oleg@birtch.UUCP (Oleg Kiselev) (12/30/85)
No apologies.... As for Biblical quotes, the difficulty is that I don't own a Bible. I used to, but after reading it I have elected to save the space on the bookshelf for books more important and dear to me. So, there is a problem with availability of sources (maybe my memory is getting weak -- I doubt it!) As for St. Thomas, I have read him and enjoyed some of his stuff ( such as a proposition that Satan does not exist). I also remember a few remarks about inferiority of women. In general, Christian philosophers of that period tended to think of women as non-human, as God's mistakes, as defective men, other wonderful ideas. As for quotes, I'll start with this: "For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is head of the church" Ephessians 5:23 More on that in January (he-he-he, thought you a rid of me? ;-) when I'll have time to look up all the wonderful things about your religion you'd rather ignore (and that's excluding Inquisition and Dominicans) -- Disclamer: I don't work here anymore - so they are not responsible for me. +-------------------------------+ Don't bother, I'll find the door! | STAY ALERT! TRUST NO ONE! | Oleg Kiselev. | KEEP YOUR LASER HANDY! |...!{trwrb|scgvaxd}!felix!birtch!oleg --------------------------------+...!{ihnp4|randvax}!ucla-cs!uclapic!oac6!oleg
john@cisden.UUCP (John Woolley) (12/31/85)
In article <218@birtch.UUCP> oleg@birtch.UUCP (Oleg Kiselev) writes: >No apologies.... > >As for Biblical quotes, the difficulty is that I don't own a Bible. I >used to, but after reading it I have elected to save the space on the >bookshelf for books more important and dear to me. So, there is a problem >with availability of sources (maybe my memory is getting weak -- I doubt it!) > >As for St. Thomas, I have read him and enjoyed some of his stuff ( such as >a proposition that Satan does not exist). I also remember a few remarks >about inferiority of women. In general, Christian philosophers of that period >tended to think of women as non-human, as God's mistakes, as defective >men, other wonderful ideas. > >As for quotes, I'll start with this: > > "For the husband is the head of the wife, as > Christ is head of the church" > Ephessians 5:23 > >More on that in January (he-he-he, thought you a rid of me? ;-) when I'll have >time to look up all the wonderful things about your religion you'd rather ignore >(and that's excluding Inquisition and Dominicans) Even though he says "No apologies", I have to assume Mr. Kiselev has backed down from his original proposition that St. Paul and St. Thomas claim sexual pleasure is evil. Otherwise I'm at a loss to explain why he changed the subject in this last posting to the status of women. If I'm wrong, Mr. Kiselev, if you still maintain (without being able to support your claim with quotations) that Christianity holds pleasure to be evil, please say so instead of just leaving us to guess. And I'd certainly rather not ignore Dominicans. Some of my best friends... -- Peace and Good!, Fr. John Woolley "The heart has its reasons that the mind does not know." -- Blaise Pascal
garys@bunkerb.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (12/31/85)
In article <218@birtch.UUCP> oleg@birtch.UUCP (Oleg Kiselev) writes: > As for Biblical quotes, the difficulty is that I don't own a Bible. I > used to, but after reading it I have elected to save the space on the > bookshelf for books more important and dear to me. How openminded of you. My shelves have room for books of opposing views; why don't yours? (Rhetorical question; answer not required). You must be a wonder. You read the bible (some of it? once?) and knew enough about it to decide that it wasn't worth two inches of shelf space. > As for St. Thomas, I have read him and enjoyed some of his stuff (such as > a proposition that Satan does not exist). I also remember a few remarks > about inferiority of women. In general, Christian philosophers of that period > tended to think of women as non-human, as God's mistakes, as defective > men, other wonderful ideas. I guess even Christian philosophers make mistakes. Saying "in general" admits that other Christian philosophers didn't share the notion that women were inferior. You appear to think that the ones which thought women inferior had a better understanding of Christianity than the ones who thought otherwise; why do you think that? And how about non-Christian philosophers? Didn't they also, "in general," think of women as inferior? If so, you can't blame Christianity for an attitude which was prevalent regardless. > As for quotes, I'll start with this: > > "For the husband is the head of the wife, as > Christ is head of the church" > Ephesians 5:23 This is one of the favorite quotes of opponents of Christianity. It is, of course, taken out of context. 5:21: "Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God." First Paul says that every Christian is expected to be willing to submit to every other Christian. He then gives examples of how husbands and wives, children and parents, servants and masters are to submit one to another: 5:22: "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord..." 5:25: "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it..." Most people don't seem to read this far. Maybe the rest of the chapter is missing in some Bibles? Christ gave his all for the church. And husbands are supposed to love their wives as much as Christ loved the church, a hard act to follow. 6:1: "Children, obey your parents in the Lord..." 6:4: "And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath..." Children are supposed to obey their parents, but parents have to be reasonable. 6:5-8: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh...not with eyeservice, as men- pleasers, but as the servants of Christ...with good will doing service as to the Lord, and not to men, knowing that whatever good thing ay man doeth, the same shall he receive from the Lord, whether he be bond or free." In our culture, we have "employees" instead of "servants" and "supervisors" instead of "masters," but the principles are still applicable. 6:9: "And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening, knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him." On the last, that God is no respecter of persons, Paul says this to the Galatians (3:28) "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." Sounds pretty egalitarian to me. >(and that's excluding Inquisition and Dominicans) Good. One less straw man to worry about. I call it a straw man because no one that I know of has advocated the practices of the Inquisition recently, and yet people keep criticizing Christianity on that account. Gary Samuelson
on@hpda.UUCP (Owen Rowley) (01/02/86)
