Tuesday, 4th August 2009
In praise of women
The monks on Mount Athos live in a male dominated world. Even the animals imported on the islands have to be males!
Such a world is a tad dull, isn't it? A world without women (or without men, for that matter) is like a rainbow with a couple of colours missing. The presence of men and women in society is not at issue; however, their role has been and still is.
It has changed through centuries, cultures and countries. Women fulfilled different roles from submissive chattels to dominant personalities. Times are changing and even sectors that had, for a long time, been considered as the dominion of males are no longer so.
Politics is one of them; though a lot has still to be done in counties like ours.
Some thought, and think, that politics is a men's world. Harriet Harman, the Deputy Leader of the British Labour Party, thinks exactly the opposite.
She told The London Sunday Times (cf last Sunday's electronic version) that men cannot be trusted to run organisations on their own.
"I don't agree with all-male leaderships," she said. "Men cannot be left to run things on their own. I think it's a thoroughly bad thing to have a men-only leadership."
She added:
"In a country where women regard themselves as equal, they are not prepared to see men running the show themselves," she said.
"I think a balanced team of men and women makes better decisions. That's one of the reasons why I was prepared to run for deputy leader."
I think she has a point; don't you?
In praise of carers
I regularly use the Jesuit-run prayer web site www.sacredspace.ie A few days ago they posted the following paragraph that I reproduce here:
"For a mother with a baby, the work is endless, respecting neither day nor night nor timetables. But even a mother's work seems easy compared with caring for the old and incontinent. A mother is handling the precious, promising body of her baby. She is rewarded at least with trust and occasional smiles. But when we are old, our bodies fall apart, our controls slip and we are not easy to help. We are proud, ashamed and angry at being so reduced. Smiles do not come easily. Yet across every country there are wives, husbands and other carers whose daily existence centres round cleaning up for their loved ones. ‘Your father who sees in secret will reward you.' (Matthew 6:6)
It is an unfashionable doctrine. Thomas A Kempis (remember The Imitation of Christ?) urged us to, ‘Enjoy being unknown and regarded as nothing.' He was praising the ability to persist through tedium, to survive without the oxygen of recognition, praise and stroking, to do some good things every day which are seen only by God. Carers are among the world's most heroic people."
Wise words indeed!
In praise of marriage
The following is the conclusion of Time magazine's cover story on marriage. It was written by Caitlin Flanagan and published on July, 17.
"The fundamental question we must ask ourselves at the beginning of the century is this: What is the purpose of marriage? Is it-given the game-changing realities of birth control, female equality and the fact that motherhood outside of marriage is no longer stigmatized-simply an institution that has the capacity to increase the pleasure of the adults who enter into it? If so, we might as well hold the wake now: there probably aren't many people whose idea of 24-hour-a-day good times consists of being yoked to the same romantic partner, through bouts of stomach flu and depression, financial setbacks and emotional upsets, until after many a long decade, one or the other eventually dies in harness.
"Or is marriage an institution that still hews to its old intention and function-to raise the next generation, to protect and teach it, to instil in it the habits of conduct and character that will ensure the generation's own safe passage into adulthood? Think of it this way: the current generation of children, the one watching commitments between adults snap like dry twigs and observing parents who simply can't be bothered to marry each other and who hence drift in and out of their children's lives-that's the generation who will be taking care of us when we are old.... What we teach about the true meaning of marriage will determine a great deal about our fate."
Words worth reflecting on.
In praise of the blue badge
"A luxury for you, a basic necessity for me. Do not add to my problems." This is the name of the campaign that is being waged by the Kummissjoni Nazzjonali Persuni b'Dizabilta as part of the EU project Progress.
The Kummissjoni is bringing to our attention the blue badge, formerly known as the blue sticker or card. This authorises persons with severe or lack of mobility or with permanent or temporary disability to park in parking bays allocated specifically for blue badge holders.
As the slogan of the campaign says, this card is a necessity for persons with disability. It is a great pity when people without disability abusively park in the parking bays marked in blue. This is appalling. The egoism of such people should be punished and hefty fines should be the price that one pays for such abuse.
