"Wife: Be content to be insignificant."

So what do we learn from this?

"Religious men are, by and large, a bunch of bigoted f***wits!"

Not that big a revelation really, is it?

So, religious women...why on earth would you believe in a religion that hates you so much? It almost hates you more than it hates gays, but the reason it hates gays it's because men shouldn't ever act like women, the scum of the earth.

There is and always will be the good (the truth) mixed in with the bad.

Women seldom went to the Passover feast at Jerusalem; they were not required to be present. Jesus, however, virtually refused to go unless his mother would accompany them.

truthbook.com...

reply to post by lupodigubbio


Interesting points in this op 1 does not share and is not sure you do as well OP as it more seems your against such. Keeping this in mind it feels these WAYS were fabricated manipulations added into the great books in order to keep some female strength fearing males in power over women and for this these teachings have spread the way they have. As HUMAN evolves 1 feels this type of energy will fade and hopefully as the women advance or gain more strength as with the Men of this sphere these activities will cease in time.

I consider myself an agnostic after earning a degree in theology. I know, go figure.

Anyway, Christianity is supposed to follow the example of Jesus. And I respectfully submit that Jesus's actions towards women were extremely different than the patriarchal religious quotes as seen in the OP.

Jesus practiced what he preached. If only his followers did so.

Originally posted by smyleegrl
Jesus practiced what he preached. If only his followers did so.

Amen to that.....Can you imagine if Jesus were to try to repeat his ministry in certain nominally Christian nations today.....He'd get a face full of mace and be dragged off to Gitmo before he'd even finished a parable!

Originally posted by FollowTheWhiteRabbit
Man, I love when unbelievers grab straws. They' use anything in their power possible to jump on our bones, huh?

I believe a previous poster made it pretty clear that women were treated lowly by societies in general. Maybe you a would like to go after Asian countries? You want me to show you just how anti-woman they can be? Oh, of course not. You know why? Because they're predominantly Buddhist, and even though Buddhism is inherently against sexism, that doesn't stop them from treating women like garbage.

Want me to show you all the quotes and instances of woman hating in India? Oh, that's right, because they're all Hindu. Hinduism is also against misogyny. Want to know why nobody is going after Buddhism and Hinduism? It's simple. Because they're not Christians.

Here's a towel, everyone. Getting egg off of your face is a messy task.

Religion is a powerful force. Culture, and civilization, all of these things that are necessary for humans to flourish and even just survive are part and parcel to it. In fact there are some schools of anthropological thought that would argue that civilization, even human culture itself in all of its miriad forms stems FROM religion first, not the other way around. Regardless of what God or Gods I do or do not believe in, I happen to agree.

When the mistreatment of others is being sanctioned by a religion this reinforces and justifies that mistreatment within that culture. This is a bad thing. This issue should be addressed within the religion, not ignored because "there are other things", that are good.

Also, just because mistreatment of women is sanctioned by other religions does not make Christianity exempt. I'm not sure just what you were trying to prove with this particular logical fallacy, but it doesn't make much sense.

It could be argued that because the underlying premise of Christianity is to recognize and avoid scapegoating and persecuting others it is arguably more accountable regarding this hatred of women than many other religions that do not have that particular aspect of the human condition as a focus.

You might want to see to the egg on your own face, (or the plank in your own eye as it were). An apologist stance is not necessarily a bad thing, but at least make sure you are not just making flimsy excuses for bad behavior. Even further, doing it by pointing fingers is just petty, and frankly hypocritical.

Originally posted by squarehead666

Originally posted by smyleegrl
Jesus practiced what he preached. If only his followers did so.

Amen to that.....Can you imagine if Jesus were to try to repeat his ministry in certain nominally Christian nations today.....He'd get a face full of mace and be dragged off to Gitmo before he'd even finished a parable!

its ok the would just broadcast from ABOVE for us from a more secure Cosmic location

reply to post by squarehead666


I'll keep this simple. Here's what happened:

- God gave the Jews a particular set of laws they must follow. These laws were for their own good because, in the end, they were designed according to God's perfect will to His chosen people.

