Marylou Posted June 5, 2009 Author Share Posted June 5, 2009 What is the CBMW? ETA: A quick look at the web-site makes it pretty clear what kind of group this is. Bill No, I think people should see the stuff that's spewed by the John Pipers of the world. Scary stuff! And you were the one who started the tread and linked to a web-site filled with his odious teachings. You want them uncommented upon? Bill And to go from "a quick look at the web-site" to "spewed with odious teachings" in a matter of minutes just doesn't jive, if you know what I mean. Maybe your "Who is this John Piper" was a rhetorical question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marylou Posted June 5, 2009 Author Share Posted June 5, 2009 Can you define the difference between "submission" and "subservience", because I'm seeing a distinction without a difference. Bill It's all right there at that web-site you took a quick look at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 First of all' date=' I don't submit to men in general, just my dh. Secondly, he is also supposed to submit to me, though he ultimately has the last word - somebody has to. Thirdly, he is not supposed to "lord it over" me. Does submitting to elected officials make one a second-class citizen?[/quote'] In a democratic republic we get to vote on our representatives. There is choice. Leaders are not anointed with authority on the basis of their gender (although we till have a long way to go in that department). And we have limits on power. This other model is authoritarianism in the home. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnotherE Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 I wanted to make sure I wasn't making a mistake using the word "subservient" in regard to the linked website. So I checked the blog post again, written by a member of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. She also serves on the board of directors. She has titled her post "My Credo as a Christian Woman". To quote: "I believe that God created me to be a helper to my husband and that in serving and obeying him, I also serve and obey God." She is to serve and obey. I checked the definition of subservient: subordinate in capacity or function. I checked the definition of subordinate: subject to or under authority of a superior. I guess one could argue that a husband is really not a superior, but if he is the one that is to be served and obeyed, it seems more likely than not. So I stand by my use of subservient in the context of this website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cricket Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 There is a big difference in me deciding to submit to my husband in a marriage by allowing him to make certain decisions for our family and me thinking I have to do whatever any man tells me to do because since he is a male he has authority over me.... Yeah, I'm quoting myself. :001_smile: Actually, as I was thinking about this it occurs to me that the teaching in the Bible is "wives, submit to your husband." It doesn't teach men to exert authority over women by force. That implies that we have authority and we are equal but we are willingly allowing our husbands to have authority over our families. Just a side thought worth pondering I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 And to go from "a quick look at the web-site" to "spewed with odious teachings" in a matter of minutes just doesn't jive, if you know what I mean. Maybe your "Who is this John Piper" was a rhetorical question? I'm a pretty fast reader. I'd never heard of the man. Kind of wish I hadn't. But anyone can follow the link and read the stuff on the web-site and get a very clear picture of the "anti-egalitarian" message John Piper is trying to spread. And I'll fight him on the beaches, and on the landing grounds, and in the hills, and the fields, and in the streets, and shall never surrender! Apologies to Winston Churchill :D Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 Yeah, I'm quoting myself. :001_smile: Actually, as I was thinking about this it occurs to me that the teaching in the Bible is "wives, submit to your husband." It doesn't teach men to exert authority over women by force. That implies that we have authority and we are equal but we are willingly allowing our husbands to have authority over our families. Just a side thought worth pondering I think. Not "by force". By the voluntary submission of one person to another on the basis of their genders. Re-enforced by appeals to religious doctrine. One can't be "equal" and submissive to the will of another all at the same time. These are mutually exclusive ideas. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marylou Posted June 5, 2009 Author Share Posted June 5, 2009 I'm a pretty fast reader. I'd never heard of the man. Kind of wish I hadn't. But anyone can follow the link and read the stuff on the web-site and get a very clear picture of the "anti-egalitarian" message John Piper is trying to spread. And I'll fight him on the beaches, and on the landing grounds, and in the hills, and the fields, and in the streets, and shall never surrender! Apologies to Winston Churchill :D Bill And you will definitely dislike his newest book, This Momentary Marriage, and you would never, ever join his 23,000+ fans on Facebook :D . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 And you will definitely dislike his newest book, This Momentary Marriage, and you would never, ever join his 23,000+ fans on Facebook :D . What you say is incontestably true :D Bill (who's realizing he could play this authoritarian in the home thing to his advantage.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BMW Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 Thanks, everyone! I appreciate comments on both sides of the issues and find it very interesting to agree with Bill so much on part of this... and still I wouldn't let my dd co-ed wrestle. When you get away from the wrestling question, which we all have opinions about... you are left with the male/female struggle underneath it all. I believe that any religious teaching that enables men to have perceived power (and real power) over the woman is inappropriate and I am a fairly conservative Christian. I grew up in a group that taught women to submit to men and not question them. I grew up taught that divorce is wrong. I enabled my exhusband to abuse his children and myself for many years, believing that if I just prayed and honored dh, God would work it all out. Hogwash. Women need to think for themselves and do what is right because they KNOW how to think and make decisions. I believe that if there is a standoff in a marriage relationship/family decision and it has nothing to do with an illegal or immoral decision, the couple should postpone the decision until they can work through an agreement that both of them are comfortable with... and if that is not possible and a decision has to be made, then the man should make the decision after considering his duty to be understanding and loving towards his wife. This is a hard thing. But, teaching women that they are to simply obey or that a man has the final say always, is setting her up for possible abuse. I can see where wrestling is a sport. I have a son who wrestles. I have a daughter who is one tough little gal and HATES being told that a decision is being made "because she is a girl". But, I don't find youth to be very mature in school settings (where we've encountered wrestling) and my son has firsthand experienced the wrestling (public school) sport and hears what boys say and think about... so, for us, it's a no for our girl to co-ed wrestle. Boys just aren't that mature. And if your group of wrestlers IS, that is great... and I don't mind you making that choice. But, our choice to have our girl not wrestle in this way is NOT connected to male/female roles or who is supposed to submit to who... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cricket Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 Not "by force". By the voluntary submission of one person to another on the basis of their genders. Re-enforced by appeals to religious doctrine. One can't be "equal" and submissive to the will of another all at the same time. These are mutually exclusive ideas. Bill So if you go along with a decision your wife makes even if you don't necessarily agree with it (in essence submitting to her decision), you are no longer equal to her? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jorsay Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 I can see where wrestling is a sport. I have a son who wrestles. I have a daughter who is one tough little gal and HATES being told that a decision is being made "because she is a girl". But, I don't find youth to be very mature in school settings (where we've encountered wrestling) and my son has firsthand experienced the wrestling (public school) sport and hears what boys say and think about... so, for us, it's a no for our girl to co-ed wrestle. Boys just aren't that mature. And if your group of wrestlers IS, that is great... and I don't mind you making that choice. But, our choice to have our girl not wrestle in this way is NOT connected to male/female roles or who is supposed to submit to who... Your implication is that the boys who wrestle girls speak sexually about wrestling them. I don't believe that is what you mean, but it is implied in what you are saying. Could you please clarify and be specific if that is what you are saying. I have been a highschool wrestler and coach and been around highschool wrestling for a while. Although I would have expected to hear such comments, I have never heard a coment like that made by a boy wrestler about a girl wrestler unless, perhaps, he doesn't wrestle her. It seems like actually wrestling the girl allows her to earn the boys respect. Of course there are none wrestlers who don't respect the sport or the wrestlers and they say all kinds of things, but among the wrestlers, I would say the girls are respected as human beings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jugglin'5 Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 (edited) I believe that any religious teaching that enables men to have perceived power (and real power) over the woman is inappropriate and I am a fairly conservative Christian. I grew up in a group that taught women to submit to men and not question them. I grew up taught that divorce is wrong. I enabled my exhusband to abuse his children and myself for many years, believing that if I just prayed and honored dh, God would work it all out. Hogwash. Women need to think for themselves and do what is right because they KNOW how to think and make decisions. I believe that if there is a standoff in a marriage relationship/family decision and it has nothing to do with an illegal or immoral decision, the couple should postpone the decision until they can work through an agreement that both of them are comfortable with... and if that is not possible and a decision has to be made, then the man should make the decision after considering his duty to be understanding and loving towards his wife. This is a hard thing. But, teaching women that they are to simply obey or that a man has the final say always, is setting her up for possible abuse. I can see where wrestling is a sport. I have a son who wrestles. I have a daughter who is one tough little gal and HATES being told that a decision is being made "because she is a girl". But, I don't find youth to be very mature in school settings (where we've encountered wrestling) and my son has firsthand experienced the wrestling (public