|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 3:54 am
 |
|
|
 |
I know that this is a strongly heated topic in today's society and wanted to see everyone's opinions on it and what someone believes is a woman's true role in the church. I could honestly debate on this topic all day long if needed, but here's what I believe in a brief statement:
This is definitely a sad and hot debate within churches today. The problem is when churches suppress the gifts of women by not allowing them to participate in preaching, prayer, communion, etc. they are allowing Satan to take more control. I was apart of a church that saw things this way most of my life. They said that women couldn't preach and that it was sinful and shameful, they said that women had to have long hair or else it was a sin and a man couldn't have long hair because it was a sin, and they said that women need to be submissive. I got annoyed that if I wanted to put in a prayer request, I would have to write it on a piece of paper and hand it to a man in the church to say it in front of the congregation. Women couldn't help with communion - even though it's mostly a silent activity with a bit of scripture read and prayer said before hand. The only things women could do in that church were sing hymns and sit there to listen. However, there is a clear reason why all this stuff is not true. Churches putting down women in authority goes all the way back before Jesus Christ.
Men and women are absolutely equal! If that weren't true, then God would've made woman from something else other than man. Also, because man was created first doesn't make him more superior. The submission issue can come across as offensive to a lot of women because negative connotations surround it at times such as some using it for abuse whether physical, emotional, mental, or spiritual. However, men are also called to be submissive to their wives as well. It goes both ways. If you read Proverbs 31 "The Wife of Noble Character", you will see that a woman is put in authority and it says that her husband respects the wife and she respects him. There are also many other scriptures that support man being submissive to his wife as well as a wife being submissive to their husbands (some churches that are against women ignore the part it mentions husbands) The church I used to go to hated it when I was sitting there reading it and thinking about it. Men and women are meant to work hand in hand. However, society doesn't always see it this way.
I strongly suggest reading the book "Why Not Women?" by David Hamilton and Loren Cunningham (I believe those are the names of the authors - believe it or not, they are both men). My husband read it and highly suggested it to me and I read it and it solved the debate of women and authority once and for all - at least in my mind. It clears a lot of the air and it's an enjoyable read becaues it adds the break down of verses that the Bible actually says depending on the writing structure of that time, meanings of original words that some Bibles have translated too loosely, and the culture and history of those time periods. smile
I completely understand the way most women feel today because we see examples as women being considered "weak" a lot of the time. At some point, it can start to really set in. However, don't let these feelings discourage you smile know that you are you and that God loves everybody.
In the Bible, remember that also the culture of the time didn't always respect women. There were many philosophers out there that were anti-women and God did put these to shame through things he wrote. For example, the Greeks used to think that the male carried a tiny human being in his seed and the woman was only the "soil" in which the child grew. God disproved this by having Mary become pregnant with Jesus without male intervention.
There are a lot of strong women in the Bible as well! Deborah was a judge and she told a man (name slips my mind for the moment) to go kill Sisera, I belive it was and since the man wouldn't go without Deborah - a woman claimed the victory by driving a tent stake through Sisera's temple. There was also another place in the Bible where there was a man who was struck by a millstone that was dropped by a woman, I believe it was, and asked a male to kill him so that a woman could not have that victory. The society is significant to the time and it is part of history as well. Man and woman are equal in God's eyes and one is not better than the other. We are meant to work together hand in hand and that's how it was in the beginning of time with Adam and Eve. Eve was a helper for Adam and they worked together.
Galatians 3:28 NIV:
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 6:25 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 12:21 pm
|
|
|
|
SinfulGuillotine I remember getting into an argument about this years ago with one of my teachers in Catholic school. The Catholic Church's stance on women in the Church has always bothered me, and this this teacher was trying to justify what I saw as blantant sexism as "celebrating the difference between men and women" and how it wasn't sexism at all, as women have just as much free will as men. I asked then why, if that was true, couldn't women become priests? My teacher said something along the lines of, "Well, that's just not the path that they're called to." I said that I thought only God knew what path we were called to and asked what should happen if a woman feels strongly called to being a priest. My teacher's response was "Well, then she can either settle for being a nun or become a Protestant." I think they called my parents to come deal with me after that, haha.
Yeah, this saddens me sad I was in a church that considered themselves Christian and they put down women in ministry a lot. I feel that I have been called to be a preacher, and I haven't mentioned it to my parents. I think they would be in complete shock if they knew that's what I wanted to be. I suppose also having gifts suppressed by a church has made me feel more on fire to spread the word in the end razz |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 8:37 am
|
|
|
|
Aquatic_blue SinfulGuillotine I remember getting into an argument about this years ago with one of my teachers in Catholic school. The Catholic Church's stance on women in the Church has always bothered me, and this this teacher was trying to justify what I saw as blantant sexism as "celebrating the difference between men and women" and how it wasn't sexism at all, as women have just as much free will as men. I asked then why, if that was true, couldn't women become priests? My teacher said something along the lines of, "Well, that's just not the path that they're called to." I said that I thought only God knew what path we were called to and asked what should happen if a woman feels strongly called to being a priest. My teacher's response was "Well, then she can either settle for being a nun or become a Protestant." I think they called my parents to come deal with me after that, haha. Yeah, this saddens me sad I was in a church that considered themselves Christian and they put down women in ministry a lot. I feel that I have been called to be a preacher, and I haven't mentioned it to my parents. I think they would be in complete shock if they knew that's what I wanted to be. I suppose also having gifts suppressed by a church has made me feel more on fire to spread the word in the end razz
In the perish I grew up in, girls weren't even allowed to be altar servers, only boys. And we didn't have a children's choir, we had a boys' choir. I do know that there do exist some more...I guess you'd call them "progressive" Catholic parishes that do allow girls to be altar servers and sing in the children's choir, but the one I was raised in was very traditional.
If you want to be a preacher, then more power to you! My friend's grandmother, who lives in one of the more conservative states in the US, is an Episcopal deacon, and she's a wonderful lady with amazing faith, and she's had to face a lot of adversity to get to where she is today. But she felt called to being a minister and she didn't let anyone get between her and what she felt was God's path for her. (The Episcopal Church has allowed women to be members of the clergy for quite some time, but members of several congregations absolutely threw a fit and would refuse to take Communion from her, would walk out in the middle of her sermons, and just generally tried to make her feel unwelcome in nearly every way possible.) I could try to get her email address for you if you'd like. I'm sure she'd be more than happy to give you any advice or words of encouragement that you'd need or want. |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 7:09 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 9:10 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 11:38 pm
|
|
|
|
SinfulGuillotine Aquatic_blue SinfulGuillotine I remember getting into an argument about this years ago with one of my teachers in Catholic school. The Catholic Church's stance on women in the Church has always bothered me, and this this teacher was trying to justify what I saw as blantant sexism as "celebrating the difference between men and women" and how it wasn't sexism at all, as women have just as much free will as men. I asked then why, if that was true, couldn't women become priests? My teacher said something along the lines of, "Well, that's just not the path that they're called to." I said that I thought only God knew what path we were called to and asked what should happen if a woman feels strongly called to being a priest. My teacher's response was "Well, then she can either settle for being a nun or become a Protestant." I think they called my parents to come deal with me after that, haha. Yeah, this saddens me sad I was in a church that considered themselves Christian and they put down women in ministry a lot. I feel that I have been called to be a preacher, and I haven't mentioned it to my parents. I think they would be in complete shock if they knew that's what I wanted to be. I suppose also having gifts suppressed by a church has made me feel more on fire to spread the word in the end razz Question, and you don't have to answer if you don't feel comfortable, but were you raised LDS? I only ask because I know that the Mormon church has pretty much oppressed women from day one. Even mainstream LDS today, despite no longer supporting polygamy and child brides, still seems to elevate men spiritually and socially far beyond women. And don't even get me started on fundementalist sects of Mormonism. *shudder* In the perish I grew up in, girls weren't even allowed to be altar servers, only boys. And we didn't have a children's choir, we had a boys' choir. I do know that there do exist some more...I guess you'd call them "progressive" Catholic parishes that do allow girls to be altar servers and sing in the children's choir, but the one I was raised in was very traditional. If you want to be a preacher, then more power to you! My friend's grandmother, who lives in one of the more conservative states in the US, is an Episcopal deacon, and she's a wonderful lady with amazing faith, and she's had to face a lot of adversity to get to where she is today. But she felt called to being a minister and she didn't let anyone get between her and what she felt was God's path for her. (The Episcopal Church has allowed women to be members of the clergy for quite some time, but members of several congregations absolutely threw a fit and would refuse to take Communion from her, would walk out in the middle of her sermons, and just generally tried to make her feel unwelcome in nearly every way possible.) I could try to get her email address for you if you'd like. I'm sure she'd be more than happy to give you any advice or words of encouragement that you'd need or want.
No, I was never raised in the Latter Day Saints. The church I went to bashed the Mormons along with every other religion other than theirs - even other Christians who believed slightly different. I grew up in a Church of Christ.
This Church of Christ never let women do anything. The only thing we could do was sing and listen to preaching. We could talk after services, but in that church - no one ever talked about the message or about God after services. In that church after church - it's over for the week, no more Christian stuff and they talk about what they're doing for lunch, what they're doing this upcoming week, how school/work are going, etc. I thought that was normal for a church, but apparently I now know it isn't. I remember my husband when he visited that church when I was still in it, he tried to ask people, "What did you think of this morning's message?" and people looked at him like he was crazy =/ I didn't even know those people were like that. At first, all those people were my friends and then when I was going to marry my husband, they changed and when I left, most were against me. Some in public when I run into them give me a mean glare or they look the other way. Few actually say, "Hi." to me and stop to chat for a moment. Although, when that happens, they ask so many questions I feel like I"m being interrogated.
That's cool about your friend's grandmother smile no worries about getting that e-mail address. It's quite alright. I totally appreciate the offer, though! biggrin |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 11:39 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 11:40 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 7:40 am
|
|
|
|
Aquatic_blue No, I was never raised in the Latter Day Saints. The church I went to bashed the Mormons along with every other religion other than theirs - even other Christians who believed slightly different. I grew up in a Church of Christ. This Church of Christ never let women do anything. The only thing we could do was sing and listen to preaching. We could talk after services, but in that church - no one ever talked about the message or about God. In that church after church - it's over for the week, no more Christian stuff and they talk about what they're doing for lunch, what they're doing this upcoming week, how school/work are going, etc. I thought that was normal for a church, but apparently I now know it isn't. I remember my husband when he visited that church when I was still in it, he tried to ask people, "What did you think of this morning's message?" and people looked at him like he was crazy =/ I didn't even know those people were like that. At first, all those people were my friends and then when I was going to marry my husband, they changed and when I left, most were against me. Some in public when I run into them give me a mean glare or they look the other way. Few actually say, "Hi." to me and stop to chat for a moment. Although, when that happens, they ask so many questions I feel like I"m being interrogated. That's cool about your friend's grandmother smile no worries about getting that e-mail address. It's quite alright. I totally appreciate the offer, though! biggrin
I get hired to play for quite a few church services and especially one church that I've played at quite a bit has two female ministers. I have no idea what denomination they are. If they even have one. They also pay really well, which isn't really relevent, it's just another reason why I like playing for them.
In the coming years, female ministers are only going to become more common, I think. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 9:33 pm
|
|
|
|
SinfulGuillotine Aquatic_blue No, I was never raised in the Latter Day Saints. The church I went to bashed the Mormons along with every other religion other than theirs - even other Christians who believed slightly different. I grew up in a Church of Christ. This Church of Christ never let women do anything. The only thing we could do was sing and listen to preaching. We could talk after services, but in that church - no one ever talked about the message or about God. In that church after church - it's over for the week, no more Christian stuff and they talk about what they're doing for lunch, what they're doing this upcoming week, how school/work are going, etc. I thought that was normal for a church, but apparently I now know it isn't. I remember my husband when he visited that church when I was still in it, he tried to ask people, "What did you think of this morning's message?" and people looked at him like he was crazy =/ I didn't even know those people were like that. At first, all those people were my friends and then when I was going to marry my husband, they changed and when I left, most were against me. Some in public when I run into them give me a mean glare or they look the other way. Few actually say, "Hi." to me and stop to chat for a moment. Although, when that happens, they ask so many questions I feel like I"m being interrogated. That's cool about your friend's grandmother smile no worries about getting that e-mail address. It's quite alright. I totally appreciate the offer, though! biggrin I guess a lot of denominations treat women pretty badly. But there are also seemingly quite a few that don't. I get hired to play for quite a few church services and especially one church that I've played at quite a bit has two female ministers. I have no idea what denomination they are. If they even have one. They also pay really well, which isn't really relevent, it's just another reason why I like playing for them. In the coming years, female ministers are only going to become more common, I think.
Yup, there are denominations that do and don't. In a church, I've never seen a woman preach and would one day like to. Definitely in a church that presents the word as the word was meant to be and not twisted.
