New Testament Misogyny

a reply to: deignostian

I have done nothing to you accept for disagree. I guess that is all it takes to get on your bad side.

Do you even see the irony in this statement? You've been attacking me personally here, and I've said nothing about you as a person.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

I guess you are willing to do anything if it distracts from the words subservient and subjection.

Nobody here is on my bad side, not even you.

And I don't see how it was remotely ironic.

a reply to: deignostian

That's an incorrect guess, I don't have a personal Canon of Scripture.

That's why I wrote guess, I guess.

I don't think it is a dead horse considering the fact that 2 billion people believe it is the word of God.

If you really want to read misogyny in the Bible, try reading Ezra & Nehemiah, especially chapters 9 & 10 of Ezra. No amount of me kicking those horses has made them disappear.

And I would suggest refraining from assuming anything about me. You have little knowledge of what I think

Fair enough, I would really feel embarrassed to discover that I had violated the very same words of Neil Young that I had quoted to you.

originally posted by: deignostian

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: deignostian

What does "submit" mean to you?

irrelevant question.

It's absolutely relevant, the verse you claim that is misogynist in Ephesians 5:22 where it says wives submit to your husbands is preceded by a verse telling people to submit to one another, it in essence means don't be bullheaded and unconforming to one another. A marriage is a disaster if one or both persons is bullheaded and unconforming, husband OR wife.

I'll answer, the Greek word used for "submit" is hypotasso, and it means exactly what you were asking earlier about subject and subservience, that's the entire reason I asked you what the word "submit" means to you. Hypotasso in the Greek means:

to arrange under, to subordinate to subject, put in subjection to subject one's self, obey to submit to one's control to yield to one's admonition or advice to obey, be subject

And verse 21 tells us all to submit ourselves one to another, it's not in an abusing way, to me that means it's impossible to have marital issues and problems if both people are trying to let the other have their way, if I'm trying to let my wife have her way on something and on that meter she is trying to let me have my way, they're are no quarrels!

originally posted by: deignostian
a reply to: NOTurTypical

I guess you are willing to do anything if it distracts from the words subservient and subjection.

Scroll up, I addressed that specifically, a couple times already, and in my previous post.

Nobody here is on my bad side, not even you.

And I don't see how it was remotely ironic.

It's ironic because what I reaped by disagreeing with your premise in the OP was a string of personal attacks directed by you toward me. You got to the point you weren't even dissecting the Biblical text, but showing me your "bad side" and attacking me personally as a human being.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

I disagree.

I didn't attack you personally, just some of the things you said.

If someone murders, and I call them a murderer, is that a personal attack?

A hypothetical, but applicable analogy.

It is not personal, just calling it as I see it.

originally posted by: deignostian
a reply to: NOTurTypical

I disagree.

I didn't attack you personally, just some of the things you said.

If someone murders, and I call them a murderer, is that a personal attack?

A hypothetical, but applicable analogy.

You called me a misogynist and a liar! Despite me saying the complete opposite for how a man is to treat and love his wife, despite me saying women are smarter than men and strong in areas men are weak and that they were made by God as perfect compliments.

It's already been shown that misogyny is "hatred for, contempt for, prejudice toward women/girls", and there is nothing in my posts here that justify me having or stating any of those feelings/beliefs.

Kudos to you typical for keeping your cool and calmly explaining yourself in the face of repeatedly being called a misogynist and liar.

I don't know if I could have done the same.

a reply to: corvuscorrax

The really smart contributors who had good observations to make at the beginning of the thread quickly bailed out when they saw this was going to descend into a bashing of Christian Males.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

And verse 21 tells us all to submit ourselves one to another

Paul lays out a hierarchy of social behavior for Christians. Telling them to "be civil" by submitting themselves to each other, doesn't put everyone on equal footing. The master isn't going to submit to his servant/slave. He's going to submit to the accepted civil structure....don't get drunk in public, sing psalms not curses, submit to each other, (don't be jerks, follow civil laws).

Then he goes onto impose patriarchal dynamics on the relationship between a husband and wife. He tells women to submit themselves to their husbands as if they're their "Lord God".

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

In other words, the wife is lower on the ladder, further away from God than her husband, and needs her relationship to her husband to mediate the connection to Christ. (Even if he's not a Christian!) Then, Paul goes on to explain to the men that they have to live up to the moniker of Christ that he just bestowed on them.

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

Now, you might think that this all makes sense and is beautiful, but any system that requires the woman to submit herself to the husband's authority announces her inferiority, and is therefore "prejudice" against women in general.

Christianity teaches that a wife's voice is only as equal as her husband allows it be. That's not equality. That's built in misogyny.

a reply to: pthena

Ezra and Nehemiah and the OT in general do have that (misogyny).

If I made a thread about it people would likely say "that's just the OT" or something similar and I would have ended up here inevitably so I just figure focus on the part of the Bible that is "relevant" to Christianity.

I have a huge problem with inequality. Maybe to the point of disorder even. A worthy cause nonetheless is fighting misogyny so I will stay the course.

