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]

Oh.

My.

I think that says everything. The man who admires and puts a child rapist and total...sorry, even my extensive vocabulary is insufficient to describe the utter unsuitability of JB as anything but a bad example...is lecturing the rest of us on the unsuitability of women to run anything but a kitchen.

Y'know, given who you DO admire, I can only consider the fact that you do not think women capable of running nations to be a rare compliment. In fact, I would be leery of your admiration...it would be a little, I think, like getting a campaign contribution from the KKK; not something one particularly WANTS on one's resume.

its a celebrity boxing match! calm down a little bit. oh wait a second! only an idiot would tell an angry woman to calm down. just pretend i didnt say that.

and when did i say you wimmenfolk couldnt run anything but a kitchen?

where are you coming up with these things? why are none of the other posters exhibiting reactions like yours?

i know why. but id be damn sexist if i said so wouldnt i?

[forumwarrior]

I totally agree. A woman who believes what the Bible teaches has no place running for president. Heck, she has no business even casting a ballot without being instructed by her husband on who to vote for.

paul believed like any other person who accepts genesis believes. that man was created first as the pinnacle of all creation. and that woman was created FROM man to complement man. "it is not good for man to be alone."

with that in mind. how was he "belittling" anybody by laying down guidelines by which women should behave? that was their culture. thats the way things were.

would modern day feminists be shocked? sure they would. but that doesnt mean in any way that paul was wrong.

MAYBE mans domination of the world is a result of man being created first and woman being created from man to complement man. who knows. we werent there to see god mold a rib into a woman.

what we DO know. is that women have typically filled certain roles. roles like the ones paul describes. NOT because of some evil conspiracy to subjugate women. not because of some "shameful" behaviors.

but because thats how the world evolved. are we gonna blame NATURE for the inequality? that would just be SILLY.

why do they say good japanese wives walk 10 paces behind their husband ABSENT of sexist, evil christianity? why were chinese emperors male ABSENT of the "shameful" values that have allegedly led women to be persecuted in the USA? howcome there were no female chiefs among the native americans when no zealous christian was there to tell them how things operate?

because women and men are NOT equal. theres nothing sexist about it. theres nothing belittling about it.

[McCulloch]

i dont believe that other IMPORTANT (notice i said important) countries would take us seriously with a woman at the helm. it would be like inviting challenges and trouble.

[vapid sarcasm]That's right. No important country took the UK seriously while Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister, India while Indira Gandhi was PM, Pakistan while Benazir Bhutto was Prime Minister or Israel while Golda Meir was running things.[/vapid sarcasm]

[Slopeshoulder]

I totally agree. A woman who believes what the Bible teaches has no place running for president. Heck, she has no business even casting a ballot without being instructed by her husband on who to vote for.

paul believed like any other person who accepts genesis believes. that man was created first as the pinnacle of all creation. and that woman was created FROM man to complement man. "it is not good for man to be alone."

Um, first define "accepts." Do you mean literally? Then you miss both the point of the story and its origins. Newsflash: the is a near infinity of chreistians, clergy, and theologians who disagree with you approach to genesis and your conclusions. You're welcome to your opinions, but don't confuse them with some sort of defintion of christianity.

[forumwarrior]

Hey did you hear that Mariah Carey surpassed Elvis's record of number one hits?

As a sidenote itwould be appreciated if you would start capitalizing. I know you know where the shift key is after all.

YOU CANT BE SERIOUS MAN. MARIAH CAREY IS GOING TO BE A FOOTNOTE IN HISTORY. WHEN SHES DEAD AND GONE THATLL BE IT. BUT ELVIS IS GOING TO LIVE FOREVER. PEOPLE IN THE MOST OBSCURE COUNTRY OF THE WORLD KNOW WHO ELVIS PRESLEY IS. NO WOMAN HAS EVER OR WILL EVER ACHIEVE THAT TYPE OF NOTORIETY.

[Crazy Ivan]

because women and men are NOT equal. theres nothing sexist about it. theres nothing belittling about it.

Well, there is if people decide there is. I feel perfectly entitled to find men and women equal in anything that transcends strict biology. Equality must be contextualized. Because THAT'S how the civilized world is evolving. And notice the redundancy, because where there is no cultural evolution (for me, as far as equality is concerned), the term "civilization" does not apply by definition. Some communities in the world constitute something else...

[forumwarrior]

i dont believe that other IMPORTANT (notice i said important) countries would take us seriously with a woman at the helm. it would be like inviting challenges and trouble.

[vapid sarcasm]That's right. No important country took the UK seriously while Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister, India while Indira Gandhi was PM, Pakistan while Benazir Bhutto was Prime Minister or Israel while Golda Meir was running things.[/vapid sarcasm]

buddy to compare countries like england, india, pakistan and israel to the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is like wyvern trying to compare janis joplin to elvis presley.

their responsiblities in the world, their power PALE in comparison. the leader of iran would laugh in the face of billary clinton if she ever tried to give him a stern warning.

[forumwarrior]

Um, first define "accepts." Do you mean literally? Then you miss both the point of the story and its origins. Newsflash: the is a near infinity of chreistians, clergy, and theologians who disagree with you approach to genesis and your conclusions. You're welcome to your opinions, but don't confuse them with some sort of defintion of christianity.

you dont have to think so hard about something so simple there chief. either you believe the story or you dont. youre going to convince me that paul had the same views on the story of genesis as the 99th baptists on 98th street.

were talking about paul. try to follow.

