Council Member
Posts: 1,897 
Location: Quebec
Location: Quebec
October 1st, 2007, 04:01 AM
I was raised a Catholic and as a kid it went over my head and things were subtle enough to not understand but leave an imprint on my mind. Why does religion not respect women? The miracle of life even tho you look at it on a scientific level is still awsome. In history men looked at women for an heir and seem to push aside the women after he got his desire. So wheres the respect?
I've heard the horror stories from some generation before me of how the church encouraged the woman to have kids even tho it endangered her health and life. There so much i can say about that but i'd be missing details and such.
Other religions are the same. Jewish , Islam, hindu i think tho not much information of it.
Is there a religion or a belief system out there that does respect women?
I was raised a Catholic and as a kid it went over my head and things were subtle enough to not understand but leave an imprint on my mind. Why does religion not respect women? The miracle of life even tho you look at it on a scientific level is still awsome. In history men looked at women for an heir and seem to push aside the women after he got his desire. So wheres the respect?
I've heard the horror stories from some generation before me of how the church encouraged the woman to have kids even tho it endangered her health and life. There so much i can say about that but i'd be missing details and such.
Other religions are the same. Jewish , Islam, hindu i think tho not much information of it.
Is there a religion or a belief system out there that does respect women?
Council Member
Posts: 1,434 
Location: Tula
Location: Tula
October 1st, 2007, 04:38 AM
There is. Practically all pagan religions respect women. There was a totally different attitude towards us in the ancient times, both in the society and in families. The difference in attititude was rooted in the religious apporoach.
For instance, Christianity teaches that woman was created from the rib of the first man, while Slavonic Pagan tradition says, that while the Gods created the first man (baked him from dough), they couldn't create a woman, so the first woman was one of the Goddesses, who made the decision to give up her divine nature in order to give birth to human kind. And although she was no longer immortal, and didn't resurrect as a Goddess after her death, she kept all the divine knowledge and passed it on to women. So according to Christianity women are made from a bone, while according to our Religion women descend from the Goddess Kupava, and each woman possesses a part of the knowledge and power that Goddess had. Now, whom is it easier to respect - a descendant of a Goddess, or a piece of bone?
The next point - giving life, giving birth is an exclusively feminine function. In monotheistic religions it is treated as dirty and sinful, while in Paganism this is approached as one of the greatest miracles. The conception of a child, pregnancy, birth - these are very mistyc moments that have to be done in the right way, because the way you do it influences the whole life of a child. And it is up only to the woman to do all this right.
And this list can go on and on. The answer to your question, El Barto, is actually given in the "Da Vinci Code". I don't quite agree with everything that book says, but this particular issue is explained very well.
There is. Practically all pagan religions respect women. There was a totally different attitude towards us in the ancient times, both in the society and in families. The difference in attititude was rooted in the religious apporoach.
For instance, Christianity teaches that woman was created from the rib of the first man, while Slavonic Pagan tradition says, that while the Gods created the first man (baked him from dough), they couldn't create a woman, so the first woman was one of the Goddesses, who made the decision to give up her divine nature in order to give birth to human kind. And although she was no longer immortal, and didn't resurrect as a Goddess after her death, she kept all the divine knowledge and passed it on to women. So according to Christianity women are made from a bone, while according to our Religion women descend from the Goddess Kupava, and each woman possesses a part of the knowledge and power that Goddess had. Now, whom is it easier to respect - a descendant of a Goddess, or a piece of bone?
The next point - giving life, giving birth is an exclusively feminine function. In monotheistic religions it is treated as dirty and sinful, while in Paganism this is approached as one of the greatest miracles. The conception of a child, pregnancy, birth - these are very mistyc moments that have to be done in the right way, because the way you do it influences the whole life of a child. And it is up only to the woman to do all this right.
And this list can go on and on. The answer to your question, El Barto, is actually given in the "Da Vinci Code". I don't quite agree with everything that book says, but this particular issue is explained very well.
