The Role of the Woman!

palmera0 · Sea Monkey Joined: 29 Oct 2003 Posts: 10

To Fake and others,

To use the Bible as a means to denegrate women and place them in an iferior role is quite simply ignorant. First of all, your use of quotations deeply saddens me. Not only are they out of context within the Bible, you've completely stripped them of their hostorical and literary conext. Completely disregarding literary context do you not understand that the culture responsible for writing the OT was patriarchal- perhaps you also do not realize that both Matthew and Luke overturn the pariarchal societies which not only were responsible for the OT, but which also existed in their own times? For example, in MT's lineage of Jesus not only are prostitutes mentioned, Rehab and Tamar, but also Ruth, a Moabite... or do you not understand the significance of this? How about the fact both MAtthew and Luke (esp. Luke) raise up women throughout their gospels as those who understand Jesus' message and purpose, even over the disciples whom he explicitly teaches the true meaning of his parables and yet who also fail to understand?
Before you comment on the obvious inferiority of women in the Bible, take a closer look not only at the context of the passages which yo9u site, but also the historical and literary realities behind them. Perhaps you will come to a better understanding of the role of women in the BIble.

palmera0 · Sea Monkey Joined: 29 Oct 2003 Posts: 10

Fake,
I feel that I may have misinterpreted your use of quotations from the Bible. I wrote hastilly and I apologize if I have offended you. You see, I often hear of men claiming that a woman's role in the church is one of silence and passivity and it angers me greatly, for indeed it is not what the Bible says, but is rather the contextual interpretation we place upon it. If I have missinterpreted you use of quotations I apologize and beg your forgiveness if I have offended you.

Fake · Tiger Joined: 03 May 2003 Posts: 862

shepreach · Cobra Joined: 08 Nov 2003 Posts: 488 Location: ga

didn't you forget deborah? she was not only a judge in israel, but barak wouldn't go to war without her. another woman, jael, not barak got the pleasure of defeating the enemy sisera. there are many other instances of women being publicly important in the affairs of the jewish nation. many of these women are not jewish, i wonder why?
read the last chapter of proverbs. it'll give you a great description of a business woman.
paul had a thing about women -- i don't think he liked them much.
sheila
_________________
a servant in Christ

I'm wounded sore but not yet slain, I'll lie and bleed awhile then rise to fight again.
--?

MoJo · Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2003 8:05 pm Post subject:

I've heard this view of Paul voiced before. Is it you opinion then that the epistles, though inspired, leave room for the personal biases of the writer? Very Happy

_________________
matt 6: 34 "Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."

metothezero · Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2003 8:27 pm Post subject:

shepreach · Cobra Joined: 08 Nov 2003 Posts: 488 Location: ga

mojo,
i think all the bible books reflect the personality of their writers. if they didn't all the books would sound the same since they come from the same Source. whether these writers are the ones handed down by tradition, i don't know. so yes i think paul's personality played a great part in how he wrote, just like we bring our own personalities to the things we do and say. i've found that when christians get to the heart of the matter, which is salvation, most of us believe the same things but we don't always express those beliefs the same way.
sheila
_________________
a servant in Christ

I'm wounded sore but not yet slain, I'll lie and bleed awhile then rise to fight again.
--?

MoJo · Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2003 9:03 pm Post subject:

Expressing something in a different way yes, but if carried too far it changes the message. So to what point would Paul be "allowed" to express his personal view which would call into question if this really was also God's view? If we say that Paul's POV on women was questionable, would this not also call into question his POV on everything he wrote? I mean, who's going to decide the dividing line? Very Happy

_________________
matt 6: 34 "Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."

shepreach · Cobra Joined: 08 Nov 2003 Posts: 488 Location: ga

Mojo,
God decides of course. Besides I don’t really know for sure how Paul felt. That he didn’t like women is just an impression I got while reading the epistles. I don’t think he was a bigot, I just think that as a group they annoyed him. Maybe Paul thought women were frivolous and were hindering others in search of a life in Christ. After all, men and women are different in their approach to things whether we women want to admit it or not. And Paul was a busy man. I’m looking for the scriptures now.
I get the impression from reading the gospels that Jesus didn’t like the Scribes and the Pharisees. That doesn’t mean a whole lot either. It’s just that when you call a group whitewashed sepulchers full of dead men’s bones it leaves the impression that there is something wrong there. Of course in this instance we know why Jesus was displeased. The S&P’s were leading people away from God.
Sheila
_________________
a servant in Christ

I'm wounded sore but not yet slain, I'll lie and bleed awhile then rise to fight again.
--?

Pondering · Lion King Joined: 15 Sep 2005 Posts: 1396

Hi..I'm new here (and posted a long introduction in the Noah forum)...

but I'll jump in here anyway ...

Sheila,
you said that "God decides of course." OK, I'll accept that...now, how am I supposed to know? Be inspired? Use my own reason/prayer/insight into what the Bible says? Which part?

If the Bible is god-breathed, then how CAN the author's point of view change the message...sure word choice (happy/glad...sad/sorrowful)...but actual meaning? Mojo's point is valid and more importantly, metothezero's point is EXACTLY the problem. The Bible cannot both be the "word of god as inspired" and display the author's bias. How would one know which from which?

Take this example. It allows for some variation in story, without changing the message. It doesn't explain the contradictions.

Light shines trough a prism. It is one solid beam of white on one side. On the other, the light is refracted into the colors of the rainbow. If the white light is Truth (god-breathed) and the prism is an inspired man, each ray of the rainbow of refracted light is still true...but you can't point to one color of the rainbow and say "this is Truth" because some other "color" or part of the rainbow may also be important, nor can you say, "well, blue just isn't true anymore" If the collective (white light) is God's word, then it is ALL God's word.....the problem only becomes greater when you consider that there ARE direct contradictions in the Bible as a collective (the "has anyone seen the face of God" question being one of the most obvious).
_________________
Link to intro post of "who I am"
"Review for Doubting Christians"
Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs

Pondering · Lion King Joined: 15 Sep 2005 Posts: 1396

Sky · Booted Joined: 08 May 2006 Posts: 354