Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

Perhaps, Mike, the question that begs to be answered is:

	ARE WE, AS CHRISTIANS, READY FOR THE CHANGE?

We have seen the progressive change in the work place that women
are taking on the work roles of men and the other way (men
staying home with children). Our social and legal systems are
taking that change. For example, a lady-welder in a ship yard
protested that nude or semi nude calendars are a form of sexual
harrasment. The courts agree. It's an altitude change,
definitely, in the work place.

calvin

    Re.1
        Calvin:

        "Altitude Change" ? That's easy fer you folks out in
     Colorado to talk about, but what about us flatlanders ?


                                                      Mike

    (Sorry, just couldn't resist. I am such a sucker for 
     a straight line.)

                                                   

    I'm waiting to hear from Nancy Smith and Ro Flaherty on this topic.
    It has been my experience that both Nancy and Ro possess considerable
    insight and knowledge in this area.
    
    Richard

    
    Mike, your questions are too broad, too all-encompassing, too far-reaching!
    Can you narrow any of them down some?  (I read them and felt tired just
    thinking about them!)
    
    
    >How does being a Christian influence a person's concept of themselves
    >with regard to their gender ?
   
    Well, do you mean as a liberal Christian or an evangelical Christian or
    a fundamentalist Christian or a...?
    
    
    >How does Christianity define gender roles and what do you think about
    >them as they are defined ?
    
    Again, which *type* or *view* of Christianity?
    
    I think *society* defines gender roles -- and always has -- and uses
    religion, whether Judaism, Christianity, Islam, or whatever, to justify
    what society wants.  
    
    And, BTW, I also think that society's definitions
    of gender roles are *mostly* based on the current *economics* of that
    society.  For example, when ours was a largely rural society, the farm
    required the labor of all members of the family in order for the family
    and the farm to survive.  Then, during WWII women "went to work" as part of
    their patriotic duty.  After the war, men returned and needed the jobs,
    so our socity's ideal was for women to remain at home as wives and
    mothers.  Now that it takes two wage earners to support a family, it's
    ok again for women to work outside of the home.  I don't doubt for a
    minute that if economics should drastically change again, society's
    "ideal role" for women would likewise change!
    
    And sorry, Richard, but you give me way too much credit -- I can't get 
    a handle on these questions without duplicating volumes and volumes
    written by much more knowledgeable (<--how do you spell it?) people
    than I am!
    
    Nancy

Mike,

I'm not a Christian, but I was brought up in a Christian family.  I'll try
to answer your questions based on my own experiences and what I know of
Christianity as practiced by others.

>    How does being a Christian influence a person's concept of themselves
> with regard to their gender ?

When I was growing up I don't remember my parents ever telling us that we
should conform to our gender roles "because the Bible says so", or otherwise
making gender roles a religious issue.  Of course we were subtly indoctrinated
with our roles, since that was and is part of our culture.  I remember
a couple of times when I, as the oldest child, to some extent "enforced"
gender roles for my younger brothers: I was shocked to see them playing with
dolls, for example, and got them to play "war" instead.

Reading the Golf::Christian conference opened my eyes to just how seriously
some Christians take their gender roles.  Traditionalist Christians believe
that the man has a "man"date from God to be the head of the family, and that
wives should submit themselves to their husbands.

>    How does Christianity define gender roles and what do you think about
> them as they are defined ?

The Bible explicitly defines some gender roles (although liberals tend to
dispute this) and it implicitly defines gender roles because of the gender of
the people in the stories, e.g. all the apostles were men.  In modern times
one way the church defines gender roles is by allowing only men to become
priests or ministers.

As for what I think about this: I'm against it.

>    How do these fit into or conflict with the social changes that have
> taken place in the last couple of decades ?

Using my own family as an example again: until I was in 4th grade my father
worked (in business at first and later in the Methodist Church) and my mother
stayed at home with the children.  Then my parents went through missionary
training and became missionaries together in Africa.  This equalized their
roles to some extent, because they were both missionaries, but my father's
job took him away from the family much more than did my mother's.  My mother
worked at a social center doing things like showing African women how to be
good mothers.  It was only after I left college that my mother went to
seminary and became an ordained minister.  At present my mother is actually
in a higher position in the church than my father: she is the district
superintendant of my father's district in Indiana.  So I'd say that my parents
have changed with the times.

Now among the Golf::Christian crowd there is much more resistance to change.
Still, it seems that even the many of the traditionalists downplay gender
differences (especially if their wives are following the conference too ;^) ).
I think that even the evangelicals have changed with the times, although
they haven't changed as much as more liberal Christians.

				-- Bob

Re:  .4

Nancy,

Your point is well taken.

Re:  .5

Of course, there are those who read all of Ephesians 5 and fully recognize
that husbands are to submit to wives as well.  Fortunately, this is
by far the predominent view in Golf::Christian.

Collis

I would like to recommend an excellent book on this
subject which is a fairly recent publication.

It is titled "Gender and Grace" and the author is
Mary Stewart VanLewen. (Unsure if that's the correct
spelling of her last name).  

It's on sale through CBD for $4.95 is anyone is interested.

It is an excellent book...

Beth

    
  Re.4
 
  Nancy:
   
        Sorry, didn't mean to tire you out by asking such general
  questions.
        I would imagine that people would answer based upon their
  own experience and perspective. So, when you ask what kind of
  Christian I am asking about the answer is, whatever kind you are.
        It is true that society and economics shape gender roles to
  a certain extent. However religion plays a role in shaping society.
  There are a great many things that I consider specifically Biblical
  in nature that have been codified into secular law that have little
  if anything to do with crime or public health and safety and are 
  simply a case of the government reflecting values of a particular
  religious morality and imposing it upon society.
         I am merely interested in how people view their gender roles
  in relation to their religious beliefs or if they ever think about
  the relationship.


 Re.5 

  Bob:

        Thanks, that was very nice of you to take the time to answer
 my questions the way you did.
         My experience growing up was considerably different from yours
 so, what might be considered "traditional" roles have always been hard
 for me to comprehend either from a social or religious point of view.
         It has been my experience that even those of a more liberal
 social or religious point of view tend to cling to traditional gender
 roles. 
         At one time I was the homemaker and Elaine was the "breadwinner" 
 and it was quite an eye opener in many respects. The reactions of people
 ran from amused to shocked. It seemed that just as many women found it
 "un-masculine" as men did this included several woman who considered 
 themselves to be ardent feminists. 
          I think that in the area of gender roles that it is generally
 more "acceptable" for woman to assume what are considered masculine
 role and traits than the other way around.  


 Re.7

 Collis:
          Could you elaborate a bit on this idea of submission ?
  Things like, how does it work or who submits to who and how do
  you know when to or not submit ?
          I have herd the term used by Christians fairly often 
  in when discussing how Christian marriages should work and have
  never really understood the concept or how it is applied.


                                                        Mike
                                             
          

Sure,

Submission, as I understand it, means that we are to serve one another
and to seek to meet their needs more than our own.  Of course, this is
very difficult in practice.

In practical terms, I means that when I go home after a tiring day of
work, I ask my wife what I can do to help her (whether it be making
the meal or playing with our daughter or setting the table) rather
than simply trying to satisfy my own needs first.  In this way, I have
submitted my will to satisfying her desires.  Likewise, she submits
her will to satisfying my desires by making a meal she's tired, for example.

Of course, some issues are of greater importance.  One issue that
created some strain in our marriage was my attending seminary.  For
reasons I won't go into, Robyn found this difficult to deal with.  Despite
what I felt was a clear calling from God, I submitted to my wife and told
her that I would leave seminary if she wanted me to.  All she had to
do was ask.

She never did ask.  She also believed that God wanted me in seminary.
But it changes a relationship when her needs are valued so highly that
the course of our lives depends on her choices.

Collis

    Mike,
    
    I *think* what I believe about this is that *in the case of gender
    roles* society/culture determines the religious teachings rather than
    the other way around!!  The few places in the Bible where such things
    are discussed *seem to me* to be quite clearly based on people's
    a priori assumptions they got from their culture!
    
    (I know, I know -- it's circular!)
    
    Sorry I can't do better,
    Nancy

    Re.10

    Collis:

       Thanks for the explanation. I certainly have a much better idea
     of what the term means now. As described by you it seems well...
     less authoritarian in nature than the impression I had been given
     by some others.
       Once again, thanks.

                                                   Mike

By the way, I mentioned what I wrote in .10 to my wife.  She couldn't help
but laugh a little knowing that when I come home, my first reaction
isn't to ask what I can do to help her out (she's usually making a
meal at that point).  :-)

What I usually do is play with my daughter right after I get home (which,
in my own defense, is often what my wife wants me to do).  Maybe I'll
start asking her now what I should do.  :-)

Collis

		There can be little argument that the clergy is traditionally
	a male dominated profession.  To some degree, it remains so.  Some
	churches presently do not ordain women as ministers and deny
	women any authority or leadership roles within the church.

		The foundation for this posture is inextricably woven into
	the patriarchal social structures from which Judaism and Christianity
	emerged.  The paradigms of the roles of men and women that persist
	are usually perpetuated through tradition and through the authority
	bestowed on a collection of ancient writings, considered canonical,
	inspired, and sacred, and referred to as Holy Scriptures, or simply,
	the Bible.

		"Most anthologies of women's liberation have no difficulty
	finding anti-women texts in the religious past.  One of the most cited
	prayers is a Jewish prayer that thanks God for not having created
	the congregation as heathens and slaves.  Then the men say: 'Blessed
	are you, Lord our God, King of eternity, who has not created me a
	woman.'  And the women say: 'Blessed are you, Lord our God, King of
	eternity, who has created me according to His will.'  Some rabbis say
	that men are simply thanking God for having spared them women's hard
	lot, but the connection women with heathens and slaves is obvious."

	Martin E. Marty, pg 93, "The Pro and Con Book of Religious America",
	1975.

		As the following illustrates, it has only been in the last
	few decades that women have met with encouragement, instead of
	condescension and resistance, in preparation for the professional
	ministry:

		"One seminarian, Margaret Blair Johnstone, was examined
	before the Chicago Congregational Advisory Board in the early 1930s.
	After attempting to persuade her to become a pastor's assistant or
	a religious educator, the board admonished:

		'We are your friends.  It is because we know so well the
		frustration awaiting any woman in the ministry that we are
		urging you to enter related work.  We are trying to protect
		you not only from heartbreak, but also ridicule.  Think of
		the sensationalism of women evangelists.  No matter how
		earnest you would be, no one would believe your sincerity.
		And consider our obligation to protect the dignity of the
		profession....There's only one slight chance you'd get a
		church and little promotion or professional advancement if
		you did.'"


	Virginia Lieson Brereton and Christa Russmeyer Klein, pg 185,
	"Women in American Religion", 1976.

    In 1956 (or thereabouts) at the age of 16 (or thereabouts) I asked my
    pastor to support/recommend me for studies for a License to Preach
    (Methodist).  He said I was too young.
    
    A boy of the same age and grade made the same request, which was
    granted without discouragement.
    
    I went to a different Methodist church and pastor and made the same
    request.  He told me to return to my own pastor and to ask again, but
    if the (my pastor) refused, then this other pastor would support me.
    I returned to my own pastor, who gave me no more hassles about it.
    
    I have no idea whether the second minister phoned my pastor about it...
    
    Of course, the favorite Southern Baptist comment in those days was,
    "Sure a woman *can* preach, but it's like a dog walking on its hind
    legs -- why would it want to?"  (Southern Baptists today still to not
    let women preach.)
    
    
    Nancy
    
    PS - Yes, I *did* get a Methodist License to Preach.

	... practices that FORBID women pastors/preachers! True,
this is one of the points of contention between fundamentalists
and non-fundamentalists.  But there are Southern Baptist churches
with women pastors in parts of the country.

    Thanks for sharing your personal experience, Nancy.
    
    In the Sociology of Religion class I took recently, one of the
    insights I learned was that, typically, women will be more
    readily accepted in a leadership role within a movement than
    when it becomes more institutionalized, and as such starts worrying
    about its reputation and community standing.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    "In the true marriage relationship the independence of husband and wife
    is equal, their dependence mutual, and their obligations reciprocal."
    
    	- Lucretia Mott (1793-1880)
    
    	Cited in _Faith and Practice_, Pacific Yearly Meeting of the
    	Religious Society of Friends

RE: .17
    
>But there are Southern Baptist churches
>with women pastors in parts of the country.
    
    Glad to hear that! Are those churches members of the Southern Baptist
    Convention???  If so, I stand happily corrected!
    
    In any case, it sure "wasn't done" in Lexington, Ky. in the 50's!
    
    Nancy

	... Paducah during the '50's!  :>)  My family built two
sancuaries of First Baptist Church during the late 1800's-early
1900's.

	As for being part of the "convention", I think any church
that sends money to the SBC Cooperative program is considered a
member! :>) At least that's how you get to vote at the annual
meetings.

	Most of the women pastors I've heard of were not in the
traditional SBC territory, and I'll admit they're a handful. I
know that a church in Memphis was drummed out of an Association a
couple of years ago because it wouldn't call a male pastor.  The
"offical" policy of the Convenetion is not to help fund a small
church's pastoral salary unless they are male.

I recall a few years ago being involved in a discussion about the
miraculous feeding of the 5,000.

Actually, in most translations, it says that there were present about
5,000 "men."  A friend of mine, a devout feminist, mentioned to me that it
was too bad that they didn't bother to figure in the number of women
present also, that we'd have a better understanding of how many adults
were present.

This bothered me a bit.  You see, until this time I figured that when
it said 5,000 men, "men" was meant in the generic sense and that
it somehow really included women.

Well, I did a little research and found out that I was being pretty naive
in that belief.  (I guess I prefer naive to stupid.)

It seems that as recently as New Testment times, women were not generally
considered socially significant enough to count.  Literally.

Though there's still a long way to go towards social justice, towards full
equality for women, thank God we've made at least some progress in the last
2,000 years.

Peace,
Richard

re Note 154.22 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

> It seems that as recently as New Testment times, women were not generally
> considered socially significant enough to count.  Literally.
  
        Once you've started to count women, you open up the
        floodgates to all sorts of problems.  Women tend to be
        shorter, so it's harder to count their heads in a crowd.  If
        you're going to count women, then somebody will demand that
        you count children.  Similar problems in counting, and they
        tend to move very fast and unpredictably.

        And if you count women, some people will demand that you
        count pregnant women as two (what about multiple
        pregnancies)?  This will open up all sorts of legal and
        theological debate, as history amply illustrates.  (Let's not
        get into this -- somebody will claim that this is biblical
        proof that neither women nor fetuses are human beings, and
        that the real reason that a woman cannot choose whether to
        have abortions is not that the fetus is human, but that the
        woman is not.)

        Besides, once you count women and children, the adult males
        will be in the minority.  The whole fabric of society may
        crumble!  How will they exercise their God-given authority
        and decision-making power from such a diminished position?

        If counting only men is found in the Bible, and counting men
        and women together is not, then the former is scriptural and
        the latter is not.  Need I say more?

        Bob

    Is it permitted to read the Bible with tongue in cheek?
    
    DR

I was pleased to discover .27, .28, and .29 in GOLF::CHRISTIAN.  I contacted
the author, Beth Philp, and she graciously agreed to allow me to cross-post
her composition here in CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.

I have taken the liberty to edit out a single paragraph that would only be
pertinent to GOLF::CHRISTIAN readers.

Peace,
Richard

================================================================================
Note 1086.0           Women in Leadership/Biblical Evidence          125 replies
SOFBAS::PHILP                                       247 lines   1-NOV-1991 17:12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have become increasingly convinced that the issue of authority of
women in ministry is a vital one to the life of the Church.  If we proclaim to
take the word of God seriously then we have to look at the whole Bible and seek
to understand what it says to us.  I know many women who are denied the freedom
to follow what they believe to be a calling of God because of the belief of
many that women are not to be in positions of authority in the Church.

What follows is a very long and possibly confusing explanation of some of the
reasons I believe that the ordination and leadership of women is supported by
the Biblical text.  I have done a lot of reading about this and have several
books I would like to recommend those who are interested.  Some of what follows
is a condensed version and paraphrase of things written by Gilbert Bilezikian,
David Scholar, Catherine Kroeger, and Mary Stewart-VanLewen.  Therefore, please
do not print this for distribution.  However, I will be happy to provide names
of books or articles for you...

I want to state up front that I am not attacking motherhood, marriage, or men
so please do not look for that here...!  I, along with many other people I know
are interested in furthering the Kingdom of Christ and think all people should
be free to use whatever talent God has given them to that end.

Beth

================================================================================
Note 1086.0           Women in Leadership/Biblical Evidence          125 replies
SOFBAS::PHILP                                       247 lines   1-NOV-1991 17:12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To begin to understand the confusing issues of gender it is necessary to look
back at the creation account.  I think the interpretation of the first three
chapters of Genesis impact how everything else is viewed and because in
many of the passages dealing with women, the creation is referred to, it is
important to have a clear understanding of what the Bible says.

Genesis 1:26 - "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let
                them have dominion..."

Genesis 1:27 - "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God
                he created him; male and female he created them."

From intention in v.26 to action in v.27,  the image of God is created by both
male and female image bearers.  It takes BOTH to image God as God is neither
male nor female.  He transcends both genders since they are both within His
being.

In verse 28, it states "let them have dominion".  The original creation order
was that both male and female would have authority over the earth without any
differentiation on the basis on gender.  V. 28 further states, "Be fruitful and
multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it...".  The need for sexual
differentiation is clear yet the purpose was not for one sex to dominate the
other, rather that there be union and cooperation in fulfilling God's mandate.

Genesis 2:

At first, Genesis 2 appears to be a second creation account.  It provides
further insight into the understanding of the differentiation between men and
women.

Genesis 2:18 - "...I will make a helper suitable for him".  The word helper
which is used here is used in other places to refer to God himself and is used
once to refer to King David.  It is in no way a term which refers to a
subordinate.

Genesis 2:21-22 refers to the woman being made from the man.  She is literally
made from the same stuff as him.  The fact that he was created first has no
more relevance than the fact that the animals were created before Adam.

Genesis 2:23 - "At last, this is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she
shall be called woman because she was taken out of man".  There is the
recognition by Adam that the woman brought to him by God was like him.

In Genesis 3, we have the account of the Fall.  It is interesting to note that
the serpent addresses himself to the woman.  If the man were truly in authority
over the woman then the serpent would have been addressing himself to the wrong
person and risking the overriding authority of the man.
  
In Genesis 3:4-6 the woman takes the fruit and since that time has often been
blamed for the fall of man and looked on as the more easily deceived and weaker
sex.  However, when she took the fruit "she also gave some to her husband, and
he ate.  He was with her and participated fully in the fall.  He sinned
knowingly because he had been told first hand by God not to eat the fruit. God
himself blamed Adam and said that the woman had been deceived yet he sinned
willingly.

Genesis 3:7-4:19 describe the effects of the fall on creation in general and
the relationship between man and woman in particular.  Three things in
particular are important to understand in looking at roles for men and women.
First, the description of the effects of the Fall are just that: descriptive.
They do not describe the original expectation of creation and are not curses or
prescriptions of what will come.

#1.  What is generally translated as "I will greatly increase your pains
     in childbearing" is more correctly translated "I will greatly increase
     your conception".  Just as we are to battle the other effects of the
     Fall, shouldn't this also be included?  The arguments against birth
     control should be re-examined if this is the case. (Note: this is not
     to say anything against bearing children, rather that we should be
     responsible in our fecundity.

#2.  "Your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you" is
     descriptive of the effects of the Fall on the relationship between
     husband and wife.  The woman would long for the intimacy and unity
     present before the fall and the man would have a tendency to rule
     over the woman.  Instead of meeting her desire for a mutually supportive
     and nurturing family environment, he will rule over her.

     Adam's fault was not that he listened to his wife, but that he disobeyed
     the command of God.  He abused sovereignty by not acknowledging the
     sovereignty of God.  The ground which Adam once ruled now rules him.

================================================================================
Note 1086.0           Women in Leadership/Biblical Evidence          125 replies
SOFBAS::PHILP                                       247 lines   1-NOV-1991 17:12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The coming of Christ to restore that which was created changed the relationship
of men to women which is evidenced by the passages stating that there should be
mutual submission of husbands and wives to God's commandments.  Christ came
into the world at a time when women were not valued and were not to speak
publicly or have authority over men. Christ took what appears to be every
opportunity to show that women should be viewed as equal to men in all areas.
I don't think it is possible to understand the teachings of the Bible without
an understanding of the culture into which Jesus came.  I know that many people
get nervous when you start talking about cultural relativity but if we're
honest we are not consistent in our statements that all of the Bible is
relevant for all time.  For instance, the Bible tells us to greet each other
with a holy kiss, it talks against wearing jewelry and cutting our hair.  Those
things are either ignored or dismissed as only pertaining to that culture.  Why
then are we not to see other things in the context of the culture?

The best passage to consider like this is the one that most people like to
point to as the definitive role of women.  The Timothy passage which says "I
suffer not a woman to teach or be in authority over men".  A general rule of
hermanentics is that clear passages should be used to understand unclear
passages. The Timothy passages have long been debated because of the unclear
understanding of some of the original writings and the confusing things which
are included in that chapter.  The letter of Timothy was written to a church
which was involved in heretical teachings and appears to probably have some
things which were specific to that situation.  I would like to recommend a book
which is being published next month which is titled "I suffer not a
woman"...and is written by Catherine and Richard Kroeger.  It goes into great
detailed scholarship of those particular passages.

Galations 3:28 is particularly significant.  The phrase "neither Jew nor Greek,
slave nor free, male nor female, in Christ Jesus" was not indicative of only a
vertical relationship with God.  Those three groups had particular social
significance and were a clear statement that there should be no differentiation
between racial, social status, or gender in the Christian faith. A passage as
clear as this one should perhaps be used to understand the more unclear
passages such as the Timothy passage.

Throughout the ministry of Jesus, he affirmed the worth and equality of women
to be included in salvation as well as the leadership of the church.  I think
it is difficult for us to try to realize how shocking His interactions with
women would have been in the time period.  For example:

1.  The Bible tells of many women who traveled with Jesus, were present at
    his crucifixion, burial, and resurrection.  The first people he revealed
    himself to after resurrection were women and they were told by him to
    go and tell the others.  During that time women were not even legal
    witnesses and it is striking that Jesus would have women be the first
    witnesses to the most important news in the history of mankind.
      
2.  The most explicit affirmation Jesus ever made that he was the Messiah
    was to a Samaritan woman.  She then became responsible for evangelizing her
    town.

3.  Apart from the original twelve, Jesus never appointed any person to a
    specific office (male or female). Rather the use of language such as
    that of Paul's writings indicated the position of authority of the person.

There are twenty-nine people mentioned in the last chapter of Romans.  Ten of
them are women.  For them to be mentioned as part of personal greetings
indicates some importance as to their role in the church.

Three of them are mentioned with very little information given although it is
significant that they are mentioned in his greetings to other leaders.

Four of the women (Mary, Tryphena, Tryphosa, and Persis) are said to have
"worked very hard in the the Lord".  The Greek verb translated "work very hard:
was used regularly by Paul to refer to the special work of the gospel ministry.
He frequently uses it to refer to his own ministry. (I Cor 4:12, 15:10;
Gal 4:11; Phil. 2:16; Col 2:29; I Tim 4-10) He uses it to refer to the
work of leaders and person of authority and stresses the need of respect for
and submission to these workers. (I Cor 16:15-16, I Thess. 5-12; I Tim. 5:17)
It is clear from the texts that Paul used this verb to describe those in
authoritative work of ministry. Two other women described in Paul's writings he
describes as having "worked at my side in the cause of the gospel" (Phil. 4:3).

Another woman mentioned in Romans 16 is Priscilla. She, along with her husband
Aquila, were a team involved in ministry that are mentioned frequently (Acts
18:2, 18:26; I Cor. 16:19; II Tim 4:19). Their frequent mention indicates their
importance and it is said that believers met in their home, that they traveled
with Paul and were teachers of Apollos.  In Romans 16:3-4, Paul talks of their
deep commitment to the faith and their recognition throughout all the Gentile
churches. It is important to note that despite the cultural position of women
in the first century A.D., Paul names Aquila first here as well as three of the
five other references to her and Aquila.  They are both called "fellow
workers".  Paul uses that term for other leaders in the ministry including
Urbanus, Timothy, Titus, Epaphroditus, Clement, Philemon, Demas, and Ludke. He
also considers Apollos and himself God's "fellow workers". It is this group of
people that Priscilla is included in without regards to her gender.

Phoebe, (Romans 16:1-2), is the one who carried Paul's letter to Rome.  Paul
asks the Roman church to "receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints
and to give her any help she may need from you...) He gives her two
designations. "a servant (diakonos) of the church In Cenchrea" and "a great
help (Prostatis) to many people".

The term diakonos is unlikely to be a reference to the modern day term of
deaconess because there was no feminine term "deaconess" in the first century
A.D. The terms deacon and deaconess were made up later to refer to specific
church offices. Rather, Paul uses it to refer to a minister or servant of the
gospel and is generally used to indicate a leader.  The term Prostatis and the
translations of this noun have varied widely.  However, in the Greek of the New
Testament period it was a relatively strong term of leadership.  The verbal
form of the word occurs only in Paul and apart from two instances he uses it in
connection with the leadership within the Church.
  
The last woman among the ten to be mentioned is Junia and she is recognized as
"outstanding among the apostles".  In most translations her name appears as
Junias (masculine) because it was decided (in the 13th century I believe) that
because the name is mentioned in the context of describing her as "outstanding
as an apostle" that she could not be a woman. Paul did not explicitly name
anyone other than himself and the Twelve as apostles but did use the term
generally which implies that others bore that title in the early Church.
(I Cor. 4:9, 9:5-6; 12:28-29; 2 Cor. 11:5,13, 12:11-12 and Acts 14:4,14.)

The KJV recognizes Junia as a woman. The name Junia appears on the lists of
common Roman names of women. The name Junias does not appear on any of these
lists.

There are other instances of women being recognized as ministers and leaders.
such as Lydia who had a church in her home.  The churches at that time
generally met in the home of the leader.  There are others but right now I
can't remember the names.

Some of the early Pagan critics of the Christian faith pointed out that
the Christian faith could not be real because women were so involved in the
leadership of the ministry. Celsis (not sure of that spelling) also
specifically criticized that the whole thing was based on the testimony of
women to begin with and therefore was not to be taken seriously.

    Playtoe re 417.30,
    
    > I say, again, that the majority/norm females...have a strong 
    > tendency to care for the well being of a person, inspite of their 
    > need to be punished/corrected.
    
    Gasp!  <Thud> (as she falls from her chair onto the floor)  Pray 
    tell, whose *need* to be *punished* or corrected?  (I hope not a
    woman's.)
    
    > A Male has a tendency to think of the welface of the community 
    > moreso than any individual.  The female is concerned more about the 
    > "individual", and the male is concerned with the "collective"...and 
    > as such, Males are usually best suited to "public affairs", and as 
    > such [women] should be silent in the church as Paul suggests,
    
    Yikes!  Playtoe, this is exactly the bias many of us have been trying 
    to point out to you.  If you were to look into more of the current 
    research you would find solid evidence that what you state above is 
    *not* the case.  It is actually quite the opposite!  Women tend to be 
    more concerned with the collective.  
    
    (Btw, here's some of the highly regarded current research literature 
    you might consider looking into fwiw):
    
    	Toward a new psychology of women - Baker-Miller
    	In a different voice - Gilligan
    	Women's ways of knowing - Blenky, et al.
    
    Anyway, nuff said.
    
    Karen
    

    RE: 31
    
    Hi Allison:
    
    Before I dwell on the "independent" parameters of sex and gender, I'd
    like to mention that this is a Western thought convention.
    
    It is well documented that Western Thought is a function of
    "left-brain" hemispheric thought, which governs the "separating" powers
    of mind.  The right-brained governs the synthesizing powers of the
    brain. 
    
    And although sex and gender are independent, they also work
    interdependently and thus have points of synthesis.  Can you dwell upon
    the synthesis of sex and gender?
    
    I wouldn't say that sex/gender actually defines roles, but I'd say
    that it does make certain roles most suitable and comely and viceversa
    depending upon gender...that's only natural though, we take if for
    granted in most cases.
    
    You must understand that I do understand the fears that arise in our
    minds which discrimination and bias comes forth to our hurt, but do you
    feel that discrimation and bias can ever come forth to our good?
    
    I don't try to understand the gender imposed traits of the female
    and the male to hurt and oppress people...I would never do so.  I do it
    to keep us from hurt, by putting people in roles that they are not
    naturally suited for and as a result experience continual failure. 
    People who use difference to oppress are evil, and I'm not one of them.
    
    Playtoe

    Playtoe,
    
    You crack me up. :-)  Your attempt to twist my wit and humor into a 
    pronouncement that I do not "comprehend the matter" is amusing.   
    No my friend, I comprehend the matter quite clearly.
    
    A careful review of your responses thus far belie the "sensible" 
    discussion you claim to seek.  For it is clear that such a discussion, 
    as you've attempted to establish it, would need to be dominated by 
    your self-acknowledged "bombastic" point of view.  Such views and 
    communication styles, by their very nature, place the ego's needs for 
    self-aggrandizement above all else, which subordinate God as well, 
    for they do not give the equal respect which is due to all parties 
    concerned who would wish to participate in an open and mutually 
    supportive discourse.
    
    Though I would welcome such with you on the other matter at hand, I 
    cannot abide by your parameters which prevent such a discourse from 
    taking place.
    
    Karen

    RE: .35  
    
             uh....Playtoe?  I believe what Karen is saying is that you
    seem to be more interested in "telling" others rather than considering
    what they say and then responding.  I have noticed that you seem to be
    reacting rather than responding.  Consideration to what other
    viewpoints are is the main "mission" of this file.
    
    
    Dave

    re: 36
    
    Dave, remember I say "Some problems will never be resolved as long a
    people demand they be put in certain context".  Karen wants me to
    believe that sex and gender has no bearing on human behavior, attitude
    and mode of thought.  And if you think I haven't given that idea some
    consideration you're wrong.  I don't think my ideas have been given
    consideration, neither has Paul's or God's Word, and it is not me who's
    the reactionary but it is those who disagree who have reacted.
    
    Consideration to what God's viewpoint is, is my main mission!  We just
    discussed this in "Lingering Influences".  Furthermore, I do consider
    everyone's view point, but some don't like my results!  
    
    My view is equally as valid.  I hear Karen trying to influence me to
    change it...should I be offended?  
    
    Dave, you slow down too...don't try to leverage me with past
    conversations, that isn't fair, and I really won't have it.  Based upon
    THIS discussion let's deal with THIS affair...my integrity is intact,
    it's insulting that you called it into question in the manner that you
    did, but I overlooked it...that may have been a mistake, but I hope
    not.
    
    Playtoe

    
    
    I think the problem arises when we try to limit 'masculine' energy
    to males and 'feminine' energy to females.  We as human beings have
    both within us.  What has basically been cut off and looked at 
    generally as wrong is our feeling/emotional natures.  Both men and
    women have cut themselves off from parts of this aspect of the self
    to some degree.  Gender roles have not helped the situation either.
    
    Carole

    Playtoe,
    
    I respectfully decline your invitation to continue.
    
    I sincerely suspect that any attempts to engage you in the original 
    topic matter and additionally, to correct the misconceptions you 
    have of my thinking would be an effort in futility.  
    
    May your future participation here serve you well.
    
    Karen

    RE: 39
    
    Hi Carole:
    
    Thank you for helping bring us back to earth here, or into the spirit
    of the matter.  Try we have both "masculine/electric" and
    "feminine/magnetic" energy in us.  The Bible, as well as African Wisdom
    teaching say that we should as much as possible try to adjust to the
    sex we are born with, and that is why (in Africa at least) we have
    circumcision and excision, to cut the male part off of the female and
    female part off the male, which helps the individual make the
    adjustment.
    
>  What has basically been cut off and looked at 
>    generally as wrong is our feeling/emotional natures.  
    
    This is correct.  "Feelings and emotions" are not criteria to base
    scientific fact upon.    
    
    >Both men and  women have cut themselves off from parts of this aspect 
    >of the self to some degree.  Gender roles have not helped the situation 
    >either.
    
    I love it!  That's really the bottom line of what I'm saying.  We have
    cut ourselves off from our natural selfs, trying to force fit ourselves
    into these socalled "modern" roles and modalities, to our hurt and
    discord with other and self.  Gender roles, when "forced" upon us and
    not willing to concede to the exceptions to the rules, such as the
    occasional female with an excess of masculine energy or the male with
    an excess of feminine energy, the people feel shackled and rebel. 
    Western society especially with it's traditionally "linear,
    dychotomic,' mode of thinking, makes it moreso by forcing people into
    "either/or" categories...but we're evolving slowly.
    
    Thanks for the mellow words.
    
    Playtoe
    You are correct

    re 40
    
>   Your insisting on relating to womena/female is objectifying them and
>   therefore trying to make them an "it" rather than a person with an
>   individual identity.
    
    Excuse me?!?  By relating to women as "females/women" *I* objectify
    them and make an "it", rather than a person?  My goodness how do you
    figure that?  If I hadn't known the history of the West, I'd think you
    were really confused.  But because I know the factors in play bearing
    upon you statement I understand where you are coming from, but I'll
    tell you upon reading this, if I were unacquainted with Western history, 
    I think you were confused.
    
>   How is this related to Christianity and gender?  I can't say, I'm
>   following the conversation.
    
    Someone was saying that Paul had a personal problem when he said "Women
    should keep silent in the church".  I said something about natural
    thought tendencies based upon sex/gender (see note 417).  And someone,
    actually several, disagree with the equation of sex/gender with thought
    tendencies (mind you this is not a question of "intellectual
    capacity").
    
    Playtoe

    RE: 45
    
>   I am an american and have had what I consider an excellent western
>   education, please cut the insults.  Since you chose to repeat the
<   comment twice I'll say it twice.  Stop the insults, they are not 
<   useful.
    
    Ahem...say what!  Why do you feel insulted?  Help me understand!  
    
    

   I am generally flexible with regard to communication style.  There is
   no possible point of communication.  I have decided to withdraw from
   the topic rather than submit to baiting, scarcasm, and ofense.  It is
   obvious that I have not been heard, nor understood.  I gave it a fair
   effort but there is nothing compelling me to continue.

   

Allison, Note 154.48,

>   I have deleted my contributions to this string.

Ouch...I personally regret your decision to do that.

>   I feel I have neither been heard nor understood.

I can empathize with your feelings of frustration, and perhaps even anger.
I've experienced such feelings here myself on occasion, particularly when
dealing with certain individuals.  I dare say, it's something that's likely
to happen to all who actively note, sooner or later.

>   I am feel I have been insulted or at the very least called
>   confused.

I, for one, appreciate your contributions here.  I appreciate your
willingness to "risk".

Something that's always been kind of helpful for me to remember is that
there are some avid readers of C-P who never, or almost never, enter
any notes.  Your words articulate what they, for whatever reason, cannot
say.

>   I would argue the point but, why?

Under the circumstances, I too would choose to cease.  In the immortal
words of Louis Armstrong:

        "There are some people that if they don't know,
         you can't tell 'em."
    
Peace,
Richard

    RE:  this notes string.....
    
                     I also regret my need to also withdraw from this
    conversation.  When so many voices submit the same concerns and nothing
    is understood, then the time to silence oneself arrives.  Maybe the
    silence will convince where logic has been unable to.  And so I now
    join Bonnie, Karen, Allison and others, who believe that this could 
    well be a lost cause.
    
    
    Dave

RE: .35


| You can ignor nature but it won't go away.  The fact is if you ignor
| your nature it eeks out of the seams of your soul and being anyway.
| Being uncultivated it grows unkept into all manner of uncomely things.
| Women do themselves an injustice by forcing a Man to look at her "not
| as a women/female" but as a "person"...

	An injustice? Playtoe, everyone, yes, everyone is a person first. What
benefits do we have by this? We look at each other as being basically the same.
If more people would look at others as people, then we could do away with white
vs black, women vs man, non-Christians vs Christians. We would still be all
these things (white, black, etc), but the end result is we would look at each
other as people first. 

| what does that mean?  What is a
| "person"?  Is a person a "male" or a "female" or an "it"?  In reality a
| Person is either a male or a female, but never an "it", right?  But
| women want men to view them as "its"...this is basically what I'm
| hearing...I'm a PERSON, I'm an IT, not a female, not a women.

	According to my dictionary it lists a person as a human being. A human
being is far from an it. 


RE: .37


| Dave, remember I say "Some problems will never be resolved as long a
| people demand they be put in certain context".  

	As a human being maybe?

| Karen wants me to
| believe that sex and gender has no bearing on human behavior, attitude
| and mode of thought.  

	Can you give examples of just how they do play a role? Why they have
to? 


RE: .42



| >   In some cases yes, most no.  Males cannot breast feed, either can mix
| >   formula and give the baby a bottle.   We do however take much for
| <   granted with regard to roles.

| "Breast feeding" nor "mixing formula" are "roles", but tasks specific
| to roles.  Feeding the baby, is specific to "child care" which is a
| role, "who takes care of the child".  Roles, are "assigned", but they
| should be assigned appropriately, based upon talents, abilities, or
| training, and not arbitrarily.

	It depends, doesn't it? Shouldn't child care be done by BOTH parents
when possible? There may be instances where this may not be able to happen, but
for the most part don't you think both should be involved?

| Most of what you are saying has no support, no substance to it, no
| basis in reality.  Doesn't truth emanate from reality first, before
| coming from the mind?  Just because one "thinks" it's so, therefore
| does not make it a "truth", especially if it has no basis in reality.
| And isn't that how we determine truth from falsehood, by whether or not
| it has a basis in reality?  

	Could you then explain to us just how what you're saying has substance
to it?

RE: .44

| >   Your insisting on relating to womena/female is objectifying them and
| >   therefore trying to make them an "it" rather than a person with an
| >   individual identity.

| Excuse me?!?  By relating to women as "females/women" *I* objectify
| them and make an "it", rather than a person?  My goodness how do you
| figure that?  

	Can you see women as anything but as females? Can you see them as
equals? As human beings first, women second?




