"[...]Turkish society can be broadly divided into three subgroups, which I describe as follows: Atatürk supporters (secularists), Islamic fundamentalists and modern Islamicists[...]."

 http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/yazarDetay.do?haberno=170536

Alpha and omega, Charlotte McPherson

Charlotte is talking through her head....There is only one Islam, and what that is -  is clearly defined in Kuran. What does not fit the Koran´s description of Islam, is not islam at all.

Terms like modern Islam or modern islamists  (Islamicists ?)  are  merely figments of Western imagination.

 This is exactly why your religions become so confusing and laughable.  You have Professors of Islamic Studies who disagree with you Alpha!  What is "clearly defined in the Quran"?  As far as I have observed, there is much argument within Islam about translations, interpretations and "true" versions of the Quran.

My I be so bold as to suggest you are "talking through your head"?

I dont see anything confusing or ambiguous about islam, and I agree that there is just one islam just like there is just one christianity. you`re either a muslim or not, there is nothing in between being a muslim or non-muslim.

what does moderate islam mean anyway? does it mean drinking alcohol but not eating pork? these two things are clearly banned in kuran. if you drink alcohol, that doesnt make you a moderate muslim but simply a non-muslim. If you`re a woman and if you think you`re equal to men, you`re neither a muslim or christian, because both kuran and bible clearly state that women are inferior to men.

 these two books were not written by women for sure ...I did not know you are such an expert on the Bible topic,anyway is stating that women should obey men equal with the statement you provided?

Cannot argue about Quran but if you fancy one battle over Bible..why not..

Biblical references promoting female inferiority:

	1 Corinthians 11:3: "...Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and the head of Christ is God. (NIV)". There is some debate among theologians about the translation of the Greek word "kephale" as "head." However that word is universally used in New Testament translations.
	1 Corinthians 11:7-9:"For a man...is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head." (NIV) This refers to the practice of women wearing hair covering as a sign of inferiority. This is not longer widely observed today.
	1 Corinthians 14:34-35: "...women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says, If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." (NIV) This is a curious passage. It appears to prohibit all talking by women during services. But it contradicts verse 11:5, in which St. Paul states that women can actively pray and prophesy during services. Many theologians have concluded that verses 14:33b to 36 are a later addition, added by an unknown counterfeiter with little talent at forgery. Bible scholar, Hans Conzelmann, comments on these three and a half verses: "Moreover, there are peculiarities of linguistic usage, and of thought. [within them]." 6 If they are removed, then Verse 33a merges well with Verse 37 in a seamless transition. Since they were a later forgery, they do not fulfill the basic requirement to be considered inerrant: they were not in the original manuscript written by Paul.
	Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife...wives should submit to their husbands in everything." (NIV)
	1 Timothy; various passages: Conservative theologians date this "pastoral epistle" as having being written prior to 65 CE, and assign its authorship to Paul. Liberal theologians generally believe that it was written by an unknown author during the first half of the second century, a half-century or longer after St. Paul´s execution. If the latter is true then the epistle´s many passages reflecting female inferiority can be attributed to a gradual reinstatement of patriarchal authority by the early Church. Some of these passages are: 1 Timothy 2:11-15:"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent..." (NIV) Some Biblical scholars believe that woman and man should be replaced by wife and husband in the above passage. This would mean that the passage would not refer to women teaching men in the church, but rather wives teaching their husbands within the home. 5 1 Timothy 3:2: "Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife..." (NIV) This would seem to imply that all overseers (bishops) must be male. 1 Timothy 3:8: "Deacons likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere..." (NIV)
	Titus 1:6: "An elder must be blameless, a husband of but one wife" (NIV). Women are apparently excluded from the position of elder or bishop.
	Titus 2:4: "...train the younger women...to be subject to their husbands." There is no indication of equal power sharing in marriage.
	1 Peter 3:7: Women are referred to as "the weaker vessel" in comparison to their husbands

Quoting tamikidakika

 

 

Biblical references promoting female inferiority:

