Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    It is my opinion that this bias, this prejudice, is an error based on
    the fragile male egos of the Biblical scholars, a flaw. I feel that
    many social problems derive primarily from the need to dominate and
    that anyone who feels the need to be dominated is in need of
    counselling. This is not to suggest that it is wrong to BE dominant. In
    any relationship there is a tendency for one or the other person to be
    dominant and this may shift between the two. It is only the NEED to be
    dominant or dominated that I see as a problem. I see the
    institutionalization of dominance in a culture as a serious flaw that
    needs to be corrected.

Dave,

The change is already taking place. That's why there is such an
upheavel in society against equal rights. Old men are rebelling
against what they saw was comfortable and are trying to turn
those laws around in the name of "good olde religion".

In His peace,

calvin

    Misogyny still reigns, unfortunately.  It's just more subtle and
    more difficult to put your finger on.
    
    Richard

    The imbalance and destruction dominance inevitably results in 
    will have to be changed.  There is still much ignorance around
    this issue however.  Although a patriachical worldview fosters it,
    men are not the only people who buy into it.  Women do too, in 
    very subtle ways as they seek ways in which to respond to the 
    imbalance.  As a result most people's notions of power get
    distorted, to the detriment of all.
    
    But as Calvin indicated things are changing.  Of prime importance
    is to seek to understand and balance the male-female polarity 
    within ourselves and re-create more appropriate forms of power
    that are based on the notion of "power-with" rather than "power-over."
    
    Peace,
    Karen

    "Women, what should they be?"

    Women should be women, because their doing a lousy job of trying to be
    men. -8)


    Peace
    Jim

    
    	There is more wisdom in that reply then is obvious on the surface.

    Ed .6 or Jim .5,
    
    Could you comment further please?  What women are trying to be 
    men and how are they doing this?
    
    Karen

    
    	In the environment that I am in, I often find women, who in an 
    attempt to be treated equal to men (which I am all for) begin trying
    to imitate men.  They lose much of what make them different then men
    and thats sad.  It is the difference that makes them special.  God
    made men and women different, not just physiologically but
    psychologically as well.  I respond much more positively to a woman 
    when she is not trying to be a man.
    
    	mho
    	ed

    Ed - 
    
    Could you elaborate on this?  What is the specific behavior you
    characterize as "male"?  female?
    
    Nanci

Re: .8

Well, Ed, if women are growing beards in the environment that you are in,
then I agree with you: this is outrageous!

				-- Bob :-)

    In what ways are they trying to imitate men?
    
    I'm not sure _exactly_ what you're saying, could you please expand.
    
    When I read your note, I could sense two meanings to what you said:
    
    * That women shouldn't try to imitate men, because they should be
    themselves.
    
    * That women shouldn't try to imitate men, because they shouldn't be
    aggresive, assetive, or anything that 'traditionally' a man is.
    
    The second point I disagree with, if that's what you're saying. The
    first I think I'd agree with.
    
    Pete.

	RE: .8  Ed
    
        >  -< Women shouldn't grow beards. >-

    	A minor point, but interesting....
    
    	As Pete mentioned in .11, there *are* women with beards.  As
    	some women get older and their hormones begin to change, facial
        hair can sometimes emerge.  And then there are the women who
        have always had facial hair - some have light colored fuzz and
        others have coarse, dark hair.  Heaven forbid the realities
    	of nature should sneak in here and try to be accepted as normal!
    	;^)  And what does this have to do with them being women anyway?
    
    
    	Carole

    

When Imperial England sought to subject India, a few Nabobs
joined to battle the imperialists. The troops coming over the
horizon wore skirts (quilts of the highlanders, I suppose).

After the battle, a Nabob was heard to say, if their women fought
like that, what can the men do?

(smiles injected here)

cal

    Well, since beards are not a valid test of masculinity, I guess I can
    only think of one other thing, right off hand, that women probably
    shouldn't grow if they don't want to imitate men.  And as far as I
    know, that hasn't proved to be a problem up to this point.
    
    -- Mike

    
    RE: .14 
    
    :^)
    
    C.

    Well ya see you got it all wrong. The women who do a lousy job at
    trying to be men are the ones who have a stereotypical view  of
    what men are like. They are the ones that see roles as being inferior
    to one another. So they behave in the way they think men are because
    they think masculine behavior is superior to feminine behavior from a
    social point of view. They're aggressive, because they see men as
    aggressive, but they end up coming across as arrogant. They take on roles 
    that are out of character for themselves, not because they're women, but 
    because it's just not for them, so they end up failing and blaming
    sexist attitudes of men for their failure. 

    I've seen women work at jobs they hate because they want to prove to men
    that they can do the job just as good as a man. As if the men doing the
    job relish doing it.-:) 

    This isn't to imply that women and men have defined roles that they should 
    live by. In fact I'm saying the opposite. Whatever you do, do it because 
    it's what you want it, and not  to prove your as  good a the other man.
    Don't bring a false masculinity to society, bring your true femininity and
    the world will be a better place to live and you'll be much happier.

    Peace
    Jim

    Jim,
    
    It has been my experience that, in the workplace, if a woman looks or
    acts too feminine, she is apt to not be taken seriously be other men
    and women.
    
