Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: floo on December 20, 2016, 04:15:05 PM
-
deleted
-
Oh definitely. I can't think of anything worse than giving birth. A kidney stone was enough for me! ;)
-
Certainly! I know Jesus talked of God as being his father and I have no problem with that but God is not a MAN, God is genderless, and certainly wouldn't have wanted women to be treated as second class as they have been so often), not the case now, thankfully, and anyone who thinks nostalgically about the past is living in cloud cuckoo land.
-
If god had been created as a female by the authors of the Bible instead of a male, would women have been treated very differently over the centuries? In my opinion, god was only given the male gender because in the ancient world men were considered to be superior to the female. :o If any god does exist it is more likely to be genderless.
Oddly enough, Floo, the Judeo-Christian God was NOT created as a male by the authors of the Bible. There are 144 names for God throughout bthe Bible and exactly half of them are feminine and half are masculine. Over the millennia there have been a number of important female characters in the story - some good, some bad - so not much different from the men in the Bible.
Women featured in the Bible aren't treated well on the whole, but as reproductive machines for the most part. Solomon's many concubines obviously played a big part in keeping his dangly bits busy! Did they do it willingly, or more likely did they have no say in the matter?
Can you provide an example of any culture contemporaneous with the Old Testament story that was any different?
Whilst most Christian women these days demand to be treated as equal to men, more extreme male members of the faith still expect them to be subservient to their wishes using the Bible as an excuse.
As has been pointed out on the numerous threads that have touched on this issue in the past, the early Christian church developed in a context where men were deemed more important than women, so the fact that during its first 2-300 years, before the Roman Empire effectively hijacked the church in the West, the early church had a number of women in leadership would have been seen as counter-cultural and revolutionary. Rather than standing out against this institutionalisation by the Romans, the leaders of the time felt that it would be a useful means to accelerate the growth of Christianity across the world. A perfectly legitimate thought process; sadly, they seemed to leave behind some of the practices that had made them stand out up until that point.
There is very little woman can't do that men can, and visa versa. You never know, one day men might evolve enough to become pregnant! ;D
I would disagree on a number of levels, and I would suggest that then laltter is extremely unlikely, even (perhaps especially) if women were to disappear completely, or men were genetically modified artificially. There are huge psychological and biological differences between men and women - many related to the different roles the two genders take in the survival of the species.
Is there anyone on this forum who thinks men and women should stay trapped in the traditional roles society and religion had placed upon them?
And what would those 'traditional roles' be, Floo? For instance, are you trying to suggest that women oughtn't to be 'trapped' in the roles that their biological make-up so brilliantly enables them to carry out?
-
I agree with that. Neither should pressure be put on men to do what they don't want to do. Both have been known to happen.
-
God is gender fluid apparently, way ahead of its time.
-
Correct, jakswan.
-
If God were female she would bang on about man flu all the time like it was the funniest thing she ever, ever said.
Then she would inform us that she can multi-task and men can't.
(By multi-tasking she means gossiping and walking at the same time)
-
You cheeky thing you.
-
Well if God made woman in her own image.......... :P
-
If god was female, she'd be bound to have no trouble parking her car, being perfect and all of that.
ippy
-
Women should do whatever they wish to do, without any pressure put upon them!
Well, that would seem to be what you are putting on them, Floo - to be the same as men. I have no problem with women cossing to be top-level scientists/politicians/theologians/architects/teachers/business people: what I have a problem with is society seeking to make women who choose to remain at home in order to raise a family feel second class women - and sadly I know of more than a handful of such women.
-
It would be BRILLIANT! ;D
No it wouldn't be - it would be as disastrous as a gender-specific male God - which is precisely what isn't the case in Judeo-Christian thought.
-
I agree Hope, I like the fact that God is genderless; if people choose to think of God as male that is their prerogative but there is no way that they are justified in discriminating against women on the grounds of that. Thankfully, it doesn't happen nowadays so much.
Regarding women choosing to work at home (you responded to a post made by floo), nothing wrong with that if they can afford it and are happy doing it - floo was a stay-at-home-mum and wife and happy to be so, she won't mind me saying so as she has often talked about it.
We were talking a bit in jest, Hope, you must realise that.
Other religions have very powerful female goddesses; it has often been the case that men have been afraid of or at least in awe of, the power of women, which has caused them to subjugate women. Yet, if men are secure in themselves, they won't do that.
