Theology IV

[Earniel]

Always interesting to see what the Church's priorities are. When I was a teen I often wondered whether religion wasn't just invented by men to keep women in their 'proper' place. Things like this makes me wonder whether my teen self wasn't on to something...

[inked]

The Church's priorities are #1 the salvation of eternal souls from the consequences of human sinfulness by the proclamation of the Good News of God's redemption by the Second Adam, God Incarnate, Wholly Human, Wholly Divine, Jesus of Nazareth Who gave complete obedience to God and offered Himself as a Sacrifice to atone for those sins, whose sacrifice was demonstrated approved by God in the Resurrection and Ascension. The rest is all related to that. Keeping somen in their place has nothing said about it in the Creeds (cf. Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds - see http://www.creeds.net/ ).

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by inked

The Church's priorities are #1 the salvation of eternal souls from the consequences of human sinfulness by the proclamation of the Good News of God's redemption by the Second Adam, God Incarnate, Wholly Human, Wholly Divine, Jesus of Nazareth Who gave complete obedience to God and offered Himself as a Sacrifice to atone for those sins, whose sacrifice was demonstrated approved by God in the Resurrection and Ascension. The rest is all related to that.

Oh, that explains this, then...

Paige Sultzbach, a freshman, is playing baseball because her high school doesn't offer girls softball. But the school Mesa Prep was to face in the final, Our Lady of Sorrows Academy, said its boys would not compete against a team with a girl and forfeited the game - and the state title - to Mesa Prep.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/11...t-second-base/


inked said

Keeping [w]omen in their place has nothing said about it in the Creeds (cf. Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds - see http://www.creeds.net/ ).

So, maybe they should stop doing it?

[inked]

Scripture has a lot to say about headship and complementarity, GM. But that is not equality in the PC sense, of course.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by inked

Scripture has a lot to say about headship and complementarity, GM. But that is not equality in the PC sense, of course.

Oh, of course.

Slavery is also pretty un-PC these days, too.

"22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything."
Ephesians 5: 22-24

"18 Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord"
Colossians 3:18

"34 Women[f] should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.[g]"

1 Corinthians 14:34

"But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,[a] and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.

7 A man ought not to cover his head,[b] since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man."
1 Corinthians 11
(It's a disgrace that so many cafeteria Christians these days ignore these last two)

[inked]

Aye, and ye seem to have missed the bit about husbands loving their wives as Christ loved the Church and GAVE HIMSELF FOR HER (crucifixion and all that) so as to make it seem so biased!

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by inked

Aye, and ye seem to have missed the bit about husbands loving their wives as Christ loved the Church and GAVE HIMSELF FOR HER (crucifixion and all that) so as to make it seem so biased!

Nope, didn't miss it- left it out on purpose

I mean, I love my dog, but I make the rules. I also love my kids, but now that they're starting to turn 18, I don't demand they submit to me as the head of the family.

Yes, I'd even die to save my kid's life (luckily I haven't been tested) but I don't think that gives me the right to give them orders once they are grown- any more than I have the right to give my wife orders, since she's a mentally-competent adult.

That's the difference between people and pets (or slaves).

and GAVE HIMSELF FOR HER (crucifixion and all that)

Yeah, died for THREE WHOLE DAYS, knowing it was a temporary time-out. A whole long weekend of death, out of Eternal Life- now that's some sacrifice!.

But I'll go along with it-any man that dies for his wife gets to tell her what to do...afterwards.

[inked]

You've still left it out. But, hey, if you want straw women to beat up, go for it.

On the other hand, if you deliberately ignore the critical part of the prescription, are you being fair and thinking through the argument or merely cherry-picking to make the best of your incomplete case?

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by inked

You've still left it out. But, hey, if you want straw women to beat up, go for it.

On the other hand, if you deliberately ignore the critical part of the prescription, are you being fair and thinking through the argument or merely cherry-picking to make the best of your incomplete case?

No, left it out on purpose as bait.

To say I should love someone/thing, but he/she /it in turn has to obey me, is, as I said, a proper relation between a parent and a minor child or an owner and their pet.

I don't consider women to be either, and I don't think that "Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord" is a proper relationship between adults.

What is it about just being a male that gives you the right to demand another human being obey you?
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fb...type=1&theater

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Double Post

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Of course, the power dynamic created makes it much easier for the husband to omit his part than for the wife to omit hers, and the men who are particularly keen on headship tend, in my experience, to be less keen on sacrificial self-gift.

