Stand Your Ground

Stand Your Ground Forums => Main => Topic started by: on Dec 31, 1969, 05:00 PM

Poll
Question: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Option 1: No votes: 15
Option 2: Yes votes: 4
Option 3: Maybe votes: 3
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 17, 2006, 04:57 PM
Just thought I'd start a poll to see people's opinions on the issue.

My personal opinion is that Christianity encouraged men to judge themselves by their sacrifices to women which laid the social groundwork for a misandrous movement like feminism.

What say you all?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: BRIAN on Jul 17, 2006, 05:06 PM
I disagree with you. I think Christianity has been twisted into that by the FEMS. The tenents of Christianity is about loving others as you love yourself and doing the right thing so you are strait with God. There are some that have attempted to use it as a tool to shame men but that is not what the religion is about.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 17, 2006, 05:12 PM
Quote from: "BRIAN"
I disagree with you. I think Christianity has been twisted into that by the FEMS.


Who are you refering to when you say FEMS?

Quote
The tenents of Christianity is about loving others as you love yourself and doing the right thing so you are strait with God. There are some that have attempted to use it as a tool to shame men but that is not what the religion is about.


And yet there still is the problematic tenent, "a husband must love his wife as Christ loved the Church and sacrifice for her as Christ sacrificed for the Church."

That's a pretty powerful tool to shame men with and its written in the bible, unambiguous and no need for reinterpretation.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: powder-monkey on Jul 17, 2006, 05:18 PM
Something I've heard said about Italians (and found to be true about some Irish-Americans):
"Even those who don't believe in God believe that Mary is his mother".
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Daymar on Jul 17, 2006, 05:19 PM
There's also the fact that Christianity causes men to rely on women for so many of their emotional needs because men don't want to appear gay by being too friendly with other men. And then on top of that Christianity made it harder for women to be accessible to men by making women looked down upon for being too friendly with men.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: dr e on Jul 17, 2006, 05:20 PM
I voted maybe.  I hold feminism responsible for the hatred it has acted out on men but I also think that there are likely multiple factors that have created the climate necessary to allow feminism to sprout and grow so quickly into such misandry.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Sir Jessy of Anti on Jul 17, 2006, 05:20 PM
At the same time, it must be pointed out that the bible clearly had commandments for the wife, and they were much more equally exacting than any modern interpretation of law.


*edit to add: the attitudes are another story entirely.  I am willing to entertain hypothesis to a point though.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 17, 2006, 05:25 PM
Quote from: "Sir Jessy of Anti"
At the same time, it must be pointed out that the bible clearly had commandments for the wife, and they were much more equally exacting than any modern interpretation of law.


Yes, but what does it *mean* to be the head of someone you sacrifice everything for?

To put it another way, if you were offered two options... the first option is to rule over your spouce, yet you have to sacrifice yourself to their every benefit and need. The second option is to submit, but submit to someone who sacrifices themselves for your every need and benefit...

Which would you choose?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: BRIAN on Jul 17, 2006, 05:40 PM
Quote
Who are you refering to when you say FEMS?


I use FEMS in all caps instead of typing out "Feminists" over and over.

Quote
And yet there still is the problematic tenent, "a husband must love his wife as Christ loved the Church and sacrifice for her as Christ sacrificed for the Church."


I think that speaks more to the fact that marriage is a sacred thing and it comes with a great deal of responsibility. If you will put things in a historical perspective at the time Christianity was forming men still held complete sway as head of the houshold, what the father said was like unto law. As a result of this the father was responsible for everything the members of his household did. There are a lot of things that can be taken out of context and used against the faith.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 17, 2006, 05:51 PM
Quote from: "BRIAN"
Quote
Who are you refering to when you say FEMS?


I use FEMS in all caps instead of typing out "Feminists" over and over.


Do you mean that feminists have twisted the perception of Christianity?

Quote
If you will put things in a historical perspective at the time Christianity was forming men still held complete sway as head of the houshold, what the father said was like unto law. As a result of this the father was responsible for everything the members of his household did. There are a lot of things that can be taken out of context and used against the faith.


Your argument seems to refute the idea that women should "submit" rather then that men should "sacrifice".
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: BRIAN on Jul 17, 2006, 06:02 PM
Quote
Your argument seems to refute the idea that women should "submit" rather then that men should "sacrifice".


No it doesn't. My argument is that things can be taken out of context and twisted. At this point we are talking about men and their obligations. We have not talked about women and their obligations at this point. You mention the submission of women to men in christianity. An example of this is often twisted by the FEMS to justify orfination of female clergy. There is a part of the resurection story where Jesus appears to some women and he tells them to go tell their husbands where they can find him. The FEMS take this out of context and try to say Jesus is giving them license to preach and minister.  In a larger context Jesus is telling them to go get the person that is the final authority in the family, in this case the man so that he can be recognized. I have to appolagize for not being able to cit chapter and vers from the bible it has been years since I went to Sunday School or attended church regularly.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Christiane on Jul 17, 2006, 06:04 PM
I voted no.   I think feminism is just plain wrong, and good people of all religions have been misguided.   Brainwashed in fact.  None of us are immune to brainwashing.   That's what we need to counter with truth.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 17, 2006, 06:10 PM
Quote from: "BRIAN"
No it doesn't. My argument is that things can be taken out of context and twisted. At this point we are talking about men and their obligations. We have not talked about women and their obligations at this point. You mention the submission of women to men in christianity. An example of this is often twisted by the FEMS to justify orfination of female clergy. There is a part of the resurection story where Jesus appears to some women and he tells them to go tell their husbands where they can find him. The FEMS take this out of context and try to say Jesus is giving them license to preach and minister.  In a larger context Jesus is telling them to go get the person that is the final authority in the family, in this case the man so that he can be recognized. I have to appolagize for not being able to cit chapter and vers from the bible it has been years since I went to Sunday School or attended church regularly.


Fair enough. Now how was what I quoted taken out of context and twisted?

Is there another, correct interpretation regarding the biblical imperitive that men sacrifice for their wives as Christ sacrificed for the church?

Because I've also read the writings of Christian men who seem to interpret that verse to mean, literally, that men provide and sacrifice for their wives' wellbeing.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: BRIAN on Jul 17, 2006, 06:23 PM
Quote
Fair enough. Now how was what I quoted taken out of context and twisted?

Is there another, correct interpretation regarding the biblical imperitive that men sacrifice for their wives as Christ sacrificed for the church?

Because I've also read the writings of Christian men who seem to interpret that verse to mean, literally, that men provide and sacrifice for their wives' wellbeing.


You are taking it out of context by isolationg it and not talking about the wifely obligations the bible spells out that go hand in hand with it. And so what if some men write about a litteral intepretation, if you truly love someone you will sacrifice for their well being. There are Holy Roller Pentcostals who take things out of context to justify handeling snakes and drinking strychnine at their services. Does that make Christianity bad? What about Jehovahs Witness' who refuse blood transfusion because they take an old testament passage about consuming blood(It was part of a pagan ritual forbiden by Kosherite law) out of context to mean taking blood into the body in any way? That is what I mean by taking things out of context.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Sir Jessy of Anti on Jul 17, 2006, 06:24 PM
Quote
Yes, but what does it *mean* to be the head of someone you sacrifice everything for?


It can mean many different things.  A team is a unit that needs to work together to achieve, and teams benefit from leaders (as an example).

I am saying it is simplistic to view the christian theology through the lens of feministic paradigms, which you unwittingly seem to do.
.
I am not a christian, but I guarantee I have read more scripture than you care to.
My interpretation is that the scripture doesn't mean what you infer it to mean when you quote it in isolation.  
A living work has a framework, and you can't pick and choose elements of that framework to make your case in isolation.  

Equally, scripture shows that wives have little choice when a husband chooses an actionable course and follows it.  Are we to infer that they were simply following the omnipotent commanding vagina of the day?
Perhaps they were so whipped they built golden vaginas and self-flagellated themselves before ordering their wives  and children to do that which they commanded?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 17, 2006, 06:28 PM
Quote from: "BRIAN"

You are taking it out of context by isolationg it and not talking about the wifely obligations the bible spells out that go hand in hand with it. And so what if some men write about a litteral intepretation, if you truly love someone you will sacrifice for their well being.


I'm trying to place the concept of "submit" into the context of "to someone who sacrifices for you."

I haven't ignored the context.

What is your interpretation of this scripture?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Daymar on Jul 17, 2006, 06:32 PM
Quote from: "Sir Jessy of Anti"
Equally, scripture shows that wives have little choice when a husband chooses an actionable course and follows it.


That is a leftover from before Christianity. Once Christianity is around for awhile and the man's actions are based around sacrificing for his wife, the man's authority doesn't really matter a whole lot anymore since he would be doing what his wife wants him too anyway.

What are the comparitive scriptures that talk about the wife sacrificing for the husband?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 17, 2006, 06:33 PM
Quote from: "Sir Jessy of Anti"
Quote
Yes, but what does it *mean* to be the head of someone you sacrifice everything for?


It can mean many different things.  A team is a unit that needs to work together to achieve, and teams benefit from leaders (as an example).


I notice you didn't answer the question I posed to you.

Quote
I am saying it is simplistic to view the christian theology through the lens of feministic paradigms, which you unwittingly seem to do.


Explain what you mean by this? What does "feministic paradigm" mean?
I'm interpreting "sacrifice for your wife" as "sacrifice for your wife".

Quote
I am not a christian, but I guarantee I have read more scripture than you care to.
My interpretation is that the scripture doesn't mean what you infer it to mean when you quote it in isolation.  
A living work has a framework, and you can't pick and choose elements of that framework to make your case in isolation.


Right. So there is more scripture then exsists in the bible? Because I have read it.

Quote
Equally, scripture shows that wives have little choice when a husband chooses an actionable course and follows it.  Are we to infer that they were simply following the omnipotent commanding vagina of the day?


And the end result of this "actionable course" is that a woman benefits. Again can a Christian man use his authority as "head of the household" to deliberately hurt his wife or, more pragmatically, pursue his own self-interest?

Or is he, as it's stated IN THE BIBLE, to use his authority to sacrifice himself to her benefit?

Quote
Perhaps they were so whipped they built golden vaginas and self-flagellated themselves before ordering their wives  and children to do that which they commanded?


Now you're just being silly.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: BRIAN on Jul 17, 2006, 06:39 PM
Quote
I'm trying to place the concept of "submit" into the context of "to someone who sacrifices for you."


To me it means the female must submit in this case because the male sacrifices. The male must make sacrifices to the female because he is given the authority. You may have heard of the term "noblesse oblige" it means nobility obliges. It was the same concept but applied to lord and serf in fuedal society. The Lord of the manor was granted almost absolute legal authority over the serfs on his holdings. In exchange for this he was obliged to protect them, got to war and put his life on the line for them, hear their disputes and render judgement(holding court) and a whole lot of ther stuff in exchange for power. At first being lord and master seems like a cool job untill you find out about the other part of the job that goes with it.
Title: Re: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: woof on Jul 17, 2006, 06:41 PM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Just thought I'd start a poll to see people's opinions on the issue.

My personal opinion is that Christianity encouraged men to judge themselves by their sacrifices to women which laid the social groundwork for a misandrous movement like feminism.

What say you all?

Disagree totally......I can't quote Bible verses, but I think that it is safe to say hard line Chirstianity is harder on woman than men in the "demands" that it asks.

Chirstians that I know think that feminisim is the devils work because of abortions, sexual freedom, and of course a "woman belongs in the home".

For Chirstian woman it is an honor to have a family and stay at home. Also the wife in a Chirstian family will honor her husband as the head of the household, and the decession maker.

The roles for men and woman are pretty clearly stated in the Bible, this goes against everything "feminist".
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 17, 2006, 06:50 PM
Quote from: "BRIAN"
Quote
I'm trying to place the concept of "submit" into the context of "to someone who sacrifices for you."


To me it means the female must submit in this case because the male sacrifices. The male must make sacrifices to the female because he is given the authority. You may have heard of the term "noblesse oblige" it means nobility obliges. It was the same concept but applied to lord and serf in fuedal society. The Lord of the manor was granted almost absolute legal authority over the serfs on his holdings. In exchange for this he was obliged to protect them, got to war and put his life on the line for them, hear their disputes and render judgement(holding court) and a whole lot of ther stuff in exchange for power. At first being lord and master seems like a cool job untill you find out about the other part of the job that goes with it.


Is the concept of the husband sacrificing to the wife as clear cut as "noblesse oblige"? What are the limitations to this? Are their provisions for when the husband's self interest conflicts with his commandment to "sacrifice to his wife?"

BTW, if the chrstian concept of marriage is parallel to "noblesse oblige", then the Roman concept of marriage at the time of the early church is parallel to slavery. No need to sacrifice to the wife since, technically, she's your property to do with what you will.

Submiting to someone who is commanded to keep your best interests at heart (by pain of possible damnation) is a damn sight better then submitting to someone who is under no obligation to consider your interests in the slightest.

Christianity was the first Woman's Rights movement for this reason alone. Wife goes from base, quasi-slave to center of the husband's spiritual life and the avenue by which the husband is spiritually uplifted.
Title: Re: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 17, 2006, 06:58 PM
Quote from: "woof"

Disagree totally......I can't quote Bible verses, but I think that it is safe to say hard line Chirstianity is harder on woman than men in the "demands" that it asks.


Like what? Christians demand both women *and* men be chaste and not promiscuous or adulterous.

Is there anything that Christians demand of women that doesn't have a parallel demand for men?

Quote
Chirstians that I know think that feminisim is the devils work because of abortions, sexual freedom, and of course a "woman belongs in the home".


The early feminists were anti-contraceptive, most likily anti-abortion as well. Regardless of their stance on abortion, feminists are very anti-sex (at least sex-with-men), just like the early Christian feminists.

As for "women belonging in the home", take a gander at this:

Proverbs 31:10-31 Who can find a virtuous woman? ... She looks for wool and flax And works with her hands in delight. She is like merchant ships; She brings her food from afar. She rises also while it is still night And gives food to her household And portions to her maidens. She considers a field and buys it; From her earnings she plants a vineyard. She girds herself with strength And makes her arms strong. She senses that her gain is good; Her lamp does not go out at night. She stretches out her hands to the distaff, And her hands grasp the spindle. She extends her hand to the poor, And she stretches out her hands to the needy. She is not afraid of the snow for her household, For all her household are clothed with scarlet. She makes coverings for herself; Her clothing is fine linen and purple. Her husband is known in the gates, When he sits among the elders of the land. She makes linen garments and sells them, And supplies belts to the tradesmen. Strength and dignity are her clothing, And she smiles at the future. She opens her mouth in wisdom, And the teaching of kindness is on her tongue. She looks well to the ways of her household, And does not eat the bread of idleness. Her children rise up and bless her; Her husband also, and he praises her, saying: "Many daughters have done nobly, But you excel them all." Charm is deceitful and beauty is vain, But a woman who fears the LORD, she shall be praised. Give her the product of her hands, And let her works praise her in the gates.

Sounds like women had a place working as well as "at home."

Quote
For Chirstian woman it is an honor to have a family and stay at home. Also the wife in a Chirstian family will honor her husband as the head of the household, and the decession maker.


It's an honor for a Christian woman to stay at home? Yet the scriptures make a virtuous woman out to be a bit of a tradesperson and shopkeep. And *also* someone who does not abide by idle time.

Quote
The roles for men and woman are pretty clearly stated in the Bible, this goes against everything "feminist".


I never said Feminism == Chrstianity, only that Christianity was one of the major elements that paved the way for Feminism to take root in our society.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Laboratory Mike on Jul 17, 2006, 07:04 PM
It seems I've come by just in time to make a particular point:

"The greastest heresy of the 20th and early 21st cetury is that the Bible is a set of instructions about how to deal with 20th century social issues."

I suppose that people have been trying to force the Bible to say one thing or another, in the sense that preists of most every religion have been trying to get God to join their side. But the Bible speaks for itself, and if more people read it, they'd find that it doesn't say much about social issues.

It mostly talks about God, and what our standing relative to Him is, and how to change it. Unsurprisingly.

Of course, because we live in a physical world, there are also physical needs, and physical distractions that take someone away from God. There is a lot written about how to deal with such things. One interesting and relevant teaching is that it is better if a man does not marry and instead fully devote his time to God, but if he can't handle doing so because he has a strong sex drive, he is encouraged to marry. Same for women. You can read it in 1 Corinthinans 7. Keep in mind that, once again, these things aren't about how a society ought to be, so much as how a believer can minimze physical distractions and maximize his relationship/standing with God. It does so to such an extent that it scares someone who can fully comprehend what it is really saying.

To answer the question... the other problem we have in trying to interpret something that is thousands of years old is the fact that we are living under a different set of conditions here is the modern West than the people of... everyone until about the 20s, and still all people in the 3rd world nations. A housewife then is not like a housewife now, nor was life then like life now. Think about simple things like cooking, cleaning, and taking care of the kids. Such things would have taken all day instead of an hour, and men would not have been able to stop at McDonalds for lunch. There was no social safety net either; if you went broke you were out on the streets, and you often starved. That's why the relationship dynami then was one in which the man was the breadwinner, and the wife the bread-maker. The man could not do both like he is forced to now, and if he was in those times, he would have worn out quickly, thereby being unable being able to bring home enough money and/or food for the family to survive. So, in a move of brilliance, the family unit was designed so that it would have the best possible odds of suriving; the one most able to work outside the home goes first, and the second if needed/able. If not, it was the job of the one staying at the home, usually the woman, to make sure that everything the man wasn't doing was taken care of. I think Angry Harry wrote a good article on it, which indicates that the way things worked until very recently are a matter of fact, and not of any matriarchal conspiracy.

For the question of "from where came feminism," I don't know, though my personal speculation is that it got going around the time of the Victorian era, when women were put on a pedestal. since then, the "women as nearly divine beings" concept has grown and grown, and unsurprisingly, it grew as Christianity began to sink. I'd also point out that feminist-controlled churches have been shrinking and shrinking, while in the US, the more "conservative" ones are growing, and that many Christians are identifying with the MRM while feminists bash Christianity as patriarchal.

Those are my two bits.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 17, 2006, 07:15 PM
Quote from: "Laboratory Mike"
For the question of "from where came feminism," I don't know, though my personal speculation is that it got going around the time of the Victorian era, when women were put on a pedestal.


But they were put on a pedestal in a *Christian* context.

Quote
Since then, the "women as nearly divine beings" concept has grown and grown, and unsurprisingly, it grew as Christianity began to sink.


Perhaps it is because feminism offered a competing womanist paradigm that provided more benefits to women without as many restrictions?

Quote
I'd also point out that feminist-controlled churches have been shrinking and shrinking, while in the US, the more "conservative" ones are growing, and that many Christians are identifying with the MRM while feminists bash Christianity as patriarchal.


Special Report: The American Church in Crisis (http://www.christianitytoday.com/outreach/articles/americanchurchcrisis.html)

Church attendance is declining both absolutely and as a preportion of the population of the US.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Laboratory Mike on Jul 17, 2006, 07:23 PM
It looks like Typhon noted a few other things while writing. I'll put in one more answer.

Quote
Like what? Christians demand both women *and* men be chaste and not promiscuous or adulterous.

Is there anything that Christians demand of women that doesn't have a parallel demand for men?


The guy you were quoting wasn't quite right in saying that women had it harder, because there is equal accountability. In Old Testament law, both the man and woman were punished with death for adultery, incest, and a few others (in Leviticus 20), and in Deuteronomy 22, a married or betrothed woman who is caught lying with a man cannot accuse him of rape once caught, given it can be demonstrated she had opportunity to cry for help. In other words, we see the first law that deals with a false accusation of rape coming from deep in the Old Testament. And, of course, don't forget the slew of warnings about adulterous women all throughout Proverbs. Based on these quotes, you could almost say that the Bible was the original MRA literature before the Movement existed, but then again, it's goal is to help believers, and not to take sides in our politics.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 17, 2006, 07:30 PM
Quote from: "Laboratory Mike"
The guy you were quoting wasn't quite right in saying that women had it harder, because there is equal accountability. In Old Testament law, both the man and woman were punished with death for adultery, incest, and a few others (in Leviticus 20), and in Deuteronomy 22, a married or betrothed woman who is caught lying with a man cannot accuse him of rape once caught, given it can be demonstrated she had opportunity to cry for help. In other words, we see the first law that deals with a false accusation of rape coming from deep in the Old Testament. And, of course, don't forget the slew of warnings about adulterous women all throughout Proverbs. Based on these quotes, you could almost say that the Bible was the original MRA literature before the Movement existed, but then again, it's goal is to help believers, and not to take sides in our politics.


The only problem with that line of reasoning is this... prior to Christianity, the social mileu was inequitable. Women were punished with greater severity for adultery, incest, homosexual behavior and so on.

In *equalizing* the punishments between the sexes the Bible was *elevating* the situation of women.

Now, in a situation where women are treated with greater lenience, we see a situation of equality as a pro-MRA position.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Sir Jessy of Anti on Jul 17, 2006, 07:33 PM
Quote from: "Daymar"
Quote from: "Sir Jessy of Anti"
Equally, scripture shows that wives have little choice when a husband chooses an actionable course and follows it.


That is a leftover from before Christianity. Once Christianity is around for awhile and the man's actions are based around sacrificing for his wife, the man's authority doesn't really matter a whole lot anymore since he would be doing what his wife wants him too anyway.

What are the comparitive scriptures that talk about the wife sacrificing for the husband?


Titus 2:4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,  

Tts 2:5 [To be] discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.  

Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.  

Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.  

Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing.  

Col 3:18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.  

1Pe 3:7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with [them] according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

1Pe 3:5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:  

and

Quote

Proverbs 31
1The words of king Lemuel, the prophecy that his mother taught him.

2What, my son? and what, the son of my womb? and what, the son of my vows?

3Give not thy strength unto women, nor thy ways to that which destroyeth kings.

[..]

10Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.

11The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil.

12She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life.

13She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands.

14She is like the merchants' ships; she bringeth her food from afar.

15She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens.

16She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard.

17She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms.

18She perceiveth that her merchandise is good: her candle goeth not out by night.

19She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff.

20She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy.

21She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet.

22She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple.

23Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land.

24She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant.

25Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come.

26She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness.

27She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness.

28Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her.

29Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all.

30Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the LORD, she shall be praised.

31Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 17, 2006, 07:37 PM
Quote from: "Sir Jessy of Anti"
Quote from: "Daymar"
Quote from: "Sir Jessy of Anti"
Equally, scripture shows that wives have little choice when a husband chooses an actionable course and follows it.


That is a leftover from before Christianity. Once Christianity is around for awhile and the man's actions are based around sacrificing for his wife, the man's authority doesn't really matter a whole lot anymore since he would be doing what his wife wants him too anyway.

What are the comparitive scriptures that talk about the wife sacrificing for the husband?



Sir Jessy, to be completely accurate Daymar spoke of the wife _sacrificing_ for her husband, not obeying or submitting.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Sir Jessy of Anti on Jul 17, 2006, 07:40 PM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Quote from: "Sir Jessy of Anti"
Quote from: "Daymar"
Quote from: "Sir Jessy of Anti"
Equally, scripture shows that wives have little choice when a husband chooses an actionable course and follows it.


That is a leftover from before Christianity. Once Christianity is around for awhile and the man's actions are based around sacrificing for his wife, the man's authority doesn't really matter a whole lot anymore since he would be doing what his wife wants him too anyway.

What are the comparitive scriptures that talk about the wife sacrificing for the husband?



Sir Jessy, to be completely accurate Daymar spoke of the wife _sacrificing_ for her husband, not obeying or submitting.


And that is completely covered in Proverbs 31.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Sir Jessy of Anti on Jul 17, 2006, 07:44 PM
Though Galt may have issue with some of it, the undeniable conclusion is that wives were instructed not to be idle and be constructive with their knowlege, using it to better the husband and family.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 17, 2006, 07:45 PM
Quote from: "Sir Jessy of Anti"
Quote from: "Daymar"
Quote from: "Sir Jessy of Anti"
Equally, scripture shows that wives have little choice when a husband chooses an actionable course and follows it.


That is a leftover from before Christianity. Once Christianity is around for awhile and the man's actions are based around sacrificing for his wife, the man's authority doesn't really matter a whole lot anymore since he would be doing what his wife wants him too anyway.

What are the comparitive scriptures that talk about the wife sacrificing for the husband?



Sir Jessy, to be completely accurate Daymar spoke of the wife _sacrificing_ for her husband, not obeying or submitting.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Laboratory Mike on Jul 17, 2006, 07:49 PM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Quote from: "Laboratory Mike"
For the question of "from where came feminism," I don't know, though my personal speculation is that it got going around the time of the Victorian era, when women were put on a pedestal.


But they were put on a pedestal in a *Christian* context.


The established churches commit as much blasphemy as anyone else, and I don't see the Victorian Era as an exception. Disparities between what Christians did versus what God wants them to do has caused problems for as long as Christians have been around.

Quote
Quote
Since then, the "women as nearly divine beings" concept has grown and grown, and unsurprisingly, it grew as Christianity began to sink.


Perhaps it is because feminism offered a competing womanist paradigm that provided more benefits to women without as many restrictions?

This I can partially agree with. Laborato's Theorum (I came up with it, and will have the written article on my website soon) states that all behavior is a function of environment, genetics, and beliefs, and that beliefs are almost always constant. Typically, belief will resolve to acting purely in self-interest, and because of this, women chose to abandon the victorian-style power in favor of femnist-style power because they wanted 100% power with no responsibilities. However, that paradigm didn't exist until this century, so the more powerful women in the old days played on men's sense of religion. Now they are playing on men's sexual desires, but the game didn't change, which was self-interest.

Quote
Quote
I'd also point out that feminist-controlled churches have been shrinking and shrinking, while in the US, the more "conservative" ones are growing, and that many Christians are identifying with the MRM while feminists bash Christianity as patriarchal.


Special Report: The American Church in Crisis (http://www.christianitytoday.com/outreach/articles/americanchurchcrisis.html)

Church attendance is declining both absolutely and as a preportion of the population of the US.


That article didn't split up the denominations. As a whole the churches are shrinking, though Penetcostals and Southern Baptists are still experiencing growth. It may not last forever, but for now, in humanistic terms, they are providing an anchor for people mentally, and in spiritual terms, they are at least making an attempt to stand up for truth, though they have their problems.

Unfortunately, people who say they believe rarely attempt to do what is right. I personally believe that the exponentiating deception we are seeing will lead to some sort of disaster, kinda like Isaiah 57, but I won't make claims about it. Either way, when I signed on I never imagined that there would only be a few handfuls of men standing against what sometimes feels like a sea of hypocrites. However despite some of my own issues with a few churches, I will do what I can, and I hope you do what you can to make things right here in the MRA world Typhon. Even if you don't see things from my perspective, we're in this MRA deal regardless.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Sir Jessy of Anti on Jul 17, 2006, 07:52 PM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Quote from: "Sir Jessy of Anti"
Quote from: "Daymar"
Quote from: "Sir Jessy of Anti"
Equally, scripture shows that wives have little choice when a husband chooses an actionable course and follows it.


That is a leftover from before Christianity. Once Christianity is around for awhile and the man's actions are based around sacrificing for his wife, the man's authority doesn't really matter a whole lot anymore since he would be doing what his wife wants him too anyway.

What are the comparitive scriptures that talk about the wife sacrificing for the husband?



Sir Jessy, to be completely accurate Daymar spoke of the wife _sacrificing_ for her husband, not obeying or submitting.


Umm, as I said that is covered in Proverbs 31.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 17, 2006, 07:59 PM
Quote from: "Sir Jessy of Anti"
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Quote from: "Sir Jessy of Anti"
Quote from: "Daymar"
Quote from: "Sir Jessy of Anti"
Equally, scripture shows that wives have little choice when a husband chooses an actionable course and follows it.


That is a leftover from before Christianity. Once Christianity is around for awhile and the man's actions are based around sacrificing for his wife, the man's authority doesn't really matter a whole lot anymore since he would be doing what his wife wants him too anyway.

What are the comparitive scriptures that talk about the wife sacrificing for the husband?



Sir Jessy, to be completely accurate Daymar spoke of the wife _sacrificing_ for her husband, not obeying or submitting.


Umm, as I said that is covered in Proverbs 31.


I acidentally repeated my statement.

I'm guessing you're refering to "31:12 She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life."

Now, I guess we have to figure out which applies more directly to the application of Christianity, commandments from an apostle in the New Testament or proverbs from the Old?

Incidentally, one commands all men to do X while the other is describing a virtuous woman not commanding them to do X.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 17, 2006, 08:01 PM
Quote from: "Laboratory Mike"
However despite some of my own issues with a few churches, I will do what I can, and I hope you do what you can to make things right here in the MRA world Typhon. Even if you don't see things from my perspective, we're in this MRA deal regardless.


Ultimately I see the situation this way.

The Church handed modern women a gun(it could be said they handed Victorian women a cross-bow). Women used it. The result was feminism.

Some people take the approach of saying "hey! you're being mean, stop using that gun, please!"

I believe in equality. If women have a gun, men should have a gun or no one should have a gun.

Since I don't think we can go backwards, I want to try and develop a goddamn gun to give to men.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Sir Jessy of Anti on Jul 17, 2006, 08:04 PM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Quote from: "Sir Jessy of Anti"
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Quote from: "Sir Jessy of Anti"
Quote from: "Daymar"
Quote from: "Sir Jessy of Anti"
Equally, scripture shows that wives have little choice when a husband chooses an actionable course and follows it.


That is a leftover from before Christianity. Once Christianity is around for awhile and the man's actions are based around sacrificing for his wife, the man's authority doesn't really matter a whole lot anymore since he would be doing what his wife wants him too anyway.

What are the comparitive scriptures that talk about the wife sacrificing for the husband?



Sir Jessy, to be completely accurate Daymar spoke of the wife _sacrificing_ for her husband, not obeying or submitting.


Umm, as I said that is covered in Proverbs 31.


I acidentally repeated my statement.

I'm guessing you're refering to "31:12 She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life."

Now, I guess we have to figure out which applies more directly to the application of Christianity, commandments from an apostle in the New Testament or proverbs from the Old?

Incidentally, one commands all men to do X while the other is describing a virtuous woman not commanding them to do X.


Are you ignoring the all of the other texts I quoted from both the new and old that commanded wives to do X (i.e. obey their husbands)?  Let's do oranges and oranges not apples and watermelons.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 17, 2006, 08:12 PM
Quote
Quote
Quote from: "Sir Jessy of Anti"

Sir Jessy, to be completely accurate Daymar spoke of the wife _sacrificing_ for her husband, not obeying or submitting.


Umm, as I said that is covered in Proverbs 31.


I acidentally repeated my statement.

I'm guessing you're refering to "31:12 She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life."

Now, I guess we have to figure out which applies more directly to the application of Christianity, commandments from an apostle in the New Testament or proverbs from the Old?

Incidentally, one commands all men to do X while the other is describing a virtuous woman not commanding them to do X.


Are you ignoring the all of the other texts I quoted from both the new and old that commanded wives to do X (i.e. obey their husbands)?  Let's do oranges and oranges not apples and watermelons.[/quote]

Then find a new testament verse that says "wives should sacrifice to their husbands."

What you found was a description of a virtuous woman, and verses that commanded women to submit or obay.

Incidentally it stands to reason that a virtuous wife(or husband) would not do evil onto their spouse.

But this sacrifice thing is something new. What is it that men are required to sacrifice in particular?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Christiane on Jul 17, 2006, 08:13 PM
Quote
And that is completely covered in Proverbs 31.


Yes, it is.  I don't live up to that measure by any means, but thank you for quoting it as the goal.

It's funny - we in the more "liberal" church tend to be apologetic about these sorts of passages.

But the more experience I have in the world, the more I think we should seriously consider what God is telling us here.   The message is, Work Hard,  Love Your Family,  Sacrifice for Them...

Get Up Early and Work Hard.....

I guess my response is - OK - that's what we should do !   The tendency in the modern world is to take passages like these and "filter" them ....      

But I think now, just like then, it's only after a very hard day of tending our sheep, our olive trees, and our children, that we can be truly content.   Only then, can we enjoy the mental peace that comes from enjoying each other's company in the quiet breeze of the cool evening....

Or watching Millionaire...  whatever..  lol
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Sir Jessy of Anti on Jul 17, 2006, 08:17 PM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Quote from: "Sir Jessy of Anti"

Sir Jessy, to be completely accurate Daymar spoke of the wife _sacrificing_ for her husband, not obeying or submitting.


Umm, as I said that is covered in Proverbs 31.


Quote
I acidentally repeated my statement.

I'm guessing you're refering to "31:12 She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life."

Now, I guess we have to figure out which applies more directly to the application of Christianity, commandments from an apostle in the New Testament or proverbs from the Old?

Incidentally, one commands all men to do X while the other is describing a virtuous woman not commanding them to do X.


Quote

Are you ignoring the all of the other texts I quoted from both the new and old that commanded wives to do X (i.e. obey their husbands)?  Let's do oranges and oranges not apples and watermelons.


Quote

Then find a new testament verse that says "wives should sacrifice to their husbands."

What you found was a description of a virtuous woman, and verses that commanded women to submit or obay.

Incidentally it stands to reason that a virtuous wife(or husband) would not do evil onto their spouse.

But this sacrifice thing is something new. What is it that men are required to sacrifice in particular?


Well, I would venture that sacrifice can be considered as submission.

If you don't agree you can take it up with the dead drafted men of our century.

Also, I would submitt that you have not done intellectual justice to my argument.  Your original argument was that that christianity demands from men but not from women.  I have shown that the bible does not say anything close to that one-sided paradigm.  You have not disproved this, from what I can surmise.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: BRIAN on Jul 17, 2006, 08:31 PM
Quote from: "typhonblue"

Is the concept of the husband sacrificing to the wife as clear cut as "noblesse oblige"? What are the limitations to this? Are their provisions for when the husband's self interest conflicts with his commandment to "sacrifice to his wife?"

BTW, if the chrstian concept of marriage is parallel to "noblesse oblige", then the Roman concept of marriage at the time of the early church is parallel to slavery. No need to sacrifice to the wife since, technically, she's your property to do with what you will.

Submiting to someone who is commanded to keep your best interests at heart (by pain of possible damnation) is a damn sight better then submitting to someone who is under no obligation to consider your interests in the slightest.

Christianity was the first Woman's Rights movement for this reason alone. Wife goes from base, quasi-slave to center of the husband's spiritual life and the avenue by which the husband is spiritually uplifted.



Um... I think you are reaching a little bit with the argument that Christianity was the first womens movement. One of the things with Christ teaching was that you had to do more than go through the motions of faith and obey the Dogma of the religion. In the time of the Pharasee's Dogma had become more important than faith in god. Doctors would not treat the sick on the Sabath Day, people would let the house of their neighbor burn rather than violate the restriction on labor during the Sabath and help cary water to put out the flames. This was one of the reasons Christ was persecuted by the Pharasees, he went against their Dogma. The husband is not "spiritually uplifted" by the wife He is spirtually uplifted by his relationship with God. Christ just made it clear that you had to walk the walk as well as talk the talk to have that relationship. I have tried to explain my postion but you can't comprehend what I am saying or you refuse to. I don't believe for a second that you can't comprehend it so that leaves the refusal part. It seems to me that you have an agenda with this other than Femenism\Mens Rights so rather than fan the flames of a theological war I am going to bow out at this time. Just for the record if you are an atheist I am cool with it. I am a Christian that has a great deal of disdain for organized religion and churches.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Daymar on Jul 17, 2006, 08:58 PM
Quote from: "Sir Jessy of Anti"
Also, I would submitt that you have not done intellectual justice to my argument.  Your original argument was that that christianity demands from men but not from women.


Maybe you're referring to a different argument but I think this argument is about this "Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?"

So the simple question is, what gave women the freedom to protest for rights? The reason men were willing to listen to those protestations is because the man is the head of the household and the leader, but Christianity also says that he has to listen to the wants of the wife as well, which is not as much the case in other cultures. And that's the reason that in those other cultures feminism isn't created, but it was in ours.

All the other details about whether the wife is expected to submit to the husband or not in the relationship is irrelevant because it's CLEAR that the husband has to do things for the wife. That is what gave feminism the ability to be created.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 17, 2006, 09:23 PM
Quote from: "BRIAN"
The husband is not "spiritually uplifted" by the wife He is spirtually uplifted by his relationship with God.


And part of that relationship with God involves sacrificing for his wife. I assume, by likening this sacrifice to that of Christ, the implication is that the man becomes more Christ-like through his sacrifice to his wife.

Quote
I have tried to explain my postion but you can't comprehend what I am saying or you refuse to.


I'm afraid you have to put me in the "can't comprehend" camp.

No, I'm not an atheist.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 17, 2006, 09:31 PM
Quote from: "Sir Jessy of Anti"
Well, I would venture that sacrifice can be considered as submission.


"To give up" and "to make sacred" are two definitions of the word "sacrifice".

"Yeilding to the control of another" is the definition of submit that I assume is relevant.

If sacrifice can be considered submission does it then follow that the Christian husband submits to his wife?

Quote
Also, I would submitt that you have not done intellectual justice to my argument.  Your original argument was that that christianity demands from men but not from women.  I have shown that the bible does not say anything close to that one-sided paradigm.  You have not disproved this, from what I can surmise.


I don't need to prove that argument because I did not set it forward. My argument is that Christianity demands more from *men* then the patriarchal society that preceeded it.

I never argued that Christianity did not demand that women submit to their husbands or that it did not demand that women abide by a system of behaviors and mores.

In order for something to be concerned with Women's Rights it need only champion a *better* situation for women then what came before it. Thus the suffragettes were concerned with Women's Rights, the Christian Reform movements were concerned with Women's Rights and the early Christians were concerned with Women's Rights. All of these groups would probably look on today and be aghast, but, for their time, they were concerned with advancing Women's Rights.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Christiane on Jul 17, 2006, 09:44 PM
Quote
"To give up" and "to make sacred" are two definitions of the word "sacrifice".

"Yeilding to the control of another" is the definition of submit that I assume is relevant.

If sacrifice can be considered submission does it then follow that the Christian husband submits to his wife?


I have followed this, and as a Christian however, in all honesty, tb is correct here.

Submission is "yielding to the control of another".   The Bible uses this word for wives,  as opposed to "obedience" for children and slaves.

The Christian husband is to sacrifice for his wife, and this is NOT submission.  It is a higher calling altogether.   He is called to love his wife, and sacrifice himself for her, as Christ sacrificed himself for the church.  

This is in the context of the hierarchy of the family order, however, in which the wife is to submit, and the children and slaves are to obey.   But nowhere does the Bible say that if they don't, that the husband is released from his obligation to love his wife as his own body, and to sacrifice himself for her as Christ sacrificed himself for the Church.

It's a very tall order for men, and the Bible is very clear on that responsibility toward men as head of the family, as Christ is head of the church.

Even conservative theologians agree this is a tall order for men.   I happen to think God knew what He was doing.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Christiane on Jul 17, 2006, 09:57 PM
Quote
Even conservative theologians agree this is a tall order for men. I happen to think God knew what He was doing.


sorry - religious opinions are often misunderstood, and usually disagreed with - just to clarify I think God placed this responsibility on men for very good reasons.    I have observed that when men are able to assume their natural authority within the family, things run much more smoothly.   There is a greater tendency toward harmony, and it just seems to me, just perhaps, God was looking out for us when He told us how to order ourselves.   As in so many of the other things God told us to do/not to do.  

Let's face it - once women grabbed the wheel, all manner of ills decended on society.

Just a thought.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 17, 2006, 10:17 PM
Quote from: "Christiane"

Let's face it - once women grabbed the wheel, all manner of ills decended on society.


But they didn't grab the wheel. They just told men where to steer it. Or, rather, they implied men were steering it for the benefit of themselves, not women.

Even now women are a minority of politicians, CEOs, deans, editors... yet they have a disproportionate amount of influence.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Galt on Jul 17, 2006, 10:30 PM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Even now women are a minority of politicians, CEOs, deans, editors... yet they have a disproportionate amount of influence.


That's really a core idea.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 17, 2006, 10:49 PM
Quote from: "Galt"
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Even now women are a minority of politicians, CEOs, deans, editors... yet they have a disproportionate amount of influence.


That's really a core idea.


The question really is... how do women exact such influence when men are, technically, in control?

And the problem is not that men aren't the leaders, because they *are* and never stopped being(at least the majority), but that they use their power to benefit women to a rediculous extreme.

If men woke up tomorrow and decided to not use their power to benefit women, feminism would be over in a heart beat.

But they don't, no matter how much, collectively, they are hurt by it.

Almost like they're enthralled by some other, greater power that has nothing to do with being the "head" of anything.

Theres something more here... but it's going to take a day or too to come out right I think.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Daymar on Jul 17, 2006, 10:52 PM
---
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Galt on Jul 17, 2006, 10:54 PM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
If men woke up tomorrow and decided to not use their power to benefit women, feminism would be over in a heart beat.


Yaah, I know that.  I'm personally outside of the "power circle"; at most, I just want some money, and I want people to otherwise leave me alone.

But look at Bill Clinton giving Monica Lewinsky the President's ear (so to speak, and not just his ear).  It's not just the PowerFraus with their power attitudes, but also all of the other weasels (men and women) who elbow their way into something.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Christiane on Jul 17, 2006, 11:15 PM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Quote from: "Christiane"

Let's face it - once women grabbed the wheel, all manner of ills decended on society.


But they didn't grab the wheel. They just told men where to steer it. Or, rather, they implied men were steering it for the benefit of themselves, not women.

Even now women are a minority of politicians, CEOs, deans, editors... yet they have a disproportionate amount of influence.


OK, so what do you propose to do about it?   Quotas?   I can cite the success of that, lol....    

What would make you happy on this score,tb?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 18, 2006, 01:50 AM
Women comprise the majority of the voting electorate and all politicians fear that.  Couple that with pols like Feinstein, Boxer, Clinton, etc. who allege to speak for all women and you perceive a real problem if you are any pol who's trying to oppose the gender feminist agenda in politics.  VAWA is but one glaring example of gender feminism running amok.

There are many ignorant male pols (Republicans) who think that being perceived as chivalrous to women is necessary, and others males (Dems) who believe following the gender feminist agenda is the politically correct thing to do.

With over 750 women's studies programs furthering this confusion, not to mention over 270 women's commissions, attempts to educate/re-educate gender feminist indoctrinated pols is a daunting task.  Did I mention there are only a single digit number of Men's Studies Programs  and Men's Commissions combined.  Men who speak up are perceived as whiners or lunatics.   What equality between the two sexes is, is being left up to the interpretation of gender feminist political hacks to determine in the halls of congress IMO.  I blame the influence of gender feminism for all these problems:?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: hansside on Jul 18, 2006, 02:48 AM
Feminism started out as a perfectly justified movement. Women - like men - are rational moral agents and thus should be equals in front of the law.

This part might have something to do with the individualism of Christianity and the idea that we are all equals in front of God.

Since then feminism has been warped in a bad way to become group based which is the opposite of Christianity's insistence on individuality.

The bad kind of feminism has been increasing as Christianity has been declining, thus I find Typhonblues theory unlikely.

Indeed, I see feminism going bad as they started to Worship the State.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: zarby on Jul 18, 2006, 03:55 AM
A really good "head" of any organization always sacrifices.

It requires hard work, dedication, vision, etc.

A good head of the household necessarily sacrifices for his
wife and children.

I see no inconsistency here at all.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: zarby on Jul 18, 2006, 04:04 AM
I don't there is anything wrong with men having an orientation of service towards women (and children). I think that is a good thing. It is good from a societal standpoint and also it promotes the well being of the individual man. I can think of no greater happiness than serving one's family.

The problem now is that a man receives no respect or appreciation. In fact, he receives absolute contempt. He is not respected if he succeeds. He is only punished if he fails. The woman owes him nothing no matter how hard and successful his efforts. In fact, she is almost encouraged to hold him in contempt and to attempt to destroy him.