Glen

    RE: 154.33 & .35
    
                      These notes have been set hidden pending a discussion
    by the moderators.
    
    
    Dave
    CP co-mod

    Re: 52
    
    If you find something wrong with those notes you've effectively
    discriminated against me, and I will report this to personnel!
    
    Sincerely
    
    Playtoe

    RE: 54
    
    No, I don't think I'll do anything at all regarding whatever you do! 
    When I think about it, it's all too petty to deal with.  Some people
    are quite vicious when they don't get things their way!  But not me. 
    So have your little fun and self satisfactions...and I hope you all
    feel a lot better for it...
    
    Playtoe

    Then again Playtoe, it might be advisable for all concerned for you 
    to go to Personnel.  If you go directly to John Sims, I'm sure he can 
    resolve this issue for you promptly and unequivocably.
    
    Please be advised the moderators are doing the best they can in this
    situation and are bound by Corporate Policy in such matters.
    
    Karen
    Co-Moderator
    Christian-Perspective

    I would recommend anyone who has problems with what is or is not
    acceptable in a notes file to reread the memo posted in 8.11
    
    Bonnie
    cp comoderator

    Re; 56
    
    I already introduced myself to Mr. Sims.  And I don't think any of us
    would like his resolution...one reason why I'll just sit back and
    suffer through this with you folk.
    
    Why you always wish to analyse my statement is respect to corporate
    policy is quite interesting.  Why you seem to check me about trying to
    change people's minds, while others are constantly trying to tell me
    I need to change my mind!  I need to study this or that, etc.  It's a
    subtle form of discrimination, against other cultures and backgrounds,
    whether you have the self reflection to see it or not...but Personnel
    does, and if things like this continue to go to them they'll shut this
    whole thing down, the "Employee Interest" portion anyway, before they
    will waste time with any of these NON-WORK issues...that's from SIMS.
    
    Mr. Sims has little regard for these EI conference files, they are just
    offshoots from the technical notesfiles.  Don't you know I've been
    through this scenario before a hundred times or more...and each time
    the same reaction occurs.  In discrimination, again, one does not have
    to prove "intent", but that a "pattern" of mistreatment exists, and the
    judge will say, "Whether you intended to or not this "pattern" must
    stop."...and I established the pattern long ago with personnel, and
    they know what's happening, but they don't know what to do about it,
    but they will shut it down if nothing else.
    
    Take this as you will, believe or doubt it if you must...but to test it
    could mean the end of EI noting.  So I won't take it to them, I'll let
    you do that if you feel necessary, but know that I'll see you there!
    
    You are bound by Corporate Policy TRUe, but not by Western Tradition. 
    We are moving fast towards a multicultural society.  I'm trying to make
    you aware of that in my own way, but you reject me....paradigm syndrome
    I guess.  I don't complain though, I just defend myself...God bless.
    
    Playtoe

    RE: 57
    
    I recommend EVERYONE apply the rules equally to all and not just to
    those they like and agree with!
    
    I was driving once, and a cop turned on to the street, and we cruised
    together for awhile.  He accelerated to above the speed limit, and I
    unawares was doing the same.  He turned his light on and wrote me a
    ticket for speeding, and I argued that he was speeding too. 
    (Technically, if he's not on a call he can't speed either!)  He wrote
    the ticket, and took it to court, he never showed and it was dismissed,
    but I knew and he knew he'd loose, and he just wanted to harass me.
    
    There's a moral to that story.
    
    Playtoe

    RE: .59
    
                I refer you to 154.56 which all moderators agree with.
    
    
    Dave
    CP co-mod
    

    
    How did this get to this point?  All these notes set hidden.....
    oh well.  For me personally, I was not insulted by anything that
    was said, but did feel a little dismayed at some statements.  Maybe
    reading in GOLF::CHRISTIAN has toughened me up over the years! ;^)
    Anyway, I find in some religious structures and most often in
    Christianity, there is a certain mind-set in relation to male and
    female roles, etc.  What's the surprise?  Stuff that's been stated
    here has been going on in GOLF:: for years.
    
    Carole

    Playtoe,
    
    I am amazed that you can go crying descrimination at this point.  Your
    notes showed total disrespect for the intellectual capability of women. 
    You overtly stated that you did not feel women were tough enough or
    rational enough to be in decison making positions in either the church
    or society.  Many women and men in this file called you on that point
    but your arguments against women just got louder and louder until the
    moderators finally said enough is enough.  And now you are charging
    that this is subtle discrimination.  
    
    I agree with and support the moderators decision to set hidden those
    notes strings.  As a woman I strongly feel that I don't want to go back
    and defend whether a woman can compete intellectually with a man.  That
    is a right and an ability I take for granted.  And all that discussion
    around it only implies that it is a topic open for discussion. 
    Fortunately company policy at Digital says it is not a topic open for
    discussion.  Women and Men will be treated as equally capable of
    rational judgement, decision making, leadership. That is the issue
    here.  
    
    The moderators are doing an excellent job of trying to balance the need for
    open interchange of ideas with the need to comply with Digital Policy
    which promotes a work place that values diversity. 
    
    Pat

    Playtoe .58,
    
    Trying to change people's minds or influence them to think differently
    is not the issue at hand.  That is probably one of the basic dynamics
    which keep all note conferences alive.  Neither are people's inherent 
    right to their own beliefs the issue.  The issue(s) is a manner of 
    communicating, (which several noters have made clear and courteous 
    attempts to address) as well as publically promoting certain beliefs 
    that are either, at best, discordant with Digital Corporate Policy, 
    or at worst, in direct violation.
    
    Could the issue of examining one's style of communication against
    Corporate Policies be considered a form of discrimination?  Yes, I
    suppose it could constitute a valid argument against Digital Equip.
    Corp.  However, as the moderators have reflected upon all the
    circumstances involved in this situation, we are in agreement that 
    the issue now needs to be addressed at another level, the moderatorship 
    level.  And we are fully willing to accept the results of our efforts.
    
    If we do not get "shut down" in the process, we hope that all people
    will stay and continue to participate here.
    
    Karen
    Co-Moderator
    Christian-Perspective

	Playtoe, I have to agree that a lot of the notes you write are very
interesting. In fact, I agree with a lot you have to say. Your notes seem to
add some insight to a lot of various topics. This unfortunately isn't one of
them. I can't understand how anyone can make another person feel like they are
a lesser human being. Oh, I know you may respect women, but it would appear by
your notes anyway, that you don't hold them as your equal. Yes, when you say a
woman holds a specific role in life, I agree with you. Not on the role you laid
out for them, but a role that is the same as anyone else. The role is a human
being. That is the ONLY role that any person in this world has. Who are we to
say that anyone elses role is to do this or that? Women can/do a great job at a
lot of different things. Things that were once thought to be the "traditional
male" jobs. You say that their sensitivities could come into play. I think no
more than a mans. 

	Maybe part of it is because you feel if they want to be known as a
person, then they are actually becoming an "it". Maybe you could explain that?
I know I don't understand how a word that means human being becomes an "it". 

	I guess the only thing that any of us could do is to ask God to show us
how it is supposed to be. He will show us. I know a lot of my views about women
were right along the same line as yours. I also know that when I asked God
about it my eyes were opened. I not only saw women as equals, but everyone else
as well. God has helped me with a lot of things that I had to overcome.



Glen

    Re: 62
    
    If you DEMAND to put my words in that context, because I never used the
    terms you say are implied.  It's not MY problem at issue here.  I've
    spoken to support Paul and scripture, and those who are against me also
    are against God's Word, sad to say.  
    
    I have made NO arguments "against" women and for you to put them in the
    context is YOUR biases operating, not mine.
    
    Anyway, no problem, I'm really learning a lot about certain types of
    people if nothing else...all things work to the good of those who
    REALLY love the Lord.
    
    Playtoe, In the Spirit of Truth

    I've had enough......
    
    Gone from this string...
    
    Marc H.

| If you DEMAND to put my words in that context, because I never used the
| terms you say are implied.  

	For someone who never used those terms, you seem to have a lot of
people who think you did. Why not explain just what you meant? Wouldn't that
clear everything up? 



Glen

    RE 67
    
    That a whole lot of "people from the same background, historical
    experience and perspective"think I did is not surprising.
    
    I've explained exactly what I meant already.  What will clear things up
    is for all of you to go see a Dianetics counselor and get rid of those
    ingrams!  Because you're having secondaries of me.  I'm not the one who
    originally hurt you, and I never will.  The hurt you REALLY feel comes
    from your past experiences.
    
    Playtoe 

    Playtoe,
    
    You seemed to have ignored my note 411.81 addressed to you on the
    subject of excision.  In light of that, it bewilders me when you make
    the following comments:
   
    <<  The fact is, in
    the African past, we have not abused our women/females, and although
    
    <<care that I might be able to shed a new and better light on the issue,
    since I do come from a heritage that handled these situations much more
    successful and lovingly...I try to help, but the problem is a lot worse
    
    What is loving and nonabusive about killing or mutilating millions of
    women????  I realize Africa is not the only culture committing these
    horrendous acts of violence, but you are stating how they do not abuse
    women and I feel I need to point the fact that this is happening!
    
    Ro
    

    RE: 70
    
    Ro:
    
    Well, my friend, that's your OPINION, about excision being "brutality". 
    
    If you demand to put things in that context, why should I jump through
    your hoops...what makes you better than me?
    
>    What is loving and nonabusive about killing or mutilating millions of
>    women????  I realize Africa is not the only culture committing these
    
    You've got a lot of nerve talking about a "killing and mutilating
    millions of"...considering the history of Europeans excision should
    seem quite light in terms of brutality...and I'm not being funny, but
    serious.  How can you make such a heinous thing of excision, but not so
    much a big deal out of slavery or what happened to the Indians?
    
    "Horrendous acts of violence", look at those words...what justifies
    this much emotion for excision, while you overlook the Apartheid and
    Ethiopia's famine caused by the Italian-Ethiopian War (they dropped
    Iperate Gas all over the place, did you know that?), what about the
    Iraq, "Horrendous acts of violence."...Puulease.  Don't get me started!
    
    Playtoe

re Note 154.71 by SWAM1::DOTHARD_ST:

>     serious.  How can you make such a heinous thing of excision, but not so
>     much a big deal out of slavery or what happened to the Indians?
  
        I don't recall Ro, in this or any other topic in this
        conference, condoning or minimizing the evil of black
        slavery, the destruction of Native American society, or any
        other crimes committed by those of European ancestry. 
        Bringing this up is totally uncalled-for.

        Bob

    Playtoe,
    
    I think all the acts of violence you mentioned are equally horrible, I
    certainly agree with you.  You were discussing women being treated
    lovingly not all the other subjects were being looked at in the topic.
    
    Would you consider consider castration of all the males by the
    countries that practice excision brutality?  I'm only asking you to put
    yourself in the other person's shoes (that being a women's) so that you
    might understand my perspective.  I recently read an article about this
    practice, perhaps someone in C-P has read it as well and can include it
    here so everyone can get an understanding of what we are talking about.
    
    Naturally, when you condone these acts, I'm prompted to ask you why. 
    I'm not asking you to jump through hoops.  I'm really trying to
    understand your perspective. 
    
    I am not getting 'emotional' anymore than you are or are you?  You are
    certainly becoming defensive.
    
    Playtoe, you and I agree on many subjects more than you realize, we
    have much in common (dead sea scrolls, ufo phenomena to mention a
    couple).  I am not trying to dwell on differences that separate us, but
    I will point something out to get clarity for myself on what you are
    sharing.
    
    Ro
    

    Playtoe forgot to mention the fact that European culture has often
    mistreated and oppressed Jewish people over the last 20 centuries.
    
    -- Mike

    re 70
    
    Excision and circumcision, are not considered an act of violence by
    Africans, but a necessary good.  "Horrendous" is ENTIRELY out of order
    as an adjective to the ceremony.  You apparently have no idea what
    being excised does for the woman.
    
    Just a few notes ago, Allison was offended by my comments about Western
    Thought, and my note was set hidden.  But because EVERYBODY (in the
    West), probably shares this notion of yours, you degrading of African
    ideas seems proper and acceptable...THAT'S called "Discrimination".
    
    The tragedy is that you can't even see your own inequities and biases. 
    As a result Racism and Discrimination is alive and still flourishing in
    America...and you seem unwilling to repent of any of conduct with me. 
    Do you honestly think God's is gonna lot you folk do me ANY harm? 
    Well, we'll just wait and see!
    
    Boy, I'm getting heated...the hypocrisy is inflamatory.
    
    Playtoe
    
    

    Playtoe,
    
    I'm afraid that you can't see your biases here either.  What is done to
    those women is against their will, just like slavery.  They are not
    willing participants in this ritual and many are dying because of it.
    
    I can't see how cutting out a woman's sexual organ is beneficial to her
    in anyway.  I can see how it might keep her controlled by men.  
    
    Playtoe, I've studied rituals and customs of many societies.  I honor
    and respect most, but I wouldn't agree or condone this custom no matter
    who was doing it.  Sorry, you can't see my point of view.  My heart is
    aching for all those woman who are being tortured in this manner.
    
    Peace,
    
    Ro
    

>Note 154.74

>    Playtoe forgot to mention the fact that European culture has often
>    mistreated and oppressed Jewish people over the last 20 centuries.

Oh, and lets not forget how that same European culture has often mistreated
and oppressed gays, Gypsies, the physically disabled, the retarded, and
religious dissidents!

Richard

    RE: 75
    
    Castration is definitely a form of "brutality", now who's guilty of
    THAT...AHEM, let me give you a hint, a five letter word that begins
    with "L" and ends with "H"...followed by a "mob".  Now when Africans
    came over here as slaves, how many came "castrated" already?  Ahem, how
    about NONE!  
    
    Like I said, you look back at your own past experience, and it is
    painful for you, and you begin to "project" as well as have these
    "secondaries" I mentioned.
    
    "Put myself in the other person's shoes", sorry "Homie, don't play
    that!"  You've been trying to fit me with the shoes of "women
    oppressors", "Jew persecutors", etc.  Whether you believe it or not, I
    do understand the Western Women's perspective and sympathize with her,
    she needs to get her man together, so he will give her a better way
    of life.
    
    "Excision" for the women, removes the clitoris, and thereby helps to
    curb her sex drive.  Sex, in Africa, was NEVER "erotic", but meant for
    procreation basically...though there were of course exceptions, that's
    all they were and were not the rule.  In the West "Eroticism" is
    practically a rule..."Excision" instead of "Lesbianism" could have
    answered the problem much better.  Without "excision" the woman's sex
    drive reaches it's peak and "eroticism" naturally follows.
    
    What you must be mindful of is that African societies flourished and
    evolved to the level of social practice they had when Europeans found
    them...Africans were not a brutal people and were peace loving, like
    the Indians, and practiced "excision" as a social good.  
    
    On the other hand, Europeans are rather young at civilization building,
    and have little experience, and not real ancient history to use as
    reference to determining what is best for society...you need to listen
    more to those who've "been there", instead of striking out on your own
    like gangbusters...Africans were not and are not as ignorant of humam
    and social science as we are lead to believe, as a matter of fact they
    have attained a certain level of mastery in these fields.
    
    Ro, I know we've agreed on many things...it's hard for me to get too
    upset about all this because I "understand" why this is happening.  I
    somewhat expected it, but then again you can never be sure how people
    will react.  I pray that people will learn to accept each other work
    within the knowledge of difference as opposed to working around the
    issues of difference.  It is important to first love self, however, and
    that is hard for some to in the light of their past...although you may
    not have been directly involved, even as all blacks were often
    stereotyped by the behavior of a few who may even be dead and gone, you
    still feel indirectly a part of the history of those like you and kin
    to you but deceased now.  I hear it said "I not responsible for what my
    great grandfather did," but necessarily you can't totally disassociate
    yourself from his acts, because his spirit is IN you and you may very
    will have his same behavior tendencies...that's highly likely, more
    likely than not.
    
    But all and all...I love all people and speak only to help us overcome
    problems.  I didn't start to the problem with "women's issues", it was
    started long ago.  But being sensitive to a very tragic experience
    perhaps makes it a bad time to try and fix it, but then again "If not
    now, when?,"  "If not us, Who?"  "If not here, where?"...
    
    Playtoe

    Re: 74 & 78
    
    I pray you two aren't trying to be funny or sarcastic...because it's no
    laughing matter, but is fact and cruel and one would only hope that
    this behavior can someday be corrected.
    
    How can you make light of one groups atrocious behavior and utterly
    condemn another for their's, isn't that too discrimination?
    
    I know how and why you some do...
    
    Playtoe
    

    RE: 72
    
    Yeah right, totally uncalled for...
    
    

    re: related notes on erotica and mutilation of women.
    
    I don't think many of us would argue that sexual urgings, "erotica" if 
    you want to call it that, is a very natural and God-given part of being 
    human.  Though I realize every society has its own cultural rituals to 
    establish organization and stability, in this case, I wonder WHO has 
    the RIGHT to determine that one sex, whether it be man or woman, should 
    have this God-given part of their nature removed from them by the other 
    sex???   In this case, I wonder why it is okay for men to keep their 
    natural urges for erotica?
    
    If it is such a universal aspect of human beingness and there is a 
    perceived need to control it, then why not just castrate both men and 
    women?  That would seem to be the more successful solution, if it was
    *truly* erotica that was attempting to be controlled.............  
    
    Procreation would not be a problem.  It could be controlled just as 
    easily as erotica, by simply relying on the rational mind:  "If we don't 
    copulate we eventually extinct ourselves."  That would be reason enough 
    to occasionally engage in romps in the hay, don't you think?? 
    
    Karen  

    Re: 76
    
>    I'm afraid that you can't see your biases here either.  What is done to
>    those women is against their will, just like slavery.  They are not
>    willing participants in this ritual and many are dying because of it.
    
    You shouldn't look at it like that.  People go to jail against their
    will, pay taxes against their will, is this too "slavery"?  Or is it
    seen as necessary for the good of society?
    
    Ro.  Have you ever actually studied the behavior and personality
    differences between excised and non-excised women?  Have you ever
    talked with a women who's been excised?  "Torture", again, you're over
    exagerating the experience...is surgery a form of "torture"?  Come on! 
    You are employing a well known linguistic fallacy, using "inflammatory"
    terms inappropriate to sway the emotions of the readers...I don't think
    it's fair....it's uncalled for, as much as my mentioning slavery and
    Indians.  But as you can see, they mind you doing that, but they won't
    tolerate me doing it...ain't that "discrimination"?
    
    Playtoe

    If any act is done against a person's will, it can be considered 
    torture by those either experiencing it first-hand, to those who
    observe it, or to those who hear/read about it second-hand.  
    
    As a woman in *this* society, culturalized the way I have been, 
    I know I would consider it torture.  IF however I was raised in 
    another society and it was an accepted custom by the RULING power, 
    and IF I was successfully conditioned to accept the belief it was my 
    place or duty, etc. to allow such mutilation to occur to me, I might 
    not consider it as torture.  
    
    And personally, it IS oftentimes torturous for me to pay taxes. :-)
    
    Karen  

    Playtoe,
    
    I use terms which fit what I see.  I'm not talking about history, I
    talking about what is happening to women today.
    
    You admit that castration is brutal, yet excision which is the same
    only done to the female is not.
    
    No, I have not talked to any excised females but I have read first hand
    accounts.  I have read of women trying to escape countries where this
    is practiced.
    
    Obviously, Playtoe, this is one area where we will never agree.  
    
    All I can say is that my prayers and healing thoughts are with those
    women.
    
    Ro
    

    RE: 81
    
    "Castration" of women...come on!  I know how you make the equation, but
    it's hardly the same as with the man...with the man he no longer
    functions as a man should *at all*...but in the case of the women it's
    not like she finds herself with nothing left, her major parts are still
    there!
    
    Who gives one the right to determine such a thing?  Yet you find it
    understandable and legitimate for the Church leaders to settle all
    questions about God?  I asked the question what gives any man,
    including the Pope, the right to decide if my personal vision is valid
    as God given revelation?
    
    We could debate that issue all year, what gives any one the right to
    decide the fate of other people's lives, but is that really the issue? 
    Shouldn't we want to know if such things are good for society or not? 
    If it's good let's keep it, it not abandon it?  And ultimate don't we
    decide?  I mean where were the women's parents and loved ones, while
    she was being "tortured"...I believe they were standing right there up
    front, cheering them heinous scene on...such savage people!  Come on! 
    Get a grip...you've got this way out of context...and because you don't
    have Africans to defend themselves present, your imagination just goes
    wild...and that's an injustice.

    re: 84
    
>    I use terms which fit what I see.  I'm not talking about history, I
>    talking about what is happening to women today.
    
    Excuse me...so you don't think you should cool out on the use of
    inflaming adjectives!  My goodness, RO, this is really beginning to
    bother me.  
    
    You're talking about what is happening to women today, using inflamed
    examples from my past...I resent you equating African rituals with your
    mistreatment today.  I'm telling you they didn't feel it was a
    mistreatment...you are wrong for inciting them to riot.
    
    Playtoe

    "Yet you find it understandible for the Church leaders to settle all
    questions about God? "
    
    Did I miss something?  When did Karen say that? 
    
    -- Mike

    Re: .82:
    
    >> I'm afraid that you can't see your biases here either.  What is done
    >> to those women is against their will, just like slavery.  They are not
    >> willing participants in this ritual and many are dying because of it.
    
    > You shouldn't look at it like that.  People go to jail against their
    > will, pay taxes against their will, is this too "slavery"?  Or is it
    > seen as necessary for the good of society?
    
    Unless I'm misunderstanding you Ro, I think your basic concern/question
    is similar to mine.  Does one sex (males, in this case) have the right to 
    determine what the "good of society is" to the point where they decree 
    that the other sex (again, whether or not that other sex were to be male
    or female) should have their sexual organs physically removed against 
    their will, and additionally at great risk to their health and physical
    survival? 
    
    Any challenge, as this question/issue is, to such a pervasive cultural 
    ritual, is laden with POWERFUL ramifications in that culture's ability 
    to maintain order, stability, functioning and ultimately to its long-
    term survival, *particularly* in today's day and age.  My prayers are
    with them all as well.
    
    Karen

    re 84 (more)
    
>    You admit that castration is brutal, yet excision which is the same
>    only done to the female is not.
    
    This so distorted!  The female is NOT castrated.  You are equating the
    pain and loss of the castrate male with the excised female...that's a
    gross distortion of reality...
    
>    No, I have not talked to any excised females but I have read first hand
>    accounts.  I have read of women trying to escape countries where this
>    is practiced.
    
    I didn't think so!
    
    RO, your prayers are always welcome, but you could pray for a lot of
    others in greater need of prayer than those women.  Why don't you ask
    them and see if they feel in need of a prayer for that?  
    
>    Obviously, Playtoe, this is one area where we will never agree.  
    
    Then no matter what good it serves you'll "never agree" with
    it...that's sad, and that attitude is a clear example of what I was
    saying about the "caring" tendencies of women which sometimes may
    preclude a "just" response for collective concerns.
    
    It's funny how time and time again the evidence is right there in one's
    face and one cannot see (they have eyes and cannot see), and how the
    reasoning is clear and good but one cannot hear it (they have ears but
    cannot hear)...isn't that interesting.
    
    I know you'll probably take that as an insult because "thought
    provoking" isn't something your willing to entertain on this particular
    issue...but, what say ye?
    
    Playtoe

    .87
    
    You beat me to that Mike.  I would think from my personal name alone
    that one would really have to be off-base to construe I would believe 
    such a thing!!!  And I know for a fact that every note I've ever written 
    in this conference does not contain any such statement or even an
    implication to such a belief. 
    
    Holy smokes, :-)
    
    Karen

    RE: 87
    
    Karen, didn't say that, I meant to add (not you personally), because
    surely Karen, agreed with the "personal revelation" aspect as being the
    most important.  I said "understandable" too, however, I didn't say she
    participated in it, just found it "understandable"...whereas I don't
    find it understandable how one can place their God relationship in the
    hands of another, when God clearly tells us we all stand or fall on our
    own.
    
    
    

        I believe that the time is coming when the right moderator
        action for this topic is to write-lock it for a while
        (certain notes within it may have to be dealt with, as well).

        I am appealing for voluntary restraint on the part of all the
        current participants -- just don't write anything for, say,
        three days.  See if anyone new cares to respond or add a new
        direction to the topic.

        Bob, as co-moderator

    RE: 88
    
    I'll say this, in the West I wouldn't allow "the removal of my private
    parts", but in Africa and the context in which they do it, it's
    acceptable to me...in the West I'd have to concern myself with what the
    dude was doing with the cut off parts!  
    
    I tell you I totally understand the apprehension and fear women in the
    West are feeling.  Having never known any alternatives, one feels
    hemmed in, backed against a wall...as a result you fight the struggle
    against that harsh reality, having no where else to turn.  What's worse
    is that you've been made to believe no one else will offer you any
    better, so you refuse to even seek alternatives...the proverbial "Rock
    and hard place" syndrome...but I'm telling you the "Motherland" will
    take care of you properly, trust her, if you can't trust her at least
    try her, if you can't try her, at least look into her a little deeper
    than you have, you might find more than you ever thought could be.
    
    Strange, but wonderful...
    

    Re: 154.76
    
    I agree Ro....this act of mutilating a women is terrible. I'm sure
    that it is another "control" technique. How Playtoe can defend it
    is beyond me! 
    
    Marc H.

   Excision is a varied practice, after looking it up I found many
   variations are practiced across the Africa and Asia.  Some were 
   analogous of circumcision and represent views as to specific cultures
   vision for beauty for the body.  These can be best described as
   cosmetic alteration, circumcision is an analogue.

