Women should keep silent in the assembly?

[Fallen Prophet]

Anyhow, I skipped a lot of what you siad. I'm sorry but your post was just too long, and now I've sent a reply that is, IMHO, so long that I know most of the folks in the forum won't choose to read it. If you reply, please try to make it shorter. It's really only a forum. Things need to be concise.

That's easy for you to say - since most of my post is going to consist of me pointing out the false assumptions you have made.

I'd rather we not ignore what the other says - considering that there is no forum rule concerning the length of posts - other that the limit to how many characters we use of course.

I am going to say my piece - no matter how long it takes - and you are free to ignore most of it again if you want.

However - you reading things that are not there (strawmen) and overreacting to them has caused this to run longer than it should.

All throughout this thread I have been talking in terms of ideals - the ideal roles set apart for husbands and wives - fathers and mothers - which include their primary roles.

Of course - us living in imperfect and finite mortality means that not every person - riddled with weaknesses and sins - is going to be ideal - but that is beside the point I am making.

I believe that God designed us ideally to fulfill particular primary roles and the closest we get to fulfilling these roles the better off we will be.

It would be wrong if it weren't true. But in those situations where a woman DOES have greater spiritual understanding than her hubby, then it becomes infantilizing to ask her to pretend it is not so and to agree with her husband, who has less wisdom.

I believe that a person developing a "spiritual understanding" means that they have better come to know the will of the Lord concerning them.

From a Christian perspective according to Ephesians 5 - wives were commanded to submit to their husbands - as unto the Lord - and that husbands were commanded to love their wives and to be as Christ is to the Church.

Any Christian claiming to have "spiritual understanding" would recognize that there is a dynamic between men and women in marriage.

We might not all have the same interpretation of Ephesians 5 - but we can at least agree that God had particular primary roles in mind when Paul wrote these words.

My interpretation is that the husband is the final authority over the wife when the matter concerns the entirety of the family - just as the Lord over the Church.

The Lord does not infantilize or oppress the Church - therefore the husband should not do the same to his wife.

Bearing that in mind - husbands were commanded to be selfless, self-sacrificing and to bear unconditional love toward their wives - just as Christ did toward the Church.

Also - Christ did nothing of Himself - but what He saw the Father do - therefore all husbands should be doing all that they can to follow the will of God.

So - my opinion based on Christian scripture - is that any woman who claims that they can usurp their husband as the "head" of their spiritual coupling lacks "spiritual understanding".

The wife and mother is going to receive revelation on behalf of herself and her children and she is the final authority in regards to her children - for that is her primary role.

The husband and father is going to receive revelation on behalf of himself and his wife and he is the final authority over the affairs of the family - for that is his primary role.

You never thought it was interesting that the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary to tell her that she would conceive the Son of God?

Why didn't the angel tell Joseph first - considering that he was her betrothed?

I mean - God told Abraham that Sarah would have Isaac and the angel Gabriel told Zacharias that Elizabeth would have John.

Why didn't Joseph receive revelation about this matter until after he learned - through nature processes - that she was pregnant?

And why did Joseph - not Mary - receive the revelation telling them to flee to Egypt when Herod wanted to kill the young Lord?

I'll share my insight.

The reason that the angel came to Mary before Joseph is because the Lord Jesus Christ was not Joseph's son - but Mary's and God's.

Joseph was only made aware after he thought to take action to put Mary away privily.

Wouldn't it have made more sense to tell Joseph first - to avoid that situation? That confusion and hurt that Joseph most likely felt?

No - because Joseph was not the Lord's father and he was not yet Mary's husband.

Only when he thought to take action - which would have affected Mary's future marital status and the Lord's future mortal family - did it become necessary to inform Joseph - so that he could fulfill his primary role as the future husband of Mary and step-father of the Lord.

Then after Mary gave birth and they married it was Joseph - not Mary - who received revelation telling them to flee to Egypt - because as Mary's husband he was her head and it was his primary role to protect her and her child.

The reason Abraham and Zacharias were told about their future sons before their wives were was because they were currently married to those women and they were the literal fathers of those children.

As the head of those couplings - it was imperative that they receive this information first - to pass on to their wives.

That was their primary role as the head of their respective couplings - God dealt with them ideally.

And what is this about a wife needing to always agree with her husband? Have you read the New Testament? The leaders of the Church disagreed with each other - and the Lord - all the time.

Ultimately - however - the Lord is the authority over the Church - just as the husband is the authority over the wife.

Not all women are naturally good mothers. I loved my babies -- best time of my life. But my sister gets stressed out by children. It would have been disastrous for her mental health to have asked her to stay home and care for her son.

I don't know your sister and her situation - but I have been speaking in ideals.

Throughout human history - the vast majority of nurturers and caretakers of children have been mothers.

Throughout human history - the vast majority of providers and protectors of women and children have been fathers.

So - instead of trying to argue that the exceptions should somehow set the rule - lean into the facts.

There will always been exceptions to the rules in imperfect and finite mortality.

Secondly, children benefit from fathers being directly interactive with them. Being male doesn't mean you aren't part of raising the kids. Women may be able to breastfeed (with exceptions) but men spend more time actually playing with their kids. Well, at least the good dads do.

How did you interpret this from, "Just as much as a woman who is not fulfilling her duties as a mother. It will count against her. And her husband should be helping her fulfill her duties." (Bold and italics added)

I never claimed that fathers should not be a part of raising their children.

I clearly stated that husbands should be helping their wives "fulfill her duties" of motherhood - which would include playing, feeding, cleaning and otherwise spending time with their children.

You are inserting your own biases into what I have said and I don't appreciate it.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Then only thing I would change about this is the "gaining" part. I think it has more to do with the unique nature and personality of each individual. And I don't think all raising of children can be considered mothering. there is such as thing as fathering.

No one is born with "spiritual understanding" - we all "gain" this understanding throughout our lives.

Even the New Testament claims that the Lord Jesus Christ grew "grace to grace" - He had things to learn in mortality.

Husbands and wives are obligated to help each other gain "spiritual understanding" - which I believe includes doing their best to conform to the will of God by fulfilling these primary roles I have been mentioning.

No one ever said that there was no such thing as "fathering" - that is you inserting your own biases again.

However - "fathering" is not the same thing as "mothering" - and both the husband and the wife would benefit by "gaining" the tricks of each of those trades.

He is the father. Fathers raise their kids. At least the good ones do. Children deserve to have both fathers and mothers in their lives. Dad is not just a paycheck. And in a minority homes, it works out better for the father to be the primary caregiver, for various sundry reasons.

No one said otherwise. Stop insisting that your bias is mine - it is not.

What is this comment about "minority homes"? Why should "minority homes" be different than any other?

I'm detecting racism. Or some kind of -ism.

I never said any of this nonsense you are spouting.

All I'm saying is that different people are differently gifts, and gifts are not peculiar to one gender only.

That is not true.

Only one sex/gender - women - can conceive and give birth to children - making them mothers.

Only one sex/gender - men - can impregnate members of the opposite sex/gender - making them fathers.

These are different gifts that are peculiar to only the one sex/gender.

A woman can be a CEO or scientist, and a man can be a natural nurturer for the kids.

I find this to be incredibly sexist.

A person's ability to be a CEO or scientist has nothing to do with their biological sex.

And no one ever said that a man cannot be a nurturer - I actually claimed that he should help the mother - but he will never be the mother - and that would not be his primary role.

Unless - of course - there was no wife or mother in the picture.

In most homes, both parents work, so both contribute equally to child rearing.

You are inserting your own biases again.

When did I say that a stay-at-home dad was no longer the "head" of his wife and family?

When did I say that a working mom was no longer the mother of her children?

It does not matter what the father and mother do for a living - one is the father and the other is the mother and that will forever be so - therefore ideally they have particular primary roles to carry out.

You are trying to insert all this man-made societal BS into a spiritual discussion.

I was reading earlier this week about the history of psychiatry and its impact on women. In the 1800s it was assumed for example that every sane woman would naturally want to be a mother and have the home as her domain. It was just assumed that women were less intelligent, foolish, and in need of an authority figure. It was just assumed that a woman given to arguing with her husband was INSANE. A husband could have his wife committed to an asylum simply for disagreeing with him. Women were imprisoned in these asylums where they were not released unless they showed a change to "behavior more appropriate to women."

Since none of this can be found in the Bible - I don't see their relevance in a discussion about how we should interpret the Bible.

You are - again - inserting societal BS into this discussion - erecting strawmen as a distraction from the topic and then burning them down.

What is really, truly barbaric is that if one of these women never reformed, they did a surgical clitorectomy, since in general, women's "insanity" was thought to be due to a malfunction of her sex organs.

I agree - that sounds awful.

We have come a long ways from that. But I can still hear the same old assumptions in what you are claiming.

With every step we take forward we find ways to take some back.

And what I have said has nothing to do with what you have shared.

You are drawing false parallels.

The same old, "this is the way that it is supposed to be, this is what is best considering the nature of women." It makes me want to barf.

Ideally and generally speaking - yes - women are naturally more inclined to be nurturers and caretakers of children and find the most joy and fulfillment in those activities.

