Originally posted by Zahlanzi
someone has to lead. someone has to stay home with the children.


a man needs to be at home for a week or so to procreate. then he can be off to explore, create food, fight wars, etc. the woman needed to stay home. if a male dies, it is not such a loss for the species.


now the world has changed and roles no longer need to stay the same (and they hysical, our numbers are very high,etc, and as such, the roles no longer need to stay the same.

How do you reconcile the following passage with your last couple of posts?

Ephesians 5
22Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.


1 Timothy 2
11A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

According to these passages, a woman is to be submissive to man in ALL THINGS with the reasons being that woman was created after man and it was woman (Eve) who was deceived in the Garden of Eden. This is clearly indicates a fundamental discrimination against all women the basis of which is as applicable today as ever and will always be applicable. Your attempts to depict it as something other than that are disingenuous at best.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
for there to be order, some have to follow


was einstein on a lower plane of existence than his anonymous boss at the patent office where he worked?

bush jr was the head of the united states, were everyone following his orders less than him as persons?

Seriously? Only a true bigot would try to make such a ridiculous argument.

The basis for who leads and who follows should not be made based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Surely you're aware of this concept?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
How do you reconcile the following passage with your last couple of posts?

Ephesians 5
22Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24[b]But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to thei ...[text shortened]... be applicable. Your attempts to depict it as something other than that are disingenuous at best.

and how does that change my point? so does a colonel have to be submissive to a general in all things.

and no, this doesn't allow the husbands to treat their wives like cattle, to abuse them. right next to these passage are instructions to the husbands to treat their wives as they would be part of their own bodies, as the married couple is believe to be a single body. each signs a social contract, the man decides and leads, the woman follows. the man protects the woman with his life, the woman cares for the husband and the children. it was the social order of that time. it wasn't perfect or maybe even that good, but it was adequate. and now that the times have changed, we can abandon that social order for a better one.


my point is that DEFINITELY the woman was not considered less of a human being than the man.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Seriously? Only a true bigot would try to make such a ridiculous argument.

The basis for who leads and who follows should not be made based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Surely you're aware of this concept?

trying to remain calm and continue this discussion, ignoring your awesome insults,
i am talking about a social order 2000 years ago, in a world torn by wars, pestilence. in a world where leaving the village might mean death. a world where people didn't know to suck a lemon if on a boat, so as not to die.

in such a world, feminism has no place. there is no place for "career" women. the woman must stay at home and care for the children because there are no machines and the world is purely physical. and since the woman is the less physical gender, it is logical that the less physical member of a couple take the less physical role.


no, o hysterical one, i am not saying it was right. and i definitely am not saying that misogyny today is excusable. i am saying that then, it was an acceptable compromise.

Originally posted by twhitehead
All very true, in evolution. But evolution does not result in equality.

heh, equality wasn't viable then.

inequality sparked progress. people went to great length to become "more equal"
a weak man invented a better sword, to be a match for a strong man. the poor worked hard to create wealth, so as to rise to the level of the ones above. a weak and "lazy" man invented a machine to do the work for him.

step by step, man progressed to defeat the unfairness of the world, and the people. on the way, unfair ways that created inequality were defeated, like aristocracy's divine right to rule, misogyny, racism.

inequality is still a factor today. people are still not equal. but it is a fairer inequality. people are now unequal intellectually, are unequal in their will to accomplish something.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But if someone said "only whites can be president" or "only men can be president" or "only people with brown hair can be bosses", would you still say "everyone is equal"? No, you would probably object to all three based on the inequality they create.

are we going to discuss all the things them barbarians did that today seem unfair? what will our children from 1000 years discuss about us that will be unfair to them? will they frown upon the fact that only wealthy americans can be properly cared for in hospitals? will they frown upon the fact that we do not provide a decent living for the hobos? will they frown upon how we still have the death penalty?

the above are unfair. but there are circumstances that do not render them black and white but rather quite a large number of shades of gray (50, sorry, bad joke).

can you envision the world as it was during the dark ages, or medieval times, dominated by plagues and wars, where women fought alongside men instead of taking care of children, or even having some?


and btw, did you know that really, the majority of women were quite equal to men in medieval times? sure, the aristocratic women were thought to be pretty useless, but the peasant women had much more say in here family. when your wife is busting her back on the fields to put food on the table for your family, not many peasant men had the balls to tell her to "make me a sammich"

Originally posted by twhitehead
Have you ever played computer strategy games? Something like Age of Empires.
Now imagine that you have a completed game in front of you, and you can make changes anywhere you want. The moment you make a change, the whole of the game beyond that point is changed. If you keep making changes at random, the result is a whole range of games all having 'existe equence, is to interact as it is played out in time order ie you cannot time travel backwards.

The thing is, I don't necessarily see a problem with that situation (hypothetically speaking of course).

Indeed if we suppose (only for the sake of argument) that the state of the universe is a function not only of its initial physical state but also of two (or perhaps more) time variables t_1, and t_2 (where t_1 is our time-line, and moreover, is a dimension some god is free to traverse back and forth as it pleases, and t_2 represents a time dimension similar to that which we are bound to (in that this god can only traverse it forwards)), then this god could happily change something in this universe at time T(j,k) (the some jth point on our timeline, and kth point on its timeline); and the state of the universe is updated in response (and from our perspective, our memories (as merely some composition of some of the events that have taken place in the universe) would also be updated - we wouldn't know any different).
The possibly infinite collection of universes which result from such changes is experienced by this god as it moves forward in its own time. I'm struggling to see (as outlandish as this proposal might sound) where there is some dire logical consequence that cannot be resolved.

Originally posted by Agerg
The thing is, I don't necessarily see a problem with that situation (hypothetically speaking of course).

I wouldn't necessarily call it a 'problem' but rather it creates certain implications which most theists would probably be very unhappy with. In your scenario where there are essentially multiple universes, it then raises the question as to why God would bother creating new ones as 'corrections' unless the old ones are in some way less existent or he doesn't really care about them. It also raises the question as to whether we are in the final perfect product or as step in the making. Time paradoxes generally arise when only one overall timeline is allowed. When more than one are allowed however they quickly degenerate into infinitely many timelines.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I wouldn't necessarily call it a 'problem' but rather it creates certain implications which most theists would probably be very unhappy with. In your scenario where there are essentially multiple universes, it then raises the question as to why God would bother creating new ones as 'corrections' unless the old ones are in some way less existent or he does ...[text shortened]... more than one are allowed however they quickly degenerate into infinitely many timelines.

Maybe this multiverse malarkey is actually housing for gods. Each god has its own little house in the multiverse. Our universe happens to home to a god who likes to decorate the place with critters he has created. Unfortunately he he got bored, went next door to his mate's universe and is now watching god football in his underpants with a god beer hat on.