Is Christianity responsible for denying women's rights?

[Flail]

The political history of the United States includes relatively few women compared to the number of men. Women did not have the right to vote for the first 140 years of our existence as a country. No woman has ever held the office of President or Vice President and very few have served in high office. Women's history as leaders in Christianity is similarly deficient.

Often we hear criticisms of Islam for treating women as second class citizens. Is Christianity the same, having advanced further to combat religious discrimination against women by reason of simply getting an earlier start?

Question for debate: Is Christianity responsible for the shameful history of women's rights in America?

[forumwarrior]

if we were a nation of godless heathen instead of the christian nation that we are (yes, were a christian nation)...

Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary.

Article 11.

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, " as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, " and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Maybe you were referring to Colonial days, like when we had the Salem witch trials?

BAHAHAHA!

what a silly thing to cite. if you want to argue about whether or not we are a christian nation (we are a christian nation) hows about you start a new topic. id be more than happy to correct your misconceptions.

this thread is about the disgusting idea that the united states is shameful because it took time to grant women "equality."

[SomePunk]

if we were a nation of godless heathen instead of the christian nation that we are (yes, were a christian nation)...

Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary.

Article 11.

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, " as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, " and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Maybe you were referring to Colonial days, like when we had the Salem witch trials?

BAHAHAHA!

what a silly thing to cite. if you want to argue about whether or not we are a christian nation (we are a christian nation) hows about you start a new topic. id be more than happy to correct your misconceptions.

this thread is about the disgusting idea that the united states is shameful because it took time to grant women "equality."

America is not a Christian Nation. Just because the majority of religious people are Christians, doesn't mean America is a christian nation. America is a nation that allows for the free exercise of religion, not any one religion.

[McCulloch]

The political history of the United States includes relatively few women compared to the number of men. Women did not have the right to vote for the first 140 years of our existence as a country. No woman has ever held the office of President or Vice President and very few have served in high office.

If it makes you feel any better, much of the West is not a whole lot better, and Muslim states are a whole lot worse. My country has had only one female Prime Minister and she was not elected to that post.

Women's history as leaders in Christianity is similarly deficient.

At least in the mainstream. Haven't you heard of Ellen G. White (Seventh-day Adventist) or Mary Baker Eddy (Christian Science)?

Often we hear criticisms of Islam for treating women as second class citizens. Is Christianity the same, having advanced further to combat religious discrimination against women by reason of simply getting an earlier start?

When one reads the social histories of the struggle for women's votes in North America, one notices that many of the opponents used Christian theology to make their case and that many of the proponents were actively against Christianity (Elizabeth Cady Stanton) or not mainstream orthodox Christian (Susan B Anthony, a Quaker).

Is Christianity responsible for the shameful history of women's rights in America?

It is responsible for supporting the wrong side of this debate.

We need a third party.

That is probably not going to happen without reducing the power of the winner-take-all presidential system and implementing some form of proportional representation in Congress.

The bottom 50% pays zero tax.

Really? Do you have support for this?

praise the lord for that, brother. the last thing we need is a female commander in chief.

Other than your own prejudice, do you have any reason why a woman would not be suitable for this job?

show me a reference in a the bible, new testament, that scorns, or belittles women.

1 Corinthians 11:3
[font=Georgia]But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. [/font]

1 Corinthians 11:7-9
[font=Georgia]For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the womans sake, but woman for the mans sake. [/font]

1 Corinthians 14:34-35
[font=Georgia]The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. [/font]

1 Timothy 2:9-15
[font=Georgia]Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint. [/font]

[SomePunk]

show me a reference in a the bible, new testament, that scorns, or belittles women.

1 Corinthians 11:3
[font=Georgia]But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. [/font]

1 Corinthians 11:7-9
[font=Georgia]For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the womans sake, but woman for the mans sake. [/font]

1 Corinthians 14:34-35
[font=Georgia]The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. [/font]

1 Timothy 2:9-15
[font=Georgia]Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint. [/font]

Well I will give you some credit.
This is from the new testament.
But it isn't the teachings of Christ or that of Christianity.
It is just some opinionated ramblings made by some random people in the bible.

[notachance]

show me a reference in a the bible, new testament, that scorns, or belittles women.

1 Corinthians 11:3
[font=Georgia]But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. [/font]

1 Corinthians 11:7-9
[font=Georgia]For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the womans sake, but woman for the mans sake. [/font]

1 Corinthians 14:34-35
[font=Georgia]The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. [/font]

1 Timothy 2:9-15
[font=Georgia]Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint. [/font]

Well I will give you some credit.
This is from the new testament.
But it isn't the teachings of Christ or that of Christianity.
It is just some opinionated ramblings made by some random people in the bible.

