Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-28-2012, 05:23 PM
 
3,483 posts, read 4,028,258 times
Reputation: 756

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
You miss the point, Whoppers. As long as Christianity as defined and practiced by the mainstream follows the ancient ignorance and cultural anachronisms of our primitive ancestors as literal proclamations from God about how society and the roles of men and women are to be structured . . . there can be no co-existence with Feminism. Patriarchal ignorance and cultural barbarity characterize the biblical social structures and they are completely inappropriate for a modern civilized society, period.

I don't think I miss the point. I understand what you're saying about mainstream Christianity and it's view of the text as the Word of God supplying rules to govern lives; but this is ignoring the fact that it's mainly Fundamentalist Christians who still adhere to these old doctrines. The rest of Christianity has moved on and embraced both the feminist movement and the gay movement. I mentioned several times the wealth of feminist and gay interpretations of the Bible and Christianity and Judaism that has emerged in the past 40 years or so. Even back in 1895 The Woman's Bible was printed by Elizabeth Cady Stanton that was recently republished.


Granted, since the Bible was used to prop up the then-prevailing patriarchal attitudes (the "texts of terror") and political and cultural norms, it must be understood as such. However - one can also find streams of thought within the Bible that are reflective of extra-Biblical thought among the Israelites that are decidedly against the patriarchal norms. The problem is that Fundamentalist Christians cannot benefit from these new avenues of research: multiple voices within the Bible (they see it all as "The Word of God" and of one voice; archaeological research that increasingly reveals the role of Israelite women in their culture; research that has revealed that the Israelites worshipped a goddess (and probably more), possibly as good ol' God's wife. The Bible is a collection of writings that tend to obscure many of these "popular" beliefs, and attempts to prop up the royal and patriarchal ideologies that deny women their important roles. Once this is recognized (again, impossible for Fundamentalists) then one can see how voices in Israel managed to challenge the then-prevailing attitudes.


I've given several examples of how the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament (I think - I don't remember) advocates equality between men and women (despite the times in which the texts were writen).


My example of the Priestly Account of Creation, for example, in Genesis 1. In reaction to the Account in Genesis 2-3, the Priestly Author seems to state definitively that both men and women were created at the same time, in God's image, equal to each other, and the pillar of God's creation. P (the Priestly Writer) was, perhaps, running damage control on the Yahwist's (J) Account where the woman is taken from the man's side, and as an afterthought.


The Yahwist Account - written before the P Account - , however, still has the beginnings of the importance of women. In it, the man is said to be incomplete; God's creation is flawed from the beginning. He yearns for a ezer kenegdo, which has been wrongly translated as a "help-meet" or some other subserviant translation, when we now know that the term implied someone of equal status, not merely a helper, who would be always be by one's side. This is probably why the woman was taken from the man's side in this account. But this was still not good enough for the Priestly Author, and thus we get the imagery I mentioned in the paragraph preceeding this one.


Fundamentalists typically take these two separate stories and mix them together. They say "Oh, they weren't created at the same time, both in God's image. No - keep reading into Chapters 2-3 and you'll see that she was created as a helper, an afterthought. Oh! And she brought us all Original Sin!" This view is wrong-headed, and not shared by the majority of well-informed Christians. Heck, Original Sin is not even present in this early Account and was an invention of the later Christians much, much later.

Apart from the very important Creation Accounts, there can be found many examples of strong women scattered through the Bible, and one wonders how they could have remained within it's pages (especially the story of Deborah and Jael). Yet, the majority of the Bible is patriarchal - that is admitted.



In the New Testament, most of the anti-women statements attirbuted to Paul ("remain silent in Church, cover your head, etc., etc.) are now seen by scholars as later additions by an extremely biased editor. They do not match the language or thought of Paul, who was generally favorable to women and even appointed some as heads of home-churches. Some translations have gone as far as to make one of these "pastors" names and turned it into a masculine name. Normal Christians are open to these revelations of tampering with the text, but Fundamentalists are not.

An example of Paul giving a very pro-equality statement is found in the duties of the husband and wife:
Now concerning the matters about which you wrote:
"It is well for a man not to touch a woman."
But because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.

The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights,
and likewise the wife to her husband.
For the wife does not have authority over her own body,
but the husband does;
likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body,
but the wife does.
(I Corinthians 7:1-4, NRSV)
This is a very equality-based statement, and seems to fulfill what the Priestly Writer tried to express in Genesis 1, and what the Yahwist Writer tried to express in Genesis 2-3 when he declared that a human is incomplete unless they are once again "one flesh" - a complete human. Anything else is only half of the picture.

But where does Paul get these notions? Well, from Judaism, and also from Jesus. In Jesus, free person and slave were equal; male and female were equal. This was a major draw for the religion and it's popularity: it's plea for equality. This is frequently missed by many Fundamentalists, but that is okay - because Fundamentalists are a dying breed, and the mainstream of Christianity is actually NOT those people. Fundamentalism is a recent trend in Christianity, and it will falter eventually.

I understand what you're saying, but I think that equating mainstream Christianity with Fundamentalism ignores the great leaps and bounds that feminist approaches to Christianity and Judaism have taken in the last century and how they have affected normative Christianity. One could list tons of works dedicated to the subject, and my shelves alone have a bit of space dedicated to these approaches; as well as numerous examples of churches that have female or gay leaders. It's not as bleak as it once was, I think. I don't know anybody who is advocating a return to the literal laws of the ancient Israelites. Heck, the Christians dumped those when they labeled the Hebrew Bible the "Old" Testament, 2000 years ago. Patriarchalism is no longer a major concern of normal, mainstream Christians. By realizing that the Bible was written in it's own time and age, they have realized that they are not bound to follow some of it's laws. By realizing that we no longer live in a Patriarchal society, they have realized that the times have changed, and so has their understanding of their relationship to what is contained in the Bible.

Make sense? Do you agree with my assessment of recent developments in Christianity and Judaism?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-28-2012, 07:34 PM
 
Location: Salt Lake City
27,916 posts, read 29,762,343 times
Reputation: 13066
Quote:
Originally Posted by happeemommee View Post
We were talking about this in my Philosophy class the other day and wanted to get more opinions. Do you think it's possible to be a feminist and a christian, or would one have to be compromised to be a "true" christian or a "true" feminist?
Are you saying it's impossible to follow Jesus Christ and look to Him for salvation and to also believe women are equal to men?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2012, 11:05 PM
 
63,482 posts, read 39,764,672 times
Reputation: 7796
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers View Post
I don't think I miss the point. I understand what you're saying about mainstream Christianity and it's view of the text as the Word of God supplying rules to govern lives; but this is ignoring the fact that it's mainly Fundamentalist Christians who still adhere to these old doctrines. The rest of Christianity has moved on and embraced both the feminist movement and the gay movement. I mentioned several times the wealth of feminist and gay interpretations of the Bible and Christianity and Judaism that has emerged in the past 40 years or so. Even back in 1895 The Woman's Bible was printed by Elizabeth Cady Stanton that was recently republished.


Granted, since the Bible was used to prop up the then-prevailing patriarchal attitudes (the "texts of terror") and political and cultural norms, it must be understood as such. However - one can also find streams of thought within the Bible that are reflective of extra-Biblical thought among the Israelites that are decidedly against the patriarchal norms. The problem is that Fundamentalist Christians cannot benefit from these new avenues of research: multiple voices within the Bible (they see it all as "The Word of God" and of one voice; archaeological research that increasingly reveals the role of Israelite women in their culture; research that has revealed that the Israelites worshipped a goddess (and probably more), possibly as good ol' God's wife. The Bible is a collection of writings that tend to obscure many of these "popular" beliefs, and attempts to prop up the royal and patriarchal ideologies that deny women their important roles. Once this is recognized (again, impossible for Fundamentalists) then one can see how voices in Israel managed to challenge the then-prevailing attitudes.


I've given several examples of how the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament (I think - I don't remember) advocates equality between men and women (despite the times in which the texts were writen).


My example of the Priestly Account of Creation, for example, in Genesis 1. In reaction to the Account in Genesis 2-3, the Priestly Author seems to state definitively that both men and women were created at the same time, in God's image, equal to each other, and the pillar of God's creation. P (the Priestly Writer) was, perhaps, running damage control on the Yahwist's (J) Account where the woman is taken from the man's side, and as an afterthought.


The Yahwist Account - written before the P Account - , however, still has the beginnings of the importance of women. In it, the man is said to be incomplete; God's creation is flawed from the beginning. He yearns for a ezer kenegdo, which has been wrongly translated as a "help-meet" or some other subserviant translation, when we now know that the term implied someone of equal status, not merely a helper, who would be always be by one's side. This is probably why the woman was taken from the man's side in this account. But this was still not good enough for the Priestly Author, and thus we get the imagery I mentioned in the paragraph preceeding this one.


Fundamentalists typically take these two separate stories and mix them together. They say "Oh, they weren't created at the same time, both in God's image. No - keep reading into Chapters 2-3 and you'll see that she was created as a helper, an afterthought. Oh! And she brought us all Original Sin!" This view is wrong-headed, and not shared by the majority of well-informed Christians. Heck, Original Sin is not even present in this early Account and was an invention of the later Christians much, much later.

Apart from the very important Creation Accounts, there can be found many examples of strong women scattered through the Bible, and one wonders how they could have remained within it's pages (especially the story of Deborah and Jael). Yet, the majority of the Bible is patriarchal - that is admitted.



In the New Testament, most of the anti-women statements attirbuted to Paul ("remain silent in Church, cover your head, etc., etc.) are now seen by scholars as later additions by an extremely biased editor. They do not match the language or thought of Paul, who was generally favorable to women and even appointed some as heads of home-churches. Some translations have gone as far as to make one of these "pastors" names and turned it into a masculine name. Normal Christians are open to these revelations of tampering with the text, but Fundamentalists are not.

An example of Paul giving a very pro-equality statement is found in the duties of the husband and wife:
Now concerning the matters about which you wrote:
"It is well for a man not to touch a woman."
But because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.

The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights,
and likewise the wife to her husband.
For the wife does not have authority over her own body,
but the husband does;
likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body,
but the wife does.
(I Corinthians 7:1-4, NRSV)
This is a very equality-based statement, and seems to fulfill what the Priestly Writer tried to express in Genesis 1, and what the Yahwist Writer tried to express in Genesis 2-3 when he declared that a human is incomplete unless they are once again "one flesh" - a complete human. Anything else is only half of the picture.

But where does Paul get these notions? Well, from Judaism, and also from Jesus. In Jesus, free person and slave were equal; male and female were equal. This was a major draw for the religion and it's popularity: it's plea for equality. This is frequently missed by many Fundamentalists, but that is okay - because Fundamentalists are a dying breed, and the mainstream of Christianity is actually NOT those people. Fundamentalism is a recent trend in Christianity, and it will falter eventually.

I understand what you're saying, but I think that equating mainstream Christianity with Fundamentalism ignores the great leaps and bounds that feminist approaches to Christianity and Judaism have taken in the last century and how they have affected normative Christianity. One could list tons of works dedicated to the subject, and my shelves alone have a bit of space dedicated to these approaches; as well as numerous examples of churches that have female or gay leaders. It's not as bleak as it once was, I think. I don't know anybody who is advocating a return to the literal laws of the ancient Israelites. Heck, the Christians dumped those when they labeled the Hebrew Bible the "Old" Testament, 2000 years ago. Patriarchalism is no longer a major concern of normal, mainstream Christians. By realizing that the Bible was written in it's own time and age, they have realized that they are not bound to follow some of it's laws. By realizing that we no longer live in a Patriarchal society, they have realized that the times have changed, and so has their understanding of their relationship to what is contained in the Bible.

Make sense? Do you agree with my assessment of recent developments in Christianity and Judaism?
Yes it makes sense and I agree. It is hopeful progress . . . but not yet dominant, especially the RCC and its backward march toward male-dominant authoritarianism squelching the religious Sisters.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2012, 02:14 AM
 
496 posts, read 482,040 times
Reputation: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Yes it makes sense and I agree. It is hopeful progress . . . but not yet dominant, especially the RCC and its backward march toward male-dominant authoritarianism squelching the religious Sisters.

