Speakeasy forum

General discussion

The Basques and Irish have everything to do with ethnic and political

by Kiddpeat / June 9, 2004 6:16 AM PDT

conflict, and nothing to do with Christianity. The Irish, for example, are continuing to revolt against England's attempt to dominate, subdue, and eliminate them. England acted with political motives, not religious ones.

Christians led the way in lifting the oppression of women as far back as Jesus and Paul. Paul, for example, commanded Christian men to love and cherish their wives just as Christ loves and cherishes the church. He told husbands and wives to submit to one another. This was at a time when women were property. The western woman has been freed because of the influence of Christianity. Compare the status of women in the west to women in Islamic countries, or women in Asia. Where does the non-western woman have more rights and freedom?

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: The Basques and Irish have everything to do with ethnic and political
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: The Basques and Irish have everything to do with ethnic and political
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Looks like another victim of the ''add new discussion'' button

Everytime that button causes an orphan like this, please go to Test and tell Lee about it. This interface glitch has caused more trouble than the double-posting bug, yet the double-post bug got a kludge fix while this useless button has been in the way from day #1.

DE

Collapse -
Correction, report it in ''Forum Feedback''

Need to get rid of that blasted button.

DE

Collapse -
That wasn't really the point.

You point was that terrorism was very limited under christianity. I just came up with a couple of examples of the top of my head.

Not that the women didn't appreciate not getting the beatings that were avoided because of those statements, Jesus and Paul would have done better by women by teaching that they are equal partners in society and should be treated as such.

Recent efforts by some christian groups to correct the millenniums old traditions of slavery and oppression of women are just that: recent. And there are many instances of christians taking both sides of both issues.

Women are worse off in other societies, but that does not make christianity pristine. It just makes it look better in comparison.

Dan

Collapse -
Jesus and His disciples, including Paul, changed the world and made it a much better place,
by Kiddpeat / June 9, 2004 4:41 PM PDT

and YOU are going to tell them how they should have done it? Come on Dan. That's a joke right?

It took HUNDREDS of years to go from Abraham to Moses; to go from a nomad 'playing it by ear' to the Mosaic law. Now, you want Jesus and Paul to revolutionize gender relations in maybe 50 years? Sorry Dan, but that wasn't even their primary mission. Their mission was saving souls. It was not to reform society. Reform was a byproduct of their efforts. Did the Son of God condemn slavery? No, that wasn't His mission. He knew ALL PEOPLE were enslaved by sin, and He was determined to give them a way out. He said He came to seek and save the lost.

Just how oppressed do you think women were before the twentieth century liberal came along? Were they more oppressed than their husbands? Not very often in the western world, and they certainly weren't 'enslaved'. Where was the secularist for those 100s of years? Do you seriously think they didn't exist?

Get real.

Collapse -
Re:Jesus and His disciples, including Paul, changed the world and made it a much better place,

Would it have been so hard to slip into a speech or two? "Oh, by the way, women are just as good and valuable as men, and don't buy, sell, or own other people?"

It might have helped.

Dan

Collapse -
As a matter of fact,

both Jesus and Paul did say that about women.

'Don't buy, sell, or own other people.' That's a command Dan. If they had said it, they would have made it harder for people to be saved. As I said, Jesus was not trying to reform every evil practice of the day. His perspective is eternal, and He was trying to rescue people from a living death for eternity. That included both women and slaves. Paul said all such distinctions will be gone in God's kingdom.

In addition, Jesus and His followers were not focused on erecting a whole new set of rules for people to follow. They were focused on priciple, and the principle with respect to women and slaves was to do unto others what you want them to do to you. I think that pretty well covers the subject.

I'm surprised that you have such problems with Jesus and His disciples, which includes Paul. They were the left wing radicals of their day.

Collapse -
Re:As a matter of fact,
by Dan McC / June 10, 2004 7:18 AM PDT
In reply to: As a matter of fact,

Unfortunately, many people go by 'do unto others before they do unto you' regardless of where they spend their Sunday mornings.

In any case, if so much of this is not to be commanded so that people can be saved, why do some want religious dictates forced on people as civil law? But that's a topic for another time.

The problem with many radicals of any type is that they focus too much on ideology and not enough on practicality.

Dan

Collapse -
My point exactly!
by Kiddpeat / June 10, 2004 12:34 PM PDT

Jesus and the early church were focused on what could be done to reach an objective. They were not hung up on ideology.

'Unfortunately, many people go by 'do unto others before they do unto you' regardless of where they spend their Sunday mornings.' - these people are called sinners. The church, hopefully, is full of them. Unfortunately, those outside the church expect it to be filled with saints. When it isn't, they cry 'hypocrite!'.

Collapse -
Re:That wasn't really the point.
by Evie / June 9, 2004 11:11 PM PDT
I just came up with a couple of examples of the top of my head.

Got any more? These are far more local/political occurrences. You don't see, for example, American Protestants or Catholics going over to Ireland to join the IRA or fight for the other side. OTOH, you do see not only cooperation between Islamic terrorist factions, but also actively warring conflicts for control between the different sects.

Of the 40-something active conflicts in the world, all but less than a handful are "at the borders of Islam" and not for free expression of religion within those borders, but for totalitarian control within and ultimately spreading beyond those borders. There are groups in GB that seek to make the UK an Islamic state. That is the goal.

Surely the Sudanese Christians being enslaved are in FAR more dire straights than Palestinians that -- in the absence of frequent terrorist attacks on Israel -- are able to live, work and worship as they so desire in that country.
Collapse -
Re:The Basques and Irish have everything to do with ethnic and political

You are correct. The only relationship of Protestant vs Catholic in the Irish "troubles" involves economic, social and politicissues.

Ulster is the manufacturing center of the island, and it was, and is, very difficult for Catholics to be gainfully employed.

Many British- and they want to remain so- are there because of "plantation" . They consider themselves British. They fear, and perhaps rightly so, that the Catholic majority will gain Irish government free of Britain. The Catholics consider themselves Irish.

There are rabble rousers on both sides that fan the flames. The IRA now has very few members, but one is enough.

In the Irish Republic, Catholic and Protestant churches often stand side-by-side. The children play together. There is little, if any, support for the IRA or for what it now stands.

After the terrible bombing of the apartment house it appears that both sides were disgusted, and there are now more serious attempts to reach a resolution.

I've been to the Republic several times, and have family there. I once was in Ulster. It was disconcerting to see the soldiers - just boys, really- that no doubt would rather have been home.

I have high hopes real peace will come a reality there.

Angeline
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

Collapse -
Re: Christianity, Islam, and Women

Hi, KP.

Yes, we have a better track record than Islam, but that's like saying the US has a better record on torture than Saddam. Despite St. Paul saying in the first century that in Christ Jesus there is no woman or man, the right of women to be priests is still a subject of intense controversy, and denied by Catholicism and many of the "High" Protestant Churches. Southern baptists still think women should be subservient to their husbands. Yes, we no longer burn outspoken, intelligent women at the stake as witches, but it's not even been a century since women were allowed to vote, own property, and enter into contracts in most states, and half as long that married women could have their own credit record. Yes, things are better for women in the West than they used to be, and certainly btter than in Muslim Countries, but we have a long way left to go. heck, we still haven't even passed the Equal Rights Amendment!

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
I guess you're saying that the US customarily tortures people, just
by Kiddpeat / June 9, 2004 5:01 PM PDT

not as much as Saddam did. Well, if we do, we did it under JFK, LBJ, WJC, FDR, and other icons of the left. That is unless you think such torture is a totally new invention by George Bush who, in the space of less than 3 years, has totally subverted the military.

Believe it or not Dave, the twentieth century left wing definition of what women should be is not yet accepted as revealed truth. I am glad to see that women have escaped from their previous torment. My grandmother would be quite surprised to know her condition was so miserable. So would her grandmother. I guess your grandmother or ggrandmother must have been really miserable and oppressed, but mine 'ruled the roost'. My grandfather knew better than to mess with her. They both knew their limits, and were quite happy thank you.

Collapse -
Re: I guess you're saying that the US customarily tortures people, just

Hi, KP.

First, LBJ is NOT an "icon of the left" -- "hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today!"

As for " the twentieth century left wing definition of what women should be is not yet accepted as revealed truth," reread the Gospels. Christ was frequently criticized by the Jews of his day ("O Lord, I thank thee, that thou didst not make me a woman!") for conversing with women freely. You ignored my comment about St. Paul's call for gender equality (it's in Corinthians, AIR). So yes, it IS divinely inspired -- and, as usual, conservatives are holding on to relics of the past, in this case, male chauvinism.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Just goes to show that I don't know my left wingers.

LBJ was responsible for a major civil rights law, and for the 'War on Poverty', but he's not a hero of the left?

As for the Bible supporting your definition of women's rights, please be so kind as to identify the passage. That's easy enough to compare to your post and test your claim.

Collapse -
Re: Just goes to show that I don't know my left wingers.

Hi, KP.

Sadly, LBJ's legacy is one thing, not just to the left but to the country -- VietNam. Civil Rights is attributed to JFK (though you and I both know it was going nowhere fast until LBJ essentially argued "lets do it in his memory)."

As for the Bible verse from St. Paul, it's Galatians 3:28 -- "There is no Jew nor Greek, Slave nor Free, MALE nor FEMALE in the body of Christ." The Catholic Church teaches that the Church IS the Body of Christ, as well as "the people of God." So John Paul's insistence (and that of other conservatives) that women can't be priests is directly contrary to Divine revelation.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Thanks for supplying the reference. Now there's something to
by Kiddpeat / June 11, 2004 11:27 AM PDT

work with. There are at least two principles of interpretation that seem to be applicable here. Don't take the verse out of context, and the interpretation must consider other relevant passages of scripture. Let's get a bit more context:

'Gal 3:23-29 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. 26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise. NASU'

So, Paul says we are all sons of God, and Abraham's descendants because we are part of the body of Christ. Is Paul saying there should be no marriage or procreation in the body of Christ when he says 'you are all sons' or 'there is neither male nor female'? If not, how do we understand him? Is he talking about a legal status when he says 'there is neither slave nor free man'? If you're not a 'slave' and not a 'free man', what are you? Could Paul be speaking in spiritual terms rather than the literal terms you are applying? Something which is partially seen now, but will not be fully realized in this life? A status before God rather than a role or position in this life where our categories drop away?

OK, what are some other passages that should help us interpret this one? How about '1 Tim 3:1-3 Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, NIV'. The word translated 'overseer' here also means 'bishop'. Now Dave, if we apply your literal rules, we see that a 'bishop' must be a man. That's what your church says. How can your interpretation of Gal. 3:28 be reconciled with this verse?

How about: '1 Tim 2:11-13 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. NIV'. The problem is obvious. How can a woman be a bishop, if she is not allowed to have authority over a man? BTW, Paul is NOT saying that a woman cannot have political or business authority. That is clear from the prophet Debra who was the political leader of Israel. Paul is talking ONLY about the spiritual realm.

Well, how does Paul handle a slave? Does he say he's no longer a slave? No, he asks Philemon, who is the master of Onesimus, to be gracious and kind to his slave. Perhaps even free him, but he doesn't tell him that Onesimus, who is now a Christian, is no longer a slave simply because he is a member of the Body of Christ.

In short, scripture does not, IMO, support your interpretation. Paul is certainly not speaking directly to voting, property, contracts, credit, or the Equal Rights Amendment. However laudable these things may be, scripture is simply not addressing them in your cited verse.

Collapse -
Re: Thanks for supplying the reference.

Hi, KP.

Sorry, but you're careful analsis doesn't wash. In the first Century, at the Council of Jerusalem (the first), the Church decided that in Christ Jesus there was no difference between Jew or gentile, and it was decided that one did not have to be converted to Judaism to be a Christian, or a priest. Interestingly, if you take John Paul's reasoning for why women shouldn't be priests (Christ was a man, all the Apostles were men, and it's traditional that only men can be priests) and replace "man" by "Jew," you have the losing arguments at that first Council. Had that conservative viewpoint prevailed then, Christianity would probably never had been anything but an obscure Judaic sect like the Essenes, lost in the memories of history with only sacred texts to remember it by. It was almost 1900 more years before the Church finally condemned slavery (well after most of the laity had decided it was wrong, btw -- the hierarchy usually lags the people in such areas, which is why Vatican II's doctrine of Collegiality, that inspiration comes to the Church as a whoel, not merely the hierarchy, is so loathed by said hierarchy). It's now time for Paul's third mandate to come true. You're putting things as they are on earth, while Paul is speaking of how they should be in the Kingdom of God, which all Christians commit themselves to bring about ("THY Kingdom Come, THY will be done"). The problem is that "so far about our ways are the ways of the Lord" (that's from someplace in Isaiah).

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Dave, your arguements would be far more persuasive if you
by Kiddpeat / June 12, 2004 1:45 PM PDT

would respond to the issues raised. Instead, you bring up new issues and claim these prove your point. The decision you mention did not mean that Jews ceased being Jews or Greeks ceased being Greek. It meant the old Jewish law was no longer a requirement for one to be a Christian. Now, perhaps, you would care to address the original criticism of your approach to interpretation.

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) It's generally accepted that Paul didn't write I Tim.
by Dan McC / June 14, 2004 5:35 AM PDT
Collapse -
Are you now a Biblical scholar Dan?
by Kiddpeat / June 14, 2004 7:34 AM PDT

Generally accepted by whom?

1 Tim 1:1

Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;

An apostle of Jesus Christ - belonging to Him as His servant. Paul thus designates himself in an official letter; but in a personal letter (Philem), "a prisoner of Jesus Christ."


(from Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1997 by Biblesoft)

1 Tim 1:1-4

Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;

Verse 1-4. Paul's apostolic authority was based on the deity and command of Christ. Compare Gal 1:1: ". . . not from men or through a man but through Jesus Christ and God the Father." The divine authorization is further emphasized (1) by the word commandment: it suggests a royal command which is to be obeyed; and (2) by the fact that it is the command of both God the Father and Christ Jesus. In thus linking equally the names of the Father and Christ, as in verse 2, Paul leaves no doubt as to the full deity of Christ (see Warfield, Biblical and Theological Studies, Ch. III). God is characterized by the name Saviour, an exalted title reminding one of Isa 45:21, and similar passages. Jesus is distinguished by the appellation, our hope, a succinct way of trying all eschatology to the person of Christ, for Timothy's encouragement, 2. Also for Timothy's encouragement, no doubt, the apostle adds the word mercy to the ordinary formula of grace and peace. Only in the Pastorals does Paul depart from his usual custom.


(from The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1962 by Moody Press)


1 Tim 1:1
Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;

[Paul an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the commandment of God] We have already seen that the term apostolos (NT:652), apostle, literally signifies a person sent from one to another, without implying any particular dignity in the person, or importance in the message. But it is differently used in the New Testament, being applied to those who were sent expressly from God Almighty, with the message of salvation to mankind. It is, therefore, the highest character any human being can have; and the message is the most important which even God himself can send to his intelligent creatures. It was by the express command of God that Paul went to the Gentiles preaching the doctrine of salvation by faith in Christ Jesus.


(from Adam Clarke's Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1996 by Biblesoft)

Certainly not by these scholars.

Collapse -
Nope.
by Dan McC / June 14, 2004 11:29 PM PDT

But there are many who study ancient texts to determine their origin.

Dan

Collapse -
Dave, this is a real breakthrough! I'm glad to see that you
by Kiddpeat / June 11, 2004 11:33 AM PDT

accept Paul's letters as Divine revelation. You said:

'So John Paul's insistence (and that of other conservatives) that women can't be priests is directly contrary to Divine revelation'

I hope this means you will now accept ALL of what Paul says as Divine revelation. That's certainly how I think of it. I hope you don't intend to pick and choose what is Divine revelation and what is not.