The Kummissjoni also shows that some of the holders of the blue card abuse it as well. They sometimes lend it to other members of their families. Such practice is equally condemnable. The card is there to help the disabled not to make life easy for their families or friends.
The authorities should see to it that the number of blue bays is increased to reflect the increase in the number of disabled persons who drive cars. Besides, they should see to it that the increased pedestrianisation of different areas is not done at the expense of disabled persons. We should not increase the number of no-go areas for these persons.
It is wise of the Kummissjoni to remind us that what is a luxury for many is a necessity for some.
In praise of a sensible decision
The Management Board of Majjistral Park under the chair of Dr Ian Castaldi Paris decided to limit the time that hunting can be exercised in the Park. Now hunting has to stop at 9.00a.m. This is a sensible and courageous decision. It is taken in the best Aristotelian tradition of finding the middle way between two extremes. It steers away from the position of no hunting that the NGOs were advocating and the other position, which would hardly restrict hunting at all. This decision will benefit all families who go to the Park for recreation.
Such a decision will quite understandably be criticised by the hunting lobby. One hopes that the Management Board and its chair will find all the support they need from the authorities and the public at large.
RSS
Comments
Yes, it is a very tough routine indeed and that is an important reason why husbands need to put in their share to lighten the burden.
Can we spare a thought to the grandmothers who look after the children while the mother/father is at work? Everybody seems to take them for granted. They too are carers and believe me, much as they love their grand-children, the pressure of looking after them day in day out, takes its toll. They are at an age when they want to have time on their hands to do some kind of hobby which they never had time to do before. Their plans get thwarted and they cannot but accept to take charge of the infants while both parents are at work. It is frustrating to say the least, and they have to pretend that they are doing it gladly. Guilt feelings are not missing for deep down in their hearts they do not want to do it. Stress is inevitable!
I have scrolled down to your first comment submitted to this blog and I fully understand what you mean. Your criticism is very constructive and rather pro-marriage. If I have in any way offended you, please accept my apologies. I do not think it is my style and if my comments at times come over as such, I would have you know that it is never my intention.
However, my last comment was in answer to the remark, “Comments like yours , which are reflecting MGR Mercieca's attitude and blessed by Fr.Joe only help to put salt in the wound for these people. Is this catholic ?” I hope you realize that your comment was rather challenging and my answer was only a reaction to it.
Hope our little misunderstanding is sorted out! :-))
To do this, he has thought God's laws, Commandments, Statutes, Judgments, Ordinances, and God's true Laws of freedom of oppresssion (usury, wealth distribution) so that people would live in harmony, and have enough money for food, etc. Now most of us are employees, and in reality this is a form of slavery.
Jesus did promote self-defence, and as can be written in Luke:
22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no SWORD, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
22:37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
22:38 And they said, Lord, behold, here [are] two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.
It is high time for us to understand what Christ stood for. He is the perfect balance between love for us and God's soldier. The priests and "the soldier" aspect got Jesus killed.
The Bible is the fountain of truth, and that there is no contradiction between the Old and New Testaments and I also dare say the Koran too. Do not mix with what religions or customs dictate otherwise. I still with "what is" in the Holy Scriptures.
Fortunately, I have the King of kings Bible which gives the best translation of the above 3 books.
What most people fail to understand/comprehend is this: if we fail to gain access to heaven (and we have not see John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven ...) then God, as Most Merciful, gives us many other chances, and reincarnated several times to get it right.
Wheather you agree or not to the above is irrelevant, but should you agree that we are given many chances, and that we are on earth at God's disposal, then we are only subject to His rules.
Thus when God, decides to exterminate people, etc, it is ONLY because they are VERY EVIL. They are given other chances in life of course. Should you NOT believe in reincarnation, then you would not be able to accept that God gives us many chances. Continued...
I agree with you that "Perhaps it's time we take a pair of scissors to the bible, getting rid of some untrue nasty bits, or at least put some proper footnotes in there before handing it to a child"
A few months ago, I purchased a bible storybook for my little girl. Every night I would read a little story from this book, until I came across some nasty bits. For example, and I quote, "God is on my side", "God won", "They captured the people and took control of the city without even one battle! All they did was obey God's instructions."