This is incorrect . Here is some info extended in a polite and peaceful way.

Saints play a very important role in leadership, example , honor, and hope in RCC...Here is a list of a few of the Holy Ladies which RCC stands in the highest possible leadership honor and respect. Also mentioned lady Saints recognized as full "Doctors of the Church"....A Doctor of the Church is a full and absolute leader who's writings and works are constantly being referred to by all Popes, clergy and membership for direction, advice, leadership, inspiration and example, including the prudent comprehension of need for clarity in translation in many unfolding spiritual outcomes within "the journey"
Roman Catholic Church declared these women saints to be Doctors of the Church: Catherine of Siena (1347-1380) and Teresa of Avila (1515-1582). A third woman was added as Doctor of the Church in 1997: Saint Térèse of Lisieux. The Lady leaders of the Church have in my opinion as much power, if not more influence then the men., esp through their writings, work and blessed lives. The priests and Popes speak very highly of this fountain of leadership and inspiration There has never been any question about this within Holy Mother Church. Here are a few and I'm certain there are many more. I don't see a few I know of.Joan of Arc... 1412--1431 ...murdered. Led the French Army...19 yrs of age and burned to death for her courage and leadership

Saint Agatha
Saint Agnes
Saint Anne
Saint Apollonia
Saint Barbara
Saint Bathildes, Queen
Saint Bridget
Saint Bernardine of Siena
Saint Bertha, Widow, Abbess
Saint Bertille, Abbess
Saint Bibiana, Virgin and Martyr
Saint Bridget of Sweden
Saint Bridgid, Abbess
Saint Catherine
Saint Catharine of Sweden, Virgin
Saint Catherine of Alexandria
Saint Catherine of Genoa
Saint Catherine of Ricci
Saint Catherine of Siena
Saint Cecilia
Saint Christina
Saint Clare
Saint Clotilda, Queen
Saint Colette, Virgin
Saint Cunegundes, Empress
Saint Dorothy
Saint Euphemia
Saint Elizabeth of Hungary
Saint Elizabeth of Portugal
Saint Etheldreda, Abbess
Saint Eulalia, Virgin and Martyr
Saint Euphrasia, Virgin
Saint Frances of Rome
Saint Gertrude, Abbess Saint Genevieve
Saint Helena
Saint Hermenegild, Martyr
Saint Jane Frances de Chantal
Saint Jane of Valois
Saint Justina
Saint Julia, Virgin and Martyr
Saint Juliana Falconieri
Saint Leocadia, Virgin and Martyr
Saint Lucy
Saint Marcella, Widow
Saint Margaret, Virgin and Martyr
Saint Margaret of Scotland
Saint Margaret of Antioch
Saint Martha
Saint Mary Magdalene
Saint Mary Magdalen of Pazzi
Saint Mary of Egypt
Saint Maud, Queen
Saint Monica
Saint Olympias, Widow
Saint Petronilla, Virgin
Saint Radegundes, Queen
Saint Rosalia, Virgin
Saint Rose of Lima
Saint Scholastica, Abbess
Saint Seraphia, Virgin and Martyr
Saint Teresa
Saint Thecla
Saint Theresa
Saint Ursula
Saint Veronica of Milan
Saint Winifrid
Saint Zita, Virgin

Last edited by peter-1; 05-29-2012 at 03:18 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2012, 03:02 AM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,081 posts, read 20,537,613 times
Reputation: 5927
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter-1 View Post
This is incorrect. Here is some info extended in a polite and peaceful way.

