Re: Abolishing Corporations take 2

[Guest guest]

I do beleive that we have to be role models, to the best of our

ability, by taking responsibility in our lives and doing the best we

can with what we have. When I grew up I didn't know I had AS -

my sentiments exactly, ummm no one applauds you for this except likely

the members of this group

Tom the first wife of Adam was Lillith, she was a woman that stood up

for her equality and she was banished as well as left to bear demons.

it is ingrained that woman are subservient from the beginning of man

tales http://www.lilithgallery.com/library/index.html

[Guest guest]

" Tom the first wife of Adam was Lillith, she was a woman that stood

up for her equality and she was banished as well as left to bear

demons. It is ingrained that woman are subservient from the

beginning of man tales

http://www.lilithgallery.com/library/index.html "

NOT subserviant, and NOT inferior in terms of Christianity. It is

merely an order that is listed out by God in the Bible where the

purposes of man and women have been defined.

The Bible states clearly:

1Cr 11:3 But there is one thing I want you to know: A man is

responsible to Christ, a woman is responsible to her husband, and

Christ is responsible to God.

This does not mean that either man or woman is inferior. To MEN it

suggests a heirarchy. To God, it is merely the order of things and

it tells women that they are not to have SPIRITUAL authority over

men.

And...

1Cr 11:8-9 For the first man didn't come from woman, but the first

woman came from man. And man was not made for woman's benefit, but

woman was made for man.

This is a fact as the parable of Adam and Eve tells us. But it does

NOT mean that a woman is a man's plaything, or that a woman ought to

be subserviant to man.

1Cr 11:11-12 But in relationships among the Lord's people, women

are not independent of men, and men are not independent of women.

For although the first woman came from man, all men have been born

from women ever since, and everything comes from God.

Here it says:

Col 3:18-21 You wives must submit to your husbands, as is fitting

for those who belong to the Lord. And you husbands must love your

wives and never treat them harshly. You children must always obey

your parents, for this is what pleases the Lord. Fathers, don't

aggravate your children. If you do, they will become discouraged and

quit trying.

Again, this is the order of things, and stated in there is that a

husband is NOT to treat his wife harshly.

It is THIS " never treat them harshly " that men so often overlook

which cause women to feel subjugated. Harshly means taking away a

woman's autonomy. " Sumbit " in the context of this passage is a

reference to 1Cr 11:3. And Col 3:18-21 is prefaced with this

statement:

Col 3:13-17 You must make allowance for each other's faults and

forgive the person who offends you. Remember, the Lord forgave you,

so you must forgive others. And the most important piece of clothing

you must wear is love. Love is what binds us all together in perfect

harmony. And let the peace that comes from Christ rule in your

hearts. For as members of one body you are all called to live in

peace. And always be thankful. Let the words of Christ, in all

their richness, live in your hearts and make you wise. Use his words

to teach and counsel each other. Sing psalms and hymns and spiritual

songs to God with thankful hearts. And whatever you do or say, let

it be as a representative of the Lord Jesus, all the while giving

thanks through him to God the Father.

Nothing in this commentary suggests that a woman denigrate herself

for man's sake or that a man should make a servant out of a woman.

The Bible says that the men who wrote it were " divinely inspired "

meaning that God told them what to write.

Some women will argue that men wrote the Bible and SAID it was

divinely inspired just to get women to fall into line. I rather

doubt this for two reasons:

1) The Bible covers just about every topic conceivable from what to

eat and what not to eat to what is moral and what isn't. The part

about women and men and how they are to treat one another, is, in

terms of actual volume of words, comparatively miniscule.

2) If there really is a God, and the numerous men who wrote the

Bible over a period of about 300 years all conspired to subjugate

women in God's name, it would either

A) Cause their own damnation for the falsity of their sayings, or

else

Oblige God to agree so that His words would be glorified by all

mankind.

God is not so vain that he would sacrifice the happiness and well-

being of half of humanity for the sake of his glorification.

Further, He would not allow such words to determine the course of

all mankind for ever after.

Aside from this, one needs to remember that we now live in a society

that has separated church and state. These days, men and women are

in the US are to be considered equal. Ergo if men subjugate women,

the blame for this must fall squarely on men, and not on God or the

Bible.

The Bible is not at fault in any case. It is its faulty

interpretation that is.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

I'm a bit confused about Lillith - is she mentioned in the bible? I

haven't time to look at the link below right now, but may later.

