Women rights in Christianity?

[Aqualung]

So those are Pauls word then why are they in Bible?

Because he was speaking on behalf of christ, and was speaking christ's words.

 

[Scott1]

I would like to know what women rights does Christianity give?

Short version:
"The Church gives thanks for all the manifestations of the feminine "genius" which have appeared in the course of history, in the midst of all peoples and nations; she gives thanks for all the charisms which the Holy Spirit distributes to women in the history of the People of God, for all the victories which she owes to their faith, hope and charity: she gives thanks for all the fruits of feminine holiness."

Long version:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081988_mulieris-dignitatem_en.html

 

[Deut 13:1]

Wow, I made that long post and not one comment

 

[Scott1]

Wow, I made that long post and not one comment

Ummmm, maybe I'm confused, but you keep posting Jewish teachings in a thread about CHRISTIANITY. Maybe that is why?:areyoucra

 

[TashaN]

I didn't say that he was 'overturning all the laws of the Old Testament', just that he was emphasizing the commandments and instructing people to love their neighbor as themselves over the Mosaic Law as what they must do to live a righteous life.

We are saying women and you are saying neighbour?

read the title man.

You and 'the truth' were presenting Old Testament scripture as evidence that God did not believe in rights for women, but you were ignoring Christ's message and the title of this thread which asks about women's rights in Christianity. [/QUOTE]

no body ignored nothing and i believe in Jesus and his amazing and wonderful teaching to guide us but we are simply talking about somthing we found in the bible only and you claim that God said these things and you started defending Jesus "which it seems has a higher rank in your life than God himself do so" and you prefer to blame God because of the OT instead of blaimg the people who corrupt and fabricate alot of things in the bible according to many christian scholars.

I believe they are there to present some of the history of the founding of the Christian Church. since the New Testament is about the life and ministry of Christ, don't you agree that it would be prudent for Christians to take Paul's words under advise but to follow Christ's teachings?

:sarcastic

 

[flysky]

I believe they are there to present some of the history of the founding of the Christian Church. since the New Testament is about the life and ministry of Christ, don't you agree that it would be prudent for Christians to take Paul's words under advise but to follow Christ's teachings?

But its not the exact words of Christ, because it was not written when he was alive RIGHT. So they can be few of their opionions added.

Because he was speaking on behalf of christ, and was speaking christ's words.

OK! tell me if Paul ever met and talked with Christ or did he consult with Christ followers? And when you speak on behalf of Christ that doesn't make those word as the words of Christ RIGHT.

When Christ was Alive did he approve Paul to speak on his behalf?

 

[Scott1]

But its not the exact words of Christ, because it was not written when he was alive RIGHT. So they can be few of their opionions added.

What's wrong with that?

OK! tell me if Paul ever met and talked with Christ or did he consult with Christ followers?

While Christ was alive? I don't believe so.

Not sure what point you are trying to make....

 

[jonny]

This is childish. Your profile used to say "LDS", then it said "Christian", now it says Christian (LDS)", so I am not telling you what your religion is, you are telling all of us with your description(s). If these are not valid, why post them? As for your views, clearly I can read them on your various posts on various threads. .

Anyone who has actually read through my threads would know exactly why I changed the religion in my profile to Christian. I added the LDS on there a few days later to reduce confusion (and to annoy those Mormon haters ). Not every Christian on this board lists the church they belong to on their profile. I have this freedom also.

If you find a post I made which supported the words that you put in my mouth post your proof. If you can't find proof, ask me before assuming. I haven't even posted every single belief that I have in these forums and I won't. I choose not to "cast my pearls before the swine" sometimes.

You can tell me I'm wrong all you want. Just back up this claim with some evidence.

I have to back up the claim that I don't believe something with evidence? The words I DON'T BELIEVE THAT are not enough? Why on earth would I back up my beliefs to someone who doesn't believe in my scriptures using my scriptures? Since I can't convince you with scripture what do you want? Would a notarized statement "I don't believe that God hates women" be enough to convince you of what I believe?

I would say the old testament has a lot to do with your religion--including LDS. I might even go out on a limb and say that it is part of the same Bible where you read about Christ. I bring up these "ridiculous accusations" because they are part of the foundation of Christianity. Think of a Jenga game--remove enough of the pieces at the bottom (the old testament) and the top (Christianity) comes falling down, which is something of the purpose of debate. But I can see how this might confuse you, so I'll simplify:

I already told you that the LDS church believes that the law of Moses was fulfilled through Christ and that he put forth a higher law - Love God and Love you Neighbor. Christians DO NOT FOLLOW THE LAW OF MOSES.

You believe that I hate women. You believe that you know more about my religion than I do. You believe that people who believe in God suck. You believe that I women are my property. You believe that I want to stone women to death who are raped. You believe that I want women to marry rapists. Well, I believe you're wrong. Knockout

Don't take is personally. I was taught to respect and honor women and I don't appreciate being told otherwise.

