Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none
Shaker

Are religions unfair to women?

Topic shamelessly pinched from yesterday morning's Big Questions on BBC1.

I think the answer cannot be anything other than a resounding and unambiguous yes, but I'd be interested to see what others think.
bnabernard

Should coffee be made in a tea pot?

bernard (hug)
Jim

Re: Are religions unfair to women?

According to a friend of mine - a lady minister in the CofS, the majority of whose elders in the Kirk Session are female, then the answer to the O/P - as far as the Kirk is concerned, would be 'No'.
Ketty

Re: Are religions unfair to women?

Shaker wrote:
Are religions unfair to women?


What do we mean by 'fair' and what do we mean by 'religion'?

I don't feel that my faith in Christ Jesus (my Christianity) is unfair to me.  However I do sometimes feel that some people use their religion to underpin their own 'cultural take' on things.

I've recorded the BBC programme, but have not had chance to watch it.
gone

The version of Christianity which believes men are the big cheese and women should kow tow to them is horrible and denegrates women. I was talking to a 'born again' relative the other day who is proud of being totally subservient to her husband!
Jim

Tell that to my minister friend!
She's born again as well...and subservient to no-one save God!
trentvoyager

Genesis 3:16 To the woman he said, "I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Corinthians 11:5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is the same as having her head shaved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Corinthians 11:13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Corinthians 14:21 In the Law it is written: "With other tongues and through the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people, but even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Corinthians 14:35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Timothy 2:11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Peter 3:1 Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives,

Shamelessly cut and pasted - but sorry Jim its in the good book - it must be true.

You can argue that this is allegorical - or doesn't apply to the present day or any other excuse that can be used to get out of applying these views.

Of course you will know my view on such weasel words.  
Jim

And if they're not married?
Powwow

I suggest you ask a room full of women who opt to wear a burka and live in jolly old England.
Or ask my sisters who left their church because of the church's acceptance of women parsons. They now attend a reformed Baptist congregation and I can guarantee no woman in that church believe they are being treated unfairly.
Strange that these women believe God assigned different roles for men and women. Not
Ketty

TV, I have a get out clause to most of that as my hubby is not a Christian believer.  
Jim

I note with interest that the new President of the Baptist Union UK  is a woman.
Powwow

No surprise there. Baptist Union.lol
Powwow

Jim,
If you don't know the reformed Baptists, here you go.
http://www.rbtr.org/WhatisaReformedBaptist.htm
trentvoyager

I note with interest no serious answers to the quotes I provided.

If this is in the Bible why are Christians not following these instructions?

There is only just blossom on my cherry tree now  - so they can't be cherry-picking already, surely ?

cyberman

trentvoyager wrote:

Shamelessly cut and pasted - but sorry Jim its in the good book - it must be true.

You can argue that this is allegorical - or doesn't apply to the present day or any other excuse that can be used to get out of applying these views.

Of course you will know my view on such weasel words.  


This is yes or no (no weasel words, please!):

Do you believe that Christians believe that they are prohibited by their religion from eating pork?

(I mean, when are atheists going to grow out of this silly gimmick of fourishing a Bible verse in our faces as though that proves that we believe something?) (That's not the yes or no one; that one was rhetorical).
trentvoyager

cyberman wrote:
trentvoyager wrote:

Shamelessly cut and pasted - but sorry Jim its in the good book - it must be true.

You can argue that this is allegorical - or doesn't apply to the present day or any other excuse that can be used to get out of applying these views.

Of course you will know my view on such weasel words.  


This is yes or no (no weasel words, please!):

Do you believe that Christians believe that they are prohibited by their religion from eating pork?

(I mean, when are atheists going to grow out of this silly gimmick of fourishing a Bible verse in our faces as though that proves that we believe something?) (That's not the yes or no one; that one was rhetorical).


No of course I think you can eat pork - just pointing out the unreliabilty of some Christians when they use parts of the Bible to support some views and not others. I hate inconsistency.

It's a failing I know.  
Shaker

Re: Are religions unfair to women?

Ketty wrote:
Shaker wrote:
Are religions unfair to women?


What do we mean by 'fair'

I'm astonished that this sort of question even has to be asked, but I'll bite:

Given the same rights and responsibilities. Given equal opportunities to hold the same positions for the same salary. Not discriminated against on the basis of an irrelevant difference, etc.