school) sport and hears what boys say and think about... so, for us, it's a no for our girl to co-ed wrestle. Boys just aren't that mature. And if your group of wrestlers IS, that is great... and I don't mind you making that choice. But, our choice to have our girl not wrestle in this way is NOT connected to male/female roles or who is supposed to submit to who... The submission thing got brought up by a proponent of male /female wrestling, not an opponent. It was never suggested that the reason that girls shouldn't competitively wrestle against boys is that they should submit to men. That was brought up later as a red herring. Edited June 5, 2009 by Jugglin'5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Impish Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 Not "by force". By the voluntary submission of one person to another on the basis of their genders. Re-enforced by appeals to religious doctrine. One can't be "equal" and submissive to the will of another all at the same time. These are mutually exclusive ideas. Bill To quote Bill Cosby, "Anyone who says "My wife and I are completely equal partners," is talking about either a law firm or a hand of bridge" No two people are complete equals in anything. I have superior skills in some areas to my husband, and so he could be considered 'submissive' to me in those areas, because he steps back and gives me free reign, without questioning in those areas...which include our finances. My husband has superior skills to me in other areas, so I am 'submissive' to him in those, stepping back and allowing him to run the show in those areas. We are very blessed, to have found in each other a spouse that complements our strengths and weaknesses so readily. That being said, my husband is viewed as being the larger authority in the home. Does he order me about? *snicker* No, because he's afraid of the consequences of such an attempt. He's not stupid just cause he married me, just a wee bit nuts. Or an adrenaline junkie, take your pick ;) We are a team, but I do accept him as the head of the household, because SOMEONE has gotta lead. After being a single mom for years, frankly its nice not to be the one in command :lol: I appreciate it not being all on me...Its not all on him either, as we make decisions together, but at the same time, I generally prefer to follow his lead. I'm the researcher. I get all the info possible, lay out all the info, scenarios, point out what *I* think is the best option, and we discuss. 99.9% of the time, its what I picked as the best option anyways, but I do give him the final say. It works for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5sons Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 I will only be commenting once. God created man first. He made woman for man out of man. (I know, I know you disagree...your belief does not make it untrue) Woman was deceived and disobeyed God first and man followed. Sin entered into the world and God cursed the ground. In this curse woman would be put under her own husband, but she would ultimately want to rule him. In this culture women want to rule over men. Playing there sports is one way to do this. All of the other problems stem from this. Everything works better when done the way God wants. (Speaking of the ultimate creator God of the Bible who sent his Son to die for all our sin.) Kristen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnotherE Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 The submission thing got brought up by a proponent of male /female wrestling' date=' not an opponent. It was never suggested that reason that girls shouldn't competitively wrestle against boys is that they should submit to men. That was brought up later as a red herring.[/quote'] I suppose that is referring to me. The basic premise of the blog was allowing boys to wrestle against girls would send us back to prehistoric days where men would beat women. Sorry, but I found that hard to swallow and completely illogical. Perfectly well-behaved young men raised in Godly families suddenly resorting to violence against women because they participated in a co-ed wrestling match? That is obviously not the real issue. So I explored the site further to see what their agenda was and came to my own conclusion on what the real threat would be. Perhaps if the author had been more upfront about his true intent with the blog (which could, admittedly, be different from my understanding), there wouldn't be confusion to his real concern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs.MacGyver Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 :iagree: I guess that is what gets me upset about this whole thing. It's that a boy gets penalized for not wanting to wrestle a girl. They are being told to just deal with it. A choice between losing or wrestling the girl anyway doesn't seem like much of a choice. If there would be a way of settling the issue without penalizing the boy, that would be better! I am not sure that I want to get back into this again because I think that we must come from very different experience/backgrounds, and I feel like people are starting to take this all personally or something. But, I just relate this situation to the military (from my experience). Going through bootcamp and serving alongside men and a lot of boys, I do see that some boys can be uncomfortable with working in a very physical environment alongside women. But they don't get the choice to opt out...they must "deal with it." My husband is a pilot and has had to fly with females and spend days out in the field with women. Both of these are very intimate situations, yet he must deal with it. I should also say that for the most part in our combined experiences both with female wrestlers and female military members (of which I was one) - they are stellar performers, and strong women, so maybe "dealing with it" - for us, is not the case. At any rate - for our family, we believe that our boys can and will be strong enough in every way to learn these kind of lessons from an early age on. I would let them wrestle a girl, as I would hope that they would respect a women in the workplace in the future. (And please - I am not in any way insinuating that your boys wouldn't - I am just trying to objectively show another viewpoint). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnotherE Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 In this culture women want to rule over men. Playing there sports is one way to do this. All of the other problems stem from this. Kristen Thank you. This is exactly what I thought was behind the article. Honesty is refreshing even if I vehemently disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BMW Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 Okay... to clarify my post regarding my son wrestling and hearing what boys have to say about girls body parts... He says that in his 8th grade experience the boys were never told or instructed how to behave towards the girls. It was never brought up. The girls who wrestled were simply wrestlers. Period. There was never any talk of respecting or treating the girls... they weren't "girls". They were wrestlers. No discussion. My son just related to me that in the wrestling arena... locker rooms... gyms... he has never heard a boy make a comment regarding a girl's body or role or any intimate feeling towards a girl when in contact during wrestling that has any connection whatsoever to do with wrestling. I questioned him pretty thoroughly (in a friendly way... my teens and I talk about all this stuff and trust me... we have some very open, honest talks about intimate things...). What he did say, though, was that when NOT around the sport, boys have plenty to say about girls body parts and intimacy and touching... it seems that the youth know that it is just not okay to discuss those things related to this sport. My teen girls also mention that boys talk specifically, openly (without adults nearby) about girls private parts... So, because this immaturity and fascination... I don't want my girls reaching between the boys legs and the boys aren't going to reach around or between my girls legs... And I have enjoyed wrestling tournaments and appreciate the sport and agree that families should be able to choose whether or not they want to do these things... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scrappyhappymama Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 In a democratic republic we get to vote on our representatives. There is choice. Leaders are not anointed with authority on the basis of their gender (although we till have a long way to go in that department). And we have limits on power. This other model is authoritarianism in the home. Bill I got a pretty big vote on who I chose to marry. In fact it was 1-0. :D If someone believes in the biblical model of the husband leading his home, then it is pretty important that singles put a lot of thought into that decision. My parents raised me with this understanding and we are raising our children the same way. A lot of emphasis is put on a woman submitting to her husband and showing him respect, but many folks do not realize how great a responsibility is put on the husband to be a worthy, loving leader of his family. His power is limited by his own submission to Christ. No one is given all the burden or all the responsibility and no accountability. Not "by force". By the voluntary submission of one person to another on the basis of their genders. Re-enforced by appeals to religious doctrine. One can't be "equal" and submissive to the will of another all at the same time. These are mutually exclusive ideas. Bill I respectfully disagree with you here Bill. It is possible to be both equal and submissive. In fact, being superior and being submissive are not even mutually exclusive. As an example, my Lord who is deity willingly came to the earth and submitted Himself to be sacrificed on my behalf. It is his example of love and humility that HUSBANDS are told to emulate toward their wives. Yes, to love them to the point of being willing to die for them. I know quite a few non-Christian or even non-religious folks, both men and women who would willingly die for their spouse or their child. Are they somehow less equal as a human being for that level of love? As a wife, I CHOOSE to submit myself to the authority of my husband in our marriage. It does not make me a less equal human being. In fact, the biblical teaching is exactly the opposite: that gender, age, race have no bearing on the worth of a person in the sight of God. Willingly submitting to the authority of another is not the same thing as giving up my human rights to respect and dignity. My children are wonderful, beautiful little human beings worthy of the same consideration and respect as any other member of society. And yet, I expect them to submit to my authority as their parent during this season of their life. We even raise them to serve others willingly and cheerfully. Not to think they have to do what others say because they are somehow inferior, but rather to in humility choose to serve others because they are no better than them. I'm not too good to serve my husband. He makes a lot of personal sacrifices and serves our family everyday. It's a pleasure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jorsay Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 In this curse woman would be put under her own husband, but she would ultimately want to rule him. Kristen Are you saying that you obey your husband because you are cursed by God? If God made woman for man, it seems he intended to have woman obey man from the beginning. Why