It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New Testament Misogyny

page: 14
8
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 06:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: windword

Why did you say it was patronizing? I said maybe, I don't know if you have or not, my point is the exact same, no marriage can work if its dominated by one person. Both husband and wife have to love and cherish each other, and both have to respect and reverence the other, there isn't any other way for it to succeed.


That's just pie in the sky nonsense!

For centuries this has been the norm, women were dominated by their husbands, happiness be damned! Divorce petitions weren't granted to women until very recently. And even when I was growing up divorced women were considered scurge.

Women are NOT equals to men in the New Testament. This has been made clear in this thread, over and over again. You continue dance around it, cherry picking scriptures that you like and ignoring the others.

Any social construct that places one person in authority, the head of, the boss of another is NOT an equal relationship! Christianity requires the wife to submit to her husband as the church submits to "Christ". Who is equal to Christ? No one! So, why are you trying to tell me that there is equality in a marriage dynamic that places the husband in God's/Christ's role and places the wife in the position of the one in need of his salvation?

For you to obtusely continue to argue that there is no misogyny in the New Testament, at this point in this discussion, after reading ALL the posts in this thread, is willful denial.

PS: I'll bet you dollars to donuts that you are divorced!


edit on 26-7-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 06:50 AM
link   
a reply to: SevenThunders

didn't exist in the 16th, 17th, 18th, or even part of the 20th century in those western "christian" nations either, not when those christian churches held the bulk of the power over the people.

I posted the entire set of instructions for married couples yesterday, both what is said to the wife and to the husband. the common interpretation of those instructions have changed considerably over the century. while you are emphasizing that little portion about the husband loving his wife, it wasn't really that long ago that thinking that love had anything to do with marriage was just as radical, and it was seen to undermine the authoritive position of the husband.

but regardless of what the men of any century chose to believe about these instructions, the instructions to women remained the same, obey and submit.

and, it's interesting to note, that the close association that was made between church and christ to husband and wife, that one could say that how the husband treated the wife would reflect something of how they saw christ. the lord in heaven that was once feared and truly revered slowly became more loving, more of a very close friend, quick to forgive any trespass, less dominating. weather this was christ's plan to begin with, I really can't say, but I tend to want to believe that basically it all boils down to christ will treat us in like manner as we treat those that we see below us.
subjugation and obedience cannot function in the realm of love and oneness.



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 07:34 AM
link   
a reply to: SevenThunders


Husbands, submit yourselves unto your own wives, as unto the Lord.

23 For the wife is the head of the husband, even as Christ is the head of the church: and she is the saviour of the body.

24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the husbands be to their own wives in every thing.

25 Wives, love your Husbands, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,


Please explain to me why this model can't work for a Christian couple.



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: deignostian

The ICOC is a part of the Stone-Campbell Movement which began as a uniting of two different movements. The dynamic is various movements to unite at the same time as movements to split off. From a distance view it looks like a ballroom dance with partners switching.

In technical terms, it would be described as a dynamic tension between Ecumenism and Sectarianism. But if you pull the camera back to get the whole scene it is a wonderful ballroom dance.

In the World we have cultures and countercultures. Countercultures are themselves cultures. When people consciously choose a counterculture in which to be part of, they are signaling that they are more comfortable within the mores(ethical rules as stable footing) and practices and beliefs of that counterculture.

It would appear that your sister and her husband are comfortable in the ICOC counterculture. That's Okay. That's their decision. When and if they would feel more at home elsewhere they will most likely go elsewhere. Their choice.

ETA

Plus, it seems that since the main charismatic leader for splitting has died, that dialogues for re-unification are underway.
edit on 26-7-2016 by pthena because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-7-2016 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: SevenThunders


You are throwing pearls before swine. The New Testament was radical for it's day precisely because it claimed females were equal to males and it also preached racial equality. These passages talk about the God ordained role for women in the family and in the church. Being under male leadership is not subjugation.

Gal. 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Just NO. I will get to the swine label later.

We don't particularly know the full story around when the documents were written. We know more about how they were used within the Roman Empire later; 3rd & 4th & 5th Centuries. They were used as a centralizing, homogenizing influence as an alternative to the previous Hellenized culture (which extended everywhere Alexander the Great had conquered ), common language (Greek), common Pantheon of deities (Local deities renamed to common Greek names). Roman Christianity was substituting Greek with Latin as the common tongue, and decided that the Old Testament tribal deity of Judah was the one and only god, because of the built in retroactive ancientness of the character provided by the Old Testament.

But we do have the Letter of Paul to the Galatians. Sure he wrote "neither male nor female" yet he did not consistently stick to that. In the same letter he uses the casting away of Hagar and Ismael (Abraham's real first-born son) to die in the desert (if not for intervention).

And what about the deity of Abraham? "Your only son Isaac..." he says. What? What only son Isaac? Ismael still lived !

It's like the Princess Bride: "He still lives, and you threw it away!"

So I suppose "swine" are those who don't bow down to those who throw their relatives away so easily?
edit on 26-7-2016 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: deignostian

Do you know nothing about context? Paul his first epistle to the Corinthians between 53-57 AD to the church in Corinth. Corinth was a bustling city, and just two hundred years prior, when the (pagan) Romans fought and defeated the forces in the city, they killed every man and sold every woman and child into slavery. The city was rebuilt under Julius Caesar around 44 BC and it was a thriving trade city. The city also housed the temple of aphrodite with over 1000 temple prostitutes. Paul was told of various conflicts and infighting within the church at Corinth. The people fought and interrupted each other. Some women would stand up and just preach and speak in tongues in a manner that was disruptive to the church.
Thus, Paul spoke of modesty, of orderly church service, and some of the greatest passages on love to the church at Corinth in 53-57 AD. Paul also instructed husbands to love and sacrifice themselves for their wives. Paul did not writing to you deignostianor to me, but the letter is preserved for us as part of the collection of the Bible so we can learn from it and adapt it to our life here in 2016. No reason to be misogynistic in 2016 and its certainly no reason to dismiss the entire book or the entire Bible because of it.



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Misogyny is the one of the most incorrectly used words in the english language. Misogyny is the hatred of women or extreme prejudice against women. How do any of those things you listed show a hatred of women? Sure, it shows gender roles but not hatred or prejudice. In those times that was what women were expected to do. Men had roles they were expected to fulfill as well.

Do I hate the garbage man for thinking he ought to take my garbage to the dump? Do I hate my children for thinking they ought to help keep the house clean?



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: AnonymousMoose




Some women would stand up and just preach and speak in tongues in a manner that was disruptive to the church.


Did Paul also admonish the men, who were standing up just to preach and speak in tongues, or was this only forbidden to women?



Paul also instructed husbands to love and sacrifice themselves for their wives.


So? He also instructed women to submit themselves to their husbands as they have authority over their wives. That's not equality.


edit on 26-7-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 12:35 PM
link   
There may be many factors, but sometimes when antagonist
disagree with the inspiration of scripture, it's usually
because they fail to under the Father's purpose.

I will capitalize to express his intent;

It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all TAUGHT of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath LEARNED of the Father, cometh unto me. John 6:45

This scripture makes it plain that Chirst disciples are TAUGHT of God, if
any man or woman fails to understand the Father's purpose, it's ample witness
such a person has not been TAUGHT of God

Unfortunately many are called, but few chosen, and only the chosen,
or elect shall receive the Spirit of God's teaching to understand the
Father's purpose.

The called, and not the few in Christiandom receive many teachings from men which espouse for doctrines the commandments of men, which always leads many to wrest the scriptures in confusion, since they expect the scriptures to conform to their flesh/carnal desires.



