|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Women and Religion - Does it anger you? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Atos Inactive Member |
It seems to me that even very religious individuals, while claiming that the bible is of absolute authority, still "pick and choose" what to believe, and what to live by.
The example I would like to discuss is women and Christianity. In the bible women are often put at an extremely low level. "1 Corinthians 14If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." If this is the case, why do you see so many outspoken women ministers? Why does the modern church allow women to talk/sing/do anything in the church? For people to take the bible so literal, how can they ignore the parts they don't like? Are there "loopholes" that allow women to now speak in the church, even though it is disgraceful to the lord? Disgraceful is a pretty serious word. Wives are to submit to their husbands - How far does this go? Non-virgin women are considered "used", and unfit... Women are spoils of war... Women are clearly mans "property" according to the bible, and belong to husbands and fathers. If I was a woman, I would take offense to this, and this fact alone would make me wary of proclaiming the bible as "perfect", etc... How does a modern Christian woman interpret, and justify to herself and others the clear anti-woman posture of the bible?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Denesha Inactive Member |
Dear Athos,
Lovely idea. Why restrict the subject to Xtians? Denesha
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 756 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
It's pretty strange just how fast The Truth (TM) in this regard is changing, too. When I was a kid (1950's) women - Presbyterian, Methodist, whatever - always wore hats to church. Paul said you have to do that somwhere in an epistle, and that's what they did. Now, there are some Pentecostals and Mennonites (and old ladies who grew up wearing hats) that still do this, but I don't think that Southern Baptists, Church of Christ, and other "mainstream fundies" even pay attention to this "rule" at all.
And surely True Christians don't let fashion dictate what they will and won't wear...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
One_Charred_Wing Member (Idle past 6177 days) Posts: 690 From: USA West Coast Joined: |
Muy bien con tus preguntas, Atos. Glad you asked, because I think modern Christians need to be asked questions like this more often; I'll do my best to answer them.
"It seems to me that even very religious individuals, while claiming that the bible is of absolute authority, still "pick and choose" what to believe, and what to live by. " Not entirely true. The Bible has been translated (and 'edited' by King James) so I can't be certain about which small details are correct and false. I don't pretend that the Bible is absolutely without error, and most Christians I know do not either. "In the bible women are often put at an extremely low level." Another deciding factor in the 'pick and choose' game is what I agree with. Some people, when they don't like the doctrines of their faith, just switch religions. That's pointless unless you honestly don't believe in your diety. I believe in the God of Abraham, so if I switch religions it's pointless because I don't believe in Thor or Shiva. But considering the love of Jesus Christ I find it hard to believe He would be so condecending toward God's daughters. [This message has been edited by Born2Preach, 04-16-2004] Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
The Bible has been translated (and 'edited' by King James) so I can't be certain about which small details are correct and false. The old manuscripts which the various translators used say basically the same as the more conservative translations such as the KJV and the ASV. The ASV used some older manuscripts for the translation, but by and large the texts on women haven't changed. It's men and women both who have changed. Check out the Greek interlinears to the Received text for the KJV and the Alexandrian interlinear for the ASV. I have them both and the translations are quite accurate, especially the ASV which is my favorite and the most literal, imo. [This message has been edited by buzsaw, 04-16-2004] The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
If women are so low in the bible, why did Christ treat them so equally?
Remember the prostitute? Or the Samarian woman? Besides this, one who is christian must ask "what would Christ do?". We can only conclude that we must also treat women equally.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Women are clearly mans "property" according to the bible, and belong to husbands and fathers. If I was a woman, I would take offense to this, and this fact alone would make me wary of proclaiming the bible as "perfect", etc... It works like this with the Bible:1. There are numerous texts throughout the NT which admonish the husbands to love their wives as they love themselves. There are, in the Greek, four words for the word love. This love of the man for the woman is the very highest love, the agape love, the same love that motivated Jesus to be obedient to the Father unto the death of the cross for the salvation of the lost world as the sacrificial lamb of God. it is to be an unconditional love, regardless of whether the wife remained healthy, obedient, kind, or even sane. 2. If the husband exercised this high love for the wife, there will be no abuse, no taking advantage, no selfishness and no cruelty. 3. There is no need for a woman to fear submission to this kind of a husband. 4. The NT also teaches that if a man wishes to have his prayers answered he'd better treat his wife right and love her. 5. There is good reason for this chain of command given in the Bible. No social unit, including the family can function smoothly having two presiding heads, i.e. two presidents. The total chain of command given in the NT is God the father, head of Christ, Christ head of the man and man the head of the woman. 6. This setup does not work where either the man or the woman do not observe the Biblical rules. Imo, that's why Muslims are often known to treat their wives unkindly, the prophet Mohammed, husband of 16 of them, no exception who even bedded his youngest at around age 9. The Quran, unlike the NT, allows for harsh treatment of wives. Asgara may get on my case for saying it, but it's the truth. Some of the pagan cultures also were brutal to their wives.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3842 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
Women.
This is a biggy. The scriptures seem to be very much about this man-woman relationship. No one can deny that the whole bible trip got off on the misstep of the Adam-Eve relationship. But, I don't think the issue of importance concerns equality. No women wants to come down a step and be only equal with us men. The issue is about the "distribution" of a society's women to the men. There is the Pagan method of sexual disribution verses the Patriarchial methodology. The patriarchy of the Old Testament is strong argument against such a method of distribution. But, the Genile program was worse.We can recognize these two different cultural processes by which women are "distributed" among the men very easily today. 1) The Big Satan method of the Western Culture. 2) The Sharia of Islam. 3) Why three?Because both of the above suck. Jesus came to tell us another way, one that depends on men using their Big Head in forming the relationship with one woman rather than the Little Head in fostering many bad relationships with all the women. That this is the case seems to be the message about the "whore of Babylon:" Rev. 17:4 And the woman, (symbolizing those who have Institutionized a system of sexual seduction into a failed matrimony), was arrayed in (recognizable hues of) purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls (of her courtships and divorces), having a golden cup in her hand, (a sacrimental place in the order of religion), full of abominations (of abortions, STD, gay marriage), and the filthiness of her (sins of adolescence of her numerous) fornications (before choosing the victim of her marriage): Rev. 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY (Istar), BABYLON THE GREAT (economic wonder), THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS (in subtle prostitution) AND ABOMINATIONS (of abortion, STD, adolescent promiscuity) OF THE EARTH. [This message has been edited by kofh2u, 04-16-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 499 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
mike the wiz writes: If women are so low in the bible, why did Christ treat them so equally?Remember the prostitute? Or the Samarian woman? Besides this, one who is christian must ask "what would Christ do?". We can only conclude that we must also treat women equally.
In other words, you want people to feel free to ignore everything else that was said in the bible regarding the subject and do what THEY think Jesus would do?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarde Inactive Member |
An extensive study into women and the Bible:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/femalex.html [This message has been edited by Sarde, 04-17-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Atos Inactive Member |
Sarde, thanks for the great link....It will take me some time to review it, but I plan to delve a little deeper.
From my quick look at the study, it points out the many important contributions of women in the bible. So how is it not a direct contradiction to the "disgraceful" comment above. The thing that comes to my mind is the woman claiming her husband is not bad because he only beats her once a month. The bible, even having many women playing a meaningful part, still smacks them down enough to warrant some reaction. This seems like christians seeing only what they want, and if it distasteful, either ignore it, or think about something else until you forget about it. Sarde, do you have an opinion on this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Angeldust Inactive Member |
"If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." Greek is a very precise language. While we have words like speak and talk that mean pretty much the same thing, Greek is precise enough to know pretty specifically what they are speaking about. Greek has several words that are translated speak in the new testament.The first word is lego. It means to speak what you are thinking, coherent logical thought patterns. The second is leleo (I might have spelt that one wrong, I’ll double check when I find my notes)it means to chatter. If you've ever been in a classroom and had people holding a conversation at the back of the room. That's the basic translation of the word. It's not speaking it's chattering. This is especially important in light of 1 Corinthians 11:5 "and every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head- it is just as though her head were shaved If we contend that the Bible is inerrant then it cannot contradict itself. Paul was allowing women to prophesy and pray in proper order. Seen in that light, you have to decide, which text is clearer? Is there something culturally we are missing? What does the rest of the Bible contend? "The life I preach I do not live...I follow at a distance crawling" - unknown
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Angeldust Inactive Member |
You can probably tell by my signature where I stand on the women preaching issue.....
[This message has been edited by Angeldust, 04-17-2004] "The life I preach I do not live...I follow at a distance crawling" - unknown
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3069 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Lam is absolutely correct.
What would Jesus do and do likewise is HERESY. God doesn't want spiritual imatation He wants spiritual fruition via the power of the gospel. Jesus would pay His taxes via manifesting money found in a fishes mouth. Jesus would go into a rage and clear the Temple with a whip, and when the party needs life He changes the water into wine to keep it going. None of us could do the things mentioned. You try overturning a Jew's money table and see what happens. The correct rhetorical is : What would Jesus have me to do. [This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 04-17-2004]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024