A lot of men really like having a successful wife which is wonderful. However success cannot really be judged by money or profession.
-
I AM NOT A SECOND CLASS WOMAN, or was ever made to feel like one. I chose to stay at home and raise the kids. I am equal in every way to my husband who was the breadwinner.
Did I say that you had been? I simply said that I know of some women who have been made to feel second-class by society's attitude. Or are you 'Everywoman'? ;).
-
We were talking a bit in jest, Hope, you must realise that.
Last time Floo made a remark like that, and someone said that she was joking, she blew her virtual top. OK, that was on a different board and several years ago - but I remember the virtual fireworks.
-
No it wouldn't be - it would be as disastrous as a gender-specific male God - which is precisely what isn't the case in Judeo-Christian thought.
Except it is.
-
Except it is.
Evidence, please. Note that attempts to refute the basis of my argument - that the Judeo-Christian God is equally feminine and masculine - will be laughed out of court at the first attempt.
-
Evidence, please.
God is referred to in exclusively male terms - God the Father, not God the mother or God the parent.
The culture of Christianity is patriarchal.
Note that attempts to refute the basis of my argument - that the Judeo-Christian God is equally feminine and masculine - will be laughed out of court at the first attempt.
No, actually, any neutral would laugh you out of court.
-
Evidence, please. Note that attempts to refute the basis of my argument - that the Judeo-Christian God is equally feminine and masculine - will be laughed out of court at the first attempt.
there is a very good reason no women have ever been sent to the moon , does anyone here know why?
-
Last time Floo made a remark like that, and someone said that she was joking, she blew her virtual top. OK, that was on a different board and several years ago - but I remember the virtual fireworks.
Quite likely but I did say "we" were speaking in jest, Hope.
I was anyway ;D.
there is a very good reason no women have ever been sent to the moon , does anyone here know why?
If it because there are no shops that won't be the case for long. "Trump and Clinton Spar over Moon plans" was a recent headline so there will be a few handy corner shops dotted about.
-
If god had been created as a female by the authors of the Bible instead of a male, would women have been treated very differently over the centuries? In my opinion, god was only given the male gender because in the ancient world men were considered to be superior to the female. :o If any god does exist it is more likely to be genderless.
Women featured in the Bible aren't treated well on the whole, but as reproductive machines for the most part. Solomon's many concubines obviously played a big part in keeping his dangly bits busy! Did they do it willingly, or more likely did they have no say in the matter? Whilst most Christian women these days demand to be treated as equal to men, more extreme male members of the faith still expect them to be subservient to their wishes using the Bible as an excuse.
There is very little woman can't do that men can, and visa versa. You never know, one day men might evolve enough to become pregnant! ;D
Is there anyone on this forum who thinks men and women should stay trapped in the traditional roles society and religion had placed upon them?
According to one American feminist, the fact that God, if he exists at all, is male is blindingly obvious as, if God were female, semen would taste of chocolate!
-
Doesn't it???
Good to see you Owl.
-
there is a very good reason no women have ever been sent to the moon , does anyone here know why?
Yup;the scientists are concerned that there would no longer be any moon dust to be collected once women got up there. ;)
-
Yup;the scientists are concerned that there would no longer be any moon dust to be collected once women got up there. ;)
thanks Hope, I love that joke ;) ;)
-
thanks Hope, I love that joke ;) ;)
Thanks Walt, heard it originally on some pseudo-scientific comedy show on TV some years ago.
-
If God were female she would bang on about man flu all the time like it was the funniest thing she ever, ever said.
Then she would inform us that she can multi-task and men can't.
(By multi-tasking she means gossiping and walking at the same time)
Good thing, God is a spirit.
As for multi-tasking it would be washing, cooking, cleaning and waiting on the man with man flu hand and foot at the same time.
Men cannot multi task because even as children they never learned to wash their own socks at a young age or do things for themselves. Boys always got off lightly while the girls helped mum.
-
Boys always got off lightly while the girls helped mum.
Not in my house. That never ever happened.
-
Not in my house. That never ever happened.
Likewise in my childhood home. Never had the issue in my own house, as I've never had sons - just a son-in-law who does a surprising amount around the house.
-
Apart from my husband, who is absolutely useless at domestic tasks, and a liability in that area,:o all the rest of the males in my family are expected to help with housework and cooking, including our Down's Syndrome son.
I assume that your husband wasn't always 'banned' from such chores.