59/68 # 111678   Then,
From: S'TALON on Fri Aug 11 11:47am

  if Christianity isn't slavery to females, then why does it say in your 
own Bible that "women should be submissive to their husbands, and not 
speak up or lead worship or church" (paraphrased). Christianity did not 
raise standards for women, it lowered them! For thousands of years 
before Christ, in Egypt and Babylonia, females enjoyed equality with 
men, even had some female pharoahs. Even in other places, even in 
Greece, women enjoyed more priviliges under the old religon than under 
Christianity.

   Christianity restricted the priesthood (misisters) to men only, while 
both men and women are preists and priestesses under the pagan religons. 
It made the female property of the husband (see changes in laws of 
nations like Rome, Britian, and the Scandinvaian countries as they were 
conquered, er converted to Christianity). It wasn't until the 
Renessiance, and later in the 1800s and 1900s, that a lot of 
discrimination started under the Christians, finally got reversed by 
people who saw with their own eyes what was right and true.

    Also, it was under a Chrisitian domain that we had slavery, even 
though it was around since the beginning of time, Paul could have 
stopped it, but instead he supportted it. Traded politics for what was 
right. And Paul was one of the supposed "first leaders" of the Christian 
church. Also, the Confederacy was quite Christian, in fact it was known 
as WASP land, and they brought more slaves to the New World than anyone 
else. It took the not so religous North to end slavery once and for all.

    One last note, when you say researching something, does that mean 
you have to goto Marc to get an answer, or some minister? I don't want 
yoru minister's answer or Marc's answer to something. I want YOUR 
answers to the questions, that you think out yourself, and what you see 
yourself, not someone else's opinion.

60/68 # 111691   Females and Christ
From: SPIKE on Fri Aug 11  3:05pm

S'Talon,
     I have noticed several things in my examination of the Bible.  
Verses such as those you refer to are cultural commands and personal 
interpretations.  Notice Pauls words, "*I* do not permit a woman to 
speak in the church."
     The Church Elders had faults, Paul's may have been a subdued 
predjudice versus women.  But notice how God had him note his opinion, 
and not state it as God's command.  In the original languages, the Bible 
does make distinctions between the sexes--but it does not, as God's 
Word, delegate the woman to a lesser position.  Notice the command, "the 
man is not his own, but he is his wifes.  The woman is not her own, but 
she is her husbands."  Fire Escape gave several references to examine in 
order to evaluate the scope of sexual relations in the Bible.

     Not that both male and female were created in the image of God.  
God would not make a shadow of Himself that was inferior to Himself.  
The creation of man and woman, in and of itself, provides a fantastic 
philosophic commentary on the status of man and woman.  Note that the 
Bible, besides being, as Christians believe, the inherently inspired 
Word of God, is a wonderful work of literature and poetry--and as such, 
carries the distinct characteristics of the human scribe who laid God's 
message to paper.

61/68 # 111736   point
From: TYGER CHAZ on Fri Aug 11 10:44pm

ah, but does it not also say that in the story of Adam and Eve that she 
was created of his rib???? That seems pretty "male superiority" type 
thinking to me.....Why was Adam not said to be created of Eve's ribs??? 
After all, it is the women who bear the children, correct? So it would 
seem only logical that he would come of her......

62/68 # 111755   I THINK THE QUESTION
From: CAVE MAN on Sat Aug 12  1:31am

Of sexual supremisy is being complicated here by attaching it to 
cultures of differing times. African christianity probably reflects the 
balance of power between man & woman much better than any european 
version, because they have the balance inherent in thier culture.  Just 
as the issue of slavery, was a conflict between the manufaturing north, 
and the agricultual south, you will find christians on both side of the 
fence.
   For the sake of the question, i must again ask( in another form), 
from everyone, which is more correct? (note this is a trick question) 1. 
Jerry Falwels concept of a peoples church where a priest is unnessesary, 
and that you have only to believe in Christ, and help Jerry spread the 
good word. 2. Mother Teresa's concept that The Holy Roman Catholic 
Church is the way that christianity should be expressed.
   Of course the answer most of you would give is that "you cant compare 
apples and oranges in that way".  Yet many of the questions being posed, 
and exactly like that.  I dont think it is fair to link human failings 
to attempts at higher purposes.
   I was hoping that we would get a chance to discuss the big question 
here, but too often it falls into a shallow comparison of questionable 
historic instances.  Or... is it meaningful to the greek culture that 
Hitler believed in them?  I vote for the Poly-Mono discussion, they were 
swapping data that was of the same type. (though it was a bit fuzzy to 
me, it looked like something significant).   [] CAVE MAN []

63/68 # 111773   but cave man
From: CHILDHOOD TRAUMA on Sat Aug 12 12:04pm

you know d\better. NO one here wants to talk paths. They have theirs, 
and so you must have thiers. Despite the fact that even a doorway has an 
infinite numbers of paths too and through it.

Or to answer your question dirrectly. Each is the same. Each according 
to need. Mother Theresa's path is hers. ANd as paths go, I am sure it is 
quite a good one. Jerry's path is Jerry's path, and it gets him were he 
is going. The only error is in forcing your path on another. It is a 
higher good to help someone else take a step on their own path than to 
force someone else to take several steps on yours.

64/68 # 111825   Your logic, unfortunately,
From: IRONMAN on Sun Aug 13  4:22am

does not compute CT .

    There MAY be an infinite number of paths which will lead you TO a 
doorway.  MAYBE.

    However, there are NOT an infinite number of paths THROUGH a doorway.
    Just thought I'd clear that up for you.
    Logically speaking, of course.

65/68 # 111831   Triton,
From: THE KID on Sun Aug 13  6:35am

(and anyone else).

Spending time reading quantum mechanics (a few months in my case, 
excluding all other sciences) does not compare with studying history, 
politics, economics, etc. It cannot. In some ways, the liberal arts are 
far harder.

Why? Well, the physics book is not likely to lie to you about what is 
entropy or gravity. Is that true of history? No! Let me take an example 
at random, say, GERMAN history... when written by a German, it becomes a 
creature with a purpose, exonerating the past, a nation, a people. 
Speaking as a member of a profoundly Germanic family, I will say 
outright that German history is often pure LIE. At least in historical 
terms.

You see, historical, political, economic, social "fact" is TOTALLY in 
the eye of the beholder. So it requires decades of work to learn how to 
analyze it. Compared to THAT, learing to follow a laser experiment is 
child's play. Your instruments simply do not lie with as much facility 
as a politician, economist or historian WITH A POINT OF VIEW!

So, yes, there IS a problem. Citizens are lousy electors. They are VERY 
poorly educated. They are notoriously short-memoried. And they cannot 
percieve complex arguments.

Witness: Ronald Reagan blamed CONGRESS and Jimmy Carter for ALL the 
National Debt. We now have users here who say ALL the debt was created 
before Reagan was ever even elected! Belief and hope became reality. 
Fact is that Reagan doubled the debt in 8 yrs. (The correctness of doing 
it is not the issue here, simple fact is.)

I suppose I could list out all the historical and political examples of 
slogans BECOMING reality for users here. (Heck, our Sysop, an 
intelligent man by any measure, is not up to speed on the current 
hostage problem.)

What to do about it? I don't know. I'm not going to advocate taking the 
vote away from the politically illiterate. I would say it is 
irresponsible for so many people - the upper class of our society, 
certainly - like BBSers to pretend to KNOW much about politics and NOT 
try to educate themselves more before acting as citizens, voting, 
writing letters, voicing opinions that influence others.

Why is Bush so excited about a flag-burning amendment? Not because he 
cares a lot. He sees that a lot of people think only in symbols, don't 
even watch the news, and get all hot about the little crap like the flag 
burning and DO NOT notice the massive debt, S&L, or environmental 
problems we face. Too complicated. The flag PLAYS BETTER on TV.

Triton, being a citizen means more than an hour a night. Or it BETTER. 
By ANY measure this society is in trouble. Does 7 hrs a week of passive 
attention do the job?

A cry in the wilderness, I suppose. I hope my whole legal career will be 
public service (meaning I won't get rich). I'm hoping it won't be wasted 
because all the citizens are too busy chatting about DIDDLY-SQUAT on 
some damn BBS and debating who has made the most calls lately.

66/68 # 111880   I agree with you , Kid.
From: IRONMAN on Sun Aug 13 11:26pm

  With a physics major, you have to know what you're talking about.

  With a liberal arts major, you can bu**s**t all you want, because no 
  one has a real handle on the facts so who's to say you're wrong ?

  A liberal arts diploma is good for covering cracks in the plaster or 
  papering the bottom of a bird cage.

  I'm not too sure how well it would hold up in a cat box, but......

67/68 # 111906   Ironman,
From: TRITON on Mon Aug 14 12:39pm

Please don't piss off Kid any further by knocking a liberal arts 
education.  I appreciate your defense of me, but it looks like what we 
need here are facts, not 'my side is better than your side' type of 
reasoning.

     Yes, it's true I majored in science rather than liberal arts 
because I felt science had more content and validity.  However, one has 
to look at the circumstances under which I made that decision.  At my 
high school, the classic stereotype about liberal arts majors not being 
productive seemed very true.  And then, I had my father, who loved 
liberal arts and could bs his way out of just about anything.  I wanted 
to get away from majors whose subject matter could not be proven in the 
laboratory.

     I believe that science has more provability and believability, 
because it IS a simpler subject in the sense that there are fewer 
variables to consider.  To determine the wavefunction of an electron 
orbiting an atom is comparatively easy despite the advanced calculus 
involved, because one can neglect the influence of the rest of the 
universe.  However, in predicting the course of human events, there are 
so many people (hence variables) involved, that it is very difficult.

     Yes, I do have a lot of respect for the liberal arts.  And Kid, 
maybe my 'one hour a day' devoted to them is a conservative (no pun 
intended) estimate.  For some reason, I've held plenty of A's in my 
liberal arts classes, plus done extremely well in all areas of my GRE, 
not just the technically-oriented ones.

      In summary, if you don't think an hour a day is sufficient to 
study liberal arts, then the limited material that you read in our posts 
should not be enough for you to criticize us (meaning the BBS community) 
so strongly.  Yes, please contradict our individual posts if you find 
them to be wrong.  But DON'T generalize your limited contact with us and 
assume that you know all about us.  Thanks.

68/68 # 111939   Tyger:
From: FIRE ESCAPE on Mon Aug 14  4:01pm

  The word "rib" in Genesis is a mistranslation. The original term would 
be better translated as "side". Lets look at some of the hebrew words 
associated with the creation of Woman for deeper insight into her 
spiritual status....

 "ezer kenegdo" (See Genesis 2:18): 'ezer' is a combination of two 
roots: "-z-r" (which means: to rescue, to save) and "g-z-r" (which 
means: to be strong). The difference between the two is the first sign 
in Hebrew. Today that letter is silent, but in ancient times it was a 
guttural sound. The "g" was a GHAYYIN, and like the other sign "ayin", 
both came to use the same symbol of the alphabet.

   It appears that sometime around 1500 B.C. these two signs began to 
represent one sign in phoenician. Consequently the two phenomes merged 
into one grapheme and what was once two different roots, became one. 
Hence when the word "ezer" occurs (as it does 21 other times in the Old 
Testament) it clearly denotes "strength or power". The case begins to 
build that indicates "ezer" when used with other words for majesty or 
power (like "oz" or "uzzo") is best interpreted to mean "strength or 
power"...

       THEREFORE in Genesis 2:18 when it says "..I will make EZER 
KENEGDO.." INSTEAD of the customary mistranslations of today, we ought 
to translate it as " I will make a power (or strength) corresponding to 
man." Hence according to the Hebrew of Genesis 2:18, Woman is a power or 
strength corresponding to Man, in other words, His equal.

   Further, in Genesis 2:23, the idiom "Bone of my bones" in essence 
means, "a very close relative" or "one of us", in effect, "my equal". 
The faulty translation of Genesis by King James has done women man a 
mis-service. So many translations relegate women to "helpmeets or 
helpmates" when the Hebrew clearly teaches a "strength corresponding 
to". The old english word "meet"  is the english translation of "fit" 
which means "corresponding to". For more information on this tetual 
criticism check out "BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL REVIEW 9 (1983): pp. 56-58 
by David Freedman, the artical is entitled, "Woman: A power equal to 
man."

61/67 # 111941   Also there about the
From: GRIMLOCK on Mon Aug 14  4:49pm

   Rib thingie.  Adam was created.  Then God ripped out part of Adam.  
God then created Eve from a part of Adam.  Woman is therefore a complete 
creature;  while man is incomplete and missing something.  Therefore 
women are superior.  C'mon, so many of you do not care if we explain 
your misconceptions, you just wanna argue and terrorize.  We can explain 
all of the problems that you have with the Bible, but that is not what 
will make you believe.  Conviction of your heart will make you believe.  
Why terrorize people for their beleifs?

62/67 # 111979   hurm.
From: THE GREEK SYNDICATE on Tue Aug 15 12:17am

Sentient beings have soulsŪ All souls are created equal.

Some men are sentient beingsŪ Some women are sentient beings 
(I think so, anyway).

To be proven All men and women who are sentient beings are 
equal (spiritually speaking).

The proof is left as an exercise for the interested student.

63/67 # 111987   just thought I would restate
From: CHILDHOOD TRAUMA on Tue Aug 15 12:49am

that there IS a infinite ways of going through a door, and It 
certainly ain't my problem if ironman only sees one of 'em.