Saints play a very important role in leadership, example , honor, and hope in RCC...Here is a list of a few of the Holy Ladies which RCC stands in the highest possible honor and respect. Also mentioned three lady Saints recognized as full "Doctors of the Church"....A Doctor of the Church is a full and absolute leader who's writings and works are constantly being referred to by all Popes, clergy and membership for direction, advice, leadership, inspiration and example, including the prudent comprehension of need for clarity in translation in many unfolding spiritual outcomes within "the journey"
Roman Catholic Church declared these women saints to be Doctors of the Church: Catherine of Siena (1347-1380) and Teresa of Avila (1515-1582). A third woman was added as Doctor of the Church in 1997: Saint Térèse of Lisieux. The Lady leaders of the Church have in my opinion as much power, if not more influence then the men., esp through their writings, work and blessed lives. The priests and Popes speak very highly of this fountain of leadership and inspiration There has never been any question about this within Holy Mother Church. Here are a few and I'm certain there are many more. I don't see a few I know of.Joan of Arc... v1412--1431 ...murdered. Lead the French Army...19 yrs of age and burned to death for her courage and leadership

Saint Agatha
Saint Agnes
Saint Anne
Saint Apollonia
Saint Barbara
Saint Bathildes, Queen
Saint Bridget
Saint Bernardine of Siena
Saint Bertha, Widow, Abbess
Saint Bertille, Abbess
Saint Bibiana, Virgin and Martyr
Saint Bridget of Sweden
Saint Bridgid, Abbess
Saint Catherine
Saint Catharine of Sweden, Virgin
Saint Catherine of Alexandria
Saint Catherine of Genoa
Saint Catherine of Ricci
Saint Catherine of Siena
Saint Cecilia
Saint Christina
Saint Clare
Saint Clotilda, Queen
Saint Colette, Virgin
Saint Cunegundes, Empress
Saint Dorothy
Saint Euphemia
Saint Elizabeth of Hungary
Saint Elizabeth of Portugal
Saint Etheldreda, Abbess
Saint Eulalia, Virgin and Martyr
Saint Euphrasia, Virgin
Saint Frances of Rome
Saint Gertrude, Abbess Saint Genevieve
Saint Helena
Saint Hermenegild, Martyr
Saint Jane Frances de Chantal
Saint Jane of Valois
Saint Justina
Saint Julia, Virgin and Martyr
Saint Juliana Falconieri
Saint Leocadia, Virgin and Martyr
Saint Lucy
Saint Marcella, Widow
Saint Margaret, Virgin and Martyr
Saint Margaret of Scotland
Saint Margaret of Antioch
Saint Martha
Saint Mary Magdalene
Saint Mary Magdalen of Pazzi
Saint Mary of Egypt
Saint Maud, Queen
Saint Monica
Saint Olympias, Widow
Saint Petronilla, Virgin
Saint Radegundes, Queen
Saint Rosalia, Virgin
Saint Rose of Lima
Saint Scholastica, Abbess
Saint Seraphia, Virgin and Martyr
Saint Teresa
Saint Thecla
Saint Theresa
Saint Ursula
Saint Veronica of Milan
Saint Winifrid
Saint Zita, Virgin
I'm minded to ask though how many of them acted like feminists and how many like catholics? I suppose one has to ask what Feminism is - whether its women having men - free - communities - though still taking their orders from them - or women participating in life together and equally with men.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2012, 06:32 AM
 
496 posts, read 482,040 times
Reputation: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
I'm minded to ask though how many of them acted like feminists and how many like catholics? I suppose one has to ask what Feminism is - whether its women having men - free - communities - though still taking their orders from them - or women participating in life together and equally with men.

Best thing to do is read up on it. Plus...your a well known persecutor of the Church . If I see fit for information, then it means that the general public has a right to the truth, in light of deliberate intent to deceive, displayed by members.

In all, this is absolutely no place to discuss the Holy lives of these people, many tortured and killed for their belief, many starved, many did without, men and women ....and you want to talk about who calls the shots? Say a prayer to Joan of Arc,. She was 19 and led the army...burned to death.. read up on the lives of the Saints and ask these questions to them directly... God calls the shots.......if you are honestly interested, a thread showing this in the Christian Forum on prayer etc may assist. Vocations are not appointments working in a donut shop.

Last edited by peter-1; 05-29-2012 at 07:16 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2012, 08:29 AM
 
63,482 posts, read 39,764,672 times
Reputation: 7796
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter-1 View Post
This is incorrect . Here is some info extended in a polite and peaceful way.

