A Christmas Story

[Silmarien]

But never we see a passage in which a woman complains about not having equal rights as men. Well, up to now I don't find this passage... @Silmarien might prove me wrong?

In the Bible itself? The closest I can think of offhand would be the daughters of Zelophehad and the issue of women's rights/obligation to inherit property. It was of course granted to them.

I actually think that women have a surprising amount of agency in the Bible, given the time period. Rebecca, for instance, is asked if she wants to leave with Isaac immediately, and presumably has the option to say no.

 

[cvanwey]

@thomas_t I see rationalization and avoidance. See below...

as I said you merely need to see this passage in lights of Galatians 3:28... and then you have equality again. So I conclude, God does not agree to inequality between the sexes at church, in my opinion. I agree with God. No need to ignore one single Bible verse, believe me.

Again, you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. If your cited verse simply supersedes my referenced verse, then you can just ignore much of what else is written in the Bible

But wait, what does your verse actually say? It states that the man/woman/free man/slave are all the same to God But, it does NOT reduce the 'FACT' that God places endorsements for inequality, while on earth (i.e.) men > women, and sanctions slavery

So again, nice try.

It would be like me telling you... "Don't mind or bother with the fact that you are my slave/property for life, we are equal under the eye's of God."

if women want equality in church (I assume Paul is talking about church, here), then they could be the preachers ... I mean those who have an evengelist heart. Men teachers, women preachers - and then we have equality again. These lines in case women agree with me. If sisters want another regulation at church that is in line with this passage, then they can come up with their ideas there.
I further propose that man should not have authority over a woman wanting equality, either... and men can also be quiet at church.

If God was after equality, while on earth, God would not have placed special specific rules for the genders But He clearly does. And now you are trying to rationalize them.

BTW "she must be quiet" is not the original text, as I see it, it's your translation. View the interlinear translation here 1 Timothy 2:12 Interlinear: and a woman I do not suffer to teach, nor to rule a husband, but to be in quietness,
I hope, with this I have answered this comment of yours, too:
God spoke into a time in which women did not have equality. He also wanted to address those who liked the inequality of women.

Oh, I get it now.... The NIV, CSB, KJV, etc. are all mistaken, and [you] are delivering the right version. Got it. = God of confusion

And again, you are avoiding my point. There is no 'during that time.' Such provisions are not later abolished by Jesus. They stand forever, while on earth. Please finally reconcile this certainty.

Even if there is inequality, souls can be saved. I suppose God wanted to establish priorities: salvation first, equality last. Also, saved persons can feel equality at church better, I suppose.

Rationalization, same as above.

as I said often... in order for me to answer this question I would have needed to understand the essence of good. This is what I can't do. My intellectuality is limited. Of course I need to define "good" in order to be able to answer this question.

Again, no.

If God likes it, it IS 'good'. - You already know, according to the writings of the Bible, what God likes/dislikes. Hence, [you] do not need to define 'good.'

I did. It's better for a person to be beaten as a slave than to be killed as a captive. As I said. Slavery in and of itself existed in a situation in which they didn't know what to do with captive people, I suppose. (I'm reiterating myself here, already) Before times of slavery in Israel ... everyone from the peoples they conquered used to be killed, see Deuteronomy 2:34 for instance. I do see progress with regard to how captives were treated in the Bible. Normally, atheists complain about Israel having killed too much people, now you cite slavery.

You didn't cite a passage in which God wants his Israelites to install slavery, though. So your dictator couldn't find a passage telling him he should take me as a slave. Bible has passages about how to deal with slaves if you had some to begin with.

EDITED

Again, there is no, 'during this time' regarding slavery. Jesus never later abolishes it. The provisions for slavery are vague; in the sense that we do not know what is absolutely allowed/disallowed. But what it does speak about, I'm sure you would not like - (below are verses you have not addressed repeatedly):

"20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."

"45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

"5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ."

 

[Silmarien]

Oh, I get it now.... The NIV, CSB, KJV, etc. are all mistaken, and [you] are delivering the right version. Got it. = God of confusion

Er... the Koine Greek version is the right version, since it's the original one. And ἡσυχία does mean stillness or quietness.

And again, you are avoiding my point. There is no 'during that time.' Such provisions are not later abolished by Jesus. They stand forever, while on earth. Please finally reconcile this certainty.

I'm confused. Are you somehow under the impression that Saint Paul is God? How does a personal letter from him to a companion have anything to do with the provisions established by the Law?

 

[cvanwey]

Er... the Koine Greek version is the right version, since it's the original one. And ἡσυχία does mean stillness or quietness.

God's choice is to have humans, and their changing and dying languages, speak for Him. Bazaar.

I'm confused. Are you somehow under the impression that Saint Paul is God? How does a personal letter from him to a companion have anything to do with the provisions established by the Law?

No. But if Paul is not speaking on behalf of, or from God's direct authority, then why should Paul's word be any better than anyone else?

Please bare in mind, Paul wrote this in the same Chapter:

"3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."

Speaking of being 'confused', I have to ask you. When you stated:

"I actually think that women have a surprising amount of agency in the Bible, given the time period."

Seems as though you might be setting a rather low standard?

 

[Silmarien]

God's choice is to have humans, and their changing and dying languages, speak for Him. Bazaar.

I don't see how that's bizarre. It's not like we can transmit information through any means beside language, and Koine Greek is hardly obscure anyway. People can learn it if they want to.

No. But if Paul is not speaking on behalf of, or from God's direct authority, then why should Paul's word be any better than anyone else?

I read Paul primarily for insight into the earliest stage of the development of Christian theology. We have very little literature from the Apostolic Age, so it is all precious.

Speaking of being 'confused', I have to ask you. When you stated:

"I actually think that women have a surprising amount of agency in the Bible, given the time period."

Seems as though you might be setting a rather low standard?

Says the moral relativist.

 

[muichimotsu]

In the Bible itself? The closest I can think of offhand would be the daughters of Zelophehad and the issue of women's rights/obligation to inherit property. It was of course granted to them.

I actually think that women have a surprising amount of agency in the Bible, given the time period. Rebecca, for instance, is asked if she wants to leave with Isaac immediately, and presumably has the option to say no.

Having the option to say no when the alternative that actually benefits you is preferable to rejection seems like a gamed system. Like if someone said I could reject their offer, but I'd be destitute and dependent on charity, then their offer already seems far better in a basic sense.

And women having "agency" in the sense that men would let them think is not the same as men regarding them as equals that have capacity beyond what they're sold short for (that whole prejudice based on Eve tempting Adam establishes a patriarchal condescension to women as not really being able to best men except by deceiving them, so often women are put in that position and it's not coincidental, it's cultural norms).

When the stories of women tend to be about them tricking stupid men and in some cases, ultimately leading to their demise (Delilah and Sisera come immediately to mind, though there's also Rahab and several others, the OT chock full of them)

 

[Silmarien]

Having the option to say no when the alternative that actually benefits you is preferable to rejection seems like a gamed system. Like if someone said I could reject their offer, but I'd be destitute and dependent on charity, then their offer already seems far better in a basic sense.

You're missing the point. For a piece of Bronze Age literature to explicitly involve a woman being asked if she wishes to leave immediately is pretty significant. I doubt anyone in that scenario would have been thinking about agency one way or the other, but given the time period, it's not common for that sort of exchange to come up at all. It's noteworthy that it does.

And women having "agency" in the sense that men would let them think is not the same as men regarding them as equals that have capacity beyond what they're sold short for (that whole prejudice based on Eve tempting Adam establishes a patriarchal condescension to women as not really being able to best men except by deceiving them, so often women are put in that position and it's not coincidental, it's cultural norms).

Compared to the Greek story of Pandora, the story of Adam and Eve is actually an incredibly positive picture of gender relations. Obviously it has historically been interpreted in a misogynistic fashion, but I don't see the story itself as inherently misogynistic. I think it's actually a really striking depiction of gender relations degenerating after the Fall from what they should have been.

When the stories of women tend to be about them tricking stupid men and in some cases, ultimately leading to their demise (Delilah and Sisera come immediately to mind, though there's also Rahab and several others, the OT chock full of them)

I think you're importing a misogynistic reading of the Bible here, since there are plenty of female figures who were not luring men to their demise. The Matriarchs, Deborah, Ruth, Naomi, and Esther are of course the major ones. Obviously there are problematic female figures also, but there are also tons of problematic male figures. People being sinful is kind of what the Old Testament is about.

 

[muichimotsu]

You're missing the point. For a piece of Bronze Age literature to explicitly involve a woman being asked if she wishes to leave immediately is pretty significant. I doubt anyone in that scenario would have been thinking about agency one way or the other, but given the time period, it's not common for that sort of exchange to come up at all. It's noteworthy that it does.