bring the curse part into it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionfamily1999 Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 I am not sure that I want to get back into this again because I think that we must come from very different experience/backgrounds, and I feel like people are starting to take this all personally or something. But, I just relate this situation to the military (from my experience). Going through bootcamp and serving alongside men and a lot of boys, I do see that some boys can be uncomfortable with working in a very physical environment alongside women. But they don't get the choice to opt out...they must "deal with it." My husband is a pilot and has had to fly with females and spend days out in the field with women. Both of these are very intimate situations, yet he must deal with it. I should also say that for the most part in our combined experiences both with female wrestlers and female military members (of which I was one) - they are stellar performers, and strong women, so maybe "dealing with it" - for us, is not the case. At any rate - for our family, we believe that our boys can and will be strong enough in every way to learn these kind of lessons from an early age on. I would let them wrestle a girl, as I would hope that they would respect a women in the workplace in the future. (And please - I am not in any way insinuating that your boys wouldn't - I am just trying to objectively show another viewpoint). I just can't stay away.... This is why I am so upset that someone would push people to keep their sons from wrestling a girl. This lady, whom I have quoted, worked HARD to get where she was in the military. She deserves the same amount of respect and an equal footing with men of her same rank. She's done the work, she has earned it. The female wrestler has worked to get where she is and she deserves the same things. In the ring, or whatever it's called, she is no longer "she," the same way this lady is no longer a lady ;). One is a soldier, the other, a wrestler and they should be treated as such regardless of whatever bias someone may have against them. As for not penalizing the boys who refuse... why not? They refused to participate. If it's a matter of principle, then they should happily take their "loss" and wear it like the mighty badge of honor it must be. "I refused to compete with a girl." Good for them. They stood by their principles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HRAAB Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 So if you go along with a decision your wife makes even if you don't necessarily agree with it (in essence submitting to her decision), you are no longer equal to her? Going along with a spouse's decision from a place of freedom, rather than accepting a spouse's decision because that is what your role demands, are two different things - as I see it. Janet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jorsay Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 Okay... to clarify my post regarding my son wrestling and hearing what boys have to say about girls body parts... He says that in his 8th grade experience the boys were never told or instructed how to behave towards the girls. It was never brought up. The girls who wrestled were simply wrestlers. Period. There was never any talk of respecting or treating the girls... they weren't "girls". They were wrestlers. No discussion. My son just related to me that in the wrestling arena... locker rooms... gyms... he has never heard a boy make a comment regarding a girl's body or role or any intimate feeling towards a girl when in contact during wrestling that has any connection whatsoever to do with wrestling. I questioned him pretty thoroughly (in a friendly way... my teens and I talk about all this stuff and trust me... we have some very open, honest talks about intimate things...). What he did say, though, was that when NOT around the sport, boys have plenty to say about girls body parts and intimacy and touching... it seems that the youth know that it is just not okay to discuss those things related to this sport. My teen girls also mention that boys talk specifically, openly (without adults nearby) about girls private parts... So, because this immaturity and fascination... I don't want my girls reaching between the boys legs and the boys aren't going to reach around or between my girls legs... And I have enjoyed wrestling tournaments and appreciate the sport and agree that families should be able to choose whether or not they want to do these things... Thanks for clarifying. Wrestling has done so much for my son, I really want to protect its image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ciyates Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 : To quote Bill Cosby, "Anyone who says "My wife and I are completely equal partners," is talking about either a law firm or a hand of bridge" No two people are complete equals in anything. I have superior skills in some areas to my husband, and so he could be considered 'submissive' to me in those areas, because he steps back and gives me free reign, without questioning in those areas...which include our finances. My husband has superior skills to me in other areas, so I am 'submissive' to him in those, stepping back and allowing him to run the show in those areas. We are very blessed, to have found in each other a spouse that complements our strengths and weaknesses so readily. That being said, my husband is viewed as being the larger authority in the home. Does he order me about? *snicker* No, because he's afraid of the consequences of such an attempt. He's not stupid just cause he married me, just a wee bit nuts. Or an adrenaline junkie, take your pick ;) We are a team, but I do accept him as the head of the household, because SOMEONE has gotta lead. After being a single mom for years, frankly its nice not to be the one in command :lol: I appreciate it not being all on me...Its not all on him either, as we make decisions together, but at the same time, I generally prefer to follow his lead. I'm the researcher. I get all the info possible, lay out all the info, scenarios, point out what *I* think is the best option, and we discuss. 99.9% of the time, its what I picked as the best option anyways, but I do give him the final say. It works for us. :iagree: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marylou Posted June 5, 2009 Author Share Posted June 5, 2009 (edited) What you say is incontestably true :D Bill (who's realizing he could play this authoritarian in the home thing to his advantage.) And sticking around here reminds me that I should reread his Don't Waste Your Life ;) www.dontwasteyourlife.com Edited June 5, 2009 by dmmosher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marylou Posted June 5, 2009 Author Share Posted June 5, 2009 The basic premise of the blog was allowing boys to wrestle against girls would send us back to prehistoric days where men would beat women. I saw the basic premise of the article as (quote) Be a leader, dad. Your sons need you. The peer pressure is huge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pqr Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 They want, no expect, women to be subservient to men. And try to enforce this anti-egalitarianism though appeal to their interpretation of religious scripture. Any difference between their attitudes and those of the Taliban are purely cultural. Once you say "God instructs that women shall be second-class", you have crossed the rubicon. So the Taliban demands burkas, and some other group demands denim-jumpers, but the mentality is exactly the same. Bill For crying out loud, are you deliberately trying to be obtuse? I do not necessarily agree with some of the positions of the CBMW but to compare them to the Taliban is outrageous. Let's see... you draw a comparison between "burkas" and "denim jumpers"...fine. You argue that the difference is purely cultural....fine. Now let me see your comparison between legalized gang r*pe of 12 year olds as authorized by the Taliban. How about stoning for r*pe victims, suicide bombings, torture of political opponents, now let me hear how "the mentality is exactly the same." Just what is the cultural equivalent to stoning a r*pe victim? How is there any relation between the mentality of a man who would do this and someone who believes... how did the web site put it... oh yes they believe "that men and women are equal in the image of God, but maintain complementary differences in role and function. In the home, men lovingly are to lead their wives and family as women intelligently are to submit to the leadership of their husbands." Many may disagree with the CBMW, but it takes a wild leap to compare that to the Taliban's beliefs. The Taliban advocate outrages, they kill, murder, brutalize, torture...you know this and yet you actually attempt a cheap shot and compare CBMW to the Taliban. You rely on the false illusion that your obvious knowledge and education mean that the rest of us cannot see when you are making illogical arguments. As someone who loves Churchill quotes, I leave you with this one “There is no doubt that it is around the family and the home that all the greatest virtues, the most dominating virtues of human society, are created, strengthened and maintained.†Despite the peccadilloes of his mother, Churchill was still a believer in traditional roles and would probably have been closer to the beliefs of the CBMW than to yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pqr Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 I don't think it is outrageous to compare it to the Taliban at all. Many of their "controls" are touted as protecting women. Comparing the two is like comparing apples and lawn chairs. Talk to someone who has been over there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jugglin'5 Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 I agree the Taliban is less subtle. However, there are religious groups even here in the US that except for outright killing women, aren't so far off from them. :001_rolleyes: I knew when this thread started that it would just be a matter of time before "Perhaps it is not wise to let your barely dressed son grapple with a barely dressed girl in a physically aggressive way", devolved to "John Piper and other non-feminists are devils". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pqr Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 I agree the Taliban is less subtle. However, there are religious groups even here in the US that except for outright killing women, aren't so far off from them. Well, you can not say "except for the outright killing" and then maintain a reasonable argument. Brutal murder is a defining aspect of the Taliban. Even so just which religious group, affiliated with the CBMW, will not allow girls to learn to read? Which one believes that gang r*ape is a reasonable punsihment for an innocent child? Which one? I would really like to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jugglin'5 Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 Well, you can not say "except for the outright killing" and then maintain a reasonable argument. Brutal murder is a defining aspect of the Taliban. Even so just which religious group, affiliated with the CBMW, will not allow girls to learn to read? Which one believes that gang r*ape is a reasonable punsihment for an innocent child? Which one? I would really like to know. Why, just the other day, a Baptist church in town threw acid on a girl's face because she tried to go to Baylor. :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts