Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?

Started by typhonblue, Jul 17, 2006, 04:57 PM

previous topic - next topic

Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?

No
15 (68.2%)
Yes
4 (18.2%)
Maybe
3 (13.6%)

Total Members Voted: 22

Voting closed: Jul 17, 2006, 04:57 PM

Go Down

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.

Laboratory Mike

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

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.

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.
"The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master." -- Ayn Rand<br /><br />

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.

typhonblue

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.

Sir Jessy of Anti

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.
"The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master." -- Ayn Rand<br /><br />

typhonblue

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?

Christiane

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

Sir Jessy of Anti

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.
"The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master." -- Ayn Rand<br /><br />

BRIAN

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.
You may sleep soundly at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence upon those who seek to harm you.

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?"

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.

typhonblue

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.

typhonblue

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.

Christiane

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.

Christiane

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.

Go Up