Women rights in Christianity?

[JerryL]

No one has presented any chauvanism to me. Am i wrong?

The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves - 1 Cor 14

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. - 1 Tim 2:11-12

man is the head of a woman - 1 Cor 11:3

For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the (K)image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but (M)woman for the man's sake. Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. - 1 Cor 11:7-10

For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the (K)image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.

For (L)man does not originate from woman, but woman from man;

for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but (M)woman for the man's sake. 10Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. - 1 Tim 2:12
​

Would you like me to discuss the OT and things like women being listed as property, and the requirement (only of women) to be virgins, and the fact that they must prove they were if challenged or else be killed?

 

[dan]

These are issues dealing with the ecclesiastical nature of the relationship. Men hold the priesthood, women do not. In other areas women are superior. I really wish I could give birth to a child, but I can't. That doesn't mean I run around accusing any women of being chauvinistic. Women express their pride in this fact more than men express pride in having the priesthood. Chauvinism, also, by definition, does not mean an attitude of male superiority. It means superiority towards the opposite sex. It comes from Nicolas Chauvin, a character in a play who shows undue patriotism to Napoleon. That's the real meaning of the word.

Ancient Jewish custom also affords many rights to women that men do not have (like the right to sex in marriage), but no one brings that up. Your anachronistic perspective also leaves you misunderstanding the culture.

 

[Fatmop]

These are issues dealing with the ecclesiastical nature of the relationship.

And what of my quote from Ephesians? Like he said, should we bring up the OT? Back up your statement with context. Explain how these statements can only be interpreted to deal exclusively with the ecclesiastical and not the secular.

Men hold the priesthood, women do not.

And why not? Because none of the apostles were women? By the same token, then, all the popes should have been Jewish!

Your anachronistic perspective also leaves you misunderstanding the culture.

And yet the Bible is still used in pretty close to its original form. For such an archaic set of doctrines, it sure does seem to have quite a hold over many people's lives. I can't imagine why questioning the nature of women's inferiority in the Bible is 'anachronistic.' Why hold to scriptures that don't apply to the modern day?

 

[jonny]

And why not? Because none of the apostles were women? By the same token, then, all the popes should have been Jewish!

Why do you care about who holds the priesthood in a religion you don't belong to? If the women have a problem with it they can join a church that lets them hold the priesthood.

 

[dan]

And what of my quote from Ephesians? Like he said, should we bring up the OT? Back up your statement with context. Explain how these statements can only be interpreted to deal exclusively with the ecclesiastical and not the secular.

This is an Epistle to the Church of Christ in Ephesus. It deals with:

1st -Thanskgiving for the blessings bestowed in Christ; prayer for the further enlightenment of His converts; being fellow-citizens, united in one church and a mystery now revealed.
2nd - Necessity of unity, developing your gifts for body of Christ; necesity of prophets and apostles in body of Christ; the new man; marriage, children and servants in the body of Christ; the Christian armor.

It never purports to present doctrine on the nature of femininity.

And why not? Because none of the apostles were women? By the same token, then, all the popes should have been Jewish!

No. It's because that is the doctrine. The popes are not authorized priesthood holders either.

And yet the Bible is still used in pretty close to its original form. For such an archaic set of doctrines, it sure does seem to have quite a hold over many people's lives. I can't imagine why questioning the nature of women's inferiority in the Bible is 'anachronistic.' Why hold to scriptures that don't apply to the modern day?

Very true, it is remarkably preserved, but that does nothing to make you understand Old or New Testament life on a deeper level. You are judging an ancient community based on your criterion of normalcy for your own culture.

 

[JerryL]

These are issues dealing with the ecclesiastical nature of the relationship. Men hold the priesthood, women do not.

That doesn't interact with any of my quotes. Paul repeatedly backs himself up with "man was not made for woman, but woman for man", etc.

I'm not talking about priesthoods, I'm talking about women being listed with houses and oxen in the 10 commandments. I'm talking about rape only being a crime if the woman is owned by a father or husband. I'm talking about the man's right to put his wife to death if she can't prove she's a virgin. I'm talking about the claim that a woman's head is a disgrace and should be hidden.