The same way it's normally used I guess.
cyberman

trentvoyager wrote:
cyberman wrote:
trentvoyager wrote:

Shamelessly cut and pasted - but sorry Jim its in the good book - it must be true.

You can argue that this is allegorical - or doesn't apply to the present day or any other excuse that can be used to get out of applying these views.

Of course you will know my view on such weasel words.  


This is yes or no (no weasel words, please!):

Do you believe that Christians believe that they are prohibited by their religion from eating pork?

(I mean, when are atheists going to grow out of this silly gimmick of fourishing a Bible verse in our faces as though that proves that we believe something?) (That's not the yes or no one; that one was rhetorical).


No of course I think you can eat pork - just pointing out the unreliabilty of some Christians when they use parts of the Bible to support some views and not others. I hate inconsistency.

It's a failing I know.  


Does this mean you are with northernstar in the "either believe all of it or believe none of it" camp?
trentvoyager

No - not at all.

Just the inconsistency applied by some Christians to their take on the Bible is bewildering to me.

There is as much written (if not more) about women submitting to their husbands as there is about homosexuals, and yet one lot of instructions is largely ignored and the other fiercely contested. Its almost like they are using the Bible for their own purposes rather than following it in a sensible, reasonable fashion.
cyberman

trentvoyager wrote:

There is as much written (if not more) about women submitting to their husbands as there is about homosexuals, and yet one lot of instructions is largely ignored and the other fiercely contested.


I'm not sure I follow you. There is as much opposition to, say, women priests or female emancipation as there is to gay marriage or gay priests, isn't there?

trentvoyager wrote:
Its almost like they are using the Bible for their own purposes rather than following it in a sensible, reasonable fashion.


That is certainly true. I have always argued that homophobic Christians claim to be being guided by scripture, but that in fact they are bringing their prejudices to scripture and then finding bits which seem to support them. But, again, I don't see any difference with the women issue.
trentvoyager

cyberman wrote:
trentvoyager wrote:

There is as much written (if not more) about women submitting to their husbands as there is about homosexuals, and yet one lot of instructions is largely ignored and the other fiercely contested.


I'm not sure I follow you. There is as much opposition to, say, women priests or female emancipation as there is to gay marriage or gay priests, isn't there?

trentvoyager wrote:
Its almost like they are using the Bible for their own purposes rather than following it in a sensible, reasonable fashion.


That is certainly true. I have always argued that homophobic Christians claim to be being guided by scripture, but that in fact they are bringing their prejudices to scripture and then finding bits which seem to support them. But, again, I don't see any difference with the women issue.


Well I don't think you will find many Christians willing to back the following:

Quote:
1 Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.


with quite the same visciousness that some Christians back various Levitican instructions.

Still its a shame Timothy wasn't listened to more when Margaret T was around - but I suppose that's just me being selective now.  
cyberman

trentvoyager wrote:
cyberman wrote:
trentvoyager wrote:

There is as much written (if not more) about women submitting to their husbands as there is about homosexuals, and yet one lot of instructions is largely ignored and the other fiercely contested.


I'm not sure I follow you. There is as much opposition to, say, women priests or female emancipation as there is to gay marriage or gay priests, isn't there?

trentvoyager wrote:
Its almost like they are using the Bible for their own purposes rather than following it in a sensible, reasonable fashion.


That is certainly true. I have always argued that homophobic Christians claim to be being guided by scripture, but that in fact they are bringing their prejudices to scripture and then finding bits which seem to support them. But, again, I don't see any difference with the women issue.


Well I don't think you will find many Christians willing to back the following:

Quote:
1 Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.


with quite the same visciousness that some Christians back various Levitican instructions.

Still its a shame Timothy wasn't listened to more when Margaret T was around - but I suppose that's just me being selective now.  


I am not sure that I agree. I do come across evangelicals and fundamentalists using both of these ideas quite regularly.

But even if it is true that there are more homphobic Christians than sexist ones, I am not sure what your point is, unles it is indeed the northernstar nonsense?
Jim

Why bring homosexuality into it?
My understanding of Christian marriage* is a bond between man and woman in the sight of God.
Equally, my understanding is that sex outside that marriage is wrong, whether homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual.

* - N.B. I do not oppose secular marriage; evem secular same-sex marriage.
cyberman

Jim wrote:
Why bring homosexuality into it?


Quite often, non-Christians bring homosexuality into conversations with Christians.

Also quite often, non-Christians ask "why are Christians always talking about homosexuality?"
genghiscant

Quote:
Equally, my understanding is that sex outside that marriage is wrong, whether homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual.


Were all the people who had sexual relations before Jesus was born, sinners?
Shaker

genghiscant wrote:
Quote:
Equally, my understanding is that sex outside that marriage is wrong, whether homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual.


Were all the people who had sexual relations before Jesus was born, sinners?

I thought it was part of their religion that all people, everywhere, before or after Jesus, no matter what they do or don't do, are sinners?
cyberman

genghiscant wrote:
Quote:
Equally, my understanding is that sex outside that marriage is wrong, whether homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual.


Were all the people who had sexual relations before Jesus was born, sinners?


There was marriage before Jesus, wasn't there?
trentvoyager

cyberman wrote:
Jim wrote:
Why bring homosexuality into it?


Quite often, non-Christians bring homosexuality into conversations with Christians.

Also quite often, non-Christians ask "why are Christians always talking about homosexuality?"


Oh piss off - the first time I bring into a conversation for an age and you end up posting like Hope. I thought it was relevant to contrast how some parts of the Bible are quietly ignored and others aren't - but as you think its only useful to have a bash at atheists, I promise never ever to mention it again.
cyberman

trentvoyager wrote:
Oh piss off -


Calm down, love!

Jiminy cricket, what a moody wanker!

Are either of the statements I made untrue?
Jim

Cyberman:
According to Romans 3:23, aren't we all sinners?
trentvoyager

cyberman wrote:
trentvoyager wrote:
Oh piss off -


Calm down, love!

Jiminy cricket, what a moody wanker!

Are either of the statements I made untrue?


Me moody - must have been going to your masterclasses on the topic.
Shaker

Jim wrote:
Cyberman:
According to Romans 3:23, aren't we all sinners?

According to Christianity in general - possibly on account of this passage and others like it - aren't we all, and - never mind any and every other reason which may obtain - isn't that a perfect reason for rejecting it?
Jim

Er...
No.
Christ is our only get-out clause.
That's the core of Christianity!
Shaker

Jim wrote:
Er...
No.
Christ is our only get-out clause.
That's the core of Christianity!


So everybody is a "sinner" unless they believe in/accept/whatever the current buzzword is Christ, whereupon they cease to be a "sinner"?

News to me.
Jim

Nope.
I'm a sinner saved by grace.
No better - probably a lot worse than most, but saved through accepting Christ, what He has done and is doing in me.
genghiscant

cyberman wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
Quote:
Equally, my understanding is that sex outside that marriage is wrong, whether homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual.


Were all the people who had sexual relations before Jesus was born, sinners?


There was marriage before Jesus, wasn't there?


Perhaps, I wouldn't know. But it wouldn't have been a Christian marriage.
Shaker

Jim wrote:
Nope.
I'm a sinner saved by grace.

So you are no longer a sinner, then.
Quote:
No better - probably a lot worse than most

Either you are still a sinner or you are not. If you are not, you cannot be worse than anybody else, least of all those who don't believe in and don't accept Christ and are therefore presumably still sinners in a way that presumably you no longer are now that apparently you are a sinner saved by grace, whatever that's supposed to mean.
cyberman

Jim wrote:
Cyberman:
According to Romans 3:23, aren't we all sinners?


Dunno - what does it say?
And what point of mine are you addressing?
cyberman

genghiscant wrote:
cyberman wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
Quote:
Equally, my understanding is that sex outside that marriage is wrong, whether homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual.


Were all the people who had sexual relations before Jesus was born, sinners?


There was marriage before Jesus, wasn't there?


Perhaps, I wouldn't know. But it wouldn't have been a Christian marriage.


No of course it wouldn't. So? the post of Jim's which you seemed to be respondeing to had said explicitly that he did recognise non-Christian marriage. Where have you got the idea that Christians think that Jewish marriages, civil marriages, Sikh marriages etc are sinful? Don't just bat another question back at me to dodge answering - where did you get that idea from?
cyberman

Shaker wrote:
Jim wrote:
Nope.
I'm a sinner saved by grace.

So you are no longer a sinner, then.


How can you paraphrase a sentence of Jim's which includes "I am a sinner" to mean he is saying he is not a sinner?

He is clearly saying he is a sinner.

Did you think "saved" means "no longer a sinner"? If so, why did you think that?
cyberman

Shaker wrote:
Jim wrote:
Er...
No.
Christ is our only get-out clause.
That's the core of Christianity!


So everybody is a "sinner" unless they believe in/accept/whatever the current buzzword is Christ, whereupon they cease to be a "sinner"?

News to me.


I can only assume that you had a drink or two in the sunny weather yesterday, Shaker! With your impenetrable "pearls" post, and now your bizarre interpretations whereby you are pretending to believe that Jim is claiming that being a Chirtsian means you are not a sinner. I know you are not a dishonest man, neither are you daft, so I assume you had a lager or two inside you when you were on here yesterday.
Lexilogio

I'll have to catch up with this programme. Prof Francesca Stavrotopoulou has posted on twitter that it was an excellent debate, and I believe she is one of the worlds experts on the role of women in religions - although Karen Armstrong also provides some excellent commentary on this issue.

Personally, I don't think its necessarily that religion puts women down - but men take control of religion and some then move to assert a misogynistic approach.
genghiscant

cyberman wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
cyberman wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
Quote:
Equally, my understanding is that sex outside that marriage is wrong, whether homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual.


Were all the people who had sexual relations before Jesus was born, sinners?


There was marriage before Jesus, wasn't there?


Perhaps, I wouldn't know. But it wouldn't have been a Christian marriage.


No of course it wouldn't. So? the post of Jim's which you seemed to be respondeing to had said explicitly that he did recognise non-Christian marriage. Where have you got the idea that Christians think that Jewish marriages, civil marriages, Sikh marriages etc are sinful? Don't just bat another question back at me to dodge answering - where did you get that idea from?


Yes, you're correct, my mistake.
genghiscant

Jim wrote:
Nope.
I'm a sinner saved by grace.
No better - probably a lot worse than most, but saved through accepting Christ, what He has done and is doing in me.


What happens to a person who hasn't been saved by grace?
genghiscant

Jim wrote:
Why bring homosexuality into it?
My understanding of Christian marriage* is a bond between man and woman in the sight of God.
Equally, my understanding is that sex outside that marriage is wrong, whether homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual.

* - N.B. I do not oppose secular marriage; evem secular same-sex marriage.


Is sex before marriage wrong?

Is sex after divorce wrong?
cyberman

genghiscant wrote:
Jim wrote:
Why bring homosexuality into it?
My understanding of Christian marriage* is a bond between man and woman in the sight of God.
Equally, my understanding is that sex outside that marriage is wrong, whether homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual.

* - N.B. I do not oppose secular marriage; evem secular same-sex marriage.


Is sex before marriage wrong?

Is sex after divorce wrong?


Bloody Hell, Jim, you've got the Spanish Inquisition on your case!

I bet you weren't expecting that...!
Shaker

A blistering and bang-on-the-money review of the edition of The Big Questions in which this question was asked, by Anne Marie Waters of the NSS.

Quote:
At the start of the programme, I turned to my other half and said; ok, you're about to be served up a smorgasbord of "out of context", "that's not religion, it's culture", "it's not unfair, it's just different" (or "complementary" if you prefer), "we oppress women out of respect for them", "it's not religion that oppresses women, it's men" and let's not forget the misinterpretations and the misunderstandings and complexities and nuances of the language of scripture which we dunderheads are unable to demystify due to our crass and immensely unhelpful adherence to reason. You've got to side-step reason and … what's the word… oh yes "transcend" reason in order to truly understand the complexities of a command as subtle as "beat her".


Particularly liked:

Quote:
... the greatest weapon in the clerical armoury – "out of context".

The first rule with "out of context" is that it only applies to nasty things. So, if a scripture says something enlightening and loving, well then that is perfectly clear – God is enlightened and loving (and this book here is the word of God). On the other hand, if it is violent, cruel, vicious, unjust, barbaric, or just plain genocidal – then it is "out of context". This is rule number one and it is not up for negotiation.

Rule number two is this: sometimes the scripture is interpreted as relevant to the time in which it was written. At other times, it is a rigid demand for all times and all places. How do you tell the difference? Well, it depends entirely on the priest/rabbi/imam/vicar you happen to be talking to at the time. That's the beauty of this rule – it is uber-flexible (and uber-convenient).



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum