With A Loving God, Gender Equality Reigns

Nowadays cash advance from credit card gambling ladies dealer regular minus toke free motorola razr ringtones base horses real grinder advance fax loan no payday straighten buy support.

Turn free sony ericsson ringtones percentage time slow cheap mobile ringtones virgin pairs tap semi vig video mobile mp3 phone ringtones railbirds nickel hard wiseguy split gesture?

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

Good job. I loved youre site, keep it up.

Good job. I loved youre site, keep it up.

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

Good job. I loved youre site, keep it up.

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

Good job. I loved youre site, keep it up.

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

Good job. I loved youre site, keep it up.

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@viagra.com

Good job. I loved youre site, keep it up.

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

sale@mp3.com

sale@mp3.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@levitra.com

xmacuyfd jekticr krvny itnbjomq guaysdf swxzghon lqavhz

I heard you (Sally Quinn) on the Washington Post radio today (5/18/07 and was intrigued enough to visit new website.
My wife of 20 years is in Sibley for her 9th operation on a hip replacement gone awry. She is fine;they finally closed the wound and be able to walk again. she is an accomplished woman, having built on her nursing career in North Carolina to achieve great accomplishments working in Central America for three US Presidents.
In the four hospitals, she has been in, the nurses, nurses aides et al have all treated her as a fat old woman, hardly someone of great accomplishment.
I relate all this as over the many years of reading your columns - always enjoyable - you, like many of us who have had a degree of touch to the elixer of power in Washington, have written about that subject in its many forms. Now, you have turned to faith. And, perhaps, it reflects your personal journey as it does for many of us at a certain age.
I would add to you conversation that, in my faith and in my church - Roman Catholic - Mary, the mother of God, is a revered woman. I believe that I , like many other Catholics, grew up with an image of Mary as a woman, mother and intercessor before Jesus (God) That tradition has pre-disposed many Catholic men to respect women who are powerful.
Of course, many would say that Mary does not embody the sexual component of male-female relations. I would respond that the Church teaching on the purpose of marriage is not just for sexual gratification and, because of that, its view is dismissed as is Mary, in a humanistic, do what you feel society. and, that is a pity.
At the end of the day, in our constantly changing and rootless society, we all go home or, to heavenly public housing. As Thomas Merton wrote - "no man (or woman) is an island; we are part of the whole" The hold of civilization runs stronger than transient meanderings.

Before buying generic viagra read this.
I've got new info about generic viagra and share with you.

Correction to above: When women are in language, liturgy, story, kept from being adequate images of the divine or of the Mystery, then a severe LACK of balance is seen and felt. At least seen and felt by those who are aware. Saying that "God" includes both mother and father, male and female is like saying that my father includes both himself and my mother. What does that do to my mother? To me, as a female? Also, it's not a truth anyway. My mother is my mother; she is not encapsulated in my father. God is a male word. There are female word for the divine that typically go unused. Also, in churches, synagogues, mosques, try using the word, "She" for the divine and watch what happens...in mainstream situations and in fundamentalist ones. Usually "She" is met with great resistance and is seen as derogatory and unfit.

"God" (as exclusively "He") came on the stage rather late in humankind's history. In fact, our religions of today are very young...baby religions. We think of them as "in the beginning" but the beginning is only the beginning of each tradition's stories and those stories are new (comparatively speaking)...that said, I think the article above has good points and some points that I would disagree with also. I don't think that women have "the power." Or at least the power described is a manipulative power...a power of those who don't have power but find ways (skewed ways) to assert themselves. When people say that "God" is neither male nor female they might want to check out (for instance in the Judeo-Christian tradition) the original Hebrew for the words that are so sloppily translated into English as "God"...we find a number of words...some even taken from the deities of conquered tribes...(and made into "God"...co-optation)...we do find "Elohim" in Genesis and this is plural, usually meaning gods or god and goddess, but this has been brushed over and even interpreted to mean God and Jesus (which makes no sense to me.) I think more thought needs to be put into the word, "God"...where it came from, for it is a human construct that is symbolic of a mystery that we do not comprehend. To say we humans "know" of God, of "God's name" even, of God's gender and so on, is extreme hubris. The stories of all religions were written by writers...male writers, some in collusion (actually paid) by nationalistic/tribal leaders. This should cause us great pause. Sadly, it doesn't seem to. When symbols used in a tradition (the main ones--the "most" divine) are male then half the human species is left out. And indeed this may have been by clear intent, considering it wasn't long ago (and in some places, still is) that women were considered property, no different from cows or goats. The above article is insightful, too, in the developmental aspect of mother and how children perceive mother has "bad" in some way (a good mother requires us to grow up at least to some extent and humans don't take kindly to that) and will quickly turn to father and elevate him. Much is at play and at stake, but when women are in language, liturgy, story, kept from being adequate images of the divine or of the mystery, then a severe balance is seen and felt. At least felt by those who are aware. Saying that "God" includes the female is like saying that my father "includes" my mother. Not so.

I don't take it as a given that Christianity has treated women badly through the ages.

Brambleton, if you are still there: you say -

"The Bible is very emphatic that God loves every person and wishes to have a loving, intimate relationship. But God also provides free will, which allows each individual to accept or deny God's love. He doesn't start loving you when you seek Him, He has loved you since before you were born."

Could you provide the reference where God says that in the Bible - specifically about loving people before they were born.

Thanks

J Molay:

Regarding your 1:23 PM comments: I assume you are kidding.

If not, one would hardly know where to begin responding to such statements. As a man, I can assure you that neither you or the “men” you speak of, could ever speak for me.

To Sally Quinn:

Your quotes from Elaine Pagels underestimate the influence that women had in the late Roman Empire, especially after it became officially Christian. Some Christian women who were mothers, wives or sisters of weak, young male emperors achieved significant power (e.g., Galla Placidia in the West and Pulcheria in the East). This was due, in some cases, to their reputations for Christian piety (the Roman Catholic veneration of St. Mary, mother of Jesus, helped to elevate the religious status of women; some powerful women commissioned new churches in the Empire). You might also be surprised to know that the Roman Emperors put their wives', etc. portraits on many of the coins they issued.

Some late Roman women caused trouble, however, as when Galla Placidia's daughter Honoria invited Attila the Hun to invade the West Roman Empire to save her from an unwanted marital engagement. She was lucky that her mother, Galla Placidia (also mother of the Emperor Valentinian III) interceded to save her from being executed. Some of the late Roman women also failed to back the best generals for defending the Empire against the barbarians.

When I listen to believers talking about their own particular beliefs or about religious “faith” in general, it becomes very clear that everything we believe or think we know about God is greatly compromised and contaminated by our own anthropomorphic concept of God. We continually re-create God in our own image, that is, in our own present social image. Thus we imagine God validates our cultural customs and mores. This phenomenon is as obvious in the pronouncements of today’s religious leaders as it is in the writing of the Old and New Testaments.

Inequality between human males and females derives from our social conventions regarding “how things should be” far more than it does from our actual physiology. That is also true in regard to racial and ethnic group differences. There are in fact greater physiological differences between some racial categories than there are between males and females within the same racial-ethnic group. That is because a racial group constitutes a geographically self-limiting breeding population. But the reality is that any two human individuals on the planet are far more alike than they are different.

Gender inequity derives from ancient times when females’ social roles were limited by their need to tend and rear the many children they usually produced during their fertile years. This inequity was hardly “decreed” by God; rather it was determined by the inability of either gender to break free of the limitations imposed by producing the next generation. Men were also trapped into their role as hunter/provider and protector of the family.

But advances in technology and knowledge of biology have given contemporary females control over their own reproductive function and have thus potentially freed both sexes. Men no longer are tied down by obligation to provide for a huge family and women can choose a professional career over having any children at all. In our modern world, brute strength is no longer of much value in the lives of most people. Instead, it is knowledge, gained through education that is most valued. Since men and women are equally endowed with intellectual potential, physiological gender differences have lost their importance (unless you work in a certain few professions like waitressing at Hooters!). Gender bias, and its continuing support in some religious quarters, has thus become merely a cultural anachronism.

Concerned the Christian, etc.
A God who doesn't know the future, ie., not omniscient is therefore also not omnipotent. A non-omnipotent God hardly deserves to be called god, let alone God. Such a non-omnipotent/non-omniscient God is exactly what God is: non existent.
It is a very hard job trying to rationalize an irrational being.

To Sally Quinn:

First, your professed atheism discredits much of your assertions about religious faith.

You stated in your recent chat, referring to women: "They are the ones who have the sexual power".

