Is Christianity a misogynist religion?

Buz wrote:1. Throughout the history of mankind it has been so. Not only in Christian cultures. Men have been leaders/heads of home, government and religion. The world has not become a more content/happy place where this is changing. Nor are women happier/more content.
2. I believe Biblical women have faired as well or better than most women historically. Islam is an example of greater opression of women. Athiestic Communism as in China scores badly also.
3. Women are designed both emotionally to follow and to be protected by the stronger man.
4. The lower voice, physical strength, and mental nature of the man is more naturally suited for leadership role. The Biblical account of orgins accounts for and explains this, imo far more adequately than does chancy evolution. Why would the sexes evolve to incorporate this phenomonen of mankind's history?(Here come the eggs n tomatoes. Buz leavin town. Talk to ya when I dare return.)

Rei wrote:quoteHere come the eggs n tomatoes. Buz leavin town. Talk to ya when I dare return.)I got my trusty slingshot ready, tooquote: 1. Throughout the history of mankind it has been so. Not only in Christian cultures. Men have been leaders/heads of home, government and religion. The world has not become a more content/happy place where this is changing. Nor are women happier/more content.Excuse me? Have you looked at suicide rates among women in cultures where they are oppressed like this? Or rates of transgender feelings among girls in such cultures? Let's see if I can find one really quick here...Hmm, here's a mirror of one that I ran into a while ago.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TNUKdigest/message/158And don't try and pretend that this is due to the veil This is what happens almost universally when you treat women like property. You see, you may not realize it, but we have these things called "feelings", and we can do this amazing trick called "free thought", something once thought only available to males like you.

​

quote: 2. I believe Biblical women have faired as well or better than most women historically. Islam is an example of greater opression of women. Athiestic Communism as in China scores badly also.

​

So, you're talking greater oppression than selling women as property, God-endorsed enslavement of virgins-only, etc? Give me a break If your answer is due to the covering of women's hair, are you aware that that was initially as Jewish tradition as well? Only some orthodox still use it:

​

Lubbock Avalanche-Journal

​

Shamash.org (an orthodox jewish site) has a fair bit of discussion on this issue.

​

It used to be far worse. Would you like some of the early writings on women's dress in general?

​

BTW, if you want to talk about women's rights in ancient cultures, are you aware that throughout much of ancient Egyptian history, women could not only own property, divorce their husbands, and hold high office - but actually were guaranteed the same wages as men for doing the same work? Oh wait, but we should be thankful for having no right to own property, to divorce our husbands, and to get paid less, right!?

​

quote:3. Women are designed both emotionally to follow and to be protected by the stronger man.

​

Are you actually trying to claim that *men* are emotionally stable? Men, who do the vast majority of murders, of assaults, etc? Men, who much more often than women think wars are a good thing? I suppose if you think violence is good guidance, then be my guest in holding that opinion. If you're talking about physical strength, of course men average being stronger. But physical strength has absolutely *zero* to do with intelligence and, consequently, coming up with a good plan for leadership. Scholastically, women average better than men in most subjects.

​

quote:4. The lower voice, physical strength, and mental nature of the man is more naturally suited for leadership role.

​

Oh give me a break. If I could lift a bulldozer that wouldn't make me any better to lead than a yucca plant. "Mental Nature"? Go tell that to the next girl that you ask out. "Lower Voice"? Yeah, that's another thing that makes a good leader!

​

Give me a break.

​

quote: The Biblical account of orgins accounts for and explains this, imo far more adequately than does chancy evolution. Why would the sexes evolve to incorporate this phenomonen of mankind's history?

​

Sexual dimorphism is an obvious expectation of evolution. You'll notice that the more polygynous a species, the more male-dominated it is, and the higher the ratio of size differences between males and females. Polyandrous species have just the opposite. True monogamous species tend to be roughly the same size. Humans have been slightly polygamous throughout history, and thus have slightly larger males than females. Polygamy induces more intense competition between males; polyandry incudces more intense competition between females.

​

Neither, by the way, affect intelligence. Ego, perhaps.

​

------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

schrafinator wrote:quote:1. Throughout the history of mankind it has been so. Not only in Christian cultures....um, except when and where it hasn't been so.There are more than a few examples of matriarchal societies, including the Iroquois Native American tribe.In fact, there is some compelling evidence to suggest that Goddess worship and reverence of women's ability to bring forth life was the prevailing religion/mindset of humans for a very long time.quote:The world has not become a more content/happy place where this is changing. Nor are women happier/more content.Yes, I certainly wish my father had sold me to the highest bidder instead of my being able to choose to marry or not to someone of my own choosing.I am also very regretful that I can vote, own property, control my own fertility, become employed at any profession I choose, become educated at all, and even to the highest degree I can attain, etc. etc.Yes, I surely wish I was still ruled over by all men.Do you REALLY think that women would be much better off as chattel, Buz, or as second-class citizens?quote: 2. I believe Biblical women have faired as well or better than most women historically. Islam is an example of greater opression of women.Actually, Islamic texts encourage the education of women. the Bible, by contrast, does not, and in fact instructs women to shut up a lot of the time.quote:4. The lower voice, physical strength, and mental nature of the man is more naturally suited for leadership role.HAHAHAHAHA!Your justification for your sexism and woman-hating is amusing.Lower voices and physical strength have what, exactly, to do with leadership, other than possibly being used to intimidate others?Intimidation is not leadership.Please also explain what kinds of mental attributes that only men enjoy which makes them good leaders, and also please explain how women do not or cannot also enjoy these mental attributes.Also please explain how you know that women have not been systematically discouraged from developing these attributes of leadership by our culture, and also please explain how you know that men have not been encouraged to develop thease attributes by our culture.

