Apply Now!

Bill Nye / Ken Ham debate Creationism

cheri1122

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
Maverick said:
Cheri, The Church does not ask women to be submissive....anymore than man is to be submissive to the wife. What those submissions entail, is the same as the difference between a man and a woman. The equality comes with knowing the difference, applying it to everyday life, and creating the harmony intended with the command. One needs to remember who's idea it was to create a competition.....rather than following the harmonious nature of the natural order, when mutual respect for each gender is recognized.

As for who created what? Who's to say how God did these things? (given a belief that He did) and perhaps creation and science combined to create this mess we currently occupy. And why is it such a mess? Because there are those who wish to control everything, in world which does not belong to them alone. Science would have you believe that a handful of monkey's climbed to the top, and now posses the right to control everything. It's not just greed, it's also the power to be like God. I find it quite amusing, really.

Not here to defend, exhort, or judge. Time lapse video displays only a small section of our world, and whether one believes it was God created, or banged in......man is certainly doing his best to destroy it.

Yosemite HD on Vimeo
Click to expand...

"Science would have you believe that a handful of monkey's [sic] climbed to the top, and now possess the right to control everything"?

No, that's not even close to what science would have me believe. Men, OTOH, would have me believe that because they are physically stronger, they have a natural right to rule. That belief has persisted through the ages, because the ultimate winner of any disagreement is the one who can use force to win. It doesn't make the 'winner' right, it just gives them control.
I remember "whose idea it was", except I don't remember it being any kind of competition - women simply would like to be considered as equal to men, even if we are inferior in stature and/or musculature, because there are ways in which we are superior, and ALL of it matters.
The biggest thing is the loss of potential: how much could women contribute to the advancement of mankind, if men didn't consider them "less than"? :confused:
 
Maverick

Maverick

Seasoned Expediter
Men, OTOH, would have me believe that because they are physically stronger, they have a natural right to rule. That belief has persisted through the ages, because the ultimate winner of any disagreement is the one who can use force to win. It doesn't make the 'winner' right, it just gives them control.
Click to expand...

And this was somehow proven with Reno and Waco? What male did she wrestle to the ground in order to give the orders? Or perhaps Miss Clinton could give us a lesson on ethics, female temperance, and show us how they differ from any man, with given power? Maybe Miss Thatcher could also chime in with her nodded approval, within the killing fields. What we're talking about here is man, as in natural form. That nature runs through the female as well. History has proven females to be just as capable of evil, as any male. And if there is no creator, with rules set forth, one cannot really argue the physical strength of men, over women. It's a jungle, and men will rule.....right? :)

women simply would like to be considered as equal to men, even if we are inferior in stature and/or musculature, because there are ways in which we are superior, and ALL of it matters.
The biggest thing is the loss of potential: how much could women contribute to the advancement of mankind, if men didn't consider them "less than"?
Click to expand...

Equality does not mean doing the same things, or accomplishing similar goals IMV. There are ways in which women are superior (my wife told me so, right after the monkey and sex conversation), and God did not create both sexes the same. They are to compliment each other on an equal playing field, but using the strengths both genders bring to the table. Those strengths are different, and there's really no denying that. One is not more important than the other, they are of equal value, but totally non-related unless unified. Think of a great quarterback hooking up with an equally talented receiver? It works great, and both are seeking to win the game, using the talents given them. The receiver can't pass a lick, and the quarterback couldn't catch a football, if you handed it to him. That symphony turns ugly real quick when one decides they should be equal in pass attempts and receiving yards.

No good man considers his significant other as "less than". He should consider her strengths as a blessing.....for what she brings to the playing field. He's not capable of providing it on his own, in natural state. Try as he may, he'll get close.....but in the end, he's not a woman.
 
Last edited:
Turtle

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
The quarterback/receiver analogy is an interesting one, considering the average NFL quarterback salary is $3,840,017 and the average wide receiver salary is $1,806,999.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top