women, god and religion

by teejay 34 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  teejay

  I'm close to leaving this place, but before I go, I've been meaning to post this politically incorrect viewpoint. It's an extension of a conversation I had with my mother in law not long ago, a conversation which was itself an extension of several extensions of thought that I've had over the years about a number of things.

  Simply put, there are two kinds of people in our world. Those that believe the bible and those that don't. It's a simple statement that divides the whole world, but fairly. Face it: when it comes to the question of "did he or didn't he inspire?", there's no sitting on the fense. Either you do or you don't. Beleive, that is. I think I'm on safe ground so far.

  Either you believe that the HOLY BIBLE is inspired of god... a message to humanity... a love letter... whatever... or you don't.

  This post is for those that are bible believers. Or, bible believers who think they are and who are about to be exposed as something else. To me, the question isn't all that important. The answer *is*. Or only *might be*. Or... probably ain't, but, like everybody else, I'm adding my fluff to the board tonight before I go.
  --------

  here's the deal...

  The bible... I say the bible says that the man (the bible calls him adam) was made first and he lived alone for an indefinite length of time. Before he died, god's perfect creature finally got a clue, the clue being: he (adam) was alone; there was no other creatures of his "kind." [If there was ever a collective need for a "Duh", this was it. Yeah, adam, you're alone, you fool. What *else* is new?]

  Based on the chronology of one of the current self-appointed spokesmen for god, the time period of the first man's aloneness was at least 25 years. Sounds about right since I think it should be a felony for a man to do ANYTHING life-altering before he's thirty. However long it was, if the bible is true the "alone time" came to an end. God kicked in the second phase of his great plan and decreed that man needed a helper. A compliment.

  Now, bear in mind, this ain't teejay talkin'. God said it: Man was made first. Woman second, to... um... more or less finish him off. To "complete" HIM, the man.

  Which brings me to my point.

  If so many people, particularly females who have a peculiar proclivity toward god and his sayings, say they are believers, why is it that so many of them ALSO say that men should be trying to figure out what THEY--women--want/need/require?

  In a culture supposedly so steeped in Christianity, bible, word of god... shouldn't we see more women trying to figure out what the men in their lives want?

  Bye, y'all.
• 

  4skins

  Hi teejay,

  It's said,' that in politics everything is illusion'. It's my observation that western culture WAS Christian; it more resembles pagandon today. The gender differences which are supposed to place men and women 180 degrees apart, likening it to six o'clock, are closer to 20 past six. In other words men and women are androgynous, with women moving towards things once considered masculine rather than men moving towards things feminine. How we got to this situation, in my opinion, is twofold; one was gratis feminism. Feminism, primarily, is a political movement within the liberal or socialist camp. Freidan and Steinem were Marxists pressing a communist agenda. The disturbance seen between the genders is part of the general socialist agenda of family disintergration. The deplorable family and gender conditions in jaydubdom are little different from that of the general secular society. To say that it happened by accident is a grave mistake. The WTS is following the socialist agenda!
• 

  lauralisa

  Um, Teejay,

  Part of me wants to ask for someone to hold my hair as I lean over feeling heaves rise.

  Part of me wants you to know that I've really "heard" you these past few weeks.... you have having intense conflict; you are missing so much what you think you remember about "unity and friendship and belonging and family and community and ethics"...

  It is a dream we once thought we once had a dream about. If only it could be real..... hey, maybe it is real *whisper* maybe it is realllllllll

  Whatever or wherever you lean, it's your choice and cool with moi. Just please scrutinize whether you are making an "informed" decision, no matter what.

  L, lauralisa
• 

  jgnat

  Since Adam was the first man, and was made in the image both male and female, could Adam have been a she-male? Lets see... Adam, XY, Eve, XX. Adam has both male and female characteristics! So whats the trouble, men? Get in touch with your feminine side....

  Gen 1:26 - 31 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; ...And God created Man in his image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them... and God saw everything that he had made, and behold it was very good...the sixth day.
• 

  SixofNine

  Just goes to prove the point I always like to make (whether it is true or not): men and women are (almost) the same.

  Empowered, women pick and choose what they will adopt as doctrine. Empowered, women pick and choose what they will allow to alter their lives. Empowered, they will do so selfishly (I don't mean that in a bad way neccessarily, but rather a nuetral way).

  Just like men have always done.

  ps. laura, Teejay may leave here, but I'll betcha a million bucks he doesn't go back there.
• 

  gsx1138

  I think the biggest concern should be balance. There are plenty of men today who have a mythical idea of how they should be treated and act. The problems of today are growing pains as we try to move away from a patriarchal societies. Back in the day when villages relied on men to be the warriors this was needed. Those old days are over but it is now a case of why settle for a glass of milk when you can have the whole cow. Men don't want to "give up" any supposed power. People never seem to want to read the Bible in the context of the time it was written. They always want to somehow apply it to present day.
• 

  Solace

  Teejay,

  Well, whatever your beliefs, you could always just communicate. Ya' know, like be honest and tell eachother what you want.

  Sixofnine, I agree with your comment.
• 

  Perry

  Hope you don't leave TeeJay.

  I'm with Six on this. Empowerment tempts the ego to think about itself at the expense of others. I think women in western culture are trying to deal experientially with their freedom and often times fall victum to their own devices. Just human nature.
• 

  Francois

  It would be well to do away with the ancient patriarchy. However I sincerely and fully believe that women, at least those who style themselves as "leaders" of the so-called women's movement do not want equality; they want hegemony.

  Ladies, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I say the women's rights movement has been hijacked by extremists in your ranks and no more represents your thoughts, feelings, aspirations, and desires than does Dubdom represent the real and living God. Am I right? How many ladies here feel that NOW fairly represents their aspirations? And how many feel that NOW has been converted to the use of extemists as a personal recruiting mechanism and public podium for lesbiansim, same-sex family adoption, the transgendered, the homosexual and the just plain confused?

  These women claim to be strong and to want equality. They can HANDLE it; whatever it is. Except when it comes to domestic law. Here, women are the weaker vessel. They need the judges to protect them. They need to have the law enable them to become permanent parasites on their former spouses...all in the name of both their weakness and in the name and for the "best interest of the children." And NOW opposes each and every effort to make domestic law more HUMANE for everyone. That is - to make it equal.

  I put it to you like this. How is it possible - morally and statistically - that in 95% of all cases, it is the mother in whom custody should inhere, thus serving the "best interest of the children"? I submit that such a statistic is morally indefensible AND morally reprehensible. When women show the same concern for treating their ex-spouses with the same equality that they demand for themselves elsewhere, THEN I will be concerned for them and with them about the glass ceiling. Certainly not before.

  -francois
• 

  SpiceItUp

  I would rather look at things from a "people are people" standpoint.

  Why must we always focus on the gender thing.

  If two people truly care about each other then they should BOTH strive to understand each other.

  (I also have to agree that as a whole the womens right movement has lost sight of what is what originally designed to do)

  just my .02