Where does femininity come from?

[Imagican]

Orion,

If you deny the story of 'Creation', then it's pretty useless to discuss such an issue of the 'REASON' for 'femininity'. Without the 'story', then it's SIMPLY a matter of speculation. And YOUR guess is as GOOD as ANY other 'GUESS'.

But IF we take the story at LEAST literal enough to discern that Woman WAS 'taken from Man', then at this point we HAVE 'something MORE than a mere GUESS'.

Evolution would NOT offer explanation of 'male and female'. ONLY 'intellegent design' is ABLE to offer ANY reasonable explanation. For the earth, (even if it's been in existence for the billions of years that science SAYS that it has), STILL hasn't been here LONG enough for such evolution to take place.

But let me offer this:

Femininity as we KNOW it today has NOT always been the way it WAS originally. For the 'behavior of women' has CERTAINLY evolved over time. ONCE, both male and female were MUCH MORE 'alike' than 'different'. When men and women were FORCED to focus on survival, there was little means to focus on beauty or sexuality. This is a relatively MODERN turn that has evolved at a 'rapid rate'. Due to EXAMPLE and NOW DAYS multi media, the CHANGES in the behavior of women has escalated at an UNBELIEVABLE pace.

But originally woman WAS a 'part' of MAN. They BECAME one and were INCOMPLETE without this ONENESS. For as has been offered in other posts, WE ARE to emulate that which is NATURAL. And the ORDER that was placed INTO 'creation' is FAMILY.

All we NEED do is LOOK to nature to SEE the 'natural order' that exists in the animal kinddom and PLAINLY SEE that it was MEANT that WE, (mankind), BE the ultimate fulfillment of this NATURAL ORDER.

What we SEE now as the 'differences' between men and women has NOT ALWAYS been. Physically YES. Behaviorly NO. For once there would have been LITTLE difference between men and women's behavior other than submission of one TO the other.

NOW, we have examples that women FOLLOW that offers a distinction rather than a ONENESS. Believing themselves to BE EQUAL to men, they have followed the SAME spirit that led Eve to BE misled by the serpent. For EVERYTHING offered in The Word points to this: God IS the Head of Christ, as Christ IS the Head of man, as Man IS the Head of Woman. This IS the order of 'Creation'. Christ IS for God. Man IS For Christ. Woman IS for man. To deny this is to UTTERLY deny what has been offered in Word.

So, we find ourselves in a dilema of sorts. To BE 'politically correct', now we must PRETEND that Women and Men ARE the 'same'. But truthfully the differences are MONUMENTAL in relation to Creation. That MOST women today, (even those in the churches), are UNWILLING to accept this order shows NOTHING other than the SAME spirit that possessed Eve. Envious and desirous of the SAME relationship with God shared by Adam, Eve was ABLE to BE seduced BY the serpent in it's offering that NOT ONLY WOULD HER RELATIONSHIP BE THE SAME, but she would THEN BE AS GOD HIMSELF. And it was THE envy of God and Adam's relationship that led her to her folly.

We can PLAINLY SEE this 'same spirit' today. Women NOT willing to accept what they were GIVEN, but INSISTANCE upon TAKING that which was NEVER 'given'. INSISTANCE that they ARE the 'same' as man, (for EQUAL MEANS THE SAME).

I know, just another 'male chauvanist PIG' right? Wrong. I have offered NOTHING that goes AGAINST scripture. It is those that insist that THINGS are different NOW and SHOULD BE that go against what we have been offered in The Word.

MEC

 

[Orion]

I'm not calling anyone names. :-?

So, "women wanting to look pretty" is a recently learned action?

Besides, if we are talking about "Biblical matters of women", how can we view such ideologies in today's culture, . . . . .since the Bible was written about and for JEWISH people and them from 2,000-3,000 years in the past?

 

[Free]

The feminine HAS to have come from somewhere. Men and women are different in many aspects and it is easy to see where MEN get their general characteristics from, . . . but you MUST have the general feminine characteristics coming from SOME aspect of the Godhead.

