i don't believe any religion that preaches submission on the behalf of one sex or another is a winner. sorry robert, i must disagree with you.

So there's really no distinction between me leading my family, and me beating my wife? I think she would disagree with you as would most reasonable people.

that is not what i implied. what i stated was that any religion that favors one sex over another for any reason is not a religion i prefer to participate in. perhaps i should have stated that more precisely in my original post.

the whole "leading the family" by a male is a submission thing, as the bible passage suggests. the koran passage also suggests that it's fine for a man to dominate (via any means, beating in this particular case) as well. i interpret that to mean that in both cases, males are considered dominant over females. there is a similarity in both tenets even though the means to the end are quite dissimilar. and as i stated, it's just not right for me.

i hope that you won't take that to mean anything more than it is. you have your beliefs and i respect them, but it doesn't mean i have to agree that they are right for me or the rest of the world.

Proverbs 13:24
He who withholds his rod hates his son,
But he who loves him disciplines him diligently.

or since you seem to like the KJV
Proverbs 13:24
He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.

Hmmm... he who loves his child beats him with a stick when the child is out of line.

Except both of us know that this is not internally consistant with the tenants of Christianity.

Likewise, there are some passages, which if isolated and taken out of context, do seem to condone violence toward infidels. However, IMHO, and the opinion of most Islamic scholars (including Middle-Eastern Muslims), interpreting the Qur'an (Koran in your spelling) to advocate violence is completely inconsistent with many other passages that forbid violence and demand that the "people of the book" (Jews, Christians) be treated well. Therefore, because the Qur'an must be internally consistent, these passages cannot be properly interpreted to advocate violence.

This is not to say that some practitioners of Islam do not use those passages to advocate violence, much as in the Middle Ages the Crusaders massacred Jews (who, incidentally, were fairly well treated by the Moslems at that time) and Moslems living in Jersualem, and saw this as God's will. They thought they were holy warriors liberating the holy land, when in actuality they were fanatics being exploited for political gains. This is similar to what has happened in the past 60 or 70 years in Islam. There are political leaders who are instigating and using finge elements for their own political agendas. Fringe elements are not indicitive of overall religions.

Or perhaps you are prepared to defend the following passage of Exodus as being totally non-violent, and also indicitive of Christianity as the religion of peace and tolerence.

Exodus 32:25
Now when Moses saw that the people were out of control--for Aaron had let them get out of control to be a derision among their enemies--

Exodus 32:26
then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, "Whoever is for the LORD, come to me!" And all the sons of Levi gathered together to him.

Exodus 32:27
He said to them, "Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, 'Every man of you put his sword upon his thigh, and go back and forth from gate to gate in the camp, and kill every man his brother, and every man his friend, and every man his neighbor.' "

Exodus 32:28
So the sons of Levi did as Moses instructed, and about three thousand men of the people fell that day.

Remember please, I am a Christian and not attacking Christianity or Judaism. I'm merely illustrating that what you're doing, which is taking selected passages of the Qur'an and holding it up in a holier-than-thou fashion is akin to beholding the speck in your brother's eye while not perceiving the beam in thine own eye. (Luke 6:41)

For the record, "jihad" when read in the context of the Qur'an does not mean holy war. It means struggle. It's a less agressive term than "Big Fight". Of course, that doesn't jive with what you want to prove so I assume you'll selectively ignore that fact. But perhaps you'll surprise me. I hope so.

Hmmm... he who loves his child beats him with a stick when the child is out of line.

Except both of us know that this is not internally consistant with the tenants of Christianity.

That's news to me. I think it is entirely consistent to paddle your child (or "beat" him with a switch) when he is bad. Too bad for Joshua and Jacob, huh? In any event I would not interpret a verse to mean something entirely different from what it literally says just to fit with my pre-existing notions of what it ought to say. This is the trouble with religious moderates and liberals.

There are not a lot of ways to read Sura 4 verse 34 as saying anything other than to beat your wife if she is very rebellious. This is the what The Religion of Peace teaches about women and it is undeniable. Or perhaps you can explain what it actually means?

I will deal with your other thoughts in a later post (sometime after Tuesday - big deadline coming up.)

"In any event I would not interpret a verse to mean something entirely different from what it literally says just to fit with my pre-existing notions of what it ought to say. This is the trouble with religious moderates and liberals."

C'mon, Robert, no blanket statements please. Your point regarding interpreting something to suit one's purposes is valid. But I think you've forgotten that a good many "conservatives" and "religious zealots" do exactly that. Seems to me there are problems with both sides, rather than just one (the "religious moderates" or "liberals").

Anna,

But I think you've forgotten that a good many "conservatives" and "religious zealots" do exactly that. Seems to me there are problems with both sides, rather than just one (the "religious moderates" or "liberals").

I must apologize for using a technical term in a way that is not readily apparent to others. "Conservative" and "moderate" have very technical meanings in Biblical interpretation. By definition, a conservative does not loosely interpret verses but takes them as literally as possible. A moderate is defined as one who is willing to "interpret" or even disregard some verses because they do not fit with the rest of the believer's viewpoint.

For example, a conservative will read Romans 1:26-32 and say "oh, I see that homosexuality is wrong and homosexuals are totally depraved individuals". This is a literal reading of the verse.

A moderate will read it and say "But Jesus didn't go on record against homosexuals [which is not true - RW] and the context of Romans 1 includes idolatry and anyway I know some really nice homosexuals who seem to be good Christians" and will go to some length to justify disregarding the offending verses.

Moderates make more of an effort to stay true to the text than a liberal, who is likely to just disregard the text as uninspired.

In this context, those labels have less to do with the actual beliefs and practices of the believer as it does with his or her approach to the Biblical text. Many conservative denominations come to vastly different conclusions but still based on a generally literal reading of the text (or a consistently figurative reading of specific types of texts, such as prophecy). In other cases, conservative and liberal denominations will wind up with similar practices. The Amish and Mennonites, as far as I know, are very liberal in their approach to the Bible - but their practices are more conservative than most fundamentalists.

I'm sorry for confusing you.

thanks for clearing that up. as a political junkie (and someone not as well-versed in conservative christianity as yourself), when i hear those words my mind immediately associated a political connotation with them. =)
i totally see where you're coming from now. =)