Does Christianity discriminate against women?

[Confused]

From Another thread.

Is there any equality offered to women in Christian scripture? Or are we simply "vessels" to be used to carry the seed of men? Does Christian scripture simply discriminate against women or is there some obscure scripture that offers women something equal to men?

[David 2.0]

Thanks for the reply Flail. That makes more sense to me.

On the car ride home I further confused myself relating to drawing the line.

On some level couldn't one argue that one of the underlying themes of the biblical narrative is that Christ fulfilled the law which may be seen as providing more freedoms?(For all, including women)

Additionally and without any meaning of insults, the thought dawned on me that the chicks seemed to dig Jesus.
Mary?
Feet washing?
(From memory?) didn't the men abandon Jesus during his time of need? Who was at the cross when he was killed? Who saw that the stone was gone and the tomb empty?

If this is the climax of the christian movie, and Jesus is a central idea in the concept of christianity?(a pilar) The theme would seem to indicate a reduction of discrimination from old testament times?

Long car rides tend to do that to me so I apologize in advance.

[Composer]

Consider; whether you are a theist or not, you have to admit that the holy text of ANY group of people is going to tell you more about that group of people than most other things you can look at. . . . . They should be treated with respect, too; if not for what YOU believe, for what those who hold to them believe. . . . .

The evidence that ANY acclaimed ' holy-texts ' is the words of ANY supernatural god(s) given to man remains a constant zero!

I therefore have no respect for those who claim otherwise without legitimate evidence to support them, for until they do, they are deceivers!

Oh, for Pete's sake.

I'm not talking about taking these texts as truths, as in, whether Thor actually wields a hammer, Ra runs across the sky in the day and fights in the underworld at night, whether your heart really will be weighed against a feather, or whether it's turtles all the way down.

The point is, if you are going to study a people and learn who they are, then you had better respect, at least insofar as THEY respect them, the things they hold to be holy.

By not doing so, you are being exactly the sort of person you most rail against; the hellfire and damnation preacher that tells you YOU are going to be burning in a lake of eternal fire if you don't believe exactly what he does.

In fact, the only difference between you is what you believe in.

....and you don't have to believe in something, or have it be proven true, for you to respect what it means.

I agree. Holy texts and belief systems in general and religious practices tell volumes about people and culture good and bad and the fact that we engage them at least demonstrates that we care enough to believe in something however unjustified and flawed; and they should be examined and understood in the annals of social anthropology in order to comprehend all aspects of a society.

IMO, the philosophical aspects of our various religions and their histories and texts will be looked upon ages and ages hence as fine exemplars of our intellectual struggles with the unknown, with our failings and fears and with existence itself; but the fact that we become so stultified and dogmatic and ritualized in unfounded beliefs and so divisive in our worship superstitions and judgments of one another in the name of some god will dumb us down in history and show us to have not yet completely evolved from our ancient anthropoid anti intellectual inheritances from apes and cave men. It's as though we still insist on inserting 'bones in our noses' and 'dancing and chanting around the camp fire' enlisting the power of false gods to guide us where we fear to tread on our own. I don't think we will ever be able to save the world from our tendencies toward mutual destruction until we turn away from the dogma and indoctrinations of our superstitious religious practices and turn instead toward each other; instead of looking 'up' for answers and salvation we need to look around, there is plenty to do right here, right now, rather than fawn after gods while seeking selfishly for heaven; we need to forgive ourselves and each other long before we start asking the same of some god.

In large part, our history of how we have treated each other, culture against culture, man against woman, white against black and native american, nazi against jew, christian against muslim are of biblical origin and proportion. Religious notions about God seem to bring out the best of us at times, but more often the worst of us and I think we could do better on our own.

Turn the churches to soup kitchens or tax them into charity, and let's see if we can get a woman president asap.

+ 1

[Jester]

Moderator Warning

I'm all for putting ALL alleged ' holy-texts ' in the recycle bin to make say toilet paper for that is all they are worth but those like you that somehow miraculously dismiss what portions don't suit them, is blatant dishonesty!

If you wish to avoid banishment from this site, you need to find a way to express your beliefs in a civil fashion. Derogatory comments such as these are neither appropriate nor contribute content to the discussion.

Please review our Rules.
______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Confused]

Wow. So essentially, the consensus is that women weren't given any rights from day one. We were created FOR man. We are regarded as whores. We are here to serve. I am guessing I would have been beheaded rather early in life . I always was better at stirring the pot than I was at taking orders.

The LDS view of this is slightly different.

In our mythology ('mythology' in the academic sense, not meaning 'it ain't true, folks') Eve is the one with the smarts. She saw what had to be done, and since Adam was too chicken, she did it.

This is quite an interesting bit of knowledge. I did some research on it and was surprised to find that it wasn't a lot of hyperbole:

http://www.strangite.org/Women.htm

Women


James J. Strangs second wife, a school teacher named Elvira Field, was a national advocate for the rights of women, and founder of the earliest female sororities. She even implemented a style of pants that preceded the liberating Amelia Bloomer pants, consistent with Mormon beliefs to have plainness in dress and avoid the fashion of the world (Evening and Morning Star, June 1832; and Elders Journal, August 1838). Latter Day Saint scriptures say not to have fine clothing or costly apparel, but to let all thy garments be plain. (2 Nephi 28:13, Alma 5:53, and D&C 42:40).

Women were welcome to wear those comfortable pants in his settlements by 1849, when hooped tight dresses were required apparel for women in American cities. In 1851, Strang invited women into lesser priesthood roles; in 1853, a substantial number of women were ordained to be teachers; and by 1856, women were lecturing in the School of the Prophets.


Under James J. Strang, the church became the first American religion to regularly allow women into lesser priesthood roles such as a teacher, or priest. Under Joseph Smith, most ordained teachers were adult men. However, earlier Emma Smith (the wife of Joseph) was ordained to be a teacher (D&C 25:7 and 20:59). Other Mormons changed their church by ordaining young boys instead of men to be teachers, and then they often are taught by females who are un-ordained non-teachers.

We believe in marriage for life, the resurrection, and life everlasting, and think it is natural to be with our children in heaven. Eternal marriage was implied in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants and in the 1835 Sacred Hymns. There is information on Marriage as Chapter 15 in the Book of the Law of the Lord, and marriage can be administered anywhere as in the days of Joseph Smith. Our endowment is simply like the one administered in the Kirtland temple in the 1830s. Marriage was unrelated to this endowment, and Joseph Smith was never married in a temple.

This church historically permitted polygamy (polygyny) in limited cases, but this is not considered a distinctive or modern doctrine of the church.

Of 12,000 members during James J. Strangs lifetime, less than one percent of families (twenty-two families) ever tried the arrangement, and none had more than four or five wives in their family, generally just two.

Strang led the last of the major Mormon groups to begin polygamy, and yet he became the first to acknowledge the ceremony publicly.

Though he had theological, historical, scientific, and social arguments for the system, those that were socially-based demonstrate his surprisingly balanced advocacy. He theorized that it liberated women (in contrast to repressing them) by giving them greater choice, advantage, and opportunity in the selection of a preferred companion and fit reproductive mate. This benefited society by encouraging competition among men to prove themselves successful husbands and fathers. His lengthy treatise on the justification for Polygamy is one of his annotations to the translated Book of the Law of the Lord (not part of the online version on this site).

Traditional love was prerequisite to any marriage, so marriages were not prearranged by parents or elders, and polygamy was seen as a freedom for women to marry whomever they loved most. Polygamous wives were usually older unwed women, or widows with children that needed care on the frontier. The youngest known polygamous wife was 19-years old. Polygamous wives in the church were intelligent, free-thinking women, including a doctor and a meteorologist. Women were not allowed to leave their husbands to be married to another man polygamously, and men were not allowed to divorce their wife to take another.

There was never a church ban on polygamy, like other Mormons eventually had. There are even precedents for polygamy after the martyrdom of James J. Strang in 1856. For example, leading church elder Wingfield Watson was actively seeking multiple wives from 1873 to 1880. The church requires obedience to local and federal laws, but polygamous marriages during the early church were apparently only common law marriages (with religious ceremonies but not civil proceedings). Regardless of all of this, there are no known cases of polygamy currently in the church. Church members realize that the D&C section (numbered by other Mormons as Section 132) requiring polygamy was not produced until 1852, eight years after the death of Joseph Smith, and is not an authentic Joseph Smith revelation in the form printed by other Mormons.

