Normally, I don't touch these topics with a ten foot pole for obvious reasons, but for some reason I felt like it today.
Ann, you seem to relish debate so I'm putting in my two cents here. I've struggled with many of the same issues that you've struggled with, but I really can't say I've been able to resolve them as completely as you seem to have. So, in the spirit of intelligent conversation, I just thought I'd add an alternate interpretation to this:
16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
...
So Adam must rule over Eve, and he should be very wary about listening to her advice again.
I honestly think you're giving God a bad rap here--and I use "he" to refer to God simply b/c it's shorter, not b/c I think "God" necessarily implies a gender. I read this completely opposite. This moment is where God explains the consequences of sin entering the world. So, when he says that man will rule over woman, he's not saying man SHOULD rule over woman but rather that he WOULD, because sin messed up the way things should be, and everyone would suffer as a result. Man will suffer from having to sweat from labour, woman from childbirth and her husband ruling over her.
Also, I do want to agree with Terry and add that the view you see of the so-called religious right outside the USA is not necessarily a fair one, because, especially lately, no one really knows who is considered "right." John McCain is "right" if you're a Democrat, but he's "left" if you're Republican. Hillary Clinton used to be "left," but now they're saying she's "moderate." I certainly can't figure out if I'm left, center...bogged down in the mire. Not to mention, I can say from personal experience that what you say to the media is rarely what actually shows up on a news program. It's ludicrous at best and infuriating at worst. Everyone suffers because of it. It's the beauty of free speech and the spin.
This to say, I do happen to agree with you that Jesus was a great "feminist," but I also agree with Terry that he wasn't just interested in feminism. When I read the Bible I see someone who was interested in people. Period. I do also agree that Jesus would be morally against abortion. But then again, he would also be against incest, rape, and irresponsible sex. And isn't that really the reason most abortions become desired in the first place? What I find most thought-provoking is whether he would be accepting of abortions given the fact that he knew the world was full of sin and, as a consequence, all those problems he stood against existed. Would it be "two wrongs don't make a right" or "every child a wanted child"? Would he be someone "idealistic" or "practical"? And can we even use those terms in this case?
If you read to here and thought I was the WORST mess of all sorts of sides of everything, you would be right. I like to ask questions nobody else wants to ask, and then try to answer them. In my defense, I've been bred to be this way. It's not my fault. :p
