Women

[BurkinaFaso]

Can anyone help explain these verses of the Bible? They appear to be evidence of misogyny. If the Christian God is misogynist he can’t be God, so this is pretty important. All are from the Douay-Rheims translation.

“And Adam called all the beasts by their names, and all the fowls of the air, and all the cattle of the field: but for Adam there was not found a helper like himself. Then the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon Adam: and when he was fast asleep, he took one of his ribs, and filled up flesh for it. And the Lord God built the rib which he took from Adam into a woman: and brought her to Adam.” [Genesis 2:20-22]

So "wo"man (man is the standard, woman is merely part of the standard, secondary, the second sex) was an afterthought and was created because Adam couldn’t find a "helper."

“And Adam said: This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man.” [Genesis 2:23]

Adam gets to name the new creation why?

The next thing that seems to be problematic is polygamous marriages. Many men in the Bible have multiple marriages. I need not reference any verses because surely anyone with basic knowledge of the Bible knows that these existed, at least in the Old Testament. Women can’t have more than one husband, though. And women can’t have concubines, men can, however How is this justified?

“An exceeding comely maid, and a most beautiful virgin, and not known to man: and she went down to the spring, and filled her pitcher and was coming back.” [Genesis 24:16]

**Her looks were mentioned why? And how often are a man’s looks referenced in the Bible? **

Also another thing, how often are people in the Bible blessed/rewarded with a DAUGHTER? Why is God constantly toying with women in the Bible by making one barren and “opening the womb” of another? Why are men never the ones at fault for the woman being childless?

“And Rachel, seeing herself without children, envied her sister, and said to her husband: Give me children, otherwise I shall die.” [Genesis 30:1]

Is Rachel worthless because she can’t give birth?

“Thrice a year shall all thy males appear before the Lord thy God.” [Exodus 23:17]

God never wants to see the females. Is this because God hates women or does it have something to do with the fact that men wrote the Bible and not God?

“If the maid’s father will not give her to him, he shall give money according to the dowry, which virgins are wont to receive.” [Exodus 22:17]

Women are property, right?

If a king sins, he must offer a male goat as a sacrafice. If people lower than the king sin, they offer a female goat. [Exodus 4:22-28]

I guess the higher your rank the more important sacrifice and of course male goats are worth more because they’re male.

If a woman gives birth to a baby boy she is unclean for a week, if she gives birth to a baby girl she’s unclean for 2 weeks. [Exodus 12:1-5]

Why are girls less clean than boys?

“If it be a man from twenty years old unto sixty years old, he shall give fifty sides of silver, after the weight of the sanctuary: If a woman, thirty. But from the fifth year until the twentieth, a man shall give twenty sicles: a woman ten.From one month until the fifth year. for a male shall be given five sides: for a female three. A man that is sixty years old or upward, shall give fifteen aisles: a woman ten.” [Exodus 27:3-7]

**Why are women worth less than men? “Those were the times.” isn’t good enough. God is eternal and never changes. **

*“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife: nor his house, nor his field, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ***, nor any thing that is his.” *[Deuteronomy 5:21]

**Are women the property of men, akin to his "house, field, servant, ox, and *"?

Women don’t get to inherit property.
[Deuteronomy 21:16]

“And he had seventy sons, who came out of his thigh, for he had many wives.” [Judges 8:30]

We don’t know how many daughters. Guess they weren’t important enough to mention.

“And behold a certain woman casting a piece of a millstone from above, dashed it against the head of Abimelech, and broke his skull. And he called hastily to his armourbearer, and said to him: Draw thy sword, and kill me: lest it should be said that I was slain by a woman. He did as he was commanded, and slew him.” [Judges 9:53-54]

It would be really awful to be killed by a WOMAN.

“And this is what you shall observe: Every male, and all women that have known men, you shall kill, but the virgins you shall save.” [Judges 21:11]

Virgins are spared because they have something to offer the men sexually.

*“As for my people, their oppressors have stripped them, and women have ruled over them. O my people, they that call thee blessed, the same deceive thee, and destroy the way of thy steps.” *[Isaiah 3:12]

Things have gotten so bad that now WOMEN rule. How terrible.

“But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.” [Matthew 5:33]

What about women? Can they “put away” men for the same reason?

“The man indeed ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man.For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. For the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man.” [1 Corinthians 11:7-9]

**While men are made in the image of God, women are made in the image of man and they are made FOR men. **

I’ll post some other verses of concern after these have been properly addressed. Thank you.

 

[DavidFilmer]

So "wo"man was an afterthought and was created because Adam couldn’t find a "helper."

The Creation stories make use of allegory. I believe the intent was to convey that man might possess the entire earth, but he is nothing without woman.

Adam gets to name the new creation why?

God gave Adam the authority to name everything (this was before Eve, in Gen 2:22). After all, somebody has to do it.

Women can’t have more than one husband, though. And women can’t have concubines, men can, however How is this justified?

Simple - there are more women than men (and, in ancient times, this was even moreso).

Her looks were mentioned why?

Because her beauty was the reason the servant selected her, from among the other women of the town who were going to the well.

And how often are a man’s looks referenced in the Bible?

I suppose when they are relevant to the story line. Jesus’ appearance during his Passion was described in some detail.

David is described as “was ruddy and beautiful to behold, and of a comely face” (1 Samuel 16:12, 17:42). FWIW, this is a quote from the Douay; the word “comely” is not used much in modern English - it means “pleasing in appearance; attractive.” His good looks, however, did not impress Goliath, who accused the Israelites of sending a pretty-boy to oppose him (David responded by chopping off his head).

Why are men never the ones at fault for the woman being childless?

Ancient people didn’t understand biology as well as we do. It was assumed that a man is fertile if he can ejaculate.

Is Rachel worthless because she can’t give birth?

In her mind she has little worth if she is unable to procreate.

God never wants to see the females. Is this because God hates women or does it have something to do with the fact that men wrote the Bible and not God?

The Covenant with Israel was between God and males; females were excluded from direct participation (females cannot be circumcised).

The Old Covenant was a shadow of things to come. The rite of entry into the New Covenant is Baptism, which both boys and girls may participate in.

Women are property, right?

Dowries were (and still are) common, but usually it is the woman’s family who pays the groom. This says the groom pays the woman’s family. I had never noticed this. This is interesting (but it works contrary to the point you are trying to make - a traditional dowery, where the woman is not enough, but must be accompanied by additional payment, dances much better to your tune, but you don’t get that here).

I guess the higher your rank the more important sacrifice and of course male goats are worth more because they’re male.

I see you have never spent any time on a farm. Male animals are often killed at birth because they are not worth the trouble and expense of raising them. You only need one or two bulls, roosters, etc. Females produce milk/eggs, babies, and (eventually) meat. Males produce only meat (which is generally tougher and less tender than meat from female animals). Males require more maintenance and land resources, as they must be kept separate from each other.

Why are girls less clean than boys?

The period of uncleanliness ended after seven days after the birth of a son because the boy was circumcised on the eighth day. Girls can’t be circumcised, so the time lasted 14 days.

“If it be a man from twenty years old unto sixty years old, he shall give fifty sides of silver, after the weight of the sanctuary: If a woman, thirty. But from the fifth year until the twentieth, a man shall give twenty sicles: a woman ten.From one month until the fifth year. for a male shall be given five sides: for a female three. A man that is sixty years old or upward, shall give fifteen aisles: a woman ten.” [Exodus 27:3-7]

**Why are women worth less than men? “Those were the times.” isn’t good enough. God is eternal and never changes. **

This passage deals with someone who makes a vow to sponsor someone dedicated to Temple life. Obviously males are more valuable than women because they can do a lot more (especially in the Temple). Why is an old man worth less than a young man? C’mon - it’s not hard to figure out.

*“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife: nor his house, nor his field, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ***, nor any thing that is his.” *[Deuteronomy 5:21]

**Are women the property of men, akin to his "house, field, servant, ox, and *"?

A wife is “something that is his.” It’s his wife (and he is her husband). My wife is not my property, but she is MY wife (she is certainly not anyone *else’s *wife, much to the frustration of several men).

Well, this has been fun, but it’s past midnight, so I’ll let someone else pick up, if anyone pleases.

 

[BurkinaFaso]

First of all I want to say that I WANT to believe in the Roman Catholic religion. I’m not here to disprove your religion as anti-theist atheist (I’m neither) I just want the truth and I don’t want to lie to myself that a religion is true when it clearly oppresses women.

The Creation stories make use of allegory. I believe the intent was to convey that man might possess the entire earth, but he is nothing without woman.

Nothing without a woman except that it’s better not to get married according to St. Paul. That doesn’t seem to line up too terribly well.

God gave Adam the authority to name everything (this was before Eve, in Gen 2:22). After all, somebody has to do it.

It seems pretty much everything other than child rearing God gave males authority to do. This is just the first of many, many thing men have authority over.

Simple - there are more women than men (and, in ancient times, this was even moreso).

Yes but why is it morally wrong? Surely some Jewish woman somewhere down the line desired and had the option of having more than one husband. The only thing stopping her would have been religious law.

Ancient people didn’t understand biology as well as we do. It was assumed that a man is fertile if he can ejaculate.

Yes ancient people didn’t but we’re dealing with the word of God and inspired prophets of God. God understood biology perfectly well. It always says “God made ____ barren (referring to a female.” if he really didn’t and it was the man then the Bible is inaccurate and…you see where that leads to.

In her mind she has little worth if she is unable to procreate.

And God never saw it fit to include a little disclaimer in his holy book that he knew would influence people for thousands of years that she is still a valuable human being despite not being able to bear children? I find this suspicious at best.

The Covenant with Israel was between God and males; females were excluded from direct participation (females cannot be circumcised).

That’s not really fair. God chose a type of covenant that women COULDN’T participate in apparently because they lacked a foreskin. Couldn’t God have created a covenant where both sexes could participate equally?

This says the groom pays the woman’s family.

And what is he getting in exchange for his payment?

I see you have never spent any time on a farm. Male animals are often killed at birth because they are not worth the trouble and expense of raising them. You only need one or two bulls, roosters, etc. Females produce milk/eggs, babies, and (eventually) meat. Males produce only meat (which is generally tougher and less tender than meat from female animals). Males require more maintenance and land resources, as they must be kept separate from each other.

Why are some people’s sins (according to their rank in society) forgiven through the sacrifice of a female specifically while others a male specifically? What changes? Why is the gender of the goat relevant in this context?

The period of uncleanliness ended after seven days after the birth of a son because the boy was circumcised on the eighth day. Girls can’t be circumcised, so the time lasted 14 days.

That doesn’t make sense. If boys are unclean because of their foreskin then there should be no period of uncleanliness of girls since they don’t even possess one.

This passage deals with someone who makes a vow to sponsor someone dedicated to Temple life. Obviously males are more valuable than women because they can do a lot more (especially in the Temple).

Why can males “do a lot more”?

A wife is “something that is his.” It’s his wife (and he is her husband). My wife is not my property, but she is MY wife (she is certainly not anyone *else’s *wife, much to the frustration of several men).

Just out of curiosity, would you group your wife in with possessions such as a car, house, or furniture? Why or why not?

Thanks for your response.

 

[1ke]

Wow, you are seriously brainwashed by feminist nonsense.

 

[FCEGM]

This article might help put some things into perspective for you:

philvaz.com/apologetics/a49.htm

 

[Robert_Burns]

I’ll post some other verses of concern after these have been properly addressed. Thank you.

There is a simple problem with your entire argument. The context. You are applying Modernist progressive moral principles to faulty exegesis of Scripture.

Scripture isnt a novel. It is a multi layered spiritually examined work written and designed to convey the omnipotent word of GOD to an ignorant creature IE - us.

So you have simply twisted bits and pieces of Scripture to fit your own agenda.

 

[tafan]

BurkinaFaso:

First of all I want to say that I WANT to believe in the Roman Catholic religion. I’m not here to disprove your religion as anti-theist atheist (I’m neither) I just want the truth and I don’t want to lie to myself that a religion is true when it clearly oppresses women.

As opposed to popular myths and stereotypes, if you ever spend much time around the Catholic Church, at almost all levels, you will learn very quickly the Church does not oppress women. Indeed, it holds women in much higher regard than modern day society. You will see little sexual objectivication of women in the church, you will see a lot less of the wife being a bread-winner and handling most household chores that is so common in many of today’s dual-income marriages. You will see women who have been put in places of great authority throughotu Church history, much more so than any other part of society. You will see a lot of women taking leading roles in major pro-life efforts.

Society today treats women horribly, IMO, the Catholic Church is one refuge. I do not think that is overstated. Go to daily mass at any Catholic parish and get to know some of the women who go everyday, you will find some really strong, joyful women.

