Thread: Women must submit to men?

If God didn't say it, I did.

LOL ^^^^ that was great

Men and women are eachother's equals so they should be treated accordingly.
A man who wants his woman to be submissive is an anti-social brute. A tyrant. A pathetic fool. He lacks completely my defenition of "being civilised".

Those that seek to control others have trouble controlling themselves.

Universal mind - LMFAO

Originally Posted by SKA

Men and women are eachother's equals so they should be treated accordingly.
A man who wants his woman to be submissive is an anti-social brute. A tyrant. A pathetic fool. He lacks completely my defenition of "being civilised".

Those that seek to control others have trouble controlling themselves.

SKA - good for you sir!

SM.
Haven't you ever seen porn?
Of course they must.
Looks like a majority are from timothy.

Thanks. I live in Mississippi and am very familiar with the mentality. People I am related to have expressed it, and it makes them look so ridiculous. I even went to a wedding one time where the preacher had the bride verbally accept dominance by the groom in front of everybody.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I even went to a wedding one time where the preacher had the bride verbally accept dominance by the groom in front of everybody.

...Wow.

That's serious business, right there. Lol.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Thanks. I live in Mississippi and am very familiar with the mentality. People I am related to have expressed it, and it makes them look so ridiculous. I even went to a wedding one time where the preacher had the bride verbally accept dominance by the groom in front of everybody.

Yes. I have explained the symbology of the xtian marriage ceremony to my daughter at lengh as a warning.

The father gives his daughters hand (the passsing of his posession) to the groom (who from hence forth "owns" her). The bride then pledges obeidience to her new owner. The priest then binds her hand to his - tieing the knot. Very stoneage - of course from the days when some kind of dowry was in order or the marriage was to secure some kind of social position or standing - therefore the father "pimping" his daughter for position, standing, favor or material gain.

I am no longer affiliated with the Catholic church, however I'll tell you what they taught us in morality class.

Essentially, they presented the idea that men and women were seperately purposed yet equally dignified. Our teacher, who was a member of the sisterhood, also disagreed with a statement in the book which presented the notion that the Catholic church has done more than enough to advance women's rights.

Now, being a feminist, I disagree with the notion that men and women are "purposed." But in my experience, the Catholic church at least has been moderate on gender equality. Southern US Protestant churches have not been so moderate.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If God didn't say it, I did.

Love the coffee stain

SM.
Haven't you ever seen porn?

Good point...

Seriously though, feeling the need to have dominance over your spouse (I'm not psychologist but...) probably stems from insecurity or an anti-social nature as SKA pointed out.

This is what I found for you.

Many of us were raised in churches that taught that women should be silent in the church because of the teachings of Paul in 1 Corinthians 14:34. When we read the passage, sure enough, we see the following words on the pages of the Bible: “Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak…” “If women want to inquire about something,” Paul continues in verse 35, “they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.”

It is easy to read a passage like this in a literal way and miss the point Paul is making. After all, we know that there were women in scripture who spoke, particularly women prophets in this very church (1 Corinthians 11:5). In fact, Paul exhorts all Christians in Corinth to seek the gift of prophecy (14:1). Given this apparent discrepancy, we must take a closer look at Paul’s intention for the church in Corinth.

Corinth was one of the most wealthy and decadent cities in the ancient world. In it was the temple of Aphrodite—a temple that boasted of 1,000 prostitutes. Paul’s letter to the church in Corinth, written about 55 C.E., reveals a troubled church. Writing from Ephesus, Paul sets out to address specific problems in the church, including divided loyalties (1:10ff, 3:4ff, 6:1-11); sexual immorality (5:1-5, 5:9-11, 6:12-19, 10:7-11); drunkenness (11:21); food sacrificed to idols (8:4ff, 10:14ff); and disorder and confusion during teaching and worship (14:23ff).