You do realize that NONE of the words in the Bible are the teachings of Christ, right? Because none of the people who wrote the Bible ever met Jesus Christ, or ever met anybody who had ever met Jesus Christ.

You realize this, right? The New testament is the work of anonymous authors writing between 30 and 300 years after Jesus had already died.

We know for a fact that several portions of the Gospels themselves, such as for example the entire Mark 16 is a forgery written centuries after the bulk of Mark.

Furthermore, you write this about those awful sexist passages: "It is just some opinionated ramblings made by some random people in the bible".

Sir, that is SO wrong. You are so wrong. You could scream 2+2=5 for the next 10 years, and you wouldn't be any more wrong than you already are wrong right now. You are as wrong as it is humanly possibly for any individual to be wrong. you are at the center of a black hole of wrongness.

Most of the passages quote are from St Paul the Apostle, the most influential figure in Christianity after Jesus Christ himself.

The fact that you would call the words of St Paul, the single most prolific New Testament author (responsible for more than half of the New Testament), "some opinionated ramblings made by some random people in the bible" betrays an ignorance the profundity of which is truly staggering.

Also, what happened to "The Bible is inspired by God"? Are you rejecting the notion that the Bible is the word of God? Are you saying that God is not omnipotent, and therefore was simply unable to prevent those sexist horrible words from making it into the Bible?

Is that how it works? When you want to convince us that some portion of the Bible is true, then you say "AH! HOW DARE YOU REJECT THAT. THAT IS THE WORD OF THE ALMIGHTY YAHWEH! ANYBODY WHO DISAGREES SHALL BURN IN ETERNAL FIRE!", but then when we point to a portion of the Bible that is horrible, then you just say "Oh well, that's jut some opinionated rambling by some random guy"?

The inconsistency and hypocrisy is monumental.

[notachance]

The bottom 50% pays zero tax.

Sir, that is PATENTLY FALSE. There are sales taxes on EVERYTHING these people buy. You bought the conservative line hook, line and sinker.

If you are a hobo with $6 to your name and you use it to buy a pack of cigarettes, HALF THAT MONEY GOES TO THE GOVERNMENT.

If you buy that pack of cigarettes in NYC, where they cost $13, TEN OUT OF THOSE THIRTEEN DOLLARS GO TO UNCLE SAM.

Sending a check to the IRS on April 15th is simply not the only way taxes are paid.

Please Flail, every time you buy something with a price tag of $9.99, but then you're charged $11.50 at the cashier (or a slightly different amount depending on what state you're in) you're PAYING TAXES!

EVERYBODY THAT BUYS STUFF PAYS TAXES. Poor people buy stuff.

In fact, poor people put a higher percentage of their meagre income towards buying taxable goods and services than rich people do.

The top 10% pays 70% of the tax.

Yes, and they make 90% of the money.

They make 90% of the money, and pay 70% of the taxes.
We make 10% of the money, and pay 30% of the taxes.

Think it through.

Give those numbers 30 seconds or so to sink in. Did you understand the implication, yet?

THE RICH PAY A LOWER PERCENTAGE OF THEIR INCOME AS TAXES.

Think about it. Imagine a country with just two people in it. You and I. I make 50% of the money and you make the other 50%, I pay 50% of the taxes, you pay the other 50%. So far so good.

Now, imagine I make 90% of the money and you make the other 10%. I pay 90% of the taxes, and you pay the other 10%. So far so good. You and I are paying an equal percentage of our income in taxes.

Now, if I make 90% of the money and pay 70% of the taxes, and you make 10% of the money and pay 30% of the taxes, SOMETHING IS SERIOUSLY WRONG.

Warren Buffet openly admitted that he paid less in taxes than his secretary last year. And the year before that. And the year before that.

It's not open to debate. The entire tax code is written for the benefit of the richest 1%, who are robbing the rest of us blind.

And here you are parroting Sean Hannity lines about how we harass those poor cuddly billionaires.

They are the job creators, the employers. We need them.

First, the largest employer in America is small businesses. I figured I should put that out there for the record.

But my point is this: Sure, we need rich people and the jobs they create. No problem. Nobody is talking about burning the rich at the stake. Most rich people are nice decent people, anyway, and they worked hard to get where they are. But the fact that they are rich doesn't mean they should pay less taxes than me! What justice is there in that?