And yes, the fact that women are considered unworthy to be priests would also be an example.

I really wish I could give birth to a child, but I can't. That doesn't mean I run around accusing any women of being chauvinistic.

Except that women didn't make that choice, so it's not them. Besides, pains in childberth is supposed to be a punishment from God. Why would you want to be the more punished gender?

Chauvinism, also, by definition, does not mean an attitude of male superiority. It means superiority towards the opposite sex.

I've no clue what hair you are trying to split here.

Ancient Jewish custom also affords many rights to women that men do not have (like the right to sex in marriage), but no one brings that up. Your anachronistic perspective also leaves you misunderstanding the culture.

Men don't have a right to sex in marriage? Point me to the passage that allows a woman to say "no".

In fact, point me to the passage that allows a woman to reject a husband. Point me to the passage that allows a wife, prisoner, or slave to say "no" to her owner. Heck, point me to the passage that allows a woman a unilateral divorce at her discresion.

You are making up scripture and ignoring the real material.

 

[dan]

That doesn't interact with any of my quotes. Paul repeatedly backs himself up with "man was not made for woman, but woman for man", etc.

I'll give you this one. I don't know enough at this point to respond, but I'm gonna look into it. I am capable of objectivity too, so please respect my research

I'm not talking about priesthoods, I'm talking about women being listed with houses and oxen in the 10 commandments.

OK, if it said, "your house, your *** and your dad" would your dad then scream about not being your property? This is a ridiculous one.

I'm talking about rape only being a crime if the woman is owned by a father or husband.

This simply is not true.

I'm talking about the man's right to put his wife to death if she can't prove she's a virgin.

Well, one man was killed because he "spilled his seed" on the ground instead of honoring his wife's right to have a child, so God doesn't look too favorably on men either.

I'm talking about the claim that a woman's head is a disgrace and should be hidden.

Well, it says long hair is glory, so it's really hair here that God loves. Why does God hate men and women but loves hair! Oh, it's so frustrating not being hair! I prefer women with hair, does that make me a mysoginist?

And yes, the fact that women are considered unworthy to be priests would also be an example.

Uh, where does it say that they're unworthy? It says that it's not their responsibility, just as child birth (a more honorable institution) is not my responsibility. I don't feel God hates me and won't let me have a baby, I feel it needed to be assigned only to one sex and I didn't get it. All I got was the priesthood...man...

Except that women didn't make that choice, so it's not them. Besides, pains in childberth is supposed to be a punishment from God. Why would you want to be the more punished gender?

Find a woman who would prefer not to have the exclusive right to motherhood and I'll entertain that.

Men don't have a right to sex in marriage? Point me to the passage that allows a woman to say "no".

This is an articel about Jewish law.

Sex is the woman's right, not the man's. A man has a duty to give his wife sex regularly and to ensure that sex is pleasurable for her. He is also obligated to watch for signs that his wife wants sex, and to offer it to her without her asking for it. The woman's right to sexual intercourse is referred to as onah, and it is one of a wife's three basic rights (the others are food and clothing), which a husband may not reduce. The Talmud specifies both the quantity and quality of sex that a man must give his wife. It specifies the frequency of sexual obligation based on the husband's occupation, although this obligation can be modified in the ketubah (marriage contract). A man may not take a vow to abstain from sex for an extended period of time, and may not take a journey for an extended period of time, because that would deprive his wife of sexual relations. In addition, a husband's consistent refusal to engage in sexual relations is grounds for compelling a man to divorce his wife, even if the couple has already fulfilled the halakhic obligation to procreate.

This should also answer your other question. I am making up nothing, only looking at it with more objectivity than you.

 

[JerryL]

OK, if it said, "your house, your *** and your dad" would your dad then scream about not being your property? This is a ridiculous one

It would depend a great deal on context. The context of the Bible supports a view of women as property. A virgin's value, for example, is 40 sheckles.

This [rape only being a crime if the woman is owned by a father or husbands]simply is not true.

Can you support your claim? Can you give me an example where the act of rape (as opposed to the act of illicit sex) is ever condemned?

Well, one man was killed because he "spilled his seed" on the ground instead of honoring his wife's right to have a child, so God doesn't look too favorably on men either.

Onan was obligated, as the brother of Er, to give Er an heir, as he had died without one. He "pulled out", and deleberately failed ihs duty to his brother, and so was put to death. (Genesis 38)

Well, it says long hair is glory, so it's really hair here that God loves. Why does God hate men and women but loves hair! Oh, it's so frustrating not being hair! I prefer women with hair, does that make me a mysoginist?

And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head - 1 Cor 11

Her hair is the covering of her head, and her head is shameful in front of God because man is the head of woman. However, God is the head of man, so a man's head is a good thing and should never be covered.

Uh, where does it say that they're unworthy? It says that it's not their responsibility, just as child birth (a more honorable institution) is not my responsibility. I don't feel God hates me and won't let me have a baby, I feel it needed to be assigned only to one sex and I didn't get it. All I got was the priesthood...man...

So your argument is "seperate but equal isn't racist"? Interesting.

Find a woman who would prefer not to have the exclusive right to motherhood and I'll entertain that.

Women who don't want motherhood? I'm living with one. Women who would like men to have to go through labor? Most women who've already had one of their own.

This is an articel about Jewish law.

The practice of modern, orthidox Jews, this shows up nowhere in Christianity (which is the topic at hand). I'm happy to discuss OT, but I'm not sure that the practices of some sects of Judaism, which did not make it into the Bible and do not apply to Christians are appropriate to the topic.

 

[Deut 13:1]

This witness is not the only evidence that has been presented against Christianity. May I remind you that no one has provided satisfactory answers to the chauvanism presented in the Bible?

You know... It could be argued women according to the bible are holier then men. They don't have to wear Tzitzis, Yamika, go to pray 3-times a day, there only requirement is they have to hear the shofar. They have it real hard.

 

[Deut 13:1]

Men don't have a right to sex in marriage? Point me to the passage that allows a woman to say "no".

In fact, point me to the passage that allows a woman to reject a husband. Point me to the passage that allows a wife, prisoner, or slave to say "no" to her owner. Heck, point me to the passage that allows a woman a unilateral divorce at her discresion.

You are making up scripture and ignoring the real material.

Please learn the basics of Judaism before you say we're making up scripture. I don't presume to know Christianity, because I don't know it. I would expect the same from you.

Just so you know, Jews believe in the Oral Law. We believe it is equal to the Written Law. So in order to make general rationalizations about Judaism and only looking at the Written scripture isn't very smart. Read the Talmud, then come back and ask questions. Okay?

http://www.jewfaq.org/sex.htm

Sex is the woman's right, not the man's. A man has a duty to give his wife sex regularly and to ensure that sex is pleasurable for her. He is also obligated to watch for signs that his wife wants sex, and to offer it to her without her asking for it. The woman's right to sexual intercourse is referred to as onah, and it is one of a wife's three basic rights (the others are food and clothing), which a husband may not reduce. The Talmud specifies both the quantity and quality of sex that a man must give his wife. It specifies the frequency of sexual obligation based on the husband's occupation, although this obligation can be modified in the Ketubah (marriage contract). A man may not take a vow to abstain from sex for an extended period of time, and may not take a journey for an extended period of time, because that would deprive his wife of sexual relations. In addition, a husband's consistent refusal to engage in sexual relations is grounds for compelling a man to divorce his wife, even if the couple has already fulfilled the halakhic obligation to procreate.


Although sex is the woman's right, she does not have absolute discretion to withhold it from her husband. A woman may not withhold sex from her husband as a form of punishment, and if she does, the husband may divorce her without paying the substantial divorce settlement provided for in the ketubah. Although some sources take a more narrow view, the general view of halakhah is that any sexual act that does not involve sh'chatat zerah (destruction of seed, that is, ejaculation outside the vagina) is permissible. As one passage in the Talmud states, "a man may do whatever he pleases with his wife." (Nedarim 20b) In fact, there are passages in the Talmud that encourage foreplay to arouse the woman. (Nedarim 20a).

 

[dan]

I'd prefer to have the authoriy on judaism here answer in that you just don't believe I know what I'm talking about. I believe he does.

 

[Deut 13:1]

I'd prefer to have the authoriy on judaism here answer in that you just don't believe I know what I'm talking about. I believe he does.

There is no such thing as an authority on Judaism, the closest we would have are sages which again, exaplin the Oral law that goes hand-in-hand with the Written law.

Look up this concept in Judaism... Halacha LeMoshe MiSinai

 

[Fatmop]

You know... It could be argued women according to the bible are holier then men. They don't have to wear Tzitzis, Yamika, go to pray 3-times a day, there only requirement is they have to hear the shofar. They have it real hard.

Once again, having one quote to support certain rights of a woman does not mitigate the quotes we have pulled to show that the Bible is chauvanistic towards women.

 

[Deut 13:1]

Once again, having one quote to support certain rights of a woman does not mitigate the quotes we have pulled to show that the Bible is chauvanistic towards women.

I listed 4 things, how is that one quote? Just because you have no education on Judaism, I would appreciate it if you don't pick and choose a few verses and then try to tell me what Judaism has to say on the subject.

You asked what Women rights are, what about their responsibilities? When it boils down to it, they have a lot less then Men.

 

[Fatmop]

You listed four things. I listed a couple, Jerry listed a couple. I'm not trying to 'tell you what Judaism has to say' - what I am trying to tell you, however, is that the Bible looks chauvanistic from the outside.

Why do women have less responsibilities than men? Are they less worthy of responsibility?

 

[Deut 13:1]

You listed four things. I listed a couple, Jerry listed a couple. I'm not trying to 'tell you what Judaism has to say' - what I am trying to tell you, however, is that the Bible looks chauvanistic from the outside.

Why do women have less responsibilities than men? Are they less worthy of responsibility?

They don't have to wear Tzitzit (sp?) or Yamika (sp?) because they are considered holier then men are. They don't have to pray because no where in the bible are they commanded to go prey, only men are. They have to listen to the shofar because the Bible says that EVERYONE must hear the sound of the shofar. It's very simple, women are considered holier then men, but men have more responsibilitiy because men have more obligations. Women don't need to put tefillin on every day, men do. Women are not less worthy of responsibility, it's more that they have a different set of responsibilitiy.

Just so you know, my spelling is not great when it comes to transliteration.

 

[dan]

There is no such thing as an authority on Judaism, the closest we would have are sages which again, exaplin the Oral law that goes hand-in-hand with the Written law.

Look up this concept in Judaism... Halacha LeMoshe MiSinai

You have a greater understanding than us, thus you are an authority within this context. I did not mean to infer that I thought you had any official authority.

 

[Deut 13:1]

You have a greater understanding than us, thus you are an authority within this context. I did not mean to infer that I thought you had any official authority.

Oh okay. Just making sure you weren't implying there was a Jewish authority.

 

[dan]

No, I'm familiar enough with it to know that.

 

[JerryL]

Please learn the basics of Judaism before you say we're making up scripture. I don't presume to know Christianity, because I don't know it. I would expect the same from you.

Just so you know, Jews believe in the Oral Law. We believe it is equal to the Written Law. So in order to make general rationalizations about Judaism and only looking at the Written scripture isn't very smart. Read the Talmud, then come back and ask questions. Okay?

Speaking of looking stupid for not reading. Please finish the following sentance:

The topic of this thread is "Women rights in __________"

If you really want to have a discussion on the dual written/oral triditions in orthidox and reform Judaism, and when and how the attitudes towards women formed and changed in that religion, feel free to start a thread; THIS thread is about Christianity.