In the context of these troubles, Paul asks women worshipping in the Corinthian church to cover their heads and refrain from asking their husbands questions during worship (11:5-6, 10, 13-15, 14:34). Clearly, Paul’s instruction to women appears at the end of his exhortation to teach the gospel in an orderly way, so others might hear and understand (14:1-36). Paul’s primary concern here is evangelism. The gospel is best taught in an orderly atmosphere. To maximize learning for all people, Paul insists upon order in worship which consumes Paul’s thoughts in chapter 14. Women and men sat in different parts of the synagogue, so for women to ask questions of their husbands would disrupt the entire assembly. For this reason, married women would need to ask questions of their husbands at home. The trouble was not with women speaking generally, but with their choice to disrupt worship specifically. After all, three chapters earlier (in chapter 11) Paul tells women how to dress when speaking in public (with covered heads), and their voices (speaking to their husbands during worship) were not to disrupt others from hearing the gospel. This passage addresses a specific problem in Corinth and is not to be universal in application.

Another example of Paul’s insistence on order in worship concerns the issue of speaking in tongues noted in 1 Corinthians 14. Though Paul favors prophecy over speaking in tongues (14:5, 9, 18-19, 32-33), he exhorts others to speak in tongues as he does. Yet, he limits the expression of tongues when it contributes to disorder that impedes the gospel. Similarly, though Paul supports women speaking in church (11:5), he requests their silence when their freedom to speak proves a distraction to the gospel. Paul’s highest priority is the gospel.

Though Paul asks women to remain silent when their voices contributed to disorderly worship, this injunction does not limit their voices in all places at all times. Remember, women were prominent as prophets in both the Old Testament (Numbers 12:1-16, Judges 4:4-5, 5:7, 2 Kings 22:14) and the New Testament. Women prophets were active at Pentecost (Acts 2:17), Phillip had four prophesying daughters (Acts 21:9), and there were women prophets mentioned in Paul’s letter to the church in Corinth (1 Corinthians 11:5). Paul exhorts all Christians in Corinth to seek the gift of prophecy. The gift of prophecy was given to men as well as women. Women and men may speak in churches today as long as their voices do not distract those who need to hear the gospel!

Women have preached the good news since Easter morning. Let’s not silence women as they work in partnership with men, advancing the Great Commission.

Found at http://blog.sojo.net/2009/04/02/wome...remain-silent/

By the way that picture is too funny

I was raised catholic. My parents weren't super religious, but I was devout in my own special way. What I mean is I didn't have a fundamentalist view, because there was no one around to preach it do me. When I decided to read the bible, I did so out of my own free will and choosing.

And when it finally came time to read it, my catholic world turned upside down. It became so obvious and crystal clear to me that the catholic church didn't seem to follow any of Jesus' teachings. And how vastly different the bible is before and after the gospels

When it came time to be submissive, I got angry. There were nights I cried, because I was now being told that I am a worthless female. How I hated paul!

But I never had problems reading the actual gospel, or Jesus words. So I held onto to Jesus instead and prayed for an answer. I told Jesus that if he would tell me directly that I am to be submissive and shut up, then I would. Otherwise, help me understand the worth of being female

It wasn't more than a week before answers started coming to me. Slowly,and surely, I was finding what I wanted to know. First conspiracies regarding the church and the translation of the bible. I remember at that time I learned there was this 'other' gospel. But at the time I never found/read it.

But my quest didn't end there. I learned about other religions and spirituality in general. And although the teachings of these other spiritualities were superior to anything in the bible, I naively held onto to Jesus. I'm glad I did, because after many years I came full circle. And rediscovered that other gospel. That is, I discovered the gnostic Jesus.

Had I discovered the gnostic Jesus all those years ago, I would have rejected him. I needed to taste the fruits of other religions and spiritualities to fully appreciate the gnostic Jesus, and what the gnostic Jesus has to teach and say.

I don't consider myself Christian anymore. But I consider myself a follower of Christ. Because it was holding onto to Jesus and asking what did Jesus really teach, did I find so many great truths that have expanded my mind since. So I remain faithful to Jesus.

Submission back then was a terrible word. It meant shutting up and having someone else think for you, and tell you how to breathe

But the word submission, to submit, has taken on a whole new meaning now. A meaning that requires an individual to be brave, fearless, like submitting to love. Or submitting to the moment. Going with the flow, instead of trying to control everything

It's got little or nothing to do with being subordinate

If it's a practical problem of not disturbing the rest of the church, why isn't there a passage telling men to be silent (is there?), or telling the men to ask their wives later if they had questions or a unisex variation like "everybody shut up in church". This seems to me as an attempt at a rationalization. He generalizes on how everybody must be silent in church, while the passage only addresses the women. It's pretty obvious that women back then were not too far away from what fundamentalist Islam tells women to be like today. Even if this rationalization is true, it's clear that singling out the women implies man's dominance. That's how I see it. Personally I don't see why they shouldn't take this as literally as they take the gay passages etc. Whenever there is something they don't like, there is a workaround.

