ultimate arbitrator on what any paticular theology is all about would be it's followers anyway. If they don't like those interpetations of their church leadership I am sure they will find a new religion to follow, or establish a new sect within thier current one.

On this paticular topic, that being a vicar promoting a piece of the church in question's doctrine for women to submit to their husbands; I fail to see what the big deal is.

(which as I have been tuaght to understand means mutual respect being established within a hierarchial framwork bewteen partners so that the two will be in harmony in the fashion that god intended them to be in)

Is that all that different from the position of evolutionary biologists?

Which as I understand the churches position is exactly what the church itself says it is when you ask them as well.

I have to wonder why you think its so horrible thing for a woman to submit to her husband.

I also have to wonder : Are you also saying that a slave or submissive then shouldnt submit in similar fashion to her master or dominnat ?

thir
02-17-2010, 03:15 AM
http://www.care2.com/causes/womens-rights/blog/women-in-other-nations2/

This is an article which reports an incident in which a woman was jailed for drinking coffee with a man, and it links this to the vicar in UK that this thread is about, and also to a religios group in US.

leo9
02-17-2010, 04:23 AM
No ones making you join any religious organization or live by its rules are they?

If he were gay and living in a state where he couldn't get married, he would be forced to live by the rules of the Mormon church and the other churches that drove through the state bans. If he were female and couldn't get an abortion, he would be forced to live by the rules of the fundy churches that hammer away at reproductive rights. If he were in some branches of the armed forces, he'd find his career seriously set back if he didn't attend his superior officer's prayer meetings and keep quiet. I could go on for a long time.

If you think religious organisations can't impose their rules on non-members in our "civilised" nations, you haven't been paying attention for the last ten years.

thir
02-17-2010, 08:16 AM
If he were gay and living in a state where he couldn't get married, he would be forced to live by the rules of the Mormon church and the other churches that drove through the state bans. If he were female and couldn't get an abortion, he would be forced to live by the rules of the fundy churches that hammer away at reproductive rights. If he were in some branches of the armed forces, he'd find his career seriously set back if he didn't attend his superior officer's prayer meetings and keep quiet. I could go on for a long time.

If you think religious organisations can't impose their rules on non-members in our "civilised" nations, you haven't been paying attention for the last ten years.

It is worth than that, because most religions have fundamentalists who are working one way or the other to force the rest of the world to live by their rules and ideas. Christian, muslim, others.

thir
02-17-2010, 08:31 AM
On this paticular topic, that being a vicar promoting a piece of the church in question's doctrine for women to submit to their husbands; I fail to see what the big deal is.


If said vicar has no actual power: none. But in older days they did, and people had to comply. We do not want to go there again.



Is that all that different from the position of evolutionary biologists?


Yes, of course. I refer to all the discussions regarding this.



I have to wonder why you think its so horrible thing for a woman to submit to her husband.


This is the bdsm library, and obviously no one thinks it is horrible. But the majority happens to believe in consuality.

A personal choice, not a demand from someone('s god.)



I also have to wonder : Are you also saying that a slave or submissive then shouldnt submit in similar fashion to her master or dominnat ?


This is the library. No one would suggest that people who want to should not submit. The fashion in which to do this is between them and their Master or Mistress.

IMO submission is not something you could, or indeed should try to impose from without. It is nobody's business to tell someone else to submit, and in the undemocratic states where this is nevertheless done, people have to knuckle under and pretend, in order to survive, or avoid severe punishments.

A person submits, IMO, from within. Pouring out like clean water from within themselves.

Thorne
02-17-2010, 08:53 AM
I guess your choosing to allow your own misconseptions about how the church itself interpets its own theological doctrine and or your own agenda of converting everyone to be atheist to rule your preceptions then Thorne.
I'm not trying to convert anyone. Which would be silly anyway since one cannot convert to atheism. It's simply a non-belief in gods. I'm not interested in making anyone turn from their gods. I'm just asking them to think, that's all.

Are you saying the church doesnt promote harmonious unions between husband and wife?
Harmonious, possibly. But not equal. For the major religions, the woman is a second-class member, at best.

No ones making you join any religious organization or live by its rules are they?
LOL! I doubt any of them would want me, to be honest. But I have no doubt it happens, especially among young teens who are pressured by their friends.

The ultimate arbitrator on what any paticular theology is all about would be it's followers anyway. If they don't like those interpetations of their church leadership I am sure they will find a new religion to follow, or establish a new sect within thier current one.
Which kind of puts a crimp in the "One True Religion" idea, doesn't it?

On this paticular topic, that being a vicar promoting a piece of the church in question's doctrine for women to submit to their husbands; I fail to see what the big deal is.
Except that his church leaders are distancing themselves from his archaic pronouncements.

(which as I have been tuaght to understand means mutual respect being established within a hierarchial framwork bewteen partners so that the two will be in harmony in the fashion that god intended them to be in)
And who decides just what God intended? Oh, that's right: That same Vicar who made that idiotic announcement! Among others like him.

Is that all that different from the position of evolutionary biologists?
Absolutely! Evolutionary biologists work from evidence, not from fairy tales.

I have to wonder why you think its so horrible thing for a woman to submit to her husband.
I don't think it's horrible, if that is what she want's to do. I think it's horrible for a religious leader to declare that it's what she must do.

I also have to wonder : Are you also saying that a slave or submissive then shouldnt submit in similar fashion to her master or dominnat ?
Again, not if that's what she, or he, want's to do.

Let me ask you this? If your Master sold you to another Master, one you didn't like, would you willingly submit to that Master? Simply because he's a Master?

denuseri
02-17-2010, 12:15 PM
Again your missing the whole boat, the vicar nor the church that the topic is based upon is forcing anyone to do anything.

No one in his congregation was being told they have to pay a fine, or go to hell, or get evicted from that church if they didnt imediately comply with his wishes.

All the guy tried to do is suggest that women should adhere to the scriptures as a guildline to make their marrieges work better. And if he gave that sermon the way its normally given (and believe me for those of you who never go to a church, when they do the woman should submit sermom {should..not must mind you} it allmost allways includes the husbands responsibilities and what he should be doing along with it.

Then it becomes obvious that whats happening here as well as in the media there is yet another feminist/aethiest black dogging, political attack, which is all too typical of whats wrong with the eurocentric socialist liberal west and the way they choose to function.

As for religious groups, just like any organization or lobbyist group, now including corperations, being given free speech and excersising it etc, and or pushing political agendas, welcome to representative democracy!

Religion isnt whats wrong in and of itself , like anything else, science, drugs, weapons, political positions, etc etc its the assholes abusing it who are really in the wrong.

Thorne
02-17-2010, 01:40 PM
Again your missing the whole boat, the vicar nor the church that the topic is based upon is forcing anyone to do anything.

No one in his congregation was being told they have to pay a fine, or go to hell, or get evicted from that church if they didnt imediately comply with his wishes.
But he's using the authority of God's word to make his "suggestions" which to many of his followers is equivalent to law. You don't obey God's word, it's a sin, isn't it?

All the guy tried to do is suggest that women should adhere to the scriptures as a guildline to make their marrieges work better.
And why doesn't he proclaim the part of scripture which tells people to do their praying in the privacy of their own homes rather than in public (church)? Maybe because that would remove a lucrative source of income?

And what are his qualifications for helping people with their marriages? Every marriage is different and it can take a lot of one-to-one work with couples to learn what might work for them. Telling the woman to submit may work for some couples, but not for all. (My wife would laugh in the guys face!)


Religion isnt whats wrong in and of itself , like anything else, science, drugs, weapons, political positions, etc etc its the assholes abusing it who are really in the wrong.
All quite true, but when you throw religion into the mix you are, as I said, speaking with the authority of God, for those who believe. That's far more powerful (for believers) than invoking Einstein or Darwin or Reagan.

IAN 2411
02-17-2010, 02:25 PM
I have to agree with Thorne on this one, all marraiges are diferent, and he is in no position to judge why they are all falling apart. So he has a marraige at the moment that is strong and based on them both being god fearing people, but next year after she has spent a holliday with her sister if she has one; and has been taught that you can have a great time dancing in the clubs without being struck down with a bolt of lightning. I wonder if he still feels the same when he also has a failed marraige because she has run of with the verger disc jocky? Well its just a thought, most of the ones in the UK run of with the verger. LoL

Regards ian 2411

denuseri
02-17-2010, 02:38 PM
But he's using the authority of God's word to make his "suggestions" which to many of his followers is equivalent to law. You don't obey God's word, it's a sin, isn't it?

Judge yee not lest the also be judged. God is the final arbitrator I beleive in any event. The words of one vicar gods law does not make. Again you equate the individual asshole with all the divine power, when in fact that isnt the case.

I wonder, are you saying the vicar or any religious adherent shouldnt have freedom of speech?



And why doesn't he proclaim the part of scripture which tells people to do their praying in the privacy of their own homes rather than in public (church)? Maybe because that would remove a lucrative source of income?

To be honest I dont even know why they have churches at all except for the whole Peter being the rock thing and the where ever two or more of you gather thing. As for people wailing in public, thats their beeswax, but you wont see me do it unless its in a designated area for just that, like at the wall in isreal. (the later streatching it imho)

And what are his qualifications for helping people with their marriages? Every marriage is different and it can take a lot of one-to-one work with couples to learn what might work for them. Telling the woman to submit may work for some couples, but not for all. (My wife would laugh in the guys face!)

I wouldnt presume to know what his personal qualifications are, nor do I presume to know what the cualifications are for radio talk show hosts and tv personalities who freely hand out the same blanket advice.


All quite true, but when you throw religion into the mix you are, as I said, speaking with the authority of God, for those who believe. That's far more powerful (for believers) than invoking Einstein or Darwin or Reagan.

I dont know, go sit in on a convention or scientific seminar with an open mind and just observe sometime and watch the people there and when they start throwing around big liberal or conservative dogma names or mentioning well respected reaserchers and or theories at some conventions and you see the exact same kind of reverence and zealotry in the eyes of those "faithful" as you see at communion table (or kkk cross burning for the racist bastards) when the people there are getting their sacrements.

Fundamentalist zealotry is by no means the purview soley of religion.

MMI
02-17-2010, 03:42 PM
... Who gets to be the final arbiter on what scripture really means?

An atheist!!??



Then it becomes obvious that whats happening here as well as in the media there is yet another feminist/aethiest black dogging, political attack, which is all too typical of whats wrong with the eurocentric socialist liberal west and the way they choose to function.

LMAO

That's rich coming from such an inward-looking, self-righteous and conservative nation which is so far to the right that it regards liberalism as an extreme position
and social democracy as the twin brother of communism, both spawn of the Devil himself.


But never mind. I don't think there's much, more to say about the OP, other than that the Vicar was preaching a pretty fundamentalist viewpoint to what I presume
was a fundamentalist congregation (they call themselves evangelical). When Bishops of the Church of England can openly doubt the Ressurection, and, perhaps
the divinity of Christ, a Vicar who wants to restore marriage to its ancient position in society is, frankly, pretty unremarkable, even if he does offend some women of a different persuasion.

steelish
02-17-2010, 04:51 PM
"Submission is powerful, beautiful, hopeful and courageous"

That only applies to those who love and wish to submit. Someone who is "ordered" to do it and it goes against their very nature would be far from powerful, beautiful, hopeful or courageous. What they would be is bitter, resentful, angry and looking for a way out.

steelish
02-17-2010, 04:54 PM
That's rich coming from such an inward-looking, self-righteous and conservative nation which is so far to the right that it regards liberalism as an extreme position and social democracy as the twin brother of communism, both spawn of the Devil himself.

Wow. Tell us how you really feel.

Actually, I myself have NOTHING against liberals, Democrats, moderates, conservatives or Republicans.

What I do not want in my country is a RADICAL PROGRESSIVE in power.

MMI
02-17-2010, 07:02 PM
I don't know what one of those is. I tried looking it up, but after the 5th or 6th embittered American right-wing website I had to give up in confusion ...

You only seem to come across the term on those kinds of site, and it always seems to be a term of abuse: it seems that apparently nice Mr Obama is really Che Guevara, Hugo Chavez and fidel Castro all rolled into one, plus influences of Idi Amin and some of the worst traits of Benito Mussolini. Gosh! who'd have thought it?

I certainly wouldn't want anyone like that to be my president. Tell me, how do you think he hoodwinked the Democrat Party into thinking he was one of them? Do you think he misrepresented himself, perhaps?

MMI
02-17-2010, 07:06 PM
That only applies to those who love and wish to submit. Someone who is "ordered" to do it and it goes against their very nature would be far from powerful, beautiful, hopeful or courageous. What they would be is bitter, resentful, angry and looking for a way out.

Aren't you confusing submission with subjection?

Mark Oden was asking wives to choose to submit to their husbands, whom they presumably love.

Thorne
02-17-2010, 08:14 PM
Aren't you confusing submission with subjection?

Mark Oden was asking wives to choose to submit to their husbands, whom they presumably love.
I can't find a copy of the leaflet which was apparently handed out, but here (http://buzz7.com/tag/vicar-angus-macleay):

From the article:
Vicar Angus MacLeay issued a leaflet to churchgoers, saying: “Wives are to submit to their husbands in everything in recognition of the fact that husbands are head of the family as Christ is head of the church. This is the way God has ordered their relationships with each other and Christian marriage cannot function well without it.”
That doesn't sound to me like someone asking or suggesting anything. That sounds like him telling them to submit, because that's what God wants.

And from some of the comments I've read, here and elsewhere, he's done a fairly good job of alienating quite a few of his flock. It sounds to me like these Christian women don't want to submit.

denuseri
02-18-2010, 12:02 AM
Then they wont....everyone makes a choice to submit or not.

It doesnt matter if he is saying to submit becuase god wants them to, or the pope or elton john or some scientific study or space aliens from area 51.

Its free speech in action.

No one is being forced to attend his church.

Thorne
02-18-2010, 07:26 AM
No one is being forced to attend his church.
You're right about that. And I do find it encouraging that so many women, and men, are abandoning that church because of this.

But how many other women would like to do so, but cannot because their husbands forbid it? How many of those women will have to endure spousal rape, because that's what their husbands want? How many of those women will risk their lives in childbirth because their husbands won't allow them to use birth control?

Once you take that first step down the road of unwilling submission, you open the doors to church-sponsored virtual slavery. Where defying the church becomes not only a sin but a breach of law. In short, this kind of thing can set the stage for a fundamentalist, religious government. Just see what happens in places like Saudi Arabia, or any other country living under religious dictatorships. Women become property, not partners.

Perhaps the answer to decaying marriages is to eliminate the religious component altogether. Studies in the US have shown that areas which are predominantly religious have a higher divorce rate than areas which are much less religious. And the more fundamental the religion, the higher the divorce rate. Maybe letting people deal with their own marriages and keeping the church out of it is the better way to go.

denuseri
02-18-2010, 09:14 AM
No where was anyone promoting unwilling submission Thorne.

And just as many people see people abandoning the church as a bad thing, a sign of the selfish attitude of the me me me generation and such self centered individuality doesnt promote care for ones fellow human being in one bit.

No wonder ceo's are still giving themselves bonuses and people are running around killing each other over drugs.

When the church is asking one to submit it is with love, in the manner that Christ would have done, not some misbegotten mysoginist cave man head thumping do it or else bs that those who would detract from the the church, just becuase its the church or they dont like religion or are virulent feminists; would try to say.

Its also just as easy to say that more people stayed married longer before becuase more people were religious before the advent of feminism and hippe free love and the genral loss of dedication to something and someone other than oneself, which more directly cuased the divorce rate to go through the ceiling.

Thorne
02-18-2010, 09:24 AM
Its also just as easy to say that more people stayed married longer before becuase more people were religious before the advent of feminism and hippe free love and the genral loss of dedication to something and someone other than oneself, which more directly cuased the divorce rate to go through the ceiling.
No, most people stayed married longer because divorce was illegal, as determined by the Catholic (primarily) Church. Once divorce became legalized, or at least simplified, far more people took that way out.

But that doesn't account for the fact that the divorce rate among highly religious couples is so much higher than that of less religious, or non religious couples.

thir
02-18-2010, 09:54 AM
Yes, we all raise our own children. Some of us raise them to think for themselves. Others raise them to think just the way they themselves think. I don't advocate forcing anything upon parents, but I have to ask, which is better?



This question in actually worth a thread in itself. It is complicated.

thir
02-18-2010, 09:58 AM
Why would putting down "pagan" be a problem?

It wouldn't be a problem for me, but if, for example, you were applying for a job it might present a problem. Even though employers are not supposed to discriminate based on religious convictions, some still do. In South Carolina, some employers are devout Baptists and would be unlikely to offer a job to someone who identified themselves as a pagan, or an atheist, or Jewish, or Muslim. Or even Catholic! I once had a woman refuse to even rent me a room because I told her I was not religious. If I'd said I was a Pagan, or Satanist, I'm quite sure she would have called the police.



I do not quite understand. Why would a working place be interested in your religion in the first place? Unles there were special circumstances.
If there is freedom of religion, why even ask???

thir
02-18-2010, 10:03 AM
But he's using the authority of God's word to make his "suggestions" which to many of his followers is equivalent to law. You don't obey God's word, it's a sin, isn't it?


Bingo

thir
02-18-2010, 10:09 AM
I dont know, go sit in on a convention or scientific seminar with an open mind and just observe sometime and watch the people there and when they start throwing around big liberal or conservative dogma names or mentioning well respected reaserchers and or theories at some conventions and you see the exact same kind of reverence and zealotry in the eyes of those "faithful" as you see at communion table (or kkk cross burning for the racist bastards) when the people there are getting their sacrements.

Fundamentalist zealotry is by no means the purview soley of religion.

I agree with your there, it can unfortunately be just as bad!

steelish
02-18-2010, 10:13 AM
Aren't you confusing submission with subjection?

Mark Oden was asking wives to choose to submit to their husbands, whom they presumably love.

You can love someone and not want to "submit" to them. If forced to, or placed within circumstances that create the necessity for someone to be under another's authority or control would then be subjection. If he is asking them to submit, then it would be submission, should they choose to do so - but if they were not naturally submissive to begin with it is highly unlikely that the marriage will be a happy one while the wife is "trying" to be submissive.

Submission (even if it is willingly attempted at the request of another) can turn into subjection if one of the parties involved ends up unhappy with the arrangement.

thir
02-18-2010, 10:13 AM
No, most people stayed married longer because divorce was illegal, as determined by the Catholic (primarily) Church. Once divorce became legalized, or at least simplified, far more people took that way out.



It is also a question of how well or not people can manage outside of a marriage, if they have an educantion, children to take care of, or was always raised simply for marriage without ever having been in on the working market outside the home.

The longer you go back in history, the harder it was.

steelish
02-18-2010, 10:17 AM
A person submits, IMO, from within. Pouring out like clean water from within themselves.

Exactly! So well said!!!

And on another note...it is possible to submit to someone you do not love, just as it is possible to love someone to whom you do not submit.

Thorne
02-18-2010, 11:37 AM
I dont know, go sit in on a convention or scientific seminar with an open mind and just observe sometime and watch the people there and when they start throwing around big liberal or conservative dogma names or mentioning well respected reaserchers and or theories at some conventions and you see the exact same kind of reverence and zealotry in the eyes of those "faithful" as you see at communion table (or kkk cross burning for the racist bastards) when the people there are getting their sacrements.

Fundamentalist zealotry is by no means the purview soley of religion.

Yes, zealotry exists in many different forms. But you seldom see environmentalists, for example, telling people how to improve their marriage. You don't generally find quantem physicists giving lessons in theology. You frequently, on the other hand, find religious leaders intruding into science, personal relationships, politics, almost every aspect of human endeavor, despite the fact that these things have nothing whatsoever to do with religion!

Thorne
02-18-2010, 11:41 AM
I do not quite understand. Why would a working place be interested in your religion in the first place? Unles there were special circumstances.
If there is freedom of religion, why even ask???
Legally they shouldn't ask. Many get around this by putting the question on applications, but saying you don't have to answer. The same applies to questions of race. You don't have to answer. But there's a possibility that you might not get considered for the job without answering. And I had one case where, after filling out an application without any questions of religion, the interviewer made it one of the first questions he asked. When I questioned his reason for asking he admitted that he wouldn't hire non-Baptists! When I said that was illegal, his only response was, "They have to prove it, first." Interview over!

leo9
02-18-2010, 02:46 PM
When I questioned his reason for asking he admitted that he wouldn't hire non-Baptists! When I said that was illegal, his only response was, "They have to prove it, first." Interview over!

Next time, wear a wire.

leo9
02-18-2010, 03:02 PM
And just as many people see people abandoning the church as a bad thing, a sign of the selfish attitude of the me me me generation and such self centered individuality doesnt promote care for ones fellow human being in one bit.

No wonder ceo's are still giving themselves bonuses and people are running around killing each other over drugs.

I don't have the figures, but I've a strong impression that a lot more people are running around killing each other over religion than over drugs. It's less than a generation since the Northern Irish were killing each other for following the wrong church, and some are still trying to start it up again. Pakistan and India have been on the brink of war since they separated, entirely over religion. The only reason the Iraqi resistance didn't kick our asses was that the Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims were more interested in killing each other than fighting the invaders (and still are). When Arthur Clarke moved to Sri Lanka he told anyone who would listen that Buddhism was the only religion that had never had a holy war, until the Sri Lankan Buddhists started massacring their Hindu neighbours. Need I go on?

As for greed, the Vatican's fortunes make most banks look like corner stores. Anyone living in the land of the millionaire televangelist, and believing that religion is the cure for greed, really isn't paying attention.

MMI
02-18-2010, 03:03 PM
You can love someone and not want to "submit" to them. If forced to, or placed within circumstances that create the necessity for someone to be under another's authority or control would then be subjection. If he is asking them to submit, then it would be submission, should they choose to do so - but if they were not naturally submissive to begin with it is highly unlikely that the marriage will be a happy one while the wife is "trying" to be submissive.

Submission (even if it is willingly attempted at the request of another) can turn into subjection if one of the parties involved ends up unhappy with the arrangement.

If Oden wanted wives to be subjugated, wouldn't his sermon been along the lines of, Men, oppress your women?



Legally they shouldn't ask. Many get around this by putting the question on applications, but saying you don't have to answer. The same applies to questions of race. You don't have to answer. But there's a possibility that you might not get considered for the job without answering. And I had one case where, after filling out an application without any questions of religion, the interviewer made it one of the first questions he asked. When I questioned his reason for asking he admitted that he wouldn't hire non-Baptists! When I said that was illegal, his only response was, "They have to prove it, first." Interview over!

Possibly, so that, in case of need, a clergyman of the appropriate denomination can be summoned.

denuseri
02-18-2010, 03:21 PM
I don't have the figures, but I've a strong impression that a lot more people are running around killing each other over religion than over drugs. It's less than a generation since the Northern Irish were killing each other for following the wrong church, and some are still trying to start it up again. Pakistan and India have been on the brink of war since they separated, entirely over religion. The only reason the Iraqi resistance didn't kick our asses was that the Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims were more interested in killing each other than fighting the invaders (and still are). When Arthur Clarke moved to Sri Lanka he told anyone who would listen that Buddhism was the only religion that had never had a holy war, until the Sri Lankan Buddhists started massacring their Hindu neighbours. Need I go on?

As for greed, the Vatican's fortunes make most banks look like corner stores. Anyone living in the land of the millionaire televangelist, and believing that religion is the cure for greed, really isn't paying attention.

There you go, the real motivation for all the wars you just mentioned. GREED.

MMI
02-18-2010, 03:42 PM
... and power.

As one of my regular adversaries never tires of pointing out, religions were invented to control their adherents and to suck out their wealth.

Thorne
02-18-2010, 08:15 PM
Next time, wear a wire.

To every job interview? How was I to know that this kind of thing would come up? Besides, the guy was a "pillar of the community", involved in politics and a "good Christian businessman." Think I would have had much of a chance?

thir
02-19-2010, 11:38 AM
Legally they shouldn't ask. Many get around this by putting the question on applications, but saying you don't have to answer. The same applies to questions of race. You don't have to answer. But there's a possibility that you might not get considered for the job without answering. And I had one case where, after filling out an application without any questions of religion, the interviewer made it one of the first questions he asked. When I questioned his reason for asking he admitted that he wouldn't hire non-Baptists! When I said that was illegal, his only response was, "They have to prove it, first." Interview over!

I am still somewhat confused by all this, as I cannot see why what you do in your free time or who you pray to (if anybody) makes you a better or worse dentist or carpenter. (The 'you' being generic of course).

Perhaps because, as I mentioned on the other thread, I do come from a rather non-religious back-ground. Makes my head spin!

thir
02-19-2010, 11:45 AM
No where was anyone promoting unwilling submission Thorne.



No, but someone seems to think that if you do not believe that submission by a woman to a man is natural, you are a rabid foaming at the mouth European femimist ;-)))

Thorne
02-19-2010, 12:46 PM
I am still somewhat confused by all this, as I cannot see why what you do in your free time or who you pray to (if anybody) makes you a better or worse dentist or carpenter. (The 'you' being generic of course).
It has to do with the attitude that, if you aren't one of us you're a "rabid foaming at the mouth" heretic. After all, if you're not a member of the same religion you just might take it into your depraved mind to rob them blind.

To be honest, I don't understand the attitude, either. But I've seen it all too many times. In religion, politics, schools, pretty much anywhere people join together.

denuseri
02-19-2010, 02:03 PM
I hardely believe that everyone who disagrees with my statements or with religion is in fact some kind of femifascist heretic, but I can see that I struck a cord in alluding that some who do may in fact be.

Eaither way it wasnt my intention to call any of the posters in this forum such things, even if I only said it like I did becuase I figured I would throw back some of the insulting sophistry that was being tossed about when it came to sterotyping people who adhered to any mainstream organized religion and see how the other side of the argument liked their own medicine. So I apologize if any one took my statements out of context thinks that I am saying they they fit the bill in that regard.

And by the way my use of the words "eurocentric thinking" or "eurocentirc" doesnt refer to the actual people living in europe, its a often times colloquial refference used in the liberal arts department amongst philosophy, anthropology and history maijors for "westran civilizations focus on all things good only coming from european origins". (Which includes all the white angle saxon american ones too including feminism) So I apologize if anyone thought I was being a anti eropean meanie to anyone in paticular.

Additionally, even though I am arguing for the vicar to be able to say what he wishes to his congregation as being ok, so long as he is following his own religions tenents and those tennents are in accordance with the laws of his land whatever those are and I am supporting free speach in general even if I dont agree with whats said; it doesnt mean I personally agree or support "what" he was saying or "what his church's dogma" contains, or "anything written in the bible or any other related book on the subject".

I have as of yet to define my own position on the the vicars words to his congregation, in fact I havent even viewed his sermon, outside of playing devils advocate for religious tolerance and free speach I havent stated my own personal beliefs conserning such things.

All I am really saying is that one should consider everything about what the vicar and his religion professess about the matter from the vicar, and his church's perspective first before running hilly nilly and jumping on any " religion hating intolerance band wagons" or "omg he did not just say that what an anti-feminist male pig is he" crusade.

One may find more value in one's arguments if one takes the time to consider all the perspectives of all the parties involved before one goes ahead and formulates an opinion full of personal bias.

MMI
02-19-2010, 02:56 PM
[B][COLOR="Pink"]
And by the way my use of the words "eurocentric thinking" or "eurocentirc" doesnt refer to the actual people living in europe, its a often times colloquial refference used in the liberal arts department amongst philosophy, anthropology and history maijors for "westran civilizations focus on all things good only coming from european origins". (Which includes all the white angle saxon american ones too including feminism) So I apologize if anyone thought I was being a anti eropean meanie to anyone in paticular.



... a usage I was unaware of. I withdraw my retaliatory response and offer my apologies.

denuseri
02-19-2010, 04:06 PM
I really should have been more clear with what I meant by it, its jargon I am used to seeing thrown around all day, but I simply forgot its also jargon that isnt really used outside of certian circles Sir.

Thorne
02-19-2010, 07:18 PM
Possibly, so that, in case of need, a clergyman of the appropriate denomination can be summoned.

That wouldn't be needed until after I was hired, if at all. The answer to his question was a contingency of being hired.

Thorne
02-19-2010, 07:22 PM
even though I am arguing for the vicar to be able to say what he wishes to his congregation as being ok, so long as he is following his own religions tenents and those tennents are in accordance with the laws of his land whatever those are and I am supporting free speach in general even if I dont agree with whats said; it doesnt mean I personally agree or support "what" he was saying or "what his church's dogma" contains, or "anything written in the bible or any other related book on the subject".
So why would you support free speech for someone who advocates removing free speech from roughly half the members of his congregation?

"1 Corinthians 14:34-36
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

Thorne
02-19-2010, 07:25 PM
it wasnt my intention to call any of the posters in this forum such things

I, for one, have not taken any insult from your statements. Or from any here. Sometimes a little plain speech is needed, to awaken us from our complacency.

No apologies needed, denuseri. Just keep speaking your mind.

denuseri
02-19-2010, 10:01 PM
Like I said Thorne, if they are members of that church, and they believe they shouldnt be speaking in church but instead go home and ask their husbands or fathers whatever questions they may have, then thats their right, and additonally its thier choice to make as citizens of the country in which they reside to restrict their own actions as they see fit. Choosing not to speak of ones own free will is not the same as being forced by ones government to not speak. Their governemnt doesnt force them to be in that church, the people choose to be there or leave as they will. Just like the librarian will ask you to stop making noise where you arn't supposed too.

It doesnt make their religion inheirently evil nor any other religions that have such things in their practices including dietary restrictions or dress codes.

Free speach is free speach, why does the united states allow the kkk and the nazai party and others to promote their agendas if its not?

Are you advocating that we should abolish free speach Thorne? Are you saying that we should select who gets to speak freely and who doesn't?

Thorne
02-19-2010, 11:11 PM
Are you advocating that we should abolish free speach Thorne? Are you saying that we should select who gets to speak freely and who doesn't?

No, I'm not. But there are limits to free speech, too. You can't shout "FIRE" in a crowded room, causing a panic. You can't incite others to riot. And you can't go bellowing through a bullhorn at 3 in the morning.

But religious leaders claim to speak with the authority of God, and for the most part their followers accept that authority. And when those leaders use that authority to restrict others' freedoms they are abusing that authority. True, some will, and have, turned away and left his church. But there will be those who will say, "Well, he speaks for God, so we have to do what God wants." Yes, we can say that that's naive. (I say it's stupid, but I'm a nasty atheist, after all.) But I think we all know that there are people who are like that. God's law is foremost, and the Vicar speaks for God.

And let's face it, we are seeing more and more cases of those same religious leaders, of all faiths, who don't live by their own rules. If they won't, why should anyone else?

denuseri
02-19-2010, 11:41 PM
No, I'm not. But there are limits to free speech, too. You can't shout "FIRE" in a crowded room, causing a panic. You can't incite others to riot. And you can't go bellowing through a bullhorn at 3 in the morning.

And I dont think the vicar is even getting close to approaching the inciting a riot cluase.

But religious leaders claim to speak with the authority of God, and for the most part their followers accept that authority.

They can be claiming to speak with the authority of tom cruise for all I care.

They only accept that authority blind and without question if they are mindless sheep. Which the vast majority of parishionors ar not, nor are they stupid, or blind at all, the vast majiority of them in that country make a conscious decision. Most adherants of any given faith are not zealots.

Last time I checked, the rank of vicar isnt even close to the top of the church hierarchy anyway now is it.

The authority of god position is severaly lacking any real wieght as an argument against religion in the 21st century, in a country with freedom of religion and free speach, back during the reformation mabey, but now days, its mayo in the wind.

But that doesnt matter if your against both free speach and freedom of religion, which the two imho are really one and the same.

Thorne
02-20-2010, 07:35 AM
They can be claiming to speak with the authority of tom cruise for all I care.
Sorry, Tom's spoken for. The Scientologists have their hooks into him.


They only accept that authority blind and without question if they are mindless sheep. Which the vast majority of parishionors ar not, nor are they stupid, or blind at all, the vast majiority of them in that country make a conscious decision. Most adherants of any given faith are not zealots.
Jonestown. Waco. Heaven's Gate. All zealots who died because they believed their leaders spoke God's words. Every religion has their zealots. And there are those who get trapped into these situations. How many women, for example, get trapped into abusive relationships that they can't get out of? They haven't the resources or the willpower. They want out, but don't know how to get out. And how much more powerful are those relationships when God tells them they must endure it?


Last time I checked, the rank of vicar isnt even close to the top of the church hierarchy anyway now is it.
As near as I can tell, a vicar is the equivalent of a parish priest, which means he has quite a lot of authority. At least they did when I was growing up. In the RCC, at least, they administer the sacraments, say daily masses, hear confessions, basically act as a conduit between the people and God. That's quite a lot of authority, if you ask me.


The authority of god position is severaly lacking any real wieght as an argument against religion in the 21st century, in a country with freedom of religion and free speach, back during the reformation mabey, but now days, its mayo in the wind.
Are you kidding? In this country we give freaking movie stars and singers the authority of God! How many children will die of preventable diseases because their parents believe that Jim Carrey and Jenny McCarthy actually know anything about vaccinations? How many people spend more money on crap sold by Oprah Winfery than they would on real medicine? Believe me, you don't need the authority of God to turn people into mindless sheep. You only need a TV camera. Or a pulpit.


But that doesnt matter if your against both free speach and freedom of religion, which the two imho are really one and the same.
I'm not against either. I honestly do believe in freedom of speech and freedom of religion. I also believe in freedom FROM religion. And I believe that freedom comes with certain responsibilities. And one of those is to prevent charlatans and hucksters from destroying people's lives. One way to do that is to educate them, to let them know just what these hucksters are really doing. Whether they are pitching magical Chinese healing stones, or Aztec Acne treatments or magical sky fairies, they are all after the sheep's wool.

And for the record, I do place members of the clergy amongst those charlatans and hucksters. Just my opinion.

denuseri
02-20-2010, 10:30 AM
Why yes some amazingly there are some individuals who do try to take advantage of other people in the world.

And yes sometimes, the people who are doing that try to twist the tennents of a paticular faith, or philosophy, or even laws of a paticular country, or science, to suit their own means in accomplishing such crimes against their fellow men.

But when one catagorically pigenholes everyone who adheres to any given religious faith as eaither a trickster or "poor abused victum" or uses any excuse to take the words of one man out of context; one puts oneself into the same sophist camp on the side of the same side of the same coin as the zealots who say your going to hell cuz your an aethiest pig consumed by satan and trying to tear gods followers down, or your a deluded victum of the evils of the world.

Perhaps the pot shouldn't be calling the kettle black after all if it wishes to make its point.

Not all the members of any given clergy are out to pull the wool over anyones eyes.

MMI
02-20-2010, 07:13 PM
What I haven't yet worked out, Thorne, and we can see den struggling with it too, is how you can, on one hand, say there's no way you can prove religions are false, yet on the other hand you call ministers of religion charlatans, and worse. You profess tolerance, yet want to be free of it.

Patronisingly, you say that people should be allowed to believe in whatever they believe in, but you condemn their leaders as utter frauds. Now the Buddha, Abraham, Zoroaster, Jesus and Mohammed might have each thought it a jolly clever ruse to make their followers think of them as divine, or divinely appointed, or in some other way connected to the greatest truth, so that people would follow them and do their bidding, or bring them food as they sat day-dreaming under the shade of a tree, but I think it is presumptuous of you to suggest that all religious leaders thereafter are knowingly colluding in the decption. Does not one of them have any faith? Not Calvin, or Luther? Not one of the popes or the rabbis or immans?

I think you are too sweeping.

Thorne
02-20-2010, 09:56 PM
What I haven't yet worked out, Thorne, and we can see den struggling with it too, is how you can, on one hand, say there's no way you can prove religions are false, yet on the other hand you call ministers of religion charlatans, and worse. You profess tolerance, yet want to be free of it.
While it may be impossible to prove a religion false, it is possible to show when a religion is built on inconsistencies and contradictions, which is true of the three Abrahamic religions, since they are based on one of the most contradictory and inconsistent books ever written.

And both you and denuseri seem too imply that I am painting ALL religious leaders with the same brush, when I have not. Nor am I claiming, as denuseri states, saying that "everyone who adheres to any given religious faith as eaither a trickster or 'poor abused victum'". I am quite sure that many religious leaders are devout in their faith. And so too are many of their congregation, I'm sure. I may believe they are wrong, but I don't denigrate them for that. It is those who take advantage of that faith, who tell their followers what they must believe, which movies they must no watch, which books they must not read, or, as in this case, how they must behave in their personal lives.

And I will also take to task those who abuse science or any other undertakings for the sole purpose of either cheating or controlling other people. This is not the thread to do that, though. I've been accused of hijacking threads in the past, and I'm trying not to do so here.

So yes, I do agree that this vicar has the right to speak about the church's tenets. And if the church wishes women to be silent in church, that is well within their rights. I think they are wrong, and I've said so, but it's their church. Those who don't like it can leave.

I don't think the church, or any religious organization, should be permitted to control people's personal lives outside of the church. They are basically saying that the law, which protects the free speech and other rights of women, must be set aside in favor of their religious beliefs. This, in my opinion, is absolutely wrong.

As an example, what would you say if a preacher, at any level, claimed that his congregation must not allow blacks into their homes, or must not allow Muslims into their places of business. Would you claim he was right to say such a thing, using religion as his excuse? What if he said that all homosexuals were demons who should be destroyed on sight? Such things have gone on throughout history, and regardless of what religious leaders may say, these things are WRONG! And we as intelligent, thinking people have to make sure such things don't continue to go on. We have to draw the lines and hold these leaders to modern ethics and morals, not those of some bronze-age shepherds.