Friday, April 8, 2011

Andrei Oh no Jimmy, no

The world according to Jimmy Carter
Former President Jimmy Carter says much of the discrimination and abuse suffered by women around the world is attributable to a belief "that women are inferior in the eyes of God."

Carter said such teachings by "leaders in Christianity, Islam and other religions" allow men to beat their wives and deny women their fundamental rights as human beings.
So Pope Benedict, Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and the Archbishop of Canterbury are all going around promoting ideas that support wife beating and denying women their fundamental rights?

I don't think so.

10 comment(s):

Lucia Maria said...

Christianity teaches that women are inferior??? So then, the most perfect human being ever created, a woman, the Blessed Virgin Mary, doesn't count?

leftrightout said...

Yeah, well, you would say that, wouldn't you.

And yet, right from teh beginning, your god seems blind to women as being equal to men.

Take this bit from Deutoronomy " Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour's wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour's."

God is clearly speaking only to the men. Why doesn't he say "Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour's husband"?

He doesn't, because the words are not god's, they are Man's, and at a time when men saw women as about the same as cattle.

Or how about Psalm 51? " in sin did my mother conceive me". Seems as though sex is only sinful for a woman, but not a man. No mention of my father sinning by helping m,y mother conceive me.

I know, that's OT stuff, so let's look at NT, Luke 2, for example. "Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord". Why are women not to be called holy to the lord?

Or this truly lovely bit from Corinthians "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man."

Seems to me to be a pretty plain statement of the subordination of women.

And let's not get in to the whole women priests bit...

Andrei said...

Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

This does not mean that men and women should fulfill the same roles in the Church or in life itself, they fulfill complimentary roles - it is a modern heresy to try and make men and women interchangeable as well as impossible.

I.M Fletcher said...

Dave Armstrong writes on his blog (in answer to someone who thought the Catholic Church was sexist toward women) -

Funny, I hadn't noticed that [women are always second class citizens in the bible] after 33 years of intense Bible study. The Bible I read has Paul stating that there is no male or female in Christ. Husbands are to honor their wives and love them like Christ loved the Church (i.e., He died for us). The Bible I read shows women with great courage, being at the crucifixion, while all the male disciples except for John, were a bunch of wimps and cowards, and fled in terror (Peter having denied that he even knew Christ). Mary Magdalene was the first to see the risen Christ, and several women were in the forefront of that event, too, while the men were slow to believe. Jesus saved a woman from being stoned for adultery, on the grounds that her sin was not -- in the final analysis -- greater than anyone else's. Even Rahab the harlot is honored, because she helped the Israelite spies. Jesus greatly honored the woman who wiped His feet with her tears and rebuked his male host.

Mary the mother of Jesus is, in fact, the very highest of all God's creatures: far higher than any man. We Catholics believe she is sinless and immaculate (preserved from original sin from the moment of her conception; Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, actually believed the same thing, too). She is so exalted that Catholics are falsely accused of worshiping her all the time (we venerate her, which is essentially a high honor, but not worship). I am working on a book about Mary this very day. Catholics believe that God even channels the grace of salvation through Mary. Many other women are treated with great dignity and honor (e.g., Judith, Esther).

"Liberated" women have really come a long way recently, haven't they? They learned to smoke like men, and started dying of lung cancer at the same rate that men died. Real liberation there. Now they have accepted men's selfish lies about abortion and have learned to slaughter their own offspring before they can even get out of the womb, and call that outrage a "choice" and a "right." Real progress there too.

The Bible, in elevating marriage to a lifelong commitment and a sacrament, protected women from much abuse. But now we have gone beyond all that. Now we are liberated and see women as sex objects and mere playthings that can be jettisoned if they are too old or undesirable. That is what our wonderful sexual revolution has brought us. Generally, it is women who suffer to a much greater extent economically after divorce (along with children). We know that; there is no question about it. It is the "puritanical" Christians who are in the forefront of the fight against pornography: the very thing that promotes these views. But the secular society thinks pornography is great: everyone has a right to indulge in it. Anyone who protests is a prude and opposed to "free speech."

I'll take the biblical and Christian view of women any day, thank you.

leftrightout said...

Mary the mother of Jesus is, in fact, the very highest of all God's creatures: far higher than any man.

Oh yes, so high that god made her pregnant, without her consent.

Where I come from, that's called rape.

Lucia Maria said...

LRO,

I don't know where you get your ideas from. Here's Luke 1, where Mary is asked if she would be the mother of God.

26 And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, 27 to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David: and the virgin's name was Mary. 28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you: blessed are you among women. 29 Who having heard, was troubled at his saying and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for you have found grace with God. 31 Behold you shall conceive in your womb and shall bring forth a son: and you shall call his name Jesus. 32 He shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father: and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. 33 And of his kingdom there shall be no end. 35 And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon you and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of you shall be called the Son of God. 36 And behold your cousin Elizabeth, she also has conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren. 37 Because no word shall be impossible with God. 38 And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord: be it done to me according to your word. And the angel departed from her.

Our Lady consented by her words: "Behold the handmaid of the Lord: be it done to me according to your word."

leftrightout said...

Yeah, yeah, sure Ted. And would YOU be bold enough to refuse god?

And note that the bit about "be it done to me" sounds far more like submission than freely granted consent.

And why did god have to pick a woamn already betrothed, rather than another? Why was it necessary for god to cuckold Joseph?

Lucia Maria said...

LRO,

Mary was chosen from the beginning. She is the one God speaks of when He says in Genesis 3:15:

I will put enmities between you and the woman, and your seed and her seed: she shall crush your head, and you shall lie in wait for her heel.

Even though God always knew that she would say "Yes" on behalf of all humanity for Him to enter the world as a man, He still had to ask her. Her consent was freely given, she never did anything to go against Him - never never wanted to.

As for Joseph, given that Mary was never going to have children by him. The part I missed from the above makes that obvious.

34 And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?

leftrightout said...

But Mary DID have children by Joseph,or were all Jesus' siblings also conceived by god?

I guess I should hold this question for xmas,

But why did god feel it necessary to "enter the world as a man"?

Lucia Maria said...

LRO,

Mary did not have children by Joseph. Jesus' "siblings" were his cousins. There is no word in Aramaic or Hebrew for cousin. You have to say "son of my uncle", which is a bit annoying to say, so brother would be typically used.

God became a man in order to divinise us. There is also a theory that it was his plan all along to become one with his creatures (us) and become a man, and this was the test given to the angels. A test which a third of them failed, so outraged were they that God would stoop so low.

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.