Originally Posted by Gray Mouser

What is it about just being a male that gives you the right to demand another human being obey you?

I was just talking to a female friend, who was telling me about how she was being stalked by a Russian guy. She is a highly intelligent and literate woman, and she recounted how he once said, when chatting with her and her neighbours, "She may be smart, but at least you still say, "I am man!"

[inked]

Oh, it's the obey part, huh?

I shall tell you what my father told me:
"Son, never forget that you are the head of the house. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ............................And, never, ever forget that she is the neck that turns the head."

Clearly your ideology has never encountered reality !

But, by the by, all that getting along swimmingly and no problems with the relationship bit since they are both the same-sex, doesn't seem to be working out quite as trumpeted priorly:
http://www.christian.org.uk/news/ons...-up-nearly-30/

What with all the Olympic excitement and all, there are still those statistical analyses which hint at reality as well as a digital timer.

Cheerio!

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by inked

Oh, it's the obey part, huh?

I shall tell you what my father told me:
"Son, never forget that you are the head of the house. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ............................And, never, ever forget that she is the neck that turns the head."

Clearly your ideology has never encountered reality !

I've been married for 22 years- trust me, I'm quite aware of the reality

But, by the by, all that getting along swimmingly and no problems with the relationship bit since they are both the same-sex, doesn't seem to be working out quite as trumpeted priorly:
http://www.christian.org.uk/news/ons...-up-nearly-30/
Cheerio!

Who on earth said that? As the joke goes "Of course I'm in favor of gay marriage- why should they get off easy?"

As for the stats, note the quote is "[the government] originally estimated in 2003 that as many as 124,000 people could be in civil partnerships by 2010 " without giving the range of the original estimate.

If that had been "as few as 76,000 and as many as 124,000" it would have been right on target (actual number 100,000.)

Anyway, so what if there are fewer civil unions than anticipated? (and maybe some are hanging back waiting for real marriage to become legal).

If Richard Loving and Mildred Jeter had been the only interracial couple in history to want to get married thay still would have had that right.

[inked]

Speaking of rights, how about the rights of girls to be born?

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/sto...ns/1203327.htm

Some amazing data from India.

[brownjenkins]

No one has a right to be born under any scripture I know of. I believe it's a privilege.

[GrayMouser]

Or the rights of girls to live?

http://jezebel.com/5935734/the-pregn...ium=socialflow

Basically, a 16-year-old pregnant girl is diagnosed with cancer, but the chemotherapy would (probably) kill the fetus. The Dominican Republic passed a new Constitution in 2010 saying "The right to life is inviolable from conception to natural death."

So, chemo is withheld while the gov't discusses it, and by the time it's started it's too late and the girl dies.

Welcome to Paul Ryan's America:

Ryan was one of several dozen Republicans to co-sponsor a particularly controversial bill last year that never made it to the House floor called the Sanctity of Human Life Act. The measure stated that the "life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent... at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-...or-obama-camp/

[inked]

As compared to the Democratic National Platform:

"According to a copy of the party platform, which was released online just before midnight on Monday, “The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay.”

That last part—“regardless of ability to pay”—is an endorsement of taxpayer-funded abortions, a policy that President Obama has personally endorsed."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ns_651589.html

Hmmm, which would you rather be an embryo or a fetus under, GM? A belief that you mattered as in Ryan's bill or disposable as in the Democratic platform?

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by inked

Hmmm, which would you rather be an embryo or a fetus under, GM? A belief that you mattered as in Ryan's bill or disposable as in the Democratic platform?

A belief that you mattered? To republicans? *snort* Not if you're female, it appears. That indeed appears to be a theological aspect of republicans.

Wake me when Ryan and the others finally starts regarding us as actual human beings rather then breeding plants of which they can't even grasp the biological functions but which they want to control so badly.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by inked

As compared to the Democratic National Platform:

"According to a copy of the party platform, which was released online just before midnight on Monday, “The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay.”

That last part—“regardless of ability to pay”—is an endorsement of taxpayer-funded abortions, a policy that President Obama has personally endorsed."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ns_651589.html

Hmmm, which would you rather be an embryo or a fetus under, GM? A belief that you mattered as in Ryan's bill or disposable as in the Democratic platform?

Wouldn't matter, since I wouldn't be conscious of it anyway.

But I'd far rather be a woman under the Democratic platform.

[GrayMouser]

Angry about a video insulting your prophet, so kill some people who had nothing to do with it. Good one