Deputy42

i personally think make better rock stars, baseball players, racecar drivers, pro wrestlers, cowboys, and mob bosses. i cant prove them all, the only one i can prove is the most basic difference.

either men and women are treated diffrerently in the workplace or they are treated the same in the workplace. if the two are treated the same in the workplace, we are all happy. since we are not all happy here, we will say that men and women are treated differently. if people of the same type are treated the same, then it follows that the only thing that would cause a difference in the treatment of two people would be that the two people are of different types. if we are talking about men and women, the obvious differences lie in the sexuality of the individuals in question.
in marriage eph 5.21 "wives be subject to your husbands as you are to the lord. for the husband is the head of the wife just as christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the svior. just as the church is subject to christ, so also wives ought to be in everything to the husbands" paul said it not me.

i believe in a marriage the man is the head of the household. i would never order my wife about like she were a common slave. divine right? it might say that but i'm not sure i would go that far in my own life.

were a wife and husband unable to come to any sort of mutual agreement regarding an issue, i think love would become important. i don't know if you've ever loved someone else, which is one reason why i brought up pauls teachings on love. this is why it is important to view the work in full because often the clarification you seek will be found elsewhere. any loving spouse will eventually will be brought to a point such as this and be willing to defer. this is not subjugation, its give and take, its love, and its why the earlier comment was important.

sure, it is a womans choice to enter into a relationship. it is her choice to "become one flesh". according to st paul, in a relationship such as this, the man is called to be the leader. this doesn't change the fact that the woman chose to be in the relationship to begin with.

god calls us to be yoked equally. a marriage with such apparent inequality would not satisfy that requirement. also, women speak in my home church and i'm pretty cool with it.

the cry for equality in practice leads to homogenizing. if we close our eyes with regards to sex, we keep ourselves from seeing each others true beauty. egalitarianism, institutionalized and state mandated equality taken to the extreme, just causes everyone to be torn down, not for anyone to be lifted up.

Main Entry: 1ob·jec·tive
Pronunciation: &b-'jek-tiv, äb-
Function: adjective
Date: 1620
1 a : relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence -- used chiefly in medieval philosophy b : of, relating to, or being an object , phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind <objective reality> <our reveries... are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world -- Marvin Reznikoff> -- compare SUBJECTIVE 3a c of a symptom of disease : perceptible to persons other than the affected individual -- compare SUBJECTIVE 4c d : involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects , conditions, or phenomena <objective awareness> <objective data>
2 : relating to, characteristic of, or constituting the case of words that follow prepositions or transitive verbs
3 a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment> b of a test : limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum
synonym see MATERIAL, FAIR

Main Entry: 1nat·u·ral
Pronunciation: 'na-ch&-r&l, 'nach-r&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin naturalis of nature, from natura nature
Date: 14th century
1 : based on an inherent sense of right and wrong <natural justice>
2 a : being in accordance with or determined by nature b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature
3 a (1) : begotten as distinguished from adopted; also : LEGITIMATE (2) : being a relation by actual consanguinity as distinguished from adoption <natural parents> b : ILLEGITIMATE <a natural child>
4 : having an essential relation with someone or something : following from the nature of the one in question <his guilt is a natural deduction from the evidence>
5 : implanted or being as if implanted by nature : seemingly inborn <a natural talent for art>
6 : of or relating to nature as an object of study and research
7 : having a specified character by nature <a natural athlete>
8 a : occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature : not marvelous or supernatural <natural causes> b : formulated by human reason alone rather than revelation <natural religion> <natural rights> c : having a normal or usual character <events followed their natural course>
9 : possessing or exhibiting the higher qualities (as kindliness and affection) of human nature <a noble... brother... ever most kind and natural -- Shakespeare>
10 a : growing without human care; also : not cultivated <natural prairie unbroken by the plow> b : existing in or produced by nature : not artificial <natural turf> <natural curiosities> c : relating to or being natural food
11 a : being in a state of nature without spiritual enlightenment : UNREGENERATE <natural man> b : living in or as if in a state of nature untouched by the influences of civilization and society
12 a : having a physical or real existence as contrasted with one that is spiritual, intellectual, or fictitious <a corporation is a legal but not a natural person> b : of, relating to, or operating in the physical as opposed to the spiritual world <natural laws describe phenomena of the physical universe>
13 a : closely resembling an original : true to nature b : marked by easy simplicity and freedom from artificiality, affectation, or constraint c : having a form or appearance found in nature
14 a : having neither flats nor sharps <the natural scale of C major> b : being neither sharp nor flat c : having the pitch modified by the natural sign
15 : of an off-white or beige color
- nat·u·ral·ness /-n&s/ noun
synonyms NATURAL, INGENUOUS, NAIVE, UNSOPHISTICATED, ARTLESS mean free from pretension or calculation. NATURAL implies lacking artificiality and self-consciousness and having a spontaneousness suggesting the natural rather than the man-made world <her unaffected, natural manner>. INGENUOUS implies inability to disguise or conceal one's feelings or intentions <the ingenuous enthusiasm of children>. NAIVE suggests lack of worldly wisdom often connoting credulousness and unchecked innocence <politically naive>. UNSOPHISTICATED implies a lack of experience and training necessary for social ease and adroitness <unsophisticated adolescents>. ARTLESS suggests a naturalness resulting from unawareness of the effect one is producing on others <artless charm>. synonym see in addition REGULAR

