|
Post by joelhaldeman on Oct 9, 2004 2:01:43 GMT -5
Its to bad you said that because its simply not true. Statistics will prove you wrong. Check out www.americanvalues.org/html/does_divorce_make_people_happy.htmlor ill just highlite it for you... • Unhappily married adults who divorced or separated were no happier, on average, than unhappily married adults who stayed married. Even unhappy spouses who had divorced and remarried were no happier, on average, than unhappy spouses who stayed married. This was true even after controlling for race, age, gender, and income. • Divorce did not reduce symptoms of depression for unhappily married adults, or raise their self-esteem, or increase their sense of mastery, on average, compared to unhappy spouses who stayed married. This was true even after controlling for race, age, gender, and income. • The vast majority of divorces (74 percent) happened to adults who had been happily married five years previously. In this group, divorce was associated with dramatic declines in happiness and psychological well-being compared to those who stayed married. • Unhappy marriages were less common than unhappy spouses. Three out of four unhappily married adults were married to someone who was happy with the marriage. [2] • Staying married did not typically trap unhappy spouses in violent relationships. Eighty-six percent of unhappily married adults reported no violence in their relationship (including 77 percent of unhappy spouses who later divorced or separated). Ninety-three percent of unhappy spouses who avoided divorce reported no violence in their marriage five years later. • Two out of three unhappily married adults who avoided divorce or separation ended up happily married five years later. Just one out of five of unhappy spouses who divorced or separated had happily remarried in the same time period.
|
|
|
Post by Satori on Oct 9, 2004 2:30:07 GMT -5
Personally, I think we're getting a little off-topic here and I'll let you guys discuss the 'divorce v marriage' argument as I'm not particularly interested. However, just one point for Bob ... That is what I mean when I say that the Bible affirms the created common moral law. I think it would be better to say that the Bible reflects the common moral law of society and era it was written for. Had the Biblical writers been writing for today's more feminist and sex-equality society then it may well have reflected that. I doubt it would have been so harsh with the 'keeping women in their place' elements.
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Oct 10, 2004 3:07:32 GMT -5
I read the study. It raises a few interesting points, and I agree that divorce for trivial reasons holds negligible benefit. The summary points you quoted are effected, however, by the detailed information behind the study listed in its complete findings underneath: • Unhappily married adults who divorced or separated were no happier, on average, than unhappily married adults who stayed married. Even unhappy spouses who had divorced and remarried were no happier, on average, than unhappy spouses who stayed married. This was true even after controlling for race, age, gender, and income. The following quotes from the study put this into context: "Unhappily married spouses were statistically somewhat more likely to be black, female, have minor children in the home, and to not be employed than happily married spouses." and "Unhappy spouses who divorced…were also somewhat more likely to report personal growth" - shows there were actually mixed findings. • Divorce did not reduce symptoms of depression for unhappily married adults, or raise their self-esteem, or increase their sense of mastery, on average, compared to unhappy spouses who stayed married. This was true even after controlling for race, age, gender, and income. However, the study also says: "With the important exception of reducing the incidence of marital violence for unhappy spouses (in violent marriages), divorce failed, on average, to result in improvements in psychological well-being for unhappy spouses." and "While a majority of spouses became happy five years later, unhappy husbands were somewhat more likely than unhappy wives to become happier down the road." and "Many people divorce hoping to make a better marriage down the road. How often does this happen? If the problem is marital violence, divorce appears to offer significant relief." and "When an unhappily married adult experiences violence, divorce and remarriage significantly reduce the likelihood he or she will experience domestic violence." I think this one is especially important: "In addition, the most unhappy marriages reported the most dramatic turnarounds: Among those who rated their marriages as very unhappy,[27] almost eight out of 10 who avoided divorce were happily married five years later." - This means that if a marriage is genuinely very bad, divorce does indeed help a great deal. • The vast majority of divorces (74 percent) happened to adults who had been happily married five years previously. In this group, divorce was associated with dramatic declines in happiness and psychological well-being compared to those who stayed married. Clearly, then, in this sample, most (74%) divorcees had not had problems for very long. People whose marriages end due to less devastating reasons would probably do better to try and work it out, with the extremely important exception of domestic violence. It is to be expected. • Unhappy marriages were less common than unhappy spouses. Three out of four unhappily married adults were married to someone who was happy with the marriage. [2] This only serves to highlight the unequalness in the sharing of marital unhappiness. This quote is also relevant to this point: "While a majority of spouses became happy five years later, unhappy husbands were somewhat more likely than unhappy wives to become happier down the road." and "Unhappily married spouses were statistically somewhat more likely to be black, female, have minor children in the home, and to not be employed than happily married spouses." • Staying married did not typically trap unhappy spouses in violent relationships. Eighty-six percent of unhappily married adults reported no violence in their relationship (including 77 percent of unhappy spouses who later divorced or separated). Ninety-three percent of unhappy spouses who avoided divorce reported no violence in their marriage five years later. Well, first of all there's the obvious problem that most domestic violence isn't ever reported