Is Feminism Blasphemy?

[Nate13]

Honestly, what I mainly get from your post is that its necessary to put a lot of spin on the Bible to make it sound pro-woman.
Referring to women as weaker vessels and saying that they owe obedience to their husbands seems fairly straightforward:shrug:

How can reading a document produced 2000 years ago, translated through multiple languages, and read from the basis of a culture a million times different than the one we live in be straightforward?

The whole point is to go through and understand why these things were said. This is why we have the Church. The Bible also says its a sin to touch a woman who is menstruating. However intelligent people ask the simple question “why would they make this rule?”. The Church looked into the whys behind the things that are taught and looked to see which laws are moral in concern and which are just based in culture and custom.

We can then apply the underlying “whys” for what was taught no matter the culture or customs of the time. Any moral standards that are supposed to last the test of time would have to be approached in this manner.

 

[Nate13]

1 Timothy 5:14

“So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, rule their households, and give the enemy no occasion to revile us.”

Hmm looks like if we read this passage in a “straightforward manner” women are supposed to be the “rulers” of their household (which I would assume would include their husband) no?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

1 Timothy 5:14

“So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, rule their households, and give the enemy no occasion to revile us.”

Hmm looks like if we read this passage in a “straightforward manner” women are supposed to be the “rulers” of their household (which I would assume would include their husband) no?

That it contradicts the (overall) message of men being the heads/masters of their wives:shrug:

Frankly I think the Bible could use a good editor more than anything else.
But this is coming from my admittedly secular perspective.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

**How can reading a document produced 2000 years ago, translated through multiple languages, and read from the basis of a culture a million times different than the one we live in be straightforward? **
The whole point is to go through and understand why these things were said. This is why we have the Church. The Bible also says its a sin to touch a woman who is menstruating. However intelligent people ask the simple question “why would they make this rule?”. The Church looked into the whys behind the things that are taught and looked to see which laws are moral in concern and which are just based in culture and custom.

We can then apply the underlying “whys” for what was taught no matter the culture or customs of the time. Any moral standards that are supposed to last the test of time would have to be approached in this manner.

That is one of the reasons I (and many others) find it dubious when people claim authority by interpreting the Bible:shrug:

 

[Nate13]

That is one of the reasons I (and many others) find it dubious when people claim authority by interpreting the Bible:shrug:

Your on a Catholic forum lol. We do not believe in Sola Scriptura. The Church has authority in interpreting the Bible because the Church produced it to begin with!

 

[johnnyjones]

Honestly, what I mainly get from your post is that its necessary to put a lot of spin on the Bible to make it sound pro-woman.
Referring to women as weaker vessels and saying that they owe obedience to their husbands seems fairly straightforward:shrug:

Yes it is straight forward. The “spin” is introduced on the worldly end. That’s good for you though. Doesn’t the world flow smoothly?

 

[johnnyjones]

1 Timothy 5:14

“So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, rule their households, and give the enemy no occasion to revile us.”

Hmm looks like if we read this passage in a “straightforward manner” women are supposed to be the “rulers” of their household (which I would assume would include their husband) no?

The word rule can be interpreted as “manage”. A Greek/English Lexicon comes in handy.

 

[Nate13]

The word rule can be interpreted as “manage”. A Greek/English Lexicon comes in handy.

I was being facetious. You could still read it as a wife is to “manage” her household (including her husband) which still sounds very contradictory to the “straightforward” reading of other passages that seem to be against women. Point being they should stop trying to read the Bible in a “straightforward” manner.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Honestly, what I mainly get from your post is that its necessary to put a lot of spin on the Bible to make it sound pro-woman.
Referring to women as weaker vessels and saying that they owe obedience to their husbands seems fairly straightforward

Yes it is straight forward. The “spin” is introduced on the worldly end. That’s good for you though. Doesn’t the world flow smoothly?

I know that you’re trying to be funny.
But what you seem to be saying is that the Bible is not pro-woman without the worldly spin.
Am I correct in assuming that’s not what you meant to say?

 

[monicabay]

No offense to the OP at all, but this is getting old. I don’t believe the bible is pro anyone. Its pro team work, love, respect ect.

I agree that radical feminism is not good. Anything that hinders a persons rights, or degrade another person is bad. On the other hand, telling women the bible clearly states women are in no way going to heaven is also ludicrous.

We need to treat each other as we want to be treated, and they way god wants us to treat each other.

 

[steve53]

The GNOSTIC bible says that. Gospel of Peter (or Thomas). I forget which.

