Feminism & Christianity

[Pebbles]

:why cant a man carry a child and not be a women and yet remain male?(this has been done in america)

Oh Thomas Beetee That thing happens occasionally within the FTM's (Ie their fertility returns if they stop there hormones) he was such an exhibitionist.

 

[David McDowall]

We need look no further than the letter Paul writes to timothy, 1 Tim 2

11 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women[c] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.


This shows pretty clearly Pauls view on Women, Also Gods view( Wast the bible written by men under direct inspiration from God ) This inst a subjective verse but a blanket statement to all women, It even gives the reason of Eve in the garden as justification for their quietness and submission.

Christianity and feminism are opposed, one calls for the unification of power between men and women, the other calls for the dictatorship of men over them. We are lucky in 2010 that we have some amazing women, and the amazing suffragette movement to grant equality.
Before that happened I didn't see the church supporting women as equals.

 

[Alabaster]

We need look no further than the letter Paul writes to timothy, 1 Tim 2

11 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women[c] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.


This shows pretty clearly Pauls view on Women, Also Gods view( Wast the bible written by men under direct inspiration from God ) This inst a subjective verse but a blanket statement to all women, It even gives the reason of Eve in the garden as justification for their quietness and submission.

Christianity and feminism are opposed, one calls for the unification of power between men and women, the other calls for the dictatorship of men over them. We are lucky in 2010 that we have some amazing women, and the amazing suffragette movement to grant equality.
Before that happened I didn't see the church supporting women as equals.

Paul wasn't talking about ALL women. It is not an edict for all, for all time.

As far as quietness and submission in learning, that goes for everyone, but Paul was addressing a particular problem in one congregation as the apostle of that congregation.

It is because of the poor understanding of Paul and what he was really saying that many churches of this modern age still must deal with many who believe that women are not equal in the Body of Christ.

The first churches were wonderfully egalitarian.

 

[benjamin-benjamin]

posted this in the other thread and figured it applied here also.....

what a heavily misuderstood concept... keep in mind i am married to a women who considered herself a hardcore feminist and wouldn't even wear the color pink because it was too "soft and society molded her to like it", one of our 1st "debates" was women involved in the front lines of war...
1st thing we must examine is who these verses are directed at (i know this seems obvious) but it as women, which 1st means that men should largely ignore it. More importantly the men are directed to love wives as Jesus loved the church, so here is the question. Do we convert people by saying "you must submit to Jesus" and telling people that they must submit to the church, etc... (well some might), but see no instances of Jesus "forcing" people to follow him, even when his disciples wanted to fight the romans, he stopped them.... So if we take this approach that means that women must want to "submit" the same way I want to submit to God. It also means that i fully submit to God, i still have an opinion, i still speak up, and i am still me.......

hopes this helps....​

 

[Gendou Ikari]

In that verse, Paul was speaking of origins. The word for 'head' in that passage represents the kind of head we use when we discuss the 'headwaters' of a river: the source.

God is the source of Christ, and Christ is the source of man, and man is the physical source of woman.

You are wrong about Paul, who followed Christ and elevated women in the Body of Christ.

Don't get me wrong. I think it is wonderful, fantastic and great that you don't believe St. Paul was sexist against women. So a part of me feels that it is wrong to argue in favour of St. Paul as a sexist. Yet, I am going to do it anyway, since we are all adults here (I think).

St. Paul wrote, in Ephesians:

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
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. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing."

If "head" simply refers to biological origins, than why does he use the word "submit"? To me it is quite clear. His words speak for themselves.

And I expect your understanding of Scripture coming from a feminist--read only what suits your cause, failing to see the forest for the trees. Paul is not making blanket statements that men are greater than women in all things. Please, read all that he actually writes, in context, to get the full understanding.

I used to be a Christian, so I am well aware of Christianity from the inside out.

 

[Gendou Ikari]

Paul wasn't talking about ALL women. It is not an edict for all, for all time.

As far as quietness and submission in learning, that goes for everyone, but Paul was addressing a particular problem in one congregation as the apostle of that congregation.

It is because of the poor understanding of Paul and what he was really saying that many churches of this modern age still must deal with many who believe that women are not equal in the Body of Christ.

The first churches were wonderfully egalitarian.

I am always amazed how Christians utilise the context/relativist argument when it suits them, but if anyone tries to use it on an issue such as homosexuality in Romans, it is unacceptable. Mark my words, in a few decades, the majority of Christians will be using the same arguments you use for the equality of women, for the equality of homosexuality.

 

[Alabaster]

Don't get me wrong. I think it is wonderful, fantastic and great that you don't believe St. Paul was sexist against women. So a part of me feels that it is wrong to argue in favour of St. Paul as a sexist. Yet, I am going to do it anyway, since we are all adults here (I think).

St. Paul wrote, in Ephesians:

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
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. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing."

If "head" simply refers to biological origins, than why does he use the word "submit"? To me it is quite clear. His words speak for themselves.

Husbands also need to submit to their wives as sisters in Christ, as Paul also advises.

I used to be a Christian, so I am well aware of Christianity from the inside out.

If that were true, you'd have remained true to your Saviour.

 

[Alabaster]

I am always amazed how Christians utilise the context/relativist argument when it suits them, but if anyone tries to use it on an issue such as homosexuality in Romans, it is unacceptable. Mark my words, in a few decades, the majority of Christians will be using the same arguments you use for the equality of women, for the equality of homosexuality.

No they won't. Not Christians.

 

[Gendou Ikari]

Husbands also need to submit to their wives as sisters in Christ, as Paul also advises.

Can you show me the verse where St. Paul tells husbands to submit to their wives?

If that were true, you'd have remained true to your Saviour.

So all my belief in God, talking to God, crying out to God to come into me and guide me, meant that I didn't believe in Jesus and Christianity?

No they won't. Not Christians.

Maybe not Christians by your definition, but then again, many Christians in the South in the 1940's would not consider your belief in racial equality, "Christian."

 

[Alabaster]

Can you show me the verse where St. Paul tells husbands to submit to their wives?

Ephesians 5:21 (New Living Translation)

Spirit-Guided Relationships: Wives and Husbands

And further, submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

So all my belief in God, talking to God, crying out to God to come into me and guide me, meant that I didn't believe in Jesus and Christianity?

You don't believe God when He says He saves ALL who call upon Him.

Romans 10:13 (New Living Translation)
For “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Maybe not Christians by your definition, but then again, many Christians in the South in the 1940's would not consider your belief in racial equality, "Christian."

The truth about God and salvation never varies or changes. There is only one definition for Christian.

 

[Gendou Ikari]

Ephesians 5:21 (New Living Translation)

Spirit-Guided Relationships: Wives and Husbands

And further, submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

From the context of that book, St. Paul is speaking to men at that point. He clarifies what he means for women when he writes, "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands," and clarifies what he means for men when he writes, "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it." I am not making the claim that St. Paul was a misogynist in the sense that Two and a Half Men is misogynist. He did not hate women. He said to be kind to them. But loving and being kind to someone does not mean that you think them your equal.

You don't believe God when He says He saves ALL who call upon Him.

Romans 10:13 (New Living Translation)
For “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.â€

Well, I don't believe in God.

The truth about God and salvation never varies or changes. There is only one definition for Christian.

There are no true Scotsman, eh?

"Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." [Brighton is not part of Scotland.] The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. [Aberdeen is part of Scotland.] This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."

 

[Alabaster]

From the context of that book, St. Paul is speaking to men at that point. He clarifies what he means for women when he writes, "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands," and clarifies what he means for men when he writes, "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it." I am not making the claim that St. Paul was a misogynist in the sense that Two and a Half Men is misogynist. He did not hate women. He said to be kind to them. But loving and being kind to someone does not mean that you think them your equal.

Paul thought of women as equal and used them as leaders in the churches, following the lead of Christ, who also thumbed His nose at the establishment's relegation of women as non-persons.

Well, I don't believe in God.

You believed in Him when you called on Him. He heard you and answered you, but you weren't listening. The devil, who is quick as lightning to rob people who have a glimmer (seed) of faith, rushes in to steal it by planting a lying thought which you believed, instead.

You can turn it around by rejecting the lie, Gendou.

 

[benjamin-benjamin]

You don't believe God when He says He saves ALL who call upon Him.

Romans 10:13 (New Living Translation)
For “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.â€

you are taking that verse wayyyyy out of context, God does not force salvation on anyone permanently, the bible is very clear that anyone can leave at any point.... also don't you think that if you are going to have a positive influence on an atheist that is obviously open to discussion that there might be a better way than the approach you are taking...
gendou, sorry about the lack of love being shown to you..... to get back to the topic what are you thoughts about my post?

 

[Alabaster]

you are taking that verse wayyyyy out of context, God does not force salvation on anyone permanently, the bible is very clear that anyone can leave at any point.... also don't you think that if you are going to have a positive influence on an atheist that is obviously open to discussion that there might be a better way than the approach you are taking...
gendou, sorry about the lack of love being shown to you..... to get back to the topic what are you thoughts about my post?

Some people don't take the context seriously enough. How dare you take the words of God offered in truth and dash them! Either one is saved or one isn't. There is no escape clause, apart from insincerity, which you are focusing on. I would rather focus on an all-out forever relationship that is built on the promises of God which are genuine and can be counted on.

