ANTI-Women

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,396
113
#81
Um.... raking her over the coals?? :confused: Aren't you exaggerating a tad, bro? :rolleyes: It was a simple insult. If we wanna talk about submission, this would be a good time to demonstrate it. We're to love even our enemies and show them the love of Jesus in season out of season. If we can't deal with a simple insult, how in the world do we expect to be submissive to one another in a life-time commitment such as marriage? How can we try to sell folks on submission if we can't even exhibit it in our own lives?

Jesus submitted His whole life to God for the purpose of our coming to the knowledge of Truth. Jesus made Himself of no reputation. The Apostle Paul was being beat up in prison yet still reached out to the guards with Christ's love and most of them came to the knowledge of God's truth. Everywhere Paul was imprisoned guards and officials were coming to Jesus. Insults are not equivalent to being raked over coals.

Again, true submission is the work of God, not of our own works. It's not a decision to do a duty. It is a total surrender to Jesus Christ in trust and allowing Him to give us His servant heart. It's His miraculous GRACE! ♥
Show me one place in the bible where someone is commanded to apologize for doing what is biblical and or making a stand on the truth of the word...Start with the life of Jesus as he is the best example!
 
V

VioletReigns

Guest
#82
Show me one place in the bible where someone is commanded to apologize for doing what is biblical and or making a stand on the truth of the word...Start with the life of Jesus as he is the best example!
First show me in my post above where I even suggested that Mary apologize. :rolleyes:
 

GuessWho

Senior Member
Nov 8, 2014
1,227
34
48
#83
[/QUOTE]Not really. First of all, I live on the island of Ireland, which includes Northern Ireland and the Republic or Ireland. Northern Ireland is a stolen territory that is now under the rule of the United Kingdom, while the Republic of Ireland is not. I hold citizenship in both those places.[/QUOTE]

It's good to know.

[/QUOTE]Secondly, throughout history both the church and the governments of European countries have oppressed women. Under the Greek empire for instance, women were given little or no education and often married off at puberty to grown men. Under Roman law, a husband owned his wife; he could chastise her to death if he wished. Under the rule of the Roman Catholic Church, up until only a few centuries ago, women were killed and tortured many times more often than men, often accused of heresy, witchcraft or seduction and sorcery. Women, in such times, were quite clearly under the authority of men in both cultural and religious terms.[/QUOTE]

The Roman Catholic Church did not oppress only women, but, in general, everybody that stood against them: protestants, eastern orthodox Christians etc. They invented the totalitarian regime.

I still believe it is dishonest from your part to not say these things. Just saying that "the Christian Church" treated women like dogs is very shallow, ignorant and even mean-intended. The "Christian Church" is not only the Roman Catholic Church. There is also the Byzantine Church.


It was not the christian church that "invented" marriage between a younger girl and a grown man. This costume exist way before Christianity.

[/QUOTE]Contrast that with Irish pagan culture (which the Catholic church tried to utterly destroy through torture, violence and hate) -- the Gaels taught girls alongside boys (in the arts, sciences and in combat), and women fought alongside men in battle. The Druids and Druidesses comprised the intellectual elite of Celtic society, and Celts, even in their faiths, retained a strong place for women, who, often, were rulers and chieftains. What did the Christians do in Ireland in the 1700s? They destroyed much of that culture in favour of total patriarchy. It wasn't long ago in Britain and Ireland that (under British common law) you could legally beat your wife, to correct her for wrongdoing, but only if the stick was no thicker than a thumb.[/QUOTE]

Mary I and Elizabeth I weren't also rulers? I mean...they were QUEENS.

[/QUOTE]Look at it: the history of Britain and the Church is rife with maltreatment of women. The Prima Nocta in Scotland (which allowed English nobles to sleep with Scottish brides on their wedding nights) is one example, another is in the public executions and tortures of women who went against Christian moral teachings. The submission of women under their husband's rule, and the inferiority of women under religious teaching, is a continuous theme throughout all Judeo-Christian history. If you want any more evidence of the place of women in British Christian society: It wasn't until the 1920's that women in the UK and Ireland could even vote.[/QUOTE]

So far you haven't proved that part in bold. You only say it.

I think in every religion existed persecutions of people (not only of women) and that is a dark stain that we should assume and recognize. Like the Roman Catholic Church did on the Second Council of Vatican.

But to say that women were treated like dogs and that they were inferior to men because that's what religion teaches is simply not true. You imply that because women couldn't vote it means that women were treated like dogs. That's illogical.
 
A

atwhatcost

Guest
#84
Nope. Not trying to be cold, brother Ben. I just don't think it's appropriate for a married man to suggest I meet him in person, ya know?

View attachment 136779
Actually, hubby has invited people he knows to come home too. (Sometimes giving me not much time to clean up, I might add.
) I can assure you, every invite was under the assumption I'd be there to join in. I would assume if you meet Marc, you also meet Mrs. Marc.

(And then again going from east coast to west coast seems like a huge trip, and a huge commitment.)
 

MarcR

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2015
5,486
183
63
#85
As per our conversation in months past, I can assure you that I still have zero interest in meeting you in person. :p
What does that have to do with your criticism of my judgement?

My offer to introduce you to such women was obviously rhetorical since you obviously now realize that you have already met many such women and don't need me to point them out.

You seem to have a talent for taking things other than as intended.
 

MarcR

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2015
5,486
183
63
#86
Nope. Not trying to be cold, brother Ben. I just don't think it's appropriate for a married man to suggest I meet him in person, ya know?

View attachment 136779

As I recall, I invited you to meet with my wife and me if you were in Oregon again. Doing so seems to me to be much less inappropriate than asking to meet with me alone as you seem to have suggested.

