radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
So, that does not mean it is wrong. 200 years ago not one historian though Troy was real.
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
Like I said "prove it". Show me one historian that says that Iroquois or Cherokee women were not treated equally.
HINT; you have had over four hours, ready to give up?
HINT; you have had over four hours, ready to give up?
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
All religions are anti-women posts 64 and 66
"And it's pure deluded fantasy that Native Americans 2000 years ago gave full equality to women" and "There isn't a historian on the planet that thinks that"
POINT 1: Here is a list of references (some linked, some not):
The Untold Story of The Iroquois Influence
On Early Feminists
Society and sex roles
Gender Relations in Native North America
Daniel Maltz
McCall, Dan. 1980. "The Dominant Dyad: Mother Right and the Iroquois Case." In Stanley Diamond, ed. Theory and Practice: Essays Presented to Gene Weltfish, pp. 221-262. New York: Mouton Publishers
Evans, Sara. “The First American Women.” Women[FONT="]‟[/FONT]s America: Refocusing the Past. Fifth Edition.Ed. Linda K. Kerber and Jane Sherron De Hart. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000,30
Evans, Sara. “The First American Women.” Women[FONT="]‟[/FONT]s America: Refocusing the Past. Fifth Edition.Ed. Linda K. Kerber and Jane Sherron De Hart. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000,30
[FONT="]New Directions in American Indian History[/FONT] By Colin G. Calloway (esp Chapter 2)
P.S. All of the above are historians
Here are three references that support my contention that academia and historians can be wrong. They all deal with the issue of when Native Americans migrated to this hemisphere.
First. the article that kicked off the controversy by showing an occupation some 5 to 10 times longer that what historians thought.
[FONT="]A single and early migration for the peopling of the Americas supported by mitochondrial DNA sequencedata (1997)[/FONT]
Next, the classic archeological text:
Powell, J.F. (2005) The First Americans: Race, Evolution and the Origin of Native
Americans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Third, a kind of summary of Powell. Probing deeper into first American studies (2009)
So there are many historians who believe that gender equality existed among the Native Americans (from the eight sources I provide, I count about 200 citations).
Second, yes this is a revisionist, revolutionary viewpoint…. But historians have known to make mistakes, especially when “mirror-imaging” or using their cultural biases while examining other cultures. The final three citations are proof of this.
"And it's pure deluded fantasy that Native Americans 2000 years ago gave full equality to women" and "There isn't a historian on the planet that thinks that"
POINT 1: Here is a list of references (some linked, some not):
The Untold Story of The Iroquois Influence
On Early Feminists
Society and sex roles
Gender Relations in Native North America
Daniel Maltz
McCall, Dan. 1980. "The Dominant Dyad: Mother Right and the Iroquois Case." In Stanley Diamond, ed. Theory and Practice: Essays Presented to Gene Weltfish, pp. 221-262. New York: Mouton Publishers
Evans, Sara. “The First American Women.” Women[FONT="]‟[/FONT]s America: Refocusing the Past. Fifth Edition.Ed. Linda K. Kerber and Jane Sherron De Hart. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000,30
Evans, Sara. “The First American Women.” Women[FONT="]‟[/FONT]s America: Refocusing the Past. Fifth Edition.Ed. Linda K. Kerber and Jane Sherron De Hart. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000,30
[FONT="]New Directions in American Indian History[/FONT] By Colin G. Calloway (esp Chapter 2)
P.S. All of the above are historians
Here are three references that support my contention that academia and historians can be wrong. They all deal with the issue of when Native Americans migrated to this hemisphere.
First. the article that kicked off the controversy by showing an occupation some 5 to 10 times longer that what historians thought.
[FONT="]A single and early migration for the peopling of the Americas supported by mitochondrial DNA sequencedata (1997)[/FONT]
Next, the classic archeological text:
Powell, J.F. (2005) The First Americans: Race, Evolution and the Origin of Native
Americans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Third, a kind of summary of Powell. Probing deeper into first American studies (2009)
So there are many historians who believe that gender equality existed among the Native Americans (from the eight sources I provide, I count about 200 citations).
