Women and the Fundamentalist View of Marriage

And they say there's no contradictions in the Bible! Some context might be wise, Mike. From where I'm sitting, it sounds like the Bible's telling us that women are, at worst, pieces of meat, and at best, dogs. Dogs Christ is happy to listen to, but dogs nonetheless.This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 05-25-2004 09:16 AM

---

"He supposed that the intent of the Gospels was to teach people, among other things, to be merciful, even to the lowest of the low. But the Gospels actually taught this: Before you kill somebody, make absolutely sure he isn't well connected."
-Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

Well, I can't see how it would hurt. But then, I can see a lot of potential benefits in sacrificing sheep. How far, specifically, do you take this? I mean... I guess we can assume the Levitical laws are out... hell, most sects of Judaism don't even follow those. But are the Ten Commandments in? Can I adhere to Christ while freely coveting my neighbor's oxen?How does one go about picking and choosing what parts of the Old Testament are appropriate? Why is treatment of women obsolete and not, say, carving a graven image? *Dan the Jew-by-heritage proceeds to strut around smugly, and toss Mike the Dog a few crumbs of naturalism*

---

"He supposed that the intent of the Gospels was to teach people, among other things, to be merciful, even to the lowest of the low. But the Gospels actually taught this: Before you kill somebody, make absolutely sure he isn't well connected."
-Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

So... what, taking in Christ is like a loophole around Jewish law? Then what relevance does the Old Testament, including the Ten Commandments, have? Couldn't the sum total of the Bible just be "accept Jesus"? Ha ha, Buz wears leather tights.

---

"He supposed that the intent of the Gospels was to teach people, among other things, to be merciful, even to the lowest of the low. But the Gospels actually taught this: Before you kill somebody, make absolutely sure he isn't well connected."
-Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

But Mike, this just brings us right back to the original question... how do you pick and choose which of the laws are sinful to break?For instance, why must you observe the sabbath day and keep it holy, but not wear suits made of only one type of cloth?

---

"He supposed that the intent of the Gospels was to teach people, among other things, to be merciful, even to the lowest of the low. But the Gospels actually taught this: Before you kill somebody, make absolutely sure he isn't well connected."
-Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

Then... shouldn't you be maintaining the view that women are subservient to men? And how do you reconcile the contradiction with Jesus being all girl-power?

---

"He supposed that the intent of the Gospels was to teach people, among other things, to be merciful, even to the lowest of the low. But the Gospels actually taught this: Before you kill somebody, make absolutely sure he isn't well connected."
-Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

Didn't you read the part about the spiritual fruit tree? If that doesn't make everything crystal clear, then obviously you're trying to bring God down.

---

"He supposed that the intent of the Gospels was to teach people, among other things, to be merciful, even to the lowest of the low. But the Gospels actually taught this: Before you kill somebody, make absolutely sure he isn't well connected."
-Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

This, boys and girls, is what we call a Post Hoc logical fallacy.For instance... it can quite easily be said that if you want to look at women's status without Pauly Shore movies, just look at places like Japan or Islamic states where Pauly Shore is not as influential.This too, would be a fallacy.This message has been edited by [Dan's Clever Alias], 01-18-2006 05:58 PM

---

"I fail to comprehend your indignation, sir. I've simply made the logical deduction that you are a liar."
-Spock

Learn history before you try to speak about it with authority. One of the first undeniably Feminist texts was published in 1792. ("A Vindication of the Rights of Woman" by Mary Wollstonecraft.) The 19th amendment was ratified in 1920. Randman... the two major causes for Woman's Suffrage came from the Suffragette protests, and the country's changed attitude after World War I. (Having seen women take over the workforce for several years, the male voters thought that perhaps women were capable of accomplishing a thing or two after all.)Please explain how female ministers of the gospel factored into either of these things.

---

"I fail to comprehend your indignation, sir. I've simply made the logical deduction that you are a liar."
-Spock

I see.Your reason for saying that Christianity, and not Feminism, was responsible for women's rights, is because in the 1800s, there were Christian movements......that said it was okay for women to be school-teachers.Out of curiosity, were there any other fields in which Christianity blazed a trail for women who wanted to bust out of their traditional roles? Nursing, perhaps? Or maybe housekeeping?Anyway, you're backpedalling. In post 298, you suggested that Christianity, and not Feminism, was responsible for Woman's Suffrage, and that the female ministers of the gospel who were responsible for women's rights predated Feminism.I fail to see how your example supports either of these points.Please explain. In direct terms.

---

"I fail to comprehend your indignation, sir. I've simply made the logical deduction that you are a liar."
-Spock

Your example was: "Women ministers, such as Phebe Palmer, and revival movements held that females could preach and teach."I've misrepresented nothing. But I'm sure that not discussing it with me is easier than supporting your point.

---

"I fail to comprehend your indignation, sir. I've simply made the logical deduction that you are a liar."
-Spock

So let me see if I've got this one straight.Your reason for saying that Christianity, and not Feminism, was responsible for women's rights is now that were female ministers in the 1800s who said it was okay for there to be female ministers?Well, it's good to know that Christianity was fully willing to allow women to say that Christianity was good. That was really big of them.

---

"I fail to comprehend your indignation, sir. I've simply made the logical deduction that you are a liar."
-Spock

Excuse me, but you did not say that women preachers played a role in women's rights. You said that "Feminism didn't exist until after women were granted equal rights in many areas, such as woman's suffrage", and that "The historical impetus for women's equality stemmed from Christianity."In other words, you said that it was Christianity, and not Feminism, that was responsible for women's rights.You are now backpedalling. And somehow managing to be smarmy about it.And your only concrete examples are that Christianity said it was okay for women to say that Christianity was good, and that Charles Finney took over as president of Oberlin after they went coeducational.Fun tidbit about Oberlin, by the way... the guy who did most of the administrative work during Finney's tenure as president was a fellow named James Fairchild. He then took over as President after Finney's resignation.He was also an abolitionist. And a staunch opponent of Woman's Suffrage.This message has been edited by [Dan's Clever Alias], 01-19-2006 04:48 PM

---

"I fail to comprehend your indignation, sir. I've simply made the logical deduction that you are a liar."
-Spock

So, your support for your argument is now that it's a "simple fact."Gosh... can't argue against that kind of rock solid reasoning. Ah, Lucretia Mott. Let's see what she had to say on the subject, shall we?

quote:

---

He allows her in Church, as well as State,
but a subordinate position,
claiming Apostolic authority for her exclusion from the ministry,
and, with some exceptions,
from any public participation in the affairs of the Church.

---

See above, re: your backpedalling.

---

"I fail to comprehend your indignation, sir. I've simply made the logical deduction that you are a liar."
-Spock