Women in Christianity

Please people, let's not stray off topic. Frisbinator, maybe you should start a new thread for that question.
 
Ok Jenyar your right :)

Frisbinator. I will be glad to reply to your post if you start another thread. Sorry for getting this one off track peoples.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

PS: pity there isn't a Private Message system attached to this forum. :(
 
Last edited:
Jenyar said:
That's true. Maybe I'm using a too narrow definition of prejudice, or maybe a too theoretical one. But how do those kids know that someone is "fat", or that wearing glasses is "funny"? I think it's because they're trying to establish and come to terms with their own identity, and things that make other children obviously different can't be identified with - so it gets rejected.

It's a continuous dialogue between the self and the other, a natural process of cognition and understanding, but I think parents need to teach children that language. The seed of love and tolerance is there, but it has to be watered.
Click to expand...

And how would you (as a parent) teach your child about Christianity with regard to coming to terms with their own identity.

Your child might be attracted to Islam for example, heaven knows (pun intended) there is enough of its propaganda around.

Hypothetically, Would you encourage your child to follow their interest in Islam?
 
Vienna said:
1 Corinthians 14:34 "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

Isn't it true that this prejudiced quote from the Bible affects the role of women in Christianity? In England there has much controversy of women wanting to become vicars priests etc. and only recently has this been allowed. A female bishop has yet to be seen.

Yet the head of the Church of England is a woman - Queen Elizabeth II

Prejudice and Hypocrisy!
Click to expand...
Men and woman have different roles, just like children and adults (though the roles of man and woman are a bit less clear than that). I don't know why woman shouldn't preach in churches, there is a view in the Bible that woman are evil because the first woman ate of the apple of knowledge.

Sure I don't want woman to be seen with any less respect than a man, though I can't say that woman and man are totally equal. We have evolved with different characteristics, and if some of the womans characteristics have any consequence that makes them unfit to preach in churches, then that's it. Though if a woman feel that their purpouse is to preach in a church then I think that they should be allowed to - cause still we are all different, a woman can have more of a man's characteristics and a man can have more of a woman's characteristics.

Though it also says in the Bible that both man and woman will become one in Jesus.

And don't take me wrong, a woman isn't any less than a man, though they have different roles, and are a bit different - but that's only to our view, we are all equal in God.
 
I was kind of afraid to say what he did due to Feminazis out there... But yeah you know women have evolved to be passive thats how it goes. In my church it's perfectly fine for women to speak out, it's a shame NOT to let them talk. But in a time where women were even more passive i think that's why they wrote that. Some things in the Law, like not eating pork, are no longer an issue to us. I think sexism is one of those things.
 
Frisbinator said:
Gee, I sure was looking forward to getting an answer to that question.
Am I to believe that I'm excluded from the kingdom of heaven since I took an oath during jury duty?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
OK, a quick answer. People have sworn oaths since time began - as a sort of "bond to honour". Even God is said to have "sworn by himself" (for lack of a higher authority to swear by!) But swearing supposes disbelief and distrust - it means that the people you are talking to might have reason to doubt you, and you wish to defer them to someone/something who can vouch for you. But Jesus became our certainty - He vouches for truth. What Matthew says is that if we are in Christ, and we live and speak accordingly, we need no more than that. To say anything more than "yes" or "no" seeks to justify ourselves - and God has already done that. Unless, of course you are lying - in which case that comes "from the evil one", and it distances you from God.

(I didn't check if you started a new thread, but if you're not satisfied with this short answer, feel free to PM me)

Vienna said:
And how would you (as a parent) teach your child about Christianity with regard to coming to terms with their own identity.

Your child might be attracted to Islam for example, heaven knows (pun intended) there is enough of its propaganda around.

Hypothetically, Would you encourage your child to follow their interest in Islam?
Click to expand...
What is external to Christianity - the "doctrines", for lack of a better word - they are free to question and probe for themselves. I would encourage such enquiry. But what Christianity stands for: a restored relationship with the living God, one that requires unselfish love, a moral lifestyle and knowing Christ's identity, I will live and practice as I would wish them to know it, as I have come to know it, and as it had been known by the apostles. They can deal with that knowledge and certainty how they wish to - just like any child could accept or reject their parents' love. I will always be there for them whatever they decide; I don't think they could expect much more.
 
Last edited:
Vienna said:
Of course women were passive in those days - they were nothing but slaves to men.
Click to expand...

Well, once someone beats you up, you start to think very differently of power. And if it is a man who beats up a woman -- it would be suicidal to go against someone who is physically stronger than you and who does not shy back from using this power.

This is why some things look like passiveness. While in reality to the one who is passive, this passiveness is an act of despair and helplesness.
 
RosaMagika said:
Well, once someone beats you up, you start to think very differently of power. And if it is a man who beats up a woman -- it would be suicidal to go against someone who is physically stronger than you and who does not shy back from using this power.

This is why some things look like passiveness. While in reality to the one who is passive, this passiveness is an act of despair and helplesness.
Click to expand...

I mean sexually. In other words, dominatrix is not natural. The man is meant to kind of be a little bit more well ehrm ... :eek: ... powerful ... and since most things in life are based around reproduction i think it tends to carry off into life. Now, we are equal with women in Christ, and in freedom, and I don't personally believe that women cannot speak in Church, because on my worship team some leaders are women. I also believe that they have the right to speak out because they are people too. But the human female's natural role is well ... submission.
 
Jenyar said:
What is external to Christianity - the "doctrines", for lack of a better word - they are free to question and probe for themselves. I would encourage such enquiry.
Click to expand...

So you would encourage your child to persue Islam if they were interested in becoming a muslim.

Fair enough, but y'know it doesn't work the other way round - No muslim father would encourage their siblings into Christianity if it their interest was in it - things would be quite the opposite. Doing things like that can get you kicked out of a Muslim family... sheeesh!

No wonder Islam is gaining ground over Christianity...
 
Vienna said:
No, but it's a fact.
Click to expand...
No, it's a generalization - and just as vague as "in those days". It might have been the popular notion, a kind of "natural order" for most of hstory, but it's not the only one. You might as well say "all men are rapists" if you insist all women were treated like slaves. The ideas of social status and human rights didn't evolve overnight.

And speaking of evolution, today we have the notion that the humanity's superiority has been determined by natural evolution. In essence it means we are "better than" other life on earth since we evolved that way by the totally objective process of natural selection (it seems to be the only truly objective decision-maker ever known, since it provides a true reflection of circumstances and is an infallible judge on choices in lifestyle).

Will future humans one day say things like: "Of course animals were passive in those days - they were nothing but slaves to men," or "of course men were passive those days - they were nothing but slaves to nature"? Or will we let more than nature determine who gets our respect?

Nature shows us what's natural, but love and tolerance is something we impose on it, not vice versa.
 
Last edited:
Vienna said:
So you would encourage your child to persue Islam if they were interested in becoming a muslim.
Click to expand...
Not everything that invites enquiry should be persued. But those should's and should not's are a matter of discernment and self-knowledge.
 
Oh my God!

I just love this...

Cyperium said:
Men and woman have different roles, just like children and adults (though the roles of man and woman are a bit less clear than that).
Click to expand...
How about you give us an example of what YOU think the role of a man and women are or should be? Hmmm?

But this one was, I admit, priceless...
Cyperium said:
Sure I don't want woman to be seen with any less respect than a man, though I can't say that woman and man are totally equal. We have evolved with different characteristics, and if some of the womans characteristics have any consequence that makes them unfit to preach in churches, then that's it.
Click to expand...

Man and a woman aren't totally equal? How so? What characteristics could a woman possibly have that makes her unfit to preach in a church? I'm sure that whatever they may be, they couldn't be as bad as allowing a priest who is known to have abused children preach in a church, protecting that priest, shifting him to another parish to try and hide it all, the Bishops saying nothing except to deny it all when they know they are lying and keeping it all behind closed doors... all while saying NO to a woman who may wish to preach because she's a woman and women just can't preach because she's got some characteristics that don't make her fit to do so. Give me a break.

And so, like any weak person who realises that he may have made a booboo, you try to rectify it with this comment...

Cyperium said:
Though if a woman feel that their purpouse is to preach in a church then I think that they should be allowed to - cause still we are all different, a woman can have more of a man's characteristics and a man can have more of a woman's characteristics.
Click to expand...

Are you serious? LMFAO!!.... ROTFLMFAO!!!... Ah.. that's just precious.. LMAO! That's the funniest thing I've seen in a while... LOL!

And now onto Truth51...

Truth51 said:
I was kind of afraid to say what he did due to Feminazis out there... But yeah you know women have evolved to be passive thats how it goes. In my church it's perfectly fine for women to speak out, it's a shame NOT to let them talk. But in a time where women were even more passive i think that's why they wrote that. Some things in the Law, like not eating pork, are no longer an issue to us. I think sexism is one of those things.
Click to expand...
How lucky for those women that your kind and loving church has now given them the right to speak. :rolleyes: I just love that 'even more passive' line. Really.

In the past, women, if they spoke out, had an opinion, did not remain in her place were either beaten by their husbands and/or fathers... or they'd be shunned by society and seen as an outcast because she dared enter into the male domain. Women were seen as property Truth. They were owned. They had no rights. They had no say. And it is still the same for many women even today.

And you even go so far as to admit that women are passive. Lovely. Women haven't evolved to be passive Truth. It was beaten into them that if they weren't passive, or they'd be shunned by society. In effect, they'd be punished repeatedly. Women haven't evolved that way Truth. It's more a social conditioning that begins right from the moment when the baby girl is born. And in today's society, if a woman is not passive, she's seen to be a ball breaker. If a woman is not passive, she's seen to be masculine. That is the current situation Truth.
 
Bells, just as a matter of interest, can you argue the equality of the sexes from an evolutionary perspective?
 
Jenyar said:
Bells, just as a matter of interest, can you argue the equality of the sexes from an evolutionary perspective?
Click to expand...
Good question Jenyar. From an evolutionary perspective, I see the females early hominids as being more equal to the males than the females are to males in today's society. We look at the relationship of early humans through eyes that have been tainted by the inequality of the sexes that exists today. The way I see it, both had to hunt and gather foods to survive when they were still in the trees and also when they first left the trees and began to walk upright. While in the ancient past I'm sure some form of ranking order did exist, I don't think that the females were seen to be of lesser value to the male. Because equal co-operation would probably have been the only way for them to survive.

I guess the development of specialised tools for specialised tasks could have had something to do with it. The males strength may have resulted in the women being designated the duties of gathering foods, etc, while the males used the larger tools to hunt large game. And with the advent of food production and cultivation, I guess we started to clearly see the break down in the notion of equality as the gender roles were becoming more defined. The men worked outside while the women tended closer to home.

I am probably wrong, but that's the way I see it anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top