    Personally, I like looking feminine but I tend to try to overcompensate
    for that with the way I act.  I'm afraid I tend to come across like a
    steamroller at times.  :-)
    
    Nanci

Jim,

Which is worse: an arrogantly aggressive man or an arrogantly aggressive woman?

				-- Bob

re Note 121.16 by PCCAD1::RICHARDJ:

>     Well ya see you got it all wrong. The women who do a lousy job at
>     trying to be men are the ones who have a stereotypical view  of
>     what men are like. 

        I agree that trying to change one's own life to match a
        stereotypical view is generally a bad thing.

        In fact, it is bad for a a woman to try to be a
        "stereotypical woman," just as it is bad for a man to think
        that he must live up to some stereotypical view of men. 

        We are all individuals, we are persons.  We must try to be
        the person we should be, rather than strive towards some
        external fancied image of what a person should be.

        Bob

Bob,

>Which is worse: an arrogantly aggressive man or an arrogantly aggressive woman?

    Well, one is an ass and the other is an asset, but they're still both
    asses. -:*

    Jim

                                    |
                                    |
                                   \|/
    
    Didn't Doris Day sing a song about something like this.....
    
    When I was just a little girl, I asked my mother "What will I be?"
    "Will I be rich? Will I be pretty?" Heres what she said to me, 
    Que serah, serah, what ever.....blah blah....
                                      
    
    Seriously though........here's a little nit.....and some scripture
    about what women should be, seeing as how this is the
    Christian_Perspective  notefile and all. First the nit:
    
    >The society that spawned the OT was very male dominated...blah...
    > blah...blah....
    
    Sorry but, society did not spawn the OT, God did.
    
    2 Tim 3:16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
    		profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction,
    		for instruction in righteousness:
     
    Next, some scripture on what women should be:
    
    Titus chp. 2
              
      But as for you, speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine:
    that the older men be sober, reverent, temperate, sound in faith,
    in love, in patience; the older women likewise, that they be reverent
    in behaviour, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of
    good things, that they admonish the young women to love their husbands,
    to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good,
    obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be
    blasphemed.
    
    (see also Prov 31:10-31)
    
    The above mentioned, list what *should* be a Christians perspective
    on what women should be like.  There are more scriptures available,
    but these two were the first that I found. 
    
    As I've been reading through this note I've been noticing that it is 
    more concerned with what the position of women in relation to men is, 
    rather than what women should be like. There are scripture references 
    available with regard to, woman's relationship to man, if anybody's 
    interested I'll post some.
    
    Carlos
                                                          

    There is bound to be disagreement in this notes conference over the
    nature of the Bible.  In particular, the question of whether or not the
    Bible was "spawned" by God, or society, or some combination of the two,
    has been discussed in several other topics in this conference.

    For some of us here, therefore, merely citing a scripture does not
    settle a question.  I am aware of the existence of patriarchal passages
    in the Bible, although (as I have stated elsewhere) I also believe that
    the cultural bias in these passages do not invalidate the Bible per se. 
    Some of this has been discussed in topic 11 (Feminist Theology).

    -- Mike

    Carlos,
    	perhaps I erred in titling this string. It was my intent that "What
    should women be?" should cover all aspects of their position in society
    (family, church, work, etc), their relationships with others of either
    gender - as well as nonhumans(gods, angels, demons etc)- and their
    personal makeup. And how men should respond to them.
    	It is my opinion that "women" are not equal to "men" any more than
    any two "men" are equal, but that in our differences we all have equal
    VALUE. Those who would force women to take a subservient role to men,
    deny them equal wages for equal productivity, force them to care for
    children, deny them equal rights, even if these people claim biblical
    authority for these injustices, are doing themselves and those around
    them a dis-service and failing to act out of love for anyone but
    themselves.
    	So tell us, without your biblical references (if possible) why you
    feel women should be held to different standards than men and in a
    subservient position to them. If your ONLY excuse is "the Bible says
    so", then say it. If you have given the matter any personal thought,
    please share your conclusions with us. Oh, yeah, why not ask your wife
    what she really feels about it. If you care or dare. ;-) Enjoy.

			For Every Woman

For every woman who is tired of acting weak when she knows she is strong,
there is a man who is tired of appearing strong when he feels vulnerable.

For every woman who is tired of acting dumb, there is a man who is burdened
with the constant expectation of "knowing everything."

For every woman who is tired of being called an "emotional female," there is
a man who is denied the right to weep and to be gentle.

For every woman who is called unfeminine when she competes, there is a man
for whom competition is the only way to prove his masculinity.

For every woman who is tired of being a sex object, there is a man who must
worry about his potency.

For every woman who feels "tied down" by her children, there is a man who
is denied the full pleasures of shared parenthood.

For every woman who is denied meaningful employment or equal pay, there
is a man who must bear full financial responsibility for another human being.

For every woman who was not taught the intricacies of an automobile, there
is a man who was not taught the satisfactions of cooking.

For every woman who takes a step toward her own liberation, there is a man
who finds the way to freedom has been made a little easier.