I also told you that my wife was reading over my shoulder so as to make clear my honorable intentions.

At the time we seemed to have built considerable rapport online; and that rapport had no romantic component.

I am happily married and intend to stay that way.
 
V

VioletReigns

Guest
#87
What does that have to do with your criticism of my judgement?

My offer to introduce you to such women was obviously rhetorical since you obviously now realize that you have already met many such women and don't need me to point them out.

You seem to have a talent for taking things other than as intended.
 
V

VioletReigns

Guest
#88
As I recall, I invited you to meet with my wife and me if you were in Oregon again. Doing so seems to me to be much less inappropriate than asking to meet with me alone as you seem to have suggested.

I also told you that my wife was reading over my shoulder so as to make clear my honorable intentions.

At the time we seemed to have built considerable rapport online; and that rapport had no romantic component.

I am happily married and intend to stay that way.
You must mean in another dimension and time. Please ease up out my face now, bruh. :p

53467-Seinfeld-Elaine-cringe-gif-k0H9.jpeg
 

MarcR

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2015
5,486
183
63
#89
Nope. Not trying to be cold, brother Ben. I just don't think it's appropriate for a married man to suggest I meet him in person, ya know?

View attachment 136779
If you would like to reveal the full text of that private conversation, unedited; I do not think that it would reflect badly on me!

If you choose to use inuendo to damage my reputation, I don't think you are likely to succeed!
 
Aug 12, 2015
539
7
0
#91
Not really. First of all, I live on the island of Ireland, which includes Northern Ireland and the Republic or Ireland. Northern Ireland is a stolen territory that is now under the rule of the United Kingdom, while the Republic of Ireland is not. I hold citizenship in both those places.
It's good to know.
Secondly, throughout history both the church and the governments of European countries have oppressed women. Under the Greek empire for instance, women were given little or no education and often married off at puberty to grown men. Under Roman law, a husband owned his wife; he could chastise her to death if he wished. Under the rule of the Roman Catholic Church, up until only a few centuries ago, women were killed and tortured many times more often than men, often accused of heresy, witchcraft or seduction and sorcery. Women, in such times, were quite clearly under the authority of men in both cultural and religious terms.
The Roman Catholic Church did not oppress only women, but, in general, everybody that stood against them: protestants, eastern orthodox Christians etc. They invented the totalitarian regime.

I still believe it is dishonest from your part to not say these things. Just saying that "the Christian Church" treated women like dogs is very shallow, ignorant and even mean-intended. The "Christian Church" is not only the Roman Catholic Church. There is also the Byzantine Church.


It was not the christian church that "invented" marriage between a younger girl and a grown man. This costume exist way before Christianity.
[/QUOTE]

Contrast that with Irish pagan culture (which the Catholic church tried to utterly destroy through torture, violence and hate) -- the Gaels taught girls alongside boys (in the arts, sciences and in combat), and women fought alongside men in battle. The Druids and Druidesses comprised the intellectual elite of Celtic society, and Celts, even in their faiths, retained a strong place for women, who, often, were rulers and chieftains. What did the Christians do in Ireland in the 1700s? They destroyed much of that culture in favour of total patriarchy. It wasn't long ago in Britain and Ireland that (under British common law) you could legally beat your wife, to correct her for wrongdoing, but only if the stick was no thicker than a thumb.
Mary I and Elizabeth I weren't also rulers? I mean...they were QUEENS.
Look at it: the history of Britain and the Church is rife with maltreatment of women. The Prima Nocta in Scotland (which allowed English nobles to sleep with Scottish brides on their wedding nights) is one example, another is in the public executions and tortures of women who went against Christian moral teachings. The submission of women under their husband's rule, and the inferiority of women under religious teaching, is a continuous theme throughout all Judeo-Christian history. If you want any more evidence of the place of women in British Christian society: It wasn't until the 1920's that women in the UK and Ireland could even vote.
So far you haven't proved that part in bold. You only say it.

I think in every religion existed persecutions of people (not only of women) and that is a dark stain that we should assume and recognize. Like the Roman Catholic Church did on the Second Council of Vatican.

But to say that women were treated like dogs and that they were inferior to men because that's what religion teaches is simply not true. You imply that because women couldn't vote it means that women were treated like dogs. That's illogical.
If you're okay with your ancestors having no property rights, being the property of men, being sold into marriages, being raped and enslaved, being unable to vote, unable to divorce their husbands, unable to speak in many cultures, unable to become leaders for many years (unless through Monarchistic Inheritance), being married into positions that gave male leaders power (as was the practice in Europe for many hundreds of years), having husbands who could legally beat them, having husbands who in some cultures could legally kill them and being paid less for the same work as men, that's okay. BUt please don't try to pull the wool over my eyes and tell me the churches (Protestant AND Catholic) have historically taught the equality of men and women. It's just not true:

"the very consciousness of their own nature must evoke in women feelings of shame" -- St. Clement of Alexandria, Pedagogues.

"In pain shall you bring forth children, woman, and you shall turn to your husband and he shall rule over you. And do you not know that you are Eve? God’s sentence hangs still over all your sex and His punishment weighs down upon you. You are the devil’s gateway; you are she who first violated the forbidden tree and broke the law of God. It was you who coaxed your way around him whom the devil had not the force to attack. With what ease you shattered that image of God: Man! Because of the death you merited, even the Son of God had to die… Woman, you are the gate to hell." -- Tertullian, On the Apparel of Women.

