Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

"Let US Make MAN In Our Image" What About Women?

page: 1
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   
First let me say that I am agnostic, and my beliefs as well as your own... are your own, and my own. I have decided to try to make sense of this, and as far as I'm concerned those that are religious and those that are not should be able to cover this without being hostile, or filling the thread with a bunch of scriptures.

I have heard all my life that in the bible it is written in Genesis 1:26 "Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness".

There has been a stigma against women for thousands of years, and what I have come up with is a few more or less statements then questions.

One, if the above is literal, then where did the likeness of women come from?

Two, if women were so unimportant, then why the need for Jesus to be born to Mary? And because of this holy birth, how come the perception towards women did not change?

Now the next few statements, I must say require a thick skin for those that get offended easily, but this is the reason for discussion.

If women were considered to only be "2nd" made, then why are women more efficiently made for the continuation of life, as men are simply needed to provided needed "help" with the beginning, but afterward are no longer medically, nutritionally, or need to gestate?

Is it so hard to try to understand the need of women, or the understanding that the church has decided that there had to be a hidden agenda about women in general?

Third, if procreation was supposed to be a #1 goal, why would women who are far more complicated biologically be made second?

With the above stated I will say my own thoughts.

I think that maybe women were in fact created first, its like thinking that a dish was made first, and then the dishwasher to accommodate right after, and yet tell others that the dish is far more important then the washer, as it provides, soap, drying, cleaning.

I am in NO WAY trying to be condescending, but honest in my confusion that many still believe that women are under men, and just above the animals.

Please I would like to keep this clean, and free of hate, and maybe there is something that I missed.

Peace, NRE.

BTW, I almost forgot, just food for thought. Would it not be easier to remove then to add. Men and women are almost identical , but if you ask a man why he has nipples he considers them unnecessary.

edit on 21-3-2012 by NoRegretsEver because: just thinking



+8 more 
posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Im pretty sure, when they referred to god creating man in his own image, they actually meant mankind.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Woman is man as much as man is man.

your hangup is an issue specifically related to the world you were raised in.

when the passage was written someone should have had the gift of vision to know that in the future, society will interpret things differently than intended and will seize upon this minor issue.

actually...i think that in the bible those people were referred to as "Fault Finders".



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   
nvm
edit on 21-3-2012 by rigel4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Its all in the way you interpret things. Im Muslim and I believe portions of the Bible are still true, and some portions are just invented by men later on. Since we have something similar in meaning in the Quran, my take is that it means God created man with His characteristics, but at a lower level. For example, God can create, so can man, but not in the same level. God is merciful, loving, etc etc and so is man. So my take is that it meant in a non physical manner, with characteristics taken from Himself. Since the Bible also says that God has no particular physical shape or form, it kind of confuses me when they interpret this verse in a purely physical sense.
edit on 21-3-2012 by nusnus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by NoRegretsEver
 


"Man" is typically used to refer to all of humankind... or mankind. I don't think there's really a gender discrimination thing going on here... and I suspect that if you went back to a more original not-english source, you'd likely find something equally non-gender specific.

There are a lot of ways in which English makes communication difficult. Lack of a clear delineation of the gender of nouns is one of those.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by NoRegretsEver
 


Google "Lilith"



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   
ault-finding
n
1. continual and usually trivial criticism
2. (Electronics) the systematic investigation of malfunctions in electronic apparatus
adj
given to finding fault
fault-finder n

in the dictionary fault finders are considered....TRIVIAL.

is that how you want to be remembered?

Trivial defined:

riv·i·al (trv-l)
adj.
1. Of little significance or value.
2. Ordinary; commonplace.
3. Concerned with or involving trivia.
4. Biology Relating to or designating a species; specific.
5. Mathematics
a. Of, relating to, or being the solution of an equation in which every variable is equal to zero.
b. Of, relating to, or being the simplest possible case; self-evident.

have fun OP.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   
If man was meant to be "mankind" then why is there some much discrimination against women in most religious text, and churches?

Wouldn't there be someone to say.. hello what about the women? Especially if it should be a "well known" fact that man means mankind?

Peace, NRE.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   
I'll speak only to the Bible:

Because the people who wrote the Bible were men. Thus, you'll find all sorts of fun sexist things in it!



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoRegretsEver
One, if the above is literal, then where did the likeness of women come from?

Two, if women were so unimportant, then why the need for Jesus to be born to Mary? And because of this holy birth, how come the perception towards women did not change?

Now the next few statements, I must say require a thick skin for those that get offended easily, but this is the reason for discussion.

If women were considered to only be "2nd" made, then why are women more efficiently made for the continuation of life, as men are simply needed to provided needed "help" with the beginning, but afterward are no longer medically, nutritionally, or need to gestate?

Is it so hard to try to understand the need of women, or the understanding that the church has decided that there had to be a hidden agenda about women in general?

Third, if procreation was supposed to be a #1 goal, why would women who are far more complicated biologically be made second?
edit on 21-3-2012 by NoRegretsEver because: just thinking


likeness of women came from mens ribs.

Jesus was for the Jews and blood line is very important for them.

Yes, women carry babies men don't.

The Church made sure they had the power.

Why, are you asking all these questions based off of one book?



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by NoRegretsEver
 


Ancient writings in some cases...Herodotus...referred to men as women and women as men.

in ancient times masculinity was obviously not a statement of physical gender but of which of the two in a relationship was of greater antiquity as a life form or as they put it primitiveness.

so...a woman would be considered the "Man" if she came from a house of greater antiquity than the mate she chose.

and in fact this is the proper way of determining such things, not physical gender, but spiritual gender.

i comment to my own 'wife' often that our daughters are actually the MAN of the relationship with their boyfriends.

i am certainly correct in this belief.

digest what I wrote before you respond.

i don't expect any responses.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   
one of the great mysteries of life has something to do with the notion that while all life obviously emerges from a woman...

...in a single case...woman emerged from a man.

isn't that mind blowing...in one event...a woman came from a man?

such a concept is probably wasted in a place like this...but I put it out here nevertheless.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 


I'm sorry but that sentence

"isn't that mind blowing...in one event...a woman came from a man?"

That makes me think that this is why the book and its interpretations are written that way.

Even by giving women acknowledgment, men are still considered the clear reason why it happened.

Its what I like to call "back door bragging".

Peace, NRE.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Could it be .... that ... ? I emphasize this is a question for pondering only.

If you have one single fertile woman and a world full of men .... the chances are pretty good that humanity would cease to exist. All you need is one jealous brawl and somebody to kill the woman he couldn't get for himself.

But, if you have one fertile man and a world full of women ... you could double the population every 365 to 730 days.

ALSO, I'd like to add that I've seen men say they were "jealous" that didn't have the opportunity to experience a child growing inside of them. The term "penis envy" is common but I have never, ever met a woman who would want to be cursed with one.

SO ... is it possible that the histories and creation stories are a necessity for males so that they can feel a sense of self-worth and/or purpose?



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 


Well... there are plans for an artificial womb... but no way to replicate the tiny warriors unless you resort to cloning. So, to an extent, life comes from a male.

But of course "MAN" is mankind, not a woman nor man... trolling much?



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Man is not mankind, there's a difference. Women were included in the term Man based on a old english term.
edit on 21-3-2012 by Chai_An because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by michaelbrux
Woman is man as much as man is man.

your hangup is an issue specifically related to the world you were raised in.

when the passage was written someone should have had the gift of vision to know that in the future, society will interpret things differently than intended and will seize upon this minor issue.

actually...i think that in the bible those people were referred to as "Fault Finders".



Actually Man is Woman as much as Woman is Woman...All embroys start out as female



I think the whole woman are evil thing comes from the fact that we are a weakness to men which of course hurts their egos because nobody likes to have a weakness. If Woman were to have ruled it would be the men who are protrayed as evil because they are our weakness.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by NoRegretsEver
 


actually...your freshman level biology book told you something similar.

its not bragging...its about an honest effort in trying to have understanding of reality.

you should be happy to know that if in that single case that woman did not come from man...the man that told that awful lie will answer for his actions.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by NoRegretsEver
 


The bible was recorded by people of the age. Back in those days, when the term "man" was used in that context, it meant people in general. It means something different now, so applying our meaning to the word out of context, we will get a different meaning. btw i'm agnostic as well, but I'm sure that this is what the term "man" means in this context.





new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join