Shut My Pretty Mouth

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
SallyF
Guru
Posts: 1459
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2018 8:32 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Shut My Pretty Mouth

Post #1

Post by SallyF »

Image

Ever since that fateful mythological incident between the rib-woman and Satan himself speaking ventriloquially (they just made that bit up) through a serpent, all they way through to that (possibly fictional) nasty little Minister for Propaganda, Saul/Paul, and for century after Christian century, we women have been treated as below the males.

And in certain communities of Christian faith, we still are.

The biblical "scriptures" are sexist.

Why, in God's mighty name, do some of the numerous Christianities now permit women equal status with men …?
"God" … just whatever humans imagine it to be.

"Scripture" … just whatever humans write it to be.

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8494
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2147 times
Been thanked: 2295 times

Post #31

Post by Tcg »

SallyF wrote: Image

These boys won't allow girls to dress up and play Jesus games either.
And why do the vows of poverty result in such a different lifestyle for these ladies?

Image

Perhaps like so many things in Christianity, poverty is a very flexible term.


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

User avatar
SallyF
Guru
Posts: 1459
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2018 8:32 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #32

Post by SallyF »

Christian folks who believe themselves to be "saints" in these the "latter days" (the soon-to-be-genocidal Jesus will be back at any moment) also keep their females at a lower status:

Image

This is from a Protestant website, so sexism isn't just a Mormon phenomenon

Date: October 30, 2016
Author: Guy Templeton
85 Comments
I’ve noticed lately in both the endowment ceremony, as well as the sealing ceremony, wording that men covenant to obey God, while women covenant to obey men. In 1991, the words were soften a little in that women obey their husbands only so long “as their husbands obey God.� While this seemingly absolves women from obeying any ungodly commandment, why are husbands essentially mediators between women and God?

It goes further. Men are blessed and anointed to be kings and priests, but women are anointed to become queens and priests, not to God, but “to their husband(s)� (though we know that polyandry is not allowed, so the plural husbands is really singular.) Once again, why aren’t women queens and priestesses to God?

We all know that there is some egalitarianism in the scriptures “neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord,� (1 Cor. 11:11), but there is also some rampant sexism too “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.� (Ephesians 5:22). So while Mormons seem to follow Ephesians quite well, my question is why are women treated differently (1) by God, (2) in the temple, and (3) is it right?

https://wheatandtares.org/2016/10/30/me ... -obey-men/

To answer Mr Templeton's questions:

(1) The biblical Jehovah god is mythological, so it doesn't treat women (or anyone) at all, because Jehovah is as imaginary as a fairy or Thor.

(2) The Temple treats women differently because the men in charge follow the men who imagined the imaginary Jehovah, and pretended to write his "Word".

(3) No.
"God" … just whatever humans imagine it to be.

"Scripture" … just whatever humans write it to be.

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3043
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3274 times
Been thanked: 2022 times

Post #33

Post by Difflugia »

I have a few observations about the Bible's attitudes toward women. First, the good news.

The genuine Paul was certainly feminist for his time and perhaps even by modern standards. The most antiwomen of the Pauline epistles, Ephesians and 1 Timothy, probably weren't written by Paul, but by later Christians after the Church stopped valuing women as much. The "women should be quiet" pericope in 1 Corinthians was probably a marginal gloss based on 1 Timothy that was inadvertently incorporated into the main text.

The "Phoebe" reference in Romans 16:1-2 probably does refer to a woman that is important in one of Paul's churches:
I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church at Cenchreae, that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well. [ESV]
The word translated as "deacon" could mean servant as was previously noted in this thread, but the word translated as "patron" is the feminine version of a word that, of men, is normally translated to mean "manager," "ruler," or "leader" and I suspect that's the sense in which Paul intended it. My reading is that "deacon" is a self-effacing term for a church leader. Phoebe is such a leader, much respected by Paul.

