Where do you get this??? :/Here is a summary to show why Feminism is incompatible with Bible Christianity:
LIBERAL FEMINISM
Humanistic
Scripture: Divine
Gender prejudice responsible for inequality
Scripture: All human beings are sinners
Legislation can change inequality
Scripture: The New Birth changes people from within
SOCIALIST FEMINISM
Humanistic
Scripture: Divine
Economic dependency responsible for inequality
Scripture: Woman created for man
Mother, home maker, child rearer = ideological myths
Scripture: God-given roles of women are not myths
Reform rather than revolution
Scripture: Spiritual transformation is a necessity
MARXIST FEMINISM
Demonic
Scripture: Divine
Capitalism = exploitation, oppression, discrimination
Scripture: Human sinfulness produces exploitation
Patriarchy is evil
Scripture: Patriarchy is according to Divine order
Family system is evil
Scripture: Families are according to Divine order
Revolution is necessary
Scripture: Spiritual transformation and submission essential
RADICAL FEMINISM
Demonic
Scripture: Divine
Men are enemies of women
Scripture: Men and women are complementary
Patriarchy is evil
Scripture: Patriarchy is according to Divine order
Marriage is exploitation, and sexual relations are politics
Scripture: Marriage was instituted by God
Lesbianism supports equality of women
Scripture: Homosexuality is perversion
Rebellion is necessary
Scripture: Submission is necessary
Um, you might want to read this one ^^^^^ again if your point is to argue against divorce. They seem to be pretty level headed about things.Yeah and I could just as easily link these websites:
http://www.gotquestions.org/divorce-remarriage.html
At its most repugnant, the belief that women must be subjugated to the wishes of men excuses slavery, violence, forced prostitution, genital mutilation and national laws that omit rape as a crime. But it also costs many millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives, and continues to deny them fair access to education, health, employment and influence within their own communities.
The impact of these religious beliefs touches every aspect of our lives. They help explain why in many countries boys are educated before girls; why girls are told when and whom they must marry; and why many face enormous and unacceptable risks in pregnancy and childbirth because their basic health needs are not met.
In some Islamic nations, women are restricted in their movements, punished for permitting the exposure of an arm or ankle, deprived of education, prohibited from driving a car or competing with men for a job. If a woman is raped, she is often most severely punished as the guilty party in the crime.
The same discriminatory thinking lies behind the continuing gender gap in pay and why there are still so few women in office in the West. The root of this prejudice lies deep in our histories, but its impact is felt every day. It is not women and girls alone who suffer. It damages all of us. The evidence shows that investing in women and girls delivers major benefits for society. An educated woman has healthier children. She is more likely to send them to school. She earns more and invests what she earns in her family.
It is simply self-defeating for any community to discriminate against half its population. We need to challenge these self-serving and outdated attitudes and practices - as we are seeing in Iran where women are at the forefront of the battle for democracy and freedom.
We are calling on all leaders to challenge and change the harmful teachings and practices, no matter how ingrained, which justify discrimination against women. We ask, in particular, that leaders of all religions have the courage to acknowledge and emphasise the positive messages of dignity and equality that all the world's major faiths share.
The carefully selected verses found in the Holy Scriptures to justify the superiority of men owe more to time and place - and the determination of male leaders to hold onto their influence - than eternal truths. Similar biblical excerpts could be found to support the approval of slavery and the timid acquiescence to oppressive rulers.
I am also familiar with vivid descriptions in the same Scriptures in which women are revered as pre-eminent leaders. During the years of the early Christian church women served as deacons, priests, bishops, apostles, teachers and prophets. It wasn't until the fourth century that dominant Christian leaders, all men, twisted and distorted Holy Scriptures to perpetuate their ascendant positions within the religious hierarchy.
The truth is that male religious leaders have had - and still have - an option to interpret holy teachings either to exalt or subjugate women. They have, for their own selfish ends, overwhelmingly chosen the latter. Their continuing choice provides the foundation or justification for much of the pervasive persecution and abuse of women throughout the world. This is in clear violation not just of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but also the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul, Moses and the prophets, Muhammad, and founders of other great religions - all of whom have called for proper and equitable treatment of all the children of God. It is time we had the courage to challenge these views.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/federal-po...for-equality-20090714-dk0v.html#ixzz3zPK1PSxx
Follow us: @theage on Twitter | theageAustralia on Facebook
“Yes, of course I consider myself a feminist,” President Carter said. “If a feminist is someone who believes that women should not be persecuted and women should have equal rights, then all men ought to be feminists.”
Feminism is about both women and men. It affirms women’s full humanity, but it is not a putdown of men’s humanity. Rather it is a critique of patriarchy as a system that distorts the humanity of both women and men. Men are distorted by patriarchy both in being socialized into aggression, but also shamed when they seek their other creativities. Feminism critiques both distortions, and liberates men as well as women.~Rosemary Radford Ruether, Ph.D. Professor of Feminist Theology at Claremont Graduate University and Claremont School of Theology
This is a real eye-opener, especially given what was said earlier by mmbattlestar about his idea that women should have either the right to own land OR be married. That idea goes all the way back to 1707! LOL. No, I'm not going back to look for the post, but it is here because I even addressed it when it was made.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women's_rights_(other_than_voting)
History of women's rights world wide
Um, you might want to read this one ^^^^^ again if your point is to argue against divorce. They seem to be pretty level headed about things.
Mother, home maker, child rearer = ideological myths
Scripture: God-given roles of women are not myths
Family system is evil
Scripture: Families are according to Divine order
In a recent post, I mentioned I read through a commentary of Genesis by Derek Kidner in the Tyndale OT series. It is copyright from 1967. The point in noting its older date, is that I was surprised (pleasantly) by some egalitarian or progressive thoughts on the opening chapters of Genesis.
In the introduction Kidner states, in regards to the Fall:
“The shattering of the harmony of man and wife, not by any mutual disagreement but by their agreeing together against God, proved at once how dependent it had been on His [God’s] unseen participation. Without Him, love would henceforth be imperfect, and marriage would gravitate towards the sub-personal relationship foreshadowed in the terms ‘desire’ and ‘rule.'”
Kidner goes on to say that the rest of Genesis confirms this tendency. “Polygamy is partly to blame for this, but polygamy is itself the symptom of an unbalanced view of marriage, which regards it as an institution in which the wife’s ultimate raison d’etre is the production of children. Where God had created the woman first and foremost for partnership, society made her in effect a means to an end, even if a noble end, and wrote its view into its marriage contracts.”
In regards to the creation of the woman in Genesis 2:18-25, Kidner further states:
“So the woman is presented wholly as his partner and counterpart; nothing is yet said of her as childbearer. She is valued for herself alone.”
As Christians we should not be basing our marriages on the curse, but seek to emulate relationships that have been redeemed by Christ, reflecting pre-Fall harmony between husband and wife. Of course, we remain sinful people, but why would we seek to model our marriages on men ruling and the subjection of women? Why would we want to do anything to encourage a gravitation towards the sub-personal relationships of desire and rule? Our goal should be marriages of mutuality and partnership~https://lightenough.wordpress.com/2...mments-from-a-1967-commentary-on-genesis-1-3/
Do you really want a wife who will just always give in to your command at all times?
-Yes.
2) Women can’t be ministers because then they would have headship over men, including their husbands— and this will never do, and is a violation of the household codes in the NT. This argument is often complex and at the heart of it is an essential confusion of what the NT says about order in the physical family and home, and order in the family of faith, wherever it may meet. It is certainly true that texts like Col.3-4and Ephes. 5-6 and other texts in 1 Pet. for example do talk about the structure of the physical family. As I have argued at length, the patriarchal family was the existing reality in the NT world, and what you discover when you compare what is in the NT and what is outside the NT, is that Paul and others are working hard to change the existing structures in a more Christian direction. Paul, for example, has to start with his audience where they are, and then persuade them to change. And you can see this process at work in Philemon, Colossians, and Ephesians. For example, though the language of headship and submission is certainly used in these texts the trajectory of the argument is intended to: 1) place more and more strictures on the head of the household to limit his power and the way he relates to his wife, his children and his slaves; 2) make the head of the household aware that women, children and slaves are in fact persons created in God’s image, not chattel or property. This becomes especially clear in Philemon when Paul urges Philemon to manumit Onesimus on the basis of the fact that he is “no longer a slave, but rather a brother in Christ”. Paul is working to place the leaven of the Gospel into pre-existing relationships and change them. Similarly with the roles of husbands and wives, in Ephes. 5.21ff. Paul calls all Christians to mutual submission to each other, one form of which is wives to husbands, and then the exhortation ‘husbands love your wives as Christ did the church, giving himself….’ can be seen for what it is— a form of self-sacrificial submission and service. Submission is no longer gender specific or unilateral as Paul offers third order moral discourse here, working for change (see my commentary on Colossians, Ephesians, and Philemon– Eerdmans). Furthermore, we need to keep steadily in mind that what determines or should determine the leadership structures in the church is not gender but rather gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit. The family of faith is not identical with the physical family, and gender is no determinant of roles in it. Gender of course does affect some roles in the Christian family, but that is irrelevant when it comes to the discussion of the leadership structure of the church. This is why we should not be surprised to find even in Paul’s letters examples of women teachers, evangelist, prophetesses, deacons, and apostles. Paul is not one who is interested in baptizing the existing fallen patriarchal order and calling it good. One of the tell tale signs of Paul’s views on such matters can be seen in what he says about baptism— it is not a gender specific sign that we have for the new covenant unlike the one for the old covenant, and Paul adds that in Christ there is no ‘male and female’ just as there is no Jew or Gentile, slave or free. The implications of this are enormous. The change in the covenant sign signals the change in the nature of the covenant when it comes to men and women.~Ben Witherington
staff edit.