Religion is for men

I do believe, first of all, that women are somewhat different from men in objective thinking. I am not the kind of person who will get bothered by mysoginistic attitudes, because I accept the idea that most men think more objectively. It is proven, if you look at statistics, that men do better in IQ tests. But I do believe that gender roles play a big part; men are seen as leaders. Their ideas are more important because their capabilities in leadership are often judged more than a woman's. When it comes to famous figures in the christian religion, female saints are equally common as males. There are even women regarded as 'doctors' of the church. Mary essentially achieved leadership because of her subjectivity. It is paradoxical. Again, looking at the Catholic religion, when it comes to prophecy, women are given an equal role. Although other types of christianity do not recognize apparitions, those approved by the RCC and made famous are very much inclusive of women.
There is Fatima, of course, Lourdes, Mary of Agreda, Catherine Laboure, Maguerite Alecoque, many more. Women are regarded as equal vessels of prophecy, even if equal educational opportunities are lacking. Submissiveness, in a way, is very important for revelation.The ratio of men to women contribution in philosophic and theological areas is greater for men, no doubt due to educational differences and leadership roles in addition to natural inclinations, but the idea is one of compliments. A woman's tendency toward acceptance of leadership can make her an ideal candidate for sainthood, while a man will often achieve sainthood only by valiant struggles against himself. If you think of Augustine, he is widely known, and his mother, St Monica, not so well-known. Monica probably has written nothing, her saintliness was in her constancy, her faith, her perseverence in the face of hard-ship, while Augustine's was in his writings, in his eventual submission to faith in spite of temptation.For Benedict, there is Scholastica, for John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, for Francis of Assisi, Claire. The women always seem to battle the world more than themselves, and as the saying goes, we are our own worst enemy. So in a sense, the men have over-come more, even if the result is the same. Men are often remembered more for their struggles, and women for their constancy. The same is true for the great men of history; there has often been a women of faith supporting them. I do not mean faith in religion necessarily, but in the man, and in his ability to be a leader. It is not important to decide who is better, but to follow the models of leadership in whatever role you have been given. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Yes, women can achieve a ferocity which is unusual for their sex in general, and without just cause, not much admired.But Joan of Arc is actually a good example of what I was talking about; she fought the world, and not herself. It is of course only a general observation, but there does seem to be a larger amount of men who are recognized for their great 'conversions' of heart. We have St Paul, Augustine, Francis of Assisi, and even Thomas and Peter the apostles. Of course, you do have your Mary Magdalene's.

Very true. Sexual desirability is often linked to leadership in the form of success, enterprise and ambition in financial areas, education as a necessary preperation for versatility (as compared to leadership based on brute strength)...and of course, independence. Reminds me of Seinfeld, where George is afraid to approach a woman because he is insecure about his lack of job and living with his parents. Oh, and his baldness. What is about us that we still link hair to strength, like in Samson and Delilah?Anyway, I think actual physical strength will always make men leader-figures, because, in many ways they had to provide for women if the women were to provide for the children. In relation to this whole idea, I can look at my family, and see some absolute negligence on the part of the women in choosing desirable male partners based on leadership, and also, a negligence on the part of the men in choosing faithful and consistant women.

Hey, you won't hear me complaining.

Whew. This was the tiniest and least significant part of my post, but as usual I recieve the most scrutiny here. Hopefully, to combat your *disappointment* I can explain that, IQ tests aside, I am not worried about perceived mysoginism in religion; it doesn't bother me, because I am content with the roles which women and men play, different roles, and not overly worried about making the sexes the same. I am not looking for a competition, and since this thread was about mysoginism in religion, I did not think it was necessary to discuss every detail of the down-side of mysoginism in other areas.I am also not trying to be 'in-line' with any religious idea, but rather, if the idea was not 'in-line' with me, I would be one of those who oppose it. Plain and simple. I would stop being Catholic, or I would be a psuedo-catholic who is self-excommunicated. This is very weird to me. I could just as easily say that in areas where men lack the ability to control themselves, as in, poor leadership, poor-planning, poor-decision making, birth-rates are way too high. The abortion rate is already way too high because even in societies of equal opportunity, men AND women don't make good decisions.There is no religion which says 'thou must have sex'. In many religions celibacy is preached as the greatest possible vocation. I have heard this before and it is pure bollocks, sorry. The only way the 'disease' of christainity has been spread is evangelism, martyrdom, ministry, etc. There is no use in making the christian respect for life a pathetic attempt at indoctrination via procreation. We could just as easily come out and preach that, and to my knowledge, no one has, ever. Yet people want to provide subconscious motives for things which already have a motive; respect of human sexuality. And again, it overlooks that whole thing about celibacy, and the fact that even today priests are still trying harder than ever to get people to join them in a celibate vocation.It is a little curious here that you say 'selected' as if evolution has selected for certain religions. Maybe I am wrong... Your belief that women are less inclined to make war is part of your own bias about what women are capable of and not. It may be a good generalization, but let's see what happens when Hillary Clinton gets her hands on the reins. All of that pent-up frustration! I think women might be so war-like they would never get past petty battles with their Cabinet, not to mention the errand boys and secretaries. Thus, the appearance would be that they don't make war. I am just kidding...but out of all of this, I would say there is a huge part of the population that would not be utilized in terms of productivity. Still, if more women were given high power jobs, it would stand to reason that more men would be forced into lower positions, so, all in all, may the best 'man' win the job. Whoever fits the criteria. That includes, the criteria that the candidate must be male.

