False dilemma. Or are those who argue on behalf of equality necessarily female, black, gay, etc.?
Christianity and the Role of the Female
- Thread starter wellwisher
- Start date
False dilemma. Or are those who argue on behalf of equality necessarily female, black, gay, etc.?
Whether you are Christian or not, you appear to have taken a position of supporting the premise of the OP. and therefore my question remains a valid one.
For all three of you.
And what statement of mine would support such an erroneous assumption? Nowhere have I agreed with the OP (that women have a major role in Christianity). There is a difference between the religion (scripture and doctrine) and its church-going culture. It is only the latter that I have commented on, and I have already given an alternative to Skinwalker's notion that all of these women are complicit in their own oppression.
Such scriptural passages are obviously an indication of when they were written (context), although women do tend to be rather indecisive or impulsive, which makes for poor leadership.
I will ask again. Were all suffrage proponents necessarily women? Of course not. It is only your intellectual dishonesty that leads you to make such blatantly misguided and ridiculous inferences. But of course, after entering this thread, without any on-topic post, only to poison the well, you seem suspiciously unable to support your erroneous accusation in any way. I have told you that I am not a Christian, and it can only be intentionally inflammatory to continue to lie about me even after being repeatedly corrected.
Just because you labor under the false dilemma that anyone who tolerates a religion must be an adherent only means that your cognitive bias has overwhelmed basic reasoning skills.
What makes one a suffrage proponent? A belief in a philosophy that mandates gender equality? Sort of like how a Christian proponent is--especially in your case--someone who very clearly believes in the tenets of Christianity. You've made it clear from the beginning that you are a Christian. You've given lip service to the notion that you're not, but this is a common ploy by pseudo-intellectuals looking to defend their faith without being dismissed as apologists.
And the reason you so often have to define yourself is because you have no integrity when you debate; you defend Christianity with all the same intellectual dishonesty of a True Believer. Your paper-thin arguments almost immediately degrade into semantics and personal insults, yet you fight on with the tenacity of someone who believes their everlasting soul is at stake. What are the odds that someone would debase themselves as you have in the defense of something they don't believe in? It would be one thing to correct inaccuracies, but what you do is something entirely different.
A suffrage proponent is not defending a philosophy. They are defending those suffering from inequality. As such, by your naive reasoning (if you can call it that), only women could "argue on behalf" of their own equality. This is an ignorant position you are uselessly trying to obscure with your evasive semantics about "philosophy". Any rational person can understand that people can be defended without believing in their ideology, just like any lawyer defending a client demonstrates. It is only the overwhelming false dilemma that you labor under, that assumes everyone must either be completely for or completely against such things, that leads you to lie about me, even after being told repeatedly.
I have explicitly told you before, and I will tell you again, I am not a Christian. If you could see past your attentional bias, you would see that I readily assert opinions that are very far from accepted by Christians. But that would not allow you to maintain your little fantasy, would it? I have readily admitted that I engage in apologetics, as the word is not inherently derogatory. So that is two counts of you being demonstrably dishonest or suffering from a serious cognitive bias.
It is you who posted in this thread only to call me a liar, and as yet, without any on-topic post. So it is you would is demonstrably lacking integrity, playing semantics ("philosophy" above), and making personal insults. This is called projection, where you accuse others of the behavior you exhibit.
And how does one arrive at the conclusion that inequality is a bad thing? That's not a philosophical position? It's not a worldview that all people should be treated equally? Now it's simply the default position of humanity?
I mean, this is the type of crap I'm talking about. I don't deny, your mental gymnastics are Olympic-level, but it's still dishonesty.
Non-sequitur. How do you even conclude that? There is no logical path from "This is a philosophy" to "Only women can argue on behalf of their own equality," let alone jamming a "therefore" between them and hoping no one notices. One can be of the philosophical position that the sexes should not be treated differently without being a woman. You're trying to argue that in order to be a Christian, one must be Christ. It's nonsense.
Boilerplate.
I'm not all that bothered with what you told me. Given your propensity for dishonesty, I've learned to take what you say with a grain of salt. I base my opinion of you on the content of your posts, and that content makes it plain that you are a Christian. A non-Christian would not do what you do.
Yeah, yeah. "I'm rubber, you're glue." Compelling argument, Brother Syne.
We are not talking about "conclusions" no matter how much you may wish to hypocritically play the semantics you constantly bellyache about. Since we now have suffrage, it is safe to relegate it to philosophy, but it was the people who were "argued on behalf" of when it was an actual challenge. It was "women deserve equal rights" not "this philosophy is sound".
Oh, you mean I am expected to take your semantic games (which I have demonstrated as such) seriously when you dismiss my arguments with only naked proclamations (much like the Christians you rail against)? That is called a double-standard, which is quite fitting for the subject at hand.
What "therefore"? Are you now reading words that are not there? I certainly do hope people do not hallucinate words that are not there.
