“..Your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you” Genesis 3:16

The Church of England is procrastinating whether women deserve equal promotion to senior clergy, initially proposing legislation that would mean “it would have enshrined in law the very prejudices against which supporters of female bishops have battled so long. It would, they say, create a two-tier system in which not only female bishops, but men who ordained women or who had themselves been ordained by women, would be considered second-rate.” Meanwhile in Afghanistan, Taliban tribesmen are using ‘Sharia’ law to execute women ‘accused’ of adultery. Religions the world over proclaim peace and equality whilst consistently using their beliefs to promote power and control of women.

As someone who was indoctrinated into an Abrahamic faith from a very young age, I have my issues with religion and whether it can ever be considered supportive of the feminist cause. God is masculine. His first human was male. His first female wasn’t designed exclusively of her own flesh and bone; she was created from one of man’s ribs. In another tradition, Eve is described as being the second wife of Adam. Lilith was God’s first female creation, an equal; she refused to ‘sleep or serve under him’ and was banished for knowing her own mind. This version of events is not in any of the holy books. When God is a man (and a blond blue eyed one, at that) and all the prophets, disciples and saints (more or less) are also men, as a woman you face one of two choices. Accept that man is wiser; pure and blessed, and revere him as the creator and administrator of the life force OR open your eyes, revel in your ability to create fullstop and accept you might have been a little duped by the men holding the pens who, 2-3000 years ago orchestrated the abomination that is the subjugation of women through ‘original sin’.

Read more: http://samambreen./2012/07/09/monotheism-and-the-war-on-women/

There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. - Galatians 3:28

We may be familiar with the oppression of women in certain Middle Eastern countries. In many places in the world, woman can't drive, vote, or leave home without a male escort. And when they do venture out, they must cover their entire bodies with a burka. Women who disobey these rigid gender laws risk beatings and even death at the hands of vicious religious fundamentalists. And it’s all done in the name of God.

In the West, and say, in Christianity, this kind of oppression is also often present but more subtle. Many Christian fundamentalists pass church legislation requiring the wife to submit to the husband (no matter what he does), and bar the women from active church roles.

Christian proponents of female subjugation quote Paul as background "Wives, submit to your husbands" (Eph 5:22) and say, that's it, case closed. However, Eph 6:5 also says "Slaves, obey your earthly masters". We obviously don't promote slavery anymore, so why do we promote female oppression / subjugation?

When Paul wrote those words about marriage, the world was totally dominated by men. In his day, women were a property of their husbands or fathers. Just as slaves were owned and it was a totally acceptable way of life, nobody questioned the ethics of slavery. Paul was a part of this backward culture and it reflected in his writings.

Yet, as backward as the civilization was, he perfectly understood God's dream for equality in humanity. He writes in Galatians 3:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. - Galatians 3:28

God doesn't want people in the bondage of slavery, nor women to be submissive second-class citizens.

Marriage is a partnership and not a hierarchy. And what obtains at home is also true in the church. Women are perfectly capable of holding leadership positions in the clergy.

In the 1970s in the U.S, girls were not allowed to play full-court basketball, they could only play half-court because people believed they were too "delicate" to play full-court. They ridiculously felt women don't have the stamina and endurance to play full-court basketball.

Many churches today still follow this half-court rule. They allow women to play, but only half-court. Women teach Children's Sunday School, sing in the choir, maybe even serve as children's director. They are also happy to take the women's money. BUT once they reach half-court, they need to stop. In these churches they can't chair the capital projects committee, the finance committee, or church development / buildings and grounds committee; they can't serve as deacons, they definitely can't be preachers.

This rejection and subjugation is totally out of Christian character. Yes, I am Christian, and I am feminist.

Women are fully equal with men in marriage, in church, and in society.

Hi InesQor,

Honestly, I'm relieved to know that there are still Christians like you around that do not hold such primitive and misogynistic views. If only there were many more people with this mindset in the Christendom, the world would really be a better place and you probably wouldn't have atheists and the likes constantly breathing down your necks as much as they currently do.

Having said that, I think you run the risk of irking your fellow Christians with some of your remarks, especially the bit about Paul's backward era being a factor that inspired some of his teachings. It is believed by all Christians - including yourself I suppose - that the bible and all contained in it is entirely inspired by God. This then implies that Paul's teachings must also have been inspired by God himself, which should definitely transcend any culture or civilization and still hold true in any era no matter what. God is supposed to be the same yesterday, today and forever.

Also, if we go by your reasoning, is it safe to conclude then that all his sermons against 'vices' like homosexuality were also as a result of the backward culture in which Paul found himself? Note that apart from the Sodom and Gomorrah story in the OT, Paul's teachings about homosexuality are the most used and quoted today to justify homophobia, within Christianity at least. Shall we then dismiss those teachings as well on the same grounds that you dismissed the teaching about women's roles, especially as you yourself pointed out that "he perfectly understood God's dream for equality in humanity." ??

Note that I'm only curious about how you manage to reconcile your personal beliefs with the teachings in the bible, because I personally feel that "Christian feminist" is an oxymoron.

[size=14pt]
1 corinthians 14;34
women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says[/size]



Sexist bigotry

Purist thanks for sharing that provoking article, admittedly I am in much agreement with the author. I also appreciate InesQor’s comments.
I was going to subject you all to an epistle style response concerning this subject but I’m more inspired to create another thread.

Purist: Hi InesQor,

Honestly, I'm relieved to know that there are still Christians like you around that do not hold such primitive and misogynistic views. If only there were many more people with this mindset in the Christendom, the world would really be a better place and you probably wouldn't have atheists and the likes constantly breathing down your necks as much as they currently do.

Hi Purist,

Thanks for your riposte. I am not a "mainstream" Christian, as some of my beliefs don't align with general practice / belief. Sometimes I simply refer to myself as a Theist.

Purist:
Having said that, I think you run the risk of irking your fellow Christians with some of your remarks, especially the bit about Paul's backward era being a factor that inspired some of his teachings.

