Quote:
Originally Posted by Chery
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/15/15_9_18.gif
In England, in the 1600, women were rated and treated on the same level as aminals, with no rights - and not even allowed to read the Bible - reading was a man's thing. Women, who at that time were caught reading were burned at the stake. I don't think we can afford to go back to those 'good ole days'.
Women were not singled out for special treatment either as martyrs or as Bible readers. For example, in the English village of Amersham, several martyrs were burned at the stake in 1506 and 1521 for their religious beliefs. They were part of a group of religious reformers - Lollards - who believed in such things as reading the Bible in English and worshipping in English rather than the Latin then used in the churches. They wanted the freedom to worship and believe with their own minds and not just accept the unquestioning doctrines of the Catholic Church of the time.
The monument to the Amersham Martyrs carries this inscription:
"In the shallow of depression at
a spot 100 yards left of this
monument seven Protestants, six men
and one woman were burned to death
at the stake. They died for the
principles of religious liberty,
for the right to read and interpret
the Holy Scriptures and to worship
God according to their consciences
as revealed through God's Holy Word
Their names shall live for ever”
In sixteenth-century England people were expected to follow the religious beliefs of the reigning monarch. When Edward VI was king they were told they had to be Protestants. However, when Mary Tudor became queen they had to change to being Catholics. After Elizabeth came to the throne they had to be Protestants again.
Those who refused to follow the religious beliefs of their monarch were accused of heresy. During their trials, defendants were given every opportunity to recant. If they did this they would be sentenced to a spell in prison. However, if they refused to recant and were found guilty of heresy, they were burnt to death.
During the reign of Henry VIII, people had to agree that the king, rather than the Pope in Rome, was the head of the English church. Those Roman Catholics that refused to accept this were executed, whether they were men or women.
In the reign of Mary, Protestant men and women were executed for refusing to accept that the Pope was the head of the church. Others – both male and female - were executed for reading the Bible in the English language.
M:)
Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
It looks like we have agreement and have put to bed a myth, that the bible gives man subjugation over women when the truth is more like man and woman should work together for the greater good of the family. I suspect that most of the holy books of other religions say the same thing but a lot is lost or interpreted for the sake of another's agenda. Thanks TEX.
The Bible reflects the patriarchal composition of middle eastern society during the time of the composition of its documents. To extend that to make it appear that Godhas decreed that women are to be subjugated is outrageous. The traditional role of the man in family life is protector and breadwinner, and that of women as homemaker and nurturer.
A family is an organic social unit that depends for its success on the integrity of all its members, and the roles of husband and wife are to complement and support each other in all avenues of pursuits in the best interests of the family's purposes.
Anyone who intreprets the Bible to have it say that man is the master of women does not understand women, does not understand the Bible, and does not understand God.
M:)RGANITE