I never said anything about "to be a Christian", so that is both a straw man ("You're trying to argue that") and an obvious red herring (as we are talking about "arguing on behalf of"), making this "nonsense" all your own.
So I take it you agree with this simple statement that completely kneecaps your lies.
Poisoning the well and personal insult. None of your lies have any basis in fact, no matter how you may wish to misrepresent me to suit your black and white thinking.
Are you ever going to manage to post on-topic for once?
Please provide data that support 1) that women tend to be "indecisive or impulsive" more so than men; and, 2) the extent to which these traits create poor leaders.
The latter should be fairly easy, though it would be easier still to associate those traits with bad management rather than bad leaders, particularly the trait of indecision. The former assumption however, may be somewhat of a challenge for you to demonstrate with real data.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
It took the Black Death to bring some equality to the Middle Ages. So...thanks?
Aside from you apparently not being able to distinguish opinion from hard statements of fact (in a non-science, or at best, soft science forum)...
You should be able to reference your own experience with women, but I will not make any assumptions about how comprehensive that experience may or may not be. For one, just go ask a woman.
Seeing as this is definitely a soft science issue, self-reported data is warranted:
Recently I asked a room full of college-aged women how many of them would describe themselves as indecisive, and a good majority of them raised their hands. -http://www.feminagirls.com/2008/09/18/the-quagmire-of-indecision/
And some of the reasons for indecisiveness (given in the link):
I do a lot of work with the financial industry, training people to do a better job of selling to women. One complaint that I hear often is, "women can't make up their mind," "women are too slow to make a decision," or "I prefer working with men because they're quicker to pull the trigger."
Just for the record, it isn't just men that feel this way. Many women in the financial industry have the same complaint.
Are they right? Are women indecisive? The answer is, no. Women simply have a more deliberate decision making process. While female clients may take more time to close, they are worth it. Let's look at why. -http://marketingtowomenonline.typepad.com/blog/2010/04/are-women-indecisive.html
Just for the record, it isn't just men that feel this way. Many women in the financial industry have the same complaint.
Are they right? Are women indecisive? The answer is, no. Women simply have a more deliberate decision making process. While female clients may take more time to close, they are worth it. Let's look at why. -http://marketingtowomenonline.typepad.com/blog/2010/04/are-women-indecisive.html
It is a bit of semantics to call indecisiveness "deliberation".
indecisive
adj
1. (of a person) vacillating; irresolute
adj
1. (of a person) vacillating; irresolute
There is only a difference of degree between vacillation and deliberation, and mostly a matter of how long it takes to arrive at a decision.
It is rather trivial that any leader must provide direction, which would be difficult, at best, to do in an indecisive state.
Last edited:
It has to do with the laws of supply and demand and divorce inflation. Divorce increased the demand for redundant goods and services (two houses) so price rose until now you need two incomes. Back in the 1960's, almost any family could have a home and lots of kids, with one person working a job. The same jobs today do not allows this, due to divorce inflation. This divorce inflation leads to higher poverty, since many women have children out of wedlock, and have no source of a second income, to keep up with the divorce inflation This requires the government acts as surrogate husband and father of their children. They are now dependent, but no longer free like the matriarch of yesteryear who leads the well being of her family, free from outside intervention.
I was censored for my previous post, even though I started this topic in a religious section and argued from a valid religious POV. I assumed the starter of a topic gets to direct the action. If you notice, there is no censor if you dump on religion in a religion topic, even if the ideas deviate from what is actually said in the religion. Do females support this dual standard? Are females about power using the dual standard or do they believe in fairness and one standard for all? The final question was, how would women change the church if given full power?
According to Historian Bettany Hughes, our ancestors thought of the divine as female.Bettany sets out in this video to show the Women not the Man as the pinnacle in religion.True? Who knows.
BBC Presents:When God Was a Girl | BBC Documentary | Women and Religion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JER0B51aT3Y
BBC Presents:When God Was a Girl | BBC Documentary | Women and Religion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JER0B51aT3Y
Even NT does not give respect to women.
Aquinas termed women as deficient and failed MEN.
Till today, church does not allow women to be priests. Any woman cardinals possible? Forget about it.
Haha. Devaki, Krishna's mother is worshiped as goddess. Was Magdalene a priestess or a prostitute? Though I have nothing against her being the latter. Buddha too accepted a prostitute as an honoured follower.
Did Magdalene see a resurrected Jesus? But did she even believe it was Jesus? NO.
Hinduism nowhere prohibits woman priests or teachers or law givers.
Xianity has to travel miles and miles to even catch up.
In the Catholic church there are many female Saints, which is a higher prestige then priest. Priests are there for temporal duties but Saints have been elevated to a status of closer to God; hall of famers.
It doesn't think highly of them either -
From Niti Sastra:
1. 15. Do not put your trust in rivers, men who carry weapons, beasts with claws or horns, women, and members of a royal family.
