Is Christianity Feminine?

[Jin-roh]

I've been reading a book on the subject of "the feminization of Christianity" (before any rocks fly, I do support women-leadership in the Church) and this same subject has come up twice on another message board I post at. My question is more for non-theists than anything, but any Christians please feel free to chime in.

Assuming you're a Male who is not interested in Christianity, does that fact that you're a Male hold you back at all, or is it just other reasons?

Assumint that you're a Male who is a Christian, do you believe that Women or Men have an easier time relating to God or is it just equal?

For everybody, do you generally think that Christianity (or perhaps religion in general) is more Masculine or Feminine or is it pretty egalatarian?

[The Cid]

Thing is though, the Bible was the first thing written to the tune that there are just no good roles FOR women.

Check out the role of women in the Bible. Or, better yet, name all the women perceived as "good" in there.

Now, think of all the OTHER women.

So it might be easier for a woman to come to Christ, but there are underlying beliefs in Christianity that speak to the contrary.

[Blaze]

Thing is though, the Bible was the first thing written to the tune that there are just no good roles FOR women.

Not really. Everything from the cultures in that area in the days of the Old Testament were MAJORLY male oriented.

And no, as a Christian, I don't see it. Why should it be easier for either. Comming to christ simply means accepting he's both God and the son of God, and acknowledging that only through his aid can one reach heaven.

Unless you're implying that it's because guys don't like asking for help, which is completely illogical. Matters of the spirit are NOTHING like matters of the Earth.

[Bigity]

There are several "roles" in the Bible for Christian women, and yes, it's just as easy for women to be saved as anyone else.

[Jin-roh]

[quote="The Cid";p="530240"]Thing is though, the Bible was the first thing written to the tune that there are just no good roles FOR women.[/quote]

Wouldn't that be a pretty hard thing for you to prove?

Check out the role of women in the Bible. Or, better yet, name all the women perceived as "good" in there.

Ruth, Esther, Dorcas, Mary... etc

And no, as a Christian, I don't see it. Why should it be easier for either. Comming to christ simply means accepting he's both God and the son of God, and acknowledging that only through his aid can one reach heaven.

I wasn't referring to just salvation. I was talking about Christian worship and Christain life in general. The book I'm reading has pointed out that even in the "male-dominated" Catholic Church, women run most things are available for laity, while men are not interested. Also statistically speaking, women usually outnumber men in regular church attendance.

[Euthanatos]

[quote="Blaze";p="530253"]
Unless you're implying that it's because guys don't like asking for help, which is completely illogical. Matters of the spirit are NOTHING like matters of the Earth.[/quote]

This is the sort of line I love. Matters of the spirit are every bit wholly the matter of the Earth. I suppose you think Mass was just handed down from God, and had nothing to do with the cult of Mithras, and other such amusing notions that keep alive the idea of "my religion is True and totally not an artificial construct by a bunch of people looking for a better method of social control to maintain status quo?"

On a more on-topic note, with the exception of the Virgin Mary, women in the Bible are portrayed as sinful, petty, evil things. Even the 'good' ones are generally good only because of an absence of bad qualities, not because they possess wisdom and holiness in abundance. The lack of females in church positions of power should be clear enough indication of the real feelings of the religion.

[Deacon]

[quote="Euthanatos";p="531083"]"my religion is True and totally not an artificial construct by a bunch of people looking for a better method of social control to maintain status quo?"[/quote]
That's really an inaccurate statement. You would be right in saying that "at times in the history of the world people looking for a social control have used man's inherent belief in the supernatural as a means to that end." But to say that it's all created from scratch by these people is just plain silly.

On a more on-topic note, with the exception of the Virgin Mary, women in the Bible are portrayed as sinful, petty, evil things. Even the 'good' ones are generally good only because of an absence of bad qualities, not because they possess wisdom and holiness in abundance.

Do you have any examples of any sort?

The lack of females in church positions of power should be clear enough indication of the real feelings of the religion.

Actually, that would be more an indication of societal matters than religious, especially as such things vary between subgroups and along the timeline.

[PhoenixGeek]

I don't think religion has a gender prefrence, any prefrence is just the social climate showing through like it does in all other facets of life.
I have the same qualms with all organized religions, it dosn't matter if they are Male or Female centered.
As far as relateing to God, I have met more women who have a holier than thou devout attitude than men, but I think that might have just been there personalities to begin with.

[Seraphim]

But to say that it's all created from scratch by these people is just plain silly.

Why? If you can't prove that there was ever divine intervention, then you also can't prove that people haven't just made it all up. Which also means, if it's very possible, it's also plausable. By connecting the dots, if it's plausable it's not really silly. You may not like the notion, but that doesn't make it silly. You may be right, and Jesus may be one of the 3 parts of god, but that doesn't make a belief to the contrary silly.

Actually... now that I think about it... the whole trinity thing is just plain silly.

Posted Wed Aug 10, 2005 1:37 pm:

Do you have any examples of any sort?

Eve

[Deacon]

[quote="Seraphim";p="531243"]Why? If you can't prove that there was ever divine intervention, then you also can't prove that people haven't just made it all up.[/quote]
Those two points are entirely unrelated. Until modern times, what society do you know of was atheist? None I can think of. Human beings, wherever they are, wherever they came from, whatever differences in society may exist, they all look at the world around them and instinctively accept that gods or the supernatural in general, exists and works in their lives. Can (and have) people manipulated that to meet their own ends? Of course. Did they make up these ideas and plant them in people's heads, before which time there was no thought of the supernatural, making up a completely new and original idea out of the blue? Of course not.

You may not like the notion, but that doesn't make it silly.

That I may not like it has little bearing on whether it's plausible, as you noted, though part of the reason I don't like it is that it's so silly.

Do you have any examples of any sort?

Eve

...? That's not an example. It's a person. Explain. While it may seem silly to ask you to explain, it's because I imagine there's some sort of misconception you've got about it. Eve was actually not the focus of the incident in the garden. She was the one who was initially deceived, but Adam was right there with her, and he knew better, but he ate anyway, and he was the one who took the brunt of the responsibility for it, even trying and failing to push the blame off onto Eve. Now, you may already be familiar with all this. I don't know. Maybe you're referring to something else. But tossing a single name out there, much less frickin' Eve herself, is not an adequate response.

[Seraphim]

To your first point: There is a portion of the brain that's responsible for supernatural belief. The affinity is there, and has been for thousands of years. So many religions were obviously B.S. Sacrafice to the god of this so he won't do that.

I personally believe that it's more likely for any one religion, to have the B.S. factor in common with all the other religions, than to somehow be the one true faith.

To your third point: Wasn't she the one that talked Adam, into disobeying god and eating the fruit?

[Deacon]

Well, technically Genesis 3:6 goes like this: "When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it..." According to verse 17, God did say to Adam, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree..." but that had no bearing on Adam's responsibility or punishment, and the actual problem was not listening to his wife but rather the eating from the tree.

[Skuzzo]

True.

Confessionals would be stuffed to overflowing if "not listening to your wife" was the original sin

[Deacon]

Regardless, I'm still waiting for a valid example from Seraphim with explanation.

[Seraphim]

Regardless, I'm still waiting for a valid example from Seraphim with explanation.

Deacon... please quote me, in this thread, where I said

women in the Bible are portrayed as sinful, petty, evil things.

Because I could have sworn someone else said that, and I just put out eve as a possible example. Don't give me this it's up to me to prove my assertions, bull shit. I didn't assert anything. I merely tried to contribute to someone elses assertion. Vendetta much?