Hi Dragan...

>>Hi Dragan, (& Tracy)
>>
>>I stand by my statement.
>
>Nice of you. I assume I don't have to quote it the fourth time.

Look. Here's the deal.. If you will honestly examine all the countries that have had the greatest amount of Christian influence upon them it is precisely those countries that have made the greatest strides towards the good goal of legal and other equality for women. It is precisely those countries that have gone the other way that have produced the most suffering for the ladies - and men as well.

I think we both agree that we live in an imperfect world so that's not the issue for me. What is to me the issue is the lack of understanding of the true impact of Historical Christianity (I choose that phrase very carefully as there are many who wish to assert that their non-Biblical positions are actually Biblical in nature).

I certainly agree that we have a long way to go. Christianity, properly taught and understood restores the dignity of mankind.

>
>>I suspect that a lot of your skepticism comes in large part from a lack of knowledge as to just how poorly women are treated (now) or have been treated in the past in many cultural settings. Remember, even today in many places women are nothing more than chattel. And, be honest, it's those countries where Christianity has had its greatest influence where you see more liberation that anywhere else.
>
>Jim has answered this.

*shrug*

>
>Just to quote a personal example - I've seen several people both here and in Germany, that I had contact with, being surprised that we take so much effort and money to get our daughters through college. They all thought they wouldn't need it - they're supposed to get married well and that's it.
>
>Back home, in the (ex-)communist country of ours, it took a dictatorship and Christian renewal to get people to start thinking that girls should stay home, get married and be done with it. Despite the efforts to turn Serbia into Orhodox Christian Jamahirya, it's still quite normal that the girls should graduate if they feel so. In the elementary school I attended, they had three ladies in a row for principals, and they spanned about 25 years of success - it was the best school in town. Until Sloba's party installed an illiterate loyal moron (male). The school lost all the goodwill it gained in mere three years.

So, then you are asserting that Christianity teaches that women shouldn't go to school or get an education? Your story is nice but it surely is no proof of what Christianity does or does not teach Dragan. If that is your inference then you have really only proven your lack of knowledge of Christianity IMO.

Or are you asserting that Communists produce morons who only want to preserve the perks of their power... <g> No argument there... <bg>

>
>>For example, would you like to suggest that Islam has 'liberated' women?
>
>I would, just to see what you'd say. But I don't think that would hold any truth.

Well, how about those forced female circumcisions I hear about? Now there is a great example of forward thinking. (not!) The problem with Islam is this (for example); it has no provision for separating church and state. IOW, Islam is the state and as such in all the Islamic countries except secular Islamic Turkey (secular remember) Islam has produced nothing but tyranny, dictatorships, death, pain and suffering - by western standards. I mean, maybe the Saudis were correct to force those 14 or so teenage girls to back into their burning building because they weren't wearing the proper attire as they tried to escape the flames, right? Better to kill them?

Christianity, on the other hand, does teach social responsibility. Jesus Himself said that we should "render unto Caeser those things that are Caesars and to God those things that are God's". IOW, there is a social contract and a spiritual contract, so to speak. Christianity rightly understands this. Constantine made what was probably the greatest blunder when he made Christianity the state religion. I cannot think of much good that came from that decision.

>
>>I wouldn't by just about any standard. How about in countries where hunduism is dominant like India? Between those two I'd say you have a large part of humanity... Oh, yes.. Let's talk about the religion of Communism. China has a great women's liberation movement, don't they... Ahh what's a quarter of humanity anyway?
>
>Are communists perfect? Of course not! No way. Regardless, the philosophical impact of the application of an honest understanding of communism will always do more to set folks free than anything else out there.

Not so. A very simple look at history show your statement to be utterly false. Nowhere have I ever seen a state that was truly Communistic that elevated the lives of its people. You know, Roosevelt didn't starve some 30 millions of people like Stalin did. And neither did he kill folks like Mao did nor Pol Pot, Castro or any of the others.

> Look, what's the ostensible goal of humanity? "World Peace", right?

For some I suppose. I think we need it but I do not think mankind can 'get there', candidly.

> Well, just think about it a little and be honest. If you could actually get folks to "fight for everyone's freedom as for their own" you'd go a long long way towards that goal, wouldn't you? Be honest.

Sure, but your statement demonstrates the flaw of Communism - that one man can force another to want to change or want to do good for a fellow man. Communism will always resort to force. The goals of Communism are laudible! They really do in many cases have great intentions but Communism has no power whatsoever to change the heart of mankind. That is its achilles heel, so to speak.

Capitalism is equally unable to change the heart of mankind too Dragan but the difference in our (American) form of capitalism is that the country was founded upon the clear-eyed notion of the true nature of man. That is, he's a devil, not an angel, and as such the government must be constructed to direct this fundamental selfishness on one hand towards the acquisition of material wealth while promoting a basic set of common-sense rules (like the 10 commandments - don't steal, lie, etc). It is surely ultimately fatally flawed but the real advantage capitalism has over all other forms of government is that is has a better set of presuppositions regarding the nature of mankind. That's why it always works but it's certainly not the ultimate 'ideal', that's for sure.

Communism is IMO actually closer to that ideal but it utterly lacks the power to get mankind to those goals, and as I suggested, always resorts to force. You see, the leaders of Communism are human as well and they bring theit human flaws with them.

> Or are you suggesting that few can be free while others are bound? I doubt it.

Not where I'd like to go but the fact is this: it is precisely those countries where Christianity has had the greatest historical impact that have the most freedoms in their societies. All should be free but we're back at changing the human heart again.

> You're not that kind of individual, nor is anyone else here from what I can see but there certainly is an awful lot of anti-communist prejudice and prejudice in any form IMO is just another form of propaganda and not very pretty.

Sure, I suppose there's a lot of ignorance regarding Communism Dragan. I do appreciate being corrected and thank you for it but there seems to be an equal or greater misunderstanding of the true nature of capitalism as well. Most Americans are so stupid here that it is embarrassing but that's what our wonderful Liberal leaders have taught our kids. It's sad actually.

>
>To go more in parallel with what you're saying, the communism as practised had very little to do with the ideas it originated from.

No argument there! I do understand the differences between the (ostensible) ideals of Communism but I also have a pretty clear understanding on why it fails - utterly.

>As Lenin predicted, it was finished by the "hoodlums in its own ranks".

Sure, because it lacked any real power to effect change to the human heart.

>Some of these ideas were kept, at least on the surface and pro forma, and among them was education and health for all, and equality (to differ from "liberation") of women. That much survived in the day-to-day life, if nothing else.

The problem again is human nature. You may not be aware that the first settlers of AMerica almost all died the first winter they were here. The reason was that they used the model that communism extolled (pre-communists <g>) The problem was that some of the folks were simply lazy and took without producing. The governor changed things the next year when he gave each member their own land and essentially told them that if they didn't produce for themselves enough and over to trade they'd go hungry. Here was the introduction of the concept of private property (lacking in Communism) where a man got to keep the fruits of his labors. This way, should someone be industrious they would have extra and the lazies would have no excuses.

It worked. The next year they had so much they had a feast.

you see.. We've already tried socialism and communism here and discovered it was fatally flawed.

Human nature again. <s>

>
>>What most folks simply do not have is an understanding of how Christianity has indeed affected the various cultures it has impacted. ALl good? Probably not but most of those issues stem, not from Christianity itself, but some goofy mis-interpretation of Christianity.
>
>Ditto.

Sure. I do agree that most folks misunderstand Communism - particularly Communist leaders! <g> Most of them are just a bunch of thugs.

>
>>Remember, in those days women were not much more than property. Christianity elevated them to the equals of men as the Bible states that God is no respecter of persons.
>
>The story about the twelfth rib sure helped.

Uhh.. Care to show me that one in the Bible? There's no such thing really. Now, sure, the King James Bible uses the word rib but it's actually spelled like this: "tsela" and pronounced something like "tsay-law". And here's a series of word definitions:

1) side, rib, beam
1a) rib (of man)
1b) rib (of hill, ridge, etc)
1c) side-chambers or cells (of temple structure)
1d) rib, plank, board (of cedar or fir)
1e) leaves (of door)
1f) side (of ark)

And here's the link:http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/strongs/1032577189-4126.html in case you want to do a little more research.

The word actually could be 'side'. Some have inferred, correctly or not, that this could actually be something along the lines of a blood transfusion. I'm not 100% convinced but it wasn't just a rib. That's the trouble with English at times; particularly that which is 391 or so years old. <s>

>
>>ALso, and this is I suppose an area where folks can disagree, the definition of 'liberate' is, it would seem, important to nail down. A lot of what I see people calling 'freedom' is really just a rationalization for hedonism - mostly which leads to utter slavery to some desire.
>
>I wouldn't classify the right to equality and equal chances as hedonistic.

No, but the notion of "liberty", which is derived from the notion of "equality" surely has opened the doors. The trouble here is not that folks have freeedoms; more it's a lack of understanding that they also have the corresponding responsibilities and consequences. People want their freedoms but want to blame someone else )often God) for the inevitable consequences, all the while ducking their responsibilities.

I think St. Augustine said it best: "Love God and do anything you want" ( http://www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll/showarticle?item_id=1299 )

You see, Christianity truly sets one free. No rules, excelpt the rule of love. I don't to put others down or subjegate them or harm them at all. Neither Communism nor Capitalism can cause me to think that way. I have to see that it is intrinsically the best way to think and treat others. But, I cannot apart from an example that will stand the test of time and it is in no man except Jesus that I can find. He demonstrated his particular right to this claim by raising from the dead. Buddha, Mohammad, etc, are all still dead....

>
>>For example, to blame the Y chromosome is nothing little more than politically correct hate speech. Like the (attempt at) humor is the same as rational thought or something. I wonder how many ladies would scream and holler if someone were to say that because of their chromosones they were genetically stupid. Same difference and it certainly doesn't wash intellectually IMO.
>
>It's been tried and published... and the reactions weren't absent.

Some people actually have believed that the world was flat. That didn't make them correct.

>
>>Also, there simply are some folks who just turn off their brains when it comes to things spiritual and then blame everyone else for their self-inflicted stupidity. Can't help them much though one would like to I suppose.
>
>You can't, because you can't accept that there's spirituality outside of religion. Need a quote?

Really? Now, how did you come to that conclusion? <bg> I most definitly think that there is spirituality outside of Christianity. As a matter of fact I think that all menkind has a spiritual side to their makeup. I think that the vast majority are spiritually disconnected from God sadly but your assertion is surely not the truth.

>
>>But I'm not as intellectually superior as you are I suppose... <g>
>
>It's not a matter of any linear scale, where we'd measure the intellectual strength. It's so very Christian, though, to view the world in dychotomies, as black/white, good/bad, god/devil... and then a linear scale of grays sounds like an improvement, thinking out of the box.

Uh.. Philosophically it is required that at some point there be some definition of the concept of "truth". One cannot make any sort of determination whatsoever without it. Even the billions of positions and shades grey scales acknowledge by their very existence and inter-relationship the presence of a black and a white, to use your analogy.

That grey exists is no proof of the lack of black and white; rather the existence of grey is absolute proof that a black and a white must exist. Think about it. <g>

Otherwise you have no scale...

>
>So in things spiritual you have, no doubt, hit the target and dived deep into the religion of your choice - and then missed everything else.

Not so but if that is your conclusion I can live with you being satisfied in your non-complete understanding.

>
>>>Yet the greatest Christian of the UT (aka "Bible-thumping maniac", but I didn't invent that name) has claimed exactly that.
>>>
>>>The only explanation I have is that the meaning he read into "liberation" is "you will be liberated from everything else once you join us".
>>
>>Here's a great example of you attempting to insert your prejudices into this conversation as though they were mine. That is totally disengenuous and a falsehood. Please stop misrepresenting me, either willfully or because you're just plain ignorant, would you? <s>
>
>Where's the misrepresentation in "The only explanation I have"? I really don't have any other explanation that would sound plausible to me. I've written that sentence to the best of my knowledge, gathered from what you write.

Sure, but you seem oddly absent the ability to accept my repeated explanations when we differ. IOW, you seem to persist in wanting to fit me in your preconceived mold - prejudice by another name. I keep attempting to correct your perceptions and it hasn't 'taken' yet. Still.. I cannot make you 'get it', even with repitition I suppose.

>
>Define ignorant without using "one who didn't read our books".

?? Define smart using the same criterion.

One who tries to have a rational conversation with Mike Helland... *gd&rvvvffMH*

Seriously, what's your point? Everyone brings their point of view to the table. Why restrict that? You are most certainly ignorant of many thing I know and I am most assuradly equally or more ignorant of many things you know. That proves only that we should have conversations like this, not avoid them IMO.


>
>>I don't mind an honest dialog but you really need to be honest here Dragan.
>
>I have honestly meant to stop the dialogue with you, after you have excluded me from humanity.

Oh please! Keep the victim dialog to yourself. No one here does much of anything except to themselves.

>I figure I now have the choice of addressing you as a fake human to a human-by-definition, or no way at all. Since you've taken the effort to write this much, I thought I may fake a human response, though you can't be tricked, I know.

Well, you can certainly choose how you wish to treat thise like me who have a different opinion. I respect your rght to so do.

>
>>Please keep your incorrect misrepresentations to yourself
>
>I'll keep even my correct misrepresentations, if that pleases you. But I won't stop talking, of course.

I have no desire to stop. Only that if you represnt what I say that you do so accurately. Really nothing more.

>
>> or at least give me the courtesy you keep saying I don't have,
>
>Don't mind me, people without any spirituality whatsoever don't count at all.

*sniff*

You are such a victim!

*gag* <g>

>
>> thereby blatantly proving your hypocrisy to all who are able to think. I don't really appreciate your misrepresenting what I have said and I'd be delighted to tell you (once again) if you have the courtesy to speak to me rather than about me. <g>
>>
>>Tsk tsk.. <g>
>
>OK, so this is courtesy. I knew you have exposed a compelling reason to have an answer, even from someone with spirituality definitely amputated. Again, the non-religious spirituality does not exist, by your definition (need a quote, again?).

Well, quote away, but at least get it correct.

>
>>>Besides, supporting women's rights would be against the dogmae of their churches, so they are not only omitting the support - they are mostly opposing these rights. Or even when giving support, they always take care not to go too far. And their definition of "too far" is also quite short.
>>
>>Really? What is my dogma Dragan? Please, you seem to be an expert on what I believe.
>
>Haven't you noticed this was not about you, it was about Christianity (in general?) which has "done more...". The above paragraph mentions "the dogmae of their churches". You said yourself most of the churches are doing it wrong.

Oh... I see.. So, then, because some within Christendom teach these things (falsely IMO) then all Christians believe this or Christianity teaches something it doesn't teach? Really now... ALl you're doing is misrepresenting Christianity and calling your misrepresentation truth. All I'm suggesting is that you "get it right". At least get your facts correct...

>
>>I wonder how you would like it if I startted telling everyone what you believed like you just did here.
>
>>Lessee.. Oh yeah.. Dragan, being an ex-resident of a land run by communists believes in eating children. Only if they're boiled though. Isn't it a real shame that he's so backwards! I mean everyone knows that these ex-communists are all a bunch of baby-eaters, don't we? (all nod approvingly here)
>
>You have not invented anything new. Such stories were part of the regular anti-communist propaganda fifty or seventy years ago. Invented by those who had that sort of imagination... you may well guess who.

But my point stands I think. Your misrepresentations are not the actual truth of the matter. Sure, many have indeed misrepresented the teachings of Christianity but that doesn't invalidate what Christianity actually teaches. It only validates the ignorabce of those who say such things.

>
>>But you say, "That's a misrepresentation of what I've said", and in all honesty I would say you are correct.
>>
>>Please give me the courtesy of accurately representing me.
>
>I can not represent you, because, as mr. Ryan here well remarked, I am not a citizen :).

*chuckle*

Still, if you became one you could get elected. I would love to see your bearded face in Congress. <g>

>
>So you think it's my level to invent things like that? Sorry, I was never a good master of negative propaganda. I simply don't have that sort of imagination. Lacking good Christian upbringing (despite my grandmother's feeble efforts), I don't even like horror movies. They are so religious.
>
>Did you ever think why haven't the communist countries ever produced a decent horror movie?

They had no need. It was a daily show.