Let me ask you this: Do you think that Reagan was a socialist? Was his dream to make America a clone on the USSR? He wasn't, right? He was a very pro-business President. Now, what's wrong with taxing the rich at the same rate that Reagan taxed them? If you think that Reagan was a communist, then continue whining about how it's wrong for billionaires to pay AT LEAST the same taxes as everybody else. IF you DON'T think Reagan was a communist, then consider supporting a tax system where billionaires are taxed at the same rate as they were during Reagan's administration.

I see few candidates thus far who have any potential to break the grip of Washington on the private sector

WHAT???? Washington has a grip on the private sector? WHAT???? Big business OWNS washington. They spend more money bribing politicians (the so called lobbyists) in one year than you'll make in three lifetimes. Oh boy, do you have your information all backwards. Where do you get your news from, Fox?

We certainly do not need religious bigots like Bachman or Perry. Thankfully, Huckleberry isn't running. Bush was a disaster primarily because he failed to veto the spending of the democrat controlled legislature the last two years of his tenure.

Riiiight..... until then everything was hunky dory. It's not like the greatest attack on US soil happened on his watch, it's not like he did NOTHING for New Orleans, it's not like he passed an entire entitlement program without paying for it, it's not like he passed a tax cut for billionaires without paying for it, it's not like he started two unnecessary wars without a plan to end them, it's not like he turned a record surplus into a trillion dollar deficit.

It's not like he did this during the course of 6 years when the Republicans controlled the White House the Senate, the House, the Supreme Court and the majority of Governors' Mansions.

Wow, dude. Really?

Then Obama continued the spending glut his first two years when democrats controlled all three branches of government. What a freaking mess. IMO, Obama will prove to be the worst President in our countries history, taking that moniker off of the likes of Bush and Carter.

I know, I particularly hate how he toppled a 42 year dictatorship in Syria without losing a single US soldier. That's got worse president written all over it, I wished he had done it by killng 4000 US soldiers like Bush did in Iraq, now that's AWESOME! Not to mention how Obama created more private sector jobs in his first year, than Bush created in his entire 8 years. That is a HORRIBLE RECORD. Bush is much better.

But worse of all, I hate how Obama caught Bin Laden. That makes Obama an incompetent idiot. Not like Bush who did so much better.

After all, Obama only caught Bin Laden, ONCE. Instead, Bush (almost) caught him at least 30 times. Clearly a better record![/sarcasm]

Look dude, I don't like Obama either, but there is being critical of your government and well informed about its failings, and then there is being an idiot who will blindly follow whatever trend the media sells you.

[forumwarrior]

show me a reference in a the bible, new testament, that scorns, or belittles women.

1 Corinthians 11:3
[font=Georgia]But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. [/font]

1 Corinthians 11:7-9
[font=Georgia]For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the womans sake, but woman for the mans sake. [/font]

1 Corinthians 14:34-35
[font=Georgia]The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. [/font]

1 Timothy 2:9-15
[font=Georgia]Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint. [/font]

first of all, there is nothing i could say about women being unqualified for the presidency that you wouldnt simply write off as "prejudice." by the way i like your choice of the WORD prejudice in place of "opinion." it speaks volumes.

second of all, youve gotta be kidding me. are you trying to say that these quoted verses SCORN and BELITTLE women? maybe you should instead say "IN MY OPINION (or prejudice if you like) these verses belittle and scorn women."

why dont you read this girls perspective? tell me if you think she feels belittled and scorned. SHE'LL even tell you that a woman shouldnt be president. maybe youll take HER word for it.

http://jamaoliver.com/2007/04/24/senior ... /#comments

here is an excerpt for your reading pleasure:

"A woman should not be President of the United States. Gods Word has clearly stated that women are to follow men: Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior (Ephesians 5:22). A woman is to submit to her husband. If a woman is head of the country, then her husband is submitting to her, which is direct disobedience of the Word of God. A woman should not rule the country because a woman is gifted in other areas that is not in the political field.

Also, women through time are proven to not be as strong as men, in that they have different jobs such as women are gifted in domestic arts. In the Bible, the woman is to stay at home with the children and run the house, not the country..."

HM! run the house. not the country. how poetic. how RIGHT ON.

if only she knew she was "belittling" and "scorning" herself. lol.

[notachance]

show me a reference in a the bible, new testament, that scorns, or belittles women.

