The Church orders Wives to Submit to their Husbands

[thir]

But he's using the authority of God's word to make his "suggestions" which to many of his followers is equivalent to law. You don't obey God's word, it's a sin, isn't it?

Bingo

[MMI]

... Who gets to be the final arbiter on what scripture really means?

An atheist!!??

Then it becomes obvious that whats happening here as well as in the media there is yet another feminist/aethiest black dogging, political attack, which is all too typical of whats wrong with the eurocentric socialist liberal west and the way they choose to function.

LMAO

That's rich coming from such an inward-looking, self-righteous and conservative nation which is so far to the right that it regards liberalism as an extreme position
and social democracy as the twin brother of communism, both spawn of the Devil himself.


But never mind. I don't think there's much, more to say about the OP, other than that the Vicar was preaching a pretty fundamentalist viewpoint to what I presume
was a fundamentalist congregation (they call themselves evangelical). When Bishops of the Church of England can openly doubt the Ressurection, and, perhaps
the divinity of Christ, a Vicar who wants to restore marriage to its ancient position in society is, frankly, pretty unremarkable, even if he does offend some women of a different persuasion.

[steelish]

That's rich coming from such an inward-looking, self-righteous and conservative nation which is so far to the right that it regards liberalism as an extreme position and social democracy as the twin brother of communism, both spawn of the Devil himself.

Wow. Tell us how you really feel.

Actually, I myself have NOTHING against liberals, Democrats, moderates, conservatives or Republicans.

What I do not want in my country is a RADICAL PROGRESSIVE in power.

[IAN 2411]

I have to agree with Thorne on this one, all marraiges are diferent, and he is in no position to judge why they are all falling apart. So he has a marraige at the moment that is strong and based on them both being god fearing people, but next year after she has spent a holliday with her sister if she has one; and has been taught that you can have a great time dancing in the clubs without being struck down with a bolt of lightning. I wonder if he still feels the same when he also has a failed marraige because she has run of with the verger disc jocky? Well its just a thought, most of the ones in the UK run of with the verger. LoL

Regards ian 2411

[MMI]

I don't know what one of those is. I tried looking it up, but after the 5th or 6th embittered American right-wing website I had to give up in confusion ...

You only seem to come across the term on those kinds of site, and it always seems to be a term of abuse: it seems that apparently nice Mr Obama is really Che Guevara, Hugo Chavez and fidel Castro all rolled into one, plus influences of Idi Amin and some of the worst traits of Benito Mussolini. Gosh! who'd have thought it?

I certainly wouldn't want anyone like that to be my president. Tell me, how do you think he hoodwinked the Democrat Party into thinking he was one of them? Do you think he misrepresented himself, perhaps?

[denuseri]

Then they wont....everyone makes a choice to submit or not.

It doesnt matter if he is saying to submit becuase god wants them to, or the pope or elton john or some scientific study or space aliens from area 51.

Its free speech in action.

No one is being forced to attend his church.

[Thorne]

No one is being forced to attend his church.

You're right about that. And I do find it encouraging that so many women, and men, are abandoning that church because of this.

But how many other women would like to do so, but cannot because their husbands forbid it? How many of those women will have to endure spousal rape, because that's what their husbands want? How many of those women will risk their lives in childbirth because their husbands won't allow them to use birth control?

Once you take that first step down the road of unwilling submission, you open the doors to church-sponsored virtual slavery. Where defying the church becomes not only a sin but a breach of law. In short, this kind of thing can set the stage for a fundamentalist, religious government. Just see what happens in places like Saudi Arabia, or any other country living under religious dictatorships. Women become property, not partners.

Perhaps the answer to decaying marriages is to eliminate the religious component altogether. Studies in the US have shown that areas which are predominantly religious have a higher divorce rate than areas which are much less religious. And the more fundamental the religion, the higher the divorce rate. Maybe letting people deal with their own marriages and keeping the church out of it is the better way to go.

[denuseri]

No where was anyone promoting unwilling submission Thorne.

And just as many people see people abandoning the church as a bad thing, a sign of the selfish attitude of the me me me generation and such self centered individuality doesnt promote care for ones fellow human being in one bit.

No wonder ceo's are still giving themselves bonuses and people are running around killing each other over drugs.

When the church is asking one to submit it is with love, in the manner that Christ would have done, not some misbegotten mysoginist cave man head thumping do it or else bs that those who would detract from the the church, just becuase its the church or they dont like religion or are virulent feminists; would try to say.

Its also just as easy to say that more people stayed married longer before becuase more people were religious before the advent of feminism and hippe free love and the genral loss of dedication to something and someone other than oneself, which more directly cuased the divorce rate to go through the ceiling.

[Thorne]

Its also just as easy to say that more people stayed married longer before becuase more people were religious before the advent of feminism and hippe free love and the genral loss of dedication to something and someone other than oneself, which more directly cuased the divorce rate to go through the ceiling.

No, most people stayed married longer because divorce was illegal, as determined by the Catholic (primarily) Church. Once divorce became legalized, or at least simplified, far more people took that way out.

But that doesn't account for the fact that the divorce rate among highly religious couples is so much higher than that of less religious, or non religious couples.

[thir]

No, most people stayed married longer because divorce was illegal, as determined by the Catholic (primarily) Church. Once divorce became legalized, or at least simplified, far more people took that way out.

It is also a question of how well or not people can manage outside of a marriage, if they have an educantion, children to take care of, or was always raised simply for marriage without ever having been in on the working market outside the home.

The longer you go back in history, the harder it was.

[leo9]

And just as many people see people abandoning the church as a bad thing, a sign of the selfish attitude of the me me me generation and such self centered individuality doesnt promote care for ones fellow human being in one bit.

No wonder ceo's are still giving themselves bonuses and people are running around killing each other over drugs.

I don't have the figures, but I've a strong impression that a lot more people are running around killing each other over religion than over drugs. It's less than a generation since the Northern Irish were killing each other for following the wrong church, and some are still trying to start it up again. Pakistan and India have been on the brink of war since they separated, entirely over religion. The only reason the Iraqi resistance didn't kick our asses was that the Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims were more interested in killing each other than fighting the invaders (and still are). When Arthur Clarke moved to Sri Lanka he told anyone who would listen that Buddhism was the only religion that had never had a holy war, until the Sri Lankan Buddhists started massacring their Hindu neighbours. Need I go on?

As for greed, the Vatican's fortunes make most banks look like corner stores. Anyone living in the land of the millionaire televangelist, and believing that religion is the cure for greed, really isn't paying attention.

[denuseri]

I don't have the figures, but I've a strong impression that a lot more people are running around killing each other over religion than over drugs. It's less than a generation since the Northern Irish were killing each other for following the wrong church, and some are still trying to start it up again. Pakistan and India have been on the brink of war since they separated, entirely over religion. The only reason the Iraqi resistance didn't kick our asses was that the Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims were more interested in killing each other than fighting the invaders (and still are). When Arthur Clarke moved to Sri Lanka he told anyone who would listen that Buddhism was the only religion that had never had a holy war, until the Sri Lankan Buddhists started massacring their Hindu neighbours. Need I go on?

As for greed, the Vatican's fortunes make most banks look like corner stores. Anyone living in the land of the millionaire televangelist, and believing that religion is the cure for greed, really isn't paying attention.

There you go, the real motivation for all the wars you just mentioned. GREED.

[thir]

No where was anyone promoting unwilling submission Thorne.

No, but someone seems to think that if you do not believe that submission by a woman to a man is natural, you are a rabid foaming at the mouth European femimist ;-)))

[denuseri]

I hardely believe that everyone who disagrees with my statements or with religion is in fact some kind of femifascist heretic, but I can see that I struck a cord in alluding that some who do may in fact be.

Eaither way it wasnt my intention to call any of the posters in this forum such things, even if I only said it like I did becuase I figured I would throw back some of the insulting sophistry that was being tossed about when it came to sterotyping people who adhered to any mainstream organized religion and see how the other side of the argument liked their own medicine. So I apologize if any one took my statements out of context thinks that I am saying they they fit the bill in that regard.