God's arm is not too short to save completely. Sorry many of you think it is.

 

[Oats]

Some people don't take the context seriously enough. How dare you take the words of God offered in truth and dash them! Either one is saved or one isn't. There is no escape clause, apart from insincerity, which you are focusing on. I would rather focus on an all-out forever relationship that is built on the promises of god which are genuine and can be counted on.

God's arm is not too short to save completely. Sorry many of you think it is.

Great post Alabaster

---

On point

I think that Paul is simply indicating the roles of men and women.

when he says weaker member he is referring to physical stature, what else could he be referring to?

God does not show partiality but gave men and women separate roles...

To fulfill his purpose

 

[Alabaster]

Great post Alabaster

Thank you.

On point

I think that Paul is simply indicating the roles of men and women.

when he says weaker member he is referring to physical stature, what else could he be referring to?

God does not show partiality but gave men and women separate roles...

To fulfill his purpose

You'd better believe it! ;)

 

[benjamin-benjamin]

Some people don't take the context seriously enough. How dare you take the words of God offered in truth and dash them! Either one is saved or one isn't. There is no escape clause, apart from insincerity, which you are focusing on. I would rather focus on an all-out forever relationship that is built on the promises of God which are genuine and can be counted on.

God's arm is not too short to save completely. Sorry many of you think it is.

Wow you are really filled with the right attitude Look i am not dashing them, i am simply taking the bible for what it is, a complete book. If it is as simple as God saving completely then God would just save everyone. Also why do we have NUMEROUS passages not only warning us about FALLING AWAY, but more importantly we have numerous passages about people being WITH GOD and then NO LONGER WITH GOD (saul in the OT)

<SUP id=en-NIV-7610 class=versenum>14</SUP> Now the Spirit of the LORD had departed from Saul

How blunt is that God was the one that picked him to be king and was with him (otherwise how does something depart that was never there?)

1 cor. 5:5<SUP>5</SUP> hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh

how do you hand someone over to Satan if they are already with him.... along with the fact that basically the bible shows that even demons believe but aren't saved (see james) and there is no denying that lots of people believe Jesus is the son of God but don't follow anything else in the bible. More importantly if all it took was just believing (and nothing from that point on) then the bible is wasted on defining things like adultry, etc..... because it would be irrelevant....

i could go on and on, but i won't

 

[jasoncran]

Wow you are really filled with the right attitude Look i am not dashing them, i am simply taking the bible for what it is, a complete book. If it is as simple as God saving completely then God would just save everyone. Also why do we have NUMEROUS passages not only warning us about FALLING AWAY, but more importantly we have numerous passages about people being WITH GOD and then NO LONGER WITH GOD (saul in the OT)

<SUP id=en-NIV-7610 class=versenum>14</SUP> Now the Spirit of the LORD had departed from Saul

How blunt is that God was the one that picked him to be king and was with him (otherwise how does something depart that was never there?)

1 cor. 5:5<SUP>5</SUP> hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh

how do you hand someone over to Satan if they are already with him.... along with the fact that basically the bible shows that even demons believe but aren't saved (see james) and there is no denying that lots of people believe Jesus is the son of God but don't follow anything else in the bible. More importantly if all it took was just believing (and nothing from that point on) then the bible is wasted on defining things like adultry, etc..... because it would be irrelevant....

i could go on and on, but i won't

half quote there buddy.



1 cor 5:5 kjv

To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

American King James Version
To deliver such an one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

 

[Alabaster]

Just how appropriate is it to focus on the fallen away state when there is one who has done just that is among us in this very thread? Don't you think it more appropriate to reinforce who Jesus is and how He loves and saves us completely, who call upon His name, holding us securely in His hand, never letting us go?

He wants to bring these people back to Himself, not have us impart that it is OK to abandon one's faith.

 

[benjamin-benjamin]

half quote there buddy.



1 cor 5:5 kjv

To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

American King James Version
To deliver such an one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Sure that just adds to my point, the bible gives numerous examples of not giving people the idea that they are saved and to (see the end of the chapter)
“Expel the wicked person from among you"

so they will hopefully realize they are wrong and come back to the church.... can you really read the whole chapter of 1 cor 5 and think that the indivdual is going to heaven??? or are you saying that if we hand people over to satan (by kicking them out of the church) that they are actually going to heaven??

<SUP id=en-NIV-28456 class=versenum>1</SUP> It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife. <SUP id=en-NIV-28457 class=versenum>2</SUP> And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this?

why would you go into mourning about someone getting "saved"..... Let anyone read this that is not a christian or knows nothing about the bible and they will come to the same conclusion..... you would have to have a "bias" to think that 1 cor. 5 is saying that individual is "being saved" by banging his father's wife... i mean if that is true we need to tell people to do what they want...