[notachance]

I totally agree. A woman who believes what the Bible teaches has no place running for president. Heck, she has no business even casting a ballot without being instructed by her husband on who to vote for.

paul believed like any other person who accepts genesis believes. that man was created first as the pinnacle of all creation. and that woman was created FROM man to complement man. "it is not good for man to be alone."

with that in mind. how was he "belittling" anybody by laying down guidelines by which women should behave? that was their culture. thats the way things were.

would modern day feminists be shocked? sure they would. but that doesnt mean in any way that paul was wrong.

I LOVE moral relativism coming out of a Christian.

"Hey, modern values say that women being forbidden from talking is wrong, bronze age values say that it's ok, who knows what's right, everything is relative".

"Hey modern values say that killing somebody because he's gay is bad, bronze age values say it's ok, who knows what's right, everything is relative"

"Hey modern values say that slavery is bad, bronze age values say it's ok, who knows what's right, everything is relative"

I love it. I love how you simultaneously argue that the Bible moral lessons you agree with are eternal mandates from God, and the ones you disagree with are just products of their time. Would you like a side of irony with that main course of hypocrisy?

MAYBE mans domination of the world is a result of man being created first and woman being created from man to complement man. who knows. we werent there to see god mold a rib into a woman.

Yeah, or maybe that's just a fairy tale like the one of Jack and the Beanstalk.

what we DO know. is that women have typically filled certain roles. roles like the ones paul describes. NOT because of some evil conspiracy to subjugate women. not because of some "shameful" behaviors.

No?

but because thats how the world evolved. are we gonna blame NATURE for the inequality? that would just be SILLY.

You could make the same argument to defend rape. "Hey, in nature rape happens, it's not like cave-women has a choice in whether they were raped or not, that's how the world evolved. To contest the morality of rape would just be SILLY".

why do they say good japanese wives walk 10 paces behind their husband ABSENT of sexist, evil christianity? why were chinese emperors male ABSENT of the "shameful" values that have allegedly led women to be persecuted in the USA? howcome there were no female chiefs among the native americans when no zealous christian was there to tell them how things operate?

Because Christians aren't the only ones who are wrong and immoral.

because women and men are NOT equal. theres nothing sexist about it. theres nothing belittling about it.

Who said anything about equal? Of course men and women are not equal. Women have more resilient bodies than men, they live longer, they are more resistant to disease, and they are more resistant to pain. On the other hand men have higher muscle mass and therefore are physically stronger. Women have less variation in IQ across a population, adding up to a higher average IQ then men, but men are more present in the upper extreme of IQ.

Are they equal? Of course not. There are differences.

Are black and white people equal? Of course not. There are differences.

Are tall people and short people equal? Of course not. There are differences.

So what.

Not being equal doesn't mean that all people don't have EQUAL RIGHTS.

All human beings have the same inalienable rights stemming from their intrinsic humanity, and unaffected by their gender, race, physical shapes, disability, sexual orientation, etc.

[SOP]

To answer the OP, I say no. At least theres nothing inherent in Christianity itself that would deny womens rights. Some people (men) might interpret some new testament passages to deny womens rights, but that doesnt necessarily impugn the new testament. It depends on how one interprets those passages.

[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]

This passage clearly outlines the author's view of the correct place for women. Women should look upon their man as having the same authority as a man should look to Christ for. Yes, in my opinion, this belittles women.

head doesnt mean authority. The greek word being used means source or origin. In English a similar term is used to refer to the source of a river (headwaters). So the fact that its translated head doesnt imply authority. Plus, Paul could have used other greek words that more clearly would have conveyed the meaning of authority.

[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]

Again, the author shows his scorn for the contributions and value of women. Women, according to him, were created for man's sake. Women are chattel, servants and adjuncts, not individuals in their own right.

This passage sort of makes my point since it says man did not ORIGINATE from woman. Pauls referring to the Genesis story (regardless of whether one thinks the genesis story is authentically historical or not Paul certainly did and so hes using it as an illustration).

[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]

It is improper for a woman to ask a question in church. A man, who by the nature of his sex, is able to ask meaningful questions, has to be the one who gets the proper explanation for what confuses the little woman and then he can explain it to her when they get home. Don't worry your pretty little head about theology dear, your husband will explain what you need to know when you get home. Yes, in my opinion, this is belittling.

This passage is dealing with disruption and disorder in the church services. Who else but recently emancipated women would have the temerity to yell out questions in the middle of a public service? Anyway, it certainly doesnt mean women couldnt speak at all in church since back in Cor.11 Paul assumes women are prophesying and praying in church.

[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]

The entire fall from grace, the whole sin situation, has been placed at the feet of women. The implications here are impressive. Women are more easily deceived and their gullibility is a dangerous thing. Men, who know better and are less easily led, need to control and instruct the women. How is it that anyone can read this as being anything other than a passage that belittles women?

The reference to the fall is more likely an attempt by Paul to counter claims made by false teachers in Ephesus who were trying to distort the Genesis account by saying Adam was the one deceived. So Paul here is simply trying to set the historical record straight. In addition, the part of being submissive and learning quietly applied just as equally to male students as it did to females. This type of quiet learning was typical of the rabbinic style of teaching. Just as significant is the fact that women were being taught at all. IF Christianity were the women oppressing religion that some think it is, why even bother teaching them? Ignorance is the surest way to keep them down.