Hi Panda,
Religion is the problem. ...well ya'll know Christians are fighters...It's just all bad all the time.
This was one of the foundational teachings that hooked so many of us into the WT cult wasn't it? Regarding this outlook, here's some questions that have bothered me as they pertain to the Islamic discussion at hand.
Do radical Muslims fully believe and totally commit themselves to the teachings of the Koran and the Hadith? Conversely, do non-radical Muslims not fully believe and not totally commit themselves to the teachings of the Koran and the Hadith? If the answer to both questions is yes, then radical Muslims are true-believing Muslims and non-radical Muslims are only nominal Muslims since the former group is the one who actually follow Muhammed who committed and commanded similar attrocities that radical Muslims today commit.
This raises the question of weather or not nominal Muslims are really Muslims just as it does as to whether nominal Christians are really Christians since the writings of the NT and the life of Christ in no way support non-defensive violence (some even include defensive violence) and a whole host of other things done by people who call themselves Christians.
Patriarchal religion is the really big problem.
I assume that you are referring to the cultural/religious domination of women? Aren't we glad that Christ gave freedom and dignity to women? This is a really good illustration to my overall point in this thread. First a little background.
Before and during the time of Christ a respectable Greek Atnenian woman was not permitted to leave her house unless accompanied by a male or trusted male escort. Even in Sparta where they had a little more freedom, Plutarch said they kept them under lock and key . She had the status of a slave in Athens, couldn't divorce, though her husband could. And of course she had to be veiled. Greek plays have rebukes for women for speaking in the presence of men, she was required to be silent in public; some Greek poets portray women as personifying evil.
Roman women had a bit more freedom than Greek women but still had a very low status in pre-christian times. She wasn't allowed to be with her husband's guests at a meal. Divorce rules were about the same... ok for men and not for women. Cato notes that Roman women even lacked the right to tell her Husband's slave what to do. A woman who was under "manus" or the absolute rule of her husband was prohibited from inheriting property from 169 BC and lasted until 500 years until the Christian era. Romans also saw women as evil, "There is nothing a women will not permit herself to do"-Satires 6:457. A respectable Roman wife was expected to wear a ricinium which was a type of veil. A wife could not appear on a stage nor speak in public.
There are also many parallels in the life of a Hebrew woman
to that of Greek and Roman Women particularly during the rabbinic Oral Law era ( 400 BC - 300 AD) They were barred from public speaking and were perceived as having or posessing an evil nature. While the OT doesn't shed much light on the use of a veil, in the rabinnic period it was to "cover a women's entire face". One Rabinnic teaching was "Do not converse much with women, as they will ultimately lead you to unchasity. - Nedarim 20a.
It appears that Assyrian women living around the time of Christ fared no better than Greek, Roman or Hebrew women. The husband considered her as his private property and veiling her face, he could keep his property private. Prostitutes however were considered as public property and were forbidden to wear a veil. A prostitute caught wearing a veil would be flogged, clothes burned and tar poured over her head.
Then Jesus comes along and screws up the monopoly that men had over women teaching some crazy "abuntant life" concept. - John 10:10
Jesus was humane and treated women with deep respect as can be seen from the story of his encounter with the Samaritan women at the well. I'd argue that he even afforded them great honor since it was to this woman that he first openly claimed the title of Christ. Why didn't Jesus afford this honor to some man? Because he knew that if there ever was a group of humans that were in need of a more "abundant life" it was women.
He went against the ancient beliefs and practices that defined women as intellectually, morally, and spiritually inferior to men and just began having a chat with this woman. "You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman"! she exclaimed. Talking to her as a woman was part of her shock, otherwise she'd have just said a Samaritan.
Doubtless Jesus knew the current Oral Law, "he who talks to a woman in [public] brings evil upon himself" -Aboth 1:5. Ironically this is what Jesus ultimately did, he brought evil upon Himself for all and especially for the persescuted women of the day. Another current Rabbinic teaching in Jesus' day was Berakhoth 43b. - "One is not so much as to greet a woman." Of course Jesus faithful followers "were surprised to find him speaking to a woman" not so much as with a Samaritan. What Jesus was doing was highly unusual even radical.