If the job is in mathematics, the AA degree guy/gal would not be given a position over the Masters degree one.

How would you know?

We have a senile bumbling idiot in the White House right now - anyone can be placed anywhere.

And even if such a bizarre situation existed, the Masters degree mathematician would NOT go to an AA guy. they would go to another Math scholar. AA degrees don't make you a math scholar.

You can be a math "scholar" without any degree.

If there was any "ruling body concerning math-related issues" who gave authority to the "AA guy" then what you are describing is a coup d'état. A revolt. A usurpation.

Many many marriages, most indeed in the west, are not made on this basis.

That explains the many many divorces in the West.

Marriages are looked upon as partnerships. Are you saying these are not marriages?

I have been describing a partnership - not you.

When two people are trying to sail a ship - one works the sails while the other works the rudder.

Both the people cannot be working the sails and both the people cannot be working the rudder.

If they do that - they flounder and sink.

Everyone is free to disagree with the President. He has the authority to carry out his/her duties during his/her term of office, but it ends when he/she leaves. And being in office doesn't mean he is automatically right. Heck I have never totally agreed with any President, and some I have detested more than others.

However - my disagreeing with the President doesn't negate his authority nor is it going to stop him from doing what he believes is best.

Any wife can disagree with her husband - but until he leaves, dies, or she leaves him - he has the authority to carry out the primary roles of his office - as the protector of his family.

And as long as he is fulfilling his primary roles - such as being selfless, self-sacrificing and having unconditional love for his wife and children - as Christ has for the Church - his wife would be unjustified in leaving him.

You sorta just agreed with me.

Yet you think this is your best example of why wives should defer to their husbands? How does it analogize over to something that is far more restrictive.

Wives should defer to their husbands in regards to those things in relation to his primary roles and husbands should defer to their wives in regards to those things in relation to her primary roles.

For example - my wife and I recently moved from California to Indiana.

For years I had been receiving inspiration to leave California - but my wife was never ready.

Finally - things fell into place - she became convinced of the need for us to move - and we both chose Indiana - but she chose which region because it was up to her to choose where our children would go to school.

I believe this cooperation - with both of us focusing on our primary roles - me focusing on safeguarding my families wealth and freedoms and her on where our children would be most comfortable and receive the most benefits - created the ideal outcome.

We have been here about six months and are loving it so far.

It is not a competition. Both husband and wife bring their own natural talents into the marriage. I'm saying you cna't try to force square pegs into round holes, and there are some women that are NOT inclined to child rearing just as there are some men highly inclined to it. Your policies are based on sweeping generalization that harm those who don't fit the description.

Not policies - ideals.

You were the one making "sweeping generalizations" about "minority homes" and which sex/gender is capable of being a CEO or scientist.

Stop projecting.

Actually, If the wife is uninclined to child rearing, and the husband highly inclined to it, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever for them to force the stereotypes upon themselves.

What stereotypes are you referring to?

No matter what the man and woman do - work or stay-at-home - one is forever the husband/father and one is forever the wife/mother - each given specific primary roles.

A man can be a stay-at-home dad (like me) and still fulfill his primary roles as husband and father.

A woman can be a CEO and still fulfill her primary roles as wife and mother.

Both have been given specific roles and authorities that the other cannot usurp.

And if either one feels that they are deficient - their spouse should help them better fulfill their roles - not try to take them away.

And remember that in MOST homes, both husbands and wives work, so if you are saying a wife should come home from work, and start her second shift as a mother, but the husband can come home from work and play X-box, that's just unreasonable.

Irrelevant societal BS again.

If she doesn't have maternal instincts, he would be a fool to leave the kids with her. That's how abuse and neglect happen.

What? You think a man should be able to take children away from their mother?

You need to filter out your own biases and stop inserting them into what I have said.

You made a lot of false assumptions here.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

That is not what I've seen with my own eyes.

Some people are born with a natural ability to play sports -- because they are good at it, they will go and practice and practice, honing that skill even more. Practice benefits everyone, but it does not make someone who has less physical ability into a person of talent.

Some people are born with greater intellect. A rich environment and study augments this natural tendency. Indeed, because the intelligent ARE good at bookish things, they gravitate to study and reading and stuff. But ultimately everyone is bound by a certain inborn range of what their intelligence can be, and no amount of studying will get a person out of that range.

Some people are born with an innate understanding of spiritual/ethical things. They naturally are drawn to religious study and practices. They recognize wisdom when they come across it in others and other writings. Again, religious study helps everyone. But it does not give someone without a natural inclination that inclination. No amount of study is going to make someone spiritually wise.

I think I've said this as best as I can. I am not interested in arguing about it with you. It is obvious to me -- what I have seen with my own eyes. You can disagree if you want, and we'll let it go.

This is no different than what I said.

Everyone is born with certain gifts - gifts of the Spirit - but no one is born with understanding.

That can only come with proper study and experience.

And all of this is irrelevant to what we have been talking about anyways.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

That's easy for you to say - since most of my post is going to consist of me pointing out the false assumptions you have made.

I'd rather we not ignore what the other says - considering that there is no forum rule concerning the length of posts - other that the limit to how many characters we use of course.

I am going to say my piece - no matter how long it takes - and you are free to ignore most of it again if you want.

However - you reading things that are not there (strawmen) and overreacting to them has caused this to run longer than it should.

All throughout this thread I have been talking in terms of ideals - the ideal roles set apart for husbands and wives - fathers and mothers - which include their primary roles.

Of course - us living in imperfect and finite mortality means that not every person - riddled with weaknesses and sins - is going to be ideal - but that is beside the point I am making.

I believe that God designed us ideally to fulfill particular primary roles and the closest we get to fulfilling these roles the better off we will be.

I believe that a person developing a "spiritual understanding" means that they have better come to know the will of the Lord concerning them.

From a Christian perspective according to Ephesians 5 - wives were commanded to submit to their husbands - as unto the Lord - and that husbands were commanded to love their wives and to be as Christ is to the Church.

Any Christian claiming to have "spiritual understanding" would recognize that there is a dynamic between men and women in marriage.

We might not all have the same interpretation of Ephesians 5 - but we can at least agree that God had particular primary roles in mind when Paul wrote these words.

My interpretation is that the husband is the final authority over the wife when the matter concerns the entirety of the family - just as the Lord over the Church.

The Lord does not infantilize or oppress the Church - therefore the husband should not do the same to his wife.

Bearing that in mind - husbands were commanded to be selfless, self-sacrificing and to bear unconditional love toward their wives - just as Christ did toward the Church.

Also - Christ did nothing of Himself - but what He saw the Father do - therefore all husbands should be doing all that they can to follow the will of God.

So - my opinion based on Christian scripture - is that any woman who claims that they can usurp their husband as the "head" of their spiritual coupling lacks "spiritual understanding".

The wife and mother is going to receive revelation on behalf of herself and her children and she is the final authority in regards to her children - for that is her primary role.

The husband and father is going to receive revelation on behalf of himself and his wife and he is the final authority over the affairs of the family - for that is his primary role.

You never thought it was interesting that the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary to tell her that she would conceive the Son of God?

Why didn't the angel tell Joseph first - considering that he was her betrothed?

I mean - God told Abraham that Sarah would have Isaac and the angel Gabriel told Zacharias that Elizabeth would have John.

Why didn't Joseph receive revelation about this matter until after he learned - through nature processes - that she was pregnant?

And why did Joseph - not Mary - receive the revelation telling them to flee to Egypt when Herod wanted to kill the young Lord?

I'll share my insight.

The reason that the angel came to Mary before Joseph is because the Lord Jesus Christ was not Joseph's son - but Mary's and God's.

Joseph was only made aware after he thought to take action to put Mary away privily.

Wouldn't it have made more sense to tell Joseph first - to avoid that situation? That confusion and hurt that Joseph most likely felt?

No - because Joseph was not the Lord's father and he was not yet Mary's husband.

Only when he thought to take action - which would have affected Mary's future marital status and the Lord's future mortal family - did it become necessary to inform Joseph - so that he could fulfill his primary role as the future husband of Mary and step-father of the Lord.

Then after Mary gave birth and they married it was Joseph - not Mary - who received revelation telling them to flee to Egypt - because as Mary's husband he was her head and it was his primary role to protect her and her child.

The reason Abraham and Zacharias were told about their future sons before their wives were was because they were currently married to those women and they were the literal fathers of those children.

As the head of those couplings - it was imperative that they receive this information first - to pass on to their wives.

That was their primary role as the head of their respective couplings - God dealt with them ideally.

And what is this about a wife needing to always agree with her husband? Have you read the New Testament? The leaders of the Church disagreed with each other - and the Lord - all the time.

Ultimately - however - the Lord is the authority over the Church - just as the husband is the authority over the wife.

I don't know your sister and her situation - but I have been speaking in ideals.

Throughout human history - the vast majority of nurturers and caretakers of children have been mothers.

Throughout human history - the vast majority of providers and protectors of women and children have been fathers.

So - instead of trying to argue that the exceptions should somehow set the rule - lean into the facts.

There will always been exceptions to the rules in imperfect and finite mortality.

How did you interpret this from, "Just as much as a woman who is not fulfilling her duties as a mother. It will count against her. And her husband should be helping her fulfill her duties." (Bold and italics added)

I never claimed that fathers should not be a part of raising their children.

I clearly stated that husbands should be helping their wives "fulfill her duties" of motherhood - which would include playing, feeding, cleaning and otherwise spending time with their children.

You are inserting your own biases into what I have said and I don't appreciate it.

You bring up the idea of IDEAL roles. Good. Let's talk about that. The ideal is what things were in the Garden before sin took hold.

They say that God made Eve from Adam's side. Not from his head that she should rule him. Not from his feet that he should rule her. But from his side, that she is his equal.

That is the ideal.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I find this to be incredibly sexist.

You find it incredibly sexist to say that both men and women can have the abilities to be a CEO and that both men and women can have the abilities to rear children? You have a strange idea of what sexism is.

I consider our discussion over.

 

[Messianic Israelite]

This is not a description of what God wants. It is a description of what is. Theologically speaking, being victimized by husbands came into the world when sin entered the world. That doesn't mean we are to accept it or not try to better things. For example, you wouldn't deny a woman pain killers during childbirth simply because of the above verse would you? No of course not. Today a woman can be relieved of almost all the pain of childbirth. That's a good thing. It's not a subversion of God's will. It's the same with men toiling on the earth, part of the same passage. You would not deny men the devices and machinery that make working so much easier and more productive? Nope. We work to better the world, to restore Eden to the extent that we can.

Hi IndigoChild. Good afternoon. Sorry, I don't have much time as I have to prepare for the Sabbath.

I’ve been considering what you said and mulling it over in my mind for the past few days in which I haven’t been on RF. It’s true that with any curse which Yahweh sentences against us, we tend to think of ways to lessen its consequences. In the curse to Adam, he was told that the ground would produce thorns and thistles which would in turn make his life more difficult in his agriculture work. That doesn’t mean we can’t take steps to remove them or lessen their proclivity. Like you said, a woman may not have had pain in pregnancy before the Fall, now, they do, but you mentioned they can take pain killers. I’m sure many women will tell you that even with the use of pain killers is not enough to take away the pain.

In the curses Yahweh laid out at that time, its clear that they apply to our time too, Yahweh putting enmity between Satan and the seed of the woman.

In Deuteronomy, it says we are to accept the punishment for our sins (Leviticus 26:41). The woman is to be in subjection to the main. They are other scriptures suggesting this. Sarai calls her husband Master we read in 1 Peter 3:6 (1 Peter 3:6 just as Sarah obeyed Abraham and called him lord. And you are her children if you do what is right and refuse to give way to fear.). Even in our solar system there is a sun and moon, a greater light and a lesser lightm the moon being a type of neged I suppose to the sun, hence Joseph’s dream of these Israelite family symbols in Genesis 37:9.

Finally, I’d like to point your attention to the Torah. In it, decisions made by a wife or a daughter could be cancelled by the husband or father. Specifically, it mentions vows, but it’s clear from the scriptures that if even a vow could be cancelled, so could a decision. You can read this in Numbers 30. This gives weight to the fact that a woman should be in subjection to the man.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Hi IndigoChild. Good afternoon. Sorry, I don't have much time as I have to prepare for the Sabbath.

I’ve been considering what you said and mulling it over in my mind for the past few days in which I haven’t been on RF. It’s true that with any curse which Yahweh sentences against us, we tend to think of ways to lessen its consequences. In the curse to Adam, he was told that the ground would produce thorns and thistles which would in turn make his life more difficult in his agriculture work. That doesn’t mean we can’t take steps to remove them or lessen their proclivity. Like you said, a woman may not have had pain in pregnancy before the Fall, now, they do, but you mentioned they can take pain killers. I’m sure many women will tell you that even with the use of pain killers is not enough to take away the pain.

In the curses Yahweh laid out at that time, its clear that they apply to our time too, Yahweh putting enmity between Satan and the seed of the woman.

In Deuteronomy, it says we are to accept the punishment for our sins (Leviticus 26:41). The woman is to be in subjection to the main. They are other scriptures suggesting this. Sarai calls her husband Master we read in 1 Peter 3:6 (1 Peter 3:6 just as Sarah obeyed Abraham and called him lord. And you are her children if you do what is right and refuse to give way to fear.). Even in our solar system there is a sun and moon, a greater light and a lesser lightm the moon being a type of neged I suppose to the sun, hence Joseph’s dream of these Israelite family symbols in Genesis 37:9.

Finally, I’d like to point your attention to the Torah. In it, decisions made by a wife or a daughter could be cancelled by the husband or father. Specifically, it mentions vows, but it’s clear from the scriptures that if even a vow could be cancelled, so could a decision. You can read this in Numbers 30. This gives weight to the fact that a woman should be in subjection to the man.

Again, you are not being consistent. You are working to mitigate the suffering of other curses, but not this one. You are working to restore Eden in the other cases but not this one. Why? Because as a man it is just fine with you to oppress women. Sorry, but that is only nice for half of humanity, and we aren't going to put up with this from you guys any more. You can either adjust or live unhappy.

Torah accommodates the oppression, that women were culturally considered okay to be oppressed by the patriarchy, because it reluctantly allows for men thinking of women as their property, similar to how it allows for prisoners of war to be held as life long slaves. But, if I could borrow from the words of Jesus, "From the beginning it was not so." In Eden women were equal to men. That is the ideal we should strive to restore.

Tikkun Olam, brother. Tikkun Olam.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

You bring up the idea of IDEAL roles. Good. Let's talk about that. The ideal is what things were in the Garden before sin took hold.

You mean when the woman went rogue and singlehandedly damned all of Mankind?

I don't think you should pull that thread.

I don't believe that conditions in the Garden are relevant to us in mortality anyways - but the Patriarchal Order of Heaven that I have been referencing is consistent with the events in the Garden.

They say that God made Eve from Adam's side.

Rib.

Not from his head that she should rule him. Not from his feet that he should rule her. But from his side, that she is his equal.

Even though I agree with this sentiment - it isn't written in the Bible.

It could be argued that the fact that Eve was taken from Adam at all - any part of him - would automatically make her subservient to him.

I don't believe that to be true - but I do find it interesting that Woman came from Man - Man came from the Earth - and the Earth came from God.

The Earth was created to serve God - and Man was created to dress and keep the Earth - and Woman was created to be Man's "help meet".

Could show some kind of hierarchy?

I believe that she was taken from him so that he would better nourish and cherish her,

"So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh." (Ephesians 5:28-31)

That is the ideal.

A sexless marriage where all you do is tend a Garden all day?

No thanks.

You find it incredibly sexist to say that both men and women can have the abilities to be a CEO and that both men and women can have the abilities to rear children?

Nope - what I find incredibly sexist is that you used the examples of women being CEOs and scientists as if their ability to be such was in question.

Why do you believe that the women of the world need you to keep telling them that they can do these jobs just as well as a man?

I think they are well aware and don't need your help and constant condescension.

You have a strange idea of what sexism is.

That's nothing - I also believe that people of any race can perform the same jobs too - so no need for you to pat any minorities on the head for being CEO's or scientists either.

I consider our discussion over.

Ignore most of the post - make false assumptions again - and run away.

Classy.

 

[Shakeel]

But, if I could borrow from the words of Jesus, "From the beginning it was not so." In Eden women were equal to men.

Did he say that about this? I'm confused, do you believe in any of the Bible?

 

[Messianic Israelite]

Again, you are not being consistent. You are working to mitigate the suffering of other curses, but not this one. You are working to restore Eden in the other cases but not this one. Why? Because as a man it is just fine with you to oppress women. Sorry, but that is only nice for half of humanity, and we aren't going to put up with this from you guys any more. You can either adjust or live unhappy.

Torah accommodates the oppression, that women were culturally considered okay to be oppressed by the patriarchy, because it reluctantly allows for men thinking of women as their property, similar to how it allows for prisoners of war to be held as life long slaves. But, if I could borrow from the words of Jesus, "From the beginning it was not so." In Eden women were equal to men. That is the ideal we should strive to restore.

Tikkun Olam, brother. Tikkun Olam.

Hi IndigoChild5559. Shavua tov. If I am not being consistent, I apologize. I don't believe it's right to oppress women of course. That is completely wrong and I don't know how you reached that conclusion. There is nothing wrong with a woman being in subject to a man. The Torah teaches this, as I have pointed out, and for which you didn't respond to, and as for the man, he also is to be subject to the Messiah. The man is also subject to another (1 Corinthians 11:3). I don't complain that I have to be subject to the Messiah, just as I don't see why a woman should complain to be in subjection to a man who is following Yahshua's righteous example. Further, the Messiah is subject to Yahweh we read in the same passage. Do you think Yahshua should be equal to the Father? Yahweh is consistent.

Can either adjust or live unhappy you say. I'm curious. Do you think I'm unhappy? I'm quite happy with keeping the commandments.

You seem to forget that Adam and Eve were never truly equal from the beginning. Adam already had one up on Eve as he was the firstborn. I shouldn't need to point your attention to the Torah Law which tells us that the firstborn should receive double (Deuteronomy 21:16-17) despite if it is the son of the hated woman. Adam was first, and the woman was taken out of the man, therefore Adam would have been viewed as being superior to Eve. Perhaps that's why Eve took of the fruit, because she wanted more knowledge than that of her husband.

But lets look at Genesis 3. Yahweh tells Eve he would multiply her pain, yes. That is a curse. But the second part he says: "and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." This second clause doesn't seem to me to be a curse like the first clause, but possibly a reaffirmation of how things were to be in Eden. Just like with Moses and Aaron, Moses was Aaron's superior, so with Adam and Eve, Adam was her superior. That's the way Yahweh works, with a hierarchical structure. You can go through the Bible and you can see this consistently portrayed throughout. So the idea that Adam and Eve were ever completely equal is not accurate.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Hi IndigoChild5559. Shavua tov. If I am not being consistent, I apologize. I don't believe it's right to oppress women of course.

YOu say that, and then you proceed to oppress women, by subjegating us and infantilizing us.

Can either adjust or live unhappy you say. I'm curious. Do you think I'm unhappy? I'm quite happy with keeping the commandments.

I am not sure you will be happy in a world where women are your equals. You are spoiled in thinking that you are our master.

You seem to forget that Adam and Eve were never truly equal from the beginning. Adam already had one up on Eve as he was the firstborn. I shouldn't need to point your attention to the Torah Law which tells us that the firstborn should receive double (Deuteronomy 21:16-17) despite if it is the son of the hated woman. Adam was first, and the woman was taken out of the man, therefore Adam would have been viewed as being superior to Eve. Perhaps that's why Eve took of the fruit, because she wanted more knowledge than that of her husband.

But lets look at Genesis 3. Yahweh tells Eve he would multiply her pain, yes. That is a curse. But the second part he says: "and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." This second clause doesn't seem to me to be a curse like the first clause, but possibly a reaffirmation of how things were to be in Eden. Just like with Moses and Aaron, Moses was Aaron's superior, so with Adam and Eve, Adam was her superior. That's the way Yahweh works, with a hierarchical structure. You can go through the Bible and you can see this consistently portrayed throughout. So the idea that Adam and Eve were ever completely equal is not accurate.

Look, in the Garden, woman was equal to man. She was a help corresponding (meet) to him. Not lesser to him. Not greater to him. corresponding/meet.

From the beginning they were meant to work together. He was not meant to delegate his tasks to her. She helped him in his tasks, as she corresponded to him.

I'm not saying that women are superior to man, but if you wanted to talk about who was made first, being made first means you are the lesser. a 2005 Chevy Truck is not as good as a 2021 Chevy Truck. You always make a prototype before you make the actual product so that you can spot all the bugs in it.

Same thing with being made from Adam. A human being made from a human being is going to be superior next to a human being made from mere dirt.

So lets stop making those kinds of arguments, because they all go against men, and I won't tolerate that kind of reverse sexism either.

Again, let's talk about the curse, which simply describes how things are, not how they should be or how they were in Eden. "And her desire shall be for her husband." Most women are very focused on getting married. Many of us start dressing up as brides when we are two and three, and begin planning our weddings as girls. For us, "Happily ever after" means getting married. We are willing to sign away our basic human dignity in many cases in order to get this. As a professional counselor, I can't tell you how many women are trapped in degrading marriages because they aren't willing to be single.

But that doesn't mean it is God's ultimate will, or that this is what Eve had with Adam in the Garden. It doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for something better. It doesn't mean women should let her husband walk all over her. Being a woman doesn't mean we don't have basic human dignity, or that we aren't full adults with maturity and understanding and the ability to make decisions for ourselves and our families, same as men.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Did he say that about this? I'm confused, do you believe in any of the Bible?

He said this to establish that the state of things in Eden outweighs the culture that existed at the time of the writing of the Torah.

I'll ignore your insulting question.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You mean when the woman went rogue and singlehandedly damned all of Mankind?

I said our discussion was over, so I'm largely ignoring your post. I just want to reply to this one comment above, because blaming only Eve, when in fact Adam sinned as well, and sinned even though he was not deceived (which means willful rebellion), shows your distaste for women in general. I just wanted to highlight that for everyone reading.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

YOu say that, and then you proceed to oppress women, by subjegating us and infantilizing us.

I am not sure you will be happy in a world where women are your equals. You are spoiled in thinking that you are our master. But the writing is on the wall my friend. Women have made strides, and are continuing to press forward. Having broken out of the box, we are never going back into our prison. The enlightenment is slowly spreading over the globe. You will have no place to go someday.


Look, in the Garden, woman was equal to man. She was a help corresponding (meet) to him. Not lesser to him. Not greater to him. corresponding/meet.

From the beginning they were meant to work together. He was not meant to delegate his tasks to her. She helped him in his tasks, as she corresponded to him.

I'm not saying that women are superior to man, but if you wanted to talk about who was made first, being made first means you are the lesser. a 2005 Chevy Truck is not as good as a 2021 Chevy Truck. You always make a prototype before you make the actual product so that you can spot all the bugs in it.

Same thing with being made from Adam. A human being made from a human being is going to be superior next to a human being made from mere dirt.

So lets stop making those kinds of arguments, because they all go against men, and I won't tolerate that kind of reverse sexism either.

Again, let's talk about the curse, which simply describes how things are, not how they should be or how they were in Eden. "And her desire shall be for her husband." Most women are very focused on getting married. Many of us start dressing up as brides when we are two and three, and begin planning our weddings as girls. For us, "Happily ever after" means getting married. We are willing to sign away our basic human dignity in many cases in order to get this. As a professional counselor, I can't tell you how many women are trapped in degrading marriages because they aren't willing to be single.

But that doesn't mean it is God's ultimate will, or that this is what Eve had with Adam in the Garden. It doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for something better. It doesn't mean women should let her husband walk all over her. Being a woman doesn't mean we don't have basic human dignity, or that we aren't full adults with maturity and understanding and the ability to make decisions for ourselves and our families, same as men.

 

[RabbiO]

Rib.

One possible translation, but not the only one.

 

[101G]

GINOLJC, to all,
#1. the apostle was not speaking to women in General at all, he was only speaking to the married women husbands.

#2. there was no such rule that wome should be silent in church, married or not. for the term "WOMEN" here is
G1135 γυνή gune (ǰ ï-nee') n.
1. a woman.
2. (specially) a wife.
[probably from the base of G1096]
KJV: wife, woman
Root(s): G1096

definition #2. is correctly applied, for the next verse certify this. 1 Corinthians 14:35 "And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

the only woman that have a husband is a married one... "Wife". the to be silent is applied at HOME, which is a HUSBAND and WIFE setting of teaching, or instructions from the husband who shouls know and understand God's Holy Word.

so the apostle was speaking to HUSBANDS only in 1 Corinthians 14:34.

PICJAG, 101G

 

[metis]

For what reason would a woman not have the same right as a man to speak in a religious assembly? Other than sheer sexism of course. I'm not speaking of women chatting and gossiping. No one should be rude--men cannot do this either. I'm speaking of the contribution to the learning and worship.

IMO, in reality I do believe both the Jewish and Christian scriptures do reflect the culture of the day and place where they were written, as objectivity was definitely not in order then. Today, I would have no problem with having a female rabbi or priest, or as Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem or as Pope. After all, my wife bosses me around plenty.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

IMO, in reality I do believe both the Jewish and Christian scriptures do reflect the culture of the day and place where they were written, as objectivity was definitely not in order then. Today, I would have no problem with having a female rabbi or priest, or as Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem or as Pope. After all, my wife bosses me around plenty.

You are so cute!

I am most at home in the Conservative movement's idea of Tradition and Change. There is the idea that while we hold tight to what is tried and true, Judaism is a living religion that is best interpreted anew in each generation, and this means that new interpretations may be needed as unforeseen new circumstances arise, such as the discovery of electricity -- or the rise in consciousness about women. The Conservative movement points out that halakha has always had a here and there of change, and should always have avenues of being changed, although we should always be very careful and never go at it with a sledge hammer.

Anyone reading this who wishes to read more about Jewish Law from the Conservative POV will find more about it at this site:
Halakhah in Conservative Judaism | My Jewish Learning

 

[metis]

You are so cute!

I am most at home in the Conservative movement's idea of Tradition and Change. There is the idea that while we hold tight to what is tried and true, Judaism is a living religion that is best interpreted anew in each generation, and this means that new interpretations may be needed as unforeseen new circumstances arise, such as the discovery of electricity -- or the rise in consciousness about women. The Conservative movement points out that halakha has always had a here and there of change, and should always have avenues of being changed, although we should always be very careful and never go at it with a sledge hammer.

Anyone reading this who wishes to read more about Jewish Law from the Conservative POV will find more about it at this site:
Halakhah in Conservative Judaism | My Jewish Learning

Thanks for the above, and I have had the fortunate privilege of davening at a couple of different Conservative shuls in my area over the years.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

What's the reasoning though?

Is it just her genitalia and chromosomes, etc or something more spiritual involved that makes her different than him?

Deborah was a judge so clearly men don’t want women leaders.