Women, is this overtly chauvinistic

[Greatest I Am]

Women, is this overtly chauvinistic?

1 Timothy

2:11 Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection.
2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence.
2:13 For Adam was first formed; then Eve.
2:14 And Adam was not seduced; but the woman being seduced, was in the transgression.
2:15 Yet she shall be saved through childbearing; if she continue in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety.

I believe in equality of the sexes. I believe that all souls and natures are created perfect and of the same value to God.

Is it right then for religions to place women at the back of the bus while men take the beat seats?

How do you feel about being consigned to being followers and never leaders, forever?
If you happen to be a Gay female, how do you feel about having to hang from the rear bumper of the same bus?

Regards
DL

[Beto]

It's obvious the spirituality of Christ is not something you're familiar with...and the kind of mindset you have would take too much time to unravel.

Very polite ad hominem there, but not much of an argument.

But, for a start, good try at trying to get from point A to B via a straight line, but not straight enough. If you look at the "last shall be first, first shall be last" principle and you missed the spirit of humility that should dispel all discriminations, you really have not gotten it straight.

Well, that's an interesting principle that you presume is compatible with an argument like "whether we'll have matriarchy or patriarchy societies..."

In these societies, one gender holds authority over the other. You can use a euphemism like "responsibility for welfare", but it translates to the same. Some are first, the others are last. As far as I'm concerned, people should have the right to decide for themselves whether or not they want their welfare taken care of by someone else, and this right is generally recognized in modern societies, regardless of what the Bible has to say about it.

By the way, what would be a reason other than envy, pride and discrimination for a chauvinistic company to prevent anyone with the qualifications in terms of abilities to hold an important position? Christ calls us to work first at dispelling those deadly sins. Then, you'll see the radiant value of each person for who he/she is.

Brilliant. Dispel the envy between genders by promoting chauvinistic behavior. That should work...

By the way, in the free world, women are starting businesses at twice the rate of men. Why just limit oneself to holding an important position in a company built by someone else when you can own one yourself. And just so you know, women make and influence 80% of all purchasing decisions.

Apparently, the chauvinistic behavior promoted by the Bible is less effective these days. Too bad not every behavior promoted by the Bible is as ignored.

[catalyst]

Many women are men's possessions.

No they aren't men's possessions, however perhaps many men consider "their woman" their possession. There is a HUGE difference.

While there is a semantic difference between women being men's possessions and each woman being a man's possession, I for one, am opposed to both concepts. The writers of the Bible, on the other hand, seem to be quite comfortable with women being in the possession and control of men.

That is a valid point McCulloch and one with which I agree, however when the woman is in supposed "control" the control is not "of" bibical god, but rather some assumed evil and as a result, the women therefore should be "controlled", by the "god follower" man. That is where a lot of the chauvanistic mindset derives in my opinion, and not a natural urge to lord it over women, but instead fear, being the cause of the misogynist, chauvanistic 'tude' of some men towards women and it is usually those men who take the bible LITERALLY.

[catalyst]

TMMaria,

It appears you seem to buy into the taughtology too, with the "ALLOWED" rhetotric entering your reply.

"....Sons of Adam took after the first Adam who stood by and allowed".

and whoop de doo...what happened, the women by "god" was pretty much the only one REALLY punished... adam had to work for his keep (ohhh....) the snake had to crawl on its belly.. (hard ask for a SNAKE) and the women... well she got a PILE of pain out of it.

As to your jesus ..aka "new adam" comments, IF the fellow you worship did actually exist in reality, he wasn't the Mr Nice guy you are making him out to have been either. He condoned murder, child abuse, animal abuse (cannot forget those little pigs he send jumping over a cliff), and oh...didn't be dismiss a "gentile" woman in her time of need...jeez, we won't even go into the poor old whithered fig...cursed for not bearing fruit out of season...

Obviously your jesus failed to understand that ALL LIFE on earth matters and should be treated with at least a thimble full of respect. Seems he has a lot to learn.

[Greatest I Am]

If you think women and men are equal then how do you feel about women not getting paid as much as men are? The bible didn't say anything about that. That's our country. That's how the world works. Women in the middle east having to cover head to toe isn't what the bible says to do. There they can't hold jobs or anything. They're just child bearers. Many women are men's possessions. Why go off on the bible when there's countries out there who treat women worse?

I believe in same pay for same work regardless of who, male or female, do it.

You are right, many countries are backward. Does that mean that the Bible must be as well?

Regards
DL

[Greatest I Am]

Personally, I find this particular set of doctrinal principles to be some of the most troubling to follow. I, too, am a strong believer in gender equality, and yet the Bible clearly spells out separate and different roles for men and women.
I conclude that a woman's role in the church is not "less than" a man's, even though she does not have authority.
I should also point out that all positions of leadership in the church, according to Scripture, must be held by married men.
In practice, overseers' wives carry out important roles of leadership as well (and there is Biblical support for this).

Where is biblical support that says that somehow men can be or are closer to God than woman?

Where does it say that to be married is closer to God?

God creating souls.
This will be a good one.
This will be a medium one.
This will be a good candidate for a woman.
This on, oops straight to hell. I'll put this one in a starving bay.

let's put the brain in gear shall we. All souls are perfect.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I Am]

Yes, but the principles remain the same. Respect and not dividing the church are vital today as well as back then.

At what cost? The ends do not justify the means.

It does so. Smiles

That is the reason for God's genocidal flood.

Flood the evil and restart.

Oops more evil afterward. Results. No change except God is now know to fail once more.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I Am]

catalyst

I hear you but the KJ helped me find God. Do not throw out the baby with the bath water. We are to study both good and evil to get to God. I read the Bible knowing that both the Christ and the Antichrist speaks from it. Wisdom is discerning who is saying what.

Regards
DL

[catalyst]

Personally, I find this particular set of doctrinal principles to be some of the most troubling to follow. I, too, am a strong believer in gender equality, and yet the Bible clearly spells out separate and different roles for men and women.

Or perhaps it is just mistranslation of the original writings we now have? Does it come down merely to a mistranslation of the Hebrew word "ay'-zer"?

I conclude that a woman's role in the church is not "less than" a man's, even though she does not have authority.

Who was is you claim had authority over (apart from "god"..who too was the only authority over the blokes too) over :

Miriam -Exodus 15:24

Deborah - Judges 4 & 5

Huldah - 2 Kings 22:14; 2 Chronicles 34:22

Tabitha - Acts 9:36

Phoebe - Romans 16:1

Priscilla - Romans 16:3

Junia - Romans 16:7

I should also point out that all positions of leadership in the church, according to Scripture, must be held by married men.

And who is the POPE married to?

In practice, overseers' wives carry out important roles of leadership as well (and there is Biblical support for this).

what the?

[Allie]

So now it's what you "believe your god said and did, and what Jesus taught"? A post ago it was:

Allie wrote:
I know it made me angry the first time I read it. However, now I believe that the principles need to be taken away

Meaning you were taking the "principles" out of what "God" allegedly did, and what Jesus allegedly taught, and not taking them at face value or as unquestionable fact, which was a very reasonable approach. Classic case of "cake syndrome" if you ask me. I don't think you can have it both ways.

Hmm. I don't see it as "cake syndrome". It is the exact same thing as braiding your hair. The Bible says not to braid your hair. That was because, in that culture, it was immodest for women to braid their hair. In this culture, Paul might have told us not to wear extremely low-cut shirts, because they are immodest. It is the meaning behind the command that is the important part--the part that can be applied to all cultures--and not necessarily the command itself.

[catalyst]

Allie,

I think it is pretty spooky that you take anything Paul was purported to say, as a "commandment", or that you think these "rule of thumb" actually apply to ALL cultures.