Men have authority over women

[Lindsey-Loo]

Interestingly enough, this reminds me of the fundamentalist Christians telling other non-traditional Christian groups that they are in 'cults' and are not true Christians because they do not believe in the right Christ. For someone who is not in the faith anymore, you do not have a right to say who is and who is not a 'true Christian'. Let the believers worry about that.

Let's let God worry about that, no? But I agree with the just of what you're saying.

I have every right to say that as I have every right to make any other judgment I wish. If you really believed in God and also believed that there was a book that literally contained the words and will of this God, shouldn't the most important thing you can do be to read and understand this book? Well, most "Christians" claim these things, yet many have not even read the entire Bible at all. Those who have tend to cherry-pick and ignore parts of it to suite their own biases. The Bible speaks clearly, both in the Old Testament and the New, that women are to be ruled by men. I think it's appropriate that I tell people what kind of religion they actually believe in. I don't see how anyone can believe the Bible is an inspired book and also believe that men and women are equal partners in marriage unless they are ignorant. All you need to do is read what God and His holy prophets have said on the subject and it should become obvious that being a Christian makes you a sexist.

So assigning differant responsiblities to men and women makes one a sexist?

Not if you read everything in context. It is a responsibility not a supremacist thing.

You are to treat your women better than you treat yourself and lead by example not dictate from a higher position.

When you put yourself last, you might get a clue about this. Women are to revolt if there husbands do not follow Christ's teachings. No Christian man could mistreat his wife and be following Christ's teachings.

Christian wives have it good and they are blessed with a good husband for life. They are not subservient to abuse.

Yes, that is exactly right. Christian marriages usually turn out better than worldly marriages, as well. From what I've seen personally, anyway.

Fact is, if sexism is a wife respecting her husband and both of them working together for the common good of the family unit and the church, then I don't care...that doesn't bother me...

If that's what sexism is, then I am sexist and so is my mom and my dad and my little brothers and my granny and my grandaddy and my preacher and his wife and my elders and their wives and... *continues listing people*

And I don't really think any of us would have a problem if the world wants to label us sexist for that or not...so it works for me.

I agree with Reverend Rick, Prometheus is apparently Christianphobic.

 

[Prometheus]

So make up your mind. With your profound understanding of Christianity, which you have demonstrated in recent posts, please do enlighten me...am I or am I not a real, true Christian?

Does being a sexist make you a Christian? No. Does being a Christian make you a sexist? Yes. That is all I meant to convey when I said that. Hope that clears that up.

Oh, and I would like the Bible verses that say Israelites are the only ones who can be true Christians, thanks.

Uhm...you just provided them. According to you, Christians follow the new covenant. According to God, the new covenant was to be followed by the Israelites. Therefore, Christians must be Israelites.

I'm waiting on the edge of my seat...I'm sure the next thing you will make up rather than admitting you're wrong will be even better than the last.

Please debate me without condescending sarcasm.

So assigning differant responsiblities to men and women makes one a sexist?

Yes. Look up the definition of the word.

I agree with Reverend Rick, Prometheus is apparently Christianphobic.

I'm Blindfaithphobic.

 

[Lindsey-Loo]

Does being a sexist make you a Christian? No. Does being a Christian make you a sexist? Yes. That is all I meant to convey when I said that. Hope that clears that up.

You didn't answer the question...I was just wondering, because in one post you judged me to be a true Christian, and then you said I can't be since I'm not an Israelite.

Uhm...you just provided them. According to you, Christians follow the new covenant. According to God, the new covenant was to be followed by the Israelites. Therefore, Christians must be Israelites.

The new covenant can be followed by anyone, as demontsrated when the disciples were instructed to "go into all the world and teach all men". Not just Israelites. Hope that clears that up.

1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.

I don't see any discrimination, nor stereotyping, in the church. According to this definition, having prescribed roles for men and women in a religion isn't sexism.

discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of the opposite sex

absusive? i think not...


The belief that one sex (usually the male) is naturally superior to the other and should dominate most important areas of political, economic, and social life.

No one believes the male is superior...

Nope, I don't see all that much indication of sexism in Christianity.

 

[Lindsey-Loo]

I'm Blindfaithphobic.

Oh...then there's no reason to be scared of most of the Christians on this forum. I don't think many of us here suffer from blind faith.

 

[Nanda]

Yes, that is exactly right. Christian marriages usually turn out better than worldly marriages, as well. From what I've seen personally, anyway.

Not according to the research:

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistfamiliesmarriage/a/AtheistsDivorce.htm

 

[Sunstone]

Only a fool will follow something blindy, when they have the choice to open their eyes

We who follow the true path of Girls On Trampolines do so with our eyes wide open. Very wide open.

 

[daemonikus]

Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.

where exactly did you get lost in that? that's exactly what the bible is promoting.

No one believes the male is superior...

there are many who believe the male is superior. especially the culture in the time the bible was written. the fact that these morals are still (at least largely, albeit interpreted slightly different) in practice today is i think the main issue.

I don't think many of us here suffer from blind faith.

I blindly follow my religion

apparently there are those who do. *shakes head*

 

[Prometheus]

You didn't answer the question...I was just wondering, because in one post you judged me to be a true Christian, and then you said I can't be since I'm not an Israelite.

Well, being sexist is required to be a Christian as is believing Christ is your redeemer. I didn't even mention that second thing, though. So, obviously, what I meant was that you had one of the many qualities of a true Christian and not that you actually were a true Christian. It was merely poorly worded and you know that. You are just trying to make me look like a fool by taking my words in their most literal interpretation. I'm not infallible and have never claimed to be. I also have the ability to change my mind in the face of new evidence. What I said about you and whether you are a Christian or not has nothing to do with the debate anyway.

The new covenant can be followed by anyone, as demontsrated when the disciples were instructed to "go into all the world and teach all men". Not just Israelites. Hope that clears that up.

Then why did God speak specifically about the Israelites in those verses?

Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.

I don't see any discrimination, nor stereotyping, in the church. According to this definition, having prescribed roles for men and women in a religion isn't sexism.

Your religion promotes social roles based on gender. That is sexism.

 

[daemonikus]

Well, being sexist is required to be a Christian as is believing Christ is your redeemer. I didn't even mention that second thing, though. So, obviously, what I meant was that you had one of the many qualities of a true Christian and not that you actually were a true Christian. It was merely poorly worded and you know that. You are just trying to make me look like a fool by taking my words in their most literal interpretation. I'm not infallible and have never claimed to be. I also have the ability to change my mind in the face of new evidence. What I said about you and whether you are a Christian or not has nothing to do with the debate anyway.

i'm going to stand in the corner of the religious here for a moment. a rare occurence so save this post and frame it..haha.

i dont think it is necessary to be sexist in order to be christian. yes there are (in my opinion) obvious examples of sexism and oppression. however, my own argument (and i used this when i was christian myself) would be that christianity is not without the ability to change. certain traditions and beliefs are not always practiced. 1 corinthians 11:14 says that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him. well, i don't think god is going to turn someone away and say "yeah, you got it right but i can't let you in with that long hair. sorry". the same i would argue applies to the roles of women and such things. just because a christian disagrees with a practice or interpretation of a text, doesn't mean they are not 'true christians'. there are many other biblical concepts that can be spun to determine if someone is a 'true' christian. for example (and this is only and example), it could be said that if you allow a woman to even speak in a church at all you are not a true christian (1 corinthians 14:34). that does not however, make them either legitimate or logical, especially in todays society. in short, these are things which i would argue have little to no determining factors as to whether or not you are a christian and/or will go to heaven. the primary ideology of christianity is not the position of women in the church or home, but whether or not you believe in god and jesus. again, i don't agree with the biblical stance on womens roles and other such topics but i dont think they are evidence of a persons salvation or there commitment to thier faith. sorry prometheus. i gotta say that your logic in this particular case is flawed.

 

[Panda]

We who follow the true path of Girls On Trampolines do so with our eyes wide open. Very wide open.

Very wise my friend, very wise.

 

[Prometheus]

the primary ideology of christianity is not the position of women in the church or home, but whether or not you believe in god and jesus.

How do Christians decide which things in the Bible are true and which others are false? If Peter was wrong about women speaking in church, then why can't he be wrong about Jesus being the messiah?

 

[DeepShadow]

Your BoM versus aren't going to be recognized as scripture by the majority of Christianity so I don't feel like they need to be addressed here. We are in the Biblical Debates forum, not the Book of Mormon Debates forum.

The majority of Christianity doesn't need to agree with me for you to be wrong. You said Mormonism was sexist. I refuted you. It's not my problem that you put this in the wrong forum. Using your error to exclude refutations is an abuse of the forum. If you want to exempt Mormonism from your attacks, say so. Otherwise I'll ask a moderator to move this to a better forum.

1 Cor 11:11 could be just as easily worded to be, "Nevertheless neither is the master without the slave, neither the slave without the master, in the Lord."

It could, if you could demonstrate that women were property. So one wonders why you are citing scriptures that demonstrate that they weren't. But I'm getting ahead of myself...

Genesis 3:16
Railsplit: this is the second of three curses: one on the serpent, one on Eve, one on Adam. Further, this fails to apply itself to all women.

Leviticus 27:3-7
...so female consecration is cheaper. You're exactly right, this is sexist...against men. :biglaugh:

Numbers 30:3-16
This says men have the right to make oaths for their households, which fits my model. This is about leadership, not individual worth.

Deuteronomy 5:21
This lays out a wife as separate and distinct from property, by the separate verbs "desire" and "covet." Coveting is for property. Once again, an in-depth reading refutes the conclusions of a superficial one.

Deuteronomy 21:11-14
You seem to be making assumptions here that do not follow. This says nothing relevant, except it reiterates even more clearly that women are not property.

Deuteronomy 22:23-24
Another railsplit. This says that women are not allowed to yell "rape" to cover consentual sex. The surrounding verses make it clear that this is a burden of proof issue, and it favors the woman.

Judges 9:53-54
This says that Abimilech subscribed to cultural biases about women. Nothing here about the Lord giving them to him. On the contrary, Abimilech had a terrible track record for listening to the Lord, so this is a pretty poor example.

Isaiah 3:12
Wow, that might actually be relevant!!! Wahooo!!! A RELEVANT SCRIPTURE, EVERYONE!
Too bad it's in the context of a metaphor, and therefore open to interpretation. It's going to need backup to stand up in a fight like this.

1 Corinthians 11:3
This says that men lead, not that they are superior. Begging the original question re: my model.

1 Corinthians 11:7-9
STOP THE PRESSES, ANOTHER RELEVANT SCRIPTURE!!
When I'm done with the once-over, I'll summarize the ground you have left to stand on, and this will be part of it.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35
Strong's Concordance is your friend: this is about rulership, again. Begs the original question.

Ephesians 5:22-24
Yet another railsplit. This is one half of the instructions to husbands and wives. Begging the original question.

Ephesians 5:33
This says women are to submit to the rule of their husbands as head of house. Nothing here about men being superior. Begging the original question...again.

Colossians 3:18
This says women are to submit to the rule of their husbands as head of house. Nothing her about men being superior. Begging the original question...again.
(Pardon the cut and paste)

1 Timothy 2:11-12
And we're back to Strong's Concordance. Sorry, but fallacies arranged in chiastic structure are still fallacies.

1 Peter 3:1
This says women are to submit to the rule of their husbands as head of house. Nothing here about men being superior. Begging the original question...again.
(PCP)

1 Peter 3:2-6
This says women are to submit to the rule of their husbands as head of house. Nothing here about men being superior. Begging the original question...again.
(PCP)

1 Peter 3:7
...is this really justified as a separate citation? Couldn't these last three be one reference? Eh, whatever. This brings a whole whopping concept of "weaker vessel" into the issue, which would be your best point yet, except the pesky "as" makes this a simile...which makes its relevance depend upon interpretation. If this is a continuation of Christ's "old vessel" analogy, then there's no problem here. I can say the setting sun is like port wine tonight, it doesn't mean I'm actually getting drunk.

Guess you better get out those fifty verses that claim women were bought and sold like property...but then you've already given me two verses to refute them.

So your best scripture is this one, 1 Corintians 11:6-9
6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
Whoops, got another verse in there! Wait, so women are imbued with angelic power? Are men imbued with that? Nope. Guess this is about men and women having different roles, all because of some arbitrary decision at the beginning of time.

Prometheus, you seem fond of taking things out of context. I recommend you take another look at these verses, and keep looking for something that refutes my model. The things you've found so far seem to fall into two broad categories:

A) women are weak. They are, in some ways. They are stronger in other ways. Taken in context, these scriptures are usually talking about the different roles of men and women. They fail to say that men are superior to women in all ways, or even in a majority of ways. I've never found anything on the male end close to this verse that says women are imbued with angelic power, but that doesn't make the Bible sexist against men.

B) men are rulers. This is true, but there's nothing saying that men are better leaders, or more intelligent, or anything along those lines. It just says they are supposed to rule, because of some arbitrary circumstance (i.e. a coin flip) at the beginning of recorded time.
Neither of these refute my model. The theory still stands, until someone finds something in scripture that refutes it.

Guess Who? has it right. She's sexist and she's honest about it. This is a true Christian.

Fortunately, that's not your call, on either count.:no:

 

[DeepShadow]

How do Christians decide which things in the Bible are true and which others are false? If Peter was wrong about women speaking in church, then why can't he be wrong about Jesus being the messiah?

Different denominations have different tests as to the relevance of certain scriptures. Some of those tests are:

a) backing by the Holy Spirit.
b) backing by Church Authority
c) backing by other scripture (i.e. a single reference isn't enough)

See, this is part of the problem with your argument. You take your own interpretation of the scripture, delcare it as the only valid one, then insist anyone who disagrees isn't Christian. Christians don't let other Christians speak for the Bible that way, let alone an atheist.

 

[DeepShadow]

Does being a sexist make you a Christian? No. Does being a Christian make you a sexist? Yes. That is all I meant to convey when I said that. Hope that clears that up.

Uhm...you just provided them. According to you, Christians follow the new covenant. According to God, the new covenant was to be followed by the Israelites. Therefore, Christians must be Israelites.

Railsplit, again. Christians are adopted into the house of Israel, by definition. Therefore, you are correct, but this is irrelevant.

Please debate me without condescending sarcasm.

I know that's not directed at me...but it still applies. I'm sorry, Prometheus, I'll try harder to show you the respect you deserve. Please try to do the same.:sorry1:

Yes. Look up the definition of the word.

[SIZE=-1]NOUN:[/SIZE]1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women. 2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.
..but that requres we look up discrimination and stereotyping. The second doesn't apply to my model, because there's no stereotyping of roles, only assignation. The first has multiple definitions:

1. The act of discriminating.

...welcome to the department of redundancy department. And welcome!

2. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.

...which would make Mother Nature sexist. Moreover, it would fail to explain why sexism is wrong.

3. Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners.

Which (as emphasized) is begging the original question regarding my model.

I'm Blindfaithphobic.

...okay, but you fail to realize that not all Christians interpret the entire Bible literally. Your entire argument is founded on a reversal of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

 

[DeepShadow]

How do Christians decide which things in the Bible are true and which others are false? If Peter was wrong about women speaking in church, then why can't he be wrong about Jesus being the messiah?

If this is really hard for you, consider:

How do [lovers of poetry] decide which things in the [Rime of the Ancient Mariner] are true and which others are false? If [Coleridge] was wrong about [stars shining through the moon], then why can't he be wrong about [the albatross as a taboo]?

How do [theatergoers] decide which things in the [Macbeth] are true and which others are false? If [Shakespeare] was wrong about [blood filling the ocean when MacBeth washed his hands], then why can't he be wrong about [the entire story]?

I'm honestly not making fun of you. These are good questions for any student, of anything that contains metaphor and literal. Moreover, they ought to be especially relevant to religion, because religion by its very nature deal with things we can't express in words.

 

[DeepShadow]

*sigh*

Prometheus, in reviewing my posts, and talking about them to my sweet wife, I think I have been disrespectful to you, and I'm sorry. I'm usually much better at being respectful (glances guiltily at ambassador award) and I'm not sure why I'm having a problem with it now.

I'm going to think about this, and I'll get back to you. I think there's something about this thread that strikes a bad chord, and I need to deal with that. My sincere apologies if I've offended you.

 

[Prometheus]

So your best scripture is this one, 1 Corintians 11:6-9
...
Whoops, got another verse in there! Wait, so women are imbued with angelic power? Are men imbued with that? Nope. Guess this is about men and women having different roles, all because of some arbitrary decision at the beginning of time.

Men aren't imbued with angelic power? What do you call the priesthood, then? I distinctly remember that the priesthood was given to men by angels.

Also, perhaps there is another interpretation here. 1 Corinthians 11:10 reads: "For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels."

Let's back up 7 verses to 1 Corinthians 11:3: "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."

Strong's concordance shows that the same Greek word is used in both passages. It is entirely plausible, then, and I would assert most likely when taken in the context of the previous verses, that this meant men would receive angelic power as the "heads" of women.

If this is true, then your defense falls flat. These verses would clearly state that the woman is made for man, from him and to be subject to him which makes her inferior.

*sigh*

Prometheus, in reviewing my posts, and talking about them to my sweet wife, I think I have been disrespectful to you...etc.

I didn't notice at all. Don't stress over it.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

As much as I remain critical of religious institutions that disallow women from positions of decision-making authority, I have come to fully understand the position of the Christian household that places the man at the head.

I understand this because the criticisms of women submitting is severely one-sided. There is nothing mentioned of how much is expected of the men to put aside their own self-interests in order to take care of their families. I read this to mean that husbands are to break their backs and to do everything they can for the betterment and the happiness of their wives.

As I'd said before - and I appreciate the responses to my posts despite the fact that I do not consider the Bible to be my spiritual benchmark - my husband does not fit the stereotypical mold of the "man in charge." This is a guy that I know who would swim through shark-infested waters to bring me a lemonade if he knew it would make me happy.

This is a man who continues to encourage me to open my own dance studio.

This is a man who practically begs for me to continue voicing my opinions on household issues and what I truly wish for the home and for the children.

This is a man who doesn't keep me under his thumb. I respect his vision and his pragmatism as well as his strength of character. But, I'm not his puppet.

On a side note........once I did a little experiment where I acted the role of the "stepford wife" and rarely said anything except being the "rah-rah!" girl. My husband noticed almost immediately and felt insulted. He said, "Where is my wife and what did you do with her? I married a woman with a mind and a backbone! I want my partner back!"

With my husband as head of household, I admit that I lean on him for a LOT of things. That's certainly true. But he depends on ME for a lot of things, too, including my thoughts, my dreams, my opinions, my counsel, and my wisdom.

If anything, I'd say that a "true" Christian household will see that their wives are treated with the utmost respect and care. I've read Ephesians to state quite clearly that both partners are to submit to each other.

A wise Christian husband, who acts as head of household, also understands the age-old wisdom that if mama ain't happy, ain't nobody happy.




Peace,
Mystic

 

[angellous_evangellous]

How do Christians decide which things in the Bible are true and which others are false? If Peter was wrong about women speaking in church, then why can't he be wrong about Jesus being the messiah?

Ever play spin the bottle?

 

[daemonikus]

ok...here's my attempt at a 'compromise' of sorts. there have been many arguments for both sides. some were very good and some were very bad. some had no relevance what so ever. first off, i dont think there was ever an argument that christian wives were treated poorly. i didnt see any accusations of christian men mistreating their wives by physically abusing them so we can throw that one off the train.

secondly, one of the arguments against what is taught in the bible (at least for myself anyway) is that it requires all men to be the leaders. it revokes the ability for the woman to be a leader in a church or the home. now this is not to say that women are in constant subjection or that their opinions are invalid or that they cannot do anything. of course not. it simply begs the question, if men and women have different 'roles' but not all men are (for example) capable of properly leading, then why bother having that rule at all?

here's the compromise, if you are a christian household who believes in the literal translation of the bible and you want to run your household a certain way that is your choice. as long as it is the choice of both partners. however if your husband cant lead ants to a picnic and it makes more logical sense to have the woman lead, there should be no accusation of not being 'true christians'.

personally i dont see the idea of a cosmic coin toss as particularily logical. whatever the case, and as i have stated before, what you beleive about the roles of women and men is not going to affect your salvation. its really simple. if you are saved (according to basic christianity) by believing in god, that jesus died and rose again and confessing your sins and repenting of them, then thats really all thats required. so believe what you want to believe. i'm not about to change your mind. but while i am vehemently opposed to many of the ideas about womens (and mens) roles in the bible, i dont think (from a purely logical point of view) that it is right to assume that differing beliefs constitute a lack of true faith.