Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Role of women in the Bible -- Schrafinator
zipzip
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 5 (31687)
02-07-2003 5:47 PM


Schraf,
The western world includes Europe and her current and former colonies / protectorates.
As for you other points... it sounds like you have performed a cursory reading of Exodus and/or Leviticus but have not understood what you have read.
"In the Bible, the rape of a woman is considered a crime not against her, but against her male relatives; i.e. a crime against property."
That just isn't true. Perhaps you are referring to Deuteronomy 22, in which a man found guilty of raping a woman who has been betrothed is put to death? Rape is likened here to the case in which a man attacks and murders his neighbor, and the concern in the text is that the girl was attacked and screamed and there was noone to rescue her -- it is taken very seriously and the focus is on the terrible experience the girl undergoes, not the dishonor suffered by her relatives.
Likewise, the non-betrothed woman who is raped is guaranteed a husband, because the man who rapes her must marry her (nobody else would and her life would be ruined otherwise) and can never divorce her. No mention is made of relatives or property.
"Menstruating women are considered filthy and sinful, and women are routinely taken as the spoils of war."
Actually, all emissions and discharges, whether from male or female, are considered unclean, which is not the same as sinful. Ask any Jew -- this is just basic OT Law. The point is nobody should approach the altar for sacrifice when they are unclean because it shows a lack of reverence for God.
As for spoils of war -- Men are taken too (also killed -- does this mean they are less valuable?). Also cattle.
"Luke 2:23 (As it is written in the law of the LORD, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord"
Right, this is a paraphrase of OT Law. Every first-born male was to be consecrated to the Lord. First-born males (not second born males or daughters) were the heirs of the Jewish family, and therefore the most 'valuable' in that they symbolized the hope of that family line, but not intrinsically valuable because of gender. God wanted Jews to realize that they needed to be thankful for everything -- as a symbol of this, they were to bring their biggest hope to him for blessing and as a reminder that the child was gift from God.
"Notice that it is only the males that are holy. This is pretty plain."
That isn't true. It is first-born males that were to be consecrated as a offering to God -- for God only ("holy to God"). God is holy, man isn't. All human life is valueable to God.
"Corinthians 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 11:8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
This passage seems to want to make it VERY CLEAR who is more important. Man is the glory of God himself!, but woman is not. She is only the glory of man. She is made for men. To be of use to men. How should I understand this hierarchy other than the very clear wat in which it was written?"
In the same passage Paul writes that "woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God." He also says elsewhere that in Christ "there is neither Jew nor Greek...male nor female...."
You take this out of context and are completely missing what Paul is addressing, which is a specific problem in the Corinthian church --this passage is about the problem of Greeks and Jews in the same church who had different ideas of what constituted respectful worship -- Greeks went hatless but Jews thought it was a sign of disrespect toward God. The point is that there are many passages like this that you must be misreading and misunderstanding so that you squarely disagree with standard doctrine of the Christian church and Judaism before it, which is that Men and Women are separate in their capabilities and responsibilities before God, but equal in their worth.
"Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."
Actually, Paul wants the women to "learn" in silence, which was new for them. In Ephesus (which is where Timothy was helping out), women weren't routinely educated, and when they came to church, this was apparently a real problem which Paul needed to address. Christianity offered them an opportunity to attend school, basically -- something nobody else thought they were worth.
But women in many other places were important teachers or held responsiblity in the church -- Priscilla (Acts 18), Phoebe, Mary, Tryphena, Tryphosa (Romans 16), among other women, were all were imporant people in the early Christian church.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by nator, posted 02-10-2003 11:17 AM zipzip has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 2 of 5 (31874)
02-10-2003 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by zipzip
02-07-2003 5:47 PM


quote:
Schraf,
The western world includes Europe and her current and former colonies / protectorates.
Right. And since these other countries have a greater representation of women in government, and have had female presidents and prime ministers, and tha US has not, I still think you are grossly overstating the case that the US is the only place women even come close to equality with men.
Even Pakistan has had a woman president!
quote:
As for you other points... it sounds like you have performed a cursory reading of Exodus and/or Leviticus but have not understood what you have read.
...meaning that because my interpretation is differnt from yours, I am automatically wrong.
quote:
"In the Bible, the rape of a woman is considered a crime not against her, but against her male relatives; i.e. a crime against property."
That just isn't true. Perhaps you are referring to Deuteronomy 22, in which a man found guilty of raping a woman who has been betrothed is put to death? Rape is likened here to the case in which a man attacks and murders his neighbor, and the concern in the text is that the girl was attacked and screamed and there was noone to rescue her -- it is taken very seriously and the focus is on the terrible experience the girl undergoes, not the dishonor suffered by her relatives.
No, I wasn't talking about that passage.
quote:
Likewise, the non-betrothed woman who is raped is guaranteed a husband, because the man who rapes her must marry her (nobody else would and her life would be ruined otherwise) and can never divorce her. No mention is made of relatives or property.
Well, exactly. A raped woman is considered damaged goods. She is of no worth to her family any more, so she is forced to marry her rapist so her father and brothers don't have to support a worthless daughter.
Tell me again how this shows the high status of women in the Bible?
The following passage says that the woman is to be stoned to death because she didn't cry out loud enough.
Deut22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; 22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not,
[QUOTE]"Menstruating women are considered filthy and sinful, and women are routinely taken as the spoils of war."
quote:
Actually, all emissions and discharges, whether from male or female, are considered unclean, which is not the same as sinful. Ask any Jew -- this is just basic OT Law. The point is nobody should approach the altar for sacrifice when they are unclean because it shows a lack of reverence for God.
Nope, she needs to atone for her uncleanliness; a need to atone implies a sin, does it not?
Lev 15:28 But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean. 15:29 And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. 15:30 And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness.
quote:
As for spoils of war -- Men are taken too (also killed -- does this mean they are less valuable?). Also cattle.
There is not a lot of talk of lots of men being taken as prizes after a bloody invasion in the Bible. Most of the time, the men are all killed and the women (and cattle) are taken as the spoils. What do you think they did to the women? I don't see haw this translates into the Bible advocating equal status for women.
[QUOTE]"Luke 2:23 (As it is written in the law of the LORD, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord"
Right, this is a paraphrase of OT Law. Every first-born male was to be consecrated to the Lord. First-born males (not second born males or daughters) were the heirs of the Jewish family, and therefore the most 'valuable' in that they symbolized the hope of that family line, but not intrinsically valuable because of gender. God wanted Jews to realize that they needed to be thankful for everything -- as a symbol of this, they were to bring their biggest hope to him for blessing and as a reminder that the child was gift from God.[QUOTE] First of all, it doesn't say "first born male". It says "male". It also doesn't talk about inheritence or being thankful. This passage is in the story of Jesus' birth.
quote:
"Notice that it is only the males that are holy. This is pretty plain."
That isn't true. It is first-born males that were to be consecrated as a offering to God -- for God only ("holy to God"). God is holy, man isn't. All human life is valueable to God.
Well, that is in direct opposition to the very plain way the text is written.
quote:
"Corinthians 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 11:8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
This passage seems to want to make it VERY CLEAR who is more important. Man is the glory of God himself!, but woman is not. She is only the glory of man. She is made for men. To be of use to men. How should I understand this hierarchy other than the very clear wat in which it was written?"
In the same passage Paul writes that "woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God." He also says elsewhere that in Christ "there is neither Jew nor Greek...male nor female...."
You take this out of context and are completely missing what Paul is addressing, which is a specific problem in the Corinthian church --this passage is about the problem of Greeks and Jews in the same church who had different ideas of what constituted respectful worship -- Greeks went hatless but Jews thought it was a sign of disrespect toward God. The point is that there are many passages like this that you must be misreading and misunderstanding so that you squarely disagree with standard doctrine of the Christian church and Judaism before it, which is that Men and Women are separate in their capabilities and responsibilities before God, but equal in their worth.
Here's what I take from the passage. I think that Paul wanted to make clear that men were more important than and had dominion over women, but then went on to say that this was no reason to think that God didn't totally disregard women.
quote:
"Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."
Actually, Paul wants the women to "learn" in silence, which was new for them. In Ephesus (which is where Timothy was helping out), women weren't routinely educated, and when they came to church, this was apparently a real problem which Paul needed to address. Christianity offered them an opportunity to attend school, basically -- something nobody else thought they were worth.
But women in many other places were important teachers or held responsiblity in the church -- Priscilla (Acts 18), Phoebe, Mary, Tryphena, Tryphosa (Romans 16), among other women, were all were imporant people in the early Christian church.
So, Paul contradicts the rest of the bible WRT women being teachers. What to think?
There's also that part about women not being allowed to "usurp authority over the man."
You skipped that part in your apologetics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by zipzip, posted 02-07-2003 5:47 PM zipzip has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 02-10-2003 4:04 PM nator has not replied

  
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 5 (31896)
02-10-2003 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by nator
02-10-2003 11:17 AM


I HATE the word apologetics, I'm not apologizing for ANYTHING. Stupidest @$%*@!% word ever.
------------------
Saved by an incredible Grace.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by nator, posted 02-10-2003 11:17 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by John, posted 02-10-2003 4:14 PM funkmasterfreaky has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 5 (31897)
02-10-2003 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by funkmasterfreaky
02-10-2003 4:04 PM


Chill funk, 'apologetics' comes from a greek word meaning 'a spoken or written defense'
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 02-10-2003 4:04 PM funkmasterfreaky has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 02-10-2003 4:56 PM John has not replied

  
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 5 (31900)
02-10-2003 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by John
02-10-2003 4:14 PM


oops,, sorry,, anyways back to the topic
------------------
Saved by an incredible Grace.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by John, posted 02-10-2003 4:14 PM John has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024