Women should be seen but not heard

stahrwe · Mon Oct 26, 2009 9:44 am

CWT36 wrote:


	stahrwe wrote: Did you read the article? How is it subjugating women to take a stand against the pervasive sexualization of women in our society. Why is it that every new girl celbrity turns out to have pictures of her topless, and why are these pictures pasted in every magazine and TV tabloid with the obligatory blurring? Why is it that all the girls on 'reality' tv shows are size 2s but the average real girl is a size 6. How is it that teaching a young girl that she doesn't have to be a sex object to have an identity is subjugation? How many times do you read or hear,: "nude pics of (whoever the hot new boy celeb of the moment is) revealed?" Are you still asleep?

Stah my divergent friend, I don't care to talk pop culture. The issue is you and your Southern Baptist Convention's stance on equality, or should I say lack of equality, of the sexes.

I notice you didn't comment on the other three articles I referenced. Let me jostle your memory in case they slipped your mind, they are the articles specifically instructing wives to submit to their husbands. Aren't you going to tell us that submit doesn't really mean submit? Or are you going to be a man and stand up and admit to what you really believe a woman's place is.

Or maybe Seespot's cat has got your tongue.

Perhaps you could be specific about how SBC hurts women through our policies.

I am not ignoring your comments, but the past week has been a bit crazy and I did not have as much time over the weekend as I normally do. I will get to your articles, don't worry.

stahrwe · Mon Oct 26, 2009 9:58 am

seespotrun2008 wrote:


	Quote: How is it subjugating women to take a stand against the pervasive sexualization of women in our society. Why is it that every new girl celbrity turns out to have pictures of her topless, and why are these pictures pasted in every magazine and TV tabloid with the obligatory blurring? Why is it that all the girls on 'reality' tv shows are size 2s but the average real girl is a size 6. How is it that teaching a young girl that she doesn't have to be a sex object to have an identity is subjugation?

This is not taking a stand against subjugating women. It is blaming women for men’s bad behavior and telling them that they need to change themselves in order for men to be more in control of their behavior. It is the same stance that many Muslims take. The female body does not signify sex. That is where the subjugation of women lies. This is basically saying to women that men are just naturally going to objectify them, so here is the best way to prevent that. Maybe there should be a pamphlet telling men how to not objectify women.

On what basis are men behaving badly? Aren't men just reacting as nature intented in manifesting our evolutionary interest in reproducing?

stahrwe · Mon Oct 26, 2009 10:07 am


	Frank 013 wrote: It continuously amazes me how Star starts these threads with the intent of showing us all the truth of his claims and belief… and then how badly he gets embarrassed… the worst part is that he does not even realize how badly he is being humiliated. Later

Frank,

you're still around.
Glad you're amazed, though if I don't realize I am being humiliated, then doesn't it follow that I am not being humiated? and oddly, I don't feel embarrassed but keep trying.

stahrwe · Mon Oct 26, 2009 10:24 am


	Robert Tulip wrote: The idea that Hebrew mythology of Abraham and Sarah emerged from a Hindu migration west when the Sarasvati River dried up around 2000 BC, and the people brought their Gods of Brahma and Sarasvati to the Middle East, seems much more feasible than the fictional accounts of the Bible. I have not seen evidence for it beyond the etymology, but it makes stronger conceptual sense, given the mythological links, than the German-inspired claim the Vedas were written by Aryan invaders.

What flavor is the kookaid you're drinking?


	Robert Tulip wrote: Stahrwe's description of non-Hebraic cultures as "perversions" is inflammatory, creationist, racist and false. This thread is about women's voices in the Bible. The Bible stories of Sarah and Mary are in large part edited from male perspective, the same perspective which addresses the ten commandments primarily to men. To hear women's voices behind the bible stories you often have to listen to non- Hebraic cultures.

Yes, it's really hard to hear their voices,
Tamar and Judah, there's one where the man is made to be the hero.
The daughters of Zelophohed were really oppressed and stayed in the shadows.
Jael was so oppressed that she wouldn't even leave her tent.
Then there's Ruth who selected Boaz as her husband.
Esther
The little servant girl, she really is ignored.

Give me a break, I could go on all day citing women whose stories are in the Bible and put men to shame.

Try reading it some time instead of making up stupid explanations for where it came from.

The creationist agenda is to say only the ancient Jews and their Christian chosen successors are truly human. This narrow warped idea feeds to some equally false Zionist theory of the end times. How else could a creationist describe as a perversion the great ancient culture of India?[/quote]

geo · Mon Oct 26, 2009 11:22 am


	stahrwe wrote: What flavor is the kookaid you're drinking?

Oh gosh, this is priceless. A case of the pot calling the kettle black?

President Camacho · Mon Oct 26, 2009 11:31 am

exactly what I was thinking.