'the Bible, by contrast, does not, and in fact instructs women to shut up a lot of the time.'Does this include the part where Jesus talks to a woman and the disciples are shocked?
Many women are chosen, in the Bible, not just men, however I do agree with you, women are just as intelligent and probably more so and treating women as lesser beings, I think belongs in the past.
Also Jesus said he came to give life more abundantly, and he did not say 'men' exclusively.
As for religions and how they differ towards women, well how good are they at their religion? is a good question. For e.g Do you really think Jesus would agree with going out and killing. Or allah would agree with it? - I don't.Infact if I had a vote as to who is the more peaceful and intelligent sex, I wouldn't be voting for men.Oh, and women are better drivers because they don't beat you up if you cut them up[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-05-2003][This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-05-2003]

So, is Buzsaw mysogynist?Well, to be fair he does deny this.Is Christianity a mysogynist religion?Well, I don't have religion , and I don't practice any rituals. But surely the 'religious' foke say some odd things, so the christian religiousness - pope, catholics, church goers, I can't answer for them. But if your asking a christian,(none of the above) then the answer is no.

women as property: women as scapegoats for "the fall": women to be submissive and quiet, second class humanity: marriage to a woman soley as a release valve for man's lust: View of women by early church fathers (Tertullian, Origen, St. Gregory of Nazianzum (329-389), the Bishop of Constantinople, St. Ambrose (c339-397), a Doctor of the Church, and Bishop of Milan, St Jerome, St. John Chrysostom (c347-407), Doctor of the Church and Bishop of Constantinople, St Augustine, St. Albertus Magnus (c1200-1280), Dominican theologian and Doctor of the Church, St Thomas Aquinas)who set the standard for Chrisianity's view from the beginning can be found herePosition of women in history, prior to Christianity can be found here------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

'For Adam was formed first, then Eve.'Basically I am for people being equal. But, yes I cannot deny Adam was first, nor will I apologise for it. Ofcourse, I don't argue with what God commands. Nevertheless I don't think women should be 'stopped' from being equal, so really your arguement is with God not me.

Actually Mike, my argument is with people who claim that Christianity is not misogynistic. I'm not asking you to apologize for something written several thousand years ago, but the writings, especially of Paul in the NT are severely woman hating.------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

That always cracks me up.------------------
Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn!

LOL, the ever elusive prohibition against homosexuality.------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

"crack" is an unfortunate choice of word in this case, I must say....

I think it would be fairer to say Paul was a misogynist arsehole, and that the Jewish tradition is highly misogynist, than to brand Christianity as a whole misogynist. Many modern branches of Christianity have made great strides towards greater sexual equality in the recent years. For example, the CoE finally allowed Women priests a while back, and the standard marriage ceremony has been altered to balance up the vows taken by men and women.

Well, this is something I wanted to discuss in this thread:http://EvC Forum: THE STATUS OF WOMEN IN THE NEW TESTAMENT EPISTLES -->EvC Forum: THE STATUS OF WOMEN IN THE NEW TESTAMENT EPISTLESof which this on is an offspring. It seems that lot of Paul's letters were "worked on", so Paul does not appear to be such a "bad guy". Also - he mentioned some 40 people by name in his letters. Almost one half of them were women.------------------
Life has no meaning but itself.

Interesting, Raha, I was not aware of that alleged alteration. I didn't look at that thread because the title was in all-caps.In the light of that discussion, I'd like to change my above statement to "I think it would be fairer to say Paul, or one of the later editors of his letters, was a misogynist arsehole..."

This is stupid talk. Throughout Genesis you can find no reason why the order of creation imposes a value amont on the created. For example: In the first creation account man and woman were created last, does that mean that everything else is more valuable than humans? In the second creation account man was created before everything else and woman was created last, after everything else had been already created. The intended purpose of this second passage of creation is not to show that woman was created lower than fungi.Have you ever considered the symbolism in Eve being created from Adam's side? They could have chosen a much lower of higher body part to symbolize an unequal relationship, but they are clearly shown as equal here.Now, onto Eve's temptation. Let me clear up a little historical problem here that most people over look. In the Hebrew culture if a man tells his wife to do something, even if its against the law, then she is not responsible for it. If Adam would have given Eve the apple, then she wouldn't share in the responsibility. As it is they share the responsibility equally.The Bible is all about equality when you put it into the context of those who wrote it.------------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein