Trader isn't Bill O'Reily... he is Al Sharpton. It is his standard M.O. to post in every possible thread with fake outrage.
John Stewart nailed it tonight in his interview with Gingrich. Palin said that keeping the child was "Bristol's choice," but at the same time she wants to remove that choice from the hands of other people and put it in the hands of government? It would be a political loser to attack Palin for this, but she's a complete hypocrite.
what pisses me off is that the abortion debate is even framed in this sense. maybe i'm naive but I don't think many people abort pregnancies on this issue. they do it because they don't want to have a unwanted child.
We could go wildly off-topic here, but at the root I'd wager you are right. However you or I seek to undersand Paul's stances, it is critical to keep in mind that he was convinced judgment was coming right away. We can argue ad infinitum as to the early church's stance on sex and women. Maybe a fun topic for later. Wives submit to your husbands....? And almost no rational scholar would argue that is the case either. I am not trying to imply that Paul is the sole source of misogyny in the bible. In fact, it is the opposite - it would be better to argue that Paul was the originator of centuries of christian dogma rooted in a fear of women, a desire for patriarchy, and a deep, unrelenting fear of sex. The counterargument to the above is that "lusting" is very different from "loving". To wit, where does jesus condemn "loving" a woman sexually? Where does he specifically state that one should remain chaste until marriage? I agree that Jesus (despite some carefully edited passages to the contrary) was very pro-equality. In order to fight the matriarchal pagan cults and literally "remove" the memory of Venus/Asherah/Isis this message was quickly corrupted by priestly authorities. The reason this is at all relevant to the thread is that this fear and power-mongering is the starting point for the sexual aversion DaDakota (and I) see as counterintuitive to honest communication and biological reality.
No one ever tells the full story with these verses! The verses go on to instruct men to be submissive with their wives...and warns them to never take the authority in the relationship. He tells them to be like Christ, who WASHED THE FEET OF HIS DISCIPLES to illustrate an upside down kingdom where power is submission. Remember context here...remember this is the first century. Remember that he's already saying that men and women are equal. My focus as a husband isn't to have my wife submit...but to love her and include her in every decision we make for our family. If you knew my wife...who is also a Jesus lover...submissive is the last word you'd use. There's an urging here by Paul that, as for spiritual matters, the man should take the lead in the household....but again....consider the context. Consider the audience. Ahh..I see. And to the extent those things have stemmed from religion, I personally do not believe them to be of God. He does not. You're absolutely right. In fact, the Greek word for lust here usually means lust for another man's WIFE. Which fits very well with Old Testament edicts and Hebrew understandings of God's instruction not to "covet thy neighbor's wife." If by quickly you mean within 300 years, I will agree. The early church, it appears, was filled with women as leaders. One more thought I'm sure you're aware of that others may not be....the first witnesses to the resurrected body of Christ were women. At that time, women in Jewish tradition were not considered valid witnessees. Their testimony was useless, for example, in legal proceedings. They are integral to the Gospel story....from that moment...from the meeting with the woman by the well....Christ affirms the humanity...the equality...of women. Suggested reading: SexGod by Rob Bell. You'll love this, rhad. Paul: Fresh Perspectives by N.T. Wright. Both of these guys love Jesus. They both have been hugely influential in my faith and my understanding of scripture. I think you'll find both to be fair and intellectually honest. Wright is a scholar...Bell is just a tremendous communicator. and PLEASE watch this (because I think you'll love it!) ...and it's very short. http://www.nooma.com/Shopping/ProductDetails.aspx?ProductID=335&PMID=29&mode=FLV HUGE respect for the way you discuss these issues with me. Thank you.
Not even the pastors! Great post and hard to argue with. Well said. That's the point! Well, it's hard to stamp out an entire history of matriarchal religous domination and paganism overnight... (Offtopic)It took the jews almost a thousand years, and even now the torah is still filled with pre-jewish ugaritic references to pagan gods - providing ample evidence that the torah is nothing more than an edited version of the Epic of Gilgamesh. Yes. And they were mitigated, demonized, and ultimately relegated to nothing. If you were a woman of learning, unconvinced that the ignorant demands of early chrisitian intolerance were acceptable, you were murdered. See-Hypatia. That's not something particular to christianity - but it's symptomatic of the prevading social constructs pushed first by Jewish, and then later by Christian zealots. And was, as I said before, fallout of the fear and contempt jewish leaders had of the priestesses of Venus. Thanks for the compliments. Trust that I certainly return them in kind. I'll look into those books - I think it important to hear it from all sides. And I finally have the time to read them (sort of - young children are exhausting!).
