Women and Religion - Does it anger you?

Skip ahead to about page 17 where we take up the story of Lot and the city of Sodom. That'll get your blood boiling!EDIT: My bad, it was actually page 16. Here's the message that started it.[This message has been edited by berberry, 04-18-2004]

buzsaw recalcitrates:

quote:

---

I have a friend who's wife is quite a bit more intelligent than he so he leaves more decision making to her. Nevertheless, she, being also a Biblical Christian honors his leadership role to the greatest extent possible.

---

Meaning you have a friend who's really stupid. If his wife is more intelligent that he is yet she still submits to his will, she's a doormat. So your friend is dumber than a doormat?

quote:

---

Men are, for the most part better at decision making.

---

Do you have any evidence at all to back up this oafish, bigoted, sexist statement? No, of course you don't. All you have is your stupid bible to do your thinking for you.

quote:

---

The children are better off when there os one head of the family...

---

Again, where's the evidence? Again, there isn't any! Stop making stupid statements unless you can back them up with something other than your silly bible. The bible doesn't provide evidence for much of anything except for the lack of civility and brutishness of the men who wrote it.

quote:

---

The Quran teaches that brutality and cruelty to women is fine and dandy...

---

How is that different from the bible?

buzsaw's banal observation:

quote:

---

Crime, disease, suicide, divorce, deviency and imorality are epidemic.

---

When haven't they been?BTW, when are you going to answer my post here?

Maybe some of the old proscriptions weren't so bad. We started letting women wear pants and look what happened: Hillary Clinton!

No, no, I meant the pants. Specifically, the pants. As in "Please, Hillary, get a clue! Stop wearing those wretched pants suits."

Since you've bumped this, schraf, I'll take the opportunity to remind buzsaw that he still has not responded to my post 63 in this thread.

Please understand that I am in no way endorsing anything buz says. He refuses to debate in good faith and has completely ignored posts I've made to him in this very thread challenging his demeaning view of women.However, although I seldom see anything in his or her posts to disagree with, in this case jar writes:

quote:

---

...there is nothing in the Koran that places women at a lower state then men.

---

Yes there is. I'm not sure what the divisions in the Quran are properly called, but I'll refer to them as books and sections. From book 4, 'The Women', section 11 we find: Thus males are to inherit twice as much as females.In section 34, we find that men are created better than women, therefore men are to rule women: In book 24, 'The Light', verse 31 requires women to wear veils in public: There's more, but this should be enough to establish the point.

buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

...you begin by saying you endorse nothing I say and then proceed to document me to be correct concerning Islamic women. Which is it?

---

I find very little I can agree with in any of your posts, buz. You seem to think that the Quran is harsher toward women than is the bible. I disagree. However, jar averred that the Quran contains nothing to demean women and in fact places them on an equal status with men. I disagree with that as well, and I therefore quoted scripture to support my position. I did not want that jar should think I was siding with you, so I felt it necessary to include that disclaimer.

quote:

---

I've tried to make it clear here in town that I am a very busy sole proprietor in business and have a very limited amount of time to expend on this forum.

---

That's fine, I know how hard it is to try to run your own business. I admire that you have the patience and I hope your enterprise is successful. However, I feel that you should avoid making any assertions you are not prepared to back up when called upon to do so. You use the "I don't have time" defense a bit too often, and that is why I said you don't debate in good faith.Perhaps this would be a good time to say that I have no ill will toward you, buz. You very much remind me of my father. His attitudes about women are similar to yours, which is rather surprising to me since I remember his liberalism during the civil rights struggle of the 60s. I think he's become much more reactionary in his old age. Sexist bigot though he is, I love my father very much and would do anything in the world for him.Again, I realize your time is valuable, but I have already asked you to respond to my post 63 upthread more than once. I'm sorry if my words sound insulting, but your words regarding women sound insulting as well.EDIT: On re-reading this I notice my selective capitalization. I assure everyone I meant no disrespect to the bible. The only reason I can give is that I use the word 'quran' far less often than I do 'bible', and since I usually see it capitalized I capitalized it without thinking. Barring another slip of the mind I will not do so again.This message has been edited by berberry, 05-21-2004 04:05 AM

redwolf asseverates:

quote:

---

The people you read about in the bible were human beings and they lived many centuries ago. They simply cannot be judged by our standards.

---

I agree, but the logic runs both ways. If we should not apply our standards of behavior to those who lived in biblical times, neither should our behavior today be judged by the standards of the bible.

buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

Berberry, to begin with, you're more likely to get a response from this old guy by toning down the insultive, cocky and demeaning attitude.

---

Sorry, but when I hear insulting, cocky, demeaning nonsense like the idea that women are inferior to men I have a tendency to respond with insulting, cocky and demeaning language.

quote:

---

It's not stupid to understand one's limits and to recognize the ability of one's wife to lead in certain areas.

---

You said she was smarter than he was and that he knew it. You said she submits to his will. Any woman who submits to a man's will simply because she is a woman and he is a man is a doormat. Of course that sounds demeaning. It describes a demeaning situation. I intended that it should sound demeaning.

quote:

---

That's an unfounded meanspirited remark, imo.

---

I think it's mean-spirited to teach girls that they are inferior to boys. I think it's mean-spirited to tell wives that they should submit to their husbands.

quote:

---

Chess is a game of tough decisions. Where are the women world champs??

---

Chess is merely the contract bridge of board games. I don't play chess. I play bridge. Men have no advantage over women at bridge. Many of the most successful players have been women, and I believe that there are far more successful women than men working today in the field of bridge instruction. Many of the most popular books about bridge are written by women.Most bridge partnerships are male-female. In order for a partnership to be successful, absolute and uncompromising cooperation between the partners is required. Each must submit to the other as the lay of the cards (and the result of the auction, if you're familiar with the game) dictates. There is no opportunity for the male player to take a superior role simply because he is the male.Maybe this is why I don't know any fundamentalists who play bridge.

quote:

---

I was once a door to door salesman. In our training we were taught that women were more easily persuaded to buy than men and less resistant to sales pressure.

---

There may be some truth to the notion that women are an easier sell, but I've been a salesman, too, and I think you may be drawing the wrong conclusion. Couldn't it be that women are more savvy? Couldn't it be that they're quicker to recognize a good product being sold at a reasonable price?If what you say is true, buz - that marriages are more successful when the wives submit to the husbands - then there should be some scientific evidence to back it up. I don't know of any. I've asked you (in an insulting way, yes, but like I said the very notion of male superiority is disgusting to me) to show this evidence. I must conclude that the only evidence you have is the bible and your own experience as filtered through your own prejudices.EDIT: Looks like we're getting close to the 300 mark. I thought I'd point that out in case anyone wants to tie up any loose ends before this thread is ruthlessly (or should I say 'mercifully') snipped.This message has been edited by berberry, 05-24-2004 02:54 AM

Shouldn't there be a standard format for naming threads that are not merely spin-offs from other topics but are rather continuations of soon-to-be-closed threads? I think the title of your new thread should be "Part II: Women and Religion - Does It Anger You?" or something similar. This makes it clear at a glance that the thread is not a new discussion but a continuation of an existing one.