These are my own convictions, and I didn't exactly say his backward era inspired anything. Rather, I said he lived in those times. In order to directly address to the people he was talking to, he needed to pertinently reference their germane issues. However, as I showed from Gal 3:28, he balanced it by telling them "Hey guys this is what obtains generally, but this is what God really wants". Thus, He was ahead of the culture.

Purist:
It is believed by all Christians - including yourself I suppose - that the bible and all contained in it is entirely inspired by God.

Yes I believe the Bible is entirely inspired by God, and I believe the same for some other religious text. And all are similar to how marvelous works of art and many other inventions and technological breakthroughs have been inspired by God. The desire of a human/the illumination from God, and then the human expresses the light within them. This will of course entail some of the human's background of experiences...

Purist:
This then implies that Paul's teachings must also have been inspired by God himself, which should definitely transcend any culture or civilization and still hold true in any era no matter what. God is supposed to be the same yesterday, today and forever.

Yes, GOD is the same yesterday, today and forever. But man is not. And our understanding is not. We grow in progressive enlightenment.

Paul in Gal 3:28 said that all are equal in Christ Jesus. THIS was the eternal truth but man was not yet ready to accept it.

Here on NL, I once illustrated how that in the Israelites' early days, God gave them some laws that didn't seem to make sense e.g. someone with a bodily secretion should be separated from the camp and washed until properly inspected and declared clean. In those ancient days, the world civilizations knew nothing about micro-organisms. It would make no sense for us to expect that Leveticus would state that this is to prevent the spread of micro-organisms, these tiny creatures that cannot be seen by the human eye. God knew the END, but he patiently waited until man caught up.

However, as I like to say,
Truth makes its ingress into a human mind in the ratio by which man has attained a capacity to appreciate it.

I see the same thing applicable in this case. God knew what he wanted, and Paul knew God's heart. But they had to deal with the CURRENT society, which was still bound to slavery and women domination. The best Paul could do was to entreat peace by asking Slaves to obey, and their Masters to be gentle with them and forgive their wrong (e.g. Philemon). Similarly, he asked that husbands love their wives and wives submit to them. It was all temporary until man was ready to reach beyond their mental captivity.

Purist:
Also, if we go by your reasoning, is it safe to conclude then that all his sermons against 'vices' like homosexuality were also as a result of the backward culture in which Paul found himself? Note that apart from the Sodom and Gomorrah story in the OT, Paul's teachings about homosexuality are the most used and quoted today to justify homophobia, within Christianity at least. Shall we then dismiss those teachings as well on the same grounds that you dismissed the teaching about women's roles, especially as you yourself pointed out that "he perfectly understood God's dream for equality in humanity." ??

Unlike (many) mainstream Christians, I am not homophobic, but I don't encourage homosexuality either.

I admit, but I do not consent or approve homosexuality, but I am against homophobia.

As to Paul's letters on homosexuality, it was a rampant thing in Corinthian churches and he was laying down guidelines for the new church to follow, in the new religion. Now, we must understand that joining a church means that you agree with their tenets; just like it is with any other organization. If a member of any organization feels different about an important mission or their vision, it is most wise for them to exit the organization and/or found theirs. I see nothing wrong with Paul talking about homosexuality, it is not a new issue, it is a matter that has apparently been in view since the Stone Age. It is totally accepted in some cultures or religious worldviews, but their own God wanted Jews and then Christians to be different. The new church needed to distinguish itself from the rot of the Roman Age of lasciviousness (if you have watched either series: Rome or the famed Sparcatus, the debauchery is portrayed in very similar light to history).

Now, as I said on another thread about public faith, there may be a serious problem if you think someone's personal sexual preference is more of a problem for God than injustice, people suffering, people wallowing in under-potential, unfair wages and heavy taxes on the poor. Paul did not harp on homosexuality to the detriment of other [/i]important items of faith. God is concerned about the wellbeing of people, and not more about their sexual preferences.

Talking about well-being, Sodom and Gomorrah was another case entirely; it was a city of wickedness, because people were molested, ra[i]pe[/i]d and solicited against their consent to perform illict acts of se[i]x. What people do in their closets is their own problem, but when a child or an adult, any member of society, is affected by someone else's PERSONAL decisions, then it is no longer a personal decision.

Wherever homosexual beliefs may affect the choices of straight citizens, or minors are being corrupted by their decisions; I will [b]immediately [/b]put my foot down against homosexuality. Besides this, it is their business and they are making their choices in freewill. I believe if it is wrong, God will do the right thing.

I believe the important thing for God is for us not to "get lost" and lose sight of life and God; lose sight of what really matters. If it is sexual preferences (or bigotry towards those with sexual preferences) or the ego (slavery or woman domination), then they have to go as well.

Purist:
Note that I'm only curious about how you manage to reconcile your personal beliefs with the teachings in the bible, because I personally feel that "Christian feminist" is an oxymoron.

A feminist is basically one who allows or supports a female in the pursuit of the exploration of her own choices, as opposed to those imposed on her by her family or society or some unwritten laws and expectations of other people.

Feminism in its true sense means the freedom for a female to be human. Just like males are human

But just like Christianity has lost some of it's meaning in some circles, feminism has also been corrupted and slighted in its meaning.

Jesus Christ never turned the women and children away or put them into subjection, in a society where nobody would have blinked or complained if he ever did. Thus, he was feminist in the true sense of the word. And since Christianity is about patterning your life after the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, it is therefore no oxymoron to be Christian and Feminist.

@emofine2:
You're welcome

InesQor:
Hi Purist,

Thanks for your riposte. I am not a "mainstream" Christian, as some of my beliefs don't align with general practice / belief. Sometimes I simply refer to myself as a Theist.

^
^
^
^
^

Yes, GOD is the same yesterday, today and forever.

Ach. Ah. Aaaah?

*Runs away very fast*

Hahaha Deep Sight what's the point you're trying to make? I don't want to assume...

InesQor: Hahaha Deep Sight what's the point you're trying to make? I don't want to assume...

Look again.