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Actually Paul differentiates between from God and from
by Diana Forum moderator / June 14, 2004 7:43 AM PDT
Collapse -
Re:I guess you're saying that the US customarily tortures people, just
My grandfather knew better than to mess with her.

That may have been the case for your grandfather, but his neighbor knew that he could beat the crap out of his own wife without fear.

Dan
Collapse -
And you think wife beating is a thing of the past, Dan???

Where have you been? I have NEVER known a Christian man
beat his wife! And if you say they went to such and such Church, I will tell you they were NOT Christians!
Glenda

Collapse -
No, I don't think that, but I wish it were true.
by Dan McC / June 10, 2004 6:04 AM PDT

I hope that wife beating with little chance of the authorities acting on it, or even caring about it, is a thing of the past.

Wife beating is a non-denominational activity. It happens across all boarders separating religion, race, income, nationality, sexual orientation, or any other category out there.

It's a pleasant bit of sophistry to claim that a member of religion is not of that religion because they've broken it's precepts. That leaves the religion peopled only by those who do follow it's dictates.

Here's my own sophistry in reply: Taking your church as an example, you say that a man who would sin is not a christian. Applying that same statement to the entire congregation, how many members of your church would that leave who are christians? Meaning, who among you has not sinned?

You may retort with the christians are those who regret their sin and seek forgiveness and redemption. My reply would be to ask how do you know that does not describe the man who beat his wife?

That's all good fun, philosophically speaking, but it leaves us no closer to the resolution of our point of disagreement. (Anyone who still remembers what that point was wins a lollipop. ;))

Dan

Collapse -
She didn't say anything about church members being free of sin.
by Kiddpeat / June 10, 2004 6:50 AM PDT

You said, 'It's a pleasant bit of sophistry to claim that a member of religion is not of that religion because they've broken it's precepts. That leaves the religion peopled only by those who do follow it's dictates.'

Well, duh! Following the dictates of the faith is the point of religion. If one chooses not to follow those dictates, then there's no point in belonging. Some fail, repent and seek forgiveness. Others obstinately continue in their sin. Paul outlines a procedure by which such a person is to be expelled from the church. One of the things a Christian man is commanded to do is to love his wife as Christ loved the church, and to care for her as he cares for his own body. That doesn't leave much room for beatings.

Collapse -
Re:She didn't say anything about church members being free of sin.
by Dan McC / June 10, 2004 7:25 AM PDT

But she did say that this man was not a christian because of his sin.

I have NEVER known a Christian man
beat his wife! And if you say they went to such and such Church, I will tell you they were NOT Christians!
-Glenda

What would make them not christians except their sin? But sin doesn't make one not a christian. They could be trying to behave but failing.

Her statement is very terse, so there is room here for clarification if she so desires.

What did you say in another post about not making commands? Wink

Dan

Collapse -
Thank You, KP:)
by Glenda / June 10, 2004 7:52 AM PDT

I am just tired of Dan and his circular arguments! No matter what he is told he will argue, So I think I will let him do that with someone else:)
Glenda

Collapse -
Isn't that why we're here?
by Dan McC / June 10, 2004 11:19 PM PDT
In reply to: Thank You, KP:)

We're exchanging ideas. Challenging preconceptions. Looking from different angles. All that stuff.

You made a statement that I found interesting and I replied to it hoping to get clarification. You are free to post statements, of course, but the discourse that follows is the part I enjoy.

In any case, yours was the circular statement: the christian who beats his wife is not a christian.

Dan

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

CNET FORUMS TOP DISCUSSION

Help, my PC with Windows 10 won't shut down properly

Since upgrading to Windows 10 my computer won't shut down properly. I use the menu button shutdown and the screen goes blank, but the system does not fully shut down. The only way to get it to shut down is to hold the physical power button down till it shuts down. Any suggestions?