Christianity & The Battle of the Sexes...?

[Linna Heartbooger]

Sooooo... some of us are perhaps guilty of fouling Foul's thread.
(and, I might add, hijacking a potentially-interesting discussion of the Sermon on the Mount which was taking place on it.*)

LF politely exercised restraint by not re-hijacking it.

One of the posts that started it all:

The modern insistence that the differences make no difference is philosophically foolish.

I am confident that if Jesus actually comes back, he is going to tell those who hold your views that you are soooo two centuries ago.

Fist, can you use your mod superpower of moving the subsequent posts over here? </flattery>
(Until then, I'll start responding to posts from Foul's thread over here!)

* So now you all know ONE of my intended agendas.

[Linna Heartbooger]

When we consider the relative helplessness and protection that a pregnant and nursing mother has and needs, then it is enormous common sense to tell that woman to stay home and guard the future, while the man deals with the needs of the present. In a word, roles are, in some cases, actually logical. maybe you agree with this and we are not arguing at all. But certainly the traditionalist side is regularly hit with charges of seeking domination, when the sensible ones among us only want to see the preservation of the family, and see a threat to it when people who do not have a right to absolute freedom to do whatever they want (parents of a child) claim such rights.

Actually, this brings up a point.

Some of what we Christians would be tempted to "defend" is not something that we have to defend.
Some of the "reasons from history" that say "The woman stays at home with [ALL] the kids even when they are past nursing age" are fiction/legend.
In some non-technological agricultural cultures, often the children head out to the fields and gardens as soon as they're old enough to walk for sustained periods of time - not necessarily to do much work, but to play in the outdoor world, and to see the example of "how things are done out here."
My friend who lived in Amish country said that whenever she thinks of the Amish, she thinks of little 6-year-olds driving plowhorses.
In some cultures which require lots of outdoor work, the mothers take even quite young babies with them when they work or travel - riding on their backs in some kind of baby carrier.
(She's still with baby to nurse every 2-3 hours!)

All that said, I think that the "real" Christian version of the division of the roles within marriage is much more revolutionary, shocking, and offensive-sounding to modern concepts of values than a simple division of labor in specific tasks.

[Fist and Faith]

I prefer this idea of starting a new thread, and responding to what you want over here. Easier than figuring out which post to move. Especially since many posts have parts that can fit into more than one thread.

[Vraith]

All that said, I think that the "real" Christian version of the division of the roles within marriage is much more revolutionary, shocking, and offensive-sounding to modern concepts of values than a simple division of labor in specific tasks.

Precisely, glad you are on my side. Though I wouldn't call them revolutionary...
OTOH: it is NOT by any means only christians, or only the "civilized" that subjugate the feminine. In some ways, even the strictest/most distorted versions of christianity are more non-sexist than vast swaths of human groups. [Don't take this too far, though...I mean it in the same sense that charcoal grey is less black than real black, but it's still helluva long walk to white]

[Menolly]

When we consider the relative helplessness and protection that a pregnant and nursing mother has and needs, then it is enormous common sense to tell that woman to stay home and guard the future, while the man deals with the needs of the present. In a word, roles are, in some cases, actually logical. maybe you agree with this and we are not arguing at all. But certainly the traditionalist side is regularly hit with charges of seeking domination, when the sensible ones among us only want to see the preservation of the family, and see a threat to it when people who do not have a right to absolute freedom to do whatever they want (parents of a child) claim such rights.

Actually, this brings up a point.

Some of what we Christians would be tempted to "defend" is not something that we have to defend.
Some of the "reasons from history" that say "The woman stays at home with [ALL] the kids even when they are past nursing age" are fiction/legend.
In some non-technological agricultural cultures, often the children head out to the fields and gardens as soon as they're old enough to walk for sustained periods of time - not necessarily to do much work, but to play in the outdoor world, and to see the example of "how things are done out here."
My friend who lived in Amish country said that whenever she thinks of the Amish, she thinks of little 6-year-olds driving plowhorses.
In some cultures which require lots of outdoor work, the mothers take even quite young babies with them when they work or travel - riding on their backs in some kind of baby carrier.
(She's still with baby to nurse every 2-3 hours!)

All that said, I think that the "real" Christian version of the division of the roles within marriage is much more revolutionary, shocking, and offensive-sounding to modern concepts of values than a simple division of labor in specific tasks.

With the title of this thread, I'm not sure if bringing up the concept of "kosher sex" and the role of the female in Torah-observant Judaism is appropriate. The concept is that Judaism follows a matriarchal line of descent, except for tribal affiliation, and the mother/wife keeps the home and instructs the children is because they believe that the neshama (soul) of the woman is somehow closer to The All than the soul of the man. The mother/wife infuses her home and family with her own holiness, whereas the father/husband needs the infusion of the holiness of the community to retain that connection. Hence the men performing all of the ceremonies within the shul in mixed gender services. Of course, if a service is attended by only one or the other of the sexes, then whichever sex is present carries out the rituals.

Not to mention many torah-observant women do also work and help support their families. In addition to being the "spiritual center" of her home.

This practice is within torah-observant communities, such as the Hasids and other very "orthodox" Jews, only. The less torah-observant movements within Judaism itself tend to not accept that concept as a rule. I know I chafed against the restrictions when I was younger. But, I was unaware of the spiritual reasons for it. While I am uncertain that I believe a female is inherently "holier" than a male, I do embrace my womanhood and the Shehina aspect of The All. While I am uncertain, who am I to judge the opinions and practices of others?

[aliantha]

Off-topic to what Menolly just said, sorry....

I've been thinking about that Chris Rock quote from the other thread, where he said that when he sees a woman out for the night, and he knows she has kids, his first thought is, "Why aren't you home with them?"

It occurred to me today (as I was cleaning the bathroom! ) that if he'd seen a man who has kids out on the town, he wouldn't have asked the same question. If it was a couple -- a mother and father -- I bet he wouldn't have asked it, either. The assumption with a guy is that the mom is home with the kids; the assumption with the couple is that they've hired a sitter. Which, of course, could also be the case with a mother: either she's hired a sitter, or the kids are with their father (assuming they're separated/divorced, maybe it's his visitation weekend).

So why does Chris Rock jump to the conclusion that the mother has abandoned her kids to go out and party? It just seems unfair to me....

[rusmeister]

I certainly would agree with Linna and call the Christian vision of roles revolutionary. Above all, the injunction to the husband is something that both preserved the idea of hierarchy within a family (and good reasons why a family should not be a democracy with right of secession when a tie vote is reached) and shifted it away from domination and towards a genuine vision of equality between the sexes, even within marriage. (I think some people take those injunctions to spouses and apply them to all male-female relations – the problem of being one’s own interpreter!) It was decidedly revolutionary in the ancient world, which DID have a strong tendency to treat women - especially wives - as second-class citizens.

I can’t really speak to Menolly’s comments. We might be able to achieve understanding and agreement on Judaism prior to Christ (or perhaps not) – the Christian would only see the relevance of Judaism as practiced and taught up to that point. Once Judaism was fulfilled, any later practice would already be error which could go in any direction at all. (I’m not looking to argue that here, Menolly – only to explain the difficulty in engaging your comments)

On Ali’s thoughts…
At the risk of being predictable (which might be merely the virtue of consistency, which would suggest solidity of worldview):

I can imagine any number of cases where a parent – husband or wife – might legitimately ‘take a vacation’ and get coverage for the night, and I wouldn’t even apply C. Rock’s comments to such situations. The situation where I see application is specifically the one where it is not an exception, not a vacation, but a habit. True, he doesn’t specify that, but that is where he would be quite right.

