03 Feb 12
Originally posted by jaywill16. Christianity is misogynistic. Misogyny is fundamental to the basic writings of Christianity. In passage after passage, women are encouraged—no, commanded—to accept an inferior role, and to be ashamed of themselves for the simple fact that they are women. Misogynistic biblical passages are so common that it’s difficult to know which to cite. From the New Testament we find "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church. . . ." (Ephesians 5:22–23) and "These [redeemed] are they which were not defiled with women; . . ." (Revelation 14:4); and from the Old Testament we find "How then can man be justified with God? Or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?" (Job 25:4) Other relevant New Testament passages include Colossians 3:18; 1 Peter 3:7; 1 Corinthians 11:3, 11:9, and 14:34; and 1 Timothy 2:11–12 and 5:5–6. Other Old Testament passages include Numbers 5:20–22 and Leviticus 12:2–5 and 15:17–33.
If [b]Evolution took place why did it render the female sex of the race usually smaller and physically weaker ?
Why did natural selection make that difference between male humans and female humans ?[/b]
Later Christian writers extended the misogynistic themes in the Bible with a vengeance. Tertullian, one of the early church fathers, wrote:
In pain shall you bring forth children, woman, and you shall turn to your husband and he shall rule over you. And do you not know that you are Eve? God’s sentence hangs still over all your sex and His punishment weighs down upon you. You are the devil’s gateway; you are she who first violated the forbidden tree and broke the law of God. It was you who coaxed your way around him whom the devil had not the force to attack. With what ease you shattered that image of God: Man! Because of the death you merited, even the Son of God had to die. . . . Woman, you are the gate to hell.
One can find similarly misogynistic—though sometimes less venomous—statements in the writings of many other church fathers and theologians, including St. Ambrose, St. Anthony, Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, St. Gregory of Nazianzum, and St. Jerome.
This misogynistic bias in Christianity’s basic texts has long been translated into misogyny in practice. Throughout almost the entire time that Christianity had Europe and America in its lock grip, women were treated as chattel—they had essentially no political rights, and their right to own property was severely restricted. Perhaps the clearest illustration of the status of women in the ages when Christianity was at its most powerful is the prevalence of wife beating. This degrading, disgusting practice was very common throughout Christendom well up into the 19th century, and under English Common Law husbands who beat their wives were specifically exempted from prosecution. (While wife beating is still common in Christian lands, at least in some countries abusers are at least sometimes prosecuted.)
At about the same time that English Common Law (with its wife-beating exemption) was being formulated and codified, Christians all across Europe were engaging in a half-millennium-long orgy of torture and murder of "witches"—at the direct behest and under the direction of the highest church authorities. The watchword of the time was Exodus 22:18, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live," and at the very minimum hundreds of thousands of women were brutally murdered as a result of this divine injunction, and the papal bulls amplifying it (e.g., Spondit Pariter, by John XXII, and Summis Desiderantes, by Innocent VIII). Andrew Dickson White notes:
On the 7th of December, 1484, Pope Innocent VIII sent forth the bull Summis Desiderantes. Of all documents ever issued from Rome, imperial or papal, this has doubtless, first and last, cost the greatest shedding of innocent blood. Yet no document was ever more clearly dictated by conscience. Inspired by the scriptural command, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live," Pope Innocent exhorted the clergy of Germany to leave no means untried to detect sorcerers . . . [W]itch-finding inquisitors were authorized by the Pope to scour Europe, especially Germany, and a manual was prepared for their use [by the Dominicans Heinrich Krämer and Jacob Sprenger]—"The Witch Hammer", Malleus Maleficarum. . . . With the application of torture to thousands of women, in accordance with the precepts laid down in the Malleus, it was not difficult to extract masses of proof . . . The poor creatures writhing on the rack, held in horror by those who had been nearest and dearest to them, anxious only for death to relieve their sufferings, confessed to anything and everything that would satisfy the inquisitors and judges. . . . Under the doctrine of "excepted cases," there was no limit to torture for persons accused of heresy or witchcraft.
Given this bloody, hateful history, it’s not surprising that women have always held very subservient positions in Christian churches. In fact, there appear to have been no female clergy in any Christian church prior to the 20th century (with the exception of those who posed as men, such as Pope Joan), and even today a great many Christian sects (most notably the Catholic Church) continue to resist ordaining female clergy. While a few liberal Protestant churches have ordained women in recent years, it’s difficult to see this as a great step forward for women; it’s easier to see it as analogous to the Ku Klux Klan’s appointing a few token blacks as Klaxons.
As for the improvements in the status of women over the last two centuries, the Christian churches either did nothing to support them or actively opposed them. This is most obvious as regards women’s control over their own bodies. Organized Christianity has opposed this from the start, and as late as the 1960s the Catholic Church was still putting its energies into the imposition of laws prohibiting access to contraceptives. Having lost that battle, Christianity has more recently put its energies into attempts to outlaw the right of women to abortion.
Many of those leading the fight for women’s rights have had no illusions about the misogynistic nature of Christianity. These women included Mary Wollstonecraft, Victoria Woodhull, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Margaret Sanger (whose slogan, “No God. No master,” remains relevant to this day).
03 Feb 12
Originally posted by sonhouseSource?
16. Christianity is misogynistic. Misogyny is fundamental to the basic writings of Christianity. In passage after passage, women are encouraged—no, commanded—to accept an inferior role, and to be ashamed of themselves for the simple fact that they are women. Misogynistic biblical passages are so common that it’s difficult to know which to cite. From the New ...[text shortened]... rgaret Sanger (whose slogan, “No God. No master,” remains relevant to this day).
06 Feb 12
1 edit
Originally posted by moon1969I am still wondering the prevailing thought as to whether Paul's words above apply only to the Corinthians or to all women.
Does this only apply only to the Corinthians or to all women?
34 let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law.
35 And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church.
1 Corinthians 14:34-35
It seems to be a slippery slope if you say scripture only applies to a certain church during a certain time, and does not apply today.
06 Feb 12
Originally posted by moon1969Exactly why is it slippery?
I am still wondering the prevailing thought as to whether Paul's words above apply only to the Corinthians or to all women.
It seems to be a slippery slope if you say scripture only applies to a certain church during a certain time, and does not apply today.
06 Feb 12
5 edits
Originally posted by Rajk999To say that Paul's words only apply back then and not now is a slippery slope in the sense that one could then pick and choose what scripture to follow. Any scripture they do not like and do not want to follow, they could assert it only applies to the particular circumstances of the ancient place and time, and not today.
Exactly why is it slippery?
Moreover, why even include such offensive language in the Bible if does not apply today. What is the purpose? To merely show how backward the times and and how unfair were Paul's instructions to the Corinthians? Or how bad and childish the Corinthian women, and they needed to be silent and submissive, and not speak/ask questions in church but only ask their husbands at home? The word of god. Why even include such instructional scripture if not applicable today. To confuse the reader?
If one says that 1 Conrinthians 14:34-35 does not apply today because it was stated long ago in a particular time in a certain corcumstance, then someone else could legitimately also say for the same reasons that John 3:16 no longer applies today.
Is it really that simple to pick and choose which scripture you want to follow today? If so, then anyone can legitimately ignore whatever they want in the Bible. Slippery slope.
06 Feb 12
Originally posted by moon1969I have been on these forums for around 8 years and I have not seen threads like these, so Christians obviously are not worried about these issues. The reason is that those who understand the teachings of Christ and Paul know where these matters lie in the life of the Christian.
To say that Paul's words only apply back then and not now is a slippery slope in the sense that one could then pick and choose what scripture to follow. Any scripture they do not like and do not want to follow, they could assert it only applies to the particular circumstances of the ancient place and time, and not today.
Moreover, why even include such ...[text shortened]... If so, then anyone can legitimately ignore whatever they want in the Bible. Slippery slope.
I think only atheists or those who try to condemn or belittle Christians start these threads.
06 Feb 12
3 edits
Originally posted by moon1969this is a distorted view of the headship arrangement and i will demonstrate why,
Interesting. Does your mother cover her head?
My parents are also fundamentalists. The man is definitely the head of the household.
I remember at family gatherings, the women cooked and brought food, the men and boys ate first served by the women, and then when the men were done, the women sat down to eat (and we went into the living room to watc ...[text shortened]... important decision (e.g., a financial decision), then it was the husband that made the decision.
(Ephesians 5:21-29) Be in subjection to one another in fear of Christ. Let wives be
in subjection to their husbands as to the Lord. . . . . . . In this way husbands ought to
be loving their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself, for
no man ever hated his own flesh; but he feeds and cherishes it, as the Christ also
does the congregation,
Please note the qualifying statements, 'as the Christ also does the congregation',
Now how does Christ treat the congregation, he demonstrated self sacrificing love
for it, thus the example of Jesus Christ should motivate husbands to do things for
their wives out of love, self sacrificing love, putting her interests ahead of his own.
This is the real essence of the headship arrangement.
This is not only the most loftiest of principles but it is the most practical, apply this
and i will guarantee that you will have a successful marraige, demonstrating the
absolute validity of Biblical principles over secular materialistic meism which has
wrecked millions of marriages.
06 Feb 12
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis is a gem -
this is a distorted view of the headship arrangement and i will demonstrate why,
(Ephesians 5:21-29) Be in subjection to one another in fear of Christ. Let wives be
in subjection to their husbands as to the Lord. . . . . . . In this way husbands ought to
be loving their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself, for
iblical principles over secular materialistic meism which has
wrecked millions of marriages.
demonstrating the absolute validity of Biblical principles over secular materialistic meism which has wrecked millions of marriages.
Classic.
Is there anything for which secular liberalism isn't to blame? How about the poor Scottish performance in the Calcutta Cup, are we to lay the blame at it's feet also.
06 Feb 12
Originally posted by Proper Knobyes, the Scottish materialists couldn't score a try if their life depended upon it, what a
This is a gem -
demonstrating the absolute validity of Biblical principles over secular materialistic meism which has wrecked millions of marriages.
Classic.
Is there anything for which secular liberalism isn't to blame? How about the poor Scottish performance in the Calcutta Cup, are we to lay the blame at it's feet also.
shameful display, the sons of the Scottish mountains couldn't put a second rate English
team to the sword, oh great Wallace and Bruce, was it for nothing that Edward was sent
hame tae think again? Never the less, being part Irish, I have great hope that the
Gaels shall win out in the end! Wooden spoon for you my friend!
07 Feb 12
3 edits
Originally posted by Rajk999To the contrary, I know many christians including christian women, who are bothered by this scripture:
I have been on these forums for around 8 years and I have not seen threads like these, so Christians obviously are not worried about these issues. The reason is that those who understand the teachings of Christ and Paul know where these matters lie in the life of the Christian.
I think only atheists or those who try to condemn or belittle Christians start these threads.
34 let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law.
35 And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church.
1 Corinthians 14:34-35
Some of the Christians I know are surprised to see this above scripture and didn't know such blatant scripture existed, and are especially bothered when they realize it is New Testament and the words of Paul the architect of christianity, and not some obscure passage from the Old Testament.
It is SHAMEFUL for a woman to speak in church. Let them ask their husbands at home.
07 Feb 12
4 edits
So Christian Sisters, let's say you had to make a choice:
1.) You get a title, "Reverend" or something. You get to wear some perculiar outfit which makes you stand out from the "laity". Each week you get to speak and speak sermons after sermon after sermon most of which no one listens to that much as they sit passively in their pews. But you get to speak and speak with no limitation whatsoever to thousands. Everybody flatters you all the time about how eloquent a speaker you are.
2.) You are not known except to God. You and a few other sisters get together and petition God with powerful prayers which move His hand and touch the throne of God. You have seen your prayers effect salvations of the lost, change the hearts of world leaders, bring down blessings, cut off evil doers, cause workers to be delivered from temptations, bring backsliders back to God. You have seen your prayers answered at the throne of God many many times - you and a few faithful other faithful praying sisters.
You have confidence and faith that your petitions and supplications are able to cause the throne of the Almighy to execute His power and authority over lives in the world. You see lives changed but they often do not know that it was because of the authority released by your prayers.
Which would you rather have if you had to make a choice ?
If I was a Christian woman, I'd take #2 anytime.
07 Feb 12
Originally posted by moon1969What you have demonstrated that the bulk of Christians dont read their bible. Anyone who is familar with the Bible know what doctrines are critical for ones salvation.
To the contrary, I know many christians including christian women, who are bothered by this scripture:
[quote] 34 let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law.
35 And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful ...[text shortened]... tament.
It is SHAMEFUL for a woman to speak in church. Let them ask their husbands at home.
08 Feb 12
Originally posted by jaywillgood then. you should remain silent in chruch and ask your wife to explain the sermon to you when you get home.
So Christian Sisters, let's say you had to make a choice:
[b] 1.) You get a title, "Reverend" or something. You get to wear some perculiar outfit which makes you stand out from the "laity". Each week you get to speak and speak sermons after sermon after sermon most of which no one listens to that much as they sit passively in their pews. But you get ...[text shortened]... have if you had to make a choice ?
If I was a Christian woman, I'd take #2 anytime.[/b]
08 Feb 12
5 edits
Originally posted by VoidSpiritWhere I meet we do not have "sermons" as you expect.
good then. you should remain silent in chruch and ask your wife to explain the sermon to you when you get home.
There is no "pulpit".
There is no "clergy".
There is no "laity".
Our meetings are encourage all to come with something to say. Each person is permitted at least three minutes to speak.
We call this "All saints prophesying meetings" for Paul said that we can all prophesy one by one that all may learn and all may be encouraged.
And the jist of my post was not aim at the genuine and real spiritual authority before God rather than symbolism without substance.
As for asking the husband at home ? That seems to be something related to defining doctrines. Praying, praising, proclaiming, prophesying, speaking for and speaking forth the Lord by all participants in the home seems not to be discouraged.
In Acts it says that they met in the homes and met "from house to house." I doubt that Paul meant that a sister was not to speak forth for the Lord in the home meetings, in addition to asking a question.
"And day by day, continueing steadfastly with one accord in the temple and breaking bread FROM HOUSE TO HOUSE ..." (Acts 2:46 my emph.)
"And every day, in the temple and FROM HOUSE TO HOUSE, they did not cease teaching and announcing the gospel of Jesus as the Christ." (5:42)
You see we read into the New Testament our customary concepts of what a church is. "Oh, a woman was not permitted to speak in the church".
We, the the church in Jerusalem met from house to house. So perhaps 100 home meetings, meeting "from house to house" constituted the church. And in those house to house meetings I believe the female disciples were speaking.
We are told of four female daughters of Phillip the evangelist, who were all prophets.
" ... Phillip the evangelist ... Now this man had four virgin daughters who prophesied." (Acts 21:8)
Someone must have heard these sisters exercise their gift to prophesy. How could they have been either ONLY silent or ONLY asking questions ?
Also the couple that rendered help to Paul, Prisca and Aquilla, were at least once mentioned with the WOMAN's name first. This may indicate that in the apostolic couple the sister sometimes took the lead. It is hard for me to believe that she never said anything.
Paul also mentions a woman Junia (Rom. 15:7) who was "note among the apostles". If she had a reputation among the apostles, could it be that they never HEARD her speak ? I doubt that.
All things taken together it could be that Paul meant that the sisters should not be defining crucial doctrines with authority.
Lastly, Paul's advice to Timothy might be taken as Paul's PERSONAL custom. Notice the wording:
"But I do not permit a woman to teach or to assert authority over a man, but to be in quietness. For Adam was formed first, then Eve ..." ( 1 Tim. 2:12)
Though I concede that Paul refers to the book of Genesis for his rationale, I also notice his wording " I ... do not allow ...".
Arguably, this could have been the elder apostle informing his protege of his [Paul's] individualized and personal custom.
Ie. "MY practice ... personally ... is to not allow a woman to exercise authority over a man. And here is my rationale ____. I council you that this is a good practice."
It is possible that this is the tone I should take this passage in. Church history has female teachers who were a blessing to the church -
ie. Mrs. Jesse Penn Lewis
Margaret Barber
Sister Fanny Crosby wrote over 9000 hymns. I wager her touching hymns will probably be long remembered more so than a lot of sermons given by men.