|
Post by bobarian on Sept 21, 2004 21:37:49 GMT -5
"There are many other passages and subtle wordings in the Bible that construct women as deserving less authority than men."
This is entirely untrue. None of these passages imply anywhere that the fact that women should fit into certain roles (notice I did not state what yet) is because they are less deserving than men. Men don't deserve authority; women don't either. It is entirely a gift from God; it is entirely of His own choosing. The Bible simply does not say that a man does what he does because he is better; the Bible says that a man should do what a man should do because that is what a man is. It is created purpose, not artificially constructed absolutes intended to "keep women in their place."
And, within the larger biblical context, in no way does Paul mean that women are not allowed to say a word to anyone within the church. In Paul's own ministry were women who participated fully in what was going on in the Church. To understand Paul's words it is necessary to understand who they were written to, and they weren't written to us. The verses you quoted were written to Timothy (a fellow minister of the gospel) and the Corinthian church. To understand these verses it is necessary to understand how the church in Corinth and Timothy understood them. This you have not identified. (I.e., it may not seem fair to you but was it actually unfair to them? It wasn't written to you.)
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Sept 23, 2004 8:12:33 GMT -5
And, within the larger biblical context, in no way does Paul mean that women are not allowed to say a word to anyone within the church. In Paul's own ministry were women who participated fully in what was going on in the Church. To understand Paul's words it is necessary to understand who they were written to, and they weren't written to us. The verses you quoted were written to Timothy (a fellow minister of the gospel) and the Corinthian church. To understand these verses it is necessary to understand how the church in Corinth and Timothy understood them. This you have not identified. (I.e., it may not seem fair to you but was it actually unfair to them? It wasn't written to you.) If the Bible is the Word of God, I would think (and HOPE)it was written to all Christians. I really cannot see how these blatantly sexist verses could ever be " fair" to anyone. Another interesting point is the argument you put forward that we can only ever "truly" understand these verses by taking into account their historical context; true, but don't you think that the Bible's interpretation should be more accessible to everyday man and woman? IE - if these verses are not "relevant" today (eg. the "not speaking in church", "mandatory female wearing of head coverings", etc, etc, verses), then isn't this just picking and choosing from the Bible? If you reduce the ideas you disagree with to mere "cultural variations", related to historical time of writing, etc, this contradicts the idea that God's rules are unchanging and absolute.
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Sept 23, 2004 19:16:26 GMT -5
so am i sinning when i dont greet other christians by kissing them?
|
|
|
Post by bobarian on Sept 23, 2004 19:45:18 GMT -5
Shiggy -
I am not talking about saying that things in the Bible were culturally relevant only to the past. I am only referring to principles that are considered essential in Biblical intrepretation in the evangelical church.
1. Any passage must be evaluated within the larger context of the book in which it was written and the Bible as a whole. Thus, it is not fair to say that Paul is being sexist or chauvinist because of other, far more clear statements regarding such matters ("there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female...")
2. A passage must be intrepreted within the context in which it was written. If you were reading one of my letters to my sister, it would be unwise for you to try to intrepret it as though I were speaking to you. Treat a letter as a letter.
Thus, we know that the Bible is not directly sexist because of the larger context of the new and old testament. That leads us to understand what these passages truly mean.
Submission is a role, not an expression of male domination. I repeat that in the Bible love is voluntary -- the man doesn't force the woman to submit, she does so voluntarily because that is the plan of God and the way she can show love to her husband. Her husband voluntarily submits to her out of love as well -- he doesn't have to -- but is his act of showing her love.
