women and christianity

Tea_Bag

heya people. I dont usually post here (I do browse) because I find arguing with religious people to be mostly pointless. they never seem to agree with any, what I understand to be, logic. anyway, without trying to descend into flame wars, I was hoping that someone could explain to me this:

most Christians I come across are women. I meet many many of them on occasions and I've attended church a few times recently enough because ive got some friends who are of the 'born again' variety. id say the ratio is 2:1 or more in this city anyway.

why? why would you be Christian if you are female?

the Bible hates women. they have no rights at all and are regarded as only being slightly better than homosexuals, whom they seemingly hate. I just don't understand it. obviously someone will happily point out that this is mostly the old testament talking, but so what? you can't pick and choose which parts you agree with, that's not how religion works.

maybe I should be asking, can you be pro equality and religious?

id ask my female religious friends but I don't want top lose another friendship over religion. I'm trying my hardest as it is to not judge people by their religion status. they also probably wouldn't be able to come up with a quick answer, which its fair enough. its a difficult subject.

its late so I apologize if my spelling and grammar is off, ill fix it up when I'm not on my mobile (which has a mind of its own) in the morning.

dead one

Tea_Bag wrote: »

the Bible hates women. they have no rights at all and are regarded as only being slightly better than homosexuals, whom they seemingly hate. I just don't understand it. obviously someone will happily point out that this is mostly the old testament talking, but so what? you can't pick and choose which parts you agree with, that's not how religion works.

Bible doesn't hate women. It is you who are hating women in the name of bible .... You want women to believe what you prefer to believe... Let women believe what they prefer to believe....

Tea_Bag

dead one wrote: »

Bible doesn't hate women. It is you who are hating women in the name of bible .... You want women to believe what you prefer to believe... Let women believe what they prefer to believe....

what?


I'm not hating women? in the name Bible??

maybe I was being too harsh. let me rephrase...

the Bible says its OK treat them like ****. example: 2 people commit adultery. who gets the raw end of the deal when they get caught?

rape? that's worth 40 shillings.

dead one

Tea_Bag wrote: »

the Bible says its OK treat them like ****.

Bible doesn't say it, because original bible which was revealed on Jesus christ, has been changed... It's people who are saying.... There are many versions of bible present in the world, Today, The bible which you've got, is interpretation of different people.....It is simple... All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.

Tea_Bag wrote: »

example: 2 people commit adultery. who gets the raw end of the deal when they get caught? razor? that's worth 40 shillings.

People who commit adultery has got nothing to do with bible or any other religious book.... Even majority of religions, in the world, are against these stupid acts which lack religious teaching... Those people who commit adultery follow no religion or no religious guideline.... They follow their own man made religion... Like this material world is eternal...

Peregrinus

Tea_Bag wrote: »

the Bible says its OK treat them like ****. example: 2 people commit adultery. who gets the raw end of the deal when they get caught?

Well, the Old Testament prescribes exactly the same punishment - death - for both the adulterer and the adulteress. You might feel that this is a bit harsh, but you’ll be hard put to claim that its an example of particular prejudice against women.

The New Testament, famously, includes the story of the Woman Taken In Adultery, which as you must surely know is a polemic against the victimization of women.

Tea_Bag wrote: »

rape? that's worth 40 shillings.

Where are you getting 40 shillings from? The OT penalty for rape is death (Deut 2:25)

But this is all a bit beside the point. Your argument seems to assume that anyone who is religious buys into, and enthusiastically supports, the Levitic code of penalties and the values it reflects. A few minutes spend on planet Earth will disabuse you of this notion.

It may be true that you are “trying your hardest not to judge people by their religious status”, but I have to say you are failing miserably. You are projecting a bizarre set of views onto religious people that, by and large, they don’t hold.

If you really want to know why women seem to be more drawn to religion than men, you have to ask a few of the women who are drawn to religion. You don’t risk losing their friendship by asking them. But you will risk losing it if you refuse to accept their answers, and insist that, in their beliefs, “they have no rights at all” and “the Bible hates women”. In approaching this conversation, you need to accept (a) that they don’t share your somewhat idiosyncratic views about religion, and (b) there really is no reason why they should.

philologos

This thread should have been posted in the Christianity forum, but my short answer as a Christian would be yes, and that Christianity actually promotes said gender equality.

Edit: Why did you post the OP if you already thought you knew your answer?

Memnoch

I think it is because women tend to be more spiritual in general. They are therefore more likely to also be religious.

Look at all the horoscope, mystic meg crap. Women tend to buy into this kind of stuff a lot more. I think it's because they have a greater propensity for emotional reasoning (which has lots of advantages of course). And religious belief (or any other superstition for that matter) is all about emotional reasoning.

robindch

Tea_Bag wrote: »

most Christians I come across are women. [...]
why? why would you be Christian if you are female?

There are many possible reasons and these apply to different women in differing ways.

Firstly, reasoned atheism (ie, where you're indoctrinated as a kid, then have to reason your way out of it as a teenager/adult) requires study and thought and many women, especially ones from "traditional" families where sexist "keep 'em in the kitchen" attitudes are likely to prevail, are less less likely to have had their skeptical and intellectual faculties encouraged to the point to which they're able to do this.

Secondly, religion is frequently phrased as an emotional and much as this comment will leave me open to accusations of sexism, it is my experience that women tend to be more open to emotional arguments than men.

Thirdly, many religious rules concern sex and the conditions for the creation of kids. Since women invest more, biologically, in kids than men do, but tend to be smaller and less strong than men, women have an inbuilt biological preference for societal frameworks which guarantees access to (or pretends to guarantee access to) resources, stability, status, and anything that might help to reduce the chance for male philandering. And so on. In this case, they accept it because they believe, rationally, that it might benefit them.

There are more reasons, but I've to go do my christmas shopping now!

robindch

philologos wrote: »

yes, and that Christianity actually promotes said gender equality.

Ye gods, have you ever opened a bible, or seen how women and girls have been traditionally treated by religion and the religious, and how religions have legitimized sexism and the oppression of women, down through the years and across the world?

Do you even know the revolting history of male/religious-inspired maltreatment of women in this country?

Have a read of this:

http://www.amazon.com/Does-Hate-Women-Ophelia-Benson/dp/0826498264/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1324636527&sr=8-2

Zombrex

Tea_Bag wrote: »

heya people. I dont usually post here (I do browse) because I find arguing with religious people to be mostly pointless. they never seem to agree with any, what I understand to be, logic. anyway, without trying to descend into flame wars, I was hoping that someone could explain to me this:

most Christians I come across are women. I meet many many of them on occasions and I've attended church a few times recently enough because ive got some friends who are of the 'born again' variety. id say the ratio is 2:1 or more in this city anyway.

why? why would you be Christian if you are female?

the Bible hates women. they have no rights at all and are regarded as only being slightly better than homosexuals, whom they seemingly hate. I just don't understand it. obviously someone will happily point out that this is mostly the old testament talking, but so what? you can't pick and choose which parts you agree with, that's not how religion works.

maybe I should be asking, can you be pro equality and religious?

id ask my female religious friends but I don't want top lose another friendship over religion. I'm trying my hardest as it is to not judge people by their religion status. they also probably wouldn't be able to come up with a quick answer, which its fair enough. its a difficult subject.

its late so I apologize if my spelling and grammar is off, ill fix it up when I'm not on my mobile (which has a mind of its own) in the morning.

I would imagine, based on experience, that most Christians do not get around to reading the Bible until long after they have accepted the faith position that it is all true and correct and will take the position of morality in line with our modern morality (which is where you get the mental gymnastics that for example the Bible actually is against slavery and, as Phil's post is an example of, the Bible is for gender equality)

Thus they square the round hole of the Bible's treatment of women simply by acceptance of standard Christian apologetics arguments (who are we to judge God, God is good by definition, this was a different time, it was as bad for the men etc etc).

The point isn't really to believe the Bible. That is a secondary consequence of religious faith. The point is to feel special, to feel loved, to feel important, to feel understanding and all that can come without even opening a Bible, in fact it mostly does come before opening a Bible.

joseph brand

Zombrex wrote: »

I would imagine, based on experience, that most Christians do not get around to reading the Bible until long after they have accepted the faith position that it is all true and correct and will take the position of morality in line with our modern morality (which is where you get the mental gymnastics that for example the Bible actually is against slavery and, as Phil's post is an example of, the Bible is for gender equality)

Thus they square the round hole of the Bible's treatment of women simply by acceptance of standard Christian apologetics arguments (who are we to judge God, God is good by definition, this was a different time, it was as bad for the men etc etc).

The point isn't really to believe the Bible. That is a secondary consequence of religious faith. The point is to feel special, to feel loved, to feel important, to feel understanding and all that can come without even opening a Bible, in fact it mostly does come before opening a Bible.

Matthew


Plaque of the Eight Beatitudes, St. Cajetan Church, Lindavista, Mexico
The eight beatitudes in Matthew 5:3–12 during the Sermon on the Mount are stated as Blessed are:[2][3]
the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (5:3)
they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. (5:4)
the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. (5:5)
they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. (5:6)
the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. (5:7)
the pure in heart: for they shall see God. (5:8)
the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. (5:9)
they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (5:10)

These beatitudes do well in poor countries.
Preacher: "Aw, you've got nothing and life sucks? Well don't worry about it now, cos when you're dead and in the ground, that's when the fun starts".
Poor oul sods: "Yipppeee. Pass the gruel please".
People actually put up with crap in their lives because it'll get better when they are dead. ffs.

Meanwhile clergy seem to have a few quid to spare. The Vatican isn't short of a few bob. Sitting in Swiss bank accounts, hidden. Televangelist seem to do alright. Just check out Mike Murdock. Maybe even plant a $1000 seed. :eek:

Jimoslimos

Slightly controversial perhaps, but I draw some parallels between women and Christianity and that of a BDSM relationship, with women in the submissive role.

Maybe women just want to be dominated;)

joseph brand

Tea_Bag wrote: »

heya people. I dont usually post here (I do browse) because I find arguing with religious people to be mostly pointless. they never seem to agree with any, what I understand to be, logic. anyway, without trying to descend into flame wars, I was hoping that someone could explain to me this:

most Christians I come across are women. I meet many many of them on occasions and I've attended church a few times recently enough because ive got some friends who are of the 'born again' variety. id say the ratio is 2:1 or more in this city anyway.

why? why would you be Christian if you are female?

the Bible hates women. they have no rights at all and are regarded as only being slightly better than homosexuals, whom they seemingly hate. I just don't understand it. obviously someone will happily point out that this is mostly the old testament talking, but so what? you can't pick and choose which parts you agree with, that's not how religion works.

maybe I should be asking, can you be pro equality and religious?

id ask my female religious friends but I don't want top lose another friendship over religion. I'm trying my hardest as it is to not judge people by their religion status. they also probably wouldn't be able to come up with a quick answer, which its fair enough. its a difficult subject.

its late so I apologize if my spelling and grammar is off, ill fix it up when I'm not on my mobile (which has a mind of its own) in the morning.

1.There are more male physicists, astronomers, philosophers etc
2.I have often found myself reading world news while my wife reads the Argos or Lidl catalogue.
3.Women have been 'kept down' for thousands of years.
4.When around my friends we discuss religion and politics amongst other things. I would hazard a guess that women in groups don't.

I am not sexist, just stating the way things are.

Hitchens believes that if women are 'allowed' control their reproduction cycle (church is against this), and have access to seeds (in developing countries), it is a big boost to the whole country.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

Ye gods, have you ever opened a bible, or seen how women and girls have been traditionally treated by religion and the religious, and how religions have legitimized sexism and the oppression of women, down through the years and across the world?

I read the Bible pretty much daily.

"Religion" - This is a broad word. You need to be specific. Whenever I enter into a discussion about Christianity, I'm talking about Biblically based Christianity. Such discussions are best had in the Christianity forum, because I've found that discussions about Scripture on here tend to be based around gospel-strawmen rather than the authentic gospel itself. When I argue about Christianity, I'm doing that alone, I'm not getting into a discussion about human institutions. Neither do I defend "religions", I defend Biblical Christianity.

If the OP was interested in having a real discussion rather than merely solidifying what confirmation bias he had, he would have posted this on the Christianity forum.

robindch wrote: »

Do you even know the revolting history of male/religious-inspired maltreatment of women in this country?

This has all to do with human institutions failing rather than on the Gospel. See above as to what my approach tends to be.

Have a read of this:

robindch wrote: »

http://www.amazon.com/Does-Hate-Women-Ophelia-Benson/dp/0826498264/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1324636527&sr=8-2

Anyone can write a book.

philologos

philologos wrote: »

Anyone can write a book.

I'm glad you're finally seeing the light

robindch

philologos wrote: »

You need to be specific. Whenever I enter into a discussion about Christianity, I'm talking about Biblically based Christianity. Such discussions are best had in the Christianity forum, because I've found that discussions about Scripture on here tend to be based around gospel-strawmen rather than the authentic gospel itself.

Most people here, including me, will be more than happy to produce plenty of misogynistic biblical text. As you know, since it's been quoted to you many times before.

philologos wrote: »

When I argue about Christianity, I'm doing that alone, I'm not getting into a discussion about human institutions. Neither do I defend "religions", I defend Biblical Christianity.

While I understand that you are trying to make a distinction between what you perceive as being the message of the text, and what happens when people begin to enforce their perceptions (which may or may not be the same as yours). The distinction is irrelevant.

What is relevant is that once religions acquire civil power, they all behave the same. The difference is in the degree of savagery and delusion required to sustain its dismal totalitarianism. I can't phrase it better than the incomparable Hitchens has:

Hitchens wrote:

Many religions now come before us with ingratiating smirks and outspread hands, like an unctuous merchant in a bazaar. They offer consolation and solidarity and uplift, competing as they do in a marketplace. But we have a right to remember how barbarically they behaved when they were strong and were making an offer that people could not refuse.

philologos wrote: »

This has all to do with human institutions failing rather than on the Gospel.

The Communists, the North Koreans, the Cubans and a thousand other failed societies said exactly the same thing -- "Only people fail, the system never does".

Precisely what the hell use is a system for humans if it consistently fails when applied to humans?

philologos

The argument that all religions are the same is simply false on comparison. That's why I don't get into religions vs atheism argument because I don't believe in all religions nor do I argue for them and there are very clear differences between what they propose as far as I can tell.

I'm not particularly interested in defending any other faith bar Christianity for obvious reasons. Indeed, the claim that the OP makes is Christianity specific, hence why I ask as to why he didn't post it on the other forum.

As for communism, many of the issues that pertain to it arose from its inherent anti-theism rather than anything else, no matter how much people on this forum may be in denial about that much.

Tea_Bag

philologos wrote: »

The argument that all religions are the same is simply false on comparison. That's why I don't get into religions vs atheism argument because I don't believe in all religions nor do I argue for them and there are very clear differences between what they propose as far as I can tell.

I'm not particularly interested in defending any other faith bar Christianity for obvious reasons. Indeed, the claim that the OP makes is Christianity specific, hence why I ask as to why he didn't post it on the other forum.

As for communism, many of the issues that pertain to it arose from its inherent anti-theism rather than anything else, no matter how much people on this forum may be in denial about that much.

the reason I didn't post it in Christianity forum is because they lock any threads deemed trolling, which this thread could be believed to be if you didn't agree with my viewpoint, which obviously the regulars there wouldn't.

in sorry top nor have contributed more here, I'm stuck in work all day and night.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

Anyone can write a book.

Wow, that must be the most unintentionally ironic statement we have had in a while

philologos

Tea_Bag wrote: »

the reason I didn't post it in Christianity forum is because they lock any threads deemed trolling, which this thread could be believed to be if you didn't agree with my viewpoint, which obviously the regulars there wouldn't.

in sorry top nor have contributed more here, I'm stuck in work all day and night.

They lock threads which violate their charter. Dissenting views are welcome at all times as long as they aren't presented in a rude, disrespectful or obnoxious manner. If you can disagree with Christianity without doing that, then you're welcome according to the charter.

It seems like you're more interested in having your atheistic views reinforced, but that's your decision.

robindch

philologos wrote: »

That's why I don't get into religions vs atheism argument because I don't believe in all religions nor do I argue for them and there are very clear differences between what they propose as far as I can tell.

There is a clear distinction, which I mentioned, between what you and other flock-level believers might think is the "message" of christianity, and what actually happens when christian leaders acquire civil power and start to enforce christian beliefs, as almost invariably do. Hence, two questions:

Why use is your religion in a civil society, when it fails when it's applied?

Why do you refuse to discuss the consequences of your beliefs?

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

They lock threads which violate their charter. Dissenting views are welcome at all times as long as they aren't presented in a rude, disrespectful or obnoxious manner. If you can disagree with Christianity without doing that, then you're welcome according to the charter.

It seems like you're more interested in having your atheistic views reinforced, but that's your decision.

And you are quick to be called for them to be locked philologos whenever they get close to the bone. Home court advantage I suppose

Dades

No more chit chat about the forum yonder.

Galvasean

All the cool kids post here anyhow. Mar sampla, Phil

Shenshen

I personally suspect social reasons.
One thing at which all religions excel is creating a great "we" feeling, a sense of community, of belonging, of family even.
And that does chime nicely with a lot of women. Moreso than it does with men. Women find that the rewards of religiosity fit snuggly with their understanding of themselves as the hub of their families, and most genuinely enjoy social networks

As was pointed out, the vast, vast majority of religious people have a rather limited idea of what their holy book ACTUALLY says, not many Christians actually read the bible, and if you look t Muslims as another example, how many actually understand Arabic in order to be able to understand the Quran?
And even if they do, most holy books lend themselves wonderfully to selective reading. You can use the bible to justify killing witches just as well as you can use it to promote environmentalism. It's stretchier than Oprah's knickers.
So if you want to ignore the misogyny that runs from the Old Testament right through to the rantings of Paul, it's not all that hard to do.

And the reward is emotional satisfaction.
I can see how that's a good deal for a lot of women.

smcgiff

As shenshen said, not many have read it. I'd put the percentage of Catholics that have read the bible in full in low single digits.

I remember reading it a few years ago to see what all the fuss was about and lol'd at the BS.

We've all heard the argument that the New Testament takes over from the OT, and the OT was a product of its time. How an eternal god could be so schizophrenic is beyond me.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

There is a clear distinction, which I mentioned, between what you and other flock-level believers might think is the "message" of christianity, and what actually happens when christian leaders acquire civil power and start to enforce christian beliefs, as almost invariably do. Hence, two questions:

The question is whether or not they have ever enforced the Christian Gospel. As far as I can see, many religions have enforced their own gospel which may or may not be Christian. This is why I defend the Gospel of Jesus.

robindch wrote: »

Why use is your religion in a civil society, when it fails when it's applied?

I don't believe the corrupt institutions that you are referring to have applied the Gospel. I believe the Gospel can and has been applied in many cases, but many of those who claim to represent it have failed in doing so, and I won't defend such institutions as much as you want me to.

I defend Christ Jesus.

robindch wrote: »

Why do you refuse to discuss the consequences of your beliefs?

Do I? The question is whether or not the corruption that exists is a result of Christianity or man's sin. I can happily discuss the consequences of Biblical Christianity and give you examples of where it has been practised.

marienbad wrote: »

And you are quick to be called for them to be locked philologos whenever they get close to the bone. Home court advantage I suppose

I generally only do this when threads go round and round in circles, or when people are being absolutely obnoxious about their unbelief. I will happily discuss with anyone about my faith, and atheism and any arguments they have. The prerequisite I have is that people treat me and others with respect.

I wish you all a merry Christmas

kate.m

It's more people's own interpretations of the bible that are misogynistic really than the bible itself. (open to correction) my dad used to make me read the bible as a kid, and there were a few bits that I would find silly or infuriating in terms of what the op is discussing, but it's nothing like most people would think.

Religious interpretation can be very misogynistic, but I wouldn't blame the bible. The catholic church maybe :P

Also, I find some of the generalisations about women quoted here really would only apply to women from older generations. Maybe that was clarified just saying.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, the Old Testament prescribes exactly the same punishment - death - for both the adulterer and the adulteress. You might feel that this is a bit harsh, but you’ll be hard put to claim that its an example of particular prejudice against women.

This claim needs teasing out a bit more. First, adultery for men was defined as sex with another man's wife. As in the unauthorised use of the other man's property.
By this logic, an unmarried woman could never be a party to adultery, because there was no husband to offend. A married man could not be convicted of adultery with a single woman.
Secondly, men could have more than one wife, which puts a whole new spin on it. If any of his wives slept with another man (including a single man) they were "adulteresses".

marienbad

Dades wrote: »

No more chit chat about the forum yonder.

Mea culpa , mea maxima culpa