As handy pointed out, God created both male and female in his image.

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

It would seem that both maleness and femaleness together are the image of God. That is all the Bible says on that, anything more is speculation.

So, "women wanting to look pretty" is a recently learned action?

No, it isn't, as you probably know.

Besides, if we are talking about "Biblical matters of women", how can we view such ideologies in today's culture, . . . . .since the Bible was written about and for JEWISH people and them from 2,000-3,000 years in the past?

We view it the same way. That the Bible is from antiquity is of no consequence. That the OT was written about the Jewish people is also of little consequence. But it is not correct to say that the OT was written for the Jewish people only and certainly not correct to say that the NT was written about and for the Jewish people only.

 

[Orion]

I believe that the Old Testiment WAS written for the Jewish people, and not just about them. That we may be able to attain some significance in some of the words doesn't mean it was written for the entire human race. The New Testiment is another story, since it began to reach "gentiles", and was for them as well.

By the way, I would tend to agree more (though not entirely completely) with Handy on this. I think it is just the arrogance of men (the masculine) that must insist on a masculine God (especially in the times when the religious texts were being written, since women were not equal to men, and may have even been given the place of "property").

 

[handy]

Athough women may, and I do stress the may, have been considered as little more than property, during the time the New Testament was written, neither the Gospels nor the Epistles present that view of women. The New Testament is very gender equal, unless one wants to make an issue of God being primarily masculine and revealing Himself to mankind as masculine.

Women were allowed to follow Christ and sit at his feet as Mary did. The resurrected Jesus revealed Himself to women first. Women held the positions of prophet (Anna, the daughters of Philip) and church leader, (Phoebe, Pricilla, Lydia) in the early church. Paul stated that in Christ there is neither male nor female.

The only 'subservient' role women have is the wife is to be submissive to her husband. I don't see where women in general are to be submissive to men in general. As a Christian couple, I defer to Steve, but I don't see any particular commandment that I'm to defer to Rick or Duane or any other guy around here just cause he's a guy and I'm a gal. I'll defer to Vic, but that's just 'cause he's an administrator around here, not 'cause he's a guy.

Paul said that the women are to be silent in the church at Cornith, and that the women were not to teach or hold authority over men in the church at Ephesus. The issue of no teaching doesn't seem to apply to Prisca, even though she was in Ephesus, nor did the 'authority' issue seem to apply to Phoebe in Rome. Given the totality of the texts of women in the New Testament and the ways they contributed to the growth of the new church, it seems far more logical and better exegesis to conclude that the specific commandments of Paul to the women in Ephesus and Corinth, were just that, specific to them.

So, in general I think the idea that women are not equal to men came more from the expansion of Christianity into Europe, rather than any actual teachings from the New Testament or the 'place' of women at the time of Christ and the Apostles. However, this doesn't negate the fact that the Scriptures, both Old and New testaments, as well as Jesus Himself, refers to God only in the masculine, however with feminine traits.

 

[Orion]

Yes, handy, you pointed out one of those scriptures earlier.

Sometimes I wonder if the scripture about "women being silent" was even something that Paul said, but from another source, finding it's way in as from Paul? AS you stated, Phoebe, Pricilla, and Lydia would have probably taught things to even men.

However, as for Jewish history, I've always heard that women WERE considered similar to "property". I can't remember where I heard that, but not just one place. Perhaps the early church was revolutionary in that sense too. :-? A more correct way that God sees us. I know that Paul would not state "in Christ there is neither male or female" if both sexes weren't allowed equal footing on any spiritual matter.

 

[handy]

I think the instructions that Paul gave as far as the women in Cornith and Ephesus fit right in with the context of the rest of the instructions to those churches. Both churches had 'issues'. And, there are still principles that we can glean from those instructions, such as a need to be sensitive to the culture around us in how we conduct ourselves. I find no reason to discount those instructions as being inspired instructions from Paul, but I also find no reason to believe that those two texts equal a bar to all women for all time from ministering to the body as Pastors and teachers. Not when you look at the way God used other women in both the Old and New Testament.

I don't think the inequality that most certain rose up came specifically from Jewish history, at least as far as the Bible is concerned. Read Proverbs 31. That most certainly doesn't describe chattel. Deborah served as a Judge during the time of the Judges. A lot of times people say that the only reason why Deborah served as judge was because no man would do so, but the Bible doesn't say that at all. It's simply recorded that Deborah, a prophet was judging Israel and that she summoned Barak to march against Sisera. Some even interpret that the Lord said that Sisera would be delivered into the hands of a woman as a way to punish Barak for not moving without Deborah, but again, the text doesn't say that.

There are clear roles for married women in the Scriptures, roles that we must submit to. However, the idea that all women are to be subservient to all men is simply not in there. I've even heard preached that if a woman doesn't marry, she is to remain under the authority of her father, even if she is an adult. While Paul describes what, according to the custom at the time, fathers should do with their adult daughters, but there is no commandment from God that adult women are somehow to be subservient to their fathers until the day they either marry or die.

Well, I'm rambling and probably getting way off the topic of where feminity even comes from. But, the fact that we women are made in God's image just as much as the men are and we are equal to men in all respects, with the exception of the wife being submissive to the husband, just as Jesus submits to the Father.

 

[Orion]

Thanks for your help on this topic, Dora.

 

[Imagican]

I'm not calling anyone names. :-?

So, "women wanting to look pretty" is a recently learned action?

I wouldn't say 'recent' as in hundreds of years. But NOT 'original' in that upon creation, it took TIME for those type attributes to become manifest in their behavior. YES.

Besides, if we are talking about "Biblical matters of women", how can we view such ideologies in today's culture, . . . . .since the Bible was written about and for JEWISH people and them from 2,000-3,000 years in the past?

Now that IS a dilema. For we have been bombarded with advertising for MANY MANY centuries now. Influence that has been learned and passed on through many generations. Parents TEACHING their female offspring HOW to BE feminine, how to 'attract a GOOD mate', how be 'lady-like'. These are NOT attributes that existed in 'the beginning'. It took thousands of years for mankind to ALTER it's understanding and behavior in such a manner.

So, HOW do we 'overcome' this 'training' and become ABLE to 'understand' how it WAS in the past? It's relatively easy IF one is ABLE to 'let go' of the 'brainwashing' directed at and aimed at us in these modern times. IF we can contemplate a 'place without greed, lust, envy, jealousy, etc,,,,,,,,,,,ONLY then are we able to SEE that men and women DIDN'T NEED to BE so 'different' as we find ourselves TODAY.

Just imagine: You and a woman are stranded on a deserted island. HOW MUCH of the frivelous behavior that we SEE in our communities would LAST over time? IF you and your COMPANION or MATE were there LONG enough, you would CLEARLY be able to SEE that MUCH of what we consider NORMAL BEHAVIOR in society is CERTAINLY ANYTHING BUT. Competition, the influence of society itself, social standing, MANY factors contribute to WHO we PRETEND to BE and HOW we ACT accordingly.

But 'take away' the FACTORS that INFLUENCE these behaviors, and the behaviors WILL 'fade away'.

We can clearly see in those women of the CC and other faiths that have abandoned society in favor of a 'closeness' with God, that MOST of the 'behavioral differences' between man and women have been abandoned. YES, there are CERTAINLY still 'women' and still 'men', but the SEPARATION is not NEARLY as vast as in the secular world in general. YES, women are the mothers and wives and men are the fathers and husbands. But IN BEHAVIOR, there is LITTLE of the pretenses that we see CLEARLY in the secular world.

It boils down to PURPOSE. Once we are ABLE to discern the TRUTH of 'purpose', then that which does NOT pertain TO purpose CAN be virtually eliminated. We BECOME 'different' than that which the secular world would TRAIN us to BE.

MEC