>In article <587@bunkerb.UUCP> garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes: >>In article <218@birtch.UUCP> oleg@birtch.UUCP (Oleg Kiselev) writes: >I guess even Christian philosophers make mistakes. Saying "in general" Not when that "philosopher" is a Pope, or an instrument of Gods will as described in the "bible".. At least not by orthodox Roman catholic belief! >women were inferior. You appear to think that the ones which thought >women inferior had a better understanding of Christianity than the ones >who thought otherwise; why do you think that? And how about non-Christian >philosophers? Didn't they also, "in general," think of women as inferior? >If so, you can't blame Christianity for an attitude which was prevalent >regardless. You are also speaking of a time when the church was the source of cultural practises attitudes and philosophies for the Masses. The Point is that Yes women were generally thought of as the possesions of men in those cultures that were ruled by theocracys that were run by men. There were other Cultures that were matrifocal wherein woman had equal status as men , but for the most part the church did everything in its power inclu- ding genocide to wipe those cultures out or convert them to their way. (there he goes bringing up those pesky inquisitorial things again :-) ) >First Paul says that every Christian is expected to be willing to submit >to every other Christian. He then gives examples of how husbands and >wives, children and parents, servants and masters are to submit one to >another: > > 5:22: "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as > unto the Lord..." > 5:25: "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the > church and gave himself for it..." Yes lip service to equality .. do you NOT see a difference between being to submit to your husband and to love your wife... It equates the women to the role of being obedient and it equates the man to being the lord.."even as Christ" >Christ gave his all for the church. And husbands are supposed to love >their wives as much as Christ loved the church, a hard act to follow. Where does it say that the wife has the opportunity to give her all and get credit for it in like measure to christ?????????????????????? > 6:1: "Children, obey your parents in the Lord..." > 6:4: "And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath..." Again children obey, Dad (the man of the family) be cool and don't flay the skin off of them when you whip them.. > 6:5-8: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters > according to the flesh...not with eyeservice, as men- > pleasers, but as the servants of Christ...with good will > doing service as to the Lord, and not to men, knowing > that whatever good thing ay man doeth, the same shall > he receive from the Lord, whether he be bond or free." Once again equating the man to the Master and therefore Lord.. doesn't say the man and his wife does it? >In our culture, we have "employees" instead of "servants" and "supervisors" >instead of "masters," but the principles are still applicable. Here we agree completely....;-) > 6:9: "And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing > threatening, knowing that your Master also is in heaven; > neither is there respect of persons with him." Yeah when you play this God-game no matter how much you do the right things your always under the gun, and of course always have a higher authority to pass the buck too. Give me a group focused on self respect and self regulation anyday! >On the last, that God is no respecter of persons, Paul says this to >the Galatians (3:28) "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither >bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one >in Christ Jesus." Sounds pretty egalitarian to me. Thats like when a bigot says all "name your group"'s are equal to me! doesn't mean squat if the meaning is that they're all inferior toads to be squashed . >because no one that I know of has advocated the practices of the >Inquisition recently, and yet people keep criticizing Christianity >on that account. >Gary Samuelson You havn't been listening very closely, the statements of the Gerry Falwells (who would fry every homosexual in a minute) and Ed Meese whos christian faith figures that God won't let you be jailed if your not guilty. and the whole raft of Armegedden merchants who want to fulfill their prophecy with our charred remains will make the inquisition look like an amusement park if they are not stopped. Lux .. on Owen Rowley hpda!on "the slaves shall serve" Liber AL
on@hpda.UUCP (Owen Rowley) (01/02/86)
>In article <357@cisden.UUCP> john@cisden.UUCP (John Woolley) writes: >Even though he says "No apologies", I have to assume Mr. Kiselev has backed >down from his original proposition that St. Paul and St. Thomas claim sexual >pleasure is evil. Otherwise I'm at a loss to explain why he changed the >subject in this last posting to the status of women. > >If I'm wrong, Mr. Kiselev, if you still maintain (without being able to >support your claim with quotations) that Christianity holds pleasure to be >evil, please say so instead of just leaving us to guess. > Peace and Good!, > Fr. John Woolley Iregardless of what is said in judeo christian scripture, the fact remains that christian religious organisations of several flavors have drawn the conclussion that sex is for procreation only and that pleasure from sex is ungodly. One can hardly ignore the fact that these concepts can be found alive today in many areas. I see the status of woman and the subjegation of same by the Jayweh cults as a central issue to the arguement.. after all one might question if the Cow enjoys giving milk, in the same fashion when you place women on a par with cattle it is easy to question whether they can enjoy sex. These problems have arisen because this collection of documents called the bible is such a mish mash of historical (histerical) dogma that has been translattedf and retranslatted , interpreted and reinterpreted over the last several thousand years that one can find justification for ANYTHING somewhere in its confines. The Judeo christian saga has been a blight on humanity from its earliest beginnings. the Worlds tragedy that has befallen us from the infliction of Jahwehs wrath as carried out by his minnions is that we will never recover the vast repositorys of ancient knowledge obliterated in the name of christ History may choose to whitewash the terror of this onslaught but the Earth itself will continue to live and refresh itself whatever we choose to do. Even now that we are straining to unleash a nuclear nightmare in a final flash of stubborness over a dozen different Holy wars it is heartening to know that in terms of Geological time our entire his/herstory is but a moment. Lux.. on Owen Rowley hpda!on "Come forth Oh my children, under the Stars and take thy fill of Love" Liber Al