- On top of laws concerning women, there were also other laws we would find strange today: Stoning of sexually misconductive individuals (including gays, this does NOT mean they stoned homosexuals, they never did), allowance of polygamy, not eating certain animals (pigs, shellfish, etc.).

- These laws worked for them because they were God's laws. Even questioning them could result in God's wrath, and even accidental disobedience frequently resulted in death (Uzzah was killed for just touching the Ark of the Covenant so it wouldn't fall off of a cart).

- When Jesus came, He did not come to abolish Jewish law, but fulfill it. (Matthew 5:17)

- He ultimately did, represented by the final symbolic act of the tearing of the curtain in the Herodian Temple ( Matthew 27:51). This was symbol because the curtain that was torn was the curtain that separated the Holy of Holies (the most holy place of the Temple were Ark, the seat of God, was located) from the rest of the Temple. Thus, the tearing of the curtain was the gesture of the opening of God to all. Jew and Gentile.

- What this means is a revolutionary act of unconditional love and respect towards all people, regardless of who they are. The fact that Jesus kept females in His ministry (Mary Magdalene, Junia, etc.) was unheard of. At that time, Jews felt women were not worthy enough to be in the presence of a rabbi (which Jesus was), much less kiss the ground a holy man walked upon, especially one who claimed to be the Messiah.

- The early church followed suit. All were welcome and treated equally. It was only until the Roman Catholic Church took hold that things went down hill. Now, not only were women subjugated and somehow less human than men, so were Jews, Muslims, pagans, and anybody else who didn't agree with them.

You see, what happened was simple: Man followed the law of man (and society) rather than the law of God of the New Covenant. God opened Himself to everyone, period. God loves everyone, period. If He didn't love everyone, He wouldn't have sent His only begotten Son to die as a perfect blood atonement (John 3:16).

But the law of man and society are not the law of God. They do not necessarily represent the law of God. Society stigmatized narcotics within a relatively short period of time, and in hardly any time, put laws on the books in the United States that made those drugs illegal. In the same way, society subjugated women as worth less than men, and in Christian countries, turned their attention to the Old Covenant that was replaced by the New.

If they had actually followed Jesus and lived what He taught, this probably wouldn't have happened.

And now, of course, it's being used against the whole of Christianity. In other words, the sins of our fathers are pointed out to attack us as Christians.

Women are, in every way, equal to men. The Bible CLEARLY showed this in Jesus's ministry. Junia was OF SPECIAL NOTE among the apostles (Romans 16:7). Mary Magdalene may have even been the "beloved disciple" (John 20:2).

But nobody wants to point these facts out. No. Unbelievers will just drag out the same old used-up arguments that have been crushed under the feet of believers and theologians for centuries.

Proverbs 18:2

Mary Magdalene was his wife.....Jesus was a Rabbi. Rabbis must be married.

It's all covered in the miracle of the water into wine bit.....Sorry don't know the chapter & verse (or care).

In my opinion, God does not write books.....Simples.

These works were all written by men and were subsequently corrupted, again by the hand of man.

God, I suspect, looks on unmoved.

reply to post by squarehead666


Give me non-Gnostic sources for the claim that Mary Magdalene was His wife or that Jesus was married period, and I may believe that claim.

No.....Mainstream Christianity has already supressed gnosticism once, I certainly won't be a party to suppressing it here.

Do you accept Jesus was a Rabbi?

If so he MUST have been married or his followers would bot have accepted (and referred to) him as such.

So if not Mary, who was he married to?

reply to post by undo


That is Jesus and The holy spirit Elohim is talking to and it's not other Gods and don't be fooled my friend.

A woman has the greatest Job in the world and why would they stray from it, being a mother is duty that you should cherish and stand tall for it. No father has the same connection as a mother & child does and it's this that makes woman and child seem like one, the father try as he may will never come close. This is why children are lost and seem to be more violent and callous because the balance is all but lost and the mothers give birth but leave to pursue materialism instead of providing the security a child needs from it's mother.

Woman are capable of doing great things but it's there original duties they strayed from in search of material wealth.

Originally posted by redhorse
Religion is a powerful force. Culture, and civilization, all of these things that are necessary for humans to flourish and even just survive are part and parcel to it. In fact there are some schools of anthropological thought that would argue that civilization, even human culture itself in all of its miriad forms stems FROM religion first, not the other way around. Regardless of what God or Gods I do or do not believe in, I happen to agree.

When the mistreatment of others is being sanctioned by a religion this reinforces and justifies that mistreatment within that

I am glad you agree.

Christianity holds the highest figures of humankind who subscribe to religion, and comes as no surprise, for our Messiah is no misogynist. His earthly mortal mother was honored, consulted and present many times during his ministry.

He healed both men and women, even non-jews such as the greek woman who pleaded for salvation of her daughter besetted by demons.

He, who has no sinned, refused to stone an adultress even though others gave evidences of her crime, but being an original empath, he knew the mitigating factors were overlooked in the case, and told them 'he who have no sin be the first to cast the stone'. He himself, who had no sin, did not lift a stone but told the woman to not sin again.

He even had a harlot once in his presence and even allowed his feet to be washed and anointed in oil by her, as many of religion would not have anything to do with them. He defended her when accused by others for not turning her away. The lesson was for them that they are to judge not the person's past sins, but by his/her present actions, more so one who had lowered himself/herself before another in genuine and not faked sincerity.

Our Messiah is no misogynist, but honored women and treated them equally. Mortal men are flawed and ignorant, more so in the past whereby education and opportunities are limited. Those who deviate from treating women equally, whom are too children of our Creator, had only ignorantly made mistakes and deviated from the teachings of our Messiah.

However, let us drop the militant feminism view that the OP had atrociously attempted to sow hate and diversion amongst children of our Creator between the sexes.

Let's be honest and practical - women are the ones who does the most painful job on the continuance of mankind, for they bear the next generation, held and nurtured in their frail bodies for 9 months and followed by years of tender loving care that only mothers can give. This is why we humans honor mothers, for without them and their love, we may not have existed, male or female.

Therefore, women were given an honored role in the family household, They are not made to serve in the military, or face the stresses of politics and economy, and are often the ones whom men will draw first blood to protect.

Some men may had dishonored this tradition and bullied women and even ill-treated them. They are but a minority, but are held accountable in a court of law that adheres honestly with integrity to the Rule of Law.

As mankind evolved mentally through education, so did women, and given equal rights to make their own choices. Majority of seemingly 'misogynist' views were only based out of concern and adherence to the important and vital role of women - continuation of mankind, for most men would not want women to take on the rigours and stress men had to face.

But if women wish to, most evolve nations in the west had not hinder them at all, as proven with a female queen and a prime minister in UK, a female secretary of state and even president would be if the votes had been a bit more, etc.

In the east except for Israel, africa and south east asia, middle easterners have yet to grapple with female evolution. Despite ill treatment, many more women were honored and cherished. Only the few were treated badly and regressive authorities did nothing, due to ignorances and wilfulness to not accept change, which is the only constant in life.

In summary, let us not generalized the past ignorant treatment and the few present day cases of ill treatments as women being treated as dirt by religion. Nothing can be further from the truth. Even Islam, whereby many feminist claims the highest cases of ill-treatment, do not stem from prophet Muhammad's teachings, but only from ignorant and stubborn male islamic radical pride, and is NOT sanction in any mainstream religion.

As long as we, male and female, remain rational, and seek for the truth, we will realize that truth is self evident, stands in clear on its own and fears no one and nothing.

reply to post by FollowTheWhiteRabbit

God gave the Jews a particular set of laws they must follow. These laws were for their own good because, in the end, they were designed according to God's perfect will to His chosen people.

Pray tell, what were those laws that were for their own good? Of course, his chosen people were total idiots and couldn't make their own laws, right?

WarriorOfLight96

Originally posted by WarriorOfLight96
reply to post by undo

 

That is Jesus and The holy spirit Elohim is talking to and it's not other Gods and don't be fooled my friend.

