Is Feminism Blasphemy?

[AngryAtheist8]

Well, certainly mechanized and industrialized. Peaceful is subjective. Even if accepting an evolutionary (non-theistic) view there is an order to things. If the world of animals or insects suddenly stopped it’s natural order it’s not hard to see that there would be an inbalance. Religion is a private matter (or at least should be). The state can’t tell women they must “submit” to their husband. So, therefore secular.
Sometimes the word “equal” is misunderstood or not put in context. As a Catholic I know that God is the head of Christ, but one is not better than the other. Equal in substance is the point.

Equal in substance?
What does that mean exactly?

Even many Muslims claim that they think men and women are equal in dignity, worth, etc. (although the Koran itself contradicts this viewpoint) but advocate an inferior role and social position for women in society.

To employ an overused but appropriate cliche "the devil is in the details.’

 

[johnnyjones]

Equal in substance?
What does that mean exactly?

Even many Muslims claim that they think men and women are equal in dignity, worth, etc. (although the Koran itself contradicts this viewpoint) but advocate an inferior role and social position for women in society.

To employ an overused but appropriate cliche "the devil is in the details.’

Being agnostic as you are, the point about God being the head of Christ may have no relevance to you. Here’s how “substance” comes into play if you are concerned about Christianity being “anti-women”. The substance is what something is made up of, it’s actual essence, it’s nature. The substance of men and women is equal. The parts are different but both are human.

God is" above" Christ but equal in substance. “Above” means God has a role different than Christ. A women has a role that is different then a man. Neither are better than the other. Have women been abused and treated like slaves throughout the ages? Yes. It could be argued that men have too. Your boss at work is not any better then you. He/she has a position of authority for the order of things to work correctly at your place of employment. Without that order, everyone is a boss, or no one is a boss, it doesn’t work. God has ordained that the woman is a help mate .That’s not a mandate to an agnostic. Most certainly women have the same worth and should be treated with dignity in the Christian faith. I think claims on the Muslim end are weak in that area.

In all likely hood you don’t accept this view. You don’t have to if your not Christian. A non-religious society in a democratic republic deals with the equality of men and women in a different way. Many times it doesn’t work because either the man or the woman do not know their role. In this day and age it is incomprehensible that this outlook could exist. Keeping church and state separate is important.

 

[johnnyjones]

No.

So what?

Our Western democratic societies have rejected the idea that a person’s worth is predetermined by their gender, class, race, etc. and I think that that is a good thing:shrug:

Yes, our western democratic societies have rejected many of the teachings of the bible. The thread question was, 'Is feminism blasphemy?" From a Christian standpoint (that’s why “blasphemy” was used), it can be , depending on the feministic violation.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Being agnostic as you are, the point about God being the head of Christ may have no relevance to you. Here’s how “substance” comes into play if you are concerned about Christianity being “anti-women”. The substance is what something is made up of, it’s actual essence, it’s nature. The substance of men and women is equal. The parts are different but both are human.

God is" above" Christ but equal in substance. “Above” means God has a role different than Christ. A women has a role that is different then a man. Neither are better than the other. Have women been abused and treated like slaves throughout the ages? Yes. It could be argued that men have too. Your boss at work is not any better then you. He/she has a position of authority for the order of things to work correctly at your place of employment. Without that order, everyone is a boss, or no one is a boss, it doesn’t work. God has ordained that the woman is a help mate .That’s not a mandate to an agnostic. Most certainly women have the same worth and should be treated with dignity in the Christian faith. I think claims on the Muslim end are weak in that area.

In all likely hood you don’t accept this view. You don’t have to if your not Christian. A non-religious society in a democratic republic deals with the equality of men and women in a different way. Many times it doesn’t work because either the man or the woman do not know their role. In this day and age it is incomprehensible that this outlook could exist. Keeping church and state separate is important.

If women’s role (beneath men according to you) means that they should have fewer rights, less freedom, more restricted choices, etc. then they are not equal in any meaningful sense.

 

[johnnyjones]

If women’s role (beneath men according to you) means that they should have fewer rights, less freedom, more restricted choices, etc. then they are not equal in any meaningful sense.

I understand that you don’t ascribe to Christian theology but that’s what the thread topic was about. I explained that there is an assigned order to things , who God himself participates in. Women can do whatever they want, but there are consequences to actions, just as there are with men. It’s about following a plan. “Beneath” is a word that is designed to stir up ire. Christ submits to God and there hasn’t been any in-fighting since the dawn of time. If a women has a problem with it they’ll make it known.

It is individuals like yourself who have the problem with it and it doesn’t even pertain to you . No one is forcing women to become Christians. We don’t live in the United States of forced theology. Thankfully though many of it’s moral codes have crept in otherwise we would have complete kaos. Feminism is not blasphemy outside of a Christian context. But do I have to agree with it? No.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I understand that you don’t ascribe to Christian theology but that’s what the thread topic was about. I explained that there is an assigned order to things , who God himself participates in. Women can do whatever they want, but there are consequences to actions, just as there are with men. It’s about following a plan. “Beneath” is a word that is designed to stir up ire. Christ submits to God and there hasn’t been any in-fighting since the dawn of time.** If a women has a problem with it they’ll make it known.**
It is individuals like yourself who have the problem with it and it doesn’t even pertain to you . No one is forcing women to become Christians. We don’t live in the United States of forced theology. Thankfully though many of it’s moral codes have crept in otherwise we would have complete kaos. Feminism is not blasphemy outside of a Christian context. But do I have to agree with it? No.

They HAVE made it known.
That’s what the Feminist movement is.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I understand that you don’t ascribe to Christian theology but that’s what the thread topic was about. I explained that there is an assigned order to things , who God himself participates in. Women can do whatever they want, but there are consequences to actions, just as there are with men. It’s about following a plan. “Beneath” is a word that is designed to stir up ire. Christ submits to God and there hasn’t been any in-fighting since the dawn of time. If a women has a problem with it they’ll make it known.

It is individuals like yourself who have the problem with it and it doesn’t even pertain to you . No one is forcing women to become Christians. We don’t live in the United States of forced theology. Thankfully though many of it’s moral codes have crept in otherwise we would have complete kaos. Feminism is not blasphemy outside of a Christian context. But do I have to agree with it? No.

So you believe in a divinely ordained social hierarchy (with women at the bottom)?

 

[Jeanne_S]

In addition to Muliaris Dignatatum,sp? I would suggest reading Pope Paul II’s Letter to Women. This was written as an address to all women on the eve of the Fourth World Conference on Women,held in Beijing,in 1995. In this letter he speaks to what he refers to as “true feminism” as it pertains to women’s unique but equally important role in God’s eyes.He often refers to our"feminine genius" again,unique to uscas females.I think you will find it very affirming and it shows Pope JohnPaul’s obvious lovevand respect for women,

 

[johnnyjones]

So you believe in a divinely ordained social hierarchy (with women at the bottom)?

Your rejection or lack of knowledge of Christianity makes it difficult to reach you. I believe in divinity, period. What stems from that belief system I embrace. Again, if you don’t accept that God has set up a functional hierarchy, what can I tell you. If God is postionally above Christ, is Christ “at the bottom”? No, he is equal in substance but has a different role. I know “bottom” and “below” are hot button words for you but people actually have roles. This is foreign to you because your mindset thinks in terms of discrimination from a secular standpoint. How this effects you as a non-Christian ,especially since few women are screaming for equality with men within the Catholic church, I don’t know.

This is primarily a Fundamentalist view. The Catholic Church does not entirely accept these views being that we are under grace.

 

[johnnyjones]

They HAVE made it known.
That’s what the Feminist movement is.

Correct, thats why I wrote that.

 

[LilyM]

If women’s role (beneath men according to you) means that they should have fewer rights, less freedom, more restricted choices, etc. then they are not equal in any meaningful sense.

Well, an entry-level employee has less freedom and more restricted voices (and effectively fewer rights, being that they have less power to enforce them) than their employer. Likewise a poor person as opposed to a rich person, or a child compared to an adult.

So even granted that there is plenty of inequality, by your definition, is that always a bad thing? Who would argue that a five year old child should be allowed to vote, drink, smoke, carry guns, sign legal documents? Or that an employee of three weeks’ experience should have the same say on how their company spends it’s money as the CEO who founded the company and whose financial savvy grew it to the point where it could afford to hire that junior employee?

Your sort of inequality is part and parcel of life, and sometimes a necessary one at that. Many expediments in ‘equality’ have in fact turned out to be abysmal failures. Feminism possibly being one - most women now feel ‘free’ only in the sense that they combine the slavery of the workforce, which many previous generations didn’t experience, with the same old domestic drudgery that they always have.

 

[tulliusatellus]

Even though there may seem to be many anti-women passages in the Bible, there are also many pro-women passages.
Read through Esther, Ruth, and Judith. See that the queens of ancient Israel were the mothers of the kings. See how some of the Judges were women, especially Deborah. Look to the New Testament: see that many of Jesus’ best friends were women. A woman was the first person to find the risen Lord. But most importantly, look at Mary, the most holy mother of God.