David M. Payne

from deputy42's post above; posted February 15, 2002 02:17 PM
Sure. Why does your benevolent god allow evil?

We’ve heard the free will argument before, but not what part of the bible it was quoted from. In fact as far as I can tell it isn’t in the bible, but was made up by some ancient religious scholar to counter the point above about god allowing evil to exist. Some ascribe it to Adam and Eve having the “free will” to eat the apple, some have ascribed it to other parts of the bible, but I have never seen any of you theists pull this argument out of the bible and hold it up definitively as coming from God. The free will argument is just like the rest of the religious books, a construct of man written in the guise of the word of God. We have free will because it is part of our evolutionary development, not because it was given to us by a mythical God.

Deputy42

there will be no evil in heaven because people in hell choose to be there, just like those in heaven.

you are tough, but i will continue. freud was used only as an example. you seriously wish to discredit EVERYTHING paul said merely because ONE thing is inconsistent with your value judgements?

i believe that it does lead to the excellent life. i do things that make me happy. i think the excellent life is a happy life. for me, christianity leads to happiness. does it lead to a happy life for you? i think that there is a possibility, but i will not force it on you

your idea of human rights did not exist when paul was writing his letters. obviously his writings affected the greatest change in western history. in order for me to answer your question on your terms i must accept your views. i do not have the same values as you, and i do not accept your premises. paul was NEITHER preserving the status NOR was he concerned with human rights....BECAUSE THE IDEA DIDN'T EXIST.

i brought it up as an illustration. it was meant to show you that values of one culture often times differ from another culture. both cultures thought ethnocentrically, as are you when you make value judgements on st paul.

normal is the important aspect here. functioning..operation..etc. i use normal here in the same sense as when you talked about normal healthy people who don't take hormones

i was not being condescending, i think you are beginning to see my position. why are you so hostile?

i, like a scientist, make no moral value judgement here, only stating what is, not what it should be.

sometimes, but not about this. i think role models are important. i think this point is evidenced by my postings.

i did say that, but that is not the only thing a role model can provide. to categorize this very specific function of role models as the sole role of a male role model is dangerous, and in bad faith. we were talking about what males can provide boys, not about girls. i notice that you do this "what is good for the goose is good for the gander" often.

you keep bringing it up.

i must admit the 99 percent was hyperbole. which statement in particular do you find disgusting?

and thankyou for pointing out the strawman, i really didn't know what was being referred to

Deputy42

if you remember the tree you speak of is the tree of knowledge of good and evil. we dont eat the tree, we don't know what evil is. realize that before we knew what good and evil were, god came around and hung out with us lowly humans. take pain and pleasure for example. pain can be good and pleasure can be bad. some things which are immediately painful like exercise wrestling etc are almost universally thought of as good. like wise, drunkeness feels good at first, yet alcoholism is usually regarded as bad. excercise is good because the benefits outweigh the bad parts. drunkeness is bad because its evils outweigh any pleasure experienced. it seems from this then that one could add the good and bad experienced in life. the road to a good life then would be that of proper measurement of good and evil and also keen insight regarding what leads to good and what leads to evil. this only works if we know what is good and what is evil. this is the legacy we get from adam.

bonduca

Janis Joplin. What has the rest to do with equality, and what has your preference in the gender of a mob boss to do with 1)equality between the sexes 2)the teachings of St. Paul? Please answer coherently.