Senate Member
Posts: 6,500
October 1st, 2007, 07:40 AM
Vereya/ElBarto
Great topic - I hope more people contribute to your excellent thoughts....
EB your question is the one turn off for me towards the current (modern day) forms of worship - created in the male gender rather than considering all of humanity as a contributor.
We are still in the trees we civilized folk....even though we can fly into space... we can't seem to get it right here on earth.
Vereya/ElBarto
Great topic - I hope more people contribute to your excellent thoughts....
EB your question is the one turn off for me towards the current (modern day) forms of worship - created in the male gender rather than considering all of humanity as a contributor.
We are still in the trees we civilized folk....even though we can fly into space... we can't seem to get it right here on earth.
War Minister
Posts: 3,061
Videos: 4
Location: The Moonsine Cafe
Videos: 4
Location: The Moonsine Cafe
October 1st, 2007, 08:51 AM
Consider who it is that puts the religion into words and you'll have an idea.
Consider who it is that puts the religion into words and you'll have an idea.
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,612
October 1st, 2007, 08:53 AM
A belief that embraces exclusivity on any level will inevitably be used as mechanism to build prejudices and bigotry. "Beliefs" which cling to the notion that gender exclusivity is "appropriate" don't have deep meaningful rationales behind them. They're simply expression/manifestation of the capitalization that some have made on particular situations. The male human was the "alpha" member of the smallest social unit and his exclusivity based on physical strength was extended over larger social groupings, barbaric and primitive but serving the interests of the male.
A social organizing principle that claims testosterone levels as foundation for exclusivity and "superiority" will only ever result in conflict and war. Religious fervor escalating to modifying agent as social organizing principles emerge and evolve seek to (as do all systems) maintain the status quo and permit the "majority stockholders" exclusive control over the social dynamic. "Beliefs" find their greatest support and resevoir of adherents among the ignorant and the ill-informed. It's no peculiarity that the fight between science and scientific theory as opposed to "creationism" as explanation for the events and conditions humankind finds around him is and always has been at loggerheads with doctrine and credoes, it couldn't be any other way.
Ignorance of the nature of reality and encouragement to behave in accordance with artificial rules developed and nurtured to protect and serve artificial machinations that preserve exclusivity have to rely on mumbo-jumbo and appeal to emotionalism because there is no foundation, no underpinning based on reality. Ignorance and misdirection are the tools used by primitives and barbarians to ensure that only the elite are allowed to read write and consider questions regarding the nature of existence. No sham religion with supernatural saviors and sideshow morality can withstand the scrutiny of ordered informed inquiry. As far as religions are concerned, the last thing humankind needs are women caught up in the idea that compassion and love, meaning and duty are concepts available to their consideration as well as men....
It always bothers me when we look at the idea and practice of "religion" because the potential has always been there for belief and solidarity of thinking to be effective contributions to the larger circumstance of existence. Unfortunately this predilection to exclusivity, even when that elitism demands cruelty and unkindness...is a deeply entrenched component of religious beliefs.
A belief that embraces exclusivity on any level will inevitably be used as mechanism to build prejudices and bigotry. "Beliefs" which cling to the notion that gender exclusivity is "appropriate" don't have deep meaningful rationales behind them. They're simply expression/manifestation of the capitalization that some have made on particular situations. The male human was the "alpha" member of the smallest social unit and his exclusivity based on physical strength was extended over larger social groupings, barbaric and primitive but serving the interests of the male.
A social organizing principle that claims testosterone levels as foundation for exclusivity and "superiority" will only ever result in conflict and war. Religious fervor escalating to modifying agent as social organizing principles emerge and evolve seek to (as do all systems) maintain the status quo and permit the "majority stockholders" exclusive control over the social dynamic. "Beliefs" find their greatest support and resevoir of adherents among the ignorant and the ill-informed. It's no peculiarity that the fight between science and scientific theory as opposed to "creationism" as explanation for the events and conditions humankind finds around him is and always has been at loggerheads with doctrine and credoes, it couldn't be any other way.
