How Do Believers Come To Terms With The Glaring Misogyny In The Bible?

[Guest]

This question would really be better posed to a group of Jews. Call it prooftexting if you like, but I don't think you have a full understanding of how Christianity works. In St. Matthew's Gospel, Jesus says "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."(5:17) This is the foundation upon which the Christian teaching that the New Testament supercedes -- in the ways that it differs -- the old testament. Later, in St. Paul's letter to the Galatians, he states "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (3:28)
So then, to argue that Christianity oppresses of women because of something found in the Old Testament is akin to arguing that Snape is a bad guy because you've only read the first Harry Potter book.

Good stuff...

[Quinn]

Thanks Delivery boy. Can I now have a 12" hawaiian please. Get going you've got 15 minutes before I get 50% off

[Vincent Vega]

This is the foundation upon which the Christian teaching that the New Testament supercedes -- in the ways that it differs -- the old testament. 

The syntax of this sentence is weird, but you should still get the point.

[CrossCuT]

I don't hate you either, in fact I really don't hate anyone on this forum...although some people are annoying, I don't hate them.

Thank goodness, I was getting worried. The level of anger on all sides in this thread was making me sweat....  :unsure:

 

This question would really be better posed to a group of Jews. Call it prooftexting if you like, but I don't think you have a full understanding of how Christianity works. In St. Matthew's Gospel, Jesus says "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."(5:17) This is the foundation upon which the Christian teaching that the New Testament supercedes -- in the ways that it differs -- the old testament. Later, in St. Paul's letter to the Galatians, he states "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (3:28)

So then, to argue that Christianity oppresses of women because of something found in the Old Testament is akin to arguing that Snape is a bad guy because you've only read the first Harry Potter book. 

 

This is awesome. Perfect example. 

 

PS. I love Snape

[Quinn]

Good stuff...

 I'll try a metaphor as a response here.

 

Take a firework, lets say a rocket as they reach for the skies, and take out the gunpowder. Soak that gunpowder in a bucket of water and cram it back into the rocket it's not going to work right? But if you take out the gunpowder and take care of it then  cram it back into the firework then it's going to be fine.... Right?

 

Well religion is that bucket of water!!!

[Quinn]

The rocket represents man whilst the gunpowder represents woman.

[Vincent Vega]

Question for the theists.....If someone is turned down from a job solely because they are too old it's ageist. So what is it called when a woman is turned down from a job solely because she is a woman? Sexist yeh? So how come women can't progress as high in the church as men. We are not in the dark ages anymore and using scripture as old as a thousand grandmothers is not really helpful, relevant or moral.

 

Now think about all the anti-women teachings in the bible. Think about the portrayal of Mary as a prostitute. Now read the OP again.

 

First off, not sure what the allegedly anti-women teachings have to do with the parts of the Gospel portraying Jesus with the prostitutes.

 

In any case, not that I agree with Roman Church that women shouldn't hold positions of authority in the church, but from their point of view, it's not that they're not admitting women for the same reason that a business wouldn't hire a black guy or a handicapped person etc. In their Church, they believe that a woman couldn't be a priest any more than a man could be a mother. It's not a matter of choice, but rather of in-born faculty. For this reason, they will usually cite the fact that Jesus selected all males as his consort of 12. As you pointed out, Jesus had no problem associating with everyone on the fringes of society and breaking any number of taboos; in this way, they believe that if he had intended for women to be priests, he would have selected at least one to be among the twelve (particularly given how highly he speaks of Mary his mother and St. Mary Magdalene at various points). 

[Vincent Vega]

The rocket represents man whilst the gunpowder represents woman.

I don't follow. Try again sober.

[PhuturePriest]

This question would really be better posed to a group of Jews. Call it prooftexting if you like, but I don't think you have a full understanding of how Christianity works. In St. Matthew's Gospel, Jesus says "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."(5:17) This is the foundation upon which the Christian teaching that the New Testament supercedes -- in the ways that it differs -- the old testament. Later, in St. Paul's letter to the Galatians, he states "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (3:28)

So then, to argue that Christianity oppresses of women because of something found in the Old Testament is akin to arguing that Snape is a bad guy because you've only read the first Harry Potter book. 

 

One hundred points for mentioning Harry Potter, and then three hundred points for mentioning the coolest character.

[Quinn]

You misunderstood twice then because I'm not drunk.

 

The rocket/gunpowder analogy (not metaphor) is in response to this silliness.

 

 there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (3:28)

[Medic]

I haven't read Harry Potter nor do I plan to, but I have read the bible 4 or 5 times. I find very little in it to be worthy of actually being implemented into my life. the love one another thing is a noble endeavor, but you don't need an imaginary sky daddy to give love, in fact, I would propose that doing good for the promise of an afterlife reward cheapens and makes you morally disingenuous....doing good for the sake of goodness is worth 10 times more than hoping you get "presents" for it.  I find the whole concept of a deity a primitive and barbaric belief....especially the one concocted by scientifically uneducated, superstitious, war-mongering desert nomads.

[Quinn]

Medic. You managed 4 or 5 times. Crickey, Sucker for punishment lol

 

Gonna add some more links tomorrow but I won't be around much at the weekend. Going to the beach for some sandy kinda loving.

[Medic]

Yeah, I started reading it after I was baptized when I turned 18,afterwards I had many questions that my preacher/youth director keep giving cardboard cut-out answers to...so I did research on my own...it took several years for my deconversion, but the more I researched the more it became apparent it was never true....cool have fun at the beach. see ya when you get back man.

Edited August 2, 2013 by Medic

[Maggyie]

You misunderstood twice then because I'm not drunk.

 

The rocket/gunpowder analogy (not metaphor) is in response to this silliness.

 

 there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (3:28)

 

I'm still not sure how the rocket analogy relates to misogyny in the bible? It's ok though.

 

I'm a woman and when I first started reading the bible (I was not raised as a Christian) I was bothered by all the passages about spoils of war in the Old Testament and women can't speak in church blah blah blah.

 

But that was because I was reading the bible at face value, I wasn't reading it the way an educated Christian reads it. Now you will meet some fundamentalists who think because Paul says "women can't speak in church" and "men shouldn't have long hair" that literally means, women can't speak in church and dudes have to cut their hair on pain of hellfire. For an educated person, we know Paul was speaking in his cultural context and also pointing out that there are meaningful differences between men and women... and yes this is the same Paul who says "there is neither male nor female, you are all one in Christ Jesus."

 

Atheists often struggle and feel like Christians are dodging or twisting interpretations of Scripture, or "denying" what is obvious. But that's because for most Christians the Bible is not a straightforward history book or rule book, but a complex text that is fully alive, the living word of God that is vibrant with perspectives and meaning. Whereas atheists tend to read it much like fundamentalists.

 

But it's not that Christians intend to deny or be oblivious, it's just how their relationship with their sacred text works. As it has from the beginning - competing interpretation of scripture was a common source of entertainment errrrrr... intellectual exercise for early Christians and for Jews before them.

[Medic]

I'm still not sure how the rocket analogy relates to misogyny in the bible? It's ok though.

 

I'm a woman and when I first started reading the bible (I was not raised as a Christian) I was bothered by all the passages about spoils of war in the Old Testament and women can't speak in church blah blah blah.

 

But that was because I was reading the bible at face value, I wasn't reading it the way an educated Christian reads it. Now you will meet some fundamentalists who think because Paul says "women can't speak in church" and "men shouldn't have long hair" that literally means, women can't speak in church and dudes have to cut their hair on pain of hellfire. For an educated person, we know Paul was speaking in his cultural context and also pointing out that there are meaningful differences between men and women... and yes this is the same Paul who says "there is neither male nor female, you are all one in Christ Jesus."

 

Atheists often struggle and feel like Christians are dodging or twisting interpretations of Scripture, or "denying" what is obvious. But that's because for most Christians the Bible is not a straightforward history book or rule book, but a complex text that is fully alive, the living word of God that is vibrant with perspectives and meaning. Whereas atheists tend to read it much like fundamentalists.

 

But it's not that Christians intend to deny or be oblivious, it's just how their relationship with their sacred text works. As it has from the beginning - competing interpretation of scripture was a common source of entertainment errrrrr... intellectual exercise for early Christians and for Jews before them.

I can respect that, I just have a problem with the supposed "infallible word of god" being so ambiguous ....you ask 100 different people about the same passage and your likely to get 100 different answers.....