What exactly does that mean?
Are you content for women to be treated differently in the workplace with regards to wages, opportunity for advancement, and training? What are your feelings about sexual harrassment? Please be concise.

I am an atheist. Why would I base my personal relationships on the writings of a dead person from the Bible? I do not base my grooming habits on those of Lucretia Borgia, or my dietary habits on the preferences of King Henry VII. Please explain why this should have any affect on me, unless I were interested in seducing a hardline Christian person.

I believe that furniture should be simple and comfortable and that men should help take out the garbage. But I cannot see how this would affect you. Please explain why your preference in marriage has anything to do with me or anyone else on this board. Remember that we are atheists and unlikely to base our lives on the writings of any deceased individual quoted in your religious texts. Again, please be clear and to the point.

I agree, especially since communication seems to be impossible.

Are you telling me to give up all hope of reading a coherent text from you?

As a matter of fact, I do love someone. One of the things I particularly admire about him is that he does not require me to play his subordinate. But that is not relevant to what you yourself think (whatever that may be, I am not sure anyone can make it out, as your statements are so diffuse and rambling).

Do you mean to say that if the man loves the woman, he will also be capable of deferring to her judgement? That they are, in fact, equal? Or do you mean to say the woman will give in if she truly loves the man? Or just what the hell DO you mean, anyway, since you are not particularly clear? Do you even know?

Any man in a relationship with me is most certainly not called on to be a leader except in matters of vehicular navigation. Please explain to me why I, as an atheist, am supposed to submit myself to a man's will per the writings of the deceased Biblical person whom I do not follow. Again, please be clear.

Please quote passages to back this up. Does this also apply to a marriage between a much more materially affluent person and a poorer person? Are such unions invalid in the eyes of your God? Or does it only apply when the inequity is not in favor of the man? Please tell me why this should have any bearing on my life in any case.

Does this mean that you support equality between the sexes? Or that you support women speaking in your church, as long as they remember their proper place? Again, please explain why the opinion of someone totally unknown to me, citing the writings of a dead Biblical personage should have any affect upon the behavior of women in society, and what rights they should expect under U.S. law. Please use your own words and be clear.

Please explain what this means. I cannot understand if you are referring to a level of bacteria in the workplace, equality between the sexes, or a theory of feng shui.

What exactly does this mean? Are you arguing against lifelong chastity? Are you encouraging everyone to have a makeover? Please explain this statement.

Please be precise about what you are referring to. If you mean laws governing equality between the sexes, please explain how my being sure of having access to equal education, equal athletic opportunity within the school system, equal credit status, equal pay, and equal opportunities for professional advancement brings anyone down. Anyone who does not wish women to be relegated to subordinate status, that is. I am not interested in the ineffectual ravings of those who wish me to be forced into a subordinate position because they are incapable of relating to me as an equal. Again, please be clear.

[ February 16, 2002: Message edited by: bonduca ]</p>

Queen of Swords

<strong>I originally said : Where are the many differences?</strong>

In other words, you were just talking out of your ass about "many differences"?

<strong>I ask, What differences did you have in mind that would have a significant impact on the way in which women and men are treated, both in the environment of the workplace (remember what Paul said about authority?) and in a marriage? </strong>

In other words, Paul's command that "a woman shall not have authority over a man" is basically useless now?

What are you talking about? Please do not speak for anyone except yourself.

And as you said, the only thing you have evidence for is that "men are better at impregnating women than women are at impregnating women". Let's assume the job has nothing to do with pregnancy.

But as you've said before, he was writing for a different time. Is what he said still relevant?