There is nothing wrong with feminism, in itself. Just be mindful that it has its own place, and (like every other idea) goes wrong when it breaches its boundaries. Feminism, as the name implies, is about finding, and reaching the full potential a person can reach as a woman, a daughter of God. Ultimately, its plan is to further the discerning process of the woman’s vocation so that she may more fully commit herself to the calling God has set for her. What we don’t want happening is a “masculanization,” where the woman tries to become a man. This, of course, does not mean that she can’t vote or buy things without her husband; rather it means that she deepens her womanhood, and become a better daughter of God. Now, this is different for each woman, but the end is clear, to be a better daughter of God by discerning and reaching her particular vocation, which no other person can accomplish.

 

[Nate13]

@OP
Get a hold of the Theology of the Body A Simplified Version by Rev. Msgr. Vincent M. Walsh. Many of the quotes you ask about are addressed by JPII and this version of the Theology of the Body is much more concise and easier to understand.

 

[Nate13]

You forgot the Pauline quote about how women are created in the Image of Man, not God

Honestly, the Bible is pretty anti-woman if you interpret all the passages literally. You have to add a lot of context (as the Catholic Church now does) to give the Book a pro-woman spin.

Honestly, humanity is pretty anti-women by default as per a consequence of the fall so it should be no surprise that many of the stories in the Bible describe a people that were…well…human.

"To the woman he said: “I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children. Yet your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall be your master.” - Genesis 3:16

This describes the situation of man after the fall. Our desires became disordered and men became predisposed to want to dominate women because of concupiscence. We are still fighting this today and it should not really surprise anyone that this battle is described in the Bible.

 

[monicabay]

It is a tough assignment for the modern feminist to find supportive scripture within the church.

A lot turn to the Gnostic works for justification of their feminist beliefs, but in the Gospel of Peter it clearly states that women can’t get into heaven under any circumstances.

Can you point to verses, or is it the whole gospel? I would be very interested to know the churches take on this. If correct, and women can’t get into heaven, why bother believing?

 

[monicabay]

Can you point to verses, or is it the whole gospel? I would be very interested to know the churches take on this. If correct, and women can’t get into heaven, why bother believing?

There is no gospel of Peter in the Bible. No wonder no one remarked on this. He only has letters.

It would still be interesting to hear some other views on this statement.

 

[Nate13]

“Likewise, you wives should be subordinate to your husbands so that, even if some disobey the word, they may be won over without a word by their wives’ conduct” - 1 Peter 3:1

Here is what my Ignatius Study Bible says in the notes for this passage:

Begins a third application of the submission principle introduced in 2:13 and continued in 2:18. Christian wives are counseled to obey their husbands, some of whom were non-Christians. Peter envisions this as a dignified submission that earns a husband’s respect rather than degrading servitude that quietly endures personal abuse or insults to the faith. The social order of the day, where husbands ruled over their wives as the supreme authroities of the household, is not directly challenged or criticized. Instead, existing norms are infused with gospel charity: in this case, Peter urges Christian brides to exercise heroic love and service within the context of mariage. Paul gives similar counsel to married women (Eph 5:22-24, Col 3:18), through he addresses situations in which husband and wife are both believers (an important exception is 1 Cor 7:12-16).

The witness of a loving and supportive wife can win unbelieving husbands over to the faith. Example being of St. Monica and the eventual conversion of her husband.

The OP didn’t post Peter 3:7-8 but I’ll put that response here as well:

7 Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker sex and as joint heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.

And from my Bible:

Christian husbands must be respectful and understanding toward their wives. Paul makes the additional demand that husbands should be models of Christ’s sacrificial love (Eph 5:25). “the weaker sex”: The statement is made in reference to a woman’s physical condition, not her moral character or intellectual ability. Because a man’s natural strength exceeds that of a woman, the husband is called to honor his bride, lest he misuse his physical advantage to intimidate or abuse her.

