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: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 01:51 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

That's why I put "(early) revisions of the Bible". There will always be new revisions & re-translations. But the actual books themselves were written long before the "Dark Ages". (The "Dark Ages" are supposed to mark the time period between the fall of Rome and the rise of the "Age of Enlightment".)

That's also why I started the post with "sorry to be pedantic". I have a near-complex about correcting details.




posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 01:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

I knew eventually someone would try the "out of context" argument.

Out, in, it is no different. The meaning is clear and every quote provided is interpreted in context. I can't post the whole Bible.

Every time I hear "out of context", I think, "Is that your best argument?"

Provide said absent context and refute my claims of misogyny if that is true.

Covering your head to protect against fallen angels or demons is not a valid reason to force women to cover their hair.

It's THEIR hair and THEIR choice.
edit on 24-7-2016 by deignostian because: "



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 02:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

You should look up the definitions of "subjection" and "subservient" and then tell me how it is OK to subject your wife.

Or tell me how It is OK to believe that women were created FOR men.

Even the first account of creation has man and woman created equally.

The second is another tradition added to the first, and women weren't created for men. Equality is the message friend.

We all came from a woman. What woman ever came from a man (physically and in reality)?
edit on 24-7-2016 by deignostian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 02:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Tertullian was a commentator, he was not the gospels or the NT, tertuklian said many other absurd things, it's irrelevant to the bible


No it is thoughts taken FROM the Bible and very relevant if you want to know what kind of attitude was produced by the misogynist of the NT, and the misrepresentation of the OT by the misogynist.

Quite relevant.



The other issue you have taken out of context is the context, who the letters where written to and the situation in the respective city it was addressed.
Maybe you could study why those letters were written and why they were written to the places they were written to


Assuming I haven't (I have) what would that change regarding Misogyny? Who he was addressing is irrelevant to his attitude towards women.



Wives be subject to your husbands, husbands are then told what they are to be to their wives, you neglected that part completely, unsurprisingly


I didn't neglect it, it doesn't erase his misogynist teachings just because he said something after, which actually reinforced his Patriarchal supremacy point of view. Women are inferior in his hierarchy that is anti Gospel.



It's one thing to have a problem with the bible but it's another to make issues about things that you have no understanding


I've plenty of understanding, regardless of your assumptions.



of
It's also funny how you have completely neglected the statements about equality and how women are equals to men


So you provide them. Misogyny is the topic.

If a misogynist also preaches equality he is a hypocrite. So I can't take that comment seriously.
edit on 24-7-2016 by deignostian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 02:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: deignostian
a reply to: Raggedyman

You should look up the definitions of "subjection" and "subservient" and then tell me how it is OK to subject your wife.

Or tell me how It is OK to believe that women were created FOR men.

Even the first account of creation has man and woman created equally.

The second is another tradition added to the first, and women weren't created for men. Equality is the message friend.

We all came from a woman. What woman ever came from a man (physically and in reality)?


You have taken it out of context and you are to lazy to understand and find the true context
I have no intention of explaining something you are not interested in to you
Your mind is already made up.

Haters are going to hate

If you are so right, why are women equals in the church, why don't they wear head coverings, why are they allowed to talk, why are they equals in the home, loved, fought for and died for

But you know better, I suspect

You should look up the definition of "reality"



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 02:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

No, no. In context and out I have done everything necessary to make my case using the Bible.

"Out of context" is code for: "You're right but..."

But nothing, the Misogyny is real. No apologetic way to deny it.



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 03:05 AM
link   
a reply to: deignostian

If you are so sure of your argument and the bible is so clear and defined, why arnt women treated the way Muslims treat their women in the church

You won't answer that question will you, why not

I guess you just have a different context than those in the church, are you suggesting we follow your understanding, are you complaining we don't treat women the way you understand the bible tells you Christians should, you telling Christians we are doing it wrong, preaching at Christians

Your argument is absurd

Out of context is code for, you havnt a clue to what you have cut and pasted from the bible, the letter written to what city and what people, why it was written and what sin it addressed
Not really a code but a common sense

They call it quote mining, it's a fools argument written to fellow fools
edit on 24-7-2016 by Raggedyman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 03:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: deignostian
a reply to: Raggedyman

You should look up the definitions of "subjection" and "subservient" and then tell me how it is OK to subject your wife.

Or tell me how It is OK to believe that women were created FOR men.

Even the first account of creation has man and woman created equally.

The second is another tradition added to the first, and women weren't created for men. Equality is the message friend.

We all came from a woman. What woman ever came from a man (physically and in reality)?


You have taken it out of context and you are to lazy to understand and find the true context
I have no intention of explaining something you are not interested in to you
Your mind is already made up.


I just read. I don't make up alternate untenable "meaning" because the truth is uncomfortable.

Most would consider lazy an insult, a Christian who hurls insults is revealing frustration. You can't make the misogyny disappear so you make it my fault for "being 'lazy' "

Assume incorrectly about me all you like because it is not like it's true and it bothers me none. Funny is how I look at you insulting and assuming about someone you don't know (me). I love humor (and women).



Haters are going to hate


You sure will. Big of you to admit your own faults, that takes guts.



If you are so right, why are women equals in the church,


They aren't. Nuns are equal to priests? I know my sister's church (ICOC) really doesn't allow women to preach because of the NT. Every church is different but Misogyny is growing not disappearing from Christianity.

It's why I made the thread.



why don't they wear head coverings, why are they allowed to talk,


Allowed!!!? They should not have to "be allowed" in the first place



why are they equals in the home, loved, fought for and died for


That is not universally true, sorry. But:

Because they have sense enough not to follow the ridiculous doctrine of the misogynist.

Which shows that they will abandon the teachings that offend half of the church. Not much of a prophet was this misogynist. His rules are optional I guess.

Nuns still cover their hair so you are wrong about that.



But you know better, I suspect

You should look up the definition of "reality"


You should stop suspecting and assuming.

What good would it do to look up the definition of a word when I already know it?

Ohh. Another insult. How Pious.
edit on 24-7-2016 by deignostian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 03:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: deignostian

If you are so sure of your argument and the bible is so clear and defined, why arnt women treated the way Muslims treat their women in the church


Islam is not the topic.



You won't answer that question will you, why not


Because it is an attempt at distraction from the misogyny of the NT. Blame the Muslims, great strategy.



I guess you just have a different context than those in the church, are you suggesting we follow your understanding, are you complaining we don't treat women the way you understand the bible tells you Christians should, you telling Christians we are doing it wrong, preaching at Christians

Your argument is absurd


There is no argument, just the truth. You are arguing not me.



Out of context is code for, you havnt a clue to what you have cut and pasted from the bible, the letter written to what city and what people, why it was written and what sin it addressed
Not really a code but a common sense

They call it quote mining, it's a fools argument written to fellow fools


Such wisdom!!! Seriously though, enough humor.

The NT has teachings that are FACTUALLY misogynist.

All you can do about it is say I'm stupid, lazy and use whatever other useless insults you can conjure up. You can't say that what was said AND meant doesn't exist without being some form of wrong.

Mad you are that I made an issue that casts disgrace on NT authors that said the misogynist remarks.

Subservient, subjects. It is right there in the Bible that women should be subject and subservient to their husbands.

You can not misinterpret that. Or take it out of context.



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 04:19 AM
link   
a reply to: deignostian

How OLD is New Testament, and WHO wrote it?



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 04:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Rubicon3

Good question.

The oldest in existence NT is about 400 AD.

Nobody knows for certain though.

Not one book is known who really wrote it. I follow just the 12 and the Messiah for guidance.

And I don't know who wrote them, I like the teachings and the story though.
edit on 24-7-2016 by deignostian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 04:41 AM
link   
a reply to: deignostian

In Corinth, there was an established religious practice that included temple prostitutes (ironically called temple "virgins"). Many of these people accepted Christ but there were issues of women who were carrying on their previous lifestyles.

Paul, who wrote both those passages was mentored by a Christian woman named Sybil during his early Christian faith. A woman he deferred to as more knowledgeable in the faith.

The puported mysogeny is a misunderstanding.



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 04:49 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Good info.

I just don't approve of misogyny no matter what. No exceptions or excuses.

That is what concerns me . That the New Testament teaches that women are inferior and if you are wondering how or when I provided the most disturbing incidents in my OP and there is no validity to the "out of context" argument as I have displayed the misogyny is quite real and even rabid.

I am anti- misogony.



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 04:55 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

It's not purported misogyny or a misunderstanding.

I won't debate this because it is the truth and saying it's a misunderstanding works on some people but not me.

Subjection? Subservience?

Nothing TO misunderstand that is sickening and it was said and meant as it reads.

But believe as you wish, just don't expect me to take your theory seriously because I just can't lie to myself.



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 05:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: deignostian
a reply to: chr0naut

It's not purported misogyny or a misunderstanding.

I won't debate this because it is the truth and saying it's a misunderstanding works on some people but not me.

Subjection? Subservience?

Nothing TO misunderstand that is sickening and it was said and meant as it reads.

But believe as you wish, just don't expect me to take your theory seriously because I just can't lie to myself.


No, I have noticed, Gnosisfaith, you seem to like a crowd.



edit on 24/7/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 05:37 AM
link   
a reply to: deignostian

"The man said, 'The woman you put here with me--she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.'"

Woman is sin! She's an evil temptress that brings out the worst in men. She must be subdued, covered, controlled. If she cannot, she must be silenced, isolated, gotten to a nunnery!



edit on 24-7-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 05:38 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Whatever that means.

Anyway I Googled this Sybil and Paul in every spelling and combination and not one hit. Not that it has any relevance to the thread just saying it is not even a real story.

Got a link? No. A Sybil is an Oracle in early Greek Christian circles and not a single person. You have never heard of the Sybilline Oracles that Christianity tried claiming as their own but were Greek in origin?

So no Sybil taught Paul.

You act like it's personal and me being against misogyny has anything to do with you. I don't know you and it is not, can not be, personal so drop the attitude please.

I didn't write the NT. Or invent misogyny. I am just speaking out against something that is wrong and not the entire NT.

Just a specific aspect of the author's character that has had a harmful effect on society. Misogyny is allowed within the church to this very day.

Sorry for speaking the truth and not rationalizing or telling stories to soften or excuse the vile nature of misogyny and the NT author who advocated treating women as subservient and as subjects.

Jesus didn't do that.
edit on 24-7-2016 by deignostian because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-7-2016 by deignostian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 05:40 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

Thank God you are just joking.



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 05:50 AM
link   
a reply to: deignostian

Not joking, wish I was. I was expressing the root of your scriptural problems. The woman, Eve did it first and then made me do it!

Eve is responsible for "Original Sin", an exclusively Christian doctrine.


For Adam was formed first, and then Eve. 14And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman who was deceived and fell into transgression. 15Women, however, will be saved through childbearing, if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.…


Barefoot and preggers........their only hope!

edit on 24-7-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 05:53 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

I have a good sense of humor and I know you are joking.

And it is humorous in a politically incorrect Family Guy way.

What about Lilith?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join