The fate of the family unit is not joint. The wife is not encouraged to support the family unit for the joint good. In fact, she is encouraged to destroy it especially the man. My  point is that the problem is not with men serving women. The problem is with women feeling entitled to this service and giving nothing in exchange other than venom (this is all encouraged and supported by the law).
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Sir Jessy of Anti on Jul 18, 2006, 07:14 AM
Quote from: "Daymar"
Quote from: "Sir Jessy of Anti"
Also, I would submitt that you have not done intellectual justice to my argument.  Your original argument was that that christianity demands from men but not from women.


Maybe you're referring to a different argument but I think this argument is about this "Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?"


I wouldn't disagree that it may have something to do with feminism.  My original statement was that, " [..] it must be pointed out that the bible clearly had commandments for the wife, and they were much more equally exacting than any modern interpretation of law."

Can you imagine anything in our law stating that a wife must submit to her husband's authority?  LOL

I'm just saying her case is somewhat inflated.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 18, 2006, 08:02 AM
You really need to have this discussion denomination by denomination.  There is really very little similarity in beliefs between say Baptists and Unitarians.  One is "pro abortion," one is staunchly "pro life."  I suspect Unitarians strongly support the gender feminist agenda as the United Methodists appear to do through their heavy involvement in agencies like Amnesty International.  Many conservative churches are becoming more aware of how much gender feminism hates traditional church concepts such as the man is the head of the family/marriage.  The preceding explanation just scratches the surface, but you get the idea.

Therefore, IMO, TB's question as stated is very largely invalid, inasmuch as different denominations embrace gender feminist and/or traditional Patriarchal concepts very differently - yet all denominations appear to still identify themselves heavily as "Christian."
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 18, 2006, 08:59 AM
Lets bring it down to brass tacks.

Womanist movements(I'm using the word to lump together all abolitionists, suffragettes and feminists) have always exerted a far larger influence then their actual representation in the hierarchy of power. Suffragettes did not have a vote yet they successfully lobbied politicians to give them one. If those politicians had been in a patriarchal culture they would have been actively against women gaining any power. If they had been in an equitable culture they would have pointed at women's power as wives and mothers and said "checks and balances, m'lady, sorry."

Likewise women today comprise the minority of power positions in, for example, the corperate hierarchy, yet they exert far more influence then their presence should justify.

How do women manage this? What is this mysterious power that women have to force politicians (prior to attaining the vote), corperate heads, college deans, news editors... to do what they want?

Anyone want to take a stab at answering that?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 18, 2006, 09:23 AM
Quote
Likewise women today comprise the minority of power positions in, for example, the corperate hierarchy, yet they exert far more influence then their presence should justify.

How do women manage this? What is this mysterious power that women have to force politicians (prior to attaining the vote), corperate heads, college deans, news editors... to do what they want?

Anyone want to take a stab at answering that?


Gee, I haven't got a clue.  :cat3:
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Laboratory Mike on Jul 18, 2006, 10:05 AM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Lets bring it down to brass tacks.

Womanist movements(I'm using the word to lump together all abolitionists, suffragettes and feminists) have always exerted a far larger influence then their actual representation in the hierarchy of power. Suffragettes did not have a vote yet they successfully lobbied politicians to give them one. If those politicians had been in a patriarchal culture they would have been actively against women gaining any power. If they had been in an equitable culture they would have pointed at women's power as wives and mothers and said "checks and balances, m'lady, sorry."

Likewise women today comprise the minority of power positions in, for example, the corperate hierarchy, yet they exert far more influence then their presence should justify.

How do women manage this? What is this mysterious power that women have to force politicians (prior to attaining the vote), corperate heads, college deans, news editors... to do what they want?

Anyone want to take a stab at answering that?


You are hinting at a number of influences. I personally can identify two that exist at this moment.

1) You have the wife/girlfriend factor. During younger years, a man's sexual desires will cause him to do quite a lot for her, since he wants sex at some level. Also, you can consider the fact that the emotional bond causes the woman to become the man's closest advisor, and her advice might be very bad. Add that in with sexual manipulation (over at the Mancoat forum we call it "shaming tactics"), and a man who doesn't know better will be pulled under a given woman's influence. I'm sure you can dig up plenty of historical and modern examples...

2) You have women's organizations who seem to be able to do this at a second-image level. For those who don't know, second-image theories are theories that analyze groups of people as organisms. In this case, we see the first image, wives and girlfriends, exerting influence as one great organism, "women," against other organisms that were present, such as "business," "government," "the churches," and "men." To see how this happens, look at the way immigration is being handled right now. The "against immigration" group exerts influence by putting national media attention on the matter (remember the Minutemen movement and the controversy it caused?) The result is that "government" will be influenced by the fact that the "against immigration" group has been mobilized, and will provide a significant number of votes, not to mention the fact that images of angry armed men roving around the border are unacceptable. Now look at the "for immigration" organism. It is also getting national media attention, and has organized it's own voting machine. The fact that undocumented workers work for less money influences "business" into their favor, and the "business" organism thereby looks to exert influence on "government." Also, the promise of all the votes of naturalized illegal immigrants represents a prize to a significant number of those in "government." Who wins? It depends on the amount of power either group has, and who persists longer.

Now look at the "womanist" movements. Think of what benefits they can offer to organisms like "business" and "government." In particular, look at buyer loyalty and voter loyalty that is promised by advertising agencies and feminist groups, respectively. If the womanists groups are persistent enough, and the potential benefits are great enough (you'll get millions of votes if you do this), then other organisms will, typically, cave in. In theory, this means that any movement can come out of nowhere, and influence any authority it wants and win, if it can become large enough and pester a target authority long enough. This was true with feminism, gay rights, the union movement, democracy, pretty much everything. Referring back to Laborato's theorum, this is because the organism of "government" will act based on extrenal and internal influences, and even if internal influences such as beliefs are against a movement (such as feminism), it will not matter if said movement can have enough of an effect on *external* influences.

In other words, even if a patriarchal society did exist, the "woman first" organism overran it after generation upon generation of movements. Whether the first generation of "women-firsters" had planned to create the world we live in now, I don't know, but it does seem that we have seen a slow, methodical attack on men and masculinity for at least 100 years. Before then it was accepted that men and women were not perfect and that both had to "grow up and get along," but if you read your history, as early as the 20s the idea that women had the right to expect whatever they wanted from man came about, implying it didn't exist before. Like I said, I don't have a humanist explanation about why feminism came about, but I do think that, historically speaking, something like feminism comes into existance, gains power, and later wanes in the wake of another movement, or the collapse of a society. What the dynamics are, I don't know, but this seems to happen across cultures and across time.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Malakas on Jul 18, 2006, 10:19 AM
Phew!!

Those parts of the Bible that deal with rules for family life come mainly from St. Paul, the CEO of Christianity but not the founder and President. Jesus had little to say on such matters, being more concered with spiritual aspects. Paul was primarily concerned with establishing a viable church. There's much evidence to show that the early Christians were polygamous like their Jewish brothers. (see letters to Timothy). The motive was not primarily sexual but a moral question of how to deal with widows and orphans. Paul did not confront it directly but there are many suggestions for a system of 'group welfare' rather than patriarchal adoption. 'Sacrifice' in that context probably meant 'to spend on behalf of another, or in a good cause' as it still does today in the Far East, a 'Holy Act'.

Islam used similar tactics to establish itself but in reverse order. The Prophet concentrated on building a strong social system (in the name of Allah, of course - see Surah IV 'Women', one of the longest in the Q'uran). Only then could his followers go out into the world and be listened to. Only then could the philosophy flower.

The Asian who takes care of his wife and children plus any other family members that are in dire need also makes a 'sacrifice'. It may be for the sake of his Karma, his Redemption or whatever you want to call it.

Women were not generally called upon to sacrifice publicly. Their roll as mothers accorded them an automatic exemption. Now that western women have assumed the role of men, what will they 'sacrifice'? What will they do to show that the well-being of society is now part of their responsibility? Working in aid agencies for fat salaries doesn't count. What will they do for the vulnerable members of their own families -  the old, the weak and the unborn? Or is that still the responsibility of the hated Patriarchy?

Religion is about men sacrificing for the greater good. Feminism is about greed.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: bluedye on Jul 18, 2006, 11:21 AM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
If those politicians had been in a patriarchal culture they would have been actively against women gaining any power.


The politicians saw this as something that seemed fair.  If they realized that it would spawn radical feminism & the tables would turn against men and society, they may not have done that.

The point is... they had the power to.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 18, 2006, 12:04 PM
Quote from: "bluedye"
Quote from: "typhonblue"
If those politicians had been in a patriarchal culture they would have been actively against women gaining any power.


The politicians saw this as something that seemed fair.  If they realized that it would spawn radical feminism & the tables would turn against men and society, they may not have done that.

The point is... they had the power to.


Or, alternatively, women had the power to determine social mores and, by extension, legal issues and they *decided* that they wanted the "privilages" of men.

And then they got them.

Being fair to women is not a quality I would ascribe to any true patriarchy I've studied or lived in. Saudis don't care about being "fair to women", the Ancient Greeks didn't care about being "fair to women", Romans actively warned men against being "fair to women."

Only our "patriarchy" cares about being "fair to women". Why?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: bluedye on Jul 18, 2006, 12:27 PM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Or, alternatively, women had the power to determine social mores and, by extension, legal issues and they *decided* that they wanted the "privilages" of men.

And then they got them.


If they were already in power, why did they have to *fight* to get these privileges?  The privileges didn't just fall out of the air when they *decided* they wanted them.  Those rights were granted by those in power... men.

Quote from: "typhonblue"
Being fair to women is not a quality I would ascribe to any true patriarchy I've studied or lived in. Saudis don't care about being "fair to women", the Ancient Greeks didn't care about being "fair to women", Romans actively warned men against being "fair to women."

Only our "patriarchy" cares about being "fair to women". Why?


What causes patriarchies to fall?  Answer... Things  like the decision to include women in politics.  That's how it happens.  Times change... societies evolve & things that were once accepted are accepted no more.

It's like slavery.  Do you think the whites were in power back when they owned slaves?  Did they decide to give rights to blacks & stop slavery?

...Well there you go.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: the sad geek on Jul 18, 2006, 01:43 PM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
How do women manage this? What is this mysterious power that women have to force politicians (prior to attaining the vote), corperate heads, college deans, news editors... to do what they want?


They nag. Till their balls drop off.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 18, 2006, 02:43 PM
Quote from: "bluedye"
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Or, alternatively, women had the power to determine social mores and, by extension, legal issues and they *decided* that they wanted the "privilages" of men.

And then they got them.


If they were already in power, why did they have to *fight* to get these privileges?  The privileges didn't just fall out of the air when they *decided* they wanted them.  Those rights were granted by those in power... men.


Many women at the time felt that these privilages were not appropriate for a woman to have. Take a look at what Queen Victoria had to say on the subject.

No doubt suffragettes had to convince a critical mass of women before anything could happen.

Quote from: "typhonblue"
Being fair to women is not a quality I would ascribe to any true patriarchy I've studied or lived in. Saudis don't care about being "fair to women", the Ancient Greeks didn't care about being "fair to women", Romans actively warned men against being "fair to women."

Only our "patriarchy" cares about being "fair to women". Why?


What causes patriarchies to fall?  Answer... Things  like the decision to include women in politics.  That's how it happens.  Times change... societies evolve & things that were once accepted are accepted no more.[/quote]

Do you have an example of a patriarchy that fell because it included women in the political process? Throughout Rome's history women were not included in the political process (except obliquely). Yet it fell.

Quote
It's like slavery.  Do you think the whites were in power back when they owned slaves?  Did they decide to give rights to blacks & stop slavery?

...Well there you go.


The end of slavery was brought about by white abolitionists seeking justice. Or, alternatively, it was a quasi-fuedal system competing with a industrial-based system and it failed.

Incidentally, I wonder how much the civil rights movements *did* for blacks, particularly black men.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: MrsShades on Jul 18, 2006, 03:40 PM
Since feministic theosophies predate Christianity, no.

As to sacrificing "for her benefit" her "benefit" isn't to have whatever she damn well pleases, any more than the best interest of a child is to have whatever they damn well please.  It is to her benefit to have her desire to rule (as per Genesis) curbed, and to live a life submitted to and obedient to Christ.   Her "benefit" is not an easy life but one marked by the suffering all Christians are warned they will experience.  Her "benefit" is to improve spiritually and stay away from sin.

That feminism (and the homosexual movement and every other heretical advocacy) has twisted Christianity to their own ends there is no doubt.   But I can't very well do much about that except dispel heresies as they arise.

"Your desire (indicating a wish to usurp and rule) shall be for your husband but he shall rule over you."
Title: Re: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: woof on Jul 18, 2006, 06:12 PM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Quote from: "woof"

Disagree totally......I can't quote Bible verses, but I think that it is safe to say hard line Chirstianity is harder on woman than men in the "demands" that it asks.


Like what? Christians demand both women *and* men be chaste and not promiscuous or adulterous.

Is there anything that Christians demand of women that doesn't have a parallel demand for men?

Quote
Chirstians that I know think that feminisim is the devils work because of abortions, sexual freedom, and of course a "woman belongs in the home".


The early feminists were anti-contraceptive, most likily anti-abortion as well. Regardless of their stance on abortion, feminists are very anti-sex (at least sex-with-men), just like the early Christian feminists.

As for "women belonging in the home", take a gander at this:

Proverbs 31:10-31 Who can find a virtuous woman? ... She looks for wool and flax And works with her hands in delight. She is like merchant ships; She brings her food from afar. She rises also while it is still night And gives food to her household And portions to her maidens. She considers a field and buys it; From her earnings she plants a vineyard. She girds herself with strength And makes her arms strong. She senses that her gain is good; Her lamp does not go out at night. She stretches out her hands to the distaff, And her hands grasp the spindle. She extends her hand to the poor, And she stretches out her hands to the needy. She is not afraid of the snow for her household, For all her household are clothed with scarlet. She makes coverings for herself; Her clothing is fine linen and purple. Her husband is known in the gates, When he sits among the elders of the land. She makes linen garments and sells them, And supplies belts to the tradesmen. Strength and dignity are her clothing, And she smiles at the future. She opens her mouth in wisdom, And the teaching of kindness is on her tongue. She looks well to the ways of her household, And does not eat the bread of idleness. Her children rise up and bless her; Her husband also, and he praises her, saying: "Many daughters have done nobly, But you excel them all." Charm is deceitful and beauty is vain, But a woman who fears the LORD, she shall be praised. Give her the product of her hands, And let her works praise her in the gates.

Sounds like women had a place working as well as "at home."

Quote
For Chirstian woman it is an honor to have a family and stay at home. Also the wife in a Chirstian family will honor her husband as the head of the household, and the decession maker.


It's an honor for a Christian woman to stay at home? Yet the scriptures make a virtuous woman out to be a bit of a tradesperson and shopkeep. And *also* someone who does not abide by idle time.

Quote
The roles for men and woman are pretty clearly stated in the Bible, this goes against everything "feminist".


I never said Feminism == Chrstianity, only that Christianity was one of the major elements that paved the way for Feminism to take root in our society.




Quote
Like what? Christians demand both women *and* men be chaste and not promiscuous or adulterous.

Chirstians ask mothers to be obeadiant, and subservant of their husbands, I guess you could call this "parallel". I was thinking that it may be more than what is being asked of the husband.

Quote
It's an honor for a Christian woman to stay at home? Yet the scriptures make a virtuous woman out to be a bit of a tradesperson and shopkeep. And *also* someone who does not abide by idle time.

Yea ok, but it's up to the husband wether she can to that or not, and her family comes first, not second.

Quote
I never said Feminism == Chrstianity, only that Christianity was one of the major elements that paved the way for Feminism to take root in our society.
I know.
Feminism has no honor, it has no set of principals that holds it together. It uses whatever it can from were ever it can find it to attack whatever opposes it. Feminism hurts as many woman as it does men, it's a disease that feeds off whatever it can find.
Feminist have used a lot elements from many different areas to futher their cause.
Shame is a powerful tool, but most religons use this to shape the flock.
And this is found in home, and social circles as well.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 18, 2006, 07:56 PM
To belabor the point about Paul's admonitions...

If a man must sacrifice to his wife as Christ sacrificed for the Church in order to be saved(by being one with Christ), and a wife must submit to her husband's sacrifice...

Letsay person A is instructed to sacrifice for the benefit of person B and person B is instructed to submit to person A's decisions.

In what situation *wouldn't* person B submit to person A's decisions? If A is abiding by it's duty, there should be no situation where B has a desire *not* to submit. Not submitting would be going *against* B's own interests'!

Perhaps this explains Christian Feminists like Hugo who sacrifice and sacrifice to women hoping, at some point, women will see that there is not one iota of his being that has not been sacrificed to women. And symbolically submit to his decisions by saying "atta boy, you done good."

Peter admonishes wives of non-believers to submit anyway so that their husbands would come to know Christ through their behavior. This could contradict what I've said, however these women are submitting to their heathen husbands knowing that their husbands are behaving in a way that will send them to hell(or purgatory). It turns marriage from a partnership into a stage for Christian martyrship.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 18, 2006, 08:03 PM
Quote from: "MrsShades"
Since feministic theosophies predate Christianity, no.


But a balance of feminist power does *not* predate Christianity. Unless you believe in prehistoric matriarchies.

Quote
As to sacrificing "for her benefit" her "benefit" isn't to have whatever she damn well pleases, any more than the best interest of a child is to have whatever they damn well please.


Notice that none of the legal protections put in place by our society for women are about women "doing what they damn well please" (Except, maybe, abortion) but about "saving women from evil men."

Quote

"Your desire (indicating a wish to usurp and rule) shall be for your husband but he shall rule over you."


Er... doesn't desire mean desire?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Fidelbogen on Jul 18, 2006, 08:21 PM
The question "Does feminism have anything to do with Christianity"
is unanswerable.

Frankly, I don't care.

A person could argue that question until the cows came home frozen over
from hell. It's futile.

Quote a bit of scripture! Quote another bit of scripture!

Flibberty-jibberty-jibberty!

Feminists themselves will do what they have always done: Answer the
question to their advantage, and then shift their position somewhere
else when the advantage shifts somewhere else!
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 18, 2006, 08:34 PM
Quote from: "Christiane"
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Quote from: "Christiane"

Let's face it - once women grabbed the wheel, all manner of ills decended on society.


But they didn't grab the wheel. They just told men where to steer it. Or, rather, they implied men were steering it for the benefit of themselves, not women.

Even now women are a minority of politicians, CEOs, deans, editors... yet they have a disproportionate amount of influence.


OK, so what do you propose to do about it?   Quotas?   I can cite the success of that, lol....    

What would make you happy on this score,tb?


What would make *me* happy?

I think we should reconsider women's sufferage, at least until the question of what women can sacrifice *equal* to men's sacrifice for the state is resolved. And, also the question of why women have such a disproportionate influence on all hierarchical power structures.

Either that or a reverse-Christianity should be founded that asks *women* to sacrifice their greater power for the benefit of men in return for men submitting to women as children.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: bluedye on Jul 18, 2006, 10:33 PM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Many women at the time felt that these privilages were not appropriate for a woman to have. Take a look at what Queen Victoria had to say on the subject.
No doubt suffragettes had to convince a critical mass of women before anything could happen.


They convinced the men by protests, chaining themselves to things & causing a "stir."  They had an uphill climb on both sides.  They were granted rights by "the powers that be" ...which was the men.

Quote from: "typhonblue"
Do you have an example of a patriarchy that fell because it included women in the political process?


The United States.  That was the start of it.  It wasn't the end-all-be-all reason, but then again... I never claimed it was.

Quote from: "typhonblue"
Throughout Rome's history women were not included in the political process (except obliquely). Yet it fell.


Well likening the "fall of Rome" to the fall of the patriarchy in the US might be a bit of a stretch.  I'm pretty sure given the massive time lapse between the two events coupled with the fact that it was Italy vs. America, these things aren't exactly comparable.   (I wonder if women also were in power in ancient Rome according to you... Maybe THEY made it fall.  :) )

Quote from: "typhonblue"
The end of slavery was brought about by white abolitionists seeking justice. Or, alternatively, it was a quasi-fuedal system competing with a industrial-based system and it failed.


The point is... that it was once accepted & times changed.   Whites had power over the blacks in the US & that relationship was oppressive.

...Just like the patriarchal system in the US.  The men once had the power... the situation was oppressive to women, but that changed, too.

Societal power structures are never fixed.  Some time, some way, they will shift & change.  To say that it's always been a matriarchy seems like nothing but a way to ignore history in favor of a woman-centric fantasy.  Are you SURE you're not a feminist? :)
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Christiane on Jul 19, 2006, 06:50 AM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
To belabor the point about Paul's admonitions...

If a man must sacrifice to his wife as Christ sacrificed for the Church in order to be saved(by being one with Christ), and a wife must submit to her husband's sacrifice...



That's not what the Bible says.   The husband is told to sacrifice HIMSELF for his wife, just as Christ sacrificed Himself for the church.   The husband does not sacrifice TO his wife - big difference.   Your paraphasing here twists the meaning.   Paul doesn't put the wife in a godlike position over her husband for him to sacrifice to.  

And the wife does not submit to her husband's SACRIFICE - she is to submit to him in general - to his authority as the one who is the head of her, as Christ is the head of the church.   Again, big difference.   And she has this obligation whether or not he fulfills his.  Actually they both do.

The word "obey" is reserved for children and slaves.  

There is a unique relationship in Christianity between husband and wife, and no, he doesn't serve her, or sacrifice to her.   He is her head, but also her protector and nurturer, as when Paul admonishes women to keep silent in church and learn from their husbands at home.   This isn't the slap in the face modern feminism has painted it to be.   It's an acknowledgement that she looks up to her husband to guide her - that she should do so.    The husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, in the Christian view.

Some of the most virulent anti-feminists are conservative Christians, for this reason.   Feminism is the exact opposite of the Biblical view of marriage.   Trying to twist what the Bible actually says, in an attempt to claim it elevates women over men, or wives over husbands, is a feminist line of argument.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Christiane on Jul 19, 2006, 06:52 AM
Quote from: "Fidelbogen"

Feminists themselves will do what they have always done: Answer the
question to their advantage, and then shift their position somewhere
else when the advantage shifts somewhere else!


Amen.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: dr e on Jul 19, 2006, 07:09 AM
Bluedye said:  
Quote
...Just like the patriarchal system in the US. The men once had the power... the situation was oppressive to women, but that changed, too.


Are you saying you think women were oppressed in the US?  Please explain.  How were they oppressed?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Hombre on Jul 19, 2006, 08:00 AM
I don't think it's fair to blame Christianity for feminism. People who want to start hate groups will try to exploit the ethos of any culture in order to do so. Sure, there were some things about Christianity that could be used in this way, but feminists have done the same thing with other cultural and religious ethics as well. I suppose one can point to the Muslim ethos of women are to be seen and not heard, (and often not seen either), or the Greek's voting system as impediments to feminism, but I don't think that these are things we'd want to emulate for starters, and secondly they create resentments which have been used to further feminist goals.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 19, 2006, 08:50 AM
Quote from: "Christiane"
That's not what the Bible says.   The husband is told to sacrifice HIMSELF for his wife, just as Christ sacrificed Himself for the church.   The husband does not sacrifice TO his wife - big difference.   Your paraphasing here twists the meaning.   Paul doesn't put the wife in a godlike position over her husband for him to sacrifice to.


I never said the wife was placed in a godlike position. This is a straw man. If I used the word "to" then I appologize. I, of course, ment *for*.  

Quote
And the wife does not submit to her husband's SACRIFICE - she is to submit to him in general - to his authority as the one who is the head of her, as Christ is the head of the church.   Again, big difference.   And she has this obligation whether or not he fulfills his.  Actually they both do.


Again, if the husband is sacrificing properly, in what situation would the wife *not* submit to his decisions? If she didn't submit it would be, literally, against her *own* benefit?

Incidentally, if a christian boy is raised by a chirstian mother, who instills in him his mores, beliefs, values and attitudes... and then he becomes a young man who never has a comparable influence to his mother throughout his life... what is his wife really submitting to? Him or his mother's teaching?

Quote
The word "obey" is reserved for children and slaves.


Yep. Suggesting submit means something different then "obey". And that the dynamic isn't the same as that between parent's and children.

But what *is* the difference?  

Quote
Some of the most virulent anti-feminists are conservative Christians, for this reason.   Feminism is the exact opposite of the Biblical view of marriage.   Trying to twist what the Bible actually says, in an attempt to claim it elevates women over men, or wives over husbands, is a feminist line of argument.


Not at all. A feminist line of argument would take Christianity at face value and say it subjugates women.

BTW, do any of these "rabid anti-feminists" entertain the notion of removing woman's suffrage?

Hombre,

Feminism could not florish in either system. That's the point. There is something about *our* culture that allowed feminist thought to flourish, unless we correct it, then feminism will just rise again... and again... and again.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Darth Sidious on Jul 19, 2006, 08:56 AM
Quote from: "Christiane"

Some of the most virulent anti-feminists are conservative Christians, for this reason. Feminism is the exact opposite of the Biblical view of marriage. Trying to twist what the Bible actually says, in an attempt to claim it elevates women over men, or wives over husbands, is a feminist line of argument.


I am a conservative Christian, and many would consider me to be a virulent anti-feminist.  Feminism and Christianity are incompatible.  Feminism considers marriage based on Biblical principles to be "oppressive."  This rebellion has swept through the Church to where "wives submit to your husbands" is heard in very few churches, and even when it is heard, it is watered down and the duty of the husband is emphasised.  

At the church I have been attending fairly regularly over the past year, which I would describe as being fairly conservative in that they claim to take the Scriptures seriously, they have a woman with the title of "Youth Pastor."  In Scripture, there is no "pastor" title, but that title is commonly used to refer to elders who preach and teach.  According to Scripture, an elder must be the husband of one wife.  Obviously, women cannot qualify.  In essence, this church is declaring that requirement to be obsolete; therefore, they are in a state of rebellion against the clear teaching of Scripture.  Who are they to choose what requirements they are to obey?  Who are they to in essence declare the teaching of an Apostle of Christ should be ignored or changed?  If Christianity is the truth, it does not need to change, we need to change.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 19, 2006, 09:07 AM
I read, once, a really interesting story about a Christian missionary in India.

He was riding on an over-crowded bus, sitting on a box on the floor, when the bus came upon three women from the congregation he was going to address.

They came on the bus and he offered one his box, saying he could sit on the floor. Another man on the bus immediately offered his own seat to the Christian missionary.

The missionary refused and the man said, "if you sit on the floor I shall have to lie on it because you are our honored leader and I will not be above you."

What's interesting about this is that the women got the deference, simply by being women, that a man would not get, *unless* he was elevated above other men.

So what does that make women?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 19, 2006, 09:42 AM
Another interesting story about Christian missionaries that I came across involved missionaries in China.

A Christian Chinese couple had invited a missionary over for supper. When the missionary came, the man of the house stood and said, "I appologize for the awful food my idiot of a wife cooked. She is useless."

The missionary was shocked and lectured the man on how to treat his own wife properly, in a Christian manner.

It's facinating to me that a "patriachal" culture like Christianity is so focused on treating women well, on honoring women and on sacrificing FOR them.

Also interesting is how Christianity changed the notion of spirituality and men. Prior to Christianity men were avatars of the spiritual on earth because, simply, they had a penis which was considered the spiritual epicenter of life. *After* Christianity, men could become closer to God through modling their actions on those of Christ, specificially sacrificing FOR their wives. But they were no longer a spiritual epicenter just because they had a penis.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 19, 2006, 09:51 AM
Quote
Again, if the husband is sacrificing properly, in what situation would the wife *not* submit to his decisions? If she didn't submit it would be, literally, against her *own* benefit?


I'd say a borderline wife would qualify in many situations where she is rebellious and abusive to her husband and family.

TB:  To get a handle around being a Christian, after accepting Jesus into your life, and being cleansed of sin (submission to Christ), you must have a servant's heart towards others -  not because you have to, because you want to out of love (Agape love).  In reality, Christianity is all about having a servants heart.  He who is first shall be last, and he who is last shall be first.  The sacrifice is no more paramount than in the area of love, "If ye are not love, than ye are nothing."  Do you know how vacuous nothing really is???

Gender femMEism and Christianity are completely antithetical, because in Gender femMeism, when it comes to the woman, it's all about ME, ME, ME.  The woman's opinions, wants, needs desires, rights, privileges, etc. - and no concern for anybody else's.  So what good does it do if the Christian man, or woman, puts all those other people in his/her life, first again and again and again, then is just used as a door mat by a selfish abusive Christian woman, or man, who milks it for all she/he can get.  Gender feMEism has contributed mightily to destroying a lot of marriages by women buying in to all the self centered garbage that goes with the gender feminist agenda.

A lot of good Christian men, and women, are nothing more than doormats to their unloving spouses, or is that the perception of their own un-fulfillment that leads them to blame their partners for their own inadequacies and un-fulfillments?  

Gender feminism would have us believe Christianity is a Patriarchal structure, wherein men have all power and control and privileges so it's all men's fault, but the truth is gender feminism is the proverbial weed growing in the wheat field of Christian life, and spoiling the bountiful and pure feast with its vile evil.  That weed is so evil and destructive, even pulling the weed out will destroy others around it, (according to scripture) so meek Christians do nothing about it and suffer under the evils of femMEism.  The secret is never to let evil into the Church in the first place, or deal with it before it takes root.  Discerning, and being as wise as serpents, but as innocent as doves certainly entails having an upfront knowledge of the evil gender feminism has done, and the evil it is capable of doing.

Should we go on sinning that grace may abound? Nope!  Neither, in my opinion, should we Christians give gender feminism any safe harbor, when we first see it's evil manifested.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 19, 2006, 09:56 AM
Gender feminism can never have or come to any kind of an honest and accurate perception of Christianity, reasoning from its mind bogglingly corrupt agenda and terms - not even to the smallest asymptotical degree. :?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: no2fembots on Jul 19, 2006, 10:12 AM
Why do women hold a *power* that appears to hold men in thrall regardless of the actual power the man may wield?  

Simple

Men are burdened with having come from women.  And it never leaves us, the taint.  We become, looking at extremes, like drug addicts seeking our next vaginal/maternal/feminine fix because our relationship with mother was so good, or we become whore mongering female hating bastards because mommy dearest abused us.  And when I say abuse, I mean the emotional shaming and guilting abuse that women are so goddamned good at!

The entire spectrum, from awful to ambrosia that constitutes a man's relationship with his mother colours his dealings with women to a far greater degree than for girls vis a vis her father and men.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Hombre on Jul 19, 2006, 10:30 AM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
There is something about *our* culture that allowed feminist thought to flourish, unless we correct it, then feminism will just rise again... and again... and again.


Ok, but I think that something is a combination of 3 things.

1. Widespread selective empathy
2. A lack of appreciation for the dangers of a society which is largely unaware of the fallacies of accident, converse accident, and transposing subsets.
3. A marked preference by nearly everyone for believing things for emotional and social reasons over rational ones. Additionally, nearly everyone is strongly in denial about themselves doing so.

If these problems can be corrected, not only would that prevent feminism from rising again, but any hate-group. (Also if #3 is corrected, Christianity will die out anyway, as will every religion I'm aware of).
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Christiane on Jul 19, 2006, 10:37 AM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Quote from: "Christiane"
That's not what the Bible says.   The husband is told to sacrifice HIMSELF for his wife, just as Christ sacrificed Himself for the church.   The husband does not sacrifice TO his wife - big difference.   Your paraphasing here twists the meaning.   Paul doesn't put the wife in a godlike position over her husband for him to sacrifice to.


I never said the wife was placed in a godlike position. This is a straw man. If I used the word "to" then I appologize. I, of course, ment *for*.  


I didn't say you said that - that was my opinion.   You said the husband sacrifices himself TO his wife.   My opinion is that saying this puts her in a godlike position, which was not Paul's intent.    The precise wording matters, was all I was trying to say.   I understand you didn't mean to change the wording.   No problem.

Quote
Again, if the husband is sacrificing properly, in what situation would the wife *not* submit to his decisions? If she didn't submit it would be, literally, against her *own* benefit?

Incidentally, if a christian boy is raised by a chirstian mother, who instills in him his mores, beliefs, values and attitudes... and then he becomes a young man who never has a comparable influence to his mother throughout his life... what is his wife really submitting to? Him or his mother's teaching?


In Biblically based Christian marriage, the wife isn't instructed to submit to her husband provided he sacrifices for her.   Both have the obligation to fulfill their roles, regardless of how well the other person performs his/hers.   And as to a Christian upbringing, Christian fathers also bring up the children and instill their values, etc.    I've read this line of reasoning from you before, and I don't agree that there's some sort of matriarchy in charge in Christianity, and that submission to this matriarchy is instilled in males by their mothers.   We're just going to have to disagree about this, and I know you feel strongly about it.

Quote
Quote
Some of the most virulent anti-feminists are conservative Christians, for this reason.   Feminism is the exact opposite of the Biblical view of marriage.   Trying to twist what the Bible actually says, in an attempt to claim it elevates women over men, or wives over husbands, is a feminist line of argument.


Not at all. A feminist line of argument would take Christianity at face value and say it subjugates women.


I do agree with this in that I've heard the argument you mention used by feminists a lot.   The extreme version of this argument being in line with communism - all religion is bad, all religion subjugates and seeks to control.

But there are plenty of feminists who consider themselves to be Christians - and I've heard them try to twist what the Bible says.   We had a female associate pastor, for example, do this all the time.   She was a rabid feminist - we went to a Methodist church then, and their theology is all over the place depending on the church and the pastor.   She was something else.  

Quote
BTW, do any of these "rabid anti-feminists" entertain the notion of removing woman's suffrage?


LOL.....   no, but you may be on to something here, tb....
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Christiane on Jul 19, 2006, 10:46 AM
Quote from: "Men's Rights Activist"
Gender femMEism and Christianity are completely antithetical, because in Gender femMeism, when it comes to the woman, it's all about ME, ME, ME.  The woman's opinions, wants, needs desires, rights, privileges, etc. - and no concern for anybody else's.  So what good does it do if the Christian man, or woman, puts all those other people in his/her life, first again and again and again, then is just used as a door mat by a selfish abusive Christian woman, or man, who milks it for all she/he can get.  Gender feMEism has contributed mightily to destroying a lot of marriages by women buying in to all the self centered garbage that goes with the gender feminist agenda.


This is soooooooooooo true.   The whole essence of Christianity is selflessness.   The whole essence of feminism is selfishness.

Polar opposites.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: no2fembots on Jul 19, 2006, 11:08 AM
Quote from: "no2fembots"
Men are burdened with having come from women.  And it never leaves us, the taint.


I did not intend to imply men receive some sort of disease.  Taint is the wrong word to use.  I mean we are indelibly marked.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: bluedye on Jul 19, 2006, 12:42 PM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Are you saying you think women were oppressed in the US?  Please explain.  How were they oppressed?


This website gives this state of women's rights from 1820-1860

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=630

excerpt:

"At the outset of the century, women could not vote or hold office in any state, they had no access to higher education, and they were excluded from professional occupations. American law accepted the principle that a wife had no legal identity apart from her husband. She could not be sued, nor could she bring a legal suit; she could not make a contract, nor could she own property. She was not permitted to control her own wages or gain custody of her children in case of separation or divorce."

My history teachings had similar descriptions of the state of women at that time.

Even if only one of these things is true, that is indeed a form of oppression as far as I'm concerned.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: bluedye on Jul 19, 2006, 12:47 PM
Quote from: "Men's Rights Activist"
Gender femMEism and Christianity are completely antithetical, because in Gender femMeism, when it comes to the woman, it's all about ME, ME, ME. The woman's opinions, wants, needs desires, rights, privileges, etc. - and no concern for anybody else's. So what good does it do if the Christian man, or woman, puts all those other people in his/her life, first again and again and again, then is just used as a door mat by a selfish abusive Christian woman, or man, who milks it for all she/he can get. Gender feMEism has contributed mightily to destroying a lot of marriages by women buying in to all the self centered garbage that goes with the gender feminist agenda.


Right on...
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: dr e on Jul 19, 2006, 01:14 PM
Quote from: "bluedye"
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Are you saying you think women were oppressed in the US?  Please explain.  How were they oppressed?


This website gives this state of women's rights from 1820-1860

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=630

excerpt:

"At the outset of the century, women could not vote or hold office in any state, they had no access to higher education, and they were excluded from professional occupations. American law accepted the principle that a wife had no legal identity apart from her husband. She could not be sued, nor could she bring a legal suit; she could not make a contract, nor could she own property. She was not permitted to control her own wages or gain custody of her children in case of separation or divorce."

My history teachings had similar descriptions of the state of women at that time.

Even if only one of these things is true, that is indeed a form of oppression as far as I'm concerned.


Thinking that women were oppressed feeds into the mentality that the feminists have been trying to brainwash into peoples minds for the last 40 years or so.  Dictionary .com tells us that oppression is:

Quote
To keep down by severe and unjust use of force or authority: a people who were oppressed by tyranny.


Do you think that women were kept down by severe and unjust force?  I don't see much evidence for that.  A while back on SYG someone wrote an interesting little one liner.  He said "If you remember back when women were barefoot and pregnant you should also remember that the men were bareback and bridled" or something like that.  In other words both men and women had their burdens and these burdens were usually  related to a set of sex roles that had evolved over time out of necessity and survival.  As you must know the men were chosen based on sex alone to be the ones to go to war and sacrifice their lives.   It wouldn't be too hard to make a case that they were actually the ones who were oppressed.  I think it is more correct to simply say that men and women have both had some tough times and that they have willingly sacrificed for each other in order to promote their success.  Feminists have taken this sex role division and claimed that one side, the side of the women, is evidence of oppression and implied that the other side, the men, were indeed the oppressors.  This is incredibly short sighted and lacks any sort of understanding of the roles of each sex and the sacrifices made by each for the good of the group.  

I cringe when I hear people talking about how women were oppressed.  It very slickly puts the women into the victim role and the men by default into the oppressor.  It's a disgusting trick that is used to inflame women into a rage over the unfairness of their history and then used to batter men with the idea that since men have "had it all" they should put up with suffering now.

Have a look at the changes in these roles over the last 30 years and what do you see?  You see plenty of change and momentum to improve the roles of women but almost nothing for the men.  

And so it goes.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 19, 2006, 02:09 PM
Quote
"If you remember back when women were barefoot and pregnant you should also remember that the men were bareback and bridled"


Yup, Dr. E ain't no fool.  

HISstory knows men weren't often much more than mules.

(http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/MRA_06/8c2af8c4.jpg)

10 Equines, 6 men

Check out the ears on those four legged beasts 2nd and 3rd from left.  Those are good ole Missouri mules.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: bluedye on Jul 19, 2006, 02:10 PM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Thinking that women were oppressed feeds into the mentality that the feminists have been trying to brainwash into peoples minds for the last 40 years or so.  Dictionary .com tells us that oppression is:

Quote
To keep down by severe and unjust use of force or authority: a people who were oppressed by tyranny.


Do you think that women were kept down by severe and unjust force?  I don't see much evidence for that.  A while back on SYG someone wrote an interesting little one liner.  He said "If you remember back when women were barefoot and pregnant you should also remember that the men were bareback and bridled" or something like that.  In other words both men and women had their burdens and these burdens were usually  related to a set of sex roles that had evolved over time out of necessity and survival.  As you must know the men were chosen based on sex alone to be the ones to go to war and sacrifice their lives.   It wouldn't be too hard to make a case that they were actually the ones who were oppressed.  I think it is more correct to simply say that men and women have both had some tough times and that they have willingly sacrificed for each other in order to promote their success.  Feminists have taken this sex role division and claimed that one side, the side of the women, is evidence of oppression and implied that the other side, the men, were indeed the oppressors.  This is incredibly short sighted and lacks any sort of understanding of the roles of each sex and the sacrifices made by each for the good of the group.  

I cringe when I hear people talking about how women were oppressed.  It very slickly puts the women into the victim role and the men by default into the oppressor.  It's a disgusting trick that is used to inflame women into a rage over the unfairness of their history and then used to batter men with the idea that since men have "had it all" they should put up with suffering now.

Have a look at the changes in these roles over the last 30 years and what do you see?  You see plenty of change and momentum to improve the roles of women but almost nothing for the men.  

And so it goes.


The definition from merriamwebster.com was:

"unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power b : something that oppresses especially in being an unjust or excessive exercise of power."

Now the men having control over their wives salaries was unjust power.  That system is not just.  

Not having the right to own property... also not just.

...& voting, well... you know.

That system is one based on laws of the time.  Men had some "perks" & women didn't.

Men were selected to fight the wars due to biology historically.  Men make better warriors since the beginning of time into today.  There's no disputing that fact.   Testosterone makes men bigger, tougher, more aggressive. ( This fact is "annoying" to women nowadays that seem to use the "too much testosterone" line any time there are 2 or more males congregated in one place, but it also serves a purpose, seemingly unbeknownst & unappreciated by them. )

Our make-up "tapped" us for that duty.  

Did sending men off to their deaths make them more deserving of the rights they fought for?  ...Yes, it did... but how do you quantify that?  How many more rights should they get?  ...& which ones?

It's a slippery slope & something not easily decided.

Maybe men should have been the only ones to decide on anything related to the military... who knows?

I'm not trying to paint history with the same "ranbows for the men" & "bushells of horseshit" for the women that the fems use, but I can see where the word "oppression" fits.

I also think we need to be realistic.  The general public, by an overwhelming margin also thinks women were oppressed.  If we MRA's try to suggest that men were the TRUE oppressed, we'll sound like revisionist historians.   Nearly everyone knows about the "right to vote" issue...  I think people would have an automatic "shut off valve" for anything we have to say if we play the historical "out-victiming" angle.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Christiane on Jul 19, 2006, 02:12 PM
I have to agree with you, Dr. E.

Women were not oppressed.   Slaves were oppressed.   Huge difference.

If you were to interview women who lived through this time period, I don't think you would find them uphappy with their lot as women at all.   Things were the way they were.   Times were tough - for everyone.   Women didn't have the legal rights they do today, but they weren't ill treated based on their gender.   And very few people had access to higher education.   Wealthy women were more likely than not to be well educated.   And they could and did run their own businesses and own property.   Women in general were respected, protected, and valued.  Everyone had his or her place in society.  

It was a hierarchy, not a patriarchy.   Again, huge difference.   And what has this been replaced with?   A mess, that's what.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: dr e on Jul 19, 2006, 02:25 PM
Quote
I also think we need to be realistic. The general public, by an overwhelming margin also thinks women were oppressed. If we MRA's try to suggest that men were the TRUE oppressed, we'll sound like revisionist historians. Nearly everyone knows about the "right to vote" issue... I think people would have an automatic "shut off valve" for anything we have to say if we play the historical "out-victiming" angle.


I don't see anyone trying to convince the general public that men are more oppressed.  The important fact is that the feminists have already convinced the general public that women were oppressed.  You call yourself an MRA and you think they were oppressed!  We have a good deal of work to do.

So when did all white men get the vote?  How many years before women?  Do you know about the men who fought for their right to vote?  Are you aware that without land ownership that most people, men or women,  couldn't vote in this country?  I guess we were all oppressed right?  Why did the fems leave out the men?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: dr e on Jul 19, 2006, 02:28 PM
Bluedye - We have been looking for someone to debate Typhon about the question of whether women were/are oppressed in this culture.  Maybe you would like to do that if you really believe what you are saying??
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Daymar on Jul 19, 2006, 03:51 PM
Quote from: "Men's Rights Activist"
Gender femMEism and Christianity are completely antithetical, because in Gender femMeism, when it comes to the woman, it's all about ME, ME, ME.  The woman's opinions, wants, needs desires, rights, privileges, etc. - and no concern for anybody else's.  So what good does it do if the Christian man, or woman, puts all those other people in his/her life, first again and again and again, then is just used as a door mat by a selfish abusive Christian woman, or man, who milks it for all she/he can get.  Gender feMEism has contributed mightily to destroying a lot of marriages by women buying in to all the self centered garbage that goes with the gender feminist agenda.


