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

[AngryAtheist8]

I find it funny that no one here has asked AngreyAthiest for the SOURCE of these quotes. All of them share the same thing and is all the sources for them are unkown. Shame on you AA. :tsktsk:

The above is a list of erroneous quotes until the sources are provided for them.

As for Saint Thomas Aguinas lets see this quote in its original context:

As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence; such as that of a south wind, which is moist, as the Philosopher observes (De Gener. Animal. iv, 2). On the other hand, as regards human nature in general, woman is not misbegotten, but is included in nature’s intention as directed to the work of generation. Now the general intention of nature depends on God, Who is the universal Author of nature. Therefore, in producing nature, God formed not only the male but also the female.

Doesn’t really come off as being a sexiest pig now that we have the full version.

ALL arguments against Catholicism can be refuted with the proper application of common sense.

Really?

Then use common sense to explain the Trinity.
Or the problem of evil.

Better yet…
Explain how God can be responsible for everything while at the same time people have free will.

Remember you can only use common sense, not theology.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

In case you have forgotten this was a response of yours. I *reiterate *please answer the questions. One can not debate with one that does not manitan/define their position.

But you are not debating with me.
You’re doing the online equivalent of shouting at me.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

In the book of Genesis a similar society is made an example of as the increasing sin in human kind. It is a society that decended from the matriarchal maternal environment that formed Cain’s personality. Note that it is also the first example of polygamy. In a society that has a 1/1 ratio of male to females this inherently produces hypercompetitive males as the passage indicates.

The patriarch of the above culture was a product of a matriarchal maternal environment characterized by a mother who say’s this about the birth of her child.

This is obviously a statement made from a cultural environment that is matriarchal in character.

The patriarchy that follows chronologically in the book of Genesis is characterized by a monogamous matrimonial bond and a mother who say’s this about the birth of her child.

It’s obvious from these examples that it isn’t male authority over women that determines whether or not a society is patriarchal. The father’s authority is not imposed or even made evident in the transformation from matriarchy to patriarchy in these passages.

The generating force recognized, and that truth realized about the order of human life is the foundation of patriarchy in the biblical tradition.

Are you trying to say that according to the Bible matriarchy naturally leads to patriarchy so patriarchy must be good?
Because…matriarchy wouldn’t lead to patriarchy if it was bad?

That is just so :doh2:

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Perhaps Angry Atheist would like to bring back Lilith? I dare say some of the Original Poster’s angst directed here at this forum would be more toward if it were directed at a forum run perhaps by the likes of Anton Lavey methinks…

Well Lilith is a much more interesting literary character than Eve (who appears to have all the depth of a puddle).

But on a more serious note:
Who is Anton Lavey?

 

[jessiepie]

I would like to believe these vicious patriarchal societies such as they have in Saudi Arabia, China, Iran, and the Sudan are on their way out, but I think things will get much worse before they get better.

I honestly think humanity is about to pay a hefty price for the historical preference for sons.

A huge generation of boys (but not girls) is coming of age in China and India.

These young men will be sexually frustrated (for there are not enough women to go around) with little prospect for sex (aside from prostitution) or marriage. They will also have a strong sense of entitlement, for the families in India and (especially) China are relatively small now (which means more income to spend on each individual child) and incomes in both countries have been rising over the last few decades as they began to industrialize and became big players in international commerce, moreover Chinese and Indian boys have always been relatively spoiled (at least in comparison to Indian and Chinese girls). Here is an article on the subject, concerning the growing problem of childhood obesity in China: arabnews.com/lifestyle/offbeat/article339416.ece

The two biggest countries in the world (population wise) which are both on their way to becoming superpowers, will soon be dominated by a generation of spoiled and sexually frustrated men. I cannot imagine this ending well.

You can thank your “right” of abortion for that. Nothing in the world oppresses women like abortion does.

 

[jessiepie]

Because the rest of the passage has been much less influential, and therefore important (from anything but a theological perspective). Many laws have been written about how wives must obey their husbands, often citing that Biblical passage as justification (at least here in the West). But no nation has ever legally obligated a man to love his wife.

Maybe you should pick up a bible? “Husbands love your wife as Christ loves the church” PRETTY CLEAR

 

[Benadam]

Are you trying to say that according to the Bible matriarchy naturally leads to patriarchy so patriarchy must be good?
Because…matriarchy wouldn’t lead to patriarchy if it was bad?

That is just so :doh2:

No in fact something very tragic that violated nature happened between matriarchy and patriarchy.

 

[Nimzovik]

Originally Posted by Nimzovik forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*In case you have forgotten this was a response of yours. I *reiterate please answer the questions. One can not debate with one that does not manitan/define their position.

But you are not debating with me.
You’re doing the online equivalent of shouting at me.

Au contraire. I assert that you violate ‘requirements of debate’ by simply not responding to questions posed to you.