1 Corinthians 11:3
[font=Georgia]But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. [/font]

1 Corinthians 11:7-9
[font=Georgia]For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the womans sake, but woman for the mans sake. [/font]

1 Corinthians 14:34-35
[font=Georgia]The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. [/font]

1 Timothy 2:9-15
[font=Georgia]Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint. [/font]

first of all, there is nothing i could say about women being unqualified for the presidency that you wouldnt simply write off as "prejudice." by the way i like your choice of the WORD prejudice in place of "opinion." it speaks volumes.

second of all, youve gotta be kidding me. are you trying to say that these quoted verses SCORN and BELITTLE women? maybe you should instead say "IN MY OPINION (or prejudice if you like) these verses belittle and scorn women."

why dont you read this girls perspective? tell me if you think she feels belittled and scorned. SHE'LL even tell you that a woman shouldnt be president. maybe youll take HER word for it.

http://jamaoliver.com/2007/04/24/senior ... /#comments

here is an excerpt for your reading pleasure:

"A woman should not be President of the United States. Gods Word has clearly stated that women are to follow men: Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior (Ephesians 5:22). A woman is to submit to her husband. If a woman is head of the country, then her husband is submitting to her, which is direct disobedience of the Word of God. A woman should not rule the country because a woman is gifted in other areas that is not in the political field.

Also, women through time are proven to not be as strong as men, in that they have different jobs such as women are gifted in domestic arts. In the Bible, the woman is to stay at home with the children and run the house, not the country..."

HM! run the house. not the country. how poetic. how RIGHT ON.

if only she knew she was "belittling" and "scorning" herself. lol.

Yes there are submissive women who want men to be their masters.

There are also submissive slaves who want to be owned by their owners.

But the fact that such masochistic confused people exist, doesn't make sexism or slavery acceptable.

[forumwarrior]

You do realize that NONE of the words in the Bible are the teachings of Christ, right? Because none of the people who wrote the Bible ever met Jesus Christ, or ever met anybody who had ever met Jesus Christ.

if only the BILLIONS on top of BILLIONS of christians that have existed throughout time could have met you first.

let me ask you something. what if 15 aliens came from outer space with a 20 sided die and said that if you rolled a 1-19 you would get nothing but if you rolled a 20 you would get to travel back through time and see for yourself if jesus was actually giving the sermon on the mount? would you roll the dice???

oh wait a second! what the hell am i saying? thats NONSENSE. just like the rest of the stuff you write. its surprising that you didnt use giant red letters and exclamation marks.

what if i told you that abraham lincoln emancipated the slaves? would you doubt what i said because i never met him or never met anybody who met him? weve got all these black folks living the dream as evidence of their emancipation, but youre gonna say "im not taking your word for it because you never met the man!" LOL!

but surely youre going to say something ridiculous like "all the christians in the world are just believing ancient barbarians and theyre all duped. their existence isnt evidence of anything but their own foolishness."

give it a rest man. instead of ranting with the same lines over and over again why not try backing something up.

[WinePusher]

Is Christianity responsible for the shameful history of women's rights in America?

That depends on how much of the American Culture you're willing to attribute to Christianity. If you're willing to attribute the 'shameful history of women's rights in America' to Christianity, then what prevents you from attributing something like the acquisition of suffrage for women to Christianity? But what's really troubling about your topic is that you seem to believe that the collective rights of women are hindered because no woman has ever occupied the White House. When did it become a 'right' for an individual to hold a high elected office, and when did not voting a particular gender into high office becoming indicative of discrimination?

We need a third party. We need smaller government. We need to rid ourselves of dependence on the nanny state and start looking out for each other. The bottom 50% pays zero tax. They need to have a stake in the game. The top 10% pays 70% of the tax. They are the job creators, the employers. We need them. I see few candidates thus far who have any potential to break the grip of Washington on the private sector. We certainly do not need religious bigots like Bachman or Perry. Thankfully, Huckleberry isn't running. Bush was a disaster primarily because he failed to veto the spending of the democrat controlled legislature the last two years of his tenure. Then Obama continued the spending glut his first two years when democrats controlled all three branches of government. What a freaking mess. IMO, Obama will prove to be the worst President in our countries history, taking that moniker off of the likes of Bush and Carter. The best option I see is Hillary and I don't think she is running. For now I'm on the side of anyone but Obama. We've had enough. We need a woman president. It's way past time.

Never knew that this was your specific view on things Flail. The point that really needs to be emphasized is that those individuals who don't pay an income tax need to have stake in the game. It's ironic that these individuals are those who utilize public services the most, yet pay little to nothing to maintain these public services.