Yes, indeed, and this is why men need to exert some control over this dangerous and highly discriminatory power, including the verification of the paternity of children their wives readily claim as their own.

Femininsts persistently ignore existing biological gender differences and the long-standing domestic social power basis of women and pretend that women have no power. In politics, this pretension of no given power leads women to overreact and excessively assert their power as we see now with Nancy Pelosi in Congress and her disrespect of the existing hierarchy of committee chairmen (and some of these battles she has lost and others that she has won are generating a lot of resentment against her heavy-handedness--not setting a good example for the supposed political future of women). And Hillary Clinton is well known for her obsession with power and associated
calibration of decisions on Iraq designed to give the appearance of her being in the political center (when we all know she is a feminist liberal).

Speaking of power over the word "feminism", men have succeeded in making this a dirty word in most forums outside of the Post and other liberal chat houses. Even many women nowadays look on this word with great scepticism and associate it with hatred of men. It has become uncool--a bit too 1970s-ish.

God is God, i.e., whatever God is, but religion –ALL religion— is a human invention. We humans attribute our own familiarly human wants, needs and preferences to our own concept of what the Deity is, needs, wants, or prefers. But for sure, God is in fact nothing at all like us: the Creator is infinitely beyond any creature. Thus God is formless, faceless and genderless in any sense that we mere mortals understand these characteristics. God is no more like us than electricity is like us, or gravity is like us. Like electricity and gravity, God is a Force. We, on the other hand, are living beings who cannot conceive of a sentient entity that is not limited by biological needs and traits. To conclude that God-the-Force favors one gender over the other or some races over others, or even some species over others, defies logic.

Christ was a fully human person who was filled with the Spirit of God-the-Force which he referred to as God-the-Father, no doubt because he realized that the people of his time and culture would not have related to God-the-Force. I don’t doubt for a minute however, that if Christ were among us today, preaching to us in the 21st century, he would use different language. All humans are citizens of their particular time and culture. And all humans are limited in their understanding by the level of scientific and other knowledge prevalent in their time and culture.

God, being infinitely wise and all-knowing, provides us with a Trinitarian persona we can relate to: God the Force/Father, God the Person(al)/Son, and God the Spirit. Many ancient peoples conceptualized the Spirit as the feminine aspect of the Deity.

The Bible may be the inspired word of God but God never had anyone sit down and take direct dictation! Thus everything in the Bible must be understood in the context of the time and culture in which it was written. And of course, the people who did the actual writing framed the inspiration they believed they were getting from God-the-Spirit in their own language and according to their own understanding of the world.

The Christian message stands in eloquent simplicity: God made us, God loves us, God wills universal salvation of all the Creation. We are “saved” through God’s grace, not our own actions. Once we truly accept the offer of salvation, that grace inspires us to serve God, our “Father” (or Mother, if you prefer—neither term is really relevant) by serving one another. This is what Christ preached and what he lived; all the ritual and theological embellishments over the past 2000 years derive from human vanity and support only human posturing and human goals.

TO ERIK WASSENICH: Didn't know about the Catholic Churches burning of 5 million women/midwives, would love to have a book source on this please. Essentially, we agree with everything you have said so far, and would like to be able to add this persecution of women byte to my references and you may contact me thru this post, or at regression.works@gmail.com, thanks!

The God of the bible, of the torah, of the koran was invented by men who wanted only one god, a god for men, not for women. This god is bloodthirsty always wanting revenge.
Women of the christian religion had to have 10 and more children because the catholic church burned 5 million women who knew what plants avoided pregnancies, the church burned midwifes who knew how to have healthy babies. The catholic (and also the protestant) church wanted their flocks to remain uneducated and ignorant in order to be able to control them better.
The religions of antiquity always had female and male gods. Men and women belong together, are equal in every respect, as it is in nature with every animal and plant. Men and women are part of nature. The old testament is a lie, first there was woman who gave life to the male. The earth will come to a terrible end if it does not recognize and re-establish the 'sacred feminine' before it is too late.

Golden_Rule said: “You have all the power if men are foolish enough to give it to you. Womans use of sex to control is what is seen as an unfair advantage that must be compensated for. Stop pimping yourselves and maybe the war will die down a little with time. “

** What war is it that you are alluding to?

Brambleton said: “Without the personal relationship, without giving yourself to Christ, all the "works" in the world will not curry favor with God. (Of course, you'll hear something a little different from a Catholic!).”

Just a couple of questions/comments:

** Regarding the reference to “works”, I once heard a television preacher say that “all her good works won’t spare Mother Teresa one moment in hell”. Is this the kind of thing you’re alluding to? It seems a tad extreme, and perhaps unchristian, to me.

** As to currying favor with God, it would seem a bit pointless. However, I think there is a great deal of difference between claiming Jesus as your personal Lord and savior, and actually living as Christ called us to do. As the old song from my childhood says “they will know we are Christians by our love”. And I’d suggest that if “they” don’t know we are Christians by our being Christ-like; there is not much hope that proclamations about being ‘born again’ or having a ‘personal relationship with Jesus’ will do to convince anyone otherwise.

** Why the exclamation point after the word Catholic?

** I’ve remarked elsewhere in this forum that I’d rather be Christ-like than be right about anything. I’d rather be loving, kind, compassionate and forgiving than to hold or defend any religious doctrine. Paul says ‘in the end there are three things that last, faith, hope and love, and the greatest of these is love.’ Love trumps both faith and hope in the end. And it is in our being Christ-like and loving that we confirm for the world that we have been born again or share a personal relationship with Jesus.

For those who blame God for all the woes of the world:

From Father Edward Schillebeeckx, famous contemporary theologian, in his book Church: The Human Story of God, Crossroad, 1993, p.91 (softcover)

"Christians (et al) must give up a perverse, unhealthy and inhuman doctrine of predestination without in so doing making God the great scapegoat of history" . "Nothing is determined in advance: in nature there is chance and determinism; in the world of human activity there is possibility of free choices. Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings.

For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."

For those seeking a messenger from God:

Jesus was not a messenger from God. He was a son of God as we are all sons and daughters of God so be your own messenger of peace and love as demonstrated by many past and present religious leaders.

After reading the comments regarding equality in faith it's easy to see just how far we have to go. People will defend their religous beleifs to the death(theirs and everyone around them). In many years experience in fundamentalist Christian circles I have come to the illuminating realization that churches and religion are led by people that are compelled to control the thouhgts and behavior of other people and filled with people that need other people to tell them how they should live their lives. To quote a statement from the podium in church," either lead,follow or get out of the way".

Where away is that "loving God"? Why, he's the one that drags gays behind pickup trucks, rapes 12-year olds, creates spina bifida children, aborts 60% of human conceptions, and spreads armies of 10-year old children across Africa! Obviously he, like Sally, doesn't believe "women should rule the world or have the power."

God loves everyone.It seems to me,it is not true.God loves semitic people too much than others.BECAUSE,God always sent His Sons,His Prophets,His Messengers to semitic peoples at least 25 or 30 Prophets.BUT,God didnt sent only one Messenger to chineses japaneses indians turkic peoples africans gothic peoples northern peoples and american red indians.I wonder why God didnt sent only one Messenger to Red Indians.Doesnt God love red indians.God loves semitic people too much,God always sent many Messengers and His Son to semitic peoples but others not elected.Is this Justice of God.Is this Love of God.

As noted previously on other pages and to counter Elaine Pagels' observations:

JD Crossan points out where all the problems began for women in Christianity in his recent book (along with JL Reed, In Search of Paul:http://www.beliefnet.com/story/158/story_15844_3.html

"The authentic and historical Paul, author of the seven New Testament letters he actually wrote (Romans, 1-2 Corinthians, Galations, Philippians, I Thessalonians, Philemon), held that within Christian communities it made no difference whether one entered as a Christian Jew or a Christian pagan, as a Christian man or a Christian woman, as a Christian freeborn or a Christian slave. All were absolutely equal with each other.

But in I Timothy, a letter attributed to Paul by later Christians though not actually written by him, women are told to be silent in church and pregnant at home (2:8-15). And a later follower of Paul inserted in I Corinthians that it is shameful for women to speak in church, but correct to ask their husbands for explanations at home (14:33-36)."

Conclusion: As with the NT, scribes have added to the Epistles of Paul a number of embellishments to fit their dislikes or to increase the acceptance of Jesus to the Gentiles and Jews. And female members have been taken a "back seat" for the last 2000 years!!! Time for a change!!! B16 tear down these Walls!!!

mo,s letter to brother jon
woman is woman,and man is man,no matter what.
here is some algebra of life,
w(rightious heart+sexual power+w powerxinfinite)+
m (rightious heart+sexual power+m powerxinfinite)
=more power to the nations,provided that women need to keep their stunning legs in their closet to their beloved husbands.

We practice Past-life Regression Therapy in 3 languages having specialised in Intercultural Communications & International Mgmt and concur with Pagels. Christianity has it's Gnosticism; Judiasm has it's Kabalahism; Islam has it's Sufis & Druze; and Hinduism and Budahism also believe in Reincarnation. In ancient times, women ruled and had children by different men intentionally. . .this being genetically healthier than monogomany for smaller populations. To note the father of the child (as all knew who the mother was), the child would be called son/daughter of "man's name" as who your parents were conveyed ancestoral's distinction. The Gnostics accepted that one either "perceived it," or didn't "perceive higher truths." They did not need or care to proselytize as seekers would pursue truth/gnosis/them, and others needed to be told what to believe and were solicited by Paulinians, who could not attract the Gnostic seekers who understood that the ultimate answers are within us, not from without. As such, any masters, be they male or female, with the Magdalen being the Christ's highest disciple, they were recognized and accepted according to Nag Hamadi Scriptures. Gnostics recognized the relative gender superiority of both, and accepted it accordingly. This means that in some situations women exceled and in some men, all was good. . .there was no need for competition among secure and trusting members of a Gnostic community...diversity was accepted, valued, and celebrated. Hence, women shared all the rights, and privileges of men.

btw Ms. Quinn, I love your work. God Bless you and yours.

You have all the power if men are foolish enough to give it to you. Womans use of sex to control is what is seen as an unfair advantage that must be compensated for. stop pimping yourselves and maybe the war will die down a little with time.

Better yet, people should stop using religion as an excuse subjugate, abuse, mutilate, and kill women. For biological reasons, this is a tendency in our species, and we need to struggle against it. It would be nice of religion stopped providing a cover for this kind of thing.

Thank you J Rhienhart for posting Michael Brown's essay so we can understand not only the misfortunes of those who failed in God's love in Louisiana but so we can anchor ourselves to God through Jesus and not repeat their horrifying mistake. If only everyone would accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior how much better the world would surely be. Thank you so very much.

I grew up in the Southern Baptist Christian Church, & when I was young, women served as Sunday School teachers, nursery workers, cooks, but never in the hierarchy of the church. I am glad to see the electing of women to some denominations' higher positions recently, but I don't expect to see full acceptance of women in my lifetime. Just yesterday, I read this by Michael Brown, formerly of FEMA:

"Unbeknownst to me, certain people in the White House were thinking we had to federalize Louisiana because she's a white, female Democratic governor and we have a chance to rub her nose in it,"

Your mother used her sexuality & beauty to influence her husband. Flirtation & beauty exist in every story of every society in history (and not just in women). They are a form of power. Intelligence like your mother also had is also another form of power. It let her know how to use her other powers to get what she wanted. And like you, I have watched women use that power with misgiving many times. I saw my father attracted to my mother's femininity, without a corresponding matching level of spirit or cognitive ability. The unevenness of their relationship made me realize I never wanted so unequal a relationship in my life. As Paul so aptly put it, people should not be unevenly yoked.

Have you read the recent anthropological argument that Homo Sapiens developed faster after developing distinctive male/female roles? It seems Neandertals did not have much to distinguish males from females in body types, leading some to theorize that with specialization of talents, Homo Sapiens developed faster. You pointed out that your mother was built very different from your father. Their roles were very different, their styles were different. In our society, specialization is a guarantee of more money & power. But so is working together to achieve the same goals.

I don't blame my mother for recognizing the power she had over men. She was using what was there. I do blame her for not having the morals to resist the urge to take gifts from men she gave nothing to in return. My mother unfortunately grew to expect gifts & favors as her due. She became vain & arrogant, narcissistic. She did not have enough intelligence to recognize her limitations, or that life is a balance of fairness, equity.

Men & women may have different roles because of different physiques & mental abilities. We are not the same, though we overlap. I think we just have to not be arrogant, to learn to value other's abilities, to give as well as we get. I love to watch Star Trek because they have such different kinds of people all working together successfully, complimenting each other's different abilities. I think Roddenberry had a knack for showing that, as all good storytellers do.

E. Favorite -

Jason did not respond to your questions, so I will give my only personal opinions..

As a Baptist, whether or not a person leads a good life is not important. However, as a Christian, leading a good life becomes the direct result of having a personal relationship with Christ. Without the personal relationship, without giving yourself to Christ, all the "works" in the world will not curry favor with God. (Of course, you'll hear something a little different from a Catholic!).

God loves everyone. The Bible is very emphatic that God loves every person and wishes to have a loving, intimate relationship. But God also provides free will, which allows each individual to accept or deny God's love. He doesn't start loving you when you seek Him, He has loved you since before you were born.

E Favorite - If a person had a God that did not want and behave the way they wanted God to do then they would be foolish. God reinforces that which we already believe. We will rationalize God to allow us to get what we want even if it clearly belongs to someone else.

Sally is normal. Her other essays tells us she wants things the Christian God won't allow or will not provide. The labyrinth is one of them that is as anti Christian God as one dare stray. She wants that so she rationalizes it into her God. So have all of all faiths added beliefs that go galaxies beyond the three great faiths in scope. Sally, like all others believes what she feels inside herself.

Jon, the legs of Sally's mom matter because the anti-feminists claim that women were in charge all along. Sally replies even if that is true, the situation remains bad because it requires women to manipuate their husband. According to Sally, a relationship built on equality and intimacy instead of domination and manipulation is more rewarding.

Taking their arguments seriously, Sally responds effectively to anti-feminists. I also like how she links her conclusion to the nature of God. If God loves us then that has implications for how men and women are susposed to treat each other.

"When I was a child and my parents made me go to Sunday school I never really believed in God because I simply couldn’t relate to an all-powerful male God. I couldn’t ever imagine that if God had been a woman she would have sent her only begotten daughter to earth to be crucified. It was too horrifying to even contemplate. The idea of actually worshipping someone who would do that was unthinkable. And knowing my mother, whom I adored and who loved me more than life itself, none of it made sense to me at all."

WOW! SAME THOUGHTS I HAD AS A CHILD ALSO!

I was raised in a traditional witch home. Farmers.
I remember the first time a friend invited me to a Sunday School class after a sleepover.

There was the ever-present green feltboard and the story was about God and Abraham...even had a hog-tied young man for the fire/pyre.... I was one scared little 7 year old that bright Sunday morning, and never even thought about returning.

My parents, as best they could, told me it was a thing that some people believed in without knowing what they were believing in.

"BUT, I THOUGHT THEIR GOD SAID 'THOU SHALL NOT KILL'!" I said....

"I SUPPOSE THEIR GOD HAS A NASTY STREAK", said my grandfather.

I was so happy to have such a grandfather.

BC,

Men and women were treated equally, I believe, in the Cather community. Both genders could become Perfecti. These noble people were, of course, exterminated by the wonderful Roman Church.

Hi Sally, you should read The Book of Esther! It's A wonderful story of a poor woman who became Queen, saved her people from certain death and became more powerful then the King himself!

I'm sure you would be a fan of such a courageous woman as Queen Esther.

I know I am.

Peace,

---The list of atrocities and descriminations against women is still appalling----

Agreed! But if you listen to zealots like Victoria on here....they never actually happen!

And so there will not be the changes there should be because the blind fanatics swamp the sensible (as much as you can be sensible being in a religion) people.

Sally,
That was a pretty trite essay, if I may say so. I could never take you seriously again. Your finding the fact that your mother had great legs and a melodious voice gave her power over men is a pretty lame excuse for equality for women.
Women exercise equality with men when they use their brains rather than their bodies and for you to find their sexuality a valid force for equality, makes you not a very serious person. Ta ta.

Islam states unequivocally and repeatedly the equality of all humans in regard to race and men and women- it is the shame of people that they have not fllowed their own book-but the religion itself clearly state this. Now that women have more opportunities to demand their rights- we are becoming more aware of this as muslims.

Hello, Jason Hodges – I have a few questions for you and I mean them seriously, not as a challenge.

1. What about what Sally wrote makes you think that she’ll be a Christian before she dies?

2. Also, assuming you mean that as a compliment, how do you feel about people who lead good lives, but who do not become Christians before they die?

3. When you say “God loves you” who are you addressing and how do you know who God loves?

I hope you come back to answer these questions. I am sincerely curious about your reasoning on these issues.

Thanks

Sorry, in the above, the demographic gains and losses for Episcopalians and Mormons should be halving and doubling every TWO generations.

QUINN: In Paul’s time, Pagels added, “his was a fringe movement and he welcomed women and anyone he could get, though he felt women should be celibate.”

Seeing as most people adopt the religion of their parents, this is obviously not much of a recuiting tool.

Unfortuneately today we see the same thing. Where the status of women is high, fertility drops. Without coversions in or out, Episcopalians would cut their numbers in half every generation. Mormons would more than double.

With respect to female equality, church is a survival of the least fit.

Sally,

I know from your past essays that your God is not a theistic one, I also notice that just like people who believe in a God whose thoughts are laid out in his holy book, you claim to know exactly what your God wants. Your God wants gender equality. Just like you do.

Granted, you’re not alone. The world’s advanced societies and governments have been working on gender equality for some time. People have marched, made speeches and written articles and books. Laws have been passed, attitudes have changed and women have made great advances. All of this happened in spite of people’s interpretation of the wishes of their God.

As for your loving God, please consider that it is actually the humanism of modern times.

Faith - you is so writes. Womens has a plan to takes over each things they sees. We's must stop them fores they's done it. Keeps the pulpits woman free.

I don't think women is drivng for equality, it is more so for domination.

And for that I fear for the future because women feels the need to prove her point.

Fortunately, there are some thinking persons in our civilisation, and note out something will be done about it

I thoroughly enjoyed this article. I have a strong feeling this woman is a Christian and if I am wrong she will be before her time is up here on Earth. This woman has clearly put into words something all men and women alike she understand. We are all equal, regardless of sex, color, creed, and econimic status in the eyes of God. God bless you Sally and God bless all of you. May God's mercy and grace be with you all. God Loves You

Dear Sally Quinn,not only Loving God but Human Beings as well must do something to solve the problem.Besides,I couldnt exactly understand your headlines,with a loving God.Does it mean,present God is not loving. To BC,even for God Messengers to correct intrasigent human bad habits.Which bad habits...Such as marriage seven years old child girl.

I think we have to admit how difficult it is, even for God's Messengers, to correct intransigent humans' bad habits. In the Qur'an, women were granted rights that they had not had in pre-Islamic Arabia, including the right to own property. It was not many centuries, however, before powerful men misused some Qur'anic verses to reimpose limits on women. Modern fundamentalist Christians in America frequently take literally the Pauline command for women to be in subjection to their husbands, not to speak in church, and to respect their husbands (Paul said husbands love their wives, but women respect their husbands). Whenever such verses are used alone, unbalanced by the equality verses, bad results ensue for women. I only know of one religious tradition - the Baha'i faith - where gender equality is stated as a fundamental principle and where the religion itself is dedicated to the advancement of women: "All should know, and in this regard attain the splendours of the sun of certitude, and be illumined thereby: Women and men have been and will always be equal in the sight of God. The Dawning-Place of the Light of God sheddeth its radiance upon all with the same effulgence." (Baha'u'llah, in Baha'i scriptures)

This is a poor excuse for an essay.

How does your perspective as a child watching your mother employ her "stunning legs" to make domestic decisions factor into this discussion? Honestly? When I was a kid I thought dinosaurs were really cool. Then I grew up, and realized that such a thought was not fit for serious discussion.

It seems you, too, acknowledge that point. Judging by the swift change in tone and content, that happens midway through your paper. You then deftly switch to broad generalizations about the abuse of women in religion, without providing any answers, insights, or research. Perhaps you should have stuck with the "legs".

Sally, either a man or a woman will rule the world if we insist on having a ruler. Seems to me that women have been poorly treated by all religions and not just the usual three, JCM down through the ages. Either religion changes or women accept their fate unless of course the world can do without a ruler that's either a man or a woman.

"why women had indeed, fared so badly in world religions through out the ages".
Just a remark: there have been some matriarch cultures,and in fact stil are (admittedly very few), where the power rests with the women (see Wikipedia - matriarchal society), or where the main deity was a goddess.
Having said that, I fully agree that the current major religions still treat women as second class citizens or less.

What a refreshing perspective from the view that not dying in wars or from job-related accidents or diseases is not a form of oppression.

As has been pointed out in another thread, before industrialization the idea that women could achieve socio-economic equality with men would have been laughable. Most societies, and the religions whose values they reflect, require that men owe the women in their lives a share of their income, and that women owe their man a happy home in return.

Now that women don't depend on men for income, we do need to address what equality should mean.