What does Christianity offer women?

[Confused]

In Another thread I asked if Christianity discriminated against women. The responses have sort of led to another issue that I find perplexing. What exactly is it about Christianity that is attractive to women? Does it have any benefits to the female species?

To make what's open for debate clear:

1) What benefits does Christianity offer to women?
2) Does any scripture exist to support women being equal to man?

[JohnPaul]

Mithrae wrote:

Whether Mary should be praised or censured for agreeing to bear the Son of God while betrothed to someone else, it seems quite clear that she was free to question or deny a whim of God which was considerably more noble than eating food cooked over human faeces

.

Why? Dried faeces of various kinds was (and is) often routinely used as fuel by primitive societies.

Any claim that the story of the virgin birth describes an actual event is completely unjustified and unsupported. It is merely a "story" and should be analyzed as such. It is a story which was very probably concocted years later by Christian writers, apologists and propogandists who were attempting to make their "God" appear competitive with other "gods" known at the time whose followers claimed miraculous virgin birth for them.

The story is told in very pious language in an extremely religious context. Before we even attempt to analyze it, we must remove all this pious "bovine excrement" from the story and tell it in plain English using realistic and objective terminology. Just the facts, ma'm!

An elderly and powerful man (entity, being) sends an agent (angel) to pimp for him and solicit prostitution from an underage girl who is engaged to be married. The girl agrees, and as a result of an act of unspecified nature, becomes pregnant.

The question is, how are the acts themselves of the elderly man, the agent, and the young girl to be interpreted by any normally moral person today, by a court of law, and by the extremely harsh Law of Moses in effect at the time?

John

[Composer]

1. This alleged trinitarian holy-spirit person we are told in Story book land, made Mary pregnant then dumped its responsibilities as a father on Joseph and refused to Marry Mary (IF it really happened thus making this holy-spirit person and Joseph cuckolds.)

2. So called trinitarian christianity also tries to claim that the father of Story book jesus is their alleged ' god the father person', but that is obviously another lie, for according to trinitarians they are forced to submit and agree that Luke 1:35 states it is NOT ' god the father person' but rather their trinitarian alleged ' holy-spirit person!'.

QED

[Confused]

the fact that a woman can stand before God as an individual alongside her male counterparts, and be rewarded in the same way as her male counterparts, is evidence that christianity provides a place of equality for women.


But if your idea of equality is that a woman should take on the role of a man, then you might be disappointed. Christianity allows women to be women and men to be men....it doesnt promote the ideas of this world that a woman should do the work assigned to a man, nor does it expect a man to take on the role assigned to women.

The sexes have their individual abilities and skills and when they are put to use in the right setting, then they will both be at their best and fully compliment each other as God intended.

Really? Did your husband help you write that? Christianity provides the same place for women that they have always had-- subservient to their husbands. As Paul made unmistakably clear as the 'Word of God,' the assigned role of a woman is to shut up and obey. Congratulations! You have performed your role well.

Moderator Warning


There is no reason to devolve into uncivil comments to get your point across. Please give respect to members and abide by forum rules.
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.

[Mithrae]

Whether Mary should be praised or censured for agreeing to bear the Son of God while betrothed to someone else, it seems quite clear that she was free to question or deny a whim of God which was considerably more noble than eating food cooked over human faeces

Why? Dried faeces of various kinds was (and is) often routinely used as fuel by primitive societies.

Any claim that the story of the virgin birth describes an actual event is completely unjustified and unsupported. It is merely a "story" and should be analyzed as such. It is a story which was very probably concocted years later by Christian writers, apologists and propogandists who were attempting to make their "God" appear competitive with other "gods" known at the time whose followers claimed miraculous virgin birth for them.

The story is told in very pious language in an extremely religious context. Before we even attempt to analyze it, we must remove all this pious "bovine excrement" from the story and tell it in plain English using realistic and objective terminology. Just the facts, ma'm!

An elderly and powerful man (entity, being) sends an agent (angel) to pimp for him and solicit prostitution from an underage girl who is engaged to be married. The girl agrees, and as a result of an act of unspecified nature, becomes pregnant.

The question is, how are the acts themselves of the elderly man, the agent, and the young girl to be interpreted by any normally moral person today, by a court of law, and by the extremely harsh Law of Moses in effect at the time?

I've still seen no evidence that Mary was underage. I'm assuming you mean beneath the age of legal consent in most modern developed societies (16-18) here by the way, though I question your implication that 'normally moral' people will share your moral absolutism. Further, I'm almost certain that there's no reference anywhere saying that God paid or offered to pay Mary, so your use of terms like 'pimp' and 'prostitution' appear to be false. A useful insight into the kind of thinking which you consider to be "realistic and objective."

I share your view that it's just a story of course, probably made up three or four decades after Jesus' death. That said, it's rather strange that your approach seems to be not only taking it in a strictly literal sense, but then arguing that the moral standards which get you through modern life from day to day should be applied to the conception, 2000 years ago, of the alleged Son of God, Messiah and Saviour of Mankind. To my way of thinking that's an even weirder way of thinking than the average conservative Christian. But it takes all sorts, I suppose.

What I wonder is what the story says to anyone bright enough to recognise it's not history and think of it simply in terms of its meaning? The first written record we have of the story comes from the first two chapters of Matthew's gospel - and in the very next chapter, we read that God could raise up children for Abraham from the very stones themselves (3:9). If God preferred to raise up his own Son in the womb of a woman, what does that tell us? In the Roman Catholic faith to which you earlier referred, Mary is called Mother of God, Mediator, Co-Redeemer, Queen of Heaven and a mother to all believers.

Quite aside from the decidedly non-objective and unevidenced nature of some comments made about this story, I think it's more than a little ironic in a thread asking what Christianity has to offer women that a negative light is being cast on a story which (particularly in Luke's version) so strongly emphasises that every last one of us up to and including 'god' himself, was born to a female mother.

I suppose with 'realistic and objective' thinking that can indeed be turned into something ugly

[JohnPaul]

Whether Mary should be praised or censured for agreeing to bear the Son of God while betrothed to someone else, it seems quite clear that she was free to question or deny a whim of God which was considerably more noble than eating food cooked over human faeces

Why? Dried faeces of various kinds was (and is) often routinely used as fuel by primitive societies.

Any claim that the story of the virgin birth describes an actual event is completely unjustified and unsupported. It is merely a "story" and should be analyzed as such. It is a story which was very probably concocted years later by Christian writers, apologists and propogandists who were attempting to make their "God" appear competitive with other "gods" known at the time whose followers claimed miraculous virgin birth for them.

The story is told in very pious language in an extremely religious context. Before we even attempt to analyze it, we must remove all this pious "bovine excrement" from the story and tell it in plain English using realistic and objective terminology. Just the facts, ma'm!

An elderly and powerful man (entity, being) sends an agent (angel) to pimp for him and solicit prostitution from an underage girl who is engaged to be married. The girl agrees, and as a result of an act of unspecified nature, becomes pregnant.

The question is, how are the acts themselves of the elderly man, the agent, and the young girl to be interpreted by any normally moral person today, by a court of law, and by the extremely harsh Law of Moses in effect at the time?

I've still seen no evidence that Mary was underage. I'm assuming you mean beneath the age of legal consent in most modern developed societies (16-18) here by the way, though I question your implication that 'normally moral' people will share your moral absolutism. Further, I'm almost certain that there's no reference anywhere saying that God paid or offered to pay Mary, so your use of terms like 'pimp' and 'prostitution' appear to be false. A useful insight into the kind of thinking which you consider to be "realistic and objective."

I share your view that it's just a story of course, probably made up three or four decades after Jesus' death. That said, it's rather strange that your approach seems to be not only taking it in a strictly literal sense, but then arguing that the moral standards which get you through modern life from day to day should be applied to the conception, 2000 years ago, of the alleged Son of God, Messiah and Saviour of Mankind. To my way of thinking that's an even weirder way of thinking than the average conservative Christian. But it takes all sorts, I suppose.

What I wonder is what the story says to anyone bright enough to recognise it's not history and think of it simply in terms of its meaning? The first written record we have of the story comes from the first two chapters of Matthew's gospel - and in the very next chapter, we read that God could raise up children for Abraham from the very stones themselves (3:9). If God preferred to raise up his own Son in the womb of a woman, what does that tell us? In the Roman Catholic faith to which you earlier referred, Mary is called Mother of God, Mediator, Co-Redeemer, Queen of Heaven and a mother to all believers.

Quite aside from the decidedly non-objective and unevidenced nature of some comments made about this story, I think it's more than a little ironic in a thread asking what Christianity has to offer women that a negative light is being cast on a story which (particularly in Luke's version) so strongly emphasises that every last one of us up to and including 'god' himself, was born to a female mother.

I suppose with 'realistic and objective' thinking that can indeed be turned into something ugly

I have no "evidence," such as a certified birth certificate, that Mary was under the modern "age of consent," but it is reasonable to assume so, since she was only recently engaged, and girls normally became engaged at a young age back then. Age 12 is one number I remember seeing. Anyway, her age is not really important to my point. I think we can agree that she was probably under 40 and probably inexperienced and possibly a little naive.

I went to some length to insist that the story be reduced to objective (story) facts. Perhaps you don't remember the TV show with the famous phrase, "Just the facts, ma'm" used by the detective when asking a witness to tell only what she saw happen, without any elaboration or interpretation. I also insisted that all pious and religious trimmings be removed from the story, yet you went on and on about "meaning" in a very religious context, which is exactly what I was trying to avoid.

As for pimping and prostitution, I believe the angel did promise that Mary would receive "glory" of some kind as payment (reward if you prefer). I don't remember the exact quote and am too tired now to look it up. Anyway, the angel persuaded her, whether by coercion, intimidation, promise of reward, deception, whatever.

I believe the story as I gave it is what an unbiased witness of the incident would report. By unbiased, I mean completely uninfluenced by religious beliefs.

You seem obsessed with the story's "meaning," religious, metaphorical, allegorical, moral, whatever, while I was trying to reduce it to only what would be allowed in a criminal court of law, including accusations of pimping and soliciting for prostitution. If you think that is turning it into something "ugly," you are entitled to your opinion.

John

[Flail]

JohnPaul wrote:

An elderly and powerful man (entity, being) sends an agent (angel) to pimp for him and solicit prostitution from an underage girl who is engaged to be married. The girl agrees, and as a result of an act of unspecified nature, becomes pregnant.

Mithrae wrote:

I've still seen no evidence that Mary was underage.

A Google search reveals the lead Wiki summation of scholarly estimates on this issue and puts Mary's age at impregnation by the all powerful, all wise male supernatural being at about 12. This estimate is based upon the circumstantial evidence of Jewish tradition and Mary's betrothal to Joseph, which was an honorable, loving, innocent and sacred pledge of Jewish boy to Jewish girl, a pledge 'God' chose to ignore and dishonor; and via his 'angel', God was apparently intent on tempting the young virgin to breach her sacred promises. And you think it reasonable to worship such an entity? You think that honors women? IMO it does nothing but memorialize women as little more than credulous birthing machines.

[McCulloch]

Her age is unimportant. According to the story, the God who apparently values virginity and who instructs his followers that they should not get someone else's wife pregnant, violates Mary's virginity and cuckolds Joseph. God is more of a "Do as I say not as I do" kind of moral leader.

[ThatGirlAgain]

Her age is unimportant. According to the story, the God who apparently values virginity and who instructs his followers that they should not get someone else's wife pregnant, violates Mary's virginity and cuckolds Joseph. God is more of a "Do as I say not as I do" kind of moral leader.

I am not aware of any branch of Christianity that holds that Mary physically lost her maidenhead to God. The earliest loss of physical virginity any Christian might accept is during the birth of Jesus. That Jesus was born of a virgin is one of the 'fundamentals' of Christianity.

The Catholics even claim that Mary remained a literal physical virgin all her life, despite giving birth. This is even a mandatory article of faith for Catholics. Jesus was delivered miraculously because the pain of childbirth is part of the legacy of the sin of Adam and Mary was exempt from original sin, another Catholic doctrine.

Here is a painting by Blake illustrating this 'miraculous' birth.



Click on it to make it bigger. Some of Blake's paintings are rather crude in details. The other woman is presumably Mary's cousin Elizabeth with the infant John the Baptist on her lap. The presence of Elizabeth at the Nativity is not in either Matthew or Luke.

[Goat]

Her age is unimportant. According to the story, the God who apparently values virginity and who instructs his followers that they should not get someone else's wife pregnant, violates Mary's virginity and cuckolds Joseph. God is more of a "Do as I say not as I do" kind of moral leader.

I am not aware of any branch of Christianity that holds that Mary physically lost her maidenhead to God. The earliest loss of physical virginity any Christian might accept is during the birth of Jesus. That Jesus was born of a virgin is one of the 'fundamentals' of Christianity.

The Catholics even claim that Mary remained a literal physical virgin all her life, despite giving birth. This is even a mandatory article of faith for Catholics. Jesus was delivered miraculously because the pain of childbirth is part of the legacy of the sin of Adam and Mary was exempt from original sin, another Catholic doctrine.

Here is a painting by Blake illustrating this 'miraculous' birth.

Of course, not all Christians all to Mary's perpetual virginity.. since they take the 'brothers of Jesus' to be literally Mary's children.

And then of course, there is this infamous billboard from a Church in New Zealand

[ThatGirlAgain]

Of course, not all Christians all to Mary's perpetual virginity.. since they take the 'brothers of Jesus' to be literally Mary's children.

The Catholic traditions about the perpetual virginity of Mary, the siblings of Jesus being children of Joseph by a previous marriage, and the (suggested) ED of an old Joseph all come from the Protoevangelium of James a 2nd century document that purports to flesh out the Gospel stories. Recall that in Catholicism, religious knowledge is not limited to the Bible but can also come from tradition. Anyone interested in the text go here.