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

[stevevw]

Just like patriarchy, sickness also came to us at the fall. One could just as easily say, "Actually sickness is still happening in countries like Sweden and Denmark who are the most medically advanced nations in the world. So this shows two things. First that sickness is something that is not that easy to get rid of and perhaps is a natural part of society......."

And yet, we don't quit fighting sickness.

The persistence of patriarchy is exactly what we would expect. That's the nature of a curse- they are difficult if not impossible to break. But that doesn't mean we accept it as something great. We fight it because it is evil.

Yes I agree but the difference with sickness is we don't like its consequences and how it feels. But people like the way it feels to be successful and have money and power.

My point was that the patriarchy is more than mens dominance over women. It’s a way of life that most people accept and desire based primarily on western ideals of what makes a person happy and successful. Both males and females buy into those ideals and are cultivating that way of life by preparing children to be go getters, achievers, have successful careers, get that job and climb the ladder to success to get that car and house.

It just so happens that males have been better at it or have taken the opportunities more by dominating everyone else and not just women but other males and minorities who are weaker. Its dog eat dog..

So it requires changing a complete way of life to change the patriarchy and thats now an easy thing and probably why it still happens in elgalitarian nations despite their efforts to make things equal between the genders.

You may be right in that it’s inherent in human nature, the selfish and fallen side of humans. So in some ways we are in a conflict of natures. We want to stop and change the system because we know it’s unfair and oppressive but at the same time many people want to buy into it because they think it’s what will make them happy and are afraid they will miss out.

We need more caring people but the system makes people selfish. I think women are now realizing they are missing out and have been fighting back and are beginning to dominate. But that is just the other extreme which feeds the system more. We have to be willing to forgo material wealth and put people first. But somehow I don’t think that’s going to happen. Maybe after a couple more economic crashes then we might reassess things.

 

[Ohorseman]

​

Or maybe the entire notion you have about naming and authority is incorrect.

You're the guy that has made much ballyhoo about "interpreting Scripture with Scripture," and I agree with you on that. But nowhere in Scripture is it stated that the person naming someone has authority over the person named. You've heard that somewhere, and you've made it a rule through which you interpret Scripture. But what if that rule is wrong? If it is, it will throw off all your interpretations. Let's test your rule by Scripture to see if it's valid:

So she named the LORD who spoke to her, “You are El-roi”; for she said, “Have I really seen God and remained alive after seeing him?” Genesis 16:13 (NRSV)

By your rule, Hagar would be in authority over God, and we know that isn't right. I think Scripture proves your rule is wrong.

No, not my notion. Certainly not a rule.

But naming certainly has significance in the Bible. This is not an endorsement.
Naming - Holman Bible Dictionary -

 

[Ohorseman]

Of course it is evil. However, I absolutely agree that patriarchy is much better when the man involved is a good man. But a benevolent dictator is still a dictator.

The idea that patriarchy started in Genesis 3:16 and that it is evil. I do not agree. That is a non-traditional view. God said, “Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you.” Paul’s preaching matches up with this. To believe that this is evil, does that mean that Paul preaches evil ? And what about Peter. Did Jesus forget to tell Peter about this so-called evil?

Ephesians 5:22-24
22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.​

What about here? This lines up with “rule of the husband”.

1 Corinthians 11
3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.​

And then Paul preaches this. More evil? Certainly not

Colossians 3:18
Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord​

And, Peter, is he also preaching evil? No. No evil here.

1 Peter 3:1-6
Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, 2when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. 3Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. 4Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight. 5For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands, 6like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her LORD.​

So God spoke evil over the wife. Then Paul. And Peter. Is this your position?

 

[Gregorikos]

No, not my notion. Certainly not a rule.

But naming certainly has significance in the Bible. This is not an endorsement.
Naming - Holman Bible Dictionary -

I have read and acknowledge the opinion of the Complementarian Southern Baptist Holman Bible Dictionary on the matter.

Now let's get back to what the Bible says. In Genesis 16:13, Hagar names God. Do you believe that implies that Hagar has authority over God? (Y/N)

 

[Gregorikos]

The idea that patriarchy started in Genesis 3:16 and that it is evil. I do not agree. That is a non-traditional view. God said, “Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you.”

There are two points there. (1) patriarchy started in Genesis 3:16 and (2) patriarchy is evil. Point (1) is difficult to deny since Genesis 3:16 is the first mention of male rule in the Bible.

Point (2) is your latest contention, so let's address that.

Paul’s preaching matches up with this. To believe that this is evil, does that mean that Paul preaches evil ? And what about Peter. Did Jesus forget to tell Peter about this so-called evil?

Ephesians 5:22-24
22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.​

What about here? This lines up with “rule of the husband”.

1 Corinthians 11
3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.​

And then Paul preaches this. More evil? Certainly not

Colossians 3:18
Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord​

And, Peter, is he also preaching evil? No. No evil here.

1 Peter 3:1-6
Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, 2when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. 3Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. 4Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight. 5For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands, 6like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her LORD.​

So God spoke evil over the wife. Then Paul. And Peter. Is this your position?

My position is that human slavery is evil. Do you agree? I hope so. And yet, Paul and Peter accommodated human slavery in the same passages you put forth promoting patriarchy.

You gave me Ephesians 5:22-24. The pericope is 5:21-6:9, and it covers 3 sets of familial relationships, Husbands and wives, parents and children, masters and slaves.

You gave me Colossians 3:8, The pericope is 3:18-22, and it covers 3 sets of familial relationships, Husbands and wives, parents and children, masters and slaves.

You gave me 1 Peter 3:1-6. The pericope is 2:18-3:7, and it covers 2 sets of familial relationships, slaves and masters, and husbands and wives.

You cannot divorce the patriarchy from the human slavery in these passages. It's all in the same context. Were Paul and Peter preaching slavery? Of course not. That would be preaching evil. Neither were they preaching patriarchy.

Isn't it interesting that human slavery is in the same context with patriarchy in all of these passages? Is it not obvious that is significant? Paul and Peter are addressing Roman culture common to all of the New Testament churches. These are the "household codes" of Aristotle that were common to the culture in the first century. Paul and Peter were neither preaching slavery nor Roman gender hierarchy. They was acknowledging current culture and putting some Christian restraints on them.

Pope John Paul II suggested that using Paul’s writings in Ephesians 5 to justify male headship and female subordination in marriage would be the equivalent of using those passages to justify slavery. is that what you're willing to do in order to keep your patriarchy?

 

[Ohorseman]

I have read and acknowledge the opinion of the Complementarian Southern Baptist Holman Bible Dictionary on the matter.

Now let's get back to what the Bible says. In Genesis 16:13, Hagar names God. Do you believe that implies that Hagar has authority over God? (Y/N)

I don’t know much about that, brother. When I wrote that “I was taught”, that is to mean that I heard about that and it is not my idea. I was asking questions there. I suppose you thought I had some sort of formal training or authoritative source on the topic. But I don’t nor do I care about that topic. They might have a complementarian section you could go to ask about that.

 

[Gregorikos]

I don’t know much about that, brother. When I wrote that “I was taught”, that is to mean that I heard about that and it is not my idea. I was asking questions there. I suppose you thought I had some sort of formal training or authoritative source on the topic. But I don’t nor do I care about that topic. They might have a complementarian section you could go to ask about that.

I take it from your answer that you agree that even though Hagar named God, she was not in authority over Him, and therefore we have Scriptural proof that naming someone does not imply authority over them.

 

[Ohorseman]

I take it from your answer that you agree that even though Hagar named God, she was not in authority over Him, and therefore we have Scriptural proof that naming someone does not imply authority over them.

Oh,so you were not joking around. Okay. I do not agree that this verse is "scriptural proof" that naming someone has nothing to do with authority. In this case it obviously did not. Sometimes it does, sometimes it does not. It depends on the context.The link I shared with you explained a lot about naming and had examples from the Bible. Sometimes it is prophetic. Sometimes it is about establishing an identity. Sometimes it is a re-naming, or a change in identity. Sometimes it is descriptive. I am probably leaving things out....

Genesis 16:11-13
11 The angel of the Lord also said to her:
“You are now pregnant
and you will give birth to a son.
You shall name him Ishmael,
for the Lord has heard of your misery.
12 He will be a wild donkey of a man;
his hand will be against everyone
and everyone’s hand against him,
and he will live in hostility
toward all his brothers.”
13 She gave this name to the Lord who spoke to her: “You are the God who sees me,” for she said, “I have now seen the One who sees me.”
​

It looks to me like the name that Hagar the slave girl used for the angel was descriptive. But like I wrote before, that is not something I know much about and it might be a tangent.

Concerning naming children: Eve named her children. The first father to name their children was Seth. Moving forward in scripture from there, sometimes it was the father and sometimes it was the mother. I don't know why.

​

 

[Ohorseman]

There are two points there. (1) patriarchy started in Genesis 3:16 and (2) patriarchy is evil. Point (1) is difficult to deny since Genesis 3:16 is the first mention of male rule in the Bible.

Point (2) is your latest contention, so let's address that.



My position is that human slavery is evil. Do you agree? I hope so. And yet, Paul and Peter accommodated human slavery in the same passages you put forth promoting patriarchy.

You gave me Ephesians 5:22-24. The pericope is 5:21-6:9, and it covers 3 sets of familial relationships, Husbands and wives, parents and children, masters and slaves.

You gave me Colossians 3:8, The pericope is 3:18-22, and it covers 3 sets of familial relationships, Husbands and wives, parents and children, masters and slaves.

You gave me 1 Peter 3:1-6. The pericope is 2:18-3:7, and it covers 2 sets of familial relationships, slaves and masters, and husbands and wives.

You cannot divorce the patriarchy from the human slavery in these passages. It's all in the same context. Were Paul and Peter preaching slavery? Of course not. That would be preaching evil. Neither were they preaching patriarchy.

Isn't it interesting that human slavery is in the same context with patriarchy in all of these passages? Is it not obvious that is significant? Paul and Peter are addressing Roman culture common to all of the New Testament churches. These are the "household codes" of Aristotle that were common to the culture in the first century. Paul and Peter were neither preaching slavery nor Roman gender hierarchy. They was acknowledging current culture and putting some Christian restraints on them.

Pope John Paul II suggested that using Paul’s writings in Ephesians 5 to justify male headship and female subordination in marriage would be the equivalent of using those passages to justify slavery. is that what you're willing to do in order to keep your patriarchy?

Sorry, brother. I don't always have big blocks of time, LOL. For now lets just look at the first part here. That looks wrong to me, brother.

Genesis 3:16, it is the first mention of "husband" rule. You keep saying that patriarchy, or "father" rule, started there, or "male" rule even. You are reading into the text something that it is not there. Let's just focus on that for now. Why do you keep insisting that rule of the husband = rule of the father = rule of man. God did not say that. You, you change it from husband rule... to father rule... and then go so far as to change it to man rule. That is wrong. God did not say that. Please explain why you keep doing that .

 

[ewq1938]