On another occasion Jesus told martha, "I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?" This was the heart of his message and his promise. Whom were they spoken to?... a woman. To teach a woman, according to Rabbinic law, was bad enough. But here asking for a public response from her, to a man, going against the socio-religious customs of the day must have been a real slap in the face to that culture. Now I'm not saying that he started some sort of women's movement just that he broke with the anti-female culture of his day leaving a model for his followers to emulate.
Women also broke with culture and "followed" him. In the prevailing culture, only prostitutes would follow a man without a male escort. He offered no words of rebuke but welcomed "all". Women at times "touched" him. He healed them and bid them peace as with the woman with the flow of blood. Christ also first appeared to women after his ressurrection affording them great honor in this way as well.
What effect did this have on the early apostolic church, the house churches? Paul notes that Apphia "our sister" was a leader in a house church in Colossae. Priscilla was one of Paul's "fellow workers" in the gospel at Rom. 16:3. Paul refers to Phoebe as a deaconess in Rom. 16:1-2. He also referred to her as a prostatis or a leading officer. Paul esteemed Euodia and Syntyche as his peers by including them with the "rest of my fellow workers. They helped bring people to church and prayed and prophesied publically. He definitely followed Christ's example in honoring women as his "co-workers" and declared that there is " neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ" in Galations 3: 28. The appearance of Christ had revolutionary effects on the lives of women and church historians know that women were a powerful force in the early expansion of the church. "The women of those days [early church] were more spirited than men" - St. Chrysostom (late fourth century)
I have already posted information concerning Paul's other statements that some see as contridictory here:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/81823/3.ashx
The point is that as Christianity spread, so did the honor and respect that Christ gave women. Unfortunately, by Ad 150 after the apostolic church age, some church fathers, even highly esteemed ones reverted back to a few pagan Greco-Roman views toward women. As famed German sociologist Max Weber noted, "women were slowly excluded from the leadership roles as the church routinized its activities". The fourth and fifth centuries widened the gender gap as leaders studied Greek, Roman and Judahizing writings, all which held negative views toward women. But such was not the case with Christ and the early church. These later church leaders acted more like the pagan Greek, Roman, Rabbis and Arabs than they did Jesus and St. Paul.
Although post apostolic era churches often viewed and treated women contrary to the way Christ and the apostles did, their lot was greatly improved in a number of other ways. The church always treated women as equal to men, receiving the same initial membership instruction as males, same rite of baptism, participated equally in the Lord's Supper and prayed and sang with men in the same services.
Family life was perhaps a more significant and lasting side effect of Christ's new ethic toward women. Christ reinstitued the one marraige partner standard for men which tremendously raised the quality of life for women. Paul, aware of Christ's views toward women told husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church. That was a tremendous elevation. So pervasive was this new ethic toward women that in 374 AD Emperor Valentinian I (a Christian) abolished the 1000 year old law of patri potestas. The pagan had now lost the power of life and death over his family.
With the repeal of patri potestas, the cultural mores of manus (husband's absolute rule) and coemptio (fathers's right to sell his daughter to her husband-to-be) became extinct too. With this, the recognition of marriage without the consent of the father began to be recognized, further empowering women. This was soon thereafter widely accepted with the support of Christian leaders.
Researchers note that Christian women married later than their pagan counterparts, where child brides were common. Muhammed himself married a six year old girl and consummated it with her at age nine. This is still practiced is some Muslim lands today. While Western deference to women is one of the most startling aspects of the West to Muslims, it is taken for granted by us.
I don't think it is a stretch to say the the birth of Christ marked an irreversible turning point in the history of women. It's contribution is immeasurable in this regard. It is one of those ironies of history that some radical feminists today detest Christianity that made their voices possible.
While Western Culture has had many starts, stops, and even reversals, the one thing that kept prodding it along and allowed future reformers and thinkers to make adjustments without "encouragement" from some superpower was the example of Christ and the early church.
