God, gender and women's place in abrahamic religions

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Scarlet Pimpernel

Not going to argue with you on this one, Q...but I wasn't referring to how the children fare. I was responding directly to Zaakir's comment about why men could have more than one wife but women can't have more than one husband...i.e., then there would be problems with paternity and therefore inheritance. And that is something that the kids are not bothered by. Just ask my youngest niece - the only "father" she knows is her stepfather, and she couldn't care less that they're not blood relations. Matter of fact, neither could he.

(Although now that I think about it, I wonder if kids in cultures where a two-parent nuclear family is not the norm or ideal also feel the same "sense of loss".)

Children without a deliberate two parent (male/female) nuclear family is relatively new (pretty much world wide). Zaakir's comment on why men could have more than one wife covers only about 500,000,000 people (men), on earth. Clearly it isn't a majority concept (I know for fact that I can only barely handle one woman as a mate)...

Clearly there are males out in the world who still consider women less than equal, and I doubt that will change. However, I'd like to think the greater majority of males value women highly, Highly enough to commit themselves to the woman, and that woman alone.

Now if there is evidence that the majority of men have more than one wife (or mistress/concubine)...then I'll stand corrected.

I suspect that any spouse that has more than one spouse, has complicated issues far beyond the traditional one on one concept.

Zaakir has also pointed out that he has a different idea about what "equality" means between men and women. That doesn't make his thinking any more wrong than yours or mine...

You might consider his concept radical, yes? He might consider your concept as equally radical. And you both might consider my concept as, "quaint".

I do suppose a "rich woman" could conceivably have more than one husband, however it seems to be rare (not sure why). Perhaps due to social "norms"?

As far as children of families where two parents (male/female), are not the norm, nor ideal?...considering that it is natural, I fail to see any culture that children would not have a sense of loss, by not having one parent or the other in their lives.

If you are inferring that two men or two women can be the "parents"...true. However, those children will ultimately seek out a parent figure (gender wise), that is missing in their lives, whether the "Guardians" wish it or not. It is natural that they do. Instinctively, they understand the need for balance.

If the child is a girl, she needs a father figure (between age 8 and 14, then again at 17-19), to know how to relate to men. And if the child is a boy, he needs a mother figure (between the same age group), to know how to relate to women. Of course their needs for role models switch as they grow, however, they need both for balance.

I can't base my observations on scientific data (I haven't researched it enough). But I can base it on personal experience.

Moms teach daughters to be women, while Dad's teach daughters how to be ladies. Dads teach sons how to be men, while Moms teach sons how to be gentlemen. Why? we look for our mom or our dad in our relationship with significant others.

of course these are just my thoughts.

v/r

Q

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Lots of good points, Q...

I agree with you wholeheartedly about children of same-sex couples needing a parent-like figure of the other sex, and I've always planned to make sure there was a good man in my children's lives, should there ever be any children...does that surprise you?

But actually, with my last comment I was referring to the sort of culture in which the nuclear family is not the center - for instance, if everyone lives in a longhouse, or if the woman and her children live with her extended family and not with any sexual partners. I was just kind of thinking out loud and don't really want to go any further with it because I know nothing about it. Maybe if path of one is following this thread she'd be willing to set me straight.

[Jeannot]

Originally Posted by BlaznFattyz

the first created human was a man in gods image. god is the father. prophets: men. melchizedek was a man, the son of god on earth was a man, the church is the bride of christ (even in heaven jesus is referred as a man - the groom). the holy spirit came unto mary and gave her a son. i would say that god is a masculine by nature based on his actions.

I think you're mixing up two versions of creation in Genesis. My NASB says in Genesis 1 that men AND women were created in God's image. So what does that tell us about God?

[Jeannot]

"Mostly true. However there have been prophetesses (biblical), and they were told specifically how to dress in order to present themselves with authority as given by God (head covered, quiet in their ways for example), but they were not to be dismissed, else there would be hell to pay. The Holy Spirit did not visit Mary...an Angel did. There is absolutely no biblical reference showing the Holy Spirit ever to take on the form of a human, let alone a male human."
_____________

And Deborah was a Judge.

And then there were Judith and Esther.......

[Jeannot]

"I disagree. I think women can preach the word of God, and I think they do daily. They just don't command thousands of people's attention, at a stretch. No, they command the attention of their children. And it really isn't commanding, but more like enthralling."
________________

Aimee Semple McPherson, Katherine Kuhlman, and many other women preachers have commanded the attention of thousands.

[Jeannot]

Originally Posted by namesdontmatter

Peace and blessings of God be upon you,

Jesus Christ's or not, that's what it says in the bible. If you're saying that something taught in the bible is false, and shouldn't be followed, then fine, but I was just showing why the church won't allow females into the clergy.

--Would a rose, by any other...?

Paul distinguishes between things he has "from the Lord," and things he is saying on his own. The above I believe falls into the latter category.

And didn't Paul also say that in Jesus Christ there is no male or female?

[wil]

G-d to me is not gender neutral, but no gender/all gender. And women may fill the shoes they wish to fill. I agree as mothers they do a tremendous amount with their own children, with the neighbor children, as teachers, as care givers...but should they wish to step up to preach, to govern, to lead...I say amen....er awomen...and so it is!

They are the creators, rather nice of them to leave us in power so long...but it is time for them to step into the world full blast and fix all that men have screwed up the last few millenia...

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Originally Posted by wil

...I say amen....er awomen...

Hee hee - I'm reminded of a choral work by Peter Schickele - can't remember now if it's a Gloria or a Mass, but in any case at the end the text is "Amen! Awomen! Ah Wilderness! Ahchoo!"

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Scarlet Pimpernel

Lots of good points, Q...

I agree with you wholeheartedly about children of same-sex couples needing a parent-like figure of the other sex, and I've always planned to make sure there was a good man in my children's lives, should there ever be any children...does that surprise you?

But actually, with my last comment I was referring to the sort of culture in which the nuclear family is not the center - for instance, if everyone lives in a longhouse, or if the woman and her children live with her extended family and not with any sexual partners. I was just kind of thinking out loud and don't really want to go any further with it because I know nothing about it. Maybe if path of one is following this thread she'd be willing to set me straight.

Actually no it doesn't surprise me. Ah the longhouse, or Chiefs' hut...like the tribes living on the atolls in the South Pacific. But I would consider that entire tribal concept one BIG extended family. Every Chief and senior male is a father figure, and every Matron and senior female is a mother figure. Everyone has a role in raising the children.

It works well for small communities, or large families...

v/r

Q

[BlaznFattyz]

Originally Posted by Jeannot

I think you're mixing up two versions of creation in Genesis. My NASB says in Genesis 1 that men AND women were created in God's image. So what does that tell us about God?

no, im not mixing up anything. who was created first? and if men and women were made in gods image, obviously image isnt referring specifically to gender, but for God to make a man first, what does that tell you about God? For God to send his only begotten Son as a man, what does that tell you about God? for the Son to call the One in Heaven, Father, what does that tell you about God? for God to make man to be masculine, and the holy spirit to overshadow the virgin mary, what does that tell you about God? to me, it doesnt necessarily have to make God male, but it does make him masculine, without a doubt.

[taijasi]

Originally Posted by BlaznFattyz

no, im not mixing up anything. who was created first? and if men and women were made in gods image, obviously image isnt referring specifically to gender, but for God to make a man first, what does that tell you about God? For God to send his only begotten Son as a man, what does that tell you about God? for the Son to call the One in Heaven, Father, what does that tell you about God? for God to make man to be masculine, and the holy spirit to overshadow the virgin mary, what does that tell you about God? to me, it doesnt necessarily have to make God male, but it does make him masculine, without a doubt.

Gee, does he have a hairy chest too?

[wonder]

Originally Posted by InquisitiveInHalifax

So, why is it that in these monotheistic/abrahamic religions women seem to be below men? In reading one of the other threads someone had mentioned that in the Koran it says that men may have as many wives as they are able to support and limitless concubines. This hardly seem fair to the women, does this not make them sexual objects? Possessions even? It seems to me that there is a lack of balance here. I'm sorry if I offended anyone or misquoted the Koran, it is not my intention. This is truly troubling to me.

I don't think "merciful" and "loving" means decreeing that half of human creation is lesser than the other. I can't imagine that there are segregated paradises.

Part of my struggle with Abrahamic religion has always been with the holy books: how much of this is actually divine? Why include instructions on the proper treatment of slaves, or how to execute adulterous or unchaste women, or how much to pay for this or that offense? This smacks of humanity, not divinity.