	1 Corinthians 11:3: "...Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and the head of Christ is God. (NIV)". There is some debate among theologians about the translation of the Greek word "kephale" as "head." However that word is universally used in New Testament translations.
	1 Corinthians 11:7-9:"For a man...is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head." (NIV) This refers to the practice of women wearing hair covering as a sign of inferiority. This is not longer widely observed today.
	1 Corinthians 14:34-35: "...women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says, If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." (NIV) This is a curious passage. It appears to prohibit all talking by women during services. But it contradicts verse 11:5, in which St. Paul states that women can actively pray and prophesy during services. Many theologians have concluded that verses 14:33b to 36 are a later addition, added by an unknown counterfeiter with little talent at forgery. Bible scholar, Hans Conzelmann, comments on these three and a half verses: "Moreover, there are peculiarities of linguistic usage, and of thought. [within them]." 6 If they are removed, then Verse 33a merges well with Verse 37 in a seamless transition. Since they were a later forgery, they do not fulfill the basic requirement to be considered inerrant: they were not in the original manuscript written by Paul.
	Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife...wives should submit to their husbands in everything." (NIV)
	1 Timothy; various passages: Conservative theologians date this "pastoral epistle" as having being written prior to 65 CE, and assign its authorship to Paul. Liberal theologians generally believe that it was written by an unknown author during the first half of the second century, a half-century or longer after St. Paul´s execution. If the latter is true then the epistle´s many passages reflecting female inferiority can be attributed to a gradual reinstatement of patriarchal authority by the early Church. Some of these passages are: 1 Timothy 2:11-15:"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent..." (NIV) Some Biblical scholars believe that woman and man should be replaced by wife and husband in the above passage. This would mean that the passage would not refer to women teaching men in the church, but rather wives teaching their husbands within the home. 5 1 Timothy 3:2: "Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife..." (NIV) This would seem to imply that all overseers (bishops) must be male. 1 Timothy 3:8: "Deacons likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere..." (NIV)
	Titus 1:6: "An elder must be blameless, a husband of but one wife" (NIV). Women are apparently excluded from the position of elder or bishop.
	Titus 2:4: "...train the younger women...to be subject to their husbands." There is no indication of equal power sharing in marriage.
	1 Peter 3:7: Women are referred to as "the weaker vessel" in comparison to their husbands

 you did your homework Tami but anyway .....

Jesus´ radical treatment of women:

Christ overthrew many centuries of Jewish law and custom. He consistently treated women and men as equals. He violated numerous Old Testament regulations, which specified gender inequality. He refused to follow the behavioral rules established by the three main Jewish religious groups of the day: the Essenes, Pharisees and Sadducees. "The actions of Jesus of Nazareth towards women were therefore revolutionary." ₁ Some examples are:

	He ignored ritual impurity laws: Mark 5:25-34 describes Jesus´ cure of a woman who suffered from menstrual bleeding for 12 years. In Judean society of the day, it was a major transgression for a man to talk to a woman other than his wife or children.
	He talked to foreign women: John 4:7 to 5:30 describes Jesus´ conversation with a woman of Samaria. She was doubly ritually unclean since she was both a foreigner and a woman. Men were not allowed to talk to women, except within their own families. Jesus also helped a Canaanite woman, another foreigner, in Matthew 15:22-28. Although he described non-Jews as "dogs", he was willing to talk to her, and is recorded as having cured her daughter of demon-possession.
	He taught women students: Jewish tradition at the time was to not allow women to be taught. Rabbi Eliezer wrote in the 1st century CE: "Rather should the words of the Torah be burned than entrusted to a woman...Whoever teaches his daughter the Torah is like one who teaches her obscenity." 5  Jesus overthrew centuries of tradition. In Luke 10:38-42, he taught Mary, sister of Martha.
	He used terminology which treated women as equal to men: Luke 13:16 describes how he cured a woman from an indwelling Satanic spirit. He called her a daughter of Abraham, thus implying that she had equal status with sons of Abraham. "The expression ´son of Abraham´ was commonly used to respectfully refer to a Jew, but ´daughter of Abraham´, was an unknown parallel phrase...It occurs nowhere else in the Bible." 4 It seems to be a designation created by Jesus. Luke 7:35 to 8:50 describes how Jesus´ forgave a woman´s sins. He refers to women and men (i.e. "all" people) as children of wisdom.
	He accepted women in his inner circle: Luke 8:1-3 describes the inner circle of Jesus´ followers: 12 male disciples and an unspecified number female supporters (Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna and "many others.") It would appear that about half of his closest followers were women.
	He appeared first to one or more women after his resurrection: Matthew 28:9-10 describes how Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" were the first followers of Jesus to meet him after his resurrection. (However, this account is contradicted by passages in 1 Corinthians, which state that the first person to see Jesus was Cleopas, Peter or all of the disciples.)
	Women were present at Jesus´ execution: Matthew 27:55-56 and Mark 15:40-41 describe many women who followed Jesus from Galilee and were present at his crucifixion. The men had fled from the scene. (John 19:25-27 contradicts this; the author describes John as being present with the women.)
	He told parallel male/female stories: The author of the Gospel of Luke and of Acts shows many parallel episodes: one relating to a woman, the other to a man. For example: Simeon and Hannah in Luke 2:25-38 Widow of Sarepta and Naaman in Luke 4:25-38 Healing of a man possessed by a demon and the healing of the mother of Peter´s wife, starting in Luke 4:31 The woman who had lived a sinful life and Simon, starting in Luke 7:36 A man and woman sleeping together in Luke 17:34 Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:1-11 Dionysius and Damaris in Acts 17:34 Lydia and the jailer´s conversion in Acts 16:14-34 The book "Women in the Earliest Churches" lists 9 additional parallels. 3 Author Ben Witherington III quotes H. Flender: "Luke expresses by this arrangement that man and woman stand together and side by side before God. They are equal in honor and grace; they are endowed with the same gifts and have the same responsibilities." Some theologians have speculated that the author of the Gospel of Luke might well have been a woman.

He expressed concern for widows: Jesus repeated the importance of supporting widows throughout his ministry. The Gospel of Luke alone contains 6 references to widows: (Luke 2:36, 4:26, 7:11, 18:1, 20:47 and 21:1)

Divorce: In Jesus´ time, a man could divorce his wife, but the wife had no right to divorce her husband. This practice is supported by seven  references in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) in which a husband can unilaterally give his wife a bill of divorce. There were no references to a woman giving her husband such a bill. In Mark 10:11-12, Jesus overthrows this tradition and states that neither spouse can divorce the other; he treats the wife and husband equally.

Selection of his disciples: There are three conflicting lists of the names of the 12 disciples that Jesus selected. In all cases, the disciples were male. He later selected a total of 70 disciples; the gender makeup of the latter group was not recorded. Some might well have been female. In his defense, he might have chosen only single people because he wanted disciples who were unencumbered with spouses. In first century CE Jewish culture, unmarried women traveling with men would cause so much criticism that the reception of Jesus´ teaching by the public might have been impossible.

Levirate Marriage: In Mark 12:18-27 Jesus answered a question posed by some Sadducees. They described a woman who was widowed and required to marry her brother-in-law. This was called a "Levirate" marriage. Their first-born son will be considered to be the son of the deceased husband. In this case, they imagined that seven brothers-in-law married her in succession without having a son. Jesus could have used the opportunity to preach on the unfairness and sexism implicit in this requirement of Jewish law (from Deuteronomy 25:5-1. After all, the woman was not allowed to refuse to marry any of the brothers, even if she despised some of them. Levirate marriage often involved serial rape. But Jesus is not recorded as having condemned the practice. Again in his defense, he might have criticized Levirate marriage at the time, but his words might not have been considered significant the Gospel writers who thus might not have recorded Jesus´ comments. Alternately, they might have recorded Jesus criticism of Levirate marriage in the original, autograph copy of their Gospels. However, a later copyist might have deleted the passage.