Em, feminism evolved over time, just like Christianity did before it. All that is required for proof is for Christianity to have allowed feminism to occur in feminisms BEGINNING. Obviously, gender feminism was not around at the beginning of the feminist movement. Liberal Christianity was not around at the beginning of Christianity either.

All that you have to find are the components that allowed for those evolutions. SOMETHING allowed for those evolutions or they wouldn't have happened, like in other industrialized cultures where they didn't happen.

I think Christianity had to evolve to become Liberal Christianity to allow feminism so quoting passages from the bible is kind of meaningless, since the quotes from the original version of Christianity.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 19, 2006, 03:52 PM
Quote
In other words both men and women had their burdens and these burdens were usually related to a set of sex roles that had evolved over time out of necessity and survival. As you must know the men were chosen based on sex alone to be the ones to go to war and sacrifice their lives.It wouldn't be too hard to make a case that they were actually the ones who were oppressed. I think it is more correct to simply say that men and women have both had some tough times and that they have willingly sacrificed for each other in order to promote their success. Feminists have taken this sex role division and claimed that one side, the side of the women, is evidence of oppression...


Privileged Patriarchy?  

Sorry, don't neither one of us know nothin' 'bout privileges.  

Women voting?  

Nah, 620, 000 men just died in that [email protected]~n war (Civil War).  We women don't want the responsibility goes with that.  
No thanks!  Let them high falutin city women talk 'bout that.  We'z just poor common country folks.

(http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/MRA_06/4a92019f.jpg)
http://www.agclassroom.org/gan/timeline/farmers_land.htm
Quote
1860
Total population: 31,443,321; farm population: 15,141,000 (est.); farmers 58% of labor force


1870
Total population: 38,558,371; farm population: 18,373,000 (est.); farmers 53% of labor force

1880
Total population: 50,155,783; farm population: 22,981,000 (est.); farmers 49% of labor force

1890
Total population: 62,941,714; farm population: 29,414,000 (est.); farmers 43% of labor force

1900
Total population: 75,994,266; farm population: 29,414,000 (est.); farmers 38% of labor force

1910
Total population: 91,972,266; farm population: 32,077,000 (est.); farmers 31% of labor force

1920
Total population: 105,710,620; farm population: 31,614,269; farmers 27% of labor force

1930
Total population: 122,775,046; farm population: 30,455,350; farmers 21% of labor force

1940
Total population: 131,820,000; farm population: 30,840,000; farmers 18% of labor force

1950
Total population: 151,132,000; farm population: 25,058,000; farmers 12.2% of labor force

1960
Total population: 180,007,000; farm population: 15,635,000; farmers 8.3% of labor force

1970
Total population: 204,335,000; farm population: 9,712,000; farmers 4.6% of labor force

1980
Total population: 227,020,000; farm population: 6,051,000; farmers 3.4% of labor force

1990
Total population: 261,423,000; farm population: 2,987,552; farmers 2.6% of labor force
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 19, 2006, 04:04 PM
Quote
Em, feminism evolved over time, just like Christianity did before it. All that is required for proof is for Christianity to have allowed feminism to occur in feminisms BEGINNING. Obviously, gender feminism was not around at the beginning of the feminist movement. Liberal Christianity was not around at the beginning of Christianity either.

All that you have to find are the components that allowed for those evolutions. SOMETHING allowed for those evolutions or they wouldn't have happened, like in other industrialized cultures where they didn't happen.


Okay, IMO, gender feminism got really horrific during the Clinton Administration (1992-2000), and has been a real evil monster ever since.  Clinton did a lot to institutionalize gender feminism in horrible laws like VAWA, sexual harassment law, etc.  

If your looking for causality, you'll find a lot, lot more of it there than in Christianity.  It is gender feminism that has been attacking the tenets of the church.  I haven't seen much of the other until maybe a little bit recently.   Christianity also hasn't had a lot of direct comment about the price of tea in China, or the chemical composition of soda pop.  Only lately has Christianity even noticed gender feminism and the evil it has caused in families and society.   Gender feminism is and has been a lot more concerned about the church than vice versa.

The reformatoin happened 500 years ago, and there have been lots of denominational splits since then, okay.

Quote
I think Christianity had to evolve to become Liberal Christianity to allow feminism so quoting passages from the bible is kind of meaningless, since the quotes from the original version of Christianity.


Not if you're a conservative, originalist Christian as opposed to say, a liberal United Methodist, ELAC, Unitarian, etc.  That statement is no more accurate than saying the U.S. Constitution is meaningless.  The originalist meaning is still there, we just need to get leftist, activist judges out of office.

The day the matriarchy came to power

Carey Roberts
May 30, 2006
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/060530
Quote
It was a bloodless coup. It happened under the penumbra of the law. In fact chief justice William Rehnquist presided at the event. The date was January 20, 1993.

The recent November elections had announced the Year of the Woman, with Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Carol Moseley Braun, and Patty Murray all sweeping into the U.S. Senate.

Everyone knew the federal bureaucracy was a stronghold for those domineering patriarchs. Obviously that needed to change.

First, equal justice had to be turned into feminist justice. So the Rodham-Clinton co-presidency brought in Janet Reno to direct the Department of Justice. The NOW Legal Defense Fund hailed the dowdy Reno as "a stellar attorney with an extraordinary track record."

Not to be outdone, the Department of Education brought in radical chicana Norma Cantu to head up its civil rights office. Cantu made "proportionality" the only test for Title IX compliance. Ten years later, 80,000 slots for male athletes had been eliminated from more than 350 men's sports teams.

Next, the gender wage gap had to be fixed, so Karen Nussbaum was named director of the Women's Bureau at the Labor Department. With Hillary perched approvingly at her side, Nussbaum issued the "Working Women Count!" report. The study revealed that many working women believe "I do not get paid what I think my job is worth."

Welcome to the real world, ladies.

Over at the Department of Defense, SecDef Les Aspin was given marching orders to clean up the lingering fallout from the Navy aviators' Tailhook fiasco. So just three months after he took office, Aspin issued a historic order: "The services shall permit women to compete for assignments in aircraft, including aircraft engaged in combat missions."

Then the blue-ribbon Department Advisory Committee on Women in the Services got into the act. The group opted to extend Aspin's order, pushing for female involvement in submarine crews, Multiple Launch Rocket Systems jobs, and Special Operations Forces. Before long the group -- officially designated as DACOWITS -- came to be known as "Lack-o-Wits."

With all the liberated single women clamoring for taxpayer-funded husband substitutes, the next order of business was to expand the Nanny State. So Hillary looked to her gal-pal Donna Shalala to head up the sprawling Department of Health and Human Services.

Shalala had earlier turned the Hunter College women's studies program into a radical feminist outpost. Within months of her appointment, Shalala would lend credence to the porker about medical research being conducted from the "white male point of view." [www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/sommers-camelot]

But Hillary's greatest obsession was the promotion of international feminism. So she leaned on Bill to nominate Madeleine Albright to the United Nations ambassador post.

During her stint at the U.N. and later as Secretary of State, Albright was a tireless advocate for abortion on demand. Hitting all the right notes, she once claimed, "our voluntary family planning programs serve our broader interests by elevating the status of women, reducing the flow of refugees, protecting the environment, and promoting economic growth."

The U.N. had slated its Conference on Women to be held in China in September 1995. Albright was named to chair the U.S. Delegation, and Hillary Clinton was tabbed to deliver the keynote speech

Afterwards, president Clinton created the President's Interagency Council on Women. The Council's mission was to "follow up on U.S. commitments made at the UN Fourth World Conference on Women" -- meaning that whatever promises Albright had made during her Beijing junket should now be imposed by fiat on the rest of us.

The high-flying Council was headed by the triumvirate of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Madeleine Albright, and Donna Shalala. Meeting monthly, reps from all the top-level federal agencies were instructed to implement the Beijing Platform for Action. [www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/beijing/platform]

One of the Council's Work Groups was tasked to "develop procedures that ensure the integration of a gender perspective into the policies and operations of government so that different impacts on men and women may be determined and inequities addressed." That's fem-speak for "pressure the male geezers to retire, so women can come in and run the show."

Sure enough, from 1994 to 2002 the number of male professional workers in the federal government fell by 17%, while the number of female employees actually rose. [www.opm.gov/feddata/demograp/demograp.asp] Laws such as the Violence Against Women Act and the Gender Equity in Education Act were enacted. The federal government was soon beholden to a far-reaching array of programs designed to promote the socialist agenda of the U.N. Conference on Women.

And that's how a feminist cabal overthrew the entrenched federal Patriarchy in eight short years.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 19, 2006, 04:33 PM
Quote
My personal opinion is that Christianity encouraged men to judge themselves by their sacrifices to women which laid the social groundwork for a misandrous movement like feminism.

What say you all?


Okay, TB, we should have done this a long time ago so we'd all be on the same page.  Define Christianity. :?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Daymar on Jul 19, 2006, 04:38 PM
Quote from: "Men's Rights Activist"
Not if you're a conservative, originalist Christian as opposed to say, a liberal United Methodist, ELAC, Unitarian, etc.  That statement is no more accurate than saying the U.S. Constitution is meaningless.  The originalist meaning is still there, we just need to get leftist, activist judges out of office.


It would be meaningless if no one followed the constitution anymore.

Btw, I don't know if this is TB's stance or not. Just my own ideas.

But I think the argument that's up for debate that people seem to be confusing is whether or not Christianity allowed the formation of feminism, not whether or not feminism can exist when Christianity is followed to the letter. Because Christianity is clearly not followed to the letter anymore, if it ever was.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Christiane on Jul 19, 2006, 06:17 PM
Quote
I think we need to be realistic. The general public, by an overwhelming margin also thinks women were oppressed. If we MRA's try to suggest that men were the TRUE oppressed, we'll sound like revisionist historians. Nearly everyone knows about the "right to vote" issue... I think people would have an automatic "shut off valve" for anything we have to say if we play the historical "out-victiming" angle.


I agree the general public is brainwashed.   There's been a good job done of that.   But I don't agree that men were oppressed prior to about 40  years ago, any more than I think women were.   There was an ordering of society, which has been thrown out the window in my lifetime.   Yes, men fought, died, protected women, did the heavy lifting, all that stuff.   But they were respected for that, and they were the heads of their households.   In prior generations, men didn't get kicked out of their own homes, or denied access to their own children, based on women's lack of satisfaction with them.

What we've got now, is a situation in which the men are still expected to do the heavy lifting, fight and die, protect and provide, but to do so without the respect and deference afforded them in prior generations.   Men are still expected to perform, but women have been released from their responsibilities wtih respect to men, to a large degree.   Those former responsibilities being to support and nurture, to respect and defer, to stick, and stick hard when the going got tough.   I feel like I keep saying the same thing over and over, but I really believe this is the root problem.

Cinderella Man was on Pay Per View recently, and I saw it again.   There aren't that many movies made about the 1930's if you think about it.   What a difficult time to live through.   It struck me, though, again, how different the mentality was then concerning marriage.   Neither men nor women were oppressed based on gender, but times were tough for everyone.   That's the way history has been, until the past couple of generations when modernity has afforded us in wealthy societies the luxury of focusing on Me, Me, Me.....   And all manner of ills have been the result.

I guess what I'm trying to say, bluedye, is that I understand what you're getting at in terms of what will sell.   I'm also a pragmatist.   But there's a line between salesmanship and honesty that I just don't think we should cross here.   Yes, the public is brainwashed.   They need to be deprogrammed.   But I think there are better ways to do that than to prostitute ourselves by agreeing that women have been oppressed, by agreeing that women have been and are victims.    Let's just be honest and say women are not, and have not been, oppressed.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 19, 2006, 06:56 PM
I don't think women have been oppressed since they achieved control over their husband's sexuality.

I remember two interesting quotes from Ancient Rome. One was from a groom to his bride on their wedding night; "My love life is none of your business!" The second was also from a husband to his wife on the subject of his sexual interest in young men. She insisted she could offer the same "service" to him and he replied, I'm paraphrasing, "I'm afraid not because, you see, you do not have a asshole you just have two vaginas."

Cunnilingus also used to be considered particularly disgusting and degrading to Roman men. A man who preformed it would probably have been seen as a sexual deviant on the order of a flaming fag today.

Imagine, for a moment, a society where one's wife is almost the last person one would want to have sex with outside of a desire for legitimate children. (I know it may be hard for the guys here, but think about Desperate Housewives and just reverse the genders.) Where one feels no need to be chaste or true to their marriage vows, although if one's wife fails to uphold her vows... divorce will be the result and she will lose both her children and the dowery she brought to the marriage.

Prior to Christianity, women had minimal social power in marriage. *After* Christianity, women gained the ability to shame(or terrify with indirect threats of hell) their husbands into chastity and into sacrificing for them.

Compare submitting to a man who is taught to "love and honor your wife and sacrifice for her like Christ did for the church" versus submitting to a man who's attitudes are more along the lines of... "my love life is none of your business and, oh, if you want to eat you better produce 'cause that's none of *my* business*."

That's oppression right there.

*Higher class Roman Matrons apparently were expected to run the household and work in wool. Their husbands did not work.(This was a time where the household required considerable work to run, and was expected to support the _man of the house_ rather then the other way round as is common today.) Lower class Roman Matrons also worked as nurses, waitresses, midwives, weavers and food sellers.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Darth Sidious on Jul 19, 2006, 07:01 PM
Quote from: "Christiane"
Quote
I think we need to be realistic. The general public, by an overwhelming margin also thinks women were oppressed. If we MRA's try to suggest that men were the TRUE oppressed, we'll sound like revisionist historians. Nearly everyone knows about the "right to vote" issue... I think people would have an automatic "shut off valve" for anything we have to say if we play the historical "out-victiming" angle.


I agree the general public is brainwashed.   There's been a good job done of that.   But I don't agree that men were oppressed prior to about 40  years ago, any more than I think women were.   There was an ordering of society, which has been thrown out the window in my lifetime.   Yes, men fought, died, protected women, did the heavy lifting, all that stuff.   But they were respected for that, and they were the heads of their households.   In prior generations, men didn't get kicked out of their own homes, or denied access to their own children, based on women's lack of satisfaction with them.

What we've got now, is a situation in which the men are still expected to do the heavy lifting, fight and die, protect and provide, but to do so without the respect and deference afforded them in prior generations.   Men are still expected to perform, but women have been released from their responsibilities wtih respect to men, to a large degree.   Those former responsibilities being to support and nurture, to respect and defer, to stick, and stick hard when the going got tough.   I feel like I keep saying the same thing over and over, but I really believe this is the root problem.

Cinderella Man was on Pay Per View recently, and I saw it again.   There aren't that many movies made about the 1930's if you think about it.   What a difficult time to live through.   It struck me, though, again, how different the mentality was then concerning marriage.   Neither men nor women were oppressed based on gender, but times were tough for everyone.   That's the way history has been, until the past couple of generations when modernity has afforded us in wealthy societies the luxury of focusing on Me, Me, Me.....   And all manner of ills have been the result.

I guess what I'm trying to say, bluedye, is that I understand what you're getting at in terms of what will sell.   I'm also a pragmatist.   But there's a line between salesmanship and honesty that I just don't think we should cross here.   Yes, the public is brainwashed.   They need to be deprogrammed.   But I think there are better ways to do that than to prostitute ourselves by agreeing that women have been oppressed, by agreeing that women have been and are victims.    Let's just be honest and say women are not, and have not been, oppressed.


Excellent post.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: MrsShades on Jul 19, 2006, 07:25 PM
Quote from: "typhonblue"

"Your desire (indicating a wish to usurp and rule) shall be for your husband but he shall rule over you."


Er... doesn't desire mean desire?[/quote]

Not here, no.   The meaning is often lost in translation, but it is the same exact wording and grammar used in Genesis 4:7 "If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it."

Desire in these instances connotes a wish to usurp and rule, which is why it's followed by the admonition as to who should do the ruling.

Quote
If a man must sacrifice to his wife as Christ sacrificed for the Church in order to be saved


This is absolutely not a condition of salvation.   It is an obligation for one who is saved, but salvation is absolutely not conditional upon this.   Both spouses' obligations hold whether the other party fulfills their end or not, also.   A wife is still required to submit even if her husband does not sacrifice himself; though he should.   Vice versa.

Quote
Again, if the husband is sacrificing properly, in what situation would the wife *not* submit to his decisions? If she didn't submit it would be, literally, against her *own* benefit?


In any case where she wants to do her own thing, her own way.   I mentioned a friend once who is a real maneater.  Her current husband wanted her to stop attending a seriously goofy church and attend a normal church with him.  This was clearly to her spiritual benefit, and it is spiritual benefit which is the point here.   She, however, refused to submit to his spiritual leadership and determined to do her own thing, and thus got caught up in some very cultish activities and theologies.  That is just one of countless examples.  People seldom want what's best for them; self-will is deeply ingrained, and right in Genesis we're told the woman is going to want to usurp.   It's just the way it is.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 19, 2006, 07:30 PM
Quote from: "MrsShades"

Quote
If a man must sacrifice to his wife as Christ sacrificed for the Church in order to be saved


This is absolutely not a condition of salvation.   It is an obligation for one who is saved, but salvation is absolutely not conditional upon this.   Both spouses' obligations hold whether the other party fulfills their end or not, also.   A wife is still required to submit even if her husband does not sacrifice himself; though he should.   Vice versa.


So if a man, who is "saved", fails to fulfill this obligation, he can still go to heaven?

I can't think of anything a man can do that doesn't involve sacrificing to his wife and isn't a sin off hand, but if there were one thing...
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Christiane on Jul 19, 2006, 07:31 PM
Thank you, Darth.

I think we might possibly be able to agree on two things, tb:

1.  Women have gained control over men in many ways, and as a result men are being treated very unfairly.   We differ widely on the timing however.

2.  Desperate Housewives, as entertainment, is innane.   I've seen it perhaps 3 times - just couldn't muster any interest in it at all.   The plumber was hot though.   Probably too old for you.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: MrsShades on Jul 19, 2006, 07:32 PM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
I read, once, a really interesting story about a Christian missionary in India.

He was riding on an over-crowded bus, sitting on a box on the floor, when the bus came upon three women from the congregation he was going to address.

They came on the bus and he offered one his box, saying he could sit on the floor. Another man on the bus immediately offered his own seat to the Christian missionary.

The missionary refused and the man said, "if you sit on the floor I shall have to lie on it because you are our honored leader and I will not be above you."

What's interesting about this is that the women got the deference, simply by being women, that a man would not get, *unless* he was elevated above other men.

So what does that make women?


The weaker vessel.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: MrsShades on Jul 19, 2006, 07:32 PM
Edited because my computer is a weak vessel.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: MrsShades on Jul 19, 2006, 07:33 PM
Puter problems multiple posts
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: MrsShades on Jul 19, 2006, 07:37 PM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Quote from: "MrsShades"

Quote
If a man must sacrifice to his wife as Christ sacrificed for the Church in order to be saved


This is absolutely not a condition of salvation.   It is an obligation for one who is saved, but salvation is absolutely not conditional upon this.   Both spouses' obligations hold whether the other party fulfills their end or not, also.   A wife is still required to submit even if her husband does not sacrifice himself; though he should.   Vice versa.


So if a man, who is "saved", fails to fulfill this obligation, he can still go to heaven?

I can't think of anything a man can do that doesn't involve sacrificing to his wife and isn't a sin off hand, but if there were one thing...


Of course he will still go to heaven.   Christians commit any number of sins and omissions in their lives, only rejection of Christ and failure to even try indicate the person is not genuinely saved.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: bluedye on Jul 19, 2006, 07:39 PM
Well, I understand where you guys are coming from.  It's hard sometimes to differentiate between what has been sold to us & what is historically accurate.  

I learned that women were treated as property with regards to their wages.  That they basically had no control over the money they made & their husbands did.  If this is true, then the situation is oppressi... I mean, not cool.   Aw hell...  that's pretty oppressive.   Women couldn't even spend the money they'd earned?  

To tell you the truth though, I've tried to dig up good historical proof of that & have been unable to do so.  If someone here knows this to be true / false & has a good online source for me to peruse, that would help me get my view straight here.  

The right to vote I guess can be chalked up to a both men & women were denied for a number of years, so I guess I can throw that in the "canceling out" bin.   The problem for the public is that there were a number of years that men could vote & women couldn't.   Any imbalance there is all the "proof" they need.

I just want this movement to work.   We need to focus on things we KNOW we can do.  If we go after Christianity or try to make others believe the oppression of women never happened, we're placing more speed bumps in front of ourselves.  Feminism has turned into such a pile of shit, we can hammer that into the ground & people can make up their own minds about the past.  When feminism is no longer clouding their brains, everything seemingly "outrageous" now, however true it may be will be easier to stomach.

I'm not saying we have to lie, or sell out, just keep that sort of thing close to our chests until the right time.  

In a word... strategy.

If we fight the fight we can win, the rest will come in time.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: MrsShades on Jul 19, 2006, 07:42 PM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
I don't think women have been oppressed since they achieved control over their husband's sexuality.

I remember two interesting quotes from Ancient Rome. One was from a groom to his bride on their wedding night; "My love life is none of your business!" The second was also from a husband to his wife on the subject of his sexual interest in young men. She insisted she could offer the same "service" to him and he replied, I'm paraphrasing, "I'm afraid not because, you see, you do not have a asshole you just have two vaginas."

Cunnilingus also used to be considered particularly disgusting and degrading to Roman men. A man who preformed it would probably have been seen as a sexual deviant on the order of a flaming fag today.

Imagine, for a moment, a society where one's wife is almost the last person one would want to have sex with outside of a desire for legitimate children. (I know it may be hard for the guys here, but think about Desperate Housewives and just reverse the genders.) Where one feels no need to be chaste or true to their marriage vows, although if one's wife fails to uphold her vows... divorce will be the result and she will lose both her children and the dowery she brought to the marriage.


It sounds like you think these were good things.   They are, rather, contemptible.  It also sounds like you've provided an example of oppression of women - I think someone else was asking about that on this thread.

Quote
Prior to Christianity, women had minimal social power in marriage. *After* Christianity, women gained the ability to shame(or terrify with indirect threats of hell) their husbands into chastity and into sacrificing for them.

Compare submitting to a man who is taught to "love and honor your wife and sacrifice for her like Christ did for the church" versus submitting to a man who's attitudes are more along the lines of... "my love life is none of your business and, oh, if you want to eat you better produce 'cause that's none of *my* business*."

That's oppression right there.


So.  Not being able to oppress the other is in itself oppression.  Got it.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 19, 2006, 08:04 PM
Quote from: "MrsShades"

Quote
Prior to Christianity, women had minimal social power in marriage. *After* Christianity, women gained the ability to shame(or terrify with indirect threats of hell) their husbands into chastity and into sacrificing for them.

Compare submitting to a man who is taught to "love and honor your wife and sacrifice for her like Christ did for the church" versus submitting to a man who's attitudes are more along the lines of... "my love life is none of your business and, oh, if you want to eat you better produce 'cause that's none of *my* business*."

That's oppression right there.


So.  Not being able to oppress the other is in itself oppression.  Got it.


Did I say early Christianity oppressed men? No. I said it helped pave the way for feminism.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: bluedye on Jul 19, 2006, 08:22 PM
To build on what I just posted.   I think many of us that "woke up" to what was happening around us wanted to explore exactly how deep the rabbit hole went.   Someone here spoke of the young lads vs. old blokes & how the younger generation wants action & the older generation wants to know how they'd been duped. (I'm 33... I guess I'm somewhere in the middle.)  But I think the general public would share the same curiosity about "how all of this happened & how much actually DID happen" once feminism got shit-canned.  In that sense, we won't have to be the historical reference at all...

We bring the dragon down & everyone gets to look inside it.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Sir Jessy of Anti on Jul 19, 2006, 08:23 PM
Quote from: "Typhonblue"
Cunnilingus also used to be considered particularly disgusting and degrading to Roman men. A man who preformed it would probably have been seen as a sexual deviant on the order of a flaming fag today.


I am not sure what to make of this statement.  Having been to Pompeii and seen the ruins and etchings there, I can say that one of them involved what looked like a rich Roman woman getting cunnilingus from a plainly dressed male (possibly a slave).   So would that then infer that the Roman Patriarchy allowed female deviancy?  Why would it celebrate it even if it did?

Maybe there is an indication to the answer of your question?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Christiane on Jul 19, 2006, 08:29 PM
Quote from: "bluedye"
Well, I understand where you guys are coming from.  It's hard sometimes to differentiate between what has been sold to us & what is historically accurate.  

I learned that women were treated as property with regards to their wages.  That they basically had no control over the money they made & their husbands did.  If this is true, then the situation is oppressi... I mean, not cool.   Aw hell...  that's pretty oppressive.   Women couldn't even spend the money they'd earned?  

To tell you the truth though, I've tried to dig up good historical proof of that & have been unable to do so.  If someone here knows this to be true / false & has a good online source for me to peruse, that would help me get my view straight here.  

The right to vote I guess can be chalked up to a both men & women were denied for a number of years, so I guess I can throw that in the "canceling out" bin.   The problem for the public is that there were a number of years that men could vote & women couldn't.   Any imbalance there is all the "proof" they need.

I just want this movement to work.   We need to focus on things we KNOW we can do.  If we go after Christianity or try to make others believe the oppression of women never happened, we're placing more speed bumps in front of ourselves.  Feminism has turned into such a pile of shit, we can hammer that into the ground & people can make up their own minds about the past.  When feminism is no longer clouding their brains, everything seemingly "outrageous" now, however true it may be will be easier to stomach.

I'm not saying we have to lie, or sell out, just keep that sort of thing close to our chests until the right time.  

In a word... strategy.

If we fight the fight we can win, the rest will come in time.


I do agree with you, bluedye, in that it's good to think about what to say that might produce positive results.   I think focusing on the injustice being done to men might yield tangible results.   I hope there will be a growing realization about that - and I think there is.  I'm hopeful anyway.

People are so brainwashed that they equate "feminism" with "fairness".   In our society, to say something like, "feminism is a radical ideology which has done great harm to our society"  causes most people to hear, "women are inferior".  It's just that ingrained in people's minds as the correct way to think.  

As for women in prior centuries - and I'm talking about 18th and 19th century America in particular here - yes, women were subject legally to their husbands and fathers, but they were very much partners in marriage, and they had tremendous responsibilities in supporting the family business, whether it was a farm, tailoring shop, dry goods store, whatever.   Husband and wife were partners in a real sense in the family livelihood in those days, much more so than now.  Women had a great deal of influence within the family and community, and they inherited and owned property in their own right.   They very often carried on the family business after their husband's death.    It was rare for a woman to be mistreated or abandoned - there was a huge social stigma attached to this for the man.   You won't find real historical evidence for the oppression of women then, except in feminist propaganda.    And remember, textbooks often have a feminist slant - they've been "edited" in recent decades by the powers that be.

The afflictions of these centuries - disease, infant mortality, poor diet, early and sudden death - affected young and old, rich and poor.  

Women were not oppressed.   Then or now.   That's my firm belief anyway.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 19, 2006, 08:50 PM
Quote from: "Sir Jessy of Anti"
Quote from: "Typhonblue"
Cunnilingus also used to be considered particularly disgusting and degrading to Roman men. A man who preformed it would probably have been seen as a sexual deviant on the order of a flaming fag today.


I am not sure what to make of this statement.  Having been to Pompeii and seen the ruins and etchings there, I can say that one of them involved what looked like a rich Roman woman getting cunnilingus from a plainly dressed male (possibly a slave).   So would that then infer that the Roman Patriarchy allowed female deviancy?  Why would it celebrate it even if it did?

Maybe there is an indication to the answer of your question?


Which one?

BTW, if it was a slave, perhaps it could have been a satire on the perversions of Roman Matrons?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: gwallan on Jul 19, 2006, 09:11 PM
At this point I would like to point out that the Big Bang, rather than Christianity, paved the way for feminism.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Christiane on Jul 19, 2006, 09:42 PM
God pulled the ripcord on the Big Bang IMO- and I don't think feminism is His creation......   But you might be right, gwallan.

What I will agree with though, is that there was a toxic brew from which she arose.   What exactly was in that mix, and how long it brewed, is the subject of this and many debates around here.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Sir Jessy of Anti on Jul 19, 2006, 10:04 PM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Quote from: "Sir Jessy of Anti"
Quote from: "Typhonblue"
Cunnilingus also used to be considered particularly disgusting and degrading to Roman men. A man who preformed it would probably have been seen as a sexual deviant on the order of a flaming fag today.


I am not sure what to make of this statement.  Having been to Pompeii and seen the ruins and etchings there, I can say that one of them involved what looked like a rich Roman woman getting cunnilingus from a plainly dressed male (possibly a slave).   So would that then infer that the Roman Patriarchy allowed female deviancy?  Why would it celebrate it even if it did?

Maybe there is an indication to the answer of your question?


Which one?

BTW, if it was a slave, perhaps it could have been a satire on the perversions of Roman Matrons?


No, I doubt that was the case, as this was believed to be in remnants of a brothel - and there were many other, shall we say... equally pedestrian drawings.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Christiane on Jul 19, 2006, 10:14 PM
Quote from: "Sir Jessy of Anti"
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Quote from: "Sir Jessy of Anti"
Quote from: "Typhonblue"
Cunnilingus also used to be considered particularly disgusting and degrading to Roman men. A man who preformed it would probably have been seen as a sexual deviant on the order of a flaming fag today.


I am not sure what to make of this statement.  Having been to Pompeii and seen the ruins and etchings there, I can say that one of them involved what looked like a rich Roman woman getting cunnilingus from a plainly dressed male (possibly a slave).   So would that then infer that the Roman Patriarchy allowed female deviancy?  Why would it celebrate it even if it did?

Maybe there is an indication to the answer of your question?


Which one?

BTW, if it was a slave, perhaps it could have been a satire on the perversions of Roman Matrons?


No, I doubt that was the case, as this was believed to be in remnants of a brothel - and there were many other, shall we say... equally pedestrian drawings.


Maybe it was an advertisement aimed toward rich Roman women.    Our billboards today don't exactly reflect respectable societal mores either you know....     :roll:
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 19, 2006, 10:27 PM
Quote from: "Christiane"
Quote
No, I doubt that was the case, as this was believed to be in remnants of a brothel - and there were many other, shall we say... equally pedestrian drawings.


Maybe it was an advertisement aimed toward rich Roman women.    Our billboards today don't exactly reflect respectable societal mores either you know....     :roll:


Or it could have fulfilled the pornographic needs of a niche market of roman men who were "sexual deviants."
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Christiane on Jul 19, 2006, 10:29 PM
Without that "Daily Special" chalkboard for reference, we may never know....     :wink:
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 19, 2006, 10:31 PM
Quote from: "gwallan"
At this point I would like to point out that the Big Bang, rather than Christianity, paved the way for feminism.


Yep. Even I'm getting bored with this argument now.

Chad Vader: Safeway Day Manager (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wGR4-SeuJ0)
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Darth Sidious on Jul 19, 2006, 10:50 PM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Chad Vader: Safeway Day Manager (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wGR4-SeuJ0)


:lol:
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 19, 2006, 10:52 PM
Quote from: "Sir Jessy of Anti"

No, I doubt that was the case, as this was believed to be in remnants of a brothel - and there were many other, shall we say... equally pedestrian drawings.


Was the proprietess after moe money?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 19, 2006, 10:57 PM
Quote
But I think the argument that's up for debate that people seem to be confusing is whether or not Christianity allowed the formation of feminism, not whether or not feminism can exist when Christianity is followed to the letter. Because Christianity is clearly not followed to the letter anymore, if it ever was.



What was the church supposed to do, march on to the college campuses and nail the doors shut to the women's studies centers???  IMO, it's ridiculous to propose that Christianity had any sway in allowing or disallowing the formation of feminism.  Today's feminism largely spawned in the ferment of the 60's, then grew out of the secular world of Academia.  It is presently weasling its way into Christianity through weasely programs like VAWA faith based initiatives.  

Maybe our next discussion thread could be. Did Christianity allow football to form, or did Christianity allow the space program to form, or did Christianity allow polar exploration.  Where's the connection???  Where's the influence???  Seriously, I just don't see the church as that influential in allowing the formation of feminism.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Christiane on Jul 19, 2006, 11:06 PM
Quote from: "Men's Rights Activist"
Quote
But I think the argument that's up for debate that people seem to be confusing is whether or not Christianity allowed the formation of feminism, not whether or not feminism can exist when Christianity is followed to the letter. Because Christianity is clearly not followed to the letter anymore, if it ever was.



What was the church supposed to do, march on to the college campuses and nail the doors shut to the women's studies centers???  IMO, it's ridiculous to propose that Christianity had any sway in allowing or disallowing the formation of feminism.  Today's feminism largely spawned in the ferment of the 60's, then grew out of the secular world of Academia.  It is presently weasling its way into Christianity through weasely programs like VAWA faith based initiatives.  

Maybe our next discussion thread could be. Did Christianity allow football to form, or did Christianity allow the space program to form, or did Christianity allow polar exploration.  Where's the connection???  Where's the influence???  Seriously, I just don't see the church as that influential in allowing the formation of feminism.


Or Global Warming....   Or the lifecycle of the newt....  

Ferment of the 60's - check
Secular world of academia - check
Metastisizing from there through the general population via the media- check

Yes, totally agree.   I need to read more of you, MRA.

btw, loved the Chad Vadar, tb.   Way funny.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 19, 2006, 11:13 PM
Quote
I agree the general public is brainwashed. There's been a good job done of that. But I don't agree that men were oppressed prior to about 40 years ago, any more than I think women were. There was an ordering of society, which has been thrown out the window in my lifetime.


I agree.  I think men and women have always had oppression and privilege of some sort or another, child birth, war, etc.  Nature made men and women unique, and different, contrary to idiotic gender feminist curriculum. Are you listening Harvard?  Gender feminism has very much messed up the order  men and women lived under in society.  I despise gender feminism.  It has done more to make life miserable for heterosexual men and women, than it's done to improve life.  

Relations between heterosexual men and women have always been trying in a number of ways, and it appears to me that gender feminism has exploited those natural awkward relations to further destroy relations between heterosexual men and women.  Personally, I blame nature for exploiting both men and women to perpetuate the human species, just as nature has done for all other forms of life.  That's the way of the world and our existence.  We should try to work together to make all our lives as good as possible within the constraints our natural existences have.

Gender feminism, IMO, is like an idiot dismantling a finely engineered machine, then criticizing  the engineering.  Sadly, the idiot is unable to improve or even put the finely engineered machine back together. :?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 19, 2006, 11:47 PM
Quote
Did I say early Christianity oppressed men? No. I said it helped pave the way for feminism.


I'd say communism/Stalinism has been the real roadway for feminism.  
Read Red Feminism. http://tinyurl.com/ktpn4
Read The Making of the Feminine Mystique. http://tinyurl.com/hjbtp

You seem to be confusing the malevolence that is characteristic of both Stalinism and gender feminism with Christianity.  They're easy to distinguish IMO.  When you're in one of those humanity hating or man-hating groups, just stop and ask yourself, "Where's the love?"  "If your not love, you're nothing."  

Can you comprehend the vacuousness, the desolation, the nothingness of eternity without love???  You will exist forever you know - as something or nothing.  There is an infinity you know.  It will either be something or nothing.  Think about it, but not enough to drive yourself insane.  You exist, therefore you are.  This life will end.  Will you then be nothing forever after?  Is it possible that love...  Sorry, I've digressed a little off topic.

Quote
"If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I posses to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing."  I Corinthians 13


Can you in this present temporal mind really fathom the existence of your own nothingness, when eventually absent from this life?


Quote
Time is too slow for those who wait,

time is too swift for those who fear,

time is too long for those who grieve,

and time is too short for those who feel,

but for those who love, for those who really love,

time is eternity.


Time is the slave of live and life is time's fool, and time which takes a survey of all the world must have a stop.  Aldous Huxley

...and so must this post, humbly, with a wimper and not a bang.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: barsinister on Jul 20, 2006, 01:55 AM
Sorry, I've really got no choice but to post this now.

Vader Sessions! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6A0rwG39Jzk&search=Vader%20Sessions/)
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: ghost on Jul 20, 2006, 02:11 AM
Quote from: "Men's Rights Activist"

What was the church supposed to do, march on to the college campuses and nail the doors shut to the women's studies centers???  IMO, it's ridiculous to propose that Christianity had any sway in allowing or disallowing the formation of feminism.  Today's feminism largely spawned in the ferment of the 60's, then grew out of the secular world of Academia.  It is presently weasling its way into Christianity through weasely programs like VAWA faith based initiatives.  

The church has paved the way for masochistically chivalrous thinking.
It has allowed the concept of mutual love to be swallowed by one-sided courtly love, influencing tens of generations in the future, up to this day.

Without that, feminism itself would be different. It would exist, but it wouldn't be able to get away with so many hypocrisies, since the men wouldn't swallow them.

The women themselves wouldn't want to promote those hypocrisies, as they wouldn't have been raised with the idea that a man's duty is to protect and cherish them, without any reprocication.

If european civilization wasn't so soaked with chivalry, its feminism would have been different.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 20, 2006, 02:41 AM
Quote
The church has paved the way for masochistically chivalrous thinking.
It has allowed the concept of mutual love to be swallowed by one-sided "courtly love", influencing tens of generations in the future, up to this day.

Without that, feminism itself would be different. It would exist, but it wouldn't be able to get away with so many hypocrisies, since the men wouldn't swallow them.

The women themselves wouldn't want to promote those hypocrisies, as they wouldn't have been raised with the idea that a man's duty is to protect and cherish them, without any reprocication.

If european civilization wasn't so soaked with chivalry, its feminism would have been different.


The church has paved the way for masochistically generous thinking.
It has allowed the concept of mutual consideration to be swallowed by one-sided "benevolent consideration", influencing tens of generations in the future, up to this day.

Without that, civil rights law for minorities themselves would be different. They would exist, but they wouldn't be able to get away with so many hypocrisies, since the people wouldn't swallow them.

The minorities themselves wouldn't want to promote those hypocrisies, as they wouldn't have been raised with the idea that a person's duty is to protect and cherish them, without any reciprocity.

If European civilization wasn't so soaked with chivalry, its civil rights laws would have been different.  

No denying it.  The church is to blame for everything where they may have extended Agape love, even though it was other corrupt influences that actually, directly, caused the problems.  :roll:  Yes, churches are responsible for all problems, merely because people refuse to place responsibility on the corrupt institution responsible for corrupting the churches benevolence - very limited though it directly was in influencing modern feminism. :scratchchin:

If you want glaring and direct connections to the vileness of feminism, instead of a feeble attempts, IMO, to link Christianity to the evils of feminism, read the books I linked in a previous post on this page. :?


Quote
I'd say communism/Stalinism has been the real roadway for feminism.
Read Red Feminism. http://tinyurl.com/ktpn4
Read The Making of the Feminine Mystique. http://tinyurl.com/hjbtp


Additionally, read this statement from the U.S. Government Ways & Means Committee web page:
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=view&id=954
(Excerpt)

Quote
Statement of Bill Wood, Charlotte, North Carolina

A personal submission not on behalf of anyone else and these are my own views.

ROOTS OF THE AMERICAN CULTURE AND COMMUNITY IN DISARRAY
Political leaders, religious leaders, conservatives, families (especially fathers), judges,  and interested lawyers, along with the vast majority of Americans who believe in ideals of family and country must understand that open WAR HAS BEEN DECLARED ON THEM AND THIS COUNTRY.  And it's coming from many of the institutions that our taxes are funding and supporting!  In terms of financial and human costs this war on America has been the most destructive war in America's history.

When Nikita Kruschev banged his shoe on the table and declared, 'We shall destroy you from within' during the infamous "Kitchen Debate" - he knew what he was talking about.

[Comparing the culture of the 50's to that of 1998] violent criminal offenses have exploded upward by 700%. Premarital sex among 18 year olds has jumped from 30% of the population to 70%. Tax rates for a family of four have skyrocketed 500%, consuming a fourth of their income. Divorce rates have quadrupled. Illegitimate births among black Americans has soared - from approximately 23% to more than 68%. Illegitimacy itself has jumped from a nationwide total of 5% to nearly 30% nationwide - a rise of 600%. Cases of sexually transmitted diseases have risen 150%. Teen age pregnancies are up by several thousand percent and teen suicides have risen by 200%. Between 1950 and 1979 - serious crime committed by children under 15 has risen by 11,000%...

Most Americans would agree that our society has changed for the worst over the last 30 years."

While there has been progress in moving people off of the welfare rolls and into work, welfare still exists and many commentators note it exists to promote the breakdown of the family.  A myriad of today's social ills can be traced to the breakdown of the family and the undermining of marriage.  Some of the testimony about the devastation of American families as a result of today's culture war can be seen in several pieces of testimony I have submitted to the Human Resources Subcommittee:

US House Testimony on Welfare Reform Reauthorization Proposals, H.R. 4090.  April 11, 2002, 109 citations or references - consequences of welfare practices on the family unit, and exploration of the 1996 welfare reform bill's requirements for strengthening families and marriage (http://waysandmeans.house.gov/legacy.asp?file=legacy/humres/107cong/4-11-02/records/billwood.htm)  
US House Testimony on Teen Pregnancy prevention PRWORA, Public Law 104-193 (Hearing 107-48). November 15, 2001, 43 citations and references --   effects of fatherlessness and divorce on teen pregnancy. (http://waysandmeans.house.gov/legacy.asp?file=legacy/humres/107cong/11-15-01/Record/wmwood.htm)
US House Testimony on Child support and Fatherhood proposals (Hearing 107-38).  June 28, 2001, 83 citations or references - Social consequences of failed divorce and child custody policies (http://waysandmeans.house.gov/legacy.asp?file=legacy/humres/107cong/6-28-01/record/chillegalfound.htm) -- Father absence, a byproduct of divorce, illegitimacy, and the erosion of the traditional family, is responsible for; filling our prisons, causing psychological problems, suicide, psychosis, gang activity, rape, physical and sexual child abuse, violence against women, general violence, alcohol and drug abuse, poverty, lower academic achievement, school drop-outs, relationship instability, gender identity confusion, runaways, homelessness, cigarette smoking, and any number of corrosive social disorders.
US House Testimony on The "Hyde-Woolsey" child support bill, HR 1488 (Hearing 106-107, pages 94-103).  March 16, 2000, 75 Citations. - Concerning problems with nearly every state's child support guidelines.  
Along with this testimony, I have written legal briefs for the Federal District Court on the unconstitutionality of Ohio's custody laws, a legal brief opposing psychology in the courtroom, and am developing an extensive historical review of the rise of our current "family" law system.  During several years of research, a disturbing common thread continues to appear, tracing it back to its origins, it led to one Antonio Gramsci.

THE PERSONAL IS THE POLITICAL

In 1926, an Italian communist named Antonio Gramsci ended up in Mussolini's prison after a return from Russia.  While there, he wrote his "prison notebooks" and they laid out a plan for destroying Western faith and culture.  His plans included ways to undermine and discourage Westerners through the intentional collapse of the existing social structure from within.  

Gramsci advocated not only Marxist class warfare, which was economically focused, but also social and cultural warfare at the same time.  His theories and the "slow march through the culture" (or institutions) which he envisioned to destroy the West are enshrined in current American social policy.  His theories surrounding "hegemony" and a "counter-hegemony" were designed to destroy Western social structure and overthrow the "West" from within.

Hegemony, as defined by Gramsci is that widely accepted system of values, morals, ethics, and social structure which holds a society together and creates a cohesive people.  Western social structures holding society together (i.e. "the hegemony") include: authority, morality, sexual restraint, monogamous marriage, personal responsibility, patriotism, national unity, community, tradition, heredity, education, conservatism, language, Christianity, law, and truth.  His theory called for media and communications to slowly co-opt the people with the "counter-hegemony" propaganda message.

