Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StandingOnAir)
    The primeval story (Genesis 1-11) is made up of aetiologies that go about explaining the world as it was percieved by the Israelites at its time of writing. Women did suffer in childbirth and were devoted to their husbands, so they wrote a myth in which it was divinely ordained. Men did struggle with their work, and so again, this was believed to have come from God. In the story, though, both of these punishments are a consequence of humans straying from God wanted for them.

    Yes, and i am arguing with somebody on the presumption that it was not a myth. It's quite obvious why these stories were written. My problem is with the fact they are still believed and adhered to so piously.

    Let's head over to the first creation story. Yes, there are two, and they explain things differently - the first is much more concerned with imparting doctrine, so if we're talking about how Christianity (or Judaism) sees women it's much more relevant. From chapter 1:
    No distinction is made between man and woman. Woman is not created in the image of man; both are created in the image of God. Both are valued. Indeed, even when woman is created out of man in the second creation story, she is created in such a way because no equal is found for man in the animal kingdom.

    No distinction apart from the passage i quoted in which God decreed that man would have dominion over women and that the husband would be the master of the wife. They may have been created equals, but the relationship didn't stay that way.

    Regardless of the veracity of any of it (indeed, once you get to university many theologians are agnostic or atheist), you're talking about a religion that just doesn't exist. If I tried to give my uneducated opinion on string theory I would get shot down, and rightly so - why then does every militant atheist deem themselves to be an expert in theology?
    Im not sure what your point was here. I think you have misinterpreted my position, and in turn backed up my general argument. Perhaps next time, you should stop and read before you feel the urge to be condescending?
    Offline

    13
    Jesus is just my **** buddy.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Yes, and i am arguing with somebody on the presumption that it was not a myth. It's quite obvious why these stories were written. My problem is with the fact they are still believed and adhered to so piously.
    Yes, but you're missing the point about why they were written. They were written to be believed - not so that men could rule over their wives, but because they spoke of a creator God who was intimately involved in the order of creation as the Jews experienced it. They could see that the inequality between man and woman wasn't right, but they also saw that it was down to humanity's sin (the story from which the church took the doctrine of Original Sin speaks about humanity's nature in general). The myths were believed (and still are, if not always literally), but not in the way that you are talking about.


    (Original post by Aeolus)
    No distinction apart from the passage i quoted in which God decreed that man would have dominion over women and that the husband would be the master of the wife. They may have been created equals, but the relationship didn't stay that way.
    As I pointed out, there are two creation stories. Chapter 1 of Genesis was written by one source, chapters 2 and 3 by another. They must be considered separately to some extent. As for the last sentence, see my previous paragraph.


    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Im not sure what your point was here. I think you have misinterpreted my position, and in turn backed up my general argument. Perhaps next time, you should stop and read before you feel the urge to be condescending?
    I'm not trying to be condescending - I'm talking about the tendency of many people to act as if they can have an educated opinion on biblical scholarship when they haven't read into it at all. When you talk about what Genesis (and therefore Christianity) says about the roles of men and women, you are talking about theology. Certainly anyone can have an opinion on Genesis - just as I can have an opinion on a book not having looked into the study of English literature - but if we want to say anything objective about what the text has to say about something, it would be foolish to do so without attempting to understand the author(s)/the world in which it was written/the likely purpose for which it was written. In the case of Genesis this is what is undertaken by theology.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I guess I'm what you call born again and like OP I prefer the Hillsong approach to worship. I think everyone's relationship with Jesus is different as every person is different and its only between them and Jesus. God has different plans for all of us so I don't really see how one set of rules and way of worship can work for everyone. It's only as soon as I realised that being a Christian is about developing a relationship with God and not with "The Church body" did I willingly accept Christ into my life.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StandingOnAir)
    Yes, but you're missing the point about why they were written. They were written to be believed - not so that men could rule over their wives,
    I really don't think these two are mutually exclusive. I think they were written to be believed so that men could justify their rule over the wives.


    but not in the way that you are talking about.

    I did imply that pretty much all abrahamic religion began as extremely patriarchal organisations, and to a great extent remain so to this day. Something which i think is undeniable.

    I'm not trying to be condescending - I'm talking about the tendency of many people to act as if they can have an educated opinion on biblical scholarship when they haven't read into it at all.

    But i have read into it. You are merely making an assumption based on my own conclusions and interpretation. Just because it differes to your own, or that of any other religious individual does not mean it is innacurate or wrong.

    When you talk about what Genesis (and therefore Christianity) says about the roles of men and women, you are talking about theology. Certainly anyone can have an opinion on Genesis - just as I can have an opinion on a book not having looked into the study of English literature - but if we want to say anything objective about what the text has to say about something, it would be foolish to do so without attempting to understand the author(s)/the world in which it was written/the likely purpose for which it was written. In the case of Genesis this is what is undertaken by theology.
    But that is the exact context in which i have commented on Genesis. I am not making an opinion based purely on biblical scholarship, i am taking into account the fact that these bronze age beliefs are still being applied extensively in the modern world. I appreciate the world which the authors of Genesis lived in, but have concluded personally, that those values are not applicable to any kind of healthy modern society. Thus i engage in debate with those who believe that they are.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tradingmyheartforyours)
    Yeah, I am passionate about Jesus and though I don't seem radical, I am empassioned about telling others about Christ and acting on it.

    I love hillsong, and 'mighty to save' is one of their best.

    Op, read "irresistable revolution" by shane clariborne. I think you will enjoy it.

    I went to a Christian music festival last summer and the music was amazing and all genres, check out, "august burns red" and "devil wears prada"

    Please, for the non-existent God's sake, keep it to yourself. People will be eternally greatful to you. Thank you.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    No distinction apart from the passage i quoted in which God decreed that man would have dominion over women and that the husband would be the master of the wife. They may have been created equals, but the relationship didn't stay that way.
    They were never created equals!

    A woman was created because of a man's rib. That puts women on a lower level.

    Then of course, Eve (being a woman) was tricked by a talking snake! And then being a complete bi*** she lied and tricked Adam.

    It paints a horrible picture of women!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    Yeah, I went to school for a few years with the likes of you.

    Bloody saddos, the lot of them.

    Thank **** for liberal Christians which put these zealots to shame.
    Im a Liberal Christian yet also would describe my self as a Happy Clappy, ive got all the T-shirts, go to all the events, listen to the music, do all the Street Work.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    I really don't think these two are mutually exclusive. I think they were written to be believed so that men could justify their rule over the wives.
    Why did men need to justify it? Man's rule over woman was believed to be as natural as the pain woman experienced in childbirth, the pain man experiences from his own labour and the death that this brings. The aetiologies of Genesis 3 were not written to justify behaviour, but to explain human nature - they were a device used by the J source throughout the primeval story to explain what the Israelites saw in the world around them. That much is evident, but only when the aetiologies are considered in relation to each other. The story of the tower of Babel in Genesis 11, as another example, does not "justify" the different languages and nations that exist across the world - it explains it. Certainly we believe differently now - the natural subordination of women is quite rightly rejected - but the existence of such a relationship innate in man and woman was a belief of the time and the writers of Genesis didn't need to validate it by writing it into scripture.

    Either way, what you're saying now is quite different to your original argument, which was that Christianity was "centered on the belief that woman was made of man, and for mans benefit only, nevermind the fact that it does it's best to limit a omwans ability to enjoy her sexuality". That's the view that I was particularly oppossed to, and it's a view that cannot be justified by the book of Genesis.


    (Original post by Aeolus)
    I did imply that pretty much all abrahamic religion began as extremely patriarchal organisations, and to a great extent remain so to this day. Something which i think is undeniable.
    Of course, but it is the implications you draw from this that I am opposed to. The Abrahamic religions were developed in patriarchal societies, but this does not mean that their teachings are innately patriarchal. Some material was meant to describe how the Jews saw humanity (which will inevitably involve man ruling over woman), while other material transcends this (such as Genesis 1:26-28).


    (Original post by Aeolus)
    But i have read into it. You are merely making an assumption based on my own conclusions and interpretation. Just because it differes to your own, or that of any other religious individual does not mean it is innacurate or wrong.
    This isn't a matter of interpretation, it is a matter of what was intended by the texts. If we approach it from that perspective then we cannot conclude that Christianity teaches that woman was made "for mans benefit only".


    (Original post by Aeolus)
    But that is the exact context in which i have commented on Genesis. I am not making an opinion based purely on biblical scholarship, i am taking into account the fact that these bronze age beliefs are still being applied extensively in the modern world. I appreciate the world which the authors of Genesis lived in, but have concluded personally, that those values are not applicable to any kind of healthy modern society. Thus i engage in debate with those who believe that they are.
    But your resistance to engage with biblical scholarship on the matter taints your interpretation of it. Of course some of the effects of their values - such as the mistreatment of women, the killing of homosexuals and the keeping of slaves - were abhorrent. To imply that Christianity is based on these things, though, is to misunderstand the culture within which the Jews lived and the reasons for which they were writing. That's not a matter of interpretation, it's a matter of reasoning based on what we understand about the ancient Israelites, and again, that's what's studied in theology.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:


    OP good for you.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    wtf...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tradingmyheartforyours)

    I love hillsong, and 'mighty to save' is one of their best.

    Love that song!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Christian youth movements give me the creeps.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StandingOnAir)
    Why did men need to justify it? Man's rule over woman was believed to be as natural as the pain woman experienced in childbirth, the pain man experiences from his own labour and the death that this brings.
    Well you have just contradicted yourself. You say here that mans rule over women was believed to be natural. But then go on to say that their beliefs were not centered on that woman was made of man (which as Lord Hysteria points out, she actually was). Patriachal sociteties breed patriarchal beliefs, and i would challenge you to explain how modern day Abrahamic religion rejects mans natural subordination of woman. It would seem, for the majority of religion that the opposite is in fact true.

    The aetiologies of Genesis 3 were not written to justify behaviour, but to explain human nature - they were a device used by the J source throughout the primeval story to explain what the Israelites saw in the world around them. That much is evident, but only when the aetiologies are considered in relation to each other. The story of the tower of Babel in Genesis 11, as another example, does not "justify" the different languages and nations that exist across the world - it explains it.
    Were am i denying this? You keep citing the logical explanation of religious text. I agree on the origins, and why they were written. My problem is that they are still believed, and have such a negative impact on the world. They are bronze age explanations being applied to a world which transcends the need for such things.


    Of course, but it is the implications you draw from this that I am opposed to. The Abrahamic religions were developed in patriarchal societies, but this does not mean that their teachings are innately patriarchal. Some material was meant to describe how the Jews saw humanity (which will inevitably involve man ruling over woman), while other material transcends this (such as Genesis 1:26-28).

    No, the majority of Abrahamic belief is innately patriarchal, the subordination of women has been a constant which survives to this day. The reason being, like you say yourself, is because it was developed in primitive, patriarchal society.


    But your resistance to engage with biblical scholarship on the matter taints your interpretation of it. Of course some of the effects of their values - such as the mistreatment of women, the killing of homosexuals and the keeping of slaves - were abhorrent. To imply that Christianity is based on these things, though, is to misunderstand the culture within which the Jews lived and the reasons for which they were writing. That's not a matter of interpretation, it's a matter of reasoning based on what we understand about the ancient Israelites, and again, that's what's studied in theology.
    Yes, but i am not solely talking the culture which the ancient Israelites developed their beliefs. I am also talking about the modern culture in which these belliefs are still taken literally. We are not ancient Israelites, and just because the beliefs were developed in that ancient world, it does not justify anything morally abhorrent which exists within.