					-- Nancy R. Smith, 1972
						(Copyright)

< Note 121.24 by ANKH::SMITH "Passionate committment/reasoned faith" >
                              -< For Every Woman >-
Nancy,

I really enjoyed your poem. If there is a man to emiulate, our
Master Himself might be just that man. He was full of compassion
and emotion, sensitive to the Samartian woman at the well, weeped
for Mary, prayed earnestly, full of fire when there was
disrespect for holy places (chasing the money changers out of the
temple), and above all, He was able to love unconditionally.

I am sure that a lot of people wept when He died, (I still do when
I remember that lonely death on Good Friday).

Perhaps, it's not a person that we need to imitate but be just
what God gave us, be ourselves.

I am glad to see the changes that is sweeping this United States
of ours. At least we are still leaders in one element of the
world; that is we are amongst the leading nations in recognizing
the equality of women. I know that certain politicians had tried
their best to reverse the change but they fight a loosing fight.

In His Peace,

calvin

    Nancy,
    	that was excellent. Thanks for sharing it with us. It was published
    somewhere, was it not ?  Again, thanks.

    Yes Nancy,
    
    Thanks!
    
    Karen

    
    
    I guess my basic question to all of this is "why *should* anyone
    be anything other than who they are"?  The word 'should' usually
    means, to me, that I have to live up to someone elses expectations,
    or I have to respond to the inner messages that I took in during
    my developing years.  Like there is some authority standing there
    pointing a finger at me telling me I am not alright just being
    who I am.
    
    Becoming fully who we are is a big enough challenge without having
    to live up to everyone else's *shoulds*....or *shouldn'ts* for that
    matter.  Let's break the cycle of the *shoulds and shouldn'ts* and
    allow each other to flower into who we really are!
    
    Carole

    Nanci I like that poem !

    There was a statement I read somewhere that said, "birds don't fly
    because they have wings, birds fly because they're birds."

    So we are not who we are because of our anatomy, we are who we
    are because it is who  we are.

    Peace
    Jim

    My thanks also, Nancy.
    
    From birth, and maybe before, each one of us is scripted for
    anticipated behaviors and gender roles, and even social status.
    These are often internalized on such a subtle level that we fail
    to even recognize them.
    
    There is a name for that which does fit the window of our social
    expectations: Deviant.  Unfortunately, many have been labelled
    deviant when they were merely out of sync with their own times.
    Perhaps they heard that "different drummer" I've heard so much about.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    
    
        I think to cover this, we should start from "What should women and
    men be?" 
      
        We are all to be submitted to God, and men and women are equal in
    Christ. The standard for women and men is Jesus Christ. We are to
    submit to each other, this applies to all aspects of our lives.
        In  marriage, the husband is to love his wife just as Jesus
    Christ loves us and the wife is to submit to her husband. In affection,
    sexually, the wife has authority over her husband's body and the
    husband has authority over his wife's body. 
    
      Man is not independent of woman and woman is not independent of
    man.
    
                                                             Sandy
    
    
    
    
      
                                                
    

    I am inclined to believe that if both parties in a marriage are
    comfortable and happy with a relationship in which one party "submits"
    to the other, then I am not in any position to criticize them (as long
    as the "submission" is consenting and non-violent).  However, that is
    not what I personally seek in a relationship, and I would not therefore
    choose to be involved in a marriage in which my wife was expected to be
    submissive to me.  I personally prefer a relationship that involves a
    mutual partnership between both parties.

    -- Mike

    re: -1
    
    What he said!  
    
    :-)
    
    Nanci

    I think the problem lies with the definition of the word submit.
    Perhaps those opposed to its usage view it as someone cowaring to
    the aggresive and overpowering demands of the other, but rather,
    the usage of the word submit in the scriptural context means to
    yield to the will of another (out of love). So then, if we are to 
    follow the scriptural teachings and submit to one another (or yield 
    to the will of one another), the end result would be your preferred
    relationship of a mutual partnership between both parties. I'll
    go a step further, and say that first we should submit (or yield)
    to the will of God, instead of our own selfish desires, then we should 
    submit to one another, this being the will of God.
    
    Carlos

    As long as neither party is presumed to have an exclusive role as
    "head" of the marriage, then I have no problem with being in a
    relationship where there are loving and *voluntary* concessions by
    *both* of the partners on various specific issues over the course of
    time.

    -- Mike

    
    
    
       For woman or man, I think the question should be:
                        
    
    
       "Does Christ have the exclusive role as "Head" of you?"
    
    
    
                                                            Sandy
    

    When I read that "submit" part, I try to remember that another
    word for submit is "offer".
    
    Interesting that San Pablo always told wives to obey their
    husbands, but not once to love their husbands.  Similarly,
    Paul told husbands to love their wives, but not once to obey
    them.
    
    Did you ever wonder why marital roles were an issue in the first place??
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    re:.28
    Carole,
    	I firmly agree with you that the only expectations you should have
    to live up to are your own. THAT's what you should be.
    
    re:.31
    Sandy,
    	I object to any blanket statements regarding "submission". I do not
    believe ANY people ought to be expected to yield themselves to the will
    or authority of any other people simply because it is expected of them.
    No class of people ought to be catagorically subjugated. Moreover, the
    topic is WOMEN, not WIVES, and I cannot accept any proposition that the
    only acceptable station for a woman is as someone's wife.
    
    re:.34
    Carlos,
    	we know quite well what submission does and does not mean. Your
    attempt to portray it as a benevolent monarchy rather than as a vicious
    dictatorship is optimistic at best and generally at odds with the real
    world. Again, the topic is WOMEN, not WIVES. If you can see no other
    role for women than as wives then you must indeed be short sighted.
    (the "general" "you", rather than "you, Carlos")

    
    
    
    re:.38
    
        Do you also object to "blanket statements" regarding submission
    to Jesus Christ? 
    
