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: 9
8
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 08:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: NOTurTypical


if just the same model as Christ and the church, and the other shoe in that chapter is the husband's role, to lovingly sacrifice himself for his wife. You can't have one without the other.

The roles of Christ and the church is simple. He's the boss, and what he says goes. No argument. His sacrifice didn't change that role. He's still the boss, and what he tells the church is a commandment, not a request.


And what does he tell His church
Love before self




posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical




I am talking about leadership, which to me means if a husband and wife cannot agree SOMEBODY has to make a course of action on the matter.


No. SomeONE doesn't have to be the final say. They can agree on where to live, what school to send the kids, or they can decide who's in charge of what, or they can work out their disagreements. But saying that only the man should have the final say in a marriage is misogynous.



And I don't get at all that women aren't qualified or trustworthy, if just the same model as Christ and the church, and the other shoe in that chapter is the husband's role, to lovingly sacrifice himself for his wife.


Now you're just justifying why misogyny is correct for Christians.



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Why? Why is he crazy to assert control over his wife's behavior? Is taking away her ATM card and giving her a cash allowance crazy? Is it abusive?



posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 12:59 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

No I'm not, misogyny would be the attitude of the guy who wrote the blog, the guy who thinks it's his responsibility to make someone else obey him, a wife isn't a child. Misogyny means contempt, hatred and prejudice toward women/girls.



posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 01:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Why? Why is he crazy to assert control over his wife's behavior? Is taking away her ATM card and giving her a cash allowance crazy? Is it abusive?

Is this rhetorical? A wife isn't a child, a man has no authority to control or punish her. That's abuse.



posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 01:51 AM
link   
a reply to: deignostian

I like you, OP. I think you're great, lol.



posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 07:35 AM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

I don't think that you are a misogynist, or that Pauline Christians all are. Just many.

And it is the passages I supplied in my OP that allows for this in their minds.

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.

Coming out and saying Paul was a misogynist only makes you an honest Christian. You can disagree with Paul AND be a Christian. You don't have to defend misogyny to be a good Christian.

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

Of course if you really believe that subjection and subservience are good things that is your right. Paul advocated this disturbing practice of Patriarchal hierarchical inequality.

I just don't see how you can say he didn't, or that he was not a misogynist. It is not written cryptically but proudly and arrogantly obvious.
edit on 25-7-2016 by deignostian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 09:05 AM
link   
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. 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.

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.





edit on 7 25 2016 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

You're just playing word games. Dominate = Authority over......Punish = Disciple and correction.....

As long as you have a relationship in which someone holds authority over another, you can't have an equal relationship.

The blog I linked is just an example of the mind set that comes from such a social structure, in which gender roles aren't based on the individual's passions and strengths, but on the idea that one gender, women, aren't trustworthy mentally and spiritually, because of Eve's deception.

There isn't even a pretense for gender equality in the family or social setting under Christian doctrine. The family, like the church, is a patriarchy. There's no room for gender equality. That's a breeding ground for misogyny!



posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

Maybe it's because in my view of life a leader isn't a boss, in my understanding a true leader is one who goes first and does it themselves and asks those they are responsible for to follow their example.

That's the example Jesus gave, that's what the fundamental difference is between a leader and a boss. I still need someone to look at 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 and Ephesians 5:25-33 and tell me how dominating and abusing women, or even children is compatible with those verses telling me how I am supposed to relate to them.


edit on 7 25 2016 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical




Yeah, but he is crazy. We can't use a crazy person who wishes to use the Bible to rule over his wife. As the other member said previously, people in the 18th century tried to use Chriatianity as justification for the African American slave trade. And the Bible specifically says in the NT that manstealing is a sin.


that might be, but the bible, and most religious denominations are telling the women that god commands her to be obedient and submissive to a crazy person while praying that god will uncrazy him some. you seem to want to forget about that aspect. this guy might have a wife that has taken this advice from the bible to heart to the point she is putting up with all kinds of crap, never challenging "his authority" till one day she decides she has had enough, and well they end up in divorce court with the man wondering just what the heck happened. because well, like you said, such marriages end up being ruined. heck the guy will probably end up on ATS griping about all those single family households and how unjust the child support laws are.
and ya know what, it wouldn't be all his fault if he did! the church would be to blame for conning the women into giving so much power over to another.. and she would be to blame for buying the malarky to begin with and and allowing herself to be a door mat for him. and maybe, just maybe, if she had put her foot down before it got so bad that she walked out on him, they could remain happily married.



posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical



Maybe it's because in my view of life a leader isn't a boss, in my understanding a true leader is one who goes first and does it themselves and asks those they are responsible for to follow their example.


A real marriage doesn't need a boss or a leader.

I think you come from the outdated mindset that a woman needs a leader in a husband, a boss. Why? Other than a husband being incapacitated, in a wheel chair or a coma, can you see a Christian dynamic where it's appropriate to consider the wife to be leader, the boss, the one with authority over her husband? Why should authority always default to the husband?

I think this mindset is a throw off from the ancient Abrahamic customs of marriages being business arrangements, of women being handed over to older men at very young age, rather than our modern concepts of romantic love and a woman's ability to choose her husband.

Women don't need a leader or boss in a husband, they need an equal partner. Marriage is still a business arrangement, but the third party familiar negotiations are no longer relevant. The marriage contract is between the husband and the wife, not between their respective families. They should be able to negotiate the dynamics of their relationship without one having authority over the other.


edit on 25-7-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Man..you have to be the most passionate proponent of erroneous concepts I have ever come across.

