Any examples of misogynism in New Testament - thinking Paul perhaps?

[swanriver]

On another thread a poster has referred to misogyny (sp) in religion, wondering whether Xtianity is exempt? Thinking of passage Wives be subject unto your husbands.
But hoping to be contradicted on this. Presumably the relationship between wife and husband is meant to be the same as relationship between Christ and Church ie: both equally important to each other.

lol, bloss, well, yeah, but I'm not sure it's any more relevant to the thread than a medieval myth

But yes, it's fair to say I haven't experienced much biblically mandated equality first-hand as a Christian. It's my own fault for not sticking with cosy old Anglicanism

just because something is referred to as folklore does not diminish it merely adds an alternative perspective to what you were discussing, and adds a context to the discussion, much of the bible is open to interuptation and with translation meanings are changed and corrupted, have read much of the bible it appears to me that women provide a backdrop to events, some of this is probably about how society was structured at the time rather than a belief that women should be treated as second to men, and it man's not God's views that are prevalent in the bible given teh translation issues

Swan river the wives be subject unto your husnabds makes marriage not an expression of love between a man and a woman but a means of taking the sin out of lustiness. The virgin birth also portrays a woman as being submissive and there by creating the unrealistic ideal of a pure woman.
also "As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)
Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God?A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head" (I Corinthians 11:3-10).
most examples are in teh old testament and appear to place the rape of women as an ok thing if it saves a man

Well, that's one way of looking at it. I kind of like the specific link to Christ and His church in the marriage issue.

The virgin birth has certainly been misused, but in and of itself is more about the origin of Jesus than women in general.

Aside from the quotes you've mentioned, which are similar to the one I already mentioned from 1 Timothy, I'm not sure what you mean about your OT examples.

Message withdrawn

I'll agree with bloss on that one.

I think it's very much a case of something being used as a tool of control by being forced through a certain lens - as has certainly been the case in my experience, where a somewhat stylized view from the past few centuries has been imposed on the text and turned it into an idealized Victoriana model of Christian marriage.

When viewed in the context the text itself gives - that of the head of Christ being God, and no mainstream Christian believes they are not entirely equal - it's very different to that.

Hi just read this thread all at once and it is amazing.

There is so much food for thought in it.

And I learnt that Adam may or may not have had a first wife, my goodness! I didn't know that.

Message withdrawn

Mrs KH I refer to Lot when he gave gis daughters up insteaad of the male visitors (angels), ther is also an example about a concubine being given up to save her master but with lots of things in the bible your own belief and the meanings of a church go alon way to help with the understanding of the passages. I belief in marriage adn equality within that relationship but sometimes I struggle with the Church's position on women

Well, Lot offered his daughters to the men, but actually didn't give them up. There are a lot of hair-raising incidents in the OT, but it's not a how-to manual, a lot of it is a frank recording of what happened when people did stupid things as well as good things, like David and Bathsheba.

that is true, I guess the important thing is how you take the message drom the Bible and apply it in everyday life, although I m not sure at the moment how to reconcile the fact that some answers can be found in some passages but then others appear to offer an alternative

The best and most helpful way I've found is to go on principles laid down. There are incidents recorded, for various reasons, but it's always dangerous to take them as a pattern (like Jael driving a tent peg through someone's head is probably not a good example of what to do to a bully...).

But you can glean broad principles that transcend culture. Like caring for the weaker members of society - looking after the poor, dealing justly with people etc. That looked really different in a culture that had slaves, for example, but even though the culture has changed, the principles of being honourable still apply.

I'm slowly working my way around this on the issue of women in scripture too - but the very best principles laid down there would come from Jesus for me. His family tree included women - women who didn't immediately 'fit in' the culture of respectable. There's a prostitute and and adulteress in there amongst others.

And He Himself was tremendously welcoming and respectful to women. So, whatever the specific quotes from Paul (and he wasn't all bad, actually, he made much of equality in other places) a 'broad principle' approach would lead me to go with genuine respect for women as God's intent, if that makes sense.

Also agree with bloss - the submission of Christ to God the Father is the thing that keeps me working at understanding what submission means as defined by the Bible itself, and not by the 21st C secular world on one hand or throwbacks to Victorian models of gender relations on the other.

I need to go back and read some more stuff on 1 Timothy 2, but I really hate it when people dismiss Paul simply because of these verses. I'm reading Romans at the moment and chapter 8 is like spiritual oxygen to me. And Philippians is just full of tender-heartedness to the church and single-mindedness towards God. I find Paul very attractive as a Christian, and especially as I've got older, I tend to give him more of the benefit of the doubt on his attitude to women.

Augustine was a bit of damaged person, though. Over-developed sense of shame because he'd been a bit of a tart before his conversion. The pendulum swung way far in the other direction and he became something of a prude and a twit about women.

He did write some good stuff, though, so I tend to hive off the misogyny like I ignore it when my kids say rude words to try and get my attention.

Thank you KH that makes a lot of sense

Message withdrawn

Friend of mine came from a atheist/lapsed muslim family and was encouraged to read the bible by a fundie aquaintance.

After a while my friend starts to underline every time a woman is mentioned as property, and not even named.

Quick google search turned up this.

Ultimately though, the bible is very sexist by our modern standards, because of the time it was written in, and by whom it was written and translated.

bloss but some do I think Augustine did recognise the soul and it depends on the intreptation of the Apostles' creed

"ime, in the NT, your trickiest problem is in 1 Timothy 2 -

Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.

The whole passage is fairly hairy, in terms of equality, but the bolded parts are the really sticky bits."

I agree KH, it's a pretty hard passage. One thing I remember from my very distant theology studying days which I found helpful and turned it around a bit (though not completely) was this: Paul makes the statement 'let a woman learn in all submission...etc.' Now what is picked up from that 9 times out of 10 is the whole submission language and the negativity of that, although that in itself if looked into means something altogether different from the whole doormat image which springs to mind. Anyway, it's the beginning of that verse I'm concerned with: Let a woman learn. If you think about it, this was a pretty radical statement, for the time. Paul saying a woman could learn was in itself liberating - in the time, this was unheard of. Women were supposed to just sit and be and not even think. To be given permission to learn was unthinkable. So this turns it round from Paul being anti-women to him seeing them as more than mere shit on mens feet. Do you see what I mean? Then the other part, about women remaining silent in the services and the hat thing - well, I know it's an old chestnut but that's pretty cultural; women who uncovered their heads were generally known as 'loose' women, and there was also a propensity during the women (esp in the Corinthian church) to become totally out of order ie to be shouting and screaming over everything, now I'm not saying I think this is the answer, merely another way of looking at it.
I'm sure I've read some good thing about the whole Eve succession thing too but can't remember the details, will look into it but not now because I can't be arsed.
Hope that helps a little, probably not but one can only ponder on this stuff.!

Message withdrawn

ooops thread killed again, sorry