That said, those are general guidelines for the relationship -- the Bible is not the hadith, it does not prescribe every single situation that may come up in a marriage by any means. But it does give general guidelines that let both partners acheive the ultimate joy in one another and in God. This is the full end of the Bible for the greatest glory of God.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyJihadFace on Sept 23, 2004 22:03:37 GMT -5
Shiggy - I am not talking about saying that things in the Bible were culturally relevant only to the past. I am only referring to principles that are considered essential in Biblical intrepretation in the evangelical church. Because picking and choosing what is 'essential' isn't the same as picking and choosing which parts of the bible you use/take seriously/follow like shiggy just said right? This post reminds me of the way companies cover things up by taking a black and white problem with themselves or their service as reported by customers (the skeptic) and mixing up a bunch of words hoping that they won't figure out what your saying and call you on it. 1. Any passage must be evaluated within the larger context of the book in which it was written and the Bible as a whole. Thus, it is not fair to say that Paul is being sexist or chauvinist because of other, far more clear statements regarding such matters ("there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female...") More of this wordy evasive stuff that really makes no case. What you just said was: You've got to consider the larger context in which these sexist/chauvinist things were said. You see, since paul says some different things on the same subject, we're supposed to ignore the shitty ones. (note: I'm not paraphrasing what you said, or putting words in your mouth.. Just a simple translation.) 2. A passage must be intrepreted within the context in which it was written. If you were reading one of my letters to my sister, it would be unwise for you to try to intrepret it as though I were speaking to you. Treat a letter as a letter. Unless Paul was using a bunch of inside jokes, this is horse-doo-doo. If you write a letter to your sister that says something blatantly sexist or chauvinistic, we can assume that you are either being serious, or playing around with inside jokes. (first line of this mini-paragraph) Thus, we know that the Bible is not directly sexist because of the larger context of the new and old testament. That leads us to understand what these passages truly mean. If god is capable of imperfect things, he cannot have a set of standards/policies/ideas expressed at one time, and change them into something else. (the new testament) Because to be perfect, he must be unchanging. (as in his ways have always been right, no need for change between testaments) Thus any "well you have to understand the context of the old testament" stuff can be considered null and void. Just because it hurts the spread christianity doesn't mean you can tell us it doesn't count, or doesn't need to be applied to today's life. Again, that would be picking and choosing. Submission is a role, not an expression of male domination. I repeat that in the Bible love is voluntary -- the man doesn't force the woman to submit, she does so voluntarily because that is the plan of God and the way she can show love to her husband. Her husband voluntarily submits to her out of love as well -- he doesn't have to -- but is his act of showing her love. And what happens if the woman does not want to play a submissive role, but an equal one? The man doesn't accept her, or their are repercussions, possibely physical ones. The idea that a woman needs to play a submissive role to show love to her husband is just stupid enough to be a christian one. It amazes me that people try to defend things like this.. its practically impossible, and Bob.. I don't think you've pulled it off.
|
|
|
Post by bobarian on Sept 23, 2004 23:25:26 GMT -5
"And what happens if the woman does not want to play a submissive role, but an equal one?"
Then you end up with the world we live in. Individuals placing their own "rights" ahead of others. A self-centered world. Look at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. What is the one problem? Neither of them are willing to give up their rights to the land. So they will kill each other.
It is a similar principle in marriage. Christianity releases us from the idolatry of ourselves. It allows one another to submit to one another, which is a beautiful thing. Love itself is a beautiful thing. It comes from God, and God is beautiful.
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Sept 24, 2004 1:31:46 GMT -5
"And what happens if the woman does not want to play a submissive role, but an equal one?" Then you end up with the world we live in. Individuals placing their own "rights" ahead of others. A self-centered world. Look at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. What is the one problem? Neither of them are willing to give up their rights to the land. So they will kill each other. It is a similar principle in marriage. Christianity releases us from the idolatry of ourselves. It allows one another to submit to one another, which is a beautiful thing. Love itself is a beautiful thing. It comes from God, and God is beautiful. Finally - I am so incredibly relieved now that this utterly simplistic, sadistic and cruel attitude has been revealed. Self-defense and EQUALITY of roles is "idolatory of ourselves", "self-centred", and WRONG. THIS is what I am arguing against. Exactly as JohnnyJihadFace put it - if men and women want equality of roles, this is selfish and the root of the evil in the world today ??!!! WTF What an utterly laughable and frightening way to govern human consciousnesses and feelings, to manufacture shame and moral wrongness over the preservation of equality between all men and women. To wreck and destroy the joy and freedom of equal respect and protection of all males and females with accusations of selfishness is ridiculous and intolerably dangerous. It is selfish to dictate the compulsory submission of women to men - not to defend their equality. What a frighteningly twisted, misinformed and ignorant worldview for anyone to possess. I hope these power dynamics are soon destroyed so that equality and freedom from the Christian Church's harmful gender stereotypes can begin to heal the extensive damage, fear, pain and harm they have caused in the past and the present.
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Sept 24, 2004 1:54:40 GMT -5
Also, yes, JohnnyJihadFace's point about Paul saying sexist stuff and also some non-sexist stuff is exactly what I've been trying to say - who are you, Bobarian, to say that Paul's non-sexist verses should colour our interpretations of his sexist ones? Why shouldn't it be the other way around? You say that Paul's non-sexist verses are "clearer" than the sexist ones I quoted earlier, but those verses are NOT merely specific to the churches to which they were written - "it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church" is a general statement, as is "They must be in submission, as the Law says". These verses refer generally to God's laws, not to isolated instances. I consider these verses absolutely crystal clear - there simply isn't any ambiguity there whatsoever. The verse you quoted (no male nor female) is metaphorical.
It's like there is a foregone conclusion in your argument that God can't be sexist (because sexism is wrong - an ASSUMPTION), so anything that IS sexist in the Bible must be just a contextual thing. Who are you to say that women are no longer required by God to cover their heads in worship? From my reading of the Bible, it really seems that God MEANS these things. They aren't contextual. By arguing that the Bible isn't sexist, you are assuming (from your own inner moral feeling) that God considers sexism wrong. No matter how much textual evidence there is for a point, people still go on their inner moral laws which, in this instance, are in direct conflict with the Bible.
I too am guided by my inner morals. This is why I think sexism must be wrong. This is IN SPITE OF Biblical teaching, and this is why I find this conflict problematic - a true God couldn't be sexist, so if the Bible is (which it IS), then something is amiss in Christianity.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyJihadFace on Sept 24, 2004 19:59:57 GMT -5
It's like there is a foregone conclusion in your argument that God can't be sexist (because sexism is wrong - an ASSUMPTION), so anything that IS sexist in the Bible must be just a contextual thing. Exactly I too am guided by my inner morals. This is why I think sexism must be wrong. This is IN SPITE OF Biblical teaching, and this is why I find this conflict problematic - a true God couldn't be sexist, so if the Bible is (which it IS), then something is amiss in Christianity. And if anything within christianity and it's god is amiss, it can be considered imperfect, contradicting a very key trait of the god itself. (Destroying the religion's credibility completely)
|
|
|
Post by Satori on Sept 25, 2004 2:46:54 GMT -5
If god is capable of imperfect things, he cannot have a set of standards/policies/ideas expressed at one time, and change them into something else. (the new testament) Because to be perfect, he must be unchanging. (as in his ways have always been right, no need for change between testaments) I think you're touching on the ' God is good - God is omnipotent' problem there. If God is good and omnipotent, it is often argued that he would cure all the suffering in life - the fact that he doesn't would indicate that God is either not good or not omnipotent (or not both). However, the Christian answer is that God wants us to learn for ourselves. If, for example, you have a child, you don't necessarily stop him from playing a sport that might result in him hurting himself; you let him learn because you believe that's the good, loving way to treat a child. God does the same with the human race and hence can be both good and omnipotent. Also, it's worth remembering that the Bible was written by people and it will be their interpretations of God's word that we're debating here. Society was a lot more sexist in Biblical times and we can expect that to be reflected in Biblical teachings. Were the Bible written today, I'm sure it would reflect current aspects of society.
|
|
|
Post by bobarian on Sept 28, 2004 23:30:07 GMT -5
"I too am guided by my inner morals. This is why I think sexism must be wrong. This is IN SPITE OF Biblical teaching, and this is why I find this conflict problematic - a true God couldn't be sexist, so if the Bible is (which it IS), then something is amiss in Christianity. "
This statement I certainly respect and heartily agree with. I could never support Christianity if it went completely against the moral law of the universe. Of course, I am convinced it is true precisely because it is the origin of the common moral law that we all know (such as sexism is wrong.) However, I am not re-intrepreting the Bible simply to reflect my inner moral compass. I am merely stating principles that are considered essential in intrepreting any ancient or modern literature, not just the Bible. If you decide to disagree with them, then I would ask what method of intrepretation you would be using.
Second, it is very handy and convenient to say that Paul's statement in Gal. 3:28 ("There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus") is metaphorical. Metaphor implies a comparison (usually abstract) without using an analogy. I don't really see a metaphor here, please explain. And I find it awfully convenient that you would say Gal. 3:28 is metaphorical while 1 Timothy is literal.
Finally, I am not saying that the meaning of the Bible changes over time. But its application does. Love your neighbor met one thing in Roman times (for example, help the slave caste) than it does today (help AIDS orphans in Africa.) Thus, you must come up with an answer to the question "what does Paul mean?" and then you can apply it to the world today.
I would say that submission means more an attitude of respect than any actual act of domination. There is more going on in the church of which Paul speaks than we know of. That much is obvious. From Paul's other writings, such as where he specifically addresses marriage (Ephesians), we know that he does not support an authoritarian domination of women. And there were women actively involved in ministry in the early church; there always were. So he must be addressing some specific issue regarding women talking in the church. I have to be honest and say that I don't really know what he is referring to (that is why there are bible commentators! why don't you go look it up, yay!). But I would say that I don't think Paul would support, in principle, women not talking in church. The church was the ekklesia, the gathering of believers, and so it would be not in accordance with his doctrine to seek to keep women from contributing to the church.
Those are my thoughts, I am not saying I have the definitive answer, but I just want you to see some of the complexity in this passage and in the Bible as a whole. That's how life, is though.
|
|
|
Post by Satori on Sept 30, 2004 7:19:19 GMT -5
A lot of the 'apparent' sexism in the Bible has been added since the time of Christ, or at least the role of male dominance has been emphasised.
Mary Magdalene, for example, was branded a whore by Pope Gregory when he amalgamated three Biblical characters into one. This was later reversed by Papal Decree, but the image of Mary Magdalene as a red-headed whore still remains in popular understanding.
Reading such things as the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Philip can sometimes shed further light on things like the 'friction' between Mary Magdalene and Peter. Peter was always somewhat jealous of MM's close relationship with Jesus (some say they were married, even) and the fact that Jesus chose MM to be the first witness of his resurrection. Given Peter's influence on Christianity thereafter, perhaps it's not suprising that certain sexist elements found their way into the NT.
From my interpretation of the life of Jesus, he doesn't appear to be sexist. Quite the opposite in fact - he seems to have been significant in preaching equality in all areas.
I also have to agree with Bobarian (gasp!) on one point and that's that the target audience is very important. A Roman audience would have been far less tolerant of sexual equality than, say, an Egyptian audience if the Bible had been aimed at them.
