I hear what you're TRYING to say, dear Terry (peace to you!), but I think you miss MY point: the difference in what you believe... and what some of us women believe... is with regard to the WHY, which you yourself addressed when you mentioned the "prisons" (convents). Your position is that women readily accepted christianity and then persuaded their husbands/inculcated their children. I disagree. While women were certainly involved in the EARLY Body of Christ, men have overwhelmingly taken the lead, certainly for the first 40-60 years, then that last two millenia or so. This was primarily because the women HAD to learn at home FROM their husbands early on, as they weren't PERMITTED to learn publicly, like the men were.
Toward the end of the first century, however, "wicked men" rose up IN the congregations... and began to twist my Lord's, Paul's (?), and others' teachings so as to have grounds to oppress women... thus, really giving women NO CHOICE. It was (from a father, husband, priest, religious leader, etc.), either embrace it... or be considered disobedient, loose, a witch, an apostate/Jezebel, and all other manner of so-and-so's that either resulted in being lashed and beaten, stoned, turned out of the home, sent to a convent... or put to death.
My point: self-preservation was the impetus for women to accept what is known today as "christianity". Otherwise, there would BE no husband to persuade or children to inculcate. And it really hasn't changed all that much today. Who was behind this fear? Men. Primarily the clergy... then fathers/husbands who stood to be accused of heresy and all manner of sorcery becausw they couldn't control their daughter/wife and thus their own household. They were "bewitched" by any woman who dared NOT accept christianity.
I wish folks like you would read history from a more... ummmmmm... inclusive point of view. You know, that of women. Unfortunately, christianity's "well-bred" women were kept under lock and key (they were not even allowed to enter libraries or university, etc.), and its lesser breds weren't taken seriously at all.
And many, MANY women go to church NOT because of a love for God and Christ (and I am not challenging that, right now)... but... to find a husband! Especially one their father/mother/uncle/grandparents, etc., would approve!
I promise you: there was a time when the Church (and thus, "christianity") was the bane of a woman's existence. She could own nothing and was nothing without a husband. If she was even remotely good-looking, she became a bed-warmer for whatever king, knight, lord, pope, bishop, priest, sheriff, jailer, tax collector, innkeeper, or whathaveyou wanted her. If she refused, they only need label her a heretic or accuse her of being a witch... and she was totured, perhaps even stoned or burned. All in the name of "god."
So, while I understand the credit you're trying to give women, I think you're going about it in the wrong way... or, rather, the wrong place. This board really isn't the place for it because very few here really believe religion is a "good" thing any longer. And so while you may think you're doing women a service, you really are making an insult. Perhaps if you were trying to convince the congregation of fundamentalist church it might fly. If anything, though, women should be given credit for enduring "christianity" (particularly the WTBTS, but also many other religions)... and for not turning into a population of Jael's and just taking a whole lot of the men who imposed it upon them out.
Think, Terry: most of the books written about women and religion are written by... who?
Again, peace to you!
A slave of Christ,
SA
