Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 3 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
8 years ago  ::  Feb 17, 2010 - 3:04PM #21
Jcarlinbn
Posts: 7,212

The elephant in the chancel is of course Paul.  Although it is hard to distinguish his misogyny from his misanthropy, he does go out of his way to single out women for special derogation.  And Paul, like it or not, is the basis for Christian (note Christ a creation of Paul in Christian) misogyny from the Catholic church right down to today's ChristianTM megachurches.  Secular philosophers can't even hold a candle against Paul's glaring misogyny.  It is kind of amusing to see Godman trying to point out secular philosophers that can be quote mined for misogyny, when the OT and Paul needs no mining, the refined misogyny is pervasive.  

Jcarlinbn, community moderator
Problems? Send a message to Beliefnet_community
Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Feb 17, 2010 - 3:09PM #22
Wiscidea
Posts: 2,319

Feb 17, 2010 -- 2:24PM, Godman wrote:


The point of this thread was to measure atheists anti-Christian prejudice.  The instrument was a Wikipedia article on misogyny, which actually did mention Christian misogyny.




Your study might contain a few flaws ...


First, there appears to be a hostile relationship between the observer and the subjects. It is difficult to believe that the observer is being objective AND that the subjects not reacting to the observer rather than posted material.


Second, you posted the material in a forum designed for discussing the merits of atheism. So the subjects probably assumed you were contrasting something else—say, religion—with lack of religion.


Third, the subjects seem more familiar with Christianity vs. other religious traditions. This could be a reflection of the surrounding culture. So it is not surprising that, given the first and second problems, they would draw on Christian literature to counter the perceived "attack".


 


So ... I'm not convinced one can reach any conclusions from this experiment.

"Some people claim that there's a woman to blame. But I know it's my own damn fault."

Jimmy Buffet (Margaritaville)
Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Feb 17, 2010 - 3:30PM #23
Jcarlinbn
Posts: 7,212

The other consideration is that until the beginning of the 20th century infant and maternal mortality made it necessary for women to have a baby a year until she died in childbirth, and spend the rest of her time caring for and socializing the surviving children.  If she was lucky the oldest daughter could take over when she died.  This didn't leave much time for the important male stuff of killing one another and to a lesser extent, maintaining the food animals.  Agriculture and clothing was women's work since they could do it while pregnant and the older children could help as part of the socialization.  When the men were not busy killing each other, they created Gods to help the women grow the crops and children, and keep the men from intra-tribal warfare.


It could be argued that misogyny was really not relevant until the 20th century, when women got control over their reproduction system, and could participate in activities outside the home. Since they are smarter and more socially adept than the testosterone poisoned men, men have to figure out a way to maintain their "privileged" position.  It will be interesting to find out how long God will be able to help the men.     


 

Jcarlinbn, community moderator
Problems? Send a message to Beliefnet_community
Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Feb 17, 2010 - 3:35PM #24
mountain_man
Posts: 44,029

Feb 17, 2010 -- 2:24PM, Godman wrote:

The point of this thread was to measure atheists anti-Christian prejudice.



Actually, it's a perfect example of your hatred of Atheists, a hatred that is immeasurable.


The instrument was a Wikipedia article on misogyny, which actually did mention Christian misogyny.



And then you tried to claim Atheists are misogynous by mentioning the names of several old, and dated, philosophers. And, so what if you did find a misogynous Atheist. That in no way means that all Atheists are that way. The only reason for your starting this thread was to spread more of your anti_Atheist prejudice.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.   Isaac Asimov
Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Feb 17, 2010 - 3:49PM #25
Estime
Posts: 367

Feb 17, 2010 -- 12:43PM, Kwinters wrote:


Feb 17, 2010 -- 12:38PM, mountain_man wrote:


Feb 17, 2010 -- 12:32PM, Godman wrote:

Maybe you all should amend the Wikipwdia article to include your points on Christianity?



No need for that. All you have to do is READ the bible instead of worship it. It's all right there in the bible from women inventing sin to being the property of their husbands.






Agreed.


From Genesis onward it reflects the patriarchal view that women are men's property.  They are not to be coveted, along men's other goods.


 





Actually, from a scholarly stance, it reflects a God trying to elevate mankind from its own self-centered self-delusion. Even Paul's writings have been misunderstood to be misogynistic, when in fact he wrote from an administrative stance as someone trying to protect a fledgling church from the totalitarian government of Rome. This is also why he wrote what he wrote about slaves.


It was against Roman law for a woman to speak in public. Hence the famous "Let your women keep silent" directive and others were put in place to keep the entire church from being hauled off to jail, perhaps even executed. One rather infamous example of how our western thinking has skewed what scripture actually says would be Christ's words to turn the other cheek. Anyone studying this passage will see that it also speaks of giving your cloak to someone who takes your coat and of walking two miles of someone who compels you to go one mile with him. 