Further along in Paul's greetings in Romans 16:7, Paul asks the Romans to greet Andronicus (a man) and Junia (a woman) as "well known among the apostles." It's somewhat ambiguous whether Paul means they're known to the apostles or are apostles themselves, but most critical commentators take the latter view. Keep in mind here that Paul means "apostle" as he, himself defines it, rather than as the Gospels do. To Paul, an apostle is one who receives visions from God and preaches.

There are also a number of extrabiblical traditions about Paul in which he advocates celibacy and gains many women adherents. These traditions may have influenced the pseudo-Pauline command in 1 Timothy that deacons must be "husband to one wife." This is often interpreted as a commandment against polygyny, but some commentators think that this goes the other way and is meant to weed out those advocating celibacy.

One of these traditions worth reading is The Acts of Paul and Thecla. Though the end is a bit depressing and twisted (God kills her as an act of mercy), it's still one of my favorite extrabiblical Christian works. Thecla's betrothed to a jerk and decides to follow Paul instead. The jerk goes to the local mayor, who's also a jerk, and they come after Paul and Thecla. They escape to Antioch, where another jerk grabs Thecla and kisses her. She tears his coat and makes him look foolish, so the governor of Antioch, who's a jerk, orders her thrown to the beasts. Paul refuses to baptize her even now (yes all men, I guess) and so she baptizes herself in the arena by throwing herself into a shark tank. The girl beasts protect her from the boy beasts and she escapes, chased by the people of Antioch. God magically opens a rock for her to escape into and then closes it, squishing her or something ("And thus ends her life").

Now, the bad news. These are in the order that I remembered them. I know there's way more.
  • If a woman's husband even suspects her of adultery, she is to drink contaminated water as a sort of trial by ordeal. If she gets a horrible infection, her husband was right. "The man shall be free from iniquity, but the woman shall bear her iniquity."
  • If a woman gives birth to a boy, she's unclean for a week. If her baby's a girl, she's unclean for two weeks.
  • If two men are fighting and a woman helps her husband by grabbing the other guy's junk, the punishment is to cut off her hand. Have no pity, it says. This is the only time hands are cut off in the Bible.
  • Moses' siblings, Aaron and Miriam, were kind of racist. They were telling Moses they didn't like his Cushite wife, so Yahweh appeared and punished them by giving Miriam a horrible disease. Aaron's punishment was having to watch, I guess. The boys begged God to fix Miriam, though, so He did.
  • If you capture a "beautiful woman" in war, let her spend a month crying for her dead parents before you rape her.
  • If a man claims his wife wasn't a virgin and her parents can't prove she was (traditionally with a bloody sheet or whatever), then make her parents watch while you throw stones at her crying face until she's dead.
  • As a metaphor for Yahweh's relationship with Israel, Ezekiel 16 starts by describing the marriage by rape (which is a thing in the Bible) of a young girl that was abandoned as a baby. It gets worse. Read it and remember that Yahweh is supposed to be the good guy and victim here.

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3043
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3274 times
Been thanked: 2022 times

Post #34

Post by Difflugia »

Most people know the story of Lot offering his daughters to the mob in exchange for leaving his guests alone, but there's a more disturbing version of the same story in Judges 19-21. A man's concubine (which here seems to be indistinguishable from a wife) leaves him. Some textual traditions say she was "angry with him," but in others, including the Masoretic Text, we start seeing a theme of blaming the victim. In those, she "played the harlot." So she leaves and goes to her father's house. Her husband saddles up his donkey and follows her, where his father-in-law greets him and offers him a few days of hospitality. Presumably the man and his wife make up (at least that's how I choose to read it) and they head back. They were near Gibeah when it got dark and an old man agreed to take them in for the night. Using such similar wording to the Lot story that it's unlikely to be coincidence, the men of the city surround the house and the two men offer the old man's daughter and the traveller's wife to the mob. This time, though, there are no angels to smite anyone, so the guy tosses his wife out the door and goes to bed.

In the morning, he gets up and his wife isn't moving. He has no patience for her sleeping in even if was a rough night and she's still on the porch, so he says, "Get up! It's time to go!" She doesn't get up, so he puts her apparently dead body (the text doesn't say for sure) on the donkey and heads home. When he gets there, he cuts her body up and mails it to the other tribes. Everyone is mad at the Gibeonites (but not at the idea of cutting up a girl to make a point, apparently) and they get together and slaughtered a few tens of thousands of Benjamites, including men, women and children.

