Log in

No account? Create an account
Vexen Crabtree 2015


Vexen Crabtree's Live Journal

Sociology, Theology, Anti-Religion and Exploration: Forcing Humanity Forwards

Previous Entry Share Next Entry

Monotheism Versus Womankind

"Religion Versus Womankind" by Vexen Crabtree (2007)

  • 1
(Deleted comment)
I only found one typo, which was how I originally spelt "patriarchal".

My MS dict file also flagged "centered" and wanted me to change it to "centred", but, I prefer "centered" whether or not it is the correct way to spell it.

I just wanted this page so I could help spread the word!

(Deleted comment)
I've fixed "witch-hints", but 'dependant' is fine and is how the author has spelt it.

Thanks, what would I do without you! :-)

... it is Bart Ehrman who says that Christianity was much more women-friendly in its early gnostic days, but that this tolerance was eradicated by Pauline Christianity.

I haven't finished this page yet (it's more of a pagelet), and I will include more complete information on women & paganism once I've got my books back. I knew at the time "dominate" would sound wrongly strong!

I've editted and relaunched this page!

Women = Men

While I would never disagree that women have been mistreated and subjugated for thousands of years because of both religious groups and non-religious groups, I do not agree with your implicit generalizations. Just because people are imperfect—or more to the point: self-serving, egotistical, prideful, etc.—does not render false the teachings of a religious group or non-religious group. If anything, it says the people following the teachings are imperfect. The source of the group’s actions must be understood, whether it is from the teachings of the group, or a perversion of doctrine. This is why I do not believe in “organized religion” as a general principle. I am a Christian, but what you might call a Bible-believing Christian. I read the Bible, examine what it says about certain issues, and follow that. People are errant and religions, which establish rules and traditions, tend toward dry legalism. I try hard not to fall victim to mindless doctrine such as the suppression of women.

As a Christian, I can likely only do justice in the defense of the Christian case. When I look at the Bible, which I believe is the Word of God, I do not see the inequality of men and women. First and foremost, the Bible teaches that God made man, male and female, in His image. This is to say that the imprint of God’s nature is hidden in the combined natures of both men and women. This is, in fact, one of the reasons that marriage is such an important concept in Christianity. Marriage is a picture of God. Man’s nature is rooted in his strength, power, leadership, etc., while woman’s nature is rooted in her compassion, endurance, child-birth, etc. The idea that women are inferior is a blasphemous statement because it says something about God’s very character—that His power is more important than His compassion, that His strength is more important than His endurance, and so on. But you must understand that each gender’s nature gives them strengths and weaknesses in certain tasks, which is why Christianity teaches wives to be submissive to their husbands. This is not to say that women are inferior, but rather that a man’s strength is leadership, and a woman’s strength is supporting and encouraging her husband. The Bible also teaches that women should not instruct men. This is not to say that men are better teachers, but I think that God understands certain things about this interaction that we either do not see or refuse to see. Women distract men. They have for thousands of years. And more often than not, if a woman teaches a man, he will be distracted from the instruction and therefore lack knowledge. There are probably even more reasons which play to the strengths and weaknesses of men and women, but I believe that the Bible teaches men and women as equal, both genders are to be exalted.

You mention that the Greeks, with their paganism, glorified women more often. I would maybe parallel that to the same glorification we give women in today’s commercial industries. Women have to be beautiful—that is to say, grotesquely thin and hidden behind a thick mask of cosmetics. It is grotesque and wholly unflattering to women. As glorified as the women were in the time of the Greeks, they were glorified as objects, not human beings who show the very nature of God in a unique and amazing way.

And non-religiously, the concept of the evolutionary chain can only champion women as tools for the progression of a species. As a gender, women are weaker, just because natural selection made them that way. What a glorious, encouraging thought! “You are weak, just because.”

I assert that Christianity—that is, the teachings of Christ—is perhaps the only set of beliefs, religious or not, that place women in a truly equal status with men. And though you certainly have the right to disagree, I have yet to hear a decent argument against such a claim.

PS: I give you the benefit of the doubt for censoring my previous comment. I did use a term that is very easily flagged as censorable, but I do hope that you are open-minded enough to host a non-biased discussion. [Every other discussion board of yours that I have visited does indicate this fact.] And though you might disagree with my comments, I believe that they are very relevant to the discussion.

  • 1