 

[Corki]

If the Christian God is misogynist he can’t be God, …

I just want to ask about this one comment of yours, why do you say that? God can be whatever He wants. God has shown different aspects of His “personality” to His people at different times. What you call misogynistic words might have been just what His people needed at that time to make sure that women and children were properly protected.

Now, I don’t certainly believe God to be a misogynist. But what authority would you use to make the claim that such a trait would mean He isn’t God?

 

[FCEGM]

There is a simple problem with your entire argument. The context. You are applying Modernist progressive moral principles to faulty exegesis of Scripture.

Scripture isnt a novel. It is a multi layered spiritually examined work written and designed to convey the omnipotent word of GOD to an ignorant creature IE - us.

So you have simply twisted bits and pieces of Scripture to fit your own agenda.

You’ve diagnosed the problem, Robert. The OP would benefit from reading something like Frank Sheed’s Theology for Beginners or listening to Scott Hahn’s audio series “Salvation History” in order to be able to step back and get the bigger picture.

 

[Deconi]

Can anyone help explain these verses of the Bible? They appear to be evidence of misogyny. If the Christian God is misogynist he can’t be God, so this is pretty important. All are from the Douay-Rheims translation.

“And Adam called all the beasts by their names, and all the fowls of the air, and all the cattle of the field: but for Adam there was not found a helper like himself. Then the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon Adam: and when he was fast asleep, he took one of his ribs, and filled up flesh for it. And the Lord God built the rib which he took from Adam into a woman: and brought her to Adam.” [Genesis 2:20-22]

So "wo"man (man is the standard, woman is merely part of the standard, secondary, the second sex) was an afterthought and was created because Adam couldn’t find a "helper."

“And Adam said: This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man.” [Genesis 2:23]

Adam gets to name the new creation why?

…

What about women? Can they “put away” men for the same reason?

“The man indeed ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man.For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. For the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man.” [1 Corinthians 11:7-9]

**While men are made in the image of God, women are made in the image of man and they are made FOR men. **

I’ll post some other verses of concern after these have been properly addressed. Thank you.

I’m going to assume two things;

1. You’re a woman
2. You’re railing against The Catholic Church - not Scriptures

ANSWER:
‘Lady’ you’re barking AT the wrong ‘Tree!’

In Catholicism, the HIGHEST creature created by God, is a woman!
Our Blessed Mother!
(Her Son was begotten, not created.)

In spite your view of the Biblical account, The Maker of the entire known and unknown universe entered this realm THROUGH her. It is also her answer to God that we try to emulate, not Adams or any other Biblical man-figure.

"Be it done unto me according to Thy Will."

Christian history is littered with women who have exemplified how we all should live! They are our saints, the lighthouses of our way to salvation.

Secondly, your beef is with God, not the CC. He is The Author of Scriptures; not us! We simply profess it and we ourselves try and align our understanding with Holy Writ; not the other way around. Being of Divine origin, we ourselves have trouble UNDERSTANDING some of the meanings because it is littered with ‘hard sayings’ and things beyond our finite minds!

Fortunately, He established His School for us to attend and learn the precise meaning of His words; The Catholic Church.

Moreover, you’d have to be deliberately ignorant to focus on the plight of women under human hands when men and women featured TOGETHER in the martyrs to hand down the Faith we now ‘enjoy.’

Get off your high horse and look around. Learn, listen, LIVE!

 

[Robert_Burns]

You’ve diagnosed the problem, Robert. The OP would benefit from reading something like Frank Sheed’s Theology for Beginners or listening to Scott Hahn’s audio series “Salvation History” in order to be able to step back and get the bigger picture.

Where do you think I got those ideas from

 

[FCEGM]

Where do you think I got those ideas from

 

[Nita]

Can anyone help explain these verses of the Bible? They appear to be evidence of misogyny. If the Christian God is misogynist he can’t be God, so this is pretty important. All are from the Douay-Rheims translation.

“And Adam called all the beasts by their names, and all the fowls of the air, and all the cattle of the field: but for Adam there was not found a helper like himself. Then the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon Adam: and when he was fast asleep, he took one of his ribs, and filled up flesh for it. And the Lord God built the rib which he took from Adam into a woman: and brought her to Adam.” [Genesis 2:20-22]

So "wo"man (man is the standard, woman is merely part of the standard, secondary, the second sex) was an afterthought and was created because Adam couldn’t find a "helper."

“And Adam said: This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man.” [Genesis 2:23]

Adam gets to name the new creation why?

