Why would any woman be a christian?

[jonathan_hili]

This, to me, is never a fun passage. It is one that the slaves of Christian masters had to rely on for comfort, true. But how much better would it have been if those Christian slavemasters had freed their slaves instead?

If they had, they’d have probably become slaves of a non-Christian master in very short time considering:
(i) as a former-slave under Roman law they would not have any savings to speak of;
(ii) they would have no employment and, if sold as slaves in childhood, very unlikely to be employable unless raised as slaves in very wealthy homes (and so educated to a small degree); and
(iii) would probably have to borrow money to survive, now not having a roof over their heads, nothing with which to support a family (if they had one), etc.

In some ways, they were probably “better off” as slaves of Christian masters.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Well, the guy in this video may be angry and rude, but despite his delivery he is correct and factual in his bible verses and what they mean to and about the female gender.
Many people–women and men included–do look at verses like these, words that are said to be the inerrant, inspired words of God–and decide not to be Christians because of them, just as he is saying.

I haven’t seen the video - I’m in China at the moment and Youtube is mercifully banned by the all-kind, omnipotent government here. What kind of verses does he quote? Are they out of context?

 

[ColdComfort]

I haven’t seen the video - I’m in China at the moment and Youtube is mercifully banned by the all-kind, omnipotent government here. What kind of verses does he quote? Are they out of context?

You mean you can’t watch the latest Harlem Shake video!

 

[jonathan_hili]

You mean you can’t watch the latest Harlem Shake video!

Sadly, no.

I guess I should be thankful for small mercies.

 

[ericc]

There’s a similar thread on CAF: Re: Women should keep silent??? 1Corinth14:34-35

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9028949&postcount=3

"From what I was told women were prone to speaking up during services to ask their husbands (who sat across the room) what the Rabbi meant. Since women were not allowed to sit with men and they were a rooms width apart the women had to shout to be heard. This was such a disruption that Paul had to admonish this behavior. "

Part 1

We know Paul worked with several women:

Phoebe, a deaconess Romans 16
Prisca and Aquila, his fellow workers
Mary, Junia, Julia, Tryphaena and Tryphosa
Euodia and Syntyche Philippians 4:2

The silencing of women does not make sense coming from Paul. Women such as Prisca, Phoebe and Junia could not have functioned as Church leaders and apostles if they were not allowed to speak in public.

So what do we make of 1 Corinthians 34? The preceding and succeeding verses all relate to directives for orderly worship in that particular church. So in this context we can read into it that Paul was trying to bring some order into the assembly and that some women could be speaking out of turn.

In the preceding verses 1 Cor 14:26-33, Paul was describing how to behave when prophesying or speaking in tongues. Followed by:

“If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home.”

“If” express doubts whether these wives/women were wanting to learn. This verse seems to address a select group of women who are probably not converted yet but their husbands are or in the process. ie 1 Cor 7:12. Wives with unconverted husbands could not ask their own husbands at home, nor could unmarried women or widows. Notice the sarcasm at the end “What! Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached?”

And he concluded with " but all things should be done decently and in order."

Part 2

Doctrine or discipline?

Does it mean all bible verses are doctrine? I think most of us can safely say no. If all verses carries the same weight, otherwise men today will have to obey verses like 1 Cor 11:14. As the Church evolves, you may see changes in discipline but changes in doctrine (on matters of faith and morals) are prohibited.

And lastly, I must share this story I read somewhere.

A female preacher was invited to preach at his church on a certain Sunday. After the service an elderly male approached her and very condescendingly said, “Sister Jones (not her real name), how do you handle the Scripture that says women should keep silent in the church?” Without batting an eye she replied, “The same way I handle the one that says ‘Greet the brethren with a holy kiss!’”

 

[bolinstephen]

Hey brothers and sisters in Christ. I had a grand old laugh watching this, but how would you respond?

youtube.com/watch?v=A1JIKOMQV5A

So much hate.

 

[brb3]

To have her best shot @ wonderful marriage !!!

CCC# 1638-1640

“From a valid marriage arises a bond between the spouses which by its very nature is perpetual and exclusive; furthermore, in a Christian marriage the spouses are strengthened and, as it were, consecrated for the duties and dignity of their state by a special sacrament.
The consent by which the spouses mutually give and receive one another is sealed by God himself. From their covenant arises an institution, confirmed by the divine law, …even in the eyes of society. The covenant between the spouses is integrated into God’s covenant with man: Authentic married love is caught up into divine love.
Thus the marriage bond has been established by God himself in such a way that marriage concluded and consummated between baptized persons can never be dissolved This bond, which results from free human act of the spouses and their consummation of the marriage, is a reality, henceforth irrevocable, and gives rise to a covenant guaranteed by God’s fidelity. The Church does not have the power to contravene this disposition of divine wisdom.”

 

[ephesians4]

This person’s whole point rests on people taking every word of the scripture absolutely literally - and if we did which we pretty much never have, there would be no need for the church or its teachings. Show me how all of Christendom doesn’t eat seafood or wear polyster cotton mix clothing for fear of being struck down and then there is a case to even suggest half of what that individual is saying.

There is nothing misogynistic about Christianity, misogyny is hatred. A Christian has issues with it if they can be persuaded by the scornful to take hatred from the faith of Jesus Christ, to be honest.

As for the more obviously observed bits being “sexist” well anything that differentiates between the sexes could be called “sexist”, and the sexes are in fact different, so we could sit here all day coming up with examples of why life itself is sexist, why families are sexist, why actual sex is sexist, to demonstrate why submitting to your husband in marriage could be seen as horrendous and sexist.

Notice though that he missed out the equal and opposite part which says a husband must give up his life for his wife to make that point. Could be seen as pretty sexist too, unless you see it as what it is - a call to be devoted to your spouse.

Perhaps it would benefit this person to have more than a glancing idea of what he is talking about - especially with regard to the history surrounding and immediately preceding the spread of Christianity proper. The things Christianity brought the the ancient world - in terms of the treatment of women and respect for marriage most particularly are to be regarded as far from evil and oppressive.

Honestly, that is the sort of person that wants the rest of us to answer to them for our faiths, so they can arbitrate over us all and The LORD with their great wisdom and intellect. Somebody needs to be praying for that man right now.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Notice though that he missed out the equal and opposite part which says a husband must give up his life for his wife to make that point. Could be seen as pretty sexist too, unless you see it as what it is - a call to be devoted to your spouse.

I know, they always miss that bit. At my cousins wedding, that passage from Ephesians was read, and a friend of mine (more a secular feminist than a Christian feminist) gasped when she heard “wives submit to your husbands”. The fact is, Paul’s message in Ephesians here is fairly radical - not for women (they were expected to submit to their husbands, anyway) but for men: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her…” This was incredible stuff in the first century and in many senses still remains so, calling on men to sacrifice themselves for their wives.

If someone can’t see how much this is pro-women, I just shrug my shoulders.

 

[mrajax]

You mean, so they wouldn’t be thrown out on the street? And what, with women not being treated equally as far as work is concerned, that would be a problem for them, yeah…

In your opinion, does that make up for everything else?

As if women weren’t allowed to work for a thousand tears in the Christian world. It’s not like the Church condemend them working on the fields and owning shops, and becoming Queens, and having the right to raise children, and helping their husbands, and resisting forced attempts at marriage and rape, and etc… true the Church had a thing against women joining and fighting in the army but thats because it considered soldiering a mans job and women still helped in wars by taking care of the men when they were wounded and other necessaties.

I admit there was a mentality before that it was OK to beat your wife because she was subject to you and stuff, etc… but this wasn’t the mindset of the Church but the mindset of people’s perverse thoughts and the Church. Is there a document by the Church sanctioning such practices? It goes against free will and the Church supports free will.

 

[mrajax]

I guess it depends on how you look at it.

Since I’ve joined CAF, I have learned that women are to be:

-Subordinate in the Church
-Subordinate in the Home when married

If those two things are true, would it be fair to use that phrase ‘2nd class citizens’? I don’t know.

Women are not subordinate in the Church: men also are. It’s the Priests who are above us and Priests happen to be men. And even if we wanted to, we cannot bring women Priests in the Church as that would go against the wishes of Jesus and the Sacrament would be invalid. Priests have a role similiar to that of a normal father: they don’t take care of the people inside the Church like normal fathers do but like normal fathers they do work outside the home and provide it with good things (i.e. souls).

 

[jonathan_hili]

As if women weren’t allowed to work for a thousand tears in the Christian world. It’s not like the Church condemend them working on the fields and owning shops, and becoming Queens, and having the right to raise children, and helping their husbands, and resisting forced attempts at marriage and rape, and etc… true the Church had a thing against women joining and fighting in the army but thats because it considered soldiering a mans job and women still helped in wars by taking care of the men when they were wounded and other necessaties.

I admit there was a mentality before that it was OK to beat your wife because she was subject to you and stuff, etc… but this wasn’t the mindset of the Church but the mindset of people’s perverse thoughts and the Church. Is there a document by the Church sanctioning such practices? It goes against free will and the Church supports free will.

You’re right. I think a lot of people’s conception of women’s role in the family comes straight out of conditions in Western countries after the Industrial Revolution. That certainly shook things up - even Marx lamented on how it destroys families.

But for most of history, women and men basically did the same thing as there wasn’t a great division of labour. If men were farmers, women were farmers; if men were craftsmen, women often worked at making clothes, lace work, etc.; if men could be kings, women could be queens.

 

[brb3]

So they can enjoy the beatific vision, and live forever…verses a brief miserable secular life of 80 years or so, oftentimes abused by secular men, who haven’t a clue about true love.

 

[mrajax]

You’re right. I think a lot of people’s conception of women’s role in the family comes straight out of conditions in Western countries after the Industrial Revolution. That certainly shook things up - even Marx lamented on how it destroys families.

But for most of history, women and men basically did the same thing as there wasn’t a great division of labour. If men were farmers, women were farmers; if men were craftsmen, women often worked at making clothes, lace work, etc.; if men could be kings, women could be queens.

Exactly. Personally, I think when it comes to marriage, it’s better for the woman to stay at home and take care of the children and the house. It is NOT the stereotypical barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen joke but when done right, a house wife is the type of women a ton of men desire. Someone who supports her husband in his needs as he himself supports her with his work, someone who takes care and raises the children up etc… seriously, it makes me seriously angry at how feminists bash housewives for supposedly being ‘weak’ when in fact a woman who has a strong presence in her home and family life is one of the most emotionally strong and desirable women out there. Men don’t want wives as their servants, they want wives who can rule the house and take a hold of it.

This is only for marriage: if a girl wants to remain single and does not want to stay taking care of her parents, then she should be encouraged and her dreams be helped. How many saints left their homes or were kicked out because they refused to marry and wanted to join a convent! But when it comes to marriage and society, balance is necessary; I admit I am against married woman (not unmarried) working as I feel that women are more suited at taking care of toddlers then men are. I’m not saying men can’t take care of toddlers, seeing as I am a man and love children, I just think certain things and roles aren’t fit for men.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Exactly. Personally, I think when it comes to marriage, it’s better for the woman to stay at home and take care of the children and the house. It is NOT the stereotypical barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen joke but when done right, a house wife is the type of women a ton of men desire. Someone who supports her husband in his needs as he himself supports her with his work, someone who takes care and raises the children up etc… seriously, it makes me seriously angry at how feminists bash housewives for supposedly being ‘weak’ when in fact a woman who has a strong presence in her home and family life is one of the most emotionally strong and desirable women out there. Men don’t want wives as their servants, they want wives who can rule the house and take a hold of it.

This is only for marriage: if a girl wants to remain single and does not want to stay taking care of her parents, then she should be encouraged and her dreams be helped. How many saints left their homes or were kicked out because they refused to marry and wanted to join a convent! But when it comes to marriage and society, balance is necessary; I admit I am against married woman (not unmarried) working as I feel that women are more suited at taking care of toddlers then men are. I’m not saying men can’t take care of toddlers, seeing as I am a man and love children, I just think certain things and roles aren’t fit for men.

My mother was a housewife and more learned than my father, being able to speak four languages fluently and possessing many other skills; in fact, this was necessary as she taught my brother and I when we were young and always assisted us with our homework. I personally don’t mind if married women or mothers work and spouses need to balance work-family commitments so as to properly provide for and raise their children. What I don’t like are two things in particular:

(i) parents working and leaving their children in day-care all day; and

(ii) people bashing housewives as if they are wasting their lives.

This is insulting to women, and I love to reply with Chesterton’s question: “How can it be broad to be the same thing to everyone and narrow to be everything to someone?” A housewife and mother is indeed everything to her children: teacher, disciplinarian, cook, doctor and nurse, playmate, etc. Is that really less of a vocation than working all day in a bank?

 

[mrajax]

My mother was a housewife and more learned than my father, being able to speak four languages fluently and possessing many other skills; in fact, this was necessary as she taught my brother and I when we were young and always assisted us with our homework.

Wait, hold it right there. I’m saying this before I read the rest of your post and when did I object to married women having a high education? In fact, it’s an ultra good thing that your mother could speak 4 languages and that she helped you with your homework. It helps build a strong and intelligent home if a woman is like that. My point was NOT like that jerk Bishop Williamson thinks, that women including married ones shouldn’t recieve any education higher than high school, no way. My point was that when it comes to the children, I think it’s better if they stay at home and take care of them instead of going off to work or school and leaving them at some daycare.

I personally don’t mind if married women or mothers work and spouses need to balance work-family commitments so as to properly provide for and raise their children. What I don’t like are two things in particular:

(i) parents working and leaving their children in day-care all day; and

(ii) people bashing housewives as if they are wasting their lives.

This is insulting to women, and I love to reply with Chesterton’s question: “How can it be broad to be the same thing to everyone and narrow to be everything to someone?” A housewife and mother is indeed everything to her children: teacher, disciplinarian, cook, doctor and nurse, playmate, etc. Is that really less of a vocation than working all day in a bank?

My point exactly.

 

[ephesians4]

What I don’t like are two things in particular:

(i) parents working and leaving their children in day-care all day; and

(ii) people bashing housewives as if they are wasting their lives.

This is insulting to women

This drives me mad, especially considering who it mostly comes from, and whose rights they claim to represent.

Ironically, it was wives and mothers who fought for the women’s vote and most of the equality that now exists, and not the kind of people who now call themselves “feminists”, misappropriate the victory in that struggle as their own when they had nothing to do with it, and insult wives and mothers at every opportunity.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Wait, hold it right there. I’m saying this before I read the rest of your post and when did I object to married women having a high education? In fact, it’s an ultra good thing that your mother could speak 4 languages and that she helped you with your homework. It helps build a strong and intelligent home if a woman is like that. My point was NOT like that jerk Bishop Williamson thinks, that women including married ones shouldn’t recieve any education higher than high school, no way. My point was that when it comes to the children, I think it’s better if they stay at home and take care of them instead of going off to work or school and leaving them at some daycare.

My point exactly.

Haha yeah, I know Monsieur Ajax, I don’t disagree with you.

 

[jonathan_hili]

This drives me mad, especially considering who it mostly comes from, and whose rights they claim to represent.

Ironically, it was wives and mothers who fought for the women’s vote and most of the equality that now exists, and not the kind of people who now call themselves “feminists”, misappropriate the victory in that struggle as their own when they had nothing to do with it, and insult wives and mothers at every opportunity.

Rather appropriate that it’s called the “feminist movement”, since it is primarily run by and for feminists, not for women.

I don’t want to deny some of the gains of “feminism” in its focus on women’s safety, health (in the proper sense), political rights, and so on, but sadly the people who run the show are hardly representative of women. In fact, they remind me of the vanguard Bolsheviks who thought they knew what was best for workers. Gee, the proletariat in Russia got a really good deal!

 

[livingwordunity]

The idea of submission to anyone is a negative thing for many today–but I gladly submit to the wisdom of the Church in preference to my own fallible judgment.

There are a growing number today who won’t even submit to God. So, it’s no wonder why they can’t comprehend why we need to submit to the Church. It’s because they have no faith or trust in the Lord.