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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

[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.

[steelish]

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.

[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 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

... 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[denuseri]

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]

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]

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.

[denuseri]

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]

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]

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]

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.