Saints play a very important role in leadership, example , honor, and hope in RCC...Here is a list of a few of the Holy Ladies which RCC stands in the highest possible leadership honor and respect. Also mentioned lady Saints recognized as full "Doctors of the Church"....A Doctor of the Church is a full and absolute leader who's writings and works are constantly being referred to by all Popes, clergy and membership for direction, advice, leadership, inspiration and example, including the prudent comprehension of need for clarity in translation in many unfolding spiritual outcomes within "the journey"
Roman Catholic Church declared these women saints to be Doctors of the Church: Catherine of Siena (1347-1380) and Teresa of Avila (1515-1582). A third woman was added as Doctor of the Church in 1997: Saint Térèse of Lisieux. The Lady leaders of the Church have in my opinion as much power, if not more influence then the men., esp through their writings, work and blessed lives. The priests and Popes speak very highly of this fountain of leadership and inspiration There has never been any question about this within Holy Mother Church. Here are a few and I'm certain there are many more. I don't see a few I know of.Joan of Arc... 1412--1431 ...murdered. Led the French Army...19 yrs of age and burned to death for her courage and leadership <snip>
No one is trying to diminish the role of women religious, peter . . . on the contrary. I seek to elevate their role to equality with the male religious . . . including the hierarchy. Had women been as dominant in the hierarchy as the males . . . there would not have been anywhere near the amount of corruption and evil within it. My criticism of the RCC is exclusively targeted toward the corrupt hierarchy and their anachronistic authoritarianism and chauvinism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
I'm minded to ask though how many of them acted like feminists and how many like catholics? I suppose one has to ask what Feminism is - whether its women having men - free - communities - though still taking their orders from them - or women participating in life together and equally with men.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter-1 View Post
Best thing to do is read up on it. Plus...your a well known persecutor of the Church . If I see fit for information, then it means that the general public has a right to the truth, in light of deliberate intent to deceive, displayed by members.
Arequipa is the least of the atheists likely to "persecute" believers (who actually constitute the Church), peter. The corrupt hierarchy and its policies are another matter entirely. Your defense of the women religious of the past is well-taken and they should be honored for their dedication to God . . . but that is NOT what the hierarchy intends or desires to do to the current Sisters.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2012, 10:25 AM
 
3,483 posts, read 4,028,258 times
Reputation: 756
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter-1 View Post
In all, this is absolutely no place to discuss the Holy lives of these people, many tortured and killed for their belief, many starved, many did without, men and women ....and you want to talk about who calls the shots? Say a prayer to Joan of Arc,. She was 19 and led the army...burned to death.. read up on the lives of the Saints and ask these questions to them directly... God calls the shots.......if you are honestly interested, a thread showing this in the Christian Forum on prayer etc may assist. Vocations are not appointments working in a donut shop.
Well, you brought them up, didn't you? In a forum dedicated to discussion, if you are likely to take offense to other's members replies concerning a touchy subject, and then declare that this isn't the place to discuss such a touchy subject: don't bring the touchy subject up. I'm not trying to be mean, just stating what should be an obvious conversational piece of advice. It's like someone bringing up the proverbial no-nos of dinner conversation - politics and religion - and then adamantly declaring "this isn't the time or place for this sort of talk!" Ya' see?

Arequipa's initial reply was a good one, in my opinion. Women killed for their beliefs or actions and then later turned into saints do no equate with feminist movements attempting to find a place for themselves in Christianity. Would listing a number of male martys later turned into saints be proof of a "men's movement" within Christianity? Who would they be fighting against?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2012, 10:37 AM
 
Location: OKC
5,421 posts, read 6,486,259 times
Reputation: 1775
This question can't be resolved when there is no agreement upon what Christianity really teaches.

Christianity can either be consistent with feminism, pro-feminism, or anti-feminism, depending upon what one means by Christianity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2012, 10:55 AM
 
Location: Elsewhere
88,203 posts, read 84,076,500 times
Reputation: 114497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post
This question can't be resolved when there is no agreement upon what Christianity really teaches.

Christianity can either be consistent with feminism, pro-feminism, or anti-feminism, depending upon what one means by Christianity.
It's like a book I used to have--it showed how the Bible was used to promote or condemn both sides of several arguments--slavery, homosexuality, etc. Women's rights were probably one. I don't have the book anymore and can't remember the name of it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top