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Every document from those times treats women this way. Unfortunately, that is how women were thought of and treated back then. I believe that this proves that the bible was manipulated to control people and benefit those in power. I think the bible has some great truths in it but it was also manipulated by man. In order to get people to believe a great lie you have to put some truth in it so it is believable but the rest can be your lie. So, they could have taken documents with "the word of god" and used those words as the truth but then added all their laws and control around those words so people can be controlled. Telling people that they have to follow rules because god said so is a very powerful way to control. Telling people that if they do not follow these rules they will burn forever is even better. This is a great example of how Christians today pick and choose what verses to take seriously and which ones are just "stories". They will tell you the bible is the actual word of god in one sentence and then just a story not to take literally in the next sentence. If they actually read the bible and thought about what it said they would see it's filled with people being murdered, controlled, and punished if they did not do what god said. The bible makes god seem like a very insecure person who needs to be praised and that he will punish anyone who does not think he is the coolest and smartest person out there. gods whole rule is to threaten people and make them scared unless they obey and don't cause problems. The bible pretty much said god created humans in order to send them to earth with no memories or solid knowledge of him and then they must follow his rules or be punished for eternity. While they are on earth god will tempt them in every way possible to break his rules so that he can punish them for eternity. The best part is that he will never prove his existence in a concrete way. He will just make you rely on other people words, feelings you get, and faith that he exists and the words other people wrote about him are true. Any thoughts you have about him or ideas are wrong so you must follow what some guy wrote down about him thousands of years ago and if you go against his words you are going to be punished. He sent people to earth to do nothing but fear him and worship him throughout their lives instead of living for themselves. He made sure that all of his words can be interpreted many ways so people can always say "the bible warned us about this and the end times are here!" "repent, repent, repent, beg for forgiveness because god thinks you are a POS and won't let you in his kingdom unless you beg him". Better yet, his best plan was to dictate books to numerous different people in hopes that hundreds of years later they would be gathered and put together. However, all of the words he uses have to be confusing so that they can be interpreted many different ways. Then, once the books are put together hundreds of years later they will be translated into many different languages so that his words are even more confusing. You will have to look up every word to its original language and meaning to even begin to understand why it was written or what it means. That way people can fight about his words and what they really mean. At least god will be able to be entertained by wars in his name and people being slaughtered over who is right about him. Then, if people don't follow and believe these confusing words god will punish them for eternity. Better yet he will tell everyone they are all his children but at the same time send his only son to be killed very slowly and painfully because he loves us. Who tells their child to go somewhere so they can be beaten, mocked, and killed to prove they love someone. All while hoping some guy named paul will come around a couple hundred years later to tell the story about his son like he knew the guy and exactly what happened. The bible is also full of beings coming down from the sky in chariots, bright lights in the sky guiding people, and ghosts and spirits talking to people. However, Christians will tell you that aliens, ghosts, and strange things in the sky are not real because god says so. Follow the holy spirit but ghosts are not real. They are saying the bible is the word of god, however, all the stories in there that talk about spirits or craft in the sky are not real. Christians pick and choose what they want to be truth in the bible and what is fable while at the same time saying its the word of god. They claim to love the bible and the word of god however they are not making their wives serve them and wear veils over their heads. They are also allowing their wives to speak in church. This means they are choosing not to follow the word of god. When you really start to pay attention to what the bible is actually saying and not choosing what to believe you start to notice that the bible is a story of mental illness and the people who follow it are mentally ill and praising the person who sent them here and set them up to fail according to his words. The bible is one big book of confusion that can be interpreted many ways. If you don't do what this book of confusion and loose interpretation says you will be burned forever. You will get no proof of its authenticity other their other peoples words for it and faith that it's real. The bible pretty much says humans are stupid and worthless so you better spend your life begging for forgiveness and to be allowed in heaven. You will never be good enough but if you do nothing with your life that you want to do and instead beg for forgiveness god might let you pass into heaven. god really hates a lot of things about humans and set them up to fail but if you somehow follow all of his words and are a good boy he may have sympathy for you and let you in his kingdom. god was pissed off when Adam and Eve were given knowledge in the garden of Eden. Pretty much god wanted us to be like animals and when humans got the ability to think he was really pissed off and now people need to beg forgiveness and accept his only son he sent here to be beaten and killed if we want any chance to get into heaven. The whole bible is set up to control people. Get people to feel like they messed up so they have to be good if they want to be happy when they die. Spend your life here obeying the rules and not causing any problems so that you can go to heaven. Everything is a sin and against the bible but sitting around being a good person and obeying the rules. Sounds like control to me. So, Christians are going to reply to this post that those rules for women are not supposed to be taken literally but then tell you what should be taken literally and that the bible is the word of god. If the bible is the word of god then you take the whole thing literally or else you are not following the word of god and are going to hell. The bible is the story of a mentally ill god who will punish you for eternity if you do not praise him. This mentally ill god thought it was a good idea to have his son mocked, murdered, and spit on to prove he loved us. This mentally ill god sees nothing wrong with wiping out entire cities of people who do not obey him. This mentally ill god was really pissed off when humans got the ability to think for themselves and now makes them beg for forgiveness for a mistake someone else committed.



