Skip to main content

In the Black community anyway?

If you ask 1 in 3 AA women, they would profess to being "saved". But if you also inquired, most would also have had a baby without being married. some would admit to not ever having being "in love" the child's father.Rather that the conception was a result of "recreational sex".

of course a moral line was drawn in not ever even having considered an abortion..

But is morality no longer on the shelf?

In the "old days" when a woman said she was "saved" it was reflected in her lifestyle, dress and the type of relationship she had with the oppostie sex.


Now, it seems the opposite is true.

Is it really such that "whatever I do.."God" knows my heart and thus..no body else had better say anything to me?

The community no expectations?

Are morals no longer preached from the pulpit?

Why don't we proclaim our innate dignity by our behavior?

Instead we seem to think all we have to do is holler; "I'm SAVED!!!" td6
nam myoho renge kyo
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by mirahjay:
In the Black community anyway?

If you ask 1 in 3 AA women, they would profess to being "saved". But if you also inquired, most would also have had a baby without being married. some would admit to not ever having being "in love" the child's father.Rather that the conception was a result of "recreational sex".

of course a moral line was drawn in not ever even having considered an abortion..

But is morality no longer on the shelf?

In the "old days" when a woman said she was "saved" it was reflected in her lifestyle, dress and the type of relationship she had with the oppostie sex.


Now, it seems the opposite is true.

Is it really such that "whatever I do.."God" knows my heart and thus..no body else had better say anything to me?

The community no expectations?

Are morals no longer preached from the pulpit?

Why don't we proclaim our innate dignity by our behavior?

Instead we seem to think all we have to do is holler; "I'm SAVED!!!" td6

I am curious about what all of your assertions are predicated upon both about the contemporary situation as well as in the past. As presented, it appears that you take these observations as self evident. I am not sure if such conclusions are founded.

Finally, I subscribe to the Reformation teaching of sola gratia; i.e., salvation by grace alone.

Ephesians 2:8-9
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God"” not the result of works, so that no one may boast.

Titus 3:4-5
But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit.

2 Timothy 1:8-9
Do not be ashamed, then, of the testimony about our Lord or of me his prisoner, but join with me in suffering for the gospel, relying on the power of God, who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works but according to his own purpose and grace.
I'm inferring by your reply that indeed, becoming "saved" does not also indicate a adherence to a particular lifestyle or morality?
discipline, having multiple babies outside of marriage should not be a a no no nono for those who claim salvation.

bangI guess I was falsely holding on to "that old time religion" where morality counted.

so now, it's instead,"if it feels good, do it!"

"I am saved"


thanks for the enlightenment!
My answer to this is:

Traditional Christianity DOES promote moral behavior.

In this case it is not the religion to blame, but the human interpretation of the religion which leads to the creation of false reasoning and illegitimate excuses for immoral acts. It happens in every faith. You could just have easily said, "Why does Islam promote terrorism?", and my answer would be similiar. It DOESN'T promote terrorism...it is the human interpretation...etc.

But let me just say something in regards to your judgmental attitude. While I do not adhere to Christianity, I adhere to it's sister religion, and our God is a Merciful and Forgiving God. We are human beings and that disqualifies us from being perfect. We must strive to serve our Lord the best way we can, but if we make mistakes He understands. For your info, I'm having a child out of wedlock, and I love my God the same as I did before I got pregnant. You really shouldn't judge people like that mirahjay, in my opinion.
Why are out-of-wedlock births always the linchpin of any argument about Black "immorality?"

I don't believe at all that "most" saved women have children out of wedlock, but I'm inclined to believe more saved women and men have lied, stolen or any number of the other sins. This is glossed right over in favor of pursuing those who have dirty, evil sex.

And in mirahjay's case, it's glossed over in favor of exclusively castigating women who give birth outside of marriage, saying nothing of the men who impregnate them.
quote:
Originally posted by mirahjay:
I'm inferring by your reply that indeed, becoming "saved" does not also indicate a adherence to a particular lifestyle or morality?
discipline, having multiple babies outside of marriage should not be a a no no nono for those who claim salvation.

bangI guess I was falsely holding on to "that old time religion" where morality counted.

so now, it's instead,"if it feels good, do it!"

"I am saved"


thanks for the enlightenment!

I can not dictate what you infer. I was asking you to substantiate your assertions. I thus infer that you cannot, and therefore are practicing that "old time religion" ofter referred to as "holier than thou" aka "self righteousness. nono"
quote:
Originally posted by Frenchy:
Why are out-of-wedlock births always the linchpin of any argument about Black "immorality?"

I don't believe at all that "most" saved women have children out of wedlock, but I'm inclined to believe more saved women and men have lied, stolen or any number of the other sins. This is glossed right over in favor of pursuing those who have dirty, evil sex.

And in mirahjay's case, it's glossed over in favor of exclusively castigating women who give birth outside of marriage, saying nothing of the men who impregnate them.

AMEN Sister Frenchy!!! Testify!!!Big Grin
quote:
Originally posted by mocove:
i'm with Mirahjay on this one: christianity is a fraud! i cannot think any other institution that has done more to subvert ppl of African descent, particularly Afro-Americans.


I'm going to have to agree with you on that. However, as Sis S correctly says, it is not so much religion (whatever brand) as human MIS-interpretation.

If every religlion is about peace... (which I believe is the 'simple' core of every religion) then why can't we humans ever get it right?

Or have I got that wrong???

Easier to sit on the sidelines and judge that be an active participant in the peace process.

What is more important/relevant/logical... spending time pointing fingers at people's sexual pursuits or actively promoting peace, and equal rights? Or is that equal rights only for SOME people?

Not that I want to appear cynical, but humans are fundamentally lazy and stupid and we need to wise up and actively participate in the core message of spirituality, which is Peace.

Instead of pussyfooting around on the sidelines pointing fingers and moralizing.
[insert rolling eyes icon here]
I think the simple core of any religion probably varies by person. If someone asked me to list (and please don't bsm) the core tennents of Christianity, "equal rights" would not be on that list. Love and respect for your fellow man, yes. I think you could also make an argument that Christianity is not a peaceful religion at all (both intrapersonal and interpersonal).

quote:
Not that I want to appear cynical, but humans are fundamentally lazy and stupid and we need to wise up and actively participate in the core message of spirituality, which is Peace.


I pretty much agree with this. In my life, it is the spirituality that I experience somewhat outside of religion that shapes how I interact with and see other people and form opinions on modern-day issues. JMHO.
Frnechy,

"1 in 3"? How do you know?

"Profess to being saved"? Does that really matter? Your original post seemed to have behavior as its central concern, yet to make a point about behavior you founded your argument on a speculation on a claim.

"In the old days" What are these "old days"? How long ago were they, and how do you know what people did in those old days?

In short, I think your argument is not founded on anything except your feelings and intuitions, which aren't worth much (neither are mine, in case you're interested).

The point that is valid is that many people who say one thing do another. Is that so unusual? Christians shoudl not do/be that, that is true, but one thing you do not take into consideration is what these people would be like if they were not Christians? How do you know that they would be any better or even if they would not be "worse"? That they are as they are--imperfect--is part of the human condition. That they might be better than they used to be is unthought-of in your post.

Christianity does far more good than many people seem to know.
First of all,in response to someone's post, I'd like to state; I do not know a lot about Islam. I studied it years ago but realize there is a lot I don't know.
However, I do not at all believe the majority of Muslims are terroists. That would be absurd to even contemplate.
I personally know of only one person who practices Islam. I cannot therefore based on a large enough number, speak about their behavior based on their expressed religious beliefs.


Christians however are a different matter.


I asked if morals were still taught from the pulpit. I asked because I wonder when did it become so seemingly in vogue for religious women to have mulple births without benefit of marriage?

In response, a question was asked;
didn't I know?

Well no,that is the reason I asked those of you who may be regualar church goers.

some others responded,and took me to task for being so judgemental; "judge and yet be judged"!!!

It is interesting that is one of the most oft quoted passages Of Christians when questions are raised about behavior. That passage is quickly tossed out but conveniently ignored is the passage in the bible where one is admonished aganist fornication!!!! nono

It seems we are in a "pick and choose" age of morality. Those tenets you like and can manage, quote often and loudly. those you do not like or are too hard to adhere to ..you just kind of... forget sck.

I asked the question not merely to condemn but out of dismay.
Are ministers and the Black clergy concerned about the status of the Black family?

I am not so naive to think even if a minister spoke aganist it people would stop having sex outside of marriage.


But, in our community,We have made children not having a relationship with their fathers, our norm.

Does the church believes it can just ignore it away?

Are husbands and fathers such a footnote in our community that there is no longer an expectation to even have one?

It seems so,even for the so called righteous ones.
Quoted by Mirahjay:

quote:
First of all,in response to someone's post, I'd like to state; I do not know a lot about Islam.


Someone has a name. And by expanding on the terrorist statement (no one accused you of anything), you seem to have taken my response out of context.

quote:
Christians however are a different matter.


Not always. The details are different but the root of what you are asking applies to Islam also.

quote:
I asked because I wonder when did it become so seemingly in vogue for religious women to have mulple births without benefit of marriage?



Would you rather we have abortions instead?

quote:
It is interesting that is one of the most oft quoted passages Of Christians when questions are raised about behavior. That passage is quickly tossed out but conveniently ignored is the passage in the bible where one is admonished aganist fornication!!!!



FYI, fornication is a practice also forbidden in Islam yet many Muslims still partake in it. They also do other things they are not supposed to do, including drink, smoke, gamble, curse, be immodest, etc. So no, Christians are NOT always a different matter although some may argue they 'break the rules' more than Muslims do.

quote:
It seems we are in a "pick and choose" age of morality. Those tenets you like and can manage, quote often and loudly. those you do not like or are too hard to adhere to ..you just kind of... forget .



That's not stating anything we don't already know. People have been making and interpreting God the way they want Him to be for years.

quote:
But, in our community,We have made children not having a relationship with their fathers, our norm.


Are husbands and fathers such a footnote in our community that there is no longer an expectation to even have one?


Why is this so one-sided? "WE have made children not having relationships with their fathers the norm"??? I assume the 'we' refers to Black women right? And did it ever occur to you that these males might not always WANT to have a relationship with their kids, especially if they are kids he didn't plan for? I guess THAT'S the norm too huh.

And what do you think 'we' did? MASTURBATION didn't get us to the point of no return, dammit. I didn't lie on my back and use a banana to get pregnant. You know who helped with that? Oh by golly yes, it was A MAN.

SO WHY THEN is all your blame and judgement on women? If you're gonna play the holier than thou role, why don't you split the criticism 50-50? It goes like this in case you don't get it.

PENIS + Vagina = Sex
Egg + SPERM = Child

Yeah I did it. But I didn't do it alone.
quote:
I asked if morals were still taught from the pulpit.


Then to answer your question: Yes, morals are still taught from the pulpit. However, morality does not completely center around out-of-wedlock births, which is why I in particular took issue with your post.

quote:
I asked because I wonder when did it become so seemingly in vogue for religious women to have mulple births without benefit of marriage?


I don't think this is "in vogue" for Christian women. It is still greeted with quite a bit of hostility within the mainstream Christian community. See your initial post for a typical reaction to having children outside of marriage. I find it interesting that you didn't mention anything about sex outside of marriage, only women giving birth to children outside of marriage, which is also a very limited view.

quote:
Well no,that is the reason I asked those of you who may be regualar church goers.


Are you not a regular church-goer? Unless you belong to a liberal sect within Christianity, the sermon you hear every Sunday is likely to be similar to what any other mainstream Christian hears. If you are not a regular church-goer, then I don't understand why you are particularly concerned with what is preached from the pulpit weekly. It would seem to indicate that you believe it's entirely possible to learn and develop morality from sources other than the church.

quote:
some others responded,and took me to task for being so judgemental; "judge and yet be judged"!!!

It is interesting that is one of the most oft quoted passages Of Christians when questions are raised about behavior. That passage is quickly tossed out but conveniently ignored is the passage in the bible where one is admonished aganist fornication!!!! nono

It seems we are in a "pick and choose" age of morality. Those tenets you like and can manage, quote often and loudly. those you do not like or are too hard to adhere to ..you just kind of... forget sck.


You are, in effect, tossing out the "do not judge lest ye be judged" passage and placing greater importance on passages to do with fornication. You are doing your own picking and choosing for what in the Bible you would like to follow of what you think is more important than other things in the Bible. The Bible is open to interpretation.

quote:
I am not so naive to think even if a minister spoke aganist it people would stop having sex outside of marriage.


Then why did you frame your question the way you did? You basically said "There are numerous out-of-wedlock births. Aren't preachers doing their jobs anymore?" That doesn't mesh with what you just stated.
mirahjay,

It is a sad case that you mostly correctly outline. It does happen, and the question "why?" is rightly asked. Because it's important, sometimes we will miss the mark a bit in discussing it.

