Christian Women

[Shoku]

Paul's words about women don't come up in conversation much, because they are not politcally correct in this day and age. But they are there for all Christians to read.

From the NIV: "I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God." 1Tim 2:9,10.

These verses semm reasonable to most Christain women. The following verses are another matter.

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be kept safe through childbirth, if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety." 1 Tim 2 11-15

"As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 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." 1Corinthians 14:33-35

I know there are a few "Christian" women here on the DBB. What have you to say about this? Drakona?

[Tetrad]

Clearly the men who wrote the bible were as sexist as the times.

[roid]

back when i was in amongst these things... i used to think that was purely a specific cultural thing. as in, something that must have worked back then for some reason.
heh, sounds wrong doesn't it, treating some parts of the bible as inspired of god and others not.
suffice to say i'm no longer a christian.

[Gooberman]

This was brought up a few months or so in another thread. These exact verses.

Man, the issue of women in the church is a thorny one. I wish I had the time to write a balanced post about it. The best I can do is leave a link.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/femalex.html

It's egalitarian, and the analysis is kind of "take it or leave it"... some good points, sometimes he's a little excitable. But there's a lot of good history and theology there, and if you want to read an altertnative to the standard interpretation of certain verses... there ya go.

[CUDA]

Paul's words about women don't come up in conversation much, because they are not politcally correct in this day and age. But they are there for all Christians to read.

From the NIV: "I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God." 1Tim 2:9,10.

These verses semm reasonable to most Christain women. The following verses are another matter.

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be kept safe through childbirth, if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety." 1 Tim 2 11-15

"As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 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." 1Corinthians 14:33-35

I know there are a few "Christian" women here on the DBB. What have you to say about this? Drakona?

and exactly what are we trying to hook with this fishing expedition?

[CUDA]

back when i was in amongst these things... i used to think that was purely a specific cultural thing. as in, something that must have worked back then for some reason.
heh, sounds wrong doesn't it, treating some parts of the bible as inspired of god and others not.
suffice to say i'm no longer a christian.

suffices to say were you ever truly one to begin with

[TheCope]

Well...some like 'em short
Some like 'em tall
Some like 'em thin
Skinny legs and all
I like 'em buttered
I like 'em proud
Now when they walk
You know they draw a crowd

See...'eah, well you got to have a mother for me
Gotta have, watcha say, whatcha say...
See...'eah, well you got to have a mother for me
One more, gimme, gimme
See...hey, well you got to have a mother for me
Heah!

[roid]

back when i was in amongst these things... i used to think that was purely a specific cultural thing. as in, something that must have worked back then for some reason.
heh, sounds wrong doesn't it, treating some parts of the bible as inspired of god and others not.
suffice to say i'm no longer a christian.

suffices to say were you ever truly one to begin with

no that would make me a quantum scientist.
i was a christian.

[Kiran]

As a woman, I'd say that's bullcrap Unfortunately that's the way life was for all women back then. Unfortunately still, the same goes for some women today. My attitude is that if you don't like it, why are you still a part of it? You may have been raised this way but you don't have to sacrifice your happiness just so the men can have things their way. It is too bad women believe that it is of great service to God they follow the Law.
Paul's words are sexism, or so that's how the men "interpreted" his words at the time. Their law is if you don't want them to rule over you, don't give them the chance.

[Shoku]

This was brought up a few months or so in another thread. These exact verses.

Man, the issue of women in the church is a thorny one. I wish I had the time to write a balanced post about it. The best I can do is leave a link.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/femalex.html

It's egalitarian, and the analysis is kind of "take it or leave it"... some good points, sometimes he's a little excitable. But there's a lot of good history and theology there, and if you want to read an altertnative to the standard interpretation of certain verses... there ya go.

Thanks Goob, didn't know this existed.

[Shoku]

and exactly what are we trying to hook with this fishing expedition?

An honest, thoughtfull, informed opinion.

[Duper]

Paul is speaking of order. The man/woman -husband/wife relationship is of specific order setup by God and an image of our relationship with God.

It's not about making women "property". Contrary to most of modern culture, lust is a BAD thing; even within the confines of marrage. It is selfish and takes into only itself. Do not confuse it with passion. Christ instructed us that to look at a woman with a lustful intent is adultry which then was punishable by stoning.

These guidlines avoid that whole situation.

[Grendel]

Hm, I would hate to get stoned .. err ..

[Beowulf]

It doesn't have to do with women being property, it has to do with women being subservient inferiors to men.

[Duper]

it isn't that either. submissive yes. subservient no. there is a big difference.

[Iceman]

Well Shoku, it all comes down to this ... do you believe that the Bible is the word of God or not? If it isn't then it won't matter if you profess it as rubbish. But if it is ...

[Jeff250]

Define "Bible" and "Word of God" in your context. They're used so often that I think they're becoming meaningless.

[CUDA]

when you goto work are you subservent to your boss? you should be afterall he is in charge. does that make him sexist? we tend to focus on the verses that we do not like or that make us feel uncomfortable, those verses have to do with structure of the family nothing more nothing less. do not forget also there are certain vows that are takin during a wedding , "to Love, Honor, and Cherish for as long as you both shall live" these are promises that only the man makes to his wife before God. there cannot be 2 leaders in any houshold, all it does is cause confusion, Kaos, strife and ultimately divorce. if a man truly loves his wife he will not treat her as "property" he will put her upon that pedistal and adore her. if a wife truly loves her husband she will obey his wishes, this does not mean that the husbad has free reign to do what ever he wants, because if he loves her he will do whats best for her first. but someone needs to be head of the family

[CUDA]

back when i was in amongst these things... i used to think that was purely a specific cultural thing. as in, something that must have worked back then for some reason.
heh, sounds wrong doesn't it, treating some parts of the bible as inspired of god and others not.
suffice to say i'm no longer a christian.

suffices to say were you ever truly one to begin with

no that would make me a quantum scientist.
i was a christian.

well if you truly "were" a Christian, then you still are you just dont realize it

[Shoku]

when you goto work are you subservent to your boss? you should be afterall he is in charge. does that make him sexist? we tend to focus on the verses that we do not like or that make us feel uncomfortable, those verses have to do with structure of the family nothing more nothing less. do not forget also there are certain vows that are takin during a wedding , "to Love, Honor, and Cherish for as long as you both shall live" these are promises that only the man makes to his wife before God. there cannot be 2 leaders in any houshold, all it does is cause confusion, Kaos, strife and ultimately divorce. if a man truly loves his wife he will not treat her as "property" he will put her upon that pedistal and adore her. if a wife truly loves her husband she will obey his wishes, this does not mean that the husbad has free reign to do what ever he wants, because if he loves her he will do whats best for her first. but someone needs to be head of the family

I agree. Paul says in Ephesians that husbands ought to be loving their wives as their own bodies, and that wives should have deep respect for their husbands. In 1 Corinthians Paul is discussing how to conduct Christian meetings. Before he mentions that women should remain slient, he mentions the structure necessary within the congregation: "the head of every man is the Christ; in turn the head of a woman is the man; in turn the head of the Christ is God."
In his discussion in 1 Timothy, Paul explains the restriction on women by using the example of Adam and Eve; That Eve was created second (reminding Timothy that the woman was intened to be joined with the man, to be his helper, per the account in Genesis). But also reminding him that Eve was "thoroughly deceived," indicating that women are easier to mislead by whims of emotion and so should not be placed in positions of authority (Eve was created "perfect" but was still deceived).

[Zuruck]

Oh this is another one of those things in the bible that we shouldn't take literally. oh ok, i tell you what, i'll accept women as an equal because it's right, not because a book full of pages tells me to. you guys ever think about that? just make the right decision and you don't need a book on your nightstand.

haven't you grown men ever tired of trying to decipher such poetic crap? women are good, i love it when they dress like whores, it's good eye candy. does it make them less of a person? no, why would it.

[CUDA]

Oh this is another one of those things in the bible that we shouldn't take literally. oh ok, i tell you what, i'll accept women as an equal because it's right, not because a book full of pages tells me to. you guys ever think about that? just make the right decision and you don't need a book on your nightstand.

haven't you grown men ever tired of trying to decipher such poetic crap? women are good, i love it when they dress like whores, it's good eye candy. does it make them less of a person? no, why would it.

WOW that was insightfull do you have any more pearls of wisdom you'd like that share. I mean you've added so much to the conversation

I love it when they dress like whores,

ah yes now this is true respect for women. dont care what they are like as long as they dress like whores. you'll go a long way in life with an attitude like that. it truly show the quailty of individual you are.

P.S. so its ok to treat Women like meat just not property huh Zurich?

[Admiral Thrawn]

there cannot be 2 leaders in any houshold, all it does is cause confusion, Kaos, strife and ultimately divorce. if a man truly loves his wife he will not treat her as "property" he will put her upon that pedistal and adore her. if a wife truly loves her husband she will obey his wishes, this does not mean that the husbad has free reign to do what ever he wants, because if he loves her he will do whats best for her first. but someone needs to be head of the family

Cuda is on the right track

[Testiculese]

People haven't changed all that much ('till recently, and barely) Check the date, and no, I didn't highlight that stuff.

[El Ka Bong]

.. Argh ,, I just break out in hives and get all twitchy from reading these bible thumping threads.. !

... Be it the "grown men" who have lived long enough to have had a chance to experience anything like 'women', or the younger folks amongst us here on the DBB who might not have had so much experience, I can't figure out why you need or want a book of old scriptures to help 'decide' what is right..?! or what to do, how to do it .. or even feel..?

Why and how does that work for you ..?!

Loads like this just make me wonder:

"The man/woman -husband/wife relationship is of specific order setup by God and an image of our relationship with God" ...

Wholy Sheep Sheet !

How many of you have actuallly had "relaionships" ? ...And so did god come down to help you negotiate things when they didn't go smoothly ? .. or did you just whip out the "ol' Book" and read up on what to do ..? .. and that fixed things for you, right ?

I guess if you have no other rescources to use... and / or because you hadn't been taught to use them, and you had no brain, and you had no heart, and you were just lost in a universe of chaos... grab at whatever everybody else is being herded with...

[CUDA]

.. Argh ,, I just break out in hives and get all twitchy from reading these bible thumping threads.. !

you dont have to read them you didnt have to post,

It was made quite clear in the tread title that this was a scripture based thread. this is a very civil discussion on scripture with a few exceptions, no one is bible thumping here. but there are always a few ppl that feel the need to hop into bible threads that clearly they have little or no knowledge about, and add little or nothing to the conversation, they feel this ornate need to try to make ppl that have faith feel somehow stupid for believing ( this is not directed at you El-Ka Bong but other posters ) or that they need a crutch in thier lives, the problem is with most of these ppl is that they spend little or no time truly researching scriptures and thier meanings so have little or no knowledge to contribute. they just feel a need to hop in and dump on us and our beliefs. now since this IS a scripture, based thread and you would like to debate what scriptures has to say about the matter then we would be more than happy to engage you in debate, but if you feel the need to critisize us our our faith, then please stay silent

How many of you have actuallly had "relaionships" ?

1 marrage 25 years to the same woman, can you say the same thing?

[Zetal]

:):)

*This is a warning for those who say that the bible is to be taken literally.*

Now, by what is displayed here, all the evidence that this letter uses to back itself is all based on word put together by man.

1) The first section justifies everything stated by using Adam and Eve. In truth, that story is the second creation story. Christian and Jewish historians analyzed that creation story and the second creation story and discovered that the second was most likely the first created. The way they got that information was by looking at the original Hebrew texts and looking at the usage of the language, structure, and so forth.

Now this probably leaves you asking (if you haven't gone over this before), "Why did they make the supposed second one?" It was made to give a better understanding to people. It was made as a teaching tool. The reason I italisized made was it was written by man. No wonder there was something in there making women look bad.

In conclusion, justifying those laws by using the first creation story has no effect.

2) The second section has the same principle behind it. "...as the Law says," is a direct reference to what man created.


I'm done.

[Admiral Thrawn]

Some good information that I found

http://www.watchtower.org/library/rq/article_08.htm

Regardless of your religion, it would be hard to disagree with this one

[roid]

wow, that's the official Jehovah's Witnesses website. i never thought i'd see someone link that here.

(btw i think you got the wrong url, it's just a contents page i see)

[Admiral Thrawn]

alright, I fixed the link

i never thought i'd see someone link that here

Hehe, they are not the zealots other religions think they are. As a matter of fact, in my opinion, it's vice versa. I've taken a long look at religion, and to tell you the truth, I see less BS and more accurate information concerning the bible from the witnesses than anyone else.

[El Ka Bong]

Mmmpffhhh !..%*^!%*^% !!!

..."I see less BS and more accurate information concerning the bible from the witnesses than anyone else..."

... OmG ! ... we're back to "accuracy" of the Bible ! Which in these modern times should only be literally interpreted, especially when it is non-egalitarian and sexist, as this thread started off with 'debating'...

[CUDA]

Mmmpffhhh !..%*^!%*^% !!!

..."I see less BS and more accurate information concerning the bible from the witnesses than anyone else..."

... OmG ! ... we're back to "accuracy" of the Bible ! Which in these modern times should only be literally interpreted, especially when it is non-egalitarian and sexist, as this thread started off with 'debating'...

and just exactly what are your Seminary Credentials that you can talk about Biblical accuracy considering this thread was NEVER sexist as it was asking the opinion of some of the Christian women on this forum on certain versus.

[El Ka Bong]

Those biblical texts about women, sure sound sexist, old, out of date, un-modern or inegalitarian to me; 'interpret' them at will.

I have no credentials, as you mention; whatever that value is measured by, to 'prove', argue and debate biblical texts 'accuratrely'.

But is that what I need to be able to chew, swallow or just mentally handle the logic in these biblically bound arguements?... I need to get get thumped ?.. To a fly on the wall like me,
Biblical interpretation is like a semantic lingustic sport.

I have almost 40 years of living experience to offer my opinion from, and since I grew up in Rome, and had my first indoctrinations into catholicism in grade 2 at school and with freinds, the bible is certainly one of the books I've picked up, read and put back on the 'shelf'.

I come here just to spectate, .. but then I bristle, or my brain does, I start to heckle, .. and well .. I ought to just go back to britstling.. in my brain...

... or maybe; anyone up for a match of Monsterball ? Reloaded is a good one, eh Stryker..? ... You know how my heckling makes it easier to aim the MD-reticle at my shiny Pyro's a$$ ..?

[Mobius]

Here's something to think about. The opponents of legalising gay marriage, and homosexual law in general are always saying that it's immoral to do so, and goes against God's law, because homosexuality is forbidden in the bible.

Now, if you ask the same people if Adulery should also be completely illegal, you always get the same reply "NO! That would be taking things too far."

The audience then claps and applauds this moderate stance.

They say this as if it's an answer - whereas it's a full and complete refutation of their whole stance on the matter. If homosexuality should be illegal because the bible says so - then so should Adultery.

THERE'S NO MIDDLE GROUND HERE!

Because we can plainly see it is impossible to follow every rule in the bible, then resorting to trying to follow its rules is plainly stupid. You either follow all of them - or none - which is it to be?

Given the historical nature of (most of) the bible, and the times it was written in - is it any wonder Christianity is under siege? NO! Because all right-thinking, critical people, can plainly see the bible is a work of fiction - and not a very good one at that.

Historically, the bible is of some interest - being one of the oldest texts (albeit severely edited numerous times beginning around 200AD), but beyond the historical information within, the bible holds little attraction to thinking readers. It's like watching a REALLY bad science fiction movie: at some point, your "suspension of disbelief" simply can't take it any more, and you reject it, because it's like hitting yourself on the head with a hammer.

Because Christian doctrine (which is in itself highly contradictory - we all know 3 != 1) slavishly follows the bible, it means it requires participants to literally accept lies about the world, and everything which is in it.

Fortunately, most people can't live with lies like this - and reject Christian doctrine accordingly.

I suggest you do likewise.

[Stryker]

Thus ends the obligatory Mobius Drive-by Post troll. We may now bow to his superior intellect.

As far as adultery being illegal, it should be. It destroys families as much, if not more, than homosexuality.

Mobius, did you even READ the New Testament? Of COURSE it's danged impossible to keep all the commandments. They are perfect, idealistic laws set up to show us exactly how poorly we are performing.

Your 3 != 1 statement simply further demonstrates ignorance on the subject. Cake mix cookies have 3 ingredients: cake mix, eggs, and oil. Does this make 3 different types of cookies? No? Do 3 different facets of the same God make 3 gods?

Ah, forget it, let's just all say Christians are the cause of evil in the world and if they didn't exist there would be no starving children in Africa or global warming or corrupt government and all would be peace and flowery and we'd all have an unlimited lifetime supply of non-fattening donuts. Enjoy.

[CUDA]

I'm already hitting my head against the wall for arguing this point but here it goes

Now, if you ask the same people if Adulery should also be completely illegal, you always get the same reply "NO! That would be taking things too far."

what ppl and who we're they some backround here would be nice

They say this as if it's an answer - whereas it's a full and complete refutation of their whole stance on the matter. If homosexuality should be illegal because the bible says so - then so should Adultery.

agreed Adultry is a sin just like homosexuality. and any Christian worth is salt will tell you that

Leviticus 18-20 'Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor's wife and defile yourself with her.


Leviticus 18-22 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

here are 2 versus in scriptures that state that, there are many more in both the new and old testament

Because we can plainly see it is impossible to follow every rule in the bible, then resorting to trying to follow its rules is plainly stupid. You either follow all of them - or none - which is it to be?

there are no impossible rules to follow in the Bible, there are some rules that are difficult to follow because of our flesh nature, but does that mean we shouldnt even try?

Given the historical nature of (most of) the bible, and the times it was written in - is it any wonder Christianity is under siege? NO! Because all right-thinking, critical people, can plainly see the bible is a work of fiction - and not a very good one at that.

how do you come to the conclusion that the Bible is a work of fiction? at the very least that it could be said is that its a history book. is it just because you dont understand or believe it that you feel its a work of fiction?

Historically, the bible is of some interest - being one of the oldest texts (albeit severely edited numerous times beginning around 200AD), but beyond the historical information within, the bible holds little attraction to thinking readers. It's like watching a REALLY bad science fiction movie: at some point, your "suspension of disbelief" simply can't take it any more, and you reject it, because it's like hitting yourself on the head with a hammer

obviously you have never studied what is in the Scriptures. you will never find another book that can instill such deep thought than what you will find in the Bible ever.

Fortunately, most people can't live with lies like this - and reject Christian doctrine accordingly.

to borrow a line from a few good men

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH

[Jeff250]

You know, I don't get you Mobius. You realize that there is an actual live and active gay marriage thread already in progress? So why did you post that rubbish here? Do you purposely go out of your way to annoy the hell out of all those around you? Is this some sort of psychological experiment? To see which one of us blows up first?

Oh, I know why you didn't post that in the gay marriage thread. Because you couldn't find anyone actually making the argument that gay marriage should be outlawed because of the Bible in there. So you figured you would have a better chance of getting away with completely making up an argument for the other side and then swiftly defeating it it all in the same post if you somehow hid it in this thread.

Am I right? Or am I way off here?

[Duper]

naw, you're on, it's just that Drakona won't bite.

[Flabby Chick]

Just to get this straight. Is this a thread about Christianity and its "alledged" chauvanistic attitude towards women?

If so, I can't argue against some of the awful sexist crap been posted because i don't believe in the bible.


I also can't argue that the bible is not the truth for the same reason.

Damned if i do and damned if i don't.

[Jeff250]

I think the general theme that's been demonstrated here is that as long as you're comprehensive or sincere in your argument, it won't really matter what you're arguing.

Those who respond merely with snipes like "I can't believe anyone still believes in the Bible" (without demonstrating why) or hijacks like "So, lets talk about gay marriage now instead" need not apply.