Women Are Still the Most Discriminated Against

[Nadiine]

And, once again, you are entitled to your INTERPRETATION. Please don't assume that your INTERPRETATION is any more or less valid than any other INTERPRETATION.

BTW, I am still awaiting a response to my post #1230.

It can't just be pawned off to abstract interpretation, people claim to
read the bible and NOT see that homosexuality is sinful - but lawful.
They read it and decide fornication is fine too.

I don't care if they say "that's my interpretation, you have yours".
Truth is truth & facts are facts -
That's like people saying "I'm not a bible literalist", and denying that
Jesus physically/literally came to earth in bodily form, died on a cross,
atoned for sin (of those who'd be born again) and ascended back to
heaven.... so "my interpretation is metaphysical, not literal".

Does that mean the source of the gospel itself is non literal becuz
Joe just doesn't interpret the OBVIOUS PASSAGES that relay its
literality?
Does it make the homosexual righteous when they live in sin just
becuz people claim they don't interpret the OBVIOUS the way I do?
Does it mean we came from primates becuz Jerry reads Genesis
& decides Adam & Eve aren't "literal"?
Is his interpretation of Genesis accurate to the text to claim we
are from baboons originally?
He'll tell me this is HIS interpretation since evolution is "proven true",
so he has to bend his perception of Genesis to metaphoric interpretation.

This is what's happening today with God's word.

There is such a thing as black and white, author meaning/purpose, and there is such a thing as hermeneutics and we do have historic examples of the early churches that give credence to true meaning over
inferred meanings.

Merely denying these supportive evidences won't cancel out what
is obvious upon reading the word of God. And I'll also add that
the bible claims that people are blinded to the truth it reveals
(they can be blinded by God or Satan for whatever reason)...

There are principles to logical interpretation in scripture, and it's my
personal belief that MANY who just arbitrarily sit & decide their
'interpretation' is correct, often don't go to church; sitting under
any formal [Christian] Shepherding/teachers well versed in God's word.

Many are self taught novices who think picking up a greek lexicon
is all they need to be a scholar these days.

Lastly, and this is no attack on anyone, one MUST have the Holy
Spirit for knowledge of God. Many profess to know God, yet
deny the basic fundamentals of Christianity today - much of the
gospel.
Christianity has become just another casualty of the postmodern
obsession with redefining terms to create a personalized brand of
religion.

 

[Nadiine]

/rant off*

 

[herev]

It can't just be pawned off to abstract interpretation, people claim to
read the bible and NOT see that homosexuality is sinful - but lawful.
They read it and decide fornication is fine too.

I don't care if they say "that's my interpretation, you have yours".
Truth is truth & facts are facts -

and as with any literary interpretation, truth and facts are not the same thing--nor are they necessarily evident in reading said text.

That's like people saying "I'm not a bible literalist", and denying that
Jesus physically/literally came to earth in bodily form, died on a cross,
atoned for sin (of those who'd be born again) and ascended back to
heaven.... so "my interpretation is metaphysical, not literal".

not being a literalist does not equate to denying the physical incarnation of Christ or his death and resurrection

Does that mean the source of the gospel itself is non literal becuz
Joe just doesn't interpret the OBVIOUS PASSAGES that relay its
literality?

the word "obvious" is subjective in and of itself--deciding what is obvious and what is not REQUIRES an interpretation.

Does it make the homosexual righteous when they live in sin just
becuz people claim they don't interpret the OBVIOUS the way I do?

Does your saying they are living in sin make it so just becuz you claim your interpretation is the only one?

Does it mean we came from primates becuz Jerry reads Genesis
& decides Adam & Eve aren't "literal"?

does it mean we don't just because Nadiine says Adam and Eve were literal? (and by the way, we ARE primates, so whether or not you ascribe to the theory of evolution , we all come from primates)

Is his interpretation of Genesis accurate to the text to claim we
are from baboons originally?

straw man, no one who adheres to evolution says that

He'll tell me this is HIS interpretation since evolution is "proven true",
so he has to bend his perception of Genesis to metaphoric interpretation.

again, you assume a sequence that is not necessary there. For some of us, evolution proof was not necessary to read Genesis creations stories as non literal. The evidence is in the text itself

This is what's happening today with God's word.

one might say that over the last couple hundred years, what is happening to scripture is that it is being hijacked by literalists

There is such a thing as black and white, author meaning/purpose,

yes--it is doubtful that any of us know the real "black/white" of any text so many thousands of years old nor can we know for certain the meaning and/or purpose of long dead, lost authors.

and there is such a thing as hermeneutics

yes, practicing it yields a wide variety of interpretations

and we do have historic examples of the early churches that give credence to true meaning over
inferred meanings.

you forgot the "tm" next to true. We have a variety of early church writings, not all agree. Do we assume that only those who agree with yours are giving credence to the true (tm) meanings?

Merely denying these supportive evidences won't cancel out what
is obvious upon reading the word of God.

merely denying the literal interpretation of God's creation while insisting on a literal interpretation doesn't cancel out what God wrote into creation either. IT'S an interpretation, Nadiine. Yours isn't more valid than those who disagree with you.

And I'll also add that
the bible claims that people are blinded to the truth it reveals

agreed

(they can be blinded by God or Satan for whatever reason)...

or by literalism

There are principles to logical interpretation in scripture, and it's my
personal belief that MANY who just arbitrarily sit & decide their
'interpretation' is correct, often don't go to church; sitting under
any formal [Christian] Shepherding/teachers well versed in God's word.

that is your personal belief so you are entitled to it

Many are self taught novices who think picking up a greek lexicon
is all they need to be a scholar these days.

and for those of us who disagree with you, yet actually DO have a higher education in EXACTLY such matters? How does one dismiss us?

Lastly, and this is no attack on anyone, one MUST have the Holy
Spirit for knowledge of God.

agreed

Many profess to know God, yet
deny the basic fundamentals of Christianity today- much of the
gospel.

false dichotomy. Who is deciding these "basic fundamentals?"
Many profess to know God, yet act like they speak for God in insisting that anyone who disagrees with them disagrees with God. If one knows God, how can one consistently get their interpretation mixed up with God's?

Christianity has become just another casualty of the postmodern
obsession with redefining terms to create a personalized brand of
religion.

perhaps--we shall see what is next. It hasn't been that many centuries ago that Christianity became a casualty of literalism and fundamentalism--and yet somehow, it has survived and is starting to come out from under that oppression.

 

[Dorothea]

yes =)
That's all we've been saying and proposing, it's that simple;
you made the important point that it isn't anything more
than that basic 'structure' in headship - but it doesn't change
anything as if we become barefoot maids to serve the 'king
on his throne'.

I also agree that this is 'hardwired' into the male as well.

Great post.

It's as if it's being turned into something it's not. I just heard
yet another Pastor of a Christian radio ministry talk about headship
in the home (family structure) - he said that EVERY element in
humanity has a headship order to it.
Where you work, your government, your home, your church,
etc. Everywhere we are, God has designated a chain of authority
for structure and accountability.
And each head/leader is then accountable to God for what they
did, didn't do, where they led, etc.

Each authoratative position is more responsible to God for us.
Look at what James told us about a teacher's position:
James 3

1 My brethren, let not many of you become teachers,

knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment.

A Shepherd is accountable to God for their sheep they led - and
the husband is no different.

Agreed.

 

[LJSGM]

I don't agree

 

[LJSGM]

I do not believe that husbands are pastors to their wives.

Man, culture really warps the truth, doesn't it.

 

[LJSGM]

A Shepherd is accountable to God for their sheep they led - and
the husband is no different.

My husband is not God, is not my shepherd, and is not my ruler.

I think it very odd that you even suggest this in your posts.

I mean, the sin nature was apart of the curse as well as the broken relationship between man and woman, yet we fight against our sin nature as well as our broken relationships, and I wish you would see that.

 

[Fade to Gray]

Well, I think there's a bit too much nitpicking and technicality in all of this.

How so?

The male is the head in a sense (spiritually and such) for the family, but the wife is also equal to him.

But she is not equal in authority. This is what is being discussed. How do you justify the assigning of authority according to gender and not ability?

There's no dominance over me in my marriage. Just to use an example. Our relationship is as equals, but the children know that Dad is the head because he is the breadwinner and supporter of us.

So in families where the wife is the breadwinner, the wife is the head?

They know traditional roles. they also know women work outside the home.

That's good.

I like the quote from the mother in my Big, Fat Greek Wedding (I'm half Greek), where she says, "The man is the head, but the woman is the neck." In other words, I don't think our roles are so submissive that we're sitting around letting our husbands controls us or be overbearing, but rather we respect their headship, and they respect our valuable and important role in the relationship. JMPO.

Then...what's the difference? If he respects and mutually submits to you just as you respect and mutually submit to him, then why the need for a headship at all? How does his headship differ from your valuble and important role?

Again, IOW, nobody lives the literal sense of "obeying" your husbands. At least not anybody I know. Mutual respect is involved.

Then why can't that mutual respect be applied with both parents functioning as the head of the family together?

There is some natural makeup of men and women that are their strengths and weaknesses and also just what's embedded in them.

Isn't saying that they have characteristics that are "embedded" the same thing as saying that those characteristics are part of their "natural makeup"?

Women are naturally the nurturers and in most cases the caregiving types. Men are the ones that are embedded with hunting, gathering, and protecting. I appreciate both of these. These differences compliment each other when they are together. Now, it does sound primitive, but those types of traits are built into the male and female, generally speaking. And yes, there can be women leaders. There were plenty of Empresses way back in the day.

I would say that most of this isn't "natural." Just because men and women have been socialized since birth to believe that they should act a certain way because of their gender does not make the assumed gender roles correct. For example, Gary Hoeber (a psychotherapist) has this to say about supposed gender differences: "It is power and not gender that causes many of our differences. Women in power act much like men in power. Men without power act much like women without power." In other words, just because men may exhibit more difficulties in displaying nurturing characteristics due to societal pressures placed on them (men are expected to be impassive, to prioritize work before their role as a parent, to be distant leaders instead of caregivers)--this in no way makes strict gender roles correct or healthy and certainly not natural.

 

[Fade to Gray]

yes =)
That's all we've been saying and proposing, it's that simple;
you made the important point that it isn't anything more
than that basic 'structure' in headship - but it doesn't change
anything as if we become barefoot maids to serve the 'king
on his throne'.

Has anyone even said this? What is being questioned here is in fact the "basic structure in headship" as proposed by you and others on this thread.

I also agree that this is 'hardwired' into the male as well.

Tell that to all the men who apparently missed out on that "hardwiring" because they saw societal pressures for what they are.

It's as if it's being turned into something it's not. I just heard
yet another Pastor of a Christian radio ministry talk about headship
in the home (family structure) - he said that EVERY element in
humanity has a headship order to it.

And every other "element in humanity" assigns authority according to capability, not according to whichever reproductive organs a person has. With the exception, of course, of religious organizations that operate under the same male authority mindset.

Where you work, your government, your home, your church,
etc. Everywhere we are, God has designated a chain of authority
for structure and accountability.

Except work, government, and a lot of churches now assign authority roles according to those who have the knowledge, gifts, and talents needed in order to be a capable leader. Gender is inconsequential.

And each head/leader is then accountable to God for what they
did, didn't do, where they led, etc.

Sure.

Each authoratative position is more responsible to God for us.
Look at what James told us about a teacher's position:
James 3

1 My brethren, let not many of you become teachers,

knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment.

A Shepherd is accountable to God for their sheep they led - and
the husband is no different.

Um...so women are sheep? Forever and always learning from and being led and guided by their husbands? How exactly is this not an insult to their intelligence?

 

[ke1985]

great posts fade!!!!

 

[Fade to Gray]

great posts fade!!!!

Thanks. Hopefully they make more sense than I expected them to, since I wrote them around four in the morning.

 

[BeforeThereWas]

Um...so women are sheep? Forever and always learning from and being led and guided by their husbands? How exactly is this not an insult to their intelligence?

This is a very worn out tactic. Can't you do better than to take someone's words to the extreme? Is that the best you have in your arsenal?

BTW

 

[LJSGM]

why do men need to be in control and why can't a marriage be egalitarian?

 

[127.0.0.1]

What did we get liberated too? Too much work? More like slavery to be honest.

Hey! Yeah! We men are discriminated against too. I think I shouldn't have to go to work either! You're right, I'm tired of slavery! Only problem is...I don't have anyone else to take care of me as unemployed...oh wait! My parents!

Look lots of people hate their job, but sometimes you gotta make a living. It's not like all us men whistle to work (well...some of us do, & some women too).

PS
I do agree there's still a lot of discrimination against women. Although...I don't think being allowed to work is one of them. It can be handy to be able to provide for yourself.

PPS
You're right about protestantism and other sects putting down the Theotokos. I remember when I was a Lutheran, basically, the Theotokos was a Jack-in-the-box, and every Christmas she'd pop out and it was just like, "Hey! This is Jesus' Mom...She's a Virgin...okay...see you again next year!"

PPPS

why do men need to be in control and why can't a marriage be egalitarian?

Seconded.