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?

[JoeyKnothead]

Personally my divine sex fantasies run more toward Europa and the Zeus Bull.

Sex fantasies!

Congratulations on guessing the phrase of the day!

[Mithrae]

Okay, looks like the teething troubles might be over now. All I need now's a firewall that lets me use the internet

Mithrae wrote:

Your distinction should be that the movie star uses an employee to tell a prospective date that he'll take her to the academy awards, rather than using a phone, the post, or visiting in person. The 'reward' you allege comes from God, and the 'benefit' is to God also, yes? The angel is just an agent. As you seem to recognise above, of course. I wonder how many wealthy and famous folk who've used associates and employees to pass on personal messages we can now prosecute under your new laws?

In place of your hypothetical example of the movie star, let me suggest an actually reported incident in its place.

A few years ago (20 years maybe?) it was widely reported that then-governor Bill Clinton had sent an Arkansas State Police officer to solicit a woman (not a professional prostitute) for a blowjob. This report came from the Arkansas State Police who were a little upset with governor Clinton, and is probably no more true than any other campaign story, but it is certainly as true as any Bible story.

IMHO, what Bill Clinton did in his personal life or under his desk was his own business, but his use of an Arkansas state police officer for such a task was grossly disrespectful to the officer and an abuse of Clinton's position as governor. I do not recall that Clinton was ever prosecuted for this incident, although a similar incident later after he became president, in which the woman clearly volunteered her services, did give him some trouble.

I believe the story of governor Bill Clinton in Arkansas is similar enough to the Biblical story of God and Mary in the Bible to be highly relevant here. Your comment?

Your criticism of Clinton in this alleged incident appears to be based primarily on his role as governor (elected to a public office) and the other fellow's role as a police officer (also a public servant, not a servant of the governor). I invite you to explain exactly how that is similar enough to the bible story to make it highly relevant.

To be honest I think this is starting to get a little silly. You supposedly were "trying to reduce it to only what would be allowed in a criminal court of law, including accusations of pimping and soliciting for prostitution." However...
- The 'evidence' involved would be laughed out of a criminal court of law. You have not acknowledged nor responded to this.

- An offer to "receive 'glory' of some kind as payment" would not be prostitution (even for a sex act, which is not the case in the story). Your Clinton response to a movie star offering 'glory' to a date seems to miss the point.

- Passing on a message through an employee, rather than using a postman or telephone wires, is not generally immoral or illegal. Your Clinton analogy (even if it's a genuine example of impropriety, which I won't comment on) is quite specific and seems to miss the point on that score also.

- Though I've not mentioned it yet, I think it's worth noting that the US is (I would guess) among the minority of developed Western countries in keeping prostitution illegal in any case: Once again, your moral absolutism is questionable.

- More importantly, the angel did not offer any payment or reward to Mary. For the second time, you still have not acknowledged nor responded to this, and that really does make discussing the matter with you rather pointless.


As I've said before, if this is your notion of 'realistic and objective' thinking, I think I'll just stick with recognising the honour which, literally true or not, the bible stories and later Christians have bestowed on this woman.

[JohnPaul]

Okay, looks like the teething troubles might be over now. All I need now's a firewall that lets me use the internet

Mithrae wrote:

Your distinction should be that the movie star uses an employee to tell a prospective date that he'll take her to the academy awards, rather than using a phone, the post, or visiting in person. The 'reward' you allege comes from God, and the 'benefit' is to God also, yes? The angel is just an agent. As you seem to recognise above, of course. I wonder how many wealthy and famous folk who've used associates and employees to pass on personal messages we can now prosecute under your new laws?

In place of your hypothetical example of the movie star, let me suggest an actually reported incident in its place.

A few years ago (20 years maybe?) it was widely reported that then-governor Bill Clinton had sent an Arkansas State Police officer to solicit a woman (not a professional prostitute) for a blowjob. This report came from the Arkansas State Police who were a little upset with governor Clinton, and is probably no more true than any other campaign story, but it is certainly as true as any Bible story.

IMHO, what Bill Clinton did in his personal life or under his desk was his own business, but his use of an Arkansas state police officer for such a task was grossly disrespectful to the officer and an abuse of Clinton's position as governor. I do not recall that Clinton was ever prosecuted for this incident, although a similar incident later after he became president, in which the woman clearly volunteered her services, did give him some trouble.

