Male domination

[Menotu]

While the New Testament seems to allow more freedom to women, at least in the interaction Jesus is said to have had (ignoring the whole 'Jesus was married' idea), the bible, overall, is very male dominated. There are modern spins on it being taught in some churches, but by in large, it seems like Christianity is (and certainly has been taught) that men are the head of the household, bread winner, etc.

Some churches don't allow women to be leaders in the same way men are allowed to be leaders. The bible doesn't seem to be too 'woke'.

Even God is a 'he' and not a 'she' or 'it' (at least in modern editions of the bible).
Why is that?
Is it justified?
Should women be allowed a more 'leadership' roles in their churches/religion, or should status quo remain?
Any why?

[marco]

Well, wouldn't we apply the same quote above while substituting the words 'man' for 'fatherhood,' 'woman' for 'motherhood,' and 'his' for 'her?' It seems so. To wit:

“A man who rejects fatherhood, who refrains from being around the house, however successful his working life is, is deficient, is incomplete."

I think you've just misunderstood what the Turkish gentleman was saying. He wasn't suggesting ladies should do their share in making a home, as should men; he was saying that a woman should stay at home and give birth to three children, otherwise she's not a complete woman, however successful she is in her career. He earlier clarified his position lest anyone misunderstand: he feels it is silly to regard women as equal to men.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 21 by marco]

I don't think that Erdogan's statement illustrates the Bible's view.



.

[marco]

But you are right--we all have to seek, we have to study and meditate on what we read, pray, and draw conclusions based on what we have uncovered.

Sadly there are many who, regardless of how much studying they do, will never have the sharpness to interpret and discern. Those who say they read the bible will take lessons from those who read it more meaningfully. What we call our interpretation is often the interpretation of somebody else, with whom we agree, of course. It would be nice if we could embark on a course in Aramaic and Hebrew, and polish up our Greek declensions and then take a deep breath and read in the original and draw conclusions. I have had students who tried hard to find meaning in a foreign language but alas the tools they possessed were not up to the task. We can seek as much as we want but if we don't have the instruments, we won't succeed.


In this respect a woman is as likely to find a correct meaning as her male counterpart. Why would this not be the case?

[2timothy316]

It appears to me that the New Testament treats women as 2nd class citizens.

Ephesians 5:22-24 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.

Ok so everyone that has a higher authority over them is a 2nd class citizen? Are men 2nd class because Christ is over them? Is Christ a 2nd class citizens because Jehovah, his Father is over him? Think of all the people that have authority over you right now, your supervisor at work (unless you are jobless), your national government officials, policemen, your mom and dad, do you feel like a 2nd class citizen though you submit to some or all of these?

Romans 7:2 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
2 For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband.

Do you feel a wife should have the right to be unfaithful with other men while married? This scripture goes both ways BTW. Men are not bound to a dead wife no more than a women is bound to a dead husband. You seem to think this is a bad provision?

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
34 The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.

This is to maintain peace on the congregation. In context with the rest of this chapter it admonishes that even men not all try to speak at the same time. However, there is no provision for women to lead a congregation if there are qualified men around. Why? So we wouldn't spend time fighting about who has the nod to lead, men or women. 1 Cor 14:33 says that God is a God of order and not chaos. Does this mean there are no women leading a congregation? No. There are some very small groups where there are only baptized women and no baptized men. Because there must be someone to lead it is up to the sister to lead until a qualified brother is appointed over the congregation.

1 Timothy 2:11-14 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
11 A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Yep. This doesn't make women 2nd class citizens though. As I pointed out earlier, just because one has more authority over the other doesn't make them less important.

Titus 2:3-5 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
3 Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, 4 so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.

What is wrong with this? Are you saying women should be reckless in their behavior, gossipers, drunkards, teaching what is bad?

[PinSeeker]

I think you've just misunderstood what the Turkish gentleman was saying. He wasn't suggesting ladies should do their share in making a home, as should men; he was saying that a woman should stay at home and give birth to three children, otherwise she's not a complete woman, however successful she is in her career. He earlier clarified his position lest anyone misunderstand: he feels it is silly to regard women as equal to men.

Actually, I understand exactly what the Muslim view of women -- that they are inferior and should be utterly subjugated to men -- is, and what this Turkish man was saying. My point was that the proper Christian view of women is quite different -- very much opposed as a matter of fact. And therefore the message to you is, don't equate the two, which is what you seemed to be doing.

Grace and peace to you.

[Red Wolf]

[Replying to post 15 by JehovahsWitness]

I guess you don't agree with the Scriptures I quoted?????

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 23 by marco]

I would agree that that would be the case.



.

[marco]

Actually, I understand exactly what the Muslim view of women -- that they are inferior and should be utterly subjugated to men -- is, and what this Turkish man was saying. My point was that the proper Christian view of women is quite different -- very much opposed as a matter of fact. And therefore the message to you is, don't equate the two, which is what you seemed to be doing.

It is a short donkey ride from Paul's telling women to be quiet in Church and to submit to their men and the electrifying passage in the Koran where one is told that if wives are disobedient and won't listen to their husband, they must be beaten. I agree Paul uses no whip-words but what is his advice should women ignore him? Oppression is oppression, whatever language it is written in.

Go well.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 28 by marco]

It is no donkey-ride at all. Nowhere does it indicate in the N.T. that a woman who doesn't act properly should be beaten.


.

[brianbbs67]

But you are right--we all have to seek, we have to study and meditate on what we read, pray, and draw conclusions based on what we have uncovered.

Sadly there are many who, regardless of how much studying they do, will never have the sharpness to interpret and discern. Those who say they read the bible will take lessons from those who read it more meaningfully. What we call our interpretation is often the interpretation of somebody else, with whom we agree, of course. It would be nice if we could embark on a course in Aramaic and Hebrew, and polish up our Greek declensions and then take a deep breath and read in the original and draw conclusions. I have had students who tried hard to find meaning in a foreign language but alas the tools they possessed were not up to the task. We can seek as much as we want but if we don't have the instruments, we won't succeed.


In this respect a woman is as likely to find a correct meaning as her male counterpart. Why would this not be the case?

Where is this palace of meaning you so describe? All the answers must be there. How do we, lowlings, attain such heights? Pedestals are tricky when the winds blow.