|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
11-02-2006, 06:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
That's just too true! Thanks for pointing out the fallacy of "muppet's" words. LMFAO! 
|
|
#3
11-03-2006, 06:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
actually, i think hillary has a shot, not as good as some, but better than others. she'd be around 8-1 if you wanted to make a morning line.
many would think it was still bill in charge, if hillary got elected--and bill would probably win if he ran again. i'm not saying that would be the case, that he would BE the puppet master--she seems very strong willed, but i think many--not a majority, but many would think HE was still calling the shots. the ones she would have to win over--those blowhard old school bible thumping male chauvinists who would quote the good book ad infinitum regarding women being in charge--it's just not right they'll say. it's an abomination....yada yada.
|
|
#4
11-03-2006, 08:51 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
http://salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2006...ion/index.html How much do I love that Salon's women's issues page is called "Broadsheet?" Me, I likes my feminism with a dose of humor in it. 
|
|
#5
11-03-2006, 10:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
some christian religions are as guilty as other, supposedly more zealous, religions as far as women and being treated as second class. just a month or so ago a church fired a woman who had taught bible study for years and years, due to the text in the bible regarding women being 'over' men. and of course catholics whose hierarchy refuses to even discuss women being priests....
but then, it's always been my contention that the bible was written, or translated, by wealthy, poweful men, and has been used to keep them so, and keep women and 'peasant's' down. the argument for years back hundreds of years ago was that if god wanted you to be rich, you'd have been born to a rich family--that attempts at improvement were against what god wanted! that if god wanted a woman to be in power, well, she'd have been born a man! and of course that was why the bible was not allowed to be printed in the language that the masses could read, they might try to figure things out for themselves. but i think things are improving, slowly in some places, more rapidly in others. but there is still a long way to go.
|
|
#6
11-03-2006, 11:46 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
That's the thing with translation-- there's no exact translation of anything, because it's impossible to say something exactly the same way. My personal pet peeve is the use of Paul's letter to the Corinthians at weddings- you know, the love is patient, love is kind, etc. etc. The kind of love he was referring to (he wrote in Greek, I believe) is not romantic love; it's charitable love. In fact, the King James version of the Bible translates it as "Charity." ("Faith, hope and charity, but the greatest of these is charity.") A lovely sentiment, yes. Not right for a wedding. Though I heard it read at a funeral once and it made me bawl.
Anyone who thinks love is patient has never heard my husband fussing at me to hurry up and get my coat on... I think the Bible is a pretty decent attempt by men of faith to explain their world as they understood it at the time they wrote all the individual books (plus that Jesus guy said some pretty smart stuff). But I don't think it's inerrant or infallible. And I really wish the major religions would just get off the whole sex thing. Did you hear about that major evangelist and anti-gay crusader, Ted Haggard, who has just been found out for paying for a male escort, and has been accused of using crystal meth? I have little sympathy for him in light of the hatred he has helped spread over the years, but I have enormous sympathy for a man who must have grown up feeling such a depth of self-hatred because narrow-minded bigots hid behind the Bible and told him people who felt the way he did were evil and God hated them. Not to mention, no one is going to stop pre-marital sex, and I think getting married solely because you are desperate to sleep with someone is about the worst possible reason. Marry someone because you're pretty sure when you're old and wrinkly, you're still going to like talking to them, not because you want to get into their pants. And I think you need to get past the whole hot and bothered period to even know that. Hot and bothered burns itself out after a while and then you have to decide if you really like the person. Of course, in a perfect world, you'll get past the whole hot and bothered period, and still enjoy getting into their pants enough to keep doing so. Can't talk ALL the time.
|
|
#7
11-03-2006, 02:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
so often people try to use the bible to back up an argument...peaceniks quote turn the other cheek, while warmongers use eye for an eye. amazing the differences in one book--and the variety of viewpoints that find 'back up' in that same book. but then i've always found people will use just about anything to prove a point!
|
Hybrid Mode