Since then I have stopped reading such stories to my daughter. Fr Joe rightly claimed that the Bible is not dictated but inspired. But this is very hard to explain to a five-year old!
So I decided to read her stories from the New Testament, where Jesus teaches us that God is Love, and not a warrior who helps us eliminate our enemies.
Part 2.
“Archbishop Mercieca condemned the modern depiction of the mother who stays home as a “failure” and old-fashioned, saying her noble choice should be recognized and supported in a concrete way.” http://catholicexchange.com/2006/10/07/87680/ (please note website address you invited Fr. Joe to view in answer to his query.
Mr. Pace, would you agree with the above, which to my way of thinking makes so much sense?
A mother, who chooses to stay at home to raise her children, at least for the first few years, is to be commended and supported in a concrete way. But how is the woman to be “supported in a concrete way”? That is what should be addressed. Maybe then we could have more women who opt to stay at home and more grandparents enjoying their retirement.
Part 1.
If I have generalized it must have been through my genuine concern for the little children who I know for a fact miss the continuous presence of either of the parents. Grandparents do a sterling job doubling as parents and the children, although taxing on their strength, do compensate by their loving ways which they shower on them. Pity it is not either of the parents who are receiving these tender gestures!
Children grow up very fast these days and parents miss a lot by not being present to witness their development. But as you said, at times parents cannot do otherwise but go out to work.
Continued…..
@ Sharon Abela
In some instances if not taken literally non-believers can learn from it, as much as one can learn from fables and parables. Hence we are in agreement “that it should not be understood in a narrow and strict literal way”, as you very well put it. I am sure you would agree that some of the quotes below are preposterous and out of date.
“The Bible is not dictated but inspired. The Holy Spirit moved different persons from the community to write. What is written is not dictated word for word. What is written reflects the level of education and personality of the writer”, your words. You have to make up your mind here whether there was some divine intervention in writing the bible or not, as one cannot pick and choose only the instances that suit to be “inspired by God”, and what you very well know is utter rubbish “should not be understood in a narrow and strict literal way”.
re your comment: "The Bible is no longer relevant today, and should never be taken literally."
The Bible's importance lies in its holistic spiritual message from God for humanity.
Let's see some non religious examples of literary works:
Shakespeare is a classic and his works have been adapted to modern times, (viz. Macbeth adapted and set in WWII, or Romeo and Juliet ..rivalling gangs); the philosophical works of Plato, Aristotile, are immortal; Arriosto, Moliere or Victor Hugo's Les Miserables, can apply to what is still going on today; Aristophane's Lysistrata reflected the postmodern women's determination to affect change, (2000 years before!); Seneca's Oedipus hovers around the ever existing characteristics of humanity namely fear, determination and eventual fate.
The Bible also has these transcendental qualities obviously besides its validity in being the inspired word of God. What is universally good is good and viceversa, the essence of the message will always apply to the times. Indeed the Bible is still very valid today, and can still remain valid in the future as long as there are people who are intelligent enough to see the bigger picture, instead of scrutinizing with a magnifying glass to try to find faults.
While agreeing with most of what you said, it doesn't answer the question. Do people, especially children, realise that this is the case? When my wife was in school - not that long ago - she was taught men had a rib less than women (probably the teacher thought his students could not count), the bible was the word of God and she once had the audacity to simply ask why certain acts in the old testament was done resulting in a telling off. He might been a bad apple among teachers, but I've heard it mirrored from others, just in less detail.
The question is whether people are made aware of what is simple minded stories and what is considered as truth? Some of the most central bits - as the ten commandments - are buried in some of the cruel and non sensical parts and yet they are echoed ad nauseum. Perhaps it's time we take a pair of scissors to the bible, getting rid of some untrue nasty bits, or at least put some proper footnotes in there before handing it to a child (pg-13).
We are in agreement.
The Bible is no longer relevant today, and should never be taken literally.
Jews, Christians and Muslims beware.
Yes, it will take at least another generation before women in Malta can consider themselves completely equal to men for by then most of the ones who had lived through “other” times would have passed on to give way to the ones who are being bred on a mentality that will not tolerate subservience to men.
As to my earlier comment where I said that married women, who do not go out to work, fall under the influence of the husband and thereby tend to vote according to his suggestion, still stands, but of course there are sectors who omitted to vote for a woman candidate for other reasons.
Just to mention an important one: everyone felt it his/her duty to elect as many candidates from their party of choice as possible and no chances were taken, so they banked on the well-known names. In my case, I must admit, I gave first preference to a male candidate but my second preference went to a woman who unfortunately did not make it. Had the woman candidate been more of a prominent political figure, I would not have hesitated in giving her first preference.
Young children need the continuous attention of a mother/father at least up to the stage where they start going to school.
Children are resilient, it is true. They adapt, but we might not be aware of the harm that we are actually causing them by transmitting our tension and the effects of a stressful way of life on to them. They are sensitive to our moods and in turn they are frustrated themselves.
Very often babies/toddlers are woken up very early in the morning when they should still be fast asleep, to be taken to the grandparents so that the parents could go to work. Wouldn’t that be stressfulon them? I wonder!
The Bible is a holy book but one written hundrends, not to say thousands of years ago. It has to be approached with the respect due to the world of God and the literally skills asked for by ancient literature.
Mark : Jesus will reward men who abandon their wives and families. 10:29-30
Luke: Abandon your wife and family for Jesus and he'll give you a big reward. 18:29-30
John : Jesus tells Mary Magdalene not to touch him because he hasn't yet ascended -- as if the touch of a woman would defile him and somehow prevent him from ascending into heaven. 20:17
Some quotes from Deuteronony, that should make any sensible woman and man completely ignore the Bible:
If a betrothed virgin is raped in the city and doesn't cry out loud enough, then "the men of the city shall stone her to death." 22:23-24
If a man rapes an unbetrothed virgin, he must pay her father 50 shekels of silver and then marry her. 22:28-29
If a man marries a woman and later finds "some uncleanness in her," then he can divorce her and kick her out of his house. If another man marries her and then dies, the first husband cannot marry her again. "For that is an abomination before the Lord." 24:1-4
If a man dies before his wife has a child, then the widow must marry her husband's brother -- whether she likes him or not, and whether she wants to or not. 25:5
If two men fight and the wife of one grabs the "secrets" of the other, "then thou shalt cut off her hand" and "thine eye shall not pity her." 25:11-12
Some more from Deuteronony, that should make any sensible woman and man completely ignore the Bible:
Three times a year all of the males are to appear before God. The females he never wants to see. 16:16
In the cities that god "delivers into thine hands" you must kill all the males (including old men, boys, and babies) with "the edge of the sword .... But the women ... shalt thou take unto yourself." 20:13-14
If you see a pretty woman among the captives and would like her for a wife, then just bring her home and "go in unto her." Later, if you decide you don't like her, you can "let her go." 21:11-14
Rules for those who have two wives: "one beloved, and another hated." 21:15
When a man dies, his sons inherit his property. Wives and daughters get nothing at all. 21:16
If a man marries, then decides that he hates his wife, he can claim she wasn't a virgin when they were married. If her father can't produce the "tokens of her virginity" (bloody sheets), then the woman is to be stoned to death at her father's doorstep. 22:13-21
Just a couple of quotes from Numbers, that should make any sensible woman and man completely ignore the Bible:
The Law of Jealousies. If a man suspects his wife of being unfaithful, he reports it to the priest. The priest then makes her drink some "bitter water." If she is guilty, the water makes her thigh rot and her belly swell. If innocent, no harm done -- the woman is free and will "conceive seed." In any case, "the man shall be guiltless from iniquity, and this woman shall bear her iniquity." 5:11-31
Under God's direction, Moses' army defeats the Midianites. They kill all the adult males, but take the women and children captive. When Moses learns that they left some live, he angrily says: "Have you saved all the women alive? Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." So they went back and did as Moses (and presumably God) instructed, killing everyone except for the virgins. In this way they got 32,000 virgins - 31:1-54
Some more from Leviticus, that should make any sensible woman and man completely ignore the Bible:
A man who has sex with a menstruating woman "shall be unclean seven days." 15:24
"Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is apart for her uncleanness," Don't even look at a menstruating woman. 18:19
If a man has sex with an engaged slave woman, scourge the woman, but don't punish the man. (Even if he raped her?) 19:20-22
If a woman "lies with a beast" both the woman and the animal are to be killed. 20:15
If a man has sex with a menstruating woman, they both "shall be cut off from among their people." 20:18
Women with "familiar spirits" are to be stoned to death. 20:27
Priests can't marry "whores", "profane", or divorced women. Why? Because "he is holy unto his God" and they would defile him. 21:7
A priest can only marry a virgin. No harlots, widows, or divorced women will do. (God really likes virgins.) 21:13-14
Few quotes from Leviticus, that should make any sensible woman and man completely ignore the Bible:
Only unblemished males are to be killed and offered to God. Females don't even make good burnt offerings. 1:3, 10
When a king sins only the best sacrifice will do -- he must offer a male goat to God. But if a commoner sins, a female will do. 4:22-28
Women are dirty and sinful after childbirth, so God prescribes rituals for their purification. If a boy is born, the mother is unclean for 7 days and must be purified for 33 days; but if a girl is born, the mother is unclean for 14 days and be purified for 66 days. This is because, in the eyes of God, girls are twice as dirty as boys. 12:1-5
After a woman gives birth, a priest must kill a lamb, pigeon, or dove as a sin offering. This is because having children is sinful and God likes it when things are killed for him. 12:6-8
God lays down the law on menstruating women. Such women are to God both filthy and sinful, and anyone who comes near them is contaminated by them. 15:19-30, 33
Few quotes from Exodus, that should make any sensible woman and man completely ignore the Bible.
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, ... nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's." In the Bible, women are the property of men; they are his possessions. 20:17
God explains how to go about selling your daughter -- and what to do if she fails to please her new master. 21:7
God's instructions for taking a second wife. 21:10
If you "entice" an "unmarried maid" to "lie" with you, then you must marry her, unless the father refuses to give her to you, in which case you must pay him the going price for virgins. 22:16
"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Thousands of innocent women have suffered excruciating deaths because of this verse. 22:18
Three times a year God wants to see all of the males. The females he never wants to see. 23:17
"Their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods." God always blames the women; it is they who "go a whoring" and then "make" the men "go a whoring." 34:16
Few quotes from Genesis, that should make any sensible woman and man completely ignore the Bible:
God fashions a woman out of one of Adam's ribs. This was necessary since Adam couldn't find a "help meet" in any of the animals that God made for him. 2:20-22
God punishes Eve, and all women after her, with the pains of childbirth and subjection to men. 3:16
Lamech is the first of a long line of biblical men with more than one wife. It seems that God approves of such marriages. 4:19, 23
Finally, sometime in the next 800 years, Adam begat some daughters. These nameless ones are the first girls to be born in the Bible. 5:4
"The male and his female ..." Notice that in the Bible female animals are the property of male animals, as women are the property of men. 7:2
And the damsel was fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her." 24:16
"She was barren." In the Bible it's always the woman that are "barren", never the men. And when God "opens their womb," the resulting babies are always little boys. 25:21-26
What you wrote confirms that, for all the progress towards gender equality, most women still carry the cultural baggage of subservience to men. But I disagree with your statement that the women who vote for male politicians are necessarily those who do not work or are married. I am sure that thousands of working women and single women must have voted for the male candidates in the last EP election. How else can one explain that all the elected MEPs are male? A cursory look at the statistics shows that there must have been c.125,000 female voters but women candidates garnered only c.50,000 first votes. Assuming no man voted for a woman candidate, that works at 40% of the female voters. Quite good, perhaps, considering the strong conservative element in our culture but still not good enough if we agree with the words of Harriet Harman that men cannot be trusted to run organisations on their own and with her vision: "In a country where women regard themselves as equal, they are not prepared to see men running the show themselves." I too think she has a point.
The Bible is good and believers (I am including myself here obviously) should be guided by its teaching, however you are misinterpreting the use of the word 'men', among other things, wherein at times it is used in the same manner as 'person' which as you might have not realized has been replaced, nowadays, because of gender discrimination, especially due to postmodern approach to lingusitics. Yes ...we (humans= men and women) are evolving in many different ways!
for example in Cor 13 and I quote:
"1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal."
if this is to be taken literally,then women should not ever speak!! ..no reference to women's tongues!
or..
"Through men of strange tongues ..."
This is my favourite:
"39All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another."
hellooo..what does this make women???robots?aliens?micro-organisms?
no wonder they had to submit to men, they are not even humans it seems :)
anyway...I'm off to mass to listen to the word of God, have a good day.
:)
So I am accused of being fundamentalistic! wow :)) Therefore reading the Bible, as is, and taking God's word for it, is biased? Hmm, it should make you think.... but then it all boils down to one thing.... do you believe that the Bible is fast and true?
I think so. I "know" so.
@ Dr Francis Saliba
what I meant was that the women should rediscover thetr own too (woman-hood)!
So what should our mind rearrange, our current reality with its movements (be they for liberty etc) or to stick to the Bible?
Believe me, the Bible stands for true liberty, but NOT what many people think!
So who would be your best friend? Would it be someone who would invite you to a banquet and sign your soul to the devil, or someone blunt who gives you the unabashed truth, at ALL costs?
If humans are this: human+beings, the human the flesh and beings the soul, it is the soul I am ALWAYS addressing. Never mind the "human" rebellious as always, as good Godly behaviour is paramount to save souls.
Because a good number of women (particularly those who do not go out to work and consequently are not exposed to other views) are married and, whether you believe it or not, still fall under the influence of their husbands and, therefore, tend to vote according to what their husbands favour. Women in general can be very staunch supporters for their party of choice, at times even more so than their husbands, but when it comes to deciding who to vote for they rely on what their husbands suggest.
I do not believe it is a question of not trusting women candidates, but rather because many women voters are not well informed about all the candidates contesting the election.
Noone is questionning his right to an opinion, but you have to agree that certain beliefs can be dangerous, especially if taken to fundamental levels. I'm not saying that Mr. Grechs beliefs for certain are dangerous, but to me they seem like beliefs that should be strongly challenged.
In fact, they also give gredence to Steve Pace's challenge earlier. While it was unfair to suggest that the Maltese Church commands women to be home cooking, cleaning and washing, the actual verses from the bible shows a very oppressive view on women. Granted, the Church doesn't push those beliefs, but they are still in a document which is being taught to children as the word of God. I suspect it's impact is vastly higher to the average person, than any letters or speech from bishops, the pope or the Curia.
:)
@all
I'm sure we all know that not all sites found on the net are indeed reliable sources, and should not be even considered let alone believed.
Good day to all
:)
Hi sharon,
Liked your shot!!! ......... A bit below the belt, maybe??? :-))
If we were to take the Bible literally like you seem to do, we should not let women do the shopping, especially at the greengrocer. Look what happened when Eve got an apple for Adam.
I am not going to debate any quotes that you submit for I admit I do not feel confident enough to argue with someboy who seems to have made it his mission in life, however, I do reflect on what you say.
What makes me question is how you do not arrive to the conclusion yourself through simple observation of life around you and through the various means from where you can get information about the capability of woman’s brain in relation to man’s.
God made us complementary to each other and in no way did He make woman mentally inferior. Had He wanted us to be so submissive, He would not have given us an inquisitive mind. (Or is an inquisitive mind, Satan's doing?)
re: the Sodomites ..True that certain practices are not in accordance with the bible, I will not be the judge of that. What we are talking about has nothing to do with that!!
We are talking about women's rights to be man's equals nothing to do with Sodom and Gomorra.
such as your quote:
"and the head of the woman [is] the man"
Are you serious??
Thank God, that He sent sane people to interpret the bible, what you suggest sends women back to the stone age!
Should the woman accept this (the man as her head) freely, then yes, but what you are suggesting gives rise to all kinds of abuse, which luckily has been abolished at least in many countries. Man and woman (in marriage) should form a partnership, and they decide who is head and at which instances. Women are at times more knowledgeable than the men and should be given the opportunity to take those decisions, and at other times the reverse happens. Outside marriage if a woman is capable to assume a higher post than any men she has every right to pursue that opportunity and without any biblical guilt!!
Oh goodness, in regards to your Corinthians quote, I can't wait to go home and tell the wife that. I'm sure she will appreciate it.
Has it ever occured to you that the desctruction of Sodom is a fable, an allegory if you'd like, but really nothing more than a story. Also, thank goodness it is. Are you suggesting we are supposed to worship such a vengeful, genocidal God?
U ijja a pirate's eye patch or a member of the pulse family ..the point was not in the spelling of the name ...I realized after I saw the actual post..but did not think that it made Mr Grech any differece...but If it matters so much to you ...and for the record BEP is Black Eyed Peas. Tajjeb?
:)
The issue on "going with the times" is an important one. The Church and people frequently think that we should "modernize". It depends on what you mean by modernize. If this means to go contrary to what God meant in the Bible/Koran (not any Taliban/Haidith/Sharia Law versions please), than is that good?
To give a severe example, the people of Sodom thought that it was fashionable to practice being sodomites. Since this was so contrary to God's will (and word in the Bible) that He had them exterminated. Hey, it is His world, and it is His will that we SHOULD be talking about, and NOT what we see fit.
It is about time that we see things God's way, and not our way. Whether this is called old fashioned or otherwise, it is Satan's confusion, that tempts us to thwart what God intends to inform us, via scriptures.
@ Antoine Vella
I quote only from the King of kings Bible
The best quote:
1 CORINTHIANS
11:3 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.
Not to be pedantic or anything but a "black eye piece" is something a pirate would wear. Don't you mean Black Eyed Peas, instead?
Chris Grech
You'll find a treasure trove of your favourite quotes in the Taliban version of the Koran - better than the Bible. I expect you disapprove of women in trousers too.
Steve Pace
Perhaps you were temporarily wearing a pair of black eye pieces when you read the article you quoted. The Archbishop said that those women who choose to stay at home ought to be supported, not that women must remain at home because that is their place. At any rate, a mother's role involves a lot more than "washing,cleaning and cooking" and you have a very poor view of women if you think that is all they do at home.
You completely missed the point. You claimed that women who rule over men will be struck with barenness, something that did not happen to Margaret Thatcher. If she helped dictators escape justice, or had puppies for breakfast doesn't matter, I'm simply pointing out that what you quoted from the bible is obviously proven wrong in Thatcher's case. According to your scripture quotes Thatcher will die childless... Is this a prediction we can trust? Will this also happen to all women who rule over men?
re:
"If "going with the times" does not go against God's will is one thing, but if the contrary, would you still do it?"
If you read my comment you will notice that I appreciate the differences between men and women and their responsibilities. However to think that the bible states that women's roles should be restricted or worse still punished if they pursue certain roles is a very mediocre approach to interpret the bible. I will have you know that I respect the bible's teaching as well as that of the church, which has worked hard to reconcile the old with the new, for all to benefit from. But what you are saying borders with fundamentalism in my opinion.
Thanks for explaining BEP. Regarding 2000 years too late, it may pay to understand that God's words are immutable, and do not go with the times.
So what does the church expect? To change the Commandments, even further? What about other God's laws, perverse these even more so?
If "going with the times" does not go against God's will is one thing, but if the contrary, would you still do it?
you usually like to find some encryptic message in songs etc..so thought you'd figure it out..
just in case you're still wondering..BEP is Black Eye Piece..and
'you are so 2000 and late' is another way of saying..'update yourself with the times'
:)
“Times are changing and even sectors that had, for a long time, been considered as the dominion of males are no longer so.”
Yes, it is changing from the time when male chauvinists persisted in giving more value to work produced by men - work that both sexes could do just as ably, It is irksome for a woman painter, for instance, to be referred to as a “dilettante” while a man painter is assigned the term “artist”. Thankfully, that ignorant mentality is over!
But there still exists an annoying trait where people in general prefer to commission male artists for prestigious works. They mistakenly assume that there is more value in works produced by a man. However, it could also be that women tend to keep a low profile probably because of a complex, that still has not been eradicated, from the time when they were considered inferior to men, although I rather think that men are better at blatantly promoting themselves on the media and are more likely to go and lobby for the commissions.
Sorry I meant barreness not Baroness, which is now Thatcher's title. I wonder if women's libbers are all barren, but probably this depends when they started to act as men, or to demand something, that they are not!
To ALL:
Check out this site. It proves that Rockefeller started the women's liberation front, as a means to i) break the tradional family, and its values, and ii) the "elite" can tax now women, as well as men and iii) to further perverse society at large.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_globalelite05.htm
The above makes chilling reading. Apart from the women lib agenda, the chipping of human-kind has started. The Attorney Ggeneral of Mexico and his staff are chipped, so as to enter their offices. Some US firms have started to do the same. Fortunately, some sane US states have prohibited the forceful use of chips by some employers.
I am in now way want to demean women! It is NOT just to put them in thier right place in society, for thier own good, but for the good of society in general. So says God, not me!
Margerat Thatcher, the so called Iron Lady, was called one, the only man in the house!
These are political persons and not the normal ones you find outside Parliament. Regarding decisions, Thatcher did a few fouls too, like changing the definition of unemployment more than 20 times, to have it reduced perhaps? She has a few years ago, bargained for the Chilean dictator, Pinochet to be released from justice in the UK, after the Spanish wanted him extradited for crimes of humanity. Helping criminals get away, from justice, is so perverse, and it was done upfront too!
She had to pay Pinochet a favour, during the Falklands war, when the UK obtained intelligence data from the Chilians. Barroness is God's prerogative, not human's.
@ Sharon- Am sorry, I do not understand what is BEP or your argument.
A quote from BEP is fitting for your argumentation.. 'you are so 2000 and late'!
Since Jessica Debattista mentioned Margaret Thatcher (with some absolutely brilliant quotes), doesn't it strike you as odd that she was the leader over many men for quite a few years and yet she wasn't barren? Does this mean your bible fails, or your interpretation of it fails?
Franco Farrugia:
It might come as news to you that some people do shoulder more than one role in life. Why should Fr. Borg not have that right?
Some famous quotes by Margaret Thatcher which tickled my fancy and wanted to share:
- If you want something said ask a man, if you want something done ask a woman.
- I’ve got a woman’s ability to stick to a job and get on with it when everyone else walks off and leaves it.
- Any woman who understands the problems of running a home will be nearer to understanding the problems of running a country.
- One of the things being in politics has taught me is that men are not a reasoned or reasonable sex.
www.brainyquote.com
Now, he is also an expert in matters that have to do with animals that are not human. With regard to the decision taken regarding hunting at the Majjistrall Park, which he describes as a good decision, there is absolutely no wisdom. It is not a question of 'a middle way between two extremes'. Animal life is precious, as is man's, and therefore, there can be no hunting for the sheer pleasure of it - fullstop. And this, I say, to the extent that people call me extremist or even crazy.
ENOCH
96:12 I have sworn to you, ye sinners, that neither mountain nor hill has been nor should be a servant to woman (Gen. 3:16-17 - women's liberation CONDEMNED).
96:13 Neither in this way has your crime been sent down upon Earth (1st COMMANDMENT), but men of their own heads have invented it; and greatly shall those who give it (women's liberation) efficiency be CURSED.
96:14 Barrenness (infertility) shall not be previously inflicted on woman; but on account of the work of her hands shall she die childless (as a punishment - Deut. 28:18).
ISAIAH
3:12 [As for] My people, children [are] their oppressors, and women rule over them. O My people, they which lead thee cause [thee] to err, and lead thee astray, to thy destruction.
1 TIMOTHY
2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to USURP authority over the man, but TO BE IN SILENCE.
2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
"In a country where women regard themselves as equal, they are not prepared to see men running the show themselves," she said.
"I think a balanced team of men and women makes better decisions. That's one of the reasons why I was prepared to run for deputy leader."
I think she has a point; don't you?
How about lobbying for women priests then eh???