>

> " Tom the first wife of Adam was Lillith, she was a woman that stood

> up for her equality and she was banished as well as left to bear

> demons. It is ingrained that woman are subservient from the

> beginning of man tales

> http://www.lilithgallery.com/library/index.html "

>

>

[Guest guest]

My point was simply that it is up to a man to interpret scripture, but

the woman not made of Adam refused to yield to him sexually. Maybe

Lillith had AS I am just kidding but as you have so aptly put men

get to decide what the scripture means, and there are plenty of

Christian men(yourself excluded) whom would place woman as inferior

[Guest guest]

I find it interesting that we can have that far of a debate about Lilith and what the Bible says about male/female relationships without even mentioning whether she exists in any but apocryphal accounts. In standard editions of the Bible she doesn't even exist, with the sole reference to the spelling of her name being in an obscure passage in Isaiah that was referring to various wild beasts (her name got translated as screech owl) but then the English King Bible isn't exactly known for being full of the best animal identifications (Unicorn for wild ox, flying serpent for snake, that kind of thing). There are occational talmudic accounts describe her as an archetypal seductress... medieval popular belief ascribe to her the mother of the incubus devils (which are the worst social justification for rape I can think of) and the other gender counter part of that idea. But she doesn't exist in any canonical account of scripture either in the New Testament,

Old Testament, or Torah separated from is commentaries.environmental1st2003 <no_reply > wrote: "Tom the first wife of Adam was Lillith, she was a woman that stood up for her equality and she was banished as well as left to bear demons. It is ingrained that woman are subservient from the beginning of man tales http://www.lilithgallery.com/library/index.html" NOT subserviant, and NOT inferior in terms of Christianity. It is merely an order that is listed out by God in the Bible where the purposes of man and women have been defined. The Bible states clearly: 1Cr 11:3 But there is one thing I want you to know: A man is responsible to Christ, a woman is responsible to her husband, and Christ is responsible to God. This does not mean that either man or woman is inferior. To MEN it suggests a heirarchy. To God, it is merely the order of things and it tells women that they are not to have SPIRITUAL authority over men. And... 1Cr 11:8-9 For the first man didn't come from woman, but the first woman came from man. And man was not made for woman's benefit, but woman was made for man. This is a fact as

the parable of Adam and Eve tells us. But it does NOT mean that a woman is a man's plaything, or that a woman ought to be subserviant to man. 1Cr 11:11-12 But in relationships among the Lord's people, women are not independent of men, and men are not independent of women. For although the first woman came from man, all men have been born from women ever since, and everything comes from God. Here it says: Col 3:18-21 You wives must submit to your husbands, as is fitting for those who belong to the Lord. And you husbands must love your wives and never treat them harshly. You children must always obey your parents, for this is what pleases the Lord. Fathers, don't aggravate your children. If you do, they will become discouraged and quit trying. Again, this is the order of things, and stated in there is that a husband is NOT to treat his wife harshly. It is THIS

"never treat them harshly" that men so often overlook which cause women to feel subjugated. Harshly means taking away a woman's autonomy. "Sumbit" in the context of this passage is a reference to 1Cr 11:3. And Col 3:18-21 is prefaced with this statement: Col 3:13-17 You must make allowance for each other's faults and forgive the person who offends you. Remember, the Lord forgave you, so you must forgive others. And the most important piece of clothing you must wear is love. Love is what binds us all together in perfect harmony. And let the peace that comes from Christ rule in your hearts. For as members of one body you are all called to live in peace. And always be thankful. Let the words of Christ, in all their richness, live in your hearts and make you wise. Use his words to teach and counsel each other. Sing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs to God with thankful hearts. And whatever you do

or say, let it be as a representative of the Lord Jesus, all the while giving thanks through him to God the Father. Nothing in this commentary suggests that a woman denigrate herself for man's sake or that a man should make a servant out of a woman. The Bible says that the men who wrote it were "divinely inspired" meaning that God told them what to write. Some women will argue that men wrote the Bible and SAID it was divinely inspired just to get women to fall into line. I rather doubt this for two reasons: 1) The Bible covers just about every topic conceivable from what to eat and what not to eat to what is moral and what isn't. The part about women and men and how they are to treat one another, is, in terms of actual volume of words, comparatively miniscule. 2) If there really is a God, and the numerous men who wrote the Bible over a period of about 300 years all

conspired to subjugate women in God's name, it would either A) Cause their own damnation for the falsity of their sayings, or else Oblige God to agree so that His words would be glorified by all mankind. God is not so vain that he would sacrifice the happiness and well- being of half of humanity for the sake of his glorification. Further, He would not allow such words to determine the course of all mankind for ever after. Aside from this, one needs to remember that we now live in a society that has separated church and state. These days, men and women are in the US are to be considered equal. Ergo if men subjugate women, the blame for this must fall squarely on men, and not on God or the Bible. The Bible is not at fault in any case. It is its faulty interpretation that is. Tom Administrator

Sponsored LinkMortgage rates near historic lows: $150,000 loan as low as $579/mo. Intro-*Terms

[Guest guest]

She exists in Jewish mysticism. I am Jewish and my father studies

Torah etc. He mentioned her and I looked up what I could find Judism

doesn't have any problem saying woman serves man but also maintains

the house and spirit. He needs her to keep him on track as it were.

My basic premise is that this is a male driven society, patriarchal.

I have no other point than that; no female uprising just the only

story real or made up(I won't start a bible discussion as to validity

of any written account) story of actual female equality is made into a

demonizing tale. In a male driven society this is just a fact, it

does in fact have a material impact to the female psyche and woman in

our culture and many others become lost in a sea of objectifying,

mother, caregiver, whore dichotomy. So in essence AS females really

have a difficult navigation because gender based rules pressure us to

fulfill these ideas. As many of the woman have attested to and I am

not saying the AS male plight is a piece of cake, men gravitate to us

for our uniqueness, then run screaming because they cannot handle us.

I don't do submissive well, but on the contrary I'm not real wild so,

I seem fairly submissive, unless a button gets pushed (my son)or

daughters then I make no sense. So my comment was simply to point

out although my logic is constant, I don't say anything unless I care

once I care then I seem our of character, and in this current

uncompromising society of girly girls and manly men. As raven can

attest to. As a mostly quiet female I was literally attacked a lot.

It was never a compliment and always degrading, I was an object a

thing and never a person so a long as I could be placed in a

compromising manipulated position everything was great. BTW, the idea

of allowing anyone to do my work in school would have caused me

physical pain. So that girl was pretty messed up. Pretty girls get

pretty abused by society and themselves.

Anyway it really wasn't my plan to get in a gender war. I really

don't care but the facts are there. I have had to teach myself that I

am me, as Raven has said, sometimes that makes you unpopular.

[Guest guest]

We have Christians, Jews, Budhists, Muslims, athieists, agnosticas,

and some folks who practise other religions here.

I know Lillith is not listed in the Bible, but remember, this is not

a religious forum, and so if one of the members here happens to

believe that Lillith exists according to HER belief system, then I

will not take issue with this belief except to correct the

misperception that the Bible is somehow deliberately designed to

subvert women.

I probably should have mentioned that Lillith is not listed in the

Christian Bible however.

Thanks for correcting me on that.

Those who wish to have deeper discussions regarding Christianity may

apply to

TheChristianAspieForum/ .

Tom

Administrator

I find it interesting that we can have that far of a debate about

Lilith and what the Bible says about male/female relationships

without even mentioning whether she exists in any but apocryphal

accounts. In standard editions of the Bible she doesn't even exist,

with the sole reference to the spelling of her name being in an

obscure passage in Isaiah that was referring to various wild beasts

(her name got translated as screech owl) but then the English King

Bible isn't exactly known for being full of the best animal

identifications (Unicorn for wild ox, flying serpent for snake, that

kind of thing). There are occational talmudic accounts describe her

as an archetypal seductress... medieval popular belief ascribe to

her the mother of the incubus devils (which are the worst social

justification for rape I can think of) and the other gender counter

part of that idea. But she doesn't exist in any canonical account

of scripture either in the New Testament, Old Testament, or Torah

separated from is commentaries.

[Guest guest]

Hello,

Lilith is not in the actual Torah, the accepted books of the Christian Old

Testament, and

many of the books that did not make it into the Christian old testament. She is

not in the

Moslem Qu'ran. She is part of a Rabinical tradition, but not widely accepted.

In her " negative " form she is the mother of demons, succubii - etc - and it is

said that

Lilith, first wife of Adam according to the traditions that accept this out of

the Torah view

- would not listen to Adam and ran away. Extreme, ultra orthodox Jews who

accept the

Rabinical tradition fear that she comes in the middle of the night to have sex

with men and

takes their sperm to make demons, etc.

There is a " Feminist " - newer since the sixties - group of Jewish women and

others who

founded a magazine called, Lilith - where women's rights and power - and what

they feel

has been abuse through history, was (Is? - I don't know if the magazine still

exists.)

I had to study Lilith - the concept of her as posited by Jungian Analysts,

mostly women -

when I was at the Temenos Instititute in Westport, Ct for three years (program

now

defunct) - as a mythological character that influences, possibly, men's and

women's

dreams. There was a big push in the early 1980's by Jungian " Feminists " to look

at Lilith,

Greek, Roman, Sumarian, Chinese, etc Goddesses - following up on Sylvia

Pererra's book,

Descent To The Goddes, and the book by Merle STone ??? When God was a Woman

about

the non - Hebrew people's of the Middle East. There was also a big play around

Gimbutas'

archeological work in Europe which she claimed showed that there was Goddess

worship

and several thousand years of peaceful living.

I am not defending or refuting any of the above - women who were studying it

said that

they felt that it empowered them.

Thanks,

Deborah

>

> I find it interesting that we can have that far of a debate about

> Lilith and what the Bible says about male/female relationships

> without even mentioning whether she exists in any but apocryphal

> accounts. In standard editions of the Bible she doesn't even exist,

> with the sole reference to the spelling of her name being in an

> obscure passage in Isaiah that was referring to various wild beasts

> (her name got translated as screech owl) but then the English King

> Bible isn't exactly known for being full of the best animal

> identifications (Unicorn for wild ox, flying serpent for snake, that

> kind of thing). There are occational talmudic accounts describe her

> as an archetypal seductress... medieval popular belief ascribe to

> her the mother of the incubus devils (which are the worst social

> justification for rape I can think of) and the other gender counter

> part of that idea. But she doesn't exist in any canonical account

> of scripture either in the New Testament, Old Testament, or Torah

> separated from is commentaries.

>

[Guest guest]

> that if the " Indians " had been the stronger -and thus deserving-

> power, they would have driven out the rights and " deserved " to

keep

> their land.

Yeah, I don't know what to do about it. " Normal " people seem to

implicitly buy into the status quo. It's like when the Houston

Oilers supposedly decoded the hand signs of the San Diego Chargers

in a playoff game long ago. Okay, that's kind of cool. It's a

football game, it's not real life, it's competition between people

who are approximately equal in power so " all's fair in love and war "

kind of does apply. But, supposedly normal people apply to this

situations where the power is not approximately equal, where it's

more like bullying, or worse.

I've found that sometimes a brief statement works best, maybe

something like 'But we're the good guys, right?' Of course nothing

works all the time, we human beings are just too complex,

whether " normal " or not!

-Doug

>

> " One thing might be to date women who are five years older. More

> life experience, more things to talk about. "

>

> I have nearly always dated older women, and it seems that older

non-

> Aspie women have trouble holding their own in deep conversations

as

> well as younger non-Aspie women. But I will say that older non-

Aspie

> women are better at holding their own than younger non Aspie

women.

>

> Incidentally, since I usually date smart women, I have been ale to

> determine that intelligence is a factor in whether or not a non-

> Aspie woman can hold a deep conversation. I think argumentation

and

> all the other things that go with conversing that I have listed

out

> in a prior post must be based in a separate portion of thebrain

than

> the one that controls intelligence, or else it is simply that

> discussing things in depth is an undeveloped ability in most non-

> Aspie women.

>

> I am dating an older woman now who is an Aspie. She and I can go

on

> endlessly with one another, and sometimes she blows my mind out of

> the water. maybe it is just that Aspies and aspies can connect

> better because they have similar mindsets. I do not know.

>

> " Another topic, in elementary school and junior high, I can

remember

> feeling incredible emphathy toward situations of social justice,

> that other kids seemed to not get at all. "

>

> I felt the same way about things. I used to be upset, for example,

> about how all the Native Americans were moved west by the

settlers,

> but my fellow students seemed to believe that might makes right,

and

> that if the " Indians " had been the stronger -and thus deserving-

> power, they would have driven out the rights and " deserved " to

keep

> their land.

>

> I also hated how minorities and poor folks were picked on at my

> school(s).

>

> Tom

> Administrator

>

>

>

>

> There might be a

> situation about poverty and exclusion and unfairness, and the other

> kids didn't get it.

>

[Guest guest]

It sounds just wonderful! And maybe the point is to simply be open

to differences. Instead of being scared of a difference, whether

it's being Aspie or anything else, take a deep breath and be open to

being appreciative of the difference. It adds richness and texture

to life.

It sounds like you probably have learnt all this, I'm more reminding

myself than anything.

-Doug

" I am dating an older woman now who is an Aspie. She

and I

> can go on endlessly with one another, and sometimes she blows my

mind

> out of the water. maybe it is just that Aspies and aspies can

connect

> better because they have similar mindsets. I do not know. "

>

> Do either of you men know just how terribly improbable it is for an

> intelligent Aspie woman to find an intelligent man with whom she

can

> carry on an intelligant conversation? I will tell you, however,

that

> once she has met her match, it's a wondrous feeling to know that

deep

> conversation is reflected back to her. :-D

>

> Raven

>