Religion and women.

You have openly admitted to prejudice against women. Not just admitted to it, explained why your prejudice is valid. You own this.

Again, you have admitted that you pre-judge women as being better at staying home and taking care of kids. "It is better," you state, if the "wife can be a full time mother." That is pretty much the definition of prejudice.

Congratulations, your own words have proven that you have a prejudice against women. Hence, you are a misogynist. Again, by your own words, as recorded here.

Yes, Jan, you are just like Jesus.

No wonder you're so angry all the time. With an ego like yours, no one else can possibly measure up to your Jesus-like divinity and wisdom.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That’s not true.
That is your summary.
You have to show the point in question.
Why it is “prejudiced against women”,
And why you think I am “prejudiced against women”.
Nothing I have said actually alludes to that idea. It is only your belief.

Stating being “better” at something ,is not a prejudice against that person.
That is unless you think nurturing children, the future of the world, the way a mother can, is a rubbish vocation.

Please explain.

No I’m not, and I never gave that impression.

Create a false accusation, then summarise it as though it’s true. Aren’t you embarrassed by your brazenness?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's pretty much the definition of prejudice. You have pre-judged (which is where prejudice comes from) that women are better at things and men are better at other things. Women are better at childrearing, men are better at "supporting the family" (i.e. working.) That's the basis of most of the misogyny we have seen for decades.

And you have admitted you believe that. Therefore you are a misogynist. By your own words.

Let's take an example. Someone else says "I am NOT RACIST! It's just a fact that whites are smarter and better at leading people, and blacks are stronger and better at manual labor. So it is better if they are in such roles; whites in leadership, blacks in manual labor. I am saying blacks are BETTER at something! How can I be a racist?"

Would you claim that that person is not a racist because he stated certain groups were better at certain things?

No one thinks that is a rubbish vocation. What makes you a misogynist is that you think ONLY a woman can do that.

Not at all. Your own words:
"what is the difference between me, and [Jesus], with regards to what is written?"

What condemns you here is not me, or Wegs, or James. It is your very own words.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Prejudice - preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.
There is nothing “preconceived” or non experiential in what said.
In my own experience, and other experiences, women (who love their children) are better at nurturing their children, than men. If I am wrong, then please state any experience, or information that contradicts that.

You don’t think women are better at giving birth to children, than men?
Can you show where a man could be better?
If the wife is pregnant, who do you think the support of “the family” falls on?
The wife can support to a point, but at some point she has to think about her baby, both before and after birth.
Do you think she should support the family up to giving birth? At what point do you think she should hand the baby over to the husband, or childcare agencies, so she can continue supporting the family?
I’m not sure what you’re understanding is, or how/why it has come about.

I could just as easily say you are misogynist for not wanting to take of your wife at that point in your marriage. It’s one thing to idealise about a society where there are no specific roles for men and women, but it is another thing to put it into practice. The women I know, expect their husbands to step up as the man in their relationship when she is pregnant. Not 24/7, only when it is necessary. There is no dominance in a loving relationship, which is why I refer to it as “natural”roles.

The term racist wouldn’t come into it, unless race became an issue. Maybe that’s your problem, you prejudge the situation. Just like you accuse me of.

Another false accusation.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You should think things through before you say them.

To which you replied: “Yes, Jan, you are just like Jesus.”
Clearly that was not the point I made, yet you introduce it. Why don’t you discuss properly?

 

I’m not condemned, you are.
You have an aversion to “truth”.

 

You said women are better at raising children, and men are better at providing for the family. Saying that as a blanket statement is indeed prejudice, since there are a great many exceptions to that.

Sure. My aunt, who died when her children were small. Her husband did an excellent job of raising their kids.
An acquaintance of mine who was a drug addict. She loved her kids to death (almost literally.) The court took them away and placed them with their father. It was a much better environment for them.

In many cases, the woman, or one of the women - because she is the one who is working. And that is 100% up to that family.

I think she should decide that.

I think she (and her partner) should decide that.

Simple.

You have decided that it's better when men support the family and women raise the kids. I think it is up to the people involved. Again, very simple.

That sentence makes no sense.

So if someone says to you "it's best if whites are leaders and blacks are manual laborers" you would not see race as an issue and would not think they are racists. And people who do see it as racist are the problem.

That . . . says a lot about you.

 

Well yes, but the phrase that does the work here is, "If you consider that angels are a way for God to act n the world......".

That's a very big "if".

Most usage of the term "blessed" merely signifies favoured, or liable to be favoured, by God in some way. There is no assumption made, or implication, of angels.

 

Jesus never put down women, you do. Jesus didn't look down at women, as weaker/dumber/less logical/more emotional...he approached them often times alone, which was taboo for those times. He preached the Gospel to women with as much zeal as he did with men. He wasn't caught up in social constructs (you are). The idea that men should be educated, and employed...and women should be the ''home makers,'' is a social construct, most likely contrived by insecure men who wanted to control their women. If a couple chooses this, that's fine - but my point is that a woman shouldn't be relegated to not pursuing a career simply because she's a woman. That's not Biblical, whatsoever. Men who promote this idea, misquote and twist Scripture into however they wish to use it for their own means.

I think you have a different idea of Jesus than what is written in the Scriptural texts. That he would approve of your interaction here with me, that he would approve of how you classify me as illogical because of my gender...because you consider me to be emotional. That Jesus would cut me down, and be rude to me as you have been. Perhaps that is the problem, here. Your ''idea'' of Jesus is that he would conduct himself as you would in this thread...gaslighting, talking in circles, making no sense, and humiliating women. That's not the Jesus I'm familiar with.

 

Everything you’ve said is a “blanket statement “. What other kinds of statements do you suggest?
I believe that in a marriage, the biological children are generally taken care of by the mother. That is not to say that the father isn’t a good career. But mothers and fathers play different roles in the lives of their children. You’re trying to paint a picture of the father going out, working, and leaving everything up to the mother.
That’s not how loving relationships work. The operative word being “loving”. Both parents respect, and love each other, and their family as a ‘whole’. It can work with extended families providing their is a solid framework. Otherwise the children start calling grandma mom, and their mother by her name. Biological parents who love God, each other, their offspring, and subsequently all life, are the best parents, in my opinion. Why? Because they have love in their hearts and minds.
But that is not to say that children raised by any combination aren’t loved. Just not in the same way as by biological parents. Stats show that children with both parents do better than children with one parent (mother).
I haven’t seen any stats for LGBTQ parents as yet, so I can’t comment.

Luckily the husband/father was still around to take up the responsibility.
No one is saying a father cannot raise his children. But when you have two parents in the home, the mother generally assumes that role without being pressured into it, unless the family dynamics are bad.
In modern times it is not unusual that the wife has a better paying job than the husband. So it makes more sense for her to go out and work, while the husband stays home. But even that scenario has pretty serious downfalls.

That your no roles model is actually prejudice against women.

Now you’ve brought race into the equation.
At first I would see the claim as incorrect.
Then if the claim persisted, I would conclude that the person has a problem with black people.

 

wegs

Your accusations are based on p82, where I said that man naturally heads over his wife. That is God’s will. Jesus accepts God’s will.
Your analysis doesn’t make any sense.

 

Nope. The "picture" I am painting is that EVERYONE IS DIFFERENT. What works for you won't work for others. Trying to impose your views on others because you feel they are best is wrong.

I had two friends in college. They got married after they graduated. When they had kids, he stayed home and took care of them; she was at first a lawyer, then a local politician, so she supported the family financially, and he raised the kids most of the time. Their family dynamics were not "bad." There was nothing wrong with them.

So not having a prejudice is having a prejudice?

George Orwell would be proud.

But he said they were BETTER at something! Just as you said women were BETTER at something. What's the difference?

 

In a Christian home, this makes sense. The passage is meant for believers. For us today, “head” means chief person, leader, dominatng etc. In the language of the NT, the word “kephale” means ''head'' but it meant honor, loving, familial, to be servant like. Paul actually told husbands to sacrificially love their wives and honor them, and wives are to submit, but that doesn’t mean to be used as a doormat for whatever the man wants. Paul didn't instruct men to manage their wives, or dominate them. The key is that husbands are to love their wives as Christ loves the Church. Paul spoke of the connectedness in marriages - not men ''ruling'' their wives.

No offense, but your obsession with this passage demonstrates that you could be a sexist. It’s a passage that gets a bad rap but that’s because some Christian men use it to abuse their wives, sadly. There is no Biblical basis for saying that men should make all the final decisions in marriages, leaving women to just sit there and take orders. You keep referring to this passage from p82, I'm assuming, to defend why you have these ideas about women? You should probably correct first how you view the passage to begin with, and then maybe your thinking will change.

Having said that - the Bible teaches that “in the Lord, woman is not independent of man nor is man independent of woman.” (1 Corinthians 11:11) The two will become one flesh, etc...

If someone chooses to not believe that Jesus is the Way, Truth and the Life - all of this would serve as nonsense to them. So again, these “truths” are so believers can live a life in an attempt to follow Jesus’ teachings. Iow, if you say you’re a follow of Jesus, the Bible can’t be ignored. But this is why there are thousands upon thousands of Christian denominations - a lot of conflict over these passages.

 

In my opinion and it seems to be some consensus about that in the monotheist religions, there are technicaly some Angels involved when God favour something or someone in this world.
But you dont need to agree with that particular point, to understand that the Bible and other things or peoples are protected by God to achieve His will.

If God need to protect Harry Potter's stories, He will too.
It is unlikely in my opinion, but you could sometime also consider that it is a good thing to have "bad things" remaining at first so as to have the possibility to compare with "good things" so as to gain knowledge.

This graduate knowledge acquisition is, in my opinion, the reason why we can see some "bad behaviours" showed in the Bible ("bible" mean "a set of textes") or other blessed stories.
Old Testament is not obsolete, but we dont have to mimic all we can see in there to be right.
So is also the concept of slave or the condition of women.
Those who say : Look it is writen in my blessed text, "so we have to do things this way" are wrong.
Jesus showed us the way to do : He dident respect the established laws (Sabath) and created a new way to serve God (By beeing a Christian).

 

Ah, thanks, I see what you mean. No I hadn't read that.