Ignorance of the nature of reality and encouragement to behave in accordance with artificial rules developed and nurtured to protect and serve artificial machinations that preserve exclusivity have to rely on mumbo-jumbo and appeal to emotionalism because there is no foundation, no underpinning based on reality. Ignorance and misdirection are the tools used by primitives and barbarians to ensure that only the elite are allowed to read write and consider questions regarding the nature of existence. No sham religion with supernatural saviors and sideshow morality can withstand the scrutiny of ordered informed inquiry. As far as religions are concerned, the last thing humankind needs are women caught up in the idea that compassion and love, meaning and duty are concepts available to their consideration as well as men....
It always bothers me when we look at the idea and practice of "religion" because the potential has always been there for belief and solidarity of thinking to be effective contributions to the larger circumstance of existence. Unfortunately this predilection to exclusivity, even when that elitism demands cruelty and unkindness...is a deeply entrenched component of religious beliefs.
A modern nomad
Posts: 1,118
Location: Berlin, Germany
Location: Berlin, Germany
October 1st, 2007, 09:38 AM
I do believe that any institutionalized "us versus them" belief system will result in gender discrimination in the end. In believing that there is a right way and a wrong way of life, you justify prejudice versus the wrong way and necessitate roles for people. The people with power can find ways to keep their positions using these justified roles. Most religions evolved alongside political constructs and were often used to give concrete footing to social constructs. Without religion it is arguable that these roles would have formed regardless.
What exactly is paganism? I thought is was a catch all for religions not belonging to the big 4 or 5.
I do believe that any institutionalized "us versus them" belief system will result in gender discrimination in the end. In believing that there is a right way and a wrong way of life, you justify prejudice versus the wrong way and necessitate roles for people. The people with power can find ways to keep their positions using these justified roles. Most religions evolved alongside political constructs and were often used to give concrete footing to social constructs. Without religion it is arguable that these roles would have formed regardless.
What exactly is paganism? I thought is was a catch all for religions not belonging to the big 4 or 5.
October 1st, 2007, 09:45 AM
Jumping in straight off the OP here, from what I've seen ElBarto, religions are much slower to change than society in general. Mere decades ago women weren't equals. That push to have children regardless of health was present even without religion's help. The tribal, evolutionary basis of humans (men hunt, women breed and gather) can be found in a lot of cultural holdovers. It can also be seen popping up in new ways every so often.
Jumping in straight off the OP here, from what I've seen ElBarto, religions are much slower to change than society in general. Mere decades ago women weren't equals. That push to have children regardless of health was present even without religion's help. The tribal, evolutionary basis of humans (men hunt, women breed and gather) can be found in a lot of cultural holdovers. It can also be seen popping up in new ways every so often.
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,612
October 1st, 2007, 09:54 AM
I quite agree Karrie...
What society engendered on the exclusivity of male domination needs homosexuals or would happily accept an equal "justice"? We live in a time when religions potentially greatest gift...morality...has become mere chess piece on the corporate/government boardroom tables. The argument that's been going on for some time now regarding secularism vs. the "church" is misdirection and slight-of-hand used by religious "belief" to invite the conclusion that its anything but the failure of religious belief that's responsible for pedophilia among the Catholics and racism and bigotry among many of the others. When the human-made construct of "religion" sleeps with economic power (politics) reinforcing attitudes like person "A" doesn't have the same "right" to participate in decision making and policy development...because they're gay or lesbian, a woman or a handicapped person....
The ultimate bigotry is of course the chant of being "gods chosen people"....and we've watched for decades how "gods chosen people" have toiled to achieve peace and harmony in the world.....
I quite agree Karrie...