I do have to point out however that while men couldn't divorce their wife and take another, they could just simply take another wife. Women however, could not.

[dianaiad]

Wow. So essentially, the consensus is that women weren't given any rights from day one. We were created FOR man. We are regarded as whores. We are here to serve. I am guessing I would have been beheaded rather early in life . I always was better at stirring the pot than I was at taking orders.

The LDS view of this is slightly different.

In our mythology ('mythology' in the academic sense, not meaning 'it ain't true, folks') Eve is the one with the smarts. She saw what had to be done, and since Adam was too chicken, she did it.

This is quite an interesting bit of knowledge. I did some research on it and was surprised to find that it wasn't a lot of hyperbole:

http://www.strangite.org/Women.htm

Women


James J. Strangs second wife, a school teacher named Elvira Field, was a national advocate for the rights of women, and founder of the earliest female sororities. She even implemented a style of pants that preceded the liberating Amelia Bloomer pants, consistent with Mormon beliefs to have plainness in dress and avoid the fashion of the world (Evening and Morning Star, June 1832; and Elders Journal, August 1838). Latter Day Saint scriptures say not to have fine clothing or costly apparel, but to let all thy garments be plain. (2 Nephi 28:13, Alma 5:53, and D&C 42:40).

Women were welcome to wear those comfortable pants in his settlements by 1849, when hooped tight dresses were required apparel for women in American cities. In 1851, Strang invited women into lesser priesthood roles; in 1853, a substantial number of women were ordained to be teachers; and by 1856, women were lecturing in the School of the Prophets.


Under James J. Strang, the church became the first American religion to regularly allow women into lesser priesthood roles such as a teacher, or priest. Under Joseph Smith, most ordained teachers were adult men. However, earlier Emma Smith (the wife of Joseph) was ordained to be a teacher (D&C 25:7 and 20:59). Other Mormons changed their church by ordaining young boys instead of men to be teachers, and then they often are taught by females who are un-ordained non-teachers.

We believe in marriage for life, the resurrection, and life everlasting, and think it is natural to be with our children in heaven. Eternal marriage was implied in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants and in the 1835 Sacred Hymns. There is information on Marriage as Chapter 15 in the Book of the Law of the Lord, and marriage can be administered anywhere as in the days of Joseph Smith. Our endowment is simply like the one administered in the Kirtland temple in the 1830s. Marriage was unrelated to this endowment, and Joseph Smith was never married in a temple.

This church historically permitted polygamy (polygyny) in limited cases, but this is not considered a distinctive or modern doctrine of the church.

Of 12,000 members during James J. Strangs lifetime, less than one percent of families (twenty-two families) ever tried the arrangement, and none had more than four or five wives in their family, generally just two.

Strang led the last of the major Mormon groups to begin polygamy, and yet he became the first to acknowledge the ceremony publicly.

Though he had theological, historical, scientific, and social arguments for the system, those that were socially-based demonstrate his surprisingly balanced advocacy. He theorized that it liberated women (in contrast to repressing them) by giving them greater choice, advantage, and opportunity in the selection of a preferred companion and fit reproductive mate. This benefited society by encouraging competition among men to prove themselves successful husbands and fathers. His lengthy treatise on the justification for Polygamy is one of his annotations to the translated Book of the Law of the Lord (not part of the online version on this site).

Traditional love was prerequisite to any marriage, so marriages were not prearranged by parents or elders, and polygamy was seen as a freedom for women to marry whomever they loved most. Polygamous wives were usually older unwed women, or widows with children that needed care on the frontier. The youngest known polygamous wife was 19-years old. Polygamous wives in the church were intelligent, free-thinking women, including a doctor and a meteorologist. Women were not allowed to leave their husbands to be married to another man polygamously, and men were not allowed to divorce their wife to take another.

There was never a church ban on polygamy, like other Mormons eventually had. There are even precedents for polygamy after the martyrdom of James J. Strang in 1856. For example, leading church elder Wingfield Watson was actively seeking multiple wives from 1873 to 1880. The church requires obedience to local and federal laws, but polygamous marriages during the early church were apparently only common law marriages (with religious ceremonies but not civil proceedings). Regardless of all of this, there are no known cases of polygamy currently in the church. Church members realize that the D&C section (numbered by other Mormons as Section 132) requiring polygamy was not produced until 1852, eight years after the death of Joseph Smith, and is not an authentic Joseph Smith revelation in the form printed by other Mormons.

I do have to point out however that while men couldn't divorce their wife and take another, they could just simply take another wife. Women however, could not.

That was interesting information. Thanks. It's not exactly pertinent to the CoJCoLDS, though. Comparing the Strangites to the LDS is a bit like comparing Southern Baptists to Catholicism.

Yeah, the Strangites and the LDS are both Mormons, but rather different sects.

Confused yet?

[Confused]

That was interesting information. Thanks. It's not exactly pertinent to the CoJCoLDS, though. Comparing the Strangites to the LDS is a bit like comparing Southern Baptists to Catholicism.

Yeah, the Strangites and the LDS are both Mormons, but rather different sects.

Confused yet?

I can honestly say that each religion has so many denominations and break away sects that if I tried to understand them all, I would likely die before I reviewed half of them.

As this is a Christian site and Christianity is the predominant religion in society today, I guess I just want to know what about this religion attracts women as members? What does it offer us? Perhaps that is a question better posed in a separate thread.

[Malachi-Zede-El]

In our mythology ('mythology' in the academic sense, not meaning 'it ain't true, folks') Eve is the one with the smarts. She saw what had to be done, and since Adam was too chicken, she did it.

So you disagree with Paul?

And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Sorry, folks, but I am not impressed by quotations from Paul. Paul may be the major "interpreter" of Christianity in the New Testament, but any rational unbiased person would have immediately seen that his story of meeting the long-dead Jesus on the road to Damascus, conveniently unobserved by others, and then being "converted" to the new and growiing sect was an obvious lie. Paul was an opportunistic charlatan who used Christianity to make himself a big fish in a little pond and to express his own pathetic misogynistic sexual insecurities and resentments disguised as the "Word" of his conveniently new-found God.

John

I agree paul is thee anti-christ of the bible .

[Peg]

That was interesting information. Thanks. It's not exactly pertinent to the CoJCoLDS, though. Comparing the Strangites to the LDS is a bit like comparing Southern Baptists to Catholicism.

Yeah, the Strangites and the LDS are both Mormons, but rather different sects.

Confused yet?

I can honestly say that each religion has so many denominations and break away sects that if I tried to understand them all, I would likely die before I reviewed half of them.

As this is a Christian site and Christianity is the predominant religion in society today, I guess I just want to know what about this religion attracts women as members? What does it offer us? Perhaps that is a question better posed in a separate thread.

If God pointed mankind in a certain direction and told us that by doing this you will inherit everlasting life, it doesnt matter if you are male or female. God offers the same gift of life to both men and women and christianity is the direction they need to take to benefit from Gods offer.

[JohnPaul]

That was interesting information. Thanks. It's not exactly pertinent to the CoJCoLDS, though. Comparing the Strangites to the LDS is a bit like comparing Southern Baptists to Catholicism.

Yeah, the Strangites and the LDS are both Mormons, but rather different sects.

Confused yet?

I can honestly say that each religion has so many denominations and break away sects that if I tried to understand them all, I would likely die before I reviewed half of them.

As this is a Christian site and Christianity is the predominant religion in society today, I guess I just want to know what about this religion attracts women as members? What does it offer us? Perhaps that is a question better posed in a separate thread.

If God pointed mankind in a certain direction and told us that by doing this you will inherit everlasting life, it doesnt matter if you are male or female. God offers the same gift of life to both men and women and christianity is the direction they need to take to benefit from Gods offer.

Yes, but doesn't the idea of eternal life subservient both to God and to men take a little of the glitter off of it?

[Flail]

Peg wrote:

If God pointed mankind in a certain direction and told us that by doing this you will inherit everlasting life, it doesnt matter if you are male or female.

...and the direction Jesus pointed us was 'toward each other' and to 'look around at the plight our neighbors'; and the manner in which men have treated women in the name of the BibleGod is both despicable and unsupportable under any notion of equality.