If Matriarchy & Feminism Are Sinful, Why Isn't There More Of It?

[AngryAtheist8]

The Person of Christ is both God and Man but His humanity adds nothing to His Divinity. Christ’s Humanity was and is male but His Divinity is neither male or female. To say that Christ’s Humanity and His Divinity is one nature would be heresy. I thought you would have know this since its pretty basic…sad that you dont.

That simply doesn’t make sense.
Something cannot be fully two different things while at the same time neither.

Even if its official Church doctrine, that doesn’t change the fact that it makes no sense.

If you add A + B you get AB, you don’t still have a separate A and B in the equation.

 

[merne9]

i have had these same questions in my mind. but i guess i was humble enough to know that just because i don’t know the answers it doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
i can’t tell what your attitude is; angry? cynical? authentic? :slapfight::slapfight:
when it comes down to it no answer given will be enough, will have enough facts, will be logical enough for you.
if you want to argue to argue then we really don’t have a responsibility to answer you.
but if you really do want to understand these complex topics i suggest you read and listen to philosophers, theologians…we can’t listen while we are busy talking right?
also do a lot of praying, even if you don’t believe in God, just talk he’s always listening

btw, the Triumphant Church is already in Heaven with God not an organization here on earth.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

AngryAtheist, for my benefit, could you please explain more clearly which teachings or even wide-spread practices of our faith you find so objectionable. I’m having a hard time following the thread because it keeps switching subjects. Do you feel that the church is in some way keeping women from their rights? Are you trying to argue in a round about way that Feminism isn’t sinful? I don’t know that any Catholic thinks it is sinful for a woman to have the same legal rights as a man. Some may choose not to take advantage of say, the right to equal employment and cite devotion to their Christian role as a wife and mother as the reason, but I don’t think anyone would advocate having the right abolished.

Unfortunately there is a significant number of Catholics who think that women should have no power and few (if any) legal rights. Here’s a link to such a group explaining their views: catholicplanet.com/women/roles.htm

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Men are certainly naturally physically stronger. As for dominant versus submissive wills that is an interesting question as to whether that is the case. Women can have very dominant wills but they will often go about achieving their ends less directly and thus not appear as dominant.

.

So women naturally assume power through behind the scenes manipulation

 

[AngryAtheist8]

In fact the ability for women to obtain political power in Western Civilization disproves the belief that women were systematically abused by the will of men. If it was only men who had political power, and they wished to abuse women, then they would have never given political power to women as they did.

.

So the fact that women were able to eventually gain political power and certain legal rights proves that they were never denied political power or certain legal rights

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Others have pointed out some ways in which women exercised power in history that is often ignored because the modern narrative is that evil men oppressed women since the beginning of time. I think the question ignores much of history. Beyond that nature can only be perverted so far. You could just as well ask how Satan has not been able to create a society of children who rule adults like in a few horror films.

So you believe that women in charge would a radical perversion of the natural order then.

 

[Heliotropium]

That simply doesn’t make sense.
Something cannot be fully two different things while at the same time neither.

Even if its official Church doctrine, that doesn’t change the fact that it makes no sense.

If you add A + B you get AB, you don’t still have a separate A and B in the equation.

It makes perfect sense as you have displayed in your example. A is not B and B is not A even when you add them together they remain AB. Christ is both A Divine and B Human and when you bring the two together A is still A and B is still B. A adds nothing to what B is and B adds nothing to what A is. No one is denying that there are two natures (AB) in One Person (C)hrist) or that the two natures (AB) make up The Person of (C)hrist. What I’m saying is that A and B are not the same and that they never could be which is something you have been kind enough to show but not understand. If we were to draw up an equation that represents what your saying regarding the Person of Christ having one nature then your equation would look somthing like this since His Divinity and Humanity would have the same values:

A+A = AA = C. This is just ridiculous when talking about Chirst since we know He is both Human and Divine.

This equation though does answer why there can only be one God so its not a total loss.

Now do you know why Christ’s Humanity is male?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

It makes perfect sense as you have displayed in your example. A is not B and B is not A even when you add them together they remain AB. Christ is both A Divine and B Human and when you bring the two together A is still A and B is still B. A adds nothing to what B is and B adds nothing to what A is. No one is denying that there are two natures (AB) in One Person (C)hrist) or that the two natures (AB) make up The Person of (C)hrist. What I’m saying is that A and B are not the same and that they never could be which is something you have been kind enough to show but not understand. If we were to draw up an equation that represents what your saying regarding the Person of Christ having one nature then your equation would look somthing like this since His Divinity and Humanity would have the same values:

A+A = AA = C. This is just ridiculous when talking about Chirst since we know He is both Human and Divine.

This equation though does answer why there can only be one God so its not a total loss.

Now do you know why Christ’s Humanity is male?

From a realist’s perspective, probably because no Jews would have listened to a female savior.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

It makes perfect sense as you have displayed in your example. A is not B and B is not A even when you add them together they remain AB. Christ is both A Divine and B Human and when you bring the two together A is still A and B is still B. A adds nothing to what B is and B adds nothing to what A is. No one is denying that there are two natures (AB) in One Person (C)hrist) or that the two natures (AB) make up The Person of (C)hrist. What I’m saying is that A and B are not the same and that they never could be which is something you have been kind enough to show but not understand. If we were to draw up an equation that represents what your saying regarding the Person of Christ having one nature then your equation would look somthing like this since His Divinity and Humanity would have the same values:

A+A = AA = C. This is just ridiculous when talking about Chirst since we know He is both Human and Divine.

I agree, the whole thing is ridiculous

 

[exnihilo]

So the fact that women were able to eventually gain political power and certain legal rights proves that they were never denied political power or certain legal rights

Women always had power, including political power. It was often de facto and not de jure power. Any thoughtful, reasonable analysis of human activity will look beyond the rules. To not do so would be like assuming no one speeds because it is against the law.

How does one who does not have power gain it? You can fight for it. But fighting is power against power. You can only win if you are in fact more powerful. You can also be granted power. Women had domestic power and men gave them de jure power. This disproves the oppressed narrative.

 

[exnihilo]

So you believe that women in charge would a radical perversion of the natural order then.

Of course. Since materialists like to use animals to derive human morality I’ll pick the wolf pack. Packs are headed by the alpha male, not a female. In fact this order is found across the animal kingdom.

 

[meltzerboy]

Since coming to this forum I have come across Catholics who say that firm patriarchy is the good and natural norm for the Church and society as a whole.

That men are naturally dominant and women are naturally submissive, and that that is the way it ought to be.

I do not share this view.
For one thing, in practice giving men all the power and women virtually no power and independence always leads to women being viciously exploited and abused by men (I think the best modern day example of this is how women are treated in the Arab world). But the idea of patriarchy being divinely ordained also seems very counter-intuitive to me.

Christianity and the other Abrahamic religions are firmly against a great many things. Such as the worship of other/multiple gods, homosexuality, human sacrifice, communing wiht the dead, and trying to manipulate supernatural forces through your own will (e.g. magic). Yet all of these things have been tolerated (and even celebrated) at different times and places throughout history.

In fact, it seems like virtually anything the God of Abraham dislikes (and that is a long list) has flourished at some point in human history.

The fact that things God dislikes frequently flourish is usually justified by the explanation that humans are fallen people in a fallen world, and because of that Satan has great influence in the world. Influence the fallen angel uses to corrupt and distort God’s Creation and plan.

However, this influence has apparently never been used to seriously disrupt male rule of the human species (at least until the last century or so).

To a humanist like myself this seems very suspicious.

Apparently Satan and those under his influence can create societies where things like human sacrifice, male homosexuality, and even the unnecessary and cruel mutilation of baby girls sexual organs are celebrated, but they can’t challenge the Good Ol’ Boy system(s)

So I ask you Catholic defenders of patriarchy (in the home and in society) do you have any rational explanation for this, or this one of those ‘He works in mysterious ways’ type of things (which I don’t consider a real argument at all)?

Haven’t there been cultures which were based on matriarchy before the last century, such as Pagans and Wiccans who worshiped goddesses and Germanic warrior women and Amazons? I’m not an anthropologist but I don’t think feminism is only a recent development.

 

[Heliotropium]

From a realist’s perspective, probably because no Jews would have listened to a female savior.

Translation: “No I do not know anything about the Christian faith, however, I find it logical to have a problem with something I know nothing about…I’m a realist”

I agree, the whole thing is ridiculous.

And yet you have given no reasonable arguments for why its ridiculous.

 

[wisdomseeker]

That simply doesn’t make sense.
Something cannot be fully two different things while at the same time neither.

Even if its official Church doctrine, that doesn’t change the fact that it makes no sense.

If you add A + B you get AB, you don’t still have a separate A and B in the equation.

No matter how you try, you can never be God. You make no decisions for the all men on this earth. God does. I hope you understand this.

 

[severus68]

Of course. Since materialists like to use animals to derive human morality I’ll pick the wolf pack. Packs are headed by the alpha male, not a female. In fact this order is found across the animal kingdom.

I do not not think you can use how animals live in the wild as the basis upon societis today should function. In the jungle, might is right. BTW wolf packs are led by an alpha male and alpha female. Dogs accept women as the alpha dogs.

 

[Heliotropium]

AngryAthiests position that superiority in role automatically denotes the belief in the superiority of the individual (meaning their value is greater because of their role) is unreasonable and not logical. In fact it’s just as unreasonable as saying because men cannot bear children then they are less superior in value compared to women. Now while I’m sure AA can understand and see that the value of the sexes is not affected even though the roles in which they play in nature are different, then one can only ask why he/she stumbles at the idea that this truth is present in the way in which The Church and The Family are setup within Christianity? The only argument that the OP has given against the role of males and females in the family is that one side could abuse their position of authority, but this is a reality regardless of which sex holds the position so how is the idea that the father is the head of the household unfair to the mother if the father does not abuse his position of authority? Short answer is: NOTHING! There is no valid argument against patriarchy…none!

 

[StarFireKK]

In my experience most people stop reading at that point (or at least most misogynists and radical feminists do).

Don’t you just love it when you are on the forums and you take the time to write out a nice size post trying to answer a question that was ask only to get a one line answer that only address and small part of your post?

sigh

AA, I do not understand the point you are trying to make with that statement. Can you please explain yourself more fully. Why does the fact that most people stop reading at that point matter?

 

[exnihilo]

I do not not think you can use how animals live in the wild as the basis upon societis today should function. In the jungle, might is right. BTW wolf packs are led by an alpha male and alpha female. Dogs accept women as the alpha dogs.

I agree. I was saying that tongue in cheek. That seems to be how many folks want to structure society; if they see an animal do it then it is right.

My understanding of wolf packs was they had an alpha male. Is there ever a female who runs the pack alone?

 

[meltzerboy]

Of course. Since materialists like to use animals to derive human morality I’ll pick the wolf pack. Packs are headed by the alpha male, not a female. In fact this order is found across the animal kingdom.

However, I believe female lions do most of the hunting in groups. Whether this means they are in charge, I don’t know, since the male lion is fed first; but they take on what is commonly thought of as the male breadwinner role. And there are male birds who assume the matriarchal role by nursing and feeding their young.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Women always had power, including political power. It was often de facto and not de jure power. Any thoughtful, reasonable analysis of human activity will look beyond the rules. To not do so would be like assuming no one speeds because it is against the law.

How does one who does not have power gain it? You can fight for it. But fighting is power against power. You can only win if you are in fact more powerful. You can also be granted power. Women had domestic power and men gave them de jure power. This disproves the oppressed narrative.

How does it prove anything?

Women have often been treated like property.
Given away, bought, sold, and traded at the whims of others, even the Bible supports this view of history. Isn’t this the very opposite of having any sort of meaningful power, independence, or authority?

Moreover what domestic power?
Traditionally Jews, Christians, and Muslims have all believed and taught that the husband and father reigns in his household, and his wife (or wives) and children are all under his authority.