There are two passages where Jesus deviates from his usual practice of treating women equally:

Treatment of Mary Magdalene:

In Matthew 28:1-7, after Jesus´ resurrection, "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary" receive the first apostolic commission of any human - to tell the good news of the  resurrection to the disciples. This is reinforced by Jesus´ appearance before the two women. The two Marys were thus the first apostles.

The The Nazarene Way of Essenic Studies comments:

"Mary Magdalene is mentioned in the Gospels as being among the women of Galilee who followed Jesus and His disciples. She was present at His Crucifixion and Burial, and went to the tomb on Easter Sunday to anoint His body. She was the first to see the Risen Lord, and to announce His Resurrection to the apostles. Accordingly, she is referred to in early Christian writings as ´the apostle to the apostles´." ₈

 There is not just ONE Christianity!!! There are hundreds of different ones, all with different rules.  Just one Islam?  So how come they can never agree on anything then?  Ask a Saudi muslim a question and you will get a completely different answer to a Turkish muslim

 I agree with this completely - but try telling that to our "moderate" Turkish muslims

 Which is why religion is so laughable and so obviously "invented" by men!

Both the Bible and the Quran were written in a time when men WERE superior in status, had slaves, had many wives and concubines..... this is why it is ridiculous to follow both "book" to the very letter. 

 And - risking to insult, sorry I´ll take that chance - people who do and STILL in the 21st century think that women are inferior I call backwards.

so you call christians backward?

 Dunno about the cloggy, but I think all religions are backward

 You can´t read! I call people who take a holy book from centuries ago still to letter backwards, no matter what religion. I didn´t say I call all religious people backwards, again no matter what religion.

I hope femme the christian missionary doesnt see this post

+1000

Fortunately societies in Europe and North America are first to fight for men-women equality. There even are female priests in some denominations. I do hope Muslim-dominated societies will soon follow.

Of course both Koran and Bible were written when things were not the way they are now and what they contain speaks of backward state of affairs. Were they written by God they´d be up-to-date nowadays as well

I find it a bit strange that you brought the example of the Bible,more precisely New testament in your post Tami as a reference book that states ´clearly facts´ of women´s inferiority.I hope that you know that the bible itself was written not at one sitting and it was written by over 40 authors,even church authorities at that time had problems what to include  in it.Translating texts which were finally authorized also caused a lot of confusion,epistles´s letters that you quoted were not also concerned as true ones at first.

Christianity is based on belief in Jesus as God´s son and it has many denominations ,which have their own bibles so I am not sure which Bible you are reffering to.And the Bible´s language is mostly symbolic,that is why so many interpretations.

Anyway belief is more like  a hunch,religions are set of rules made by men ,so grow up and notice the fact that women were not created as inferior beings as you try to impose in the name of holy books.

I do find this Islamic thing quite confusing when there appears to be so many interpretations of how Muslims should live, from the extreme of the Talaban and terrorists (those I would call fundamentalists) and those who like to take a drink and have a couple of women on the go (I would call modern Muslims).  And how the religion is intepreted from one country to another.

If you are either a Muslim or not a Muslim, how come there is such a deviation from one extreme to the other?  I am truely confused

Good point Libra

it refers to christianity as well.....but I am truly confused with another thing, how we can claim that God is a man knowing nothing about him/her  only using imaginative pictures ???

 Well known quote from the feministic seventies: When God created men, she was only joking....

 And referring back to the table for sale on Ebay, she certainly was

I choose to be an atheist a long time ago. I have looked at many religions over the years and have found that most religious people interpret religion to suit their  needs  or lives. 

Is this not exactly the same reason why you chose to be an atheist?....So what is new?

Read.....