Anybody in mind? Not true of the Church. They don't think anything, except that Jesus is God and He chose a man for a Pope. This is the only 'tradition' which they are allowed to go by.

Before your time, eh?Or you have not heard 'thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church'? Good for Paul.Personally, I am fine being a perfume carrying servant who anoints the body of Christ, as you say.Women ARE leaders, brenna, in different things.

No, both genders under God are equally important and intrinsically the same. They are only physically different, which for obvious reasons, make men better at some things, and women others. That I view the role of the priesthood more suitable to the male gender in natural ways, does not mean that I accept mysogony as normal, but that I see no evidence of it in church practice.

If you say that women are typically this or typically that, you are acknowledging differences in physical mental makeup. I can just as easily say that men are typically more objective, practical, and tacit.

Not so quick there nator! Men DO score better in general, but the tests are arguably faulty.

There is no scriptural evidence that leadership was given to any woman.Yes, a companion is equal. Differently equal. A man can provide the seed, a woman nourish it.Who is Paul? A humble follower of Christ. The church does not follow the dictions of Paul, but the example of Christ, as did Paul. Even Paul was not a Pope. And yes, priests are mini-Jesuses, and this 'pope' guy is the man formerly known as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

Yes, it is good to know about the IQ tests. They do not prove that ALL men score better, but that the average score for men is better. Etc. and I do not doubt you or anyone else. Well, yes, but not to Jesus. Still, He chose men, and the idea is that there is no 'at that time' for a god who is not limited by time. By the same token, men of 'that time' would possibly not have accepted a female leader, but its hard to say. Those gosh darn gentile Romans with their female gods and all. On a side note, it is a little curious that, for all the hatred spent on the monarchies, the Divine Right of Kings was also, the Divine Right of Queens, and, well, democracy has not made a female president yet.

I think you might notice that my first post in the thread talks about the women who have prophecied throughout histroy in the RCC.We already talked about Ven. Mary of Agreda, Bernadette of Lourdes, Catherine Labouree, Marguerite Alacoque, Lucia of Fatima.Women have been Catholic queens, leaders of convents, doctors of the church, etc. This does not take away the fact that Jesus did not choose a woman as an apostle. That is all that the church goes by, and all that it ever will, and the leaders of the church are well aware of the other women in scripture.Junia, btw, is almost positively male. Paul refers to 'her' as a kinsmen and a fellow prisoner.

ouyyevns (suggenes) I do not know if the Greek word was used in a masculine sense, or if it has variations indicating gender. It is possible that 'iounian' was changed, added, etc. regarding the last letter. If it was, it may have not been because of gender, but for some other reason; maybe there was someone known then with the name 'iounias', or maybe it was a copyist error.Bible researchers would look for other clues; that Paul was a fellow inmate with this person could make him male, or if Paul was speaking more generally, she could be female. The point is, no one knows for sure.Here is what I get;Early church fathers were reading the Bible as it was presented to them. You are taking their reading as accurate, without concern about possible changes. Further in your post, you are very concerned with possible changes; So, what occurs to me, is that the church fathers were not concerned with removing women, that the Bible has not been changed to remove women, as there are women in there, and that all further speculation about whether the apostles were changed from women to men at a later date, is irrelevent and would not be a basis for changes in the church.Further, in spite of what the DaVinci Code may speculate, women were not present at the Last Supper. Why, because I know there is a controversary about Junia? I would say that should be evidence that I am aware of the truth of women in the church. I am aware that the church did not attempt to hide the fact of women in the early church, as all of the great church fathers accepted this as a correct name. But again, just calling her an apostle does not make her the same as an elected leader. Again, Paul is not even considered to be a priest, a pope, a bishop, a deacon, or a cardinal, or anything except a prophet and apostle.

Yes, I have noticed that people of faith do seem to lack enough faith in Jesus to trust Him in His election of men, and to trust in His providing a church institution worthy of spreading His name. We do have a list; Jesus and His disciples. Anything else which may be assumed is irrelevent. We can not for example make every Christian grow a beard based on the assumption that Jesus had one. If no one knows for sure, how can I can I say you are wrong? Ok, my parameters are; no woman was elected by Jesus. Maybe the idea is that woman are BETTER than men, they are trusting and faithful, blah blah blah, and they are so great that Jesus would not have dreamed of exposing them to any scandal or putting them in a position of serving a church. They can go serve Jesus, and not the institution. Leading is serving, and serving is leading.