Talibaptism

[evildave]

http://www.news-journal.com/news/content/news/ap_story.html/National/AP.V4102.AP-Missionaries-Re.html


The Southern Baptist Convention has told its overseas missionaries they have until May 5 to affirm the denomination's revised statement of faith--a document that opposes female pastors and says wives should submit to their husbands--or they could be fired.


http://www.baptist.org/Baptists&News/SBC_2000_020.htm

..The SBC's revised statement of faith says women should not lead congregations, but does not say whether they should be ordained. It reads: "While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture." About 100 female clergy are leading Southern Baptist congregations, according to news reports.

...The statement on women pastors risks a wider split in the denomination, which is becoming increasingly fractured between conservatives and moderates.

...The policy change comes two years after the denomination said a wife should submit herself "to the servant leadership of her husband."


How long until they have them wear total body cover and never come out in the day time?

It's probably a good thing from the Southern Baptist perspective that we worry about "women's rights" overseas. It keeps us looking away from where they're most threatened: Here.

[Fade]

How long until they have them wear total body cover and never come out in the day time?

Last I looked religion was something which you submit too.

If your religion says you must wear such and such, or you must not hold whatever job, and you don't like that, then simply leave. You can't force freedom onto people. If they want to live under a system that *I* think is oppressive, then so be it, it's not my place to say anything.

Now, if it comes to a woman wanting to escape this and being denied, I'd definitely support intervention.

[evildave]

Ahh, I can hear the violins playin' already.

Tell me, when a woman is a Baptist, her whole family's Baptists, her kids and husband are Baptist, and they all think this is really the most important thing in the world, how many women will have the spine to threaten to dump their "Promise Keeper" husband over a "little technicality" like this?

They waited two years from the "submit to your husband" clause until adding the "no leadership" clause.

They can just take it all away by degrees, over a few decades. Then for the ones who lost everything, it will be too late to cry over spilled milk. And as for the youg ones, well, they grew up with the new rules, so they don't know the difference. Especially when the rules about not sending girls to college, and "home schooling" the balance to be little more than vacuous slaves to their godly, powerful husbands come into effect.

Hey! I know, maybe they can do like the Chinese used to, and bind their feet! That's sort of thing is at least thirty years down the line, naturally. I'm sure the Baptist convention is taking suggestions by now.

[Baker]

Originally posted by evildave
http://www.news-journal.com/news/content/news/ap_story.html/National/AP.V4102.AP-Missionaries-Re.html



http://www.baptist.org/Baptists&News/SBC_2000_020.htm


How long until they have them wear total body cover and never come out in the day time?

It's probably a good thing from the Southern Baptist perspective that we worry about "women's rights" overseas. It keeps us looking away from where they're most threatened: Here.

That’s why we have separation of church and state unlike Middle Eastern nations.
Which or governed by the Koran and Islamic belief’s.

[evildave]

So tell me, what's the difference between Islamic people treating women like property, and Christian people treating women like property?

(Unless you're just being ironic.)

In both cases, a "sacred scripture" tells them so.

In both cases, we have them lobbying their respective governments to put "MORE GOD" into their governments.

In both cases, the women are degraded.

Of course, I may be over-reacting. Maybe women want to be treated like property. It's the woman's decision whether she pull sthe plug on ALL of her family and relationships and starts a new life from utter scratch with no social support at all, after all.

[Baker]

Originally posted by evildave
So tell me, what's the difference between Islamic people treating women like property, and Christian people treating women like property?

In the US they are not forced by law to treat women like property in Islamic country's they are big difference.


In both cases, a "sacred scripture" tells them so.

In both cases, we have them lobbying their respective governments to put "MORE GOD" into their governments.

In Islamic governments I don't think it is possible to put, more god in their governments then is already there.


In both cases, the women are degraded.

Of course, I may be over-reacting. Maybe women want to be treated like property. It's the woman's decision whether she pull sthe plug on ALL of her family and relationships and starts a new life from utter scratch with no social support at all, after all.

Look at this article and tell me if it's the same problem that we have in the US?
http://hrw.org/editorials/2002/women0822.htm

[evildave]

Of course it isn't as bad as all of that YET. That's the point.

As the old proverb goes,


How do you make a man eat an elephant?

A bite at a time.


Introduce one new little "suggestion" at a time. Let it sink in. Get them used to it. Then add the next, and repeat.

Stay with and MIND your husband or you're committin' a crime agin' GAWD!

Women folk shouldn't be leadin' a prayer! That's a MAN'S job!

Scripturally speaking, slavery is good and right, if only properly regulated. If it takes a slave at least three days to die from your beating, you're blameless.

Maybe that'll come out of the Baptist Convention 2035, when they try to get slavery legalized. After all, when they've succeeded in getting women's suffrage turned around, and made all forms of contraception illegal (besides stoning "adulteresses") they'll need to lighten up and get some things made legal again.

"Here, just wear this black bag with this little mesh window. It'll protect you from UV and skeeters! ... You don' like it...? MIND ME, WOMAN and PUT IT ON!"

[stamenflicker]

ED,

It's probably a good thing from the Southern Baptist perspective that we worry about "women's rights" overseas. It keeps us looking away from where they're most threatened: Here.

You hit on my personal pet peeve with Baptists. I graduated from what was once a very liberal (i.e. progressive) Baptist seminary. About half way through my studies, votes shifted the seminary's academic Board from progressive to conservative Evangelical. They elected a highly conservative President for the school. One of the first things he did was ask all faculty to sign a document stating they agreed that women should not be in the ministry. About 1/3 of the staff pretty much up and left, such a mass exodus that the school almost lost its accreditation.

As students, we did what we could, but their fate was pretty much sealed. In protest, I graduated with duct tape on my mouth and with bound hands. It didn't do much but embarrass my folks, but at least I felt better...

I find this push in the Baptist community to be nothing short of sickening.

Flick

[evildave]

Alas, I feel for your plight.

There's nothing like having outspoken "spokespeople" speak "for" you in a manner you detest.

Southern Baptist Convention output is just too rich to leave alone. There is just more (and occasionally more entertaining) foot-in-mouth disease from there than from most sources.

[Fade]

In this country you can choose not to live as a slave to your husband.

I feel -no- pity for women who are proferred and refuse help. If they want to live their lives as objects, then I am not going to interfere. That's the nice thing about the US. The government will not step in and keep your religion from conducting itself in any way you see fit.

[shecky]

Don't you just hate when religions get all weird on you? :p

[Jethro]

Originally posted by evildave
Tell me, when a woman is a Baptist, her whole family's Baptists, her kids and husband are BaptistReminds me of a joke:

So there's this revival. The preacher in charge happened to be Baptist and he's kinda badmouthing Methodists for while. Then he asked if there were any Baptists in the crowd. The majorit of the crowd cheers. He then asks if there were any Methodists in the crowd. A few people cheer, including one little old lady right up at the front of the stage. The preacher asks her why she was a Methodist. She replies "Well, my parents were Methodist, their parents were Methodist, and their parents were Methodist, so I suppose that makes me a Methodist." The preacher replies "well suppose your parents were Baptist, thier parents were Baptist, and their parents were Baptist, what would that make you?"

"I suppose that would make me an idiot."

[Jethro]

Originally posted by Fade
In this country you can choose not to live as a slave to your husband.

I feel -no- pity for women who are proferred and refuse help. If they want to live their lives as objects, then I am not going to interfere. That's the nice thing about the US. The government will not step in and keep your religion from conducting itself in any way you see fit. Just like you can choose to not be a Scientologist or a Jehova's Witness? Let's face it, for people who are in cults and many "mainstream" religions, simply leaving is not an easy option.

There's a fine line between promoting "womanly virtue" and saying that women should be utterly and completely subordinate to men. Any group that crosses that line should be criticized, rather than saying "well, it's not my problem. Anyone who doesn't like that can leave if they want to." I'm pretty commie-pinko, but I can't stand moral relativism. There may not be any one "right" answer, but there are plenty of "wrong" ones, and those "wrong" answers should be pointed out as such, especially to the ones in error.

EDIT: Oh, and just to clarify, I don't think that the government, per se, should be the one to make that criticism, just that it should be made by someone.

[Peter Jenkins]

In this country you can choose not to live as a slave to your husband.

I feel -no- pity for women who are proferred and refuse help. If they want to live their lives as objects, then I am not going to interfere. That's the nice thing about the US. The government will not step in and keep your religion from conducting itself in any way you see fit.

