Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I decided to start a new thread to continue the conversation I was having with Jerwade in the Christianity and the LGBTQ Community (Part 3) thread that had veered off topic and onto the issue of male authority, or "male dominance" as Jerwade characterizes it.
I want to start by responding to this post by Jerwade:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerwade
It doesn't take much to see how women were treated over the centuries or how extreme fundamentalists treat homosexuals, nor those they consider a minority. Discrimination is not something new. Neither is Patriarchy as male dominance is one of the earliest known and most widespread forms of inequality in human history. And the Church exemplifies this fact as a sex (male) gender system of dominance.
How were women treated? It's true that in many cases, women were treated as chattel in pagan societies. However, women have, by and large, been treated with dignity in Christian societies.
There is nothing wrong with discrimination. Every time we make a choice, we discriminate against all of the other alternative choices we could have made.
There is nothing wrong with inequality, per se. Humans are not equal. Men and women are not equal.
Again I ask, how do you define "dominance"? By the way you're using the word, it seems to me that you're attempting to use it as a rhetorical cudgel against the Christian notion of male headship.
Since greater than 50% of the population of the world at any given time has always been female, I object to your using the word "dominance" to describe man in relation to woman. "Dominance" implies the flourishing of one at the expense of another. Maybe you can explain how you see that happening either historically or presently in Christian societies...
I decided to start a new thread to continue the conversation I was having with Jerwade in the Christianity and the LGBTQ Community (Part 3) thread that had veered off topic and onto the issue of male authority, or "male dominance" as Jerwade characterizes it.
I want to start by responding to this post by Jerwade:
How were women treated? It's true that in many cases, women were treated as chattel in pagan societies. However, women have, by and large, been treated with dignity in Christian societies.
There is nothing wrong with discrimination. Every time we make a choice, we discriminate against all of the other alternative choices we could have made.
There is nothing wrong with inequality, per se. Humans are not equal. Men and women are not equal.
Again I ask, how do you define "dominance"? By the way you're using the word, it seems to me that you're attempting to use it as a rhetorical cudgel against the Christian notion of male headship.
Since greater than 50% of the population of the world at any given time has always been female, I object to your using the word "dominance" to describe man in relation to woman. "Dominance" implies the flourishing of one at the expense of another. Maybe you can explain how you see that happening either historically or presently in Christian societies...
I did add, "we might assume", since I didn't know the actual reason. I took it as likely being yet another of Paul's rather eccentric 'against nature' references.
Your assumption doesn't seem charitable to Paul, who is considered a great Saint who was the single most instrumental person in Christianizing the Western world. Shouldn't we assume the best from someone with his stature?
Do you deny that something can be "against nature"? Why is that "eccentric" to you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RomulusXXV
Paul's quote: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet (1 Timothy 2:12)." might have something to do with it.
Historically, perhaps even pre-historically, men and women had distinct roles that they performed. Those roles varied by culture. Then somebody came along and convinced one or the other that they were being 'dominated'.
Why?
I am of the opinion that the symbolism of God creating woman from man's rib has been lost.
Paul uses term "woman" symbolically as "natural" in 1 Cor 2, as in lesser spiritual nature. only sometimes he uses it as "male" - "female" in sexes sense.
Example, Eph. 5 : 22-33. Only v.33 addresses physical male - female relationship.
Your assumption doesn't seem charitable to Paul, who is considered a great Saint who was the single most instrumental person in Christianizing the Western world. Shouldn't we assume the best from someone with his stature?
Do you deny that something can be "against nature"? Why is that "eccentric" to you?
That is a simplistic question. We have two natures, one is of the flesh (our animal nature) that is indiscriminate and the other is of the Spirit, which is discriminating. Paul was referring to the nature of the Spirit which is in an adversarial role to our animal nature. You seem not to see the distinction and its implications for discriminating among the demands of the two natures. God is NOT concerned with animal natures. He is concerned with the Spiritual ones which are in our state of mind, NOT the physical behaviors, per se.
That is a simplistic question. We have two natures, one is of the flesh (our animal nature) that is indiscriminate and the other is of the Spirit, which is discriminating. Paul was referring to the nature of the Spirit which is in an adversarial role to our animal nature. You seem not to see the distinction and its implications for discriminating among the demands of the two natures. God is NOT concerned with animal natures. He is concerned with the Spiritual ones which are in our state of mind, NOT the physical behaviors, per se.
No to the bolded, because we do not have two natures. We have one nature - a human nature that is composed of both body and spirit.
Jesus Christ is unique among humanity in that only He has two natures - one human and one divine.
That is a simplistic question. We have two natures, one is of the flesh (our animal nature) that is indiscriminate and the other is of the Spirit, which is discriminating. Paul was referring to the nature of the Spirit which is in an adversarial role to our animal nature. You seem not to see the distinction and its implications for discriminating among the demands of the two natures. God is NOT concerned with animal natures. He is concerned with the Spiritual ones which are in our state of mind, NOT the physical behaviors, per se.
If what you say is true, particularly the bolded, then why did God create us with this "animal nature"?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
