Is God A Misogynist?
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 11832
- Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:05 am
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 288
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:04 pm
Instead of twisting my mind to see kindness where there is none I choose to see the Bible as completely man-made. Over the course of history women haven't been treated very well and The Bible is just a reflection of that.
Don't even get me started on the church and polygamy.
Don't even get me started on the church and polygamy.
Insert ironic quote from fellow board member here.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 34407
- Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am
AF, Welcome to MormonDiscussions! If my recall is correct, I've seen your posts on MormonApologetics. Glad you're here! I'm going to try to take an unpopular position here, see if it makes sense or if I can defend it. I don't count on it, though!
AF
Jersey Girl: But it doesn't say presiding over the woman, it says presiding over [ithe family[/i]. I don't know where the excerpt is from, could you say? The excerpt says "preside over their families in love and righteousness"....this is similiar to Paul's ideas. How do you see this as not equal?
AF
Jersey Girl: Do you think this is wrong? If so, how so?
AF
Jersey Girl: Not equal in what regard? If you think this is not equal, could you "rewrite" the text your quoting from to demonstrate how it could become more equal?
AF
Jersey Girl: I think what you're saying is that the other scripture by Paul speaks of equality between men and women in God's mind/eyes. How do you see the 1 Timothy as contrary to that? Are you thinking in terms of hierarchy of the church? Should there be no hierarchal structure? (I think I've mispelled here, but surely some spell checker will come in and correct me!)
AF
If you choose to reply to my questions, AF, could you post the specific scripture that you're referring to so that I can see it next to your own thoughts on this? Thanks, if you're willing!
An excerpt:
"By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners."
AF
"More friendly to women" apparently includes the man always "presiding" over the woman, though she is called an equal partner.
Jersey Girl: But it doesn't say presiding over the woman, it says presiding over [ithe family[/i]. I don't know where the excerpt is from, could you say? The excerpt says "preside over their families in love and righteousness"....this is similiar to Paul's ideas. How do you see this as not equal?
AF
If one equal partner presides, even if he does so in love and righteousness, this makes the other subordinate, at least in rule if not rank.
Jersey Girl: Do you think this is wrong? If so, how so?
AF
And thus, not equal.
Jersey Girl: Not equal in what regard? If you think this is not equal, could you "rewrite" the text your quoting from to demonstrate how it could become more equal?
AF
Kimberly Ann, I don't think God is a misogynist, so the Pauline-attributed verses in 1 Timothy are the ones I struggle the most with, when it comes to reconciling other Pauline verses which speak of equality between men and women.
Jersey Girl: I think what you're saying is that the other scripture by Paul speaks of equality between men and women in God's mind/eyes. How do you see the 1 Timothy as contrary to that? Are you thinking in terms of hierarchy of the church? Should there be no hierarchal structure? (I think I've mispelled here, but surely some spell checker will come in and correct me!)
AF
I do, however, think an alternate understanding of 1 Corinthians 11, with the "woman" representing the church body makes for a plausible reconciliation. I've tried to understand 1 Timothy from the same point of view, but it really becomes a stretch.
If you choose to reply to my questions, AF, could you post the specific scripture that you're referring to so that I can see it next to your own thoughts on this? Thanks, if you're willing!
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 103
- Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 4:08 pm
MishMagnet wrote:Instead of twisting my mind to see kindness where there is none I choose to see the Bible as completely man-made. Over the course of history women haven't been treated very well and The Bible is just a reflection of that.
Don't even get me started on the church and polygamy.
Well said MishMagnet. If there is a God I can't see him/her placing women in a position of lesser importance than men. Most religions certainly do.
Now lets get right to that polygamy !
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 246
- Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 4:49 pm
Jersey Girl wrote:I don't know where the excerpt is from, could you say?
It is from the Proclamation on the Family.
Jersey Girl wrote:I think what you're saying is that the other scripture by Paul speaks of equality between men and women in God's mind/eyes. How do you see the 1 Timothy as contrary to that?
1 Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
Why can not a woman teach? This doesn't seem in concert with other scriptural examples - there were many instances under the law in which women served as prophetesses and even leading women in the church in the New Testament. It is arguable that one woman even served as an apostle (one who would have a considerable amount of authority, even over men) - Junia. It could even be said that the Samaritan woman by the well "taught" the others in her village about Jesus.
1 Timothy just doesn't seem to fit with those examples and words such as this:
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 3679
- Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am
An entire thread oozing the grossest illiteracy in the history and text of the Bible, ancient Israelite law and religious perspectives; modern, historically vacuous conceits regarding the Bible as a whole and what it actually says regarding woman, men, and their relationships, and a Madalyn Murray O' Hairesque anti-intellectualism toward the whole subject that is really unworthy of review.
Kimberly, you should be ashamed of yet another ignorant, uneducated rant against the Church, the Gospel, its standards, and God, the big thorns in your paw that apparently will not go away.
And who cares what renegade thinks about Biblical history and ancient Israelite religious thought (what, by the way, does he know about it?). A guy who uses the symbol of a group of drug lobotomized America hating anarchist punks whose collective mental capacity would have a difficult time competing with a can of Spam is no one to be pontificating on such complex subjects.
Phunk presents as our resident baby Carl Sagan but, like so many others of this type, beyond this small niche (natural or hard science), his mind collapses when faced with questions and issues even one step beyond that narrow funnel. Issues of religion and spirituality cause something near complete intellectual short circuiting with individuals of this kind.
Kimberly, you should be ashamed of yet another ignorant, uneducated rant against the Church, the Gospel, its standards, and God, the big thorns in your paw that apparently will not go away.
And who cares what renegade thinks about Biblical history and ancient Israelite religious thought (what, by the way, does he know about it?). A guy who uses the symbol of a group of drug lobotomized America hating anarchist punks whose collective mental capacity would have a difficult time competing with a can of Spam is no one to be pontificating on such complex subjects.
Phunk presents as our resident baby Carl Sagan but, like so many others of this type, beyond this small niche (natural or hard science), his mind collapses when faced with questions and issues even one step beyond that narrow funnel. Issues of religion and spirituality cause something near complete intellectual short circuiting with individuals of this kind.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
- Thomas S. Monson
- Thomas S. Monson
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1387
- Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 11:34 am
Coggins7 wrote:And who cares what renegade thinks about Biblical history and ancient Israelite religious thought (what, by the way, does he know about it?). A guy who uses the symbol of a group of drug lobotomized America hating anarchist punks whose collective mental capacity would have a difficult time competing with a can of Spam is no one to be pontificating on such complex subjects.
Phunk presents as our resident baby Carl Sagan but, like so many others of this type, beyond this small niche (natural or hard science), his mind collapses when faced with questions and issues even one step beyond that narrow funnel. Issues of religion and spirituality cause something near complete intellectual short circuiting with individuals of this kind.
Brilliant! Many people have mastered the skill of the "Ad hominem", but precious few turn it into an art form as you have :) I salute you sir...
Last edited by Guest on Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:33 am, edited 2 times in total.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1606
- Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 5:50 pm
Coggins7 wrote:An entire thread oozing the grossest illiteracy in the history and text of the Bible, ancient Israelite law and religious perspectives; modern, historically vacuous conceits regarding the Bible as a whole and what it actually says regarding woman, men, and their relationships, and a Madalyn Murray O' Hairesque anti-intellectualism toward the whole subject that is really unworthy of review.
??? Is this even a sentence, Cogs?
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 3679
- Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 3679
- Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am