Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
ouija ouija

Women allowed to speak .... sort of ....

143 posts in this topic

Union's have leaders, people who run them ...... why wouldn't his/her name be on the Union's site? Most people are extremely proud to be the president of a uni-group because it looks good on their CV.

It's right there under exec...

Interestingly, the exec seems to be almost exactly half and half of each gender.

Don't get me wrong, if they are doing what the media is claiming, I'm wholly against it. I just think some people could do to check their facts before they jump to conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Discrimination against women has always been a facet of the Christian Church it's just that now that women are rising in power certain factions feel more threatened and now we have this hitting the public. Depending on the school and the denomination of the administration there are even stronger rules against women and equal rights for women. Some religious colleges here in the states do not allow women to wear pants, either at school or work in places where they have to wear pants. You can't make this stuff up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's right there under exec...

Interestingly, the exec seems to be almost exactly half and half of each gender.

Don't get me wrong, if they are doing what the media is claiming, I'm wholly against it. I just think some people could do to check their facts before they jump to conclusions.

Thank you. For some reason I assumed the leaders' names would be on the 'home' page. James Howlett(International Chair), has resigned because he feels so strongly that women shouldn't be teaching.

I'm not surprised the exec has a number of women in it; there are plenty of women who are anti women priests.

No conclusions being jumped to here! No-one from Bristol uni is denying what the papers are reporting ....... but they are trying to explain why it's happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not surprised the exec has a number of women in it; there are plenty of women who are anti women priests.

True and good point.

No conclusions being jumped to here! No-one from Bristol uni is denying what the papers are reporting ....... but they are trying to explain why it's happened.

I was referring to people's assumptions that the exec would be male dominated and that the president would want to keep his name away from the public.

Edited by Setton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you didn't say that many here are overreacting and comparing this to sharia law(in fact only one poster did that), which is why I understood you to be referring to the general readership of the newspapers.

'This is how the media criminalises their most hated religion, christianity' ..... if that isn't overreacting, I don't know what is.

'I am not a christian and I am not defending this practice, but comparing them to fundamentalist muslims living under sharia law is a massive exaggeration that does a disservice to the reader': only one poster here did that and none of the articles I have read have done that, so again I feel you have jumped to a conclusion and overreacted.

We will have to agree to disagree regarding the Union's response.

I did not actually accuse you of having an anti-muslim agenda, I merely commented that that was what your reaction suggested to me. (Having a muslim spouse would not necessarily prevent you from having anti-muslim feelings).

Union's have leaders, people who run them ...... why wouldn't his/her name be on the Union's site? Most people are extremely proud to be the president of a uni-group because it looks good on their CV.

:w00t: Not much more to say here. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said that the article referred to it as sharia like, I was referring to people's responses here.

Hardly anyone here mentioned Islam. I did. This was my comment:

As for them converting to Islam. Well, I suppose if they adopt the slogan "If you think Christians treat women bad, you should get a load of us".

Now, the only way that is comparing Christianity to Islam, is to make the rather obvious statement that women tend to fare much better in Christianity than they do Islam. However, there are certain similarities. Misogyny is alive and well in both religions. But Islam takes it to a completely different level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hardly anyone here mentioned Islam. I did. This was my comment:

As for them converting to Islam. Well, I suppose if they adopt the slogan "If you think Christians treat women bad, you should get a load of us".

Now, the only way that is comparing Christianity to Islam, is to make the rather obvious statement that women tend to fare much better in Christianity than they do Islam. However, there are certain similarities. Misogyny is alive and well in both religions. But Islam takes it to a completely different level.

I agree, no one said anything about converting. The Saudi and Afghanistan references allude to Islamic fundamentalism, though, wouldn't you say?

Edited by Merc14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, no one said anything about converting. The Saudi and Afghanistan references allude to Islamic fundamentalism, though, wouldn't you say?

I missed the Saudi reference, but I recall Afghanistan being mentioned. It's a bit like Godwin's Law, which relates to how any conservative or rightwing speaker eventually gets likened to Hitler. But when it comes to how women are viewed in religions, Islam and Christianity do have similarities. The scale of it may be different, but the principles are the same. Women do not have comparable status to men. I don't think it's wrong to point out this is something that they have in common. And the cry of "Well at least we don't cut off their hands" is not much of a defence, however accurate it is.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I missed the Saudi reference, but I recall Afghanistan being mentioned. It's a bit like Godwin's Law, which relates to how any conservative or rightwing speaker eventually gets likened to Hitler. But when it comes to how women are viewed in religions, Islam and Christianity do have similarities. The scale of it may be different, but the principles are the same. Women do not have comparable status to men. I don't think it's wrong to point out this is something that they have in common. And the cry of "Well at least we don't cut off their hands" is not much of a defence, however accurate it is.

I'm not a christian so please don't suggest that I am. I find most religions fairly repugnant but this little club is in no way comparable to sharia law in a country that is governed by the same. Sorry. They have no police powers and aren't killing non-believers so comparisons are ridiculous, to say the least. Yeah, some religious beliefs are more repugnant than others, like religions that strap bombs on the mentally retarded and march them into classrooms where they blow them up but you may not see the difference. There is one, however, and we need to recognize that. It is like comparing republicans to nazis, pretty ridiculous but the liberals argument de-jour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a christian so please don't suggest that I am.

Didn't think I did. You made that clear a couple of posts back, so where did I suggest you were?

I find most religions fairly repugnant but this little club is in no way comparable to sharia law in a country that is governed by the same. Sorry. They have no police powers and aren't killing non-believers so comparisons are ridiculous, to say the least. Yeah, some religious beliefs are more repugnant than others, like religions that strap bombs on the mentally retarded and march them into classrooms where they blow them up but you may not see the difference. There is one, however, and we need to recognize that. It is like comparing republicans to nazis, pretty ridiculous but the liberals argument de-jour.

That's what I said. Not sure what you object to here. I stated that misogyny is common to both religions. Do you disagree? I also stated that there's a clear difference in the scale of them? It's the same level of thinking. Christianity has just moved closer to the 21st century than Islam has.

Edited by Arbenol68
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes women are something to be feared. Everything that is wrong with the world is the fault of Eve. I was on an Multiple Sclerosis site, and there was a discussion about people blaming themselves for having this horrible disease. This Christian piped up saying it was all the fault of Eve eating the forbidden fruit. Believe it or not I didn't answer it. It is the nature of the site you just let that kind of thing go. But it just flabbier gassed me how people use religion to control and keep women subservient. They are our Mothers, sisters and wives shouldn't they have our respect.

These guys must be possessed by the gay demon. :wacko:

LOL!

Well, I really shouldn't be surprised, BUT, well, I kinda am in this day and age. These silly, silly men are going to have a surprise pretty soon me thinks.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

As usual, the story is an exaggeration of what is really going on and drew the desired response from the target audience.

So, because they are religious, this means, they can never discriminate anyone? They could never pick up their bible, and follow the words of Paul ?

This is how the media criminalizes their most hated religion, christianity.

Oh my word, you previously accused the media for exaggerating, and you come out with this? Tell me, what news paper do you work for?.. If you don't work in the media, you should, I'd say you would blend right in :lol: I am kidding here, but I do think you have greatly exaggerated, for the article did not in any way make them look like criminals, it is just speaking about discrimination

Edited by Beckys_Mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always doubted the authenticity of Paul and his rantings, compared to so much of the NT - he just does not GEL, I'm putting it out there as just an opinion (no proof) that he was either a power hungry usurper or the creation of a Patriarchal church to keep the social strata to their liking.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to interrupt the Chrisitan bashing, but there is an opportunity to see where misogyny fits into the picture.

1 Corinthians is usually held to be genuine Paul. There is no reason to think that Paul discouuraged women from participation in his churches. We have pagan wtness, Pliny the Younger's letter to Trajan, that women held ecclesiastical rank in Gentile-area churches decades after Paul. The letter as a whole commends individual women, and presumes that women do speak in church. The passage from the letter which is usually cited against women, 14: 33-35

... As in all the churches of the holy ones, women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. But if they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church.

is widely held to be an interpolation, or as I believe, a quotation from the letter which Paul is answering. Putting aside that adherence to "the law" is contrary to what Paul teaches here and elsewhere, the remainder of what is now the 14th chapter is an admonition to orderliness within open whole-community charismatic expression. In other words, Paul quotes the passage to refute it. In particular, 14: 36 scathes 33-35:

Did the word of God go forth from you? Or has it come to you alone?

Too bad the quote box hadn't been invented yet.

Moreover, it is clear that 1 Corinthians has nothing to do with the OP dispute. The student club is not a church, as both the club and its parent orgnaization have said. This dispute, then, must turn on some more general injunction against women teaching, an injunction that is not tied to a church venue. My guess is 1 Timothy 2: 11- 15:

A woman must receive instruction silently and under complete control. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. Further, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed. But she will be saved through motherhood, provided women persevere in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

Wow. There's just one problem for Christian parodizers. Many scholars believe that Paul didn't write 1 Timothy. Well, that's OK, Fundies (who believe it was written by Paul because it says it was and every word in the Bible, sometimes in an English translation of the Bible, is literally true) meet with the less well-informed Christian counterapologists to insist that Paul wrote this, sure as shootin'. In both cases, unquestionned authenticity suits their agendas.

Christianity has denominations. No kidding. Some of them are Biblical literalists.

(Literally? Literally, we are reading someone else's mail. To pretend that it is addressed to us screams of some other foundation for misogyny finding expression under a cover of religiosity. Yes, Islam has a parallel problem, as rightly came up here.)

The organization whose chapter we ae gathered to discuss aspires to be a meeting place for all denominations, which probably means all denominations of the minority of Christianity that is Protestantism. So, yes, tensions are to be expected, and as the parent organization points out in the patronizing way that is a British artform, college students cannot be expected to handle gracefully problems that confound their elders, in this case, the fractioning of Protestantism.

What happened here is that one chapter officer (an "international secretary," whatever that means) threatened to resign over having to listen to women in what he had hoped he could make into a gentleman's club. Then another officer ostensibly wrote an email about a compromise with idiocy that got leaked (and which the Mail was only too happy to present as a policy statement). Immediately, wiser heads prevailed, both at the chapter and organization levels.

As some object lesson about the nature of Christianity, the story is Cow#. I'd hate to be accused of promoting male dominance in my identification of the substance which is being served to us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christianity has denominations. No kidding. Some of them are Biblical literalists.

(Literally? Literally, we are reading someone else's mail. To pretend that it is addressed to us screams of some other foundation for misogyny finding expression under a cover of religiosity. Yes, Islam has a parallel problem, as rightly came up here.)

The organization whose chapter we ae gathered to discuss aspires to be a meeting place for all denominations, which probably means all denominations of the minority of Christianity that is Protestantism. So, yes, tensions are to be expected, and as the parent organization points out in the patronizing way that is a British artform, college students cannot be expected to handle gracefully problems that confound their elders, in this case, the fractioning of Protestantism.

What happened here is that one chapter officer (an "international secretary," whatever that means) threatened to resign over having to listen to women in what he had hoped he could make into a gentleman's club. Then another officer ostensibly wrote an email about a compromise with idiocy that got leaked (and which the Mail was only too happy to present as a policy statement). Immediately, wiser heads prevailed, both at the chapter and organization levels.

Thank you for this part of your post :tsu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to know if anyone has stood up in church and told everyone to disregard everything in 1 Timothy because scholars believe it's a fraud. I'm sure the person would be a very positive reception to this news! :w00t:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ouija ouija

Thank you for this part of your post

I'm happy that we aren't hopelessly at cross- purposes.

scowl

I would love to know if anyone has stood up in church and told everyone to disregard everything in 1 Timothy because scholars believe it's a fraud. I'm sure the person would be a very positive reception to this news!

I suppose that if you could locate a church today where the problems with attributing 1 Timothy to Paul were still news, after they've been known by so many for so long, then the reception probably would be negative. On the men's side of the room, anyway.

I don't hang out much in churches, but the last time I was in a church, the celebrant was a lesbian community leader. She read with approval from Titus, which has the same authorship problems as 1 Timothy. I did remark upon it at the time, but apparently to "disregard everything" in the Pastorals isn't the only response to pseudepigraphy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose that if you could locate a church today where the problems with attributing 1 Timothy to Paul were still news, after they've been known by so many for so long, then the reception probably would be negative. On the men's side of the room, anyway.

I'm happy to hear that churches are property warning people that the authorship of Timothy is questionable therefore everything written in it should also be in question if not disregarded. That's the right thing to do instead of misleading people into thinking that Paul wrote those things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A self regulating organisation has the right to make its own rules, unless those rules flout national laws. Even then religions are often specifically exempted in australai from some laws because we recognise the validity of all beliefs as a part of various cultural heritages. The govt (and populace) see it as bad form, and poor policy, to intrude on the practice of beliefs/non beliefs, by any person, without good reason.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just can't understand how these people can call themselves Christians. Jesus Christ himself never said or did anything remotely close to this descrimination, where as Paul and many other "Christians" do, and yet claim they follow Christ's teachings. Many say because of this, Christianity is ludicris, and after things such as this I more than understand why people would come to such conclusions. However if you look back at Christ's own teachings, and truly follow and comprehend them, then you get much different stories than this kind of descrimanatory bullsh**...

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Auh come on people! We all know that any Religion in this world of ours puts women second in place.

They just aren't important enough to voice opinions that the world needs to hear, unless it has to do with home-making or babies.

Women, don't have the killing instinct that men do, the necessary umph for making rules and making others adhere to them.

When women get silly ideas, we burn them as witches or rape them as whores, we certainly doen't listen to them!!!

Silly, fillies!!!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Auh come on people! We all know that any Religion in this world of ours puts women second in place.

They just aren't important enough to voice opinions that the world needs to hear, unless it has to do with home-making or babies.

Women, don't have the killing instinct that men do, the necessary umph for making rules and making others adhere to them.

When women get silly ideas, we burn them as witches or rape them as whores, we certainly doen't listen to them!!!

Silly, fillies!!!

Not just Religion, but cultures in general. Let's just say we're lucky to be in an age where most of that's gone by the wayside... Most of it anyway...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not just Religion, but cultures in general. Let's just say we're lucky to be in an age where most of that's gone by the wayside... Most of it anyway...

Yeh, men like the fact we are dreamers....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, but whatever...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just can't understand how these people can call themselves Christians. Jesus Christ himself never said or did anything remotely close to this descrimination, where as Paul and many other "Christians" do, and yet claim they follow Christ's teachings.

So keep the four gospels and throw out everything else in the New Testament? That would simply things!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.