New Testament Misogyny

a reply to: chr0naut

That's why I was trying to explain, the term misogynist means a hatred for, contempt for women, where a man detests them, and not a particular one, but all of them, that he has contempt for all women/girls. Like you said, it's literally "hate/hatred", that's the consistent layman's term definition for the word in all the dictionaries.

Nice post.

a reply to: pthena

Haha! Love that song! It's me to a tee!

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

Very astute, however, even though claims have been made of my greatness among the Windsock Clan, my ATS name, windword, reflects the "Word" that the wind carries......(or at least that's what I was aiming for)

Here's one for you......

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Fair enough, for now.....

Why is it that, symbolically, Christianity asks the wife to take on the "disciple" position and the husband to take on "Jesus/Christ" position?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Fair enough, for now.....

Why is it that, symbolically, Christianity asks the wife to take on the "disciple" position and the husband to take on "Jesus/Christ" position?

They do in an illustrative sense, but remember, the husband has responsibilities too. It saddened me to read that blog you shared, that was a perversion in my opinion, it was like reading about spousal abuse, treating his wife like a dog that needed scolding or a child that needed punishment. That's not at all how a husband is to love his wife, nowhere in the New Testament can that man show where a husband is to be a taskmaster and control his wife, it's literally a perverted frame of mind.

Here is one TOUGH woman, and a teacher in seminars, Dr. Joyce Meyer and she is trying to explain the role of a wife, but there is also a role of the husband that is based on sacrifice and love. The video cuts off before she is teaching men their responsibility as a husband, not sure where that part of the teaching is, but it's not supposed to be in any way controlling or master/servant relationship. That's a perverted understanding, and abusive.



Anyways, that's her perspective as a woman, and nobody can say she is a misogynist.

a reply to: windword

Thank you.

windword, reflects the "Word" that the wind carries

Woops, I spelled it wrong.

Notice the bolded lines, I had to look up the lyrics.

This may sound unstable
But I know I'm able to concentrate in song to you
My lyrics may go fast
Sometimes a word may get past folks
But so I keep it swingin'
I know I've got to stay true
So like the bird I'm gonna say that jazz is always
A happiness groove
So come on and I'll confirm it
'cause certainly the bird that I heard
Made the word of confirmation

www.lyricsfreak.com

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Anyways, that's her perspective as a woman, and nobody can say she is a misogynist

No. I'm sorry, but that woman is an apologetic, who found herself needing to justify the position she found herself in, as a Christian woman who happened to be more strongly opinionated than her husband. Because they couldn't find agreement, she blamed herself and made changes within herself to fit the Christian model, to submit and adapt, for the sake of her and her husband's mental health and their children.

Just because people willingly except the Christian model, that women need to submit and adapt to their husbands, that doesn't mean that that idea doesn't stem from the Abrahamic tradition that women can't be trusted to their own designs, because of Eve's deception.

a reply to: windword

I don't even think the example she gave was Christian, she just applied to to the Bible. I mean, it was about golf, lol. But the lesson is there, when a husband and wife are together they both have to learn to accept the differences with each other and not fight with each other over trivial things.

I think a young couple and an elderly couple approach the marriage partnership much different, even if you see them interacting often I think "wow, those two people really have a great marriage after all these years.". You just know if you've been with someone for a long time, that you've learned to accept each other for who they are, and neither person can abuse that or it just won't work.

Just because people willingly except the Christian model, that women need to submit and adapt to their husbands, that doesn't mean that that idea doesn't stem from the Abrahamic tradition that women can't be trusted to their own designs, because of Eve's deception.

That's the thing though, and why verse 21 of Ephesians 5 says to submit to each other. A husband had better be sure he adapts and submits to his wife's needs as well, or it won't work! It's literally a 2 way street in a marriage, neither one can dominate the other.

a reply to: chr0naut

You are correct that I don't have a feminist agenda, I don't have an agenda at all.

I do however enjoy being a man who despises inequality but it is not an agenda just a state of mind.

I also enjoy your comments, however only for the humor in them.

a reply to: deignostian

A book written by men to control other men and subjugate women is going to have things like that in it. Just saying.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Ephesians 5 asks a married couple to ritually and symbolically live as though they are Christ and his Church united in perfection. He asks the wife to revere her husband as though he is Christ on earth, and gives the onus, an impossible task, to the husband to live up to, assume the role of "Christ". Who is equal to Christ? Certainly not his wife.

It's a recipe for disaster.

originally posted by: chr0naut

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?

Why? The NT is the topic not the entirety of civilization in 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.

Not true, ALL human society's? Good luck finding the recorded history of every nation and society on earth circa 1 CE. LOL.

I do believe Matriarchal societies existed in China pre and post first century though.

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.

Just because they don't follow every ridiculous rule in the book doesn't mean I took anything out of context (I really didn't) it means that women aint having it is all.

Lose your church or adjust the rules is a no brainer and they would be the ones taking it out of context, rather, misinterpreting or flat out avoiding the topic more correctly.

And nuns still wear habits and can't be priests so...

originally posted by: deignostian
a reply to: chr0naut

You are correct that I don't have a feminist agenda, I don't have an agenda at all.

I do however enjoy being a man who despises inequality but it is not an agenda just a state of mind.

I also enjoy your comments, however only for the humor in them.

I had feared that my humour was too anathemically abtruse for plebean palate.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

I agree with Windword on the video. Dr. Joyce Meyer is engaged in Apologetics, using mental gymnastics in order to justify the verses.

You should try visiting a few Liberal Churches. I'll just tell an Anecdote.
----------------------
After one of my moves, My wife(now ex) and I attended a few Churches looking to join one. The one we liked most had a woman pastor. At the end of the service, altar call time, she asked if anyone wanted to come forward to confess or whatnot or join the Church.

So we went forward. While the music was still playing she leaned in close and whispered into my ear, "No one has ever come forward for me before. I don't know what to do."

I replied, "That's O.K. I know what to say."

After the music ended, I introduced us to the congregation, gave a bit of history, "baptized as this, confirmed that, latest members of something else.." stuff along those lines. And the congregation gave us the right hand of fellowship.

Turned out that the Pastor was filling in for the Regular Pastor, and that she had once been engaged to the Regular Pastor back in their college days, the Regular Pastor was married with two children at the time we joined. And the Substitute Pastor was a lesbian.

The coolest Church I ever belonged to.
--------------

Liberal Churches don't spend much time and energy apologizing for verses in the Bible, they just preach what they find meaningful and ignore the rest.
ETA

I forgot to write the best part. Quite often after the service was over and the people were filing out, someone would start singing "Blessed be the ties that bind our hearts in Christian love..." and everyone would join in. AND IT WAS REAL!

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: deignostian
a reply to: chr0naut

You are correct that I don't have a feminist agenda, I don't have an agenda at all.

I do however enjoy being a man who despises inequality but it is not an agenda just a state of mind.

I also enjoy your comments, however only for the humor in them.

I had feared that my humour was too anathemically abtruse for plebean palate.

If you're looking to insult me I am naturally too happy to be insulted. I really don't care what you call me or think about me.

originally posted by: deignostian

originally posted by: chr0naut

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?

Why? The NT is the topic not the entirety of civilization in 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.

Not true, ALL human society's? Good luck finding the recorded history of every nation and society on earth circa 1 CE. LOL.

I do believe Matriarchal societies existed in China pre and post first century though.

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.

Just because they don't follow every ridiculous rule in the book doesn't mean I took anything out of context (I really didn't) it means that women aint having it is all.

Lose your church or adjust the rules is a no brainer and they would be the ones taking it out of context, rather, misinterpreting or flat out avoiding the topic more correctly.

And nuns still wear habits and can't be priests so...

You are applying a criteria innapropriate to the culture of Paul's day. He is a creature of his times.

No doubt, the classic books "Little Women" and "Good Wives" by Louisa May Alcott are similarly full of mysogenistic presupposition, or the United Nation's "Universal Declaration of Human Rights", which repeatedly refers to 'mankind' and never to 'womankind', is obviously founded in mysogeny.

The only empress of China was Wu Ze Tian and that was in the 7th to 8th centuries. China was governed by emperors for a thousand years prior to that. Although small tribes within the protectorate of China, like the Mouso tribal group, are possibly matriarchical, it is still notable that men dominate political power within the tribe and so the matriarchical designation is questionable.

Since Vatican II in the 1960's not all nuns wear habits.

originally posted by: deignostian

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: deignostian
a reply to: chr0naut

You are correct that I don't have a feminist agenda, I don't have an agenda at all.

I do however enjoy being a man who despises inequality but it is not an agenda just a state of mind.

I also enjoy your comments, however only for the humor in them.

I had feared that my humour was too anathemically abtruse for plebean palate.

If you're looking to insult me I am naturally too happy to be insulted. I really don't care what you call me or think about me.

No insult intended. It was just word play.

a reply to: chr0naut

I can never tell if you are serious or not.

You sound like you are trying to offer a rebuttal of something but you are just stating random facts.

Not even relevant ones at that.

Eh.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: deignostian

originally posted by: chr0naut

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?

Why? The NT is the topic not the entirety of civilization in 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.

Not true, ALL human society's? Good luck finding the recorded history of every nation and society on earth circa 1 CE. LOL.

I do believe Matriarchal societies existed in China pre and post first century though.

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.

Just because they don't follow every ridiculous rule in the book doesn't mean I took anything out of context (I really didn't) it means that women aint having it is all.

Lose your church or adjust the rules is a no brainer and they would be the ones taking it out of context, rather, misinterpreting or flat out avoiding the topic more correctly.

And nuns still wear habits and can't be priests so...

You are applying a criteria innapropriate to the culture of Paul's day. He is a creature of his times.

Because you asked me to.

No doubt, the classic books "Little Women" and "Good Wives" by Louisa May Alcott are similarly full of mysogenistic presupposition, or the United Nation's "Universal Declaration of Human Rights", which repeatedly refers to 'mankind' and never to 'womankind', is obviously founded in mysogeny.

The only empress of China

I said societies not Empires.

a reply to: deignostian

You sound like you are trying to offer a rebuttal of something but you are just stating random facts.

Not even relevant ones at that.

He was stating facts about subjects you raised. How is that not relevant?

a reply to: pthena

No that's incorrect.

Random facts not related to what I said are just that. I wouldn't have said it if they were relevant.

If you feel like finding the comments I said that caused the attempted rebuttal and show how they are relevant be my guest.