“joint heirs”: Men and women are persons of equal dignity in God’s eyes, for they are equal recipients of his salvation and love (Gal 3:28). "prayers…hindered: A husband’s prayers will go unanswered if he fails to honor and cherish his wife (3:12). He can expect the same result if he prays with doubt (Jas 1:5-8) or selfish motives (Jas 4:3) or cherishes iniquity in his heart (Ps 66:18).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Quote:
“Likewise, you wives should be subordinate to your husbands so that, even if some disobey the word, they may be won over without a word by their wives’ conduct” - 1 Peter 3:1

Here is what my Ignatius Study Bible says in the notes for this passage:

Quote:
Begins a third application of the submission principle introduced in 2:13 and continued in 2:18. Christian wives are counseled to obey their husbands, some of whom were non-Christians. Peter envisions this as a dignified submission that earns a husband’s respect rather than degrading servitude that quietly endures personal abuse or insults to the faith. The social order of the day, where husbands ruled over their wives as the supreme authroities of the household, is not directly challenged or criticized. Instead, existing norms are infused with gospel charity: in this case, Peter urges Christian brides to exercise heroic love and service within the context of mariage. Paul gives similar counsel to married women (Eph 5:22-24, Col 3:18), through he addresses situations in which husband and wife are both believers (an important exception is 1 Cor 7:12-16).

The witness of a loving and supportive wife can win unbelieving husbands over to the faith. Example being of St. Monica and the eventual conversion of her husband.

The OP didn’t post Peter 3:7-8 but I’ll put that response here as well:

Quote:
7 Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker sex and as joint heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.

And from my Bible:

Quote:
Christian husbands must be respectful and understanding toward their wives. Paul makes the additional demand that husbands should be models of Christ’s sacrificial love (Eph 5:25). “the weaker sex”: The statement is made in reference to a woman’s physical condition, not her moral character or intellectual ability. Because a man’s natural strength exceeds that of a woman, the husband is called to honor his bride, lest he misuse his physical advantage to intimidate or abuse her.

“joint heirs”: Men and women are persons of equal dignity in God’s eyes, for they are equal recipients of his salvation and love (Gal 3:28). "prayers…hindered: A husband’s prayers will go unanswered if he fails to honor and cherish his wife (3:12). He can expect the same result if he prays with doubt (Jas 1:5-8) or selfish motives (Jas 4:3) or cherishes iniquity in his heart (Ps 66:18).

Honestly, what I mainly get from your post is that its necessary to put a lot of spin on the Bible to make it sound pro-woman.
Referring to women as weaker vessels and saying that they owe obedience to their husbands seems fairly straightforward:shrug:

 

[Job42]

Here are a couple of strong women in the Bible:

Judges Ch 4:4-9

4
At this time the prophetess Deborah, wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel.
5
She used to sit under Deborah’s palm tree, situated between Ramah and Bethel in the mountain region of Ephraim, and there the Israelites came up to her for judgment.
6
She sent and summoned Barak, son of Abinoam, from Kedesh of Naphtali. “This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, commands,” she said to him; “go, march on Mount Tabor, and take with you ten thousand Naphtalites and Zebulunites.
7
I will lead Sisera, the general of Jabin’s army, out to you at the Wadi Kishon, together with his chariots and troops, and will deliver them into your power.”
8
But Barak answered her, “If you come with me, I will go; if you do not come with me, I will not go.”
9
“I will certainly go with you,” she replied, “but you shall not gain the glory in the expedition on which you are setting out, for the LORD will have Sisera fall into the power of a woman.” So Deborah joined Barak and journeyed with him to Kedesh.

Judith 13: 6-10

She [Judith] went to the bedpost near the head of Holofernes, and taking his sword from it,
7
drew close to the bed, grasped the hair of his head, and said, “Strengthen me this day, O God of Israel!”
8
Then with all her might she struck him twice in the neck and cut off his head.
9
She rolled his body off the bed and took the canopy from its supports. Soon afterward, she came out and handed over the head of Holofernes to her maid,
10
who put it into her food pouch; and the two went off together as they were accustomed to do for prayer. They passed through the camp, and skirting the ravine, reached Bethulia on the mountain. As they approached its gates,
11
Judith shouted to the guards from a distance: “Open! Open the gate! God, our God, is with us. Once more he has made manifest his strength in Israel and his power against our enemies; he has done it this very day.”
12
When the citizens heard her voice, they quickly descended to their city gate and summoned the city elders.
13
All the people, from the least to the greatest, hurriedly assembled, for her return seemed unbelievable. They opened the gate and welcomed the two women. They made a fire for light; and when they gathered around the two,
14
Judith urged them with a loud voice: “Praise God, praise him! Praise God, who has not withdrawn his mercy from the house of Israel, but has shattered our enemies by my hand this very night.”
15
Then she took the head out of the pouch, showed it to them, and said: "Here is the head of Holofernes, general in charge of the Assyrian army, and here is the canopy under which he lay in his drunkenness. The Lord struck him down by the hand of a woman.

 

[Bobby_Jim]

“Blasphemy” is a pretty strong word. Not one to be tossed around lightly, nor applied as a general term meaning “contrary to the faith”. See Matthew 26:65 for the word used in context.