Losing Your Religion? (47)

Men have mostly (until now) controlled writing. Women's position has rarely been represented. in fact in plenty of countries today many many women never learn to read and write.

Basicly where there's an opening men ( man ) will manipulate it against everyone else if the can,,, religeon ( in general ) is a classic example

Please excuse crap spelling cause i,m rubbish

If you look at the whole picture of what Scripture teaches (including all the comments of Paul) what emerges is an undoubted EQUALITY of the sexes, albeit with distinctions between them

In other words, men and women are different (thank God for that!), but there is no issue of inferiority/superiority. There is a distinction of roles, but no denigration of one or the other sex.

I could go on about this for ages (not that I ever do that in ANY of my posts....), but won't here.

Suffice it to say two things.

Firstly, Paul insisted that a woman has as much right to satisfaction sexually from her husband, as he has from her. Fancy that - Western civilisation didn't grasp that until the 60s - but Paul preached it 2000 years ago!

Secondly, he said that a balanced relationship is where a woman considers her husband's needs as paramount, AND where a husband is willing to give up everything to ensure his wife's wellbeing.

A husband has to be willing to love his wife IN THE SAME WAY that Christ loved the Church "and gave Himself for her". Christ loved the Church enough to die for her - she mattered more to Him than His own life.

Now, if in a relationship, you have a sacrificial husband AND a submissive wife, you have a situation where EACH puts the other "first". That is a path to mutual happiness. It is properly balanced.

The problems in relationships normally centre around where one partner or the other feels there is an imbalance between the give and take. If what Paul stated as a recipe for harmony were followed, that could not happen.

I could cite many more examples of where the Bible treats men and women as of equal worth - even if their natures and roles are distinct. But for now, let it suffice to say that it is simply wrong to malign Paul for things of which he is NOT guilty.

English

"It may be that your sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others" - Anon

Edited 27 Oct 11, 3:49 AM by AnEnglishMaster

However the bottom line is because the religions are run by men they still are incredibly sexist and I am sure God is appalled by how they have been twisted by men. The only solution would be to set them up without men around or have men only in subsidiary roles. None of them have cast aside their sexism. The C of E doesn't have women bishops. It remains sexist with no women in real positions of power. The Catholic church doesn't allow woman priests. There are no female Mullahs. Most synagogues don't have female rabbis. Without doubt they have piled sexism on sexism and many many branches of just about all the religions and most cults have majored in practice on men having power.

Women and men have some differences but nothing like the religions like to suggest. Because we have breasts does not mean we cannot pray in certain ways. It doesn't mean we cannot take charge of a whole religion. It doesn't mean we cannot be both parents and leading surgeons.

So whilst I accept the fundamentals of most of the major religions, that people are equal the messages are there in all of them that we do not as a religion want woman anywhere near in charge because they are subservient and deficient.

Until we have a woman pope and more women in senior positions (ditto C of E and in Islamd etc) I will remain unconvinced by their supposed fairness and lack of sexism.

On the matter of women in power, in the C of E which I know, the church is moving in the right direction. (I remember the wonderful vote in general synod for the priesting of women, after years and decades of persuasion, and uncomfortable compromises to ensure those who in all conscience couldn't accept it could still have male-only enclaves). There is still a long way to go, and plenty of lobbying still going on.

Incidentally, the C of E is partly hierarchical, but not wholly so. A vicar, once appointed to the "freehold" of a parish, has very considerable autonomy and security of tenure; much more so than in a business. Many women are leading parishes (and several are cathedral deans) with great effect. But there is much further to go of course.

I do think the seeds for change were sown in the tradition centuries ago, indeed in bible times. It's hard for us in our age to imagine how the literature would have sounded in such different societies. Some feminist theologians have pointed out that for a first century hearer, the most radical part of St Paul's saying "let the women learn in silence and submission" is the first 4 words; he was suggesting opening up education to women, and the "silence and submission" was an aside based on the educational practices of the day and the relationship between teacher and pupils (of either gender).

Going back further, Joel's prophecy included this extraordinarily vision, especially extraordinary for that era (at least 5 centuries BC) and society:

Judaism isn't my sphere of expertise, (of course Joel was theirs, not ours) but it does have female rabbis now, and I think that didn't happen 50 years ago; perhaps even 20, so it does seem to be moving in the right direction. (ETA: It looks like the first woman rabbi was in 1935, possibly an isolated example. http://judaism.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?... ).

I think the increasing female involvement in influential positions in societies, businesses and nations is one of the most important fundamental societal trends over the last century or so and something which will continue to progress.

P.S. Sorry Mia; this is a digression, but I hope you'll agree an interesting one.

"Wisdom begins in wonder” (Socrates)
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" (Albert Einstein)
Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est. http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/posts/226772/

Edited 27 Oct 11, 10:01 AM by wonderer

I quite agree; a discussion on religious matters which has been conducted in a good spirit.

"Wisdom begins in wonder” (Socrates)
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" (Albert Einstein)
Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est. http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/posts/226772/

Indeed the massive growth in religion on the planet where it occurs is not amongst the liberal wing of the C of E or feminist Islam. It is fundamentalist evangelical Christianity and fundamentalist Islam, the types who believe my quote above from the Bible and Koran are gospel truth. That is where there is growth sadly in perpetuating the sexist wrongs of 2000 years ago and indeed making them worse. The Koran requies men and women to cover but somehow or other men have managed to extract from that that they can wear swimming trunks on beaches whilst women are so covered they are vitamin D deficient.

The churches which are making minor attempts to con women into thinking they are equal by allowing them at the very lowest echelons of power only are not those with any growth at all and in a sense are de minimis sadly in this area.

From that it follows you might move away from a religious culture towards a scene one.

Another reason why you might move away from religion is the intollerance religious people / teachings might have towards your new lifestyle.

Whether this leads to the loss of anything important rather depends on your point of view. To me religion is simply a lifestyle choice - it has no objective justification, value or truth which can be proved, and is one more and more people are turning away from in our day and age in terms of both belief and active involvement.

I'm a secularist. If you have a religion you want to live and can do so without infringing anyone else's rights or wellbeing then I support your right to do so. I hope in return you will accept me as a fellow moral/ethical person who seeks to live by reason not faith rather than an infidel / heathen!

vMaster aka Mike Web Site: http://www.vmaster.me.uk/