"... Hegemony operates culturally and ideologically through the institutions of civil society which characterises mature liberal-democratic, capitalist societies.  These institutions include education, the family, the church, the mass media, popular culture, etc." [ii]

Through a systematic attack of these institutions he termed the "slow march through the culture," Gramsci theorized that once these institutions were sufficiently damaged the people would insist on an end to the madness allowing totalitarian control of the Western world.  A similar form of these theories was tried before America by the National Socialists (Nazis) headed by Hitler.

Many of the Gramscian Marxist Communist ideals have been implemented in government, education, and law.  In practice, women have become the vehicle deceived and used in this quest to tear down and destroy Western culture.  This has been done by enlisting their help in ripping apart marriage and the traditional family.

Since economic Marxism was a failure, Gramsci reasoned that the only way to topple... Western institutions was by, what he called, a "long march through the culture."  He repackaged Marxism in terms of a... "cultural war"...  

"Gramsci hated marriage and the family, the very founding blocks of a civilized society.  To him, marriage was a plot, a conspiracy... to perpetuate an evil system that oppressed women and children.  It was a dangerous institution, characterized by violence and exploitation, the forerunner of fascism and tyranny.  Patriarchy served as the main target of the cultural Marxists.  They strove to feminize the family with legions of single and homosexual mothers and 'fathers' who would serve to weaken the structure of civilized society."

...[A]nother cultural Marxist (George Lukacs) brought the Gramscian strategy to the schools...  As deputy commissioner in Hungary... his first task was to put radical sex education in the schools... it was the best way to destroy traditional sexual morality, and weaken the family.  Hungarian children learned... free love, sexual intercourse, and the archaic nature of middle-class family codes, the obsolete nature of monogamy, and the irrelevance of organized religion which deprived man of pleasure.  Children were urged to deride and ignore... parental authority, and precepts of traditional morality.  If this sounds familiar, it is because this is what is happening in our public... schools.

...Under the rubric of 'diversity,' its hidden goal is to impose a uniformity of thought and behavior on all Americans.  The cultural Marxists, often teachers, university professors and administrators, TV producers, newspaper editor and the like, serve as gatekeepers by keeping all traditional and positive ideas, especially religious ideas, out of the public marketplace.  

Herbert Marcuse was largely responsible for bringing cultural Marxism to the United States...  He believed that all taboos, especially sexual ones, should be relaxed.  "Make love, not war!" was his battle cry that echoed through ivy-covered college campuses all over America.  His methodology for rebellion included the deconstruction of the language, the infamous "what does 'is' mean?" which fostered the destruction of the culture.  By confusing and obliterating word meanings, he helped cause a breakdown in the social conformity of the nation, especially among the... young of America...  

Marcuse said that women should be the cultural proletariat who transformed Western society.  They would serve as the catalyst for the new Marxist Revolution.  If women could be persuaded to leave their traditional roles as the transmitters of culture, then the traditional culture could not be transmitted to the next generation.

What better way to influence the generations than by subverting the traditional roles of women?  The Marxists rightfully reasoned that the undermining of women could deal a deadly blow to the culture.

If women were the target, then the Cultural Marxists scored a bullseye... Women have traded the domestic tranquility of family and the home for the power surge of the boardroom and the sweaty release of casual sex.  Divorce court statistics, wife and child abandonment, abortion and even spousal murder can be laid at [the feminists] doorstep to a large degree. [iii]

Careful study and review shows that Gramscian Marxist Communism encompasses today's "feminist" movement. [iv]  Feminism's goals are to use women to undermine and destroy the culture by abandoning marriage and by not carrying on the critical task of "transmitting the culture" to the next generation.  Today's feminists use women to advance the destruction of women, children, and families while convincing them they are somehow a "victim" of the patriarchal structure.  And the patriarchal structure is nothing but Orwellian NewSpeak for the social structures and institutions that have kept Western civilization together long before the social decay we see today.

America's socialists and communists make no pretenses about their goals to promote the destruction of a cohesive society by advancing a welfare state and the complete breakdown of the family.  Socialists have openly adopted the "counter hegemony" taught by Gramsci which is designed to destroy Western culture.  "[T]he stronger the 'counter-hegemonic' strength of unions and left parties, the stronger the welfare state...  When we argue for 'decommodifying' (i.e., taking out of private market provision) such basic human needs as healthcare, childcare, education, and housing, we have in mind a decentralized and more fully accountable welfare state then [sic] exists in Western democracies." [v]  This statement comes from one of the MANY American college professors indoctrinating students today.  As noted by William Gregg in the New American:

Writing in the Winter 1996 issue of the Marxist journal Dissent, Michael Walzer enumerated some of the cultural victories won by the left since the 1960s:

"The visible impact of feminism."
"The effects of affirmative action."
"The emergence of gay rights politics, and ... the attention paid to it in the media."
"The acceptance of cultural pluralism."
"The transformation of family life," including "rising divorce rates, changing sexual mores, new household arrangements -- and, again, the portrayal of all this in the media."
"The progress of secularization; the fading of religion in general and Christianity in particular from the public sphere -- classrooms, textbooks, legal codes, holidays, and so on."
"The virtual abolition of capital punishment."
"The legalization of abortion."
"The first successes in the effort to regulate and limit the private ownership of guns."
Significantly, Walzer admitted... these victories were imposed upon our society by "liberal elites," rather than... "by the pressure of a mass movement or a majoritarian party."  These changes "reflect the leftism or liberalism of lawyers, judges, federal bureaucrats, professors, school teachers, social workers, journalists, television and screen writers -- not the population at large," noted Walzer...  [T]he left focused on "winning the Gramscian war of position."

Cultural commentator Richard Grenier [notes Gramsci formulated] "the doctrine that those who want to change society must change man's consciousness, and that in order to accomplish this they must first control the institutions by which that consciousness is formed: schools, universities, churches, and, perhaps above all, art and the communications industry.  It is these institutions that shape and articulate 'public opinion,' the limits of which few politicians can violate with impunity.  Culture, Gramsci felt, is not simply the superstructure of an economic base -- the role assigned to it in orthodox Marxism -- but is central to a society. His famous battle cry is: capture the culture."

Gramsci recognized that the chief [obstacles] impeding... the triumph of Marxism were... those institutions, customs, and habits identified by Washington and the other Founding Fathers as indispensable to ordered liberty -- such as the family, private initiative, self-restraint, and principled individualism.  But Gramsci focused particularly on what Washington described as the "indispensable supports" of free society -- religion and morality.  In order to bring about a revolution, Gramsci wrote, "The conception of law will have to be freed from every remnant of transcendence and absoluteness, practically from all moralist fanaticism." [vi]

Gramsci's Marxist communist philosophy, with its goal and aim to completely destroy "Western" civilization is best summed up in the feminist phrase "THE PERSONAL IS THE POLITICAL!"

FAMILY LAW, CHILD SUPPORT, AND WELFARE FROM MARXISM?
Many people would be shocked to learn that much of the current "family law" system we have today, which is at the heart of so much of our modern social upheaval and America's "welfare state," was born in the Soviet Union.
[/size]
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: ghost on Jul 20, 2006, 03:05 AM
Are you ok?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 20, 2006, 03:18 AM
Quote
Are you ok?


I'm fine.  

Is that question an ad hominem attack, or have you just given up on your non sequitur attempt, IMO, to link Christianity to the evils of feminism that plage American society.

Here are some addtional direct supports (suggested reading) for my contentions.  They are from the footnotes of Bill Woods statement to the U.S. Government Committee on Ways & Means:

Quote
[iv] "Marxism and Feminism are one, and that one is Marxism"  Heidi Hartmann and Amy Bridges, The unhappy marriage of Marxism and Feminism. -- opening page of Chapter 1, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State.  Catharine A. MacKinnon, 1989, First Harvard University Press (paperback in 1991)
http://tinyurl.com/zfvlg

"Sexuality is to feminism what work is to Marxism..."  -- Toward a Feminist Theory of the State.  Catharine A. MacKinnon, 1989, First Harvard University Press.  Page 3
http://tinyurl.com/zfvlg

Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism. -- Toward a Feminist Theory of the State.  Catharine A. MacKinnon, 1989, First Harvard University Press.  Page 10 http://tinyurl.com/zfvlg

:scratchchin:
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: ghost on Jul 20, 2006, 04:20 AM
Ok, I was just wondering. I didn't think that my post would cause so much rage...
You are pasting those marxism articles, trying to prove that feminism is linked to marxism... as if anyone argued.

What I was trying to say is that there is an issue in people's heads. It predates feminism by hundreds of years, MRA. The issue is basically a huge disbalance in empathy. Women have much less empathy for men than for other women, and men repeat the same pattern.

Any problem that is discussed on this board can be reduced to disbalance of empathy.

You can point out as many conspiracy theories as you like (which are probably true), but those things (feminism, racism, nazism) can never catch on unless people are receptive to them. And for some reason, the entire european civilization, the common people, were very receptive.

Feminism isn't a foreign insertion, but a natural development of a civilization that has been overvaluing the feelings, concerns, comfort and safety of women over those of men for hundreds of years.

And now... what does Christianity have to do with it. There is a passage in the bible which perfectly justifies it, demanding husbands to sacrifice themselves for their wives like Jesus did for humanity.

This means that Christianity has played an enabling role.

Although it's possible that Christianity also played a retarding role, because of the bible's many patriarchal messages.

Maybe if Europe stayed pagan, there would be even more malehating, and modern feminism would be even more powerful and vicious.

Who knows.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 20, 2006, 04:43 AM
Quote
Ok, I was just wondering. I didn't think that my post would cause so much rage...


No rage, just strongly standing my ground. :lol:  I guess people attacking the church just aren't used to people standing up for the truth.   Get used to it. :lol:

Quote
What I was trying to say is that there is an issue in people's heads. It predates feminism by hundreds of years, MRA. The issue is basically a huge disbalance in empathy. Women have much less empathy for men than for other women, and men repeat the same pattern.


Yea, so like just maybe could that be due to natural conditions inherent in the biological roles of the two sexes in the species???

Quote
Feminism isn't a foreign insertion,


My goodness, didn't you read anything I posted previously, pointing out the Marxist roots of feminism.  Where do you think Marx came from Hollywood?

Quote
And now... what does Christianity have to do with it. There is a passage in the bible which perfectly justifies it, demanding husbands to sacrifice themselves for their wives like Jesus did for humanity.  This means that Christianity has played an enabling role.


If your going to quote scripture, you make actually make the effort to get it correct:

Quote
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-- for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
Ephesians5:25-33 (NIV)


Christianity no more played and enabling role to feminism, IMO, than the man in the moon.  If you don't think men and women had distinctly different roles going back to the dawn of history, you need to re-read ancient history.  Christianity is no more responsible for "enabling" feminism than Leonardo Da Vinci's painting the Mona Lisa is (as just one of an infinite number of examples).  Why is it so hard for everyone to accept that communism is the hard driving force behind feminism, and that before feminism had its strong power base in government, it had a strong power base in academia?  How can one attribute any serious, significant enabling effect to feminism from the Christian church, when feminism never had a power base there?  What about Judaism?  As one caller to Glenn Sacks show pointed out, "There sure seems to be a disproportionate number of Jewish women in the feminist movement."  Why not blame Judaism, too politically incorrect?

This whole thread from its very beginning strikes me as a whole lot of very bigoted, and dishonest Christian bashing. :?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: ghost on Jul 20, 2006, 05:02 AM
Quote from: "Men's Rights Activist"

No rage, just strongly standing my ground. :lol:  I guess people attacking the church just aren't used to people standing up for the truth.   Get used to it. :lol:

Yeah okay. I will confess, I am actually a subvertive agent implanted here by militant anti-churchians.

Quote

Yea, so like just maybe could that be due to natural conditions inherent in the biological roles of the two sexes in the species???

It probably is. It would be nice to hope that it isn't (which would make the problem solvable), but I really doubt that...

Quote

My goodness, didn't you read anything I posted preiviously pointing out the Marxist roots of feminism.

No, it was long and boring and had a huge font.
I don't need to read it since it isn't relevant.
I didn't argue that feminism doesn't have marxist roots, it's actually common knowledge. I don't think even feminists would argue.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: ghost on Jul 20, 2006, 05:28 AM
From the article that you pasted so lovingly, with a nice huge font to make it more readable:
Quote

Gramsci advocated not only Marxist class warfare, which was economically focused, but also social and cultural warfare at the same time. His theories and the “slow march through the culture” (or institutions) which he envisioned to destroy the West are enshrined in current American social policy. His theories surrounding “hegemony” and a “counter-hegemony” were designed to destroy Western social structure and overthrow the “West” from within.

Hegemony, as defined by Gramsci is that widely accepted system of values, morals, ethics, and social structure which holds a society together and creates a cohesive people. Western social structures holding society together (i.e. “the hegemony”) include: authority, morality, sexual restraint, monogamous marriage, personal responsibility, patriotism, national unity, community, tradition, heredity, education, conservatism, language, Christianity, law, and truth. His theory called for media and communications to slowly co-opt the people with the “counter-hegemony” propaganda message.

Ok. Do you realize that if people weren't afflicted by the problem of "empathy disbalance" his plans would fail when it came to getting women to hate men, and getting men to accept it?

Their reaction to feminism would be the same as yours, before you learned of marxist conspiracies, or the intricacies of bias in the legal system. They would intuitively reject it.

Do you also realize that about half of those "good old things" that Gramsci set out to undermine were already soaked with chivalry, before feminism was even invented?

Let's go over some of them:

Morality
Morality is a set of rules a person must follow in order to be considered "good" in his or her society.

In the West, in order for a man to be considered "good" he has to be helpful, respectful, protective, forgiving and considerate to women.
Any sign of disrespect to women, or a lack of willingness to serve women instantly strips him of goodness.

In order for a woman to be good, all she has to do is to reject men.

Sexual restraint
Sigh. Is an explanation needed?

Monogamous marriage
A man must dedicate his life to providing for a woman. From this follows, that even if the woman chooses to kick him to the curb, his commitment isn't revoked - he still must provide for her.

Personal responsibility
Never was stressed for women in the first place. In the twentieth century, especially after the "revolution of the sixties" it became looser for men, and slightly higher for women.

For example, a husband is no longer supposed to do jail time if his wife commits a crime. Wives are expected to have some financial input in marriage. (in other words, being productive, rather than leeching off a man.)

Patriotism
In order to be properly patriotic, men must be willing to defend their country in war. Women... don't. Women are the precious thing which men go to wars to defend.

Tradition
Mostly misandric.

Law
Same.

Truth
Skewed.

Christianity
A husband must sacrifice for his wife like Jesus did for the church.

Conservatism
A political movement based around latching on to old traditions, which are mostly misandric.

Etc, etc.
Western culture was already biased, before feminism came, before any evil marxist plans were unfolded.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: dr e on Jul 20, 2006, 05:42 AM
MRA - I don't think that anyone is "attacking" Christianity.  The way I see this thread is that people are trying to understand how we got to the misandrous point we are living and looking at possible factors that would have influenced that.  I grew up in a Christian home with loving parents and know first hand how helpful, positive and life-affirming that can be.  There were lots of factors that have brought us to our present state and understanding them is a good exercise.      

Ghost - The phrase "Disbalance of empathy" says it all.  I love the word "disbalance" and hope that it indeed is a word.  It isn't on dictionary.com but that doesnt' mean much.  The prefix "dis" implies an active part in creating the imbalance and helps in telling the story.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: ghost on Jul 20, 2006, 05:59 AM
Ok... my bad. Imbalance then.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 20, 2006, 06:00 AM
Leftist Liberalism

A political movement based around latching on to communist precepts  and traditions, which are all heavily misandric, and the apparent future of America.

i.e.,

Quote
[iv] "Marxism and Feminism are one, and that one is Marxism" Heidi Hartmann and Amy Bridges, The unhappy marriage of Marxism and Feminism. -- opening page of Chapter 1, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. Catharine A. MacKinnon, 1989, First Harvard University Press (paperback in 1991)
http://tinyurl.com/zfvlg

"Sexuality is to feminism what work is to Marxism..." -- Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. Catharine A. MacKinnon, 1989, First Harvard University Press. Page 3
http://tinyurl.com/zfvlg

Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism. -- Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. Catharine A. MacKinnon, 1989, First Harvard University Press. Page 10 http://tinyurl.com/zfvlg


Quote
Christianity
A husband must sacrifice for his wife like Jesus did for the church.


You keep leaving out the part pertaining to the wife.  Why is that???  There is actually reciprocity in that command, not strictly an enabling of the female as you seem to repeatedly, incorrectly infer.

Quote
Patriotism
In order to be properly patriotic, men must be willing to defend their country in war. Women... don't. Women are the precious thing which men go to wars to defend.


We have some common ground here, although I may be stricter here than you.  I'm an advocate of women serving in all combat roles, until as many women have died in America's wars as have men, then after that 50/50.

(http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/MRA_06/9b26ca6b.jpg)
Marines in landing craft

Quote
Do you also realize that about half of those "good old things" that Gramsci set out to undermine were already soaked with chivalry, before feminism was even invented?


Okay, I'll concede this point - a little - sort of.  

Chivalry is a major factor in the oppression of men, and on a broad scale the church has enabled it.  I was not making a direct connection to enabling feminism, and still don't, but there is an indirect enabling of sorts.  I was viewing this more as a direct oppression of men, than a direct enabling of feminism.   Feminism does view all nuances of chivalrous heterosexuality as oppressive to women.  Through chivalry men are exploited so women are empowered through that, again, not the way that feminism claims women get empowerment directly from themselves (girl power).
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: dr e on Jul 20, 2006, 06:02 AM
Ghost - No, not bad at all.  The phrase "disbalance of empathy" describes the situation much better than "imbalance of empathy."  If Disbalance isn't a word maybe we should start using it anyway!
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: devia on Jul 20, 2006, 06:20 AM
The begining of the Moslem religon meant great strides for the rights of women.

Before that girl babies were often buried alive at birth, and widow were left to starve. The Koran forbid these practises.

Perhaps we are confusing basic human rights with feminism?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: ghost on Jul 20, 2006, 06:40 AM
Quote from: "Men's Rights Activist"
Leftist Liberalism
A political movement based around latching on to communist precepts  and traditions, which are all heavily misandric, and the apparent future of America.

Agreed.

Quote

You keep leaving out the part pertaining to the wife.  Why is that???  There is actually reciprocity in that command, not strictly an enabling of the female as you seem to repeatedly, incorrectly infer.

I posted about that in the other thread, when I quoted the bible passage.

Here is what I posted
Quote

It requires the wife to be obedient, but the real balance of power is the man serving the wife. How can he force her to obey when he is supposed to cherish and nourish her? And why would she revere someone who is wholly commited to serving her?


As we see, there is no actual reciprocity. Either one partner obeys, or one partner sacrifices. Both can't be possible at the same time. Either the husband is the master, or the wife is the master. They can't be both each other's masters.

So either the "obedience" component is entirely left out, or the "sacrifice component" is entirely left out.

And indeed, women haven't been "obeying" men or anything close.
In western culture, the component of female obedience has been left out. The wife is the master.


Quote

We have some common ground here, although I may be stricter here than you.  I'm an advocate of women serving in all combat roles, until as many women have died in America's wars as have men, then after that 50/50.

I think you would have a hard time finding a conservative who would agree with you about that.

Quote

Chivalry is a major factor in the oppression of men, and on a broad scale the church has enabled it.  I was not making a direct connection to enabling feminism, and still don't, but there is an indirect enabling of sorts.

Ok, then we agree.

Quote

Feminism does view all nuances of chivalrous heterosexuality as oppressive to women.

I doubt that. Strictly speaking, it does, when we view it as a political ideology. But I don't believe that most feminists honestly believe the ideology. There is no reason to assume that feminists can't perceive reality.

Feminists don't believe that chivalrous heterosexuality is oppressive to women, they aren't idiots.

Feminism is simply a grand trolling campaign. This is the most rational way to view it. Feminism puts the GNAA to shame. ;)

All those hilarious wacky hypocrisies, and obliviousness to obvious double standards. Those are hints that feminists leave for you on purpose.

"We aren't serious, get it already", they say.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: ghost on Jul 20, 2006, 06:45 AM
Quote from: "devia"
The begining of the Moslem religon meant great strides for the rights of women.

Before that girl babies were often buried alive at birth, and widow were left to starve. The Koran forbid these practises.

Perhaps we are confusing basic human rights with feminism?

devia... your point is?
Are you comparing Christianity and Islam?
If so, are you saying that having your husband emulate Jesus in regards to you is a basic human right?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: zarby on Jul 20, 2006, 07:04 AM
Some of the historical points made here are facinating.

I personally don't think any of it has much to do with the present situation.

I think the feminist culture is taking off without much reference the past.

This feminist era it seems to me is a new experimentation not a continuation of past trends. I think christianity is being ignored. The old testament is certainly being ignored. Any influence is minor at most.

Any correlation between the present and certain past events is at best tenuous including correlations with communisim.

I think you can compare and analogize the present with the past but that the connection just isn't there. Nothing in history to my knowledge was significantly similar to what is going on know.

As one example, I don't think men at any time in previous history could be separated from their children as easily as now. I think in times past men would have picked up their clubs or spears or muskets or whatever and fought whoever and whatever attempted to do such a thing.

Even the most absolute of monarchs or tyrants would not attempt to do such a thing (except with respect to "slaves"). I am no expert in history and I wish my history was better but I challenge anyone to point out a time in history where anybody other than slaves were treated this way.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 20, 2006, 07:11 AM
Quote
The beginning of the Moslem religon meant great strides for the rights of women


That reminds me of a picture someone sent me about a year ago of a man riding on a donkey with a woman wearing a burka carrying a huge load of sticks on her back.  

I also seem to recall the practice of leaving infants out to die being heavily impacted by early Christianity.  Still, things were very primitive in many ancient and medieval cultures, until relatively modern times.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: The Gonzman on Jul 20, 2006, 09:38 AM
Quote
As we see, there is no actual reciprocity. Either one partner obeys, or one partner sacrifices. Both can't be possible at the same time. Either the husband is the master, or the wife is the master. They can't be both each other's masters.

So either the "obedience" component is entirely left out, or the "sacrifice component" is entirely left out.


Because the sacrifice is not at the direction of the woman, but left at the discretion of the man, it is voluntary, and not compelled.

Here's the deal, ghost.  I, as an old-school guy, decide that to properly support my family, my sacrifice will be my free time, as in, I work extra hours, or a second job.

Honeybunch does not ask me to do so.

And if sweetie-pie complains "You're never here! I feel neglected!," the response is "Silence, woman, the head of the family has decided."
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 20, 2006, 09:48 AM
Quote from: "Gonzokid"
Quote
As we see, there is no actual reciprocity. Either one partner obeys, or one partner sacrifices. Both can't be possible at the same time. Either the husband is the master, or the wife is the master. They can't be both each other's masters.

So either the "obedience" component is entirely left out, or the "sacrifice component" is entirely left out.


Because the sacrifice is not at the direction of the woman, but left at the discretion of the man, it is voluntary, and not compelled.

Here's the deal, ghost.  I, as an old-school guy, decide that to properly support my family, my sacrifice will be my free time, as in, I work extra hours, or a second job.

Honeybunch does not ask me to do so.

And if sweetie-pie complains "You're never here! I feel neglected!," the response is "Silence, woman, the head of the family has decided."


But still, the sacrifice is *for* the benefit of the woman, not the man. *That* part isn't voluntary. At least if one want's to be a good Christian man.

So in any situation where the man's interests conflict with the woman's interests... the woman's interests win out.

What choice do you have in your situation, really? You must always choose the course of action that confers the *best* possible benefit to your wife, even if it entails extreme sacrifice for yourself. So, at most, you have a choice between different types of benefit to women. Faboo.

In the case of the example you made, you get the fleeting satisfaction of saying "no" to the lesser benefit when a woman's interests conflict. But still, you're working yourself to death for sweetie-pie, while she sits at home like a good Christian woman and gossips about how selfish you are to all her Christian friends.

And if you chose *not* to work those extra hours, you'd be even more shamed as a "poor provider."

When men's actions are defined by women's interests, men get it coming and going.

The other thing is... without a strong sense of identity as men... which Christianity doesn't really encourage because there are no manhood rituals associated with it, who will men turn to understand what best benefits women?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: MrsShades on Jul 20, 2006, 10:47 AM
Quote
But still, you're working yourself to death for sweetie-pie, while she sits at home like a good Christian woman and gossips about how selfish you are to all her Christian friends.


Which is the polar opposite of a Christian wife's duty as outlined in the bible.  In fact, the bible demands that a woman do good to her husband, and never ill, all the days of his life.  And that's just the beginning.  She is also required to work very hard, be productive, be charitable to those less fortunate, put her husband and children's needs before her own, honor her husband, submit to him, and make his life a good one so that he has time and confidence to become a leader in the world.   (Her husband is known at the gates when he sits among the elders of the land.)   Which also answers the other question about how he's supposed to know about manhood - a good wife enables him in masculine leadership in the world at large.   It's a reciprocal arrangement if both parties fulfill their respective duties.   Focusing only on one half of the Christian demands isn't going to change that.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: ghost on Jul 20, 2006, 10:56 AM
Quote from: "MrsShades"
In fact, the bible demands that a woman do good to her husband

Quote?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: MrsShades on Jul 20, 2006, 11:07 AM
Proverbs 31.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: ghost on Jul 20, 2006, 11:27 AM
Pro 31:1   The words of king Lemuel, the prophecy that his mother taught him.

Pro 31:2   What, my son? and what, the son of my womb? and what, the son of my vows?

Pro 31:3   Give not thy strength unto women, nor thy ways to that which destroyeth kings.

Pro 31:4   [It is] not for kings, O Lemuel, [it is] not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink:

Pro 31:5   Lest they drink, and forget the law, and pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted.

Pro 31:6   Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts.

Pro 31:7   Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more.

Pro 31:8   Open thy mouth for the dumb in the cause of all such as are appointed to destruction.

Pro 31:9   Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy.

Pro 31:10   Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price [is] far above rubies.

Pro 31:11   The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil.

Pro 31:12   She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life.

Pro 31:13   She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands.

Pro 31:14   She is like the merchants' ships; she bringeth her food from afar.

Pro 31:15   She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens.

Pro 31:16   She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard.

Pro 31:17   She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms.

Pro 31:18   She perceiveth that her merchandise [is] good: her candle goeth not out by night.

Pro 31:19   She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff.

Pro 31:20   She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy.

Pro 31:21   She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household [are] clothed with scarlet.

Pro 31:22   She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing [is] silk and purple.

Pro 31:23   Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land.

Pro 31:24   She maketh fine linen, and selleth [it]; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant.

Pro 31:25   Strength and honour [are] her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come.

Pro 31:26   She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue [is] the law of kindness.

Pro 31:27   She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness.

Pro 31:28   Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband [also], and he praiseth her.

Pro 31:29   Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all.

Pro 31:30   Favour [is] deceitful, and beauty [is] vain: [but] a woman [that] feareth the LORD, she shall be praised.

Pro 31:31   Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates.

Doesn't look like a commandment to me???
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 20, 2006, 11:29 AM
Quote from: "MrsShades"
Quote

What's interesting about this is that the women got the deference, simply by being women, that a man would not get, *unless* he was elevated above other men.

So what does that make women?


The weaker vessel.


Do Christians usually give preferential treatment to seating children as well? Children are weaker even then women.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 20, 2006, 11:39 AM
Quote from: "MrsShades"
Which also answers the other question about how he's supposed to know about manhood - a good wife enables him in masculine leadership in the world at large.


"Enables him in masculine leadership".

But masculine leadership, in the Church, is to sacrifice for women.

BTW, what are the provisions for a boy to learn how to be a man in Christianity? If Christian manhood is defined as sacrifice for women(the *purpose* of Christian manhood is to sacrifice for the benefit of women), does a Christian boy even need to come under the wing of a man to help him evolve his purpose in life? I'm not talking about enabling men to lead in their sacrifice to women, but enabling men to learn about their own interests and desires _as men_ outside of men's commandment to sacrifice for the benefit of women.

Does Christianity provision boys to do that?

You see, it all comes back to women and women's needs. And the fact that selfless sacrifice for men is absent as a commandment to women in the New Testament. Submitting to a person who is selflessly sacficing for you is a selfish act.

Christianity sets the stage for women to regard their relationships with men as a selfish act and for men to regard their relationships with women as a selfless act.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 20, 2006, 11:41 AM
Quote from: "ghost"
Pro 31:1


You might also want to point out that any Christian woman who sits at home watching Oprah and providing nothing material to her family (instead being a net negative) is not a virtuous woman.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Malakas on Jul 20, 2006, 12:03 PM
Phew again!
The unresolved issues are flying like bullets. "I'm not as brainwashed as you are", seems to be the theme.  
But there's some good stuff. Gonzokid said:
Quote
Because the sacrifice is not at the direction of the woman, but left at the discretion of the man, it is voluntary, and not compelled.
The man is brought up by women in a society that takes steps and lays down rules to appease women - so he's already on the backfoot. But yes, it's true, he can retain his natural freedom if if he wishes.
MRA:
Quote
That reminds me of a picture someone sent me about a year ago of a man riding on a donkey with a woman wearing a burka carrying a huge load of sticks on her back.
Try reading Surah IV ('Women') - one of the longest in the Q'uran and imagine the sixth century context. Bugger the propaganda pictures. Devia makes a good point. Are there only two avenues for women - slave or princess?
Quote
I think the feminist culture is taking off without much reference the past.
Good try Zarby - at being reasonable. But a wholesale revision of History is a tool of feminism. Whose version of History are we talking about?
As usual TB homes in:
Quote
But masculine leadership, in the Church, is to sacrifice for women.
Because... the purpose of organised religion is to tame and domesticate men. Yes!
But that particular scam is only saleable if men are offered something attractive in return for the surrender of their natural freedom.

Round and around we go as if we've just discovered something new. If the wake-up call of Feminism can stir the pot - good! The silly games we play deserve a fresh look.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Christiane on Jul 20, 2006, 02:11 PM
Quote
But masculine leadership, in the Church, is to sacrifice for women.


Actually, no.   This is within Christian marriage only.  Not in general.   I don't know how many times this can be said but not heard.   Wives are to submit to their husbands in all things, as to the Lord.   Husbands are to love their wives as their own bodies, and sacrifice themselves for them as Christ sacrificed Himself for the church.   The husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church.

There is no commandment for men to sacrifice themselves for women, in general, in Christianity.

That's a stretch of meaning which is not supported by Scripture.   Fine to have the opinion that Christianity subjugates men, but it's just that - opinion.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: ThePatriarch on Jul 20, 2006, 02:21 PM
I used GSS Data, and compared the following factors:

Feminism and belief in God.
Feminism and religion.
Feminism and liberalism/conservatism.

Conclusion:

People who believe in God are less likely to be feminists.
Protestants are less likely to be feminists.
Liberals are more likely to be feminists.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: hansside on Jul 20, 2006, 02:31 PM
Quote from: "ThePatriarch"

Protestants are less likely to be feminists.


Less likely than Catholics? Interesting...
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Christiane on Jul 20, 2006, 02:49 PM
That seems logical, Patriarch.  

tb, just a thought - there are a number of liberal denominations within Christianity who often push a feminist agenda.  The Unity church for example, and the Episcopalians as of late,  even the mainstream Presbyterians (the PCUSA, not the fundamentalist branch PCA), maybe even the Lutherans (ELCA, not the Missouri Synod).    I would exclude the Unitarians because many congregations are not officially Christian, but they might be worth a look too as a group.   It can be effectively argued, I believe, that feminists have twisted Christianity to conform to their own agenda when they've been able to.   But then, I suppose it can be argued that they've twisted everything else they've been able to to further their agenda.....

I don't think gender feminism is to be found in the theology or practices of traditional/conservative Christianity however, or in Scripture.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 20, 2006, 04:19 PM
Quote
I don't think gender feminism is to be found in the theology or practices of traditional/conservative Christianity however, or in Scripture.


That's a pretty accurate assessment and a pretty good list.  I would only add to that United Methodists.  They very actively support Amnesty International and their gender feminist agenda.  Yuk!
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Christiane on Jul 20, 2006, 07:25 PM
That's true, MRA - with one caveat.   The Methodists vary greatly based on individual congregation and pastor.   We've seen this up close in two churches.   One very conservative pastor was replaced with a liberal husband/wife team.....   Right.   That went over well.

Another time, a moderate pastor we just loved, and still do, was replaced with a very liberal female head pastor.   Disaster again.

My apologies to the UMC people out here, but I can say this because we've been there.   The Bishop wields the power over individual congregations in the UMC, hence our leaving of the Methodist church.  

Yes, MRA - the Methodists can also be very liberal.   Long answer, sorry, but I agree.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 20, 2006, 08:59 PM
Quote from: "Christiane"
I don't think gender feminism is to be found in the theology or practices of traditional/conservative Christianity however, or in Scripture.


Gender feminism, no. But woman-firsting and the general bias that ghost so eloquently named "disbalanced empathy", yes.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Christiane on Jul 20, 2006, 09:57 PM
I've got to come back again and say that "woman-firsting" is not a component of traditional/conservative Christianity.   Again, NO.   It's just not.  I mean, what is "gender feminism" if not "woman-firsting"?

It's just not there.   Women do not rule in Christianity.   How many times can we bang our heads on our salad plates over this?????  Let's pass the dressing and get on with business, OK???
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 20, 2006, 10:10 PM
Quote from: "Christiane"
I've got to come back again and say that "woman-firsting" is not a component of traditional/conservative Christianity.   Again, NO.   It's just not.  I mean, what is "gender feminism" if not "woman-firsting"?

It's just not there.   Women do not rule in Christianity.   How many times can we bang our heads on our salad plates over this?????  Let's pass the dressing and get on with business, OK???


Woman-firsting is a term for putting women's needs above men's, has nothing to do with who "rules" but who benefits.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Christiane on Jul 20, 2006, 10:19 PM
OK, fine then.   Traditional/conservative Christianity does not put women's needs above men's.   Traditional/conservative Christianity is not "woman-firsting".  

Can we go for ice cream now?   I mean, at what point do we admit we just see things differently and go for the raspberry chip?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 20, 2006, 10:32 PM
Quote from: "Christiane"
OK, fine then.   Traditional/conservative Christianity does not put women's needs above men's.   Traditional/conservative Christianity is not "woman-firsting".  

Can we go for ice cream now?   I mean, at what point do we admit we just see things differently and go for the raspberry chip?


Traditional/conservative Christianity does put women's needs first when it councils men to sacrifice for the benefit of their wives.

If there was a *reciprical* commandment for Christian women to sacrifice for the benefit of their husbands (not just submitting to them) then it wouldn't be woman-firsting.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Christiane on Jul 20, 2006, 10:45 PM
You miss the point entirely, tb.

The wife's submission, and the husband's sacrifice, are ordained by God as a means to emulate Christ.

Emulating Christ is the framework upon which Christianity is based.

You can't cut out the woman, and elevate her because her husband sacrifices for her.

It just doesn't work that way in our religion.   It's a hierarchy.   It's a framework upon which to build your family.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 20, 2006, 11:00 PM
Quote
Traditional/conservative Christianity does put women's needs first when it councils men to sacrifice for the benefit of their wives.

If there was a *reciprical* commandment for Christian women to sacrifice for the benefit of their husbands (not just submitting to them) then it wouldn't be woman-firsting.


Jeez TB it's there in abundance in the New Testament - not that many "liberation tainted" Christian women follow it these days.  That's gender feminisms fault more than the Christian church's.  If people would quote whole sections and stop taking snippets out of context as gender feminists in the d.v. industry do all the time, maybe we wouldn't be having all this misunderstanding.  You can argue your point out of context, till your blue in the face and you'd still be wrong.

Have you been to a conservative church as a regular member for years and seen the reciprocal sacrifices the women make???  Once again, it sounds to me like your more interested in Christian bashing than coming to an understanding of how conservative Christians interpret and practice their religion.  Why the bias???

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/womensroles.htm
Quote
In Jesus' treatment of women we see how He raised their station in life and how He showed them compassion and respect in a way that they had never known before. But Jesus still did not exalt women to a place of leadership over men. None of the Twelve he selected were women. Even at the cross where most of the men had fled and the women remained faithful, Jesus did not dismiss His male disciples and replace them with women. And Jesus made a radical break with His culture in so many ways that surely He would have done it in this way also if it had been God's will. Jesus, in His treatment of women, demonstrated their equality and worth as persons, but He did not promote them to positions of leadership over men.

The Epistles and Women

In the Epistles we discover the same two principles side by side--both equality and submission for women. Galatians 3:28 points us to the equality, indicating that the way of salvation is the same for both men and women and that they are members of equal standing in the body of Christ. It does not, however, eradicate all differences in responsibilities for men and women since this passage does not cover every aspect of God's design for male and female and since Paul makes clear distinctions in other passages he wrote.

The passages which instruct us about spiritual gifts also make no distinctions according to sex. And most Scriptural exhortations to Christian growth and behavior are directed to men and women alike (i.e., I Pet. 2:1-3; Heb. 4:16; 6:1; Eph. 5:18; Gal. 5:16; Phil. 2:1-5).

However, throughout the New Testament and alongside these passages on equality are also passages which make distinctions between what God desires of men and what He desires of women, especially within marriage and within the church.


Here is where American women (especially college educated) and gender feminist are most in rebillion against Biblically sound principals these days, IMO.  It's not that education is a bad thing, just the gender feminist hogwash that always accompanies it.:

Quote
THE FAMILY
While Christian marriage is to involve mutual love and submission between two believers (Eph. 5:21), the New Testament, in four separate passages, expressly gives to the wives the responsibility to submit to their husbands (Eph. 5:22; Col. 3:18; I Pet. 3:1; Ti. 2:5). This is the voluntary submission of one equal to another out of love for God and a desire to follow His design in His Word. It is never pictured as groveling or in any way diminishing the wife's worth as a person, but rather the husband is called upon to love his wife sacrificially as Christ loved the church (Eph. 5:25).

The biblical picture is of a union filled with love and harmony where both partners are submitting to one another, where both lovingly sacrifice for the best interest of the other and where the husband is the leader in a relationship of two equals.

While husbands and fathers have been given primary responsibility for the leadership of their families including their children (Eph. 6:4; Col. 3:21; I Tim. 3:4-5), wives and mothers are urged to be "workers at home" (Ti. 2:5), meaning managers of households. Their home and their children are to be their priority--in contrast to the feminist emphasis today on careers and jobs for women outside the home.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 20, 2006, 11:05 PM
Quote
Traditional/conservative Christianity does put women's needs first when it councils men to sacrifice for the benefit of their wives.

If there was a *reciprical* commandment for Christian women to sacrifice for the benefit of their husbands (not just submitting to them) then it wouldn't be woman-firsting.


Jeez TB it's there in abundance in the New Testament - not that many "liberation tainted" Christian women follow it these days.  That's gender feminisms fault more than the Christian church's.  If people would quote whole sections and stop taking snippets out of context as gender feminists in the d.v. industry do all the time, maybe we wouldn't be having all this misunderstanding.  You can argue your point out of context, till your blue in the face and you'd still be wrong.

Have you been to a conservative church as a regular member for years and seen the reciprocal sacrifices the women make???  Once again, it sounds to me like your more interested in Christian bashing than coming to an understanding of how conservative Christians interpret and practice their religion.  Why the bias???  

The first thing you have to understand about Christianity is, "It's not about your terms."  They're irrelevant to the biblical lifestyle, and for that matter to this discussion on understanding people who choose to live their life according to the Biblical lifestyle.  You just can't get to their understanding from your terms and itinerary. :?

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/womensroles.htm
Quote
In Jesus' treatment of women we see how He raised their station in life and how He showed them compassion and respect in a way that they had never known before. But Jesus still did not exalt women to a place of leadership over men. None of the Twelve he selected were women. Even at the cross where most of the men had fled and the women remained faithful, Jesus did not dismiss His male disciples and replace them with women. And Jesus made a radical break with His culture in so many ways that surely He would have done it in this way also if it had been God's will. Jesus, in His treatment of women, demonstrated their equality and worth as persons, but He did not promote them to positions of leadership over men.

The Epistles and Women

In the Epistles we discover the same two principles side by side--both equality and submission for women. Galatians 3:28 points us to the equality, indicating that the way of salvation is the same for both men and women and that they are members of equal standing in the body of Christ. It does not, however, eradicate all differences in responsibilities for men and women since this passage does not cover every aspect of God's design for male and female and since Paul makes clear distinctions in other passages he wrote.

The passages which instruct us about spiritual gifts also make no distinctions according to sex. And most Scriptural exhortations to Christian growth and behavior are directed to men and women alike (i.e., I Pet. 2:1-3; Heb. 4:16; 6:1; Eph. 5:18; Gal. 5:16; Phil. 2:1-5).

However, throughout the New Testament and alongside these passages on equality are also passages which make distinctions between what God desires of men and what He desires of women, especially within marriage and within the church.


Here is where American women (especially college educated) and gender feminist are most in rebillion against Biblically sound principals these days, IMO.  It's not that education is a bad thing, just the gender feminist hogwash that always accompanies it.:

Quote
THE FAMILY
While Christian marriage is to involve mutual love and submission between two believers (Eph. 5:21), the New Testament, in four separate passages, expressly gives to the wives the responsibility to submit to their husbands (Eph. 5:22; Col. 3:18; I Pet. 3:1; Ti. 2:5). This is the voluntary submission of one equal to another out of love for God and a desire to follow His design in His Word. It is never pictured as groveling or in any way diminishing the wife's worth as a person, but rather the husband is called upon to love his wife sacrificially as Christ loved the church (Eph. 5:25).

The biblical picture is of a union filled with love and harmony where both partners are submitting to one another, where both lovingly sacrifice for the best interest of the other and where the husband is the leader in a relationship of two equals.

While husbands and fathers have been given primary responsibility for the leadership of their families including their children (Eph. 6:4; Col. 3:21; I Tim. 3:4-5), wives and mothers are urged to be "workers at home" (Ti. 2:5), meaning managers of households. Their home and their children are to be their priority--in contrast to the feminist emphasis today on careers and jobs for women outside the home.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Christiane on Jul 20, 2006, 11:30 PM
I think she doesn't understand our religion, MRA.   Which is OK.

Reading Scripture is one thing, having a firm grasp of the realities of belief is quite another.    I doubt we understand her religion either.  But, we've not claimed to.

I'm willing to cut her some slack.  

Christianity would urge humility.   Feminism would urge self-promotion.

I wonder who will win?   It will be a fascinating struggle to watch.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: MrsShades on Jul 21, 2006, 01:15 AM
Quote
Quote:
But masculine leadership, in the Church, is to sacrifice for women.


Quote: Actually, no. This is within Christian marriage only. Not in general. I don't know how many times this can be said but not heard. Wives are to submit to their husbands in all things, as to the Lord. Husbands are to love their wives as their own bodies, and sacrifice themselves for them as Christ sacrificed Himself for the church. The husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church.

There is no commandment for men to sacrifice themselves for women, in general, in Christianity.


Very well clarified.



Quote
ghost wrote:
Pro 31:1


You might also want to point out that any Christian woman who sits at home watching Oprah and providing nothing material to her family (instead being a net negative) is not a virtuous woman.


Obviously.


Quote
Do Christians usually give preferential treatment to seating children as well? Children are weaker even then women.


The bible refers to women as the weaker vessel because they are the childbearers, as well as being physically weaker in general.   That's why it's generally considered good manners to offer your seat to a heavily pregnant woman (as well as to an elderly person, or a person on crutches, etc.)  Women are most definitely in a delicate and vulnerable state when pregnant and giving birth.   Christianity demands self-sacrifice of all believers (male and female); and self-sacrifice to the weaker vessel can include offering a seat to a woman because she is the weaker vessel.   Yes feminists have pissed it away for everyone, but some of us have long fought feminism.

You really are misunderstanding/representing the faith here; and yes Christians are guilty of perverting their own faith as well, and allowing feminist heresy to infiltrate.   Many of us have long fought that trend too.

Ghost, you asked for a cite as to women having a biblical demand to do good and not ill to their husbands and I provided the source for my quote.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: ghost on Jul 21, 2006, 03:04 AM
Quote

Christianity demands self-sacrifice of all believers (male and female)

Even if it does, female believers sure haven't been too devout with following it!