<strong>I ask : Do you believe that men have the (divine) right to tell their wives what to do, just as parents have that right with their children? What happens if husband and wife do not agree on something? Is it always the wife who has to give in? </strong>

We're not talking about slavery. We are discussing everyday situations where there is a difference of opinion. Are you saying the man's opinion is automatically more important than the woman's?

You claimed that the parents' relationship to children was parallel to a husband's relationship to his wife. Therefore, just as parents have a right to tell their children what to do, does the husband have a right to tell his wife what to do?

So it doesn't matter that the man is supposed to be the head of the household; he should alse "defer"?

<strong>At first, Depuity42 says, "in the same way men are called to be leaders in that a man and woman form one flesh."
However, on page 3 : "i think it is each person determines his/her own reality. again, equality is a good idea, it just leads to strange situations sometimes."

And later : "a womans role is whatever she decides to make it, just like everyone else."</strong>

You didn't specify a relationship at the time.

<strong>Page 4 : I ask, So should women be allowed to speak in church or to have authority over a man? In a marriage between a fairly stupid man and a very intelligent woman, who is in charge? </strong>

Where does god say that people should check their intellectual compatibility, etc. before marrying? Most people translate the "yoked equally" reference to "do not marry someone of a different faith".

Marriages like that happen. What is your answer to the question.

So Paul's words on the subject really did apply to another time and had no relevance for today. At least in this regard, he didn't have any "excellent life" in mind.

<strong>"additionally, with regards to the workplace. homogenizing men and women in the workplace requires an equally sterile, unnatural, and objective workplace......again interesting"</strong>

Describe such an instance of this "homogenizing".

You speak only for yourself. I do not agree with this statement, and I'm sure you can't back it up with evidence either.

Again, you are talking nonsense (and without evidence).

<strong>
I'm not even sure if Deputy42 knows the meaning of the word "objective", much less "natural".
</strong>

Can you give the meanings of "objective" and "natural" as they apply to your statement about equality in the workplace rather than just cutting and pasting?

[ February 16, 2002: Message edited by: QueenofSwords ]</p>

Queen of Swords

<strong>Is there going to be evil in heaven? If not, how will we ever have free will there?</strong>

Not necessarily. What about babies who die? Will they not be in heaven? If they are, they didn't have the capacity to choose it.

<strong>
You are ignoring my question. Please answer it. We are not discussing Freud, we are discussing Paul. Please stay on topic. </strong>

Bad example. He never claimed to be inspired by a god.

I HAVE ASKED YOU THIS BEFORE : Do not put words in my mouth.

Now please answer the question.

<strong>The claim that it leads to "the excellent human life". Can't back it up? Stop saying it, because it's beginning to sound like a meaningless lie.</strong>

So you were unable to back up your words with any actual evidence. Please do not proselytize to me again.

<strong>Please answer the question. Was Paul more concerned with preserving the status quo than with upholding human rights? Why did he "let in a few additions"? </strong>

Did God know about human rights?

<strong>In that case, why even bother bringing up the Chinese or the Western civilizations? They couldn't see what would happen in the future as a result of their actions. Can your god see that?</strong>

Please answer the question.

<strong>
Define "normal functioning". </strong>

Please elaborate on your definition of "normal functioning".

<strong>Let's leave the condescending remarks out of this, shall we? </strong>

That is how you appear; could you try harder to not be condescending?

You couldn't be more wrong.

Come to the Rants, Raves and Preaching forum, and I'll be happy to explain in more detail.

<strong>Are you saying that racism was in any way a good thing, simply because it happened at some point in history?</strong>

Please answer the question.

<strong>That's not what you said the first time. You said that a male role model could provide a child with goals and a sense of being male. A girl doesn't need a sense of being male - and as for goals, those aren't exactly gender-specific any more. </strong>

In other words, you were wrong in your definition of what a role model can provide?

It's called sexual equality.

<strong> What does that mean? When did I use your ridiculous analogy? </strong>

Do you even understand the difference between your use of it and my quoting it to make you realize how stupid it is?

<strong>And you fail to back up your statement that "99% of sexual advances are unwanted".
But most of all, the statements you have made are disgusting.</strong>

Are you capable of backing up your statement about most sexual advances being unwanted? If you can't back it up, why do you even say things like that? Because you find it funny?