Interbane · Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:34 pm

Stahre, you are being presented with reasoning and information that should humiliate you. That it doesn’t indicates that you’re incapable of following reason and logic through to their conclusions on each point. You recoil from their use under the guise that we’re “trapping” you into using reason. This should humiliate you even further.

The few times I joined in a discussion about “biblical difficulties” made it very clear that there are literal errors in the bible, but you have faith in a rationalized interpretation. The case of the witnesses of the resurrection is a great example. As a supposedly divinely inspired story and also inerrant, an omission whether intentional or unintentional breaks your case. It’s either an error, or not divinely inspired. I can almost hear your response, that it’s divinely inspired, but that such omissions and inconsistencies are put in place to test our faith. How far down the rabbit hole shall we go? This should be embarrassing, but then you believe in long range healing, resurrection, and all other sorts of magical riffraff.

I gave you a couple of challenges which you made a few clumsy attempts to answer but then went silent. I challenged you to show evidence proving evolution wrong. Such evidence should be all over the place according to your worldview. I then asked you for a good reason to believe in the bible. You attempted some algebraic metaphor which failed miserably then went silent.

Then you go on to attack Bart on a bunch of different blogs and are wrong in every case. Anne Frank has shown you to be a bigot, and the word ‘president’ has shown that you don’t understand English.

As for the inequal treatment of women, I can’t understand why you’re not embarrassed.

Ephesians 5:
22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.

“…present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish… He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body.”


	Quote: The women have an easy compared with the requirement imposed on men. Can you imagine what kind of world we would live in if men followed this requirement?

You have to be kidding me!!! The requirement imposed on men does not justify the unequal treatment of women!!! That they should be property, without stain or blemish. That loving your wife is explained and justified to men by the reasoning that they don’t hate their own body. Please tell me how this doesn’t humiliate you!

This is why people don't respond to you. You are so obviously wrong and are unable to see it. You should be humiliated yet aren't. What's most astonishing of all is that you think you are correct and that we're wrong. I'd love to see a 3 dimensional map of your neural circuitry. The lengths you have to go through to maintain your worldview must make it appear like ten pounds of spaghetti stuffed into a balloon.

You asked on a scale of 1 to 10 how strong our arguments are on this website compared to other Atheists. I would say we've only displayed arguments equaling about a three. At a three, the arguments were more than sufficient to humiliate you, but you're immune to humiliation. Within range of your black hole of idiocy, reasoning is sucked in and ignored with blissful ignorance.

Robert Tulip · Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:16 pm

geo wrote:


	stahrwe wrote: What flavor is the kookaid you're drinking?

Oh gosh, this is priceless. A case of the pot calling the kettle black?

Stahrwe the young earth creationist calls me a kook for suggesting that the Bible stories have a traceable cultural origin in India. My claims are compatible with science, it is creationism that is actually kooky.

Stahrwe is more concerned to protect his mythic religious bubble in which God is in His heaven and all is inerrant in the Bible than to engage in actual analysis. The emotional attack on the observation that the Abrahamic Faiths have strong Vedic roots is hardly surprising. Derision of different views is standard practice for dogmatic authoritarians (ie fundamentalists of any stripe).

CWT36 · Tue Oct 27, 2009 12:02 am


	stahrwe wrote: Perhaps you could be specific about how SBC hurts women through our policies.

Stop digging Stah! You're really deep in a hole and you just keep flailing that shovel.

I'm going to keep it simple for you. SBC policies say women should submit to men, that's bigoted and oppressive.

Rapists make their victims submit. Child abusers and pedophiles make small innocent victims submit. Abused women victimized by monsters in the form of men are beaten into submission. See the trend? Submission involves victims. Making women submit hurts them, individually and as a gender. Get it now my ecclesiastical friend?

stahrwe · Tue Oct 27, 2009 12:15 pm

When I was in college, U of F getting my BS degree, I was dating a girl, what she liked to be called. I thought she was the most beautiful girl in the world and was amazed that she went out with me. She was a Southern Baptist, believed in dressing modestly, that anyone she married had to be older than her, and taller than her. She beleived in a wife submitting to her husband, insisted on having the car door opened for her and many more. Truly an old fashioned oppressed girl you the standards of most feminists.

At the same time I had some acquaintances, friends of a friend who were on the other spectrum. Richard was a radical and Mary, his female companion an avowed feminist. He used to introduce her to people as his, "piece of flesh". If I ever had introduced my oppressed girlfriend that way then, or my submissive wife that way now, I shudder to imagine the consequences, but I would not because it would never occur to me to do so. Mary would just smile.

Interbane · Tue Oct 27, 2009 12:30 pm


	Quote: At the same time I had some acquaintances, friends of a friend who were on the other spectrum. Richard was a radical and Mary, his female companion an avowed feminist. He used to introduce her to people as his, "piece of flesh". If I ever had introduced my oppressed girlfriend that way then, or my submissive wife that way now, I shudder to imagine the consequences, but I would not because it would never occur to me to do so. Mary would just smile.