   Other versions of the practice simply remove the ability of a women to
   feel anthing she would regard as pleasent.  It is a form of control in
   that variation and male-centric.  The closest male approximation of 
   cliteral excision would be to destroy two specifc nerves, the result
   would leave the male functional(capable of fathering children) but
   without any sensation.  There is no historical record of this except
   in medical texts for males, under sexual dysfunctions.

   What I found was an unbalanced valuing of womens function beyond
   childbearing right up until recent times, even in the west.  What
   appaled me was the general disregard for womens life beyond producing
   male children.

   Allison

re: Note 154.85 by Playtoe

>    RE: 81
>    
>    "Castration" of women...come on!  I know how you make the equation, but
>    it's hardly the same as with the man...with the man he no longer
>    functions as a man should *at all*...but in the case of the women it's
>    not like she finds herself with nothing left, her major parts are still
>    there!

As I understand the term, castration is the removal of the male's testicles, 
so even with the male, "it's not like he finds himself with nothing left..."

I also don't see what the difference is, if a woman can still function as a 
woman after excision,  why is it so different for a man that he cannot 
function *at all* as a man should?

What is the function of a man that it *all* focuses upon a couple of cubic 
inches of tissue?  (Since the topic of this string is gender roles and 
Christianity...)

In either case, the major parts, mind, soul, remain, do they not?

Peace (really, I'm just asking, not trying to fan any flames)

Jim

    Thanks very much for this information Allison.
    
    Perhaps the type of excision that is done to remove a woman's sense
    of pleasure is not a result of male-control issues over women, but
    rather as was stated in .89 "is a 'just' response for collective 
    concerns" of a society.  
    
    If so, I freely admit my ignorance as to the reasoning behind this and
    with it my desire to understand exactly what "collective" concern is being 
    addressed by a procedure which is routinely performed on approximately 
    half a society's population.      
    
    Karen

   Karen,

   Widely practiced and half the worlds population are two terms I cannot
   apply from what I've read.  It is practiced by selected groups through out
   the world.  Just as castration is also practiced in some parts of the
   world.  Some forms of excision would possibly enhance sensitivity for
   the woman, others would be destructive.  Most expose the woman to
   infection and death.

   An aside to castration, if is performed after puberty the result is 
   sterility and reduced sex drive. Satisfaction is still possible.  The
   female equivelent of castration is removal of the overies or possibly
   hysterectomy.  Castration was used to render the concubine guards
   (unichs) safe with respect to the question of who is the legitimate
   father. Again women and children as property.  Though in the Asian
   realm some some of the religious males were castrated by ritual to
   cleanse them of earthy desires (hijara in india).

   Sex and religion have in many cultures have been interlocked with
   the concept of sin, but this is not universally true.

   Allison

    Hi Allison,
    
    > Widely practiced and half the worlds population are two terms I
    > cannot apply from what I've read.  It is practiced by selected groups
    > through out the world.
    
    I may not have expressed it very well, but my question was aimed at 
    trying to understand what collective concern is addressed by those 
    societies who perform excision strictly to remove a women's sense 
    of pleasure.  
    
    If I understood Playtoe correctly, in the society he was referring to 
    he was saying it was done to curb women's erotic urgings and that this 
    form of excision was "a just response for collective concerns" in that
    society.  I'm curious to know what those collective concerns are.  
    My comment about half a society's population refers not to the world's 
    population, but to the group of women in a particular society (who I
    estimate make up approximatley half the population of said society) 
    that practice excision routinely.
    
    Karen

   Karen,

   Sorry, for some reason I read it differently.  Though I agree with your
   explanation.

   It's funny how a society can arrive at women as having the undesirable
   erotic urgings rather than men.

   Allison

    RE: 95
    
    In a culture where the women is given in marriage by the parents at an
    early age, "excision" insures fidelity and the reducing of "lust" in
    the women...which for Africans is a social good...but of course the
    West doesn't see it like that.
    
    Personally, I think the "control" move is on women in the West because
    being unexcised the women's sex drive is unchecked and as a result men
    can often get THEIR desires fulfilled, taking advantage of her wanton
    condition.  Whereas, in Africa, this is not the case.  You'll notice
    the lack of "eroticism" in Africa, and if extra-sex takes place, it is
    on a "spiritual" basis and not on a "physical need", because "I'm so
    HOT!" basis..
    
    I think you folks got it REAL backwards...it's beyond me how you
    justify that!
    
    Playtoe

    RE: 96
    
    Can he produce "semen" without his testicles?
    
    Playtoe

    RE: 97
    
    Karen, I love it.  Not because you agree with me, because you haven't,
    but in that you are willing to even look further into alternatives is
    definitely a righteous endeavor.  
    
    God BLESS your heart and mind. 
    
    Playtoe

    in re .102
    
    no

    RE 98
    
    When you say "practiced by selected groups throughout the world", I
    would assume you don't believe in a "cultural unity" of Africa?
    
    Just for your information, West Africa, the Songhai civilization, was
    culturally united.  The term "Mandinka" is exactly like the term
    "Hebrew".  It is not just the name of a tribe of people, but is also a
    "language", ie The Mandinka Speaking People.  Below the Sahara, from
    Senegal (on the Western coast) to Togo and Ghana were "Mandinka"
    speaking people, and they share ONE cosmogonic myth of the universe...
    
    Of course the West doesn't believe or teach this, but the French, whose
    possession most of West Africa was, have documented this united,
    virtually "international" relations they share in that region.
    
    The point being that the practice of "Excision and Circumcision" is
    part of their "cosmogonic myth" and is therefore practice generally as
    opposed to "selectively" as you mentioned.
    
    Playtoe

<               <<< Note 154.102 by SWAM1::DOTHARD_ST "PLAYTOE" >>>
<
<    RE: 96
<    
<    Can he produce "semen" without his testicles?
<    
<    Playtoe

    Yes but no sperm are contained in the semen, sterile.

    <<< Note 154.105 by SWAM1::DOTHARD_ST "PLAYTOE" >>>

    RE 98
    
    Mere verbal joust about words.

   The west coast of Africa was of cultural unity.  However, they did not
   share the same cultural unity with north Africa(Mediterainan culture),
   the Egyptians, the east Africans Ethiopa, or the southern regions.

   My comments were not limited to as narrow scope as Africa, India,
   Asia, and some native american (pre western) cultures also practiced
   variations.  

   So you see there is no one true and correct, except in the culture 
   you honor.

   Allison

What is the function of a man that it *all* focuses upon a couple of cubic 
inches of tissue?  (Since the topic of this string is gender roles and 
Christianity...)

   Jim,

   Yes that is the question.  Gender is not a construct of construction.

   Allison

    re; 104
    
    Thank you Bonnie.
    
    Re: Excision = Castration
    
    Then surely Excision is not equal to castration..."historectomy(sp?)"
    is more close to castration.
    
    Playtoe

re: Note 154.108 by Allison "another prozac moment" 

> Gender is not a construct of construction.

.-) Well said! .-)

Regarding the others answering my question, thanks.  Yes, I understand that a 
castrated male is sterile, but Playtoe, I was really curious about your own 
emphasis that without testicles a man can't "*at all*" fill the role of the 
male.  Is there nothing more to the male role than producing sperm?  Is that 
"*all*" there is to it?

Playtoe, you had also said in a previous note which I can no longer find 
something to the effect that regarding children, parents must fulfill their 
different needs based on their sex.  I was also curious about what different 
needs you meant by that.

I know some people who see that different need as dolls for girls, toy trucks 
and guns for boys.  Please, I'm *not* saying that that is the need you're 
speaking of, but if you could expand on what you see those different needs as, 
I'd appreciate it.  Personally, I *do* see there there may be different needs 
to fulfill.  For instance, both need personal health and body care education, 
but there *are* some physical differences that may require different emphasis.

Peace,

Jim

Do spirits have different gender roles?

Peace,

Jim

    Re: .101
    
    Lots of false assumptions on your part..Playtoe.  Why do women need
    to have a reduction in lust, but men can handle it o.k.?
    
    Also, why is the West so wrong by having normal women? I really
    think that you should examine your views in your reply.
    
    Your statement that women can have *their* fidelity maintained due
    to mutalation of their body is *WRONG*! Where do you get the
    justification for your idea's? Sure can't be from the Bible or through
    Christ.
    
    Marc H.

    <---
    
    Good question Jim.
    
    :-)
    
    Karen

    re; 104
    
    Bonnie, 
    
    A friend of mine would severly disagree. He is in a position to
    speak on a knowing basis.

   re; .109    

<    Re: Excision = Castration
<    
<    Then surely Excision is not equal to castration..."historectomy(sp?)"
<    is more close to castration.
<    
<    Playtoe

   Close, but not quite accurate.

   Strictly speaking the female analogue is ovarectomy, removal of the
   ovaries.  Hysterectomy, is the removal of the uterus and tubes.  The
   difference is removal of the structures needed to generate the
   eggs/sperm, the result is sterility.  To complete the analogue: 
   Castration, general form is surgical removal of the gonads.  If
   performed after puberty the net result is sterility.

   I might add excision of the clitoral structures is neither castration
   or circumcision.  The closest male version is not practicable due
   to difficulty in locating the correct nerve structure to sever.  In
   this day and age the only similarity I know of in men would be someone
   who had the spinal cord severed and has no feeling below mid torso.
   Children are indeed possible, sensation is limited or non-exsistant.
   That would be the closest equivelent in modern society.

   I find the custom barbaric because is in the men of "that" society
   blaming women for their infidelity.  Temptation is genderless, so
   is succumbing to it.  Maybe if society sanctioned removing the sense
   of pleasure from men with regard for sex maybe temptataions women
   suffer would be lessened.  Of course that predisposes the idea than
   men are inherently evil and most be controlled. I know, inflamatory
   concept, sorry.  I presented it mostly as a mirror image of one
   view.

   Allison

>   Do spirits have different gender roles?

   Jim,

   In my belief they do.
   	
   Allison

    Allison .114,
    
    I think you hit the nail on the head with this:
    
    "Temptation is genderless, so is succumbing to it."
    
    Marc,
    
    You voiced a statement that was similar to a question I was
    somewhat surprised came up for me: ;-)
    
    Is there a Biblical basis for excision?  (Or is this a ritual left
    over from the pre-Christian days?  ergo, dare I say....a pagan ritual?)
    
    Just curious - as always. :-)
    
    Karen

    Re: .114
    
    Good reply!
    
    Marc H.

    Moderator note:
    
    Many of the points recently raised in this topic create the basis for
    "lively" discussion.  
    
    Since gender roles tend to be an emotional issue for many these days, 
    I'd like to request that people take care to self-moderate their notes 
    and guard against consciously or unconsciously fanning the fire of 
    emotions to such a level that the moderators feel the need to institute
    a cool-down period by write-locking this topic.   
    
    Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.
    
    Karen
    Co-Moderator
    Christian-Perspective

    
    Is there a Biblical basis for excision?  (Or is this a ritual left
    over from the pre-Christian days?  ergo, dare I say....a pagan ritual?)
    
   Karen,

   I can't say it's pagen, but the previous belief structures of the
   various regions were not Christian.

   Can't remember anything from the bible that jumps up at me.  Most of
   the societies mentioned in my readings were not Christian.  The 
   western African reference _may_ have roots in islamic law pre-Christian
   just as circumcision is associated with pre-Christian Jewish tradition.

   Allison

    sorry gang, I meant that a man cannot produce sperm cells when
    castrated, which is what I believe Playtoe meant by his question..
    
    i.e. could he father a child, the answer is no... can he still
    have a normal sexual response including fluid? yes

    Re: 107
    
>   The west coast of Africa was of cultural unity.  However, they did not
>   share the same cultural unity with north Africa(Mediterainan culture),
>   the Egyptians, the east Africans Ethiopa, or the southern regions.
    
    That's still under study, but their is great evidence that Ethiopia,
    which is the Mother of Egypt, spring from a common root with West
    Africa and the Zambezi River People (Zulu, etc) people.  The Dogon,
    who maintain the "cosmogonic myth" system in West Africa (Mandinka
    Speaking People) have been found to have many similarities, too many to
    be a coincidence...the question is that of origin, did it from from the
    West to Ethiopia, from Central Africa (Mountains of the Moon) to parts
    North, West and South, in Africa.  The latter is the most popular, but
    some scholars believe it started in the West from the "mystical"
    Atlantis, I say "mystical" not as in magical, but as in "mysterious".
    
>   So you see there is no one true and correct, except in the culture 
>   you honor.
    
    I don't necessarily agree.  Because it appears that after the
    establishment of the Motherland AFRICA (speaking of this Cosmogonic
    Myth, Religious Idea, Cultural Unity), and the following the founding
    of Egypt, Egypt became the "light of the world", and as such is
    responsible for many of the major religions in the world...
    