I wonder if part of our response to your question was because of the structure of the question itself? Did you mean to question Christianity or the people who practice it?

If the latter, we have a basic agreement, I think. Christians often have not done as well as they should. That's part of the human condition: we are very emotional creatures. About 90% (roughly) of our brain is driven by emotions. The only part that isn't is the frontal lobe, the critical-thinking part, and every time we use it we have to do so by making a decision, by force of will.

That takes a great deal of work and effort and discipline, sticking to a decision that we make even when we do not want to, and many times we fail in the attempt.

But it isn't the failing that's so important--we all will fail to meet our own standards, let alone the standards of God--it's what we do afterward. Do we excuse ourselves, perhaps even decieve ourselves, and continue to do the wrong things, or do we acknowledge our wrong and do better next time?

"By their fruits you shall know them." It's what we do, not what we say that shows what we're really like. We must look at our actions and judge ourselves fairly and openly before we will change our ways. That's hard to do, and most of us most of the time don't do that well. It's much easier to react emotionally than to think critically, especially about ourselves. So e blame others, or we try to tell ourselves that they "don't understand," or we ssatisfy ourselves that what we belive really is right no matter what and those who disagree with us have evil and secret motives because at heart they are evil and secret people. Meanwhile we continue to do what is wrong telling ourselves that it's really right. This tendency of ours has been known for many centuries. Paul said as much, in fact.

So yes, there are people who do what's not right, in this case premarital sexual relations, extramarital births, fatherless homes, and people who, like so many outside of the Church, do as we please because we think that "church" is for "praisin' the Lawd" instead of learning "how we should then live."

Sometimes it's the preacher's fault, but not always. I've been in many a service in which the preacher combined the emotional appeal with good solid Biblical moral and theological teaching. I've been in a few which were political rallys dressed up as church services, too, but I've seen more that were good than were bad.

What then? What happened afterward?

And isn't that the hub of your original question? What do we do with the information, the knowledge, the truth that we are given?

May I ask you that? There are some things that you know are right, too, yet haven't done. What have you done with the knowledge that you don't always do what's right?

There's the battle that we all must wage.
quote:
Originally posted by SistahSouljah:
Quoted by Mirahjay:

quote:
First of all,in response to someone's post, I'd like to state; I do not know a lot about Islam.


Someone has a name. And by expanding on the terrorist statement (no one accused you of anything), you seem to have taken my response out of context.

well that is you opinion. Indeed I thought I was deliberately offering a measure of respect to you by stating I, unlike many others, do NOT see all Muslims as extremists.
But now you state I took your statement out of context! Frown wow!
further, I used the word "somone" rather than your moniker because I did not recall it as I typed..was that a especially egegrious faux pas?
I certainly wasn't TRYING to offend you..but if that did, you well, must be particuarly sensitive.


quote:
Christians however are a different matter.


Not always. The details are different but the root of what you are asking applies to Islam also.

quote:
I asked because I wonder when did it become so seemingly in vogue for religious women to have mulple births without benefit of marriage?



Would you rather we have abortions instead?

No, I would not. but if YOU are not a Christian why are you so up in the kool aid? I asked why didn't they, in greater numbers, try to prevent preganancy? My inquiry was clear. I did not at all suggest, even in the slightest, that they should opt to abort sck


I wasn't speaking about Muslims.
I wasn't speaking about you.
You extrapalated my comments and have taken offense. But my comments were directed to those Christian woman who struct their righteousness. Why have you decided this includes you too? You deliberately want to take offense?!


quote:
It is interesting that is one of the most oft quoted passages Of Christians when questions are raised about behavior. That passage is quickly tossed out but conveniently ignored is the passage in the bible where one is admonished aganist fornication!!!!



FYI, fornication is a practice also forbidden in Islam yet many Muslims still partake in it. They also do other things they are not supposed to do, including drink, smoke, gamble, curse, be immodest, etc. So no, Christians are NOT always a different matter although some may argue they 'break the rules' more than Muslims do.

quote:
It seems we are in a "pick and choose" age of morality. Those tenets you like and can manage, quote often and loudly. those you do not like or are too hard to adhere to ..you just kind of... forget .



That's not stating anything we don't already know. People have been making and interpreting God the way they want Him to be for years.

quote:
But, in our community,We have made children not having a relationship with their fathers, our norm.


Are husbands and fathers such a footnote in our community that there is no longer an expectation to even have one?


Why is this so one-sided? "WE have made children not having relationships with their fathers the norm"??? I assume the 'we' refers to Black women right? And did it ever occur to you that these males might not always WANT to have a relationship with their kids, especially if they are kids he didn't plan for? I guess THAT'S the norm too huh.
yes, it ocurred to me that is why I asked the question. why are religious women so willing to engage in recreational, unprotected sex with men who are NOT able, or do not wish to parent a child? sck

And what do you think 'we' did? MASTURBATION didn't get us to the point of no return, dammit. I didn't lie on my back and use a banana to get pregnant. You know who helped with that? Oh by golly yes, it was A MAN.

SO WHY THEN is all your blame and judgement on women? If you're gonna play the holier than thou role, why don't you split the criticism 50-50? It goes like this in case you don't get it.

PENIS + Vagina = Sex
Egg + SPERM = Child

Yeah I did it. But I didn't do it alone.




I think you are bringing a conversation you are having with yourself or someone else into my post. My suggestion is that you should refocus those thoughts to the individual you really wish to speak to or perhaps your diary
giveup trying to reason with you because you do not seem to want to be reasonable.
Last edited {1}
Mirahjay,

When I initially read your post it seemed like you were placing much of the task of achieving strong families with strict morals on the shoulders of ministers. I also felt like you suggest that much of the focus should be placed on admonishing women who have children out of wedlock. I used to agree that a great deal of responsibility should be placed on women, because of their child bearing capabilities; but I must have had a change in heart when you spouted out that 1 and 3 statistic.

Being a man, I had to ask myself if I thought that MEN would be MORE responsible with bearing children?...

How about NOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!

I mean, holding all things constant (i.e, psychosomatic nature, cultural induced biopsychological motivations, machoism) men would more than triple out-of-wedlock marriages.

So morally speaking men SHOULD receive much of the castigation, for taking absolutely no responsibility, and placing all of the burden of responsibility on the WOMANS shoulders, and inside of her bosom.

Back to your original question...

Christianity is motivated, persuaded, and mobilized through a PATRIARCHAL morality, which influences what pastors and ministers feel like morality is.

Pastors are ill-equipped with addressing this issue (children out-of-wedlock), because of a strict adherence to partriarchalism.

Everyone knows that fornication is wrong. However, the church, being a FATHER figure to men, take a passive approach towards MEN's sexual habits. Just like any father would, they condone and accept mens natural(um..ok.)tendencies, because they feel like that is a beast that is not feasibly tameable.

So rather than chastise and castigate the MEN, as they should, they are forced to pacify and appease the bruised self-esteem and spirit of the woman who made a mistake. ugh

Instead of promoting morality. We promote acceptance and tolerance. It's an extreme we have to face because of the limited logic and scope of patriarchalism.
quote:
Originally posted by HeruStar:
Mirahjay,

When I initially read your post it seemed like you were placing much of the task of achieving strong families with strict morals on the shoulders of ministers. I also felt like you suggest that much of the focus should be placed on admonishing women who have children out of wedlock. I used to agree that a great deal of responsibility should be placed on women, because of their child bearing capabilities; but I must have had a change in heart when you spouted out that 1 and 3 statistic.

Being a man, I had to ask myself if I thought that MEN would be MORE responsible with bearing children?...

How about NOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!

I mean, holding all things constant (i.e, psychosomatic nature, cultural induced biopsychological motivations, machoism) men would more than triple out-of-wedlock marriages.

So morally speaking men SHOULD receive much of the castigation, for taking absolutely no responsibility, and placing all of the burden of responsibility on the WOMANS shoulders, and inside of her bosom.

Back to your original question...

Christianity is motivated, persuaded, and mobilized through a PATRIARCHAL morality, which influences what pastors and ministers feel like morality is.

Pastors are ill-equipped with addressing this issue (children out-of-wedlock), because of a strict adherence to partriarchalism.

Everyone knows that fornication is wrong. However, the church, being a FATHER figure to men, take a passive approach towards MEN's sexual habits. Just like any father would, they condone and accept mens natural(um..ok.)tendencies, because they feel like that is a beast that is not feasibly tameable.

So rather than chastise and castigate the MEN, as they should, they are forced to pacify and appease the bruised self-esteem and spirit of the woman who made a mistake. ugh

Instead of promoting morality. We promote acceptance and tolerance. It's an extreme we have to face because of the limited logic and scope of patriarchalism.



thanks for your perspective.
I appreciate it greatly.

perhaps I should have stated in my first post; "a great number of the women I know" rather than a broader "2 out of 3" statistic.
Mirahjay,

I can almost guarantee you that if you had questioned the thread "Are Black preachers doing their job?" or something to that effect, I most likely would have stayed 'out of your koolaid'. But then again maybe not, because AA.org is a public forum and that makes your shit public koolaid.

Anyhow, I answered your question because I feel by wording the question as you did, you were holding the actual religion of Christianity accountable for not promoting moral behavior. I am a former Christian, THAT'S WHY I even said anything. IMO, it's good to get replies from different perspectives. Smile

My quote:

quote:
My answer to this is:

Traditional Christianity DOES promote moral behavior.

In this case it is not the religion to blame, but the human interpretation of the religion which leads to the creation of false reasoning and illegitimate excuses for immoral acts. It happens in every faith. You could just have easily said, "Why does Islam promote terrorism?", and my answer would be similiar. It DOESN'T promote terrorism...it is the human interpretation...etc.


By saying this I was trying to clarify the question and break it down to the root because I knew other people would come specifically talk about the pulpit and the other half of your post. I addressed the question. And I ONLY used Islam as a reference because that terrorism question is also one that I hear frequently. I wasn't accusing you of believing falsehood, I just wanted to give another example to prove my point and show similarities. Sorry if I offended you.

And because the two are similar, I also thought to touch upon the fornication subject since I have heard the same argument made against me, being pregnant, unmarried, and a Muslim. I take full responsibility for my actions, and I guess I did take offense at the fact that you seemed to mention only one side of the deal. So many people forget the requirements for conception.

I do agree with you that in the Black church, they don't always promote what they should. It's a pick and choose type of interpretation of Christianity. If Christians truly lived by the Bible, alot of them would be mighty uncomfortable. Smile

I'm proud of my reputation on this site for not really having 'enemies' (ridiculous concept really)...except maybe JanesT...and Lofton....uh, but anyway I don't want to start now so I have straightened out what I was trying to say and I think a cyber-truce is well in order. bsm
quote:
Originally posted by mirahjay:
I personally know of only one person who practices Islam. I cannot therefore based on a large enough number, speak about their behavior based on their expressed religious beliefs.
Christians however are a different matter.


I think what concerns Mirahjay is that Christians, who often believe they (and they alone) can claim the moral highground compared to those representing other religions, interestingly enough, seem to be the most amoral. When you invite people to pay so much attention to just how "holy" and "righteous" your people are, it's only natural that people will do just that: Pay Attention. And one does not have to be a genius to see that what Christians do is not measuring up to what they say they believe. In fact, America has been described as the most wealthy, but corrupt, nation in the world and majority of its citizens happen to be ring-wing, we're the best people in the world because God favors us, and everyone else is going straight to hell, Christians . Therefore, we must ask ourselves what in the construct and ideology of this particular religion is influencing people to feel entitled to and justified in spreading their beliefs and culture to masses of people, while at the same time behave in ways that are completely different from the behavior(s) being promoted. Another important question to ask is why are people that need to feel morally superior to others attracted to this particular religion? By now, we should be noticing a correlation between Christianity and racism, Christianity and sexism, Christianity and modern-day imperialism.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Frenchy:
Doesn't every religion make assertions about how holy and righteous they are compared to other people?!?! For God's sake.


I suppose, but the difference Frenchy, is that people representing other religions do not use these "assertions" to colonize the minds and cultures of other people. In fact, to many indigenous, non-Western, groups, your religion is sacred, and therefore, should be limited to the people belonging to the group. For many of them, to transmit your religion, means to transmit your culture. Consequently, when Christians try to import their religion into the lives of these people, they are really aiming to destroy the groups' way of life. And this is something that many American missionaries fail to realize and/or choose to ignore when they visit other countries with the intention to introduce their religion. The final point that I wish to make is that the Western lifestyle and its dominant religion, Christianity, is truly one entity thriving on the same Eurocentric pattern of thinking. Thus, it makes perfect sense that the majority of Americans are self-centered, conceited, and intolerant of other nations, since their religion encourages and promotes it.
Last edited {1}
rowe,

1. You make the first mistake by confusing Christian teaching with something you call "the moral high ground." Do Christians sometimes not attend to the teaching of Christ? Yes, of course. Christians are in many different stages of their journey toward Christ and his character (what Martin Luther called being "little Christs"), and some are proceeding toward Christ, some away from him, and some are not proceeding at all.

And some are distracted by people who know next to nothing about being a Christian telling them how to live a Christian life.

Being a Christian is not a matter of "occupying" a "moral high ground." One who is a Christian will know that he is a rank and lost sinner who have been saved by the love and grace of God. Thus being a Christian will engender humility, not pride. Insofar as a Christian does not do this, that Christian is not acting like a Christian. That's that person's fault, however, not the fault of Christianity, which has a long history of confession and reflection on one's own sins.

2. Now, why on earth would Christians believe that they "and they alone" have some insight into a truth that no one else has? Perhaps Jesus told them this? "No one comes to the Father but by me" Jesus said. "I am the way, the truth, and the life," Jesus said. "Before Abraham was, I am" Jesus said. "You are the Son of the living God," Peter told him, to which he replied, "...no one revealed this to you but my Father in heaven." "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature," Jesus said.

To object to Christian's thinking that they have some truth that no one else has, you really must stop complaining about the fact that they do and address teh source of that belief. It isn't just human pride, it's the very words of Christ.

Corruption is not the exclusive province of America. When I was in Zaire (when it was Zaire), I discovered that Zaire's national debt was 5 billion dollars. the personal wealth of President Mobutu was...5 billion dollars. H'm. He wasn't a Christian. How many Senators or Representatives in our country have been fined or jailed for corrppution? They didn't do that because the Christian religion told them to do so. How many of the United Nations officials are Christians, yet they've had a good time with the Oil-For-Food money, haven't they?

The fact that America is wealthy and corrupt is really beside your original point. America is not wealthy and corrupt because of Christianity. Only if that were true would your objection have any validity, but as it stands it is irrelevant. The reason that America is wealthy is because God has put plenty of land and natural resources here along with a government that has allowed human freedom. The reason that it is corrupt is because it has ignored the teachings of Christ, not because it has followed them.

Didn't you say that Christians don't seem to follow the moral teachings of Christ ("what Christians do is not measuring up to what they say")? You cannot then use that refusal to follow teachings as a basis for denigrating those same teachings and thus that religion.

In fact, the teachings of Christ take America to task rather severely. Read what Jesus says about the rich. He seldom has anything good to say about the rich, and after him came James, who told the rich to open their eyes and see that their riches are no good (James 5:1--"weep and howl, you rich, for your wealth has rotted"--literally). So the corruption of America is in spite of and in the face of, not because of, the teachings of Christ that the church has always taught.

The only exceptions to this have arisen in the 19th and 20th centuries with the Second Great Awakening--which resulted in largely a perversion of 17th century pietism--and the "name it and claim it" religion in the name of Christianity (and is against Christianity) of the 20th which conveniently forgets much of what the Bible says. Therefore it is at the very most a bad form of Christianity, and most likely not a form of Christianity at all.

2. You also confuse perversions of Christianity with clear commands in it. We are commanded to tell other people about Christ. We are also told that people like you will object to that.

How does it feel to know that your reaction is so common that it would be foretold 2000 years ago?

But we tell people about Christ not because we think that we are best, but because we know the joy and love of Christ and want other people to know it, too.

I have no idea why someone else's belief that this religion would bring you joy would be a source of irritation and deliberate misunderstanding on your part. We might be misled, but when we tell you that Jesus brings you life, it's not because we think we are better than you are, it's because we have known this joy and want you to know it, too. That's really not so bad.

3. You assume motives when you do not know that those motives exist: ("why are people who need to feel morally superior to others attracted to this particular religion?"). How do you know that people who become Christians have done so out of a need to feel morally superior? I know of no research on this issue. I don't think that you have taken moral surveys of people who are not Christians and then followed their lives and acts after they become Christians. So how do you know that this is the reason that people become Christians? In my experience, people become Christians more out of desperation, out of a recognition that the way that they live is not making for a good life for them or for those around them than out of some need to "feel morally superior."

4. The only "connection" between Christianity and sexism, racism, and imperialism is that people do both. Christians have done this, that is true, but only to the extent that they do not follow Christianity's teachings. But Christianity has also driven people to give up all their possessions and live simply, to open hospitals, to run the Underground Railroad, to abolish slavery, to begin the Sisters of Charity, to become praying hermits or to join monasteries and to foreswear the use of all violence or manipulation. It isn't the religion's fault if some people who do not follow that religion misuse that religion's name in perpetrating harm on others.

The "western lifestyle and the religion are one entity" statement of yours is nonsense born of an unseeing contempt, not from reason and fact. Who was it who said, "There's nothing you can't prove providing your outlook is sufficiently narrow"? Christians have existed and still exist in many cultures for many centuries, and most of them did not look at all like the "western lifestyle." The western lifestyle is western, not Christian. That's why the Church--including my own--argues against that lifestyle and refuses to align itself with any part of it. My own church has been asked to have an American flag in the sanctuary, but we have refused, because America needs to be preached to and sometimes against, and needs to repent. It has been given many gifts by God, but has usually squandered them--except for certain notable exceptions--on selfishness and sin.

You do not describe Christianity, but only a charicature of it. That's the logical fallacy of "the straw man."
quote:
In fact, to many indigenous, non-Western, groups, your religion is sacred, and therefore, should be limited to the people belonging to the group. For many of them, to transmit your religion, means to transmit your culture. Consequently, when Christians try to import their religion into the lives of these people, they are really aiming to destroy the groups' way of life.


That is not the universal goal of modern-day Christians who proselytize. You MUST already know that. Furthermore, there is nothing stopping other people from holding onto whatever other beliefs/culture they subscribe to and resist converting. Are you forced to convert everytime a Jehovah's Witness knocks on your door?

quote:
Thus, it makes perfect sense that the majority of Americans are self-centered, conceited, and intolerant of other nations, since their religion encourages and promotes it.


Lord Have Mercy! bs
quote:
herustar,

Ah, yes, the old canard of "patriarchialism."

I notice that you do not support your thesis
("pastors are ill-equipped with addressing the issue...because of a strict adherance to patriarchialism") with anything like a fact.

What is this "patriarchialism," and how do you know that it is exclusively taught by all pastors?



I never said that patriarchy was taught. My statement was more along the lines of a 'cultural indoctrination', based on the 'tradition' of male superiority and authority. It's not more or less a precept than it is a 'practice'. Again, I never said 'taught', I said that patriarchalism 'influences' the traditional practice of Christianity.
quote:
Originally posted by Melesi:
Now, why on earth would Christians believe that they "and they alone" have some insight into a truth that no one else has? Perhaps Jesus told them this?


Whatever. If that's what you want to think, then peace be with you. I don't have the time, nor am I remotely interested in participating in an exhausting debate about whose religion is more true. My only purpose for joining this discussion was to support Mirahjay's observation. All this talk about "my beliefs are more true than someone else's beliefs, because I believe in Jesus" is pointless. I'm pass this. Truly. Religion is going to be what it always has been since the beginning of time: A system of organized beliefs that serve the needs of the people to whom it belongs.
Last edited {1}
herustar,

Not quite. The two are more connected than you seem to wish to think. I still don't see any facts in your reply.

However, let's assume that you are right--and there is a perspective that would agree with you--and that the Church lives something without teaching it (you are a regular attender of church services, then, to know this), a good trick if possible.

Then you will have to explain Tony Evans on the radio, who takes men to task to their sometimes cavalier attitude toward women, wife, and family. You would have to explain the Gospels, which speaks far more often to men about sexuality than it does to women. You would have to explain Jesus' refusal to condemn the woman taken in adultery. You would have to explain the letters of Paul, who tells men in no uncertain terms to maintain a moral purity and also to "love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her."

I know of no pastor who teaches otherwise. T.D. Jakes doesn't. E.V. Hill doesn't. They're not perfect people, but they don't teach or allow for patriachalism.

So, patriarchal? It sure doesn't look like it to me.

What do you mean that the church lives it or allows for it without teaching it?
rowe,

May I remind you who brought up the subject of "whose beliefs are more true" to which I only responded? You did. If you didn't want to debate this issue, perhaps you shouldn't have brought it up. Apparently you aren't as "past" that as you'd like to think you are.

Meanwhile, you still hold to mistaken and erroneous beliefs, assumptions about Christians that simply are without support, truth, or defense. If that's what you mean by "whatever," then you aren't "past" anything. You are merely conventional and shallow, "thinking with your ears."
Oh, by the way, rowe,

I wasn't debating "whose religion is more true." That's yet another mistaken conclusion on your part. I was talking about your logical lapses. Your argument was invalid, full of confusions and contradictions, but you do not want to learn how to think better, so you decide that the subject was about "whose religion is more true." I didn't talk about that at all. If you would read other people's writings a bit more carefully, you'd know what they say.
quote:
Originally posted by Melesi:
Now, why on earth would Christians believe that they "and they alone" have some insight into a truth that no one else has? Perhaps Jesus told them this? To object to Christian's thinking that they have some truth that no one else has, you really must stop complaining about the fact that they do and address teh source of that belief. It isn't just human pride, it's the very words of Christ.


The subject of who is entitled to claim rights to "the truth" was brought up by you, as expected, with the support of Christian literature. However, as I said to you in the past, the Bible is not the only important literature available to [wo]man nor does everyone living on this vast planet acknowledge the mythical entity "Jesus" as their God. For those having their own belief system and their own God to worship, this deity can tell you whatever he wants Melesi, and still, it will forever mean absolutely nothing to them, just as no other God means anything to you. Therefore, to constantly use the juvenile argument, "because 'Jesus' told us so," is truly pointless. The only people belieiving that Christians have insight into "the truth" are believers in Christianity! And I know it just kills you and other Christians to accept that we have people on this planet who feel just as strongly about their God and their beliefs as you feel about yours, but let's do some reflective thinking for once and at least try to grasp this point, shall we?: Simply because YOU believe in something does not make what YOU believe an objective truth for everyone.
Last edited {1}
rowe,

Not quite. My first post on this topic was Sept 7 about mirahjay's words and meanings (even though I had misaddressed it to Frenchy).
My second post was acknowledging to Frenchy that I meant mirahjay and not him.
My third post was Sept 9, to mirahjay, and again was about the meanings of the words and phrases that she had posted. It was an attempt to be clear (on my part) on what she meant by what she said.
My fourth post was Sept 13 to Herustar about what he meant by "patriarchalism" and a request for him to support his statements.

Up to this point I made no mention of who might be "entitled to claim rights to 'the truth'" as you put it. The first time I spoke to that issue was after you brought it up by talking about "the construct and ideology of this particular religion" on Sept 13 in an open letter-type post . That is a concern about the truth of Christianity, especially since you made the assertion that Christianity was "correlated" with all manner of social evils. When you then told Frenchy on Sept 13 that missionaries "are really aiming to destroy the group's way of life" when tehy evangelize, you spoke to their motives, just as you did when you said that people who become Christians do so out of a "need to feel morally superior." You attack the truth of Christianity (it thrives "on and the same Eurocentric pattern of thinking") motives of Christians, and that's what I answered. You brought it up.

Now, when I responded, I used Christian literature. Of course I did. Are you going to deny that literature its validity because it is Christian? That's the genetic fallacy, a well-known false argument.

Nor have I ever said that the Bible is "the only important literature." I have quoted from many, including ancient Greeks, Chinwa Achebe, and Ambrose Bierce, no friend of Christians. Since I am willing to read and quote from nonbelievers, it would seem that I am more open-minded than you are who refuses to accepot the truth in the Bible.

The point that I was making--if you would only pay attention to the point in a staement it would help and even cut down on the length of replies that have to address your refusal to listen--was that Christians do not evangelize out of a feeling of moral superiority, they evangelize out of a need to obey God. "Go into all the world and preach the Gospel" is that command. Your attruibution of different motives are a fantasy born evidently out of your irritation. But your emotional response to the Bible, Christians, and evangelism is not their fault. You are a grown-up and can choose your reactions. You choose to announce your offense and irritation, and at people who have what they see as your best interests at heart. What do they get if you go to heaven? What do they get if you go to hell? The answer is the same--nothing. But if you become a Christian, you get to live a life of joy, thanks, wonder, reason, mercy, and laughter (among others) AND go to heaven besides. They get what they will get because they believe and obey, not because you get anything from God. Being a Christian is not multi-level marketing. They do it for you.

Ok, so you don't like it. Fine. Don't agree. You are free to do so. God gives you that right. But you have no right to control that which is not yours to control, including other people.

To say that Jesus is a mythical figure is to say more than you know. To do so you must make conclusions based on insufficient evidence, and to assume a character of the Bible that may not be true.

To say that "because Jesus told us so" is meaningful only to those who believe adn not to any others is a tautology. Of course that's the case. That's why Jesus told people to believe, because there were many who did not. To hold this up as an argument, however, is to commit the argumentum ad populum fallacy--look at all those people who do not believe. Therefore it is not true.

Your owrds in bold type: "Simply because YOU believe in something does not make what YOU believe an objective truth for everyone" is irrelevant, since I never said, that. In fact, what I said was just the opposite. I believe it because it is the truth. Even a truth has to be believed in order to be lived. Your statement is true, but irrelevant. The negation of it is also true: just because you do not believe in something does not make it not true.

rowe, I suspect that if we met and did not know that each other was "rowe" and "melesi" we would get along quite well, at least up to the time that you found out that I was a rather committed evangelical Christian. You stirke me as a person worth knowing, one with principles, knowledge, and understanding. I thik what is the basis for our disagreement really is the level of your feelings, and I'm quite sure that they are founded on incomplete information. You are too ready to believe the worst about people you seem not to know well enough to make the kinds of statements that you do., A person of your intelligence would not so that unless the feelings were very strong. But feelings are not a good basis for a spiritual/moral decision. I would encourage you to study that with which you disagree a bit more. You might be pleasantly surprised.
Melesi,

How come the daughters are seldom mentioned in the old testament? Isn't it practiced that the 'holy' lineage of 'Father' Abraham is lived through the succeeding 'sons'? Solomon had 700 concubines, how many 'concubines' did Sarah and Ruth have? Where is the book of First and Second Queens, I Queens, II Queens?

Oh yeah, they admonished the men back then, but it went something like this..."You men, quit following these women and their gods, quit letting these women turn you away from God"

...Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4 for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you




After Israel and Judah saw that the kings where not holding themselves upright, why did they let these KINGS drive them into all manner of unholy, ungodly activity?

Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekial were great prophets, but what about the prophetess?

The prophetess' that they did mentioned was tied in to some form of treachery

...Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was leading [a] Israel at that time. 5 She held court under the Palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the Israelites came to her to have their disputes decided. 6 She sent for Barak son of Abinoam from Kedesh in Naphtali and said to him, "The LORD, the God of Israel, commands you: 'Go, take with you ten thousand men of Naphtali and Zebulun and lead the way to Mount Tabor. 7 I will lure Sisera, the commander of Jabin's army, with his chariots and his troops to the Kishon River and give him into your hands.' "

8 Barak said to her, "If you go with me, I will go; but if you don't go with me, I won't go."

9 "Very well," Deborah said, "I will go with you. But because of the way you are going about this, [b] the honor will not be yours, for the LORD will hand Sisera over to a woman." So Deborah went with Barak to Kedesh, 10 where he summoned Zebulun and Naphtali. Ten thousand men followed him, and Deborah also went with him.

11 Now Heber the Kenite had left the other Kenites, the descendants of Hobab, Moses' brother-in-law, [c] and pitched his tent by the great tree in Zaanannim near Kedesh.

12 When they told Sisera that Barak son of Abinoam had gone up to Mount Tabor, 13 Sisera gathered together his nine hundred iron chariots and all the men with him, from Harosheth Haggoyim to the Kishon River.

14 Then Deborah said to Barak, "Go! This is the day the LORD has given Sisera into your hands. Has not the LORD gone ahead of you?" So Barak went down Mount Tabor, followed by ten thousand men. 15 At Barak's advance, the LORD routed Sisera and all his chariots and army by the sword, and Sisera abandoned his chariot and fled on foot. 16 But Barak pursued the chariots and army as far as Harosheth Haggoyim. All the troops of Sisera fell by the sword; not a man was left.

17 Sisera, however, fled on foot to the tent of Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, because there were friendly relations between Jabin king of Hazor and the clan of Heber the Kenite.

18 Jael went out to meet Sisera and said to him, "Come, my Lord , come right in. Don't be afraid." So he entered her tent, and she put a covering over him.

19 "I'm thirsty," he said. "Please give me some water." She opened a skin of milk, gave him a drink, and covered him up.

20 "Stand in the doorway of the tent," he told her. "If someone comes by and asks you, 'Is anyone here?' say 'No.' "

21 But Jael, Heber's wife, picked up a tent peg and a hammer and went quietly to him while he lay fast asleep, exhausted. She drove the peg through his temple into the ground, and he died.

22 Barak came by in pursuit of Sisera, and Jael went out to meet him. "Come," she said, "I will show you the man you're looking for." So he went in with her, and there lay Sisera with the tent peg through his temple-dead.

Where is her book?


Before kings there were judges... Deborah being one of them. Why was this system replaced with kings? Here's the story...


Israel Asks for a King
1 When Samuel grew old, he appointed his sons as judges for Israel. 2 The name of his firstborn was Joel and the name of his second was Abijah, and they served at Beersheba. 3 But his sons did not walk in his ways. They turned aside after dishonest gain and accepted bribes and perverted justice.
4 So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. 5 They said to him, "You are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways; now appoint a king to lead [a] us, such as all the other nations have."

6 But when they said, "Give us a king to lead us," this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. 7 And the LORD told him: "Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do."

O.k.
Why is having a king the only alternative. What about a woman?


I'm pretty sure Mary of Magdalene had as much profound insight as Paul, where are her letters to the churches?



Tell me the names of Father Abrams daughters. After that tell me the names of his daughters sons.


I'm not saying that patriarchalism is evil. Because it's not. That's a topic for another discussion. I'm just making an observation of the practice.
BTW,

You mean to tell me you can't 'logically' distinguish the difference between a cultural 'influence' and practical literature that specifically teaches partriarchalism. That's got to be something like a False Analogy. IMHO you're just using a crafty way to steer what I said into another direction. Next you'll ask me which one of the commandments 'teaches' patriarchalism.
herustar,

You are reaching back a bit now, to a culture that is completely different from ours. Up until now, you've been a bit of a champion of respecting other cultres, but now, for some reason, you don't appear to respect the ancient Semitic culture. I wonder why that is.

Your point would be relevant if it had anything to do with today, which is what you began talking about. The Church, remember, and all those preachers who apparently blindly and unthinkingly follow "patriarchalism" ?

Well, ok, let's take the Books of "Queens." Does their absence mean that women were denigrated? Were they seen as second-class citizens, or were they merely treated as equal but different, equal but not identical? You don't seem to entertain that thought. There isn't a book of "Bulgarians" or "Knights" or "Representatives," either, but that doesn't mean that they were not considered important or nonexistent.

The ancient Semitic culture (it was not limited to the Hebrews. Everybody in the MIddle East thought like this, so this is a matter of several cultures that we are supposed to respect, right?) saw the roles of men and women as quite distinct, yet there were times that men and women were treated equally, espcially before God. The Talmudic authors ( fr. ex., in Hilkhot Talmud Torah 1:13, Mitzvot Aseh 12, and Yoreh De'ah 246) to teach girls as well as boys Torah.

Now, as far as the books of so-and-so not being in the Bible, that isn't an important point simply because the world was a bit different 2500 years ago. The book that you quoted, however, is interesting because it not only does not make your point, it contradicts it.

The book is called "Judges" and the fact that Deborah is considered a judge in Israel equal to any other (male) judge and better than some--Samson, for instance--shows that the Hebrew Bible does not constrain women to a second-class status. She led all of Israel in a way similar to, oh, Boudicca, Catherine the Great, Cleopatra, Mary, and Elizabeth I did.

Haven't most African families and villages been led by men most of the time? Perhaps the problem is not patriachalism but our nature?

Deborah, by the way, is exalted in Judges. All that she did was right. You don't find her doing something stupid as Jephthah did, as fearful as Gideon, as reluctant as Balaam, as angry as Moses. She is an example.

As is Ruth (she has a book), as is Esther (she has a book, too). I'm not sure that your point is a good one.

About Israel's king: you apparently miss the whole point of the narrative. That's not unusual for someone who doesn't read it. The story is clearly a case of the people wanting something that everyone else has.

Samuel is the last judge of Israel. He appoints his two sons as judges to succeed him in 1 Samuel 8, but Israel is afraid that they won't be as good as he was, so they demand, "Give us a king to lead us, such as all the other nations have."

Samuel warns them that this is not a good request, but they insist,a dn God tells him to do as they say, for "It is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king."

Why not a queen? Because no other nation that they knew about had a queen, only a king, and they wanted to be like everybody else. This is the consequence of sin.

Now, the Bible teaches this clearly, so how can this be an encouragement to patriarchalism?

Moreover, in the New Testament women are in positions of authority. Anna was a prophetess in the Temple, the same as Simeon or even more so, since Simeon is not named as a "prophet." Mary and Martha are just as "disciplous" (a neologism, I realize, but a deliberate one) as Peter and John, Jesus breaks social conventions by talking to the Samaritan woman at the well and treating her as equal to men, the woman taken in adultery is treated with kindness: "Nor do I condemn you. Now, don't do it again," Aquila and Priscilla are treated as equals by Paul, and he greets a woman who has (leads?) a church in her own house as important.

Why didn't Mary write a book? I'm afraid that you'll have to ask her, but I suspect for the same reason that the disciple Thaddeus didn't, or James the son of Alpheus, or Andrew, or Philip didn't. Later, of course, Barnabus didn't write a book, or Onesimus, or any one of many men. Teh absence of a book in soeone's name means nothing, since the reason for it could be one of a countless mutltitude of reasons, and which applies to men as well as women.

And in answer to your last post, of course I can. But if the practical influence is so pervasive, it will come out in the teaching. Slavery was quite pervasive in the old South, wasn't it? And it was taught. This isn't craftiness, herustar, it's merely knowledge of human nature. That which yo really bvelieve you will say: "from the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks." If you can't find the teaching on patriachalism, you probably can't find patriarchalism.

You'll have to do better than that if you're going to have a good argument against the Church of Jesus Christ.
Melesi,

I read your post a couple times. I'll go on the record stating that I admire your insight. But I'll list a few things that I just couldn't believe an intelligent person would say.

quote:
The ancient Semitic culture (it was not limited to the Hebrews. Everybody in the MIddle East thought like this, so this is a matter of several cultures that we are supposed to respect, right?) saw the roles of men and women as quite distinct,


Other than the fact that this is not true (Canaanites where NOT patriarchal, neither were the Kamitians), I would hardly find this relevant to an argument against patriarchalism. Clearly here you admitted to Christianity being influenced by other patriarchal cultures ("saw the roles of men and women as quite distinct"). So what you're saying is Christianity was influenced/enticed into P.

quote:
that isn't an important point simply because the world was a bit different 2500 years ago.


What was different? Was the world Matriarchal (2500 years ago) or Patriarchal?

quote:
Haven't most African families and villages been led by men most of the time? Perhaps the problem is not patriachalism but our nature?


Nature? We're naturally Matriarchal. Besides that fact, what does a Man leading a village (which wasn't always the case outside of Semitic culture) have to do with the underlying concept of the numerous trangressions of Patriarchalism. A man leading a village could prove beneficial, but a man oppressing a village because of his natural (<--your words) right of leadership is where the problem lies.

quote:
About Israel's king: you apparently miss the whole point of the narrative. That's not unusual for someone who doesn't read it. The story is clearly a case of the people wanting something that everyone else has.


Really? Is that the whole point of the narrative, or do you just like to assume that others aren't as versed in the Bible as you. That's were you made your mistake. The narrative is not fiction or non-fiction, it's historical FACTS. So I interpret HISTORY as I SEE FIT. Apparently, You missed the point, that's why your stuck in the apologetic patriarchal mindset.

quote:
Jesus breaks social conventions by talking to the Samaritan woman at the well and treating her as equal to men, the woman taken in adultery is treated with kindness:


You and I both know full well, that what Jesus practiced and preached was and still is flooded with European interpretation and practice.

quote:
Why didn't Mary write a book? I'm afraid that you'll have to ask her, but I suspect for the same reason that the disciple Thaddeus didn't, or James the son of Alpheus, or Andrew, or Philip didn't


Well, I suspect that cultural sexism may be a reason as well.



quote:
If you can't find the teaching on patriachalism, you probably can't find patriarchalism.


This is arguing From Ignorance. Not only that, you still refuse to distinguish an INFLUENCE and a TEACHING. The slavery example holds no relevance and no weight in your argument.

(There connected more than I'd like to admit)

IRRELEVANT, you're comparing, and I'm contrasting... We'll go in circles forever that way.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×