Originally posted by madame_zora+Dec 24 2004, 04:34 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(madame_zora @ Dec 24 2004, 04:34 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>
Originally posted by Freddie53@Dec 24 2004, 08:52 AM
Originally posted by madame_zora@Dec 23 2004, 10:39 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-jonb
@Dec 24 2004, 02:28 AM
First rule: In all sexual matters, there's a gender double standard.
The dictionary definition of adultery doesn't even apply within the Bible; if I'm a polygamist, am I always committing adultery?
[post=269546]Quoted post[/post]
Dammit, I hate the first rule!! The world is a much kinder place to be a man than a woman. I am surprised sometimes that the men I live side by side with have no idea of the differences between my life and theirs. Kind of like white people who don't really the believe the struggles of blacks and minorities are really that big of a deal. It's really not bad in a city of any relevant size (overtly), but get into small town America and it's a problem for me just to live alone and be successful to any degree. Of course, not working for someone else helps too. If I decide to go get a real job tomorrow, I know I have to have my best suit dry-cleaned, my best forged resume, and a cache of jokes to dazzle them with. I also better wear some nice heels, make sure my hair and nails are done, be charming and witty, because I can't just be a little better than the next guy to get the job, I have to knock them off their feet, and maybe even make them want me sexually to get the job. These are things men never have to consider.
Polygamy, harrrruuuumph! Most men have enough trouble keeping one woman happy, why would they want more women mad at them? It's about as strongly misogynistic as anything I can think of. Yes, the sinful woman is the adulterer, not the skeezy man, I know.
*spits on whoever wrote the rule book that said woman are to be docile*
[post=269560]Quoted post[/post]
While you are spitting. You can skip the Bible. That is if you believe what mainline Protestant churches believe that the Bible says. If you read it all and not pick out a verse here and a verse there, Protestants believe in eqality for the genders and base it on the Holy Scriptures of Bible.
*Zora takes Bible out of stack of books for the spitting ceremony to be held down at the bridge.
[post=269599]Quoted post[/post]
Freddie, I wasn't alking about the Bible at all in this particular rant, but the social inequalities that exist even today, long after we should have had the simple stuff sorted out. Since you bring it up, I certainly hope you don't mean to imply that the whole New Testament supports your theory of equality for women?? Don't make me fish out my Bible and shoot you down for the next seven pages, I know I can and so do you! Yes, that one thing said by Paul (who I flatly refuse to call a saint) seems to infer equality in the eyes of God, but does nothing to assuage the hearts of men. Paul also said it is better to remain single (like him), but if you are not able due to weakness of the flesh, then it is better to marry than to burn with lust. Nice, huh? Here again, I can pull out a litany of slams he takes at women. In my opinion he is one of the early authors of misogyny, I almost completly disregard his words when I read the Bible. I actually like the Bible a great deal, but I refuse to have it used as an example of something it's not. It's not a book of equality amoung the genders, races, sexual identities. These are not even primary issues brought up in the text, however the societal standards of the time are referenced and people (due to their stupidity and inability to think clearly) have taken that to mean that things should never change, never progress. Well, most of us do not live like the amish, so we have progressed in many ways, except socially. We cling desperately to archaic ideas of how we should behave, based on a book that was compiled from a variety of sources thousands of years ago, meant to describe circumstances surrounding the life and times of one man. It was never intended to set the stage for all of eternity. That we have turned it into that is a sad commentary on how bankrupt we are on ideas. We cling to these precepts basically to avoid re-evaluating or considering any new information. If anyone acted like that in business, their business would go under. If anyone acted like that in their marriage, they would not be married for long- their spouse would punch them in the eye! Yet we have a whole society trying to survive by NOT LEARNING. It's completely insane, and it does a grave disservice to the authors of the Bible, and ulitmately to God. He gave us brains to think with, not to use as a hat rack.
But I digress, as I often do. Jonb and I were commenting on the societal definition of adultery, and our society does care which gender is doing the wrong- less wrong for men. Those are the concepts I was spitting on *hocks lugey*, not the Bible.
[post=269600]Quoted post[/post]
[/b][/quote]
Zora, I do understand where you are coming from. I am not a particular fan of Paul myself. The Bible is a difficult thing to interpret. Obviously your background of understanding the Bible is a bit different from mine. I know about all those passages, but as I understand it Paul was speaking his opinion, not God's. That is the trick here. Actually it is the Gospels that I like to read. And Jesus never condemned a woman. To me the Gospels take precedent over the writings of Paul. They were letters Paul wrote to some churches. While they have some merit and and some theology that is relevant, the real Christian message is in the Gospels. Paul never met Jesus. I have laughing refered to some churches as Pauline churches not Christian churches.