That leads us to whether a husband ought to be similarly questioned for habitually abandoning his children to ‘go party’. My predictable answer would be an obvious ‘yes’. I think the mother is always going to come under more question for the simple reason that for a number of years, she is liable to be the prime caregiver for small children (if we stick to breastfeeding and weaning), so a person would not necessarily be either unreasonable or prejudiced in raising such a question – but agreed that in general, this applies in general to the father as well.

The thing I hope we can put paid to is the idea that traditional Christianity (trying to be as inclusive as I can) teaches domination and inequality. The traditional view - as always taught, and however occasionally distorted - has always been that men and women are ontologically equal, and that equality is not the primary goal of the faith for any of us. That the husband is to subordinate his very life to his wife and her needs (as distinct from mere wants), to love her AS CHRIST LOVED THE CHURCH, AND GAVE HIMSELF FOR IT. THAT is the Christian injunction to husbands. To lift her up, not put her down.

There are other issues that will come around. Why (in the most traditional forms of Christianity) only men may be priests - and then we'll have to quash the uninformed idea that it is a power play - which involves discussing the theology. Interestingly, this does not actually clash with most of Protestantism, as the reasons are primarily sacramental, and since Protestants have largely done away with sacraments, there are few things that female Protestant ministers do that is not done by women in the Orthodox Church.

Probably the most interesting thing, speaking of Orthodoxy - and this is probably true of Roman Catholicism and high Anglo-Catholic Anglicanism as well, is that the women see themselves, not as dominated, but as freed - that a Church hierarchy is not about power at all, but about submission - of the hierarchy itself. The paradox, so difficult for the modern world to understand, is that Christ, as the ultimate example, teaches that he he would lead must be the servant of all. Not grasping the paradox, the relationships are interpreted (wrongly) in terms of earthly power structures. Heck, my priest can't make me do anything at all. Unless I voluntarily submit to his advice and guidance (and I am still free to question it - whether it is in line with Church Tradition, for example), there is no way that any hierarch can exert any authority over me. It is contingent upon my constant submission and acceptance - which is the very definition of a free man (or woman).

[Fist and Faith]

Off-topic to what Menolly just said, sorry....

I've been thinking about that Chris Rock quote from the other thread, where he said that when he sees a woman out for the night, and he knows she has kids, his first thought is, "Why aren't you home with them?"

It occurred to me today (as I was cleaning the bathroom! ) that if he'd seen a man who has kids out on the town, he wouldn't have asked the same question. If it was a couple -- a mother and father -- I bet he wouldn't have asked it, either. The assumption with a guy is that the mom is home with the kids; the assumption with the couple is that they've hired a sitter. Which, of course, could also be the case with a mother: either she's hired a sitter, or the kids are with their father (assuming they're separated/divorced, maybe it's his visitation weekend).

So why does Chris Rock jump to the conclusion that the mother has abandoned her kids to go out and party? It just seems unfair to me....

I don't think you should decide that he would have been fine with either a father or both parents being out, then hold it against him.

[I'm Murrin]

Society evolves; religion, as a structure generally predisposed to preserving orthodoxy (conformity of purpose will be achieved through constant condemnation of non-conformity), does so slowly and reluctantly. Modern society has mechanisms which make working parents, single parents, and working through pregnancy something that can work without any inevitability of harm or neglect - though that depends on the parents in question.

Making judgements that automatically denigrate or condemn any lifestyle that does not fit the traditional family unit or gender roles simply fails to take into account the many elements of our societies today that invalidate those judgements on anything above a specific case-by-case level.

And thus rejecting any such arguments as inherently flawed, once again I show that I'm wasting my time even participating in these discussions because I will never be willing to accept arguments from those who hold opposing views.

[aliantha]

Off-topic to what Menolly just said, sorry....

I've been thinking about that Chris Rock quote from the other thread, where he said that when he sees a woman out for the night, and he knows she has kids, his first thought is, "Why aren't you home with them?"

