Is it Jesus's fault?

[JellySaurus]

AFAIK all religions have the Golden Rule, or some variant on 'treat others the way you would wish to be treated'. But AFAIK only Christianity values meekness so emphatically. Turning the other cheek, being rewarded for passivity, kindness being demonstrated by putting others first at any cost to yourself.

Christianity has shaped modern western society, even if society is no longer overly Christian. Could this subconscious valuing of meekness be one of the reasons transgenderism has had such success colonising western society?

No, I think that's a huge reach.

There have been plenty of threads/chapters in books about how collective guilt at how badly gay people were (and are) treated has been capitalised on by people who want to be able to be dishonest about what sex they are.

That's not what meekness means - the biblical word is entirely different to the modern word (thank goodness)

Meekness is strength, courage and conviction in the Bible definition. And meek also describes circumstance ie. The meek rather than the ones who are slave owners and trample others beneath their feet shall inherit the earth

We are compelled as Christian's to speak out against all wickedness with strength/fight/using our swords when we need to/plus passive resistance (black armbands in the holocaust as a good example)

Jesus is the man who turned over the tables of the lenders in the temple in utter fury

Basically I'm the least fucking meek person preaching in my church

Not one person would ever describe me as meek in any way

This is actually a pretty interesting question. Tom Holland (the historian not Spiderman) would probably argue that this bias to those who are perceived as (or who cast themselves as) the oppressed minority is a Christian notion. The cross is a sign of weakness and the infusion of our society with a Christian worldview means that there is a bias to the weak, who are valued because of this Christian framing.

The problem of course, for trans identified males, is that being transgender (with its perceived weakness) does not remove male strength.

Actually I'd say deeply ingrained sexism is at fault for people not questioning "TWAW" etc. They just take it as common sense that being female is a type of personality and being male is another. Why question whether "feminine" means female and female means feminine, when everyone knows it's true?

I think it can lead people to be doormats.

🙋‍♀️

I was told I was struggling with pride, when I expressed concern about my parents. Actually my mum was abusive.

It's easy to misinterpret things to accept the unacceptable. I took humility and meekness and self effacement as Christian virtues. No one taught me about loving myself. How can I love my neighbour as I love myself, if I don't love myself?

So yes and No. not Jesus' fault, but quite possibly the church's!

Jesus' teaching was very clear. Love your neighbour as yourself. It's a reflexive thing.

You start by loving yourself, and treating yourself as well as you treat your neighbour.

If you don't have self-respect, don't protect yourself from harm, what sort of love is that?

No no, I don't think 'it' is Jesus' fault, whatever 'it' is.

Yep, Jesus started it. He was the original beardy bloke in a dress.😆

I think @Distractable ’s answer is a good one.

Christianity often has emphasised humility and meekness, which can be great for those who want to exploit others. I think identity/victim politics is a kind of degraded remnant of Christianity.

Jesus himself seems to have really valued women and treated them as equals. He also spoke very strongly against those who abuse children. He was always condemning hypocrites and show-offs. So don’t blame him too much!

The thing is that love your enemy/treat others as you wish to be treated is not based on your sex. It applies equally to men and women. It's the male sexism that skew it.

I'm a Christian and absolutely it's not Jesus fault. He never said anything that would lead to the poor treatment of women (except the be an obedient slave but that couldn't have been good for female slaves). There is a load of sexist offal in Christianity and it post dates Jesus. Alll the things quoted at me from the bible that place women under men and encourage women to take shit and stay in abusive marriages and be grateful for scraps from the male table comes from Paul. And the story of Paul I think tells a lot. He persecuted Christians then suddenly converted and gained power and influence over the Christian that way. He then preached in my opinion counter to the things Jesus said. Yet his words are in the bible and still read and relied on as equal to what Jesus preached. Misogyny invaded the religion in my opinion as it invaded and sours so much that is good. I've never met another Christian who shares my exact beliefs though but I guess it's not a conversation I would lead with

My interpretation on what Jesus taught was don’t get mad, and don’t get even. Hold yourself to a higher moral standard and hope that your enemy is inspired to do the same.

I think GC feminists do try to reflect an even, reasoned and non-violent approach toward TRAs. And in fact all decent people try to adopt this in the fact of ideological differences.That is where the moral high ground is.

And don't forget it was men who met and voted on which 'books' should be included in the bible. It was men who wrote it all down. And men who could read and write and translate it and study it. Wrote the prayer guides etc etc. If you are a misogynistic male are you going to write down something that will make your life harder and cast you as sinful or are you going to tweak it so you don't look so bad? It's human nature

This Jesus?

If those people espousing and teaching meekness, and all those benefiting from it, are also embracing this principle themselves then valuing meekness is wholely positive. It leads to a just and fair society where everyone checks their own privilege and upholds those with greater needs, whilst accepting the help that society gives you when you own needs are indeed being met. It can also go hand in hand with wisdom, understanding, and defending the weak against the strong if an aggressor who doesn't value meekness is trying to exploit this mindset.

When this teaching becomes a tool of oppression is when those in power are telling OTHERS to be meek and kind etc without practicing this virtue themselves or properly assessing the needs of those being told to meekly submit to ensure those needs aren't as great as, or even greater than, the needs of another group who they are being asked to prioritise.

The context of why he did that is relevant. He was reacting to money exchangers cheating the people. So the rich taking from the poor condoned by religion....

The suffragettes threw stones and set fire to post boxes. Would we post a meme pointing out they did this without reference to why?

I think this is a really important point. It's not a very meek thing to tell other to be meek

Interesting. I’m with those who find the Jesus of the Gospels a far more radical character than the Jesus of later Church teachings. I think he was a pretty badass, communist feminist as far as I can make out (and he respected his Mum too). The layers of Church bureaucracy, riches and power that came afterwards? Not so much.

I agree with the pp who mentioned Tom Holland. The cultural impact of something isn’t always a direct replication of the original - it can get distorted, and I think there is a moral element to Western culture that encourages us to “be kind.” It’s not actually practised by the people who really need to do it though, it’s more of a “do as I say don’t do as I do.”

The good Samaritan risked his own security to help a badly wounded/robbed man. He took him on his own horse to an inn, tended his wounds with his own oil and wine, and paid the innkeeper with his own money to look after the man. He didn't take the wounded man to an inn, demand the poor innkeeper give up his own clothes oils and wine, boot the innkeeper's daughter out of her own bed to make way for the wounded man and then demand, on pain of violence, that the innkeepers daughter showers naked with the wounded man anytime he requests it. And then go about telling everyone what a good, kind person he was, and what a bitch the innkeepers daughter is for looking upset. Otherwise it would be the parable of the really annoying Samaritan

@Distractable or anyone else. Which Tom Holland books do you recommend? I just looked him up to get his book and there are a few. I do love history and sociology so will happily read a few! Well audiobook a few lol

No.

As a Christian myself I agree with this, and it works in more ways than one. First, concern for the oppressed, which can be very misplaced. Second, the holy people in the wilderness following a pillar of smoke by day and fire by night, being how the oppressed view themselves.

Plus some adapted Marxist theory of course.

Dominion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_(Holland_book)

I haven't read it, but listen to the Rest is History podcast and he always speaks very well of it. maiow

Theologians point to the depiction of Eve, the first woman, as disobedient, leading Adam, representing man, astray.
In the New Testament, Mary is depicted as the new Eve, the new woman. She is obedient to God's commands. When told that she is to bear a baby who will be the son of God, she declares, 'I am the Lord's handmaiden'.
The Roman Catholic Church has portrayed Mary as the ideal woman ever since. Mary is obedient and a mother. The Church teaches that these qualities are to be adopted by female followers where possible.
This rebirth of women as good and obedient through Mary is an important feature of Christianity.
The depiction of the original Eve is interesting to feminist Christians.

The cultural impact of something isn’t always a direct replication of the original - it can get distorted, and I think there is a moral element to Western culture that encourages us to “be kind.”

Absolutely. I very much doubt that the Jesus of the Gospels would relate positively to much of Christianity, or to its results. Not that this is in any way a criticism of individual Christians who try to live according to Jesus's teachings as transmitted by the Church.

A vicar once said to me that Christianity should properly be called Paulianity!

Mary was given a choice and said yes. She then echoed Hannah's words regarding Samuel's birth - both women societally subversive in their acceptance of their part in God's plan.