anyway, as well as the study's previously quoted findings that "If the problem is marital violence, divorce appears to offer significant relief.", so this summary point misses the important finding that if there IS domestic violence, it is indeed better to get divorced. • Two out of three unhappily married adults who avoided divorce or separation ended up happily married five years later. Just one out of five of unhappy spouses who divorced or separated had happily remarried in the same time period. Well, as I've already said, this percentage includes divorces which weren't violent and which weren't subject to any problems five years earlier, so this is to be expected. Also, there is the important difference between men and women here: "While a majority of spouses became happy five years later, unhappy husbands were somewhat more likely than unhappy wives to become happier down the road." This study also only took place over only 5 years, so the findings of more general depression immediately after getting divorced would certainly be expected. The study fails to address the psychological improvements over the years following divorce. Of course everyone feels devastated immediately after their marriage ends; it's a massive life change. The findings of this study lack validity due to the extremely small time-frame involved: " Five years is a fairly short time frame, however, and the number of unhappy spouses in these data who had divorced and remarried by that point is small." - This quote also concedes the study's inadequate sampling. A far larger sample needs to be used for reliable findings.
|
|
|
Post by bobarian on Oct 10, 2004 16:24:04 GMT -5
Shiggy -
You are not responding to my arguments properly and I no longer feel like there is any purpose in this discussion.
First of all, you say Paul is sexist and has "sexist" and "non-sexist" verses, yet you do not say exactly what is sexist and non-sexist about these verses.
Second, you say that Paul contradicts himself in his sexism and non-sexism. If he contadicts himself that means he has to be wrong somewhere. So tell me, which of his verses are wrong or misguided, the sexist or non-sexist ones and why?
Finally, you make a good point in that women are abused in many situations in marriage. I would say that this is not due to a bad institution but to a bad people. Humanity is depraved; it is the most empirically demonstrable fact. I find it very interesting that in this century that has become more and more humanistic, women have not been less abused. In fact, if anything, even more so. What this world needs is a Savior, and part of God's plan to restore His creation is a restored conception of marriage (not "equal partnership") found in the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Oct 11, 2004 1:41:25 GMT -5
You are not responding to my arguments properly and I no longer feel like there is any purpose in this discussion. Oh, I beg your pardon. What is this "properly"? If anyone is guilty of sloppy arguments and weak logic here, it is certainly not me. First of all, you say Paul is sexist and has "sexist" and "non-sexist" verses, yet you do not say exactly what is sexist and non-sexist about these verses.. Oh, this goes way back to the beginning of this debate. What is "sexist" about verses such as "women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." (1 Cor. 14:34-35, NIV), and "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man; she must be silent ... But women will be saved through childbearing - if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety." (1 Tim. 2:11-15), and many, many other verses which I have also previously quoted, is that they advocate the public silence of women and the unequal and arbitrary submission of one sex to the other. This has led to countless social problems, etc, which I've already said. Second, you say that Paul contradicts himself in his sexism and non-sexism. If he contadicts himself that means he has to be wrong somewhere. So tell me, which of his verses are wrong or misguided, the sexist or non-sexist ones and why?. I have also already addressed this (and you've also just acknowledged in this statement that the verses ARE actually sexist, answering your previous point). The SEXIST verses are wrong. Why is this? Well, it's because women are obvously equally proficient to men in roles of leadership and public voicing of their educated opinions (as me debating in this chatroom illustrates). Furthermore, women also have equal psychological needs for power and control in their lives to men, and so it is inhumane to deny us this. Finally, you make a good point in that women are abused in many situations in marriage. I would say that this is not due to a bad institution but to a bad people. Humanity is depraved... I find it very interesting that in this century that has become more and more humanistic, women have not been less abused. In fact, if anything, even more so . The fact that this is not true is blatantly obvious. As the oppressive, patriarchal structures of society have been lifted to allow women to vote, to access education, to earn and control their own finances, to own property and to be able to choose whether and when they will marry has created huge amounts of freedom from abuse when there previously were none. "Domestic violence" wasn't even illegal in the early 1900s - the marrige vow to "love and obey" one's husband meant that wives were the property of their husbands and physical "punishment" was allowed, even endorsed. Gradually, as men are now understanding this, they are realising that abuse is unacceptable and it has declined. Sure, there's still some, but this is because society'values are still in the process of changing. Also, if abuse was due to humanity's general flaws, one would expect that social injustices would be roughly equally distributed between genders. The fact that, historically, this has not been the case, suggests that there has been some other, sytematic institutional, social bias against women. The fact that this imbalance is now in the process of being corrected shows that social changes in sexual equality ARE a good thing. What this world needs is a Savior, and part of God's plan to restore His creation is a restored conception of marriage (not "equal partnership") found in the Bible. Your acknowledgement that the Bible does not endorse equal partnership is the reason I am against its depiction of compulsory female submission to the "natural authority" of males. History shows it is a dangerous way to live.
|
|
|
Post by Satori on Oct 11, 2004 3:56:09 GMT -5
What this world needs is a Savior, and part of God's plan to restore His creation is a restored conception of marriage (not "equal partnership") found in the Bible. Incorrect - this world needs enlightenment. How you get that is up to you, but I can't see the point in putting too much emphasis on some remake of the pagan dying and rising God myth, manipulated further by a corrupt church for its own political ends. I think it just makes enlightenment a more distant goal. We're born, we live, we die; that much we know for sure and there's no need for anything more. It's an existence of change and impermanence - the rest is just mind games or the assertations of a desperate ego. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by bobarian on Oct 14, 2004 22:34:19 GMT -5
So which are his non-sexist verses?
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Oct 15, 2004 3:04:05 GMT -5
Hmmm. I believe the non-sexist verses were brought up earlier by someone other than myself, so I'm not sure of specific examples, but to be honest I don't think it's relevant to the argument (whether or not there are non-sexist verses, my problem is that there are also many sexist verses which remain problematic if they a) contradict non-sexist verses, or b) exist in isolation {inner morals in conflict})
For the sake of it, though, I think someone mentioned that husbands are instructed to "love your wives", and this was taken as an indication of mutual submission; however, I said that the difference between the language of "love your wives" and "respect your husbands" (along with all the other verses which instruct wives to submit to the headship (authority) of men) indicate that there is disproportionate emphasis on female submission; it is not truly equal.
|
|
|
Post by Satori on Oct 17, 2004 18:30:55 GMT -5
So which are his non-sexist verses? Bob, apologies, but I've lost the plot here (who's talking to whom etc.). I don't personally think Christ was sexist, but the Bible was delivered to a sexist regime and will, hence, be sexist. I don't think it's something inherently 'religious', just a matter of target audiences etc.
|
|
|
Post by bobarian on Dec 5, 2004 22:30:52 GMT -5
Shiggy-
I respect your concern for women's rights and my only point is to try to show you that the Bible does guard women's rights (and certainly Paul did care about this.) Of course, the Bible is not our modern culture and thus it appears strange. However, I do think that the man who wrote that there is neither male nor female in Christ and that wives should submit to husbands and husbands submit to wives was not contradicting himself. He was talking of God's plan for bringing men and women together into oneness - or perfect intimacy. It is impossible to have perfect intimacy without mutual submission. Notice I say mutual. It is no more fair for the women to submit than the man. However, all that the Bible does say is that men and women have slightly different roles - basically, how they submit to each other. The wife submits to the husband by loving him and respecting his position, the husband submits to the wife by putting her first and letting her be who God wants her to be (i.e., not crushing her or dominating her into his image.) It is a complicated relationship but a beautiful process, and it is only found in the Bible. I think that a nuanced understanding of the Bible's discussion of gender leads to far greater appreciation for both genders and better relations between them for the glory of God.
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Jan 9, 2005 21:30:48 GMT -5
Hello again, Bob. However, I do think that the man who wrote that there is neither male nor female in Christ and that wives should submit to husbands and husbands submit to wives was not contradicting himself. Paul did not ever say that husbands should submit to wives. That was the whole point of this discussion and the whole problem - the Bible's advocation of unquestioned male authority. He was talking of God's plan for bringing men and women together into oneness - or perfect intimacy. It is impossible to have perfect intimacy without mutual submission. ... However, all that the Bible does say is that men and women have slightly different roles - basically, how they submit to each other. The wife submits to the husband by loving him and respecting his position, the husband submits to the wife by putting her first and letting her be who God wants her to be (i.e., not crushing her or dominating her into his image.). Can't you see that "letting her be who God wants her to be (i.e., not crushing her or dominating her into his image.)" does not in any way amount to submission? The fact that you (along with the Bible) consider it a concession on the husband's part not to crush and dominate his wife reveals your underlying belief that it is natural for women to be crushed and dominated. It is clear to me that the Bible obviously does NOT command husbands to submit to their wives; marital submission is, biblically, an utterly one-sided affair. It is a complicated relationship but a beautiful process, and it is only found in the Bible. I think that a nuanced understanding of the Bible's discussion of gender leads to far greater appreciation for both genders and better relations between them for the glory of God. It is not a beautiful process; far from it. I have already outlined numerous times its unmistakable ugliness and its frightening and often violent social results.
|
|
|
Post by Areopagite on Jan 9, 2005 22:34:08 GMT -5
The fact that you (along with the Bible) consider it a concession on the husband's part not to crush and dominate his wife reveals your underlying belief that it is natural for women to be crushed and dominated. I really don't think you can twist his words to mean that a "concession" is given by the husband by not crushing and dominating his wife. There is no concession. The husband is under orders to love his wife, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her. Those are powerful words. Once again, you choose to interpret the Holy Scriptures incorrectly, in order to keep your narrow point of view from fragmenting. As was demonstrated, marriage isn't one sided. Wives are to be subject to their husbands, as they are to the Lord. Husbands are to love their wives just as Christ loved the church and died for it. How is this different from when Paul tells the believers, only one verse previous to telling wives to be subject to their husbands, to be subject to one another? Once again, a two-way relationship, not one-way. How is this different from when Paul writes that children are to obey their father and mother, just as fathers aren't to provoke their children to anger? The issue isn't what is wrong with Scripture, but human depravity. Just because many people don't obey God, doesn't suddenly make God wrong.
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Jan 10, 2005 19:56:02 GMT -5
All this arguing over who is interpreting the scripture correctly never seems to end. I think we put to much emphasis on the exact words written in the Bible. I believe all scripture is God breathed but what is the scripture? Is it the book that we have or is it the meaning behind the book. Couldnt Paul have written one thing to Timothy which meant one thing to him but something comepletly different to us today in our view of christianity? I think we spend to much time arguing over the exact words and the greek meaning of the words and not enough time trying to put ourselves in the ancient world that it was written in. A mind reading something in the Ancient world sees something completly different then a mind in the Medieval and even the Modern. Besides all this where do you great scholars interpreting the bible draw the line between culture and eternal truth. Why is it the Bible is 100% accurate and relevant to us today until we read "Greet one another with a Holy kiss"? Or, "I do not permit a women to speak in church"? Why is that cultural but not this deal about women being kicked out of church leadership. Heres a question I just want to throw out there: Is it a sin-something God completly hates with all His being and dispises more then anything else-for a women to be in a high leadership role at a church? And would this women be punished for doing so?
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Jan 10, 2005 20:57:48 GMT -5
Areopagite--
My point was simply that this does not in any way amount to the "submission" Bob was speaking about.
Treating someone (your wife) with basic kindness is not the same as obeying their commands as a slave to their master (as women are commended for in the NT by comparison to Sarah's submission to Abraham as a slave). This is a glaringly obvious power difference.
It would be good if it were this simple, but as I have already demonstrated numerous times, it is not a two-way relationship. It is only wives who are commanded to be subject to their husbands; husbands never receive this marital command. Wives are to "submit to their husbands in everything", whereas husbands are commanded to simply "love their wives". This clearly places the woman in a subordinate position, unable to defend her rights, as she is required by God to submit to any kind of treatment from her husband and to obey all things he may command her to do. Only the husband has the luxury of personal autonomy - he can treat his wife according to his own definition of "love" and she must be subject to whatever he decides in this matter; there is no room for debate, questioning or influence on her part.
|
|
|
Post by Areopagite on Jan 10, 2005 23:46:52 GMT -5
No, not his own definition of love. Once again, you fail to understand the Scriptures. Love her as Christ loved the Church. He can't just make that whatever he wants to, because Christ has already provided the example.
|
|