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: mbrians5085

Paragraphs, brian, paragraphs.



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
Misogyny is the one of the most incorrectly used words in the english language. Misogyny is the hatred of women or extreme prejudice against women. How do any of those things you listed show a hatred of women? Sure, it shows gender roles but not hatred or prejudice. In those times that was what women were expected to do. Men had roles they were expected to fulfill as well.

Do I hate the garbage man for thinking he ought to take my garbage to the dump? Do I hate my children for thinking they ought to help keep the house clean?


I think it not a stretch to say subjecting your wife or making her be subservient because Paul says to is, if you follow his "teachings" to the letter, hate.

If you can make your wife subservient and NOT hate her you are a sociopath with no conscience.

I used misogyny because it was appropriate and not by mistake or misuse.

Common sense really.



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: AnonymousMoose

The go to "out of context" argument doesn't apply here. I know the context and that I interpreted it correctly.

Subjection and subservience are pretty hard words to take or use out of context. The meaning is clear.

Women were created FOR man and not visa versa

Women are subjects.

And to be subservient.

Out of context is the phrase Christianity goes to to make disturbing verses excusable.



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: deignostian
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Yeah, I know. I feel justified bringing this up because of that reason. Or just because it's disgusting.

From my experience, most believers in every major religion only follow the parts they personally agree with. In fact, it's generally only the clergy and religious leaders who follow (or know) everything their religion entails. And truthfully, many of them don't believe or follow everything that's written down either (hence the numerous contradicting denominations, fatwas, rulings, scholarly papers, etc).

I'm pointing this out because someone can easily accept some points in the Bible without accepting others. The same goes for every other religious text or set of texts. I'm not saying it's right or wrong; just pointing out that it's reality. It's no different than people who accept many "tenets" of a political party's official platform but reject several others.

For what it's worth, I'm pretty much a feminist. My interpretations of my religion agree with my feminism, even though some other interpretations disagree with me. So who determines who's "right"?


any body of text that can be twisted into a long list of contradictory statements has one of two problems: it is incoherent, or the people interpreting it need to get their facts straight.

maybe a little of both?
edit on 26-7-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 01:48 PM
link   
to hold over half of the population as being subservient to the other half to the point where the laws are written to enforce this subservience fits the extreme prejudice against women to me!!!



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: deignostian
a reply to: AnonymousMoose

The go to "out of context" argument doesn't apply here. I know the context and that I interpreted it correctly.

Subjection and subservience are pretty hard words to take or use out of context. The meaning is clear.

Women were created FOR man and not visa versa

Women are subjects.

And to be subservient.

Out of context is the phrase Christianity goes to to make disturbing verses excusable.


good, good. now take 'men' and replace it with 'god'. and take 'women' and replace it with 'all of humanity'.

see where im going with this?