People often confuse religion and culture. The culture of the time and place was that women should be subservient, homosexuals were abominations and slvaery was alright. Thus these values were passed on to the religion that sprouted in that time and place. This in itself should be evidence that the Bible Old and New Testament is not diviniely inspired, but merely men of the time trying to influence and control society through spirtiuality. For centuries religion has played a central part in the organisation and control of society.
DaveJ your response is blatantly you dodging the truth and trying to justify your religion. What you should be doing, as a good Christian, is dominating your wife and treating her like shit. I also hope you make sure that she doesn't speak in Church, if not, you and your wife both fail as Christians.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Personally I don't see why they shouldn't take this as literally as they take the gay passages etc. Whenever there is something they don't like, there is a workaround.

This is one of the things that fustrates me most about theists.

Imran, neither my wife nor I speak at church while the service is going on. it is rude a disruptive.

Secondly, I don't really care about your rude comments so if you want to try and show the slightest bit of respect you could possibly muster up, we can have a decent conversation. I have done nothing but try to show as much respect as i can towards you and everyone else.

Please pinpoint this insult in my post. And I said insult, not valid point that causes me offence.

What you should be doing, as a good Christian, is dominating your wife and treating her like shit. I also hope you make sure that she doesn't speak in Church, if not, you and your wife both fail as Christians

I don't even know why i am entertaining the thought of answering you but that is a pretty rude and smart comment. don't expect anymore responses.

Originally Posted by evildoctor

I would like to hear from some of our resident christians about the modern churches attitude towards women.

What should modern women make of the following??:

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."[1 Cor. 14:34-35]

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."[1 Tim. 2:8]

"[I desire women] to array themselves in a befitted catastola, with reverence and restraint, not with braids, or gold, or pearls, or costly garments. But as becomes women proclaiming godliness, with good deeds."[1 Tim. 2:9-10]

"Now I permit a woman neither to teach nor exercise authority over a man, but let her be in quietness. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived [when he sinned]; but the woman, having [first] been thoroughly deceived, became [involved] in the transgression [of Adam], and she will be saved by the Child-bearing [i.e., the bearing of Jesus Christ], if they abide in faith, and love and sanctification with self-restraint."[1 Tim. 2:12-15]


As these are new testament passages does this mean they are still "law"?

For those that beleive the bible is 100% correct - is this still the correct way for women to be treated and raised?

For those Christian men - do you expect submission and obedience from your wives? Do you raise you daughters to expect the same?

I believe this justifys everything that I said in that post.

Davej, would you please comment on Bonsay's post.

Thanks for posting that Dave, I do of course have some rebuttals.

The author of that addresses the Corinthians 14:24 – but he does not address the even more overtly authoritarian versus from Timothy that I posted (Tim 1 2: 8 thru 15). He also somewhat naughtily finishes with “women have been spreading the good news since easter morning……” -somewhat ironic methinks considering :

And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not. Luke 24:11

Much has been written about how the male disciples usurped the female disciples and turned the church into a male only club. Paul of course was almost crucified himself – for preaching celibacy for all. This rather strange directive to commit voluntary extinction irritated the Romans somewhat so he scaled his teachings back a little to chastity and restraint.

I agree with Juroara, I have a lot of respect for Gnosticism, especially for their more equal treatment of women. Sadly the Church slaughtered the Cathars and other Gnostic sects for their “heresy”. The Catholic Church is of course still to this day a male only organization, and even worse practices celibacy. To me there can be no greater crime against life than celibacy and chastity.

The author also talks to “prostitution”. Lets be clear here, in much of the ancient world polytheistic beliefs were the normal. To the pagans sex was holy. The gods were male and female, therefore the “holy fuck” was as critical to their beliefs as the sacrament is to the xtians. Sacred prostitution by female priestesses in pagan temples was a ritualistic earthly version of the union of the gods. It was not about making money – but appeasing the fertility goddesses such as Venus, Artemis, Aphrodite, etc.

Much of the early Christians hatred of pagan sex goes back of course to Babylon. Where of course the Jews were taken as slaves after the fall of Jerusalem. The pagan sex rites of the Babylonians for the worship of Ishtar disgusted the jews :

The foulest Babylonian custom is that which compels every woman of the land to sit in the temple of Aphrodite and have intercourse with some stranger once in her life. Many women who are rich and proud and disdain to mingle with the rest, drive to the temple in covered carriages drawn by teams, and stand there with a great retinue of attendants. But most sit down in the sacred plot of Aphrodite, with crowns of cord on their heads; there is a great multitude of women coming and going; passages marked by line run every way through the crowd, by which the men pass and make their choice. Once a woman has taken her place there, she does not go away to her home before some stranger has cast money into her lap, and had intercourse with her outside the temple; but while he casts the money, he must say, “I invite you in the name of Mylitta” (that is the Assyrian name for Aphrodite). It does not matter what sum the money is; the woman will never refuse, for that would be a sin, the money being by this act made sacred. So she follows the first man who casts it and rejects no one.

This made a huge impact on the Jewish psyche – enslaved and their city sacked – then subjected to strange sex rituals.

Sacred prostitution was also of course practiced in ancient rome (the new Babylon). Consider the iconic image of the great whore babylon upon the 7 headed beast. The book of revelations was not about an end of world vision for thousands of years in the future. The book is the 7 letters to the 7 evangelical churches issuing as a war cry for xtians to rise up and fight the roman empire as the “hour of the lord is at hand”.

The beast has seven heads, and rome was/is known as the city of 7 hills. The whore (representing the morals of the hated Babylonians) is dressed in purple – a royal color that ONLY the emperor was allowed to wear – anyone else wearing purple was immediately executed. This whole “vision” is therefore nothing but an evangelists moralizing editorial on the roman empire. At the time John wrote revelations the temple of Venus was the largest in Rome and also employed 1000 sacred prostitutes

From the young new religions point of view ALL female goddesses, their temples, their priestesses had to go. And so sadly sex for pleasure and worship were off the menu for the next few thousand years.

..................And women needed to know their place in the new regieme.

I'm pressed for time so I didn't read everything above me (besides the OP).

I have no problem with a wife being submissive to her husband. I use the example of a President and Vice President when explaining this to my kids. Both the President and Vice P. are very important, but one is above the other so chaos doesn't crop up. They keep each other in balance but the final say is with the President.

I apologize to the Trinitarians here, but 1 Corinthians 11:3 sums it up:
"But I want YOU to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn the head of a woman is the man; in turn the head of the Christ is God. "

If Jesus isn't upset about being under the authority or God, why should I be offended to be under the authority of my husband?

BUT, a loving Christian husband does not abuse his authority. He considers his wife's opinion, insight and other input very carefully. But the ultimate decision lies with him (as does the responsibility).

Ephesians 5:24,25, 28-33
"In fact, as the congregation is in subjection to the Christ, so let wives also be to their husbands in everything. 25*Husbands, continue loving YOUR wives, just as the Christ also loved the congregation and delivered up himself for it,...
28*In this way husbands ought to be loving their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself, 29*for no man ever hated his own flesh; but he feeds and cherishes it, as the Christ also does the congregation, 30*because we are members of his body. 31*“For this reason a man will leave [his] father and [his] mother and he will stick to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” 32*This sacred secret is great. Now I am speaking with respect to Christ and the congregation. 33*Nevertheless, also, let each one of YOU individually so love his wife as he does himself; on the other hand, the wife should have deep respect for her husband."

I was given the same explaination Dave was given as to why women were to remain quiet.

As for taking the lead in spiritual matters, God says that's the primary domain of men. Jehovah's Witnesses still abide by that, yet the women have other roles as spiritual teachers. While a woman doesn't publically teach the congregation by means of "sermons", we do have skits which are used as teaching aids and we also hold most of the Bible studies with interested indivuals outside the Congregation.

Originally Posted by Zhaylin

I have no problem with a wife being submissive to her husband. I use the example of a President and Vice President when explaining this to my kids. Both the President and Vice P. are very important, but one is above the other so chaos doesn't crop up. They keep each other in balance but the final say is with the President.

I forgot what I wanted to say. I'm sorry, consider it as a... disagreement.