>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.

Yours the statement, yours the burden of proof. I have no means of "honestly examining" any of these countries, for that would involve more travel and time than I can afford. John Ryan brought a good example of New Zealand in your favor, while Jim Nelson brought half a dozen others in mine.

I still stand by my statement that Christianity (and most of other religions as well - we did agree on Islam) not only haven't done much to "liberate" women, but have actually been, and still are, a big obstacle in the way of their equality.

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

Kneeling before anything is not my idea of dignity, but de gustibus non est disputandum. Besides, I never know if something I say would be tossed away as not applicable to "Historic Christianity" or not applicable because of my lack of knowledge of the matters biblical. So if you say that kneeling is not required, I figure all the people who do so are doing it just out of whim.

>>>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*

Shrug it away all you like, but many of these societies have practised Christianity. And I don't remember (reading about) women's liberation movements having much support from any church. Or are you willing to tell me that all these churches were false Christian churches?

>>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.

I? No, the people who said so. Their uniform reaction is what amazes me. Are you willing to speak to these people and explain to them personally that their understanding of what young ladies should and should not do is not taught by their religion? I've recently read an article about a brochure that church back home is spreading around about how the young people should be brought up, and guess what - it's totally puritan, and strongly advises that young ladies should stay at home, not speak unless addressed by elders etc etc.

I know, I know, you will say that Serbian Orthodox Church is very far from Historic Christianity. Would you be so kind to explain that to Patriarch Pavle?

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

That's the top rank they produced :). I.e. their sort of politicians. OTOH, the sort of upbringing they reserved for the kids is all idealistic (at least what I saw when I was in school). And the illusion of honesty, brotherhood, personal sacrifice for the sake of community (or "collective", which was the term applicable to the enterprise where you worked or club you attended) almost came to life. At least did so in the younger generation who never saw the bloodshed the old one did. Had they took care to weed the rot on the top, they may have built a happy and prosperous society - but the rot on the top was spreading downwards, and it eventually dissolved the way it did.

>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?

You brought this up, without any need. We already agreed on many points about Islam - we have no issue here.

>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".

"Caru carevo, Bogu bo¾ije" - Serbian translation is so much shorter :). But in understanding of the common people this meant to pay the taxes to the state, and the contribution to the church.

> 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.

Constantine had good reasons - since Christianity teaches (now - does it historically?) that every government comes from god, therefore it is a good means of suppressing rebellion. No wise king could refuse such a gift, a religion which will train the subjects in obedience. Though, "timeo Danaos et dona ferentes"...

>>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.

Haven't you noticed I just took your paragraph and switched it around?

Anyway, my country had probably the softest version of socialism, which was probably the reason why it was among the last to get rid of it. And yes, it did elevate the lives of its people. The country literally thrived, and could actually have done far better within the same system, if the top and middle party ranks were wise enough to show more respect toward expertise than loyalty - but then the same thing happened in the country for a full century before communism, and still kept going on after it.

>> 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.

Government is, by definition, legalized form of force, mandated to use it to enforce the laws of the country. Regardless of government's color - so every government will resort to force. Just the pretexts may differ.

> 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.

One of the goals of socialism was to build a new man. As I said above, they did make some success in that - the spirit of community was very strong, and the lack of need for leaders was what probably made us very different. It was easy to get people to self-organize at any level, without much protocol and form, and it worked. Things which didn't work were elections - they were just formal approval of what Party decided, and didn't count much. Even, what's worst, internal elections within the party itself were rigged all the time, unless unimportant. The enterprise-level democracy (since the workers, in Yugoslav model, did not own, but did rule their companies) actually worked, but the workers' councils (equivalent to boards of directors) and employees' assemblies (=stockholders' assembly) didn't have much real power, because they had to do lots of "sacrifices in favor of wider community", which effectually made them toothless - the money and power were elsewhere, where they could be closely controlled by the party.

>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.

Not completely so. As much as socialism relied on "elevating the social consciousness", it still took care that important matters of state and society, like education, social security, health protection system (to differ from "health industry"), police, firedousers (translated term), were not on the mercy of the "consciousness", but made sure they were funded from tax (or tax-like deductions from your salary). I have never heard of policemen or firepersons having a fundraiser, or calling citizens on the phone asking for contributions. The only organization I can remember having something similar is Red Cross.

Here, however, so much is left to the good will of the donors - almost every week I get a call from some police section or association... as if capitalism would be much worse, if it did not rely on the "elevated social consciousness".

Both systems are trouble-prone, IMO. Yugoslav system of social benefits crashed when its funds were systematically looted by Milosevic and his camarilla to wage wars and buy loyalty from its underlings. The system here may crash anytime, it's just enough for the social situation to go for worse and the people may stop giving enough.

>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.

The definite flaw is that it didn't enforce its own laws. They were written well, most of the time, but the judicial branch wasn't independent in any important way. And that was another nail in its coffin. The system didn't use the power it had to preserve itself, but rather to preserve the personae of the rulers. That's the despotic side of it, which doomed it.

>>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.

You'd be surprised, but more than 60% of arable land was in private hands in communist Yugoslavia. There was private property, it was only very limited. You couldn't own more than 10 hectars of land, or have any sort of shop with more than 5 employees. So we did always have private bakers, cafés, and farmers. Some even got relatively rich. But they were always limited and suspected.

>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.

That was a naive attempt in both - and I figure these people weren't ready to try to think as a community. So they needed someone to tell them what to do.

>Human nature again. <s>

Yup - and those were all Christians, AFAIK. So they were brought up with the attitude that someone should tell them what to do. Pretty much like the citizens of so-called "real socialism" (aka Soviet bloc) countries, where the decisions were always made elsewhere. They were always discouraged from showing initiative.

>>>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)

Does it matter which part? The point remains - man was created first, woman from something taken from him. What is someone, who is getting into Christianity, to think of the book's attitude towards (or against) women? That this religion treats them as equals from the beginning? The difference is in the very beginning.

>>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.

I learned that as a fifth-grader in a communist elementary school, believe it or not.

> People want their freedoms but want to blame someone else )often God) for the inevitable consequences, all the while ducking their responsibilities.

I've seen them blame their boss, Party, other nationalities, you name it. It's the quality of individuals that makes the quality of a country - and neither capitalism nor socialism haven't done great on this exam.

>You see, Christianity truly sets one free. No rules, excelpt the rule of love. I don't want 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.

As I said before, you don't need religion to do good and be a good person. The difference is that you have the choice of loving the humanity and Earth and your near and dear directly, or through (or because of) a deity of your choice. One trouble with many revolutionaries was they loved the mankind, but had trouble getting to love any individual.

>>>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.

OK, message #683800:

>IOW, telling a non-believer that he still does believe in a god despite his own preference, is probably the same as if someone told you that you don't, even though you may imagine you do.

Perhaps, but the fact remains that every single human being ever to live is guided or has been guided or will be guided by some 'master passion'. Call it what you will but that is their 'god'.

Note "every single human". And while I said "you can't accept that there's spirituality outside of religion", you assert "I most definitly think that there is spirituality outside of Christianity" - apples and oranges, right? Or is it that religion is identical with Christianity in your mind?

>>>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.

I think you proved my point - you're still within the confines of linear thinking. Black/white, and, great, we have all sorts of grays. Now how about color? Or avoid the black/white dichotomy and accept that most of the things are much more complex than that?

The concept of "truth" is very problematic when religion is concerned. The first commandment of each religion is that "we know the truth and all the others are wrong". Or else they'd allow multiple memberships - one could belong to several religions at the same time.

>Otherwise you have no scale...

But the scale is not the only instrument of measurement, and measurement itself is not the only instrument.

>>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.

Many of your assertions elude me, because when I say something bad about religion, you say that historic Christianity doesn't teach so; but when you bring up examples they are from real-life practices or from books, books and more books. I've tried to read some of them (including some Hindu things, and I Ching), but somehow I prefer things which work even when you don't believe in them. If there was a decent book which wouldn't try to get me to believe, only to understand what they mean - but yet have to find that. IOW, as soon as I smell propagandistic pressure, I stop reading.

>>Define ignorant without using "one who didn't read our books".
>
>?? Define smart using the same criterion.

Wrong dychotomy - ignorant vs cognizant, smart vs stupid. Smart can be defined as "able to find solution of a new problem", i.e. capable of handling the unknown. So, no books required.

>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 have several points here (note the size of this message, too much for one)
- spirituality exists independently of religion
- Christianity et al have not helped equality of women; they are actually inherently against it
- you can exist as a complete human without any religion

>>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.

"Everyone obeys their god. There really is little free will. Only the God you choose to obey is within your choice. Once you've made a choice that god you serve. You may think you do not, but you do, even if it is the deification of your own will, you serve your god faithfully."

I don't, so I'm not included in "everyone". So, right, you did this to yourself, you ticked me off.

>>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.

Part of that treatment came from the above quote. You chose to know me better than I do.

>>> 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!

Don't you recognize irony? I know I still have some traits of the way we joke at home, and that's sometime hard to make them pass the language barrier.

>>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.

See above. Taken from message #684291.

>>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...

See - confusing me again with what pertains to real-Christianity and what's a "practice of some".

>>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.

Maybe in Soviet Union. But they didn't have to keep proving the existence of their oposite, just to confirm their own existence. OTOH, investigating the historical and religious sources of the horror genre would be a completely different matter. This is already too long.