I think over the years female ministers have been on the rise. I have been seeing articles about encouraging women to get involved in ministry and some churches encourage it highly smile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 5:55 am
|
|
|
|
Aquatic_blue SinfulGuillotine Aquatic_blue No, I was never raised in the Latter Day Saints. The church I went to bashed the Mormons along with every other religion other than theirs - even other Christians who believed slightly different. I grew up in a Church of Christ. This Church of Christ never let women do anything. The only thing we could do was sing and listen to preaching. We could talk after services, but in that church - no one ever talked about the message or about God. In that church after church - it's over for the week, no more Christian stuff and they talk about what they're doing for lunch, what they're doing this upcoming week, how school/work are going, etc. I thought that was normal for a church, but apparently I now know it isn't. I remember my husband when he visited that church when I was still in it, he tried to ask people, "What did you think of this morning's message?" and people looked at him like he was crazy =/ I didn't even know those people were like that. At first, all those people were my friends and then when I was going to marry my husband, they changed and when I left, most were against me. Some in public when I run into them give me a mean glare or they look the other way. Few actually say, "Hi." to me and stop to chat for a moment. Although, when that happens, they ask so many questions I feel like I"m being interrogated. That's cool about your friend's grandmother smile no worries about getting that e-mail address. It's quite alright. I totally appreciate the offer, though! biggrin I guess a lot of denominations treat women pretty badly. But there are also seemingly quite a few that don't. I get hired to play for quite a few church services and especially one church that I've played at quite a bit has two female ministers. I have no idea what denomination they are. If they even have one. They also pay really well, which isn't really relevent, it's just another reason why I like playing for them. In the coming years, female ministers are only going to become more common, I think. Yup, there are denominations that do and don't. In a church, I've never seen a woman preach and would one day like to. Definitely in a church that presents the word as the word was meant to be and not twisted. I think over the years female ministers have been on the rise. I have been seeing articles about encouraging women to get involved in ministry and some churches encourage it highly smile
By the way, mid-life crises like the one I described are total bull, and it's all just one big excuse used by dishonourable men to behave badly when they're old enough to know better. I'm just saying that if men can get away with pulling that crap, women should get away with it, too.
And hopefully the dispcable virginity/promiscuity double-standard will finally get flattened. Women who sleep around are no worse sluts than men who do. And men who sleep around do not get to demand that the woman they marry is a virgin. Either you care about virginity and abstain until marriage, in which case you have earned the right to expect the same behaviour from your partner, or you don't care about virginity in either yourself of your partner. You don't get to have it both ways. I really don't understand men (or women, it's just far more common with men) who are promiscuous but expect their sexual partners to be virgins. It must be some sort of psychological thing, because goodness knows they can't be in it for the quality of the sex, which is usually awkward at best. And small wonder! Your first time being awkward is like a rite of passage. I just don't understand why anyone would repeatedly seek out awkward sex, or what the appeal of de-virginising someone just for the heck of it is.
AHHH, such an enormous tangent, I'm sorry. Sleep deprivation does this to me. I'd solve the problem and just get offline, but then I just start babbling and ranting to whichever IRL person is closest to me, and seeing how right now that's a total stranger, it's probably best for everyone that I don't creep the living daylights out of some poor soul by trying to make them my new best friend in 5 minutes. sweatdrop
Seriously, who let me out in public in this state? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 3:57 pm
|
|
|
|
SinfulGuillotine Aquatic_blue SinfulGuillotine Aquatic_blue No, I was never raised in the Latter Day Saints. The church I went to bashed the Mormons along with every other religion other than theirs - even other Christians who believed slightly different. I grew up in a Church of Christ. This Church of Christ never let women do anything. The only thing we could do was sing and listen to preaching. We could talk after services, but in that church - no one ever talked about the message or about God. In that church after church - it's over for the week, no more Christian stuff and they talk about what they're doing for lunch, what they're doing this upcoming week, how school/work are going, etc. I thought that was normal for a church, but apparently I now know it isn't. I remember my husband when he visited that church when I was still in it, he tried to ask people, "What did you think of this morning's message?" and people looked at him like he was crazy =/ I didn't even know those people were like that. At first, all those people were my friends and then when I was going to marry my husband, they changed and when I left, most were against me. Some in public when I run into them give me a mean glare or they look the other way. Few actually say, "Hi." to me and stop to chat for a moment. Although, when that happens, they ask so many questions I feel like I"m being interrogated. That's cool about your friend's grandmother smile no worries about getting that e-mail address. It's quite alright. I totally appreciate the offer, though! biggrin I guess a lot of denominations treat women pretty badly. But there are also seemingly quite a few that don't. I get hired to play for quite a few church services and especially one church that I've played at quite a bit has two female ministers. I have no idea what denomination they are. If they even have one. They also pay really well, which isn't really relevent, it's just another reason why I like playing for them. In the coming years, female ministers are only going to become more common, I think. Yup, there are denominations that do and don't. In a church, I've never seen a woman preach and would one day like to. Definitely in a church that presents the word as the word was meant to be and not twisted. I think over the years female ministers have been on the rise. I have been seeing articles about encouraging women to get involved in ministry and some churches encourage it highly smile Yeah, the times they are a-changin'. Gender equality is only going to get better as time passes, in pretty much every facet of human society. There's certain kinds of social progress that I think are ultimately inevidable, for better or worse, and I truly believe that true gender equality is one of them. I'd be interested to see just how far that goes. I've already noticed changes just in the past decade or so. I'll be interested to see how far it goes in my lifetime. I'm 30 now, let's be optimistic and pretend that I haven't spent the latter half of my life destroying my body and say I live to be 70 (hey, it could happen; medicine is moving forward quite quickly as well) which would leave me 40 years left to observe. When you consider that women gained the right to vote, the ability to wear trousers without getting funny looks, and the freedom to pursue almost any career in less than a century, I think it will be fascinating to see how we treat the two sexes and how gender roles have changed...maybe gender roles as we know them will disappear all together. Maybe it will be fashionable for men to wear dresses and skirts (if it's socially acceptable for women to basically wear men's clothes - even if it's been made to fit a female body, trousers, suits, blazers, etc. are all originally clothing for men, and now women aren't just allowed, but encouraged to wear what used to only be acceptable for men - so the notion of men commonly wearing women's clothing outside of a drag show might sound silly now, but it seems like a perfectly reasonable prediction to me) and for women to have mid-life crises (for ages, wives have put up with their husbands blowing their savings on obnoxious sports cars and screwing around with women half his age just because he can't deal with turning 45...or 50...or whenever it is that men start acting like idiots to distract themselves from the fact that they're getting old and haven't done anything worthwhile with their lives and their wives just let it happen because for some reason we as men get a totally undeserved get-out-of-jail-free card for that, so long as they go back to their wives eventually.....I'm just saying, the tables are bound to turn eventually, and then women can go on mad benders when they realise that they're old, miserable, and unfulfilled and their husbands will just have to sit around and let them "get it out of their system"). By the way, mid-life crises like the one I described are total bull, and it's all just one big excuse used by dishonourable men to behave badly when they're old enough to know better. I'm just saying that if men can get away with pulling that crap, women should get away with it, too. And hopefully the dispcable virginity/promiscuity double-standard will finally get flattened. Women who sleep around are no worse sluts than men who do. And men who sleep around do not get to demand that the woman they marry is a virgin. Either you care about virginity and abstain until marriage, in which case you have earned the right to expect the same behaviour from your partner, or you don't care about virginity in either yourself of your partner. You don't get to have it both ways. I really don't understand men (or women, it's just far more common with men) who are promiscuous but expect their sexual partners to be virgins. It must be some sort of psychological thing, because goodness knows they can't be in it for the quality of the sex, which is usually awkward at best. And small wonder! Your first time being awkward is like a rite of passage. I just don't understand why anyone would repeatedly seek out awkward sex, or what the appeal of de-virginising someone just for the heck of it is. AHHH, such an enormous tangent, I'm sorry. Sleep deprivation does this to me. I'd solve the problem and just get offline, but then I just start babbling and ranting to whichever IRL person is closest to me, and seeing how right now that's a total stranger, it's probably best for everyone that I don't creep the living daylights out of some poor soul by trying to make them my new best friend in 5 minutes. sweatdrop Seriously, who let me out in public in this state?
Well, I suppose that we'll have to see where society takes it. I noticed that they've had more heroines/female heroes in video games lately and there are people that dislike it and people that enjoy it. I think it's awesome when the female heroine doesn't act like a sissy or sound all stupid xd but there has been more acceptance over time. Whether or not male and female will reach that equality in society will be a test of time. However, it may not ever fully happen and we all need to know that we are equal in God's eyes smile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 9:40 am
|
|
|
|
In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas
(In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in everything charity)
First of all, I would like to agree that this is a very contentious subject. The vast quarreling amongst the body of Christ pertains to the subjects of predestination and gender-role, the latter especially within certain denominations. Men tend to apologize abusive behavior and women tend to apologize rebellious behavior with scripture's prescription of gender roles. Thus, since the topic is somewhat volatile intrinsically, I will do my best to use neutral language and to write in a manner that conveys my calm and open-minded reasoning. I should hope any replies to this post will contain the same amount of levelheadedness and sincerity.
Before I leap into genders and the bible, there is an essential predicament to bring up. I believe there is a global misunderstanding of the priority of scripture in prescribing behavior. That is to say, both Christians and non-Christians forget or ignore the word of God's ultimate authority in obligating our actions. We often neglect a foundation in scripture on nigh anything, including sexuality and gender, because of thoughts like, "Oh! It's too discriminating!" or (for the nonbeliever) "I never became a Christian because of the immoral way that worldview treats women". However, as Christians, our first response should be "but the bible is true!" In other words, let's assume that the bible were discriminating for a moment. Would that change the fact that it is true? No, in fact, it would just doom us to prejudice (whether of sex, race, ideology, etcetera). The bible is the word of God; I don't care if it says "jump off a cliff", you better do it.
It frustrates me that instead of providing the faith in our Lord's word that He deserves, we turn to sources beyond the bible to try and "fix" the word of God. Besides the fact that this is monstrously arrogant, and in some cases even blasphemy, it is also unsound. For example, when working with your banking, do you come to find yourself in debt and then respond by scribbling over some transactions in attempt to rewrite your deplorable financial state? No! This would be delusional or incredibly dishonest. Likewise, if the scripture tells us something that is uncomfortable - TOO BAD! Reality does not revolve around you or your comfortability. The scripture is true whether it is "prejudice" according to humanistic world-views or not, and we are never justified in erasing, rewriting, or abandoning the word of God just because it invokes an emotional distaste (Revelation 22:18-19). Reality does that to Christians all... the... time (e.g. persecution), but I don't see us overlooking scripture just to defuse our anxiety, for instance of something like persecution. If God tells one he/she is going to be persecuted for his/her beliefs, then it is his/her duty to endure; and I do not see much disagreement about that. So, then, it is absolutely mind-boggling to me when we discover another discomforting fact (emphasis on it being an objective FACT) of God's truth and run away from it or attempt to deceive ourselves to keep everyone from it because of such a selfish motive as self-comfort. It blows me away that we can be so inconsistant, illogical, and untrusting of Yahweh.
Here is an example of what I'm talking about: Not long ago, I was invited to attend a bowling alley party for my church's college ministry group. I went with a close friend of mine - we'll call him Joe - who I consider incredibly intelligent, along with his girlfriend and another attendee of the party, who do not attribute anything to this example. Joe and I love to argue, though peaceably I'll add, and it eventually came up during our discourse at the bowling alley that something which Joe had "taught" me about was a "lesson" I disregarded. We disagreed about something he presumed I had admitted to his rightness in the past. It was the subject of 1 Corinthians 11 and 14. We commenced a short-lived debate on those passages. As evidence in favor of Joe's interpretation, he brought up this: a girl at his school was dissuaded from accepting scripture because of its "sexist" texts, and Joe countered her unbelief via reinterpreting the bible to appease her comfortability. Now, although I did not disclose it, I was very unhappy about this, to say in the least. If an atheist approached the bible with disbelief because the bible affirms the kingship of Yahweh, should we then reinterpret the bible to dethrone God in our minds? It's simply ludicrous. One does not - I repeat, you do not interpret scripture to appease your humanly whims. The purpose of biblical interpretation is to achieve truth, to better understand God, to grow closer in your relationship with Him, to be better equipped in loving others, etc. This is known as exegesis, proper translation. If, however, you are undermining the true pathos of scripture for the sake of saving yourself from emotional strife, this is eisegesis - improper interpretation. It is unfaithful to God, deceitful to others, and harmful to yourself in worse ways than the whit of emotional discomfort obtained through exegesis in the first place.
I am not accusing anyone here on the forums of this problem; I am making point of this delusion in general. The bible is the bible. The bible is reality, for it is the word of God. If someone were to reinterpret it for the sake of themselves it would be the same as playing God (i.e. blasphemy). I say this in love, calmly and for the purpose of edification, but all I have claimed heretofore is firm and necessary - it is irrefragable and essential to Christian faith, not to be doubted (and I do not mean skeptically questioned, but doxastically criticized) if you are truly saved. But, moving on, my next point is open to friendly debate. xd
There is a false assumption today that male and female persons have no differences. Men and women are equal as of faith, salvation, the fullness of the saints, etc. That being said, men and women are obviously not equal on all subjects. There is a reason that women do not play amongst male football, basketball, rugby, soccer, etc. athletes. There is also a reason male body builders lift, push, pull, withhold, and eat more than female body builders. There are no female Navy Seals, Green Berets, or Marine Recons. Anyone who honestly attributes men and women with complete equality, including that of the corporal, is incredibly naive if not just a feminist. There is further inequality between men and women, however. If you take a glance at history, it has been men who dominate the fields of philosophy, theology, science, politics, etc. Perhaps women are just as capable under the subect of intelligence as men seem to be, but I have never seen a good argument for it. That is not to say women are less intelligent than men or less mindfully capable than men; in fact, I also have never seen a good argument that men are smarter than women. Albeit men dominate the history of cerebral activities, perhaps that is a fluke of sexist societies - I don't know. My point is that the power of male intelligence vs. female intelligence is incalculable. I mean, if we are going to be objective about this, we can not seriously account for men and women being wholly equal. In the first place, they are not equal on some levels (e.g. fitness, dispensation to history, length of life) and secondly, about other topics, it is unknown whether they are equal (e.g. intelligence, personality traits, etcetera). So, no, men and women are not entirely equal; they can not be said to be equal as of some prerequisites; and they are only certainly equal as of spirituality. However, I accept what the bible has to say; not what our observations do:
1 Timothy 2:12, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."
At this point, the debate is over. The bible clearly - and I mean CLEARLY - states that women are not to be allowed to have authority over men inside the context of church life. Therefore, if one wishes to follow the bible's teachings, one must accept that women do not have equal opportunity in the dealings within the church; that much is indelible. I am very cynical about people's perusing this section of the bible and then not interpreting it literally. For pete sake, that is as literal as Paul could ever get!
Some have disputed this text in the following manner: "These verses were only relevant to the anti-biblical feminism that was taking place at the time." This refutation of universality is especially regular in usage against 1 Corinthians 11:3-14. This repudiation of 1 Timothy 2 or 1 Corinthians 11 is not, however, valid. If it were a truthful response, it could also be applied to Romans 1 with respect to sin in the passages being non-absolute and thus negate that stealing, deceiving, homosexual intercourse, or murdering are wrong since Paul was "just referencing some extreme anti-biblical ideologies at the time". So the advocate of this response has two choices: that person can commit the fallacy of special pleading wherein they enforce their standard on 1 Timothy 2 but do not over Romans 1, or that person can deny that Romans 1's reference to sins is universal, which is quite blatantly an attack on Christian theology. And so, it still stands that women within the church and marriage are to be submissive.
Aquatic_blue The problem is when churches suppress the gifts of women by not allowing them to participate in preaching
That all depends. Women are not biblically obligated or inhibited from teaching/preaching to a crowd of women. However, if you meant preaching to men, I fear I must refer you to 1 Timothy 2, specifically verse 12.
Aquatic_blue The problem is when churches suppress the gifts of women by not allowing them to participate in. . .prayer, communion, etc.
It all rests on the question of whether or not prayer and communion are objects of authority. Honestly, I have no evidence in objection or advocation that they are or aren't, but I would intuitively infer that prayer and communion are not activities of authority. So, if I attended a church that forbid women from helping out in this way, I would be likely to e-mail/phone my pastor about it, if you catch my drift (haha).
Aquatic_blue they are allowing Satan to take more control.
I do not really understand this. Were you using a hyperbole? That sounds a little harsh. Surely, you can not seriously be denoting a literal interception of Satan's power, though. We have no way of knowing whether or not Satan is enacting or not. Humans do just as much, if not more evil, than Satan, so I think it's hardly acknowledgeable that Satan effects your church at all. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't.
Either way, the roles of the sexes is not an essential issue and I assume that you will agree that we should be gracious to those that are wrong about that subject. Even to those who are incorrect belligerently or to those who are correct officiously, we should turn the other cheek. Although I do not grant assent with the woman who sometimes preaches before the mass of my church, I do not stand up and proclaim she is a Satanist or that Satan is working in the church or that they are in league with evil powers. If I felt so strongly about something that I held it to the same degree of depravity that I do Satan, I would leave or stand up against such evil. And I do not think that gender roles are that important, anyway, although I consider them up for debate.
Aquatic_blue I was apart of a church that saw things this way most of my life. They said that women couldn't preach and that it was sinful and shameful, they said that women had to have long hair or else it was a sin and a man couldn't have long hair because it was a sin, and they said that women need to be submissive. I got annoyed that if I wanted to put in a prayer request, I would have to write it on a piece of paper and hand it to a man in the church to say it in front of the congregation. Women couldn't help with communion - even though it's mostly a silent activity with a bit of scripture read and prayer said before hand. The only things women could do in that church were sing hymns and sit there to listen. However, there is a clear reason why all this stuff is not true. Churches putting down women in authority goes all the way back before Jesus Christ.
While I do not support women preachers, what your church invoked is undeniably legalistic. As long as they do not misuse the tool of clothing, women should dress themselves however they feel best glorifies God. The same goes for men's hair. I am very sorry for you; my parents grew up in a legalistic CoC community, so I know somewhat about dealing with their prudish, sanctimonious ritualism. At least you can thank God you did not grow up in a church that handles snakes, drinks poison, and believes that the entire bible is a myth with the exception of the moral principles involved.
Aquatic_blue Men and women are absolutely equal!
So true! After all, Katy Whinsbeck won so many football tournaments! I can't believe how many times I've called upon my sisters or female cousins to help me lift something heavy out of my truck! wink (By the way, I'm just poking some fun at you to keep the situation light. Don't take offense.)
Aquatic_blue If that weren't true, then God would've made woman from something else other than man.
What? Could you please clarify? I can not make any sense of this intimated implication if inequality.
Aquatic_blue Also, because man was created first doesn't make him more superior. The submission issue can come across as offensive to a lot of women because negative connotations surround it at times such as some using it for abuse whether physical, emotional, mental, or spiritual. However, men are also called to be submissive to their wives as well. It goes both ways.
I agree. And the man of marriage is the leader of the marriage just as Christ leads the church (cf. 1 Corinthians 11), and most of the time, appeasing your wife is the best way to lead her. There is a subtle difference though: A groom is obligated to lead his wife as Christ led the church; a wife is obligated to submit to her husband as the church does Christ. Therefore, although I husband ought to heed his wife, it is also his duty to deny her where it better glorifies God. On the other hand, a wife ought to always heed her husbands word unless it forces her to abandone or negate scripture. For example, there may be times when a man's wife would like him to help her with a homely job, but seeing as he has his obligation to God first, there might be a church related or missionary related or some other activity which he wisely feels he must complete first. Inversely, a wife's duty to God dictates that she appeases her husband first.
This is why marriage choice is balanced on a razors edge. If a woman chooses unwisely, she ends up with a brute, a nag, and a terrible leader who she is doomed to appease for the rest of her life. That's why the bible (e.g. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:25-39) stresses the importance of choosing a mate wisely - because if a woman does not, she will end up with a man who does not treat his wife rightly, maybe even beats her. And the bible says that a woman is not allowed to leave him or rebel. Of course, I am not supporting male abuse in a marriage - I think it is absolutely wrong and I think such men are detestable (truly evil). But those men will answer for their sins to God, not to their wives. The bible is clear that even in the face of such atrocities, women are to submit. As sad as it is, it is their own fault that they so foolishly chose such an abusive man. Again, that is why the bible stresses and accentuates the discernment and cautiousness that must go into choosing a marriage partner. (Of course, if the groom is mistreating his children, then depending on the situation, I think then the wife might have justification of running away/rebelling. Honestly, though, in that sort of situation, she is just as guilty for stupidly choosing this evil man as the man is for being evil to their children.)
Aquatic_blue If you read Proverbs 31 "The Wife of Noble Character", you will see that a woman is put in authority and it says that her husband respects the wife and she respects him.
If you could clarify, I would be much obliged.
Aquatic_blue I completely understand the way most women feel today because we see examples as women being considered "weak" a lot of the time. At some point, it can start to really set in. However, don't let these feelings discourage you smile know that you are you and that God loves everybody.
I disagree with you on several points. First of all, the world we live in is immorally centered around sex and is moreover sexist about it. Modern American society glorifies the promiscuity of women and the power women have through their advantageous, abusive imposition of this aesthetic, social norm attribute. Not only that, but our Disney-esque postmodernist society seeks to idolize women as intrinsic princesses who do a cute giggle when they confuse the "silly men" with their power and dreams. If that's not disgustingly self-worship-ist and utopian enough for you, how about the naturalist dogma which reduces everyone's individuality to mere sexual lust and idolizes women at the top of the buffet line of lasciviousness because they are the ultimate objects of this lust? And so, I hardly consider it noble to sympathize with the cosmopolitan women's point of view. The world is black pit of depravity, especially that of the postmodern feminist movement against egalitarianism, not a patriarchal society where girls are oppressed. America is not Islam, and neither is the world in general. The "way most women feel today" is selfish, self-absorbed, self-righteous, shallow, cruel, and delusional. That's not to say the common man is any better, but that's why you shan't ever see me saying "I understand you, poor guy." No, men are pigs and women are pigs (Romans 3:23), and that's why we all need a savior. Let's get real, shall we?
Secondly, there are countless female heros in the bible, Ruth to name one, who was so strong, wise, holy, and lovely (in the sense of true womanly integrity) that she got an entire book of the bible named after her. So, I am very suspicious when someone ascribes to the bible the claim of "weakness" amongst women. If anything, the bible says that both men AND WOMEN can be incredibly warriors for the truth of God. If someone feels weak, it is more likely that this is a result of their own being weak as opposed to the bible saying they are.
Finally, your last point about God loving us is misplaced. God may love your dog and the rock in the world he created, but that does not make them equal. Now, I am not comparing the differences between man and a woman as equal to that of a rock and a dog. My point is, God's perfect love does not make anything equal. God loves the angels; yet we are to rule (be superior to) the angels at the end of times. I am reminded of a decent analogy my Roman Catholic friend offered: two cups can be completely full, yet they may not be of the same height. That is to say, God can fulfill everyone and yet not render everyone of equal stature, power, authority, etc.
Aquatic_blue In the Bible, remember that also the culture of the time didn't always respect women. There were many philosophers out there that were anti-women and God did put these to shame through things he wrote.
Yes, but the bible's writings are not limited to culture, society, or the time it was written. If it were, we could drop Christianity itself. Though, I do give props to God for shaming the prejudiced philosophers of the time who supported such nonsense.
Aquatic_blue There are a lot of strong women in the Bible as well! Deborah was a judge and she told a man (name slips my mind for the moment) to go kill Sisera, I belive it was and since the man wouldn't go without Deborah - a woman claimed the victory by driving a tent stake through Sisera's temple. There was also another place in the Bible where there was a man who was struck by a millstone that was dropped by a woman, I believe it was, and asked a male to kill him so that a woman could not have that victory. The society is significant to the time and it is part of history as well.
(Poking fun at you again smile Yep, Deborah did it on her own; she fought the entire battle herself. It's not like she didn't walk up at the end after the males had done all the work and claim victory for them. rofl I wonder what would have happened if, instead of dropping a very heavy stone and surprising the man, the women would have took him on in regular one-on-one combat... rolleyes
But speaking in a more serious tone, you've missed the point. These verses have nothing to do with the strength of women. They are historical passages about the indefeatable plan of God. If it were not for God, even the strength of David might have been overcome, much less would we suspect Deborah of success against such odds. That is not to say these women were not heroic though; I just think they're bad examples. Ruth is a much better one.
Aquatic_blue Galatians 3:28 NIV: There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
This is part of Paul's note on us being the inheritors of God's grace/salvation/sanctification/fullness of the end of times. It refers to us as God sees us by Christ and how we are to be fulfilled when Christ returns, not as we are in our sinful flesh.
God bless! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 6:14 pm
|
|
|
|
Women in authority is no way a form of anti-biblical feminism. There are simply people that take passages in the Bible meant for a specific place and time and apply them for every situation at anytime, which is clearly not the purpose if we study the Bible. Women in authority is not an act of rebellion against the church, either. Since man and woman were both made in God's image, wouldn't we have the same rights in ministry? For those that believe women shouldn't be in authority - I see this as an attack on God's word.
Quote: That all depends. Women are not biblically obligated or inhibited from teaching/preaching to a crowd of women. However, if you meant preaching to men, I fear I must refer you to 1 Timothy 2, specifically verse 12.
Why should women only preach to other women? If we are all spiritually the same, why shouldn't a woman be able to preach to a congregation of men and women. There are some in-life subjects that women may not be able to understand so it's best for men to mention that subject to other men. However, in the same way, there are in-life subjects about women that men cannot understand. Therefore, a woman preaching to women is more effective in certain situations. The Bible does not prohibit women from preaching to a congregation just as the Bible does not prohibit men from preaching to a congregation. I am afraid to say that you are misinformed by believing that women are told that they are not able to preach. Those who believe this not only have a problem with women in authority, but a problem with the Lord.
To understand 1 Timothy 2, we need to recognize who exactly Paul was preaching to and why.Paul was teaching to a corrupt church, and explains this in a way in which people may understand. Let's look at 1 Timothy 2:1 - 15 to examine Paul's writing style. Paul wrote in a similar format as the philosopher's did, which was commonly an A, B, A, B format or a back and forth type style. To understand the point, the whole passage is important - not 1 Timothy 2:12 by itself. Most spiritually abusive churches make the mistake of only bringing up 1 Timothy 2:12 where it says, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must me silent." Now, reading this alone, one may believe women can't preach in church, but examining the surrounding context this is simply untrue.
In 1 Timothy 2:1 - 7, it talks about a group of people, which is most likely an entire congregation of people and the point directed at everybody. To explore the context more if we read on, it mentions the men only in 1 Timothy 2:8. Further along, in 1 Timothy 2:9 - 10, it mentions women as a group. In 1 Timothy 2:11 - the first half of verse 15 it mentions a woman - singular. Then in the last half of verse 15, it mentions women as a group once again. Now, why would Paul do this?
Notice women weren't the only one with the problems. Paul instructed men to lift their hands in prayer, without getting angry or arguing. The context where it mentions women, a woman, and then women again is highly significant. Keep in mind Paul was talking to a corrupt church now.
Women were instructed what to wear in 1 Timothy 2:9 - 10 because at that time in society - if you braided your hair a certain way and added ornaments - that is how prostitutes wore their hair at the time. In this society, it was a sign of sexual immorality or drawing unnecessary attention to one self.
In 1 Timothy 2:11 - first half of 15 mentions a woman. This was addressing false prophets in the church because they did not know God's word. This was because society usually taught the men, and men had more of a right to education. Women didn't get the type of education that men were allowed. In their society, they deemed it more proper for a man to learn and a woman to listen. So this was scripture that was not meant to be forever until the end of time. This was about how Paul dealt with problems in the church. This "woman" that taught falsely wouldn't be a good option for a preacher. When it mentions Eve being deceived, this is simply a comparison. Paul is not saying that Adam was better than Eve or Eve was better than Adam. Eve is a good example of a woman who was deceived and someone everyone may be able to relate to since it's one of the earlier teachings in The Holy Bible. They are making a comparison to allow the church to recognize what it is exactly that is going on. The last half of verse 15 urges women to continue in faith, love, and holiness. It never discourages anything beside false doctrine that would apply to today.
Naturally, Paul or a pastor that has a strong foundation in God's word wouldn't want someone who is going to teach false doctrine to preach in their church, either, whether they were a man or a woman.
Society changes - so a message that was meant for a specific place in time may not be applicable a few hundred years down the line in the same way it was at that time. We can't make every passage of scripture applicable forever and ever if it was only meant for a certain group of people, and showing how the problem was solved.
Quote: It all rests on the question of whether or not prayer and communion are objects of authority. Honestly, I have no evidence in objection or advocation that they are or aren't, but I would intuitively infer that prayer and communion are not activities of authority. So, if I attended a church that forbid women from helping out in this way, I would be likely to e-mail/phone my pastor about it, if you catch my drift (haha).
If women can't preach then why would they be able to do communion? You have contradicted yourself here. Before communion, there is usually a prayer for the bread (body) and grape juice (blood) before all the members partake. That would be putting women in a position of authority to prepare everyone's minds to partake of communion. Communion is effectively paired with scripture reading as well. Communion is important since that is one of the many ways we remember what Jesus Christ did for us. To put a woman in position to be in charge of communion would be a type of authority.
Quote: I do not really understand this. Were you using a hyperbole? That sounds a little harsh. Surely, you can not seriously be denoting a literal interception of Satan's power, though. We have no way of knowing whether or not Satan is enacting or not. Humans do just as much, if not more evil, than Satan, so I think it's hardly acknowledgeable that Satan effects your church at all. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. Either way, the roles of the sexes is not an essential issue and I assume that you will agree that we should be gracious to those that are wrong about that subject. Even to those who are incorrect belligerently or to those who are correct officiously, we should turn the other cheek. Although I do not grant assent with the woman who sometimes preaches before the mass of my church, I do not stand up and proclaim she is a Satanist or that Satan is working in the church or that they are in league with evil powers. If I felt so strongly about something that I held it to the same degree of depravity that I do Satan, I would leave or stand up against such evil. And I do not think that gender roles are that important, anyway, although I consider them up for debate.
I mentioned that "they (churches that support not allowing women in ministry) are allowing Satan to take more control." because they are silencing a group of people that have gifts, too. God gives us all gifts through the Holy Spirit. So, if a woman has the gift to teach and is great at bringing people to the Lord and she is silenced - that can make women fall and also men because an amazing gift from God is being silenced. If a man had the gift of prophecy and everyone told them, "Now is not the time." or, "How about you say this later?" or, "Be silent." that person may struggle because they are not allowed to use their God-given gift to support the ministry. Women in the church often try to suppress their gifts because a church twists doctrine to tell them that it's "wrong".
The thing we must realize is that when a church falls a little bit or has a huge weakness - Satan is likely to take advantage. Any church with a foundation gap is a target for Satan, and possibly other demonic and evil forces. satan tries to take advantage when a person and/or group is at their most vulnerable point. (The church I have discussed is one I no longer attend, but I do believe that the way the people act that they are falling and falling badly - man or woman, because they don't listen to the word of God).
You say the role between genders isn't an essential issue, yet you refer to the idea of women preaching as anti-biblical feminism. So, in some way, it effects your beliefs. If not, you wouldn't be standing up for it and saying the things you are.
Quote: While I do not support women preachers, what your church invoked is undeniably legalistic. As long as they do not misuse the tool of clothing, women should dress themselves however they feel best glorifies God. The same goes for men's hair. I am very sorry for you; my parents grew up in a legalistic CoC community, so I know somewhat about dealing with their prudish, sanctimonious ritualism. At least you can thank God you did not grow up in a church that handles snakes, drinks poison, and believes that the entire bible is a myth with the exception of the moral principles involved.
Once again, I do not attend this church so it is no longer a church I affiliate with. About the "clothing" that it mentions in 1 Timothy 2, that refers to earlier because there was symbolism behind that clothing. These days when we dress for church, both men and women need to think what they wear to church and what their intent of wearing what they are is. The intent is important. Sometimes, there may be people who can't afford to buy necessary clothes for church so they don't go because of fear of being ridiculed. Any social class can attend church.
I do not need to be felt sorry for. I didn't choose where I was born and none of us can choose that. God places us somewhere for a reason. I've grown more by going through that experience first and then correcting later and realizing what was wrong with that belief system than I would've if I had believed the same thing my entire life.
A place that believes The Holy Bible is a myth and follow unbiblical practices is not considered a church - it is considered a cult.
I still don't understand how you can be for spiritual equality between men and women yet do not support women preachers. Spiritual equality is believing that both genders are equal meaning they can both actively participate in ministry, right? Your beliefs seem to contradict at that point.
Quote: What? Could you please clarify? I can not make any sense of this intimated implication if inequality.
God took a rib from man as he was in a deep sleep and made woman. They are made of the same flesh. Man and woman together through marriage become one flesh. That proves that we have spiritual equality as well.
Genesis 2:2 - 24 NIV:
But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man. ”
That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.
Quote: Inversely, a wife's duty to God dictates that she appeases her husband first.
This is simply untrue. A wife's duty is a lot more than appeasing her spouse. Married couples are designed to work as a team - to work together, to support each other, to go through the challenges in life together, etc. You said your statement as if a man will always know God better than a woman will. I find some of your statements highly degrading and contradicting towards what you say. A woman's first priority in life is God, and so is man's. Everyone should have God as their first priority - always. If God is not the center of your relationship - that relationship is at great risk to fall apart in obvious and non-obvious ways.
Women and men are to both respect each other, listen to each other, and not boss each other around, but work on a decision as a team effort.
Proverbs 31:10 - 31 NIV:
A wife of noble character who can find?
She is worth far more than rubies.
Her husband has full confidence in her
and lacks nothing of value.
She brings him good, not harm,
all the days of her life.
She selects wool and flax
and works with eager hands.
She is like the merchant ships,
bringing her food from afar.
She gets up while it is still night;
she provides food for her family
and portions for her female servants.
She considers a field and buys it;
out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.
She sets about her work vigorously;
her arms are strong for her tasks.
She sees that her trading is profitable,
and her lamp does not go out at night.
In her hand she holds the distaff
and grasps the spindle with her fingers.
She opens her arms to the poor
and extends her hands to the needy.
When it snows, she has no fear for her household;
for all of them are clothed in scarlet.
She makes coverings for her bed;
she is clothed in fine linen and purple.
Her husband is respected at the city gate,
where he takes his seat among the elders of the land.
She makes linen garments and sells them,
and supplies the merchants with sashes.
She is clothed with strength and dignity;
she can laugh at the days to come.
She speaks with wisdom,
and faithful instruction is on her tongue.
She watches over the affairs of her household
and does not eat the bread of idleness.
Her children arise and call her blessed;
her husband also, and he praises her:
“Many women do noble things,
but you surpass them all.”
Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting;
but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised.
Honor her for all that her hands have done,
and let her works bring her praise at the city gate.
Quote: And the bible says that a woman is not allowed to leave him or rebel.
This is not true either. The Bible does not delight in divorce, and always want that to be the last option, and should hopefully never be an option. There are some Biblical stances for divorce such as Matthew 5:32, 19:9; 1 Corinthians 7:15). Although divorce is never encouraged, there are Biblical laws concerning it. I see a wife leaving a husband that hurts her as a Biblical stance because that's harmful for every aspect - physically (our temple), emotionally (our heart), mentally (mind), and spiritually (soul). God does call for peace as well. Even if a man is in a relationship where his wife causes harm to him is most likely fair grounds to divorce. Even in a horrific event - we must consult God to see what is right.
Quote: If you could clarify, I would be much obliged.
This is posted earlier in my post, and to clarify my position on this - in Proverbs 31:10 through the end of the chapter this woman is happy and praised. Taking care of her household is a type of a authority. Her husband supports her and she supports her husband - there are obviously grounds of team work and respect for each other here.
Quote: I disagree with you on several points. First of all, the world we live in is immorally centered around sex and is moreover sexist about it. Modern American society glorifies the promiscuity of women and the power women have through their advantageous, abusive imposition of this aesthetic, social norm attribute. Not only that, but our Disney-esque postmodernist society seeks to idolize women as intrinsic princesses who do a cute giggle when they confuse the "silly men" with their power and dreams. If that's not disgustingly self-worship-ist and utopian enough for you, how about the naturalist dogma which reduces everyone's individuality to mere sexual lust and idolizes women at the top of the buffet line of lasciviousness because they are the ultimate objects of this lust? And so, I hardly consider it noble to sympathize with the cosmopolitan women's point of view. The world is black pit of depravity, especially that of the postmodern feminist movement against egalitarianism, not a patriarchal society where girls are oppressed. America is not Islam, and neither is the world in general. The "way most women feel today" is selfish, self-absorbed, self-righteous, shallow, cruel, and delusional. That's not to say the common man is any better, but that's why you shan't ever see me saying "I understand you, poor guy." No, men are pigs and women are pigs (Romans 3:23), and that's why we all need a savior. Let's get real, shall we?
Women being considered as "weak" I was referring to women in movies, books, or other forms of entertainment are seen as men having authority over them a lot of the time. We are often times considered too weak to defend ourselves or too inadequate to do subjects such as math and science. We are often seen as "less" and because America in the film industry glorifies in the things you mention - that is not the fault of only women. Just because women appear a certain way in forms of entertainment doesn't mean we're truly like that in real life. If you consider all women an object of lust then this is concerning because there is something here you need to work on, and you already realize that. Women's feelings about how we see ourselves in entertainment today is not "selfish" or "self-absorbed" when we feel degraded by how we are portrayed - in a false manner. A lot of times we are portrayed in a way that we will always need a man or that we're meant for cooking, cleaning, and raising children. I'm sure men also have trouble when it comes to media because a lot of men in entertainment are the boss, the lead role, and the authority figure. So a lot of men gain a sense of self-pride. The media effects us in all ways - it is not only women that it effects. It effects both sides and we can overcome these challenges through God and His word.
Yes, we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. That is a form of spiritual equality, too. It puts men and women on the same level.
Quote: So, I am very suspicious when someone ascribes to the bible the claim of "weakness" amongst women.
I should have been more specific in my post when I said, "we see examples as women being considered "weak" a lot of the time." What I meant was in the media. I mention that in my original post if you read further about how society doesn't always go for the female hero type thing. However, it does happen. There were many strong women in the Bible that did have great authority because they were appointed by God.
Quote: Finally, your last point about God loving us is misplaced. God may love your dog and the rock in the world he created, but that does not make them equal. Now, I am not comparing the differences between man and a woman as equal to that of a rock and a dog. My point is, God's perfect love does not make anything equal. God loves the angels; yet we are to rule (be superior to) the angels at the end of times. I am reminded of a decent analogy my Roman Catholic friend offered: two cups can be completely full, yet they may not be of the same height. That is to say, God can fulfill everyone and yet not render everyone of equal stature, power, authority, etc.
I did mentioned that God loves everybody, and that is not a misplaced statement. He died for everyone's sins. My point is that men and women are equal. I feel that you are trying to over-generalize the point I am trying to make. In my post, I did not mention that animals are equal to humans and that rocks are equal to humans. That is not the point I was making. If that was the point I was trying to make, I wouldn't have said, "Also, because man was created first doesn't make him more superior." because animals were also created before Adam was and the rest of creation, but that doesn't make it equal or worth more than men and women.
Quote: Yes, but the bible's writings are not limited to culture, society, or the time it was written. If it were, we could drop Christianity itself. Though, I do give props to God for shaming the prejudiced philosophers of the time who supported such nonsense.
The Holy Bible's writings if we read closely have different points - some are points that are meant to be the same eternally. Other times, there are points that were made for a specific place and time, and were most likely placed in the Bible to help aid churches when certain problems arose or how Paul dealt with those issues and still showed compassion for the people. Culture, society, and the time it was written can make all the difference. Society changes, culture changes, and over time - things change - so why would these factors not be important? Biblical history is key to truly understanding God's message.
Quote: But speaking in a more serious tone, you've missed the point. These verses have nothing to do with the strength of women. They are historical passages about the indefeatable plan of God. If it were not for God, even the strength of David might have been overcome, much less would we suspect Deborah of success against such odds. That is not to say these women were not heroic though; I just think they're bad examples. Ruth is a much better one.
In the verses, I am simply saying that women in the Bible had great honors and could be appointed in authority. Also, with a mix of society's ideas that women were weak or worthless. The point of the sentence wasn't' to give a full sermon, but to display that women could be strong in God, too.
Quote: This is part of Paul's note on us being the inheritors of God's grace/salvation/sanctification/fullness of the end of times. It refers to us as God sees us by Christ and how we are to be fulfilled when Christ returns, not as we are in our sinful flesh
Galatians 3:28 is not limited to the end times. This is scripture that applies to us today. God see's us this way today - spritiually equal both man and woman. No where in Galatians 3 does it say "In the end times you will all be spiritually equal." That is a twist on scripture and a misconception. Through that passsage, it mentions the law and promises we are given to belong to Christ. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