In fact, I don't think that messages of self-sacrifice (and other ways of "giving" of yourself) get interpreted the same way by all people.

There are two major classes of people: one class who will interpret the message for themselves and others, and another class which will interpret it only for others and then make sure to moralize everyone else without applying the message to themselves.

This is how society works. There are the moralizers, the enforcers, and the followers.

And it seems women as an overwhelming majority belong to the moralizing class. This coincides well with their role in traditional Christian communities.

Quote

Ghost, you asked for a cite as to women having a biblical demand to do good and not ill to their husbands and I provided the source for my quote.

And I responded to it and said that it doesn't look like a commandment.
In other words, MrsShades, it means there is no "demand".
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: dr e on Jul 21, 2006, 06:13 AM
Christiane and others - Are you saying that you think that Christianity is egalitarian?  That it treats men and women in in a similarly respectful manner and does not see men as more expendable and women as in need of protection?  The fact is that Christianity has flourished in a culture that is misandrous for hundreds of years.  I don't remember any protests from Christinaity about this.  In fact, the vast majority of our legislators who have been passing man-hating legislation are Christians and we haven't heard a peep from Christian groups in protest.  

My own experience of Christianity is that love is the outer agenda but that underneath they still maintain values that perceive men as expendable and women as in need of special protections.  The feminists have attacked Christianity for its sexism in not alowing women in leadership roles while it has remained mum about Christianities preferential treatment of women.  Maybe it is like the fems criticising the Titanic owners for not having females as officers on their ship but forgetting the little thing about the lifeboats.   :wink:

I am curious to hear if you think Christianity is egalitarian.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 21, 2006, 06:40 AM
Quote
Even if it does, female believers sure haven't been too devout with following it!


True, the divorce rate is the same in the Bible based, Christian, evangelical church as it is in the rest of society (roughly), and I suspect as in the rest of society it is women filing most of the divorces.  That being said, you don't have to look to far to see a lot of apparently undevout men in the church as well.  People are just a bunch of sinners, and many are too easily swayed to satisfy their own pleasures, desires, etc. without consideration of others.  What better place for sinners, than the church?

Quote
In fact, I don't think that messages of self-sacrifice (and other ways of "giving" of yourself) get interpreted the same way by all people.


Agreed, that probably explains why there are thousands of denominations.

Quote
There are two major classes of people: one class who will interpret the message for themselves and others, and another class which will interpret it only for others and then make sure to moralize everyone else without applying the message to themselves.

This is how society works. There are the moralizers, the enforcers, and the followers.


There are also immorals, as well as victims of the people you mentioned, and probably other types of people too.

Quote
And it seems women as an overwhelming majority belong to the moralizing class. This coincides well with their role in traditional Christian communities.


There do tend to be more women than men in congregations.  That could be one explanation why.   Maybe women are just naturally more gregarious as a matter of their "role(s)" in life.  I suspect Christian women might offer some other explanations.  I haven't given that one much thought.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 21, 2006, 07:01 AM
Quote
Christiane and others - Are you saying that you think that Christianity is egalitarian?


Yes, absolutely in terms of sanctification and justification before God.

Quote
That it treats men and women in in a similarly respectful manner and does not see men as more expendable and women as in need of protection?


The practical societal roles that men and women have carried out in society have varied widely based on sex.  Men and women have both had oppressions in there unique ways.  "Chivalry," a concept very much in evidence in the historical church has tended to take a very protective role of women and children.  Men have tended very, very much to be the protector(s) and have often paid with their lives.  Often the protection has been from other men, but also from the elements, and other naturally oppressive conditions, even protection from wild animals, etc.  Historically, women have offered a well kept home and children, until about 40 years ago with the strong rise of feminism.

Quote
The fact is that Christianity has flourished in a culture that is misandrous for hundreds of years. I don't remember any protests from Christinaity about this.


True, and one should also argue misogynistic.  Christianity has always used its own language to describe men's and women's roles, and I doubt if the words misandrist or misogynist have come up much.

Quote
In fact, the vast majority of our legislators who have been passing man-hating legislation are Christians and we haven't heard a peep from Christian groups in protest.


I strongly disagree, and believe that more so, Christians have acquiesced to the liberal, leftist, feminist Democrat initiators of the legislation you mention - primarily out of misguided chivalrous notions.  That would certainly be my interpretation regarding VAWA, and I suspect Sex harassment, child support, Father bashing, etc. also.

Quote
My own experience of Christianity is that love is the outer agenda but that underneath they still maintain values that perceive men as expendable and women as in need of special protections. The feminists have attacked Christianity for its sexism in not allowing women in leadership roles while it has remained mum about Christianities preferential treatment of women. Maybe it is like the fems criticizing the Titanic owners for not having females as officers on their ship but forgetting the little thing about the lifeboats.


I attribute that to the very strong influence of feminism on our society over the past 40 years.  Christians have been suckered into that largely through the influence of feminism in education, politics and law, IMO.

Quote
I am curious to hear if you think Christianity is egalitarian.


Yes, in its Biblically intended spiritual life.  In practical everyday life, it is men who are marched off to war, and women who get the physical protection, and "child bearer" (actual or potential) pampering.  Much inequity has evolved (no pun intended) out of this disparity alone.  I've tried to answer your question honestly as I've witnessed Christianity in my life.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 21, 2006, 10:09 AM
Quote from: "MrsShades"
Quote
Quote:
But masculine leadership, in the Church, is to sacrifice for women.


Quote: Actually, no. This is within Christian marriage only. Not in general. I don't know how many times this can be said but not heard. Wives are to submit to their husbands in all things, as to the Lord. Husbands are to love their wives as their own bodies, and sacrifice themselves for them as Christ sacrificed Himself for the church. The husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church.

There is no commandment for men to sacrifice themselves for women, in general, in Christianity.


Very well clarified.


Not quite.

There appears to be two avenues for masculine leadership. Leadership in the church and leadership in the family. The first, leadership in the church, entails *teaching* men who lead in the family to sacrifice for their wives. The second, leadership in the family, entails men sacrificing for their wives.

Quote
Quote
You might also want to point out that any Christian woman who sits at home watching Oprah and providing nothing material to her family (instead being a net negative) is not a virtuous woman.


Obviously.


Er... then there goes the idea that the modern housewife is virtuous.

Quote
Quote
Do Christians usually give preferential treatment to seating children as well? Children are weaker even then women.


The bible refers to women as the weaker vessel because they are the childbearers, as well as being physically weaker in general.


You didn't answer the question. So I will infer the answer is no.

If Christians don't give seats up to children, who are weaker, even, then women, what is the real reason(not the excuse) for the deferential behavior?

Quote
Christianity demands self-sacrifice of all believers (male and female); and self-sacrifice to the weaker vessel can include offering a seat to a woman because she is the weaker vessel.


Where does it say, in the bible, that women must sacrifice for men as Christ sacrificed for the church?

Quote
Yes feminists have pissed it away for everyone, but some of us have long fought feminism.


Pissed *what* away? What female privilage are you trying to preserve here?

Quote
You really are misunderstanding/representing the faith here; and yes Christians are guilty of perverting their own faith as well, and allowing feminist heresy to infiltrate.   Many of us have long fought that trend too.


I don't think I am. It comes right from bible scripture. Men sacrifice for women; Women submit. (In marriage.)

I'm just analyzing those two commandments and bringing them to their logical conclusions when you add human nature to the mix.

1) If men are sacrificing for the benefit of women, then their only decisions are *which* actions to take to best benefit their wives.

2) The implication is that where men's benefit and women's benefit collide, men must sacrifice their own beneift.

3) It, in practice, places women's needs above men's. In fact it fails to give any thought to men's needs at all. (Outside of the "need" to lead in sacrificing for women: either preforming the actual sacrifice or teaching other men to preform it.)

4) If a woman is "submitting" to a man who is sacrificing for her benefit then she is acting selfishly. Particularly if that man is hurting himself to benefit her.

5) Taking responsibility for the needs of a woman is an additional burden that Christianity places upon men that it does not place upon women.

Quote
Ghost, you asked for a cite as to women having a biblical demand to do good and not ill to their husbands and I provided the source for my quote.


It wasn't a demand, it was a description of a virtuous woman. And it was in the Old Testament. Many denominations don't believe in following the Old Testament because those are the "rules" given to people of the jewish faith.

What's interesting to me is the context in which Christianity developed. When Christianity first formed, men had legal, political, social *and* sexual power over women. A Christian Roman man had a lot of privilages he could sacrifice to benefit his wife.

Christianity served as a somewhat subversive way of leveling the playing field. "Yes, men, you do rule... but get this... you have to rule for the *benefit* of your wives."

Over the millenia, however, Christian societies gradually eroded these privilages. The first to go was sexual power... the phallus became taboo and men were no longer the avatars of the spiritual simply because they had a penis.

Then other privilages went. In successive shifts women were granted more rights of inheritance, rights to appear in court, to give witness and represent themselves, career options were expanded and formerly all-male occupations were opened up to women, the right to be part of the political process was also entertained, and for the first time since Egypt's dynasties, we saw female rulers.

And, of course, the feminist movements that people recognize today followed on the footsteps of those earlier reforms in custom and law. The suffragettes and the second wave.

(As an aside, a possible reason why these movements happened is because Christian lawmakers, believing that *they* were ready and willing to fullfill a married man's sacred duty to sacrifice to his privilages to his wife but unsure about the general rabble of man, enshrined, in law, the Christian custom of sacrificing men's privilages to women to force the heathen rabble to do the same.)

Now we have a situation where women are equal or superior(at least in terms of custom) to men.

Some men look at this situation and probably see it as bad because there is nothing left for men to sacrifice to women. And since Christian manhood(in marriage) is defined as sacrifice to women, they feel impotent. Without something to sacrifice they aren't fullfilling their duties as Christian men.

Then, I suppose, there are the men who think the whole thing, sacrificing for women, is a bunch of bollocks. At least without reciprocal sacrifice.

Either way, it's unlikely we're going to go backwards. So the only remedy I can see is to create a counter movement that emphasizes women's sacrifice to men's benefit.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 21, 2006, 10:25 AM
Another thing... I suppose this gives another angle on feminism.

In the 1950s women were, legally, men's equals and socially their superiors. Men had sacrificed so much, there was nothing left for them to sacrifice. No wonder feminism felt it could stand to fight against the "chauvanism" that used to protect women when men had the balance of political power.

Women no longer needed men's sacrifice. (Shortened to "Women don't need men.")

"We got what we want out of men, now we can throw them away like a used kleenex."

Hate movement, indeed.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 21, 2006, 10:38 AM
Quote
Quote
Quote
You might also want to point out that any Christian woman who sits at home watching Oprah and providing nothing material to her family (instead being a net negative) is not a virtuous woman.



Obviously.



Er... then there goes the idea that the modern housewife is virtuous.


Wrong again TB in the Christian lifestyle she is virtuous - very wrong and consistently wrong.

Quote
The Family

While Christian marriage is to involve mutual love and submission between two believers (Eph. 5:21), the New Testament, in four separate passages, expressly gives to the wives the responsibility to submit to their husbands (Eph. 5:22; Col. 3:18; I Pet. 3:1; Ti. 2:5). This is the voluntary submission of one equal to another out of love for God and a desire to follow His design in His Word. It is never pictured as groveling or in any way diminishing the wife's worth as a person, but rather the husband is called upon to love his wife sacrificially as Christ loved the church (Eph. 5:25).

The biblical picture is of a union filled with love and harmony where both partners are submitting to one another, where both lovingly sacrifice for the best interest of the other and where the husband is the leader in a relationship of two equals.

While husbands and fathers have been given primary responsibility for the leadership of their families including their children (Eph. 6:4; Col. 3:21; I Tim. 3:4-5), wives and mothers are urged to be "workers at home" (Ti. 2:5), meaning managers of households. Their home and their children are to be their priority--in contrast to the feminist emphasis today on careers and jobs for women outside the home.

The biblical pattern for raising and instructing children in God's truths was established in Deuteronomy 6 where children are to be taught by parents "when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up." Parents are responsible for the spiritual education of their children, and mothers who work full-time outside their homes usually lack the quality time to instruct their children adequately. Nor can the responsibility for this instruction simply be transferred to someone else. While feminists emphasize that women should seek their own self-fulfillment at all costs, the Bible urges Christian women to be humble, to sacrifice their own needs to meet the needs of others, to do what is best for their children, trusting that God will meet their needs in the process.


TB you seem to be very caught up in the feminist model of womanhood as somehow "the lifestyle" of Christian women.  You err greatly.:

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/womensroles.htm
Quote
WHERE THE FEMINISTS GO WRONG!

If more Christians understood the methods of feminist thinking and what kind of biblical interpretation they must do in order to arrive at their conclusions, they would likely be more hesitant to accept the feminist position. To understand the feminist interpretation process, we begin by examining their view of Galatians 3:28 and how their interpretation of that verse affects their interpretation of the rest of the New Testament.

FEMINIST VIEW OF GALATIANS 3:28 - The foundation for all feminist interpretation of the New Testament is Galatians 3:28--"Their is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Feminists interpret this verse to refer to an equality which is both theological, regarding men and women's standing before God, and also social, regarding all of their relationships in day-to-day living. If men and women are equal before God, feminists say, then there can be no differences within their roles and responsibilities in society. Feminists therefore use this verse as the basis for the elimination of all role distinctions between men and women in Christianity. They then interpret all other New Testament verses on women in light of the feminist understanding of Galatians 3:28, thus demanding that no other verse be allowed to teach role distinctions for men and women.

PROBLEM WITH FEMINIST VIEW OF GALATIANS 3:28 - Feminists fail to interpret Galatians 3:28 in its proper context. The verse concerns the subject of justification and the believer's relationship to the Abrahamic covenant. Paul was not seeking to establish social equality in the relationships he mentioned. Rather, he was showing that all, regardless of their standing in society, may participate by faith in the inheritance of Abraham to be sons of God. He was teaching the fundamental equality of both men and women in their standing before God. Even the feminists emphasize that this is a theological passage rather than one dealing with practical matters.

Equality of being before God does not require the elimination of all role distinctions in society. Equality of being does not rule out authority and submission in relationships. We could point to many examples of relationships in which there is equality and yet a difference in roles involving authority and submission--the Trinity, the President and U. S. citizens, parents and children, employers and employees, Elders and church members.

The theology of Galatians 3:28 will result in certain social implications, but they will be the ones given in the Bible. Where authority and submission are discussed in relationships in the New Testament, instructions are given for how those relationships may be regulated so that they function in Christian love and harmony and not with abuse. The Bible does not eliminate authority but cautions that authority should be exercised in a way that honors Christ. Those in authority (husbands, Elders, parents, employers) are instructed to use their authority in a godly way. And also, those who are to submit to these authorities (wives, church members, children, employees) are instructed to submit to authority in a godly way.

Because feminists want to rule out the submission of wives to husbands and of women to male leadership in the church on the basis of Galatians 3:28, they face a serious problem in biblical interpretation when they come to the Pauline passages which explicitly teach the submission of wives to husbands and women to the male leadership in the church. Beginning with their interpretation of Galatians 3:28 that all role distinctions must be abolished in the name of equality, they seek to interpret these other Pauline passages (Eph. 5:22; Col. 3:18; I Pet. 3:1; Ti. 2:5; I Tim 2:11-15; I Cor. 11:1-16; I Cor. 14:34-35) in light of that questionable interpretation of Galatians 3:28. Feminists of various persuasions have come up with four different ways of handling this biblical material in order to reach conclusions favorable to the feminist viewpoint:

FEMINIST VIEW #1 - The New Testament passages which teach the submission of women were not really written by Paul but were added by scribes, and thus are not part of the inspired Word of God.

PROBLEM WITH VIEW #1 - This position reveals a low view of the inspiration of Scripture. According to this view, some of the Bible was inspired by God and some was not. Therefore, the Christian, rather than submitting to Scripture, must function as the judge of Scripture--always making decisions about what is inspired and what is not inspired. Both II Timothy 3:16 and II Peter 1:20-21 indicate that God inspired all Scripture, that he was overseeing the process of the writing of Scripture in such a way that the end product is His Word, not the product of human authors. Thus, the Christian views all of the Bible as God's inspired Word and does not set himself as judge of the Bible.

FEMINIST VIEW #2 - The New Testament passages which teach the submission of women were written by Paul, but he was wrong. Those who hold this view believe Paul was too much influenced by his rabbinical background and that in his writing of Scripture he had not reached a full understanding of how the gospel related to relationships between men and women. Thus, he was mistaken in some of the passages he wrote.

PROBLEM WITH VIEW #2 - This position is also based on a low view of the inspiration of Scripture. In this view, too, the Christian must become the judge of Scripture to determine for himself what is correct and what is incorrect. This view assumes that twentieth century man has a better understanding of God's truth than did the Apostle Paul writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Again, II Timothy 3:16 and II Peter 1:20-21 indicate that God worked in and through the writers of Scripture in such a way that the end product was God's perfect Word and not a conglomeration of truth and error put together by human authors.

FEMINIST VIEW #3 - The New Testament teaches the submission of women, but the teachings are no longer applicable in the twentieth century. According to this view, Paul was teaching the world view of his own culture in the first century, but our twentieth century culture is more enlightened about the equality of men and women, so the teaching no longer applies. Or sometimes it is said that writers of the New Testament knew that the ideal was to abolish all gender-based roles but feared to hinder the gospel if they broke so radically with their own culture. Thus, these Pauline passages are relegated to temporary cultural truth rather than universal truth for all cultures and all times.

PROBLEM WITH VIEW #3 - The foundation for Paul's teaching on the role or responsibilities of women is never the culture of his own day but rather the purpose of woman's creation and the woman's failure in the fall as Paul points out in I Corinthians 11:1-9 and I Timothy 2:8-15. Adam was created first, and Eve was later created as a helper for him rather than their being created simultaneously and independent of each other. Eve was deceived and led her husband into sin rather than submitting to his leadership. If the reason for the woman's submission is related to the creation and the fall, than it is not something which can change from year to year and culture to culture. Rather, it is a universal principle.

Some feminists say that there was no submission for the woman in creation but only as a result of the fall, that Genesis 3:16 was the beginning of authority and submission. But Genesis 2:18-25 teaches a submissive role for Eve in relationship to Adam, and Paul interprets it that way in the New Testament. Thus, the cross does not rid us of authority and submission, but it brings harmony to authority and submission relationships.

FEMINIST VIEW #4 - The New Testament, if rightly understood, has never taught the submission of women. If the literary context, the historical context and the theological context were carefully studied, Paul would be clearly seen to be egalitarian, and thus the New Testament teaches that women may fulfill any responsibilities in the marriage and the church that men may fulfill. Thus, "headship" means only "source" and never "leader" or "authority." "Be subject" means only "relate yourselves to" or "respond to" or "adjust yourselves to" and never "submit to."

PROBLEM WITH VIEW #4 - In these last two views the confusion among the various feminist representives comes to the surface. Both groups read these same passages, and some say they teach submission and others say they do not.

Greek lexicons include "authority" as one of the meanings for "head" and "submit" as one of the meanings for "be subject" so that only prejudicial interpretation could limit these words to pro-feminist definitions. This last view is so unconvincing that other feminists even reject it.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 21, 2006, 10:41 AM
Quote
Quote
Quote
You might also want to point out that any Christian woman who sits at home watching Oprah and providing nothing material to her family (instead being a net negative) is not a virtuous woman.



Obviously.



Er... then there goes the idea that the modern housewife is virtuous.


Wrong again TB, in the Christian lifestyle she is virtuous.

Quote
The Family

While Christian marriage is to involve mutual love and submission between two believers (Eph. 5:21), the New Testament, in four separate passages, expressly gives to the wives the responsibility to submit to their husbands (Eph. 5:22; Col. 3:18; I Pet. 3:1; Ti. 2:5). This is the voluntary submission of one equal to another out of love for God and a desire to follow His design in His Word. It is never pictured as groveling or in any way diminishing the wife's worth as a person, but rather the husband is called upon to love his wife sacrificially as Christ loved the church (Eph. 5:25).

The biblical picture is of a union filled with love and harmony where both partners are submitting to one another, where both lovingly sacrifice for the best interest of the other and where the husband is the leader in a relationship of two equals.

While husbands and fathers have been given primary responsibility for the leadership of their families including their children (Eph. 6:4; Col. 3:21; I Tim. 3:4-5), wives and mothers are urged to be "workers at home" (Ti. 2:5), meaning managers of households. Their home and their children are to be their priority--in contrast to the feminist emphasis today on careers and jobs for women outside the home.

The biblical pattern for raising and instructing children in God's truths was established in Deuteronomy 6 where children are to be taught by parents "when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up." Parents are responsible for the spiritual education of their children, and mothers who work full-time outside their homes usually lack the quality time to instruct their children adequately. Nor can the responsibility for this instruction simply be transferred to someone else. While feminists emphasize that women should seek their own self-fulfillment at all costs, the Bible urges Christian women to be humble, to sacrifice their own needs to meet the needs of others, to do what is best for their children, trusting that God will meet their needs in the process.


TB you seem to be very caught up in the feminist model of womanhood as somehow "the lifestyle" of Christian women.  You err greatly.:

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/womensroles.htm
Quote
WHERE THE FEMINISTS GO WRONG!

If more Christians understood the methods of feminist thinking and what kind of biblical interpretation they must do in order to arrive at their conclusions, they would likely be more hesitant to accept the feminist position. To understand the feminist interpretation process, we begin by examining their view of Galatians 3:28 and how their interpretation of that verse affects their interpretation of the rest of the New Testament.

FEMINIST VIEW OF GALATIANS 3:28 - The foundation for all feminist interpretation of the New Testament is Galatians 3:28--"Their is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Feminists interpret this verse to refer to an equality which is both theological, regarding men and women's standing before God, and also social, regarding all of their relationships in day-to-day living. If men and women are equal before God, feminists say, then there can be no differences within their roles and responsibilities in society. Feminists therefore use this verse as the basis for the elimination of all role distinctions between men and women in Christianity. They then interpret all other New Testament verses on women in light of the feminist understanding of Galatians 3:28, thus demanding that no other verse be allowed to teach role distinctions for men and women.

PROBLEM WITH FEMINIST VIEW OF GALATIANS 3:28 - Feminists fail to interpret Galatians 3:28 in its proper context. The verse concerns the subject of justification and the believer's relationship to the Abrahamic covenant. Paul was not seeking to establish social equality in the relationships he mentioned. Rather, he was showing that all, regardless of their standing in society, may participate by faith in the inheritance of Abraham to be sons of God. He was teaching the fundamental equality of both men and women in their standing before God. Even the feminists emphasize that this is a theological passage rather than one dealing with practical matters.

Equality of being before God does not require the elimination of all role distinctions in society. Equality of being does not rule out authority and submission in relationships. We could point to many examples of relationships in which there is equality and yet a difference in roles involving authority and submission--the Trinity, the President and U. S. citizens, parents and children, employers and employees, Elders and church members.

The theology of Galatians 3:28 will result in certain social implications, but they will be the ones given in the Bible. Where authority and submission are discussed in relationships in the New Testament, instructions are given for how those relationships may be regulated so that they function in Christian love and harmony and not with abuse. The Bible does not eliminate authority but cautions that authority should be exercised in a way that honors Christ. Those in authority (husbands, Elders, parents, employers) are instructed to use their authority in a godly way. And also, those who are to submit to these authorities (wives, church members, children, employees) are instructed to submit to authority in a godly way.

Because feminists want to rule out the submission of wives to husbands and of women to male leadership in the church on the basis of Galatians 3:28, they face a serious problem in biblical interpretation when they come to the Pauline passages which explicitly teach the submission of wives to husbands and women to the male leadership in the church. Beginning with their interpretation of Galatians 3:28 that all role distinctions must be abolished in the name of equality, they seek to interpret these other Pauline passages (Eph. 5:22; Col. 3:18; I Pet. 3:1; Ti. 2:5; I Tim 2:11-15; I Cor. 11:1-16; I Cor. 14:34-35) in light of that questionable interpretation of Galatians 3:28. Feminists of various persuasions have come up with four different ways of handling this biblical material in order to reach conclusions favorable to the feminist viewpoint:

FEMINIST VIEW #1 - The New Testament passages which teach the submission of women were not really written by Paul but were added by scribes, and thus are not part of the inspired Word of God.

PROBLEM WITH VIEW #1 - This position reveals a low view of the inspiration of Scripture. According to this view, some of the Bible was inspired by God and some was not. Therefore, the Christian, rather than submitting to Scripture, must function as the judge of Scripture--always making decisions about what is inspired and what is not inspired. Both II Timothy 3:16 and II Peter 1:20-21 indicate that God inspired all Scripture, that he was overseeing the process of the writing of Scripture in such a way that the end product is His Word, not the product of human authors. Thus, the Christian views all of the Bible as God's inspired Word and does not set himself as judge of the Bible.

FEMINIST VIEW #2 - The New Testament passages which teach the submission of women were written by Paul, but he was wrong. Those who hold this view believe Paul was too much influenced by his rabbinical background and that in his writing of Scripture he had not reached a full understanding of how the gospel related to relationships between men and women. Thus, he was mistaken in some of the passages he wrote.

PROBLEM WITH VIEW #2 - This position is also based on a low view of the inspiration of Scripture. In this view, too, the Christian must become the judge of Scripture to determine for himself what is correct and what is incorrect. This view assumes that twentieth century man has a better understanding of God's truth than did the Apostle Paul writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Again, II Timothy 3:16 and II Peter 1:20-21 indicate that God worked in and through the writers of Scripture in such a way that the end product was God's perfect Word and not a conglomeration of truth and error put together by human authors.

FEMINIST VIEW #3 - The New Testament teaches the submission of women, but the teachings are no longer applicable in the twentieth century. According to this view, Paul was teaching the world view of his own culture in the first century, but our twentieth century culture is more enlightened about the equality of men and women, so the teaching no longer applies. Or sometimes it is said that writers of the New Testament knew that the ideal was to abolish all gender-based roles but feared to hinder the gospel if they broke so radically with their own culture. Thus, these Pauline passages are relegated to temporary cultural truth rather than universal truth for all cultures and all times.

PROBLEM WITH VIEW #3 - The foundation for Paul's teaching on the role or responsibilities of women is never the culture of his own day but rather the purpose of woman's creation and the woman's failure in the fall as Paul points out in I Corinthians 11:1-9 and I Timothy 2:8-15. Adam was created first, and Eve was later created as a helper for him rather than their being created simultaneously and independent of each other. Eve was deceived and led her husband into sin rather than submitting to his leadership. If the reason for the woman's submission is related to the creation and the fall, than it is not something which can change from year to year and culture to culture. Rather, it is a universal principle.

Some feminists say that there was no submission for the woman in creation but only as a result of the fall, that Genesis 3:16 was the beginning of authority and submission. But Genesis 2:18-25 teaches a submissive role for Eve in relationship to Adam, and Paul interprets it that way in the New Testament. Thus, the cross does not rid us of authority and submission, but it brings harmony to authority and submission relationships.

FEMINIST VIEW #4 - The New Testament, if rightly understood, has never taught the submission of women. If the literary context, the historical context and the theological context were carefully studied, Paul would be clearly seen to be egalitarian, and thus the New Testament teaches that women may fulfill any responsibilities in the marriage and the church that men may fulfill. Thus, "headship" means only "source" and never "leader" or "authority." "Be subject" means only "relate yourselves to" or "respond to" or "adjust yourselves to" and never "submit to."

PROBLEM WITH VIEW #4 - In these last two views the confusion among the various feminist representives comes to the surface. Both groups read these same passages, and some say they teach submission and others say they do not.

Greek lexicons include "authority" as one of the meanings for "head" and "submit" as one of the meanings for "be subject" so that only prejudicial interpretation could limit these words to pro-feminist definitions. This last view is so unconvincing that other feminists even reject it.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Malakas on Jul 21, 2006, 10:58 AM
The roots of feminism stem from the mores and cultural values of the Anglo-Saxon peoples.
Feminist power bases are in those countries that are dominated by Anglo-Saxons, particularly the former colonies of Britain.

It just so happens that most of those people are nominally Christian.

MHO of course.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 21, 2006, 11:11 AM
Quote
While feminists emphasize that women should seek their own self-fulfillment at all costs, the Bible urges Christian women to be humble, to sacrifice their own needs to meet the needs of others, to do what is best for their children, trusting that God will meet their needs in the process.


Please quote the scripture that "urges women to sacrifice their own needs to meet the needs of their husbands."
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 21, 2006, 11:12 AM
Quote from: "Malakas"
The roots of feminism stem from the mores and cultural values of the Anglo-Saxon peoples.
Feminist power bases are in those countries that are dominated by Anglo-Saxons, particularly the former colonies of Britain.

It just so happens that most of those people are nominally Christian.

MHO of course.


You're saying this is an incidental trait? Why didn't these people retain their original pagan roots?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 21, 2006, 11:14 AM
Quote
3) It, in practice, places women's needs above men's. In fact it fails to give any thought to men's needs at all. (Outside of the "need" to lead in sacrificing for women: either preforming the actual sacrifice or teaching other men to preform it.)

4) If a woman is "submitting" to a man who is sacrificing for her benefit then she is acting selfishly. Particularly if that man is hurting himself to benefit her.

5) Taking responsibility for the needs of a woman is an additional burden that Christianity places upon men that it does not place upon women.


The "submitting" of a woman to a man is the sacrifice that a woman makes.  She submits and sacrifices to his authority trusting he will in a Godly manner request of her the appropriate sacrifices:  "Honey please have my meals ready when I come home, instead of watching Oprah?"  "Honey, please do my laundry tonight instead of attending that NOW meeting on overthrowing the Patriarchy,"  "Honey, haven't I asked you to leave the toilet seat up after going?"  "Honey, the baby's pooped his/her diapers again, would you mind changing them, the smell is upsetting the guys watching Monday night football?"  "Honey, I know your tired and have a head ache, but men have physical needs..."

Now those may or may not be very good examples, but a loving Godly, submissive, sacrificing woman would...  Godly men and women are to be focused on serving their mates, not using them as slaves.  The arguments in Christian households "should be:" allow me, no allow me, no, allow me, etc., not, it's your turn I did it last time.  A Godly woman would insist, "Honey, you went to Iraq and were in more danger than I was on our first tour of duty so why don't you take a parenting deferment and let me go disarm IED's.  That's the way sacrificing works for women who are truly committed to the Lord as the Lord and master of their lives.  Ultimately, a lot of decisions are reached in prayer, and the traditional roles the Bible has decreed, i.e. the Mom would stay home to take care of the house and kids.  Any clearer yet???  Are the role scarifices equitable and/or sutiable in the eyes of the two people who are playing the roles society, and/or the chruch sets forth for someone in the family to play out? :?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 21, 2006, 11:17 AM
MRA,

The structure of your counter argument seems to be... X != Y. However I never proposed Christian women were actually laboring under a feminist viewpoint (X=Y). Rather a woman-firsting viewpoint(X=Z).  

When women submit to men who are sacrificing for their benefit, *that* is a woman-firsting act.

When men sacrifice for the benefit of women, *that* is a woman-firsting act.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 21, 2006, 11:21 AM
Quote
Quote
While feminists emphasize that women should seek their own self-fulfillment at all costs, the Bible urges Christian women to be humble, to sacrifice their own needs to meet the needs of others, to do what is best for their children, trusting that God will meet their needs in the process.


Please quote the scripture that "urges women to sacrifice their own needs to meet the needs of their husbands."


It's the one that says the she submits to the authority of her husband.  If she has abdicated her decision making authority through submission, it's the husbands decision to choose, if he is functioning in a Godly loving manner, what will be his choice?  Perhaps the husband will say okay sweetie, you go to Iraq this time and disarm IED's, and I'll look after the kids, while I learn to walk on my new prosthetic leg.  Are you see how the dynamics is supposed to work in a loving manner.  Love (Agape) not logic is to be the guiding light in the application of all Biblical principals.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 21, 2006, 11:21 AM
Quote from: "Men's Rights Activist"
Quote
3) It, in practice, places women's needs above men's. In fact it fails to give any thought to men's needs at all. (Outside of the "need" to lead in sacrificing for women: either preforming the actual sacrifice or teaching other men to preform it.)

4) If a woman is "submitting" to a man who is sacrificing for her benefit then she is acting selfishly. Particularly if that man is hurting himself to benefit her.

5) Taking responsibility for the needs of a woman is an additional burden that Christianity places upon men that it does not place upon women.


The "submitting" of a woman to a man is the sacrifice that a woman makes.  She submits and sacrifices to his authority trusting he will in a Godly manner request of her the appropriate sacrifices.


Submit and sacrifice are not the same word. (We've already went over this.)

Please cite the commandment, in the New Testament*, where it states that women must sacrifice for men as *strongly* as the reverse is stated for men.

*The New Testament is the common denominator for Christian Congregations. I've heard of Congregations that disregard the edicts in the Old, but never one that disregards the edicts in the New.

Quote
Now those may or may not be very good examples, but a loving Godly, submissive, sacrificing woman would...


That's all well and good, but please point out the scripture in the New Testament where women are to sacrifice for the benefit of men.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 21, 2006, 11:31 AM
Quote
The structure of your counter argument seems to be... X != Y. However I never proposed Christian women were actually laboring under a feminist viewpoint (X=Y). Rather a woman-firsting viewpoint(X=Z).


Do "all" the math TB:

#  Gender feminists are laboring under a feminist viewpoint which advocates (women firsting) Y = Z.

# Many woman in the church have also sucummed to a women firsting viewpoint due to media, collegiate, and other societal influence. X = Z

#  Z most certainly equals Z,  therefore, X = Y for all practicle purposes, albeit absent the moniker "feminist" in the title Christian woman. :?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 21, 2006, 11:37 AM
Quote from: "Men's Rights Activist"
Quote
The structure of your counter argument seems to be... X != Y. However I never proposed Christian women were actually laboring under a feminist viewpoint (X=Y). Rather a woman-firsting viewpoint(X=Z).


Do "all" the math TB:

#  Gender feminists are laboring under a feminist viewpoint which advocates (women firsting) Y = Z.

# Many woman in the church have also sucummed to a women firsting viewpoint due to media, collegiate, and other societal influence. X = Z

#  Z most certainly equals Z,  therefore, X = Y for all practicle purposes, albeit absent the moniker "feminist" in the title Christian woman. :?


Woman-firsting != feminism. Feminism proposes that women do not need men because they are complete in and of themselves, as women. Feminism may be a subset of Woman-firsting, but woman-firsting comprises *more* customs and situations then feminism.  

Woman-firsting can exist in situations where women submit to men, where women's roles are *different* then men's.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: ghost on Jul 21, 2006, 11:42 AM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Another thing... I suppose this gives another angle on feminism.

In the 1950s women were, legally, men's equals and socially their superiors. Men had sacrificed so much, there was nothing left for them to sacrifice. No wonder feminism felt it could stand to fight against the "chauvanism" that used to protect women when men had the balance of political power.

Women no longer needed men's sacrifice. (Shortened to "Women don't need men.")

"We got what we want out of men, now we can throw them away like a used kleenex."

Hate movement, indeed.

That's very true...

At some point in history a shift happened. Before that shift, men were supposed to sacrifice for women and this was seen as an act of nobility and courage, and women were even thankful for it to some degree.

After the shift, a man had to beg the woman to allow him to sacrifice for her. As if it's something he is interested in more than her.

Men have dropped in value so much, that even their sacrifices are seen by women as useless and insignificant.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 21, 2006, 11:47 AM
Quote
Submit and sacrifice are not the same word. (We've already went over this.)


Having a servants heart and submitting in love (Agape) is equivalent to the requirement to sacrifice.  Your lack of understanding of true Christianity is glarring.  Christ submitted to the will of his Father, "Not my will, but thine be done," in sacrificing himself on the cross for the sins of the world.  That was limitless love for humankind.  Connect the dots.  All Christians are to be Christlike in their behavior.  That doesn't mean going out and nailing yourself to a cross literally, that wouldn't be efficacious, but following the example of submission and sacrifice for others in love (Agape).

Again, you are arguing from a logical, secular perspective and missing the Christian nuances of meaning thereby.  As I stated before you can't get "There" (Christian understanding) from the secular, logical perspective.

What are the limits put on Christians to love (Agape) - none, limitless.  Do a lot of Christians fail in that? Youbetcha, all the time, but that's the goal.  If you have not love, you are nothing.  Have I ever mentioned nothingness???

At the risk of being redundant, I shall repeat part of my post from page 9:

Quote
"If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I posses to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing." I Corinthians 13


Can you in this present temporal mind really fathom the existence of your own nothingness, when eventually absent from this life?

Quote
Time is too slow for those who wait,

time is too swift for those who fear,

time is too long for those who grieve,

and time is too short for those who feel,

but for those who love, for those who really love,

time is eternity.


I think some may have already had a glimpse of eternity and an over  obvious observation would be, "It's really, really big."  Some may have already had a glimpse of nothingness - terrifying beyond all present reality... - the ultimate anxiety attack...

I found a cigarette lighter apparently dropped by some Marine back in 68. On it were carved the words, "To really live, you must nearly die."  What do you think that Marine saw/experienced, that inspired him to go to the trouble of having those words engraved on his cigarette lighter.  What happened to that cigarette lighter?  I have no idea.  I lost it too.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: dr e on Jul 21, 2006, 11:54 AM
Quote
Quote
In fact, the vast majority of our legislators who have been passing man-hating legislation are Christians and we haven't heard a peep from Christian groups in protest.


I strongly disagree, and believe that more so, Christians have acquiesced to the liberal, leftist, feminist Democrat initiators of the legislation you mention - primarily out of misguided chivalrous notions. That would certainly be my interpretation regarding VAWA, and I suspect Sex harassment, child support, Father bashing, etc. also.


MRA - Sounds like we are agreeing more than disagreeing. My point was that  over 90% of the Congress and Senate are comprised of Christians and these are the folks who have been passing hateful legislation.  These are also the folks I have been approaching repeatedly and being ignored or placated.  If they truly have an egalitarian stance as a part of their core values it sure has fooled me.  Tell me how so many Christians can be so hateful?  Have they all been duped?  One could posit that the variable that drives these people is money and power rather than religious beliefs but that also leaves one wondering just how they can leave their beliefs so easily.  

You and I both know the hatred that is being driven by this mess and I frankly don't see any Christian groups or churches who are standing with us.  If they are truly egalitarian why are they not as outraged as you and I and lending a hand?

http://www.adherents.com/adh_congress.html
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: dr e on Jul 21, 2006, 11:56 AM
Actually the one exception to this is the Catholic Church who are one of the only groups I have ever seen take a strong stand against the feminists.  God bless the Catholics for standing up.  Why aren't the Catholic legislators following through?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: MrsShades on Jul 21, 2006, 12:05 PM
I wasn't aware that Proverbs 31 didn't sound enough like any kind of "sacrifice" to you.  All Christians are commanded to live a sacrificial lifestyle.  Not just men.

Well tb it's been explained ad nauseum.  (MRA *awesome* citation; are you a big fan of MacArthur too?)   You might have just said in the beginning you were committed to your view and that wasn't going to change no matter what.   No, biblical christianity is not feminist or women-first-ist.   The answer to your question is no, and will remain no; whether or not you ever understand why.   Whenever you blame christianity for feminism, it might be noted by others that that is solely your opinion and not an established or biblical fact.

Dr. Evil there is no doubt that most of the "faithful" in this country are ChINOs - Christians In Name Only.   They don't care to adhere to the biblical role of men and women any more than feminists do.  The government is corrupt and intrusive, and pass many a bad law.   No argument there.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 21, 2006, 12:13 PM
Quote
At some point in history a shift happened. Before that shift, men were supposed to sacrifice for women and this was seen as an act of nobility and courage, and women were even thankful for it to some degree.

After the shift, a man had to beg the woman to allow him to sacrifice for her. As if it's something he is interested in more than her.

Men have dropped in value so much, that even their sacrifices are seen by women as useless and insignificant.


No disputing that those male role stereotype requirements have existed in America society and elsewhere.  I think the question we are discussing is what influence has Christianity had on that.  I would say very significant, but we are very short shortsighted to lay the blame solely on Christian influence in terms of causality.  Our founding Fathers were all Chirstians.  I have list of the denominations of the signers of the Declaration of Indepence somewhere, and although they were different denominations, they were about 98% or 99% Christian.  Anglican and Presbyterian were the two biggest groups, and I believe there were only a couple of Lutherans and a couple of Catholics and a few other denominations.  Makes sense, they were mostly British.  

Yes, very significant Christian historical influence, but given the chaos of 40 recent years of feminism, we see not just the historical sacrifices men have made still in place, but added to that all the additional required sacrifices heaped on men by political correctness.  It's enough to give a bull elephant a double hernia! :?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 21, 2006, 12:21 PM
Quote from: "Men's Rights Activist"
Quote
Submit and sacrifice are not the same word. (We've already went over this.)


Having a servants heart and submitting in love (Agape) is equivalent to the requirement to sacrifice.


So there is no scripture in the New Testament that comands women to sacrifice for men?

Your *interpretation* is that the apostles intended "having a servant's heart and submitting in love is equivalent to the requirement to sacrifice."

Although I believe if they intended such a thing, they probably would have clearly stated that wives sacrifice for their husbands as Christ sacrificed for the church.

Ultimately, in regards to the argument, I will see what I see, and you will see what you see. And whatever comes of it will come of it.

I put my argument out there and I know I've done what I can, the rest is up to God.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Malakas on Jul 21, 2006, 12:37 PM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Quote from: "Malakas"
The roots of feminism stem from the mores and cultural values of the Anglo-Saxon peoples.
Feminist power bases are in those countries that are dominated by Anglo-Saxons, particularly the former colonies of Britain.

It just so happens that most of those people are nominally Christian.

MHO of course.


You're saying this is an incidental trait? Why didn't these people retain their original pagan roots?


I believe they did. Christianity takes different forms in different parts of the world. The Anglo-Saxon version produced a powerful but toxic cocktail.

Now that feminism is being exported wholesale (as Christianity formerly was by vigorous conquerers and missionaries) the picture gets confused.
But looking at the world picture, do you agree or disagree about the link?

The Philippines still practices a modified form of mediaeval Spanish Catholicism. Which is to say our people cherry-pick what's comfortable and what isn't, what fits with age-old cultural beliefs and what doesn't. Womanhood has a 'cult' status but individual women can still be regarded with contempt. It depends on the woman. And, strangely enough, it is the disapproval of their sisters that keeps women in line. 'Letting the side down' carries weight. It also has a civilizing spin-off for men.

Interlude for anecdote: I was once riding a mini-bus on a rough mountain road. The macho/suicidal style of the driver had us all thrown around.  Eventually, an older woman passenger announced in a very loud voice, "Obviously, this driver doesn't have a good wife". Everyone laughed, including the driver, and he slowed down.

To imagine that any of the world religions overwrites all cultural attitudes to produce a homogeneous faith community is simplistic. Islam in Turkey -(eager to join the European Union) is a zillion times more pragmatic than Islam in Afghanistan. Christianity in the US has moulded itself around the history and culture, just like it does everywhere else.

I'll go back to my original argument and simply ask. Where is feminism most powerful? And what do those places have in common?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: ghost on Jul 21, 2006, 12:58 PM
Quote from: "Men's Rights Activist"

No disputing that those male role stereotype requirements have existed in America society and elsewhere.  I think the question we are discussing is what influence has Christianity had on that.

MRA, I wasn't blaming that on Christianity. It's just a comment.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 21, 2006, 01:09 PM
Quote
I wasn't aware that Proverbs 31 didn't sound enough like any kind of "sacrifice" to you. All Christians are commanded to live a sacrificial lifestyle. Not just men.


Yes.

Proverbs 31 (without verse numbers):  Sorry Etienne (the man who numbered all verses in the Bible during a carriage ride in France).  I've read that the Old Testament Bible (written in Hebrew) was also written without spaces between any words, among other oddities to us "modern day folks."

