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?

[SOP]

Its difficult to view someone as a mysogynist who allowed women to help him in ministry by working at his side. Jesus wasnt a misogynist and neither was Paul. So theres no contradiction on this issue between the two.

Ill also note that the passages cited by McCulloch are among the most hotly disputed among Christian interpreters, but I think the interpretations Im offering are plausible ones.

SOP,

This is nice and everything but the very same book was used to argue against women's rights by none other than the Catholic Church.

If I were a Roman Catholic I might feel obligated to defend the RCC on this issue. But since Im not, I wont.

So this is ONLY YOUR INTERPRETATION.

Yes, I believe I mentioned that. And I suspect that youll have your own interpretation as well. But I would mention that a number of Christians hold to the same or similar interpretation. So I consider myself to be in good company.

The history lessons I was taught pointed to the fact that Christian conservatives did everything they could to keep women as second class citizens. The Bible and christian tradition continue to give plenty of ammunition to those ignorant and afraid of change.

I dont want to insult your history teachers but I think they gave you only part of the story.

[Flail]

Ill also note that the passages cited by McCulloch are among the most hotly disputed among Christian interpreters, but I think the interpretations Im offering are plausible ones.

It does not seem logical that God would inspire the writing of a book with a message for everyone and then require Theologians to interpret and explain the book.

Never forget, Clownboat, that while God inspired the writing, He didn't dictate. MEN wrote it; men who were dealing with languages and cultures that we aren't familiar with.

So, yeah, it's gonna need explaining when it deals with concepts and words that we aren't familiar with.

I don't know why that would surprise you. Ever try to read Beowulf in the original Old English? I mean, *I* prefer it, but then I"ve spent a few years learning Old English.

Although I generally agree with your assessment, I have never met or listened to a single preacher(supposedly expert on the subject) have any problem at all with interpreting the precise meaning of 'Gods Word'....and I have listened to hundreds of them....and all of them are in very close agreement to what the Bible says when it comes to Christian dogma and doctrine.

Well, they are 'in close agreement' with what THEY think it says, and what you do...but is that what it says?

Really?

There are those who have different opinions.

Yes, there are varied opinions...who knows which version is the one intended by the original Biblical story tellers....hard to tell at this point...or even if they were meant to be taken as anything more than myth or allegory.....one wonders how many minds the words that now reside in the Bible went thru before being penned?

None of it appears very profound or original to me...or divine...or sacred... and is clearly something from the mind of man....IMO....not to say they don't contain good food for thought and interesting philosophy....but from a God?..Some Supernatural being?......Really?....How could anyone possibly think that? Why conjecture and speculate the supposed truth on something so important as God? And what gives these Bible writers the right to impose religious doctrine on the rights of women?

[Flail]

So...if a source for discrimination is not Biblical...either OT or NT or both ( Christian, Islam) what is the source? Why does it persist in such areas as politics and business etc...in light of empirical evidence that women are as capable as men in qualities of intellect, decision making and leadership etc. Why are many Islamic women not permitted to drive a car and treated as second class citizens? In the US, why do women make less money for the same job? Why have we had relatively few women elected to high office? Why zero women as President or Vice President? Why no women Priests and relatively few women preachers? Why did it take the US 140 years to grant women the right to vote?

Good questions. Im no sociologist or anthropologist (or much of anything ) but here are some thoughts (i.e. opinions):

1. If the Bible (I cant speak for the Koran since I know practically nothing about it) is not the source of discrimination, then Id put the blame on bias in the culture. But one might ask where this cultural bias came from. The obvious answer is that men are obviously, in general, bigger and stronger than women. When one wants power, the strong get it (usually). When Johnny knows he can get his way with Becky, all other things being equal, hell get his way, though only in the absence of some sort of restraining mechanism. When the power structure is all male, and if such biases are readily transferred to everyone in the culture including females, its no surprise that those kinds of attitudes persist through many generations, even among the females themselves (by and large). I think its safe to say that practically every culture of the past has been male dominated. Even in democratic Athens, only men could vote. In Rome, women couldnt run for political office.

So Id say the fact that many past Christians have used the Bible to discriminate against women is a result of the surrounding cultural bias, not necessarily anything from the Bible itself. The fact that I can find a plausible egalitarian interpretation of these texts shows that hierarchialism does not necessarily follow from these passages. Thus I see no prohibition on female priests or pastors. In fact the mention of women as leaders and ministry workers throughout the NT bespeaks to the equality that women had in the early church, something that was unfortunately lost over time. The fact that some churches prohibit female leaders speaks to their interpretative stance. Personally, Id not be a member of a church who held that view, but thats just me I guess.


2. So, given what I wrote above, most of your questions can be answered, I think, not biblically, but culturally.

Perhaps your subjective spin on the verses quoted by McCulloch aligns with the intent of original authors...as with all things Biblical that is impossible to discern....but do you agree that it is at least possible that some men within Christianity and Islam have taken those passages and interpreted them anti-woman, and have then taken logical progressions from their presumptions and inculcated their belief systems with indoctrinations that either directly or indirectly have led to gender discrimination?

A comparison could be made with interpreting a countrys constitution. Rulings from a nations Supreme Court most likely depend a lot on whether the majority of justices are of one political ideological persuasion or another. Millions of lives are affected by these rulings. Since such rulings are often contentious, could we draw a similar conclusion and say that as with all things Constitutional that is impossible to discern? Anyway, I will agree that it is at least possible that some men have interpreted these passages to be anti-woman. But anti-woman attitudes and behavior preceded the founding Christianity, so I wouldnt exactly put all the blame on Christianity.

One wonders why God is male...Jesus is male...the disciples were all male...even the 10 Commandments were male oriented...ie. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife....as if God wouldn't deign speak to women...or...perhaps it is ok for women to covet their neighbors husband...works for me...

[Janx]

The history lessons I was taught pointed to the fact that Christian conservatives did everything they could to keep women as second class citizens. The Bible and christian tradition continue to give plenty of ammunition to those ignorant and afraid of change.

I dont want to insult your history teachers but I think they gave you only part of the story.

Certainly. Yet my point that scripture is far from being a perfect guide to social standards remains.

I'm thinking you are making an argument for the pliability and corruptibility of the Christianity and that in the end it is knowledge and civilization which brings humanity closer to moral perfection, not faith. If so I agree with you.

[Flail]

The history lessons I was taught pointed to the fact that Christian conservatives did everything they could to keep women as second class citizens. The Bible and christian tradition continue to give plenty of ammunition to those ignorant and afraid of change.

I dont want to insult your history teachers but I think they gave you only part of the story.

Certainly. Yet my point that scripture is far from being a perfect guide to social standards remains.

I'm thinking you are making an argument for the pliability and corruptibility of the Christianity and that in the end it is knowledge and civilization which brings humanity closer to moral perfection, not faith. If so I agree with you.

Yes....if we could all turn away from Christianity and Islam and toward each other, we might actually begin to understand each other and get along...and, if there are supernaturals, might find something we are clearly missing by virtue of so many of us having our intellects buried in the dogmas and unfounded, irrational propaganda of these twin indoctrinations.

...and maybe we could try a woman for President....we certainly coudn't do any worse than our last two choices....I thought Bush was a joke...but Obama is a nightmare.

We voted him in to prove we weren't racist. Now we need to vote him out to prove we're not idiots.

[Clownboat]

Ill also note that the passages cited by McCulloch are among the most hotly disputed among Christian interpreters, but I think the interpretations Im offering are plausible ones.

It does not seem logical that God would inspire the writing of a book with a message for everyone and then require Theologians to interpret and explain the book.

Thats just the nature of language and writing. Using your comment as an example, depending on how you mean it, one could interpret it straightforwardly, or take it in a sarcastic fashion.

If you are comparing me to a god, well... I guess I'm flattered. It's not appropriate though.

If I were an all powerful deity that created the entire universe, I would have been able to relay my previous point in a fashion that would not have left room for confusion.

[SOP]

One wonders why God is male...Jesus is male...the disciples were all male...even the 10 Commandments were male oriented...ie. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife....as if God wouldn't deign speak to women...or...perhaps it is ok for women to covet their neighbors husband...works for me...

Well, none of your facts entails misogyny being some kind of biblical imperative. One would have to look at the entire biblical narrative and evaluate the overall message on the treatment of women. This would be the case even if a Christian couldnt give an adequate answer to your questions. But, some partial explanation might be:

God is a personal being, and some sort of metaphor would be needed to relate this being to humans. Maleness was chosen to avoid confusion with fertility cults of the surrounding nations where deities were female and called Mother. Even still, the bible ascribes certain female attributes to God( e.g., God gives birth (Deut 32:18; Job 38:29; Isa 42:13-14; 46:3), described as a matron (Ps 123:2), and mother ( 66:13; Hos 13:8)).

Women in first century Judea and Galilee werent taken very seriously. Jesus is male in his human form in order for his message to be taken seriously. Even as a male, though, most of the people didnt accept his message. AS a female, Jesus would probably have had few if any followers.

The 12 apostles were all male. But Jesus certainly had many female disciples. And we have at least one example of a female apostle: Junia (Romans 16:7)

The 10 commandments also contains: On it you shall not do any work, neither
you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, and Honor your father and your mother,
Also, one gender is often used to describe actions of both genders.
Also, use of the generic he or man, includes women, just as it would in English.

[SOP]

I'm thinking you are making an argument for the pliability and corruptibility of the Christianity and that in the end it is knowledge and civilization which brings humanity closer to moral perfection, not faith. If so I agree with you.

Hmm, I dont think thats what Im saying. Im just trying to interpret the bible as accurately as possible. Anyway, if you dont mind my saying, it sounds like you have faith as well, in knowledge and civilization. So it seems one faith is good enough for you just as another faith is good enough for me. Cest la vie.

[SOP]

If you are comparing me to a god, well... I guess I'm flattered. It's not appropriate though.

If I were an all powerful deity that created the entire universe, I would have been able to relay my previous point in a fashion that would not have left room for confusion.

Theres always room for confusion even in situations where people have experienced the same thing. Even if god directly transplanted the same message in every persons mind, each person would still have to interpret what he or she thinks the message is saying. In that case this is no different from trying to interpret a written message. In any case, I dont know whether its useful trying to tell God (should He exist) how to communicate to his creatures. It seems to me that a written document is sufficient for his purposes.

[Janx]

I'm thinking you are making an argument for the pliability and corruptibility of the Christianity and that in the end it is knowledge and civilization which brings humanity closer to moral perfection, not faith. If so I agree with you.

Hmm, I dont think thats what Im saying. Im just trying to interpret the bible as accurately as possible. Anyway, if you dont mind my saying, it sounds like you have faith as well, in knowledge and civilization. So it seems one faith is good enough for you just as another faith is good enough for me. Cest la vie.

Nope. A very poor comparison on your part.

Faith, n. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Knowledge and civilization has proven to be an effective method of raising moral standards. Moral choice is based on making the best decision possible. Thus knowledge and understanding is the linchpin of morality because it allows us to make better choices. The only way we have been able to attain a better understanding of this world is through civilization.

I'll give Christ credit for treating Jewish women better than the standard at the time. That was two thousand years ago. This is the ONLY knowledge Christianity can add to the moral equation. Our morality has not grown by re-reading the bible.