        Also in my .31, I was talking about women and men and ALL the
    aspects of their lives-whether single or married. There were two sentences
    that were referring to husbands and wives specifically. Maybe you
    did not read my reply very carefully. 
    
                                                            
                                                        Sandy
    
    
            

    
    
    
    re:.38
    
     Dave, do you have a boss at work? Are you not in submission to
    him? Everyday you and I both yield ourselves to the laws of our
    land, laws which were made by the will and authority of other people,
    simply because it is expected of us.
    
    
                                                      Sandy
    

    Sorry Dave, perhaps I was a little misled by the name of this
    conference. Somehow I thought it was a conference dedicated to giving
    a Christians perspective on life, my mistake. Maybe it should be
    renamed to Non-Christian-Perspective, or Everybodies-Own-Personal-
    -Philosophy. You see, to me, a Christian is somebody who believes
    Christ is who He said He was, and someone who follows His teachings.
    Not someone who picks and chooses particular teachings of their
    liking and discards the rest, or mingles the teachings of Christ
    with the teachings of man. 
    
    Carlos     
    

    Carlos,

    Note 8.7 provides the definition of Christian for the purposes of this
    conference.  While you are welcome to define the term "Christian"
    according to your own belief system, the moderators of this conference
    do not impose any such standard within the discussions that take place
    here.  It is our intention to tolerate a broad spectrum of Christian
    viewpoints, rather than just those of some specific theological
    doctrine within Christianity.

    -- Mike (co-moderator)

    Sandy,
    	both of my comments in .38 refered to that one sentence of yours in
    .31, not the entire reply. The emphasis (all caps) was not a shout at
    you but just an emphasis for one and all to see. I did read your entry
    fairly carefully.
    	Christ is not a class of people to whom we should submit to, Christ
    was a person who stated a philosophy. Some of us here claim Godhood for
    that person, others do not. This file is dedicated to discussing things
    in the light of Christ's teachings, regardless of our specific
    acceptance of any part of those teachings. For these reasons; that
    Christ was an individual and that we are united in his teachings, it is
    not fair to apply my statement to that case.
    	Do I submit to my boss at work ?  It would be more accurate to say
    that I submit to my job requirements. When my boss asks me to do
    something I judge the requests based on my understanding of the overall
    situation. Should I have a problem with his request I tell him about it
    and we discuss my concerns. If he insists then I send him MAIL before
    complying - unless it is an immediate task. I send the MAIL because I
    know that he has erred in his judgement and am not sure where he will
    let the blame fall. If I cannot submit to a particular boss, I change
    bosses. Nearly all of my bosses have been such that they have not been
    offended by my approach to my job and only one has driven me to write
    more than one MAIL message - and that one forced me to use one in my
    defense while transitioning to another boss. He is now an "individual
    contributor". 
    
    Carlos,
    	I hope MikeV's message has answered your questions about this
    conference. It might be helpful for you to re-read #1.x and the
    introductions note just to see where various people stand. I am not
    sure what I said to elicite your .41 but I am sure you are correct in
    thinking that you and I do not share many common perspectives. Yet we
    both think of ourselves as (C)christians. There are several, though
    there were more, in this conference who have perspectives similar to
    yours, there are some much more like me, there are some from another
    place entirely. We wouldn't have much to discuss if we all shared like
    attitudes on all matters, would we ?

    
    
    RE: .41  Carlos
    
    As others have said, there are many viewpoints shared in this file.
    I am not a Christian and I have and will continue to share my 
    opinions here.  No one ever said that only Christians can write
    in this file.
    
    Carole

    
    
    
    re.:43
       Hi, Dave. 
    
    >>Do you also object to "blanket statements" regarding submission
      to Jesus Christ?
     
    >"it is not fair to apply my statement to that case."
    
    I was not applying your statement to that case, but questioning
    whether YOU apply it to that case. (Hence the ?) Does that mean
    you don't apply your statement to "that case"?
    
    >"Christ is not a class of people to whom we should submit"
    
    I agree, I never indicated that He is.
    
    >"It would be more accurate to say that I submit to my job
    requirements."
    
    
    Who wrote your job requirements? Were they written by the will and
    authority of other people/another person? When you "accept" a job,
    it means you are willing to be held to a set of thoughts, words,
    actions. You agree to "do" the job requirements. You are in submission
    to your boss in these job requirements. Unfortunately, (as you pointed
    out) our bosses are only human (as are we) and can make mistakes.
    When they do, we have recourse. When we "accept" Christ, it means
    we are willing to be held to a set of thoughts, words, actions-His
    teachings. We agree to "do" these. We are in submission to Christ-His
    Person-and He is Perfect and Sinless. He also promised and gave
    us (if we accept Him) a Helper, the Holy Spirit to help us "do"
    His teachings. We can talk to Jesus Christ about His teachings,
    but (His teachings) are never in error-the problem is always found in
    us.
    
