User talk:Pschelden

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi! I just want to thank you for your improvements to the Henrik Ibsen article. They were really excellent and I agree with you in all the concerns you brought up on the talk-page. I hope you'll continue to be bold and improve upon this or any other wikipedia article you might see need fixing in the future. Thanks again. Shanes 06:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that whenever you start changing "some of the biased and weakly-worded language of the second and third paragraphs", that it's a good sign you shouldn't be marking this edit as minor.--Prosfilaes 14:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I must disagree

I am somewhat subservient to my boss, yet I am still an equal in terms of being a human being. I am subservient to the local policeman (don't have a choice), yet in the eyes of the law I am still an equal. Jesus, although being essentially one with God and in the form of God and possessing the fullness of the attributes which make God God did not think this equality with God was a thing to be eagerly grasped or retained, but stripped Himself of all privileges and rightful dignity, so as to assume the guise of a servant (slave), in that He became like men and was born a human being. And after He had appeared in human form, He abased and humbled Himself [still further] and carried His obedience to the extreme of death, even the death of the cross. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. please sign your comments using ~~~~ notation :-) Thanks! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Ta bu: Yes, I understand that a thing can be equal in parts, and that is not to say that something that is subservient is equal in ALL parts. But using your argument in a different context, I wouldn't say that an apple is equal to a banana because they're both equally fruits. They have important distinctions. Similarly, Paul explicitly makes important distinctions between men and women.

When you write that women are subservient, but still equal, that could be offensive to a person who considers equality primarily in terms of power relations, as many people do. Think about the way the term "racial equality" is understood. It doesn't just mean that all people are inherently equal from an outside perspective (like, perhaps, God). It probably implies this, but more to the point, it means bringing underprivileged, marginalized races into a position where they can enjoy the same POLITICAL equality that other races enjoy. In the interest of NPOV, I strongly encourage you to reconsider your addition in the Women and Christianity article. Pschelden P.S. --is this how to sign off in discussion pages?

Ya, you're getting the hang of that signing thingo :-) Well... politically (in the secular world that is), yes I would agree with you. I'm not saying that we should exclude the majority viewpoint (as it is today) that subservience cannot allow for equality. What I think we should do is explain that not all people believe that submission (and I would prefer this term - subservience, to my mind, is the enforced act of being under someone else's power; submission is the voluntary act of yeilding to the authority of another) does not equal inequality. It would be more NPOV to discuss these issues and not give any weight to one or the other.

For the record, my personal belief is that when Paul talks about the wife submitting to her husband and the husband loving his wife I've always been struck that he directly addresses woman on the submission issue and directly addresses men on the issue of loving their wives. In other words, it is not up to the man to force submission on his wife, and it is not up to the woman to force her husband to love her. Hope this clears this up. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I know I wrote subservient, but I should have written "submit". - Ta bu shi da yu 07:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Ya, I know that. Notice that I talked about secular politics, not the leadership of a church. I think that it would be best to add info about that into the article if it's not already there. Anyway, I gotta go. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your understanding of NPOV

Could you please rereview the NPOV policy? The material that was in brackets was not entirely necessary, or at least should not have been in the form it was because it appears to be commentary from Wikipedia. This in itself would at first glace appear to be pushing a POV with negative connotations - that the Bible says nothing about a man being submissive to their wife. I have balanced this viewpoint with the fact that the Bible also has things to say about the responsibility of men. If you have a problem with a long sentence, may I suggest that you rephrase the sentence?

Could I also request that you use the form ~~~~ when signing your comments? Further information can be found at Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. I would also like to request that the talk page be used? I'm currently on holidays and the talk page is most appropriate to discuss article content. While I don't mind discussing these things with you, not everyone will see what is being debated and they won't be able to add their $0.02. I'm also on holidays with no ready access to the Internet (I used a Queensland Internet cafe to edit the page).

Incidently, I'm not saying this to be harsh. I do appreciate your input! - Ta bu shi da yu 10:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)