The Christian Hatred of Women

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#1
The Christian Hatred of Women


Civilization has slowly advanced towards the equal treatment of women, but it is the nature of all religions to look backwards to an earlier time, when their gods (who can't be bothered to make an appearance nowadays) allegedly walked the Earth, and told the men that they were better than women.

For the fundamentalist, reality is whatever the Bible says it is, and the Bible was written by primitive tribesmen of the ancient Middle East, whose culture included misogyny (the hatred and fear of women). Fundamentalists, despite their claim that every word of the Bible is the unchangeable word of God, are more than willing to ignore the commands they find inconvenient (Deut. 14: 8, Luke 18: 22). Sadly, the commands that include misogyny are enthusiastically obeyed.

A girl's inferiority begins at birth; "if a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child, then she shall be unclean seven days... But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks: (Lev. 12: 2, 5). Why is she twice as unclean for producing a daughter instead of a son? And why should a woman be unclean in the third book of the Bible for obeying the command to be fruitful and multiply, given in the first book of the Bible (Gen. 1: 28)? In marriage, women are certainly second-class; "thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee" (Ben. 3: 16).

Detailed instructions are given on how a man should sell his daughter into slavery (Ex. 21: 7). Human sacrifice, which Christians abhor when it is committed by others, is found in their "Good" book as well. Jephtha killed his daughter as a burnt offering, and not a word of condemnation is given. Indeed, he was then made a judge of Israel (Judg. 11: 30-39, 12: 7).

The New Testament is just as bad; "Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence" (1 Timothy 2: 11-12). "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; (1 Cor. 14: 34). The submission of women to men is all-inclusive; "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife... Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing" (Eph. 5: 22-24).

Influential churchmen continued this shameful attitude. In the 4th century, St. Augustine wrote, "Nothing so much casts down the mind of man from its citadel as do the blandishments of women, and that physical contact without which a wife cannot be possessed." (1) The Protestants were no better. According to Martin Luther, "it is evident therefore that woman is a different animal to man, not only having different members, but also being far weaker in intellect... For as the sun is more splendid than the moon... so also woman... does not equal the dignity and glory of the male." (2) "Men have... more understanding than women, who have but small and narrow breasts and broad hips to the end that they should remain at home, sit still, keep house, and bear and bring up children." "We can hardly speak of her without a feeling of shame, and we surely cannot make use of her without shame." (3) John Calvin, whose writings helped define the Protestant position, similarly wrote, "Let the woman be satisfied with the state of subjection and not take it amiss that she is made inferior to the more distinguished sex." (3)

The Christian hatred of women was most clearly expressed during the Middle Ages. It was then, when the Church held the reins of power, that an estimated 100,000 to 2 million women were tortured to death for the imaginary crime of witchcraft. Fingernails were pulled out. Red-hot tongs were applied to breasts. The women's sex organs provided special attraction for the male torturer. Bodies were stretched on racks and wheels. Virtually every mangled and broken victim confessed--and was executed on the basis of her confession. (4)

Efforts to humanize Christianity were crushed. The Albigensians taught that by her baptism and by her study, a woman could become the equal of male believers, achieve the ultimate purity, and be called a 'perfecta.' In 1208, Lotario (Pope Innocent III) declared a major crusade to destroy the Albigensians. When the last fortress was taken, the 200 Albigensians inside who had surrendered were burned to death. Years before, when the besieged city of Beziers fell, soldiers asked papal legate Arnald Amalric how they could distinguish the infidel from the faithful among the captives. He commanded; "Kill them all. God will know his own." Thousands were slaughtered--many first blinded, mutilated, dragged behind horses or used for target practice. (2, 4)

Renaissance humanism and modern science have helped to civilize Christianity and wean it away from its worst excesses, but the process is incomplete. Women were first allowed to compete in Olympic track and field events in 1928, the same year that Ambrogio Ratti (Pope Pius XI) was publicly objecting to female participation in any public athletic competitions. "The bishop of Rome cannot but deplore that... the delicate regard due to young women and girls should be weaker than in pagan Rome, which, though it descended to such debasement of habits when it adopted from conquered Greece public games and gymnastic and athletic competitions, excluded women therefrom for reasons of physical and moral good sense... If a woman's hand must be raised, we hope and pray it may be raised only in prayer or in acts of charity." An editorial in the Vatican newspaper Osservatore Romano added, "Girls should think first of being good mothers of worthy sons." (5) What a pity the pope didn't concentrate his efforts on criticizing Mussolini and the Fascists!

