Women and Religion - Does it anger you?

Buz, I have asked you to address my point, illustrated by your own example of a man begging for tool money from his wife, that a marriage that has a leader/follower structure (as opposed to a partnereship) inevitably leads to a parent/child type relationship.I have repeatedly asked you to address it, and since the last (third) request, another 100 posts have gone by without this happening.I do understand that you were out of town on business last week, but it is quite clear by now that you now are simply refusing to admit that which you already believe.You DO believe that when the wife is the leader of the marriage, the husband can be reduced to behaving like a begging child.You said so yourself, for all to see.This logically means that you DO understand that the opposite must be true; that wives can also be reduced to behaving like a child if the husband is the leader of the marriage.I have worked in retail for the last 10 years, and just yesterday I saw a woman pick up an item off of a shelf and look at it wistfully. She then turned to me and said, "He won't let me get this." She was referring to her husband, of course, and the item in question was under $20, and was something they both could have enjoyed. He, of course, was buying other items at the cash register at the time.Why is this scenario OK, but when we switch the genders it becomes unacceptable?I will cut and paste this post to the Proposed New Topics, so we can begin another thread.I am sure you want to show that you are not a wimpy, childlike male who doesn't avoid and run away from a debate.

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.

You sound like you're quoting Goebbels.

Any CEO will tell you, there has to be clear leadership, usually someone who makes quick, unemotional decisions, which I believe are strong male characteristics. A biblical leader, like Jesus, is to be a servant, like Jesus.The man being the spiritual leader, which many forget to say, not just leader, by no means implies he is more important, no more than a mother is more important than a father because she is the one God chose to bare the child for 9 months.That's why I think Americans struggle with the word leader, because the apply the conotation of telling everyone what to do and never lifting a finger, but that's exactly NOT what a biblical leader is. A biblical leader is someone who does the little things, or the things that no one else wants to do.Both men and women in marriage are called on by God to be servants. Plain and simple.

Gee, I wonder if Queen Elizabeth I, Margaret Thatcher, Queen Beatrice, Queen Victoria, Indira Ghandi and other women in a position of leadership would agree?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You left Golda Meir out.

Woman, of course, biblically speaking, can make great leaders. There is nothing in the bible saying that a woman should not be a leader, what it does say is that the man should be the be responsible for spiritual leadership role in the house.Often times however, the man neglects to take this responsiblity and then it falls on the women to assume these responsibilites along with what I call managerial responsiblities.I think that women make better manager than leaders, while men make better leaders than managers because their thought processes are more inclined to these different functions, this does not mean that one cannot perform the other function, but it's simply how God created man and woman.In general, woman are emotional or think more with their heart, while men are, in general, more logical and think with their brain. Neither way is better than the other, but one is usually more suitable for specific situations as opposed to others.We all know of woman who have made great leaders, but in general this is usually a role, and not simply because of machismo, characteristically take up by men.This is comman sense if one simply observes the world around him.

Lot's of asertions but no support.You say... Please point us to the source for that or provide some logical reason to believe that true.And in addition... As above, we need some support for that. It might also be good to explain how one can think with their heart instead of a brain.Common sense usually isn't. Understand, that if you want to come here and say that your particular sect believes what you have said, that's fine. We will certainly accept that your sect might hold such beliefs.It is only when you try to portray beliefs as fact that there is any problem. They are two different things. Your sect is free to dance with snakes, hold beliefs that woman and men are somehow different when it comes to leadership or thinking skills or most anything else.But if you attemt to move such beliefs outside as fact, then don't be surprised if others are angered or derisive. That is to be expected unless you have something factual to back up such assertions.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

you are ready to understand the difference between common practices in Paul's time, and what little value women had then, and what a woman really and actually is, surely a crowing point of God's creation, these questions will answer themselves for you. God did not create an inferior being. Denoting a lesser value to one of his creatures is ill-considered, for it challenges his decision to make such a creature. So why would you, anyone?
Christ knew what status women lived while here. Perhaps that is why he chose one to bring the news of his resurrection to the disciples. He knew she would have trouble being believed, she knew it, too. Don't forget, also, that Paul often spoke 'by permission' rather than command. He had permission to say certain things, certainly to the people of his time, and more certainly to us today, who have a greater resource (scripture) to shape our decisions, and Paul was also learning what is right, as we are today.
Who benefits by keeping women in subjugation? They have been there so long, it has shaped their thinking and approach to how to deal with those who subjugate.
A woman is not an inferior being - is how she might lash out at her aggressors - and how she becomes one herself. And does the aggressor not pay for his behavior? That is not how it is meant to be, for we are told to be 'kindly affectioned one to another', caring, tender. And is a man not told in the sriptures how he is to deal with her?
Man, if you think of her as less than you, think again.

Experience in the real world will tell you that women are more emotionally sensative while men are not.True wisdom is found in the heart. Many decisions are made without using the brain.

Experience with folks who aren't exactly like you will tell you that that's entirely a cultural artifact of the way we raise men.

try to support it. We have shown you a long list of women as leaders. We can show you equally long lists of women in the sciences, arts, education.You said... Well, in my real world experience that's just plain silly. But if you have proof, bring it on. Otherwise...Then you said... You are probably correct there. Too bad.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Man, the truth is that men, in general, make better leaders than women. That does not make men more important or more valuable than women. Women make better managers than men.To state otherwise is to be totally disconnected from real life. That isn't just some cultural artifact, that's truth right there. You have to recognize that.But the point of this thread is that the bible does NOT place women in a lower position of less value then men. There is no machismo in the bible.My question for anybody who is on this thread that talks about the bible is this. Have you read the whole thing?

I disagree. To really cock things up, you have to have a cock.You apparently have mistaken the fact that men tend to make themselves leaders for an indication that they're better at it. Why? Because you're telling me to?"Holy shit! Men must be better leaders! A totally anonymous guy on the Internet told me, so it must be true!" What a joke.

well what is your experience with leadership?