Your warped perspective amazes me. Where's Bart? He needs to quote you here.

stahrwe · Tue Oct 27, 2009 12:50 pm

Interbane wrote:


	Quote: At the same time I had some acquaintances, friends of a friend who were on the other spectrum. Richard was a radical and Mary, his female companion an avowed feminist. He used to introduce her to people as his, "piece of flesh". If I ever had introduced my oppressed girlfriend that way then, or my submissive wife that way now, I shudder to imagine the consequences, but I would not because it would never occur to me to do so. Mary would just smile.

Your warped perspective amazes me. Where's Bart? He needs to quote you here.

Bart is a turtle, I don't think he should quote me unless he is willing to explain the mistakes on his blog.

CWT36 · Tue Oct 27, 2009 1:11 pm


	stahrwe wrote: When I was in college, U of F getting my BS degree, I was dating a girl, what she liked to be called. I thought she was the most beautiful girl in the world and was amazed that she went out with me. She was a Southern Baptist, believed in dressing modestly, that anyone she married had to be older than her, and taller than her. She beleived in a wife submitting to her husband, insisted on having the car door opened for her and many more. Truly an old fashioned oppressed girl you the standards of most feminists. At the same time I had some acquaintances, friends of a friend who were on the other spectrum. Richard was a radical and Mary, his female companion an avowed feminist. He used to introduce her to people as his, "piece of flesh". If I ever had introduced my oppressed girlfriend that way then, or my submissive wife that way now, I shudder to imagine the consequences, but I would not because it would never occur to me to do so. Mary would just smile.

It's like watching a never ending trainwreck. :no:

Your anecdotal story is very lovely, however it does nothing to refute the point being made.

Your defense for requiring all women of your faith to be submissive is that a pretty young lady insisted you open the door for her. It's like the child beater who says, "I don't abuse my kid. In fact I buy him an ice cream cone every Saturday."

Then your bigotted baptised brain says, well at least I don't call her a "piece of flesh" like my college buddy called his girlfriend. Yah, that's a real moral high jump you're making there.

Interbane · Tue Oct 27, 2009 3:07 pm


	Quote: Bart is a turtle, I don't think he should quote me unless he is willing to explain the mistakes on his blog.

Here is an excellent case of denial. I've shown you why it is you who are wrong and not Bart. Under what pretense do you deny that this is the case? Do you honestly believe his Anne Frank quote pulled you out of context, or that 'presidents' cannot be a category? This is denial, you're guilty.

CWT36 · Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:47 pm

Following are excerpts from the article Biblical Battered Wife Syndrome: Christian Women and Domestic Violence By Kathryn Joyce January 22, 2009.

Anybody who thinks submission doesn’t inherently breed violence should read the full article. I started reading it while I was having lunch but had to stop because my stomach started boiling.

These women are indoctrinated from when they are little girls to submit, it’s a culture of oppression that needs to stop.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archi ... c_violence


	Quote: As teaching pastor Tom Holladay explains, spousal abuse should be dealt with by temporary separation and church marriage counseling designed to bring about reconciliation between the couple. But to qualify for that separation, your spouse must be in the “habit of beating you regularly,” and not be simply someone who “grabbed you once.” *** Andersen writes from personal experience, describing an episode of being held hostage by her husband—an associate pastor in their Kansas Baptist church—for close to twenty hours after he’d nearly fractured her skull. Andersen was raised in the Southern Baptist Convention, where she heard an unremitting message of “submission, submission, submission.” She saw this continual focus reflected in her ex-husband’s denunciations, while he detained her, of women who wanted to “rule over men.” Though Andersen was rescued by her church’s pastor, who had his assistant pastor arrested himself, she says other churchwomen aren’t so lucky, particularly when churches tell couples to attend joint marriage counseling under lay ministry leaders with no specific training for abuse survivors, who instead offer an unswerving prescription of submission and headship, often telling women to learn to submit “better.” * In June 2007, professor of Christian theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Bruce Ware told a Texas church that women often bring abuse on themselves by refusing to submit. And Debi Pearl, half of a husband-and-wife fundamentalist child-training ministry as well as author of the bestselling submission manual, Created to Be His Help Meet, writes that submission is so essential to God’s plan that it must be followed even to the point of allowing abuse. “When God puts you in subjection to a man whom he knows is going to cause you to suffer,” she writes, “it is with the understanding that you are obeying God by enduring the wrongful suffering.” *** “We know from small studies in Christian contexts, as well as from a great deal of clinical and pastoral experience that domestic abuse is prevalent in Christian contexts,” says Roberts, adding that research has found that Christian women often stay in abusive situations several years longer than secular abused women.

Forum rules

Women should be seen but not heard Tweet This Topic

Who is online

Chat Room Always Open!