This is a clear reference, for those who know history, to the Roman army's practice of commandeering what it needed from civilians. Since most of the Roman army walked wherever it went, a Roman soldier had the right to force a civilian to carry his pack for one mile. Hence the 'extra mile' reference in Christ's words here. We still see military forces commandeering things they need--even one Die Hard movie has Bruce Willis commandeering a cab and other cars to get the bad guy. This passage was never intended to be used as a one-size-fits-all response to how to deal with those who abuse you. Rather it was Christ addressing the burning political question of Israel in His day: do we resist Rome or do we submit to it?


The Herodians whom many of us read about in scripture (and know nothing about) were actually a political party that believed in the Jewish overthrow of Roman rule. There are many, many things which even ministers in our society have interpreted erroneously, simply because, while they may READ the Bible, they do not STUDY it. It's like with anything else: you get out of it what you invest. If you are going to do a drivethru religion where you let people hand you ideas and don't check them out for yourself, you have only yourself to blame if what you end up with is McReligion with a side of lies.


It can't be argued, however, that many people have chosen to interpret Paul's words as misogynistic even when presented with proof they do not support female subjugation--or that many of these same people have claimed to be true followers of Christ and the Bible. It's always interesting that these same people would never try to justify slavery on the same grounds they use to 'justify' female subjugation (well, not ANYMORE: there was a time when they did).


The problem is that the Bible is not a comic book. It is a collection of books, many of which were written in different times and even different cultures, and each of which must be interpreted in the light of understanding those surroundings and other things. Certainly Israel under its own rule differed greatly from Israel under Roman rule, as it was in the time of Christ. But the enlightenment of mankind throughout history has been a slow process, interminably bogged down by the lust for power of those IN power--which Christ's own crucifixion was a microcosm of.


In the context of surrounbding cultures, Judaism gave women unprecedented safety and freedom--though no one would by any stretch say its followers were perfect, either in understanding the underlying message of the law or in carrying out its letter or spirit. For example, women in other cultures in the Old Testament were raped as men chose. Even children under six and in some cases under four had no legal rights: they were fair game for either sex.


When the husband died, the wife and children were taken to a place where a hole was carved out of a cliffside and then sealed into the hole with a boulder to suffocate to death. I personally knew a man who helped excavate these graves, of which there are THOUSANDS all over Palestine. So the best conclusion one can come up with here is that neither side has done too well by women, but God did see to it that some of us did better by imposing some restraint (laws).


It also shows what God's message may have been all along: even if restraint is imposed on us from outside, unless we are willing to take responsibility for our own attitudes and actions, abuse will still go on. And that's what it comes down to: you are either respectful of other people or you are not. All the rest of it is simply rhetoric to excuse oneself or accuse another by shifting blame from oneself.


Not that I expect that position to be popular here: people are too accustomed to excuses and accusations to give them up easily. The mind does love its habits. Still, you never know. ;-)

Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Feb 17, 2010 - 3:59PM #26
Sup
Posts: 2,309

Estime, I think that is a fascinating post. I've also read alot of the same explanations that you provided, and can see the merit in them.


My question would be, if your theory is that God was kind of leading mankind along in his progression, is where has he been for the past 2,000 years? Your statement "it reflects a God trying to elevate mankind from its own self-centered self-delusion" indicates that God was taking an active, intervening role - although you did not specify what exactly that might have been.


It would seem to me, if that was God's intent, he might have done some female empowerment with the Mosaic Law, which would have incurred no Roman repurcussions whatever. Although in my response I may be misunderstanding the extent to which you believe God "tried to elevate" mankind. (Can an Almighty being "try" to do anything?) What's more - Rome has been gone for quite some time. It seems to me that God could have found some way to put some female independence into Holy Writ during the past few millenia.

Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?
Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Feb 17, 2010 - 5:39PM #27
Estime
Posts: 367

Feb 17, 2010 -- 3:59PM, Sup wrote:


Estime, I think that is a fascinating post. I've also read alot of the same explanations that you provided, and can see the merit in them.


My question would be, if your theory is that God was kind of leading mankind along in his progression, is where has he been for the past 2,000 years? Your statement "it reflects a God trying to elevate mankind from its own self-centered self-delusion" indicates that God was taking an active, intervening role - although you did not specify what exactly that might have been.


It would seem to me, if that was God's intent, he might have done some female empowerment with the Mosaic Law, which would have incurred no Roman repurcussions whatever. Although in my response I may be misunderstanding the extent to which you believe God "tried to elevate" mankind. (Can an Almighty being "try" to do anything?) What's more - Rome has been gone for quite some time. It seems to me that God could have found some way to put some female independence into Holy Writ during the past few millenia.





First, God has set boundaries for Himself which He will not violate. He has given mankind a time upon this earth in which to rule it. Judicially speaking, Adam handed this off to chaos/Satan--let's not get into the 'is there a real devil?' thing because it does no one any good I've ever seen. We can all recognise and admit there is evil in the world and that it is caused, at its base, by man's own selfishness. So until the lease (if you will) is up, the planet is what we make it.


Hence God's interventions can only be passive except where we specifically request His intervention ACCORDING TO THE RULES ALREADY LAID DOWN IN THE LEASE. To do otherwise is to violate His own terms of disposition of this planet to Adam. (And please recall: when He gave Adam dominion/lease here, Eve had not yet been taken from his side, so dominion was given to them both--Gen. 1:26-30)


Mosaic law was in existence long before Roman law. In fact, by the time of the Roman occupation of Israel, the law had been so reinterpreted by Jewish religious leaders that Christ Himself declared it nothing more than 'the opinions of man' (Oral Torah). So Paul was also forced to work within the confines of these shortcomings of the Jewish reinterpretation of the law, as was the early church.


Atheists always balk at the idea of a God Who can do anything yet who will not do certain things. But one has to ask oneself: how could a deity ever be trusted if this deity did not show self-restraint? If He did not give His word and keep it? This means He will be bound to it in the things we may NOT like as well as in the things which we will. Such are the demands of any parent who would be a conscientious parent.


In the sense of 'elevating' man, I speak only of his enlightenment. Man cannot change himself and all his history is nothing but proof of this fact. Enlightenment is meant--as was the law and Paul states this quite plainly--to bring man to a realization of what he truly is, and that he DOES need a Father, and a savior. Which is where the plan of salvation comes in. It is that ultimate requested "intervention according to the rules laid down in the lease".


Salvation is not meant to take man's free will from him, but to restore him to the place where he can be self-determining, that is, he can choose to act or not to act, because he now has control over himself and his desires. This does not mean he will be perfect in knowledge: and this is where the Christian life is an ongoing learning process.


But he WILL be perfect in heart toward God and his neighbor--although, since mankind apart from God is so skewed in his thinking and character, he often will have no better understanding of the motivations of God's followers than he does of God Himself. And thus Cain will try to slay Abel. Not because Abel did him wrong, but because Abel has a relationship with God which Cain does not, and he chooses to see this as favoritism rather than to stop and take a few moments and think the thing through: is what God is asking me here really that bad? And why does He ask it?


The main difference between Cain and Abel is that abel gave God the benefit of the doubt. Cain did not.

Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Feb 17, 2010 - 6:11PM #28
Agnosticspirit
Posts: 9,244

Feb 17, 2010 -- 3:49PM, Estime wrote:


It also shows what God's message may have been all along: even if restraint is imposed on us from outside, unless we are willing to take responsibility for our own attitudes and actions, abuse will still go on. And that's what it comes down to: you are either respectful of other people or you are not. All the rest of it is simply rhetoric to excuse oneself or accuse another by shifting blame from oneself.


Not that I expect that position to be popular here: people are too accustomed to excuses and accusations to give them up easily. The mind does love its habits. Still, you never know. ;-)



Nice post, E.... reminds me that as repressive as Islam is today, the fate of women was even WORSE before Muhammad came along. Used to be, female infants were left to die out in the desert. Muhammad improved their lot slightly by forbidding this practice. Unfortunately, so many of his teachings perpetuate horrible atrocities committed by men against women through this day.


Yet too many men who happen to be Jews and Christians STILL still perpetuate the horrors of patriarchy at present.


I think god should have done what the Founding Fathers who wrote our Constitution did, by allowing for Amendments... Documents should be living, not dead as the fellas who wrote them so long ago.By living a faith that resists change and claims to be eternal truths even as they are in complete denial of human rights for all, is it any wonder why the rest of the world looks askance at religious fundamentalists in horror?


Your youngest Abrahamic siblings in faith may be onto something with their idea of progression... Not only have the Bahai eliminated racism and sexism -- they're actually advocating a single language for all and an end to conflict... also leaving the door open to the possibility that another prophet may come after theirs, as human beings evolve to accept more progressive teachings. Of all the monotheistic Abrahamic faiths, I admire them the most and hope the elders of Abraham will listen to what they have to teach. It would make it so much easier for the rest of us to live on the same planet.  Wink

Tribalism, ethnocentricism, racism, nationalism, and FEAR is the Mind Killer... >:(

For user to user support and to look up the latest glitch reports, check the Beliefnet Knowledgebase by clicking on the link below!

 Beliefnet Knowledgebase
Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Feb 17, 2010 - 6:25PM #29
Blü
Posts: 26,191

Seems odd to me that Godman would start a thread that demonstrates clearly the powerful line of misogyny that runs through theism.  The Vatican is not just the only autarchy in the West but the world's only nation run by homosocial males.  And one of the West's ongoing arguments with Islam is the status of women, but that'll tend to improve as Islamic countries develop economically.

Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Feb 17, 2010 - 6:35PM #30
Sup
Posts: 2,309

Estime,


You paint a picture of a God who is kind of like an impotent old Grandma - he'd love to help us but can't, and so wrings his hands and does nothing, hoping we'll figure it out ourselves. You apparently admire his restraint - I wonder what such a God is worth, if anything. Apparently over the past 6,000 years, he would have loved to help his followers come treat women and minorities better, but it would have violated some ambiguous principles (which he set....for himself)...


How would an edict in his inspired word to treat women and minorities as equals have violated his principles? He issued edicts about plenty of other things.

Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 3 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook