More evidence of how little most religions think of women.

MrB

as if anymore was needed!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6584661.stm

Particularly unfortunate that ladies have to sit at the back of the bus, I wounder if there was any serious debate about making the men sit at the back? doubt it.

BrianCalgary

MrB wrote:

as if anymore was needed!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6584661.stm

Particularly unfortunate that ladies have to sit at the back of the bus, I wounder if there was any serious debate about making the men sit at the back? doubt it.

Sure glad Christ came and changed all that.

MrB

BrianCalgary wrote:

Sure glad Christ came and changed all that.

Yea but it took an awful long time for the message to reach Ireland!;)

BrianCalgary

MrB wrote:

Yea but it took an awful long time for the message to reach Ireland!;)

This is an honest question. Not being overly familair with Irish details, how were women treated and how are they now?

Schuhart

MrB wrote:

as if anymore was needed!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6584661.stm

Particularly unfortunate that ladies have to sit at the back of the bus, I wounder if there was any serious debate about making the men sit at the back? doubt it.

Honest reaction that I'll post before pause for thought stops me. Why do they put up with it? I mean, really, the hand that rocks the cradle etc etc. We've seen some evidence from statistics posted in the past that women tend to practice religions more than men. Faiths would crumble if they didn't have the audience. Why back an institution that treats you like ****? Why make excuses for it?

I had a second paragraph too. But it was really too much. Better post reply before I think better of the first one as well.

Sangre

BrianCalgary wrote:

Sure glad Christ came and changed all that.

Yeah, my parish's female priest was just telling me that the other day.

Fallen Seraph

I dunno, I think I might have to disagree. I think brian is right when he says that jesus was pretty damn equal with his women, and most of the sexism in the OT is certainly contextual. I'm not arguing that this isn't done in the name of religion, but rather that perhaps blame is being allotted where it isn't due. A lot of flavours of christianity these days do allow female pastors, and while the catholic church doesn't, to be fair to it it's a rather unusual institution with some frankly bizzare beliefs; but the distinction between men and women (these days) is hardly malicious, but rather theological.

And with stuff like what happens in the article, I really feel that an awful lot more blame lies with the society than the religion. I'm not saying what's happening isn't terrible, but if you're a misogynist, you'll latch on to anything to justify it. Kinda like what's done with homosexuality.

Sangre

I think Jane was my favourite apostle.

Fallen Seraph

Religion wasn't to blame for all the wrongs that happened in ancient society, in a manner quite analogous to the way that stalin didn't kill people because of atheism (or even communism to be *slightly* more accurate). People can be real dicks, and this isn't Jesus's fault.

Scofflaw

Fallen Seraph wrote:

Religion wasn't to blame for all the wrongs that happened in ancient society, in a manner quite analogous to the way that stalin didn't kill people because of atheism (or even communism to be *slightly* more accurate). People can be real dicks, and this isn't Jesus's fault.

On which note it's worth remembering that ancient Athens, that light of rationality, kept its women essentially in purdah - and that Islam, for example, represented, by all accounts, an improvement over what was previously the case.

Personally, I blame Paul - but then I would.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

Scofflaw wrote:

Personally, I blame Paul - but then I would.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Interesting, that has always been my take on it too.

Scofflaw

Asiaprod wrote:

Interesting, that has always been my take on it too.

As far as I can see, the early Christian movement was a Jewish sect. Paul appears to have been the man who changed its direction towards converting/accepting Gentiles - and also the man who formed and guided that movement, against the inclinations of the living Apostles. Unfortunately, he wasn't Jesus, and I can't help but feel that he introduced much that was of his own devising. Apparently, this is a not unheard-of view.

This must have been a very serious schism at the time, and echoes of it are found in Paul's very one-sided part of the NT. It appears likely that Jesus' disciples felt they were getting rid of a dangerous nuisance by allowing Paul to become the "Apostle to the Gentiles". I wonder if, all those years ago, they congratulated themselves on getting rid of him so easily?

Evangelical Christianity is heavily Pauline - and Paul was a large part of my original reason for rejecting Christianity. Unsurprisingly, I find Evangelical Christianity particularly noxious. Since Pauline Christianity turned out to be far more palatable to the Roman authorities than Nazarene Christianity, perhaps deliberately, it's amusing to see how many evangelicals particularly reject the "Caesaropapism" that they feel started with the acceptance of Christianity by the Roman Empire...

cordially,
Scofflaw

karen3212

I hope I'm not meandering off the point here, but weren't Celtic women legally a lot better off under the Brehon laws.
Does anyone know whether the Romans via the post Roman invading Norman English ended those laws, or was it Christianity.
Please help I would really like to know how they disappeared.

I've been with a friend of mine to hear a local pastor and he definately preaches respect for your husband a lot. As in listen to him, let him manage your finances, trust him. It was too much for me, I haven't been back.

Beruthiel

karen3212 wrote:

I hope I'm not meandering off the point here, but weren't Celtic women legally a lot better off under the Brehon laws.

Google is your friend - Brehon Laws

"women in ancient Ireland were nearly on an equal footing with men. They were queens in their own right and led troops into battle. Women always held a place of respect in Celtic society and were accorded their rights as well. It took English law and civilization "to put women in their place." Ironically, the stamping out of the Brehon Laws, and with them the rights of women, was finally accomplished under Queen Elizabeth of England."

PDN

Sangre wrote:

I think Jane was my favourite apostle.

Do you mean Junia, the female apostle mentioned in Romans 16:7?

Zombrex

Shlomo Rosenstein wrote:

"This really is about positive discrimination, in women's favour. Our religion says there should be no public contact between men and women, this modesty barrier must not be broken."

LOL .. I don't see the men volunteering to move down the back of the bus to protect the modesty of women :rolleyes:

More religious nonsense

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

Sure glad Christ came and changed all that.

He did? Considering it took 1900 years from Jesus for most women in western Christian countries to gain equal rights and respect as men I think if Jesus changed anything this change was lost on most people.

robindch

BrianCalgary wrote:

Sure glad Christ came and changed all that.

As Wicknight points out, if this is true, then it took almost two thousand years for people to notice that it had changed! Not a very effectively-taught or learned lesson, you'll agree!

Here's Timothy on women:

I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

And from 1 Corinthians 14:

As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

There are plenty more, but I'm sure somebody's just dying to leap in to tell me that all these are being taken out of something called "context" and therefore mean something other than what's written there in black and white

stevejazzx

Hey! Robin...don't you realise all those examples you listed are all contextual...anyways those ideas were represenative of the people of the day not God...now i hope you're not going to try and say that the peolple of the time simply created a book and stuck all their ignorant thoughts inside of it are you? Because that'd be it wrong..the bible is the word of God, remeber? the word of God, so whatever is written inside it is his thought, his teaching so we can't just put it down it down to the Poeple of the day...wait a minute I've contradicted myself there...emmm ok.. here s how it is the bible is mostly the word of God, yes that's right 'mostly'.. the crazy bits are either crazy parts people stuck in - I hear you say "without God knowing? why would god allow this and his message to be obscured forevermore throughout time? emmm, well that's where faith comes in, you see we've got to believe that there were a lot mistakes made by people acting on behalf of God and now we've got to decipher those mistakes in just the right way to reveal God. Get it? It's easy enough...so women shut up and submit yourselves onto you're husbands and don't teach becomes 'hey women...probably best for you to emm have a lie down, afterall you're the weaker sex you'll need all your energy for tonight when I'm attempt you impregnate you again. So in concluision I would like to say that I've defeated all your arguments listed above that bible contains any sexist, derogatory, insulting crude, ignorant and even vile remarks about women and I think it's time we all just said yes to lord? don't you?

MrB

BrianCalgary wrote:

This is an honest question. Not being overly familair with Irish details, how were women treated and how are they now?

You should check out "The Magdalene Sisters" sometime, it's shocking how bad some women where treated in this country by a religious organisation, and not that long ago too!

Tar.Aldarion

PDN wrote:

Do you mean Junia, the female apostle mentioned in Romans 16:7?

lol...

Yes, I'm sure he does.