THE STATUS OF WOMEN IN THE NEW TESTAMENT EPISTLES

1. Throughout the history of mankind it has been so. Not only in Christian cultures. Men have been leaders/heads of home, government and religion. The world has not become a more content/happy place where this is changing. Nor are women happier/more content.
2. I believe Biblical women have faired as well or better than most women historically. Islam is an example of greater opression of women. Athiestic Communism as in China scores badly also.
3. Women are designed both emotionally to follow and to be protected by the stronger man.
4. The lower voice, physical strength, and mental nature of the man is more naturally suited for leadership role. The Biblical account of orgins accounts for and explains this, imo far more adequately than does chancy evolution. Why would the sexes evolve to incorporate this phenomonen of mankind's history?(Here come the eggs n tomatoes. Buz leavin town. Talk to ya when I dare return.)

quote:

---

You know Rei, Buz's post was entirely off topic and so it can be regarded as spam and should be ignored therefore (and since we have some good admins here, I hope they will do their "duty").

---

My post was intended to lend credibility to the NT quote in the opening statement so as to show it to be consistent with similar context of the role of women in the Bible. It was also intended to show that the quote in question was not inconsistent with the role of women throughout the history of mankind. Check out I Timothy 2:11 and 12 which is not dissimilar and in fact in which context is given the reason for this restriction, i.e. that 1. The man was created first and 2. that the woman, not the man was deceived in the garden.You're being disingenuous in labeling it as off topic spam. Could it be that the admins understand this and are in fact not derelict in duty as you are implying?

Rei, I don't want to arouse any further disgruntlement from Raha so I'll forego response to your statements, except to say that I don't think your statements adequately refute my contention that women who live by Biblical roles are oppressed. Hardly any of even Christian fundamentalists adhere to a strict interpretation of the text for women to be totally silent in churches. Maybe Quakers adhere totally to it. This is not to say the church is better off today than in Biblical times when it was likely imposed more literally. Women in those days were allowed to prophesy, but it is not clear as to whether this was in or out of the church assembly.You may want to read up on my new Koran thread link which quotes Mohammed as saying/teaching that women are like fields for men to go into at will and women of bounty can be acquired lawfully by men as slaves for men to do with as they wish. Imo, that's real oppression, far unlike anything suggested in the Bible.

quote:

---

Your justification for your sexism and woman-hating is amusing.

​

I am going to start a new topic in "Faith and Belief" regarding biblical sexism.
See you there, Rei nad Buz.

---

Schraf, LOL. I'm not into being lied about and maligned any further by you. Nothing I've ever said on EvC Forum warrants labeling me as a woman hater. Nor am I going to feel obligated to respond to your meanspirited attitude towards me either in this thread or another. If you want to talk to me in a civil manner, fine. Otherwise go find someone of your own generation more willing to tolerate your insults.

quote:

---

Why would Paul bother to tell women that they shall have their heads covered when speaking prophecies, if he intended to tell them just few paragraph farther that they are not supposed to speak at all? That does not make sense.

---

The women didn't spend all their lives in church assembly, for sure. When the prophet Agabus, a male prophesied about Paul's impending peril were he to go to Jerusalem, the text does not sound like the prophecy was given during church assembly. My point is that the restrictive instruction to women pertained to church assembly only. Nor were they forbidden to teach other women or children, but were encourged to do so, the elder teaching the younger. It is possible, imo, that this might also pertain to ingathering classes within the church where men were not present. I Timothy 2: 12 possibly, I say possibly implies this to be the case. Also, Paul, in Titus 2:3,4 exorts the older women to be teachers of good things, "that they may teach the young women to be sober......." All of the numerous evangelical churches I've been in over the years do allow women to teach women and children in or out of the church.The statement Paul made about women learning in silence and not speaking is a qualified statement which seems to pertain only to the general church assembly where both men and women are gathered together for worship and preaching. This is how most evangelicals see it, except that in most churches strict absolute literal adherance to this is not practiced. In other matters, like eating and drinking as well as sabbath keeping Paul does use language like "let each be convinced in their own mind" as to how they observe these things. I think that to be the case here. One should not judge others in this, but let God be their guide and judge.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 10-05-2003]

Schraf, I simply posted what I see to be facts of history and things taught in the Bible, etc. Until your attitude changes towards me, go insult someone else.