 

[johnnyjones]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Honestly, what I mainly get from your post is that its necessary to put a lot of spin on the Bible to make it sound pro-woman.
Referring to women as weaker vessels and saying that they owe obedience to their husbands seems fairly straightforward

I know that you’re trying to be funny.
But what you seem to be saying is that the Bible is not pro-woman without the worldly spin.
Am I correct in assuming that’s not what you meant to say?

I don’t find the bible to be anti-women or pro-women. What I am saying is that when an explanation is given to that elaborates on women in the bible the immediate response from those opposed to it’s writings is something like, ‘why do we need all these deep answers?’

Maybe because interpreting the bible requires clarity and not a knee jerk reaction. Women have a role. Men have a role. That’s out the window in this culture. While the secular mind tries to fit this into an anti-woman rant, the bible is addressing purpose and cause.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Well, an entry-level employee has less freedom and more restricted voices (and effectively fewer rights, being that they have less power to enforce them) than their employer. Likewise a poor person as opposed to a rich person, or a child compared to an adult.

So even granted that there is plenty of inequality, by your definition, is that always a bad thing? Who would argue that a five year old child should be allowed to vote, drink, smoke, carry guns, sign legal documents? Or that an employee of three weeks’ experience should have the same say on how their company spends it’s money as the CEO who founded the company and whose financial savvy grew it to the point where it could afford to hire that junior employee?

Your sort of inequality is part and parcel of life, and sometimes a necessary one at that. Many expediments in ‘equality’ have in fact turned out to be abysmal failures. Feminism possibly being one - most women now feel ‘free’ only in the sense that they combine the slavery of the workforce, which many previous generations didn’t experience, with the same old domestic drudgery that they always have.

Do you support women being regarded as permanent minors (in a legal sense)?
That used to be the standard thoroughout much of Christendom.

Moreover, childhood (and for that matter a job) are not permanent features.
Children grow up, and people can get promoted or quit (based on their performance, desires, etc.).

If you accept that men deserve (or at least should have) rights and privileges that women don’t, women cannot *get promoted *to manhood. Their stuck with their inferior position:shrug:

 

[johnnyjones]

Do you support women being regarded as permanent minors (in a legal sense)?
That used to be the standard thoroughout much of Christendom.

Moreover, childhood (and for that matter a job) are not permanent features.
Children grow up, and people can get promoted or quit (based on their performance, desires, etc.).

If you accept that men deserve (or at least should have) rights and privileges that women don’t, women cannot *get promoted *to manhood. Their stuck with their inferior position:shrug:

Where are all feminists within Christianity demanding to me just like men? In the secular world Feminism can climp all kinds of heights , and has. Religious institutions do not control the secular world, although it wouldn’t hurt at times.

 

[tritcher1988]

How can a family be unified under two authorities of equal power yet different will?

 

[johnnyjones]

How can a family be unified under two authorities of equal power yet different will?

Good point.

 

[Crumpy]

---

"To the woman he said: “I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children. Yet your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall be your master.” - Genesis 3:16

• Thanks

aside: I was reading a commentary on this verse and the related verse using the word “pain.”

Although it would certainly be two different types of pain, the same Hebrew word for pain is also used to describe the amount of effort that Adam would have to endure to scratch out an existence from the soil of the earth.

 

[Crumpy]

If women’s role (beneath men according to you) means that they should have fewer rights, less freedom, more restricted choices, etc. then they are not equal in any meaningful sense.

The discussion is bouncing around. I’m not sure that I can contribute anything meaningful, but then I pause.

Somebody’s right. things depend on how you define feminism. but, then, (seriously) it depends on how you define “equal” as well. Obviously men and women are not made the same, and it’s hard to imagine forcing the issue of equality without defining it.

but, that leads me to say, in a scripture forum, to suggest limiting the discussion to what the Biblical definition of equality is. I’m not sure the Bible even says men and women are equal. It suggests a vague sense of something like equality, in saying that God made mankind, male and female.

I’m not sure the bible, NT or OT, ever forces the issue of equality, to begin with.

 

[latingirl]

I am female and I can’t stand it when people try to push their feminist agendas on the Church. The Church is not sexist. It views women as perfectly equal and equally loved before God. They just have different roles. There are some things that the other cannot do. Men can;t give birth, is this oppressing them? Women can’t pee standing up, is this oppression?

I think we need to quit whining. Out of many churches, the Catholic Church actually puts women on a pedestal. They are treasured and cherished. I personally think that God made it so only men could be priests so he could throw them a bone seeing as how women are more physically beautiful, maternally beautiful and so beautifully complex. He had to give them SOMETHING. …just my opinion, no body go after me

 

[AngryAtheist8]

How can a family be unified under two authorities of equal power yet different will?

The 3 branches of the United States government share power.
None of them has unquestioned supremacy.

Why can’t a much smaller unit (the family) be at least as fair and democratic?