Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > General Discussion > Religion & Philosophy
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Religion & Philosophy Discuss A thought about religion at the General Discussion; Originally Posted by Mikeyy I see religion doing a lot of damage in peoples lives. I see people lean on ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41 (permalink)  
Old 03-25-2014, 04:44 PM
FrancSevin's Avatar
Runs with scissors
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: St Louis MO
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,568
Thanks: 7,674
Thanked 10,610 Times in 5,991 Posts
Default Re: A thought about religion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeyy View Post
I see religion doing a lot of damage in peoples lives. I see people lean on it as well. I was just hearing about how woman are often considered less than a man in most religions. Jimmy Carter left his Southern Babtist church because of the way they decided not to allow woman as clergy or other high positions in the church. I don't know because I didn't read the bible but from what I heard was that Christ and God considered woman as equals but that Paul is the one who changed things. I hear that nowhere does the quran say woman should be covered. From what I hear what the Quran says to men is that if you look upon another woman with lust you should turn your eyes away. It always struck me why would God create woman and then say they needed to live in a beekeepers suit. Woman behind the man thing. All of this stuff makes me think it was all created by man for man.
There are a good many religions that suffer women no doubt. But Paul did not do so. And if you think the Catholic church subdued women then you never suffered the wrath of a catholic nun teacher. That, my friend, was power.

The Christian church simply took the natural order of things as they saw it in those times and divided the responsibilities of men and women. By tradition and biology, the women were nurturers and the men worked the land. It wasn't until the invention of money and acquired wealth that a difference could be even suggested otherwise.

Money is power, not one's sex. And now that we are civilized, modern and enlightened, there is some confusion about the equality of men and women. At least by some. That confusion is exploited by those seeking political office and power.

I cannot speak for you or others but, I for one am not at all confused. Women have always held ultimate power. First my mother and then my life mate. I am a proud man confident of the control I have over my life, my wealth, and my destiny. Both can stop me, in-my-tracks with one word.

My name.
Reply With Quote
  #42 (permalink)  
Old 03-25-2014, 06:11 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: PNW
Gender: Male
Posts: 70,513
Thanks: 22,404
Thanked 18,919 Times in 13,934 Posts
Default Re: A thought about religion

I guess this would be your view. I have a different view but then I have never been much of a follower.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrancSevin View Post
There are a good many religions that suffer women no doubt. But Paul did not do so. And if you think the Catholic church subdued women then you never suffered the wrath of a catholic nun teacher. That, my friend, was power.

The Christian church simply took the natural order of things as they saw it in those times and divided the responsibilities of men and women. By tradition and biology, the women were nurturers and the men worked the land. It wasn't until the invention of money and acquired wealth that a difference could be even suggested otherwise.

Money is power, not one's sex. And now that we are civilized, modern and enlightened, there is some confusion about the equality of men and women. At least by some. That confusion is exploited by those seeking political office and power.

I cannot speak for you or others but, I for one am not at all confused. Women have always held ultimate power. First my mother and then my life mate. I am a proud man confident of the control I have over my life, my wealth, and my destiny. Both can stop me, in-my-tracks with one word.

My name.
Reply With Quote
  #43 (permalink)  
Old 03-25-2014, 07:25 PM
FrancSevin's Avatar
Runs with scissors
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: St Louis MO
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,568
Thanks: 7,674
Thanked 10,610 Times in 5,991 Posts
Default Re: A thought about religion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeyy View Post
I guess this would be your view. I have a different view but then I have never been much of a follower.
Ihave3 no problem with that. You have your view and are welcome to it. in fact, we live in a nation founded on the notion that we can have separate views about faith.

A prime directive as it were.....for now. but the forces of PC and progressivism are approaching. I suggest you prepare to protect your right to have that view. I will protect your right as well when they try and take it from us.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FrancSevin For This Useful Post:
  #44 (permalink)  
Old 03-26-2014, 02:06 PM
mlurp's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Flatlands
Gender: Male
Posts: 37,382
Thanks: 19,044
Thanked 10,864 Times in 8,473 Posts
Default Re: A thought about religion

If I might point out one thing FrancSevin

Quote:
It wasn't until the invention of money and acquired wealth that a difference could be even suggested otherwise.
Money in one form or another was around long B-4 the Catholic Church came into being.

Yet this was till the Victorian age when unmarried women started to gather for their rights.

Quote:
The Christian church simply took the natural order of things as they saw it in those times and divided the responsibilities of men and women. By tradition and biology, the women were nurturers and the men worked the land.
Few except the American Native allowed a woman the rights they have today. And depending on the tribes involved. Most of the east coast natives did have women's rights.
And a reversal to the above. In which women tended the fields while the males did the hunting.

On the plains and beyond in many cases the women had little rights except possibly divorce.

Other than these few items a very fine post I would say.
__________________


Improvise - Adapt - Over Come...
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to mlurp For This Useful Post:
  #45 (permalink)  
Old 03-26-2014, 02:17 PM
FrancSevin's Avatar
Runs with scissors
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: St Louis MO
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,568
Thanks: 7,674
Thanked 10,610 Times in 5,991 Posts
Default Re: A thought about religion

Quote:
Originally Posted by mlurp View Post
If I might point out one thing FrancSevin



Money in one form or another was around long B-4 the Catholic Church came into being.

Yet this was till the Victorian age when unmarried women started to gather for their rights.



Few except the American Native allowed a woman the rights they have today. And depending on the tribes involved. Most of the east coast natives did have women's rights.
And a reversal to the above. In which women tended the fields while the males did the hunting.

On the plains and beyond in many cases the women had little rights except possibly divorce.

Other than these few items a very fine post I would say.
Aquired wealth was the key phrase here. That occured to the emerging "middle class," during the Elizabethen era. I forget, sometimes, to expand my descriptions, thereby making my post luculent over brevity.

Women tending the fields as the men went hunting fits my separation of duties just fine. Women stayed close the the Children, a neccesityof species survival, whilst the men did the more dangerous work of huntung and war. The loss of amale mate meant stress for the family unit but the mother could continue nurtuing the next generation. Males, tending to be 30% or more larger and stronger madethe best warriors back when hand to hand fighting depended mostly on strength.

Women are ferociaous fighters but their talent, even for that activity, is best reserved to protect the offspring if poppa fails to vanquish the aggresor.

The weak needy feminine fraility is ....ironicaly...a romantic outgrowth of civilized Elizibethan times. I have met few women of that breed preferring the company of strong ones who can keep up with me. Or even best me.

Equal my ass.

Last edited by FrancSevin; 03-26-2014 at 02:34 PM..
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to FrancSevin For This Useful Post:
  #46 (permalink)  
Old 03-26-2014, 02:35 PM
mlurp's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Flatlands
Gender: Male
Posts: 37,382
Thanks: 19,044
Thanked 10,864 Times in 8,473 Posts
Default Re: A thought about religion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeyy View Post
I see religion doing a lot of damage in peoples lives. I see people lean on it as well. I was just hearing about how woman are often considered less than a man in most religions.

Jimmy Carter left his Southern Babtist church because of the way they decided not to allow woman as clergy or other high positions in the church.

I don't know because I didn't read the bible but from what I heard was that

Christ and God considered woman as equals but that Paul is the one who changed things.

I hear that nowhere does the quran say woman should be covered. From what I hear what the Quran says to men is that if you look upon another woman with lust you should turn your eyes away.
It always struck me why would God create woman and then say they needed to live in a beekeepers suit. Woman behind the man thing. All of this stuff makes me think it was all created by man for man.
In fact Paul didn't do that much for women as he had a few followers who were women when he went about preaching and running from the males of these towns who resented that his preaching of chastity was causing many married women to not have sex with their husbands.

And he didn't baptized many women or those that had followed him for a long time, even when asked to do so by them.

Yet His role had a big part to do with Christianity none the less.

And for the other parts I have not covered Mikeyy you need to understand the time settings during this medieval period. That's were this confusion comes from.

There is just a few TV shows which do this, on Sunday evenings on the History Channel 2.

One is Bible Rules which is running now. And is about the old testament.

The other is much better as it is very close to each Bible setting during the period they cover. Dress, skin colors etc. Yet this one and the films are set in the times of Christ.

And that is The Bible. The producers are the same ones who had a bad time over the Satan image on their first film. This is a TV series which you would have to look at your guide for the times etc.

BTW which wasn't even considered Satan looked like the POTUS which took so much away from the first film which they never wanted in the first place. As the story took on this and not the story behind it.

And this Satan is totally out of their upcoming 2nd film, to be released by the end of the year or early next year..... Both are very faith driven people. They just happen to be in this business.

On PBS last evening I saw this show that covered the medieval times the Jews were in and how as a people choose by God they keep their faith. Which by no means was easy. Yet I did learn quite a lot in that hour.

This two might replay during this week possibly as does both of the above mentioned TV Shows. If both are running. as I said I know the one is.
__________________


Improvise - Adapt - Over Come...
Reply With Quote
  #47 (permalink)  
Old 03-26-2014, 03:37 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: PNW
Gender: Male
Posts: 70,513
Thanks: 22,404
Thanked 18,919 Times in 13,934 Posts
Default Re: A thought about religion

I didn't make the claim lurpy. I was just reporting what I was told. There does seem to be a need for woman to be considered a slight bit less important than the man which I find comical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlurp View Post
In fact Paul didn't do that much for women as he had a few followers who were women when he went about preaching and running from the males of these towns who resented that his preaching of chastity was causing many married women to not have sex with their husbands.

And he didn't baptized many women or those that had followed him for a long time, even when asked to do so by them.

Yet His role had a big part to do with Christianity none the less.

And for the other parts I have not covered Mikeyy you need to understand the time settings during this medieval period. That's were this confusion comes from.

There is just a few TV shows which do this, on Sunday evenings on the History Channel 2.

One is Bible Rules which is running now. And is about the old testament.

The other is much better as it is very close to each Bible setting during the period they cover. Dress, skin colors etc. Yet this one and the films are set in the times of Christ.

And that is The Bible. The producers are the same ones who had a bad time over the Satan image on their first film. This is a TV series which you would have to look at your guide for the times etc.

BTW which wasn't even considered Satan looked like the POTUS which took so much away from the first film which they never wanted in the first place. As the story took on this and not the story behind it.

And this Satan is totally out of their upcoming 2nd film, to be released by the end of the year or early next year..... Both are very faith driven people. They just happen to be in this business.

On PBS last evening I saw this show that covered the medieval times the Jews were in and how as a people choose by God they keep their faith. Which by no means was easy. Yet I did learn quite a lot in that hour.

This two might replay during this week possibly as does both of the above mentioned TV Shows. If both are running. as I said I know the one is.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Mikeyy For This Useful Post:
  #48 (permalink)  
Old 03-27-2014, 10:49 AM
mlurp's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Flatlands
Gender: Male
Posts: 37,382
Thanks: 19,044
Thanked 10,864 Times in 8,473 Posts
Default Re: A thought about religion

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrancSevin View Post
Aquired wealth was the key phrase here. That occured to the emerging "middle class," during the Elizabethen era. I forget, sometimes, to expand my descriptions, thereby making my post luculent over brevity.

Women tending the fields as the men went hunting fits my separation of duties just fine. Women stayed close the the Children, a neccesityof species survival, whilst the men did the more dangerous work of huntung and war. The loss of amale mate meant stress for the family unit but the mother could continue nurtuing the next generation. Males, tending to be 30% or more larger and stronger madethe best warriors back when hand to hand fighting depended mostly on strength.

Women are ferociaous fighters but their talent, even for that activity, is best reserved to protect the offspring if poppa fails to vanquish the aggresor.

If one does a decent search they will find that thru out all history till the 20 century.
There were women who fought in battles & war's as well as lead in some cases the males of the tribe, clan or groups. Most were in Africa, early America and other places scattered here & there in through out Europe, Asia as well as on many of the world's Islands..

Yet I do agree in most cultures women were the planters/mothers.


The weak needy feminine fraility is ....ironicaly...a romantic outgrowth of civilized Elizibethan times. I have met few women of that breed preferring the company of strong ones who can keep up with me. Or even best me.

Equal my ass.
.. And I have met some myself. Yet it was in the Nam and a few after my time there. But first and foremost was my mother.
__________________


Improvise - Adapt - Over Come...
Reply With Quote
  #49 (permalink)  
Old 03-27-2014, 11:09 AM
mlurp's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Flatlands
Gender: Male
Posts: 37,382
Thanks: 19,044
Thanked 10,864 Times in 8,473 Posts
Default Re: A thought about religion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeyy View Post
I didn't make the claim lurpy. I was just reporting what I was told. There does seem to be a need for woman to be considered a slight bit less important than the man which I find comical.
I understand. Yet I was adding some context, the main point being, "the time frame, era or time in History."

As pointed out in another thread "American History" there were acceptations to the rules of these periods. As FrancSevin & I discussed in this and the American History thread.

Which I understand and by these standards can only agree. Yet if I had lived back then, I would most likely have treated women as an equal or at least any wife.

What some don't understand is placing yourself in proximity of any period in History. I can do this.

When you have seen, been to or got involved with "the old fairs" read plenty of all types of History or like both of us traveled to locations that still preserve these things in the cultures, it is easy IMHO.

Yet as I have said I would see people as equals if only that they were from the same creation from the prospective of the time period.
__________________


Improvise - Adapt - Over Come...
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
about, religion, thought

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0