The Catholic Church continues to demand that their priests be celibate, and refuses to ordain women. It is not clear of women are forbidden to be priests due to their spiritual inferiority, or if it is purely a matter of their unsuitable genitalia.

When Pat Robertson, the leader of the powerful Christian Coalition, claimed that a proposed equal-rights amendment for women was "about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians," (6) he wasn't kidding. In a poll taken in 1982, the Equal Rights Amendment of 1972 was favored by 83% of those who never went to church; only 47% of those who attended church several times a week favored it. Neither the media, the American Public, nor most legislators were aware that most of the women who demonstrated against the ERA at state capitols around the country in the last years of the ERA struggle, were Fundamentalists brought there by their pastors. The amendment was never ratified. (7)

Women will be equal, someday. When that day comes, it will arrive in spite of religion, not because of it.
 
Jul 24, 2002
4,878
5
0
47
www.soundclick.com
#3
LOL!
Ignorance destroys a man.....

People love to judge the bible but are so ignorant when it comes to biblical scripture.
Some people love to put it down but with no basis, it shows their true intentions.
But any how I'll proceed to throw this misconception out the window....

I'll borrow from Sixx's technique of copying and pasting:

"The Bible and gender-inclusive language
by E. Calvin Beisner

In response to my comments in a chapel talk, one person - we will call her Mary Smith - states several arguments in favor of gender-inclusive language as "a necessary tool to be used by Christians because it reflects the position of women in the creation and in the new covenant with Christ." Respecting her as my equal in creation as bearing the image of God (Genesis 3:26-27); in our inclusion in the fall of Adam, in which we both became sinners (Romans 5:12-14); and in our redemption through Christ our living Head (Galatians 3:28), I offer the following responses.

Equality of Male and Female

The heart of her argument is that ". . . humans are created equal in God's
sight. . . . Adam was [Eve's] source but she was created to be his partner, his equal." With some qualifications that I think Miss Smith will affirm, I agree. Male and female equally bear the image of God: ". . . God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them" (Genesis 1:27, nas).
But does this equality in the image of God imply an absolute and unbounded equality, such that male and female are simply interchangeable? Is a woman a man's equal as a potential spouse for a woman, or a man a woman's equal as a potential spouse for a man? If not, then some very significant differences in roles are compatible with equality in essence.
Scripture tells us that one of the significant differences in roles is that God made men to lead, provide for, and protect women - particularly their wives - in a humble and servant-like (i.e., Christlike) manner. This cannot be rejected simply by an appeal to our essential equality, for essential equality permits significant differences in roles. So far is essential equality from ruling out authority and submission that Scripture tells us that Jesus Christ, the Creator of heaven and earth, the King of kings and Lord of lords, submitted willingly to Joseph and Mary, His essential inferiors (Luke 2:51), and that He submits willingly to God the Father, His essential equal (1 Corinthians 15:28).

Male Authority Rooted in Creation or Fall?

Supplemental to her point that Adam and Eve were created equal is her claim that "It was the result of [i.e., the curse pursuant to] the fall which placed husbands to rule over their wives" (brackets added). She provides no Biblical reference to support this claim, but perhaps she has in mind the text most commonly claimed by evangelical feminists to support it, Genesis 3:16b: ". . . your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you." This allegedly indicates that Adam's rule over Eve is God's curse on Eve. But this neglects two important facts in Scripture.
First, the creation narrative includes important elements indicating Adam's headship (godly authority, not source - a point we shall discuss later) over Eve before the fall.
(1) ". . . it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve" (1 Timothy 2:13). The Apostle Paul uses the temporal order of creation as one ground of his argument against a woman's teaching or exercising authority over a man in church (1 Timothy 2:12), indicating - under the guidance of the Holy Spirit - that the order of creation, through whatever hidden premises in Paul's (and the Holy Spirit's) logic, betokens male authority over females in terms of roles in the church. Thus we have it on the authority of Scripture itself that Adam's being created first and Eve later (Genesis 7, 18, 22-4) implies that Adam properly had some sort of authority over Eve instilled at creation.
(2) Adam named both the animals (Genesis 2:19-20) and the woman (verse 23) whom God brought before him. In Biblical thought, to name something is to exercise authority over it; thus, as the nineteenth-century Hebrew scholars C. F. Keil and Franz Delitzsch point out, "Adam is to become acquainted with the creatures, to learn their relation to him, and by giving them names to prove himself their lord."[1] Similarly, Adam's naming Eve meant his exercising authority over her. (Interestingly, before the fall both the animals and Eve submitted amiably to Adam's authority. Animals' resistance to human authority follows the fall, as John Calvin points out in his commentary on Genesis 1:18-20.[2] Similarly, Eve's resistance to Adam's authority is also rooted in the fall [Genesis 3:16b; cf. verse 17].)

Second, the feminist interpretation of Genesis 3:16b is mistaken. The Hebrew translated "your desire shall be for your husband" indicates a desire to dominate, as seen in the use of the same phrase in Genesis 4:7, where God tells Cain that sin's "desire is for you, but you must master it." God's words to Eve are descriptive, not prescriptive; He tells her not what her desire ought to be but what it will be, and when He adds, "and he shall rule over you," He tells her not what Adam's response ought to be but what it will be. Eve will try to dominate Adam, but Adam will dominate her. But it is not Adam's proper authority over Eve that is part of the curse on Eve, it is Adam's perversion of that authority. The verb translated "rule" here is _mashal_, not _radah_, which we have in God's instructions to Adam and Eve to rule over the earth and its creatures (Genesis 1:28). As Keil and Delitzsch explain it,


"The woman had . . . broken through her divinely appointed subordination to the man; she had not only emancipated herself from the man to listen to the serpent, but had led the man into sin. For that, she was punished with a desire bordering upon disease ([_teshuwqah_], to have a violent craving for a thing), and with subjection to the man. . . . Created for the man, the woman was made subordinate to him from the very first; but the supremacy of the man was not intended to become a despotic rule, crushing the woman into a slave, which has been the rule in ancient and modern Heathenism, and even in Mahometanism also, - a rule which was first softened by the sin- destroying grace of the Gospel, and changed into a form more in harmony with the original relation, viz. that of a rule on the one hand, and subordination on the other, which have their roots in mutual esteem and love."[3]
Eve's first sin was not eating the forbidden fruit but stepping out from under Adam's authority to deal with the serpent herself and then to tempt Adam to sin by offering him the fruit. God's words of judgment bring her face to face with her insubordination and assure her that she will not prosper in it.
In short, male tyranny over females stems from the fall and the curse, but the godly and loving authority of husbands over wives and of male leaders in the church stems from creation and is restored in redemption.
 
Jul 24, 2002
4,878
5
0
47
www.soundclick.com
#4
Does Male Headship Indicate Authority?

Miss Smith tells us that only in the Old Testament are husbands "placed in the position of `masters,' `owners,' and `lords' over their wives." In the New Testament, in contrast, the Greek word for "head" may mean either "master" or "source," and - although she does not explicitly say this, we must assume it for her argument to be complete - when used to denote the husband's relation to the wife, it means "source."
First, neither Testament teaches that husbands ought to be owners of their wives. The New Testament, however, cites approvingly the fact that "Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord" as exemplary for Christian wives (1 Peter 3:6), whom it exhorts, "be submissive to your own husbands. . . . For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves [with "chaste and respectful behavior"], being submissive to their own husbands" (1 Peter 3:1, 5).

Second, there is good reason to reject the notion that _kephale_ ("head") ever was used as a metaphor for "source" in Greek literature, and compelling reason against such a sense in the New Testament. In the last decade there has been significant debate over this point in scholarly literature, and neither space permits nor my own abilities and resources enable me to resolve all of that debate here. Instead, I refer readers to Wayne Grudem's roughly 31,000-word study of every extant ancient Greek usage of _kephale_ (there are 2,336) in Appendix 1 of _Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood_,[4] in which I am persuaded that Grudem convincingly answers all of the arguments in favor of "source" and against "authority." To summarize, even according to Grudem's critics who favor the metaphorical meaning "source" for _kephale_, there are over forty instances in ancient Greek literature, including sixteen in the Septuagint (which is especially important in shaping linguistic usage in the New Testament), in which the context shows that _kephale_ is used metaphorically for "authority" or "ruler," but "there are only one possible example in the fifth century b.c. . . ., two possible (but ambiguous) examples in Philo, no examples in the Septuagint, and no clear examples applied to persons before or during the time of the New Testament" in which even these critics claim the context shows that _kephale_ is used metaphorically for "source"—and in all of these instances there are good grounds to argue that the word means "extreme end, terminus," not "source." In light of this, it is no wonder that not one of the lexicons of New Testament Greek offers "source" as a metaphorical meaning for _kephale_ in reference to human beings, but all offer "authority."

