The Church orders Wives to Submit to their Husbands

[denuseri]

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]

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]

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.

[leo9]

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.

[denuseri]

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.

[thir]

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 ;-)))

[denuseri]

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]

[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.

[Thorne]

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]

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.