Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
SUBSERVIENT
1. Prepared to obey others unquestioningly.
2. Less important; subordinate.
The Bible never uses the word subservient to describe the relationship between men and women, or husbands and wives.
Fellow Christians, what does this passage mean to you?
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
SUBSERVIENT
1. Prepared to obey others unquestioningly.
2. Less important; subordinate.
The Bible never uses the word subservient to describe the relationship between men and women, or husbands and wives.
Please note that I was using at all times and in all contexts the first def #1, not the second less used def #2.
I am refering to any and all "rules" used for example in Contracts by Christian groups or ogrninzations that establish rules of order, procedure or otherwise based on "Chrisitian Doctrine" by Christian orginizations including the Vatican, Various Monistarial Orders, Various principals referred to in many Pre-numptual agreements as published by Christian Churches that are allegedly derived from Chrisian principals, and Contractual agreements and limitations concerning limitations on use of property that cite Religous dogma.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
What you are saying is like saying Klu Klux Klan bylaws should be used to settle some racial disputes. Sharia directly conflicts with almost every aspect of the US Constitution and what we understand as Constitutional rights in America. You can't separate Sharia from its blatant unconstitutionality, and pretend it is equivalent to Judeo-Christian values, because it's just NOT. Our constitution and culture is built on a foundation rooted in Jewish and Christian beliefs, not Islamic beliefs. They are two diametrically different ideologies, and apparently, you are too stupid to comprehend this.
I disagree, but if you are correct, then you have nothing to worry about, none of Sharia will ever be used. Personally I am sure that there are parts that are and can be used, if you have a specific example I'll tell you if I belive it would be constitutional or consionable. Its what Ive been saying all along, maybe you should have read what Ive been writing instead of going off on emo rants.
I think he was joking, I think he knows the true history.
Thanks for this thread, in my re-reading and research I have discovered a new book to read. Being a feminist, I know a plague upon the Earth, I resent it when men make the claim that women were equal to men in the eyes of religion. There may have been a few men advanced in their thinking, but for the most part, in recorded history, women were second class citizens and holy scripture by all religions was used to keep them in check. It was Yahwh, Alah's will, pick your god and fill in the blank, that women should be subjugated, and that word is used, in Peter and Titus and Corinithians to describe the relationship between men and women. If Jesus preached equality, It is sure hard to tell, the followers never really latched on to that message.
Anyway, the sign of true equality would be or the major denominations to give the priesthood to women, until that happens, you aren't going to convince me men And women are equals when it comes to religion.
Last edited:
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
Great observation Rana.
A Mormon elder once told me that women were given the power of childbirth and men the priesthood. I asked him, what about those women who don't want the power of childbirth, but seek the priesthood?
Their pat answer, it is not the will of Heavenly "Father"
My next question, what happened to "Heavenly Mother"?
Well, if you are a good woman you get the privilege of having spiritual children for eternity!
Tells me what Mormons think about women...eternal childbirth, yeah! That is a great reward!
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
LOL Sounds like hell.
I think it should be daily... At least for the first few billion years of eternity. Just to make a point. We'll all be Gods, one of the awesome Elohim... And women will be there just to have more of us or some more birthing vassals.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
why did you claim we don't allow that for muslims? fact is we do. however, that law, just like any christian contract, cannot conflict with US law.
once again, jarod builds a false strawman
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I've read what you posted, it doesn't make sense and is giving me a headache. Here's a specific example: A Muslim man is divorcing his wife on the grounds of incompatibility, she will not adhere to the 5th century laws of Islam and is disobedient. The Koran and Sharia mandate she should be stoned to death, and obviously, the US courts are not going to condemn her to a public stoning, but... The man has an attorney who says his client shouldn't be obligated to pay her alimony, since his religious beliefs call for her to be stoned to death. The court, using your liberal PC idiocy, could rule that she is not entitled to alimony because her husband is a Muslim who believes in Sharia, and Sharia objects to him paying her alimony. Now.... I am certain you are going to jump right in here and tell me.... well, that is obviously unconstitutional, and couldn't stand... but here's the rub, munchkin brain... YOU aren't always going to be there to determine whether something is PC enough to apply from Sharia or not... it will be decided by a judge, and you won't ever be consulted. I think it's best we leave jurisprudence separate from religious traditions and laws, and rely upon the Constitution.
christiefan915
Catalyst
Will your friends (ha ha) call you out for insulting me in post 74?
No. Because only you care about pissy crap like "calling people out".
I don't think he understands the term, now this is flaming, "I don't think Yurt understands much of anything. He is a Yurttard"
christiefan915
Catalyst
Last edited:
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
Yeah, I know. I like the part about where the men who abuse their power over their wives are giving the other men a bad name. The slaveowners who considered themselves "good masters" used to say the same stuff about the masters who whipped their slaves.
IMO any woman who was unfortunate enough to be indoctrinated from birth into the beliefs described in this thread, will never be a fully realized human being. It's infuriating, but they embrace it and nothing can be done. Same thing with certain observant Muslim women. No one can free them, they have to free themselves, and every culture has a different idea of freedom. Muslim feminists understand this and many don't want Western interference for this reason.
As long as they don't try and force their beliefs on me, I really don't care.
However....in this country, that's exactly what they're attempting to do.
christiefan915
Catalyst
There are more women than men in the workforce, more women than men in college and we're still treated like second-class citizens. We're still doing most of the housework and child care, and still earning only 77 cents to every dollar a man earns. That number hasn't changed much in decades. Yet men have the nerve to ask "what do women want?" and some women still sneer at the concept of feminism.
Rats, now I'm getting all steamed just thinking about it!
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
Oh I know, the second shift. Some idiot at the Huffpo was writing articles about "why aren't women happy? they have the equality they wanted" He actually was promoting a book about this. What a jerk. I don't even have kids and i knew right away - a lot of them are unhappy because of the second shift moron. Along with other factors, but come on.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Technically, since being Catholic means to have a Church centered around Apostalic tradition, and a life built first upon the Holy Eucharist, the only Christians who are comparable to Catholics are Orthodox. Both Lutheran and Anglicans attempted to be merely separate (they Anglicans attempted to be merely schismatic, like the East), but quickly developed more and more contrary theology. Luther was a former priest who loved the Mass, and that is why Lutheran services look so much like a Mass. He even is famous for developing his own unique doctrine on the Eucharist.
The Orthodox get away with not being "protestant," because the only Apostalic succession they deny is the Pope, and so their theology is exactly the same, and the Divine Liturgy is equal to the Mass. They have Eastern traditions, which is the only noticable difference to the eye.
But, yeah, your point is taken, and I was pretty much joking around when I made my comment. Most outsiders and non-Lutherans view them as essentially "Catholic-Lite," meaning they can't get no respect.