For it is improper for a woman to speak in an assembly, no matter what she says, even if she says admirable things, or even saintly things, that is of little consequence, since they come from the mouth of a woman -- Origen, Fragments of First Corinthians

Woman does not possess the image of God in herself but only when taken together with the male who is her head, so that the whole substance is one image. But when she is assigned the role as helpmate, a function that pertains to her alone, then she is not the image of God. But as far as the man is concerned, he is by himself alone the image of God just as fully and completely as when he and the woman are joined together into one. -- St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo Regius

What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman… I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children. -- St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo Regius

Woman is a misbegotten man and has a faulty and defective nature in comparison to his. Therefore she is unsure in herself. What she cannot get, she seeks to obtain through lying and diabolical deceptions. And so, to put it briefly, one must be on one’s guard with every woman, as if she were a poisonous snake and the horned devil. … Thus in evil and perverse doings woman is cleverer, that is, slyer, than man. Her feelings drive woman toward every evil, just as reason impels man toward all good. -- St. Albertus Magnus, Quaestiones Super de Animalibus

As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from a defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence. -- Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica

And it isn't just Catholicism:

The word and works of God is quite clear, that women were made either to be wives or prostitutes. -- Martin Luther, Works

No gown worse suits a woman than the desire to be wise -- Martin Luther

Men have broad and large chests, and small narrow hips, and more understanding than women, who have but small and narrow breasts, and broad hips, to the end they should remain at home, sit still, keep house, and bear and bring up children. -- Martin Luther, Table Talk

Thus the woman, who had perversely exceeded her proper bounds, is forced back to her own position. She had, indeed, previously been subject to her husband, but that was a liberal and gentle subjection; now, however, she is cast into servitude. -- John Calvin, Commentary on Genesis

And it's not just Europeans:

Even as the church must fear Christ Jesus, so must the wives also fear their husbands. And this inward fear must be shewed by an outward meekness and lowliness in her speeches and carriage to her husband. . . . For if there be not fear and reverence in the inferior, there can be no sound nor constant honor yielded to the superior. -- John Dod, A Plain and Familiar Exposition of the Ten Commandments

The second duty of the wife is constant obedience and subjection. -- John Dod, A Plain and Familiar Exposition of the Ten Commandments

The women's agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians. -- Pat Robertson, Fundraising Letter (1992)

The Holiness of God is not evidenced in women when they are brash, brassy, boisterous, brazen, head-strong, strong-willed, loud-mouthed, overly-talkative, having to have the last word, challenging, controlling, manipulative, critical, conceited, arrogant, aggressive, assertive, strident, interruptive, undisciplined, insubordinate, disruptive, dominating, domineering, or clamoring for power. Rather, women accept God’s holy order and character by being humbly and unobtrusively respectful and receptive in functional subordination to God, church leadership, and husbands. -- James Fowler, Women in the Church, 1999


If that's not evidence enough for you that women have throughout recorded history been generally considered inferior in Christian religions, check out this, the Malleus Malificarum, a guide published by the Vatican in the Medieval period, containing instructions on how to properly illicit confessions under torture, from accused "witches". It contains some lovely imagery.

If that's still not enough, I'm sure I can send you pages and pages of information on how the Catholic Church, up until the late twentieth century in Ireland, created social conditions where underage pregnant women were disowned and forced to live in convents undertaking backbreaking manual labour for no pay, nd were shamed, abused, and tortured in those same institutions. If you haven't already, please read up on the convents of Ireland, particularly the "Magdalene Asylums".
 
Last edited:

slave

Senior Member
Mar 20, 2015
6,307
1,097
113
#92
"....for necessity is laid upon me; yes, woe is me if I do not preach the gospel!" 1 Corinthians 9:16.

The doubt is twofold here. One is of a person God knows about and is in the process of changing. Do you believe that? The other is your faith. Do you believe the message of the Gospel you gave is the truth? These are questions you first need to answer. Was it not God Himself who called you to deliver the message? Do you doubt Gods call and purpose? Have you locked arms with Jesus over this in prayer? I feel you are wavering in your trust in Gods supernatural delivery here. Both in way of the other person and in solidifying this issue with yourself even. Is this fair to say? If you told someone of the fact gravity exists would you at all hesitate regardless of their perspective? No, because you have had an experiential conclusion to it, are you walking with Jesus first to gain just such an experience of Himself to be able to claim the results of Himself? Or are you living to prove His results first apart from Him being able to prove it to you? Unable to cling to it because you haven't experienced the truth in it yet?

If you have ignored, and thereby removed, the great Supernatural call of God in your life, take a review of your circumstances. See where you have put your own ideas of service or your particular abilities ahead of the call of God. Paul said, "....woe is me if I do not preach the Gospel!" He had become aware of the call of God, and his compulsion to "preach the Gospel" was so strong that nothing else was any longer even a competitor for his strength.

If you are called of God, it doesn't matter how difficult the circumstances may be. God orchestrates every force at work for His purpose in the end. The issue here is whether you will agree with Gods purpose. For He will bring not only your conscious level but also the deeper levels of your life, which you yourself cannot reach, into perfect harmony.

We sit here in these threads and try to 'human reason' are way thru things still even after regeneration. Yet, Scripture says logic is not our base of operation, not our first fruit. Not the 'Garbage in Garbage out' referee. Biblical references here are the key. We tend as Christians to put the cart before the horse. Trying to prove the right side of righteousness, when it is unnecessary. Practically speaking how is one to prove the results of Jesus without advising with Gods power to back you up the relationship itself to Jesus, and not the rightness of a point, yet, first? The idea is if I get a result from a thing then the thing should be the issue.

An example of this can be compared even with Science; a Scientist can explain the Universe in which common-sense men live, but the scientific explanation is not first; life is first. The same can be said in Theology; theology is the systematizing of the intellectual expression of the life from God; it is indeed a mighty thing, but it is second not first.

My advice is stay plugged into your relationship with Jesus, thru the Word, thru prayer which is what got you here in the first place I hope, and now as the winds blow in your face, keep walking thru it, ask yourself the pertinent self-awareness questions and pray, looking up and listening well, toward what Jesus has to say. "[She]He who hesitates is lost." Never step away from the deeply Spiritual and supernatural touch of God and the truth WILL set you free. The question I see God asking you in all this is ... "Who, Mary, do you say that I am?"
 
Last edited:

slave

Senior Member
Mar 20, 2015
6,307
1,097
113
#93
As far as questioning the issue of your advice...If it's truly biblical that's all you need to worry about, and hence be loyal to. God always proves Himself right in the end. I believe you have honored God with your advice.
 
K

kaylagrl

Guest
#94
If you're okay with your ancestors having no property rights, being the property of men, being sold into marriages, being raped and enslaved, being unable to vote, unable to divorce their husbands, unable to speak in many cultures, unable to become leaders for many years (unless through Monarchistic Inheritance), being married into positions that gave male leaders power (as was the practice in Europe for many hundreds of years), having husbands who could legally beat them, having husbands who in some cultures could legally kill them and being paid less for the same work as men, that's okay. BUt please don't try to pull the wool over my eyes and tell me the churches (Protestant AND Catholic) have historically taught the equality of men and women. It's just not true:

"the very consciousness of their own nature must evoke in women feelings of shame" -- St. Clement of Alexandria, Pedagogues.

"In pain shall you bring forth children, woman, and you shall turn to your husband and he shall rule over you. And do you not know that you are Eve? God’s sentence hangs still over all your sex and His punishment weighs down upon you. You are the devil’s gateway; you are she who first violated the forbidden tree and broke the law of God. It was you who coaxed your way around him whom the devil had not the force to attack. With what ease you shattered that image of God: Man! Because of the death you merited, even the Son of God had to die… Woman, you are the gate to hell." -- Tertullian, On the Apparel of Women.

For it is improper for a woman to speak in an assembly, no matter what she says, even if she says admirable things, or even saintly things, that is of little consequence, since they come from the mouth of a woman -- Origen, Fragments of First Corinthians

Woman does not possess the image of God in herself but only when taken together with the male who is her head, so that the whole substance is one image. But when she is assigned the role as helpmate, a function that pertains to her alone, then she is not the image of God. But as far as the man is concerned, he is by himself alone the image of God just as fully and completely as when he and the woman are joined together into one. -- St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo Regius

What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman… I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children. -- St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo Regius

Woman is a misbegotten man and has a faulty and defective nature in comparison to his. Therefore she is unsure in herself. What she cannot get, she seeks to obtain through lying and diabolical deceptions. And so, to put it briefly, one must be on one’s guard with every woman, as if she were a poisonous snake and the horned devil. … Thus in evil and perverse doings woman is cleverer, that is, slyer, than man. Her feelings drive woman toward every evil, just as reason impels man toward all good. -- St. Albertus Magnus, Quaestiones Super de Animalibus

As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from a defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence. -- Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica

And it isn't just Catholicism:

The word and works of God is quite clear, that women were made either to be wives or prostitutes. -- Martin Luther, Works

No gown worse suits a woman than the desire to be wise -- Martin Luther

Men have broad and large chests, and small narrow hips, and more understanding than women, who have but small and narrow breasts, and broad hips, to the end they should remain at home, sit still, keep house, and bear and bring up children. -- Martin Luther, Table Talk

Thus the woman, who had perversely exceeded her proper bounds, is forced back to her own position. She had, indeed, previously been subject to her husband, but that was a liberal and gentle subjection; now, however, she is cast into servitude. -- John Calvin, Commentary on Genesis

And it's not just Europeans:

Even as the church must fear Christ Jesus, so must the wives also fear their husbands. And this inward fear must be shewed by an outward meekness and lowliness in her speeches and carriage to her husband. . . . For if there be not fear and reverence in the inferior, there can be no sound nor constant honor yielded to the superior. -- John Dod, A Plain and Familiar Exposition of the Ten Commandments

The second duty of the wife is constant obedience and subjection. -- John Dod, A Plain and Familiar Exposition of the Ten Commandments

The women's agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians. -- Pat Robertson, Fundraising Letter (1992)

The Holiness of God is not evidenced in women when they are brash, brassy, boisterous, brazen, head-strong, strong-willed, loud-mouthed, overly-talkative, having to have the last word, challenging, controlling, manipulative, critical, conceited, arrogant, aggressive, assertive, strident, interruptive, undisciplined, insubordinate, disruptive, dominating, domineering, or clamoring for power. Rather, women accept God’s holy order and character by being humbly and unobtrusively respectful and receptive in functional subordination to God, church leadership, and husbands. -- James Fowler, Women in the Church, 1999


If that's not evidence enough for you that women have throughout recorded history been generally considered inferior in Christian religions, check out this, the Malleus Malificarum, a guide published by the Vatican in the Medieval period, containing instructions on how to properly illicit confessions under torture, from accused "witches". It contains some lovely imagery.

If that's still not enough, I'm sure I can send you pages and pages of information on how the Catholic Church, up until the late twentieth century in Ireland, created social conditions where underage pregnant women were disowned and forced to live in convents undertaking backbreaking manual labour for no pay, nd were shamed, abused, and tortured in those same institutions. If you haven't already, please read up on the convents of Ireland, particularly the "Magdalene Asylums".[/QUOTE]





This is sort of my point. When it comes to submission it means different things to different people.What the Bible meant and what people actually do are two different things. People take a verse and base a religion on it.For power and control the submission verse was,and is,being used to put woman down and to abuse them.So this has to be taught carefully.

The Bible says men and women were created in His image. The Bible talks about female leaders Miriam,Deborah and Huldah,Esther,among others. The first to learn of Jesus resurrection were women and Jesus had women who followed Him along with the men. Mary sat at the feet of Jesus to learn the gospel,not a lot of Holy men that would allow that.

Paul said there was neither male nor female as all were baptized into Christ. Paul also said within a marriage that both spouses bodies belonged to the others,not just that the husband had authority over the womans body. Apparently some of the church fathers missed these teachings.

I saw this on a website and thought it was cute.It makes a good point...
She said, a man who says to his wife "submit woman",the wife has a right to say back "get crucified buddy"
It makes the point that the man is to be like Christ,even sacrificing his life for his wife.Thats a pretty high calling.The Bible says a mans prayer wont even be answered according to how he treats his wife.

So yes,that is why I have trouble when people start throwing around the word submission and all the rules that they suppose come with it.There is balance in every teaching in the Bible,it is no different here. We are told to submit to one another,somehow people seem to forget that verse.Do you see a whole lot of Christians submitting to each other on these forums?? Enough said.
 
Aug 12, 2015
539
7
0
#95
This is sort of my point. When it comes to submission it means different things to different people.What the Bible meant and what people actually do are two different things. People take a verse and base a religion on it.For power and control the submission verse was,and is,being used to put woman down and to abuse them.So this has to be taught carefully.


I don't mean to be rude, Kayla, but "submission verse" (as in singular) is not an accurate way to describe the bible's teaching on women, even aside from the Church's and clergymen's official teachings. There are at least six verses that I can think of in the New Testament that when taken together explicitly instruct that: women must submit to men in all things; women must be submissive to their husbands; women must cover their heads in prayer or have their hair shaved off; women must not be allowed to speak in church; and women must never teach or usurp authority over a man.

It is not one isolated verse, it is an entire theme.

The Bible says men and women were created in His image. The Bible talks about female leaders Miriam,Deborah and Huldah,Esther,among others. The first to learn of Jesus resurrection were women and Jesus had women who followed Him along with the men. Mary sat at the feet of Jesus to learn the gospel,not a lot of Holy men that would allow that.
I don't doubt Jesus' position on the matter, but when has mainstream Christianity ever been truly representative of Jesus Christ? I can't think of any point in recorded history where that is the case.

It may also be true that Genesis accounts for a time before the fall of Adam and Eve where men and women were equals, however, as we see throughout the Old Testament, this was not the case after the fall. As for the New Testament, see above for how the disciples and biblical authors and church fathers view women's place in society. As I remember it, also, one of the very penalties for the fall in Genesis 3:16 is that "your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you".

Paul said there was neither male nor female as all were baptized into Christ. Paul also said within a marriage that both spouses bodies belonged to the others,not just that the husband had authority over the womans body. Apparently some of the church fathers missed these teachings.

Paul is also the one who advocates in his letters the above treatment of women, that they should be subservient and submissive to men; cover their heads; and not try to teach males or take authority away from males.

I saw this on a website and thought it was cute.It makes a good point...
She said, a man who says to his wife "submit woman",the wife has a right to say back "get crucified buddy"
It makes the point that the man is to be like Christ,even sacrificing his life for his wife.Thats a pretty high calling.The Bible says a mans prayer wont even be answered according to how he treats his wife.
So yes,that is why I have trouble when people start throwing around the word submission and all the rules that they suppose come with it.There is balance in every teaching in the Bible,it is no different here. We are told to submit to one another,somehow people seem to forget that verse.Do you see a whole lot of Christians submitting to each other on these forums?? Enough said.
If what you're saying here is that treating women as inferior human beings is old fashioned, unnecessary and morally repugnant, then I agree with you, but it's very clear for me to see that your bible and much of the teachings in many Christian churches across the globe don't agree, and haven't agreed, for hundreds and hundreds of years, right back to Jesus' time.

And as it relates to the point of this thread, to that effect I believe I have proven that Christianity, historically, up until very recently in human history has not given women any significant social, religious or legal freedom. And as relates to the OP, in many parts of the world, women still do not have those freedoms. Thus it is understandable to me that the OP's friend was offended at the OP's idea that all women should submit to their husbands. That is especially understandable if the OP's friend has no desire to be Christian.

Women's rights and freedoms may feel like established, inalienable cultural norms, but they are actually fairly recent developments that aren't yet globally spread, and that makes women's freedom a very tentative thing for lots of women.
 
Last edited:

MarcR

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2015
5,486
183
63
#96
If you're okay with your ancestors having no property rights, being the property of men, being sold into marriages, being raped and enslaved, being unable to vote, unable to divorce their husbands, unable to speak in many cultures, unable to become leaders for many years (unless through Monarchistic Inheritance), being married into positions that gave male leaders power (as was the practice in Europe for many hundreds of years), having husbands who could legally beat them, having husbands who in some cultures could legally kill them and being paid less for the same work as men, that's okay. BUt please don't try to pull the wool over my eyes and tell me the churches (Protestant AND Catholic) have historically taught the equality of men and women. It's just not true:

"the very consciousness of their own nature must evoke in women feelings of shame" -- St. Clement of Alexandria, Pedagogues.

"In pain shall you bring forth children, woman, and you shall turn to your husband and he shall rule over you. And do you not know that you are Eve? God’s sentence hangs still over all your sex and His punishment weighs down upon you. You are the devil’s gateway; you are she who first violated the forbidden tree and broke the law of God. It was you who coaxed your way around him whom the devil had not the force to attack. With what ease you shattered that image of God: Man! Because of the death you merited, even the Son of God had to die… Woman, you are the gate to hell." -- Tertullian, On the Apparel of Women.

For it is improper for a woman to speak in an assembly, no matter what she says, even if she says admirable things, or even saintly things, that is of little consequence, since they come from the mouth of a woman -- Origen, Fragments of First Corinthians

Woman does not possess the image of God in herself but only when taken together with the male who is her head, so that the whole substance is one image. But when she is assigned the role as helpmate, a function that pertains to her alone, then she is not the image of God. But as far as the man is concerned, he is by himself alone the image of God just as fully and completely as when he and the woman are joined together into one. -- St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo Regius

What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman… I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children. -- St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo Regius

Woman is a misbegotten man and has a faulty and defective nature in comparison to his. Therefore she is unsure in herself. What she cannot get, she seeks to obtain through lying and diabolical deceptions. And so, to put it briefly, one must be on one’s guard with every woman, as if she were a poisonous snake and the horned devil. … Thus in evil and perverse doings woman is cleverer, that is, slyer, than man. Her feelings drive woman toward every evil, just as reason impels man toward all good. -- St. Albertus Magnus, Quaestiones Super de Animalibus

As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from a defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence. -- Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica

And it isn't just Catholicism:

The word and works of God is quite clear, that women were made either to be wives or prostitutes. -- Martin Luther, Works

No gown worse suits a woman than the desire to be wise -- Martin Luther

Men have broad and large chests, and small narrow hips, and more understanding than women, who have but small and narrow breasts, and broad hips, to the end they should remain at home, sit still, keep house, and bear and bring up children. -- Martin Luther, Table Talk

Thus the woman, who had perversely exceeded her proper bounds, is forced back to her own position. She had, indeed, previously been subject to her husband, but that was a liberal and gentle subjection; now, however, she is cast into servitude. -- John Calvin, Commentary on Genesis

And it's not just Europeans:

Even as the church must fear Christ Jesus, so must the wives also fear their husbands. And this inward fear must be shewed by an outward meekness and lowliness in her speeches and carriage to her husband. . . . For if there be not fear and reverence in the inferior, there can be no sound nor constant honor yielded to the superior. -- John Dod, A Plain and Familiar Exposition of the Ten Commandments

The second duty of the wife is constant obedience and subjection. -- John Dod, A Plain and Familiar Exposition of the Ten Commandments

The women's agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians. -- Pat Robertson, Fundraising Letter (1992)

The Holiness of God is not evidenced in women when they are brash, brassy, boisterous, brazen, head-strong, strong-willed, loud-mouthed, overly-talkative, having to have the last word, challenging, controlling, manipulative, critical, conceited, arrogant, aggressive, assertive, strident, interruptive, undisciplined, insubordinate, disruptive, dominating, domineering, or clamoring for power. Rather, women accept God’s holy order and character by being humbly and unobtrusively respectful and receptive in functional subordination to God, church leadership, and husbands. -- James Fowler, Women in the Church, 1999


If that's not evidence enough for you that women have throughout recorded history been generally considered inferior in Christian religions, check out this, the Malleus Malificarum, a guide published by the Vatican in the Medieval period, containing instructions on how to properly illicit confessions under torture, from accused "witches". It contains some lovely imagery.

If that's still not enough, I'm sure I can send you pages and pages of information on how the Catholic Church, up until the late twentieth century in Ireland, created social conditions where underage pregnant women were disowned and forced to live in convents undertaking backbreaking manual labour for no pay, nd were shamed, abused, and tortured in those same institutions. If you haven't already, please read up on the convents of Ireland, particularly the "Magdalene Asylums".




This is sort of my point. When it comes to submission it means different things to different people.What the Bible meant and what people actually do are two different things. People take a verse and base a religion on it.For power and control the submission verse was,and is,being used to put woman down and to abuse them.So this has to be taught carefully.

The Bible says men and women were created in His image. The Bible talks about female leaders Miriam,Deborah and Huldah,Esther,among others. The first to learn of Jesus resurrection were women and Jesus had women who followed Him along with the men. Mary sat at the feet of Jesus to learn the gospel,not a lot of Holy men that would allow that.

Paul said there was neither male nor female as all were baptized into Christ. Paul also said within a marriage that both spouses bodies belonged to the others,not just that the husband had authority over the womans body. Apparently some of the church fathers missed these teachings.

I saw this on a website and thought it was cute.It makes a good point...
She said, a man who says to his wife "submit woman",the wife has a right to say back "get crucified buddy"
It makes the point that the man is to be like Christ,even sacrificing his life for his wife.Thats a pretty high calling.The Bible says a mans prayer wont even be answered according to how he treats his wife.

So yes,that is why I have trouble when people start throwing around the word submission and all the rules that they suppose come with it.There is balance in every teaching in the Bible,it is no different here. We are told to submit to one another,somehow people seem to forget that verse.Do you see a whole lot of Christians submitting to each other on these forums?? Enough said.
[/QUOTE]

As you have aptly pointed out, there is a huge difference between male subjugation of women, in practice; and Biblical submission.

The Scriptural injunction against women speaking or teaching in the assembly seems to be limited to two distinct geographic locations: Corinth and Crete; possibly Ephesus also. This seems to have been more concerned with separation from cult prostitution in worship of Astarte and of Artemis, than with doctrinal principle.

The principle of male Spiritual leadership in the home seems to be more concerned with accountability than ability.
 
K

kaylagrl

Guest
#97


I don't mean to be rude, Kayla, but "submission verse" (as in singular) is not an accurate way to describe the bible's teaching on women, even aside from the Church's and clergymen's official teachings. There are at least six verses that I can think of in the New Testament that when taken together explicitly instruct that: women must submit to men in all things; women must be submissive to their husbands; women must cover their heads in prayer or have their hair shaved off; women must not be allowed to speak in church; and women must never teach or usurp authority over a man.

It is not one isolated verse, it is an entire theme.



I don't doubt Jesus' position on the matter, but when has mainstream Christianity ever been truly representative of Jesus Christ? I can't think of any point in recorded history where that is the case.

It may also be true that Genesis accounts for a time before the fall of Adam and Eve where men and women were equals, however, as we see throughout the Old Testament, this was not the case after the fall. As for the New Testament, see above for how the disciples and biblical authors and church fathers view women's place in society. As I remember it, also, one of the very penalties for the fall in Genesis 3:16 is that "your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you".



Paul is also the one who advocates in his letters the above treatment of women, that they should be subservient and submissive to men; cover their heads; and not try to teach males or take authority away from males.




If what you're saying here is that treating women as inferior human beings is old fashioned, unnecessary and morally repugnant, then I agree with you, but it's very clear for me to see that your bible and much of the teachings in many Christian churches across the globe don't agree, and haven't agreed, for hundreds and hundreds of years, right back to Jesus' time.

And as it relates to the point of this thread, to that effect I believe I have proven that Christianity, historically, up until very recently in human history has not given women any significant social, religious or legal freedom. And as relates to the OP, in many parts of the world, women still do not have those freedoms. Thus it is understandable to me that the OP's friend was offended at the OP's idea that all women should submit to their husbands. That is especially understandable if the OP's friend has no desire to be Christian.

Women's rights and freedoms may feel like established, inalienable cultural norms, but they are actually fairly recent developments that aren't yet globally spread, and that makes women's freedom a very tentative thing for lots of women.

Ok going to try and answer one by one. Here I go...

1) The verse about head covering is concerning the culture of the times. Prostitutes went without their heads covered so it would be considered immodest at the time to go without a head covering.Some churches women still do wear hats and the like but very few do.The end of the verses says "
[FONT=Trebuchet, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." So theres one down.lol[/FONT]

[FONT=Trebuchet, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]2) As Ive said teaching about submission is key.Ive seen a lot of abuse because of it. The Bible tells us to submit to one another and to submit to authority. When Christianity began it was a lot about being a servant to others.Jesus washed feet to show how we should treat one another. Christians were supposed to give up their "rights" and be servants of one another.So its not just the woman that is told to submit.The Bible is clear that the husband is to love his wife as much as he loves himself.

1Peter...
[/FONT] Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.

Eph.
So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

Col.- Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them.

So how a man is to treat his wife is the key.The Bible never says a man is to force his wife to submit or to force his will on her. If we were truly like the early Christian church we would be submitting to one another and be servants to each other. Unfortunately that is not the case.

2) Though many here disagree with me I dont believe that women shouldnt be pastors.Women in my family are pastors.I believe that was a specific time and culture.Wont go any further,dont want arguments from others.Thats my belief on the subject.

3) After the fall and the OT is not the same as the NT.Jesus made us all equal at the foot of the cross.There is no male or female,slave or free...so the Bible says.The "fathers" of the church that you quoted were simply wrong.Both Adam and Eve were cursed after the fall.Ive looked up some commentaries on the verse "your desire will be for your husband" and all of them said that it meant there would be a struggle for control,that now there would be conflict in the relationship where before the fall they were partners.Others may think something different.But the NT does not show a domineering,abusive husband forcing his wife to do his will.

I think I pretty much answered what you had to say. I have stated that I do not agree with the OPs idea of submission,so we agree on that. I would also agree that the way some churches have treated women is deplorable. I come from an evangelical experience and I know many female pastors.The women in my family were ordained years and years ago. So I come from a heritage of strong and capable Christian women.I was in ministry myself for 20yrs.So my view is different from a lot of people here.Im sure I'll have more than a few nasty comments come my way over this post.Either way its great to discuss with you.Thanks for being polite,I appreciate it.




 
K

kaylagrl

Guest
#98


I don't mean to be rude, Kayla, but "submission verse" (as in singular) is not an accurate way to describe the bible's teaching on women, even aside from the Church's and clergymen's official teachings. There are at least six verses that I can think of in the New Testament that when taken together explicitly instruct that: women must submit to men in all things; women must be submissive to their husbands; women must cover their heads in prayer or have their hair shaved off; women must not be allowed to speak in church; and women must never teach or usurp authority over a man.

It is not one isolated verse, it is an entire theme.



I don't doubt Jesus' position on the matter, but when has mainstream Christianity ever been truly representative of Jesus Christ? I can't think of any point in recorded history where that is the case.

It may also be true that Genesis accounts for a time before the fall of Adam and Eve where men and women were equals, however, as we see throughout the Old Testament, this was not the case after the fall. As for the New Testament, see above for how the disciples and biblical authors and church fathers view women's place in society. As I remember it, also, one of the very penalties for the fall in Genesis 3:16 is that "your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you".



Paul is also the one who advocates in his letters the above treatment of women, that they should be subservient and submissive to men; cover their heads; and not try to teach males or take authority away from males.




If what you're saying here is that treating women as inferior human beings is old fashioned, unnecessary and morally repugnant, then I agree with you, but it's very clear for me to see that your bible and much of the teachings in many Christian churches across the globe don't agree, and haven't agreed, for hundreds and hundreds of years, right back to Jesus' time.

And as it relates to the point of this thread, to that effect I believe I have proven that Christianity, historically, up until very recently in human history has not given women any significant social, religious or legal freedom. And as relates to the OP, in many parts of the world, women still do not have those freedoms. Thus it is understandable to me that the OP's friend was offended at the OP's idea that all women should submit to their husbands. That is especially understandable if the OP's friend has no desire to be Christian.

Women's rights and freedoms may feel like established, inalienable cultural norms, but they are actually fairly recent developments that aren't yet globally spread, and that makes women's freedom a very tentative thing for lots of women.

Ok going to try and answer one by one. Here I go...

1) The verse about head covering is concerning the culture of the times. Prostitutes went without their heads covered so it would be considered immodest at the time to go without a head covering.Some churches women still do wear hats and the like but very few do.The end of the verses says "
But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." So theres one down.lol

2) As Ive said teaching about submission is key.Ive seen a lot of abuse because of it. The Bible tells us to submit to one another and to submit to authority. When Christianity began it was a lot about being a servant to others.Jesus washed feet to show how we should treat one another. Christians were supposed to give up their "rights" and be servants of one another.So its not just the woman that is told to submit.The Bible is clear that the husband is to love his wife as much as he loves himself.

1Peter...
Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.

Eph.
So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

Col.- Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them.

So how a man is to treat his wife is the key.The Bible never says a man is to force his wife to submit or to force his will on her. If we were truly like the early Christian church we would be submitting to one another and be servants to each other. Unfortunately that is not the case.

2) Though many here disagree with me I dont believe that women shouldnt be pastors.Women in my family are pastors.I believe that was a specific time and culture.Wont go any further,dont want arguments from others.Thats my belief on the subject.

3) After the fall and the OT is not the same as the NT.Jesus made us all equal at the foot of the cross.There is no male or female,slave or free...so the Bible says.The "fathers" of the church that you quoted were simply wrong.Both Adam and Eve were cursed after the fall.Ive looked up some commentaries on the verse "your desire will be for your husband" and all of them said that it meant there would be a struggle for control,that now there would be conflict in the relationship where before the fall they were partners.Others may think something different.But the NT does not show a domineering,abusive husband forcing his wife to do his will.

I think I pretty much answered what you had to say. I have stated that I do not agree with the OPs idea of submission,so we agree on that. I would also agree that the way some churches have treated women is deplorable. I come from an evangelical experience and I know many female pastors.The women in my family were ordained years and years ago. So I come from a heritage of strong and capable Christian women.I was in ministry myself for 20yrs.So my view is different from a lot of people here.Im sure I'll have more than a few nasty comments come my way over this post.Either way its great to discuss with you.Thanks for being polite,I appreciate it.




 
Last edited by a moderator:
K

kaylagrl

Guest
#99
Ok going to try and answer one by one. Here I go...

1) The verse about head covering is concerning the culture of the times. Prostitutes went without their heads covered so it would be considered immodest at the time to go without a head covering.Some churches women still do wear hats and the like but very few do.The end of the verses says "
But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." So theres one down.lol

2) As Ive said teaching about submission is key.Ive seen a lot of abuse because of it. The Bible tells us to submit to one another and to submit to authority. When Christianity began it was a lot about being a servant to others.Jesus washed feet to show how we should treat one another. Christians were supposed to give up their "rights" and be servants of one another.So its not just the woman that is told to submit.The Bible is clear that the husband is to love his wife as much as he loves himself.

1Peter...
Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.

Eph.
So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

Col.- Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them.

So how a man is to treat his wife is the key.The Bible never says a man is to force his wife to submit or to force his will on her. If we were truly like the early Christian church we would be submitting to one another and be servants to each other. Unfortunately that is not the case.

2) Though many here disagree with me I dont believe that women shouldnt be pastors.Women in my family are pastors.I believe that was a specific time and culture.Wont go any further,dont want arguments from others.Thats my belief on the subject.

3) After the fall and the OT is not the same as the NT.Jesus made us all equal at the foot of the cross.There is no male or female,slave or free...so the Bible says.The "fathers" of the church that you quoted were simply wrong.Both Adam and Eve were cursed after the fall.Ive looked up some commentaries on the verse "your desire will be for your husband" and all of them said that it meant there would be a struggle for control,that now there would be conflict in the relationship where before the fall they were partners.Others may think something different.But the NT does not show a domineering,abusive husband forcing his wife to do his will.

I think I pretty much answered what you had to say. I have stated that I do not agree with the OPs idea of submission,so we agree on that. I would also agree that the way some churches have treated women is deplorable. I come from an evangelical experience and I know many female pastors.The women in my family were ordained years and years ago. So I come from a heritage of strong and capable Christian women.I was in ministry myself for 20yrs.So my view is different from a lot of people here.Im sure I'll have more than a few nasty comments come my way over this post.Either way its great to discuss with you.Thanks for being polite,I appreciate it.





Oops posted twice,sorry. :(
 
Jul 23, 2015
1,950
7
0
I have someone in my friend circle who decided to write me a letter about how I was anti-women because I made a comment about how women should submit in a marriage she wrote that it "sickens" her and I honestly feel so bad and hurt by this. Should I apologize for something I believe?
Theyre no such thing as Anti Woman!
Even in the early church of the early christians!
And truth is man cannot live well without a woman on his side
Christ tells us something like this before
Mark: 3. 32. And the multitude sat about him; and they say to him: Behold thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. 33. And answering them, he said: Who is my mother and my brethren? 34. And looking round about on them who sat about him, he saith: Behold my mother and my brethren. 35. For whosoever shall do the will of God, he is my brother, and my sister, and mother.
 
Last edited: