What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Bob Gray said:
You really don't remember our discussions on there being (or not being) inherent differences between men and women? A lot of it was in the context of child development. Well, I recall them quite clearly, but I have no desire to search thousands and thousands of Kepler posts to show you.

The things are always the same topic is a different one, so let's not cross wires here or we'll understand each other even less than usual.
Click to expand...

I don't, though it's certainly possible (even likely) that's been one of our debates. Rather than hunt backwards, I'll give up a very quick snapshot of how I feel about it at 11:57 this morning: culture strongly influences not only how men and women see themselves but even the very possibilities from which we get to choose. The vast majority of people are not original thinkers in the sense of being able to conceive of possibilities that don't already exist, if not physically than at least intellectually. The main work of culture is to take the countless logically possible images of one's identity and pare it down to a manageable number (thousands in cosmopolitan centers, hundreds in typical communities, dozens in tiny backwaters) from which to choose.

To the extent that the filter is gender-specific, people's true sense of identity (the inner self) is channeled by their culture into gendered categories.

But that doesn't say anything about whether males and females have hard-wired differences before culture gets to work. I suspect they do; including big ones.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Kepler said:
I don't, though it's certainly possible (even likely) that's been one of our debates. Rather than hunt backwards, I'll give up a very quick snapshot of how I feel about it at 11:57 this morning: culture strongly influences not only how men and women see themselves but even the very possibilities from which we get to choose. The vast majority of people are not original thinkers in the sense of being able to conceive of possibilities that don't already exist, if not physically than at least intellectually. The main work of culture is to take the countless logically possible images of one's identity and pare it down to a manageable number (thousands in cosmopolitan centers, hundreds in typical communities, dozens in tiny backwaters) from which to choose.

To the extent that the filter is gender-specific, people's true sense of identity (the inner self) is channeled by their culture into gendered categories.

But that doesn't say anything about whether males and females have hard-wired differences before culture gets to work. I suspect they do; including big ones.
Click to expand...
That's reasonable. :)
 
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Here's that other section about husbands and wives I mentioned yesterday. Ephesians Ch 5

22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-- 30 for we are members of his body. 31 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."

When Pastor was expounding on this he said if you look at the Greek in context, "submit" has more of a feel of "keeping things in order". Any good functioning marriage has to have unconditional love and mutual respect. Perhaps this idea is more of cultural thing yet God pleasing. There are some cultures where women are actually very subservient and I doubt there is much love in the relationship as God commands there to be.
 
Timothy A said:
Here's that other section about husbands and wives I mentioned yesterday. Ephesians Ch 5

22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-- 30 for we are members of his body. 31 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."

When Pastor was expounding on this he said if you look at the Greek in context, "submit" has more of a feel of "keeping things in order". Any good functioning marriage has to have unconditional love and mutual respect. Perhaps this idea is more of cultural thing yet God pleasing. There are some cultures where women are actually very subservient and I doubt there is much love in the relationship as God commands there to be.
Click to expand...

At my son's wedding last weekend, that was the second reading. The celebrant then explained it pretty much in the same terms.

BTW if you're Catholic and have an Anglican Ordnariate parish near you, stop in some Sunday for a Mass. It's similar, yet different. Very close to the Mass of 1965 with the Book of Common Prayer mixed in.
 
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Timothy A said:
Here's that other section about husbands and wives I mentioned yesterday. Ephesians Ch 5

22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-- 30 for we are members of his body. 31 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."

When Pastor was expounding on this he said if you look at the Greek in context, "submit" has more of a feel of "keeping things in order". Any good functioning marriage has to have unconditional love and mutual respect. Perhaps this idea is more of cultural thing yet God pleasing. There are some cultures where women are actually very subservient and I doubt there is much love in the relationship as God commands there to be.
Click to expand...

So let's go back to the rest of the first passage you provided. How is that not, when read literally, God telling women to shut up and make babies while also blaming women for original sin?
 
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Bob Gray said:
One of the most misunderstood portions of the bible, and taken out of context. And misused by certain misguided Christians.
Click to expand...
I'd love to learn more about this "context" which makes, "shut up and have babies" sound remotely in line with "love your neighbor as yourself."

Please?
 
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

unofan said:
Yeah, not changing my mind that Biblical literalists are nuts. Any god who would treat petty theft the same as rape or murder is unjust, unloving, and unworthy of worship.
Click to expand...

God expects us to be perfect, as Adam and Eve were before the fall, and as He is as always. Anything short of perfection is not acceptable, so why does it matter if you are 1% short of perfection or 99% short of perfection? It' just like a pass/fail course. The beauty of it all is Jesus wipes the slate of sins clean for the repentant believer, so it doesn't matter if you are 1% short or 99% short.

unofan said:
So let's go back to the rest of the first passage you provided. How is that not, when read literally, God telling women to shut up and make babies while also blaming women for original sin?
Click to expand...
---------
11 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women[c] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

Being quiet......I think the angle there is that being quiet is in regards to the topic, which is having authority over men.

As far as original sin goes, Eve did get tricked by the Devil and she did give the fruit to Adam (who is not blameless of course). God seems to be backing up what he said in Genesis 3:16.......To the woman he said, "I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."
 
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

If you're going to make up an ideal, might as well make it an absolute ideal.

My man CT says something related in the following passage:

Now the point of describing these typical dimensions of human moral/spiritual
life as identifications of fullness, modes of exile, and types of the middle condition,
is to allow us to understand better belief and unbelief as lived conditions, not just as
theories or sets of beliefs subscribed to.

The big obvious contrast here is that for believers, the account of the place of
fullness requires reference to God, that is, to something beyond human life and/or
nature; where for unbelievers this is not the case; they rather will leave any account
open, or understand fullness in terms of a potentiality of human beings understood
naturalistically. But so far this description of the contrast seems to be still a
belief description. What we need to do is to get a sense of the difference of lived
experience.

Of course, this is incredibly various. But perhaps some recurring themes can be
identified. For believers, often or typically, the sense is that fullness comes to them,
that it is something they receive; moreover, receive in something like a personal relation,
from another being capable of love and giving; approaching fullness involves
among other things, practices of devotion and prayer (as well as charity, giving); and
they are aware of being very far from the condition of full devotion and giving; they
are aware of being self-enclosed, bound to lesser things and goals, not able to open
themselves and receive/give as they would at the place of fullness. So there is the notion
of receiving power or fullness in a relation; but the receiver isn’t simply empowered
in his/her present condition; he/she needs to be opened, transformed, brought
out of self.

This is a very Christian formulation. In order to make the contrast with modern
unbelief, perhaps it would be good to appose to it another formulation, more “Buddhist”:
here the personal relation might drop out as central. But the emphasis would
be all the stronger on the direction of transcending the self, opening it out, receiving
a power that goes beyond us.

For modern unbelievers, the predicament is quite different. The power to reach
fullness is within. There are different variations of this. One is that which centres on
our nature as rational beings. The Kantian variant is the most upfront form of this.
We have the power as rational agency to make the laws by which we live. This is
something so greatly superior to the force of mere nature in us, in the form of desire,
that when we contemplate it without distortion, we cannot but feel reverence
(Achtung) for this power. The place of fullness is where we manage finally to give
this power full reign, and so to live by it. We have a feeling of receptivity, when with
our full sense of our own fragility and pathos as desiring beings, we look up to the
power of law-giving with admiration and awe. But this doesn’t in the end mean that
there is any reception from outside; the power is within; and the more we realize
this power, the more we become aware that it is within, that morality must be autonomous
and not heteronomous.

(Later a Feuerbachian theory of alienation can be added to this: we project God
because of our early sense of this awesome power which we mistakenly place outside
us; we need to re-appropriate it for human beings. But Kant didn’t take this step.)
Click to expand...

Source: http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/Z5233S.pdf

I am overjoyed to find the entire book in pdf. I'll probably be quoting it a lot. :) Sorry about the line breaks.
 
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

geezer said:
Hold on while I get some popcorn. When I get back I want to hear more about what Mrs. Kepler is probably like based on her choice of mate.
Click to expand...

hmm....one might surmise that she doesn't put up with much nonsense, which in turn provides a rationale on why Mr. K has so much free time available to spout off on a college hockey message board....
 
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Timothy A said:
We had a great sermon last night on this very subject, I wish I could post it here. It would provide some insight. I'll try and at least post the passages, they expand on the controversial word "submit". It's not as hardcore a putdown of women as its being thought as.
Click to expand...

while i have issues with "submit", it is not the only thing i disagree with. i pretty much take offense at the whole passage. first off, why does god care what i wear? why do women have to dress "modestly", but men don't? second, i'm supposed to be quiet all the time? not going to happen. there's a time and a place to be quiet, and a time and a place to yell and shout and raise hell. i will fully indulge in both. third, i have both taught and assumed authority over men, mostly cuz i'm **** good at my job and i get promoted. i tell guys what to do because i'm more experienced, and know what the hell i'm doing. fourth, i have absolutely no interest in having kids. in fact, i am personally, vehemently opposed to it. does that doom me to hell? frankly, i'm just not buying it.

5mn_Major said:
If you make the assumption women want guys to take charge...plan on being correct.

Google it (for example 'women like take charge' or even 'women don't like take charge'). You will hundreds of articles on how women want men to take charge...and almost none that they don't want men to take charge. And these typically not Christian women speaking on this. https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=women+like+take+charge
Click to expand...

not sure if actually being a woman overrules google or not, but maybe i can provide some insight. i want a man in charge when he is more qualified to make whatever decision needs to be made. for instance, my boss is a man. he's got 20 years of experience, i defer major decisions to him. my boyfriend is constantly hungry, i am not. i leave what we eat for dinner up to him. i, however, am much better with money than he is, so, i cover the bills, the budget, the investments, and the retirement and tell him when he's gotten a little too loosey goosey with the checkbook. there's a balance based on reason. now, if all you're talking about is who makes the first move at the bar, well, duh, it's easier to get a free drink when all you do is throw a flirty look and let him come over feeling all good about himself.

now, that's just me. i won't speak for all women, because like so many have already pointed out, that's just stupid.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

sweet canadian mullet said:
while i have issues with "submit", it is not the only thing i disagree with. i pretty much take offense at the whole passage. first off, why does god care what i wear? why do women have to dress "modestly", but men don't? second, i'm supposed to be quiet all the time? not going to happen. there's a time and a place to be quiet, and a time and a place to yell and shout and raise hell. i will fully indulge in both. third, i have both taught and assumed authority over men, mostly cuz i'm **** good at my job and i get promoted. i tell guys what to do because i'm more experienced, and know what the hell i'm doing. fourth, i have absolutely no interest in having kids. in fact, i am personally, vehemently opposed to it. does that doom me to hell? frankly, i'm just not buying it.



not sure if actually being a woman overrules google or not, but maybe i can provide some insight. i want a man in charge when he is more qualified to make whatever decision needs to be made. for instance, my boss is a man. he's got 20 years of experience, i defer major decisions to him. my boyfriend is constantly hungry, i am not. i leave what we eat for dinner up to him. i, however, am much better with money than he is, so, i cover the bills, the budget, the investments, and the retirement and tell him when he's gotten a little too loosey goosey with the checkbook. there's a balance based on reason. now, if all you're talking about is who makes the first move at the bar, well, duh, it's easier to get a free drink when all you do is throw a flirty look and let him come over feeling all good about himself.
Click to expand...


My ex-fiancee was quite the church-goer. Getting involved into an established family at the time (she was divorced with 3 kids), I didn't take charge in that area, just supported her (and her ex's) rules for their kids. However, there were times I did put my foot down, and she, recognizing that when I put my foot down, it was THAT important to me, took heed. It's a balance, IMO. You just have to find it.

Frankly, I like a woman who takes charge, who doesn't simply kowtow to her S/O.
 
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

There are going to be some very interesting studies coming out of hormone therapies related to gender reassignment over the next several years. Early results indicate that dosing a "former" woman with a lot of testosterone dramatically alters the shape of the brain... presumably moving gray cells from the "nurturing and social awareness" area over to the "able to follow directions and assemble gas grills" region, etc.
Related to these studies is the overall knowledge that "traditional" gender in everyone is more of a sliding scale than black/white, based on (among many things) one's naturally produced (and widely variable) levels of various hormones and how they affect various traits that used to "belong" to one or the other. It's really interesting stuff.
 
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

sweet canadian mullet said:
while i have issues with "submit", it is not the only thing i disagree with. i pretty much take offense at the whole passage. first off, why does god care what i wear? why do women have to dress "modestly", but men don't? second, i'm supposed to be quiet all the time? not going to happen. there's a time and a place to be quiet, and a time and a place to yell and shout and raise hell. i will fully indulge in both. third, i have both taught and assumed authority over men, mostly cuz i'm **** good at my job and i get promoted. i tell guys what to do because i'm more experienced, and know what the hell i'm doing. fourth, i have absolutely no interest in having kids. in fact, i am personally, vehemently opposed to it. does that doom me to hell? frankly, i'm just not buying it.
Click to expand...

As I stated to UNO, the being quiet and submissive is in regards to women having authority over men. I would extend that that to women having authority over men in regards to the activities related to the Church and teaching doctrine, however, the correlation to male/female authority in the workplace I have not thought much about. I need to do some further research on that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top