interracial relationships...
-
Wtf is all the crap? What has it got to do with the discussion?
I a bit lost also. Now my question whether must go cut below skin only one poster said no need. So married to muslim and converted ppl no need go cut skin below?
-
It's got a lot to do with the discussion; but just because you can't tell what that is, you shouldn't assume that it has nothing to do with the discussion.Originally posted by Vivek Oberoi:Wtf is all the crap? What has it got to do with the discussion?
You've already been told to get a clue, and I can see that you have failed to heed the advice. -
Men and women are of 'equal status' in the sense that a woman has as much value as a man, in terms of the worth to be attached to her as an individual.
This doesn't change the fact that in certain contexts women should be restricted from functioning in certain roles (and vice-versa men).
It is only if you assume that this restriction entails a dimunition of the value of the person to whom it is applicable (whether a woman or man), that you can argue that Christianity doesn't assign the same status to women as it does to men.
I don't grant that assumption and so I have no problem with the view that Christianity teaches both that men and women are of equal status (in the sense defined above) and yet that women should be restricted from enacting certain specific roles within certain specific contexts.
I'm not sure whether the Jewish law would have decreed in quite so many words that the aforementioned men had been guilty of a sin in watching a woman have sex; but I can certainly believe that the Jewish law, when correctly interpreted, would undoubtedly have stipulated that it would be a sin for a man to voyeuristically enjoy the sight of a woman having sex.
In any case, I don't grant your point that the men who had apprehended the adulteress and who (as they themselves had claimed) had 'caught her in the very act itself' were necessarily guilty of voyeuristically watching the adulteress in question engage in a sexual act (as opposed instead to having stumbled upon her whilst she should have been engaged in the act of adultery).
Moreover, as I have already indicated above, I doubt seriously whether the Jewish law would not have pronounced these men to be guilty of a sin in the event that they were to have been established to have voyeuristically enjoyed the sight of this woman engaging in an adulterous act.
You also say:
"Fast forward to the present day. Do we see Jesus' teachings being carried out? I don't quite think so. The people who make the important decisions for the Church are predominantly men. I doubt Ben 16th and his predecessors have a strong grasp of the problems faced by women in society since they aren't even female. Some Christian practices have inadvertently exacerbated the problems associated with discrimination against women."
Response:
They can't 'grasp' these problems in the sense that they cannot experience them in the sort of way in which it would only be possible for these problems to be experienced by a woman (just as, if we were to define 'pregnancy' as a problem, then we would have to say that a man cannot experience it in the same way that it would only be possible for a woman to experience it); but I think that these 'problems' can be grasped in the sense that they can be described by means of meaningful propositions whose content would then be susceptible of being apprehended by the men in question.
In this sense I would argue that the leaders of the Church (Pope Benedict, say, or any other given man) can grasp the 'problems of women'; and further that they would only need to be able to grasp them in this sense, so as to be able to function in the way that they're supposed to be functioning as the leaders of the Church.
To be a 'gynaecologist' or an 'obstetrician' surely doesn't require you to be a woman or even to have already undergone a pregnancy yourself; in fact, your degree of proficiency as a gynaecologist or obstetrician need have nothing to do with the degree to which it would be possible for you to experience whatever it is that women might be said to be given uniquely to experiencing.
Thus my concept of Christian leadership excludes the need to 'grasp' feminine problems in the way you have described, and so I do not see the limitation you have articulated as portending that there is something instrinsically defective with the idea that it is only the men who should ever presume to lead the Church; nor do I see it as portending (for the reasons I have already expressed above) that it is not the case that Christianity teaches that men and women are of equal status.
I hope this helps.
Ben -
-
erm.. is this topic becoming ground for evangalising .. or some sermon abt loving one another? i just asked wat do u guys think abt interracial relationship n its like that now