It occurred to me today (as I was cleaning the bathroom! ) that if he'd seen a man who has kids out on the town, he wouldn't have asked the same question. If it was a couple -- a mother and father -- I bet he wouldn't have asked it, either. The assumption with a guy is that the mom is home with the kids; the assumption with the couple is that they've hired a sitter. Which, of course, could also be the case with a mother: either she's hired a sitter, or the kids are with their father (assuming they're separated/divorced, maybe it's his visitation weekend).

So why does Chris Rock jump to the conclusion that the mother has abandoned her kids to go out and party? It just seems unfair to me....

I don't think you should decide that he would have been fine with either a father or both parents being out, then hold it against him.

Don't think I didn't consider that.

I agree with rus, actually. If you know for sure the mom -- OR DAD -- makes a habit of skipping out on the kids to cruise the bars (or brings a series of "uncle daddies/auntie mommies" home, or does any of a number of other easily-agreed-upon irresponsible behaviors), then I don't have a problem with giving the person the third degree. They *ought* to be thinking about the kids first.

The point I'm trying to make is that one should be charitable in one's thoughts toward others, because the reality of the situation might not be what one would assume. (Which is the long way around saying, "Don't be judgmental about the behavior of others," but I'm trying to avoid going another round with rus about the word "judgmental". )

[aliantha]

This may be a double-post. If so...eh, whatever. (Love ya, Fist! )

And, no, a man helping a woman has nothing to do with 'being shown up'. Maybe you project that onto men that would otherwise help you, which would be quite unfair to the men. Things like pity and agape love stir men's hearts as well as women's - and I get a sense that you've had precious little experience of (men like) that in your own life.

Au contraire, mon ami. And this also brings up the topic of the fragile new mom/breastfeeding/etc.

Re the supposed fragility of pregnant women: During my first pregnancy -- I was maybe six months along -- we had a bunch of folks over, and we needed to move some dining room chairs into the living room so everyone would have a place to sit. I grabbed one of the chairs, and immediately one of the guys in the group reached for it, saying, "Here, I'll do it. You shouldn't be lifting that." I almost decked him. Maybe I'm too independent for my own good, I dunno. But I knew exactly how heavy the chair was (it was our chair, after all!), my doctor hadn't said anything about restricting my activities, and nothing I'd read indicated I needed to do it. In fact, doctors typically recommend that pregnant women continue with their usual physical activities until it's too uncomfortable for them to do so. Even tho the guy was trying to be gallant and/or had pity or sympathy for my condition, or whatever, it was misplaced. (I was kind of insulted, actually.) Pregnant women aren't delicate flowers. They're the same person they were before they got pregnant -- just with a bigger belly.

Re breastfeeding: Babies start eating solids as early as four months old. By their one-year birthday, they are typically relying on solid food for a good chunk their nutrition. And by the time they're two, they can drink cow's milk. So we are talking about a relatively small window of time when the baby is dependent exclusively on the mother -- about two years, maybe 2.5 if you include the last few months of gestation. (All of which you dads oughta know, if you were paying attention when your kids were babies. ) Granted, that's two or three years per kid, so if your kids are two or three years apart, it's gonna add up. And granted that there are rabid breastfeeding Nazis who advocate introducing solids much later, and nursing the kid 'til he's five, and stuff like that. But I think that in most situations, we're talking less than three years that mom and kid need to be tethered. After that, Dad is as good as Mom, in nearly any situation.

[rusmeister]

This may be a double-post. If so...eh, whatever. (Love ya, Fist! )

And, no, a man helping a woman has nothing to do with 'being shown up'. Maybe you project that onto men that would otherwise help you, which would be quite unfair to the men. Things like pity and agape love stir men's hearts as well as women's - and I get a sense that you've had precious little experience of (men like) that in your own life.

Au contraire, mon ami. And this also brings up the topic of the fragile new mom/breastfeeding/etc.

Re the supposed fragility of pregnant women: During my first pregnancy -- I was maybe six months along -- we had a bunch of folks over, and we needed to move some dining room chairs into the living room so everyone would have a place to sit. I grabbed one of the chairs, and immediately one of the guys in the group reached for it, saying, "Here, I'll do it. You shouldn't be lifting that." I almost decked him. Maybe I'm too independent for my own good, I dunno. But I knew exactly how heavy the chair was (it was our chair, after all!), my doctor hadn't said anything about restricting my activities, and nothing I'd read indicated I needed to do it. In fact, doctors typically recommend that pregnant women continue with their usual physical activities until it's too uncomfortable for them to do so. Even tho the guy was trying to be gallant and/or had pity or sympathy for my condition, or whatever, it was misplaced. (I was kind of insulted, actually.) Pregnant women aren't delicate flowers. They're the same person they were before they got pregnant -- just with a bigger belly.

Re breastfeeding: Babies start eating solids as early as four months old. By their one-year birthday, they are typically relying on solid food for a good chunk their nutrition. And by the time they're two, they can drink cow's milk. So we are talking about a relatively small window of time when the baby is dependent exclusively on the mother -- about two years, maybe 2.5 if you include the last few months of gestation. (All of which you dads oughta know, if you were paying attention when your kids were babies. ) Granted, that's two or three years per kid, so if your kids are two or three years apart, it's gonna add up. And granted that there are rabid breastfeeding Nazis who advocate introducing solids much later, and nursing the kid 'til he's five, and stuff like that. But I think that in most situations, we're talking less than three years that mom and kid need to be tethered. After that, Dad is as good as Mom, in nearly any situation.

Thanks for the story!

Still, I feel sorry for a man who tries to show love and concern, and has no context at all of domination, whose attempt to love his neighbor is rebuffed by someone who reads it as something it's not. I see a completely different context than you do, one that does not at all see "delicate flowers", but does see a need to protect and help - and this is natural, almost purely instinctive, and having zippo to do with patriarchal domination.

Being a parent myself, I would agree with your observation on it almost completely - except I don't believe that the physical is the end of the differences. I think there is something, in general, to GKC's idea of the woman as universalist vs the man as specialist, and children really DO need the universalist in their early years.

It's hard to pick a text out of the book ("What's Wrong With the World" - one of my five most favorite), but this sums up the idea well enough:

The final fact which fixes this is a sufficiently plain one. Supposing it to be conceded that humanity has acted at least not unnaturally in dividing itself into two halves, respectively typifying the ideals of special talent and of general sanity (since they are genuinely difficult to combine completely in one mind), it is not difficult to see why the line of cleavage has followed the line of sex, or why the female became the emblem of the universal and the male of the special and superior. Two gigantic facts of nature fixed it thus: first, that the woman who frequently fulfilled her functions literally could not be specially prominent in experiment and adventure; and second, that the same natural operation surrounded her with very young children, who require to be taught not so much anything as everything. Babies need not to be taught a trade, but to be introduced to a world. To put the matter shortly, woman is generally shut up in a house with a human being at the time when he asks all the questions that there are, and some that there aren't. It would be odd if she retained any of the narrowness of a specialist. Now if anyone says that this duty of general enlightenment (even when freed from modern rules and hours, and exercised more spontaneously by a more protected person) is in itself too exacting and oppressive, I can understand the view. I can only answer that our race has thought it worth while to cast this burden on women in order to keep common-sense in the world. But when people begin to talk about this domestic duty as not merely difficult but trivial and dreary, I simply give up the question. For I cannot with the utmost energy of imagination conceive what they mean. When domesticity, for instance, is called drudgery, all the difficulty arises from a double meaning in the word. If drudgery only means dreadfully hard work, I admit the woman drudges in the home, as a man might drudge at the Cathedral of Amiens or drudge behind a gun at Trafalgar. But if it means that the hard work is more heavy because it is trifling, colorless and of small import to the soul, then as I say, I give it up; I do not know what the words mean. To be Queen Elizabeth within a definite area, deciding sales, banquets, labors and holidays; to be Whiteley within a certain area, providing toys, boots, sheets, cakes and books, to be Aristotle within a certain area, teaching morals, manners, theology, and hygiene; I can understand how this might exhaust the mind, but I cannot imagine how it could narrow it. How can it be a large career to tell other people's children about the Rule of Three, and a small career to tell one's own children about the universe? How can it be broad to be the same thing to everyone, and narrow to be everything to someone? No; a woman's function is laborious, but because it is gigantic, not because it is minute. I will pity Mrs. Jones for the hugeness of her task; I will never pity her for its smallness.

This context is diametrically the opposite of what you see; it is an enormous praise of women that does not in the least desire to dominate them; it sees a necessity for a narrow specialist outside the home and a universalist inside of it. It could certainly be the man on the inside, but usually it isn't, and not because he 'seeks to keep the woman in her place', but simply because he is much poorer, as a rule, at being a universalist. Because he really IS inferior to the woman in a gigantic way.

However you take that, it is certain that that view does not see itself the way you do, therefore, you are projecting your view of their own thoughts onto the people who hold it - even the gallant and sympathetic man who could not explain what exactly was behind his view that saw a perceived need - and stepped up to fill it.

[rusmeister]

Society evolves; religion, as a structure generally predisposed to preserving orthodoxy (conformity of purpose will be achieved through constant condemnation of non-conformity), does so slowly and reluctantly. Modern society has mechanisms which make working parents, single parents, and working through pregnancy something that can work without any inevitability of harm or neglect - though that depends on the parents in question.

Making judgements that automatically denigrate or condemn any lifestyle that does not fit the traditional family unit or gender roles simply fails to take into account the many elements of our societies today that invalidate those judgements on anything above a specific case-by-case level.

And thus rejecting any such arguments as inherently flawed, once again I show that I'm wasting my time even participating in these discussions because I will never be willing to accept arguments from those who hold opposing views.

I suppose I could agree on conformity of purpose. There seems to me, though, to be a hidden assumption that this is a bad thing. I think that actually depends on what the purpose is, and whether it is a good thing, or a bad thing. What if NASA had not insisted on comformity of purpose in the moon race? Would the goal of reaching the moon been achieved? Would Hitler have been defeated? And so on. It is highly doubtful. So conformity of purpose may be desirable.

What is a "lifestyle"? I need a coherent definition of the word. I think you mean "any way that people happen to be living" - hardly stunning clarity of expression (but I don't think that your fault - I think we're all suckers to repeat whatever the media teach us to say). That, btw is NOT a personal attack - it is an attack on the vacuous language we are generally suckered into using.

Harm or neglect may not be completely inevitable - but they can become so much more probable when usurious landlords overcharge their rents because they can, greedy employers deliberately move most of their production to third-world countries with the effect of dragging local wages way down, forcing both men and women to take on multiple jobs even in a supposedly "developed" (whatever THAT means) country like the United States in order to simply pay the rent and feed their families. These men and women are generally NOT the people with the 401Ks, the two-car garages and annual trips to Florida or the Bahamas.

A central problem that I always see here, Murrin, even here, where I am told that IQs run in the triple digits, is a woefully uninformed knowledge of sensible defense of tradition - something that one can readily find if one moves in educated religious circles, but outside of which the ignorance is deafening, and so the public generally only has one side of the story.

So assumptions, such as that the intelligent traditional Christian 'condemns single mothers' (if that can be called "a lifestyle choice', an extremely sardonic form of naming the situation) are revealed to be nonsensical as soon as anyone applies to those circles to which I referred. What I see is very nearly an eagerness to grab the most idiotic arguments, and present them as the best that 'the religious people' can come up with, straw men that are easily defeated for the reason that they are not the things that intelligent people actually defend. Your assumption of "inherent flaw' is right for what you argue against - only nobody is arguing in favor of it. It is a false casting of the opposition, almost certainly unintentional, yet so is intellectually weak. if you want to be strong, take on the arguments that are much more difficult to counter.

I'd refer you to the discussion on same-sex marriage, and my offerings on bigotry.

because I will never be willing to accept arguments from those who hold opposing views

That's bigotry. So again and again I see the pot calling the wedding dress black. The bigotry charge, so often leveled against believers, can be completely turned on its head, and, surprise, surprise! - shown to be a frequent element of what is called "liberalism" (which I would call "thrallism" to reveal the ultimate true nature of the mood).

As for me, I'll accept any argument from those who disagree and consider what in it is just, and where it goes wrong, if it does. It is the person who is thoroughly prejudiced and bigoted (which I do NOT assume you to be in advance, Murrin!) who will not; who has already condemned traditional Christianity in advance, who exhibits those two qualities that he loves to label others with.

The person I have the greatest respect for is the intellectually honest person, even if it is an atheist. For the intellectually honest person will, if he becomes convinced that his given faith is false, will abandon it without hesitation in favor of truth. Likewise, if he becomes convinced that his unbelief his false, he will similarly abandon it. I have lived my life by that principle. When I was fifteen, I became convinced of the truth of the Baptist faith and fully embraced it, and destroyed my D&D and other stuff which appeared to contradict my accepted faith. When I was 19, I abandoned it, because I became convinced of its untruth, at least that there were doctrines which I found to be untrue. When I was 38, I became convinced of the ultimate truth of the Christian faith (and could even see where the Baptists of my childhood were right) and so converted, tore down the life I had been building as an up-and-coming teacher in CA and threw it all away and moved to Russia. If I ever found that Orthodoxy were untrue I would abandon it, because I love Truth.

Hoping and having faith that prejudice and bigotry do not describe people here (It takes an effort, but I believe that many here love truth and will follow it wherever it leads them, as they perceive it...) It is indifference which is the real enemy; the thing that ought to be despised - the person who says, "It doesn't matter what you believe" who needs to be rebuked.

[Holsety]

LF politely exercised restraint by not re-hijacking it.

That's what you think. Lord Foul may have stolen the thread, hijacked it and flown it somewhere else, far more dangerous, leaving you with a transient, fake copy of absolutely no real value.

Or maybe you are all Lord Foul, and the Creator is punishing you for your crimes.

Or maybe this is just a message board.


(Always leave out the best bait for the biggest fish, and they WILL be caught)

[I'm Murrin]

1) It's not bigotry, it's closed-mindedness. I'm tolerant of people with other views, I just don't agree with them. By "opposing views", in this instance, I was of course referring to those who don't accept that on an individual case basis many such families are capable of functioning just as well as a traditional family (two parents, one of whom stays home to raise the children).

2) I never limited what I was saying to single mothers.

3) My argument wasn't that religious people necessarily condemn single parents, it was that the people who tend to "defend" traditional family values (not always from a religious standpoint) will often take the stance that the single parent family cannot function correctly or will be unable to raise the child effectively.

[Fist and Faith]

This may be a double-post. If so...eh, whatever. (Love ya, Fist! )

I've never had the faintest idea why people are bothered by double-, triple-, or whatever-posting. No problem here.

[Holsety]

This may be a double-post. If so...eh, whatever. (Love ya, Fist! )

I've never had the faintest idea why people are bothered by double-, triple-, or whatever-posting. No problem here.

Fist is a true lover of KW debate. He perfectly understands what it is to engage in discussion. From now on, you will find that I too become, more and more, a lover of discussion, though I will be avoiding online discussion which is not stream of consciousness in its writing style.

[Worm of Despite]

LF politely exercised restraint by not re-hijacking it.

That's what you think. Lord Foul may have stolen the thread, hijacked it and flown it somewhere else, far more dangerous, leaving you with a transient, fake copy of absolutely no real value.

Or maybe you are all Lord Foul, and the Creator is punishing you for your crimes.