I believe the story of governor Bill Clinton in Arkansas is similar enough to the Biblical story of God and Mary in the Bible to be highly relevant here. Your comment?

Your criticism of Clinton in this alleged incident appears to be based primarily on his role as governor (elected to a public office) and the other fellow's role as a police officer (also a public servant, not a servant of the governor). I invite you to explain exactly how that is similar enough to the bible story to make it highly relevant.

To be honest I think this is starting to get a little silly. You supposedly were "trying to reduce it to only what would be allowed in a criminal court of law, including accusations of pimping and soliciting for prostitution." However...
- The 'evidence' involved would be laughed out of a criminal court of law. You have not acknowledged nor responded to this.

- An offer to "receive 'glory' of some kind as payment" would not be prostitution (even for a sex act, which is not the case in the story). Your Clinton response to a movie star offering 'glory' to a date seems to miss the point.

- Passing on a message through an employee, rather than using a postman or telephone wires, is not generally immoral or illegal. Your Clinton analogy (even if it's a genuine example of impropriety, which I won't comment on) is quite specific and seems to miss the point on that score also.

- Though I've not mentioned it yet, I think it's worth noting that the US is (I would guess) among the minority of developed Western countries in keeping prostitution illegal in any case: Once again, your moral absolutism is questionable.

- More importantly, the angel did not offer any payment or reward to Mary. For the second time, you still have not acknowledged nor responded to this, and that really does make discussing the matter with you rather pointless.


As I've said before, if this is your notion of 'realistic and objective' thinking, I think I'll just stick with recognising the honour which, literally true or not, the bible stories and later Christians have bestowed on this woman.

If you cannot see any similarity between a governor, a powerful person, sending an agent, a police officer, to solicit sexual activity from a woman (of unknown age), then your viewpoint is so blinded by piety as to make it impossible to communicate with you!
The main thrust of your posts here seems to be that you are seriously bent out of shape and condemn me personally for daring to suggest anything "ugly" about the Biblical story of God and Mary.
I suggest you are free to view it any way you want, and so am I. I agree that any further discussion from such obviously different personal viewpoints is silly. So poo on you!

John

[johnmarc]

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?

Christianity offers women the opportunity to worship an all powerful male God who violated the womb of a virginal teenager for purposes of impregnation; whose chosen few disciples were all male and whose supposed earthly representatives (the Church) are governed by an enormously wealthy, untaxed all boys club over populated with pedophiles.

Weird. I have been a church 'widower' over the past week and more as my wife with other members of our church solicited funds, purchased meals, and delivered them for about 16 families prior to Thanksgiving. She spent the whole day at church on Friday preparing for and participating in the memorial of a member of the church. Saturday, she volunteered to put up Christmas decorations in the AM(some of which were banners that she created) and PM was our church's turn for "Freezing Nights" which feeds and beds about 35 homeless folk for the night. This morning she was too tired to go to church.

She doesn't believe that God has a gender and is more concerned with the message and not the messenger. Our church is not all male lead, not wealthy, not a boy's club, and not over populated with pedophiles.

She feels called to participate. Here she is a highly respected member of community with powers of influence and the means to make a difference, no matter how small. I will go out on a limb to say that most churches today look more like my example than yours.

That is to say that in thousands of churches, dozens (often hundreds)of hungry folk were fed--often by highly respected female members of the church without the hint of pedophilia. But the norm is not the sound bite that you wanted.

[Goat]

- More importantly, the angel did not offer any payment or reward to Mary. For the second time, you still have not acknowledged nor responded to this, and that really does make discussing the matter with you rather pointless.

.

I just read the story in Luke, and I think what is more important that 'not offer payment or reward to Mary', the angel did not offer a CHOICE to Mary.

Choice makes a difference.

[Mithrae]

- More importantly, the angel did not offer any payment or reward to Mary. For the second time, you still have not acknowledged nor responded to this, and that really does make discussing the matter with you rather pointless.

I just read the story in Luke, and I think what is more important that 'not offer payment or reward to Mary', the angel did not offer a CHOICE to Mary.

Choice makes a difference.

True, though as I've mentioned strictly speaking God himself did not offer a choice to Ezekiel in cooking food over human faeces, yet honoured his refusal to do so. I wonder how likely Mary would have known that God would honour her refusal also, if she had been so inclined?

Of course in Mary's case God didn't appear in all his overwhelming splendour, and it occurs to me that the angel's angle of "you've found favour with God and will bear his Son" looks more like a gameshow host describing someone's winnings than a boss giving orders. Offers don't always need to be phrased as a question for the option to refuse to be evident. The fact that Mary agreed makes it look like she felt she had a choice.

I'd suggest that if God sent an angel to proclaim his favour to one of the thousands of Jewish girls in turn-of-the-millenium Palestine, odds are it was a girl who already wanted to be remembered as a great servant of God like Deborah, Esther or Judith.

[JohnPaul]

- More importantly, the angel did not offer any payment or reward to Mary. For the second time, you still have not acknowledged nor responded to this, and that really does make discussing the matter with you rather pointless.

I just read the story in Luke, and I think what is more important that 'not offer payment or reward to Mary', the angel did not offer a CHOICE to Mary.

Choice makes a difference.

True, though as I've mentioned strictly speaking God himself did not offer a choice to Ezekiel in cooking food over human faeces, yet honoured his refusal to do so. I wonder how likely Mary would have known that God would honour her refusal also, if she had been so inclined?

Of course in Mary's case God didn't appear in all his overwhelming splendour, and it occurs to me that the angel's angle of "you've found favour with God and will bear his Son" looks more like a gameshow host describing someone's winnings than a boss giving orders. Offers don't always need to be phrased as a question for the option to refuse to be evident. The fact that Mary agreed makes it look like she felt she had a choice.

I'd suggest that if God sent an angel to proclaim his favour to one of the thousands of Jewish girls in turn-of-the-millenium Palestine, odds are it was a girl who already wanted to be remembered as a great servant of God like Deborah, Esther or Judith.

Let me see if I understand you correctly. You believe it was morally right for Mary to agree to conceive and bear the son of another while she was engaged to be married to Joseph and knew she had a choice? Are you married? Would your opinion be the same if your fiance did the same to you and conceived and bore the son of some powerful man while engaged to you? I find that very peculiar! Please explain your reasoning without appealing to some glorious concept of God, or to Mary's alleged religious state of mind. Not many men would be that broad-minded. You are saying that it was morally right for Mary to voluntarily agree and to commit an act which would condemn her to death under the laws of the time?

An all-powerful God could certainly have found a way to place his "son" on earth without taking advantage of some innocent girl in this way. This story was concocted years later to make a "virgin birth" to compete with the alleged virgin birth stories of other gods in the area at the time. The story-tellers obviously were so blinded by the "glory" of their God, who could do no wrong, that they overlooked the obvious immoral aspects of their story.

I am jumping in here again because I just watched a DVD movie last night called "The Devil's Double." The story took place in Iraq before the 1st Gulf War. Udey, the son of dictator Saddam Hussein, was a notorious womanizer. He noticed the new bride at a wedding ceremony, took a fancy to her, stole her away and beat and raped her. The girl was so disturbed by this that she killed herself.

In this case, the girl truly did not have a choice, so she was innocent of any wrong-doing, but from my concept of morality, the dictator's son was evil. Do you agree? If the new bride had agreed to Udey's advances, would she have been equally guilty? Hmmm?

John

[Goat]

- More importantly, the angel did not offer any payment or reward to Mary. For the second time, you still have not acknowledged nor responded to this, and that really does make discussing the matter with you rather pointless.

I just read the story in Luke, and I think what is more important that 'not offer payment or reward to Mary', the angel did not offer a CHOICE to Mary.

Choice makes a difference.

True, though as I've mentioned strictly speaking God himself did not offer a choice to Ezekiel in cooking food over human faeces, yet honoured his refusal to do so. I wonder how likely Mary would have known that God would honour her refusal also, if she had been so inclined?

Of course in Mary's case God didn't appear in all his overwhelming splendour, and it occurs to me that the angel's angle of "you've found favour with God and will bear his Son" looks more like a gameshow host describing someone's winnings than a boss giving orders. Offers don't always need to be phrased as a question for the option to refuse to be evident. The fact that Mary agreed makes it look like she felt she had a choice.

I'd suggest that if God sent an angel to proclaim his favour to one of the thousands of Jewish girls in turn-of-the-millenium Palestine, odds are it was a girl who already wanted to be remembered as a great servant of God like Deborah, Esther or Judith.

I suggest that the story said 'You will bear the child", and that is that. The story has the assumption of obedience.

[Mithrae]

I suggest that the story said 'You will bear the child", and that is that. The story has the assumption of obedience.

As in the case of Ezekiel. And the story also expresses Mary's agreement and her joy in doing so, but your suggestion is noted.

--

- More importantly, the angel did not offer any payment or reward to Mary. For the second time, you still have not acknowledged nor responded to this, and that really does make discussing the matter with you rather pointless.

I just read the story in Luke, and I think what is more important that 'not offer payment or reward to Mary', the angel did not offer a CHOICE to Mary.

Choice makes a difference.

True, though as I've mentioned strictly speaking God himself did not offer a choice to Ezekiel in cooking food over human faeces, yet honoured his refusal to do so. I wonder how likely Mary would have known that God would honour her refusal also, if she had been so inclined?

Of course in Mary's case God didn't appear in all his overwhelming splendour, and it occurs to me that the angel's angle of "you've found favour with God and will bear his Son" looks more like a gameshow host describing someone's winnings than a boss giving orders. Offers don't always need to be phrased as a question for the option to refuse to be evident. The fact that Mary agreed makes it look like she felt she had a choice.

I'd suggest that if God sent an angel to proclaim his favour to one of the thousands of Jewish girls in turn-of-the-millenium Palestine, odds are it was a girl who already wanted to be remembered as a great servant of God like Deborah, Esther or Judith.

Let me see if I understand you correctly. You believe it was morally right for Mary to agree to conceive and bear the son of another while she was engaged to be married to Joseph and knew she had a choice? Are you married? Would your opinion be the same if your fiance did the same to you and conceived and bore the son of some powerful man while engaged to you? I find that very peculiar! Please explain your reasoning without appealing to some glorious concept of God, or to Mary's alleged religious state of mind. Not many men would be that broad-minded. You are saying that it was morally right for Mary to voluntarily agree and to commit an act which would condemn her to death under the laws of the time?

You seem obsessed with these 'morals' of yours which, given the absense of any actual validity to your aforementioned 'legal' approach, seems to be a natural progression.

I'd be surprised if you're actually interested in my moral opinion, rather than merely making a rhetorical point, but here it is nonetheless: I don't believe in these 'morals' you speak of, any more than I believe in 'love' or 'God' or 'liberty' or 'human rights.' It seems strange to me that when I initially replied to your comments, pointing out that the gospels themselves say God could have created children out of stones, you replied:
You seem obsessed with the story's "meaning," religious, metaphorical, allegorical, moral, whatever

I wonder whether these 'morals' to which you are now appealing have any truth or validity outside the realm of meaning?

An all-powerful God could certainly have found a way to place his "son" on earth without taking advantage of some innocent girl in this way. This story was concocted years later to make a "virgin birth" to compete with the alleged virgin birth stories of other gods in the area at the time. The story-tellers obviously were so blinded by the "glory" of their God, who could do no wrong, that they overlooked the obvious immoral aspects of their story.

Rather late in the discussion, you appeal to God's ability to create children without involving a woman's womb. You're also reading a lot of meaning into the story there, and indeed not only into the story (as I did also, to your condemnation) but into the writers' own mind's. Still, you never know - your paragraph above may well be correct.

At least (I hope), you've set aside the pretense of 'realistic and objective' thinking

[JohnPaul]

Mithrae wrote:

At least (I hope), you've set aside the pretense of 'realistic and objective' thinking

Of course there is "meaning" to the story. I objected to looking at it in a religious context and deriving religious meaning from it. I insisted on interpreting it purely as a fictional description of events and then interpreting those events in terms of human morality as understood today. My "legalistic" description was an attempt to separate the story from its religious context and interpret it purely in mundane human terms.

John