I find that your posts are endless in detracting via your presentation of ‘straw man’ concepts in terms of mischaracterization of Catholic views of patriarchy. You have cited numerous patholigies, however. In terms of discussing the ideal you fail too accept what is laid before you. Ergo you skate the thin ice of ‘trolling.’

Why address pathology? You would not like to be blamed for all the pathology of Atheists would you? Such as the invention of the Atom Bomb. Such as 1917 Russia and the untold number of deaths of Christians and property confiscation. Perhaps you would like us to peruse more atheism like the rampant forced sterilization policies of China?

I am wondering if you are indeed able to get the point? Sorry to be blunt. However I see what I see in your posts. P. S. You adroitly avoided answering my questions once again.

 

[Nimzovik]

Originally Posted by Nimzovik forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*In case you have forgotten this was a response of yours. I *reiterate please answer the questions. One can not debate with one that does not manitan/define their position.

Well Lilith is a much more interesting literary character than Eve (who appears to have all the depth of a puddle).

But on a more serious note:
Who is Anton Lavey?

It is indeed indicative that you find Lilitih more interesting than Eve and refer to Eve as a ‘puddle.’

Lavey is a former head of the church of evil. I was infereing that Catholics get blamed for that which is actually perpretrated by evil. You cite numerous references of pathology of supposed Catholic patriarchy (in your perspective.) Those references of yours …are they the ideal? Are they what Christ would recommend? I think not.

 

[Nimzovik]

Note: If Patriarchy is sooooooooo bad… Should we change the “Our Father” prayer to accomodate you?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

You can thank your “right” of abortion for that. Nothing in the world oppresses women like abortion does.

China and India (along with many other parts of the world) have a long inglorious history of female infanticide.

The values and prejudices behind Gendercide are not Modern. Only the technology involved is new. What is happening now is a reflection of what these cultures truly value.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

You can thank your “right” of abortion for that. Nothing in the world oppresses women like abortion does.

China and India (along with many other parts of the world) have a long inglorious history of female infanticide.

The values and prejudices behind the War on Baby Girls are not Modern. Only the technology involved is new. This event is a reflection of what these cultures truly value (which obviously doesn’t include girls).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

No in fact something very tragic that violated nature happened between matriarchy and patriarchy.

You make a lot of claims without any kind of proof (or even a coherent argument).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by Nimzovik forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*In case you have forgotten this was a response of yours. I *reiterate **please answer the questions. One can not debate with one that does not manitan/define their position.

Au contraire. I assert that you violate ‘requirements of debate’ by simply not responding to questions posed to you.

I find that your posts are endless in detracting via your presentation of ‘straw man’ concepts in terms of mischaracterization of Catholic views of patriarchy. You have cited numerous patholigies, however. In terms of discussing the ideal you fail too accept what is laid before you. Ergo you skate the thin ice of ‘trolling.’

This thread was never meant to be about the the official or mainstream (modern) version of Catholic patriarchy. Read the opening thread again and you will see that the main question is posed to Catholics that believe that:
women with authority (specifically in the secular world) = Sin/Corruption

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by Nimzovik forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*In case you have forgotten this was a response of yours. I *reiterate **please answer the questions. One can not debate with one that does not manitan/define their position.

Au contraire. I assert that you violate ‘requirements of debate’ by simply not responding to questions posed to you.

I find that your posts are endless in detracting via your presentation of ‘straw man’ concepts in terms of mischaracterization of Catholic views of patriarchy. You have cited numerous patholigies, however. In terms of discussing the ideal you fail too accept what is laid before you. Ergo you skate the thin ice of ‘trolling.’

Why address pathology? You would not like to be blamed for all the pathology of Atheists would you? ** Such as the invention of the Atom Bomb. **Such as 1917 Russia and the untold number of deaths of Christians and property confiscation. Perhaps you would like us to peruse more atheism like the rampant forced sterilization policies of China?

I am wondering if you are indeed able to get the point? Sorry to be blunt. However I see what I see in your posts. P. S. You adroitly avoided answering my questions once again.

Your blaming the Atomic Bomb on atheists?

Based on what?

Unless you want to argue that Science (e.g. an understanding of the world around us and its physical laws) equals atheism

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by Nimzovik forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*In case you have forgotten this was a response of yours. I *reiterate **please answer the questions. One can not debate with one that does not manitan/define their position.

It is indeed indicative that you find Lilitih more interesting than Eve and refer to Eve as a ‘puddle.’

Lavey is a former head of the church of evil. I was infereing that Catholics get blamed for that which is actually perpretrated by evil. You cite numerous references of pathology of supposed Catholic patriarchy (in your perspective.) Those references of yours …are they the ideal? Are they what Christ would recommend? I think not.

Villains tend to be more interesting than heroes in fiction, if only because villains are usually proactive (trying to take, destroy, or corrupt something) while heroes are usually reactive (trying to defend something the villain or villains have threatened).

Although classifying Eve as any sort of hero doesn’t feel right.

Considering how little personality she is given in the story of Genesis I think objective writers would be more likely to characterize her as a plot-device (here’s a link to more information on the term in case you’re curious: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plot_device).

 

[Allegra]

Most people on this site never bother to provide any sort of evidence for their arguments. I am one of the few who frequently do, so shame seems a bit extreme.

But since you wanted sources:

As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active power of the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active power.
-Saint Thomas Aquinas
Source: Summa Theologica

Woman is a necessary evil, a natural temptation, a desirable calamity, a domestic peril, a deadly fascination, and a painted ill.
-Saint John Chrysostom
Source: Women Without Superstition (book)

Woman is the daughter of falsehood, a sentinel of hell, the enemy of peace.
-Saint John of Damascus
Source: Women Without Superstition

To embrace a woman is to embrace a sack of manure.
-Saint Odo of Cluny
I honestly can’t remember where I found this quote.
Sorry its been a few days.

Woman, thou shouldst ever be clothed in rags and in mourning, appearing only as a penitent, drowned in tears, and expiating thus the sin of having caused the fall of the human race. Woman thou art the gate of the devil. It is thou who hast corrupted those whom Satan dare not attack face to face.
-Tertullian
Source: The online Catholic Encyclopedia at New Advent: newadvent.org/fathers/0402.htm

I wasn’t really interested in where you got the quotes from. I was interested in the original source. (As in, the name of the work the original author wrote.) Stating the name of a book with a blatantly femenist agenda as the source is not really helping your case that those are reliable quotes. I want to read the whole paragraph that those people wrote before assigning them the label of “problems with women”. Obviously, the quote by Thomas Aquinas changed meaning considerably when placed in context.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Note: If Patriarchy is sooooooooo bad… Should we change the “Our Father” prayer to accomodate you?

You would not be accomodating me.

I am not a member of the Church, nor do I feel like joining at any point in the foreseeable future.

 

[Allegra]

This thread was never meant to be about the the official or mainstream (modern) version of Catholic patriarchy. Read the opening thread again and you will see that the main question is posed to Catholics that believe that:
women with authority (specifically in the secular world) = Sin/Corruption

Why are you surprised that no one is arguing with you from that standpoint? That isn’t a valid church teaching nor is it a common belief among modern Catholics. Maybe if you go to some back country land where they don’t have running water or the written word, you might find the very special adversary you are looking for. Why are looking for him here? None of us feel that way and we’re all you’ve got to argue with on this thread. Sorry. (Unless you want to try and engage that troll that popped in a while back.)

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I wasn’t really interested in where you got the quotes from. I was interested in the original source. (As in, the name of the work the original author wrote.) Stating the name of a book with a blatantly femenist agenda as the source is not really helping your case that those are reliable quotes. I want to read the whole paragraph that those people wrote before assigning them the label of “problems with women”. Obviously, the quote by Thomas Aquinas changed meaning considerably when placed in context.

Even modern Church authorities have admitted that many of the Church Fathers and quite a number of medieval theologians held to the common view that women were physically and or morally inferior. Pope John Paul II himself admitted as much in some of his official documents concerning women. Here is a quote from Letter of Pope John Paul II to Women (which I read on the official Vatican site here:

1. I know of course that simply saying thank you is not enough. Unfortunately, we are heirs to a history which has conditioned us to a remarkable extent. In every time and place, this conditioning has been an obstacle to the progress of women. Women’s dignity has often been unacknowledged and their prerogatives misrepresented; they have often been relegated to the margins of society and even reduced to servitude. This has prevented women from truly being themselves and it has resulted in a spiritual impoverishment of humanity. **Certainly it is no easy task to assign the blame for this, considering the many kinds of cultural conditioning which down the centuries have shaped ways of thinking and acting. And if objective blame, especially in particular historical contexts, has belonged to not just a few members of the Church, for this I am truly sorry. May this regret be transformed, on the part of the whole Church, into a renewed commitment of fidelity to the Gospel vision. **When it comes to setting women free from every kind of exploitation and domination, the Gospel contains an ever relevant message which goes back to the attitude of Jesus Christ himself. Transcending the established norms of his own culture, Jesus treated women with openness, respect, acceptance and tenderness. In this way he honoured the dignity which women have always possessed according to God’s plan and in his love. As we look to Christ at the end of this Second Millennium, it is natural to ask ourselves: how much of his message has been heard and acted upon?

-AngryAtheist8

P.S. I realize that the Pope’s words could be interpreted as a kind of ‘I’m sorry if you’re offended’ apology. Of course if it was meant that way, it calls into question the sincerity of the whole document.