I'm working on a school project regarding Shakespeare's play The Taming of the Shrew. In it, the disobedient daughter of a wealthy man is set to be married against her will. The "shrewish" daughter is named Katherina, and her suitor is named Petruchio. By the end of the play, the once independent Katherina has been "tamed" through mental and physical abuse by Petruchio, and has become a model wife who urges other women to realize that "Thy husband is thy lord, thy life, thy keeper, thy head, thy sovereign."

Needless to say, in modern times such events would be considered as sexist and misogynistic. However, as late as the 19th century such values were held by both men and women as the proper order. These values were derived from strict following of Christianity in Europe. Although the Bible does make some statements about women's rights, it more often seems to put women as lower in status than men, especially in the Old Testament. For one example, women are instructed to not speak as leaders in the Church and to keep silent (1 Timothy 2:12-15).

The recent Feminist movement made treatment of women as inferior to men to be a matter of misogyny, and not of adherance to traditional values. Because of their efforts, Christians have forgotten the Bible's statements about women. Joyce Meyer is a famous evangelist, despite the aforementioned fact that the Bible states for women to not teach.

Society is gradually trading traditonal values based on religion in favor of new values based on secular human rights. Feminists fought for gender equality, and modern religion has been affected as a result. Many devout Christians who practice the Bible ignore its statements on gender roles in society, but continue to extol other values that society continues to regard as acceptable. Even now, Gay Rights activists are fighting for their equality. The religious groups fight against it, because of the fact that the Bible regards homosexuality as "an abomination."

What if the Gay Rights groups win? Will religion be destroyed? Of course not, Christianity has endured for centuries. It is weakening, however, as people fight for human rights. If homosexuals win acceptance in society, perhaps Christians will no longer say that homosexuality is against traditional religious values, the same way they have with women's rights.

The equality of women isn't the only example of society's gradual rejection of traditional values. For one, the Bible states that slavery is acceptable, and that slaves should submit to their masters the same way that women should submit to their husbands. Another example is the belief that leaders are appointed by God and that we have no right to act against them. If that is true, were the United States' actions in removing Saddam Hussein from his position of power immoral? What about the effort to defeat Hitler in WWII? He was the leader of his country. Was he within his God-given rights as leader to do what he did, even what he did to God's chosen people?

My point is this: Are many of the traditional Christian values at odds with human rights? Is the acceptance of people for who they are wrong? It may seem like a noble cause, but if Christianity is true, then perhaps humanity, myself included, is ignorant of the dangers of the potential dangers of a united human race. Don't forget, according to the Bible humanity was once united in building the Tower of Babel, but God drove us apart by creating the language barrier. Maybe he's trying to save us from human rights.

I never translated the bible to imply it was here to impart human rights. Rather it was orchestrated in order to dictate gods ordinance, by any means necessary. In effect imparting an understanding that one had the right to accept one way , or be damned.

The Taming of the Shrew was an analogy of the life and times, as a contextual reference, to the socio-political model of the era in which it was penned. (1623) A time that boasted stockades in the public square, pyres for the torching of heretics, etc... While Shakespeare's fiction did describe many a mans understanding of the care and feeding of his servant spouse, it was drafted at a time when that fiction was real life for many women of the time.

Ever heard that old saying; rule of thumb?
Know where it came from!? Back in the day a man was permitted to beat his wife, in large part because the christian ideology was one and the same with the political authorities. Monarchs gleaned , in large measure, much of their authority under the auspices of the clergy. It came about because as long as the branch a man used to beat his wife was no wider than his thumb, it was legal to wield it to keep her in line. Because the bible says a woman shall be subservient to her husband in all things. Women were considered property, and as such that is why , in some cases even today, we hear marriage vows recited as: I now pronounce you man and wife.

Human rights , to this day , have no place in the precepts of many monotheistic practices. Case in point, as has been said in other threads, prohibitions of birth control in Africa, where the catholic temples have erected their authority over the people breeding and starving to death amid the plague of AIDS. Where witchdoctors council believers of their faithful practice, that if one suspects they may have AIDS/HIV or wish to insulate themselves against the dread plague, they must rape a baby girl child. The younger the better. Faith makes this practice occur. Pagan or christian, people are being abused, are dying, in the midst of disease and infirmity, starvation and poverty. While the church of Rome could pave the streets of those villages with the gold, like onto the pathways in their heaven, and never suffer a deficit in the balance of the vatican bank. And all the while their coffers are filled at the expense of human right not to die like that, in the name of anyone's god. Religion isn't about human rights. It's about human supplication, to accepting after life all shall be better, while one cleaves to the faith in real mortal torture, it's all god's will.

Makes for a whole new translation of that line jesus is said to have uttered from the cross, doesn't it!? Forgive them father, for they know not what they do!

I've made a thread with my original post on a Christian forum, too. I'm looking forward to how the responses will differ here and there.

Which forum, if I might inquire. There's also a christian magic forum you might be interested in posting this inquiry at: http://esotericchristian.com/forum/index.php

Christian...magick? That's a new one to me. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of Christians think magic(k) is evil, judging by how many of them want Harry Potter books banned.

Here's the link: http://forums.christianity.com/Traditional..._1948422/tm.htm

BTW, part of the reason I put that stuff in bold is because I didn't want them to immediately lock the thread, and the other is that I'm guilty of wanting "afterlife insurance."

I think you'll find there are actually very few Christians wanting to ban Harry Potter. I think most would be just as enthralled (or apalled, depending on taste) with the books as anyone else.

You need to stop thinking of fundementalists as being what most Christians are like.
Most Americans who claim to practice Christian values, bought tons of the books and have gay friends.
Call it an alternative lifestyle if that helps (Even though we all pretty live the same as you do).

I'm a christian (catholic jew) thats funny. I like Harry Potter I got them for my son I have friend's that are gay I love them. As for magic I think there are very few people in the world that have special powers some may call it magic.

I live in Georgia and was raised as a Southern Baptist. To them, if you're not a Christian Fundamentalist, you're probably not really a Christian.

What is really a 'christian' what does that say about one wwhat qualifys one to be a 'christian'

Very true. I attended a church service @ a Southern Baptist temple when I visited my relatives in Sunnyside Georgia as a child. I remember to this day the minister preaching from his pulpit one Sunday and right after Hanukkah. Probably because a jewish temple was just a few blocks away and their parking lot was more full than his. Condemning the jews for not accepting christ as the savior and messiah. He then went on to condemn all sects of christianity not southern baptist, because he said they were all going to hell for not accepting and practicing the literal commands of god. And though they are not the only christian sect that thinks like that, they are some of the most ardent on the matter, that I've yet to meet.

I just finished reading a book "Anna, Grandmother of Jesus" by Claire Heartsong. It is one of a number of books that describe Jesus's teachings in a different light than traditional biblical accounts. For one thing the 12 diciples were actually 24. Each male teacher had an equally qualified female partner with skills and abilities that matched their own.

I suspect over the years various biblical translations may have lost a bit of detail. I think each of us has a point of view reguarding the christian message that comes from the particular community of thought we grew up with. There are many christian religions.

I think it is time to appreciate our beliefs and to consider expanding out thoughts about them.

very well said and i think i will get this book too...have you read Ferrini books or ';A course in Miracles", also very good..I agree thre are many persepctives and the truly insirational thing is to cultivate a appreciation for them all... welcome to UM ....

I love your take on Taming of the Shrew. Shakespeare would have loved it no doubt. The opinions on the Christian site were equally fascinating. Some chastised you for questioning, denied the
place of women in the Bible, one even question the relevants of Shakespeare in modern times, but all of them were clueless of the womens movement and how it changed the plight of women in society. It is so sad women don't know their history.



Keep questioning my friend. I believe it is the questions that change the world. No matter what they say Shakespeare is always relevant.

You've perked my curiosity here. Which translations are they that you beliegve have lost a little detail, and how does this detail differ from the original? Thanks in advance.....

Hi,

The entire book and another with the title "Anna, woman of mirachles, Grandmother of Jesus" by Vivian Van Dike and Carol Haenni describe events not represented in the traditional Bible translations.

An example might be how the birth of Jesus took place vs the account from the book of Luke. Luke was busy when Christ was born and mid-wife Anna was there to deliver Jesus into our world.

I do not wish to debate various belief systems. To me they are all valid and necessary for our evolution in awareness.

I hope you can understand my points of view on this matter.

John

What was Luke said to be busy doing!? We're talking prophesied messiah birth here, I'd have ascribed a "do over" to anything else, just to see that!

I also like your take on matters of affording respect to viewpoints because they assist with our evolution in awareness. I think part of that includes preventing our being bored, while here. If it wasn't for so much input it would be rather drab and mundane, no!?

Luke had been attending another birthing mother.

Ah I see. Thank you for clearing that up. I'll look for the book you recommended at my local library or bookstore.

John very well said " I do not wish to debate various belief systems. To me they are all valid and necessary for our evolution in awareness."

that is beautiful, we are on the path we are one becasuse its best suited to our growth.... thanks for these words of wisdom....i was gonna tell you too the authors on the book as I was at the Book store yesterday and was off on the author lol....i look forward to reading this myself..