Quote
When one finds a worthy wife, her value is far beyond pearls.  
Her husband, entrusting his heart to her, has an unfailing prize.

She brings him good, and not evil, all the days of her life.
She obtains wool and flax and makes cloth with skillful hands.
Like merchant ships, she secures her provisions from afar.
She rises while it is still night, and distributes food to her household.
She picks out a field to purchase; out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.
She is girt about with strength, and sturdy are her arms.
She enjoys the success of her dealings; at night her lamp is undimmed.
She puts her hands to the distaff, and her fingers ply the spindle.
She reaches out her hands to the poor, and extends her arms to the needy.
She fears not the snow for her household; all her charges are doubly clothed.
She makes her own coverlets; fine linen and purple are her clothing.
I wasn't aware that Proverbs 31 didn't sound enough like any kind of "sacrifice" to you. All Christians are commanded to live a sacrificial lifestyle. Not just men.


Her husband is prominent at the city gates as he sits with the elders of the land.
She makes garments and sells them, and stocks the merchants with belts.
She is clothed with strength and dignity, and she laughs at the days to come.
She opens her mouth in wisdom, and on her tongue is kindly counsel.
She watches the conduct of her household, and eats not her food in idleness.
Her children rise up and praise her; her husband, too, extols her:
"Many are the women of proven worth, but you have excelled them all."
Charm is deceptive and beauty fleeting; the woman who fears the LORD is to be praised.  
Give her a reward of her labors, and let her works praise her at the city gates.


Quote
Well tb it's been explained ad nauseum. (MRA *awesome* citation; are you a big fan of MacArthur too?)


To digress a little from the topic, but to answer your question, I like MacArthur's exegetical style.  I've never found better anywhere, but his church IMO, leaves a lot to be desired in the application of scripture.  Since the seminary came in, the atmosphere has changed to an Orwellian, boot camp ambiance, where little "spiritual discerners" run around, incessantly cross-examining congregants for any deviation from their perception of holiness.  I heard one lady sarcastically sum up Grace Church's attitude as, "You are saved by grace through faith, not works, now get to work."  

I seem to recall wanting to tell one of the "Grace Church thought police" once, "I'm holy, but not holier than thou, and I mean that in both senses applying that to you," but thought it too ungracious.  The term "Bible Nazis" crossed my mind at one point, but that seemed even more harsh and ungracious.  I never said anything, just left.  So far I've found many churches congregated by people to be "spiritually challenged."  Hasn't it always been the case?

"Get knowledge and with knowledge, get understanding." Proverbs

Quote
Whenever you blame Christianity for feminism, it might be noted by others that that is solely your opinion and not an established or biblical fact.


Certainly people are free to make the argument from within and without the church as to Christianity's relationship to that, but without a commitment to full disclosure of all factors surrounding the issues the confusion is horrendous.  Many argue from their positional perspectives, presenting their bias in their arguments at the cost of objectivity.  I'm sure I do too.

When you take something as confusing and "babble speak" as gender feminism and trying to layer a causal blame on "Christianity," as enabling feminism, the confusion is horrendous (repetition intentional).   Couple with that gender feminism's indictment of Christianity as Patriarchically oppressive to women.  The confusion is horrendous (repetition intentional).  However, scripture alerts us to the fact that Satan is the author of confusion.  Connect the dots and we clearly see the hell bound roots and evil intent inherent in gender feminism's attacks on Christianity, Patriarchy, marriage, family, women, children, etc.  Those attacks are devastating to church and church members.  

Consider the source, "the author," but also the Satanic gender feminist toadies and their active deviltry.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: dr e on Jul 21, 2006, 01:32 PM
Quote
Dr. Evil there is no doubt that most of the "faithful" in this country are ChINOs - Christians In Name Only. They don't care to adhere to the biblical role of men and women any more than feminists do. The government is corrupt and intrusive, and pass many a bad law. No argument there.


I suppose that there must also be FINO's, Feminists in Name Only.  Maybe even MRAino's.  Does that make me a Drano?   :yes:

This has been an important discussion.  We really do need to bring understanding of how we got to where we are.  Chivalry is surely a part of it but where did that come from?  Yes, rigid sex roles are a part of it but did they just spring up from nothingness?  I think in order for us to explain the issues and the origins so that the average Joe and Jane can understand we need to gain some understanding ourselves.  I don't think we are even close.  

The feminists never bothered to explain things....they just claimed that women were victimized and that men were the problem.  Pretty simple solution and great bait to catch easily persuaded and gullible adherants.  

I don't think that Christianity is the main culprit here but neither do I think it is free from responsibility.   There are lots of factors involved here I am sure.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 21, 2006, 01:40 PM
Quote
So there is no scripture in the New Testament that comands women to sacrifice for men?


Yes, there is.  Perhaps a quick read of this (below) will help you to understand how to more correctly interpret the Bible, and thereby Christianity:

Quote
Seeking the Author's Intended Meaning
Instead of superimposing a meaning on the biblical text, the objective interpreter seeks to discover the author's intended meaning (the only true meaning).

One must recognize that what a passage means is fixed by the author and is not subject to alteration by readers.

Meaning is determined by the author; it is discovered by readers.
Our goal must be exegesis (drawing the meaning out of the text) and not eisogesis (superimposing a meaning onto the text).


By using eisogesis instead of exegesis, a Marxist interpreter could, for example, so skew the meaning of the U.S. Constitution that it came out reading like a socialistic document.

Cultists have done the same type of thing with Holy Scripture.

They so skew the meaning of the biblical text that it comes out saying something entirely different than what was intended by the author.
Only by objective methodology can we bridge the gap between our minds and the minds of the biblical writers.

Indeed, our method of interpreting Scripture is valid or invalid to the extent that it really unfolds the meaning a statement had for the author and the first hearers or readers.

The Importance of Context
A woman entered the Democratic primary for governor of the state of Texas. She was convinced that the Bible had told her she would win the nomination. When she received the official list of names from the primary she saw her name printed last. Then she read in her Bible, "Many that are first will be last, and the last first" (Matthew 19:30). On the basis of that verse she thought God was telling her she would win. But she lost. This amusing story illustrates the need for interpreting Scripture in its proper context. Taken out of context, the Scriptures can be twisted to say just about anything.

Seeking the biblical author's intended meaning necessitates interpreting Bible verses in context.

Every word in the Bible is part of a verse, and every verse is part of a paragraph, and every paragraph is part of a book, and every book is part of the whole of Scripture.

No verse of Scripture can be divorced from the verses around it. Interpreting a verse apart from its context is like trying to analyze a Rembrandt painting by looking at only a single square inch of the painting, or like trying to analyze Handel's "Messiah" by listening to a few short notes.

The context is absolutely critical to properly interpreting Bible verses.
In interpreting Scripture, there is both an immediate context and a broader context.

The immediate context of a verse is the paragraph (or paragraphs) of the biblical book in question. The immediate context should always be consulted in interpreting Bible verses.

The broader context is the whole of Scripture.
The entire Holy Scripture is the context and guide for understanding the particular passages of Scripture.

We must keep in mind that the interpretation of a specific passage must not contradict the total teaching of Scripture on a point.

Individual verses do not exist as isolated fragments, but as parts of a whole.

The exposition of these verses, therefore, must involve exhibiting them in right relation both to the whole and to each other. Scripture interprets Scripture.

As J. I. Packer puts it, "if we would understand the parts, our wisest course is to get to know the whole."
The Importance of Historical Considerations
Historical considerations are especially important in properly interpreting the Word of God.

The Christian faith is based on historical fact.

Indeed, Christianity rests on the foundation of the historical Jesus whose earthly life represents God's full and objective self-communication to humankind (John 1:18).

Jesus was seen and heard by human beings as God's ultimate revelation (1 John 1:1-3).

This is why He could forcefully claim, "If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also" (John 14:7).
The apostle Paul, when speaking with the religious men of Athens, affirmed that the reality of the future judgment of all humanity rests on the objective, historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus (Acts 17:16f.).

This evidence is recorded for us in the New Testament Gospels, documents that are based on eyewitness testimony and written very close in time to the events on which they report.

Based on how people respond to God's objective, historical revelation contained in Scripture, they will spend eternity in a real heaven or a real hell.

Making a Correct Genre Judgment
A "literal" approach to Scripture recognizes that the Bible contains a variety of literary genres, each of which has certain peculiar characteristics that must be recognized in order to interpret the text properly.

Biblical genres include the historical (e.g., Acts), the dramatic epic (e.g., Job), poetry (e.g., Psalms), wise sayings (e.g., Proverbs), and apocalyptic writings (e.g., Revelation).

Obviously, an incorrect genre judgment will lead one far astray in interpreting Scripture.

A parable should not be treated as history, nor should poetry or apocalyptic literature (both of which contain many symbols) be treated as straightforward narrative.

The wise interpreter allows his knowledge of genres to control how he approaches each individual biblical text.

In this way, he can accurately determine what the biblical author was intending to communicate to the reader.
Now, even though the Bible contains a variety of literary genres and many figures of speech, the biblical authors most often employed literal statements to convey their ideas.

Where they use a literal means to express their ideas, the Bible expositor must employ a corresponding means to explain these ideas - namely, a literal approach.

A literal method of interpreting Scripture gives to each word in the text the same basic meaning it would have in normal, ordinary, customary usage - whether employed in writing, speaking, or thinking.

Without such a method, communication between God and man is impossible.
Interpret the Old Testament in Light of the New Testament
God gave revelation to humankind progressively throughout Old and New Testament times.

He didn't just give His entire revelation for all time to our first parents, Adam and Eve, or to Moses, the Lawgiver.

Rather, as time went on - as the centuries slowly passed - God provided more and more revelation that became progressively full so that by the time the New Testament was complete, God had told us everything He wanted us to know.
In view of this, a key interpretive principle is that one should always interpret the Old Testament in view of the greater light of the New Testament.

The Old Testament may be likened to a chamber richly furnished but dimly lighted.

The introduction of light brings into it nothing which was not in it before; but it brings out into clearer view much of what is in it but was only dimly or even not at all perceived before.

The Old Testament revelation of God is not corrected by the fuller revelation which follows it, but only perfected, extended, and enlarged.
Again, then, the Old Testament should be interpreted according to the greater light of the New Testament. The Old Testament is much clearer when approached through the lens of the New Testament.


and this:

http://billgothard.com/bill/teaching/hermeneutics/
Quote
Interpreting Scripture (Hermeneutics)
Hermeneutics is defined in one dictionary as "the art of finding the meaning of an author's words and phrases, and of explaining it to others." When applied to Scripture, accurate hermeneutics would require the scholar to:

Study the context of the passage and the theme of the book.
Look up the actual meaning of each word in the original languages.
Note the verb tenses, the cases, and other grammatical determinants.
Learn the cultural setting of the passage.
Determine what the original readers understood it to mean.
Check out cross-references to see how the words are used in other contexts.
See how the first mention of the word or topic is presented in the Bible.
Confirm an interpretation with two or three similar passages.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 21, 2006, 01:47 PM
Quote
Chivalry is surely a part of it but where did that come from?


Arguably, natural selection, species driven survival needs and roles, wherein men developed to be bigger, stronger, etc. to protect, while women were the birthers, and nurturers.  Chivalry would therefore be the ancient animal in us.  Obviously, modern feminism considers protection by males to be more of a modern liability than a benefit.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 21, 2006, 02:14 PM
Quote from: "Men's Rights Activist"
Quote
Chivalry is surely a part of it but where did that come from?


Arguably, natural selection, species driven survival needs and roles, wherein men developed to be bigger, stronger, etc. to protect, while women were the birthers, and nurturers.  Chivalry would therefore be the ancient animal in us.  Obviously, modern feminism considers protection by males to be more of a modern liability than a benefit.


Then where do societies without chivalry come from?

And why do female primates sometimes go out of their way to protect unrelated male primates from predators?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 21, 2006, 02:18 PM
Quote
Woman-firsting != feminism. Feminism proposes that women do not need men because they are complete in and of themselves, as women. Feminism may be a subset of Woman-firsting, but woman-firsting comprises *more* customs and situations then feminism.

Woman-firsting can exist in situations where women submit to men, where women's roles are *different* then men's.


Minutiea, many Christian women are laboring under a feminist veiwpoint.  That viewpoint has invaded the Church.  You are working very hard to establish an enabling from Christianity to feminism, without acknowledging the reality that the reverse is true to a very significant degree.

Z=Z, the degree of similarity as I clearly set down, legitimately allows the equivalency, I contend.

Quote
Radical feminism today is being moved along by the idea that women must be liberated and they can redeem humanity--they can save humanity. These are the philosophers that are driving the movement--the religionists: "Creator God of Genesis has to go, He is male, tyrannical, he denies basic human liberties, He demands total obedience, He threatens punishment for evil deeds." Consequently, "Original sin is not to be found in man," they said, "but in God. Feminist liberation releases us from God, and from all His evil male values--like marriage, fidelity, family, authority, and morality. The serpent Eve wants to set us free! The God of the Bible is a jealous tyrant who wants to stand in her way."

So when you hear about the Methodists, or the Presbyterians, or whatever, or the Episcopalians, deciding to change the Bible and put in "She"--you know that this is not some human contrivance to make ladies feel better about themselves--this is a Satanic religion, as Satanic as a "Black Mass!  And, as with ancient Gnosticism, the New Age movement today, the goal of liberation, is total reversal of all God-ordained values! That's why it is so unthinkable that Christians would get sucked into this!"


The feminist garbage preached form tax payer funded women's studies programs in education, preached from MSM, preached from many societal venues, has significantly infiltrated the church with "women firsting," not that there wasn't some natural female (and male) disposition to incline to that before.

From a previous post, directly leading to the above post:
Quote
Quote
TB wrote:  The structure of your counter argument seems to be... X != Y. However I never proposed Christian women were actually laboring under a feminist viewpoint (X=Y). Rather a woman-firsting viewpoint(X=Z).



My reply:  Do "all" the math TB:

# Gender feminists are laboring under a feminist viewpoint which advocates (women firsting) Y = Z.

# Many woman in the church have also sucummed to a women firsting viewpoint due to media, collegiate, and other societal influence. X = Z

# Z most certainly equals Z, therefore, X = Y for all practicle purposes, albeit absent the moniker "feminist" in the title Christian woman.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 21, 2006, 02:27 PM
Quote
Then where do societies without chivalry come from?


Other, independently developed, variations of natural selection, wherein the male/female roles are functional, acceptable, expedient, etc. in that particular societal construct.  It's not nice to limit Mother nature, although some family court judges disagree.  Shared parenting now!  Men are more than wallets!  Let me be the first to shed "chivalry" like a hot potato.

It's in the best interest of the child, the species, the man, American society, and lastly, the woman. :lol:
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: dr e on Jul 21, 2006, 02:40 PM
Quote from: "Men's Rights Activist"
Quote
Then where do societies without chivalry come from?


Other, independently developed, variations of natural selection, wherein the male/female roles are functional, acceptable, expedient, etc. in that particular societal construct.  It's not nice to limit Mother nature, although some family court judges disagree.  Shared parenting now!  Men are more than wallets!  Let me be the first to shed "chivalry" like a hot potato.

It's in the best interest of the child, the species, the man, American society, and lastly, the woman. :lol:


So what are the different variables between the two cultures that encouraged chivalry in one yet stopped it in another?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: ghost on Jul 21, 2006, 03:17 PM
Quote from: "Dr. Evil"

I don't think that Christianity is the main culprit here but neither do I think it is free from responsibility.   There are lots of factors involved here I am sure.

Yup. Christianity definitely isn't innocent, but there are other factors too.
I think the biggest factor is human nature.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 21, 2006, 03:29 PM
Quote from: "ghost"
Quote from: "Dr. Evil"

I don't think that Christianity is the main culprit here but neither do I think it is free from responsibility.   There are lots of factors involved here I am sure.

Yup. Christianity definitely isn't innocent, but there are other factors too.
I think the biggest factor is human nature.


Yes. The tendancy for women to be the primary child rearers is vital too.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 21, 2006, 03:42 PM
Quote
So what are the different variables between the two cultures that encouraged chivalry in one yet stopped it in another?


I'm not sure.  I'm not a sociologist, but I would guess the level of threat, requiring a man's physical strength for defense, might be one factor.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 21, 2006, 03:54 PM
Quote from: "Men's Rights Activist"
Quote
So what are the different variables between the two cultures that encouraged chivalry in one yet stopped it in another?


I'm not sure.  I'm not a sociologist, but I would guess the level of threat, requiring a man's physical strength for defense, might be one factor.


Militaristic societies tend to be less chivalrous.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 21, 2006, 04:28 PM
Quote
So there is no scripture in the New Testament that comands women to sacrifice for men?


Wrong, TB, there are numerous verses and examples.  Don't mind the masculine pronoun(s) in some examples, it's gender inclusive":

and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.  (Ephesians 5:2)

also:

1John 3:16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.

also:

My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you.  (John 15:12)

Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends. (John 15:13).

Examples and stories in the Bible are also used to establish doctrine.

Rahab the harlot certainly risked her life for Joshua, or his men.  And Lot offered his daugthers to a violent mob in Sodom, or was it Gomorah (sp?) to save a couple of stragers he thought were men, but were instead angels.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 21, 2006, 04:30 PM
Quote
Militaristic societies tend to be less chivalrous.


That was my guess, I was thinking of some tropical isle with no real physical threat of violence where a matriarchy might flourish.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 21, 2006, 04:36 PM
Quote from: "Men's Rights Activist"
Quote
Militaristic societies tend to be less chivalrous.


Eamples please, I guess the Taliban was an exception.


Dorians, Ancient Greece
Big Nambas, Paupa New Guinea
Samurai, Fuedal Japan
Romans
Hysykos(I believe)

Although there seems to be two types to these societies. One where women are marginalized and considered inferior, the other where women who sacrifice themselves to the militaristic values are encouraged and held in high esteem.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 21, 2006, 05:19 PM
Quote
Men's Rights Activist wrote:
Quote:
Militaristic societies tend to be less chivalrous.


Eamples please, I guess the Taliban was an exception.


Dorians, Ancient Greece
Big Nambas, Paupa New Guinea
Samurai, Fuedal Japan
Romans
Hysykos(I believe)


Sorry, I misread your post.  See my corrected reply above your response and reply to that instead.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 21, 2006, 05:31 PM
Quote
Militaristic societies tend to be less chivalrous.

Examples:

Quote
Dorians, Ancient Greece
Big Nambas, Paupa New Guinea
Samurai, Fuedal Japan
Romans
Hysykos(I believe)


Your initial statement strikes me as a generality, if not a "glittering generality."  Prove it, and with more than just some vague examples.  What criteria do you use to establish a society as militaristic and un-chivalrous as opposed to un-militaristic and chivalrous?  What sort of measuring instrument do you use?  At what point do you consider a society non-militaristic and chivalrous?  It seems to me that WWII Nazis were fairly chivalrous to their own.  Maybe there are other factors at work besides a directly proportional chivalry/militarism continuum.  In what category do you have the French and why?  Certainly cultures have changed from time to time, in one category or both, or in some instances not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glittering_generality
Quote
Glittering generalities are emotionally appealing words so closely associated with highly valued concepts and beliefs that they carry conviction without supporting information or reason. They appeal to emotions such as love of country, home; desire for peace, freedom, glory, honor, etc. They ask for approval without examination of the reason. They are a typically used by politicians and propagandists.

A glittering generality has two qualities:

It is vague
It has positive connotations
Words like "strength", "democracy", "patriotism", and "freedom" are terms that people have powerful associations with, and people may have trouble disagreeing with them. It is as if to say, who could argue against "freedom"? However, these words are highly abstract, and meaningful differences exist regarding what they actually mean or should mean in the real world. For instance, while few may argue against "freedom", how it is judged what exactly "freedom" is or should be in a given scenario may be completely contradictory between different people.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 21, 2006, 05:40 PM
Quote from: "Men's Rights Activist"
Quote
Militaristic societies tend to be less chivalrous.

Examples:

Quote
Dorians, Ancient Greece
Big Nambas, Paupa New Guinea
Samurai, Fuedal Japan
Romans
Hysykos(I believe)


Prove it.  What criteria do you use to establish a society as militaristic and un-chivalrous as oppossed to un-militaristic and chivalrous?


Militaristic? A propensity towards military action. A preference to train their sons in the arts of war vs. productive trades.

Non-chivalrous would be lacking deferance to women. Considering women to both be inferior and also a threat to men and men's rule.

Quote
What sort of measuring instrument do you use?


Usually?

With the Samurai, the Dorians and the Romans I looked at their own texts and how they described themselves. With the Big Nambas I refered to anthropological evidence including quotes recorded by anthropologists.


Quote
At what point do you consider a society non-militaristic and chivalrous?


Chivalrous? At the point where that society affords women special privilages because they are a "weaker vessel" (or just because they are women) but does not consider women a threat.

Militaristic? At the point where men prefer to train their sons in the art of war rather then provide them trade skills.

War is the *preference*.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: MrsShades on Jul 21, 2006, 09:26 PM
MRA that's fascinating.   I'm a big fan of his exegesis too, but living on the opposite coast I'm not familiar with the workings of his actual church.  

Kudos on the informative posts, even if I have read much of it before :)
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 21, 2006, 10:35 PM
Wouldn't a militaristic society, not requiring women to serve in combat, be considered a form of chivalry - like Nazi Germany?  Might not some miltaristic societies be militaristic to get more land to provide more for their families - like Nazi Germany?  One might then say some militaristic societies were the most chivalrous.  I can think of few societies in history more militaristic than Nazi Germany.  I really don't buy into your generalities regarding more militaristic, less chivalrous, TB.  Nazi propaganda art of WWII was very chivalrous.  Shall I scan and post?  The feminist blogs will go nuts and start saying all kinds of inaccurate things if I start putting that stuff up, but it's wild and I think some of it refutes what you are saying. :?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 21, 2006, 11:30 PM
Quote from: "Men's Rights Activist"
Wouldn't a militaristic society, not requiring women to serve in combat, be considered a form of chivalry - like Nazi Germany?


Most societies forbid women from serving in combat roles. Some do it to protect them, others because they believe women don't deserve the honor of being a soldier.

Although, if you take Aristophane's view, ancient greek women in Athens (at least) weren't very pleased when their husbands left them alone for 20 years to go beat on other Greeks. *They* certainly didn't think the military virtues were for their benefit.

Quote
Might not some miltaristic societies be militaristic to get more land to provide more for their families - like Nazi Germany?  One might then say some militaristic societies were the most chivalrous.


Except that... eventually you have to farm the land. It's hard to wage war and bring in a successful crop at the same time.

Besides, the kind of small scale farming that goes in in the third world today shows you can get an incredible yeild from as small as 1/2 an acre. And considering that huge tracts of land didn't become very valuable until people (around the industrial revolution) figured out a way to irrigate them (mechanical pumps), I doubt militaristic societies were motivated as much by land as grudges, fame and, maybe, booty.

Interestingly, military societies also tend to be poor. It's the ones who stick around, farm the land, work the mines, trade and build up commerce that tend to be rich, for whatever reason.

Quote
I can think of few societies in history more militaristic than Nazi Germany.  I really don't buy into your generalities regarding more militaristic, less chivalrous, TB.


When it comes to sociology there are always exceptions to every rule.

However, Nazi Germany was a social experiment that lasted, what? 20 years. It's like pointing to communism as an exception to "prove" that capitalism isn't the more natural state of man.

Quote
Nazi propaganda art of WWII was very chivalrous.  Shall I scan and post?  The feminist blogs will go nuts and start saying all kinds of inaccurate things if I start putting that stuff up, but it's wild and I think some of it refutes what you are saying. :?


Sure. Just put it up at a free server and post links.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 21, 2006, 11:54 PM
Quote
Although, if you take Aristophane's view, ancient greek women in Athens (at least) weren't very pleased when their husbands left them alone for 20 years to go beat on other Greeks. *They* certainly didn't think the military virtues were for their benefit.


The topic was militarist governments tend to be un-chivalrous, and un-militarist governments are more chivalrous.  Militaristic Nazis gave medals to Mothers who had lots of kids.  That's another example of their chivalry.  The British empire is historically one of the most militaristic in history, also very chivalrous, and also one of the longest lasting.

Quote
And considering that huge tracts of land didn't become very valuable until people (around the industrial revolution) figured out a way to irrigate them (mechanical pumps),


Okay, now I see you will really just throw out any information without knowing what you're talking about.  I was raised on a 300 acre farm, spent  18 years on it, never irrigated it.  I've been gone for a long time, but the farm's still there, not one irrigation pump still.  We did win two major trophies from a major corn seed company in the state in the 60's, and my cousin has gone on to set records of his own.  One of our 60's trophies was for the 2nd highest yield in the state that year.  Sure there are areas in America that irrigate, but there are a lot of areas in the midwest, and other places,  that don't.  

What made huge tracks of land valuable as much or more than anything  was first the mule and horse, then the steam engine, and after that the gasoline engine . :roll:

Quote
Interestingly, military societies also tend to be poor.


Hmmm, lets see America is the one of the most powerful militaries on earth and one of the richest nations on earth.  Maybe that's just another exception. :roll:

Quote
Except that... eventually you have to farm the land. It's hard to wage war and bring in a successful crop at the same time.


America seems to do it okay - thanks to mechanization.

Quote
When it comes to sociology there are always exceptions to every rule.


I'm beginning to notice there are a lot of exceptions to a lot of your posts too. :?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 22, 2006, 01:02 AM
Quote from: "Men's Rights Activist"
I was raised on a 300 acre farm, spent  18 years on it, never irrigated it.  I've been gone for a long time, but the farm's still there, not one irrigation pump still.


Dryland farming's history is as a suplement to irrigation farming (among the Hopi). It was only adapted on a large scale in the early 20th century.(Pretty sure on this one but I could be wrong.)

So... er... dryland farming didn't give large tracks of land a use until the 20th century. Before that, mechanized irrigation would have, at least after the industrial revolution.

But that's all (mostly) irrelevant. In the third world many small scale farmers manage to live on 1/2 acre or less, and that's likely what our ancestors were living on as well.* So fighting over arable land probably wasn't as vital to prosperity as farming it.

*Which is probably why they tended organize themselves in clusters around city-states rather then in big aggregates of land, like us.

Quote
What made huge tracks of land valuable was first the mule and horse, then the steam engine, and after that the gasoline engine as much or more than anything. :roll:


In societies where most people didn't own a mule or a horse?

Besides, how much does a mule, ox or horse increase the potential size of a farm? From 1/2 of an acre to 10-20? (I believe in 1850 the average area of land a farm cultivated was 20-40 acres, and that was with technology that was more advanced then two to three thousand years ago.)

Quote
Quote
Interestingly, military societies also tend to be poor.


Hmmm, lets see America is the one of the most powerful militaries on earth and one of the richest nations on earth.  Maybe that's just another exception. :roll:


So you count America as *militaristic*? Does it usually encourage its sons to pursue war over a trade?

Let me put it another way... has America ever gone to war because the Corinthians looked at them the wrong way? Or has America usually had a *reason* to go to war that involved economics or self-defense?

Quote
Quote
Except that... eventually you have to farm the land. It's hard to wage war and bring in a successful crop at the same time.


America seems to do it okay - thanks to mechanization.


Yeah.

Quote
Quote
When it comes to sociology there are always exceptions to every rule.


I'm beginning to notice there are a lot of exceptions to a lot of your posts too. :?
[/quote]

Just trying to point out that sociology is not an exact science.

Not sure where I labled another exception recently, I'm imagining if I did it probably involved Devia somehow.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 22, 2006, 01:26 AM
Quote
Besides, how much does a mule, ox or horse increase the potential size of a farm? From 1/2 of an acre to 10-20?


300 acres, 19th century, then you have 10 sons like grandma and grandpa to drive the horses and mules.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 22, 2006, 01:28 AM
Quote
So you count America as *militaristic*? Does it usually encourage its sons to pursue war over a trade?


Yes, militaristic.  No, but many people learn a trade in the military.

Quote
Let me put it another way... has America ever gone to war because the Corinthians looked at them the wrong way?


Yea, Tonkin gulf.  After an attack on a previous day, two destroyers thought they were fired on, but weren't.  Opps!

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-m/dd731-k.htm
Quote
Amid steadily rising tensions over North Vietnam's activities in Laos and South Vietnam, at the end of July 1964 USS Maddox entered the Gulf of Tonkin for a cruise along the North Vietnamese coast. As part of a general U.S. effort to collect intelligence in potential Far Eastern hot spots, this "Desoto Patrol" was particularly focused on obtaining information that would support South Vietnamese coastal raids against North Vietnam. One of these had just taken place as Maddox began her mission.

On the afternoon of 2 August 1964, while steaming well offshore in international waters, Maddox was attacked by three North Vietnamese motor torpedo boats. The destroyer maneuvered to avoid torpedoes and used her guns against her fast-moving opponents, hitting them all. In turn, she was struck in the after gun director by a single 14.5-millimeter machine gun bullet. Maddox called for air support from the carrier Ticonderoga, whose planes strafed the three boats, leaving one dead in the water and burning. Both sides then separated.

Maddox was soon ordered to resume her patrol, this time accompanied by the larger and newer destroyer Turner Joy. On 3 August, the South Vietnamese conducted another coastal raid. Intelligence indicated that the North Vietnamese were planning to again attack the U.S. ships operating off their shores, although this intrepretation was incorrect. During the night of 4 August, while they were underway in the middle of the Tonkin Gulf, Maddox and Turner Joy detected speedy craft closing in. For some two hours the ships fired on radar targets and maneuvered vigorously amid electronic and visual reports of torpedoes.

Though information obtained well after the fact indicates that there was actually no North Vietnamese attack that night, U.S. authorities were convinced at the time that one had taken place, and reacted by sending planes from the carriers Ticonderoga and Constellation to hit North Vietnamese torpedo boat bases and fuel facilites. A few days later, the U.S. Congess passed the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, which gave the Government authorization for what eventually became a full-scale war in Southeast Asia.


...then there were the Zulu Wars in So. Africa, that to the best of my info were a result of British adventurism into Zulu country.  Britian was far more chivalrous than America and certainly very militaristic.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: The Gonzman on Jul 22, 2006, 05:37 AM
So far I see a single verse - or part of it, anyway - cited, and a gross misapplication of Chivalry used to justify a lot of anti-christian bigotry in the name of "Masculism" (Reverse feminism.)

Fact is, I thought the ideal we strove for was that in a marriage, people strove together and sacrificed for each other; in fact, my unwillingness to do so is one of the reasons I refuse to get married again.  Apparently, though, I was wrong, it appears the ideal of marriage is "Fuck you, my wants come before your needs" and that men should play down to the low standards for women that feminism has set.

Womanfirsting came about when secularism began to rise to power, the more secular the society, it seems, the more woman-firsting it is.  It's been repeatedly pointed out that Feminism is just a filk of Marxism, and religion in general is all but illegal in such societies.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: dr e on Jul 22, 2006, 06:47 AM
Quote from: "Gonzokid"
So far I see a single verse - or part of it, anyway - cited, and a gross misapplication of Chivalry used to justify a lot of anti-christian bigotry in the name of "Masculism" (Reverse feminism.)

Fact is, I thought the ideal we strove for was that in a marriage, people strove together and sacrificed for each other; in fact, my unwillingness to do so is one of the reasons I refuse to get married again.  Apparently, though, I was wrong, it appears the ideal of marriage is "Fuck you, my wants come before your needs" and that men should play down to the low standards for women that feminism has set.

Womanfirsting came about when secularism began to rise to power, the more secular the society, it seems, the more woman-firsting it is.  It's been repeatedly pointed out that Feminism is just a filk of Marxism, and religion in general is all but illegal in such societies.


Gonzo - Do you not see any Womanfirsting in Christianity?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: the sad geek on Jul 22, 2006, 08:27 AM
Gonzokid, do you think the United States is a secular society? If so, why? Just interested.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 22, 2006, 09:16 AM
Quote from: "Men's Rights Activist"
Quote
So you count America as *militaristic*? Does it usually encourage its sons to pursue war over a trade?


Yes, militaristic.  No, but many people learn a trade in the military.


I think that's to encourage people to join the military.

And it somewhat proves my point. Most people would otherwise avoid the military *if* it didn't teach them a trade.

Quote
Quote
Let me put it another way... has America ever gone to war because the Corinthians looked at them the wrong way?


Yea, Tonkin gulf.  After an attack on a previous day, two destroyers thought they were fired on, but weren't.  Opps!


Technically, the reason why they went to war was because they thought they were fired on. Self-defense. The fact they were wrong is irrelevant.

Although the war against communism could be seen as a. self-defense b. ideologically motivated. But not really motivated by the desire to conquer.

Quote
...then there were the Zulu Wars in So. Africa, that to the best of my info were a result of British adventurism into Zulu country.  Britian was far more chivalrous than America and certainly very militaristic.


Weren't Britians ventures into colonization motivated by economic reasons? Chivalry can also be a motivation for miltary action. I believe Britian wanted to elevate the status of women in the heathen world as well.

I believe the difference is this... in non-militaristic society the military goes to war to defend... capitalism, chivalry, god and country... the society's ideological underpinnings. In a militaristic society, militarism *is* the ideology.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 22, 2006, 09:30 AM
Quote from: "Men's Rights Activist"
Quote
Besides, how much does a mule, ox or horse increase the potential size of a farm? From 1/2 of an acre to 10-20?


300 acres, 19th century, then you have 10 sons like grandma and grandpa to drive the horses and mules.


Again, we're talking about societies where the majority of people can't even afford *one* draft animal rather then a whole squad of them.

And I said one. Because, usually, the step up from none is one. So if there was a rich farmer with one mule, how much more land could he cultivate?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 22, 2006, 11:27 AM
Quote
Again, we're talking about societies where the majority of people can't even afford *one* draft animal rather then a whole squad of them.


Hogwash, the topic of this thread used to be Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?  You wander all over the place changing the subject, making wild assertations with little or no support, then challenge other peoples factual presentations with your own trumped up terms and conditions.  Sadly, you don't even qualify or quantify vague statements you make.  Sadly, when you are proven wrong after demanding time and again ("where does it say that women should sacrafice for men") you fall silent on that subject.  I'm getting a little tired of your hip shooting style and suggest you do your own homework, research, etc. then present solid facts, since again and again in this thread you have meandered all over the place.  IMO, thanks to your posts, this site is beginning to look a lot more like run frantically all over the place, making any claim under the sun, instead of stand your ground. :?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 22, 2006, 11:54 AM
Quote from: "Men's Rights Activist"
Quote
Again, we're talking about societies where the majority of people can't even afford *one* draft animal rather then a whole squad of them.


Hogwash, the topic of this thread used to be Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?  You wander all over the place changing the subject, making wild assertations with little or no support, then challenge other peoples factual presentations with your own trumped up terms and conditions.


I think you're getting heated up over this. Relax. It's just a discussion, nothing more.

As for terms and conditions? I don't remember offering any besides the condition that any equivalent demand for women to sacrifice to men be in the New Testament.

The only reason I said that is because the New Testament is the common point for all Christian denominations.  

Quote
Sadly, you don't even qualify or quantify vague statements you make.  Sadly, when you are proven wrong after demanding time and again ("where does it say that women should sacrafice for men") you fall silent on that subject.


There is no place in the New Testament that unequivocably states that women should sacrifice for men as Christ sacrificed for the church.

I've put forth my argument as to why woman's submission is not actual sacrifice to the benefit of men and I will now let it stand on its own merits. There is no use rehashing old ground.

I fell silent on that subject because it wasn't moving forward.

Quote
I'm getting a little tired of your hip shooting style and suggest you do your own homework, research, etc. then present solid facts, since again and again in this thread you have meandered all over the place.


I've meandered all over the place in responce to the arguments you put forward. You argued that military societies could be considered chivalrous because they win land to provide for their womanfolk. I argued that, historically, land wasn't as valuable as it is today since most people didn't have the technology or the mechanical(or animal) power to farm a large amount of land. And that they likely lived off a small 1/2 acre plot(like people in the third world do today) so the best thing men could have done for their womanfolk would be to stay home and help out *farming* the 1/2 acre plot. Which, incidentally, was exaclty what their women-folk wanted them to do, at least according to Aristophane's Lysistra.

Then we got into some argument on draft animals. And dry farming(which wasn't adopted as a farming technique by europeans until the 20th century.) Because you were trying to illustrate how our ansestors could have considered large plots of unfarmable with the technology they had(and used) land valuable.

I assume this was all to prove that militaristic societies are chivalrous.

I'm not sure why you never brought up the most obvious counter-example though: The crusaders.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 22, 2006, 11:56 AM
Weren't Britians ventures into colonization motivated by economic reasons? Chivalry can also be a motivation for miltary action. I believe Britian wanted to elevate the status of women in the heathen world as well.

Yea, so?  You've never said militarism "caused chivalry," just that there was a correlation, "militaristic societies are less chivalrous, and un-militaristic societies are more chivalrous," or words to that effect.  Are you changing the "terms and conditions" of your contentions again???  It's ludicrous to say the British wanted to elevate the status of women (or especially men) in the heathen world after the example I gave of their "conquest" into Zulu land.  That, IMO, was a war of conquest.  There are two movies, one a classic, Zulu, and Zulu Dawn that support my contentions as well as other historical accounts of that adventurism.  

The reason I dragged the British into this is because of their many, many ventures into foreign civilizations and their many, many conflicts and wars (militarism) - and their literal individual personification of  chivalry that encompassed the whole nation.  Humanitarian reasons can also be a cause of military actions as America's failed venture in Somalia was.   Historically, IMO, most military ventures, incursions, used territorial disputes as the cause, where territorial possession was a key issue (turf wars).  World war II started as a truf war, with the Nazis grabbing land right and left, but it also had a strong revenge motive (yet another factor).  There are many reasons/causes for militarism including fear and a need for defense right up to the need for "pre-emptive" strikes aka Iraq vs. America II.  Some would argue and present there are other reasons for that war.  Chivalry, at best, is only a part of the equation causing militarism and leading up to most wars, IMO.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 22, 2006, 12:03 PM
Quote from: "Men's Rights Activist"
Weren't Britians ventures into colonization motivated by economic reasons? Chivalry can also be a motivation for miltary action. I believe Britian wanted to elevate the status of women in the heathen world as well.

Yea, so?  You've never said militarism "caused chivalry," just that there was a correlation, "militaristic societies are less chivalrous, and un-militaristic societies are more chivalrous," or words to that effect.


I think we're having an argument about terms.

What would *you* consider a militaristic society? How would you define one in opposition to a society that is defending itself and it's ideals, or a society that is motivated to pursue a military solution to economic problems?

I, personally, place the dividing line between militaristic and non-militaristic this way... if militarism is an end in and of itself, simple conquest *is* the primary motive, then that is a militaristic society.

If a society has to make an excuse to go to war then it is not militaristic.

Quote
Chivalry, at best, is only a part of the equation causing militarism and leading up to most wars, IMO.


Look into Britian's invasion of South-east asia. One of their stated motives is to preserve women's rights as they saw them then.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 22, 2006, 12:18 PM
Quote
I think you're getting heated up over this. Relax. It's just a discussion, nothing more.


That's your interpretation, mine is, "Im just Standing My Ground."

Quote
As for terms and conditions? I don't remember offering any besides the condition that any equivalent demand for women to sacrifice to men be in the New Testament.

The only reason I said that is because the New Testament is the common point for all Christian denominations.


Again:

and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. (Ephesians 5:2)

also:

1John 3:16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.

also:

My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. (John 15:12)

Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends. (John 15:13).

Examples and stories in the Bible are also used to establish doctrine.

Rahab the harlot certainly risked her life for Joshua, or his men. And Lot offered his daugthers to a violent mob in Sodom, or was it Gomorah (sp?) to save a couple of stragers he thought were men, but were instead angels.


Quote
There is no place in the New Testament that unequivocably states that women should sacrifice for men as Christ sacrificed for the church.


Hogwash, do your homework.  I've given you examples and there are plenty more.  The whole religion is based on what you contend it is not.  Just how far off base can you be????????

and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. (Ephesians 5:2)

also:

1John 3:16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.

also:

My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. (John 15:12)

Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends. (John 15:13).

Examples and stories in the Bible are also used to establish doctrine.

Rahab the harlot certainly risked her life for Joshua, or his men. And Lot offered his daugthers to a violent mob in Sodom, or was it Gomorah (sp?) to save a couple of stragers he thought were men, but were instead angels.



Quote
I've put forth my argument as to why woman's submission is not actual sacrifice to the benefit of men and I will now let it stand on its own merits. There is no use rehashing old ground.

I fell silent on that subject because it wasn't moving forward.


Well, we should certainly alert Christian women who are still living by this model of hard work and sacrifice of your "opinions" so they can all take a break.

When one finds a worthy wife, her value is far beyond pearls.
Her husband, entrusting his heart to her, has an unfailing prize.
She brings him good, and not evil, all the days of her life.
She obtains wool and flax and makes cloth with skillful hands.
Like merchant ships, she secures her provisions from afar.
She rises while it is still night, and distributes food to her household.
She picks out a field to purchase; out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.
She is girt about with strength, and sturdy are her arms.
She enjoys the success of her dealings; at night her lamp is undimmed.
She puts her hands to the distaff, and her fingers ply the spindle.
She reaches out her hands to the poor, and extends her arms to the needy.
She fears not the snow for her household; all her charges are doubly clothed.
She makes her own coverlets; fine linen and purple are her clothing.
I wasn't aware that Proverbs 31 didn't sound enough like any kind of "sacrifice" to you. All Christians are commanded to live a sacrificial lifestyle. Not just men.

Her husband is prominent at the city gates as he sits with the elders of the land.
She makes garments and sells them, and stocks the merchants with belts.
She is clothed with strength and dignity, and she laughs at the days to come.
She opens her mouth in wisdom, and on her tongue is kindly counsel.
She watches the conduct of her household, and eats not her food in idleness.
Her children rise up and praise her; her husband, too, extols her:
"Many are the women of proven worth, but you have excelled them all."
Charm is deceptive and beauty fleeting; the woman who fears the LORD is to be praised.
Give her a reward of her labors, and let her works praise her at the city gates.


Quote
Quote
I'm getting a little tired of your hip shooting style and suggest you do your own homework, research, etc. then present solid facts, since again and again in this thread you have meandered all over the place.


I've meandered all over the place in responce to the arguments you put forward. You argued that military societies could be considered chivalrous because they win land to provide for their womanfolk. I argued that, historically, land wasn't as valuable as it is today since most people didn't have the technology or the mechanical(or animal) power to farm a large amount of land. And that they likely lived off a small 1/2 acre plot(like people in the third world do today) so the best thing men could have done for their womanfolk would be to stay home and help out *farming* the 1/2 acre plot. Which, incidentally, was exaclty what their women-folk wanted them to do, at least according to Aristophane's Lysistra.

Then we got into some argument on draft animals. And dry farming(which wasn't adopted as a farming technique by europeans until the 20th century.) Because you were trying to illustrate how our ansestors could have considered large plots of unfarmable with the technology they had(and used) land valuable.

I assume this was all to prove that militaristic societies are chivalrous.

I'm not sure why you never brought up the most obvious counter-example though: The crusaders.


THE CRUSADES, wasn't that ultimately just a turf war to get Jerusalem (the holy city of Chritst) back, based on religious convictions, also based on major Islamic incursion into Europe, and based on defense of homelands from invading armies based in the mid eastern region?  I really didn't see the crusaders carrying off too many Islamic women.  In fact, the religious overtones may have been more of a rationalization used by the rich and powerful European land owners to stir up the commoners.  As a matter of fact Chivalry was very much a part of the militaristic society of that time, but there were many other factors contributing to all wars.  The bottom line TB, IMO, when has the human species never been, by and large militaristic, with few exceptions.

Rather than chivalry setting out to pamper women, the reality is the cold facts of war were based on physical strength.  This will come as a shock to everyone, but before modern weapons and Title IX, women were largely excluded from war due to their inferior physical strength compared to a man.  No discussion of chivalry would be honest without including that hard core fact of life.  Let's make sure we keep that in perspective as feminists and modern women rewrite history.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Malakas on Jul 22, 2006, 12:57 PM
Quote from: "Men's Rights Activist"


Hogwash, the topic of this thread used to be Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?  You wander all over the place changing the subject, making wild assertations with little or no support, then challenge other peoples factual presentations with your own trumped up terms and conditions.  Sadly, you don't even qualify or quantify vague statements you make.  Sadly, when you are proven wrong after demanding time and again ("where does it say that women should sacrafice for men") you fall silent on that subject.  I'm getting a little tired of your hip shooting style and suggest you do your own homework, research, etc. then present solid facts, since again and again in this thread you have meandered all over the place.  IMO, thanks to your posts, this site is beginning to look a lot more like run frantically all over the place, making any claim under the sun, instead of stand your ground. :?


Very good point MRA!
Perhaps all sites have their idiosyncracies. But I wouldn't single out TB alone for posting gut reactions to challenges. Plenty of others do it too and none of us are immune.
I'm probably doing it now. I haven't scanned all the posts since the board began in order to classify posters into goodies and baddies - i.e. those who wish to shed light on a subject vs those who just need a voice.
In these times of trial of tribulation many people are beginning to question values they've held for most of their lives. They are rightfully indignant and hurt. It's painful, and gut feelings are usually top of the agenda. Sites like this are sometimes used as group-therapy.

It's not really about history or culture. It's more like being told that the fried chicken you've enjoyed for years was actually snake. :vomit2:
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Malakas on Jul 22, 2006, 01:04 PM
Quote from: "Men's Rights Activist"

Hogwash, the topic of this thread used to be Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?  You wander all over the place changing the subject, making wild assertations with little or no support, then challenge other peoples factual presentations with your own trumped up terms and conditions.  Sadly, you don't even qualify or quantify vague statements you make.  Sadly, when you are proven wrong after demanding time and again ("where does it say that women should sacrafice for men") you fall silent on that subject.  I'm getting a little tired of your hip shooting style and suggest you do your own homework, research, etc. then present solid facts, since again and again in this thread you have meandered all over the place.  IMO, thanks to your posts, this site is beginning to look a lot more like run frantically all over the place, making any claim under the sun, instead of stand your ground. :?

Very good point MRA!
Perhaps all sites have their idiosyncracies. But I wouldn't single out TB alone for posting gut reactions to challenges. Plenty of others do it too and none of us are immune.
I'm probably doing it now. I haven't scanned all the posts since the board began in order to classify posters into goodies and baddies - i.e. those who wish to shed light on a subject vs those who just need a voice.
In these times of trial of tribulation many people are beginning to question values they've held for most of their lives. They are rightfully indignant and hurt. It's painful, and gut feelings are usually top of the agenda. Sites like this are sometimes used as group-therapy. (and BTW anybody who dares to suggest such a thing is a party-pooper that should be ignored.)

It's not really about history or culture. It's more like being told that the fried chicken you've enjoyed for years was actually snake. :vomit2:
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 22, 2006, 01:36 PM
Quote

Again:

and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. (Ephesians 5:2)

also:

1John 3:16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.

also:

My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. (John 15:12)

Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends. (John 15:13).

Examples and stories in the Bible are also used to establish doctrine.

Rahab the harlot certainly risked her life for Joshua, or his men. And Lot offered his daugthers to a violent mob in Sodom, or was it Gomorah (sp?) to save a couple of stragers he thought were men, but were instead angels.


The New Testament has a *specific* commandment to men to sacrifice for their wives, in *addition* to the general commandments for Christians to sacrifice for their brothers(& sisters?).

There is no *specific* commandment to women to sacrifice for their husbands.

Quote
Quote
There is no place in the New Testament that unequivocably states that women should sacrifice for men as Christ sacrificed for the church.


Hogwash, do your homework.  I've given you examples and there are plenty more.  The whole religion is based on what you contend it is not.  Just how far off base can you be????????


Those are general commandments for Christians to love and sacrifice for their brothers.

In addition to these commandments men are directed to sacrifice for their wives.

There is no additional commandment to women to sacrifice to their husbands in the New Testament.

Quote


Well, we should certainly alert Christian women who are still living by this model of hard work and sacrifice of your "opinions" so they can all take a break.

When one finds a worthy wife, her value is far beyond pearls.
Her husband, entrusting his heart to her, has an unfailing prize.
She brings him good, and not evil, all the days of her life.
She obtains wool and flax and makes cloth with skillful hands.
Like merchant ships, she secures her provisions from afar.
She rises while it is still night, and distributes food to her household.
She picks out a field to purchase; out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.
She is girt about with strength, and sturdy are her arms.
She enjoys the success of her dealings; at night her lamp is undimmed.
She puts her hands to the distaff, and her fingers ply the spindle.

She reaches out her hands to the poor, and extends her arms to the needy.
She fears not the snow for her household; all her charges are doubly clothed.
She makes her own coverlets; fine linen and purple are her clothing.
I wasn't aware that Proverbs 31 didn't sound enough like any kind of "sacrifice" to you. All Christians are commanded to live a sacrificial lifestyle. Not just men.
Quote


It sounds like the virtuous woman is commanded to produce *materially* for her household. In other words her labor results in products and produce for sale and extra money from successful trade deals. A virtuous christian(jewish) woman is one who is a net positive to her household's economic wealth.

How many christian housewives can say the same today? That they bring money into the house or create goods for sale or consumption by their household?

But aside from that, this is a description of a virtuous woman, not a commandment for women to sacrifice for men. And it's in the Old Testament which some Christian congregations believe is relevant only to people of a Jewish faith.

The New Testament reflects the commandments the founders of the Church felt was most important for Christians to follow in their own lives. It is the common point for all Christian congregations.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 22, 2006, 01:38 PM
Quote
I think we're having an argument about terms.

What would *you* consider a militaristic society? How would you define one in opposition to a society that is defending itself and it's ideals, or a society that is motivated to pursue a military solution to economic problems?

I, personally, place the dividing line between militaristic and non-militaristic this way... if militarism is an end in and of itself, simple conquest *is* the primary motive, then that is a militaristic society.

If a society has to make an excuse to go to war then it is not militaristic.



If so, then to further muddy the waters, we must take each military venture on it's own merits in each society.  One size does not fit all.  Country A was militaristic here, but not here.  What then was the correlation in chivalrous behavior at each point in time?  Perhaps we should even break it down further to the behavior of each combatant in the conflict(s) as to this combatant had chivalrous thoughts, but this one was clearly engaging in conquest.  Hmmm. :?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 22, 2006, 01:55 PM
Quote
Quote
1John 3:16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.


Those are general commandments for Christians to love and sacrifice for their brothers.


Oh, okay, then according to the incorrect way you interpret scripture, here is a command that says "lay down our lives for out brothers" so that clearly means other men, and certainly all women, must sacrifice all for all men.  I'll just pick this one to live by, and ignore the rest of the entirity of scripture.  WRONG!  

I clearly posted in this thread  how scripture is to be interpretted (in its entirity), yet you purposefully ignore it in your posts and keep spewing the same fallacy/fallacies.  As I've said, the whole religion is based on sacrifical love, and the above is a glaring example of the complete incompetence of your fallacious reasoning.  Your posts have disintegrated into nothing more than obdurate nonsense and a childlish mannerism of "Is so, Is not, Is so, Is not, Is so, ad nauseun, ad infinitum."  Try harder to come up with some valid refutation after the holes in your arguments blind us with the light that shines through. :?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 22, 2006, 01:58 PM
Quote
There is no place in the New Testament that unequivocably states that women should sacrifice for men as Christ sacrificed for the church.


Duh!

1John 3:16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.

Duh! Do you see any exclusion for women to sacrifice there??? No, Duh!

http://www.greatsite.com/facsimile-reproductions/foxe-1684.html
The pages of Fox's Book of Martyrs, factually contested in areas though it be, are littered wtih examples of Christian women sacrificing themselves, their lives for Christ and other Christians (men included).  Too bad you weren't there to enlighten them and save their lives. :?

According to Christianity, Christ was fully God and fully man.  Here is just one example of a woman (Perpetua) sacrificing her life rather than deny the divinity of Christ (fully man and fully God).

(http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/MRA_06/cdd99363.jpg)(http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/MRA_06/2814d7fe.jpg)
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06029a.htm
Quote
By a rescript of Septimus Severus (193-211) all imperial subjects were forbidden under severe penalties to become Christians. In consequence of this decree, five catechumens at Carthage were seized and cast into prison, viz. Vibia Perpetua, a young married lady of noble birth; the slave Felicitas, and her fellow-slave Revocatus, also Saturninus and Secundulus. Soon one Saturus, who deliberately declared himself a Christian before the judge, was also incarcerated.


Quote
On 7 March, the five confessors were led into the amphitheatre. At the demand of the pagan mob they were first scourged; then a boar, a bear, and a leopard, were set at the men, and a wild cow at the women. Wounded by the wild animals, they gave each other the kiss of peace and were then put to the sword. Their bodies were interred at Carthage. Their feast day was solemnly commemorated even outside Africa. Thus under 7 March the names of Felicitas and Perpetua are entered in the Philocalian calendar, i.e. the calendar of martyrs venerated publicly in the fourth century at Rome. A magnificent basilica was afterwards erected over their tomb, the Basilica Majorum; that the tomb was indeed in this basilica has lately been proved by Pere Delattre, who discovered there an ancient inscription bearing the names of the martyrs.


By the way Perpetua and the others, being African, were most likely black or dark skinned,
http://tinyurl.com/rdytf
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: ghost on Jul 22, 2006, 02:09 PM
I don't want to come into the crossfire, but...
There is also a separate statement urging husbands specifically to sacrifice for their wives spefically.

Which means
Some commandments for "people in general" to sacrifice for each other
and
a specific commandment for men to sacrifice for women.

Which means "sacrifice for women" still wins out as the stronger message.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 22, 2006, 02:21 PM
Quote
I don't want to come into the crossfire, but...
There is also a separate statement urging husbands specifically to sacrifice for their wives spefically.

Which means
Some commandments for "people in general" to sacrifice for each other
and
a specific commandment for men to sacrifice for women.

Which means "sacrifice for women" still wins out as the stronger message.


Hogwash, not based on the entirity of the message of the Bible.  The Bible is very egalitarian in it's message of salvation for all.  Some things are based on a clear identity of male/female roles, but the message of sacrifical love is clearly equally intended for all.  

Quote
He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.
Mark 16:15

Quote
There is also a separate statement urging husbands specifically to sacrifice for their wives spefically.

Quote it. :?

Quote
I don't want to come into the crossfire, but...


All are welcome in the crossfire.  We're very egalitarian about that. :?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: ghost on Jul 22, 2006, 02:37 PM
Already did before.

Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: ghost on Jul 22, 2006, 02:46 PM
With that said, it's definitely patriarchal or egalitarian in most of its messages that I've seen...

Typhonblue has a point, but there must have been another reason for contemporary Christians to focus so much on this single verse, while ignoring all the patriarchal and egalitarian ones.

Maybe the assumption is that by agreeing to live with a man, a woman is already submitting in a way, since she is giving up her purity to be defiled by him.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 22, 2006, 02:53 PM
Quote from: "ghost"
With that said, it's definitely patriarchal or egalitarian in most of its messages that I've seen...

Typhonblue has a point, but there must have been another reason for contemporary Christians to focus so much on this single verse, while ignoring all the patriarchal and egalitarian ones.

Maybe the assumption is that by agreeing to live with a man, a woman is already submitting in a way, since she is giving up her purity to be defiled by him.


Why did the apostle Paul focus on it instead of assuming a man's sacrifice to his wife is covered under the commandments MRA quoted. (As he, apparently, assumed a woman's sacrifice to her husband is?)

BTW, I believe Christianity expanded due to women teaching their children the word of Christ. Unlike other religions of the time where the religious teaching was done through men, Christianity allowed women to teach religion to children. But I'm not completely sure on this one.

Might this explain some of the distortion?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 22, 2006, 03:03 PM
Quote
Typhonblue has a point, but there must have been another reason for contemporary Christians to focus so much on this single verse, while ignoring all the patriarchal and egalitarian ones.


Contemporary Christians don't focus much on that single verse, but gender feminists and other Christian basher's certainly do.

Quote
Maybe the assumption is that by agreeing to live with a man, a woman is already submitting in a way, since she is giving up her purity to be defiled by him.


I am offended by your sexist, smut mongering, Christian bashing comment that shows your large scale ignorance of the message of the Bible to enter the sanctified union of Christian marriage in reverence and respect.  

If you like Ephesians 5 so much it's too bad you didn't read on.  It's smut mongering, Christian bashing mentalities like the one you displayed that the Apostle Paul is addressing.:

Quote
28So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

29For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

30For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

31For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.


Quote
With that said, it's definitely patriarchal or egalitarian in most of its messages that I've seen...


Hogwash, you erect yourself a Biblical scholar, but ignore established scholarly principals of Biblical interpretation (ignoring the meaning of the entirety of the Biblical message).   Your insipid conclusion is invalid and tragically misleading.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: ghost on Jul 22, 2006, 03:06 PM
But then, typhonblue has a point again. Without homosexuality being so demonized, men wouldn't be seen as the dirty sex who defiles others by touch, or at least much less so.

Although homosexuality has been demonized by the pagan religion as well. In most tribes it got you stoned.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 22, 2006, 03:20 PM
Quote
Quote
Quote
There is also a separate statement urging husbands specifically to sacrifice for their wives spefically.

Quote it.  


Already did before.

Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it

With that said, it's definitely patriarchal or egalitarian in most of its messages that I've seen...

Typhonblue has a point, but there must have been another reason for contemporary Christians to focus so much on this single verse, while ignoring all the patriarchal and egalitarian ones.

Maybe the assumption is that by agreeing to live with a man, a woman is already submitting in a way, since she is giving up her purity to be defiled by him.


Duh!

1John 3:16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.

Duh! Do you see any exclusion for women to sacrifice there??? No, Duh!

http://www.greatsite.com/facsimile-reproductions/foxe-1684.html
The pages of Fox's Book of Martyrs, factually contested in areas though it be, are littered wtih examples of Christian women sacrificing themselves, their lives for Christ and other Christians (men included).  Too bad you weren't there to enlighten them and save their lives. :?

According to Christianity, Christ was fully God and fully man.  Here is just one example of a woman (Perpetua) sacrificing her life rather than deny the divinity of Christ (fully man and fully God).

(http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/MRA_06/cdd99363.jpg)(http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/MRA_06/2814d7fe.jpg)
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06029a.htm
Quote
By a rescript of Septimus Severus (193-211) all imperial subjects were forbidden under severe penalties to become Christians. In consequence of this decree, five catechumens at Carthage were seized and cast into prison, viz. Vibia Perpetua, a young married lady of noble birth; the slave Felicitas, and her fellow-slave Revocatus, also Saturninus and Secundulus. Soon one Saturus, who deliberately declared himself a Christian before the judge, was also incarcerated.


Quote
On 7 March, the five confessors were led into the amphitheatre. At the demand of the pagan mob they were first scourged; then a boar, a bear, and a leopard, were set at the men, and a wild cow at the women. Wounded by the wild animals, they gave each other the kiss of peace and were then put to the sword. Their bodies were interred at Carthage. Their feast day was solemnly commemorated even outside Africa. Thus under 7 March the names of Felicitas and Perpetua are entered in the Philocalian calendar, i.e. the calendar of martyrs venerated publicly in the fourth century at Rome. A magnificent basilica was afterwards erected over their tomb, the Basilica Majorum; that the tomb was indeed in this basilica has lately been proved by Pere Delattre, who discovered there an ancient inscription bearing the names of the martyrs.


By the way Perpetua and the others, being African, were most likely black or dark skinned,
http://tinyurl.com/rdytf
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 22, 2006, 03:24 PM
Quote
But then, typhonblue has a point again. Without homosexuality being so demonized, men wouldn't be seen as the dirty sex who defiles others by touch, or at least much less so.

Although homosexuality has been demonized by the pagan religion as well. In most tribes it got you stoned.


It appears you are saying, Christians have given homosexuals a bad name, and homosexuals have given all men's sexuality a bad name so bash the Christians.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: ghost on Jul 22, 2006, 03:37 PM
I'm not bashing christians, I'm saying Christianity was a factor too.
I have no problem with Christians as long as they don't promote woman-firsting.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 22, 2006, 05:45 PM
Quote from: "ghost"
But then, typhonblue has a point again. Without homosexuality being so demonized, men wouldn't be seen as the dirty sex who defiles others by touch, or at least much less so.

Although homosexuality has been demonized by the pagan religion as well. In most tribes it got you stoned.


I don't think many faiths outside of the Judeau-Christian ones (and Muslim, at least *technically*) care all that much about homosexuality. Some make it taboo to talk about it. Others consider it intrinsic to the spiritual attainment of manhood (Big Nambas) and/or that it has a ritualistic function to induct youths into the society of men.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: TheManOnTheStreet on Jul 22, 2006, 06:43 PM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
I don't think many faiths outside of the Judeau-Christian ones (and Muslim, at least *technically*) care all that much about homosexuality. Some make it taboo to talk about it. Others consider it intrinsic to the spiritual attainment of manhood (Big Nambas) and/or that it has a ritualistic function to induct youths into the society of men.


Not to be a thorn but maybe because it has nothing to do with religion and all to do with NATURE?  ADUH!

TMOTS
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: MrsShades on Jul 22, 2006, 06:46 PM
As far as homosexuality, if you read Romans 1 it clearly states that it was *first* the *women* who traded natural affections for unnatural ones; THEN the men followed suit, and became inflamed with lust for one another.

You have to ignore and twist a lot to get "men's sexuality is dirty and men have the defiling touch" out of that.   All of proverbs is full of the dirty woman who leads young men sexually astray, too.   So there you go.

Inducting adolescent boys into the world of adult men by engaging them in sexual acts with other men - did I just see that? (Spot all the errors in THAT sentence :lol: )  No wonder we would consider such cultures heathen and barbaric.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 22, 2006, 06:50 PM
Quote from: "TheManOnTheStreet"
Quote from: "typhonblue"
I don't think many faiths outside of the Judeau-Christian ones (and Muslim, at least *technically*) care all that much about homosexuality. Some make it taboo to talk about it. Others consider it intrinsic to the spiritual attainment of manhood (Big Nambas) and/or that it has a ritualistic function to induct youths into the society of men.


Not to be a thorn but maybe because it has nothing to do with religion and all to do with NATURE?  ADUH!

TMOTS


Okay...
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 22, 2006, 06:53 PM
Quote from: "MrsShades"
As far as homosexuality, if you read Romans 1 it clearly states that it was *first* the *women* who traded natural affections for unnatural ones; THEN the men followed suit, and became inflamed with lust for one another.

You have to ignore and twist a lot to get "men's sexuality is dirty and men have the defiling touch" out of that.   All of proverbs is full of the dirty woman who leads young men sexually astray, too.   So there you go.


I'm not a Christian and even I know you've mangled Romans 1.

Just a sec while I find an exact quote.

45:001:024 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the
          lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies
          between themselves:

45:001:025 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and
          served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for
          ever. Amen.

45:001:026 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even
          their women did change the natural use into that which is
          against nature:

45:001:027 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the
          woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men
          working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves
          that recompence of their error which was meet.

Where is the suggestion that women *caused* men to preform homosexual acts?

It sounds more like these people were so foul *even* the women had sex with eachother. Unlike run of the mill foulness in which men just have sex with eachother, because men are more prone to that sort of thing or something.

Quote
Inducting adolescent boys into the world of adult men by engaging them in sexual acts with other men - did I just see that? (Spot all the errors in THAT sentence :lol: )  No wonder we would consider such cultures heathen and barbaric.


Of course you do. *Our* culture believes adolescent boys are inducted into the world of manhood by sex acts with adult women.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: MrsShades on Jul 22, 2006, 06:58 PM
Allow me.

Quote
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
NKJV

Quote
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
KJV

Quote
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.


Quote
26For this reason (AV)God gave them over to (AW)degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,

27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, (AX)men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error
NASB

Mangled.  The only thing mangled is the idea that this somehow gives men a defiling touch.   Care to correct me on the wanton woman of proverbs who continually leads the men astray sexually?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: MrsShades on Jul 22, 2006, 07:03 PM
I never said they "caused" them to commit homosexual acts.  I said women traded their natural lusts and men then also did so.  God gave them over entirely to a reprobate mind.   Many times in the bible when women go bad, men also go bad - Eve ate the fucking apple, and she talked her husband into it too.   Thus we were all screwed.   It's just the natural order of things in a fallen world.

Quote
Of course you do. *Our* culture believes adolescent boys are inducted into the world of manhood by sex acts with adult women.


A ridiculous view, for anyone who actually holds it.  Do you blame christianity for that too?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 22, 2006, 07:06 PM
Quote from: "MrsShades"
Mangled.  The only thing mangled is the idea that this somehow gives men a defiling touch.   Care to correct me on the wanton woman of proverbs who continually leads the men astray sexually?


I never got the sense from any of those passages that women were blamed for having "lead men astray" only that both genders fell prey to the same punishment which they suffered, equally, for having violated God's commandments.

Their "vile afflictions" were punishment for previous behavior.  

"X likewise Y" or "X in the same way as Y" does not mean "X therefore Y."
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: MrsShades on Jul 22, 2006, 07:08 PM
I was talking there about Proverbs.   There are incessant warnings to the young man not to defile himself by succumbing to the dirty wanton woman's advances.   Explicit and repeated warnings.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 22, 2006, 07:15 PM
Quote from: "MrsShades"
I never said they "caused" them to commit homosexual acts.  I said women traded their natural lusts and men then also did so.


Okay... I misread.

However that doesn't change the fact that throughout Christian history the persecution of men who've "traded their natural lusts" has been far more severe and systemic then the women who do the same.

Actually the women who "trade their natural lusts" are pretty much ignored. Sometimes they even get a sympathetic word or two. *

So if the bible condemns both equally, why is one universally punished and the other given a free pass?

Woman-firsting?

*The funny thing is I found out this interesting part of Christian history from a lesbian feminist author that was trying SO HARD to find persecution of women who engage in lesbian acts in Christian history. She found none. She found the reverse in fact, for example... when the Puritans founded their colonies they revised their laws and it was suggested the punishment for lesbian behavior should parallel the punishment for homosexual behavior. The suggestion was disregarded completely.

Quote
God gave them over entirely to a reprobate mind.   Many times in the bible when women go bad, men also go bad - Eve ate the fucking apple, and she talked her husband into it too.   Thus we were all screwed.   It's just the natural order of things in a fallen world.


Didn't Mary absolve women of sin by giving birth to Christ? Or is it just *one* of the Christian faiths that believe that?

Quote
Quote
Of course you do. *Our* culture believes adolescent boys are inducted into the world of manhood by sex acts with adult women.


A ridiculous view, for anyone who actually holds it.  Do you blame christianity for that too?


I don't know.

Young men seem to have a need to feel like they're being inducted into manhood *somehow* by adults who respect their nascent manhood. I guess they're just going to the only adult authority they've ever really known. *shrug*
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 22, 2006, 07:17 PM
Quote from: "MrsShades"
I was talking there about Proverbs.   There are incessant warnings to the young man not to defile himself by succumbing to the dirty wanton woman's advances.   Explicit and repeated warnings.


Well now. That's too bad for the "dirty wanton women" but I suppose it's good for the Godly Christian matron since she doesn't have to compete sexually for her husband. :)
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: MrsShades on Jul 22, 2006, 07:25 PM
Um, right.  Though I'm not sure if you think anyone should have to compete sexually for their existing spouses, or why.

So the claim that was under dispute was that Chrisitanity (among other things) condemns homosexuality and thus engenders a view that men have a defiling touch, that their sexuality is defiling.

Clearly women's vile affections are condemned as well (whether or not they are causal to men's), and also clearly men can be corrupted by wanton and dirty women, if they succumb to them.

Nothing in there that leads to acceptance of the original claim, which was what I was disputing in the first place.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: MrsShades on Jul 22, 2006, 07:30 PM
A young man who has a Godly father in the house looks to his father for his burgeoning manhood, generally.   Not by engaging in sexual acts with them, of course.   By becoming responsible, learning how to emulate their father's leadership in various spheres, etc.   Those without good leadership in the home seem to turn to Jackass-type antics to prove their manhood, which I wouldn't say is a good precedent.

ETA: No, Mary didn't absolve women of anything.   I'm not even aware that Catholicism teaches that.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 22, 2006, 07:31 PM
Quote from: "MrsShades"
Um, right.  Though I'm not sure if you think anyone should have to compete sexually for their existing spouses, or why.

So the claim that was under dispute was that Chrisitanity (among other things) condemns homosexuality and thus engenders a view that men have a defiling touch, that their sexuality is defiling.


Well, I *did* say that, despite the fact the Bible condemns both equally, men are hit with the "against nature" stick harder and more often by Christians.

However, there is one other thing... If God is male why didn't he... *ahem*... impregnate Mary the old fashioned Zeus-fearing way?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 22, 2006, 07:35 PM
Quote from: "MrsShades"
A young man who has a Godly father in the house looks to his father for his burgeoning manhood, generally.   Not by engaging in sexual acts with them, of course.   By becoming responsible, learning how to emulate their father's leadership in various spheres, etc.   Those without good leadership in the home seem to turn to Jackass-type antics to prove their manhood, which I wouldn't say is a good precedent.


Often the father is too busy doing his work and the work of his virtuous wife to *be* a proper father. When he isn't out of the house completely, of course.

And his father teaches him what about manhood? That sacrificing for women's benefit is integral to Christian manhood?

I can't blame boys for running away from that into Jackass-type antics. Is it any wonder that the population of the church is in decline, most likely because young men are fleeing from it?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: MrsShades on Jul 22, 2006, 07:36 PM
God doesn't have a body.  At least He didn't manifest in a body until Jesus.   He is male not because he has a dick or a Y chromosome but because He is King, Leader, Lord.

Oh brother, and back to the same old circular nonsense arguments.  Ok no more pearls before swine.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: selkie on Jul 22, 2006, 07:42 PM
Jumping in on this never ending post. 8)

Quote from: "typhonblue"


Didn't Mary absolve women of sin by giving birth to Christ? Or is it just *one* of the Christian faiths that believe that?




Where did you get that idea from? and which Christian faith are you referring to?

Proof?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 22, 2006, 07:45 PM
Quote from: "MrsShades"
God doesn't have a body.  At least He didn't manifest in a body until Jesus.   He is male not because he has a dick or a Y chromosome but because He is King, Leader, Lord.


Why did he require a woman to manifest *through*?

BTW, if he doesn't have a penis how can he be male?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 22, 2006, 07:59 PM
Quote from: "selkie"
Jumping in on this never ending post. 8)

Quote from: "typhonblue"


Didn't Mary absolve women of sin by giving birth to Christ? Or is it just *one* of the Christian faiths that believe that?




Where did you get that idea from? and which Christian faith are you referring to?

Proof?


I don't know. I was sort of hoping you guys could help me out with that one.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: MrsShades on Jul 22, 2006, 09:18 PM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Quote from: "MrsShades"
God doesn't have a body.  At least He didn't manifest in a body until Jesus.   He is male not because he has a dick or a Y chromosome but because He is King, Leader, Lord.


Why did he require a woman to manifest *through*?

BTW, if he doesn't have a penis how can he be male?


So if a man has a penectomy he's not male?   Try to stick to valid questions.   Actual answer: He's male because He says He is.

He *chose* a woman to manifest "through" in physical form.   I don't tell Him how to operate; you may if you like; though it won't get you far.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: MrsShades on Jul 22, 2006, 09:22 PM
I know of no sect or cult or Christian denomination who says women are absolved through Mary.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: powder-monkey on Jul 22, 2006, 09:48 PM
Typhon:

You may be thinking of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception; which, as I recall,  postulates that Mary was without original sin.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 22, 2006, 10:03 PM
Quote
However that doesn't change the fact that throughout Christian history the persecution of men who've "traded their natural lusts" has been far more severe and systemic then the women who do the same.

Actually the women who "trade their natural lusts" are pretty much ignored. Sometimes they even get a sympathetic word or two. *

So if the bible condemns both equally, why is one universally punished and the other given a free pass?

Woman-firsting?


WRONG AGAIN!  As often as you are comletely without any knowledge of what you are talking about, one would assume that sooner or later you would be more modest in your assumptions.

Proverbs 7
The Wiles of the Harlot
Quote
1My son, keep my words and store up my commands within you.
   2 Keep my commands and you will live; guard my teachings as the apple of your eye.

   3 Bind them on your fingers; write them on the tablet of your heart.

   4 Say to wisdom, You are my sister, and call understanding your kinsman;

   5 they will keep you from the adulteress, from the wayward wife with her seductive words.

6At the window of my house I looked out through the lattice.

   7 I saw among the simple, I noticed among the young men, a youth who lacked judgment.

   8 He was going down the street near her corner, walking along in the direction of her house

   9 at twilight, as the day was fading, as the dark of night set in.

10Then out came a woman to meet him, dressed like a prostitute and with crafty intent.

   11 (She is loud and defiant, her feet never stay at home;

   12 now in the street, now in the squares, at every corner she lurks.)

   13 She took hold of him and kissed him and with a brazen face she said:

14I have fellowship offerings at home; today I fulfilled my vows.

   15 So I came out to meet you; I looked for you and have found you!

   16 I have covered my bed with coloured linens from Egypt.

   17 I have perfumed my bed with myrrh, aloes and cinnamon.

   18 Come, let's drink deep of love till morning; let's enjoy ourselves with love!

   19 My husband is not at home; he has gone on a long journey.

   20 He took his purse filled with money and will not be home till full moon.

21With persuasive words she led him astray; she seduced him with her smooth talk.

   22 All at once he followed her like an ox going to the slaughter, like a deer stepping into a noose

   23 till an arrow pierces his liver, like a bird darting into a snare, little knowing it will cost him his life.

24Now then, my sons, listen to me; pay attention to what I say.

   25 Do not let your heart turn to her ways or stray into her paths.

   26 Many are the victims she has brought down; her slain are a mighty throng.

   27 Her house is a highway to the grave, leading down to the chambers of death.


and

Quote
Proverbs 29:3
The man who loves wisdom brings joy to his father, but if he hangs around with prostitutes, his wealth is wasted.


Women firsting???  The only "women firsting" for adulterous women was usually who got to through the first stone.  

NOTE:  The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53- 8:11, but the penalty listed for adultry in Biblical times is accurate.

Quote
John 8
The Adulterous Woman
1But Jesus went to (A)the Mount of Olives.
2Early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people were coming to Him; and (B)He sat down and began to teach them.

3The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court,

4they said to Him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act.

5"Now in the Law (C)Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?"

6 They were saying this, (D)testing Him, (E)so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground.

7But when they persisted in asking Him, (F)He straightened up, and said to them, "(G)He who is without sin among you, let him be the (H)first to throw a stone at her."

8Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9When they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court.

10(I)Straightening up, Jesus said to her, "Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?"

11She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "(J)I do not condemn you, either Go From now on (K)sin no more."]
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Rob on Jul 22, 2006, 10:07 PM
Was Mary thought to have been without original sin?

I thought that it was that Mary was a human, but her impregnation was the immaculate conception.

Therefore, Mary is not holy, she was a human - full of humanity's sin, but her pregnancy was "immaculate", and so she was chosen, that is why God told Joseph that he should still marry her.

Mary is certainly an enigma. But I don't believe that anywhere in the Bible does it say that Mary was free from sin. If she was, then she would be called Holy, and as it sits, I believe that only the Catholic Church calls Mary a Holy, thought I don't think the Bible does.

(Though, that would play right into a feminist handbook, as they seem to believe that ALL WOMEN are free from sin - but we remember Eve and Delilah, don't we?)
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: selkie on Jul 22, 2006, 10:09 PM
Quote from: "MrsShades"
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Quote from: "MrsShades"
God doesn't have a body.  At least He didn't manifest in a body until Jesus.   He is male not because he has a dick or a Y chromosome but because He is King, Leader, Lord.


Why did he require a woman to manifest *through*?

BTW, if he doesn't have a penis how can he be male?


So if a man has a penectomy he's not male?   Try to stick to valid questions.   Actual answer: He's male because He says He is.

He *chose* a woman to manifest "through" in physical form.   I don't tell Him how to operate; you may if you like; though it won't get you far.



TB - I thought you said you had read the Bible?

Also,
Jesus refers to God as Father many times

Quote from: "typhonblue"
Or is it just *one* of the Christian faiths that believe that?


Which Christian faith are you referring to??  You obviously had one in mind or you wouldn't have typed it.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 22, 2006, 10:16 PM
Quote from: "Men's Rights Activist"
Quote
However that doesn't change the fact that throughout Christian history the persecution of men who've "traded their natural lusts" has been far more severe and systemic then the women who do the same.

Actually the women who "trade their natural lusts" are pretty much ignored. Sometimes they even get a sympathetic word or two. *

So if the bible condemns both equally, why is one universally punished and the other given a free pass?

Woman-firsting?


WRONG AGAIN!  As often as you are comletely without any knowledge of what you are talking about, one would assume that sooner or later you would be more modest in your assumptions.


MRA, I was talking about homosexuality. The Christian church has a far more brutal history of condemning men who are guilty of that act then women.

BTW, doesn't the Jesus passage tend to suggest Christians are supposed to forgive female sexual sinners rather then stone them? Further, doesn't this suggest that men cannot condemn women until they themselves are sinless?

In other words unless a man is a perfect Christian man he cannot point out the sins of a woman. Yet in order to be a perfect Christian man, he must sacrifice for his wife, with no qualification *when* his sacrifice is enough.

Hm... another puzzle peice falls into place.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 22, 2006, 10:21 PM
Quote
Didn't Mary absolve women of sin by giving birth to Christ? Or is it just *one* of the Christian faiths that believe that?


#1 No

#2 I've never heard that one before - ever.  It's possible some cult believes that though - somewhere.  However, according to mainstream Christian faiths,

Quote
1 John 2:2
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 John 4:10
Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

Acts 13:38
"Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you.

1 Timothy 2:5
For there is (A)one God, and (B)one mediator also between God and men, the (C)man Christ Jesus

Acts 4:12
12"And there is salvation in (A)no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.",
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 22, 2006, 10:23 PM
Quote from: "selkie"
Quote from: "MrsShades"
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Quote from: "MrsShades"
God doesn't have a body.  At least He didn't manifest in a body until Jesus.   He is male not because he has a dick or a Y chromosome but because He is King, Leader, Lord.


Why did he require a woman to manifest *through*?

BTW, if he doesn't have a penis how can he be male?


So if a man has a penectomy he's not male?   Try to stick to valid questions.   Actual answer: He's male because He says He is.

He *chose* a woman to manifest "through" in physical form.   I don't tell Him how to operate; you may if you like; though it won't get you far.



TB - I thought you said you had read the Bible?


Yep. But it was a while ago.

Quote
Also,
Jesus refers to God as Father many times


And "he" is used to, generically, refer to all believers, male and female. Brothers is also used to, generically, refer to all believers, male and female. So, it is possible, that Father might also be used in a generic sense. Particularly when we're dealing with an amorphous entity with no genitalia.

At least that's what I'm getting from the posters on this thread.

Quote
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Or is it just *one* of the Christian faiths that believe that?


Which Christian faith are you referring to??  You obviously had one in mind or you wouldn't have typed it.


Catholics.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: selkie on Jul 22, 2006, 10:24 PM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Quote from: "Men's Rights Activist"
Quote
However that doesn't change the fact that throughout Christian history the persecution of men who've "traded their natural lusts" has been far more severe and systemic then the women who do the same.

Actually the women who "trade their natural lusts" are pretty much ignored. Sometimes they even get a sympathetic word or two. *

So if the bible condemns both equally, why is one universally punished and the other given a free pass?

Woman-firsting?


WRONG AGAIN!  As often as you are comletely without any knowledge of what you are talking about, one would assume that sooner or later you would be more modest in your assumptions.


MRA, I was talking about homosexuality. The Christian church has a far more brutal history of condemning men who are guilty of that act then women.

BTW, doesn't the Jesus passage tend to suggest Christians are supposed to forgive female sexual sinners rather then stone them? Further, doesn't this suggest that men cannot condemn women until they themselves are sinless?

In other words unless a man is a perfect Christian man he cannot point out the sins of a woman. Yet in order to be a perfect Christian man, he must sacrifice for his wife, with no qualification *when* his sacrifice is enough.

Hm... another puzzle peice falls into place.



I thought it meant he (man or woman) who is without sin cast the first stone.  I don't think it has to do with men specifically.  Did you want the Bible to specify and be PC and always say MAN or WOMAN?

It seems your starting to nit-pick at the words.

And what puzzle?  

This thread just keeps going round and round.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 22, 2006, 10:30 PM
Quote from: "selkie"

I thought it meant he (man or woman) who is without sin cast the first stone.  I don't think it has to do with men specifically.  Did you want the Bible to specify and be PC and always say MAN or WOMAN?


I'm not nitpicking. I'm aware that it goes the other way as well. However only one way does it include an additional admonishment for sacrifice.

If you cannot condemn a woman as a sinner unless you are blameless and your blamelessness is predicated on sacrificing for said woman selflessly, then at what point do you get off the sacrifice merry-go-round and get your concerns addressed?

When have men fullfilled Paul's commandment to "love their wives as Christ loved the church and sacrificed himself for it?"

Quote
And what puzzle?


The puzzle of why feminism managed to get a toehold in our society.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: selkie on Jul 22, 2006, 10:31 PM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Quote from: "selkie"
Quote from: "MrsShades"
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Quote from: "MrsShades"
God doesn't have a body.  At least He didn't manifest in a body until Jesus.   He is male not because he has a dick or a Y chromosome but because He is King, Leader, Lord.


Why did he require a woman to manifest *through*?

BTW, if he doesn't have a penis how can he be male?


So if a man has a penectomy he's not male?   Try to stick to valid questions.   Actual answer: He's male because He says He is.

He *chose* a woman to manifest "through" in physical form.   I don't tell Him how to operate; you may if you like; though it won't get you far.



TB - I thought you said you had read the Bible?


Yep. But it was a while ago.

Quote
Also,
Jesus refers to God as Father many times


And "he" is used to, generically, refer to all believers, male and female. Brothers is also used to, generically, refer to all believers, male and female. So, it is possible, that Father might also be used in a generic sense. Particularly when we're dealing with an amorphous entity with no genitalia.


Possible but not really.  

Quote
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Or is it just *one* of the Christian faiths that believe that?


Which Christian faith are you referring to??  You obviously had one in mind or you wouldn't have typed it.


Quote from: "typhonblue"

Catholics.





And no Catholics don't believe that Mary absolved women of sin by giving birth to Christ.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 22, 2006, 10:39 PM
Alright!

I tracked it down:

"Church Father Iraneaus of Lyons wrote as Mary as the "Second Eve" who, through her obedience, undid Eve's sin of disobedience, just as Jesus was considered a "Second Adam" who destroyed the death that Adam's sin imposed on us."

Also interesting is that, in combination with Paul's description of Jesus as the Second Adam, this would essentially re-write genesis with the *woman* as the progenitor of man!

"Irenaeus saw Mary as the second Eve who made possible the salvation of the human race; the Incarnation of the Son of God would not have happened without her consent. He wrote that through her obedience, Mary became "the cause of salvation for herself and the whole human race." He also described Mary as the advocate for Eve, an implicit reference to the intercession of the saints."

  IRENAEUS OF LYONS: Contending for the Faith Once Delivered (http://www.conciliarpress.com/again/content/view/78/9/9/)
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: selkie on Jul 22, 2006, 10:45 PM
But humans are not perfect.

Christians try to follow the teachings of Jesus but we will never be without sin.  Only Jesus is.


This is for both men and women

Matthew
7:1 "Do not judge so that you may not be judged.

7:2 For with the judgement you will make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.

7:3 Why do you see the speck in your neighbor's eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye?

7:4 Or how can you say to your neighbor, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' while the log is in your owneye?

7:5 You hypocrite, First take the log out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor's eye.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 22, 2006, 10:55 PM
Quote
MRA, I was talking about homosexuality. The Christian church has a far more brutal history of condemning men who are guilty of that act then women.


Dead's dead

Quote
BTW, doesn't the Jesus passage tend to suggest Christians are supposed to forgive female sexual sinners rather then stone them? Further, doesn't this suggest that men cannot condemn women until they themselves are sinless?
No, it says she is to go and sin no more.  Study the context.  The story was more showing the deciet of the Pharsees, and instead of trapping Jesus, they were trapped.  Jesus came to save, sinners tax collectors, whores, gays, etc. who repent of their sins (confess) and believe in him.  Jesus also worked on the Sabbath which was against the law.  

Quote
In other words unless a man is a perfect Christian man he cannot point out the sins of a woman. Yet in order to be a perfect Christian man, he must sacrifice for his wife, with no qualification *when* his sacrifice is enough.


Completely and totally wrong, the sins of the preacher or a Christian do not invalidate the words of scripture.  That was decided at the Council of Nicea in the 4th century.

Quote
I. Donatism

Donatism began in 311 when Caecilian became Bishop of Carthage. By 311 a bishop needed ordination by three other bishops. Donatus, a Carthaginian deacon, protested Caecilian's ordination because one bishop was a known traditore. A traditore obtained a libellus or handed over Scripture during persecution. Donatus argued that failure to remain faithful invalidated ordination.


Quote
Hm... another puzzle peice falls into place.


Puzzled?  1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 22, 2006, 11:03 PM
Quote from: "Men's Rights Activist"
Quote
MRA, I was talking about homosexuality. The Christian church has a far more brutal history of condemning men who are guilty of that act then women.


Dead's dead


I'm afraid you've lost me here.

Quote
Completely and totally wrong, the sins of the preacher or a Christian do not invalidate the words of scripture.  That was decided at the Council of Nicea in the 4th century.


Which canon are you refering to?

Quote
I. Donatism

Donatism began in 311 when Caecilian became Bishop of Carthage. By 311 a bishop needed ordination by three other bishops. Donatus, a Carthaginian deacon, protested Caecilian's ordination because one bishop was a known traditore. A traditore obtained a libellus or handed over Scripture during persecution. Donatus argued that failure to remain faithful invalidated ordination.


Could you explain to me how this is relevant?

Quote
Puzzled?  1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: MrsShades on Jul 22, 2006, 11:20 PM
So with every point that is exhaustively refuted, you pick an incidental side-issue in the text quoted and decide to run with that and argue the minutiae of it rather than acknowledging that the actual original point has been refuted.

You like cherry-picking verses and arguing side points?   Try your hand at this biblical roulette then -
Quote
A man (or woman) wanted guidance and decided to open the bible, close his eyes and put his finger down on a verse at random and take that guidance.  His first try gave him "[Judas] went and hanged himself."  So he tried again and got "Go, and do thou likewise."  Trying once more, he got "What thou doest, do quickly."


People have tried to explain the texts IN CONTEXT with the entire counsel of scripture and you just resort to screaming back "MEN HAVE TO SACRIFICE - MEN AT DISADVANTAGE!" without once considering the wisdom that's been explained to you.

So I too repeat, when time after time you say "Pft, men fucked and Christianity is to blame" don't be surprised when someone says "Your opinion alone, and that against the full counsel of scripture as understood through the ages.  Sucks to be you."

Pearls before swine get little but trampled into the mud, unfortunately.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 22, 2006, 11:27 PM
Quote
Alright!

I tracked it down:

"Church Father Iraneaus of Lyons wrote as Mary as the "Second Eve" who, through her obedience, undid Eve's sin of disobedience, just as Jesus was considered a "Second Adam" who destroyed the death that Adam's sin imposed on us."


Alright, but remember to say Catholic as the majority of "Christians" don't beieve that.  Certainly not any protestants.  Now I think I'm beginning to see where your interpretation of Christianity is coming from.  This is the problem when one endeavors to discuss Christianity.  It's almost better to say Lutheran, Caltholic, Baptist, or whatever ones denomination is when giving an opinion about Christianity, Christ or the Bible.  All claim to be "Christian," but some hold widely differing beliefs.  In fact, Catholics have the books of the Apocrapha in their Bible, while Protestants do not.  That's an enormouns difference to begin with - not even the same Bible. :?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 22, 2006, 11:37 PM
Quote from: "MrsShades"
So with every point that is exhaustively refuted, you pick an incidental side-issue in the text quoted and decide to run with that and argue the minutiae of it rather than acknowledging that the actual original point has been refuted.


I am asking for points of clarification, above.

Quote
People have tried to explain the texts IN CONTEXT with the entire counsel of scripture and you just resort to screaming back "MEN HAVE TO SACRIFICE - MEN AT DISADVANTAGE!" without once considering the wisdom that's been explained to you.


What I have seen is this...

MRA has said that the bible commands women to sacrifice to men in a series of admonishments aimed at all believers, male and female. Yet still, there exists a unique admonishment for men to sacrifice to their wives. Why?

Why would Paul think it important enough to put in that extra admonishment to men? What does it mean to believers that he did so? And how is it applied in real life?

For instance, who decides when the requirement to sacrifice is satisfied? When do men get to do for themselves and not for women? Do they ever or is this commandment to sacrifice for their wives in place until death?

It all comes back to this question so if I've gone on tangents, I'm sorry. There is *alot* of interesting stuff involved, albiet tangentially, in this discussion.

As for cherry picking... I'm not trying to cherry pick, but argue cohesively which is probably why everything seems so scattered at the moment. Although I will have to admit to a bias towards looking at the New Testament, simply because it is the common denominator.

The only other thing I can think of is the issue of God and masculinity. The reason why I ask the questions I do is to understand how Christians view God and their understanding of gender. I'm interested because of how it compares to other depictions of male Gods as virile and physically male. In comparision the Christian God is... well, not. Besides the fact that he is refered to as masculine, he has no male genitalia. Therefore what does the Christian God say about masculine sexuality and the male body? Earlier, male-focused religions *privilaged* masculine sexuality as a sorce of the spiritual on earth, which was reflected in their religious iconography.

But, anyway, that's a peripheral discussion that was sparked by ghost.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 22, 2006, 11:46 PM
Quote from: "Men's Rights Activist"
Quote
Alright!

I tracked it down:

"Church Father Iraneaus of Lyons wrote as Mary as the "Second Eve" who, through her obedience, undid Eve's sin of disobedience, just as Jesus was considered a "Second Adam" who destroyed the death that Adam's sin imposed on us."


Alright, but remember to say Catholic as the majority of "Christians" don't beieve that.  Certainly not any protestants.  Now I think I'm beginning to see where your interpretation of Christianity is coming from.  This is the problem when one endeavors to discuss Christianity.  It's almost better to say Lutheran, Caltholic, Baptist, or whatever ones denomination is when giving an opinion about Christianity, Christ or the Bible.  All claim to be "Christian," but some hold widely differing beliefs.  In fact, Catholics have the books of the Apocrapha in their Bible, while Protestants do not.  That's an enormouns difference to begin with - not even the same Bible. :?


Well, Catholics may have their obsession with the Virgin Mary, but Protestants have a strong focus on capitalism. In many ways consumer capitalism has done more to elevate women's power then anything else on earth.

Although I'm not sure if capitalism is the cause or the effect?

I'm beginning to wonder if this whole issue isn't a matter of some deeper "intelligence" that has been using Christianity, consumer capitalism, psychology and chivalry to advance it's agenda. (I'm using intelligence not in terms of human intelligence but in terms of a social force.)

I think I'm going to take a break from this because I've just creeped myself out.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 22, 2006, 11:49 PM
Quote
Quote
Men's Rights Activist wrote:

Quote
MRA, I was talking about homosexuality. The Christian church has a far more brutal history of condemning men who are guilty of that act then women.



Dead's dead



I'm afraid you've lost me here.

The Biblical penalty for adultry and homosexuality was death - deads, dead.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Completely and totally wrong, the sins of the preacher or a Christian do not invalidate the words of scripture. That was decided at the Council of Nicea in the 4th century.


Which canon are you refering to?


Oppps that was the conference of Carthage in 411, my mistake.
Quote
The Donatist schism in Africa began in 311 and flourished just one hundred years, until the conference at Carthage in 411, after which its importance waned.

The main recognized denomination (catholic - smale c) was that in the Roman empire.


Quote
I. Donatism

Donatism began in 311 when Caecilian became Bishop of Carthage. By 311 a bishop needed ordination by three other bishops. Donatus, a Carthaginian deacon, protested Caecilian's ordination because one bishop was a known traditore. A traditore obtained a libellus or handed over Scripture during persecution. Donatus argued that failure to remain faithful invalidated ordination.



Quote
Could you explain to me how this is relevant?


I did.  
Quote
You said,

In other words unless a man is a perfect Christian man he cannot point out the sins of a woman. Yet in order to be a perfect Christian man, he must sacrifice for his wife, with no qualification *when* his sacrifice is enough.


I said,
Quote
the sins of the preacher or a Christian do not invalidate the words of scripture.
In other words you don't have to be a perfect Christian man to point out the sins of a woman. Traditores were tortured during periods of persecution and some rejected the faith.  It was ruled that they could still preach the word of God after the persecution had ended, because nobody is without sin, nobody is perfect, but moreso a sinner speaking the Bible does not negate the truths of the Bible.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: selkie on Jul 22, 2006, 11:52 PM
Quote from: typhonblue
Quote from: Men's Rights Activist
Quote
Alright!

I tracked it down:

"Church Father Iraneaus of Lyons wrote as Mary as the "Second Eve" who, through her obedience, undid Eve's sin of disobedience, just as Jesus was considered a "Second Adam" who destroyed the death that Adam's sin imposed on us."


Alright, but remember to say Catholic as the majority of "Christians" don't beieve that.  Certainly not any protestants.  Now I think I'm beginning to see where your interpretation of Christianity is coming from.  This is the problem when one endeavors to discuss Christianity.  It's almost better to say Lutheran, Caltholic, Baptist, or whatever ones denomination is when giving an opinion about Christianity, Christ or the Bible.  All claim to be "Christian," but some hold widely differing beliefs.  In fact, Catholics have the books of the Apocrapha in their Bible, while Protestants do not.  That's an enormouns difference to begin with - not even the same Bible. :?


Well, Catholics may have their obsession with the Virgin Mary, but Protestants have a strong focus on capitalism. In many ways consumer capitalism has done more to elevate women's power then anything else on earth.

Although I'm not sure if capitalism is the cause or the effect?

I'm beginning to wonder if this whole issue isn't a matter of some deeper "intelligence" that has been using Christianity, consumer capitalism, psychology and chivalry to advance it's agenda. (I'm using intelligence not in terms of human intelligence but in terms of a social force.)


Are you saying that they are obsessed with Mary because they believe she was a virgin??

It's what they believe TB.  Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus.
It is written in the Bible.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: MrsShades on Jul 22, 2006, 11:52 PM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Quote from: "MrsShades"
So with every point that is exhaustively refuted, you pick an incidental side-issue in the text quoted and decide to run with that and argue the minutiae of it rather than acknowledging that the actual original point has been refuted.


I am asking for points of clarification, above.

Quote
People have tried to explain the texts IN CONTEXT with the entire counsel of scripture and you just resort to screaming back "MEN HAVE TO SACRIFICE - MEN AT DISADVANTAGE!" without once considering the wisdom that's been explained to you.


What I have seen is this...

MRA has said that the bible commands women to sacrifice to men in a series of admonishments aimed at all believers, male and female. Yet still, there exists a unique admonishment for men to sacrifice to their wives. Why?  Why would Paul think it important enough to put in that extra admonishment to men? What does it mean to believers that he did so? And how is it applied in real life?


Quite possibly because as you noted before, earlier mindsets included men simply saying to their new wives "MY sexuality is none of your business, so fuck off wench - I shall fornicate at will and your job is to bear chidren and leave me the hell alone.  Mwahaha!" and Christ's commands surpass and improve on that by making the partners more equal in their commitment to become one flesh.


Quote
For instance, who decides when the requirement to sacrifice is satisfied? When do men get to do for themselves and not for women? Do they ever or is this commandment to sacrifice for their wives in place until death?


There is little scorekeeping when two people become, for all intents and purposes, one flesh.

Quote
As for cherry picking... I'm not trying to cherry pick, but argue cohesively which is probably why everything seems so scattered at the moment. Although I will have to admit to a bias towards looking at the New Testament, simply because it is the common denominator.


Well cohesively people have been trying to explain the FULL counsel of scripture and not merely this or that verse divorced from its context.

Quote
The only other thing I can think of is the issue of God and masculinity. The reason why I ask the questions I do is to understand how Christians view God and their understanding of gender. I'm interested because of how it compares to other depictions of male Gods as virile and physically male. In comparision the Christian God is... well, not. Besides the fact that he is refered to as masculine, he has no male genitalia. Therefore what does the Christian God say about masculine sexuality and the male body? Earlier, male-focused religions *privilaged* masculine sexuality as a sorce of the spiritual on earth, which was reflected in their religious iconography.


I ask again, is a penectomized man not male?   Not to imply that God is some ridiculous penectomized human male, but it's a silly qualification.   That heathen and regressive religions may have seen a need to make their Gods with definably male physical bodies is not the point.  We are talking of the God of Gods, Lord of Lords, King of Hosts...He is discorporate and need not have balls or a dick to be MALE.  He is male because He says He is, and because Male goes far beyond bullshit qualifications like possessing a penis.   You're talking here, of the creator of and ruler of the entire universe - go ahead and tell Him how to define Himself; wouldn't wanna be ya' in that case.  Seriously.   I suppose we could all regress and try to follow some bull-headed "god" but, unfortunately, that character isn't, you know, God.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 22, 2006, 11:58 PM
Quote
Well, Catholics may have their obsession with the Virgin Mary, but Protestants have a strong focus on capitalism. In many ways consumer capitalism has done more to elevate women's power then anything else on earth.


What in the world are you talking about now???

Please quote scripture to support your claim.

Quote
Although I'm not sure if capitalism is the cause or the effect?


What in the world are you talking about now???

Please quote scripture to support your claim.

Quote
I'm beginning to wonder if this whole issue isn't a matter of some deeper "intelligence" that has been using Christianity, consumer capitalism, psychology and chivalry to advance it's agenda. (I'm using intelligence not in terms of human intelligence but in terms of a social force.)


What in the world are you talking about now???

Please quote scripture to support your claim.

Quote
I think I'm going to take a break from this because I've just creeped myself out.


1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

Quote
I think I'm going to take a break from this because I've just creeped myself out.


Just when we were starting to have fun. :cry:
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 23, 2006, 12:07 AM
Quote from: "MrsShades"
Quite possibly because as you noted before, earlier mindsets included men simply saying to their new wives "MY sexuality is none of your business, so fuck off wench - I shall fornicate at will and your job is to bear chidren and leave me the hell alone.  Mwahaha!" and Christ's commands surpass and improve on that by making the partners more equal in their commitment to become one flesh.


And what does this admonishment do in a society where women have legal equality with and social superiority to, men?

Also, this concern for the benefit of women would make Christianity the *first* woman-rights movement in recorded history.

Quote
Quote
For instance, who decides when the requirement to sacrifice is satisfied? When do men get to do for themselves and not for women? Do they ever or is this commandment to sacrifice for their wives in place until death?


There is little scorekeeping when two people become, for all intents and purposes, one flesh.


In the real world score-keeping happens. The "one flesh" concept is an ideal that rarely occures. Instead we have the weight of scripture bearing down on people's relationships and producing... what? What happens when we take two people and instill in them these values? Even more interesting, what happens when we take two people and have a *woman* instill these values into them at their most vulnerable stage of life?

Quote
Quote
As for cherry picking... I'm not trying to cherry pick, but argue cohesively which is probably why everything seems so scattered at the moment. Although I will have to admit to a bias towards looking at the New Testament, simply because it is the common denominator.


Well cohesively people have been trying to explain the FULL counsel of scripture and not merely this or that verse divorced from its context.


If you could explain the full council of scripture I don't think you'd be on here talking to me.

Quote
I ask again, is a penectomized man not male?


I suppose he's male but not a man. Just like a gelding is a male horse but not a stallion.

Quote
Not to imply that God is some ridiculous penectomized human male, but it's a silly qualification.   That heathen and regressive religions may have seen a need to make their Gods with definably male physical bodies is not the point.  We are talking of the God of Gods, Lord of Lords, King of Hosts...He is discorporate and need not have balls or a dick to be MALE.  He is male because He says He is, and because Male goes far beyond bullshit qualifications like possessing a penis.   You're talking here, of the creator of and ruler of the entire universe - go ahead and tell Him how to define Himself; wouldn't wanna be ya' in that case.  Seriously.   I suppose we could all regress and try to follow some bull-headed "god" but, unfortunately, that character isn't, you know, God.


God reflects ourselves, particularly an idealized perception of ourselves. To think that any human language or thought, visual, auditory or otherwise could express the true nature of god is... well... rather arrogant.

So, knowing that how we view God is really how we view ourselves, what does this de-sexualized male Christian God say about men's sexuality?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Patriarch Verlch on Jul 23, 2006, 12:10 AM
Scripture is very clear the roles between men and women. The man is the leader and the woman follows.

Plain as day.

http://www.catholicplanet.com/articles/article93.htm

Women are rebelling against man, the family God created, ultimately the whole entire system.

Quote
2:18 The LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him." 2:19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every animal of the field, and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. Whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 2:20 The man gave names to all livestock, and to the birds of the sky, and to every animal of the field; but for man there was not found a helper suitable for him. 2:21 The LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on the man, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. 2:22 He made the rib, which the LORD God had taken from the man, into a woman, and brought her to the man. 2:23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh. She will be called 'woman,' because she was taken out of Man." 2:24 Therefore a man will leave his father and his mother, and will join with his wife, and they will be one flesh. 2:25 They were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.



Another reason why men are Patriarchal leaders.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 23, 2006, 12:12 AM
Quote from: "Men's Rights Activist"
Quote
Well, Catholics may have their obsession with the Virgin Mary, but Protestants have a strong focus on capitalism. In many ways consumer capitalism has done more to elevate women's power then anything else on earth.


What in the world are you talking about now???

Please quote scripture to support your claim.


Scripture doesn't define the protestants because the protestants defined themselves *after* scripture was written.

So I'll refer to "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" by Max Weber.

Quote
Quote
Although I'm not sure if capitalism is the cause or the effect?


What in the world are you talking about now???

Please quote scripture to support your claim.


This has nothing to do with scripture.

Quote
Quote
I'm beginning to wonder if this whole issue isn't a matter of some deeper "intelligence" that has been using Christianity, consumer capitalism, psychology and chivalry to advance it's agenda. (I'm using intelligence not in terms of human intelligence but in terms of a social force.)


What in the world are you talking about now???

Please quote scripture to support your claim.


This has nothing to do with scripture.

Quote

Quote
I think I'm going to take a break from this because I've just creeped myself out.


Just when we were starting to have fun. :cry:


k. But I think it would be even more fun if bluegrass hopped on board and brought out his momism theory!
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: MrsShades on Jul 23, 2006, 12:20 AM
Quote from: "typhonblue"

If you could explain the full council of scripture I don't think you'd be on here talking to me.


Cute little neiner-neiner but not worth much.

Quote from: "typhonblue"
Quote
I ask again, is a penectomized man not male?


I suppose he's male but not a man. Just like a gelding is a male horse but not a stallion.


You're mistaking non-interchangeable genitalia here.   YOU said how can God be a male without a penis, and now you're mentioning geldings who lack TESTICLES.   Wholly different proposition.  And both entirely irrelevant to the question at hand.

Quote
Not to imply that God is some ridiculous penectomized human male, but it's a silly qualification.   That heathen and regressive religions may have seen a need to make their Gods with definably male physical bodies is not the point.  We are talking of the God of Gods, Lord of Lords, King of Hosts...He is discorporate and need not have balls or a dick to be MALE.  He is male because He says He is, and because Male goes far beyond bullshit qualifications like possessing a penis.   You're talking here, of the creator of and ruler of the entire universe - go ahead and tell Him how to define Himself; wouldn't wanna be ya' in that case.  Seriously.   I suppose we could all regress and try to follow some bull-headed "god" but, unfortunately, that character isn't, you know, God.


God reflects ourselves, particularly an idealized perception of ourselves. To think that any human language or thought, visual, auditory or otherwise could express the true nature of god is... well... rather arrogant.

So, knowing that how we view God is really how we view ourselves, what does this de-sexualized male Christian God say about men's sexuality?[/quote]

Valid up until the last paragraph.   How we are to view God is how He says He is, not how we believe WE are.  As to "de-sexualized"   you'd be closer with discorporeal.   We aren't talking about some mere human body with physical human characteristics.  Jeez.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 23, 2006, 12:29 AM
Quote from: "MrsShades"
Quote from: "typhonblue"

If you could explain the full council of scripture I don't think you'd be on here talking to me.


Cute little neiner-neiner but not worth much.


Right.

Quote
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Quote
I ask again, is a penectomized man not male?


I suppose he's male but not a man. Just like a gelding is a male horse but not a stallion.


You're mistaking non-interchangeable genitalia here.   YOU said how can God be a male without a penis, and now you're mentioning geldings who lack TESTICLES.   Wholly different proposition.  And both entirely irrelevant to the question at hand.


Alright then. A male with his penis and/or testicals removed is male but not a man. How is that for an answer?

I'm afraid that I believe leaving open the issue of masculinity without masculine genitalia paves the way for female "father-figures" and female manhood.

Quote

So, knowing that how we view God is really how we view ourselves, what does this de-sexualized male Christian God say about men's sexuality?


Valid up until the last paragraph.   How we are to view God is how He says He is, not how we believe WE are.  As to "de-sexualized"   you'd be closer with discorporeal.   We aren't talking about some mere human body with physical human characteristics.  Jeez.[/quote]

I'm afraid I'm somewhat skeptical that God has ever told you how to view Him.

But regardless, I think this conversation requires some detachment from any particular mythology of God. I'm trying to compare representations of ostensibly male Gods: The Pagan and the Christian. And what they mean to their respective societies. As such I'm not talking about God *directly* but about His representation in human society.

The Pagan God is masculine and sexual; the Christian God is masculine and sex-less.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 23, 2006, 12:43 AM
Quote
Scripture doesn't define the protestants because the protestants defined themselves *after* scripture was written.


Protestants acutally defined themselves as protestants in terms of Catholic error in interpreting the Bible and adding to the sacred text. You know, things like indulgences that are mentioned nowhere in the sacred text, but are later contrivances of Catholicism.

"Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason--I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other--my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe."

"Hier stehe ich. Ich kann nicht anders. Gott helfe mir. Amen." ("Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me."
:?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 23, 2006, 12:54 AM
Quote from: "Men's Rights Activist"
Quote
Scripture doesn't define the protestants because the protestants defined themselves *after* scripture was written.


Protestants acutally defined themselves as protestants in terms of Catholic error in interpreting the Bible and adding to the sacred text. You know, things like indulgences that are mentioned nowhere in the sacred text, but are later contrivances of Catholicism.


Yes, but you have to conceed that the scripture is unlikely to mention Protestants?

BTW, what denomination are you? Because I can think of one way Christianity can be interpreted to actually benefit men.

It would entail a denomination that believed the ideal of a woman submitting to a man should be enshrined in law. In other words, women should be striped of their inheritance rights, suffrage and various other legal protections. If a woman is legally equal to a man, how can she submit? And if a man is legally equal to a woman, what does he have to sacrifice.

If there is a denomination that supports the repeal of these laws, then I think that would be an egalitarian interpretation of the scripture applied to a real world situation.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Crusoe on Jul 23, 2006, 01:02 AM
Quote
I'll go back to my original argument and simply ask. Where is feminism most powerful? And what do those places have in common?


Feminism is most powerful among those who have been the richest, the longest. Note that this corresponds to Anglo-Saxon countries and former colonies of Britain. In places (and times) where simple survival is more of an issue, the religious traditional family model is much more beneficial to women and female "independence" a tougher prospect.

Quote
Islam in Turkey -(eager to join the European Union) is a zillion times more pragmatic than Islam in Afghanistan.  




Note the economic differences between Turkey and Afghanistan.
Iraq and Kuwait are two more Islamic countries that are quite different.
The (poor)Iraqi are every traditional whereas the (rich) Kuwaiti male-female interaction is much closer to western. Even the burkhas Kuwaiti women wear are different. Picture something closer to a clingy black flannel nightgown than to a nuns habit. Which country do you think is more open to feminism?
India is also getting more feminist a they grow economically.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 23, 2006, 01:07 AM
Quote from: "Men's Rights Activist"

I'm afraid you've lost me here.

The Biblical penalty for adultry and homosexuality was death - deads, dead.[/quote]

Do Christians have a history of killing adulterers? I know that they have, sporadically, throughout their history, killed men who practice homosexuality(but never women.)

Quote

the sins of the preacher or a Christian do not invalidate the words of scripture. In other words you don't have to be a perfect Christian man to point out the sins of a woman. Traditores were tortured during periods of persecution and some rejected the faith.  It was ruled that they could still preach the word of God after the persecution had ended, because nobody is without sin, nobody is perfect, but moreso a sinner speaking the Bible does not negate the truths of the Bible.


So this would apply to Catholics but not to Protestants?

Were they still allowed to condemn other sinners? Or is preaching the word of God identical to condemning sinners?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 23, 2006, 01:12 AM
Quote
Alright then. A male with his penis and/or testicals removed is male but not a man. How is that for an answer?

I'm afraid that I believe leaving open the issue of masculinity without masculine genitalia paves the way for female "father-figures" and female manhood.


Given Gods vast creative achievements I doubt that he could be perceptively defined in the limited terms of language our puny minds have used to establish our bounds of comprehension.  

When God spake through the prophets to us, I suspect it was a lot like a well educated adult speaking to a child; not in the Doctoral terms of his/her ability, but on a level the mentally limited hearer could understand.  

What sex is God?  I suspect He is all encompassing, since he made both, and all the vastly divergent forms of life and reproduction we see.  I doubt we have the capacity to fully understand His massive creativeness.  Why has He come down to us as He?  Why does He want he's to be the heads of the households?  

Yea, you guessed it, it's all an evil Patriarchal plot that it took brilliant gender feminists to uncover.  

Given the I.Q.'s I've seen in that group I'm surprised they can close their mouths by themselves, when flies accompany their master, the Lord of the flies, as he conjures up further instructions for his minions, not the least of which are feminists. :?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 23, 2006, 01:19 AM
Quote
Quote from: Crusoe
Quote
I'll go back to my original argument and simply ask. Where is feminism most powerful? And what do those places have in common?


Feminism is most powerful among those who have been the richest, the longest. Note that this corresponds to Anglo-Saxon countries and former colonies of Britain. In places (and times) where simple survival is more of an issue, the religious traditional family model is much more beneficial to women and female "independence" a tougher prospect.


I think, for the most part, women in poor societies are too busy trying to earn a living to entertain rediculous notions.

Quote
Note the economic differences between Turkey and Afghanistan.
Iraq and Kuwait are two more Islamic countries that are quite different.
The (poor)Iraqi are every traditional whereas the (rich) Kuwaiti male-female interaction is much closer to western. Even the burkhas Kuwaiti women wear are different. Picture something closer to a clingy black flannel nightgown than to a nuns habit. Which country do you think is more open to feminism?
India is also getting more feminist a they grow economically.


Iraq *was* secular under Saddam. Women had a lot of freedoms they didn't in other muslim nations from traditional limitations (such as dress) and to pursue employment.

Kuwait is more liberal, yes, but Saudi Arabia is also rich(at least the royal family) and it is far from liberal.

I think the difference in these cultures stems from the amount western feminism has penetrated into them. Although I suppose we could get into a discussion on *why* feminism penetrated some further then others.

Although, from my cursory look-over the Koran (and my memories from grade-school) the Muslim religion is one that could go either way... depending on the interpretation. Either to a loosening of the restrictions on women or increasing them.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 23, 2006, 01:21 AM
Quote
So this would apply to Catholics but not to Protestants?


I believe that actually applies to both, but the long history of Christian church doctrine has many twist and turns.

From about 324 A.D. to 1500 A.D. the catholic church was the only church, then came the reformation and protestantism.

Over time, protestants allege, errors of doctrine came into the church not based on the Bible.  Protestantism was a movement to weed out those doctrines not founded on Biblical text.  

Ironically, the Codex Vaticanus http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04086a.htm is one of the oldest and most complete of the early Biblical manuscripts and is in the Vatican.  The other two oldest Bibles in a somewhat complete format are the Codex Sianiaticus (sp?) and the Codex Alexandranius (sp?).  Byzantine text from which the King James came has been found to be amazingly close to those three 4th and 5th century Bibles.  The oldest Byzantine manuscript available for writting the King James as I recall was 11th Century.

Although there are many strong differences between Catholics and protestants, there is also much common ground.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 23, 2006, 01:46 AM
Quote
Yes, but you have to conceed that the scripture is unlikely to mention Protestants?


Why must I concede???  I never even hinted it said anything specific  about protestants, nor would I.  Will you likewise concede that the Bible doesn't metion Catholics?  In fact, the Bible doesn't mention a single denomination.  It also doesn't talk about rocket scientists, feminists, pit bulls, or hot rods.  What in the world point are you trying to make now?

Do a search on anything you like for yourself,
http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=catholic&qs_version=51
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: ghost on Jul 23, 2006, 01:56 AM
I think typhonblue is about to be crucified. :P
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 23, 2006, 01:56 AM
Quote
Do Christians have a history of killing adulterers? I know that they have, sporadically, throughout their history, killed men who practice homosexuality(but never women.)


Yes or harsh physical abuse, burn witches, scarlet A's branded on adulterous women's foreheads or chests, the inquistion, Bloody Mary, all kinds of persecutions against men and women throughout history.  Heretics were really persecuted on a significant scale many times.  My goodness the Catholic church even castrated young boys so their voices would stay soprano longer - castratos.

Foxes Book of Martyrs has a lot of gory wood cut pictures of various tortures and executions performed by the Catholic church mostly.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: ghost on Jul 23, 2006, 02:08 AM
Quote from: "Men's Rights Activist"
Quote
MRA, I was talking about homosexuality. The Christian church has a far more brutal history of condemning men who are guilty of that act then women.


Dead's dead

An excuse is an excuse.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: powder-monkey on Jul 23, 2006, 08:34 AM
Just to clear up any misconcep-...  Well, anyway...

The Immaculate Conception (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm)

Quote: In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854,
Pius IX
pronounced and defined that the
Blessed Virgin Mary "
in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and
grace
granted by God, in view of the
merits
of
Jesus Christ,
the Saviour of the
human race,
was preserved exempt from all stain of
original sin."

"The Blessed Virgin Mary . . ." The subject of this immunity from
original sin
is the person of Mary at the moment of the creation of her soul and its infusion into her body.
Title: W
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 23, 2006, 09:03 AM
Quote from: "ghost"
I think typhonblue is about to be crucified. :P


:?:
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: ghost on Jul 23, 2006, 10:35 AM
It's a joke. :(
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 23, 2006, 10:49 AM
Quote from: "ghost"
It's a joke. :(


Oh I see. Sorry, I can be very literal sometimes.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: MrsShades on Jul 23, 2006, 08:31 PM
Powder-monkey - the immaculate conception (an entirely catholic belief) does not have anything to do with absolving all women - if that's what you were referring to.

MRA is right in stating that God is above and beyond gender, just as He is above and beyond mundane things like time.   However, we are told to address Him as father, not mother.   He is male and in authority, and it is that model that is supposed to be lived out on earth between the genders.   And when men are told to sacrifice for that which they love as their own flesh (their wives) it is only in imitation of Christ, who, being God, deigned to sacrifice his own self for the benefit of sinful mankind.   In other words, He doesn't ask us to do anything he hasn't done Himself.   He endured the humiliation of the cross - for us, who were thoroughly unworthy.  We are all asked to do likewise.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 24, 2006, 12:59 AM
Quote
Quote
Men's Rights Activist wrote:  
Quote
MRA, I was talking about homosexuality. The Christian church has a far more brutal history of condemning men who are guilty of that act then women.



Dead's dead


An excuse is an excuse.


Your interpretation is suffering from a perception disconnect, and an incomplete posting of previous quotes, possibly exacerbated by incomplete quotes by TB, since you are quoting me through her posts.  I clearly pointed out in a subsequent post (but preceding your comment) that I was quoting Biblical law's penality for homosexuality and adultry - both death.  Ergo, "dead's dead."  No excuses, merely a quote.

A lot of people are quick to condemn the harshness of the old testament, but such was the nature of the times.  I believe I read about a penalty under Babylonian or Summaric law from that time, where, if an architect built a house and it fell down, the architect was killed. Dead's dead and is also dead for homosexual, adulterer, or sloppy architect from that time. :?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: powder-monkey on Jul 24, 2006, 08:02 AM
Quote:
Powder-monkey - the immaculate conception (an entirely catholic belief) does not have anything to do with absolving all women - if that's what you were
referring to.

Actually, that's the very point I was trying to make
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 24, 2006, 08:41 AM
Quote
Powder-monkey - the immaculate conception (an entirely catholic belief) does not have anything to do with absolving all women - if that's what you were referring to.


The immaculate conception (a Catholic doctrine) has mistakenly been  closely associated with the Biblical assertion of the virgin birth of Jesus (born of a virgin), that Protestant churches hold, yet the two are not the same.

Maybe the title of this thread should have been, "Do Catholics (as opposed to Protestants) hold women in higher regard then men, because of their belief in the Immaculate Conception of Mary?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception
Quote
The Immaculate Conception is a Catholic dogma that asserts that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was preserved by God from the stain of original sin at the time of her own conception. Specifically, the dogma says she was not afflicted by the lack of sanctifying grace that afflicts mankind, but was instead filled with grace by God, and furthermore lived a life completely free from sin. It is commonly confused with the doctrine of the incarnation and virgin birth, though the two deal with separate subjects. According to the dogma, Mary was conceived by normal biological means, but her soul was acted upon by God (kept "immaculate") at the time of her conception.

The Immaculate Conception was solemnly defined as a dogma by Pope Pius IX in his constitution Ineffabilis Deus, published December 8, 1854 (the Feast of the Immaculate Conception), and consecrated by Pope Pius XII in 1942.

The Feast of the Immaculate Conception of Mary had been established in 1476 by Pope Sixtus IV who stopped short of defining the doctrine as a dogma of the Catholic Faith, thus giving Catholics freedom to believe in this or not; this freedom had been reiterated by the Council of Trent. The existence of the feast was a strong indication of the Church´s belief in the Immaculate Conception, even before its 19th century definition as a dogma.

The Catholic Church believes the dogma is supported by scripture (e.g. her being greeted by Angel Gabriel as "full of Grace"), and by the writings of many of the Church Fathers, either directly or indirectly, and often calls Mary the Blessed Virgin ( Luke 1:48). Catholic theology maintains that since Jesus became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, she needed to be completely free of sin to bear the Son of God, and that Mary is "redeemed 'by the grace of Christ' but in a more perfect manner than other human beings" (Ott, Fund., Bk 3, Pt. 3, Ch. 2, §3.1.e).
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: The Gonzman on Jul 24, 2006, 12:59 PM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Gonzo - Do you not see any Womanfirsting in Christianity?


Very much so in Liberal, secular, heterodox Christianity
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: dr e on Jul 24, 2006, 01:37 PM
Quote from: "Gonzokid"
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Gonzo - Do you not see any Womanfirsting in Christianity?


Very much so in Liberal, secular, heterodox Christianity


What I am picking up from this thread is that most of you feel that theologically Christianity is egalitarian but has been ruined on a practical basis by feminism and the liberal women firsters.  Correct?  

It seems to me that the Catholics have taken some pretty strong stands against feminism and seem to be holding the line for a more traditional approach that honors men and places them in positions of leadership.   The other protestant denominations seem to have just caved in to the fems.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: stands2p on Jul 24, 2006, 02:41 PM
I'm sorry to have missed most of this discussion but I'd like to toss this in for your consideration:
Feminism seems to me to be a top to bottom rejection of everything Christianity or any other religion has to offer.  Religion is the idea that there is a higher purpose to life than what we see around us; that there is a reason to behave decently other than the hope that others will treat us decently in return.  Feminism is the romantic and materialist* idea that women have been enslaved by something they call the patriarchy and that they must tear down all of society's institutions to achieve dominance (not equality.)  

Organized religion, especially of Judeo-Christian derivation, tops the feminist list of institutions for destruction.  Feminists understand that religion is among the most powerful of societal institutions, even in this secular age.  Religion is unearthly revelation and accumulated wisdom about those revelations.  Even people who say they do not believe do so with a gravity they reserve for matters of life and death.  Those who scoff at religion expect to be saluted for their bravery, implying a deeply held belief in what they deny. Religion is important, more important than the stock exchange or the interstate highway system or public television or the internet and feminists know it.  

Christians and Jews get most of the feminists' attention not because they are especially harsh with regards to women but because they are closely intertwined with those Western economic and political developments that, having spawned feminism, are now identified by feminists as the enemy, the patriarchy.  Feminist are silent about the misogyny endemic to Islam for two reasons.  The first is that Islam is their co-antagonist in the fight to destroy Judeo-Christianity.  The second is the stoning and beheading of rebellious women, time tested deterrents to free-speech.  I will submit that the pantheistic, polytheistic, animist and pagan faiths practiced by a sizable majority of the world's population fall below the feminist radar largely because feminism is a western political and economic phenomenon.  The dysfunctional child seeks to kill its own parents, not its neighbor's.

I get great comfort from my faith.  I seek to lead my family with the authority vested in me by my Creator.  My wife would be appalled by the suggestion that she submits to me but she truly does in those things that really matter and to the extent that she sees God's hand in my decisions.  I am not besotted with pride but rather humbled by my responsibility as a husband and father.

Organized religion is a human construction and, as such, is as flawed and fragile as any machine.  LL Nash is credited with saying church is "a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints."  When I walk into my church, I find much that is amiss but I also find great healing.  I do what I can to make things better and hope that, as I grow in my faith, I can do more to make my church closer to what it is meant to be.  I also take earthly comfort in knowing that churches are plentiful enough that I could find a new "hospital" if I had to part ways with my current spiritual home.

At the end of the day, feminism will fail just as socialism will fail.  Both are petty and comical attempts by weak and deluded people to steal what they claim has no value.  Peace be with you.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 24, 2006, 04:15 PM
Quote
It seems to me that the Catholics have taken some pretty strong stands against feminism and seem to be holding the line for a more traditional approach that honors men and places them in positions of leadership. The other protestant denominations seem to have just caved in to the fems.


Some have, but theProtestant Pastor I quoted extensively has certainly taken a strong stand against feminism, and the Lutheran Pastor I gave info to has also taken a strong stand against feminism.  Rather than buy into some of the stuff being pushed under feminsim the later Pastor told me, "Before I'll allow that in my church I'll close the doors and pump gas for a living." :?

I think educating them, could make a world of difference in some Pastors.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 24, 2006, 04:24 PM
Quote
Feminism is the romantic and materialist* idea that women have been enslaved by something they call the patriarchy and that they must tear down all of society's institutions to achieve dominance (not equality.)


I see it that way too.  Feminism is totalitarian in that it has no desire to share the stage with any males.  It has judged "Patriarchy" as responsible for all the worlds ills and is totally committed to its destruction.  Any man who gets in the way is also slated for destruction.  Under feminsim's agenda, only feminists are qualified to have leadership in the new femi-tyranny.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: ghost on Jul 24, 2006, 04:31 PM
Eh... I dunno. It's close, but doesn't describe feminism exactly.
Proper tyrannies achieve their power by terror and suppressing dissent.
With feminism, suppressing dissent was never an issue as there is virtually none.
Feminism is probably the first voluntarily adopted tyranny.
Maybe that means it isn't even tyranny, if it's done with the love and consent of its "victims"?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Christiane on Jul 24, 2006, 10:29 PM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
What I am picking up from this thread is that most of you feel that theologically Christianity is egalitarian but has been ruined on a practical basis by feminism and the liberal women firsters.  Correct?


Yes, speaking for myself.  But I still have the problem of generalization - defining Christianity today is problematic.   With that caveat, I believe absolutely that Christianity has been twisted by the feminist movement to suit their agenda.

Quote
I get great comfort from my faith. I seek to lead my family with the authority vested in me by my Creator. My wife would be appalled by the suggestion that she submits to me but she truly does in those things that really matter and to the extent that she sees God's hand in my decisions. I am not besotted with pride but rather humbled by my responsibility as a husband and father.


Your wife is a fortunate woman, stands2p  - but I suspect she knows that.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 25, 2006, 01:39 PM
Quote
Eh... I dunno. It's close, but doesn't describe feminism exactly.
Proper tyrannies achieve their power by terror and suppressing dissent.
With feminism, suppressing dissent was never an issue as there is virtually none.
Feminism is probably the first voluntarily adopted tyranny.
Maybe that means it isn't even tyranny, if it's done with the love and consent of its "victims"?


Er, speak for yourself.  IMO, I think you are telling on yourself and your level of Men's Rights Activism.  I've often said that free speech is the biggest enemy of gender feminism and that they are very vigorous about trying to crush dissent.  As far as dissent never being an issue, perhaps you feel that way, because you've not been involved in it like numerous others of us have.  If I had a dime for every time an angry gender feminist has flipped us the bird, or shouted obscenities at us while we were exercising our free speech rights (criticizing atrocities committed under the gender feminist agenda), I could buy us both dinner.

http://tinyurl.com/7ku7r
http://tinyurl.com/e76g7
http://tinyurl.com/rfhj3
http://tinyurl.com/k5esl
http://tinyurl.com/pht5w
http://tinyurl.com/d3mj2

(http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/MRA_06/76a1f577.jpg)
(http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/MRA_06/d11481ca.jpg)
(http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/MRA_06/04a91822.jpg)

If anyone has not had their free speech rights assaulted by gender feminists or their ilk, then IMO, your just not doing enough Men's Rights Activism.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: ghost on Jul 25, 2006, 02:21 PM
I was speaking about men as a group, not about myself.
NCFM doesn't represent men, it only represents itself and a tiny handful of others who agree with it

Feminism never had to fight a real opposition. Feminism's claims were never challenged in public debate. Literature that exposes feminist sexism is almost non-existent. There is Warren Farrell... and Christina Hoff Sommers... and Thomas Ellis... that's about. As opposed to thousands of hefty feminist tomes and endless newspaper and magazine publications.

The only semi-serious opposition feminism has is from religious conservatives, on the abortion issue. But they never challenge them on anti-male hatred.

Feminism never struggled to get in power. It slid into it on rollerblades while chewing a bubblegum.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: typhonblue on Jul 25, 2006, 07:53 PM
Quote from: "ghost"
IFeminism never struggled to get in power. It slid into it on rollerblades while chewing a bubblegum.


Amazing that such a revolution in power managed to happen without a single shot being fired.

Could you imagine this happening with any other power shift?

The communist party waltzs into the Czar's palace and says "time for a change of pace, my man" and the Czar says "quite right, just need a few days to pack my bags."
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: ghost on Jul 26, 2006, 02:26 AM
Yup. That's what the point was, thanks typhonblue.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: lkanneg on Jul 26, 2006, 01:34 PM
Quote from: "typhonblue"

Yes, but what does it *mean* to be the head of someone you sacrifice everything for?

To put it another way, if you were offered two options... the first option is to rule over your spouce, yet you have to sacrifice yourself to their every benefit and need. The second option is to submit, but submit to someone who sacrifices themselves for your every need and benefit...

Which would you choose?


By preference, "neither."  But if I had to pick one, I'd definitely pick the first option.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 26, 2006, 02:44 PM
Quote
NCFM doesn't represent men, it only represents itself and a tiny handful of others who agree with it.


NCFM does represent men, and as to the number of people who agree with, it it is somewhere between one and all of male humanity, depending on the issue being addressed.  One thing appears certain, "You don't speak for it."
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: ghost on Jul 26, 2006, 02:53 PM
MRA, I'm not against NCFM. I'm simply saying that the "average man" doesn't give a crap about it, if he knows of their existence at all.
NCFM might care about men, but men don't care about NCFM.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Somebody else on Jul 26, 2006, 02:57 PM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Quote from: "ghost"
IFeminism never struggled to get in power. It slid into it on rollerblades while chewing a bubblegum.


Amazing that such a revolution in power managed to happen without a single shot being fired.

Could you imagine this happening with any other power shift?


Yes, the Church. Took over most of Europe, had kings answering to their power all without having to raise, train and feed an army. That was one of the smoothest power shifts in history. Didn't have to have a bloodline, didn't have to have an army to conquor kingdoms. And when they did want to use force they could use the king's army.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 26, 2006, 02:58 PM
Quote
Proper tyrannies achieve their power by terror and suppressing dissent.
With feminism, suppressing dissent was never an issue as there is virtually none.
Feminism is probably the first voluntarily adopted tyranny.
Maybe that means it isn't even tyranny, if it's done with the love and consent of its "victims"?


Tyranny without dissent is no less tyranny.  

Just because the dissent is belated, just because the frog jumps from the pot yelling, ""Who turned up the heat," doesn't invalidate the dissent, or the fact that the Tyranny created it.  There is no rule that says, "Tyranny not immediately accompanied by dissent (at the time of the ascension to power) cannot be called tyranny.  Gender feminism is tyranny, pure and simple, and there is a growing opposition to it as evidenced by the activism of NCFM and many others.

As I stated, feminism insideously tries to crush dissent and free speech through all means possible, including "jack boot," "brown shirt," law enforcement, and street thug intimidation from those trained in gender feminist women's studies programs.  I've seen plenty of both. :?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: ghost on Jul 26, 2006, 03:03 PM
I know that it does. But it has to resort to that rarely. Mostly, it encounters genuine heartfelt agreement from the very people it tyrannizes.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 26, 2006, 03:08 PM
Quote
Yes, the Church. Took over most of Europe, had kings answering to their power all without having to raise, train and feed an army. That was one of the smoothest power shifts in history. Didn't have to have a bloodline, didn't have to have an army to conquor kingdoms. And when they did want to use force they could use the king's army.


No, no, no, (unless your a Christianity basher), women's studies teaches that the Church was a Patriarchal structure and that the real underlying evil in that power structure was men.  Whoever is in power is responsible for all evil that takes place, even though all they intended and tried to do was to work for good and the betterment of human conditions.  If your a Christian basher I guess you could ultimately blame the church.  If your a male basher blame the Patriarchy.  If your a mysoginist, I guess you could even blame the sexual control women had over Kings and how they manipulated them.  Pick a prejudice.  Factors like famine, overpopulation, disease, weather patterns, etc. are irrelevant to revisionist history. :?
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Jul 26, 2006, 03:19 PM
Quote
NCFM might care about men, but men don't care about NCFM.


You're entitled to your opinion.  I disagree.
Title: Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?
Post by: Somebody else on Jul 26, 2006, 03:34 PM
Quote from: "Men's Rights Activist"
Quote
Yes, the Church. Took over most of Europe, had kings answering to their power all without having to raise, train and feed an army. That was one of the smoothest power shifts in history. Didn't have to have a bloodline, didn't have to have an army to conquor kingdoms. And when they did want to use force they could use the king's army.


No, no, no, (unless your a Christianity basher), women's studies teaches that the Church was a Patriarchal structure and that the real underlying evil in that power structure was men.  Whoever is in power is responsible for all evil that takes place, even though all they intended and tried to do was to work for good and the betterment of human conditions.  If your a Christian basher I guess you could ultimately blame the church.  If your a male basher blame the Patriarchy.  If your a mysoginist, I guess you could even blame the sexual control women had over Kings and how they manipulated them.  Pick a prejudice.  Factors like famine, overpopulation, disease, weather patterns, etc. are irrelevant to revisionist history. :?


It's your right to think as you like, that I'm a Christianity basher.

I wasn't bashing Christianity, just pointing out that the Church did spread throughout Europe. And kings bowed to it. Fact!