On 16 Feb, 16:03, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Alistair" <alist...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > "Judson McClendon" <ju...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >> > If you contrast this with what the Christian texts say, the
difference is
> >> > striking.
>
> >> > "As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and
misbegotten, for
> >> > the active power of the male seed tends to the production of a
perfect
> >> > likeness in the masculine ***; while the production of a woman
comes from
> >> > defect in the active power...." Thomas Aquinas, Summa
Theologica,Q92, art.
> >> > 1
>
> >> Pointedly not from the Bible.
>
> > Still, it is the word of god relayed through a True Christian.
>
> You say this because you have personal knowledge of the state of their
> faith in Jesus, or because those words, which directly conflict with the
> words of Jesus and the Bible in general, are provable truth, or ...
what?
>
You are the only person in this newsgroup who would be stupid enough
to question whether Thomas Aquinas was a true christian or not.
> >> > "...Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his
wife,
> >> > and the head of Christ is God." 1 Corinthians 11:3
>
> >> As I said, simply setting the pattern for families. Not degrading
women.
>
> > But is has downgraded the woman into a second class citizen which is,
> > of itself, a form of abuse and degrading to women.
>
> You don't even believe that yourself!
Yes I do.
> Are you "downgraded" because you
> work for someone who has authority over you?
Yes.
> Are you "downgraded"
> because you must submit to other authorities?
Yes.
> Designating authority
> *does not* imply that those under that authority are "inferior", and you
> know this.
If you are not the authority in question then you are not a citizen of
the first rank but a second class citizen.
> You do not believe that yourself in any other area of your life,
> yet you spout it here knowing it is false. In essence, you are lying,
and
> you know you are lying. :-)
I am not lying. Any authority (and you would quote the bible and point
out that it was Eve's duty to lie under Adam) which requires a woman
to defer to her husband is misogynistic and immoral.
>
> > Interestingly, the Jehovah Witnesses have exactly the same attitude.
> > The woman must obey her husband in all things even where he is abusive
> > and/or a lapsed JW. Excepting, of course, where the church elders give
> > her position to disobey or leave her husband.
>
> You once again display ignorance and/or dishonesty. The above is vestly
> different from the Biblical Christian position, and one of the *many*
> reasons why JW's are a cult, not Christianity.
I think that Jehovah's would be able to refute your classing them as a
cult. To say as you have is a very unchristian judgement. There belief
systems are no less valid than yours are. Also, no more invalid than
yours.
>
> > Muslim women subjected to rape only count as one-half of a man in
> > Sharia courts. Recent case have had women whipped for allowing
> > themselves to be raped and one woman (I think it was in Pakistan) was
> > required to bring four witnesses to court to provide testimony that
> > she was raped. As the only witnesses were the rapists she did't get
> > very far.
>
> In the Bible, in cases where the question is rape or adultry and there
is no
> evidence that the woman willingly submitted, she is to be held innocent
> (Deuteronomy 22:23-29). The woman is clearly to be given the benefit
> of the doubt in such cases, and the man is held more strictly
responsible.
> Hardly "demeaning" of women, or comparable to Islam!
And was it Job who would willingly allow huis daughters to be raped
and sodomised in order to protect the life of a male houseguest? What
equality is that?
>
> >> > The role of women in biblical times seems to have been not unlike
that of
> >> > women in strict Islamic societies today.
>
> >> Duh! Baby girl's weren't commonly given ****orectomies. Cir***cision
> >> of males is commonly done even today for health reasons.
>
> > Cir***cision is commonly practiced today for religious reasons. It is
> > rarely practiced for medical reasons, witness the fact that Jewish
> > babies are cir***cised without any medical pre-condition.
>
> Male babies are ubiquitously cir***cised in the United States, unless
the
> parents specifically request otherwise.
And has resulted in adult males sueing the medical authorities who
undertook that cir***cision. There is no medical justification for
routine male or female cir***cisions. Why does the US persist in
perpetrating cir***cisions?
> This has been true for a long time,
> certainly since the early 20th century, at least. Many male non-Jewish
> Americans were suspected or accused of being Jews by the Nazis in the
> 30's and 40's because of this. The reason it is done is entirely for
health
> reasons; if a male's foreskin isn't kept thoroughly clean, it can
promote
> cervical cancer in their wives, and other problems.
The cervical cancer is the result of introduced human papilloma virus
infections (warts) passed from the male to the female. If you don't
keep the foreskin and glans clean then the infection likely to be
transmitted is thrush (Candida albicans) which is a yeast infection.
The medical case does not stand up to scrutiny. However, there are
medical conditions, which are very rare, which can necessitate
cir***cision in the male.
> Probably more of an
> issue 100 years ago than now, but the practice still continues, and is
not
> likely to change.
So, do females value males with their genitalia intact more highly
than those who have been snipped?
|
