The Church orders Wives to Submit to their Husbands

[Bren122]

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]

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

[Thorne]

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.

[thir]

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]

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.

[thir]

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???

[denuseri]

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.

[Thorne]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[IAN 2411]

[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

[Flaming_Redhead]

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]

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.

[denuseri]

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.

[Thorne]

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!

[denuseri]

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]

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]

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 ?

[leo9]

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]

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]

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.

[steelish]

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]

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?

[thir]

http://www.care2.com/causes/womens-r...ther-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.

[denuseri]

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]

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.

[denuseri]

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.

[thir]

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!

[Thorne]

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!