I do disagree with one of your statements and that is the Bible is based on the life of one man. Actaully it covers thousands of years. It also talks about very different culttures thorughout the those thousand years. And you will find the rules of living changing throughout the Bible. Any person can pick any viewpoint you wish and pick a verse here or there and say that it is based on the Bible. That is how diverse it is. So I look to the basic truths that are eternal that Jesus said and lived. And how many people did Jesus condemn? None. He condemned the organized religion of his day and he died for it. I doubt Jesus would be very thrilled at some of the stuff the religious right is spouting forth in his name right now either.
But to your point about adultery. Legally it doesn't matter which gender has commitd the act if the innocent party wants a divorce. At least that is the way it is here in my state. And to me the legal term is what matters.
I was horrified to read the idea that only women can commit adultery. I should have addressed that more then the definition of adultery. If you read what Jesus said, then I think you could conclude that Jesus would agree that adultery is the same regardless which gender did it. And if there is a question I always take what Jesus said or implied over what Paul wrote in one of his three page sentences.
For the record, Paul admits that in some of his writings he is only speaking for himself. Thank God for that. The Bible would be easier to understand if we could just scissor out all of Paul's personal opinions leaving only what God told him to write. It would shorten his letters a bit. Or maybe more than a bit.
The situation of where a person in a marriage has sex with another person other than the spouce with the permission of their spouse in my opinion gives no legal basis for divorce under the adultery laws of the state. Strangely, I don't think the Bible truly addresses that at all. It was so common place (for men only) in Biblical days. Only they didn't have to have their wive's permission.
There is a story where Jesus does condemn the men for committing adultery and then trying to stone a woman for doing the same. His words were. To those who have not sinned, cast the first stone. I am paraprasing that. And all theologans agree that Jesus was talking about the men committing adultery, not just any sin.
And while we are on the subject, there are many who believe the prohibition in the New Testament of gay activity only applies to married people, not single people. And we have to discount much of the Old Testament because those rules were society rules, not God's rules. And I believe that if Jesus didn't confirm a doctrine from the Old Testament, then there is a good chance that it is not relevant today.
As for me, I think each person should read it and come to their own conclusions. Except for ministers who are paid by the church and thus the church sets their standards whether they are Biblical or not, the rest of us should accept each other period. Jesus said that he was the judge. So, I try to keep my judge's robe in my closet where it belongs or better yet, let's send it to the trash heap.
I will say Zora, you are a very learned person. You see the grave injustices of our times. I do really believe that if the Bible were read as a whole, understanding the culture of the times then and the times now and separating the truths from cultural biases, we would get a different picture of the Bible. This is my way of interpreting the Bible. What was God saying to the people then through this passge and what is God saying to us NOW. The emhasis must always be on the NOW and we always have to remove inherent cultural biases of the time the passage was written to get the understand what God is saying through that passage today. And unfortunately most folks don't hear what God is really saying much of the time. That is the main truth of the Bible. That is to hear what God has to say. Sadly, we as a culture don't hear God much better than they did years ago.
And that part about women keeping silent in the church is talking about a certain group of women who were causing trouble, not to all women of all time. That is what I believe about that passage.
But then I am a member of one of those terrible "Liberal" churches the religious right deplores daily. Yes, I read their stuff. They condemn my church regularly and at every opportunity.
As for gender equality, societies that have a strong Christian heritage generally have more gender equality than those who don't such as the muslim cultures and the eastern cultures. You don't see any equality in those societies at all.
I am going to go get my robe out of the trash heap for just a second. THOSE FOLKS MAKE A MOCKERY OF WHAT JESUS IS TRYING TO TEACH IN HIS ETERNAL TRUTHS. While some of the so called Christian right have a different understanding of the Bible, mainline Prosestant churches do not read some of those rules as coming from God. They were part of ancient Hebrew culture, but nowhere does God Himself endorse such stuff. There were too many women on the ancient part of the Bible and in the Chrisitan part of the Bible that were leaders and even pastors for any doctrine that is currently spouting forth from the religious right. Now you can go and put the judge's robe back in the trash heap. I just said what I wanted to say all day. I just judged. O well. I am human too.
Thanks for replying Zora. You think deep. I admire that.
*Zora is taking freddie's judge's robe from his closet to the bridge to be burned.
Yes, there is always a chance of problems, as some have warned you about here. But if you get a really good feeling about them both after meeting them in a nonsexual situation once or twice before doing anything, then use your judgment and enjoy.