Second, yes this is a revisionist, revolutionary viewpoint…. But historians have known to make mistakes, especially when “mirror-imaging” or using their cultural biases while examining other cultures. The final three citations are proof of this.
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Biasedness leads to bondage...but the battle of the genders can be transcended.
Saññoga Sutta: Bondage
"I will teach you a Dhamma discourse on bondage & lack of bondage. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."
"Yes, lord," the monks responded.
The Blessed One said: "A woman attends inwardly to her feminine faculties, her feminine gestures, her feminine manners, feminine poise, feminine desires, feminine voice, feminine charms. She is excited by that, delighted by that. Being excited & delighted by that, she attends outwardly to masculine faculties, masculine gestures, masculine manners, masculine poise, masculine desires, masculine voices, masculine charms. She is excited by that, delighted by that. Being excited & delighted by that, she wants to be bonded to what is outside her, wants whatever pleasure & happiness that arise based on that bond. Delighting, caught up in her femininity, a woman goes into bondage with reference to men. This is how a woman does not transcend her femininity.
"A man attends inwardly to his masculine faculties, masculine gestures, masculine manners, masculine poise, masculine desires, masculine voice, masculine charms. He is excited by that, delighted by that. Being excited & delighted by that, he attends outwardly to feminine faculties, feminine gestures, feminine manners, feminine poise, feminine desires, feminine voices, feminine charms. He is excited by that, delighted by that. Being excited & delighted by that, he wants to be bonded to what is outside him, wants whatever pleasure & happiness that arise based on that bond. Delighting, caught up in his masculinity, a man goes into bondage with reference to women. This is how a man does not transcend his masculinity.
"And how is there lack of bondage? A woman does not attend inwardly to her feminine faculties... feminine charms. She is not excited by that, not delighted by that... does not attend outwardly to masculine faculties... masculine charms. She is not excited by that, not delighted by that... does not want to be bonded to what is outside her, does not want whatever pleasure & happiness that arise based on that bond. Not delighting, not caught up in her femininity, a woman does not go into bondage with reference to men. This is how a woman transcends her femininity.
"A man does not attend inwardly to his masculine faculties... masculine charms. He is not excited by that, not delighted by that... does not attend outwardly to feminine faculties... feminine charms. He is not excited by that, not delighted by that... does not want to be bonded to what is outside him, does not want whatever pleasure & happiness that arise based on that bond. Not delighting, not caught up in his masculinity, a man does not go into bondage with reference to women. This is how a man transcends his masculinity.
"This is how there is lack of bondage. And this is the Dhamma discourse on bondage & lack of bondage."
Saññoga Sutta: Bondage
"I will teach you a Dhamma discourse on bondage & lack of bondage. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."
"Yes, lord," the monks responded.
The Blessed One said: "A woman attends inwardly to her feminine faculties, her feminine gestures, her feminine manners, feminine poise, feminine desires, feminine voice, feminine charms. She is excited by that, delighted by that. Being excited & delighted by that, she attends outwardly to masculine faculties, masculine gestures, masculine manners, masculine poise, masculine desires, masculine voices, masculine charms. She is excited by that, delighted by that. Being excited & delighted by that, she wants to be bonded to what is outside her, wants whatever pleasure & happiness that arise based on that bond. Delighting, caught up in her femininity, a woman goes into bondage with reference to men. This is how a woman does not transcend her femininity.
"A man attends inwardly to his masculine faculties, masculine gestures, masculine manners, masculine poise, masculine desires, masculine voice, masculine charms. He is excited by that, delighted by that. Being excited & delighted by that, he attends outwardly to feminine faculties, feminine gestures, feminine manners, feminine poise, feminine desires, feminine voices, feminine charms. He is excited by that, delighted by that. Being excited & delighted by that, he wants to be bonded to what is outside him, wants whatever pleasure & happiness that arise based on that bond. Delighting, caught up in his masculinity, a man goes into bondage with reference to women. This is how a man does not transcend his masculinity.