What society engendered on the exclusivity of male domination needs homosexuals or would happily accept an equal "justice"? We live in a time when religions potentially greatest gift...morality...has become mere chess piece on the corporate/government boardroom tables. The argument that's been going on for some time now regarding secularism vs. the "church" is misdirection and slight-of-hand used by religious "belief" to invite the conclusion that its anything but the failure of religious belief that's responsible for pedophilia among the Catholics and racism and bigotry among many of the others. When the human-made construct of "religion" sleeps with economic power (politics) reinforcing attitudes like person "A" doesn't have the same "right" to participate in decision making and policy development...because they're gay or lesbian, a woman or a handicapped person....
The ultimate bigotry is of course the chant of being "gods chosen people"....and we've watched for decades how "gods chosen people" have toiled to achieve peace and harmony in the world.....
October 1st, 2007, 11:04 AM
Paganism is a complex concept. Traditionally it means not one of the most popular religions, to some it means polytheism. I am Wiccan and considered Pagan. I have one God who is manifest in both men and women and has it's own soul which is both male and female. There is no wiccan leader--wicca is, by definition, a very personal religion. Wiccans interact directly with God--no Christ or prophets or sacred universal book. All good wiccans have thier own "book of shadows" which is a collection of "spells and rituals" that work best for him/her. These can be written by others or invented by the wiccan person. Spells and rituals are simply ways of prayer and praise. They are not truly magical in the sense of being able to make people do things....
Guiding rules of Wicca--what you wish for someone else will come back to you threefold and do as you like so long as it harms none (not even yourself).
Paganism is a complex concept. Traditionally it means not one of the most popular religions, to some it means polytheism. I am Wiccan and considered Pagan. I have one God who is manifest in both men and women and has it's own soul which is both male and female. There is no wiccan leader--wicca is, by definition, a very personal religion. Wiccans interact directly with God--no Christ or prophets or sacred universal book. All good wiccans have thier own "book of shadows" which is a collection of "spells and rituals" that work best for him/her. These can be written by others or invented by the wiccan person. Spells and rituals are simply ways of prayer and praise. They are not truly magical in the sense of being able to make people do things....
Guiding rules of Wicca--what you wish for someone else will come back to you threefold and do as you like so long as it harms none (not even yourself).
Time Out
Posts: 3,867
Videos: 1
Location: Honour our Fallen
Videos: 1
Location: Honour our Fallen
October 1st, 2007, 01:11 PM
Before Buddha, a man by the way, the Vedic/Hindu believed no woman could attain enlightenment..He said otherwise...caused a stir obviousley....
now here's a catch...it bugs me.....
it was hundreds of years after His death a Buddhist council was held and they decided to put what He said into writing.... this is why all Buddhist scripture starts with "Thus I heard"
So now we have in writing that woman can indeed attain enlightenment like the dragon lady who died and was born a man and attained enlightenment...
like i said certain things bug me...niggle at me....
Hindu is a word only 1500 years old by the way , where as vedic is said to be btw 5 and 8 thousand years old.
Before Buddha, a man by the way, the Vedic/Hindu believed no woman could attain enlightenment..He said otherwise...caused a stir obviousley....
now here's a catch...it bugs me.....
it was hundreds of years after His death a Buddhist council was held and they decided to put what He said into writing.... this is why all Buddhist scripture starts with "Thus I heard"
So now we have in writing that woman can indeed attain enlightenment like the dragon lady who died and was born a man and attained enlightenment...
like i said certain things bug me...niggle at me....
Hindu is a word only 1500 years old by the way , where as vedic is said to be btw 5 and 8 thousand years old.
Newbie
Posts: 17
November 5th, 2007, 09:14 PM
Check out http://www.dharmalife.com/issue21/power_denial.html for sexism in Buddhism.
I don't think 'because men created it' is sufficient to answer the question 'why is there sexism in religion'. After all, it prompts the next question: since no one likes to be discriminated against, why didn't women create their own religions then when excluded from men's?
