- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
10 Jan 13
Originally posted by SuzianneAnd yet you support and believe in a religion who's holy book says outright that women
No kidding.
are inferior to men and that they are, can and should be, the property of men.
You support and promote a religion that is not only not helping women's rights, it is actively
fighting against them.
You are supporting part of the problem.
10 Jan 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeAnd frankly, you do not know what you are talking about.
And yet you support and believe in a religion who's holy book says outright that women
are inferior to men and that they are, can and should be, the property of men.
You support and promote a religion that is not only not helping women's rights, it is actively
fighting against them.
You are supporting part of the problem.
My church's Presiding Bishop is a woman, and so is my local priest.
The Episcopal Church offers more support for women's rights than most Christian denominations, including such topics as abortion and birth control.
Obvious assumption-making is obvious.
10 Jan 13
Originally posted by Grampy Bobbychicks dig kilts and poetry
[b]What Women Want In a Man (An Analogy)
Truth be known, women want only one significant package in a man: A man who has the integrity of character to be trustworthy; the strength
and sensitivity to cradle her body, her life, her soul; and the strength to bring it off. Same questions we should be asking in the spiritual realm.
.[/b]
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
10 Jan 13
Originally posted by SuzianneNo I know exactly what I am talking about.
And frankly, you do not know what you are talking about.
My church's Presiding Bishop is a woman, and so is my local priest.
The Episcopal Church offers more support for women's rights than most Christian denominations, including such topics as abortion and birth control.
Obvious assumption-making is obvious.
I mean it's great that your church is less backwards ass than (lets say) RJHinds one is.
But that's not saying much.
The fact that your version of Christianity might be better on this topic than many/most
other versions doesn't make your version actually good on this topic.
Good and bad are not relative, unlike better and worse which are.
Also, you call yourself a Christian and have the bible as your holy book.
I go read the bible and see what it says about women (slavery, genocide, capital punishment ....)
and see that what it says is wrong... and abominable to boot.
When you call yourself a Christian and hold up the bible as your god inspired holy book you are
endorsing and supporting what it says in that book. period.
If you don't agree with what it actually literally says in the bible then you should stop calling yourself
a Christian and you should stop promoting the bible as being the inerrant word of god.
Every time someone quotes the bible as an authority on anything they have as cover all the
'moderate' Christians (or just slightly less fundamental in your case) who say the bible is the word of god
while not actually agreeing with what the bible says.
The bible condones and advocates slavery, it says that women are worth less than men and shouldn't even
speak in church let alone lead a congregation. It also says that people who work on the Sabbath should be
executed.
If you don't agree with that then you don't agree with the bible.
So you should stop pretending that you do.
Because every time someone jumps up to defend Christianity and the bible you are providing cover for the people
who really do take it literally.
You ARE oppressing women and standing in the way of equality simply by being a Christian and saying that it's ok
to believe in the god of the bible.
Originally posted by googlefudgeYou say that Suzianne is oppressing women and standing in the way of equality simply by being a Christian and saying that it's ok to believe in the god of the bible.
No I know exactly what I am talking about.
I mean it's great that your church is less backwards ass than (lets say) RJHinds one is.
But that's not saying much.
The fact that your version of Christianity might be better on this topic than many/most
other versions doesn't make your version actually good on this topic.
Good and bad are not rel ply by being a Christian and saying that it's ok
to believe in the god of the bible.
I understand Suzianne is a woman, so it does not seem credible to me for you to accuse her of oppressing other women. I don't think you are going to gain anything that way. That might have worked if you had just used my name, because I think she sees me as a bigot anyway.
10 Jan 13
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeNo, I can see how you think your argument is valid, but you still err.
No I know exactly what I am talking about.
I mean it's great that your church is less backwards ass than (lets say) RJHinds one is.
But that's not saying much.
The fact that your version of Christianity might be better on this topic than many/most
other versions doesn't make your version actually good on this topic.
Good and bad are not rel ply by being a Christian and saying that it's ok
to believe in the god of the bible.
The Bible is also a history book.
As such, it presents life as it was then. Not as it is now.
And that's not even considering that all the sections you are talking about which discuss a woman's "value", etc. are all in the books which describe the Mosaic laws. You've been enlightened time and again by various Christians here that these laws do not apply to gentiles. I would go even further in that they do not apply now at all, since these passages concentrate on one snapshot of history, one relatively short window of time during which these laws were upheld as the laws of their time. They simply do not apply today, they've been superceded as man has surpassed the need for such laws.
I know it sounds convenient to make such sweeping claims as "If you don't agree with what it actually literally says in the bible then you should stop calling yourself a Christian and you should stop promoting the bible as being the inerrant word of god." But the fact remains that I am not defined in my Christian faith by an atheist's convenient labeling. Would you have me believe that YOU believe that if I am not a solid fundamentalist, then I am not a Christian? Good, because you don't believe that, and neither do I. Next, you'll claim that I am not a Christian because I do not believe that the universe was created in six literal 24-hour days. That argument fails in a big way.
You're saying that I do not believe in the Bible because I do not follow the Mosaic laws. That is simply absurd. I am not a Jew for one thing, and secondly, as I said, this is how life was at that moment in history. No one claims that this is how life is today, nor do they wish it to be. It's no longer necessary.
And I told you before that you cannot condemn an entire religion for the misdeeds of a few. Evil men are evil, regardless of their claim to any religion.
I will NOT have my religion blamed for the oppression of women, since this is laughable in the extreme. And I will NOT be blamed by association with my religion for the oppression of women. Those who oppress women are mostly evil men. I will admit that there ARE some women (who profess to be Christian) who have to take at least SOME of the blame for the oppression of women, but only because of their politics (Republicans leap to mind here), not because of their religion.
You seem to like painting Christians with a very broad brush. But I guess we all look the same to you, eh? I would have thought that out of all the atheists here you at least would have some ability to discern between Christians. I think I've demonstrated what beliefs I hold that separate me from most fundamental Christians, but you still hold no regard for these things. I won't go so far as to say that perhaps you think the only good Christian is a dead Christian -- the time is coming for that sort of thinking but it's not upon us yet. I know you seem to think we're actually dangerous, despite our beliefs, but you have said that we are dangerous *because* of our beliefs. Maybe you're just ahead of your time.
(BTW, it IS okay to believe in the God of the Bible. Saying to me that this is tantamount to standing in the middle of the road to equality for women is ridiculous.)
10 Jan 13
Originally posted by avalanchethecatIf they do, I don't hear them. 🙂...50's and the 70's...
What, these don't scream at you?
Actually, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Manual_of_Style uses a single s after numbers represented as figures. 70s, 60s, 50s.
You learn something new every day, but I still say this is confusing because such usage could mean 70 seconds, etc.
Although the case could also be made for this style: '70s, '60s, '50s (for years only).
10 Jan 13
Originally posted by SuzianneOh I'm fine with the apostrophe on the left, in fact I find it rather soothing. It's probably some sort of mental illness. I actually feel a little bit nauseated when I see a grocer's apostrophe.
If they do, I don't hear them. 🙂
Actually, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Manual_of_Style uses a single s after numbers represented as figures. 70s, 60s, 50s.
You learn something new every day, but I still say this is confusing because such usage could mean 70 seconds, etc.
Although the case could also be made for this style: '70s, '60s, '50s (for years only).