Pope John Paul II began his pontificate with an exegesis of the beginning chapters of Genesis at his weekly general audiences. If you like to really ponder passages, you will love reading his exposition of these texts. They form the opening section of the book titled “Theology of the Body”. At one time they were printed separately under the title “Original Unity of Man and Woman”, but I don’t think that is available anymore.

Here are a few excerpts - hopefully enough to whet your appetite:
The Bible calls the first human being “man” ('adam) , but from the moment of the creation of the first woman, it begins to call him “man” (ish, in relation to ishshah (“woman,” because she was taken from the man–ish.
(From 9/19/79 General Audience)

Man’s subjectivity is already emphasized through this. It finds a further expression when the Lord God "formed out of the ground every beast of the field…(Gn 2:19). In this way, therefore, the first meaning of man’s original solitude is defined on the basis of a specific test or examination which man undergoes before God (and in a certain way also before himself). By means of this test, man becomes aware of his own superiority, that is, that he cannot be considered on the same footing as any other species of living beings on the earth.
…
…It could be said he is in search of the derfinition of himself. A contemporary person would say he is in search of his own “identity”. The fact that man “is alone” in the midst of the visible world and, in particular among living beings, has a negative significance in this search, since it expresses what he “is not”. …
(From 10/10/79 General Audience)

…she is defined as “a helper fit for him” (cf. Gn 2:18 and 2:20). In this way, therefore, the woman is created, in a sense, on the basis of the same humanity.

Somatic homogeneity, in spite of the difference in constitution bound up with the sexual difference, is so evident that the man, on waking up from the genetic sleep, expresses it at once, when he says: “This at last is bone of my bones…”(Gn 2:23). In this way the man manifests for the first time joy and even exaltation, for which he had no reason before, owing to the lack of a being like himself. …
(11/7/79 General Audience)

As you can see, “woman” was not some sort of afterthought. For God, she was always part of His creative plan (Gen. 1:26-27 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.). But God must have felt it was important for the first human to realize the value of other humans, his need for them – and that the experience of this original solitude was the best way, in those circumstances and at that particular point in time.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Nothing without a woman except that it’s better not to get married according to St. Paul. That doesn’t seem to line up too terribly well.

Now I’m starting to wonder if you’re serious, or if you are just messing with us. You refer to 1Cor 7:8-11 - have you read it?

It seems pretty much everything other than child rearing God gave males authority to do. This is just the first of many, many thing men have authority over.

Why don’t men have authority over child rearing? This comes as a surprise to me (a father) - I thought I did have authority over child rearing.

Yes but why is it morally wrong?

Polygamy wasn’t considered morally wrong (although it was rare).

Yes ancient people didn’t but we’re dealing with the word of God and inspired prophets of God. God understood biology perfectly well. It always says “God made ____ barren (referring to a female.” if he really didn’t and it was the man then the Bible is inaccurate and…you see where that leads to.

But it may have been perfectly accurate to say that the women (all of them) were infertile. There are eight women in the Bible identified as barren, but only one of them (Michal - strange name for a girl) remained so. The others were able to conceive by divine intervention. So it does appear that all eight women were (originally) barren - the issue was not with the husband in any case. So the Biblical accounts hold up biologically.

And God never saw it fit to include a little disclaimer in his holy book that he knew would influence people for thousands of years that she is still a valuable human being despite not being able to bear children? I find this suspicious at best.

God did not write the Bible. Men wrote the Bible. They were under divine inspiration, but they did not take dictation. And, besides, God did permit Sarah to conceive.

That’s not really fair. God chose a type of covenant that women COULDN’T participate in apparently because they lacked a foreskin. Couldn’t God have created a covenant where both sexes could participate equally?

He did. It’s called “Baptism.”

And what is he getting in exchange for his payment?

He gets the girl. But normally the girl would pay him (and he still gets the girl). I’ve never heard of this “reverse dowry.”

Why are some people’s sins (according to their rank in society) forgiven through the sacrifice of a female specifically while others a male specifically? What changes? Why is the gender of the goat relevant in this context?

The sins of a king were believed to tarnish the entire nation. So, if I had to guess (and this is just a guess), it was deemed fitting that the sacrifice of a king be differentiated in some way. Since males are uncommon amongst goat herds, and kings are uncommon among men, it seems fitting that a king would sacrifice a male. If commoners sacrificed male goats, the males would all soon be dead.

That doesn’t make sense. If boys are unclean because of their foreskin then there should be no period of uncleanliness of girls since they don’t even possess one.

The males are made clean by their circumcision, which is the entry rite into the Old Covenant. They were not made clean by the loss of their foreskin, but by their entry into the Covenant.

Why can males “do a lot more”?

Well, for one thing, they were not restricted to the outer courtyard, as women were. When you are a Temple attendant, it’s beneficial to be able to move about most of the Temple. Also, these attendants would often assist with things like bringing bulls to the altar - not something normally regarded as women’s work (you haven’t spent time on a farm, so maybe you have not seen a bull up-close, but, personally, I would not want to do that job!)

Just out of curiosity, would you group your wife in with possessions such as a car, house, or furniture? Why or why not?

Are you sure you are not just messing with us? My wife is part of me (the two become one). I could never join with my dining room table.

 

[BurkinaFaso]

Wow, you are seriously brainwashed by feminist nonsense.

That’s rude. I haven’t been brainwashed by anyone. What’s nonsensical about what I asked? I’m being respectful, trying to ask questions about matters that concern me and you respond with “wow you’ve been brainwashed.”?

So you have simply twisted bits and pieces of Scripture to fit your own agenda.

My agenda is to determine whether Christianity is true or not.

As opposed to popular myths and stereotypes, if you ever spend much time around the Catholic Church, at almost all levels, you will learn very quickly the Church does not oppress women.

As opposed to your assumption I am Catholic and go to Mass almost every sunday. I’m well aware of how women are treated in Catholicism. I have a few concerns with that too, but not nearly as much as I have problems with the Old Testament and to a lesser, extent the New Testament.

Now, I don’t certainly believe God to be a misogynist. But what authority would you use to make the claim that such a trait would mean He isn’t God?

Because it’s a contradiction. The Catholic Church says God loves us [all humans]. But if he’s a misogyist then he hates half of human beings and hate isn’t love, obviously.

 

[BurkinaFaso]

I’m going to assume two things;

1. You’re a woman
2. You’re railing against The Catholic Church - not Scriptures

1. Yes
2. No

In Catholicism, the HIGHEST creature created by God, is a woman!
Our Blessed Mother!
(Her Son was begotten, not created.)

Which is why I converted to Catholicism in the first place.

Secondly, your beef is with God, not the CC.

I don’t really have a problem with the church, you’re right. But I’m posting here because I’m Catholic and want Catholic answers. I don’t have any faith in the answers of non Catholics when it comes to Christianity.

Being of Divine origin, we ourselves have trouble UNDERSTANDING some of the meanings because it is littered with ‘hard sayings’ and things beyond our finite minds!

It’s certainly not impossible to understand, however. It’s necessary for me to resolve my issues with the bible for me to be a sincere Catholic. Otherwise I would be living a lie with constant doubt.

Moreover, you’d have to be deliberately ignorant to focus on the plight of women under human hands when men and women featured TOGETHER in the martyrs to hand down the Faith we now ‘enjoy.’

I’m not sure what you mean here. Could you elaborate further?

Get off your high horse and look around. Learn, listen, LIVE!

I find this quite rude. I’m not on my high horse. I have doubts, concerns, and questions. I came here for help and I feel like I’ve been treated unfairly. What have I done to you?

 

[BurkinaFaso]

Now I’m starting to wonder if you’re serious, or if you are just messing with us. You refer to 1Cor 7:8-11 - have you read it?

You’re trying to insult me and I find it rude. I’m asking sincere questions that quite frankly have a very strong affect on my entire life. Yes I’ve read it.

Why don’t men have authority over child rearing? This comes as a surprise to me (a father) - I thought I did have authority over child rearing.

Oh well I’ll cross that one off the list. Is there anything God gave women the authority to do that men can’t do (not when it’s an impossibility like for men to give birth)? Like for instance men are priests, is there any special place in the church for women?

God did not write the Bible. Men wrote the Bible. They were under divine inspiration, but they did not take dictation.

I know, but everything in the Bible must be true nonetheless.

He did. It’s called “Baptism.”

I’m talking about the first covenant. Why couldn’t that have been between both sexes?

He gets the girl.

Yeah he paid for a human being and that’s okay.

The males are made clean by their circumcision, which is the entry rite into the Old Covenant. They were not made clean by the loss of their foreskin, but by their entry into the Covenant.

Well maybe God could have made the covenant by removing the hymen of a female 8 days after she was born. It’s just a little suspicious God just happened to go along with a male dominated society. Do you get what I’m saying?

Well, for one thing, they were not restricted to the outer courtyard, as women were.

Why were women restricted? When have men ever been restricted in religion?

Are you sure you are not just messing with us? My wife is part of me (the two become one). I could never join with my dining room table.

I’m not messing with you and once again you’re basically saying I’m so stupid I must be joking and that really bothers me, it’s very rude and it’s not something I expect here.

 

[Deconi]

I find this quite rude. I’m not on my high horse. I have doubts, concerns, and questions. I came here for help and I feel like I’ve been treated unfairly. What have I done to you?

It probably sounds rude! My apologies. I was reflecting the tone of your post.

Which is why I converted to Catholicism in the first place.

Which means there’s a library consisting of voluminous material on the subject of your ‘concerns’ which you are privvy to.

I don’t really have a problem with the church, you’re right. But I’m posting here because I’m Catholic and want Catholic answers. I don’t have any faith in the answers of non Catholics when it comes to Christianity.

Then you’re on song to quickly assimilate, rather than ‘lambast’…which seemed to be your tone originally. Again, my apologies if I have that wrong.

It’s certainly not impossible to understand, however. It’s necessary for me to resolve my issues with the bible for me to be a sincere Catholic. Otherwise I would be living a lie with constant doubt.

Look around. There are several thousands of ways to ‘understand’ Holy Writ and every Christian denomination that is Non-Catholic think they have it correct!

But you are right to query and we all have that ‘right.’ Catholicism is not a blind faith. One MUST understand what one is submitting to because to reject it risks damnation! That is why it takes so long to become Catholic…and even then, one cannot fully comprehend what Catholicism is.

In the end, it is on the individual’s FAITH in Jesus…that He is not a liar and is keeping His promise to be with His Church until the end.

I’m not sure what you mean here. Could you elaborate further?

There are a multitude of men AND women who are SAINTS.
Ms. McKillip of Australia has just ‘joined’ that rank.

 

[crazzeto]

Honestly I just want to save this thread to my watch list and I don’t know how to do that with out posting… I do however want to write a bit (later) about the dignified role of women in the faith.

With out going into detail, I would exhort the OP to study the Blessed Virgin Mary, mother of us all.

 

[Nita]

The next thing that seems to be problematic is polygamous marriages. Many men in the Bible have multiple marriages. I need not reference any verses because surely anyone with basic knowledge of the Bible knows that these existed, at least in the Old Testament. Women can’t have more than one husband, though. And women can’t have concubines, men can, however How is this justified?

Polygamy is not justified.

Polygamy did not come about thru God’s decree. It was not present at the beginning. Having more than one wife is mentioned for the first time in Scripture when it speaks of Lamech, a descendent of Cain.(Gen 4:19 And Lamech took two wives; the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.) Sin has a tendency to spread in cultures when people stop trying to do God’s will and seek rather to do their own. The practice of polygamy obviously spread beyond just Cain’s descendents.

Just because certain customs (eg polygamy, concubinage) are recorded in Scripture as being practiced and even approved of by people, even by God’s chosen people, does not mean God approved. Nowhere will you find God saying “You shall/can have as many wives as you wish.”; or “You may take concubines if you desire”. What He did decree was “You shall not commit adultery” (Dt. 5:18) & “*And he *(future kings of Israel) *shall not multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away;…” *(Dt. 17:17) The record of course shows that these commands of God were not obeyed.

I started understanding things better after adopting a different mental foundation, so to speak; a conversion of sorts. I made God the absolute cornerstone: that He is the source of truth; that He loves us; that He decrees what is best for us. It sort of changed the direction of all the big “Why’s” regarding God’s commands. Essentially they went from “Why should it be wrong?” to “Why is it right?” You see, when I would be pondering with the questioning attitude of “Why should it be wrong?”, it was usually when I disagreed with God’s command, or found it troublesome. Thus, there was in me a sort of subconscious rebellion, or rejection of God’s wisdom; a valuing of my reasoning over God’s. And I never got very many answers!!! Among other things, I wasn’t open to hearing something that contradicted what I wanted to hear. I am happy to say I got so many answers, so very many, when I changed.