New Testament Misogyny

a reply to: deignostian

What I based my opinion on was HIS words and not what he reads.

You certainly have not, look back through this entire thread and I've said several times how I feel I'm supposed to treat my wife. That I'm to love her, cherish her, put all her needs, desires and cares above my own, to serve her, and to protect and provide for her.

Those were "my words" in this discussion.

a reply to: dawnstar

What's wrong with reverence? I have reverence for her! 😂

a reply to: NOTurTypical

"well, if her husband doesn't want her to be here (the church), then she shouldn't be here!!"
I heard that in a church....

1 Peter 3

3 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
2 while they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
4 but let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: 6 even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.
7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

most denominations will have a sermon consisting of both the instructions for the husband and the wife, and yes, they will spend more time discussing the instructions to the husband.... but I have never heard a sermon where they tell the wife that she shouldn't obey the husband if she feels that what he wants is wrong, heck they are just getting used to the idea of tackling physical abuse in some churches, in others, the way they handle it is alarming!

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: deignostian

This is his religion though, not philosophy.

And over and over and over again he stated which verses are important to him with regard to his wife.

That is his religion. You can bash away at every other verse you don't personally care for. That does not mean that he has internalized those verses into his heart or allowed them to influence his behavior.

Maybe I don't even know what people mean by misogyny, I better look it up.

Misogyny (/mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls. Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including social exclusion, sex discrimination, hostility, androcentrism, patriarchy, and male privilege ideas, belittling of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification of women.[1][2] Misogyny can be found occasionally within ancient texts relating to various mythologies. In addition, various influential Western philosophers and thinkers have been described as misogynistic.

Ok, that's what I thought.

ETA

I just read all of the gentleman's posts. He's right, he is not the topic of the thread. Now I feel foolish.

Why do you feel foolish...? He is right about not being the topic, yes, but has made himself vulnerable to becoming the topic with incessant debating and defending of misogony, even if denial of its existence in the NT is his position.

It is a delusion to believe that no misogyny exists in the NT, specifically what I put in the OP.

Denying that misogyny is misogyny IS itself misogyny.

P.S. for someone who complained he wasn't the topic he sure has done a good job of making himself the focal point.

a reply to: dawnstar

A woman isn't obligated to follow her husband, her pastor, her boss at work, or even her own parents if she thinks what they are telling her to do is wrong, that we are all to please God, not man. Same for a husband, we aren't obligated to listen to anyone trying to get us to do something that is wrong, God is our judge not man.

I think the men who wrote the NT, being Jews except for Luke, were well familiar with one of their ancient kings Ahab and his wife Jezebel. In that story from the OT, Ahab was the king but Jezebel ruled over him.

Anyone who has had a healthy relationship with someone of the opposite sex knows that it's a partnership, a give and take built on love, mutual respect, honor, and teamwork. It's common sense, one person can't lord over the other because that's abusive. Even then, if there is a disagreement someone has to say, "we are going to go this path.", it may work and may not and the two people will learn from it.

And even in a husband and wife example, they usually compliment each other. The husband is strong usually in areas the wife is weak, and vice versa she is strong in areas where he is weak. It has to be built on a partnership and teamwork. Remember always, the Bible teaches what love is in 1 Corinthians 13:4-7, that applies to both the man and woman.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: deignostian

What I based my opinion on was HIS words and not what he reads.

You certainly have not, look back through this entire thread and I've said several times how I feel I'm supposed to treat my wife. That I'm to love her, cherish her, put all her needs, desires and cares above my own, to serve her, and to protect and provide for her.

Those were "my words" in this discussion.

I definitely did use every word you have said in determining that you are a misogynist.

Even though I said I didn't think you were, you have convinced me since I said that that I was wrong. I didn't read all your comments before I said it and have since.