    

    Re: 108
    
>What is the function of a man that it *all* focuses upon a couple of cubic 
>inches of tissue?  (Since the topic of this string is gender roles and 
>Christianity...)
    
    It could mean life or death for his lineage!  Which is vital to
    Christianity, the very first commandment of God to Man was "Be
    fruitful and multiply."  Then came Moses' commandments, after we began
    to multiply (do not steal, kill, commit adultery, etc).
    
    

    RE: .121  Playtoe,
    
                        Thank you for that history lesson.  I find that
    kind of history *VERY* interesting.  If you have more I would love to
    read it.  Perhaps another topic?  I am also interested in native
    American history so again another topic?  :-)
    
    Dave

    RE: 110
    
    In terms of "sexual intercourse", the Bible, and Traditional African
    Religious practice attempt to maintain or limit the act for the purpose
    of "procreation"...so Yes, that's basically all there is too it. 
    
    In regards to "child needs by sex/gender" a little girl *should* be
    raised to be an adult women, and a little boy *should* be raised to be
    an adult man...it's more than just making sure the girl wears a dress
    and a boy a suit to church.  Knowing the things that an average women
    and man will be expected to do as an adult, they should be prepared for
    that.  The fact that a "girl" will have the baby when she grows up, she
    should be prepared to take care of child.  Which means dolls, and
    cooking experiences, and ironing and housekeeping experiences in the
    little girls life.  A little boy, on the other, shouldn't be taught how
    to feed the bady (dolls), and not necessarily learn to cook and clean
    with a *familiy* in mind, but he may learn to do for his OWN benefit,
    if he stays single, or if his wife is sick or he has a wife that wants
    him to share in the household responsibiilities, or to be able to
    contribute as a good thing to do, but not as a primary duty in home. 
    The little boy should be taught as his primary role in the home is to
    get his butt up and get out and get a job...so all of his childhood
    programming should be primarily focused upon instilling in him a sense
    of responsibility, good work ethics, managing self and others, respect,
    all the things that will make him ready for the workplace.  This is not
    to say that a girl is not given the same experience as the boy and vice
    versa...but I'm speaking primarily, (if you had one thing you could
    teach your child before becoming an adult and facing the cold cruel
    world along, what would it be?) and I think the sensible parent would
    have to choose these things for their girls and boys respectively.
    
    Playtoe

    Re: 111
    
>Do spirits have different gender roles?
    
    NO...but spirits also don't bear children!  I think the whole "gender
    role" thing is essentially founded upon the fact that we have babies. 
    If we weren't having babies we wouldn't have to even think about this
    "gender role" stuff....
    
    Playtoe

    Re: .124
    
    Many things wrong here. You are assuming gender roles for men/woman
    that are arbitrary. 
    
    Marc H.

    Re: 112
    
>    Lots of false assumptions on your part..Playtoe.  Why do women need
>    to have a reduction in lust, but men can handle it o.k.?
    
    Lots of false assumptions on *MY* part!  Right!  I think if men were so
    sexually inclined, they've dress sexy-er than women, but that's not so. 
    And thus women find it, not men, necessary to "attract" the male, for
    the most part...this may be hard to see.  I think if you studied "men"
    more you'd find that basically their primary interest is not in having
    sex or even being with a women as a lover, for most men it is not
    considered a "priority" at all, but is more in the realm of
    "possibilities".  Most men don't "bank" on ever having a women.  But
    you can BET it's in the majority of women's primary...and don't get mad
    at me because I said so, this IS a fact of life.  It's got something to
    do with a women's desire to fulfill or experience that which she is her
    natural functiion to do, have a *child* and to do so she needs a man,
    and afterwards many women continue on and believe that the baby needs
    a father, I don't know how they figure that ;-) but some do!
    
>    Your statement that women can have *their* fidelity maintained due
>    to mutalation of their body is *WRONG*! Where do you get the
>    justification for your idea's? Sure can't be from the Bible or through
>    Christ.
    
    Sorry, Marc, but I'm afraid you're sadly mistaken.  Actually, you're
    grammatically correct, "a women can't maintain her a fidelity if her
    body is mutilated," but that's the only correct thing about it. 
    Excision is *NOT* an act of mutilation...if you won't to put in the
    context then you do that, but "wrong" I'm not just because you think
    so!
    
    Playtoe

    re: 119
    
>   Can't remember anything from the bible that jumps up at me.  Most of
<   the societies mentioned in my readings were not Christian.  The 
>   western African reference _may_ have roots in islamic law pre-Christian
>   just as circumcision is associated with pre-Christian Jewish tradition.
    
    Excision
    
    Actually, it is an African Traditional Religious idea, and was
    practiced in Africa before Christianity and Islam came.  
    
    I wonder if it's something that was left out in composing the bible,
    seeing that so much seems to be missing regarding females.
    
    Playtoe

    Re 123
    
    You might want to read "Pre-Colonial Africa" by Cheihk Anta Diop, a
    very great black African scholar, with *6* Ph.D's, and the University
    of Senegal was recently renamed after him...a great ceremony which drew
    many educators from the European world.  He's a TRUE historian, and not
    "grinding axes".
    
    Playtoe

    RE: .128
    
    Then it's pagan?
    
    Marc H.

    Re: 126
    
>    Many things wrong here. You are assuming gender roles for men/woman
>    that are arbitrary. 
    
    Yeah, you're probably right...but I'm not aware of it!
    
    "Arbitrary", is labelling a role such as "working to support a family"
    and "taking care of a child," as being "arbitrary" assignments.  My
    fellow, we NEED to instill certain values in our children and if they
    stray from that that's one thing, but to have never given them proper
    values is the parents fault/responsibility...so what do you plan to
    teach your boy and/or girl...OR DON'T YOU HAVE ANY?
    
    PLAYTOE

re:130
        
>    Excision
    
>    Actually, it is an African Traditional Religious idea, and was
>    practiced in Africa before Christianity and Islam came.  

    So wasn't head hunting. Some of the tribes that practiced head hunting
    considered the victim to be honorable. But so what ! Who wants to be
    honored in that way, and what  makes this  correct  ?
        

>    I wonder if it's something that was left out in composing the Bible,
>    seeing that so much seems to be missing regarding females.
    
    It was probably left out because God did not want it for his people.
 
    
    Jim

RE: .127  Playtoe,

                    

>                                              I think if men were so
>sexually inclined, they've dress sex-er than women, but thats not so.
 

        There have been times in history where it *HAS* been so.  Even
in some cultures, today, it is so.

>                                          I think if you studied "men"
>more you would find that basically their primary interest is not in having
>sex or even being with a woman as a lover, for most men it is not
>considered a "priority" at all, but more in the realm of "possibilities".        


         Your here statement causes me some wonder.  Rape is primarily a 
"mens" thing.  For years doctors have been telling us that men have 
a greater "sex drive" than women.  Where is your documentation here?  


RE: Womens mutilation,

          I find this subject very scary.  What may or may not have been 
a practice in Africa is irrelevant here as we are living in "Western 
Society" right now.  Even the thought of taking a *persons* sex drive
away in the name of religion is abhorrent to my nature...and I think 
Gods. Sex is God given and if we misuse its not Gods fault but ours.
To adjust Gods work just because we can't "handle" it, IMHO, is putting
the cart before the horse.


Dave

  Playtoe,

                    

>                                              I think if men were so
>sexually inclined, they've dress sex-er than women, but thats not so.
 
But, men do dress and perform idjit heroic acts to attract women.
The ladies here would've love to see me in my Marine uniform in my day.;)

>                                          I think if you studied "men"
>more you would find that basically their primary interest is not in having
>sex or even being with a woman as a lover, for most men it is not
>considered a "priority" at all, but more in the realm of "possibilities".        

    Well, this is new. Most men think about sex every eight minutes, while
    women think about sex every eight weeks which means men are thinking
    about women who are thinking about sex in 16 hrs 120 times a day, not 
    counting when their dreaming about sex.;)

    Jim

RE: circumcision,

    *WARNING*  explicit sexual language follows.
    
    
    
                     While I haven't heard of the practice of excising
the womans sex organ, I have heard of a "circumcision" of the clitoris.
Even today, there have been women who need this done for health reasons.
I also have heard of societies doing this as a matter of normal practice.
Like the circumcision on a man it is supposed to decrease the sensitivity
of the organ.  I understand that it involves "cutting" away some of the 
skin to promote cleansing of the area.  While it does decrease the 
sensitivity, it does NOT decrease the desire.


Dave

    To quote one more time :-) :
    
    > I think if you studied "men" more you would find that basically their
    > primary interest is not in having sex or even being with a woman as a
    > lover, for most men it is not considered a "priority" at all...
    
    Gee, I'd be more open to this idea if you're talking about a culture
    I'm not familiar with, but when it comes to the U.S. of A. I gotta say 
    I disagree with this assessment 100%.  And this is based on extensive
    field research, complete with setting up 'blinds' in parks and drive-in 
    movies, dance clubs, coffee shops, and yes, even book stores! 
    
    But I'm willing to put all that aside and propose an idea:  Why don't we 
    do our own research right here.  Let's take a poll of the men in C-P.  
    Does the above quoted statement apply to you?  And if it does, what then 
    is your priority for seeking the company of, or relationship with, 
    a woman? 
    
    ;-)
    
    Karen

    Dave
     Explicit reply follows:
    
    
    What is being talked about in Playtoe's notes in reference to
    African customs is not simple removal of skin...it is removal
    of the entire clitoris. This is done without modern surgical
    procedures and results in a good deal of scaring. One result
    is the essential obliteration of the woman's ability to
    achieve sexual satisfaction. Infact, the resulting scaring
    makes sexual relations often very painful.
    
    Further in some societies women have their labia sewn together
    so that their husband brings a knife with him on the wedding night
    to cut the opening free.
    
    ouch!
    
    Bonnie

    re 134
    
>But, men do dress and perform idjit heroic acts to attract women.
>The ladies here would've love to see me in my Marine uniform in my day.;)
    
>    Well, this is new. Most men think about sex every eight minutes, while
>    women think about sex every eight weeks which means men are thinking
>    about women who are thinking about sex in 16 hrs 120 times a day, not 
>    counting when their dreaming about sex.;)
    
    Well, I don't really know how they can be so sure of this.  Are they
    "reading minds" now?  Surely not my mind.  I hardly think I've ever
    thought of having sex at rate, and I'm a Taurus!  It's getting a bit to
    technical when you start with giving stats of this nature, it's the
    same as "generalizing", and of course not EVERY man think's of sex at
    that rate...and even you must admit that "every eight minutes" is
    rather absurd.
    
    However, what I see, not as a generalization, but as an observation, is
    that men have primary interests in the "sport" of sex, the "fun" of
    sex, the "challenge" of obtaining sex, but not in "sex" itself alone. 
    We've got to look at motivations.  Women, by necessity of "child
    bearing" seek the "intercourse" primarily.
    
    I don't have it all together here, because I haven't really thought it
    necessary to go that deep into it, because the surface reality seems
    adequate to warrant certain assumptions...but people view things
    differently, in which case I'd prefer the opinions of those who've
    considered the longest, which is in this case the African...as I
    mentioned "civilization building" was going on in Africa, long before
    Europeans started...we can't take African ideas too lightly.
    
    Playtoe

    RE: Karens poll......
    
                          Uh.....er......nooooo but I would rather not have
    to explain that!
    
    Dave...who is now embarrassed!

    re:135
    
    While it may not decrease desire, it doesn't impact the ability to
    control it...and to that extent I would say that decreases desire in
    regard to intensity.
    
    Playtoe

    RE: .140 Playtoe,
    
                      I assume you mean "does" instead of "doesn't" in your
    previous reply.  It would be inmteresting to see if any studies have
    been done regarding the impact of physical sensitivity vs hormones. I
    would have a hard time agreeing with you on this but I also don't
    really know and am going with a "gut" feeling.
    
    
    Dave  

    On a more serious note, (than my last one) and to summarize what 
    I've learned and feel on this issue from the last few days discussion:  
    
    It seems like the core issue revolves around a culture(s) who deems 
    infidelity as undesirable.  This culture also views that one sex is 
    responsible for initiating infidelity, and that is the female.  So to 
    curb infidelity, excision is routinely performed to intentionally 
    remove her desire for and sensations of sexual pleasure.  I gather that
    it is believed that this markedly lowers incidences of infidelity.  
    (Does it?)  
    
    However, excisions are performed without proper medical attention and 
    equipment leading to great pain, infections, scarring, and sometimes 
    even death.  If infidelity is such a concern, why are there not other 
    approaches to address it, rather than one that disfigures and inflicts 
    great pain upon women, and in some cases infections and death?  
    
    And I have to say that no matter what culture it is, for infidelity 
    to occur, there must be another willing partner who has sexual urges 
    to satisfy, regardless if they are different motivations for those
    urges between the sexes.  If there was no *MUTUAL* desire then there 
    would be no issue.  Is this not true?  
    
    Since infidelity cannot occur without two consenting adults, why are 
    *women* made to bear the brunt of this issue?  
    
