How Many Abers Actually Like To Watch...
ChatterBank1 min ago
Enter Your Question Title Here
47 Answers
Does God respect women and their dignityle
many religions today still treats women as second class citizens
how do religion respect women in this modern world
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by locusts. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
locusts - "... many religions today still treats women as second class citizens. how do religion respect women in this modern world."
The vast majority of religions are deeply patriarchal and grossly misogynistic. Certainly the three main Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) are guilty of this. This is hardly surprising since they all demonstrably share the same source material (Babylonian/Canaanite texts leading to the foundation of Judaism) despite many desperate claims to the contrary.
The reasons for this are obvious: in any human society, males tend to dominate. This is as true today as it was thousands of years ago. Consequently, when religious doctrines and scriptures were codified, they reflected the societies and realities of their time.
Throughout history, women have been treated as second class citizens of the human race. Hopefully this won't always be the case but unless fundamental reformations are made to numerous religious texts I don't see this situation changing any time soon. More's the pity in my opinion.
The vast majority of religions are deeply patriarchal and grossly misogynistic. Certainly the three main Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) are guilty of this. This is hardly surprising since they all demonstrably share the same source material (Babylonian/Canaanite texts leading to the foundation of Judaism) despite many desperate claims to the contrary.
The reasons for this are obvious: in any human society, males tend to dominate. This is as true today as it was thousands of years ago. Consequently, when religious doctrines and scriptures were codified, they reflected the societies and realities of their time.
Throughout history, women have been treated as second class citizens of the human race. Hopefully this won't always be the case but unless fundamental reformations are made to numerous religious texts I don't see this situation changing any time soon. More's the pity in my opinion.
Retrochic - "... if you class Paganism as a Religion..."
It's a stretch to call Paganism a religion. Paganism is more akin to a general spiritual belief than a religion. I'm not saying that to denigrate it in any way (quite the opposite in fact) it's just that it doesn't have all the 'trappings' of a religion.
It's a stretch to call Paganism a religion. Paganism is more akin to a general spiritual belief than a religion. I'm not saying that to denigrate it in any way (quite the opposite in fact) it's just that it doesn't have all the 'trappings' of a religion.
benhilton - "...Yep... Jesus Christ the ultimate misogynist..."
You're confusing organised religion with scriptural texts. I agree that Jesus was a decent man (apart from his tacit approval of slavery) and that he appeared to view women as equals. Bravo that man (except for the slavery endorsement).
However, that does not excuse the Catholic Church for vehemently and rigorously maintaining a misogynistic position. There are no women deacons, priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals or (heaven forbid!) popes. This is not because a woman wouldn't be capable of holding such a post; it is because they are specifically barred from doing so by men. These very same men use the scriptures as 'proof' that women are unsuitable for these roles thereby enforcing and perpetuating the laughable falsehood that women are somehow inferior to men.
So 'benhilton' - do you think that women in the Catholic Church should be permitted to become deacons, priests, bishops, archbishops and popes?
You're confusing organised religion with scriptural texts. I agree that Jesus was a decent man (apart from his tacit approval of slavery) and that he appeared to view women as equals. Bravo that man (except for the slavery endorsement).
However, that does not excuse the Catholic Church for vehemently and rigorously maintaining a misogynistic position. There are no women deacons, priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals or (heaven forbid!) popes. This is not because a woman wouldn't be capable of holding such a post; it is because they are specifically barred from doing so by men. These very same men use the scriptures as 'proof' that women are unsuitable for these roles thereby enforcing and perpetuating the laughable falsehood that women are somehow inferior to men.
So 'benhilton' - do you think that women in the Catholic Church should be permitted to become deacons, priests, bishops, archbishops and popes?
Birdie you ask me a question after a hyperbole-laden paragraph , I'll comment on the paragraph first .
The RC church does not view women as inferior to men , we have women eucharist ministers , women readers , girls/women altar servers , women parish secretaries , women headteachers of RC secondary schools , women RC M.P.'s and I can think of at least one previous woman RC cabinet minister . There are many women saints and Our Lady is revered .
It's just that the RC church sees men and women as having different roles . The role of Priest etc . has always traditionally been a man's role requiring a vow of chastity .
As for my view , I think that we should stick to our traditions .
I can understand why you might find that discriminatory , but it is certainly not misogynistic .
The RC church does not view women as inferior to men , we have women eucharist ministers , women readers , girls/women altar servers , women parish secretaries , women headteachers of RC secondary schools , women RC M.P.'s and I can think of at least one previous woman RC cabinet minister . There are many women saints and Our Lady is revered .
It's just that the RC church sees men and women as having different roles . The role of Priest etc . has always traditionally been a man's role requiring a vow of chastity .
As for my view , I think that we should stick to our traditions .
I can understand why you might find that discriminatory , but it is certainly not misogynistic .
From Genesis 3:16
To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you."
This is the punishment for all women because the first woman disobeyed.
And some claim He is not a misogynist.
To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you."
This is the punishment for all women because the first woman disobeyed.
And some claim He is not a misogynist.
"The god I grew up with, gave his son to be birthed by a woman. If he didnt revere & respect women he wouldnt have bothered."
And lo, a star appeared in the sky and it was good. Good in as much as it gave Mary and Joseph an idea which, if they could pull it off, would remove stigma and shame from their wee surprise package which was due very soon.
For it was a time of much unenlightenment and the Giro had yet to be created.
And it came to pass that it worked and the rest is not history, it's a very naughty story.
And lo, a star appeared in the sky and it was good. Good in as much as it gave Mary and Joseph an idea which, if they could pull it off, would remove stigma and shame from their wee surprise package which was due very soon.
For it was a time of much unenlightenment and the Giro had yet to be created.
And it came to pass that it worked and the rest is not history, it's a very naughty story.
benhilton - "... The RC church does not view women as inferior to men , we have women eucharist ministers , women readers , girls/women altar servers , women parish secretaries... [etc]"
You've pretty much gone and demonstrated my point. You see, in the list you've provided there isn't one woman who fills the roles I mentioned in the RC hierarchy. I have to admit that I did find it quite amusing that you wrote, "... I can think of at least one previous woman RC cabinet minister...". I must express my ignorance here; I simply wasn't aware that the government of the UK is a branch of the RC church and that cabinet ministers are appointed by the them. You live and learn...
BH - "... It's just that the RC church sees men and women as having different roles...".
Indeed they do. They see women as being unfit to fill certain roles in the RC church and by extension, in society. This is not a distinction made because woman are incapable of carrying out the requisite duties. It is a discriminatory distinction made on gender and gender alone. There is no logical reason why a woman cannot become a deacon, priest, bishop, archbishop, cardinal or pope. None whatsoever. The ONLY reason this cannot happen is for religious ones; logic and common sense be damned. It IS discriminatory and it IS misogynistic.
BH - "... As for my view , I think that we should stick to our traditions. I can understand why you might find that discriminatory, but it is certainly not misogynistic."
I like traditions. I really do. I'm a traditional kind of guy. But one thing I cannot stand is misogyny. It is illogical, stupid and highly discriminatory. There really are no two ways about it. If you genuinely think that women are somehow unsuitable to carry out particular roles purely because they're not men then your thinking is faulty and you are a misogynist.
If you believe me to be wrong in my assertion, explain to me and others reading this thread why you think that a women would be unsuitable to be, say, pope. And don't try and hide behind scripture.
You've pretty much gone and demonstrated my point. You see, in the list you've provided there isn't one woman who fills the roles I mentioned in the RC hierarchy. I have to admit that I did find it quite amusing that you wrote, "... I can think of at least one previous woman RC cabinet minister...". I must express my ignorance here; I simply wasn't aware that the government of the UK is a branch of the RC church and that cabinet ministers are appointed by the them. You live and learn...
BH - "... It's just that the RC church sees men and women as having different roles...".
Indeed they do. They see women as being unfit to fill certain roles in the RC church and by extension, in society. This is not a distinction made because woman are incapable of carrying out the requisite duties. It is a discriminatory distinction made on gender and gender alone. There is no logical reason why a woman cannot become a deacon, priest, bishop, archbishop, cardinal or pope. None whatsoever. The ONLY reason this cannot happen is for religious ones; logic and common sense be damned. It IS discriminatory and it IS misogynistic.
BH - "... As for my view , I think that we should stick to our traditions. I can understand why you might find that discriminatory, but it is certainly not misogynistic."
I like traditions. I really do. I'm a traditional kind of guy. But one thing I cannot stand is misogyny. It is illogical, stupid and highly discriminatory. There really are no two ways about it. If you genuinely think that women are somehow unsuitable to carry out particular roles purely because they're not men then your thinking is faulty and you are a misogynist.
If you believe me to be wrong in my assertion, explain to me and others reading this thread why you think that a women would be unsuitable to be, say, pope. And don't try and hide behind scripture.
Locusts@ Are women treated equally? Yes and no. Depends on the man.
Many men feel that they have the right to treat women as 2nd class citizens yet nowhere in the Bible does God say that women are to be treated a slaves! It is man himself that has decided women are not their equal.
For example: Although women cultivate more than half the world’s crops, in many countries they have no legal right to own property or inherit land.
Yet the bible tells us that a woman can own her own property - read Proverbs 31 v 10 onwards.
Jesus always treated women with respect.
Under the Mosaic Law, women enjoyed an honorable status, and their rights were respected. However, from the fourth century B.C.E. on, Judaism started to be influenced by Greek culture, which regarded women as inferior
Many men feel that they have the right to treat women as 2nd class citizens yet nowhere in the Bible does God say that women are to be treated a slaves! It is man himself that has decided women are not their equal.
For example: Although women cultivate more than half the world’s crops, in many countries they have no legal right to own property or inherit land.
Yet the bible tells us that a woman can own her own property - read Proverbs 31 v 10 onwards.
Jesus always treated women with respect.
Under the Mosaic Law, women enjoyed an honorable status, and their rights were respected. However, from the fourth century B.C.E. on, Judaism started to be influenced by Greek culture, which regarded women as inferior
Genesis 1:27 from the very beginning, humans—both male and female—were created with the ability to reflect God’s qualities. Although Adam and Eve had their own unique emotional and physical makeup, they both received the same commission and enjoyed the same rights before their Maker.—Genesis 1:28-31.
Genesis 2 v 18 reads " And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make a helper comparable to him". Does the word “comparable imply that the woman was inferior to the man? No, because this Hebrew word can also be rendered “counterpart” or “a help corresponding to” the man.
To illustrate this, take a surgeon - he has an anesthetist during the surgery, Can one manage without the other? Though the surgeon performs the actual operation he is no more important than the anesthetist. In a similar way God created the man and the woman to co-operate closely, not to be in competition .
Genesis 2 v 18 reads " And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make a helper comparable to him". Does the word “comparable imply that the woman was inferior to the man? No, because this Hebrew word can also be rendered “counterpart” or “a help corresponding to” the man.
To illustrate this, take a surgeon - he has an anesthetist during the surgery, Can one manage without the other? Though the surgeon performs the actual operation he is no more important than the anesthetist. In a similar way God created the man and the woman to co-operate closely, not to be in competition .