"And how is there lack of bondage? A woman does not attend inwardly to her feminine faculties... feminine charms. She is not excited by that, not delighted by that... does not attend outwardly to masculine faculties... masculine charms. She is not excited by that, not delighted by that... does not want to be bonded to what is outside her, does not want whatever pleasure & happiness that arise based on that bond. Not delighting, not caught up in her femininity, a woman does not go into bondage with reference to men. This is how a woman transcends her femininity.
"A man does not attend inwardly to his masculine faculties... masculine charms. He is not excited by that, not delighted by that... does not attend outwardly to feminine faculties... feminine charms. He is not excited by that, not delighted by that... does not want to be bonded to what is outside him, does not want whatever pleasure & happiness that arise based on that bond. Not delighting, not caught up in his masculinity, a man does not go into bondage with reference to women. This is how a man transcends his masculinity.
"This is how there is lack of bondage. And this is the Dhamma discourse on bondage & lack of bondage."
A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 579
- Points
- 108
Female shamans in Japan:
Miko - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I remember reading a lot about the when was into reading about shamanism. But it was a while ago so I don't have any good sources, I quickly googled this when it came to my mind. Hope there are something concrete there.
I also remember reading somewhere that the dynamic between the sexes was very different in hunter gatherer societies because people were some how less dependent on each other. A dependency that fostered a superior sex. An interesting thought at lest.
[This is a response to the topic, I'm not interested in who has the oldest document and what that document said]
Miko - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I remember reading a lot about the when was into reading about shamanism. But it was a while ago so I don't have any good sources, I quickly googled this when it came to my mind. Hope there are something concrete there.
I also remember reading somewhere that the dynamic between the sexes was very different in hunter gatherer societies because people were some how less dependent on each other. A dependency that fostered a superior sex. An interesting thought at lest.
[This is a response to the topic, I'm not interested in who has the oldest document and what that document said]
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
Three more quotes from Gautama Buddha... again, to me, they seem more advanced than the Thomas quote (and as SG said, predate it).
"I will teach you a Dhamma discourse on bondage & lack of bondage. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."
"Yes, lord," the monks responded.
The Blessed One said: "A woman attends inwardly to her feminine faculties, her feminine gestures, her feminine manners, feminine poise, feminine desires, feminine voice, feminine charms. She is excited by that, delighted by that. Being excited & delighted by that, she attends outwardly to masculine faculties, masculine gestures, masculine manners, masculine poise, masculine desires, masculine voices, masculine charms. She is excited by that, delighted by that. Being excited & delighted by that, she wants to be bonded to what is outside her, wants whatever pleasure & happiness that arise based on that bond. Delighting, caught up in her femininity, a woman goes into bondage with reference to men. This is how a woman does not transcend her femininity.
"A man attends inwardly to his masculine faculties, masculine gestures, masculine manners, masculine poise, masculine desires, masculine voice, masculine charms. He is excited by that, delighted by that. Being excited & delighted by that, he attends outwardly to feminine faculties, feminine gestures, feminine manners, feminine poise, feminine desires, feminine voices, feminine charms. He is excited by that, delighted by that. Being excited & delighted by that, he wants to be bonded to what is outside him, wants whatever pleasure & happiness that arise based on that bond. Delighting, caught up in his masculinity, a man goes into bondage with reference to women. This is how a man does not transcend his masculinity.
"And how is there lack of bondage? A woman does not attend inwardly to her feminine faculties... feminine charms. She is not excited by that, not delighted by that... does not attend outwardly to masculine faculties... masculine charms. She is not excited by that, not delighted by that... does not want to be bonded to what is outside her, does not want whatever pleasure & happiness that arise based on that bond. Not delighting, not caught up in her femininity, a woman does not go into bondage with reference to men. This is how a woman transcends her femininity.
"A man does not attend inwardly to his masculine faculties... masculine charms. He is not excited by that, not delighted by that... does not attend outwardly to feminine faculties... feminine charms. He is not excited by that, not delighted by that... does not want to be bonded to what is outside him, does not want whatever pleasure & happiness that arise based on that bond. Not delighting, not caught up in his masculinity, a man does not go into bondage with reference to women. This is how a man transcends his masculinity.
"This is how there is lack of bondage. And this is the Dhamma discourse on bondage & lack of bondage."
Bondage Sutta
“What difference does being a woman make when the mind's well-centered, when knowledge is progressing, seeing clearly, rightly, into the Dhamma. Anyone who thinks 'I'm a woman' or 'a man' or 'Am I anything at all?' — that's who Mara's fit to address. “
Soma Sutta
“Now Lord, are women, having gone forth from home into homelessness in the dhamma and discipline proclaimed by the Truth-finder, able to realise … [spiritual] perfection?[FONT="]‟[/FONT] The Buddha replied, “Women, [FONT="]Ānanda[/FONT], having gone forth … are [indeed] able to realise … perfection.”
The Book of the Discipline
"I will teach you a Dhamma discourse on bondage & lack of bondage. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."
"Yes, lord," the monks responded.
The Blessed One said: "A woman attends inwardly to her feminine faculties, her feminine gestures, her feminine manners, feminine poise, feminine desires, feminine voice, feminine charms. She is excited by that, delighted by that. Being excited & delighted by that, she attends outwardly to masculine faculties, masculine gestures, masculine manners, masculine poise, masculine desires, masculine voices, masculine charms. She is excited by that, delighted by that. Being excited & delighted by that, she wants to be bonded to what is outside her, wants whatever pleasure & happiness that arise based on that bond. Delighting, caught up in her femininity, a woman goes into bondage with reference to men. This is how a woman does not transcend her femininity.
"A man attends inwardly to his masculine faculties, masculine gestures, masculine manners, masculine poise, masculine desires, masculine voice, masculine charms. He is excited by that, delighted by that. Being excited & delighted by that, he attends outwardly to feminine faculties, feminine gestures, feminine manners, feminine poise, feminine desires, feminine voices, feminine charms. He is excited by that, delighted by that. Being excited & delighted by that, he wants to be bonded to what is outside him, wants whatever pleasure & happiness that arise based on that bond. Delighting, caught up in his masculinity, a man goes into bondage with reference to women. This is how a man does not transcend his masculinity.
"And how is there lack of bondage? A woman does not attend inwardly to her feminine faculties... feminine charms. She is not excited by that, not delighted by that... does not attend outwardly to masculine faculties... masculine charms. She is not excited by that, not delighted by that... does not want to be bonded to what is outside her, does not want whatever pleasure & happiness that arise based on that bond. Not delighting, not caught up in her femininity, a woman does not go into bondage with reference to men. This is how a woman transcends her femininity.
"A man does not attend inwardly to his masculine faculties... masculine charms. He is not excited by that, not delighted by that... does not attend outwardly to feminine faculties... feminine charms. He is not excited by that, not delighted by that... does not want to be bonded to what is outside him, does not want whatever pleasure & happiness that arise based on that bond. Not delighting, not caught up in his masculinity, a man does not go into bondage with reference to women. This is how a man transcends his masculinity.
"This is how there is lack of bondage. And this is the Dhamma discourse on bondage & lack of bondage."
Bondage Sutta
“What difference does being a woman make when the mind's well-centered, when knowledge is progressing, seeing clearly, rightly, into the Dhamma. Anyone who thinks 'I'm a woman' or 'a man' or 'Am I anything at all?' — that's who Mara's fit to address. “
Soma Sutta
“Now Lord, are women, having gone forth from home into homelessness in the dhamma and discipline proclaimed by the Truth-finder, able to realise … [spiritual] perfection?[FONT="]‟[/FONT] The Buddha replied, “Women, [FONT="]Ānanda[/FONT], having gone forth … are [indeed] able to realise … perfection.”
The Book of the Discipline
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
Now let me be real clear. I do not claim that Zoroastrianism (the Gattas quote), Hinduism (the Gita quote) or Buddhism (about 6 quotes now) in all cases, in all times have had gender equality.
Of course Christianity and, specifically, Gnostic Christianity has not provided gender equality in all cases at all times.
The claim mad was "For every woman who makes herself male will enter into the kingdom of heaven" is "for sure, [the one] such document that old or older [that] has been produced here that even remotely gives full equality to women."
First, the Thomas quote (as I read it) does not "give full equality to women". And I believe the history of Christianity (the cast majority of which does not accept Thomas as canon) does not have a good a gender equality record as other religions (nor Western Euro-centric culture when compared to some--and it only takes one--other cultures).
And we did present older documents (religious canon) that are even more explicit in treating the sexes the same. I do believe
“Now Lord, are women, having gone forth from home into homelessness in the dhamma and discipline proclaimed by the Truth-finder, able to realise … [spiritual] perfection?[FONT="]‟[/FONT] The Buddha replied, “Women, [FONT="]Ānanda[/FONT], having gone forth … are [indeed] able to realise … perfection.”
is, in religious terms, more gender neutral than the Thomas quote.
Of course Christianity and, specifically, Gnostic Christianity has not provided gender equality in all cases at all times.
The claim mad was "For every woman who makes herself male will enter into the kingdom of heaven" is "for sure, [the one] such document that old or older [that] has been produced here that even remotely gives full equality to women."
First, the Thomas quote (as I read it) does not "give full equality to women". And I believe the history of Christianity (the cast majority of which does not accept Thomas as canon) does not have a good a gender equality record as other religions (nor Western Euro-centric culture when compared to some--and it only takes one--other cultures).
And we did present older documents (religious canon) that are even more explicit in treating the sexes the same. I do believe
“Now Lord, are women, having gone forth from home into homelessness in the dhamma and discipline proclaimed by the Truth-finder, able to realise … [spiritual] perfection?[FONT="]‟[/FONT] The Buddha replied, “Women, [FONT="]Ānanda[/FONT], having gone forth … are [indeed] able to realise … perfection.”
is, in religious terms, more gender neutral than the Thomas quote.
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
Well, first of all, I was in the military, but I guessed I missed the "War Against Godless Communism". "Islamophobia" does not appear to have been a war either. Gee, nice to see we are at war with those afraid of Islam. As normally used "fundamentalist" refers to a religious creed.
To wit: "A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism. An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture. Adherence to the theology of this movement."
How do "Godless Communists" qualify?
Finally, it would seem you do not understand the Arab Spring. In Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Yemen the (what are traditionally called Islamic Fundamentalists, Salafists) did not start or end the movements. Nor is a Salafist in charge of any of them now. Yes, there are Salafist groups throughout the region. Yes, the Benghazi Incident was Salafist-based. Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood are not Salafists (though there may be Salafist members). Where is the Islamic fundamentalism in any of these four states?
To wit: "A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism. An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture. Adherence to the theology of this movement."
How do "Godless Communists" qualify?
Finally, it would seem you do not understand the Arab Spring. In Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Yemen the (what are traditionally called Islamic Fundamentalists, Salafists) did not start or end the movements. Nor is a Salafist in charge of any of them now. Yes, there are Salafist groups throughout the region. Yes, the Benghazi Incident was Salafist-based. Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood are not Salafists (though there may be Salafist members). Where is the Islamic fundamentalism in any of these four states?
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
ACOT, I think our friend means that Evangelicals elected those who fought the "Cold War" and started the Iraq-Afghanistan conflicts. In the first case, she or he is probably incorrect because prior to the 1970s most Evangelicals did not vote and, especially did not vote based on what was said in the pulpit as a reaction to the shellacking they got in the 1925 Scopes Trial and the really horrible press they got (remember the majority of regular church goers we Mainstream until the 70s).
It was the Moral Majority and Falwell out front (1979), followed closely by Robertson and Reed with their Christian Coalition (1988) that (1) convinced Evangelicals to vote and (2) told them how to vote from the pulpit (using code words). Yep, they elected Bush 43 (with the help of Rove, who exerted some control over the extremism of the extreme reactionaries). But I kinda think the IA War was begun by UBL and al Qaeda on 9/11.
And, being the Westernized Youth he had been, Usama pretty well knew that the USA would go into Crusader mode (like Yamamoto telling Tojo they made a big mistake by not delivering the Declaration of War to Hull on December 5 (like they were supposed to do). Yamamoto had spent lots of time here and knew (like Usama) what kind of can of whoopass a sneak attack on US soil would cause.
Just my opinion, of course.
It was the Moral Majority and Falwell out front (1979), followed closely by Robertson and Reed with their Christian Coalition (1988) that (1) convinced Evangelicals to vote and (2) told them how to vote from the pulpit (using code words). Yep, they elected Bush 43 (with the help of Rove, who exerted some control over the extremism of the extreme reactionaries). But I kinda think the IA War was begun by UBL and al Qaeda on 9/11.
And, being the Westernized Youth he had been, Usama pretty well knew that the USA would go into Crusader mode (like Yamamoto telling Tojo they made a big mistake by not delivering the Declaration of War to Hull on December 5 (like they were supposed to do). Yamamoto had spent lots of time here and knew (like Usama) what kind of can of whoopass a sneak attack on US soil would cause.
Just my opinion, of course.
Etu Malku
Mercuræn
- Messages
- 1,439
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 38
It is quite obvious, your bible's desire to oppress the feminine aspect.
"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3)
"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (I Corinthians 11:8-9)
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)
"Give me any plague, but the plague of the heart: and any wickedness, but the wickedness of a woman." (Eccles. 25:13)
"Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die." (Eccles. 25:22)
"If she go not as thou wouldest have her, cut her off from thy flesh, and give her a bill of divorce, and let her go." (Eccles. 25: 26)
"The whoredom of a woman may be known in her haughty looks and eyelids. If thy daughter be shameless, keep her in straitly, lest she abuse herself through overmuch liberty." (Eccles. 26:9-10)
"A silent and loving woman is a gift of the Lord: and there is nothing so much worth as a mind well instructed. A shamefaced and faithful woman is a double grace, and her continent mind cannot be valued." (Eccles. 26:14-15)
"A shameless woman shall be counted as a dog; but she that is shamefaced will fear the Lord." (Eccles.26:25)
"For from garments cometh a moth, and from women wickedness. Better is the churlishness of a man than a courteous woman, a woman, I say, which bringeth shame and reproach." (Eccles. 42:13-14)
It goes on & on & on . . . it's really quite appalling really
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Mary Magdalene isn't the beloved disciple:
John 20:1-2
20 On(A) the first day of the week(B) Mary Magdalene(C) came to the tomb(D) early, while it was still dark. She saw that the stone(E) had been removed[a] from the tomb. 2 So she ran to Simon Peter(F) and to the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb,(G) and we don’t know where they have put Him!”
Mary Magdalene ran to Simon Peter and the beloved disciple. She can't run to herself. (duuuuh)
Blessings,
Technically, Jesus was all for women. Not only were women some of his closest disciples, in a very real way he gave women equality, as for example this verse from Luke:
So while it could be said Paul was all about putting women in their proper stereotypical place (1 Corinthians 14:34-35, 1 Timothy 2:11-12, Ephesians 5:22-23, et cetera), this does not reflect Jesus' teachings at all!
Blessings Be…
Technically, Jesus was all for women. Not only were women some of his closest disciples, in a very real way he gave women equality, as for example this verse from Luke:
Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house. And she had a sister called Mary, which also sat at Jesus' feet, and heard his word But Martha was cumbered about much serving, and came to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me. And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things: But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her. (38-42)
To me, this verse shows us that women are of equal stature and have equal rights accordingly. In fact, Jesus never belittles, disgraces, or stereotypes women – ever! On top of that, Jesus points to women as being some of the best models of faith. One example is Luke 21:1-4 when the poor woman gave more than everyone that day.
So while it could be said Paul was all about putting women in their proper stereotypical place (1 Corinthians 14:34-35, 1 Timothy 2:11-12, Ephesians 5:22-23, et cetera), this does not reflect Jesus' teachings at all!
Blessings Be…
Nick the Pilot
Well-Known Member
Suba,
How do you interpret, in Genesis, God putting a curse on all women because they are women?
How do you interpret, in Genesis, God putting a curse on all women because they are women?
Nick the Pilot
Well-Known Member
Suba,
Thanks for the explanation.
Thanks for the explanation.
I'm afraid that's a rather ill-informed notion, if you don't mind me saying. It's a matter of sociological fact that Paul's 'location' of women in the tradition was far more emancipated than the position accorded them by the world in which he lived.
It's clear from documentary evidence that Christianity attracted women, and women from every sphere of life, which rather suggests they didn't draw the same conclusions you seem to.
If you read on, you will know he's no less tough on the men, and demanded from them a greater respect for the feminine gender.
But you have to know the context both of the times, and the message, which was addressed to a church that had gone (or was in the process of going) off the rails.
Sitz im leben!
Blessings,
I am with you Thomas on that regards. But I would like to know which scriptural quotes are used today by Christians to support their beliefs on women – is it Jesus or Saul/Paul? When you answer that, then I will concede your point on Saul/Paul. The fact that Jesus faced the world around the same time and did not give in to the same pressure you say Saul/Paul was having to contend with shines a little bit more light on the distortion Saul/Paul introduced into the Christian world. It might even be reasonable to say, that if Saul/Paul was not part of the Christian world women would actually be ahead of the game, being that they were already teaching, building churches, and doing all the things men were doing back then. The church fathers, using Saul/Paul's writings were given the means to take away the women's role in the church – and now we have to fight for women to preach the Word – yea, thanks a lot for that one Saul/Paul!
Blessings Be…
I am with you Thomas on that regards. But I would like to know which scriptural quotes are used today by Christians to support their beliefs on women – is it Jesus or Saul/Paul? When you answer that, then I will concede your point on Saul/Paul. The fact that Jesus faced the world around the same time and did not give in to the same pressure you say Saul/Paul was having to contend with shines a little bit more light on the distortion Saul/Paul introduced into the Christian world. It might even be reasonable to say, that if Saul/Paul was not part of the Christian world women would actually be ahead of the game, being that they were already teaching, building churches, and doing all the things men were doing back then. The church fathers, using Saul/Paul's writings were given the means to take away the women's role in the church – and now we have to fight for women to preach the Word – yea, thanks a lot for that one Saul/Paul!
Blessings Be…
Rohinton Rivetna speaks: Inter-faith marriages are destroying our community!
Christians.....in the US have given women equal rights, are voting for equal pay, have given them the vote, the right to own land, the right to divorce, work at protecting them from rapists and abusers...
What is it you wish Christians to do differently....what some DENOMINATIONS ascribe to on the treatment of women cannot be generalized to all Christians....
But you know that. We here don't get excited about intermarriage between religions anymore....
how about you?
Intermarriage is a Deadly Sin for the Zarathushtris, as per a great Zarathushtri sage
Christians.....in the US have given women equal rights, are voting for equal pay, have given them the vote, the right to own land, the right to divorce, work at protecting them from rapists and abusers...
What is it you wish Christians to do differently....what some DENOMINATIONS ascribe to on the treatment of women cannot be generalized to all Christians....
But you know that. We here don't get excited about intermarriage between religions anymore....
how about you?
Intermarriage is a Deadly Sin for the Zarathushtris, as per a great Zarathushtri sage