Should Religions Be Taught in Schools?

[Ifreann]

No, they're saying that husbands must be benevolent dictators to their wives, just as God is a benevolent dictator to the Church.

Everyone everywhere should always be suspicious of the term benevolent dictatorship. Religion is no exception.

Obviously that term doesn't appear in the Bible.

---

No, they're saying that husbands must be benevolent dictators to their wives, just as God is a benevolent dictator to the Church.

That's the general idea.

So as I said, those passages don't say that marriage is important, just that it must be ordered a certain way.

---

I would reject any arrangement or partnership where one side has authority over the other.

It is generally more efficient that way. And usually one side is more qualified than the other to have authority. There can be exceptions, but that is usually what happens.

That's some awfully sexist shit.

[Geneviev]

That's the general idea.

So as I said, those passages don't say that marriage is important, just that it must be ordered a certain way.

---

It is generally more efficient that way. And usually one side is more qualified than the other to have authority. There can be exceptions, but that is usually what happens.

That's some awfully sexist shit.

It's important because of the way that it is ordered.

It doesn't have to be sexist.

[Ifreann]

So as I said, those passages don't say that marriage is important, just that it must be ordered a certain way.

---

That's some awfully sexist shit.

It's important because of the way that it is ordered.

So it's not the Bible saying that marriage is an important Christian ideal, it's just you.

It doesn't have to be sexist.

You just pointed to Bible passages saying that the husband has to have authority over the wife and you justified that by saying that one side is generally more qualified to have authority, i.e. that men are more qualified to have authority than women. That's sexist.

[Geneviev]

It's important because of the way that it is ordered.

So it's not the Bible saying that marriage is an important Christian ideal, it's just you.

It doesn't have to be sexist.

You just pointed to Bible passages saying that the husband has to have authority over the wife and you justified that by saying that one side is generally more qualified to have authority, i.e. that men are more qualified to have authority than women. That's sexist.

It's usually true, but there are exceptions. I wouldn't support ignoring those exceptions.

[Neutraligon]

So it's not the Bible saying that marriage is an important Christian ideal, it's just you.


You just pointed to Bible passages saying that the husband has to have authority over the wife and you justified that by saying that one side is generally more qualified to have authority, i.e. that men are more qualified to have authority than women. That's sexist.

It's usually true, but there are exceptions. I wouldn't support ignoring those exceptions.

Got any actual evidence that it is usually true?

[Geneviev]

It's usually true, but there are exceptions. I wouldn't support ignoring those exceptions.

Got any actual evidence that it is usually true?

It's worked that way for centuries. That wouldn't be possible if it were wrong.

[Ifreann]

So it's not the Bible saying that marriage is an important Christian ideal, it's just you.


You just pointed to Bible passages saying that the husband has to have authority over the wife and you justified that by saying that one side is generally more qualified to have authority, i.e. that men are more qualified to have authority than women. That's sexist.

It's usually true, but there are exceptions. I wouldn't support ignoring those exceptions.

You're just repeating your sexist beliefs.

[Geneviev]

It's usually true, but there are exceptions. I wouldn't support ignoring those exceptions.

You're just repeating your sexist beliefs.

I don't think it's sexist if you know that there are women who should have authority.

[Neutraligon]

Got any actual evidence that it is usually true?

It's worked that way for centuries. That wouldn't be possible if it were wrong.

Appeal to tradition. For centuries people believed in thee body humors, so that can't possibly have been wrong.

Something that should be taught in schools, how not to fall into logical fallacies.

[Ifreann]

You're just repeating your sexist beliefs.

I don't think it's sexist if you know that there are women who should have authority.

You're wrong, it is sexist to believe that men should have dominance over women, even if you believe there are some exceptions.

[Geneviev]

It's worked that way for centuries. That wouldn't be possible if it were wrong.

Appeal to tradition. For centuries people believed in thee body humors, so that can't possibly have been wrong.

It didn't work, though. Medicine killed people then.

[Neutraligon]

Appeal to tradition. For centuries people believed in thee body humors, so that can't possibly have been wrong.

It didn't work, though. Medicine killed people then.

So did your idea of the husband having authority over the wife. It also lead to rape.

[Geneviev]

I don't think it's sexist if you know that there are women who should have authority.

You're wrong, it is sexist to believe that men should have dominance over women, even if you believe there are some exceptions.

It's not judging people just by their gender, because there are exceptions.

It didn't work, though. Medicine killed people then.

So did your idea of the husband having authority over the wife. It also lead to rape.

He shouldn't have that authority if he will abuse it.

[Ifreann]

You're wrong, it is sexist to believe that men should have dominance over women, even if you believe there are some exceptions.

It's not judging people just by their gender, because there are exceptions.

It is sexist to believe that men should have dominance over women, even if you believe there are some exceptions.

[Geneviev]

It's not judging people just by their gender, because there are exceptions.

It is sexist to believe that men should have dominance over women, even if you believe there are some exceptions.

It's not sexist because you're considering factors other than gender. It would be sexist to say that all men should always have authority over all women because that is only based on gender and it's wrong.

[Daves Computer]

It is sexist to believe that men should have dominance over women, even if you believe there are some exceptions.

It's not sexist because you're considering factors other than gender. It would be sexist to say that all men should always have authority over all women because that is only based on gender and it's wrong.

What sort of factors are the exception?

[Neutraligon]

You're wrong, it is sexist to believe that men should have dominance over women, even if you believe there are some exceptions.

It's not judging people just by their gender, because there are exceptions.

So did your idea of the husband having authority over the wife. It also lead to rape.

He shouldn't have that authority if he will abuse it.

Still waiting for that evidence, since, it has been that way for a long time so it cannot be wrong is not evidence.

[Tarmac Riders]

there should be more equality between religion and political ideology. notice the similarities between christianity and communism or islam and nazism

[Ifreann]

It is sexist to believe that men should have dominance over women, even if you believe there are some exceptions.

It's not sexist because you're considering factors other than gender. It would be sexist to say that all men should always have authority over all women because that is only based on gender and it's wrong.

That's exactly what the passages in Ephesians say, and you agree but claim there are exceptions, which is still sexist.

[Geneviev]

It's not sexist because you're considering factors other than gender. It would be sexist to say that all men should always have authority over all women because that is only based on gender and it's wrong.

What sort of factors are the exception?

If a man will abuse his authority, if a woman is a more competent leader, things like that.

It's not judging people just by their gender, because there are exceptions.


He shouldn't have that authority if he will abuse it.

Still waiting for that evidence, since, it has been that way for a long time so it cannot be wrong is not evidence.

There's evidence that they are different to fulfill different roles.

[Neutraligon]

What sort of factors are the exception?

If a man will abuse his authority, if a woman is a more competent leader, things like that.

Still waiting for that evidence, since, it has been that way for a long time so it cannot be wrong is not evidence.

There's evidence that they are different to fulfill different roles.

Did you actually read the article? Oh and what you linked had nothing to do with authority

[Daves Computer]

What sort of factors are the exception?

If a man will abuse his authority, if a woman is a more competent leader, things like that.

The authority he was never given? Or if a women is more competent? How about considering a leader a leader not by their gender by default but by FIRST considering their level of competence? It's ridiculous to consider gender first.

[Geneviev]

If a man will abuse his authority, if a woman is a more competent leader, things like that.


There's evidence that they are different to fulfill different roles.

Did you actually read the article? Oh and what you linked had nothing to do with authority

I did read it, but not recently. I might have remembered it incorrectly. But what I remember is that there are usually personality differences between genders, and men tend to have traits that are necessary for leadership.

If a man will abuse his authority, if a woman is a more competent leader, things like that.

The authority he was never given? Or if a women is more competent? How about considering a leader a leader not by their gender by default but by FIRST considering their level of competence? It's ridiculous to consider gender first.

They should be considered together. Gender is irrelevant if someone is not a leader. It's just that men are generally more likely to be leaders, but if it's not true for an individual, then they shouldn't have that authority.

[Nakena]

I did read it, but not recently. I might have remembered it incorrectly. But what I remember is that there are usually personality differences between genders, and men tend to have traits that are necessary for leadership.

So do women, albeit different sort of than males.

[Daves Computer]

Did you actually read the article? Oh and what you linked had nothing to do with authority

I did read it, but not recently. I might have remembered it incorrectly. But what I remember is that there are usually personality differences between genders, and men tend to have traits that are necessary for leadership.

The authority he was never given? Or if a women is more competent? How about considering a leader a leader not by their gender by default but by FIRST considering their level of competence? It's ridiculous to consider gender first.

They should be considered together. Gender is irrelevant if someone is not a leader. It's just that men are generally more likely to be leaders, but if it's not true for an individual, then they shouldn't have that authority.

Again: why not just consider someone's qualities over gender? You make it out to be that men are imbued with leadership traits by birth, but that's not the case. It takes character, which people aren't born with but acquire through experience and adversity. To think otherwise, to think men are "alphas" just teeming with the qualities of a leader is naive and ridiculous.