.

it's a process of elimination. ever do a logic puzzle?
note that the verse says that elohim (gods) created adam (not man but adam and adam is a plural word too), in his image, male and female.
so this means either: 1 ) god(s) was a hermaphrodite and adam was just one male (how's that even possible when it says adam was created male and female in the image of god(s)?) or 2) there was a female god and a male god and they created male and female adam in their images. i think number 2 is correct by process of elimination. read genesis 1:27 and consider the word for man there was not man originally. it was adam. by using the word man there, the translators give the impression that only the male adam was created in the image of elohim, which is not correct, as the verse goes on to say the female adam was also created in elohim image. if you look at the original, it doesn't appear to include things like "his" and if you read verse 1:26, you will notice that it says things like THEM (referring to the adam) and OUR (referring to their likenesses). so my theory is the translators assumed "HIS" and then turned around and contradicted it by revealing that the adam was male and female.

the difference between that adam and the adam in the eve part of the story, is that the eve is foreshadowing of the first procreative adam female. that's why she's called "wife" at the beginning of the story, and then named eve, which means "mother". later in the story. the inference should be that she was a modified female adam. the translation of "man" instead of "adam" insinuates that she was created in the image of adam instead of the image of elohim. how's that possible if just a few verses before, female adam were created in the image of elohim? the answer is obvious. there were female adam who were not procreative or wives, before that, and that eve represented a modified female adam, and was named eve in the story before adam had even named her, because it was foreshadowing

I hate religions for this.
Even the Buddhists say women are lower than a man?

what is it with them all?

I think Long long ago
women were the Boss and only a woman could be a priest.
then men got sick of it and beat them up.

reply to post by squarehead666


Gnosticism isn't a valid form of theological expression of Christianity. After all, any Gnostic Christian mystic could have a dream, write down that Jesus was a purple tentacle monster, and it would be valid in Gnosticism.

Getting married was highly recommended by both ancient Judaism and modern Judaism, but it was never a requirement except by pockets of conservative Jews. This supposed requirement isn't even found in the Talmud. In fact, the Essenes, a sect of Judaism that thrived marvelously in the 2nd century, valued asceticism and taught that it was preferable NOT to get married, as to them, a rabbi who remains unmarried does not "dirty his hands".

buddha

Originally posted by buddha
I hate religions for this.
Even the Buddhists say women are lower than a man?

what is it with them all?

I think Long long ago
women were the Boss and only a woman could be a priest.
then men got sick of it and beat them up.

i theorize that it's a form of population control. think of all the females that have not been born into the world because of religious teachings that consider them less valuable than males or that have been born and then murdered in infancy. for the hindu, it was attached to expensive dowries. for the buddhist, it was attached to male children being a form of old age social security. in judaism it was attached to the concept that it was all eve's fault. in ancient greece it was the superiority of the male physique, so women were just seen as baby making machines, and etc.

reply to post by jiggerj


Which one exactly? Do you mean stoning sexual deviants because it could spread and ruin virtuous dedication to God, do you mean not to eat pigs whose meat we have now proven to be wholly bad for your body, or maybe polygamy for the sake of procreating and increasing the Jewish population?

And no, they couldn't make their own laws. As soon as Moses left them to talk to God on Mount Sinai and receive the Ten Commandments, God's people were busy taking all of their gold and making a golden calf statue to worship. It's clear they needed commands and guidance in the form of laws. Even Moses disobeyed God once and was only allowed to see the Holy Land from afar.

Originally posted by FollowTheWhiteRabbit
reply to post by jiggerj

 

Which one exactly? Do you mean stoning sexual deviants because it could spread and ruin virtuous dedication to God, do you mean not to eat pigs whose meat we have now proven to be wholly bad for your body, or maybe polygamy for the sake of procreating and increasing the Jewish population?

And no, they couldn't make their own laws. As soon as Moses left them to talk to God on Mount Sinai and receive the Ten Commandments, God's people were busy taking all of their gold and making a golden calf statue to worship. It's clear they needed commands and guidance in the form of laws. Even Moses disobeyed God once and was only allowed to see the Holy Land from afar.

edit on 2-5-2013 by FollowTheWhiteRabbit because: (no reason given)

today, pig meat is actually better for you than other kinds (with maybe the exception of lake raised fish and that's contingent on the cleanliness of the lake and perhaps free range deer in healthy environs) because of all the hormones and immune system modifiers given to cattle and chickens. pigs don't need as much help resisting disease because they already have strong immune systems. they don't need as many hormones to fatten them up because they are already predisposed to fat. it's kind of ironic.