• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

Featured The western world hates PATRIARCHY and the church ignores it. By this are we sinning?

Discussion in 'Christian Philosophy & Ethics' started by Ohorseman, Mar 3, 2021.

  1. Ohorseman

    Ohorseman Take up your cross and follow Me

    229
    +81
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    Profound. If God gives a word to someone, others that love God should follow what that someone says. It is a holy God given authority . Yet, it is authority that is followed out of love... not rule, not tyranny.

    The reversal part, I don't understand that as easily.

    I never understood why the man listened to the woman. It does not make sense in a way. He walked with God in the cool of the day in the garden. He was there when God made the woman. Why would he listen to her over his Maker? I think it has to do with the Serpent. The words of the Serpent had a power to them. And this is why God did not discard the man and women. Lucifer was discarded and this will be realized in the end. But the man and women have a path to redemption because their Fall... well, it was more like a push or a trip by the action of the Serpent. Sure, they are culpable, but the Serpent led them.
     
  2. Eloy Craft

    Eloy Craft Myth only points, Truth happened! Supporter

    +686
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    Good question. I've considered the possibility that neither of them had ever heard anything they shouldn't believe. They had never heard a lie so they didn't have experience not believing something. No defense mechanism like we have now. I dunno.

    The reversal is Eve replacing Adam as Prophet of God. She became the prophetess of another god claiming the God of Adam to be a liar. Adam listened to her accepting her authority. The serpent's authority.
    This is the origin of the harlot 'mother of harlots' who sits on her throne with all the blood ever shed on earth on her hands.
     
  3. Philip_B

    Philip_B all shall be well and all shall be well and ... Supporter

    +4,981
    Australia
    Anglican
    Married
    Amazing Eisegesis!
     
  4. Eloy Craft

    Eloy Craft Myth only points, Truth happened! Supporter

    +686
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    Familiar projection.;)
     
  5. Gregorikos

    Gregorikos Ordinary Mystic

    789
    +625
    United States
    Pentecostal
    Married
    Fine. No, it isn't patriarchy. If God had created a hierarchy, setting the male half of the earth's population over the female half, that would be a momentous event affecting the entire population of the earth. He would have stated it plainly, which he clearly did not.

    The simple fact of the matter is that you need it to be there in Genesis 1-2 because your narrative is severely damaged without it.

    Exactly. Adam didn't "rule over" Eve prior to Genesis 3:16. So what is it that you "see" in Genesis 1-2 that is somehow authority without ruling? That doesn't make any sense.

    Absolutely. It is clearly stated in Genesis 2 that man had work to do. And clearly stated in Genesis 3 that the earth was cursed and man's work would become drudgery.

    Not so with male rule. It is nowhere stated in Genesis 1-2. It is introduced as something brand new when it is clearly stated in Genesis 3:16.

    Eve didn't exist. You're making a big deal out of Adam getting more mentions in a scene that took place when he was the only person on earth.

    From Marg's article:

    BDB goes on to give the definition of kenegdo as “to what is in front of = according to,” and it translates Genesis 2:18 as “I will make him a help corresponding to him i.e. equal and adequate to himself.” (My underline.)[5] The Gesenius Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon notes that while kenegdô is not used elsewhere in the Bible, it is used a few times in Rabbinic texts (with or without a pronominal suffix) where it “is often used of things which are like one another.”[6] So, in Rabbinic texts, the word means “similar.”

    and

    Thus in the LXX we have boēthon kat’ auton (“a help corresponding/according to him”) in verse 18 and boēthos homoios autō (“a help similar to him”) in verse 20.

    and

    CONCLUSION
    There is nothing whatsoever in the expression ezer kenegdô that implies a subordination of women. Instead, it has the meanings of strength and similarity. Each of the creation accounts in Genesis chapters 1, 2 and 5, highlight the similarity, unity and equality of men and women, and tell us that their joint task involves being God’s regents of the world he created; this includes ruling the animals (Gen. 1: 26-30).

    We must stop trying to place women in a different sphere or lower rank than men. And we must stop using a faulty interpretation of Scripture to support faulty, hierarchical ideologies of gender. Men and women have some differences, but we are also very similar. “Similar to him” and “corresponding with him” are the meanings of kenegdô, the word God used when making the first woman.


    The meaning of kenegdo is well established as the whole of Marg's article aptly shows. But you are attempting to neutralize the word so that it has no impact at all on the text so you can go around looking for clues to show a hierarchy that isn't there.

    I've already answered this. The "man" in Genesis 1:27 is both of them. this is abundantly clear in the parallel reference that I provided, Genesis 5:2, which uses the same words.

    A better translation:

    So God created humankind in his image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them. Genesis 1:27 (NRSV)

    So you don't know what it is.

    No. Since one human being was literally made from the other, logically one of them had to be first. Then there had to be a scenario that showed the need of the first one for the second. That's all that's happening in Genesis 2. You want to find "something" in it to establish your patriarchy prior to the fall, but it isn't there. No "different roles" are stated, despite how badly you want them to be there.

    God talked directly to Eve too. (Genesis 1:28-30) So yes, at that level.

    That isn't obvious at all.

    Right? When I set out your argument in a logical way, it doesn't make sense.

    What? Genesis 2:24 or 3:8-11? I didn't think I had to answer them. You're counting male nouns and pronouns (In English) and marking them pink and blue and seeing who gets the most mentions and that, you say, determines which one is the most important? That's really poor hermeneutics.

    Then it was a Straw Man.

    Again, counting English nouns and pronouns what what you think is more references to Adam than to Eve and marking them in pink and blue is a cute concept, and it may very well be that Adam was mentioned more often in the creation account than Eve was. But that doesn't prove a thing. God may have had other reasons for telling the story as he did. You're inference that more mentions equates to God establishing a hierarchy is pure speculation.
     
  6. Gregorikos

    Gregorikos Ordinary Mystic

    789
    +625
    United States
    Pentecostal
    Married
    All well and good, but that does not support your universal declaration that, "The person who received the commandment has authority over those that receive it from them."

    I hope you don't think that by witnessing to someone that gives you authority over that person. It does not, yet that meets the conditions of your alleged rule.

    I'm sure you also wouldn't think that Rebekah had authority over Isaac. (Genesis 25:23) or that Mary had authority over Joseph. (Luke 1:26-38) If a commandment comes to a person in authority (as to Moses) then they can use that authority to enforce the commandment. the commandment doesn't give them authority.

    And on top of that, we don't know that Eve received word of God's commandment about the tree from Adam. That's your assumption based on what you've been told. But the text doesn't say that.

    Eve spoke to God directly herself. (Genesis 1:28-30) God could have given the commandment to Eve as well, and Genesis 3 gives reason to believe that's what happened.
     
  7. Ohorseman

    Ohorseman Take up your cross and follow Me

    229
    +81
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    You are doing it again. What I mean when I say you skip stuff, is that you skip stuff. Sometimes the main point. All your responses are to supporting ideas and secondary points. In fairness, our posts are probably too long. So we miss each other's main point. Plus, I have a tendency to talk in a big circle. The way @Eloy Craft does it is better. He is short, to the point. Wish I could do that, LOL.

    Our discussion lately has been concerning my previous post... and the main point is as stated in the two quotes below:
    It is not about the blue and pink. All the other things were meant to support this, this "thing that stands out the most", as I wrote. I probably should have highlighted that in some way.

    So, considering everything you wrote about: Yes, God talked to the Woman. Yes, ezer kenegdo means helper that is of equal value, at least, and NOT servant. Yes, some of the interaction between God and the man was before the woman was created. Got it.

    Again, to my main point. The thing that stands out the most is how God called out specifically to the man. You may say that God did that because God directly told the man to not eat. Yes, and that too shows an emphasis as him being primary.

    You cannot say God was talking to both. The text clearly shows God talking to the man. The man even goes on to blame the woman. They are distinct, two parts of a whole... with different roles... unless you think that the man could also be fruitful and multiply by giving birth.
     
  8. Gregorikos

    Gregorikos Ordinary Mystic

    789
    +625
    United States
    Pentecostal
    Married
    God can talk to whomever he wants to, but his doing so doesn't imply something about that person having an elevated status of authority over any other.

    And yes, women have a mother role and men have a father role for obvious reasons. But they don't have those roles because of a rule, they have those roles because that is what their bodies are designed to do. There aren't any other gender roles.
     
  9. Philip_B

    Philip_B all shall be well and all shall be well and ... Supporter

    +4,981
    Australia
    Anglican
    Married
    And yet we find in the New Testament, Mary, Mother of the Lord, has a significant role to play and indeed is confronted by the Angel of the Lord with astonishing news, and Mary, of Magdala, is confronted by the Lord in the Garden with astonishing news.

    I don't think God is patriarchal either.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  10. Ohorseman

    Ohorseman Take up your cross and follow Me

    229
    +81
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    You keep saying things like that, like "an elevated status of authority over any other". You describe it in a way that connotes oppression. Like it is about power. Status, as you say. But nobody is advocating that. You ascribe that... and then pretend to slay this imaginary beast of oppression and those that ride it. I know that beast exists but it ain't here, not in this place.

    To Eloy Craft's previous point concerning authority, if God imparts a word to a devoted follower, that person will act and others of like mind submit, but only if it is anointed. Anointing is a type of authority, but not a worldly type. But, you are a learned man, more so than me, and I know that you know this.

    BINGO!!! Sir, you have won the top prize!

    Wait. What was that last thing you said...no prize for you!!! LOL.

    Maybe this is just me... but if there is war, I don't mind being in an underground missile silo complex with Suzie who can push a button better than me... but if I am storming a beach I want 169 pound men who can do 24 push ups next to me, rather than 130 pound women who can do 6 push ups next to me (numbers not arbitrary). And when my daughter got stuck in the mud on the side of the road in the middle of the night, I am the one that rushed to her, not my wife. Gender roles. Makes no difference to me whether you call it patriarchal, hierarchical, or just good common sense.

    And, to me, it is important to receive the Bread and Wine from a man.
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2021
  11. Philip_B

    Philip_B all shall be well and all shall be well and ... Supporter

    +4,981
    Australia
    Anglican
    Married
    I would rather receive the bread and wine from a faithful woman than from a faithless man. I hope you will be preserved from having to make that decision.
     
  12. Gregorikos

    Gregorikos Ordinary Mystic

    789
    +625
    United States
    Pentecostal
    Married
    I'm sorry for skipping! I love that this is your main point. I really do. The big trump card, right here. Your proof that before the fall, God willed that the men would be the leaders. After the fall, God spoke to Adam first. That's it.

    But first of all, there were only two people involved. God was going to speak to one, then the other. There was a 50% chance it would go either way. Why did he pick Adam? Maybe because Adam was the most guilty. We know from 1st Timothy that Eve was deceived, but Adam was not. So Eve sinned, not realizing what she was doing. Adam sinned, knowing fully well what he was doing, and yet he did it anyway. Adam sinned defiantly.

    The Scripture makes a distinction between sins of Eve's nature and sins of Adam's nature.

    ‘Also if one person sins unintentionally, then he shall offer a one year old female goat for a sin offering.  The priest shall make atonement before the LORD for the person who goes astray when he sins unintentionally, making atonement for him that he may be forgiven. You shall have one law for him who does anything unintentionally, for him who is native among the sons of Israel and for the alien who sojourns among them. But the person who does anything defiantly, whether he is native or an alien, that one is blaspheming the LORD; and that person shall be cut off from among his people. Because he has despised the word of the LORD and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt will be on him.’” Numbers 15:27-31 (NASB)

    If I was God, I would have spoken to Adam first too. That doesn't prove anything about authority or patriarchy or leadership, however.
     
  13. Eloy Craft

    Eloy Craft Myth only points, Truth happened! Supporter

    +686
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    Since woman came out of man he is naturally her lead. He came before her. She is 'of' him. This is ignored or reduced to wasted words tomaintain an eisegetical interpretation. Whenever someone does that debating a subject it means the opponent has nothing substantial to refute the point. Let's see, Genesis two is ignored in favor of Genesis one. Paul is reduced or ignoreded in the same way. That Jesus picked men to be Apostles, would be treated the same way. Seems that's the modus operandi of those opposing biblical patriarchy in this thread. Woman came out of man. That don't mean anything. God speaks to Adam. That don't matter. God made them in His image. Now that's all that matters. God spoke to Eve to make her punishment known. That means God gave her the commandment too. Nope that is very weak. I'd be embarrassed to use it. Intellectual honesty demands that the points made for patriarchy be soundly refuted not reduced to meaninglessness or ignored. I have yet to read a refutation compelling enough , or at all, to seriously consider that patriarchy is not what God ordered
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2021
  14. Gregorikos

    Gregorikos Ordinary Mystic

    789
    +625
    United States
    Pentecostal
    Married
    Where can I find this alleged order?
     
  15. Philip_B

    Philip_B all shall be well and all shall be well and ... Supporter

    +4,981
    Australia
    Anglican
    Married
    The fact that the word is 'woman' meaning 'out of man' may simply be a reflection of the Patriarchal context in which the narrative came to birth. I don't think it necessarily a divine imprimatur of Patriarchy, it is just that is how things were, and how things were understood in that context.
     
  16. Ohorseman

    Ohorseman Take up your cross and follow Me

    229
    +81
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    No, sir. Please fall in love with something better. When you are in the habit of creating imaginary beasts, well, it bleeds out into other things. It was the main point of that SPECIFIC post. It is not the main point of it all. I am wrestling with all of it... from Genesis to Revelation. At this point, we are zooming in on the start, what happened before and at the curse.

    I am not necessarily aiming to prove this or that... I am just trying to understand. I start my thread with a question... not a statement. I am trying to learn. You, and everyone here, are helping me and I really appreciate it.

    That about Numbers is interesting. Thanks.
    I think he does not mean order, like a command from a drill sergeant... he means order as in the arrangement or disposition of people or things in relation to each other according to a particular sequence, pattern, or method.
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2021
  17. Paidiske

    Paidiske Clara bonam audax Supporter

    +15,479
    Australia
    Anglican
    Married
    Does the harm caused by patriarchy not give you pause? Do you believe that God ordered a harmful pattern of relationships?
     
  18. Eloy Craft

    Eloy Craft Myth only points, Truth happened! Supporter

    +686
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    The truths of the Genesis events we all share reduced to subjective meaninglessness. Makes one wonder why anyone thinks it really happened.
     
  19. Eloy Craft

    Eloy Craft Myth only points, Truth happened! Supporter

    +686
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    Yes and I explained my view in that regard in a previous post. You blame the social structure for the failures that God blames us for.
     
  20. Gregorikos

    Gregorikos Ordinary Mystic

    789
    +625
    United States
    Pentecostal
    Married
    it is an unfortunate and frustrating feature of this topic- the word "order" comes up in too many ways with too many meanings. (1) a command (2) a sequence and (3) an arrangement. One often doesn't know which of those is in play.

    If Eloy meant an arrangement, I'd say that is an assumption in contradiction to what we see in Genesis 1-3.
     
Loading...