And by the way my use of the words "eurocentric thinking" or "eurocentirc" doesnt refer to the actual people living in europe, its a often times colloquial refference used in the liberal arts department amongst philosophy, anthropology and history maijors for "westran civilizations focus on all things good only coming from european origins". (Which includes all the white angle saxon american ones too including feminism) So I apologize if anyone thought I was being a anti eropean meanie to anyone in paticular.

Additionally, even though I am arguing for the vicar to be able to say what he wishes to his congregation as being ok, so long as he is following his own religions tenents and those tennents are in accordance with the laws of his land whatever those are and I am supporting free speach in general even if I dont agree with whats said; it doesnt mean I personally agree or support "what" he was saying or "what his church's dogma" contains, or "anything written in the bible or any other related book on the subject".

I have as of yet to define my own position on the the vicars words to his congregation, in fact I havent even viewed his sermon, outside of playing devils advocate for religious tolerance and free speach I havent stated my own personal beliefs conserning such things.

All I am really saying is that one should consider everything about what the vicar and his religion professess about the matter from the vicar, and his church's perspective first before running hilly nilly and jumping on any " religion hating intolerance band wagons" or "omg he did not just say that what an anti-feminist male pig is he" crusade.

One may find more value in one's arguments if one takes the time to consider all the perspectives of all the parties involved before one goes ahead and formulates an opinion full of personal bias.

[MMI]

[B][COLOR="Pink"]
And by the way my use of the words "eurocentric thinking" or "eurocentirc" doesnt refer to the actual people living in europe, its a often times colloquial refference used in the liberal arts department amongst philosophy, anthropology and history maijors for "westran civilizations focus on all things good only coming from european origins". (Which includes all the white angle saxon american ones too including feminism) So I apologize if anyone thought I was being a anti eropean meanie to anyone in paticular.

... a usage I was unaware of. I withdraw my retaliatory response and offer my apologies.

[Thorne]

even though I am arguing for the vicar to be able to say what he wishes to his congregation as being ok, so long as he is following his own religions tenents and those tennents are in accordance with the laws of his land whatever those are and I am supporting free speach in general even if I dont agree with whats said; it doesnt mean I personally agree or support "what" he was saying or "what his church's dogma" contains, or "anything written in the bible or any other related book on the subject".

So why would you support free speech for someone who advocates removing free speech from roughly half the members of his congregation?

"1 Corinthians 14:34-36
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

[Thorne]

it wasnt my intention to call any of the posters in this forum such things

I, for one, have not taken any insult from your statements. Or from any here. Sometimes a little plain speech is needed, to awaken us from our complacency.

No apologies needed, denuseri. Just keep speaking your mind.

[MMI]

... and power.

As one of my regular adversaries never tires of pointing out, religions were invented to control their adherents and to suck out their wealth.

[denuseri]

I really should have been more clear with what I meant by it, its jargon I am used to seeing thrown around all day, but I simply forgot its also jargon that isnt really used outside of certian circles Sir.

[denuseri]

Like I said Thorne, if they are members of that church, and they believe they shouldnt be speaking in church but instead go home and ask their husbands or fathers whatever questions they may have, then thats their right, and additonally its thier choice to make as citizens of the country in which they reside to restrict their own actions as they see fit. Choosing not to speak of ones own free will is not the same as being forced by ones government to not speak. Their governemnt doesnt force them to be in that church, the people choose to be there or leave as they will. Just like the librarian will ask you to stop making noise where you arn't supposed too.

It doesnt make their religion inheirently evil nor any other religions that have such things in their practices including dietary restrictions or dress codes.

Free speach is free speach, why does the united states allow the kkk and the nazai party and others to promote their agendas if its not?

Are you advocating that we should abolish free speach Thorne? Are you saying that we should select who gets to speak freely and who doesn't?

[Thorne]

Are you advocating that we should abolish free speach Thorne? Are you saying that we should select who gets to speak freely and who doesn't?

No, I'm not. But there are limits to free speech, too. You can't shout "FIRE" in a crowded room, causing a panic. You can't incite others to riot. And you can't go bellowing through a bullhorn at 3 in the morning.

But religious leaders claim to speak with the authority of God, and for the most part their followers accept that authority. And when those leaders use that authority to restrict others' freedoms they are abusing that authority. True, some will, and have, turned away and left his church. But there will be those who will say, "Well, he speaks for God, so we have to do what God wants." Yes, we can say that that's naive. (I say it's stupid, but I'm a nasty atheist, after all.) But I think we all know that there are people who are like that. God's law is foremost, and the Vicar speaks for God.

And let's face it, we are seeing more and more cases of those same religious leaders, of all faiths, who don't live by their own rules. If they won't, why should anyone else?

[denuseri]

No, I'm not. But there are limits to free speech, too. You can't shout "FIRE" in a crowded room, causing a panic. You can't incite others to riot. And you can't go bellowing through a bullhorn at 3 in the morning.

And I dont think the vicar is even getting close to approaching the inciting a riot cluase.

But religious leaders claim to speak with the authority of God, and for the most part their followers accept that authority.

They can be claiming to speak with the authority of tom cruise for all I care.

They only accept that authority blind and without question if they are mindless sheep. Which the vast majority of parishionors ar not, nor are they stupid, or blind at all, the vast majiority of them in that country make a conscious decision. Most adherants of any given faith are not zealots.

Last time I checked, the rank of vicar isnt even close to the top of the church hierarchy anyway now is it.

The authority of god position is severaly lacking any real wieght as an argument against religion in the 21st century, in a country with freedom of religion and free speach, back during the reformation mabey, but now days, its mayo in the wind.

But that doesnt matter if your against both free speach and freedom of religion, which the two imho are really one and the same.

[Thorne]

They can be claiming to speak with the authority of tom cruise for all I care.

Sorry, Tom's spoken for. The Scientologists have their hooks into him.

They only accept that authority blind and without question if they are mindless sheep. Which the vast majority of parishionors ar not, nor are they stupid, or blind at all, the vast majiority of them in that country make a conscious decision. Most adherants of any given faith are not zealots.

Jonestown. Waco. Heaven's Gate. All zealots who died because they believed their leaders spoke God's words. Every religion has their zealots. And there are those who get trapped into these situations. How many women, for example, get trapped into abusive relationships that they can't get out of? They haven't the resources or the willpower. They want out, but don't know how to get out. And how much more powerful are those relationships when God tells them they must endure it?

Last time I checked, the rank of vicar isnt even close to the top of the church hierarchy anyway now is it.

As near as I can tell, a vicar is the equivalent of a parish priest, which means he has quite a lot of authority. At least they did when I was growing up. In the RCC, at least, they administer the sacraments, say daily masses, hear confessions, basically act as a conduit between the people and God. That's quite a lot of authority, if you ask me.

The authority of god position is severaly lacking any real wieght as an argument against religion in the 21st century, in a country with freedom of religion and free speach, back during the reformation mabey, but now days, its mayo in the wind.

Are you kidding? In this country we give freaking movie stars and singers the authority of God! How many children will die of preventable diseases because their parents believe that Jim Carrey and Jenny McCarthy actually know anything about vaccinations? How many people spend more money on crap sold by Oprah Winfery than they would on real medicine? Believe me, you don't need the authority of God to turn people into mindless sheep. You only need a TV camera. Or a pulpit.

But that doesnt matter if your against both free speach and freedom of religion, which the two imho are really one and the same.

I'm not against either. I honestly do believe in freedom of speech and freedom of religion. I also believe in freedom FROM religion. And I believe that freedom comes with certain responsibilities. And one of those is to prevent charlatans and hucksters from destroying people's lives. One way to do that is to educate them, to let them know just what these hucksters are really doing. Whether they are pitching magical Chinese healing stones, or Aztec Acne treatments or magical sky fairies, they are all after the sheep's wool.