If the story was really about women's agency, then why do they matter so little overall except as to outwit men, reinforcing that negative stereotype. Someone could easily have intended the whole exchange to be facetious in that it's obvious in their perspective that a woman questioning is just being "uppity" or other stereotypes that likely existed

Compared to the Greek story of Pandora, the story of Adam and Eve is actually an incredibly positive picture of gender relations. Obviously it has historically been interpreted in a misogynistic fashion, but I don't see the story itself as inherently misogynistic. I think it's actually a really striking depiction of gender relations degenerating after the Fall from what they should have been.

Except it reduces Eve in her agency to taking the primary blame and having to suffer because of what isn't entirely her fault. And Pandora's gender hardly mattered, I could swear the story was more her curiosity in general, it could easily have been an inquisitive boy and the problem was still that and not their gender at all

I think you're importing a misogynistic reading of the Bible here, since there are plenty of female figures who were not luring men to their demise. The Matriarchs, Deborah, Ruth, Naomi, and Esther are of course the major ones. Obviously there are problematic female figures also, but there are also tons of problematic male figures. People being sinful is kind of what the Old Testament is about.

Except the female representation in general is starkly lower and tends to reduce them to domestic roles, though even the NT is consistent on that.

 

[Silmarien]

If the story was really about women's agency, then why do they matter so little overall except as to outwit men, reinforcing that negative stereotype. Someone could easily have intended the whole exchange to be facetious in that it's obvious in their perspective that a woman questioning is just being "uppity" or other stereotypes that likely existed

You seem to be blinded by you own biases, because the key female figures in the Bible (i.e., the ones I mentioned before) do not exist only to outwit men.

Except it reduces Eve in her agency to taking the primary blame and having to suffer because of what isn't entirely her fault. And Pandora's gender hardly mattered, I could swear the story was more her curiosity in general, it could easily have been an inquisitive boy and the problem was still that and not their gender at all

Have you actually read the story of Pandora? It's not ultimately about curiosity at all--Pandora was intentionally created by the gods to be a beautiful but poisonous gift to punish mankind. Here's part of the description from Hesiod's Theogony:

[565] But the noble son of Iapetus outwitted him and stole the far-seen gleam of unwearying fire in a hollow fennel stalk. And Zeus who thunders on high was stung in spirit, and his dear heart was angered when he saw amongst men the far-seen ray of fire.

[570] Forthwith he made an evil thing for men as the price of fire; for the very famous Limping God formed of earth the likeness of a shy maiden as the son of Cronos willed.

[...]

[585] But when he had made the beautiful evil to be the price for the blessing, he brought her out, delighting in the finery which the bright-eyed daughter of a mighty father had given her, to the place where the other gods and men were. And wonder took hold of the deathless gods and mortal men when they saw that which was sheer guile, not to be withstood by men.

[590] For from her is the race of women and female kind: of her is the deadly race and tribe of women who live amongst mortal men to their great trouble, no helpmeets in hateful poverty, but only in wealth. And as in thatched hives bees

[595] feed the drones whose nature is to do mischief—by day and throughout the day until the sun goes down the bees are busy and lay the white combs, while the drones stay at home in the covered hives and reap the toil of others into their own bellies—

[600] even so Zeus who thunders on high made women to be an evil to mortal men, with a nature to do evil. [...]

Totally different then the intended relationship between men and women in Genesis, and insanely misogynistic in a way that can never be found in the Bible. Judeo-Christianity doesn't teach that women are an evil subspecies that exists only to bring misery to men.

 

[muichimotsu]

You seem to be blinded by you own biases, because the key female figures in the Bible (i.e., the ones I mentioned before) do not exist only to outwit men.

But they're so minor they might as well not matter in terms of a general understanding of females usually relegated to a few stereotypes, they're the exception rather than the rule. When you count the hits and ignore the misses, you're exercising a sort of bias as well in not considering the broader implications of how females are depicted in the bible at large versus the ones that are meant to be "ideal" in some way, seemingly

Have you actually read the story of Pandora? It's not ultimately about curiosity at all--Pandora was intentionally created by the gods to be a beautiful but poisonous gift to punish mankind.

Totally different then the intended relationship between men and women in Genesis, and insanely misogynistic in a way that can never be found in the Bible. Judeo-Christianity doesn't teach that women are an evil subspecies that exists only to bring misery to men

Granted, but I'm not sure most people would necessarily have that association without familiar with the story itself. Plus, that's the Theogony, Works and Days appears to be where the jar/box originates from, not Pandora's initial creation in response to Prometheus stealing fire.

And I'm not sure you can say that with absolute certainty due to interpretation not being so cut and dry in regards to gender roles and such from the Bible's perspective. You could say it's unlikely, but not that it's not found at all.

It doesn't have to be to the extent of Pandora, but the notions of females having some innate deceptiveness or susceptibility to sin seems to be part of the narrative to a degree that makes men seem like the proclivity to sin, while similar, is not the same and relegates it back to Eve

 

[thomas_t]

Again, you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. If your cited verse simply supersedes my referenced verse, then you can just ignore much of what else is written in the Bible

no, there are no superseding verses, here. Both verses are true simultaneously.

It states that the man/woman/free man/slave are all the same to God

... at church. After baptism - see Galatians 3:27, the verse before. So among Christians and within the church, there aren't these differences (shouldn't be). But in the world, there are of course.

[...] it does NOT reduce the 'FACT' that God places endorsements for inequality, while on earth (i.e.) men > women, and sanctions slavery

(there is a difference between "in the world" meaning outside the Christian realm... and "on earth")
But again, God does not say that he sanctions or appreciates of slavery and/or inequality between the sexes in the world. He merely says how to deal with it. Big difference.
For God, it is more important to be focussed on the kingdom of God instead of trying revolutions in the world. I mean, feminism is great. Nevertheless, God recommends a quick solution how to handle things in the world in an attempt to dedicate more of the attention to the kingdom of God. within the latter, there is no slavery as Galatians 3:28 frankly states. God is more concerned with the kingdom of God, as I see it. The world is as it is for a moment.

And again, you are avoiding my point. There is no 'during that time.' Such provisions are not later abolished by Jesus. They stand forever, while on earth. Please finally reconcile this certainty.

no, I don't think that I am avoiding your point. I am not agreeing with it, though. That's the point .
If you say there is no 'that time', note that there are many people cherishing inequalities throughout the world .... and God wants to address them, too.

If God likes it, it IS 'good'. - You already know, according to the writings of the Bible, what God likes/dislikes. Hence, [you] do not need to define 'good.'

I do. For your problem. Let's compare it to the arts dilemma. In order for you to know if arts is solely defined by the artist's inner needs or rather defined by some criteria external to the artist... you need to know what arts really is. If you don't know what arts is, you can't answer any question with regard to this. Even if you knew what artists like/dislike in general. It's the same with the euthyphron dilemma.
Thomas

 

[thomas_t]

But they're so minor they might as well not matter in terms of a general understanding of females usually relegated to a few stereotypes,

ah no. We have a major conflict between Sarah and Abraham. Sarah won. Genesis 21:10-12.
Thomas

 

[muichimotsu]

Yeah, Abraham listens to his wife once, that's totally still not patriarchal in the long term

 

[Silmarien]

But they're so minor they might as well not matter in terms of a general understanding of females usually relegated to a few stereotypes, they're the exception rather than the rule. When you count the hits and ignore the misses, you're exercising a sort of bias as well in not considering the broader implications of how females are depicted in the bible at large versus the ones that are meant to be "ideal" in some way, seemingly

Deborah, Ruth, and Esther are not minor characters. They are all pretty major characters.

Granted, but I'm not sure most people would necessarily have that association without familiar with the story itself. Plus, that's the Theogony, Works and Days appears to be where the jar/box originates from, not Pandora's initial creation in response to Prometheus stealing fire.

Why does it matter if people are unfamiliar with the actual story of Pandora? My point--as someone who does study classical Greece--is that the story of Adam and Eve is much more positive than some of the horror shows going on elsewhere in the ancient world. You can't get around that by claiming out that nobody is familiar with the rest of the ancient world.

 

[cvanwey]

I don't see how that's bizarre. It's not like we can transmit information through any means beside language, and Koine Greek is hardly obscure anyway. People can learn it if they want to.

Even if we all spoke Greek, this would not resolve the 'confusion'. I see this verse as stating men > women, and I disagree. Do you?

I read Paul primarily for insight into the earliest stage of the development of Christian theology. We have very little literature from the Apostolic Age, so it is all precious.

I trust my last response clarified your prior confusion, and you are no longer confused as to my position; that Paul asserts he is speaking on God's behalf - as reiterated in verses 3 and 4, in 1 Timothy 2?

Says the moral relativist.

Well, I ask you... If a church member/leader refuses to allow a requesting female from having authority, are [you] 'good' with it? - Knowing the reason given is that the 'woman sinned first'?

And yes, I am a moral relativist But I gather we, (you and I), likely mostly agree on many matters (i.e.) murder, theft, trespassing, 'equality', etc...?

And to recap... You seem to set the bar fairly low, for the Bible?

 

[cvanwey]

no, there are no superseding verses, here. Both verses are true simultaneously.
... at church. After baptism - see Galatians 3:27, the verse before. So among Christians and within the church, there aren't these differences (shouldn't be). But in the world, there are of course.

(there is a difference between "in the world" meaning outside the Christian realm... and "on earth")
But again, God does not say that he sanctions or appreciates of slavery and/or inequality between the sexes in the world. He merely says how to deal with it. Big difference.

God sanctions inequality. He condones/allows for slavery and men > women. Pure and simple. If He did not, He would either not talk about such topics at all, or, issue the abolition of it, like He does for many other topics/commandments. I'm simply bringing forth the verses which speak to His direct sanctions of these 2 topics.

Again, it's like me holding you as a slave, and stating, "don't worry, cheer up, God sees us as equals and you will be free once you die; (if) you are truly Christian. But until then, you belong to me." But God is okay with me owning you while you are still breathing."

no, I don't think that I am avoiding your point. I am not agreeing with it, though. That's the point .
If you say there is no 'that time', note that there are many people cherishing inequalities throughout the world .... and God wants to address them, too.

You are not addressing it. Here's why...

God speaks about slavery in the OT. Jesus also speaks about slavery in the NT. I listed many verses. You never addressed them. God never abolishes slavery. God decides to give instructions for enslavement.

Hence, God not only sanctions slavery, but He tells humans how to do it. Further, He never states it is abolished. Your entire line of "that was a differing time," does not apply.

I do. For your problem. Let's compare it to the arts dilemma. In order for you to know if arts is solely defined by the artist's inner needs or rather defined by some criteria external to the artist... you need to know what arts really is. If you don't know what arts is, you can't answer any question with regard to this. Even if you knew what artists like/dislike in general. It's the same with the euthyphron dilemma.
Thomas

Okay. God is okay with taking slaves for life. God is okay with beating slaves for life. God is okay with slaves being considered property for life. This must mean [you] are okay with this as well??? Yes or no? I would provide the direct verses, yet again, but you have ignored them

I trust you are okay with the above God provided sanctions, which have no specified limitations to only POW's?

Once you address the above repeated request, I will address your irrelevant artist analogy

 

[Silmarien]

Even if we all spoke Greek, this would not resolve the 'confusion'. I see this verse as stating men > women, and I disagree. Do you?

To be honest, I don't even think that Saint Paul wrote 1 Timothy.

And yes, I am a moral relativist But I gather we, (you and I), likely mostly agree on many matters (i.e.) murder, theft, trespassing, 'equality', etc...?

If you're a moral relativist, then you don't believe that any of these things are inherently right or wrong. I disagree with that.

And to recap... You seem to set the bar fairly low, for the Bible?

Not really. I just know enough about Antiquity to think that the notion of social justice comes from the Jews, not the Greeks.

 

[cvanwey]

To be honest, I don't even think that Saint Paul wrote 1 Timothy.

This does not address my question. 'Whoever' wrote this verse states it is the wishes of God. Do you think the verse fundamentally advocates for the men > women? Yes or no? And once you give your answer, it might help to know why or why not?

If you're a moral relativist, then you don't believe that any of these things are inherently right or wrong. I disagree with that.

There is no inherent right/wrong, IMO. Lot's of things happen, in which I personally do not like. But maybe you do I'm just trying to get to the bottom of it, with you and I in this conversation? Do we both agree that the verse advocates for men > women? Presuming we do, do you also agree with the reason given in the Chapter for the apparent inequality?

Not really. I just know enough about Antiquity to think that the notion of social justice comes from the Jews, not the Greeks.

Please don't get it twisted Let's stick to the 'reason' "Paul" states men > women first

 

[Silmarien]

This does not address my question. 'Whoever' wrote this verse states it is the wishes of God. Do you think the verse fundamentally advocates for the men > women? Yes or no? And once you give your answer, it might help to know why or why not?

I think it's a fairly patriarchal passage. Welcome to the Roman Empire?

 

[muichimotsu]

Deborah, Ruth, and Esther are not minor characters. They are all pretty major characters.

Major characters in their own books, perhaps, but still the exceptions to the general rule, my point still arguably stands

Why does it matter if people are unfamiliar with the actual story of Pandora? My point--as someone who does study classical Greece--is that the story of Adam and Eve is much more positive than some of the horror shows going on elsewhere in the ancient world. You can't get around that by claiming out that nobody is familiar with the rest of the ancient world.

Positive by what degree? She came from his rib, she's not remotely his equal even in her origin, let alone the blame she gets in their screw up

And trying to point out that some stories are worse by comparison doesn't take away the arguably negative aspects in the story you seem to regard as positive with proverbial blinders on to anything contrary