Third, the immediate context in which Paul calls the husband the head of the wife (Ephesians 5:23) shows that the sense there is "authority," and nothing in it hints at "source": "Wives, [be subject (The verb is imported from the previous verse.)] to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the Church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives [ought to be] to their husbands in everything" (Ephesians 5:22-24). (Similarly, the explicit mention of authority (exousía) in 1 Corinthians 11:10 indicates that the metaphorical sense of head in 1 Corinthians 11:3-10, where Paul writes that "Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ" [verse 3] is also "authority," not "source.")

Does Equality in Redemption Imply Equality in All Things?

Miss Smith argues, "In the new covenant, the hierarchical position of men over women no longer exists, for as Galatians 3:28 states: `There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus' (NIV). One does not represent the other."
Again, does Miss Smith wish to argue that this verse eliminates all legitimate differences in roles between men and women? Including the fact that a woman is a proper spouse for a man but not for a woman, and a man for a woman but not for a man? If not, then we must learn what differences it does and does not eliminate from the immediate and larger context. It will not do simply to assert that this verse eliminates differences in authority and submission.
The context of Galatians 3:28 concerns salvation, with union with Christ. This, Paul concludes, comes about in the same way for every one - Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female - namely, by faith (Galatians 3:23-27). Thus one may continue to recognize the differences in roles taught, for instance, in Ephesians 5:22-33 without denying the truth of Galatians 3:28.

Just What Is Gender-Inclusive Language?

Indeed, Miss Smith accepts the generic _anthropos_, despite its masculine grammatical gender, as acceptably gender inclusive and a model for our own usage. But then why reject the generic use of _man_ and masculine pronouns in English? If it is okay for Jesus to have said, "Beware of practicing your righteousness before men [_anthropon_, genitive plural] to be noticed by them [_autois_, masculine relative pronoun]" (Matthew 6:1), what is wrong with - well, translating this as the NAS does, and speaking or writing so ourselves?
In reality, _man_ and _men_ and _he_, _him_, and _his_ simply are gender- inclusive and have been so for hundreds of years, just as _anthropos_ and _anthropoi_ and _autos_, _autou_, _auto_, and _auton_ (and their plural counterparts) were gender-inclusive language two thousand years ago (and still are) in Greek. If Miss Smith accepts the gender neutrality of these Greek words, why not of their English counterparts, which have a long history of precisely gender-neutral usage, as a quick check in any good dictionary reveals? For example, the definitions of man in _Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary_, unabridged 2d ed., include: "1. a human being; a person, whether male or female. 2. the human race; mankind: used without the or a," and the definitions of he include "2. the person indefinitely; the one; anyone." Indeed, _he_ formerly was used not only generically but also even to denote a woman specifically, as when the author of the Early English work _Joseph of Arimathie_ wrote of Mary, "He chaungede cher & seide hou scholde I gon with childe / Without felauschupe of mon?"[7] This history helps to explain why _he_ has properly been used generically, while _she_ (which derives from another stem and specifies a female) has not. Thus since _man_ and _men_, like _anthropos_ and _anthropoi_, refer to both male and female, they are just as good translations of _anthropos_ and _anthropoi_ - and just as gender inclusive - as _person_ or _people_. Indeed, John Calvin, a Frenchman, could write in Latin what we find translated into English as "Why, even children know that women are included under the term `men'!" (Institutes II.xiii.3.)"


These upposed misconceptions of the bible come from ignorant people or from people who make shit up....

The evidence speaks for itself....
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#7
@heresy
CUT AND PASTE IS THE BEST TOOL EVER!
This is the second time you have said this to me. Hmmm, look around on this board, there are many cut and paste threads but yet you only make that comment to me. I didnt write this article, I found it and I thought it was interesting to read. I wanted to see what other people thought about it.

:r:
 
Nov 17, 2002
2,627
99
48
42
www.facebook.com
#8
it makes sense that, because of the status of women at the times the biblical stories were written, the bible may seem to have some "injustices" toward women. You must look deeper for the message within the scriptures rather than getting hung up on petty things like this. Also, one cannot righteously accuse anyone else for taking the bible out of context. We do this all the time in order to apply the teachings to our lives. We may be similar in the way we live to those who did in the biblical days. But we have many differences, also. And it is very necessary that we look deeper as we attempt to apply the teachings to our own lives.