For some reason, this story immediately reminded me of an article that I read about the Children of God (http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/Family.html), led by David 'Mo' Berg.
The children of God started off in the early 60's as a happy-clappy offshoot of mainstream christianity. By the 70's the church was using young converts to get new members using prostitution as a recruitment tool.
Religious convert to prostitute is a big leap but, of course, it didn't happen overnight. changes in doctrine happened slowly, people were tied into a way of life. Then they were encouraged to accept a little change, and another, and another.
"I feel -no- pity for women who are"............... unstable, deluded, misguided, bullied mentally abused?
Peter

[Upchurch]

Semi-relevant. (http://www.msnbc.com/comics/editorial_content.asp?sFile=tmate030424)

[Fade]

Just like you can choose to not be a Scientologist or a Jehova's Witness?

Oh please, the Baptists aren't anything like the Jehovahs Witnesses, and NOBODY is as destructively evil as the Scientologists.

Let's face it, for people who are in cults and many "mainstream" religions, simply leaving is not an easy option.

It's ALWAYS AN OPTION. People that refuse to take it have only themselves the blame. The government WILL protect you against freaky cults. You can also simply refuse to marry another one of them, and thus break the cycle.

There's a fine line between promoting "womanly virtue" and saying that women should be utterly and completely subordinate to men.

I don't care WHAT values people are preaching. As long as it's all consensual it's not any of my (or yours) business what they do.

Any group that crosses that line should be criticized, rather than saying "well, it's not my problem. Anyone who doesn't like that can leave if they want to."

Too bad that's only one part of the issue. Too bad you aren't thinking through all parts of this issue. Horning in on one aspect belays the likely truth that you are letting your emotions rule your thought processes. I am not going to get myself up in a fit of rage and demand these people be controlled by the government. If it comes to abuse, i'll support any action to break it up if somebody asks for help. But, I am not going to dictate to people how they ought to live. Why have we all the sudden forgot that this country is based on ideals of freedom? Why have we all the sudden started believing that the masses should live in the way we dictate they ought too?

It's supremely ironic, given the title of this thread.

I'm pretty commie-pinko, but I can't stand moral relativism. There may not be any one "right" answer, but there are plenty of "wrong" ones, and those "wrong" answers should be pointed out as such, especially to the ones in error.

Perhaps when you mature a bit you will learn that there Right and Wrong are personal ideals. There is no such thing as something that is objectively wrong. There are things which most people don't agree with, but nothing is set in stone. This type of unyielding moralizing is how people like Falwell (haha, more irony) get so popular.

EDIT: Oh, and just to clarify, I don't think that the government, per se, should be the one to make that criticism, just that it should be made by someone.

You are free to criticize all you like. Be careful not to start advocating intervention without just cause.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by evildave
So tell me, what's the difference between Islamic people treating women like property, and Christian people treating women like property?

(Unless you're just being ironic.)

In both cases, a "sacred scripture" tells them so.

In both cases, we have them lobbying their respective governments to put "MORE GOD" into their governments.

In both cases, the women are degraded.

Of course, I may be over-reacting. Maybe women want to be treated like property. It's the woman's decision whether she pull sthe plug on ALL of her family and relationships and starts a new life from utter scratch with no social support at all, after all.

I hate to be defending theists but her goes...

The difference is that in most of those countries the treatment of women is codifed into law.

You may have a point about it being relly hard for a woman in our culture to break away from bieng treated like property but she still has the option if she chooses to take it. In Islamic countries she doesn't, not legally anyway .

[Yahzi]

Fade
Of course it is always an option, but it's not always a viable or realistic option.

People don't make bad choices in a vaccum, and while we will never stop all the stupid decisions, we can influence them heavily.

If you have a lot of young, underemployed, uneducated men, you will have a high crime rate. If you have a lot of young, underempolyed, uneducated women, you will have a high spousal abuse rate (and a high birth rate!).

I agree that personal responsiblity is primary, but social responsibility is well above the negligible or trivial.

[Nyarlathotep]

True, but what are you going to do, one can change a law. You can't really change someone elses culture, cultures can only change from within. All you can do is present them with other options and hope that they change it themselves

[Ruby]

Originally posted by evildave
So tell me, what's the difference between Islamic people treating women like property, and Christian people treating women like property?

To me, there is not much difference. I don't think Christian women are treated as poorly as Islamic women....but they are certainly on their way.

In both cases, a "sacred scripture" tells them so.

Actually, this is yet another instance of scriptures being misinterpreted. There are lots of Christians, myself included, who hold an egalitarian view...believing men and women are totally equal and created to live in this equalness.


In both cases, the women are degraded.

It is a very unfair stance too. I used to belong to a non-denominational church that taught very strongly about women not holding positions of leadership like Pastor, and women submitting to men, and women only being allowed to teach to women. This teaching nearly ruined our marriage. My hubby had it drummed into him that I had to submit or be considered *rebellious*. So, when I started having panic attacks while driving and getting phobic about being in our church, my poor hubby started telling me I had to go to church events etc., or be going against his *headship* over me and be considered in rebellion. This caused me to shut down even more.

My hubby thought the teaching was right, but could not understand why it was not working in our instance. He had to back off for the sake of our marriage.

Eventually, we ended up in a very egalitarian church. We began looking into the bible and reading other books that turned our entire thinking around. My hubby was SO changed by this. His entire outlook on women changed. He began to love sitting under the teaching of a woman as much as a man. He began looking at women as equals and not as property or in any way inferior. This has made such an impact on his life as we was even raised with the impression of women submittng and men being over the woman.

Of course, I may be over-reacting. Maybe women want to be treated like property. It's the woman's decision whether she pull sthe plug on ALL of her family and relationships and starts a new life from utter scratch with no social support at all, after all. [/B]

Most Christian women who are under the teaching of having to submit to their husbands and look to their husbands as King and priest, are pretty much blinded by it. It's almost a form of brainwashing. Most would argue and say that they are not treated like property. Most would say they are equal, even though their husband has final authority on everything. They would also profess to be very happy and fulfilled in this role of being submissive...but it's not true. If, and when, they come out from such teaching, they feel freed. It's only then they feel they were duped and blinded...unable to see the truth. I guess that's why I feel it's important that the egalitarian teaching gets out as much as possible throughout churches.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Fade
[B]

Last I looked religion was something which you submit too.

Many things require being submitted. *Submission* is not bad in itself. I mean, if you have a boss, you have to submit to him or get fired. As children, we have to submit to our parents. I also think a husband and wife should submit to each other...but equally!

:D

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Peter Jenkins


For some reason, this story immediately reminded me of an article that I read about the Children of God (http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/Family.html), led by David 'Mo' Berg.
The children of God started off in the early 60's as a happy-clappy offshoot of mainstream christianity. By the 70's the church was using young converts to get new members using prostitution as a recruitment tool.
Religious convert to prostitute is a big leap but, of course, it didn't happen overnight. changes in doctrine happened slowly, people were tied into a way of life. Then they were encouraged to accept a little change, and another, and another.
"I feel -no- pity for women who are"............... unstable, deluded, misguided, bullied mentally abused?
Peter

I have some very close and dear friends ( a married couple) who used to be in the "Children of God" cult. They spent many years as a part of that during the sixties...and I think into the 70's too. They now help others who are leaving or have left the group with making adjustments to life. My hubby also grew up in a religious cult-like community called *Highview*. I spent four years in a strict 1st United Pentecostal church where women could not wear make-up, pants or jewelry. This couple have done so much to help my hubby and speak into our lives. They were the ones who first presented the scriptural view to us of how women are equal to men.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
ED,

[B]It's probably a good thing from the Southern Baptist perspective that we worry about "women's rights" overseas. It keeps us looking away from where they're most threatened: Here.

You hit on my personal pet peeve with Baptists. I graduated from what was once a very liberal (i.e. progressive) Baptist seminary. About half way through my studies, votes shifted the seminary's academic Board from progressive to conservative Evangelical. They elected a highly conservative President for the school. One of the first things he did was ask all faculty to sign a document stating they agreed that women should not be in the ministry. About 1/3 of the staff pretty much up and left, such a mass exodus that the school almost lost its accreditation.

As students, we did what we could, but their fate was pretty much sealed. In protest, I graduated with duct tape on my mouth and with bound hands. It didn't do much but embarrass my folks, but at least I felt better...

***APPLAUSE***:D :D

[Dancing David]

Erk, this one is wierd, should there be 'house police' to make sure that people aren't abusing each other at home, no.
Should the state intervene and tell churches what to do, well only if they take federal money, then they follow the rules like everybody else (well except for the fact that the Supreme Court said they don't have to).

Should some bunch of babtists condem Islam for it's stance on women.
Should the Babtists declare that they are just following the wishes of thier congregations when they make them take these loyalty oaths.
Let us remember dear Bretheren why there are Southern babtists and how they thought slaves should submit to thier masters.
Is it okay that victims of domestic violence are told to submit, no.
Is it crazy to believe that any one can just 'walk away' from thier family and culture and so it is okay for that culture and family to be abusive. Yes.(My guess Fade is that your gender is male, or you would understand this difficulty)


Peace
dancing David
(PS evildave that is one great pun!)

[Fade]

Yahzi posted:
I agree that personal responsiblity is primary, but social responsibility is well above the negligible or trivial.

Show me a baptist reaching out their hand, asking for me to help them out of their situation, and I will help them.

I will not go into their home and tell them how to live their lives. It comes down to that, and only that. We don't live in a country where (theoretically) the government supports or suppresses religion. As much as it makes me snarl, I will not keep a parent from raising their child to be whatever religion they are, nor will I speak up against a community treating women as objects.

Ruby posted
Many things require being submitted. *Submission* is not bad in itself.

Er, sorry if I gave that impression, it's the closest term I could think of to what I am trying to say. I should have put "consensual" somewhere in there. In the US, it's very difficult to be forced into being some religion or other for very long, because there are always options open to you to leave, and you have legal recourse should anything bad happen to you. So, people who are baptists are baptists by choice. It has nothing to do with me.


A general plea:

We need to stop poking our fingers into other peoples lives!

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Fade


Show me a baptist reaching out their hand, asking for me to help them out of their situation, and I will help them.

I will not go into their home and tell them how to live their lives. It comes down to that, and only that. We don't live in a country where (theoretically) the government supports or suppresses religion. As much as it makes me snarl, I will not keep a parent from raising their child to be whatever religion they are, nor will I speak up against a community treating women as objects.

I do agree that no one should dictate to another how they should believe as far as religion goes. At the same time, if a person has a door into someone's elses life where abuse... whether physical, mental or Spiritual, is happening, I think they have the right to help. Spiritual abuse can be awful. I certainly would not make a campaign out of it, but if I could, I would speak out about certain issues to other Christians who I see being abused. Sometimes, it does help.


A general plea:

We need to stop poking our fingers into other peoples lives!

Poking our fingers in can be a way of saving them sometimes. I guess it just depends how we are poking.

[Fade]

I guess it just depends how we are poking.

That's the problem. Who is going to decide when and where to butt in? Who makes that decision?

Leave it up to the laws as they stand. If ACTUAL abuse (there is no such thing as spiritual abuse) happens, and it is a criminal act, then the police can step in. But not before.

[evildave]

Direct intervention isn't called for...

But certainly education is.

Nobody has to "disrespect" religion or attack Baptism or knock down people's doors or anything like that. Just make sure that young people understand that there is more than one church. There is more than one interpretation. There is more than one choice.

A wise person once said, "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance."*

This is not a call "to war" against Baptism. Just a little note to stay aware of what is going on.

It's very difficult to turn your life around once you've handed the wheel off to others. If people are brought up to be utterly dependant, they will tend to NEED that external control to stay "normal". To change one's direction utterly without first even knowing it CAN be changed is more than just difficult.

What irritates me more about religion than anything, is that people are encouraged never DECIDE what is best for themselves. Just submit.

For instance, it's nice that Ruby has decided that religion is what she wants. I applaud her for it. She didn't just roll over for a flavor she just happened to be stuck with.

People who don't examine their own lives and just live them by default, only repeating the patterns of their predecessors are too numerous.

People who elect to make it a policy to dissuade people from personal examination and growth are evil. Especially when it's for something as petty as personal power and/or aggrandizement. Unfortunately, so many never "elect" to do this. The role is laid out for them, and they play it because they never understand that there are other roles available. They lock themselves into these comfortable and nearly immutable habits, and make sure their children are securely locked in as well. In this case, the institution is evil for them.

Oh well, that sounds like so much "new age" clap-trap. Too much metaphor, too little content.

The point is, there are ways and ways. The disciplines I chose to live by are clearly not for most. If you grew up with strong religious ties that have that whole community support structure behind it, to leave that social web would seem utter madness. Even if it were only to change from one church to another fairly similar one across town.

I have things to value besides religion for religion's sake. As I've pointed out elsewhere, I can no more start believing in gods than others can stop. To attend church is only a practice in acting. I get nothing positive from it, and lots of negative. It's difficult to describe without dredging up nasty images. I suppose it could be likened to being the only one at a "Star Trek" convention who isn't "dressed up", or going to a "Rocky Horror Picture Show" and not knowing what the heck people have rice and water bottles for.


There are the horror stories as well. A friend of mine who was a Mormon left her religion, and was literally stalked and harrassed by members of her former church for months. This is not quite on the "extreme" scale that some religions will go to (i.e. "Kill the infidel!"), but perfectly legal religions in the U.S. routinely go WAY overboard in this manner. She left. Most of her friends from church became hostile strangers over-night. Anything social involving that church was cut off from her. She couldn't even talk to members of her own family for months. Fortunately, her parents forgave her. There are families that would utterly disown such a child. That's not exactly an *EASY* choice to make.

That's what those "submissive" women have to face. Not death. Just total isolation from a life bred to dependence.

Dependence on others for approval. Dependence on others to know what to feel "good" about. Dependence on others to to make decisions.

Dependence on others to make choices.

The shock of having off all of that support utterly cut off at once is traumatic. More than some (properly conditioned to be utterly dependent) can ever endure.

The chain is there. You can't see it. You can't feel it. You can't hear it. It's in their heads. Psychological chains can be thicker than you might suspect, especially if you've never tested them for yourself.

(*Variously attributed, possibly several people at about the same time, but whoever said it first was wise....)

[Dancing David]

I certainly hope that people doing this 'poking' use the proper protection! (Like a warrant)

Peace
dancing David

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Fade


That's the problem. Who is going to decide when and where to butt in? Who makes that decision?

Leave it up to the laws as they stand. If ACTUAL abuse (there is no such thing as spiritual abuse) happens, and it is a criminal act, then the police can step in. But not before.

I don't believe in butting into another's affairs unless there is an open door. You can *poke* if asked. There are also others ways of poking such as promoting certain books or engaging other Christians in debates. I have been on Christian forums where there are many open doors into discussing the issue of whether or not it is scriptural for a wife to be submissive. I have been able to *poke* on so many subjects..like the "Tithes" issue and have changed some people's mind on things.....especially the tithes thing.....which I believe is not only abused by Christians, but also is not supposed to be in practice...but that's another issue.

I would not walk into someone's home and start preaching. If I saw abuse....and yes, there is such a thing as Spiritual abuse as I've seen the victims of it and been one myself...I would do what I could to intervene. That would mean outright proof that someone I have a close relationship with has become involved in a cult. I would be very careful and gentle. If I am able to say a few things, it would be subtle. I could never pounce...that's not my character. If I met with fast resistance or sensed any sort of upset, I would drop the issue and not ever bring it up again unless they asked a question. That's just my approach.

[stamenflicker]

Nobody has to "disrespect" religion or attack Baptism or knock down people's doors or anything like that. Just make sure that young people understand that there is more than one church. There is more than one interpretation. There is more than one choice.

I truly think this is the only course of progress for religions of all flavors.

People who elect to make it a policy to dissuade people from personal examination and growth are evil. Especially when it's for something as petty as personal power and/or aggrandizement. Unfortunately, so many never "elect" to do this. The role is laid out for them, and they play it because they never understand that there are other roles available. They lock themselves into these comfortable and nearly immutable habits, and make sure their children are securely locked in as well. In this case, the institution is evil for them.

Brillant response evildave. We wont see eye-to-eye on too much, but I could never find an inch of disagreement here. It's unabashed, uncontrolled evil to limit knowledge.

Flick

[Ruby]

Originally posted by evildave
[B]Direct intervention isn't called for...

But certainly education is.

I agree. So many Christians are ill-informed and ill-taught. They live off the words of their preachers and never look for themselves to study something through. The fact that there is strong teaching for the egalitarian point of view with scripture to back it up is a totally new concept to many Christians. Women don't know who they really are...their worth. They live in the shadow of their husbands. In my former church, I had many single friends. A lot of the women said they wanted to remain single so that they did not have a husband that they had to *submit* to. A woman who questioned her husbands decisions or outright argued with him was considered rebellious and trying to be in *control*.

We were also taught that we had to submit to our husband's sexual wishes no matter how much we did not want to. ..Only if we were terribly ill could we refuse. So, headaches, PMS, depression etc., were not good excuses. Basically, they were encouraging wives to let their husbands rape them.

I went to a big ladies meeting in Dallas one time and the teaching was all about not being a woman of control. Almost all the women........hundreds of them.... flocked to the altar at the end of the message to pray for forgiveness for being a *woman of control*...merely because they had argued against a husbands final word on something...or even if they felt they could argue. My best friend was single and even she went forward!

[evildave]

Gosh, institutionalized rape?

How sweet.

And people thought the stories about Saddam's Ba'ath party were bad.