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: resonance
I never post on this site anymore but this post is just ridiculous. You took the verses out of context and clearly made no attempt to understand them. The Bible must be read keeping in mind the historical context and the audience to whom it was written.

Bottom line up front. Go read Ephesians 5:22-33. This shows the relationship between man and wife. Women were never meant to be treated poorly just because they weren’t the leaders of the household or church. Men are commanded to love and treat their wives as themselves and love them the way Christ loves us.
Now lets look at those verses.

First off, we have the verses you took from 1 Corinthians 11. This is actually a fairly complicated answer. I would direct you to listen to the hour long study on this topic that Michael Heiser did on his “The Naked Bible” podcast.

www.nakedbiblepodcast.com...

Long story short. According to the medical science of Paul’s day from people like Hippocrates (of Hippocratic oath fame) the hair was considered a sexual organ. Just like you wouldn’t pray to God exposed, it was thought you should cover your hair. This is where it gets weird. They believed the hair drew semen toward it. This is why as men hit puberty and hair grew down their bodies, they became able to have children. Women should have long hair to pull the semen up in to them so they could get pregnant. There is more to this and in the podcast episode it is fully documented and explained with peer reviewed work.

Obviously we know what they thought about hair to be wrong now, no one has to cover their head.
Also, the “because of the angels” part references back to the OT when the fallen sons of God mated with the daughters of men. So again, the hair being thought of as sexual, they didn’t want to entice the angels to come down again.
Now lets tackle 1 Corinthians 14. Starting with Chapter 11 above Paul is trying to reorganize the Corinthian church who were known for disorganized worship. In Chapter 14 Paul is addressing people speaking in tongues and prophesying. In Chapter 11 he mentions women praying and prophesying. We can see that it is fine for women to pray and prophesy. Women were also given the roles to teach other women and children.

The people of Corinth were using tongues and prophecy as a status symbol. They wanted manifestations of the spirit and were faking them. The people of the church were all speaking in tongues but it was unintelligible and was not from the Holy Spirit. It appears in the context of 1 Corinthians that the women were joining in on all the commotion in the church.
Due to the way their society functioned, women weren’t really given speaking roles. Since the men led the church, the women should listen. The man should have led his wife in their walk with God.

Again, this was culturally normal for their time. I do not think anyone today thinks women can’t speak in church.

I mentioned Ephesians 5:22-33 above. You totally took that out of context as it goes on to fully elaborate.




Another "out of context" argument...? Please.

I quoted, which is how Bible study goes.

But I didn't take a damn thing out of context.

I also don't think too highly of the "out of context" argument because all it is saying is:

"Though it may say that, it really means this because...blah blah blah."

Nothing was taken out of context at all. What was said is what was meant. You should be wondering why it says such disturbing things instead of moaning about context.

See my last 2 posts...
edit on 26-7-2016 by deignostian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: deignostian

I disagree, many servants were treated as though they were very valuable. no master would give a slave he hated a sword in hopes that he'd go fight his war for him if he hated him, he'd be too afraid that the slave would use that sword to kill him instead! no, not every slave was hated, some were given lives of luxury. and neither were all wives hated.


but, like I already said, a pampered slave is still just a slave, unable to determine their own fate in life, always acting in obedience when they just might be more valuable if they were free to act in love.



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: deignostian
a reply to: AnonymousMoose

The go to "out of context" argument doesn't apply here. I know the context and that I interpreted it correctly.

Subjection and subservience are pretty hard words to take or use out of context. The meaning is clear.

Women were created FOR man and not visa versa

Women are subjects.

And to be subservient.

Out of context is the phrase Christianity goes to to make disturbing verses excusable.


good, good. now take 'men' and replace it with 'god'. and take 'women' and replace it with 'all of humanity'.

see where im going with this?


I do, but I don't know God personally to say he has us under subjection and makes us subservient.

I have a very good and free life so I ain't dissing God.

Yahweh is a p$ick though.



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Then disagree. I disagree with you too.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join