|
|
|
Post by validusermattk on Sept 30, 2004 19:26:27 GMT -5
haha sexism in the bible...its a book...like Where the red fern grows
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Oct 1, 2004 20:21:36 GMT -5
I could never support Christianity if it went completely against the moral law of the universe. Of course, I am convinced it is true precisely because it is the origin of the common moral law that we all know (such as sexism is wrong.) This statement is not an argument; it is your opinion, and furthermore, it contradicts the way this debate has been going. I have already demonstrated that the Bible could not possibly be the origin of the human common moral law because it is, in places, in direct contradiction to it. Are you saying that there were no human morals before the Bible was written? However, I am not re-intrepreting the Bible simply to reflect my inner moral compass. I am merely stating principles that are considered essential in intrepreting any ancient or modern literature, not just the Bible. If you decide to disagree with them, then I would ask what method of intrepretation you would be using. I have already agreed that historical context IS important in Biblical interpretation. My point was that your emphasis on Paul's non-sexist verses as being the "true" ones is biased. It is equally scholarly to focus on Paul's sexist verses. Who are you yo emphasise one over the other? The fact is that there are both sexist and non-sexist verses. This does not make the sexist ones disappear. Second, it is very handy and convenient to say that Paul's statement in Gal. 3:28 ("There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus") is metaphorical. Metaphor implies a comparison (usually abstract) without using an analogy. I don't really see a metaphor here, please explain. And I find it awfully convenient that you would say Gal. 3:28 is metaphorical while 1 Timothy is literal. My previous post demonstrates the more general applicability of Paul's sexist verses. Gal. 3:28 is only one verse which supports sexual equality and, as I already said previously, it isn't as literal (or IMO as clear) in meaning as the many other sexist Bible verses. The statement that "there is no male nor female in Christ Jesus" is simply not true if women and men have been given different rules for Church worship. Clearly men and women are NOT equal in God's eyes if he has different commandments for their public powers of church decision-making and social invisibility through public silence. Finally, I am not saying that the meaning of the Bible changes over time. But its application does. Love your neighbor met one thing in Roman times (for example, help the slave caste) than it does today (help AIDS orphans in Africa.) Thus, you must come up with an answer to the question "what does Paul mean?" and then you can apply it to the world today. This statement is true - the Bible's application has, does, and will change with time. The problem with this is that IMO some "applications" of the Bible are not as Godly as others. In other words, it is not very useful to just say that all the different applications are equally in line with God's will. I refuse to believe that God condones the widespread historical oppression of women (although this has largely been caused by the religion itself!). It is difficult to argue that the word of God is perfect, if it has been responsible for such a varied mixture of moral goods and evils across history. Your statement could easily be used to justify sexism in any (including the present) historical age. I would say that submission means more an attitude of respect than any actual act of domination. There is more going on in the church of which Paul speaks than we know of. That much is obvious. From Paul's other writings, such as where he specifically addresses marriage (Ephesians), we know that he does not support an authoritarian domination of women. I simply do not agree with your interpretation of these obviously sexist verses! Eph. 5:22-24 "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church, his body, of which he is the savior. Now as the Church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything." (NIV) Husbands are then addressed and told to "...love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy" (v 25-26). The section on husbands and wives concludes with v33: "However, each one of you must also love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband". The emphasis is clearly on the wife's respect for her husband's headship over her, and, for the husband, love for his wife. You will probably disagree with me, but IMO this is a distinction which places the male and female in positions of unequal power, with the wife less able to fix things if they go wrong. The man is given the public voice and the woman is silenced. Another chapter of the Bible I believe shows this rather well is 1 Peter chapter 3. Verses 1-7 praise women who are submissive, silent creatures (a "gentle and quiet spirit" is best for a woman to have), and who act as if they are slaves to their husbands as their masters (with the example of Sarah, Abraham's wife). I especially love the first part of verse seven: "Husbands, in the same way, be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner". This is derogatory. And there were women actively involved in ministry in the early church; there always were. So he must be addressing some specific issue regarding women talking in the church. I have to be honest and say that I don't really know what he is referring to (that is why there are bible commentators! why don't you go look it up, yay!). But I would say that I don't think Paul would support, in principle, women not talking in church. Really? How incredibly odd, because he says this himself!!! Thisis simply denying that he has said what he has said. "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission", and "I do not permit a woman to have authority over a man; she must be silent" are pretty clear to me. It is dangerous to simply pretend that these verses do not exist. I disagree with you. I think that Paul would (and does) support women not talking in church.
|
|
|
Post by Satori on Oct 5, 2004 2:23:05 GMT -5
It's hard to deny sexist elements in the stuff we read that's attributed to Peter and Paul, but you have to remember that their story of Jesus and his teachings will have been told with a political angle aimed at the target audience (not to mention their own 'angle' on things). It is also likely that their story will have been 'adjusted' over time to suit the needs of the evolving church.
However, the Bible should not be seen as the only source of information about Jesus and other sources certainly show a less sexist approach to things.
|
|