This is how KW should be. Discussing Me and My influence without any direct action on my part. Glad we're nearing that singularity.

[Avatar]

Good post Murrin.

--A

[rusmeister]

1) It's not bigotry, it's closed-mindedness. I'm tolerant of people with other views, I just don't agree with them. By "opposing views", in this instance, I was of course referring to those who don't accept that on an individual case basis many such families are capable of functioning just as well as a traditional family (two parents, one of whom stays home to raise the children).

2) I never limited what I was saying to single mothers.

3) My argument wasn't that religious people necessarily condemn single parents, it was that the people who tend to "defend" traditional family values (not always from a religious standpoint) will often take the stance that the single parent family cannot function correctly or will be unable to raise the child effectively.

Thanks, Murrin,
As you might know, I CAN see closed-mindedness as a virtue - it is a virtue when a thought has been thought out to the end, when nothing new can arise, and when all has been examined and considered. Only I believe that almost no one, even here at KW really has, for the simple reason that I see the exception that defies their claims of knowledge. I see Orthodoxy as the huge thing that has been examined by no one, that supports the great truths found in western Christianity minus the things that people object to - the defenses are precisely ones that people have never heard, the theology a mystery that defies and denies Wesleyan sermons of sinners in the hands of an angry God, and so everything that everyone is right about in objecting to western Christianity turns out to be N/A in regards to eastern Christianity. So I can say without pride, arrogance, etc, that you may really have your ducks lined up against the Catholic Church, or Baptists or Pentecostals, but as soon as the intelligent person starts asking "Does Orthodoxy teach x, y and z?" and you get "No, no and no", then a great many objections fall away as irrelevant. So I can cheerfully concede that y'all are completely right about many of the things you object to. Only many of those things are N/A. And so there I can't praise closed-mindedness. You won't even learn from an internet forum. In a critical sense, I cannot help you. You have to go and see for yourself. But I deny intellectual integrity in closed-mindedness to a thing that has never been examined. All of that is to echo Philip and say "Come and see!" (John 1:46)

40. One of the two who heard John speak and followed him was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother.
41. He first found his brother Simon and said to him, "We have found the Messiah" (which is translated Anointed).
42. He brought Simon to Jesus, who looked at him and said, "You are Simon son of John. You are to be called Cephas" (which is translated Peter).
43. The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee. He found Philip and said to him, "Follow me."
44. Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.
45. Philip found Nathanael and said to him, "We have found him about whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus son of Joseph from Nazareth."
46. Nathanael said to him, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" Philip said to him, "Come and see."
47. When Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him, he said of him, "Here is truly an Israelite in whom there is no deceit!"
48. Nathanael asked him, "Where did you get to know me?" Jesus answered, "I saw you under the fig tree before Philip called you."
49. Nathanael replied, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!"
50. Jesus answered, "Do you believe because I told you that I saw you under the fig tree? You will see greater things than these."

(I love how Nathanael's skepticism turns out to be an honest kind - that can be convinced by something that overwhelms it. I guess I'll always wonder exactly what he was doing under that tree that blew him away to hear Jesus describe it. I've heard the suggestion that he was praying to God, which, if Jesus IS God, makes perfect sense that He heard and saw him.)

On your last point, I think "function correctly" is VERY unclear and that we do not say "unable". I think the single parent family is at a serious disadvantage against the family with a mother AND a father. (I guess I can't say "two-parent family" anymore, because you may now imagine something different from what I mean, from what everyone always understood until now.) The realities of sex extend far beyond genitals, or even physical attributes, and the child who has an upbringing with an involved father and an involved mother gets a great many things that the single-parent child is deprived of. That does not translate to "unable", but it is a misfortune and a loss - which a child who comes to understand this rightly resents/regrets.

So if a religious/traditional stance does NOT take that hard line that you have imagined, then it might be reasonable, n'est-ce-pas?

But thanks again for your post - civil disagreement is actually kinda fun!