So your words are the basis of my opinion that you are a misogynist, that is a fact.

a reply to: pthena

I do admire your instinct to defend him, I just don't feel like you are accurate in your assessment.

a reply to: deignostian

Then tell me where I have said something that implies I have hatred for, contempt for, or prejudice towards women/girls. I've never said anything like that. I've even made clear that women are smarter than men, and women are usually strong in areas where men are weak, and that God was perfect in making men and women to perfectly compliment each other. A misogynist thinks all men are better for whatever reason than all women, and they have hatred for or contempt for women. Basically, they hate women and think they are a lesser sex.

Nothing I've said aligns with that belief, in fact I've said a couple times that my wife is my better half.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

You don't need me to tell you what you said.

What you want is to assert that I am wrong and your method is to make it my responsibility to prove what you said that leads me to my conclusion.

All of it. Every word.

If you would just admit that the verses in the OP are misogynist I would have a different opinion.

Your denial of the fact that they are is enough of a reason to conclude that my opinion is correct.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: deignostian

I just don't like the fact that can't admit, either to yourself or out loud, that these passages ARE misogynist and intended to be. It has given men the excuse that they need to dominate their wives for millennia.

I don't see any passages that tell a man/husband that it is his duty/responsibility to dominate anyone.

How about the one that says women should be subservient, or the one about them being subjects?

You are not going to tell me that subservience and subjection are not asserting dominance without me thinking you need a dictionary.

When I see how I am to relate to my wife, I see that in verses 25-33 of Ephesians 5, that seems to be what is directed to me as a man/husband. I see nothing there that shows contempt, hatred for, or prejudice against women/girls.

Unfortunately, you can't use one verse as your inspiration and ignore the other disturbing verses just because that verse exists. It doesn't erase the disturbing verses.

I think the blog Windword linked is misogynist, I can't see any justification in the NT for a husband to punish a wife life a child, to me that's abusive and certainly not loving or treating a wife as the man wishes to be treated himself. In fact, the blog was pretty troubling to read. I have a strong aversion to people who abuse children, women, or others.

I wholeheartedly disagree that those verses tell a husband to dominate their wife, that's in direct opposition to other passages in the Bible, even in direct opposition to other verses Paul authored. (Ephesians 5:25-33, 1 Corinthians 13:4-7)

But denying it is just not honest. You cannot misinterpret it as anything but misogynistic and your denial is what I find dishonest.

It's not dishonesty to say that the entire picture of how a husband is to relate to his wife is taught in many more places than the verses in the OP, that if you look only at those a man has a good chance of falling into the nonsense the blogger has on his website. When I take into account all the passages on love towards others, especially my wife, I get an entirely different picture. I'm led to cherish, love, sacrifice myself for, and put her needs and desires above my own. That's the opposite of domination and subjection. It's a dangerous thing to make doctrine out of isolated verses, without comparing them to the entire picture the NT puts forth in other verses.

Wow. So because a separate section of the bible talks about marriage without being misogynistic you think the misogynistic verses are OK?

a reply to: deignostian

You can't answer my question because I've not said anything misogynist, I've actually said the opposite here, even saying women are men's better half and they are created strong in areas the men are weak in, perfectly complimenting each other. Thats what I've said here, and here is the definition of misogynist from Dictionary.com

a person who hates, dislikes, mistrusts, or mistreats women.

You can't quote me saying anything like that about a wife or women. Here is the definition from Wiki:

is the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls.

And according to sociology, misogyny is:

"misogyny is a cultural attitude of hatred for females because they are female."

And the basic definition all dictionaries have for misogyny is this in layman's terms, "hatred for women."



I've said nothing whatsoever of the sort.

a reply to: dawnstar

it's all fine that the bible puts women in this role of obedient little servant as commanded by god to obey the husband as if he was christ himself, in all things..

My guess is that the OP is attempting to enforce her/his own personal Canon of Scripture upon others, and using Misogyny as a hot button issue in order to do it. That is the real topic of the thread. To make it seem that those whose Canon of Scripture includes the writings attributed by some as being from Paul as personally guilty of whatever the OP's understanding of what the outcome would be by having that in the Canon.

That's really all this is.

Yes, misogyny is bad. But I haven't seen anyone on the thread endorse it.
Yes, some things written thousands of years ago qualify as misogynistic. The writers are dead. Beating dead horses is not very productive.
Yes, some people use old writings to justify abhorrent behavior. That's on them.

Yes, there are people who consider the Protestant Canon of Scripture as their own. To then condemn a person of every crime contained in the Canon simply because it is the Canon is not sound jurisprudence.

a reply to: deignostian

And the verse right before the one that says women submit yourselves to your husband it tells everyone to submit themselves to one another:

Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. - Ephesians 5:21

Husbands submit to your wives, wives submit to your husbands, it's a redundancy in the Greek and means basically the same thing Jeaus taught, serve one another, love one another, honor all men (mankind).

a reply to: deignostian

It is a delusion to believe that no misogyny exists in the NT, specifically what I put in the OP.

Denying that misogyny is misogyny IS itself misogyny.

I will quote the canonical lyrics of Neil Young:

If I was a junkman
selling you cars,
Washing your windows
and shining your stars,
Thinking your mind
was my own in a dream
What would you wonder
and how would it seem?

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: dawnstar

it's all fine that the bible puts women in this role of obedient little servant as commanded by god to obey the husband as if he was christ himself, in all things..

My guess is that the OP is attempting to enforce her/his own personal Canon of Scripture upon others, and using

That's an incorrect guess, I don't have a personal Canon of Scripture.

Misogyny as a hot button issue in order to do it. That is the real topic of the thread. To make it seem that those whose Canon of Scripture includes the writings attributed by some as being from Paul as personally guilty of whatever the OP's understanding of what the outcome would be by having that in the Canon.

That's really all this is.

Really? No.

Yes, misogyny is bad. But I haven't seen anyone on the thread endorse it.

Why would they? Denying it exists (in NT) is easier.

Yes, some things written thousands of years ago qualify as misogynistic. The writers are dead. Beating dead horses is not very productive.
Yes, some people use old writings to justify abhorrent behavior. That's on them.

Yes, there are people who consider the Protestant Canon of Scripture as their own. To then condemn a person of every crime contained in the Canon simply because it is the Canon is not sound jurisprudence.

I don't think it is a dead horse considering the fact that 2 billion people believe it is the word of God.

And I would suggest refraining from assuming anything about me. You have little knowledge of what I think and I have been trying to shine a light on something ugly that is more live jackass than dead horse.

a reply to: pthena

I think maybe they have a false operating definition of misogyny, it basically means hatred for women, contempt, prejudice against them as inferior sexes. It's like when people have a false definition of racism, where they think being critical of something a person of a different race does or says is racist, when racism, or supremacy, means they think their own race is superior to all other races, and they are inferior based on genetics.

It just seems to me that there is a false operating definition of misogyny at play here.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: deignostian

And the verse right before the one that says women submit yourselves to your husband it tells everyone to submit themselves to one another:

Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. - Ephesians 5:21

Husbands submit to your wives, wives submit to your husbands, it's a redundancy in the Greek and means basically the same thing Jeaus taught, serve one another, love one another, honor all men (mankind).

You're confused obviously because I specifically mentioned two words, subservient and subject.

Not submit to each other. Seperate thing. Now:

Subservience. Does it say men be subservient to your wives?

It does not.

Subjection. Does it say men be subjects of their wives?

No.

But great attempt to distract.

Where is the equality in the subject and verses I was ACTUALLY talking about. It doesn't exist and your last comment is not relevant.

a reply to: deignostian

What does "submit" mean to you?

a reply to: pthena

I will quote the non canonical words of everyone.

"Quit being a hater"

I have done nothing to you except for disagree. I guess that is all it takes to get on your bad side.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: deignostian

What does "submit" mean to you?

irrelevant question.