And for the record, I do place members of the clergy amongst those charlatans and hucksters. Just my opinion.

[denuseri]

Why yes some amazingly there are some individuals who do try to take advantage of other people in the world.

And yes sometimes, the people who are doing that try to twist the tennents of a paticular faith, or philosophy, or even laws of a paticular country, or science, to suit their own means in accomplishing such crimes against their fellow men.

But when one catagorically pigenholes everyone who adheres to any given religious faith as eaither a trickster or "poor abused victum" or uses any excuse to take the words of one man out of context; one puts oneself into the same sophist camp on the side of the same side of the same coin as the zealots who say your going to hell cuz your an aethiest pig consumed by satan and trying to tear gods followers down, or your a deluded victum of the evils of the world.

Perhaps the pot shouldn't be calling the kettle black after all if it wishes to make its point.

Not all the members of any given clergy are out to pull the wool over anyones eyes.

[MMI]

What I haven't yet worked out, Thorne, and we can see den struggling with it too, is how you can, on one hand, say there's no way you can prove religions are false, yet on the other hand you call ministers of religion charlatans, and worse. You profess tolerance, yet want to be free of it.

Patronisingly, you say that people should be allowed to believe in whatever they believe in, but you condemn their leaders as utter frauds. Now the Buddha, Abraham, Zoroaster, Jesus and Mohammed might have each thought it a jolly clever ruse to make their followers think of them as divine, or divinely appointed, or in some other way connected to the greatest truth, so that people would follow them and do their bidding, or bring them food as they sat day-dreaming under the shade of a tree, but I think it is presumptuous of you to suggest that all religious leaders thereafter are knowingly colluding in the decption. Does not one of them have any faith? Not Calvin, or Luther? Not one of the popes or the rabbis or immans?

I think you are too sweeping.

[Thorne]

What I haven't yet worked out, Thorne, and we can see den struggling with it too, is how you can, on one hand, say there's no way you can prove religions are false, yet on the other hand you call ministers of religion charlatans, and worse. You profess tolerance, yet want to be free of it.

While it may be impossible to prove a religion false, it is possible to show when a religion is built on inconsistencies and contradictions, which is true of the three Abrahamic religions, since they are based on one of the most contradictory and inconsistent books ever written.

And both you and denuseri seem too imply that I am painting ALL religious leaders with the same brush, when I have not. Nor am I claiming, as denuseri states, saying that "everyone who adheres to any given religious faith as eaither a trickster or 'poor abused victum'". I am quite sure that many religious leaders are devout in their faith. And so too are many of their congregation, I'm sure. I may believe they are wrong, but I don't denigrate them for that. It is those who take advantage of that faith, who tell their followers what they must believe, which movies they must no watch, which books they must not read, or, as in this case, how they must behave in their personal lives.

And I will also take to task those who abuse science or any other undertakings for the sole purpose of either cheating or controlling other people. This is not the thread to do that, though. I've been accused of hijacking threads in the past, and I'm trying not to do so here.

So yes, I do agree that this vicar has the right to speak about the church's tenets. And if the church wishes women to be silent in church, that is well within their rights. I think they are wrong, and I've said so, but it's their church. Those who don't like it can leave.

I don't think the church, or any religious organization, should be permitted to control people's personal lives outside of the church. They are basically saying that the law, which protects the free speech and other rights of women, must be set aside in favor of their religious beliefs. This, in my opinion, is absolutely wrong.

As an example, what would you say if a preacher, at any level, claimed that his congregation must not allow blacks into their homes, or must not allow Muslims into their places of business. Would you claim he was right to say such a thing, using religion as his excuse? What if he said that all homosexuals were demons who should be destroyed on sight? Such things have gone on throughout history, and regardless of what religious leaders may say, these things are WRONG! And we as intelligent, thinking people have to make sure such things don't continue to go on. We have to draw the lines and hold these leaders to modern ethics and morals, not those of some bronze-age shepherds.