Why aren't the Nun's considered Opressed?

[Grace Seeker]

The conclusion I take from all this is that the bible means little for christians.

Well, if that's the conclusion you take, then that's the conclusion you take. I won't tell you that you don't know your own thoughts. I disagree that they correctly represent the Christian view with regard to the Bible. But that's for another thread.

With regard to your example, however:

For example, homosexuality acts certainly warrant extremely severe punishments in the bible, however these days people who proclaim publicly they do homosexual acts are received warmly and highly respected by the church. hell, the church even marry homosexuals these days!
I see that views and attitudes of the church keep shifting to conform with current trend of society.
Who knows, maybe in the future churches will also marry fathers with their daughters too, if incestuous relations becomes acceptable by society?

First, my opinion. That the church should conform to the world around it is indeed a concern. Christians are to be in the world, but not of the world. Very specifically scripture tells us "Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will" (Romans 12:2). But do we conform? One only has to see that the figures for what I consider important ethical practices very little when compared of supposed Christians with the rest of society at large to know that this is a major problem. However, I don't think this is the result of Christian teaching conforming, but of Christians becoming lax with regard to the practice of their faith. Many even becoming nothing by nominal Christians, Christians in name only, who if they were born in some other culture that was not dominated by Christian heritage would be just as likely to be Hindu, Buddhist, or Muslim depending on into what culture they were born.

Next, some facts:
There are some churches who would be willing to perform a marriage ceremony for homosexuals. But most would not.
The three largest religious bodies in the USA, the Catholic Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, and the United Methodist Church are all on record as refusing to do homosexual marriages. In my own denomination, a pastor can be stripped of his orders for even offering a prayer at a service that might be seen as giving approval for or the church's blessing on a homosexual wedding. And those who have challenged this have been charged in the courts of our church with disobedience.

 

[manaal]

How many nuns do u see ın Universıty buıldıngs studyıng to become engıneers, doctors, Teachers? Something worth pondering over...

Actually nuns do receive an education and enter university as well. I had many teachers who were nuns (catholics) when I was in school and some of them were university graduates. Typical fields of study for nuns are languages, social sciences and of course theology.

 

[Ramadhan]

However, I don't think this is the result of Christian teaching conforming, but of Christians becoming lax with regard to the practice of their faith.

I don't blame christians who do not strictly follow their scriptures.

When Saul abrograted mosaic laws (the laws that were fastidiously observed by their own god, who proclaimed that he came not to change it, by the way) and claimed that their god died to absolve human sins and that people are guaranteed after-life salvation if they believe in the concept, I dont see much point in strictly observing the laws as previously taught and commanded by their god.

 

[Ezekiel_B]

I see, so what you're saying is really that you're happy to abide by those Islamic dress laws and forego dressing like a scantily clad harlot, in return for a sense of pride and dignity. Well, I must say...! It's rather hard to knock! So it seems no sister of Islam has any real interest in attracting men other than her husband. Again - what can I say against that!? Nothing. Now, I hear that women of Islam may dress sexy at home, before their own husband only. So it seems as though you can appreciate what it is like to wear nice clothes - except you prefer to keep that in a private context. But, what I'm interested to know - is there any penalty (apart from inner shame) given to those who decide they would like to wear more revealing clothes on the street?

[...]
Well hold your horses for a minute. Answer my questions first and don’t jump to conclusions about what was i was trying to say (which incidentally you got all very wrong). That’s wasn’t what i was implying-in fact that wasn’t what i was implying at all.

I haven’t touched upon the matter about a husband or about apostasy. That’s what you said. If that’s your own ignorant opinion- then fine, but don’t go around putting words in my mouth.

Ummu, I think you've gone completely off the deep end. None of that was addressed specifically to you. There has been no putting of words into anyone's mouth but I am sorry if I have offended you by assuming too much whilst getting carried away in my own thoughts. It's a shame that you choose to take such an aggressive line with someone who is here attempting to learn more about your faith and who is therefore bound to be mistaken on a good number of points. You could have tackled my musings with much greater dignity, had you received them in the spirit they were meant.

To save time, I'll leave out replying to the bulk of it and try to get down to brass tacks.

Lets break this down:
1. You assume that taking off the hijab equates to apostasy and thus this is the reason why us Muslim women are forced to keep it on. (i know what your argument about freedom in a Muslim state was all about- i aint thick).

No, I don't assume that removing the hijab equates to apostasy. I never said that at all. I'm talking about if someone wants to remove the hijab in the context of being a believer (and I was interested to know if there were any known penalty for this); whilst apostacy is the abandonment of faith (and I'll come back to that later). It would stand to reason, that if a person abandoned their faith, they would also abandon the hijab (?). No one's implying you are 'thick', so I'd say it's safe to let go of your paranoia.

2. Wearing hijab is not associated with a husband. That is, the law of hijab is still binding for a woman who isn’t married, a widow whose husband is deceased and yes, a married woman as well. Being married is really associated with the point. So your evidence about some Muslim dude you spoke to, doesn’t count since it hold no relevance.

I'm aware that single women wear the hijab.

I do not include my conversation with "some muslim dude" as 'firm evidence' of anything. I mentioned it, as an example of what some Islamic people say about western women's dress - and I've heard it before - many times. Naturally, it raises some questions and, if anything, is only evidence for his attitude. Depending on what it's intended to show, evidence is often required in sufficient quantity to form a 'body' - meaning that one or two examples would be insufficient on their own. I'll let you know when I am supplying 'evidence'. Until then, try to see things for what they are.

Here, you've raised the singularly most salient point...

Earlier you said the woman wears the hijab by choice.

Now you refer to it as 'law'.

And you say it is 'binding'.

And you wonder why some of us westerners are confused about issues of consent, surrounding the hijab.

A little girl, a friend of my neice has just recently been put into hijab by her parents. She is eight, and we're told this is the age at which hijab becomes applicable (?). I'm not saying she has been held down and had it forced onto her head. Neither do I discount the possibilty she is enamored of it - just as I was, when I recieved my first school uniform...

What I'm now asking is - has this child been institutionalised to the ways of the mosque by her parents? Well, if that were the question then I think it is reasonable to say yes, she has.

It reminds me of my own feelings towards school uniform at the time I started secondary school. I was, at first, actually very enamored at the prospect of my new school uniform - and all that it stood for, due to some of the ideas my own father impressed upon me, during my transition from primary to secondary. The process could reasonably be called 'conditioning'. Not necessarily all negative or all-consuming - but there, all the same.

The difference (please note: as I perceive it) is, however, that in a secular society, we tend to dress according to different roles we play, depending on the situation... and there may be many different situations a person finds themselves in, during the course of their life... Not all of which, driven by religious doctrine.

The simple question: What does the man like?? Flesh, and make makeup or opaque, modest fabric? Which one is going to attract him more?

How many times would a non-Muslim woman get hired had it not been for her hair style or skin?
How many securities would there be at offices? Not actually in an office, but in front of where all can see and talk to her (she needs to attract customers, etc that’s why she is at the front where everyone can see and talk to her).

Look closer, and you probably see, that behind all those women getting hired are actually men hiring them.

Yes, an interesting point, Ummu. We call it sexism where this applies. At least, that's what we call it, if we can prove this is the only reason why certain women are hired. You see, while you can easily bang this out as a stereotypical scenario, the truth of the matter is tied to the individual case and without knowledge of each case, you don't have one to bring against them all. In order to arrive at this conclusion, you'd have to assume it's only men who hold the highest positions in recruitment - and, in this day and age, (thankfully) that simply isn't true.

So whether you like it or not, or whether you admit it or not, this so-called idea of independence where women have been brainwashed to believe that having your hair a certain way and being as anorexic as a twig basically showing all what you look like, is great and empowering because it means being independent of the man, is exactly what is driving her to do- belong to the man.

Tell me something knew, Ummu! If you care to look back over my previous posts, you'll see I've already mentioned it. I think the problem here, is that while I am quite willing to acknowledge the faults and wrongs going on in modern 'christian'-secular society, you seem very unwilling to admit your own society may have problems you don't want to face. Sexism - even sexual harrassment has been a problem in the workplace for women in our society. However, this is something which is today being addressed (perhaps not fully enough, I might add) in Britian's workplace.

I'm afraid it's a throwback from Christianity, the dominant religion of the west, which has formed most of the attitudes towards women you and I are now discussing. The woman's role in society and in marriage is clearly defined in the Bible - and that is to 'serve her man'...

...and many of us have fought against it, to try to bring about a sense of true equality.

The irony eh? Being independent of the man, by being dependent and belonging to him. Hilarious.

An irony, perhaps - and a bitter one at that. Hilarious? No. Not even funny for those who've suffered it. Tell me... does it bring about in you, a sense of satisfaction, to discover injustice outside of the muslim world?

Another interesting point you and some other people here have bought up is Indoctrination.
How about the indoctrination of young western women?

Based on certain factors (the media and feminism come to mind as an example) which advertise for young girls/women what they should look like and what they should eat. And how to flirt with boys and all that stuff that a young teenage mind is so naive and vulnerable about, whilst believing she is free and independent and its all about growing up...?

So Just because you mention indoctrination along side Muslim women, doesn’t actually mean anything. You can make anything up up and pout any fancy label on it to make a statement but it doesn’t mean its actually true or has any substance to it.

Well, as you should be able to deduce by now, this isn't anything new, in a world where patriarchal values have almost unanimously been accepted.

But stop for a second - and listen to what you're saying: You appear quite on the ball with indoctrination outside of the muslim world. Your powers of deduction allow you to identify indoctrination when you see it, yet your powers of logic seem somewhat attenuated, when it comes to applying the same known principle to the muslim world.

And to think - I've been accused of hypocrasy here...

 

[Ummu Sufyaan]

don't act the sulky old victim and in the process make me look like the villain. it doesn't work.

and im not going to reply further to you as if you had bothered to read things in their proper contexts you wouldn't have come up with the reply you did. none of things you have said actually are relevant to out discussion. maybe that is a tactic of yours not to address the real issues that have been raised. i don't know, i don't care, but if you go back and read the posts that i have based my reply to you on, you will find that none of things you have said are really relevant.

i really don't want to go back and copy paste things to make you understand things what any average joe could understand. what painstaking and time wasting thing to do. no thank you.

the only thing i will bother replying to is:

Earlier you said the woman wears the hijab by choice.

Now you refer to it as 'law'.

And you say it is 'binding'.

the hijab is law. my point was, similarly, the law of becoming a nun entails giving up a husband a children. going by your logic, abiding by law is forceful but funnily you somehow completely ignore this in relation to the nun but make it sound like the Muslim woman is victim. come again?

 

[Ezekiel_B]

don't act the sulky old victim and in the process make me look like the villain. it doesn't work.

Well, thank you for that interpretation. I thought I was merely qualifying a few things you thought I meant...

and im not going to reply further to you as if you had bothered to read things in their proper contexts you wouldn't have come up with the reply you did.

Judging by this reaction I might be forgiven, by some, for wondering if you've actually read my posts in context.

the hijab is law. my point was, similarly, the law of becoming a nun entails giving up a husband a children. going by your logic, abiding by law is forceful but funnily you somehow completely ignore this in relation to the nun but make it sound like the Muslim woman is victim. come again?

Does it really look as though I have ignored catholic laws when talking about nuns? The connotation of 'victim' is relative.

We've agreed that secular advertising can be reasonably described as 'indoctrination' when investigating similarities to religion. There is, of course, a subtle difference. Have I implied the effects are any less damaging? No.

I've already posited that some degree of conditioning and indoctrination would seem necessary to produce a young woman who wants to become a nun. Obviously you've missed that the first time around, so here it is again.

The connotation of victim is, as I've said: relative. It seems reasonable to suggest we are all, in some ways - and to larger and lesser degrees - victims of our childhood conditioning.

In your case, for instance, it would appear you are behaving like a victim of your own bitterness, for some reason.

I suggest you calm down and try to evaluate what is being said to you. Right now, you sound somewhat hysterical.

 

[Ummu Sufyaan]

^yeah so what, sue me :shade:

 

[Asiyah3]

read my posts

Peace,
What's your point in this thread?

 

[جوري]

Peace, What's your point in this thread?

To talk of his girlfriend's private parts, live out his perversions while exalting the ways of the goths-- which I'll venture to say he knows so little about, as is apparent from all other topics he gauges..