I've already told you this. I will not quote you again because I don't even want to look at what you wrote. Your statements reveal a mentality that is responsible for rape. Your viewpoint is both revolting and dangerous.

[ February 16, 2002: Message edited by: QueenofSwords ]</p>

hezekiah jones

Pffft. This is all your website says - no support whatsoever. And "Moses" finished the Pentateuch after his own death, since he describes it. Nice trick.

Haha. Agreed.

Then again, if the Bible "declares itself inspired," it simply must be! Right?

Paradisedreams2

Deputy,
Its funny that you mention the definition of religion as something that binds, I just e-mailed an old freind because I lost the source of my definition and I believe what I read was this...

Religion means, "Rules that bind" I'm under the deep impression that we should forsake religion (not the spiritual nature of God because I'm a christian myself) It is made clear in the new testament about the truth is not in religious holidays, sabbaths, festivals, new moons, eating or drinking certain things etc. These things don't even appeal to me (in fact they repulse me) So I plead David's very thought, " you (speaking to God) you do not delight in sacrifices and offerings or else I BRING THEM"... This indicates don't do anything unless you desire to (so I don't)

About the 144,000 I'm looking into this and believe it is reserved to the past. a number multiplied was 144 by 1000 but refers to the parable "your hairs are numbered" (which are the goats)who infact were those who came for christ the night of his betrayal. THESE ARE THE GOATS and they are sealed and protected because its THROUGH THEM that the scriptures find their fulfillment (doing the will of God) which is to establish His truth (Christ) on earth. The sheep are the wicked (we all like "sheep" have gone astray, does not say goats). There is a picture of this very thing in the song of songs. I'll have to get the whole picture written up on the computer but its pretty amazing.


Christians like to think its them but its not. The jewish had a role to play in fulfillment of prophesy and these pictures hide this from them.

Still looking and learning but have not "arrived"

Deputy42

i believe there are many differences between men and women. as i stated above i think men can do things better than women and vice versa. however, under such scrutiny i can only proove men are better at impregnating women than women are at impregnanting women. sorry, it wasn't meant to reference st paul at all. you all seem to be out for blood.

it means men and women are different. no i'm all for equality. i think sexual harrassment, as i've said above is a good idea, but a nightmare in practice.

you wouldn't and the quote wasn't meant to sway you, just to let you know my feelings on it if you wish to deny god thats fine, i'll still be here if you decide to change your mind. it should have no affect on you then so pay it no mind.

i'm beginning to see how this board works...queen asked me what my opinion was and i gave it. i'm not asking you to base your life on st paul. however, i have received little teaching on your atheist viewpoint here. and please feel free to respond when you can show that atheism has meaning when god has no meaning.

strawman i never said that.

men defer to women everyday, so yes, men are just as fallible as women. again, i said i think men and women should be equal. women give in and so do men. what else do you want to know?

you say yourself that you do not live by the word of god. paul talks about how christ is head of the church, so man is head of the household. i doubt since you deny christ you would accept the teaching. so the teaching therefore is NOT for you, at least at this point in time

each person in a marriage brings their own strengths and weaknesses. the idea is that the person you marry should balance and complement your strengths and weaknesses. affluent and poor? i think you oversimplify. there's obviously more to any marriage than rich/poor man/woman etc. again, since you are not a believer, i don't think it will have bearing in your life.

yes i support equality between sexes. as i've said, women speak in my (protestant) church and its fine with me. i don't know what proper place they would try to have, maybe you can elaborate? dont accept the bible as your authority. what do you have then as your highest power? the government? law written by men? you attack the word of god because it was written by a person, why do you follow laws of a government?

my contention is this: mandating someones idea of equality leads to inequality in practice. i have found that after rearranging my room according to feng shui, i study have better balance. om

whenever you try to classify people, and put them into nice neat categories, you get in trouble. end state practices which what we are really talking about here are flawed. such narrow thinking causes you to treat people as means and disrespect the divine nature in all of us. i would never argue against chastity, again where do you get these, strawman.

you really think that we should have equal funding for the girls football team and the girls varsity wrestling team? again mandating such madness only leads to inequality. who is not treating you as an equal? i'll find him, i'll beat him up