1. 17. Women have hunger two-fold, shyness four-fold, daring six-fold, and lust eight-fold as compared to men.
2. 1. Untruthfulness, rashness, guile, stupidity, avarice, uncleanliness and cruelty are a women's seven natural flaws.
12. 18. Courtesy should be learned from princes, the art of conversation from pandits, lying should be learned from gamblers and deceitful ways should be learned from women.
14. 10. It is ruinous to be familiar with the king, fire, the religious preceptor, and a woman. To be altogether indifferent of them is to be deprived of the opportunity to benefit ourselves, hence our association with them must be from a safe distance.
14. 11. We should always deal cautiously with fire, water, women, foolish people, serpents, and members of a royal family; for they may, when the occasion presents itself, at once bring about our death.
16. 2. The heart of a woman is not united; it is divided. While she is talking with one man, she looks lustfully at another and thinks fondly of a third in her heart.
17. 9. The woman who fasts and observes religious vows without the permission of her husband shortens his life, and goes to hell.
17. 10. A woman does not become holy by offering by charity, by observing hundreds of fasts, or by sipping sacred water, as by sipping the water used to wash her husbands feet.
17. 14. The eating of tundi fruit deprives a man of his sense, while the vacha root administered revives his reasoning immediately. A woman at once robs a man of his vigour while milk at once restores it.
LaurieAG
Registered Senior Member
Temporal duties weren't without their own honor systems either wellwisher.
I had a late great aunt (we shared a common paternal ancestor and she was born in Ireland) who was a presentation nun called Sister Saint Anthony who resided in San Antonio, TX, until she passed away in a hospital in Fort Worth in the mid 1990's aged 104.
Mary didn't have much of a role in the early church. She was in fact a public relations ploy. She is identical to Isis in her symbolism.
Why? Because they are both depicted mothering their child?
jan.
Partitioned roles and restricted opportunity. A little dominance thrown in too. Some churches are turning this around in the modern era - Anglican, for example, CofE - but the sentiment persists in some elements of the laity despite the importance of women in the social administration of that laity.
Still, the CofE and the Anglicans are largely a pack of cream puffs. Connecting them to antiprogressive memes is like hitching a horse to a cart: a stiff beating and the fools run off in any old direction. To paraphrase Death: none of you have got any balls.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-Pc...983_the_grim_reaper_stays_for_a_drink_part_3/
Still, the CofE and the Anglicans are largely a pack of cream puffs. Connecting them to antiprogressive memes is like hitching a horse to a cart: a stiff beating and the fools run off in any old direction. To paraphrase Death: none of you have got any balls.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-Pc...983_the_grim_reaper_stays_for_a_drink_part_3/
If you look at modern liberalism and the role of women, one thing I notice is the dual standard. On the one hand, we say women are equal, which they are. But then we create two sets of rules such as quotas or all female traditions are good but don't try this is you are male. If you are equal one set of rules is all you need yet two sets are used. Why is that?
The dual standard is symbolically the binarius, which based on lies (equal but will use two sets of rules). This is irrational and has no logical consistency with what is promised and what is delivered. The story of Adam and Eve has Eve being tempted by Satan who caters to insecurities and who promises her power and control like God (women priests). Once in, the dual standard will employed under the guise of equality using retroactive guilt where the innocent of today have to pay for something they did not do, just like in liberal culture.
The Catholic Church is between 1600-2000 years old, depending on where you start. Anything that lasts that long and currently has over a billion followers has a formula for success; Coke Classic How do we know that adding the binarius of the dual standard ingredient will keep the streak alive; new Coke? I would guess adding women as priests is more for the atheists since they know this will undermine the formula for success. I would expect division due to the binarius.
Once women throw away the dual standard in culture, I would reconsider my position. But as long as the dual standard remains I have to assume the binarius (Satan) is their formula for success and will undermine the church until it also becomes a dual church that divides.
The dual standard is symbolically the binarius, which based on lies (equal but will use two sets of rules). This is irrational and has no logical consistency with what is promised and what is delivered. The story of Adam and Eve has Eve being tempted by Satan who caters to insecurities and who promises her power and control like God (women priests). Once in, the dual standard will employed under the guise of equality using retroactive guilt where the innocent of today have to pay for something they did not do, just like in liberal culture.
The Catholic Church is between 1600-2000 years old, depending on where you start. Anything that lasts that long and currently has over a billion followers has a formula for success; Coke Classic How do we know that adding the binarius of the dual standard ingredient will keep the streak alive; new Coke? I would guess adding women as priests is more for the atheists since they know this will undermine the formula for success. I would expect division due to the binarius.
Once women throw away the dual standard in culture, I would reconsider my position. But as long as the dual standard remains I have to assume the binarius (Satan) is their formula for success and will undermine the church until it also becomes a dual church that divides.