Then they felt sorry for the remaining men of Benjamin (boys will be boys, right?), so they slaughtered the adults of a different town and gave the now orphaned girls to the Benjamites to "marry". It turns out that there weren't quite enough girls, though, so they told the Benjamites to go kidnap some more from a third nearby town and "marry" them, too.

And they all lived happily ever after.

What adds to the WTF nature of this story is how modern, conservative Christian commenators fall all over themselves to place blame on the dead, chopped-up wife:

The MacArthur Bible Commentary:
She should have been killed as the law required and could have been, if there was a devotion to holiness and obedience to Scripture (cf. Lev. 20:10). A priest was not allowed to marry a harlot (Lev. 21:14), so his ministry was greatly tainted. Yet, he made little of her sin and separation and sought her back sympathetically (v. 3).
Believer's Bible Commentary:
Without excusing the Benjamites, we might point out that if she hadn't given herself to harlotry beforehand (v. 2 ) she would not have suffered a harlot's death. Sin mercilessly rewards its followers.
The Preacher's Commentary (completely misunderstanding the term concubine and infantilizing her in the bargain):
One of the themes of chapter 19 is the moral depravity which runs all the way through it. The Levite, who should have been faithful to one wife, decides to take a girlfriend whom he lives with (1). In turn, she is unfaithful to him (v. 2). The implication is that, as a result, the Levite sends her packing, and she decides to go back home to daddy. After four months the Levite decides he wants her back and so he goes off to find her.

User avatar
SallyF
Guru
Posts: 1459
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2018 8:32 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #35

Post by SallyF »

[Replying to post 34 by Difflugia]

Image

ISIS may have used the "Bible" - the "Word of Our Genocidal Father in Heaven" - as inspiration and justification for capturing female humans as sex objects.

But in fairness:

Islam neither ignores nor condemns slavery. In fact, a large part of the Sharia is dedicated to the practice.
Muslims are encouraged to live in the way of Muhammad, who was a slave owner and trader. He captured slaves in battle; he had sex with his slaves; and he instructed his men to do the same. The Quran actually devotes more verses to making sure that Muslim men know they can keep women as sex slaves (4) than it does to telling them to pray five times a day (zero).
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/page ... avery.aspx

If one's version of "God" is a single male ...

One is unfortunate to have been created female.

I can think if better imaginary beings to be a slave of than the Muslim or Christian beings.
"God" … just whatever humans imagine it to be.

"Scripture" … just whatever humans write it to be.

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1392
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 579 times

Post #36

Post by Diagoras »

[Replying to post 34 by Difflugia]

Thanks for pointing that out - it wasn’t a bible story I’d ever known about, but I went and read the Skeptics Annotated Bible’s Judges chapters 19-21 and it’s every bit as repulsive as you’ve summarised here.

Of course, the efforts to ‘shut women up’ haven’t been confined to times long past. I’m sure there are many, many articles about the resistance of the church to women in modern times as well. Here’s one I plucked at random from a search on ‘feminist progress in the church’:

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/597b ... conference

Plus, just tossing out this fact: as of 11 October 2019, there are 224 cardinals in the Catholic Church. None of them are women, of course (the very idea!). Here’s a more recent article, which puts forward what appears to be an extremely radical idea...

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/franc ... n-cardinal

User avatar
SallyF
Guru
Posts: 1459
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2018 8:32 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #37

Post by SallyF »

Well you see …

In the so-called "Word of God" …

Image

The rib-woman got the blame …

AND …

Image

The mud-man dodged responsibility …

And men get to rule over us …

And we just keep our pretty mouths shut …

And stay in the kitchen and the bedroom …

Where we now belong.

Because that's how "God" …

Or the men who wrote this stuff …

Decreed it.
"God" … just whatever humans imagine it to be.

"Scripture" … just whatever humans write it to be.

Post Reply