    "Then Jesus said to His disciples, "If anyone desires to come after
    Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.
     For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, and whoever
    loses his life for My sake will find it."     Matthew 16:24-25
    
    
    
    (deny: to declare to be untrue, to refuse a request, to disavow,
    to disown             thanks to Webster)
    
     In light of this teaching of Christ, I don't think Christ wants
    us (men and women) to "be true to ourselves". I think He wants us
    to be untrue to ourselves and true to Him.
    
     
                                                            
      Would be interesting to see how others interpret this teaching.
    To me this teaching embodies what women (and men) should be.
    
                                                      
                                                           Sandy
    
    
    
    
      

    Sandy,
    
    I disagree with this:
    
     In light of this teaching of Christ, I don't think Christ wants
    us (men and women) to "be true to ourselves". I think He wants us
    to be untrue to ourselves and true to Him.
    
    
    I believe by being true to ourselves - our *real* selves - that
    spark of Light created by God, not the programmed beings we become,
    we would be true to Him in the process.  Did he not say become as
    little children?  Become the child of God you were created to be.
    
    Ro
    

    Ro, I was going to say the same thing.  To use a Quaker expression,
    being true to God means being true to the measure of the Light within
    ourselves.
    
    -- Mike

    
    
      Ro,
    
         I see that you disagree with my interpretation. What does 
    "...let him deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me."
    and "For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, and whoever
    loses his life for My sake will find it." mean to you personally?
    
    
         You say "become the child He wants you to be". How?
    
    
                                                       Sandy
    

    Sandy,
    
	I'll try to answer your questions as best I can.    
    
    >>     I see that you disagree with my interpretation. What does 
    "...let him deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me."
    and "For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, and whoever
    loses his life for My sake will find it." mean to you personally?<<
    
    To me it would mean put one's negative ego aside, in the first
    instance, and death to the negative ego in the second quote.  We
    believe our negative ego, our personality to be who we are when in
    fact who we are is that Light created by God.  So to lose my life for
    Jesus sake to me would mean to follow in his footsteps, to become that
    pure Child of God as he did.
    
         You say "become the child He wants you to be". How?
    
    By following the voice of the Holy Spirit within rather than the 
    voice of the ego (the ego speaks out of fear), I've found I can 
    become closer to that way of being.  There are many tools available
    meditation and ACIM being two that come to mind.
    
    Hope this has helped,
    
    Ro
    

Dave,

Re:  121.38

  >we know quite well what submission does and does not mean. Your
  >attempt to portray it as a benevolent monarchy rather than as a vicious
  >dictatorship is optimistic at best and generally at odds with the real
  >world. 

Many know quite well what the submission the Bible talks about means.  Your
attempt to assert that it is a vicious dictatorship rather than a benevolent
monarchy (is that what it really is?) is pessimistic at best and generally
at odds with the REAL world (i.e. the truth of God as given in the Scriptures).

Aren't you glad I'm back?  :-)

Collis

    Unfortunately, sexism in Western religious thought has both reflected
    and helped shaped a culture that has been anything but innocuous in
    the way it has treated women.
    
    -- Mike

    Mike,
    	I had to look "innocuous" up to be sure you were saying what I
    thought you were saying. Yeah, insipid is not even the first choice
    definition. You do indeed "Note with savoir-faire".
    
    Collis,
    	yes, I'm glad you are back. Said with a straight face. But I *DO*
    wish you'd learn to make a smiley face with a wink of the eye !  ;-)

    Thank you, Dave.  :-)
    
    -- Mike

    
    re.49
    
    Ro,
    
      That did help explain some things, alas, still some questions.
    What is negative ego, is it the same as the ego out of fear mentioned
    later in your comment? Also, what is ACIM? When you meditate, what
    do you meditate on? Jesus Christ's Words? 
    
      When you mentioned "becoming as little children" I had to look
    it up!! Aren't His Words wonderful!!
    
    
     And Jesus called a little child to Him, and set him in the midst
    of them, and said, "Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and
    become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom
    of heaven.
     Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest
    in the kingdom of heaven."               Matthew 18:3-4
    
     Jesus answered and said unto him, "Most assuredly, I say to you,
    unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
    Jesus answered "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of
   water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 
     That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born
    of the Spirit is spirit."                  John 3:3,5-6
                                                                           
    
    I think this is how we "are converted" and "become as little children".
    
    
    
    "And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave-
     just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve,
    and to give His life a ransom for many."     Matthew 20:27-28
    
     "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as
    I have loved you, that you also love one another.
      By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love
    for one another."                          John 13:34-35
    
    
     To me these two teachings help explain "whoever loses his life
    for My sake will find it". By serving, as Christ served (He never
    once did anything to benefit Himself), but always to benefit someone
    else, He is our example. If we give away our lives serving Jesus
    Christ by serving others, instead of serving ourselves, then we
    are following in His footsteps-and that is when we will begin 
    living the abundant life He promised.
    
    
                                                       Sandy
    

    Sandy (.54),
    
    Yes, the negative ego would be the false self, the ego which acts out
    of fear - the personality we have created.  ACIM is the three part text,
    A Course in Miracles.  
    
    When I meditate I sometimes visualize Jesus Christ or some symbol 
    (such as rose which would represent the spirit of the cosmic Christ), but
    I doubt I would be able to meditate (by which I mean find that kingdom
    of God within) visualizing words.
    
    I have a lovely little book on meditations which I often use, I'll
    try to remember to bring it in tomorrow and include an example for you.
    
    Ro
    

    
     
      Ro,
    
       More questions... I think we are on totally different wavelengths-so
    please bear with me.
    
      "the personality we have created" Lost me there. Also, "ACIM the
    three part text-A Course in Miracles". Is this a book? Where is
    this three part text? 
    
    
       We also have different meanings for the word-meditation. To me
    it means: to consider thoughtfully, given to reflection, to ponder.
    You use the term visualizing which is to call up a mental picture
    of something-is this close? (Not trying to put words in your mouth-just
    trying to relate!) I think we have "the kingdom of God within" us
    through the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit within us should concur
    with Jesus Christ's teachings which means we have His teachings-to
    verify whatever the Spirit whispers to us in that still, small voice.
    He is our Example-we are to become as He is. I believe by studying
    His Words and yielding our "selves" to the power of the Holy Spirit-
    that Jesus' Will be done through us, instead of our will (until our will is
    conformed to His Perfect Will)-we will become what we should be...
    
        transformed by the renewing of our minds into His Image.
                              
    
    
     Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep
    My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and
    make our home with him.
     He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which
    you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent me."
    
    "Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself,
    unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide
    in Me.
     I am the vine, and you are the branches. He who abides in me, and
    I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing."
    
    "However, when He, the Spirit, has come, He will guide you into
    all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever
    He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.
     He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare
    it to you."
    
                          John 14:23-24, 15:4-5, & 16:13-14
    
    
                                                        Sandy
    

>Note 91.245

Okay, DR, DR,

>    Many of my dearest friends are women.  As a heterosexual married
>    person, the issue of sexuality is always present for me and (one
>    flatters oneself) also for at least some of these women.

I do not wish to derail 91.*, so I'll ask it here.  Since, at least the 3rd
grade my best friends have often been of the female gender.  It drives
my spouse bonkers with jealousy, even though she knows I'm as faithful
and devoted to her as a puppy dog.

How does your friendships with women affect your spousal relationship?
Did your spouse realize you were so inclined before you were wed?  Have
your friendship ever been a source of difficulty between you two?
[Yes, I'm being nosey.  But, I suspect you won't answer anything you
aren't comfortable with]

Bonnie, feel free to chime in.

>    Is not relationship (Eros) a primal human need, along with the Logos?

I suspect you mean philos, storge or agape, rather than Logos.  (But, who
knows?  I'm getting used being mistaken most of the time.)

Peace,
Richard

    Interesting question. A good many of my friends are women as well.
    You haven't lived until your wife hands you the phone saying "She says
    to tell you it's your girl friend." Obviously my wife is pretty
    comfortable with me having friends who are women. Even when, as several
    of my woman friends from Digital have done, they call me at home.
    Likewise it's never been a problem for me when men friends, some of
    whom she's known since she was a little girl, call her.

    We accept the fact that friends with people of the opposite sex is
    a natural and healthy thing. We also know that such friendships don't
    have to involve sex or other physical type things. We've never really
    understood how people could feel that they couldn't have a strong
    and deep friendship with a person of the opposite sex without "sex"
    getting in the way. But basically we deal with it through trust. We both
    know the other and we both trust each other. Of course that's what
    makes most other things in a marriage work as well.

    Friends, to me, are friends. The gender of friends is not all that
    relevant. Any more then color or age or religion. Lovers are people 
    you are married to. It's best when your lover is also a friend and 
    other friends are just friends though.

    			Alfred
    friends.

    Actually Alfred, you sum up my answer better than my husband did!
    
    Talking about esp etc, always makes me itch ;-).
    
    Anyway, I trust Don and I believe he trust me, to put our relationship
    with each other first.
    
    Bonnie
    
    (who I believe was the person who made the phone call to Alfred, unless
    that happened more than once!)

>    Actually Alfred, you sum up my answer better than my husband did!
    
    Hmmm, we agree. Perhaps I should re-think my position. :-)
    
    		Alfred

	My spouse and I trust each other, I think.  In my case, I think
it's more a matter that my spouse has long suffered from low self-esteem
and insecurity.  I think it might also have something to do with the old
myth about the spouse being able to fulfill every physical, emotional and
spiritual aspect of the marriage partner.

	I have had to sever ties with 3 friends because they were women
and Sharon could not emotionally withstand my having such friendships.
Each time this has happens, I feel like Peter denying his friendship
with Jesus.  I feel like (I believe the term is) a "wus."

Wusfully,
Richard

	One in eight American women has been raped.

	Sixty-two percent of the assaults occurred when the woman was a
minor; 29% occurred when the girls were 10 years old or younger; 32%
when they were 11 to 17 years old.

	Twenty-nine percent of the rapists were known by, but not related
to, the victim; 22% were strangers; 16% were relatives other than immediate
family; 11% were fathers or stepfathers; 10% were boyfriends or ex-boyfriends;
9% were husbands or ex-husbands.

	One survey found that only 16% of rape victims report the attack and
estimated that 683,000 rapes occurred in the U.S. in 1990.