    Is a moral concern of infidelity, worth even *ONE* young women losing 
    her life over???  
    
    Are women's lives in such societies worth so little?  Sadly, to me it 
    would seem so.
    
    I think that's all I have to say on this.  Thanks all for the 
    insights, thoughts, and feelings offered on this challenging issue.  
    
    Karen

    RE: 141
    
    Ha-ha...sure your right.
    
    Playtoe

    Re: .131
    
    Playtoe...I have five children. They are all fine children with basic
    CHristian values. I'm proud of them.
    
    My wife and I learned early on to share the parenting roles. I've
    done everything except what nature will not allow.
    
    I've learned to drop my pre-conceived notions of what men and women
    should do.....have you?
    
    Marc H.

    RE: 144
    
>    I've learned to drop my pre-conceived notions of what men and women
>    should do.....have you?
    
    Yes, I dropped them an adopted the notions advanced in the Bible,
    became a Christian...but that's not the issue here.
    
    The issue is that of "influence".  How much does "society" and those in
    positions of power and authority in the earth, influence your
    interpretation of God's Word?  Western "State" being separate from
    Christian "Religion" is in conflict.  
    
         Basically "Christian"-Actually a Citizen of the World
    
    To a great extent I find the "Slavery" experience has been blessing in
    that, I'm ever conscious of the "State vs Religion" conflict.  As well
    as quite conscious of discerning "things of Ceasar's" vs "things of
    God", and my priority is with God, as I'm instructed is a necessary
    requirement to be a Christian...not a Christian "basically", but "just" a
    Christian.
    
>	I've done everything except what nature will not allow.
    
    Hummm...that's a strange statement for me?  I could never say this.
    
    I hope you can respect my position.
    
    Playtoe

   Since we've departed the origonal topic I'll try to answer .0s
   questions.

   Language is a problem in this matter so let me redefine one word
   first.

   Gender: concerning aspects of ones identity as expressed in terms 
   such as masculine, feminine, or neuter(neutral).  In some circles
   is it defined as the psychological behavour, identity, and roles
   a person can assume.  My useage is "gender" is not an exchangable
   word for "sex".

   Sex: The word defining and catagorizing reproductive physiology.


<    How does being a Christian influence a person's concept of themselves
< with regard to their gender ?

   As depicted in the Bible the roles are hard cast and inflexible. 
   The family of the time was different as to roles, each members function
   was important to the family units welfare.  It however did define
   people as a given, rather than contributing individuals.  Why is it so
   important who goes to work and who stays home to mind the home and
   children?

<    How does Christianity define gender roles and what do you think about
< them as they are defined ?

   I reject most of the fundementalist teachings that were hurtful to me
   and cast me in roles that were hurtful.  I follow the sprit of the word
   that would have me be useful and serve rather be miserable doing
   something I do not belive in.  It's my perspective that teachings I was
   subjected to were very focused, that is to say sex is destiny.

<    How do these fit into or conflict with the social changes that have
< taken place in the last couple of decades ?

   You have me on that one.  I see the question as timeless. A thought
   would be that one of the great levelers of all time is change is
   a constant and cannot be stopped.  To me those that cling to the past
   without looking at it for the vision to the future are fighting change,
   they are destined to be caught up in their past.

   So much for my opinions.

   Allison

   Now based on my last words defining what I mean when I say gender.

   Sprits do have gender.  Gender is not of the body(sex) it is of the
   soul.

   Allison

    RE:147

    Yeah, sumpem like a quote I read somewhere that goes, "birds don't
    fly because they have wings, the fly because they're birds."


    Jim

>    delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged 
>    every man according to their works. 

    Does that let women off the hook or does it deny them their day
    in court?

    Tom

 As I'm sure you are aware, the term "men" is inclusive of all humans, unless
 otherwise specified.




Jim

| As I'm sure you are aware, the term "men" is inclusive of all humans, unless
| otherwise specified.


	In a male dominated world, yes. In reality, no. :-)  


Glen

 Excuse me....I neglected to mention that I was referring to the term
 "men" in the Bible.





Jim

    I guess it depends on just how literally you want to "interpret"
    the Bible.

    Tom

Let's interpret literally where the passage is meant to be
interpreted literally.

In this case, the word "men" is meant to be literally
interpreted as "people".  So, interpret it that way.  :-)

If you prefer figurative interpretation, there are other
words and passages you can pick out.  Many right nearby
in Rev. 20!

    It's also important to remember that the Bible was written
    primarily *by* men to be read primarily *by* men.
    
    Richard
    

            
    Richard,
    
    No...really?
    
    Cindy

	Collis, could that also mean that going against the norm doesn't
necessarily = imoral?


Glen

Re:  .159

You lost me, Glen.  I'm trying to relate your question to
my one comment that what is meant to be interpreted literally
should be interpreted literraly.  Perhaps you can share
the connection (or lack of one) with me?

Collis

	In many parts of the Bible the same words are used to describe
different things. But we are told to take the Bible literally (I'm not sure if
you believe in this) by some. What it would appear is that the Bible is only as
good as who is interpreting it. But then who of us can decide which version of
any part of Scripture is correct? 


Glen

  >But then who of us can decide which version of any part of 
  >Scripture is correct?

Language is tricky.  Fortunately, we still manage to communicate
relatively well despite this.

The same is true for the Bible.  It is written in language and
therefore can be tricky at times.  Yet it still communicates to
those who are willing to hear.  God is willing to instill His
Spirit in those who are willing to hear as well.  Traditionally,
history, experience, reason and ordinary reading ability are
used to understand the Scriptures.

The problem is usually not the understanding of Scripture.  The
true problem is obedience to Scripture when it doesn't say what
we want it to say.  Many in this conference claim that Scripture
is simply wrong in a number of areas.  The problem is not
interpretation - it is refusal to accept that the Bible is what
the prophets claim it to be.

Yes, there are areas where there can be honest disagreement
between two relatively non-biased individuals.  That's the nature
of language and people.  Just as obviously, there is tremendous
agreement about the main message of the Bible by those who
*believe* it.

Collis

    tHERE IS ALSO PLENTY OF AGREEMENT ABOUT THE MAIN MESSAGE OF THE bible
    by those who do not believe it to be the innerant word of God.
    
    I would have no interest in the bible whatsoever if I did not believe
    its main message.
    
    I don't believe the main message because it is recorded in the Bible. 
    I believe the main message because it is true.

  >tHERE IS ALSO PLENTY OF AGREEMENT ABOUT THE MAIN MESSAGE OF THE bible
  >by those who do not believe it to be the innerant word of God.

Indeed there is.  However, even one such as yourself denies
that the message of the Bible is salvation by faith attained
through accepting the sacrificial death of Jesus on the cross.
Either that, or I have totally misunderstood you during our
time here.  

Collis

  

    Collis,
    
    I do not believe in Ansalem's Dogma regarding Jesus' death as an
    atoning sacrifice.  If that is your question then you are right.
    
    I do agree that the Cross/Ressurection and salvation by faith is the
    center of Paul's theology.  I am intrigued by Rudolph Bultman's attempt
    to dymythologize the Bible and find the deeper meaning to the
    Cross/Ressurection and salvation by faith.
    
    The Cross/Ressurection is a powerful religious symbol.  I have
    difficulty with the symbol.  I absolutely do not believe that God
    sacrificed his son to atone for human sin.  I believe that Jesus going
    into Jerusalem in spite of knowing that he may be crucified was an act
    of great personal courage and love for humankind.
    
    The salvation by faith I believe in is potrayed by the 12 step
    programs.  The recognition that life is meaningless without the
    recognition of a Power outside of oneself. Some call this Power God.
    Hell is living on earth in isolation and alienation.  Salvation is
    being in harmony with the life forces around us.  Being in harmony with 
    the Spirit of God's love.
    
    I suspect you find the theological differences between you and I much
    larger than I find those same theological differences.
    
    Patricia
    

    Patricia,
    
    		I have heard the kind of belief that you are putting forth
    before.  What is hard for me to come to grips with is the fact that 99%
    of your (and all others) knowledge about Jesus and his life comes from
    what we call the "Bible".  For me, its hard to take some of what Jesus
    said and reject the others.  Especially from the very book that taught
    me about him in the first place.  Now I will admit that we *DO*
    misintrepret some of what he says but to reject his claim of divinity
    while believing he lived is somewhat a stretch for me considering he
    told us about himself in these writings.
    
    
    Dave

    David,
    
    I am seeking the answer to that question in historic critism.  The
    study starts with the recognition that there is not one story about
    Jesus in the bible but five major stories plus some minor ones.  By
    studying each and understanding how they are different and similiar one
    can begin to gleam what we can know about Jesus that is true.
    
    I am just beginning this journey of studying the Bible.  Unitarian
    Christians have made the claim that their is not one iota of evidence
    supporting the divinity of Christ in the Bible.  There is quite a bit
    of evidence supporting his humanity.  The gospel of John, the latest
    Gospel written is the greatest adherent to the divinity of Christ. 
    Jesus clearly talked about himself as the son of God and not God.
    
    I have spent more time studying the Corinthian letters than any other
    part of the Bible and in those two letters there is more support for
    Christ as separate from and distinct from God than as a part of God.  I
    would also say that there is some support for the divinity of Christ too. 
    But together those two facts equal Polytheism.  I look forward to my 
    future Bible study to better understand the argument.  I did read one
    excellent book called from Jesus to Christ. about the different images
    of Jesus/Christ.  If you are interested I will get you more details on
    the book.  William Channing is the Unitarian Christian best known for
    his arguments against trinitarianism in support of the humanity of
    christ and the distinction between Christ and God.
    
    Patricia

Do you accept that the main message of the Bible is
salvation by faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ
on the cross?

This is what defines Christianity and the person of
Jesus Christ as different from other religions.  All
religions want you to love one another as an ideal and
to love and serve god.

Only Yahweh provides the *solution* for *sin*.  This is
the main message of the Bible.  This is why Paul says
all he knows is Christ - and Him crucified.  This is
why the wisdom and power of men are foolishness and
weakness.  This is why without the resurrection, there
is *NOTHING* to proclaim - because without the resurrection,
sin still reigns and we are still eternally seperated from
God.  

I expect that you will frustrate me and say that despite
all the clear, Biblical evidence to the contrary, that
this is not the main message of the Bible.  Oh well.

Collis

    Collis,
    
    I might agree that that is the main message of Paul.  I'm not sure. 
    That is not the message of any of the Gospels thou.   Of course you
    accept the unity and coherence of the Bible.  I accept the bible as a
    collection of different images about Christianity.
    
    You see the value of the bible in its unity and coherence.
    
    I see the value of the bible in its diversity and collateral nature.
    
    You have a need for a sense of absolutely truth.
    
    I accept that absolute truth is unknowable.  That does not mean truth
    is unknowable.  Just absolute truth.
    
    I love diversity.  
    
    Patricia

    >    That is not the message of any of the Gospels thou.   Of course you
    
    Yes, clearly, it *is* the main message of the Gospels, Acts and every
    other book of the New Testement. I'm beside myself trying to figure
    out how anyone would say otherwise. It's beyond me. Inconcievable.
    
    		Alfred

Re:  .170

  >Yes, clearly, it *is* the main message of the Gospels, Acts and 
  >every other book of the New Testement. I'm beside myself trying to 
  >figure out how anyone would say otherwise. It's beyond me. 
  >Inconcievable.
   
Welcome to liberal Christianity.

where the only thing "Christian" is the name.  It's certainly
not the message.

Collis

I see this has turned into just another "I have the right handle on God
and you don't" topics.

Richard

Yup, sorry about that.

Feel free (if you have lots of time :-) ) to move my
notes to an appropriate topic.  Come to think of it,
most any topic will do (since they all come down to
this :-) ).

>I see this has turned into just another "I have the right handle on God
>and you don't" topics.

As I've said before, at some point things need to get down to objective
truth.  The rubber needs to meet the road somewhere.  Naturally, when
people start coming up with ideas of who and what God is, they are going
to clash, and not everyone can be right.

-Steve

    .174  I've said (apparently) unconvincing things here before, too,
    Steve.
    
    Theology is not an exact science.  Maybe you're right.  Maybe you're
    not.
    
    Richard
    

    (;*(

    Patricia:
    
    My understanding is that the Florence Nightengale Syndrome is when
    somebody deeply cares for another person who is hurt.  Glen is
    CONSTANTLY...I repeat...CONSTANTLY...ribbing me over just about any
    conceivable thing he can get his grubby hands on.  Glen and I have this
    mutual admiration for one another and respect each other so much, we
    make snide remarks at each other...as Glen did about five times at the
    C-P dinner.
    
    Therefore, put yourself at ease over this and lower the sensitivity
    thermometer a little bit!  Believe me, this is not one sided!
    
    -Jack

	Jack, I have no clue as to what you are talking about. Mutual
admiration? Respect for each other? What planet are you from!!?? :-)


Glen