"What I will say may surprise both Muslims who "know" women´s place and non-Muslims who "know" what Islam means for women. It is this: I am a Muslim, a theologian, and a women´s rights activist, and while I am critical in a number of ways of the life that most Muslim societies offer to women, twenty years of theological study, as well as my own deepest faith, convince me that in real Islam, the Islam of the Qur´an, women and men are equals. Liberating ideas lie at the heart of most enduring faiths, and Islam shares in these. Two themes in particular strike me as being of the highest importance. The first is the fundamental equality of humans before God. The other is religion´s revolutionary aim of human liberation. From religion should come freedom to seek understanding of the will of God and life´s purpose, and freedom to honor God´s creation through self-development and striving toward God´s ends. "

more

.........on the contrary.....it does not make you not a Muslim, it makes you a gone astray Muslim....

and I think your idea of equality is off

....of course females and males are equal...but they are different.

They are Members of one another.....

NO

Let us do it for you,

http://news. yahoo.com/ s/livescience/ 20090326/ sc_livescience/ youpaycomputerpr aysforyou; _ylt=AtHVYYFi8L6 YBwcHviCPz. QPLBIF

No need to argue, I have already posted this link but here we go again:

Is there a God?

There is a God in everybodies mind........whichever way they choose to interpret him!

Ahm...since keeping the debate light-hearted didn´t work - nope, there isn´t a God in everybody´s mind. There´s no God in mine

   and that´s your choice of interpretation

The same way we can argue that we all have alien spy cameras installed. And whether we believe in them or not is up to our interpretation Wait! It goes for everything! We all have a murderer in us and we all have a twin inside I love the reasoning

 Exactly.........that was the point!

and to go even further, nobody has God inside but some interpret his/her non-existence as existence

Me likes that

 +1000

It is a psychological NEED in most humans to have a God/Gods, to make some purpose in their life, to make them feel more important than animals, and to give them security when contemplating death.  It is a big human ego trip

plus means of finding a way to spend free time on Sunday/Friday/Satrurday

And for some it´s good way of making money

 Hmmm like.... religious duduism?

 Maybe I should just start calling the priest at my church "Father Dudu"??

  (7 posts to go!)

I´ll probably regret posting on this forum, but I found this "banter" about God very interesting. So, I´ll only add one thing....God is real, I know it without a doubt! Okay...maybe two things.... and God created women equal to men and then asked them to submit... .   It´s not the right of men to rule over women....women choose to be under the authority of men! Okay, I´m done .

 OMG!!!!

OK a few questions please:

(1) God is real to YOU.  As you have no proof that "God is real" you cannot make a general statement, only that you believe it to be so.  If you have proof I would love to see it please?

(2) When did God ask women to submit?  DId you hear him?  Or did you read it in a book that was written by a man a long after this "event" took place? 

(3) Which women "choose" to be under the authority of men"?  When did this happen? 

Will you let her breath?

 AE, did you forget God is real? He has a cell phone, remember.... ( http://www.turkishclass.com/forumTitle_27720_293 

 There is no hurry at all - I will patiently wait for her reply.  It will finally answer the question that philosophers and scholars have been asking for thousands of years...

(1) Yes, God is real to ME....I never said anyone else had to agree

(2) My information comes from the Bible...and it isn´t only women to men...we are to all submit to each other in the sense that we should be servants of one another! So therefore, men should submit themselves as well . And even though the Bible was written by men...I believe it was inspired by God (God told the men what to write).

(3) roflol...whatever women feel it at the time, I guess...lol. It´s not a "barking" order....it´s a choice to submit to each other and help each other....and it doesn´t make a woman a slave or subject to men. It´s a choice within a relationship to honor each other.

 I´m glad for you.....that you have your belief.  Belief in a God seems to make a lot of people feel better about the world and things that occur and it allows them to justify actions they take.  But just because you have no doubt does not make God real! 

Where is the evidence?  Where is the proof?....and I am not talking about books written by men in the NAME of God.   

And my dear, I don´t know what women you have been talking to but I, for one, completely and utterly disagree with the statement that women CHOOSE to be under the authority of men!!!  

 No no dont regret at all

This is the sweetest post i have read lately in this website Go on posting

 I have no problem with that statement now..you missed out "to me" in your original sentence - very important eh?

Yes the Bible was written by men a VERY LONG time after these "events" supposedly happened... Again, it is your right to believe it, but even theological professors would tell you it is not FACT

 You contradict yourself.  You said "women choose to submit" and now you say "its a choice to submit to eachother and help eachother" which is entirely different, as is "honour each other".

I am really disappointed   I was hoping for less back pedalling from you

 Hahahahaha!

Watch out for Sui - he is duduing!

 Because lately everybody has lost the pure and the good inside them... So it was sweet to see some words comes in that way thats all

Submission is really a disgusting word to me.  It means that you are obedient (why does a dog come to mind???). 

Why not talk about compromise.... if you are going to say that the two parties are equal???? 

 You are keeping the wrong company then Sui dear

Believing in a mythical god makes someone innocent?  Yes.........maybe you are right!

No you totally misunderstand! Look at the way she says...

It was so naive and pure I liked it...

I also believe in God, and every day the nature is proving and increasing this belief in me...

Compromise is definitely a part of it...but honor and respect go way farther than compromise...it becomes something of the heart!

Do you consider YOURSELF naive and pure Sui?  Or is this just something that you like in women...makes them more submissive?

 Enough to give up alcohol?

 This suddenly takes on even more meaning.....

Naaaahhh... wish i could be remained naive and pure... Not really as being a man ofcourse the naivness in the opposite sex means more to me, though it is also making me smile when i see a male kid or a boy does some naive behaviours...

According to how i was raised up and stuff, i know that i will be suffering with i am doing, so as i know it... That means that i am accepting the results of what i am doing and what i have done and what i will do...

This is between me and him

 Yeah...as I suspected you find naiveness and childlike purity attractive in women (makes you seem more masterful eh?) but the same characteristics are only ok for males if  they are small boys.....!!

 You do if you are muslim like sui...

 Wow! Sounds like the ideal religion to me!

May I join?  You do what you want, but you have an "understanding" with God?  So you are not muslim then? What is it?  Suigenerism?

 Well like it or not, it is the main ingredient for suppressing women....

No no no, i never thought in this way... i am not that kind of person...

 Well I was only repeating your words

Did you not mean them?

 Ofcourse you may join Its free!!!!

Just you should buy me a drink once a week

Compromise is about honor and respect....

 sub·mis·sion [səb mísh’n]
(plural sub·mis·sions)
n
1.  yielding, or readiness to yield: a willingness to yield or surrender to somebody, or the act of doing so 

How is surrendering to someone about honor and respect? 

 No i never control anyone, unless it is at work... As i am doing lead engineering

Anyway, I see that nasty Aenigma is upsetting this lovely conversation

Will leave you in peace to discuss God, purity, innocence, beauty and, most importantly, naivity

 Shouldn´t you start PMing?

I think you are talking the wrong person

Wake up!!

 You evil Brit!!! 

 This is i can never believe!! hahahahahaha

Hi there Kiara Nice to hear new memebrs actually talk in the forums (regardless of whether we agree with them or not)

First things first - DUDU is a key word here, I´ll skip ethymology and will go straight to the meaning, it is more or less a Turkish playboy, usually originating from poor background, working at a summer resort, tricking women into sending him numerous laptops/mobiles/money for his mum operations.

Secondly, glad you added that "to me" disclaimer.

Thirdly, submissive? Women should be submissive? No way! Why isn´t it men´s role to be submissive according to the Bible? Any chance it has something to do with the fact that the Bible was actually written by men?

okay...I won´t back pedal....I was just trying to be nice with my response.

First, I do believe it is a choice...not an order. I believe God gave women a very strong nature and abilities to do things and a very smart brain and then asked them to submit to man. But that "submission" (I prefer to say honor and respect) goes both ways!! I don´t understand how submitting to each other and honoring each other are different. When you submit yourself to another person, are you not honoring them? It is an essential ingredient in relationships (I think). Sara submitted herself to Abraham (even calling him Lord) I Peter 3:5,6. I´m not advising anyone to call their husbands Lord!!!! That would be a little weird!

I guess how I should have answered that question is I believe we (men and women and people in general) should "submit" (there´s that word again....) to each other. To me that means honor, respect and preferring each other above the other.

Now I´m a bit confused, I need to go back and see what I said that made you feel like I was back pedalling ....

 I will reply provided that SUi does not come galloping back with his white horse to "defend" you.

You just don´t see it!!!! You are saying that God asked women to submit - but that it goes both ways????  This implies that he asked men to submit too (which of course he didn´t .... because the Bible was written by men).  You keep back-tracking saying that its a two way thing blah blah, but then you repeat that "women should submit to men" and quote a bit of your Bible, which YET AGAIN only shows the woman submitting.  Where is the proof of the "mutual" thing you keep trying to tell us about?

 I sold my white horse  economical crisis

 Ohhhh no!!!  How will you ever get back to Turkey then? 

 On the back of a donkey? (Borrowed from PT?)

I Peter 2:13-17 "Be subject for the Lord´s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil...For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for eveil, but living as servants of God, Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor..."

By saying that women should submit to men and then saying men should submit to women I don´t think I´m back pedalling because God says to do these things: God says to the man- "Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman....since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered." I Peter 3:7    and  Ephesians 5:25 - 33 "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her...in the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church...Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband."

I´d say that if a man truly loves his wife as himself that in order to do that, he would have to honor her just as much as he honors himself.

Submission is a funny word and here it seems rather relative word....what´s submission to one seems to be slavery to another! I never looked at the word submission as "slavery" YUCK!! NO WAY!! But to me, submission of one human being to another is a high form of honor!!

Sorry but I really HATE to see passages from any "holy" book

Well, I think that you will find that the meaning is that men should honour and treat equal other men, but women must be submissive.  If you like to follow a book written thousands of years ago to the letter, then I suggest you also acquire some slaves and a donkey...

If "God" had truly written the Bible - why has he not done a more up to date version which is more relevant to modern society?

 No comment.

Anyway, it was nice discussing theology with you Kiara

Are you new here....or have you been here before with a different name?

The problem when you start quoting words from the bible is that the bible was written by men and the words have been taken and twisted into what people WANT them to mean.  Case in point….you saying that submission is about honor and respect!

The Bible is not PROOF of what "GOD says"

I know what is in the bible  - I was telling you that even theologists do not take the entire Bible as "word of God".  It was written hundreds of years after these "events" - both the New and Old Testament are heresay. 

Why do you think your God does not "write" another book more compatible with modern times?

Thank you...I´ve enjoyed our discussion too. Honestly, not here to prove anything...I believe what I believe and I´m not trying to push it on anyone else   Fair enough?

I´m new here...joined this month.

 Well welcome to TC and I am sorry your first experience of the forum was such a controversial one

Maybe we can agree on other topics

Anyway, its a great site so hang around

 oh no! I just said what was passing in my mind nothing special

I sold my horse but bought a boeing 737

 Wow, that must have been quite a horse!!! 

reading this, i can only see one thing. Everyone has their own interpretation of everything, whether it´s religion, God, or simple definition of words. (everyone has the "right" belief, opinion, and answer in their own minds... )

and since everyone already has their own "right" answer that suits their own personal ideas of what religion, or God, or definition of words are, and it seems pretty obvious that no one can sway or change the belief or opinion of the other, i think both ends will never come to an agreement so i dont see the need of prolonging this argument.

(unless everyone is looking forward for some good-old-fashioned "insulting each other until thread gets locked by mod or admin "which has always been a part of TC threads anyway... )

 It was unicorn I will miss her alot

 Well I didn´t see any of that yet?  Just some differences of opinion, but respectful ones and a few duduish posts from Sui which had nothing to do with the subject

Ohhh poor baby.

You want the thread locked in case there is "argument"?

If you find arguments distressing, don´t read it.  Arguing doesn´t have to mean anger or hate you know. Why ask for it to be locked!

I wonder if you venture into debating societies or government talks and ask for them to be locked!

 ok then i will keep silent

Offffffffffff I can read you like a book   3.....2.....1.....Kiara comes to defend you!

 Did you call??? 

 NO!

GO BACK TO YEMEN!

 Am i an exciting book then? Which chapter you like most?

Who is in Yemen? :S

I will be in OMAN soon

Well TheHairy, LIR and GG are back, but I think they left Femme out there

i dont want and i´m not asking for anything to be locked, i´m just saying what can be expected to happen. (See? you made your own interpretation of what i was really trying to say )  and i do agree that arguing doesn´t have to mean anger or hate. But it doesn´t remove the fact that "some" arguments turn out to be really hateful at times which has been evident in some of the threads here in TC.

anyways... i just noticed that the thread had mellowed... i only made that statement, when i thought i was seeing a heated argument (maybe i made my own interpretation, by thinking it was getting heated, when in fact it was just a good and respectful argument , i´m out )

It is like reading the Bible...

 It was not heated at all. But even if it had been heated, does that bother you?

 I wasn´t in Yemen!!!  I have been back at the slave den working my ass off !!! 

(well I was working until today....now I´m kind of slacking cuz I start my new position next week)

 So who else was there then?

Catwoman has not been around lately.....or Bydand for that matter

Cynic?

 oh! i didnt know i was that chaotic and holy for you

it doesn´t bother me, in fact i find it kind of amusing. i just said my opinion. Does my opinion bother you?

 I hope for you it´s not Leviticus chapter you like, it´s a chapter with many prohibitions.....

No I love to hear your opinion   Does the fact that I disagree with it distress you?

actually no, i already expected that...  and the cycle goes on...

 Well its just that some of us get a little bit tired of people requesting threads to be locked just because there are arguments.  You said that "we will never agree".  Do you expect people to agree with eachother at the end of a thread then?  Of course no, but its fun to debate, is it not?

 You let me down!     (and Sui )

 Noooo!

You need to write, "awwww poor Sui did that nasty Aenigma offend you?  You keep posting whatever you like, I love your posts..by the way my msn is iloveturkscalledsui@hotmail.com"

That would be perfect

 OMG!

 what happened?

well first of all, i didn´t request this thread to be locked ( maybe some "people" have? ) and i do not expect people to agree with each other, that is already expected, that is why it´s called an argument...   and i know it´s fun to debate as well, i like debating too when i feel like it. It doesn´t bother me if there is a heated argument as well, as long as it is in context. The thing i don´t want is, when "some people" dont agree, they turn to insulting each other. And it is no longer a good argument  when people get personal with each other. and i too, get tired of seeing threads locked because instead of people sticking to an argument,   they attack each other.  (which is common here in TC as well...  )

the only reason i said that was because i thought everyone´s going to start attacking each other, and since that was not the case, then my previous post may have been out of place, and irrelevant . Anyway, i´m out of here, going to watch a movie... adios

 OK - I am bored with this convo now too -  watch some extreme sheep LED art instead

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2FX9rviEhw

 me me me!!! you talk about me here!! sincere and honest!!!

 Awwww he is not REALLY a dudu   I was just teasing

This is at least something! Oh well!!! But i definetely dont fit in your description to dudu

 Coming back to the original topic .... (Sorry I was away, and the reference to my business partner caught my eye)

 Obviously all my Turkish friends who use phrases like "neo-muslimaným" (I am a neo-muslim) or "müsliman-light" (diet-muslim) to describe the way they practice their faith are talking through their heads, as is an anthropologist commentator who reports about their views in society, rather than denying their existence.

Then i can say they are Deist, believing in the existing of God but not belong to any proper religion...

Ha ha 

That is the right description for Islam in Turkey. 

It is basically the result of being a bridge between two different culture, between two different religions.

And actually that´s something I´ve always admired about Turkey, being that "bridge" makes it a very interesting country that´s both European and Asian or neither. It was fascinating to see covered girls walking ahnd in hand with girlas in mini skirts, observing how traditional and modern lifestyle coexist. Just as modern architecture sinks into the domes of mosques and historical sights. A wonderful clash taking its beauty from balance rather than struggle