Was God a Male Chauvinist?

[mdougie]

How many people actually believe that men have one less rib than women because Adam had one removed to create Eve?

There are a lot of people. They are wrong. Men and women have the same number of ribs.

That's a fact.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

How many people actually believe that men have one less rib than women because Adam had one removed to create Eve?

There are a lot of people. They are wrong. Men and women have the same number of ribs.

That's a fact.

And ... ?

 

[mdougie]

And ... ?

That's it. Men and women have the same number of ribs. There are people who didn't know that. Even more unfortunate is there are people who when presented with this fact will refuse to believe it for fear of eternal torture.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

That's it. Men and women have the same number of ribs. There are people who didn't know that. Even more unfortunate is there are people who when presented with this fact will refuse to believe it for fear of eternal torture.

You're trying to argue a point that hasn't been brought up.

 

[mdougie]

You're trying to argue a point that hasn't been brought up.

There is nothing to argue about. It was a simple statement of fact. A fact that many are ignorant of, and some fear to believe.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

There is nothing to argue about.

Your're right. There isn't. Because no one has made such a claim. You're the one who brought it up. Bringing up a point of argument that has not been introduced is a sign of -- what else? -- argumentativeness. To know purpose. Unless you can offer one?

 

[Nick]

Your're right. There isn't. Because no one has made such a claim. You're the one who brought it up. Bringing up a point of argument that has not been introduced is a sign of -- what else? -- argumentativeness. To know purpose. Unless you can offer one?

I agree - it seems rather off topic.

Side note: thread moved to Apologetics & Theology.

 

[for_his_glory]

Actually, this is subjective and whether it used the term adam [the implied name of Adam, a singular person] or ha-adam [the name for manking, both male and female]. The KJV dropped the "ha-adam" part and just uses Adam. It changes the context. According to the KJV, man is referred to as Adam, which is wrong according to the Hebrew. The NASB got it right by taking out Adam and using Man instead (to denote mankind...masculine pronouns were used back then).

Well since the KJV was written many centuries before the NASB I will take the authority of Gods inspired word in the KJV as it says Adam. You can study from the newer books if you want as that's your choice, but for me I will stick with the KJV and stand by what it says.

 

[evenifigoalone]

1 Timothy 2:9-10 Likewise, I want <SUP class=crossreference value='(A)'></SUP>women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.

A blog post I was reading suggested that this verse is about not showing off or flaunting wealth. This sounds plausible to me. The subject of the blog post was the Bible's position on modesty, but if the suggestion is correct then this isn't about pushing women into submission.

 

[Aloysium]

Genesis 2:18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone;I will make him a helper suitable for him.â€

Genesis 3:16 To the woman He said,“I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; yet your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.â€

when i read holy scripture, i seek to understand what it is saying about God, myself, my fellow man

Genesis provides a great deal in this regard

let me put it this way:
you and I are Adam, right here, right now
consider that we are communicating
even when we think, we think in words
we do that because we are linked to each other
what is on the outside of me (my rib) is Thou
we have been created as self-and-other
we become whole when we love one another
the most perfect union is a man and a woman, spiritually and physically in love
i disobey God, the sin is compounded by my blaming the other,
as other and blamed, i blame that which offered me the choice to sin;
and thus sin permeates human existence
so what are the consequences? any growth, any joy will be accompanied by suffering.
i need the other's love, but the other is now my enemy, who must protect himself from me, who must dominate me

sacred texts must be approached with an open heart and mind

 

[Deborah13]

A blog post I was reading suggested that this verse is about not showing off or flaunting wealth. This sounds plausible to me. The subject of the blog post was the Bible's position on modesty, but if the suggestion is correct then this isn't about pushing women into submission.

I see 1 Timothy 2:9-10 as yes modesty but also that a woman value (adornment) is not in fancy hairstyles or jewels but in her good works done for the Lord.

 

[P31Woman]

That is not a literal reading then. That would be an allegory (or parable, depending on how one reads it). Far too many Christians pick and choose what they want to be literal, and discard the rest.

I am well aware of the context issue. That has become my staple since I joined these forums. But for this post, I used those verses as an illustrative example, outside of their chapters.

Please do a study of "literal method of interpetation". When Christians say we take the bible literally it's the METHOD we are talking about. I am sorry your Church failed to educate you property on the use of this term. I am going to make sure the young people in our fellowship understand what that term means, does not mean and how to apply it.

 

[JCitoL]

there are many things in the Scripture(Bible) which are not these things that they point out literally

.....It would seem, according to the Bible, women:

1. Are to be submissive to their husbands

such passages (as it is in Ephesians 5:22) mean that it is good the women to respect their men, and the respect is not a submission, but it means that the women ought to defer so as not to disappoint the men

2. Can't wear gold, pearls, or expensive clothes, and have to dress modestly

this (as it is in 1 Timothy 2:9-10) means that the female believers must not be: proud and intriguing/mischief-making("broided hair"), vainglorious("gold"), high-minded("costly array"), sapient("pearls"), etc., but they must be humble(meek), good and earnest as well as the male believers

3. Can't braid their hair

this is about the aforementioned for the fact that it is not good the women to be proud and intriguing/mischief-making which is the "broided hair" in 1 Timothy 2:9

4. Have to wear veils to cover their heads

this (as it's in 1 Corinthians 11) is about how the show of knowledge in the faith on the part of (the) human (which is the "hair" there) is not a good thing according to as it has also been written:

Genesis 3:6 "the woman saw that the tree was(i.e. that the forbidden "tree" ostensibly looked) good for food, and that it was(i.e. and that it ostensibly looked) pleasant to the eyes(i.e. to the human mind), and a tree to be desired to make one wise(i.e. to make the human being omniscience and omnipotence)",

1 Corinthians 8:1-8 "Now as touching things(i.e. as regards the religious/spiritual things) offered unto(i.e. which are (a) service/ministry to/of) idols(or: spiritual/religious misbeliefs/iniquities), we know that(i.e. usually the human tendency in this regard so far was that maybe) we all(i.e. all clerics/believers) have knowledge(i.e. spiritual knowledge and abilities). Knowledge puffeth up(viz. in the faith), but charity(i.e. but Love/Good(-ness)) edifieth(or: humbles). And if(i.e. and if in this regard) any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. But if any man love God(i.e. the true Lord God), the same is known of him. As concerning therefore the eating(i.e. the following/practising) of those things(i.e. of those spiritual/religious things) that are offered in sacrifice unto idols(or: which are unrighteous), we know that an idol(or: the spiritual/religious misbelief/iniquity) is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords(or: and christs) many,) But to us(i.e. but the setup is such that to all humans of whole this universe) there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. Howbeit there is not in every man(i.e. (as) yet there is not in every cleric/believer/worshipper) that knowledge(i.e. that conscience/understanding): for some(i.e. for some of them by reason of this) with conscience of the idol(or: by notion of spiritual misbelief/iniquity) unto this hour eat it(i.e. until this moment follow/practise the faith) as a thing offered unto an idol(or: unto a spiritual/religious misbelief/iniquity); and their conscience being weak(i.e. thus becoming weak) is defiled. But meat(i.e. but the occultism/idolatry/knowledgeable faith) commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat(i.e. if we follow/practise it), are we the better; neither, if we eat not(i.e. if we do not follow/practise it), are we the worse."

so, it is normal for the female believers to obey the Word of God, while for the male believers to be go-ahead and judicial, while it is typical for the women to be more memorizing in the life as a rule, the men typically are more discerning/prudent/reasoning, that is why the female believers must ignore("cover") their conversance/cognizance("hair") in the faith, while the male believers must be denied("shaven") from the show of knowledge in the faith("hair"), because it is written that "God is love"(1 John 4:7-21) which means that the faith must be show of love principally, not of knowledge, for exactly the love is the basis in the true Lord God, because not that there is no sanity therein, but it is like automatically received/obtained thereof, not that the human there must be witless, but it is good there be prudence based on the love in the true God by Jesus

5. Can't instruct/teach men

it is not a good thing if a woman becomes proud over a man considering the character of female nature which (as it already was mentioned above) is more (the) memorizing, but when we say this we really mean just "more", not entirely, but this must not be a reason the men to misuse the women, because such an act also is a violation/shame

6. Are bound for domestic duties

not that it is a compulsory, but the nature of woman is: to be sweet, motherly, to cradle/nurse the children, to cook, to keep the house clean, to wash clothes, etc. - it is just in her nature

so, the true God is not a male chauvinist, but there is a need of respect to the women, that is why i always try not to tease them and so everything is all right

Blessings

 

[felix]

If you are a manager and asking your assistant to do a work for you, are you a kind of manager Chauvinist ?
Roles and equality are very different. While men and women are equal in God's sight, they both have very different roles to play in this world.