In more ancient days, and in some places in modern times, it is more necessary for men and women to have more established roles in their communities, for the survival of all. Each society has a common goal: to be able to raise enough food to raise more children, who could help grow more food and thus sustain more people. So the ancient tenant on the 4-wives-1-husband deal is simple, socially correct, albeit ancient math. One man can impregnate many women and create more children (workers), but many men with a single woman will not produce nearly as much.

So, it seems logical to me that some parts of these ancient scriptures incorporated guidelines for living within communities during that time. I believe that they still have practical application in the modern world.. Not coveting your neighbor's spouse or goods, ensuring a balanced home for the raising of children, and supporting your neighbors and community--these are all good rules to live by. This speaks to good manners and practicality as much as it could holy mandate. A social code and religious code having something in common: they are guides or rules for appropriate standards of living for a given set of people. For an ancient culture based in smaller communities, the social and the religious code were one and the same.

Those who assembled those books did so in the context of life as they saw it. But with the passing of time, there are more humans, and with more humans come more questions. Religious and social codes are analyzed and dissected and reassembled, especially in the West. There, representatives of hundreds of cultures are interacting on a scale unseen before in history. With this collected experience, we should come to understand that these ancient books are not the end of the answer to the equation of the human spirit. They are part of the history of faith, and help us to understand the role of the divine in human life throughout ages. Even God has re-examined his covenant with people (remember after the Great Flood?). We have learned that slavery and repressing women are not ideals to live by, so we changed them in our societies. Holy scripture follows along, depending on which version you read. Just because it's old and accepted, does that make it right, or above question (at the least, editing)?

Originally Posted by InquisitiveInHalifax

If there is only one true God of what gender is he/she? I believe that if there is only one true God that he/she must be above gender.

Masculinity strikes me as a human trait, not a divine one. Of all the things I can think of to describe the almighty, "masculine" is not one of them. I do not pretend to understand the nature of the divine, or even to be able to describe it, but I don't think of it as a man. God help us. (j/k fellas)

I hope I haven't strayed too much off topic, this board is really cool so far.

[~:MOK:~]

We have learned that slavery and repressing women are not ideals to live by, so we changed them in our societies. Holy scripture follows along, depending on which version you read. Just because it's old and accepted, does that make it right

I'd have to seriously disagree with you on this one. There are more slaves now (especially sex slaves) than have ever been in the history of the world. That is why the rules and guidelines in the Qur'an (can't speak for the Bible or Torah) transcend time and cultural amalgamation. Whether or not you percieve humanity as changing to not need these guidelines is irrelavent, they are in place because we needed them years ago, we need them now, and we will need them until the end of time on earth. This is because good and evil will always be present and we, as children need our Father Allah (swt) to guide us.

On the matter of polygamy: The rule of allowed polygamy was (and is) in place for different reasons. One such reason it is in place is FOR the women themselves. I'm not talking about polygamy in this day and age where there is no real call for it. I'm talking about during times of war where the husbands of women would die and the ratio of men to women would drop tremendously. In these times, many of the women and children are left with nothing, and so the men take care of them. Another reasonable example is when A man is incapable of taking care of the orphans that have come his way and so he must take on another wife to help raise them. There are reasons for everything in the Qur'an and most things in the Bible and Torah, you just have to look at them objectively and be trained constrain your bias.

[Jeannot]

Originally Posted by BlaznFattyz

no, im not mixing up anything. who was created first? and if men and women were made in gods image, obviously image isnt referring specifically to gender, but for God to make a man first, what does that tell you about God? For God to send his only begotten Son as a man, what does that tell you about God? for the Son to call the One in Heaven, Father, what does that tell you about God? for God to make man to be masculine, and the holy spirit to overshadow the virgin mary, what does that tell you about God? to me, it doesnt necessarily have to make God male, but it does make him masculine, without a doubt.

GEnesis 1:27 reads "God created humans in His own image, in the image of God He created mankind, male and female he created them."

[BlaznFattyz]

Originally Posted by Jeannot

GEnesis 1:27 reads "God created humans in His own image, in the image of God He created mankind, male and female he created them."

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Gen 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Gen 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

Gen 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This [is] now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.