	Does the church have the competency and willingness to minister
healing and hope to this huge segment of society that must live in fear --
fear even of family and acquaintances?

	Will the church be a voice for justice, crying out for righteousness
and human dignity?  Where is a city of refuge for American women?

[extracted from Quaker Life, June, 1992]

Peace,
Richard

    I figure this is as good a place as any to get opinions on this. 
    Sorry if this text has been discussed before.
    
    1st Corinthians 13:3
    
    "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and
    the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."
    
    Now this verse states an awful lot.  It says here that there is a
    head...always.  It also states that the head of Christ is God.  I find
    it quite amazing that even Jesus, God in the flesh, submitted himself
    to the Father.  What an example.  And yet at the same time, Jesus is
    God in the flesh, therefore, they are coequal in nature.  
    
    Reading on:
    
    "Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman
    without the man, in the Lord.  For as the woman is of the man, even so
    is the man also by the woman; but all things are of God."  vs. 11,12.
    
    Just as God and Jesus are coequal, so too are men and women.  Jesus had
    a distinct role in his life on earth as the Father has a distinct role
    in His existence.
    
    Question:  How is Paul regarded as sexist based on the above?  Thank
    you.
    
    -Jack

    ACtually the very passage you quote shows the error of the doctrine of
    the trinity.  
    
    According to that passage, if God is God and Christ is God, then God is
    the head God and Christ the subordinate God.
    
    They are not equal. 
    
    

    In academic, scholarly circles there has been much debate on the Greek
    word "kaphale", which is tranlated to "head" in English. There are 
    many scholars who report that head did not have the same connotations in
    Greek that it has in English, and refers more to source. This verse then
    becomes a statement of interdependency. Just as the source or substance
    of Yeshua is God, so the source of woman's substance is man in that Eve
    (Chava in Hebrew) was created by God from the substance of man. There 
    was a local belief that man was created from woman, and that woman had
    somehow brought to life or taught man all he knew. As my memory of all
    this is a bit vague, its been several years since I read it, I'll look
    up the references at home & be more specific. 

    Leslie

    Furthermore, the sequence that this verse is in, does not lend 
    weight to a hierarchical reading. The verse, as Jack quoted is:

>    1st Corinthians 13:3
    
>    "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and
>    the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."

    and not:

    But I would have you know that the head of Christ is God, the head of
    every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man.

    Also, consider that Colossians 1 states that Jesus is the head of the
    church, the Firstborn of All creation.
    
    The greek word, "Prototokos" for the word first born signifies or means
    Preeminience.  Preeminence means to have always existed; therefore, the
    word Firstborn as we would define it, is not what we thought it meant.
    
    Still, I would like more opinion on the coequalness of man and woman
    according to the verses I mentioned.  I agree the hierarchy has been
    sorely misused in society and between married couples throughout the
    ages, that isn't the point.  I am interested in how you interpret the
    context of 1st Corinthians 11:13 or whatever verse I quoted!
    
    -Jack

Re: .65 Jack

>    Just as God and Jesus are coequal, so too are men and women.  Jesus had
>    a distinct role in his life on earth as the Father has a distinct role
>    in His existence.
    
Are men and Jesus coequal?

>    Question:  How is Paul regarded as sexist based on the above?  Thank
>    you.
    
I regard Paul as sexist (reflecting the sexism of his time) because he says
that the man is the head of the woman.  He isn't saying that men and women
are equal, he's saying that men and women need each other.

				-- Bob

    
    ...and the woman's foot is meant to kick the man in his posterior
    when his head gets too swelled...
    
    Thus spake the Prophetess.  
    
    Cindy

    I Know!!!!  

	*All* men and women are equal in God's eyes but he assigns
	heads under certain arrangements. He assigned Moses to lead
	the Israelites out of bondage to the Egyptians. Even so many
	had a problem of excepting Moses and Aarons position. Christ
	was assigned head of the Christian congregation, even so Paul
	had to warn the Corinth congregation of setting up their
	own factions, admonishing that there is just one head of
	the Christian congregation Jesus. With one leader these 
	organistations would know which direction they are being led
	in. Similar to a ship that has one captain and one rudder, what
	direction would the ship take if you had two captains with
	different ideas on where the ship was to go.

	In the family, God has assigned the husband to take the lead
	in directing the family. Not as a despot, the model he should
	is that of Jesus and how he directs his congregation. Many 
	husbands neglect this role leaving their wives to steer the
	ship as it were. Others oppresive their wives thinking it's
	their God given right, well such ones are not following Jesus'
	example and will never know what it means to enjoy a meaningful
	family life.

	Phil.

    sigh!

jack, phil, you both seem to 'want the penny and the pie', as the
saying goes here.

in this topic and in the PK topic you say,

	"all men and women are equal in the eyes of god"
and 
	"men must assume a (spiritual) leadership role"


are you now seeing the relationship between man and woman in a 
HIERARCHICAL way, or as leslie suggested, in an INTERDEPENDENT 
way?

if you see it as hierarchical you have an oxymoron. men and women
are no longer equal.

if you see it as interdependent then this would mean that the leader 
needs the follower equally as much as the follower needs the leader. 

and interdependence applied to 1st corinthians 13:3, would also mean 
that man and christ are interdependent, that woman and man are 
interdependent, and that christ and god are interdependent.
[in a sense this would suggest an interdependence between god and humanity,
with christ being the link)


which will it be? 



andreas.

ps. i motion that either man OR woman can be leader OR follower, this
    would then put the concepts of hierachy and interdependence on an
    equal footing!

    
    > and interdependence applied to 1st corinthians 13:3, would also mean 
    > that man and christ are interdependent, that woman and man are 
    > interdependent, and that christ and god are interdependent. [in a sense
    > this would suggest an interdependence between god and humanity, with
    > christ being the link)

    Now I think you hit on something, Andreas. There is a total
    interdependency: man-woman, god-humanity. What is God without humanity
    to worship him? It's sort of like the conundrum: if a tree falls and
    there's no one to hear it, does it make a sound? There's something very
    "Eastern" about the balance of interdependencies. 

     Christ has no purpose without humanity. And humanity has no purpose
    without Christ, or I would say the message of Christ. So too men and
    women. Without each other, humanity is dead. There is also the emotional
    aspects of human interdependency.

    However, I'm not sure Paul was trying to say that. In general he seems
    very rooted in the sexism his time. At least to the extent of social,
    personal and clerical activities.

    Eric 

 ZZ   if you see it as interdependent then this would mean that the leader 
 ZZ   needs the follower equally as much as the follower needs the leader. 
    
    I choose this one!  This is clear in the scriptures and is epitomized
    in a wedding song here in the states, "Woman draws her life from man
    and gives it back again."  Some simply cannot understand this.  They
    think on human terms and hence...There Is Opression Here!  Nonsense.
    
    -Jack

re .75

Andreas,

I looked up interdependence in the dictionary just to
check what you meant, but couldn't find it. Do you mean 
that they are dependent upon each other?.

Phil.

yes phil, as eric put it, where one wouldn't make sense without the other.





andreas.

re .79

Andreas,

Well from a biblical perspective a wife should be viewed
as a complement and not someone inferior. Ofcourse, within
a family a wife and husband are interdependent (btw I don't
think such a word exists in the dictionary). But so is a manager
and those being supervised, even so I don't feel any animosity
for the position she/he holds. Units or organistions need
leadership and/or direction. This is certainly true of the 
family, to help it cope with the many problems we face today.

However, I would disagree that God is dependent upon mankind.
He has always existed, which is not true of mankind, who
has existed but a brief second in comparison. As the source
of life, it would be true that man is dependant upon his
Creator.

Phil.

    
    Jack, it's probably a good thing that you and I aren't married to each
    other...(;^)
    
    Cindy

    Ha ha...not to worry, I've have my posterior kicked before!!!

For those wishing to pursue some study on their own, here is a list of some
material to look at. It reflects several different points of view. The ones
marked with an asterisk go into detail about what I talked about in my
previous note.

* Bilezikian, Gilbert. "Beyond Sex Roles: What the Bible Says About a Woman's
    Place in Church and Family". Baker Book House. 1989. pages 134 -144.
    (I think he gives a very good treatise on this subject)

* Mickelsen, Alvera (Ed.). "Woman, Authority, & the Bible". Intervaristy Press.
    1986. This is really a series of essays by different authors. A section of
    3 pieces entitled "What Does Kephale Mean in the New Testament" is relevant
    to this topic. pages 97 - 132. Authors are Berkeley & Alvera Mickelsen (1),
    Ruth A. Tucker (2) [I disagree with her conclusions], and Philip Barton
    Payne (3).

* Evans, Mary J. "Woman in the Bible". Inter-Varsity Press. 1983. pages 65 - 69.

  Pape, Dorothy R. "In Search of God's Ideal Woman". Inter-Varsity Press. 1976.
      pages 117 - 134.

  Hurley, James B. "Men and Women in Biblical Perspective". Zondervan Publishing
     House. 1981. (he treats these from the traditional conservative male per-
     spective more than others, and in fact, many of them reference him in their
     writings and provide a contrast.)

  Heine, Susanne. "Women and Early Christianity: A reappraisal". Augsburg Pub-
     lishing House. 1988. (I thought her opening pages of the chapter "Paul the
     Scapegoat" were very good where she goes through showing the women active 
     in the church in Paul's writings, however I found her treatment of the 
     Corinthians 11 passages to be weak.)

Leslie

Phil,

From Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, Library & Office
Edition:

in-ter-de-pend-ence (noun) dependence on each other or one another; mutual
    dependency.

Leslie

1) Genesis 1:27 God created man male & female together, together man & woman 
                reflect the image of God
2) Genesis 1:28 together they were given the commandment to have dominion
                over the earth
3) Genesis 3:16 man's rulership over woman is part of the curse of the Fall,
                not the original design, but in Messiah we are a new creation
4) Mark 10:42-45 - Yeshua's words about how we should regard ourselves 
                in the question about authority: "it shall not be so with you."
5) Galations 3:27-28 - In Messiah there is no Jew and Greek, slave and
                free man, male and female.

re .85

Leslie,

Thanks this must be an American word, for I looked
in two separate English dictionaries.

Phil.

    .87
    
    We Americans are also big on independence and co-dependence.
    
    ;-}
    
    Richard