I am not a big fan of Ezra but he was dealing with savages and trying to civilze people who were boiling their children and all sorts of sick ish.

That doesn't excuse misogyny though.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: corvuscorrax

The really smart contributors who had good observations to make at the beginning of the thread quickly bailed out when they saw this was going to descend into a bashing of Christian Males.

That's not actually true...at all.

Windword had been going ham on this thread with solid insight and though I have been less diplomatic about it, so have I.

And nobody bailed because of male bashing because male bashing hasn't happened.

Unless you equate being against misogyny with male bashing.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

I just call it like I see it.

And I said dishonest but I never said you were a liar, there is a difference however subtle.

originally posted by: deignostian
a reply to: chr0naut

Its still not a real story or a reason to excuse misogyny. You corrected yourself, great.

But you are denying the truth by trying to rationalize away Biblical misogyny with a garbage story not even in the Bible.

It's misogyny, stop denying what is true.

Plus I don't care about that story as it is not true and irrelevant. There is something about you that is... I don't know.

Anyway your fable doesn't have anything to with the Bible and it doesn't apply, it is a fable you knew so little about but presented it as true and I can't support that type of junk.

Romans 16:1-2, where Paul calls Phoebe his patron, is definitely in the Bible. It also is attested in historical sources.

Paul was a person of his time. Plutarch also said (in Coniugalia Praecepta) that women should not speak publicly, but should express their opinion to, and through, their husband.

Read the rest of 1 Corinthians, the church there had major problems with people speaking at the same time, with no interpretation of 'tongues', with outbursts described as prophecies but that weren't from God and with people dressing and acting seductively and inappropriately for a church service, and more. It is all there if you read the context.

The Bible has never been about feminism.

Jewish and Roman societies also gave a different interpretation and, importantly, legal position to women. They had been doing so for thousands of years. It was fair and enabled society to be balanced with everyone cared for adequately. The legal systems also were weighted against the inequalities to introduce this legal balance.

Their society could have women unequal and different to men without oppressing them. Amazing, eh, how women don't have to emulate men to be treated fairly.

a reply to: deignostian

I am not a big fan of Ezra but he was dealing with savages and trying to civilze people who were boiling their children and all sorts of sick ish.

So you justify misogyny in Ezra? (Joking)

The casting off of wives and children in Ezra was purely a matter of "Pure-holy-blood". Religiously motivated Racist Eugenics in other words.

a reply to: windword

I haven't read through all your posts yet.
Your name has been invoked though.

A windsock points to where the wind is blowing toward.
Windward is where the wind comes from.

Therefore I dedicate this song to you, in hopes that you don't unfriend me. I would be just twisting in the wind then.

originally posted by: corvuscorrax
Kudos to you typical for keeping your cool and calmly explaining yourself in the face of repeatedly being called a misogynist and liar.

I don't know if I could have done the same.

I'm fine, but thank you for your encouraging words, you're a blessing. God bless you too.

a reply to: windword

The master isn't going to submit to his servant/slave.

You gotta stop right there, that's exactly what Jesus taught to us, that the real leader is the one who serves others. That's the point of why He was washing the disciples feet, teaching them that real leadership is sacrificial service.

It's what I was saying earlier, a leader isn't the same as a boss. A boss tells others what to do, a leader goes/does first and encourages others to follow their lead. It a big difference, something that is taught in leadership seminars.

Edit to add:

When I was an executive chef I tried to teach my Sous Chef the difference between leading the kitchen and bossing people around, that if you're in the mix of cooking, cleaning, doing everything yourself then the other workers will do the plating and follow your recipes even when you leave the kitchen, they respect you because you aren't lording over them, you see them as equals to get the nights accomplished. When you boss them, and treat them as subordinates, then they only do what you need them to do when you're around to supervise them, they won't when you aren't there. That's the difference between a leader and a boss/master.

It's literally about honor and respect, that's it.

originally posted by: deignostian
a reply to: NOTurTypical

I just call it like I see it.

And I said dishonest but I never said you were a liar, there is a difference however subtle.

It's still making a declaration about me personally instead of "playing the ball" (topic of the OP), you're new so maybe you didn't realize it's against the terms and conditions of ATS to attack members instead of remaining on the topic and arguing that alone.

originally posted by: deignostian

...

I have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt the Paul preaches that:

Women were created for men

Women are to be subservient

Women are the subjects (almost property) of their husbands.

...

In the 1st century, being a mysogenist (which means 'woman hater') meant specifically that you were a homosexual male. (Check out the Wikipedia page if you don't believe me.)

Mysogeny still implies 'a woman hater'. Asking someone to not to interject in a public meeting is not neccesarily an act of hate.

But, since we are on the subject, please name ANY human culture that was NOT mysogenistic (according to your definition), during the first century?

All human societies at that time were mysogenistic by your definition. All human societies during the 1st Century also embraced slavery. Standards change, hopefully for the better.

The fact that most churches allow female clergy might inform you that the particular 'out of context interpretation' suggested, is not held by the churches. It would appear that women preaching in the Church have survived and that therefore the Christian churches are not mysogenistic even by your definition.

I doubt that your agenda is feminist.