Ann demanded:
I'm rather sorry that this has veered very off-topic, and the last posts have not at all discussed the main point that I wanted to raise, namely, whether Christianity, and therefore Jesus, wants morality to be established by controlling women's behaviour. Whether, in fact, immorality is caused by the fact that women's lives are not suitably controlled, and whether it is therefore a very serious moral problem that women are allowed to make their own decisions.
The suggestion that women's behavior is the cause of immorality is absurd on its face. There is no teaching in the Bible that morality is established by controlling the behavior of women or men or children or horses or dogs or any living creature.
One either meets the moral standard imposed by God or one does not. That moral code was not established in order to subjugate the female gender. It was established so that men and women could live in a peaceful society while honoring God as Lord.
Honestly, Ann, if you had stated your thesis this plainly at the beginning, we could have avoided using a lot of bandwidth. The answer to your stated question is "NO!" And the implication that Christians are dedicated to making women slaves to men is offensive to me. It simply isn't remotely true. And you should know better.
Carol wrote:
The historical Jesus was just another charismatic cult leader who may have had political ambitions. (depends on how you interpret the history) Anyway, as our profs used to caution us: Beware The Whig interpretation of history!
If Jesus was just another cult leader, why is the movement still around? What other "cult" has lasted for two millenia, has survived in every culture the world has seen in that time, and whose primary message is still being taught?
None. The primary message brought by Jesus was that He was the Son of God and that He came to save His people from their sins. The "Whig interpretation" is one written by the winner of the conflict, but Christians aren't a warrior people. There are no legitimate Christian organizations today dedicated to organized rebellion or violent rule or even armed defense. When Christians in the New Testament were threatened with persecution or even death, they chose one of two paths: leave or suffer. They
never fought back against their persecutors. And they never made the enslavement of women one of their articles of faith.
And the story of the baby Jesus is
not derived from earlier pagan religions. Those religions never prophesied about a virgin giving birth to a child in humble circumstances who would be the Son of God. Any such resemblances are subsequent to the fact of Jesus' birth, not preceding it.
If you want to complain about how people improperly use the Bible to justify their behavior, then we have common ground. If you want to object to people misusing Scripture to justify treating women as less important or less valuable than men, we have common ground.
But people aren't God. If I claim to be a Christian (and I do), then my actions should back up that assertion. That means that if I steal tips off tables in restaurants or I consistently drive in a reckless manner which endangers other drivers or if I'm deliberately insulting to my coworkers and acquaintances or if I sell illegal drugs in school playgrounds or if I beat my wife and children then I'm not behaving in a manner consistent with my profession of faith. And that would make me morally wrong.
But if you take the position that Christianity, at its core, treats women as less than human, you're wrong. Jesus did indeed treat women like human beings during His life. He did indeed ignore many societal rules and regulations in order to behave towards women as God would have all of us to behave. The apostle Paul wrote that in Christ there is no east or west, no Jew or Greek, no slave or master, no male or female. In Christ, all people are equal in God's sight. Each of us is just as big a sinner as the next person and as much in need of Jesus' sacrifice for our sins as the next person.
Ann, I hope I've answered the question you posed in a satisfactory manner.
