Feminism in The Holy Bible.

cuppajoe9 "Are we perhaps using diferent definitions of 'theocracy'? I know of no theocracies (autocratic governments based on religion) that have been tollerant of feminism, past or present."

Theocracy is rule by God, that is, in human terms at least, an egalitarian anarchy. It is not "autocratic government based on religion." You will have difficulty, therefore in finding any example of a theocracy. Only by twisting the meaning to a more convenient definition can you make your assertion.

Maybe Israel/Judah in the times of the Judges approximated to a theocracy. There were no rulers, and leaders arose only briefly, in times of crisis, afterwards beating their swords back into ploughshares.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whifflingpin

Theocracy is rule by God, that is, in human terms at least, an egalitarian anarchy. It is not "autocratic government based on religion." You will have difficulty, therefore in finding any example of a theocracy. Only by twisting the meaning to a more convenient definition can you make your assertion.

---

From my Oxford American Dictionary:

Quote:

---

theocracy
noun

a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god

---

Iran, which is semi-democratic, fits that definition, as did the governments of England and France until gained their Parliaments gained some real power (remebering that the monarchs of both countries claimed to rule from God). You and Jimco are, of course, entitled do use the word 'theocracy' to mean a kind of religious egalitarian anarchy, in which case I agree that no examples are forthcoming, but I stand by my comments about theocracies as I define the term.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

From my Oxford American Dictionary:

"theocracy -noun:
a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god"

Iran, which is semi-democratic, fits that definition, as did the governments of England and France until gained their Parliaments gained some real power (remebering that the monarchs of both countries claimed to rule from God). You and Jimco are, of course, entitled do use the word 'theocracy' to mean a kind of religious egalitarian anarchy, in which case I agree that no examples are forthcoming, but I stand by my comments about theocracies as I define the term.

---

Fair enough, although the more precise term "hierocracy" is a better fit with the definition given above.

Your original definition also included the term "autocratic," which I suppose you are also redefining to mean "authoritarian," rather than rule by one person. Your original sentences could be amended to "[Authoritarian governments] of any kind have always and will always deprive women and minorities of their rights. The problem is with authoritarianism"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shakira

Hey a big thanks to all for all your help. Thanks from Christine too.

---

Hi, Shakira.
If your friend don't mind, can you share us the conclusion (perhaps just little summary) of the project? I'd like to read it. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimco

The reason I took the time to do a short Bible study is that this subject is so important to our time. There is a vast difference between the way women are treated in Islam and in the West. The west is far from perfect but it is far closer to equality between men and women. We let women drive, go to college, wear their choice of colors, etc.
Perfect equality will only happen when we have the perfect authoritarian theocracy that will rule forever. Mat 22:30 "At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven." We are all going to have perfect bodies and there will be no more male or female roles.
Until that time, all of us who are interested in preserving or increasing equality for women must work together to defend the freedoms we have. The USA is the only western nation that doesn't have a negative population growth. The average birth per woman in Europe is 1.5. The average in muslim nations is 3.9. So, Europe encourages immigration from Muslim states to have enough young workers to pay the retirement benefits of the elderly. Last year, the most popular name for a baby born in the Netherlands was Mohammed. So, how long until the immigrants rule the culture? How long until our western freedoms are lost? A generation? That's why having and raising children in the English speaking world is so important to achieving feminism.
This is not drivel about a woman's place in the home; it is a fact. Fathers need to be in the home raising their kids too. Drivel is saying that Muslims and Christians pray to the same God.
Sure, only One God hears them both, but prayer is a conversation, not just a recital.

---

Just saw this thread sounded interesting but excuse me and Im going say it sorry mods I know this is toeing the line but that Offends you and shows blatant ignorance about Islam in any form except the western representation of it. In fact Id go so far and say bigoted twisted Xenophobic ideas like that held by both side or should I say all 3 sides is the cause of most of the religious problems in the history of the world.

So women and Islam youll hear Muslims bang on about it all the time but the truth is that God did actually give equality in Islam ( or as close as). We had the choice of who to marry, the control of our own money, protection within marriage, the right to divorce and remarry. I can think of the ayah right now sadly but I will find it. At the moment Im not talking the whole Islamic world but the parts Ive visited women are more or less pushed into going to college/uni it even more important than a man. There is great importance to a woman having a HE certificate mostly so she can rub it in the noses of ignorant men like mechanics who try and cheat you blind. Im not saying again everywhere but I have ( and Ive hopped around the middle east all my life) yet to visit a country that doesn’t give me the freedom to wear what I want.


But an important thing I think youve missed is you cant compare religion to a culture and thats what your doing. Because every country that is Islamic is also a country with its own social customs etc. And youll find that culture comes out , it stains through and eventually even religion starts bending the way of culture.


As to the muslim God, of course hes the christian God all the Abrahammic religions believe in the same God we just argue about details, someone said to me the other day well obvious there is nothing as bloody a civil war except war within families.

Muslims belive in:

God the one Creator of the universe and all within it. ( In seven days, well it might have been six and the seventh was a rest but you get the idea?)
The angels, The holy books; Toura Bible, Abrahams book ( cant remember what its called) and the Koran.

We believe in heaven and Hell, we believe in 'the Last day' or judgment day or Armageddon or whatever you want to call it in Islam it happens to have 99 names as does God btw.

We even believe in the anti-Christ and the return of Jesus to save us all and lead all "believers"( including Christians and Jews) to safety and I assume heaven.

In fact the real only difference is we believe that while one of Gods greatest miracles Jesus was NOT the son of God or the embodiment of God but a prophet and messenger. Also that he did not die but was risen to heaven alive and that another took his place on the cross and died in his stead.

and this has got to be one of the longest posts Ive ever had sorry people

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whifflingpin

Fair enough, although the more precise term "hierocracy" is a better fit with the definition given above.

Your original definition also included the term "autocratic," which I suppose you are also redefining to mean "authoritarian," rather than rule by one person. Your original sentences could be amended to "[Authoritarian governments] of any kind have always and will always deprive women and minorities of their rights. The problem is with authoritarianism"

---

Yes, sorry, I misused the word 'autocracy' in my original post. Yours is a fair revision.

This comic pretty much sums up my attitude towards religious government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Not to mention the many anti-feminists who use the bible to justify their chauvinistic misogyny.

Just noticed this. Who would be offended?

---

Yet it is not the bible that encourages it is it? Its the people who wield it who are prone to error. The bible is merely a tool for salvation, which people following certain ideological ideas manipulate.

also, out of curiousity, is your friend seeking the fememist movement for a change in societal epistimology, taking feminist thought as the basis for actions instead of logic because logic is a self reflexive concept much like math, and feminist thought relies on emotion and so theoretically has more of a grounding in what humans are all about, or is your friend seeking the femenist movement that sought to bring females up to equal economic/social status as the men they are affiliated with, or are affiliated with them. because if your friend is comparing the former, than the bible is a veritable treasure trove for this new epistimology, in that we rely on emotions to explain reality rather than the outdated concept of natural law coupled with circular and selfe referencing trains of logic

TheBible and the whole lineage of Christianity is dominated by and rooted in male chauvinism.

In fact Jesus was married. The world of popes and other fascists tried to conceal this fact.

Those quotes are rather sticky translations and mistranslations from the original. My favorite is from Dvarim where "god" tells the people, if a woman is taken in a field by a man, and calls out, the man is stoned to death. If a woman is taken in a field and does not cry out, they are both stoned to death. That pretty much caps it, female sexual liberation is non-existent in the text. Note, this translation is roughly from my head and from memory, I read the original some time ago, and I know this is taken from one of the last parashot.

The new text is most definitely misogynist, from my reckoning. I only read it in translation (I cannot read biblical Greek), but my general impression is it seems to take a misogynist position on everything, stemming from the blaming of the fall from Eden to a woman (the original Hebrew text does this too, but it is interpreted less to be her fault, and more to be the snake's, and is also somewhat transfered to Adam).

In terms of equality, the Bible is most definitely misogynist. There is no question. Relative to the time, it was perhaps progressive, but as a moral code in our time, as Nietzsche said, "Gott ist tot".

Feminist in the bible essentially levels out to, "make sure your wife is well fed, and has what is needed to survive. Use force if she tries to step out of line. And Kill her if she steps too far out of line. If she displeases you, ship her back to her parents."

As for female heroines, most of the ones mentioned aren't really. They serve as heroic in terms of concubines for the heroic feats of their male counterparts.Devorah is hardly as famous as Barak. Rachel not nearly as famous as Jacob, and she is best remembered as the object of his affection. Many women aren't even named, even if they have mention. For instance, Lot's Wife is always called Lot's Wife, even though it would have been easy to create a name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

TheBible and the whole lineage of Christianity is dominated by and rooted in male chauvinism.

In fact Jesus was married. The world of popes and other fascists tried to conceal this fact.

---

Prove it, did he even exist? How would they know if he was married or not. Where is the Aramaic bible? You either have to believe the text, or speculate about everything. You can't pick and choose.

I do not know and lack evidence or documents to prove whether or not Jesus existed. There is no documentary or evidential proof whether he really existed.

It does not matter he existed or not. But people keep on following him. I like Jesus as a human being not as a deity or divine entity.

Jesus as a human being is a very amicable personality.

He was a normal human being. He lived normally and died normally, though it was a Crucifixion.

He is the ideal incarnate. He was a living example of the culmination of truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Feminist in the bible essentially levels out to, "make sure your wife is well fed, and has what is needed to survive. Use force if she tries to step out of line. And Kill her if she steps too far out of line. If she displeases you, ship her back to her parents."

---

"You husbands must love your wives as Christ loved the Church. He gave up his life for her... In the same way Husbands ought to love their wives as they love their own bodies."

"A man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one."

Both of those are quotes from Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ. They are the opposite of what you said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rosalind

By 'feminism,' do you mean a stronge female precence, or an actual feminist movement? They're are plenty of strong women floating around (Rachel, Deborah, Mary, Judith, etc...), but since the whole thing takes place in various patriarchal societies, finding feminism as we know it today might be difficult. However, just as a starting point, your friend might want to check out Jesus' take on women's rights. Example: he said that men should have a very good reason (how extreme a reason varies between Gospels) before divorcing their wives. Men could divorce women for pretty much any reason they wanted with very little effort, leaving their ex-wives unwanted and without a future.

---

Indeed what you said is correct and women are treated like cattle in many countries. They are mostly, if not always physically weaker and less aggression beings. Their counterparts, males have calloused and colossal physical limbs or parts and they can not be a match for their male counterparts.

Definitely, in order that they prop up their physiques so that they can oppose or dissuade or antagonize any unruly male activities they need to wage a series of war against their counterpart males.