|
|
Post by CrepedCrusader on Jul 31, 2018 18:51:17 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jul 31, 2018 19:04:24 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2018 19:30:25 GMT
"God created the woman as a "helper" for the man"
"Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you"
"But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife"
"As in all the churches of the saints, women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate"
LOL
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2018 19:43:44 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jul 31, 2018 20:20:33 GMT
@graham “Helper” used in this context is not talking in the sense of subservience. It’s more along the lines of an ideal partner. Are men not the natural leaders, protectors and providers in a relationship? Do you let your wife wear the trousers, Graham? Again see above. It’s talking about authority. In the sense of position and rank. Difficult concept to understand for cuck like yourself, but it is what it is, pal. www.gotquestions.org/women-silent-church.html |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 31, 2018 20:28:32 GMT
Atheists - 4Chan
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2018 21:26:00 GMT
@graham “Helper” used in this context is not talking in the sense of subservience. It’s more along the lines of an ideal partner. Then it would use the word "partner". And where are the parts that say the man is the "helper" of the woman? I believe that depends on the relationship and the people. I've known relationships where the man is the natural leader and provider, and I've known relationships where the woman is. Which seems to me to be as it should be, rather than a "everyone will behave that same" instruction. You see you make excuses, but you still think that the behaviour of a woman is something her husband chooses to allow - that she is not a person with her own agency, but a subset of a man who behaves in the ways that he "lets" her. FWIW I don't have a wife, but if I did I wouldn't "let" her say or do anything. She would wear whatever she wanted to wear, and say whatever she wanted to say. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that my hypothetical wife would do, within certain sane limits, whatever she wanted to do. Ah, we've reached the part of the thread where you realise how stupid the things you are saying are and so go to the insults. Essentially, a concession that your arguments have failed. Thanks for that. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 31, 2018 21:57:45 GMT
I'm sure the religious people of the world appreciate your attitude of just trying to be helpful. Perhaps I can be some help, since you're the one who might need help more.
The history of "separate gender roles" has a basis in the notion that men and women are essentially different and therefore suited to different roles. The observation of the difference is likely to have occurred with or without religion.
The special roles for women have been intended as a means of honoring them rather than making them any sort of slaves. For example women can avoid having to take the blame for anything. Necessarily however never having to take the blame can mean having a merely advisory role in many types of decisions.
In modern America the "Equal Rights Amendment" was never and will never be ratified because of two important numbers. One is the number of times child custody is awarded to males and the other is the number of women in various military roles. As much as you might like the idea of those numbers being "equal," the courts are not going to be able to guarantee it. It would be an impossible task. Society simply does not work that way. So there you see that men and women are "different," and suited to different roles, however they might be truly "equal" in quite many endeavors.
People, whether "religious" or not, whatever use they make of archaic writings, have struggled with these complications. Sometimes in trying to keep women safe from responsibility they have taken away too much of their free choice. Sometimes in trying to guarantee their ability to stay with children they have made it difficult for them to choose some other career that would demand so much of their time and energy they would not have sufficient oversight of children. That neglects options like not having children or hiring others to fill small gaps in fully responsible child care.
Your notion that only religious people have these problems is wrong. They can be quite more literate than atheists actually and prove it. They can also be more reasonable than atheists and prove that too.
Your attempts to smear religion are only going to be successful on very poorly literate people who are quite irresponsible themselves and in no way suited to help others be responsible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jul 31, 2018 22:13:13 GMT
@graham Not necessarily. But anyway. Read, learn and try to understand. www.gotquestions.org/woman-helper-suitable.htmlNot in so many words. But it does instruct husbands to be providers, protectors and close companions. "Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” 1 Timothy 5:8“Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them” Colossians 3:19“Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers” 1 Peter 3:7Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church—for we are members of his body. ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.” Ephesians 5:25-33 “But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.”1 Corinthians 7:2-5I know and of course that usually isn’t the case in unhealthy relationships. And this is the general attitude throughout most of the adult male population of Britain, no wonder the country is so messed up. And this refutes the point I raised how? |
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jul 31, 2018 22:51:27 GMT
I remember reading that convicted serial killer Paul Bernardo was an agnostic (Point of fact: He & Karla Homolka abducted Kristen French right off of the property of a church). There is a story where Ted Bundy changed his mind about raping a young woman, when he was she was praying her Rosary. In the Gospels, Christ Chose the love of the unnamed sinner (some have identified with St. Mary Magdalene), over the rich man who hosted a dinner for Him. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2018 10:12:31 GMT
Yes, necessarily. Shocked, I am. Shocked and surprised! The health of a relationship is not dependent on the man being "in charge" of the woman. I'd say that the health of a relationship depends on both partners functioning according to their nature, whatever that may be. You think that Britain is "messed up" because of a belief in equality? So on the one hand you're trying to claim that the bible doesn't actually preach inequality, despite the fact that it clearly does... but on the other hand, you're arguing that there should be inequality after all because if men don't treat women as objects to be controlled, it messes up the country. Nice. It demonstrates that you don't really believe your own arguments. If you did, you wouldn't feel the need to go to insults every time they're deconstructed. |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Aug 1, 2018 11:12:26 GMT
@graham
Not really.
Well I’m certainly neither shocked nor surprised that you completely avoided addressing the article I cited.
I’ll chalk that one off as your concession then.
I’ve already shown you that being “in charge” does not mean what you think it means. It’s about the man being a leader, provider, protector and loving companion for his wife.
Again I’ve noticed you failed to respond to any of the scriptures I cited.
Thanks for not refuting anything.
Agreed. And that nature is for the husband to be the leader, provider, protector and loving companion. And for the wife to submit to her husband’s leadership. And, no, submiting here does not mean inequality. It about the wife entrusting herself to her husband. These are the keys to a healthy marriage.
Nice straw man indeed.
No. It demonstrates that you can’t provide a reasonable refutation and so are left to resort to jumping to baseless assumptions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 1, 2018 11:17:50 GMT
Are men not the natural leaders, protectors and providers in a relationship? Do you let your wife wear the trousers, Graham? Again see above. It’s talking about authority. In the sense of position and rank. Difficult concept to understand for cuck like yourself, but it is what it is, pal. Holy cow. Any woman who ends up with you has my sympathy. |
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Aug 1, 2018 11:34:56 GMT
A meme that cherry picks some parts of massive texts of scriptures to make a point, no mention of historical context at all.
Excellent!
Now I don't have to read and investigate any of those religions for myself, all my thinking has been done for me by a meme!
I'm a Sith Lord so I need absolutes.
RELIGION IS BAD.
|
|
|
|
Post by kls on Aug 1, 2018 11:40:23 GMT
Leviticus is Old Testament. Not sure why that is used for Christians in particular. One would think a verse from the New Testament would fit better.
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 1, 2018 11:48:26 GMT
Leviticus is Old Testament. Not sure why that is used for Christians in particular. One would think a verse from the New Testament would fit better. Why even keep the Old Testament in the Bible? Either it still counts or it doesn't. It sure seems like folks simply cherry pick it. The parts they like, that people still agree with, are okay, while the parts they don't like, that people don't still agree with, are "superceded by the New Testament, so you can ignore that." And what sort of deity would have a book where parts of it are no longer pertinent anyway? That would seem like a pretty incompetent deity. |
|