Lol I guess my assumption was right then, you prophet of OOI.

InesQor: In the 1970s in the U.S, girls were not allowed to play full-court basketball, they could only play half-court because people believed they were too "delicate" to play full-court. They ridiculously felt women don't have the stamina and endurance to play full-court basketball.

Many churches today still follow this half-court rule. They allow women to play, but only half-court. Women teach Children's Sunday School, sing in the choir, maybe even serve as children's director. They are also happy to take the women's money. BUT once they reach half-court, they need to stop. In these churches they can't chair the capital projects committee, the finance committee, or church development / buildings and grounds committee; they can't serve as deacons, they definitely can't be preachers.

This rejection and subjugation is totally out of Christian character. Yes, I am Christian, and I am feminist.

Women are fully equal with men in marriage, in church, and in society.

Mhhhh
Possibly from the social standpoint, I agree with you.
But you define as a Christian, and as such you should respect the rules of their church. I agree with you, in which men and women should have equal rights, but that's not what Christianity professes. As a Christian, you should be respectful of the liturgy and Christian traditions.

Ptolomeus:

Mhhhh
Possibly from the social standpoint, I agree with you.
But you define as a Christian, and as such you should respect the rules of their church. I agree with you, in which men and women should have equal rights, but that's not what Christianity professes. As a Christian, you should be respectful of the liturgy and Christian traditions.

Okay what about

There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. - Galatians 3:28

Purist: Hi InesQor,

the bit about Paul's backward era being a factor that inspired some of his teachings.

Paul was just the most recalcitrant divider between men and women in the churches.
Paul favored:
. That women cover themselves with veils to orar.Pablo Cor. 11.4.16
. A woman could not appear in public with uncovered head.
. For Paul, the veil on women is a symbol of respect for her husband and the Messiah
. Any woman who prays with her head uncovered dishonors her head (5)
. The male should not cover his head because he is the glory of Elohim, but the woman if you must, it is the glory of man ... (3)

We could go on ... Paul was just the biggest machista Christianity.
I advise you to read the Bible, and not rebel against Christian laws.
Women should be submissive, because that is the law of God.

InesQor:

Okay what about

There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. - Galatians 3:28

That's out of context. You are not Greek or Jewish, for that matter that you treat a woman. Meet its standards. Not rebel against the Christian law. Christianity is so, if you do not like that ... they find another way. And read my previous comment ... I do not need to expose what he ordered Paul?
Read the Bible, instead of rebelling unfounded.
Paul says clearly that you and all women should serve men and be humble and submissive.
You accept the Christian law or not?

Ptolomeus:
Paul was just the most recalcitrant divider between men and women in the churches.
Paul favored:
. That women cover themselves with veils to orar.Pablo Cor. 11.4.16
. A woman could not appear in public with uncovered head.
. For Paul, the veil on women is a symbol of respect for her husband and the Messiah
. Any woman who prays with her head uncovered dishonors her head (5)
. The male should not cover his head because he is the glory of Elohim, but the woman if you must, it is the glory of man ... (3)

We could go on ... Paul was just the biggest machista Christianity.
I advise you to read the Bible, and not rebel against Christian laws.
Women should be submissive, because that is the law of God.

Okay, Ptolomeus.

I don't see an emphasis on, or even any mention of, such patterns of chauvinism in Jesus' teachings; so I don't agree that it is "the law of God".

Religion, Culture and Societal constructs are very hard to divorce from one another unless one carefully separates the meat from the bones.

Let's agree to disagree then.

Ptolomeus:
That's out of context. You are not Greek or Jewish, for that matter that you treat a woman. Meet its standards. Not rebel against the Christian law. Christianity is so, if you do not like that ... they find another way. And read my previous comment ... I do not need to expose what he ordered Paul?
Read the Bible, instead of rebelling unfounded.
Paul says clearly that you and all women should serve men and be humble and submissive.
You accept the Christian law or not?

No it's not out of context.

There is neither Jew nor Greek
No matter your nation. "Greek" simply was used to refer to non-Jew.

slave nor free
No matter your societal status

male nor female
This speaks for itself.

you are all one in Christ Jesus
There is no more dividing line in Jesus Christ.

For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility
Ephesians 2:14

InesQor:

Okay, Ptolomeus.

I don't see an emphasis on, or even any mention of, such patterns of chauvinism in Jesus' teachings; so I don't agree that it is "the law of God".

Religion, Culture and Societal constructs are very hard to divorce from one another unless one carefully separates the meat from the bones.

Let's agree to disagree then.

That is easy. "We disagree".
You claim to be Christian, but do not follow Christian laws.
That if we both agree.
Jesus did not accept having a woman disciple ... the apostles were men ...
His discourse of equality is beautiful, but it is a challenge to the law of Christ. God made man and woman different, complementary.
Known today, including women pastors ...
heresy ...
The churches of Christ are falling into the hands of Satan, because of people like you.
God enlighten you.

InesQor:

No it's not out of context.

There is neither Jew nor Greek
No matter your nation. "Greek" simply was used to refer to non-Jew.

slave nor free
No matter your societal status

male nor female
This speaks for itself.

you are all one in Christ Jesus
There is no more dividing line in Jesus Christ.

For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility
Ephesians 2:14

Removed from its context Scriptures is sin.
You are an offender, a violator of the Christian laws. His work is satanic.
Read Paul, he refers to the specific case of the role of women in the church.
God forgive him!

On the veil:
THE CUSTOM OF THE VEIL FOR PRAYER


According to the pictorial representations, women at the time of Yeshua, not covered their faces with cloth and Muslim today. The custom of using a dark cloth hanging from his head and hung loosely over the breast, where only the eyes and forehead are uncovered, it is not Muslim and Jewish origin but has never been accepted by the Hebrews.

The veil worn by women messianic (Nazarene) in biblical times was lighter. Paul in 1 Cor. 11: 4-16 is arguing with the Corinthians on the principle of decency and decorum religious point of view of the peculiar customs of our Jewish culture.

The willingness to accept this custom was a honorable privilege stating that a woman had a place of respect in the community because they "belonged" to someone, and was entitled to ask for support or protection of those under whose "authority" lived. It was a sign that they were married, and as a show of modesty. On the other hand, the short hair on a woman was sometimes a sign of bad reputation of being a slave or lower class.

Women did not appear in public with uncovered head, because that would have been considered a disgrace for a woman and her husband to be presented publicly without a veil, especially when participating in prayer. A woman from Corinth to take part in public services of the congregation with their heads uncovered, could be considered as if it had been placed on the same level of a vile woman, perhaps immodest.

The fact that a woman of Corinth took part in the public services of the congregation with their heads uncovered, it would seem, that shameless and behaved unbecomingly for not wearing the ornaments of decency and modesty (ver. 1 Tim. 2 : 9). It seems that Paul reasoned that the woman to remove veil recognized emblem of her sex and position, showed a lack of respect for the husband, father, female sex in general, and the Messiah.

We see in Numbers 5:18 that the woman suspected of infidelity he removed the veil. In Greece the prostitutes went unveiled, and adulterous slaves had their hair cut.

The Almighty has established symbols that have deep spiritual meaning, among them are: immersion in water, the Messiah's Supper, the washing and veil.





Are these teachings are not outdated?



Regarding the veil and other teachings, Paul wrote "to the assembly of Yahweh which is at Corinth, to those sanctified in Messiah Yeshua, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of our Master Yahshua the Messiah, Master theirs and ours. " (1 Corinthians 1.2) "If anyone thinks himself a prophet or spiritual, recognize that what I write are the commandments of the Master" (1 Corinthians 14.37)

There are two positions, the first that the veil was a custom in the first century Messianic Assembly and the second that these customs include believers in every age and every culture. Some sincerely believe in the Messiah being that we have freedom, women are free to wear a veil or not, however, recognizing its spiritual significance, supported by Shaul (Paul) we see that is a beautiful symbol worthy of being used.



Apparel for women
1Sean imitators of me, and I am the Messiah.

2The praise you, brethren, because all they remember me and retain the instructions as they are delivered.

3 But I want you to know that the Messiah is the head of every man, and the man (is) the head of the wife, and Elohim is the head of the Messiah. 4All man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, because it is the same as if he had shaved. 6 If the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn, and if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

7 The man ought not to cover his head [2], for he is the image and glory of Elohim, but the woman is the glory of man, 8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 and neither was man created by because of the woman, but woman for man. 10For as the woman ought to have power over your head [referring to the veil], because of the messengers. 11 But the Master, nor the man without the woman nor the woman without the man, 12For as well as woman came from man, the man born of woman, but everything comes from Elohim.

13Juzguen yourself: Is it proper for a woman to pray to Elohim with her head uncovered? 14 The very nature are not taught that the man is a shame you have long hair? 15Por the contrary, women have long hair, he is honorable, because by way of veil is given the hair.

16Con all, if anyone wants to discuss, know that neither we nor Elohim congregations have the custom [of discussion].

1 Corinthians 11.1-16



Some argue that the hair is the veil from this passage. If the veil is synonymous with hair as some teach, then replace the word hair in verses 4 and 6 and in all places where the word veil.

4All man who prays or prophesies with her head hair dishonors his head.

6 If the woman has no hair, that hair cut off, and if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her put her hair.

Ridiculous ¿right? So this interpretation is wrong.



EXPLANATION



Verse 4 shows that if a woman has long hair and is not covered is the same as having short hair.

Verse 15 "... because instead of veil is given the hair. "

It does not say not to use the veil, is speaking exclusively of long hair for women and not men, says that women veil grows a natural (hair), which is similar (ie, long) as the veil for prayer. It is a comparison and a man with hair all over his body, arguably it is given as clothing or shelter, but does not mean that I walk down the street naked.

Verse 16 answers the question of verse 13 (the natural veil is a symbol of the spiritual veil, besides the natural veil must use another veil as a spiritual symbol.



The veil as a sign of spiritual protection and power in prayer.



Long hair is an important physical difference between men and women and the veil is a sign between them and Yahweh. Spiritually we are equal "there is neither male nor female" (Galatians 3.28), however, functionally, physically we are different.



10But Elohim hath revealed them unto us by his spirit, for the spirit searches everything, even the depths of Elohim, 11 For who among men knows the things of man except the spirit of man which is in him? Similarly, no one knows the things of Elohim, but the spirit of Elohim. 12 And we have not received the spirit of the world but the spirit that comes from Elohim, so we know what Elohim has given us.

13De these things speak, not in words taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of Elohim, because they are foolishness to him, and neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned. 15 In contrast, the spiritual judges all things, without which he is judged by no one. 16 Who has known the mind of the Master? Who will instruct? Well, we have the mind of the Messiah.

(1 Corinthians 10.2 -16)



WHEN TO USE VEIL?



Some understand that at all times of prayer, being 5.17 to 1 Thessalonians exhorts us to pray without ceasing, she always uses prayer veil. Furthermore, verse 10 says that is a sign of authority because the messengers, do we have here only angels in prayer? But others understand that they must wear the veil only at the time of prayer in the public service. This is the most common position in the Assemblies.



What does the veil should I use?



Since it is a signal must be equal to that used in the Gentile world (as a simple scarf), a sign is something that stands out. Biblical principles also teach us that women should dress modestly, avoiding necklines that insinuate their breasts, as this would throw on the floor wearing the veil and, moreover, would be an affront to the congregation or place of prayer.

It may be that many do not practice it for lack of education or understanding, however, who deny and deny these clear teachings of Scripture itself the judge. (2 Thessalonians 2.15; 3.6)

While the Scriptures speak little of the garments of women, it is known that both ketonet kutónet as clothing were common to both sexes (Gen. 37:3, 2 Sam 13:18; etc.). The "layer" for she was the Nimláh; Overall, the female dress was called simláh 'Aa'ishah (Deut. 22:5). In 7:1 Qty assumes the existence of special women's shoes for dance. Some used and / or had-sometimes as an ornament, a "mirror" (Heb. guilyoním), and also were "touched" (Heb. tsenifót, "turbans" Isaiah 3:22). This headdress was sometimes only a veil or headscarf. In Isa. 3:18 refers to "nets" (Heb. Shabis) for the head. Therefore the use of the veil as a garment for the Hebrew women was unknown unless it was used as a luxurious garment (Heb. Tsammáh) as we are told Solomon 4:1

Ptolomeus:

That is easy. "We disagree".
You claim to be Christian, but do not follow Christian laws.
That if we both agree.
Jesus did not accept having a woman disciple ... the apostles were men ...
His discourse of equality is beautiful, but it is a challenge to the law of Christ. God made man and woman different, complementary.
Known today, including women pastors ...
heresy ...
The churches of Christ are falling into the hands of Satan, because of people like you.

I see you have stiffly made up your mind, so I see no reason to continue this conversation.

Ptolomeus:
God enlighten you.

Amen!

Women should choose their clothes wisely and in harmony with the directives of the Holy Scriptures. For example, Paul writes, "that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety" (1 Tim. 2:9). This means that you should not wear tight clothing, sexy, or transparent. Do not expose your body to others, because the clothes are made to hide not to reveal. What about the shorts, short dresses, sleeveless tops, bathing suits, very low-cut necks, and clothing of this type are designed? Are they to reveal or to cover the woman's body?

In the beginning, God created "male and female" (Genesis 1:27) and He wants men and women are shown as men and women! God said in His law "Women do not wear men's clothing, nor shall a man put women's clothing, for whoever does these things is detestable to the Lord your God." (Deuteronomy 22:5). This is not only the Old Testament, but also applies to the New Testament, Christ, God wants a precise distinction of gender.

We must also consider the use of a veil to cover her head that is related to female submission that Paul discusses in 1 Corinthians 11: 2-16.

Paul also said "it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn" (v. 6).

InesQor:
I see you have stiffly made up your mind, so I see no reason to continue this conversation.


Amen!

Your position is very elastic ... so elastic that goes against the scriptures and fully meets Satan.
Being a Christian means respecting the law. Whoever does not respect them is not a Christian is at war with God, and the hand of Satan.
I see in you a man submissive, possibly be dominated by your wife and your ocupes the female role at home.
Is not that what they send us the Holy Scriptures.
That is a perversion inspired by Satan.
Read what I wrote, read the Bible. Leave the fallen angel!

@purist, I don't believe i'd ever read any of your posts, but i must say i'm impressed by your critical thinking in your questions to @InesQor:

Hi InesQor,

Honestly, I'm relieved to know that there are still Christians like you around that do not hold such primitive and misogynistic views....

@InesQor, Mostly i agree with your positions, your answers on homosexuality was priceless. But i'd say your only fault was in not differentiating spiritual matters from every other facet of human/social activities. This is regarding the positions of women in the church. I believe pauls(god's) decrees were that women should not hold spiritual authority of men, ie: pastors, prophets, apostles, evangelists, teachers. It has nothing to do with managing business or managing church projects, or heading any church committees that has nothing to do with spiritual teaching. It has to do with spiritual perceptions & interpretation(i don't mean seeing visions, speaking in tougues, etc) which women don't have a disposition for. Having said that, being male or female does not make your a better or worse christian, we all have equal citizenship in christianity, but we occupy different offices & responsibilities.

okeyxyz: @purist, I don't believe i'd ever read any of your posts, but i must say i'm impressed by your critical thinking in your questions to @InesQor:

@InesQor, Mostly i agree with your positions, your answers on homosexuality was priceless. But i'd say your only fault was in not differentiating spiritual matters from every other facet of human/social activities. This is regarding the positions of women in the church. I believe pauls(god's) decrees were that women should not hold spiritual authority of men, ie: pastors, prophets, apostles, evangelists, teachers. It has nothing to do with managing business or managing church projects, or heading any church committees that has nothing to do with spiritual teaching. It has to do with spiritual perceptions & interpretation(i don't mean seeing visions, speaking in tougues, etc) which women don't have a disposition for. Having said that, being male or female does not make your a better or worse christian, we all have equal citizenship in christianity, but we occupy different offices & responsibilities.

What you say is correct. This is exactly what I tried exlicar so far. But it seems that cultural penetration, do understand that a woman can claim to be Christian but go to church in her underwear.
Is to apply a little common sense.

Thanks for your explanation, InesQor. I really find most of your persuasions to be both interesting and refreshing, but I have a few issues to address:

InesQor:
Hi Purist,

Thanks for your riposte. I am not a "mainstream" Christian, as some of my beliefs don't align with general practice / belief. Sometimes I simply refer to myself as a Theist.


These are my own convictions, and I didn't exactly say his backward era inspired anything. Rather, I said he lived in those times. In order to directly address to the people he was talking to, he needed to pertinently reference their germane issues. However, as I showed from Gal 3:28, he balanced it by telling them "Hey guys this is what obtains generally, but this is what God really wants". Thus, He was ahead of the culture.


Yes I believe the Bible is entirely inspired by God, and I believe the same for some other religious text. And all are similar to how marvelous works of art and many other inventions and technological breakthroughs have been inspired by God. The desire of a human/the illumination from God, and then the human expresses the light within them. This will of course entail some of the human's background of experiences...


Yes, GOD is the same yesterday, today and forever. But man is not. And our understanding is not. We grow in progressive enlightenment.

As Deep Sight subtly pointed out, it really does appear incongruous to admit that you believe God to be the same yesterday, today and forever, and yet claim not to be a "mainstream" Christian. Regarding your main points however, I'd say that if God is indeed the same yesterday, today and forever, then I do not think that Paul's injunctions about the role of women in the church are simply a matter of man's understanding. If Paul's words were indeed inspired by God, regardless of how much our understanding has evolved over time, those words should still hold true till date. This is apparently what "mainstream" Christians believe (and they are in the vast majority), and it's exactly why we are having this discussion in the first place.

InesQor:
Paul in Gal 3:28 said that all are equal in Christ Jesus. THIS was the eternal truth but man was not yet ready to accept it.

Here on NL, I once illustrated how that in the Israelites' early days, God gave them some laws that didn't seem to make sense e.g. someone with a bodily secretion should be separated from the camp and washed until properly inspected and declared clean. In those ancient days, the world civilizations knew nothing about micro-organisms. It would make no sense for us to expect that Leveticus would state that this is to prevent the spread of micro-organisms, these tiny creatures that cannot be seen by the human eye. God knew the END, but he patiently waited until man caught up.

However, as I like to say,
Truth makes its ingress into a human mind in the ratio by which man has attained a capacity to appreciate it.

I see your point, and I understand it quite well. However, regarding your example about the menstruation law in the Old Testament, I'm not quite sure this is what that verse seeks to portray, and I'm fairly certain not many Christians would agree with you on this. At best, it's a soothing apologist explanation.

While you're right that ancient civilizations might have been ignorant about the existence of micro-organisms, I'm afraid that law has more to it than the mere prevention of infections. If it really was about micro-organisms, the law would certainly have been more explicit in its explanation by giving a simplistic reason, rather than seek to cast the women away for SEVEN whole days only to be "purified" thereafter, thus giving an impression of a spiritual exercise and not the health reasons you allude to. We see similar laws given for pregnant women too after delivering their baby. Contrast your explanation with Ezekiel 36:17:

"Son of man, when the people of Israel were living in their own land, they defiled it by their conduct and their actions. Their conduct was like a woman's monthly uncleanness in my sight." (NIV)

Hope you get my drift.

InesQor:
I see the same thing applicable in this case. God knew what he wanted, and Paul knew God's heart. But they had to deal with the CURRENT society, which was still bound to slavery and women domination. The best Paul could do was to entreat peace by asking Slaves to obey, and their Masters to be gentle with them and forgive their wrong (e.g. Philemon). Similarly, he asked that husbands love their wives and wives submit to them. It was all temporary until man was ready to reach beyond their mental captivity.

Unlike (many) mainstream Christians, I am not homophobic, but I don't encourage homosexuality either.

I admit, but I do not consent or approve homosexuality, but I am against homophobia.

As to Paul's letters on homosexuality, it was a rampant thing in Corinthian churches and he was laying down guidelines for the new church to follow, in the new religion. Now, we must understand that joining a church means that you agree with their tenets; just like it is with any other organization. If a member of any organization feels different about an important mission or their vision, it is most wise for them to exit the organization and/or found theirs. I see nothing wrong with Paul talking about homosexuality, it is not a new issue, it is a matter that has apparently been in view since the Stone Age. It is totally accepted in some cultures or religious worldviews, but their own God wanted Jews and then Christians to be different. The new church needed to distinguish itself from the rot of the Roman Age of lasciviousness (if you have watched either series: Rome or the famed Sparcatus, the debauchery is portrayed in very similar light to history).

Now, as I said on another thread about public faith, there may be a serious problem if you think someone's personal sexual preference is more of a problem for God than injustice, people suffering, people wallowing in under-potential, unfair wages and heavy taxes on the poor. Paul did not harp on homosexuality to the detriment of other [/i]important items of faith. God is concerned about the wellbeing of people, and not more about their sexual preferences.

Talking about well-being, Sodom and Gomorrah was another case entirely; it was a city of wickedness, because people were molested, ra[i]pe[/i]d and solicited against their consent to perform illict acts of se[i]x. What people do in their closets is their own problem, but when a child or an adult, any member of society, is affected by someone else's PERSONAL decisions, then it is no longer a personal decision.

Wherever homosexual beliefs may affect the choices of straight citizens, or minors are being corrupted by their decisions; I will [b]immediately [/b]put my foot down against homosexuality. Besides this, it is their business and they are making their choices in freewill. I believe if it is wrong, God will do the right thing.

I believe the important thing for God is for us not to "get lost" and lose sight of life and God; lose sight of what really matters. If it is sexual preferences (or bigotry towards those with sexual preferences) or the ego (slavery or woman domination), then they have to go as well.

I give you thumbs up for this part. It's really difficult to come across a Christian that is not homophobic.

However, I believe that using the "God was waiting for man to catch up" argument does not seem so sound to me. As a matter of fact, it appears to belittle God's omnipotence, especially as he has been shown to enforce his own will whenever he wishes. Meaning that if he really wanted man to understand right away the implication of his laws (such as in your micro-organism argument), it certainly wouldn't have been a big deal for him at all. Also, I think it would only have been right if Paul had stood his ground and spoken out against these ills, rather than play along just because the people were not ready for the truth. They could have dealt with the CURRENT society by preaching what was really moral. If Paul was really ahead of his time, he would not be encouraging slaves to obey their masters; he would have preached against slavery outrightly. If he really was ahead of his time, he would not be silencing women in the church simply because that was what obtained in his day; he would have advocated for their emancipation! The people that fought against slavery and for women's rights in the past centuries did so amid overwhelming opposition to their cause. These were the people that were really ahead of their time. Paul the Apostle, in my opinion, was certainly not in this mould.

Having said that, Paul appeared to preach about homosexuality in the same light that it was condemned in the Old Testament. His sermon was against the act of homosexuality in itself, and not because it was a rampant thing. I stand to be corrected though.

InesQor:
A feminist is basically one who allows or supports a female in the pursuit of the exploration of her own choices, as opposed to those imposed on her by her family or society or some unwritten laws and expectations of other people.

Feminism in its true sense means the freedom for a female to be human. Just like males are human

But just like Christianity has lost some of it's meaning in some circles, feminism has also been corrupted and slighted in its meaning.

Jesus Christ never turned the women and children away or put them into subjection, in a society where nobody would have blinked or complained if he ever did. Thus, he was feminist in the true sense of the word. And since Christianity is about patterning your life after the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, it is therefore no oxymoron to be Christian and Feminist.

Okay, so how do you reconcile your own personal convictions with this verse and others like it:

“To the woman he said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” Genesis 3:16

Note that, that was God himself talking this time. (not Paul )

By convention( I asume middle eastern), the worship of a male diety is called a religion, and the worship of a female diety is called a cult.
Thats the way the cookie crumbles

Purist: Thanks for your explanation, InesQor. I really find most of your persuasions to be both interesting and refreshing, but I have a few issues to address:

Okay

Purist:
As Deep Sight subtly pointed out, it really does appear incongruous to admit that you believe God to be the same yesterday, today and forever, and yet claim not to be a "mainstream" Christian. Regarding your main points however, I'd say that if God is indeed the same yesterday, today and forever, then I do not think that Paul's injunctions about the role of women in the church are simply a matter of man's understanding. If Paul's words were indeed inspired by God, regardless of how much our understanding has evolved over time, those words should still hold true till date. This is apparently what "mainstream" Christians believe (and they are in the vast majority), and it's exactly why we are having this discussion in the first place.

I don't know if that was Deep Sight's point, I guess he needs to clarify by himself. Unless of course, Deep Sight is Purist under another handle.

To the point, I find it hard to believe that you think only mainstream Christians believe in God's unchanging nature. This is of course, not true. Even if it were true, I said I don't share some of the mainstream beliefs, and not that I don't share all of them. Paul's words were inspired by God, but at the end, Paul is a man and not God. Man is liable to error, but even in any case of error God can produce a beautiful and lasting piece of work. God does not change, but our understanding and relationship with Him over time evolves.

These are only my own convictions, and I do not chide or ridicule those who believe otherwise i.e. believe in female subjugation (which Jesus Christ never once taught).

Purist:
I see your point, and I understand it quite well. However, regarding your example about the menstruation law in the Old Testament, I'm not quite sure this is what that verse seeks to portray, and I'm fairly certain not many Christians would agree with you on this. At best, it's a soothing apologist explanation.

While you're right that ancient civilizations might have been ignorant about the existence of micro-organisms, I'm afraid that law has more to it than the mere prevention of infections. If it really was about micro-organisms, the law would certainly have been more explicit in its explanation by giving a simplistic reason, rather than seek to cast the women away for SEVEN whole days only to be "purified" thereafter, thus giving an impression of a spiritual exercise and not the health reasons you allude to. We see similar laws given for pregnant women too after delivering their baby. Contrast your explanation with Ezekiel 36:17:

"Son of man, when the people of Israel were living in their own land, they defiled it by their conduct and their actions. Their conduct was like a woman's monthly uncleanness in my sight." (NIV)

Hope you get my drift.

I am not talking about Menstruation. I said "bodily secretion". Bodily discharge, NOT menstruation.
For example, these laws about a gen[i]i[/i]tal discharge:

Moses:
Lev 15:1 GOD spoke to Moses and Aaron,
Lev 15:2 "Speak to the People of Israel. Tell them: When a man has a discharge from his gen[i]i[/i]tals, the discharge is unclean.
Lev 15:3 Whether it comes from a seepage or an obstruction he is unclean. He is unclean all the days his body has a seepage or an obstruction.
Lev 15:4 "Every bed on which he lies is ritually unclean, everything on which he sits is unclean.
Lev 15:5-7 If someone touches his bed or sits on anything he's sat on, or touches the man with the discharge, he has to wash his clothes and bathe in water; he remains unclean until evening.
Lev 15:8 "If the man with the discharge spits on someone who is clean, that person has to wash his clothes and bathe in water; he remains unclean until evening.
Lev 15:9 Every saddle on which the man with the discharge rides is unclean.
Lev 15:10 Whoever touches anything that has been under him becomes unclean until evening. Anyone who carries such an object must wash his clothes and bathe with water; he remains unclean until evening.
Lev 15:11 If the one with the discharge touches someone without first rinsing his hands with water, the one touched must wash his clothes and bathe with water; he remains unclean until evening.
Lev 15:12 "If a pottery container is touched by someone with a discharge, you must break it; a wooden article is to be rinsed in water.
Lev 15:13 "When a person with a discharge is cleansed from it, he is to count off seven days for his cleansing, wash his clothes, and bathe in running water. Then he is clean.

Purist:
I give you thumbs up for this part. It's really difficult to come across a Christian that is not homophobic.

However, I believe that using the "God was waiting for man to catch up" argument does not seem so sound to me. As a matter of fact, it appears to belittle God's omnipotence, especially as he has been shown to enforce his own will whenever he wishes. Meaning that if he really wanted man to understand right away the implication of his laws (such as in your micro-organism argument), it certainly wouldn't have been a big deal for him at all. Also, I think it would only have been right if Paul had stood his ground and spoken out against these ills, rather than play along just because the people were not ready for the truth. They could have dealt with the CURRENT society by preaching what was really moral. If Paul was really ahead of his time, he would not be encouraging slaves to obey their masters; he would have preached against slavery outrightly. If he really was ahead of his time, he would not be silencing women in the church simply because that was what obtained in his day; he would have advocated for their emancipation! The people that fought against slavery and for women's rights in the past centuries did so amid overwhelming opposition to their cause. These were the people that were really ahead of their time. Paul the Apostle, in my opinion, was certainly not in this mould.

Having said that, Paul appeared to preach about homosexuality in the same light that it was condemned in the Old Testament. His sermon was against the act of homosexuality in itself, and not because it was a rampant thing. I stand to be corrected though.

It does not belittle God's omnipotence. Rather, it goes to show that God is not more concerned about the issue than he is about the things in which he "enforces his will" (to use your words). Why kill a fly with a sledgehammer? God is infinite in wisdom and does not make rash decisions in an utter abuse of power.

Being omnipotent, being able to do anything; does not mean one HAS to do everything. That is an abuse of power, a corruption popular with men. True magnificent power entails letting some things be (for a time), even if they are not according to your taste.

Matthew:
Mat 13:28 He replied to them, An enemy has done this. The servants said to him, Then do you want us to go and weed them out?
Mat 13:29 But he said, No, lest in gathering the wild wheat (weeds resembling wheat), you root up the [true] wheat along with it.
Mat 13:30 Let them grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will say to the reapers, Gather the darnel first and bind it in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my granary.

No matter how anointed or knowledgeable about God we are, there is always so much more to learn, and we are at best fallible man. God had to explain to Peter on his visit to Cornelius house, that non-Jews were also welcome into God's family. Peter, after all, was a man and he didn't know that someday all reaches of the earth will be welcome into the family. Can we then blame Peter when in hypocrisy he refused to eat with the uncircumcised (Gal 2:11) and Paul had to rebuke him? He is, at best, even though inspired by God, STILL a man who cannot see beyond his nose. He lived in times when circumcision and uncircumcision made all the difference spiritually, and he acted according to that notion. Paul on the other hand lived in times where slavery was a normal way of life. God wasn't going to squash slavery in one day, but teaching people about true Christian living could eventually get them there.

And I believe you are wrong about Paul and slavery. When Onesimus, a slave, offended his master Philemon and ran away from home, do you know that Paul wrote the slavemaster a letter (the book of Philemon) asking him to take the (most likely a teenager) young man back and take him AS a brother, and Paul would pay whatever loss that entailed?

Extracts:

Paul:
Phm 1:16 Not as a slave any longer but as [something] more than a slave, as a brother [Christian], especially dear to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh [as a servant] and in the Lord [as a fellow believer].
Phm 1:17 If then you consider me a partner and a comrade in fellowship, welcome and receive him as you would [welcome and receive] me.
Phm 1:18 And if he has done you any wrong in any way or owes anything [to you], charge that to my account.
Phm 1:19 I, Paul, write it with my own hand, I promise to repay it [in full]--and that is to say nothing [of the fact] that you owe me your very self!

Paul's sermon was against the acts of homose[i]x[/i]uality BECAUSE it was rampant at the time. In a world and time where some religions had heavy se[i]x[/i]ual influences, some worshipped their deities by se[i]x[/i]ual or[i]g[/i]ies and by being openly (in some cases, grossly) homose[i]x[/i]ual; it was important for a new religion that Paul distinguished the do's and don'ts. People were not to take liberty for granted. Maybe if Paul hadn't spoken up, the lines actually defining Christianity would have blurred out. Not only because of homose[i]x[/i]uality (there were many other issues he wrote about). Christianity was a tender plant in those days, and he was carefully detailing important guidelines. Today, even if a preacher tells me that homose[i]x[/i]uality is or isn't right with God, I have my personal convictions, I have the Bible, I have the faith of the fathers, I have the history of the church etc. Christianity has gone a long way already. I digress but I hope you see the point.

Purist:
Okay, so how do you reconcile your own personal convictions with this verse and others like it:

“To the woman he said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” Genesis 3:16

Note that, that was God himself talking this time. (not Paul )

Like most respectable theologians (though I'm not one but I have read works of quite some), I do not take the story of creation in Genesis absolutely literally. It is partly tradition and partly (yet deeply) allegorical. In a Jewish community where the women were being subjugated, it is only natural that they will have religious traditions that explain why, in order to keep keeping them under.

It is often hard for people to understand that the Jews didn't see things the way we see them. Say, look at Christ's teachings. He would explain a truth using a story that may never have happened. The lesson in the story is what he's getting at, and NOT the words in themselves. But we, who are heavily influenced by the Western world, think everything is literal. The Bible contains accounts of experiences, and whether you take them literally or not, the lesson in the account is always what it is getting at. The gospel authors wrote of Jesus' stories and they called them parables. If the parables had not been labelled "parables" in his case, today we would be believing all those parables really happened. Like some Christians argue that the "Lazarus and the rich man" story actually happened.

I believe to get the best out of the Bible, we need to look at it the way the Jews did. The Bible contains literal as well as allegorical contents, and the impression it leaves on you when you encounter it, is what matters most. As 2 Corinthians 3:6 says, the letter kills and the Spirit gives life.

If you want to convince us that there are relevant verses subjugating women, refer us to any teachings of Christ on the matter; which to me is where true Christianity (by definition) is found.

Cheers

InesQor:
I believe to get the best out of the Bible, we need to look at it the way the Jews did. The Bible contains literal as well as allegorical contents, and the impression it leaves on you when you encounter it, is what matters most. As 2 Corinthians 3:6 says, the letter kills and the Spirit gives life.

If you want to convince us that there are relevant verses subjugating women, refer us to any teachings of Christ on the matter; which to me is where true Christianity (by definition) is found.

In all your posts you say that you accept the Bible (Word of God) that he favors you. Those passages that touch minimally rights of women, (as you) should be ignored.
Sorry, you are a Christian "selective". You should invent a new religion itself. Self proclaim pastor, present the foundations of a new religion in which women do what they want, regardless of the Word of God ...
And do not forget to collect the tithe ...
It is unfortunate that people like you, who break all the laws of God, speak of Satan as the enemy ...
You and he are partners.
My respects.

Ptolomeus:

In all your posts you say that you accept the Bible (Word of God) that he favors you. Those passages that touch minimally rights of women, (as you) should be ignored.
Sorry, you are a Christian "selective". You should invent a new religion itself. Self proclaim pastor, present the foundations of a new religion in which women do what they want, regardless of the Word of God ...
And do not forget to collect the tithe ...
It is unfortunate that people like you, who break all the laws of God, speak of Satan as the enemy ...
You and he are partners.
My respects.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, dawg

InesQor:
Whatever helps you sleep at night, dawg

Thank God, I rest well at night.
I have to think about changing the Bible, or change the word of God. I am at peace with myself, with the universe, and the sex I have.
This is no small thing ...

Ptolomeus:

Thank God, I rest well at night.
I have to think about changing the Bible, or change the word of God. I am at peace with myself, with the universe, and the sex I have.
This is no small thing ...

And your signature makes this very evident.

We lived happy.Then they arrived, they left us his bible & took the gold