 

[Deut 13:1]

Ummmm, maybe I'm confused, but you keep posting Jewish teachings in a thread about CHRISTIANITY. Maybe that is why?:areyoucra

It was Jewish scripture I commented on.

 

[flysky]

What's wrong with that?
While Christ was alive? I don't believe so.

Not sure what point you are trying to make....

Scott remember you told me once you were a athesit and then believed in Hindu gods.

 

[Scott1]

Scott remember you told me once you were a athesit and the believed in Hindu gods.

And Elvis and Santa..... ummm... you should have kept on reading... I was playing "devils advocate"... not very well, I assume.

I am a Roman Catholic, consecrated to Mary the Mother of God, devoted to Christ and the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

You may now answer my questions.

 

[flysky]

And Elvis and Santa..... ummm... you should have kept on reading... I was playing "devils advocate"... not very well, I assume.

I am a Roman Catholic, consecrated to Mary the Mother of God, devoted to Christ and the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

You may now answer my questions.

Why u didn't believe what i said but other did? Same like Paul?

 

[Fatmop]

I would say this only applies if the husband is leading righteously and not in cases of unrighteous dominion.

Ok, go ahead and show me the context that allows you to make that claim. Show me where it says in Ephesians, "wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, unless they happen to be wrong or jerks."

For someone who hates God so much you sure do read the bible a lot.

No, that's projection. I find it quite difficult to hate something that doesn't exist. You're the one who can't offer up an explanation for such a horrid passage out of your holy book; it appears the only one who is offering up hate-filled rhetoric is you.

Jesus did however say that it was more like a union of two people becoming like one. This was not a chauvanistic concept but it was not represented in society the way it should have been.

Yes, the Bible was chauvanistic. Managing to find one or two passages FOR women's equality does not diminish the impact of the numerous passages AGAINST.

But really, do you feel like you are bound by this archaic notion of women being subordinate? Women dominate the colleges and have great opportunities nowadays. Do you think that there is still some kind of inequality to fight? I would be interested to know what you think about this.

I've never heard of 'abused husband syndrome.' There is no way that women can be considered perfectly equal in our society when they make up the majority of the population but a small minority of the government. These are a few ways in which women do not have equality in our present society. How much of that has to do with the Bible is up in the air, and I'm not going to blame all our society's woes on Christianity (hey, look at the Muslim countries...). However, there are still some who ARE "bound by this archaic notion." Besides, calling the Bible archaic and out-of-date is something I do all the time. I don't see much real disagreement there.

 

[Scott1]

Why u didn't believe what i said but other did?Same like Paul?

I have misplaced my flysky to english dictionary.... say what?

 

[flysky]

What's wrong with that?
While Christ was alive? I don't believe so.

Well if Paul wasn't their and he didn't meet any followers of Christ then how in the world can you believe without any proof that he didn't mess up things. Also who can tell me that what ever Paul wrote in the Bible is True.

Not sure what point you are trying to make....

My point is were is the proof that Christ or his followers approved what Paul wrote.

 

[Fatmop]

. Frankly any quotes from the Old Testament are irrelevant to this thread

So Christians just don't believe in the Old Testament altogether? Should it just be thrown out the window? It seems that if there are branches of Christianity that take Genesis literally, they might just as well take Ephesians literally.

 

[Scott1]

Show me where it says in Ephesians, "wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, unless they happen to be wrong or jerks."

Can't do that, but I can show you the context:

Eph 5:22(NAB) Be subordinate to one another out of reverance for Christ.

Eph 5:28 So [also] husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.

Quite revolutionary concept for the time period, actually.

Yes, the Bible was chauvanistic. Managing to find one or two passages FOR women's equality does not diminish the impact of the numerous passages AGAINST.

Quite right... not just the Bible but Christian society in general... heck, society in general up until the last century or so, and we still have a long way to go.

Scott

 

[Fatmop]

I'm sure it was a revolutionary concept. That doesn't make it right. It's nice that husbands are supposed to love their wives; however, this does not mitigate the meaning of the 'submit yourselves' passage.

 

[Scott1]

My point is were is the proof that Christ or his followers approved what Paul wrote.

Huh?

If you read and believe the Bible it shows cleary the early conflict and then resolution of matters related to Paul: the inclusion of Gentiles, circumcision etc....

If you don't believe in the Bible, then why in the heck would it matter? Without that, what proof do you have that Christ the Savior even existed?

 

[Scott1]

I'm sure it was a revolutionary concept. That doesn't make it right. It's nice that husbands are supposed to love their wives; however, this does not mitigate the meaning of the 'submit yourselves' passage.

Nor should it.... both my wife and I strive to be subordinate to one another out of reverance for Christ, but if it ever comes down to who has the final say--- it's me --- and she told me it was ok for me to say that.