Do you even know what misogyny means?



posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 12:31 PM
link   

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. 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.

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)


Do you deny subservience is wrong? Or subjection?





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.






Actually it is dishonest because you are using another verse to rationalize away a most disturbing one without admitting that it is disturbing.

I take it back, you ARE a misogynist.



posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Ephesians 5


22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
25 Husbands, love your wives, 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,
27 that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30 for we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
31 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.
32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.


reverence--




Reverence (/ˈrɛvərəns/) is "a feeling or attitude of deep respect tinged with awe; veneration".[1] The word "reverence" in the modern day is often used in relationship with religion. This is because religion often stimulates the emotion through recognition of God, the supernatural, and the ineffable. Reverence involves a humbling of the self in respectful recognition of something perceived to be greater than the self. Thus religion is commonly a place where reverence is felt.

However, similar to awe, reverence is an emotion in its own right, and can be felt outside of the realm of religion.[2] Whereas awe may be characterized as an overwhelming "sensitivity to greatness," reverence is seen more as "acknowledging a subjective response to something excellent in a personal (moral or spiritual) way, but qualitatively above oneself"

en.wikipedia.org...(emotion)


don't like wikipedia??

What Does Reverence Mean? Bible Definition of Reverence
www.patheos.com...

and then there's this one:




Ephesians 5:33 is a big part of the “I do” process. This verse has instructions for both the husband and the wife: “Nevertheless let everyone of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.” We need to do our part, even if the husband doesn’t do his part. Have you been making the mistake of keeping score, or are you expecting your husband to live up to some invisible standard before you’ll respect him? Either way, you’d be off course.

The Greek word for “reverence” is “phobeo,” from which we get the word “phobia.” In addition to being tied to respect, reverence is also a fear of doing or saying anything that would displease the Lord or your husband. If you’ve been taking this lightly, it is not a small matter. So how do you stop the contentious nag and replace her with a reverent wife?

help.keeptheheart.com...



another one, for those who think that the command that was given to men to love their wife and all that really has any bearing on this command to submissive obedience.

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.



posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: deignostian


I take it back, you ARE a misogynist


Mark 7 WEB 14 He called all the multitude to himself, and said to them, "Hear me, all of you, and understand. 15There is nothing from outside of the man, that going into him can defile him; but the things which proceed out of the man are those that defile the man. 16If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!"

17When he had entered into a house away from the multitude, his disciples asked him about the parable. 18He said to them, "Are you thus without understanding also? Don't you perceive that whatever goes into the man from outside can't defile him, 19because it doesn't go into his heart, but into his stomach, then into the latrine, thus purifying all foods?" 20He said, "That which proceeds out of the man, that defiles the man. 21For from within, out of the hearts of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, sexual sins, murders, thefts, 22covetings, wickedness, deceit, lustful desires, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, and foolishness. 23All these evil things come from within, and defile the man."

I tend to doubt that it is fair to judge a man based upon his choice of reading material.


Actually it is dishonest because you are using another verse to rationalize away a most disturbing one without admitting that it is disturbing.

I have read Marx. I have read Friedrich Nietzsche, and even a little bit of Juvenal's Satires. Must I list each and every sentence which I don't live my life by in order to be found misogynistic or whatever the opposite of that is?



posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: pthena

Ok, if it was just reading material I'd agree.

This is his religion though, not philosophy.

What I based my opinion on was HIS words and not what he reads. I would have to call all Christians misogynists using your logic, if reading material was the issue.

But I didn't, they aren't, and only his misogyny is the reason I called him a misogynist.

I tried giving him the benefit of the doubt and I erred in doing so. I will call a misogynist a misogynist and not feel bad about it.
edit on 25-7-2016 by deignostian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 01:22 PM
link   
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.
edit on 25-7-2016 by pthena because: (no reason given)


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.
edit on 25-7-2016 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar


that might be, but the bible, and most religious denominations are telling the women that god commands her to be obedient and submissive to a crazy person while praying that god will uncrazy him some. you seem to want to forget about that aspect.


No, I've never heard anyone teach that. There is nothing I'm forgetting, the blog that Windword linked was laughable, if it wasn't for the fact some manwas doing that to his wife. He is treating her like a child. Any lessons I've learned how to treat a wife is the same lessons I've learned how to fret other people, honor them, treat them as I want to be treated, love them, encourage them, and serve them no needs they have before my own.



posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: pthena


basically what he is saying is that 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..
since the bible goes on to say that men are to love their wives as themselves and be willing to sacrifice themselves for them.

but, it is not okay!!
since well, if the wife is a christian who believes that conservative dress is appropriate but the husband wants her to wear a halter top and short, short, shorts... well it's telling her is that she should ignore that twinge within her (the holy spirit telling her that she really shouldn't be dressing that way) in obedience to her husband..

the doctrine as it stands now, leads some women wondering, why did god give us a conscious if the only command that were given to her was to obey every command that the man gave her, even when it causes her conscious to haunt her for years afterward.

there was a time when if she followed his commands, it would be him that would be held accountable. but not anymore...
women are the ones that get the heat for abortions, even though there are probably just as many abortions done because the father desired it as there are women.
and well, it's women who are constantly told to just keep their legs crossed, even though sometimes it's the man's desire that led to the baby to begin with!

and one has to wonder how many women were stoned to death in history because their hubby decided to pimp her out.


and believe it or not, some men want it both ways, they want to be dominating as all heck, and then when everything blows up because of their insane dominating, they want to blame the dominated women!



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join