    Your argument seems to be, 'It's ok to believe these things because they were developed during a time when primitive and brutal tradition was the norm.'
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    jesus is my friend
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    :lolwut:
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Well you have just contradicted yourself. You say here that mans rule over women was believed to be natural. But then go on to say that their beliefs were not centered on that woman was made of man (which as Lord Hysteria points out, she actually was). Patriachal sociteties breed patriarchal beliefs, and i would challenge you to explain how modern day Abrahamic religion rejects mans natural subordination of woman. It would seem, for the majority of religion that the opposite is in fact true.
    It was as natural as they believed pain and death due to toil to be! Not something that was intended by God, but an inescapable consequence of sin. The doctrinal story of creation in chapter 1 lists man and woman in exactly the same way - both are made in the image of God. The narrative of chapter 2 says that women is made of man, but only in a positive sense - she is made of the same substance that he is, and after her creation man immediately goes on to praise her. In 2:24 the narrator uses the whole thing to explain the physical connection of marriage.

    Modern day Christianity is still caught up in the patriarchal times of our grandparents' generation, let alone of biblical times. Christianity is often very conservative about tradition, and even the most progressive denomination (CofE) took a long time to ordain women as priests. Regardless of this, it seems that the more extreme you go with regards to beliefs about the roles of women (Catholic, Orthodox, etc.), the more you get veneration of Jesus' mother Mary and other female saints. Obviously some of the more conservative fundamentalist protestants still hold a fairly negative attitude towards women, but it's clearly a very complex issue in modern Christianity, and it's therefore certainly not possible to say that Christianity in general promotes the subordination of women.


    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Were am i denying this? You keep citing the logical explanation of religious text. I agree on the origins, and why they were written. My problem is that they are still believed, and have such a negative impact on the world. They are bronze age explanations being applied to a world which transcends the need for such things.
    I talk about the logical explanation of religious texts because, when we can appreciate this, we can recognise the fundamental values that the Jews were expressing through them. If we understand their worldview then we can move past it and see what core beliefs they held. Thus the aetiology of 3:16 is not about the Jews' opinions on women, but on their understanding of why they suffer - it is meaningless to a discussion about whether Christianity promotes the subordination of women. If you accept that we can move on from it - that's the reason I was mentioning them, not because I think they should still be believed in themselves (although that's not to say they don't speak different sorts of truths).


    (Original post by Aeolus)
    No, the majority of Abrahamic belief is innately patriarchal, the subordination of women has been a constant which survives to this day. The reason being, like you say yourself, is because it was developed in primitive, patriarchal society.
    I'll repeat that other material, such as Genesis 1:26-28, transcends this. For a NT example, Galatians 28 does nicely: There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.



    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Yes, but i am not solely talking the culture which the ancient Israelites developed their beliefs. I am also talking about the modern culture in which these belliefs are still taken literally. We are not ancient Israelites, and just because the beliefs were developed in that ancient world, it does not justify anything morally abhorrent which exists within.

    Your argument seems to be, 'It's ok to believe these things because they were developed during a time when primitive and brutal tradition was the norm.'
    I'm not arguing in defence of Christians who take Genesis 1-11 literally, and who therefore believe that woman was literally the root of all evil by taking the fruit and giving it to man, and that God genuinely ordained that she should be subservient to man. Sorry - I thought that would be obvious in my first post when I wrote about the Israelites at Genesis' time of writing. Obviously if you believe that God/Moses wrote Genesis, and therefore that it's literal truth, then Genesis does promote the subordination of women. My point is that that Christianity isn't the sort of Christianity that's put forward in the Bible, and to see what sort of Christianity is put forward you have to consider the people that wrote it.

    My argument is: 'if we recognise the primitive and brutal tradition as a cultural rather than religious influence, we can hope to find out what religious truths Christianity is based upon'.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yazr)
    Im not religeous, religion is dead to me.. im a non legalistic Christian who has a growing relationship with Jesus and has saw him do amazing things in my life and with others. The Church I go to sings Hillsongs like rock worship http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYLxPByRZjg Its AWESOME. Our church is radical and has over 100 youth members. Its update and amazing. Does anyone eles share this ? I Just get this idea that people think Christians are middle class wolly wearing jumper boring people.
    :lolwut:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Glad to hear it
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I'm a Christian and yet I feel a little sick.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.