I think the reason is because religion has never really been about truth but merely a convenient way to explain what was unknown and to control behaviour in the easiest, most direct method that would benefit society. It was, of course, a lot easier to say "don't eat shellfish cuz it's not kosher and God will smite you if you do" than it was to explain red tide and the biochemistry of toxic molecules when the people didn't even know about cells yet. We insulated our societies' pre-legal system from change not through democratic checks and balances, but by claiming it is the word of God, not to be altered. Religion was an efficient way to compel a small community to obey rules before it donned upon us that we can argue for moral rules and hold a society together without pulling the "cuz God sed so" card.
One thing that greatly benefits a growing community is a high birth rate. In those days, giving birth was a very dangerous thing; most women, I would guess, died in childbirth. How do you motivate a woman to risk her life by pumping out babies at a rate that would benefit society and overcome the high infant mortality rate? Why bother trying to reason? — this takes too long and hurts our brains. Why all that effort when one can more easily say, 'because I am the man and I say so.' 'So what?' And the trump card: '... Well, God said you've got to obey me.'
And there we have the first step of women's subordination to men; in order to ensure women continue to have lots of children despite the risk of death, we conjured up a God that enjoins women to obey men. Now how do we justify what we have done? The woman asks, 'why should I obey men? What is the reason for that when I am just as smart any man? If I am competent, why should I be robbed of my autonomy?' And this question is most easily answered by saying, 'well, you're not competent and you're not as smart. That's why.' 'Says who?' And the trump card: '... Says God.' And then we developed a robust set of theological principles establishing women as inferior intellectually, morally, and spiritually, thus justifying why she ought to obey men, which we wanted her to do in order for society to grow at a competitive rate so we wouldn't be wiped out by the barbarians or another society that was near us.
Women didn't create a religion because they never felt the need to control men's behaviour. It is really the woman's sexual behaviour that is is most easily controlled in order for a society to grow maximally. So women just operated within men's religions, accepting as God's truth that they were inferior and should therefore obey and not question men, on pain of eternal punishment. But it was not natural to go from hunter-gatherer society to the kind of society built on religion with women as inferiors and the Other. The gatherer role (cooking, making clothing items, gathering herbs and berries for food and medicine, and in more developed primitive societies, also selling things at the market) does not naturally translate/evolve/shift into staying home to scrub the floors and change diapers, making one's sole ambition in life to become a wife and defining oneself entirely through the husband's identity. The hunter-gatherer division of labour was only the result of shrewd survival tactic; men are stronger than women and so are less likely to get killed while hunting dangerous animals and it is more important that a female survive than a male in society (I read in a paper recently that scientists suspect that competitors of Homo sapiens did not have this division of labour, which may have been the reason why they died out.) Therefore, females should not take part in activities that risk their lives unnecessarily. It had nothing to do with gender inequality. If anything, it would be worse to be a male, wouldn't it!
Check out http://www.dharmalife.com/issue21/power_denial.html for sexism in Buddhism.
I don't think 'because men created it' is sufficient to answer the question 'why is there sexism in religion'. After all, it prompts the next question: since no one likes to be discriminated against, why didn't women create their own religions then when excluded from men's?
I think the reason is because religion has never really been about truth but merely a convenient way to explain what was unknown and to control behaviour in the easiest, most direct method that would benefit society. It was, of course, a lot easier to say "don't eat shellfish cuz it's not kosher and God will smite you if you do" than it was to explain red tide and the biochemistry of toxic molecules when the people didn't even know about cells yet. We insulated our societies' pre-legal system from change not through democratic checks and balances, but by claiming it is the word of God, not to be altered. Religion was an efficient way to compel a small community to obey rules before it donned upon us that we can argue for moral rules and hold a society together without pulling the "cuz God sed so" card.
One thing that greatly benefits a growing community is a high birth rate. In those days, giving birth was a very dangerous thing; most women, I would guess, died in childbirth. How do you motivate a woman to risk her life by pumping out babies at a rate that would benefit society and overcome the high infant mortality rate? Why bother trying to reason? — this takes too long and hurts our brains. Why all that effort when one can more easily say, 'because I am the man and I say so.' 'So what?' And the trump card: '... Well, God said you've got to obey me.'
And there we have the first step of women's subordination to men; in order to ensure women continue to have lots of children despite the risk of death, we conjured up a God that enjoins women to obey men. Now how do we justify what we have done? The woman asks, 'why should I obey men? What is the reason for that when I am just as smart any man? If I am competent, why should I be robbed of my autonomy?' And this question is most easily answered by saying, 'well, you're not competent and you're not as smart. That's why.' 'Says who?' And the trump card: '... Says God.' And then we developed a robust set of theological principles establishing women as inferior intellectually, morally, and spiritually, thus justifying why she ought to obey men, which we wanted her to do in order for society to grow at a competitive rate so we wouldn't be wiped out by the barbarians or another society that was near us.
Women didn't create a religion because they never felt the need to control men's behaviour. It is really the woman's sexual behaviour that is is most easily controlled in order for a society to grow maximally. So women just operated within men's religions, accepting as God's truth that they were inferior and should therefore obey and not question men, on pain of eternal punishment. But it was not natural to go from hunter-gatherer society to the kind of society built on religion with women as inferiors and the Other. The gatherer role (cooking, making clothing items, gathering herbs and berries for food and medicine, and in more developed primitive societies, also selling things at the market) does not naturally translate/evolve/shift into staying home to scrub the floors and change diapers, making one's sole ambition in life to become a wife and defining oneself entirely through the husband's identity. The hunter-gatherer division of labour was only the result of shrewd survival tactic; men are stronger than women and so are less likely to get killed while hunting dangerous animals and it is more important that a female survive than a male in society (I read in a paper recently that scientists suspect that competitors of Homo sapiens did not have this division of labour, which may have been the reason why they died out.) Therefore, females should not take part in activities that risk their lives unnecessarily. It had nothing to do with gender inequality. If anything, it would be worse to be a male, wouldn't it!
House Member
Posts: 4,564
Location: Minnesota: Gopher State
Location: Minnesota: Gopher State
November 5th, 2007, 09:49 PM
`` Is there a religion or a belief system out there that does respect women?``
In theory, Christianity does. The New Testament gives example after example of women preachers, apostles, church leaders, and teachers. A complete roster of these clergywomen is given in the final chapter of Romans.
Therefore, contrary to Christian practice, there should be no discrimination in Christianity.
`` Is there a religion or a belief system out there that does respect women?``
In theory, Christianity does. The New Testament gives example after example of women preachers, apostles, church leaders, and teachers. A complete roster of these clergywomen is given in the final chapter of Romans.
Therefore, contrary to Christian practice, there should be no discrimination in Christianity.
Newbie
Posts: 17
November 5th, 2007, 10:50 PM
Quoting gopher
And what do you make of Christian rhetoric that women were created for men, women must obey men, women aren't as spiritually close to God, woman is naturally wicked, and women should stay silent and never have authority over men, among other things?
`` Is there a religion or a belief system out there that does respect women?``
In theory, Christianity does. The New Testament gives example after example of women preachers, apostles, church leaders, and teachers. A complete roster of these clergywomen is given in the final chapter of Romans.
Therefore, contrary to Christian practice, there should be no discrimination in Christianity.
In theory, Christianity does. The New Testament gives example after example of women preachers, apostles, church leaders, and teachers. A complete roster of these clergywomen is given in the final chapter of Romans.
Therefore, contrary to Christian practice, there should be no discrimination in Christianity.
Electoral Member
Posts: 241
Location: kelowna bc
Location: kelowna bc
November 5th, 2007, 11:24 PM
Historically,women were very powerful in the early church when the first followers gathered in homes and outdoors, women took part in ceremonies and service. Enter those powerful old men, who moved the worship into churches and took over the power aspects that turned Christianity into a theological, political movement rather than a religion.
There are four books of the Bible that if you read closely, they were four different power positions, in a struggle for control of the seat of power. It is said there are about two dozen books of the Bible but only the four most powerful were put into print. Missing are the books of Timothy, Mary his companion and so on. About the 12th Century, Pope Gregory move Mary Magulen, from a genuine voice of the faith to the position of prostitute and only now, some people want to restore her image.
Most of the problems for women in the church actually started with Pope Gregory who was the big sleeze of religion as it were. This guy actually had St Perters In Rome built by selling shares for admittance to Heaven.
Women got caught up in a power struggle, that saw insecure men taking power and relegating women to the back bench and bedrooms of history. And funny as it sounds todays religion is trying to push women back into the dark for the same reasons of insecurity
Historically,women were very powerful in the early church when the first followers gathered in homes and outdoors, women took part in ceremonies and service. Enter those powerful old men, who moved the worship into churches and took over the power aspects that turned Christianity into a theological, political movement rather than a religion.
There are four books of the Bible that if you read closely, they were four different power positions, in a struggle for control of the seat of power. It is said there are about two dozen books of the Bible but only the four most powerful were put into print. Missing are the books of Timothy, Mary his companion and so on. About the 12th Century, Pope Gregory move Mary Magulen, from a genuine voice of the faith to the position of prostitute and only now, some people want to restore her image.
Most of the problems for women in the church actually started with Pope Gregory who was the big sleeze of religion as it were. This guy actually had St Perters In Rome built by selling shares for admittance to Heaven.
Women got caught up in a power struggle, that saw insecure men taking power and relegating women to the back bench and bedrooms of history. And funny as it sounds todays religion is trying to push women back into the dark for the same reasons of insecurity
Council Member
Posts: 1,897
Location: Quebec
Location: Quebec
November 6th, 2007, 05:33 AM
In other views, the sun and the moon are worshipped (male /female) . One is not more important than the other but seen as symbiant relation.
To actually think way back in the middle ages that it was believed that a woman had no soul. It wasn't written in the bible to my knowledge. So men of power dicided to manipulate the doctrine.
Have you also noticed too that some how its a sin to question religion too? This is what we say so don't question it !
Of course men being naturally agressive took the leading roll imposed his views and demands and probably chose more submisive women. Probably a genetic self defense for deep down theres no winning against a demanding woman.
Quoting Curiosity
I hear you Curio, i believe that its not a balanced view as for women create life and that is not respected except of course for the virgin Mary and even there they had to make it out as a virgin. Still she was chosen as they say but did she have a choice? Vereya/ElBarto
Great topic - I hope more people contribute to your excellent thoughts....
EB your question is the one turn off for me towards the current (modern day) forms of worship - created in the male gender rather than considering all of humanity as a contributor.
We are still in the trees we civilized folk....even though we can fly into space... we can't seem to get it right here on earth.
Great topic - I hope more people contribute to your excellent thoughts....
EB your question is the one turn off for me towards the current (modern day) forms of worship - created in the male gender rather than considering all of humanity as a contributor.
We are still in the trees we civilized folk....even though we can fly into space... we can't seem to get it right here on earth.
In other views, the sun and the moon are worshipped (male /female) . One is not more important than the other but seen as symbiant relation.
To actually think way back in the middle ages that it was believed that a woman had no soul. It wasn't written in the bible to my knowledge. So men of power dicided to manipulate the doctrine.
Have you also noticed too that some how its a sin to question religion too? This is what we say so don't question it !
Of course men being naturally agressive took the leading roll imposed his views and demands and probably chose more submisive women. Probably a genetic self defense for deep down theres no winning against a demanding woman.
