Christians: do you watch the Handmaid’s Tale?

[Audie]

I don't understand your point.

Lots of things happen that we dont anticipate

I doubt "Jesus" would have thought that whatever he
was about would turn into Prosperity Gospel
superchurches. Or the Vatican. Or or or.

. I can see an already totalitarian regime twisting Christianity to justify the evil acts they are already doing, but I cannot see any society evolving into what we see in that show due to Christianity.

 

[e.r.m.]

Lots of things happen that we dont anticipate

I doubt "Jesus" would have thought that whatever he was about would turn into Prosperity Gospel
superchurches. Or the Vatican. Or or or.

. I can see an already totalitarian regime twisting Christianity to justify the evil acts they are already doing, but I cannot see any society evolving into what we see in that show due to Christianity.

Thank you for explaining. And yet we don't have a society such as that show in real life. I think the question in the op was if Christianity could lead to such a society. I don't think it can. I think that kind of society would have to exist first, and then pull Christianity into it after the fact.

 

[Audie]

Thank you for explaining. And yet we don't have a society such as that show in real life. I think the question in the op was if Christianity could lead to such a society. I don't think it can. I think that kind of society would have to exist first, and then pull Christianity into it after the fact.

Who knows, who could predict.

 

[e.r.m.]

Who knows, who could predict.

Not much of an indictment, unless it came to pass.

 

[Audie]

Not much of an indictment, unless it came to pass.

And none intended

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's absurd and completely fantastical. the entire premise of the sexual enslavement of these women was based on an event where somewhere in the Old Testament someone used a surrogate to produce a child. This society hijacked that event And turned it into a command, something which the Old Testament never did.

Right: historically speaking, the Old Testament has been more often used to justify sexual enslavement of wives by their husbands; sexual enslavement of unmarried women was (usually) frowned upon.

Personally, I don’t get too hung up on the particular doctrines of the Gilead regime in the book/movie. Instead, I try to look at the overall themes.

For the book itself, it's largely a commentary on the then-contemporary situation Atwood saw. Remember that Atwood - a Canadian - wrote this book several years before the 1988 Canadian Supreme Court decision that struck down our country's abortion laws. She wasn't so much writing speculative fiction about how a male Christian establishment might one day control the reproductive choices of women; it was talking - in a veiled way - about how a male Christian establishment was controlling the reproductive choices of women at the time. The book is in large part her commentary on how awful and dehumanizing what she saw around her was.

That being said, I think Atwood's exegesis to create the doctrines and laws of "the Republic of Gilead" is no less solid than a lot of the stuff from real mainstream churches.

this is the society depicted in that show is not based on Christianity, but on a totalitarian regime that twists Christianity to its own ends. much in the same way that Kim Jong Un twisted Anne Frank's diary to further their propaganda with their school children. I can see an already totalitarian regime using Christianity toward whatever nefarious end, but I cannot see any society evolving into what we see in that show due to Christianity.

Has there ever been a Christian regime that didn't end up oppressive?

 

[SkepticThinker]

That's because it's about the Taliban. It's almost a documentary. The Taliban is real history.
The Handmaid's tale is garbage and anti-Christian, anti-America.

Have you read the book or seen the show?

 

[SkepticThinker]

That's because it's about the Taliban. It's almost a documentary. The Taliban is real history.
The Handmaid's tale is garbage and anti-Christian, anti-America.

"I didn’t put anything into the book that has not happened sometime, somewhere. Or wasn’t happening then and isn’t happening now. So you can call that feminist, if you like. I didn’t start from ideology, I started from what I was collecting and seeing. But of course, I must have been instigated, must I not?"
-Margaret Atwood
http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...eminism-handmaid-tale-20170424-htmlstory.html

 

[e.r.m.]

Right: historically speaking, the Old Testament has been more often used to justify sexual enslavement of wives by their husbands; sexual enslavement of unmarried women was (usually) frowned upon.

Personally, I don’t get too hung up on the particular doctrines of the Gilead regime in the book/movie. Instead, I try to look at the overall themes.

For the book itself, it's largely a commentary on the then-contemporary situation Atwood saw. Remember that Atwood - a Canadian - wrote this book several years before the 1988 Canadian Supreme Court decision that struck down our country's abortion laws. She wasn't so much writing speculative fiction about how a male Christian establishment might one day control the reproductive choices of women; it was talking - in a veiled way - about how a male Christian establishment was controlling the reproductive choices of women at the time. The book is in large part her commentary on how awful and dehumanizing what she saw around her was.

That being said, I think Atwood's exegesis to create the doctrines and laws of "the Republic of Gilead" is no less solid than a lot of the stuff from real mainstream churches.


Has there ever been a Christian regime that didn't end up oppressive?

The very word regime almost implies opression. Indeed. John Calvin's theocracy. But the system of government under Moses was not.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The very word regime almost implies opression. Indeed. John Calvin's theocracy.

Christian government, then. Have there ever been any governments based on Christian principles that didn't end up being oppressive?

But the system of government under Moses was not.

I'd personally be willing to bet against Moses being an actual literal historical figure, but if we set that aside:

- a government under Moses wouldn't have been a Christian government.
- the government under Moses described in the Bible was pretty oppressive.

 

[e.r.m.]

Christian government, then. Have there ever been any governments based on Christian principles that didn't end up being oppressive?

I've never heard of any government that was based on Christian principles, not politically anyway. I've sometimes wondered what that might look like. If you know of any that you could point out, I'd be happy to discuss it.

I'd personally be willing to bet against Moses being an actual literal historical figure, but if we set that aside:

- a government under Moses wouldn't have been a Christian government.
- the government under Moses described in the Bible was pretty oppressive.

It was strict, I'll give you that. I don't see it as oppressive, at least not in the sense that we see in the Handmaidens tale.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've never heard of any government that was based on Christian principles, not politically anyway. I've sometimes wondered what that might look like. If you know of any that you could point out, I'd be happy to discuss it.

The Papal States immediately come to mind. Or England under Henry VIII. Or Munster during the Munster Rebellion.

It was strict, I'll give you that. I don't see it as oppressive, at least not in the sense that we see in the Handmaidens tale.

You don't see chattle slavery of women and a complete rejection of freedom of religion as oppressive?

 

[e.r.m.]

The Papal States immediately come to mind. Or England under Henry VIII. Or Munster during the Munster Rebellion.


You don't see chattle slavery of women and a complete rejection of freedom of religion as oppressive?

I'd like to reply now, but I'm out of time. Will try to get back to you by tomorrow. Have a good evening.

 

[e.r.m.]

The Papal States immediately come to mind. Or England under Henry VIII. Or Munster during the Munster Rebellion.

The Papal States were based on Roman governing. Ignatius of Antioch had the "brilliant" idea of implementing a Roman system of governing over the growing churches. Papacy took even more Roman control over the churches, as well as the Papal States. By the time it got to them, it was no longer a christian Apostolic type of leadership. King Henry VIII's Church of England was just so he could break away from the Catholic church. It was politically based, not I desire to return to the New Testament teachings or principles. I won't comment on the Munster rebellion as I have no knowledge on it.

You don't see chattle slavery of women and a complete rejection of freedom of religion as oppressive?

I don't know of chattel slavery of women in Moses's Camp.
How could there be freedom of religion? God was there. there is no other God to worship, and God gave the law. There was either following God or there was not following God. The pagan gods of their neighbors were dead stone or wood. There was nothing else.