On Misogyny and Christianity: Women, Know Your Place!

[CoAspen]

Rev. 21:12-14

It [New Jerusalem] had a great, high wall, with twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and on the gates the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel were inscribed— [13] on the east three gates, on the north three gates, on the south three gates, and on the west three gates. [14] And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

What is God's reasoning for doing this?

Why did God choose to include for eternity only the names of men in the walls of the New Jerusalem?

I reckon we will have to ask God!! I do not choose to speak for him!! I will be too busy looking around to be concerned about naming issues!!!

[Dr. Rich]

mis3, you are intitled to your opinion as I am of mine. It is clear that you never attempted to answer my quetions--

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: olger

The libs (liberals and libbers) will protest the New Jerusalem for having a chauvinistic foundation (all names of men). Occupy Jerusalem anyone ???

Well, that went over like a lead balloon, didn't it,Og? Try to keep it a little less complex.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: olger

.... the New Jerusalem for having a chauvinistic foundation (all names of men).

True, and it will be true throughout eternity.

Something to think about:

Rev. 21:12-14

It [New Jerusalem] had a great, high wall, with twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and on the gates the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel were inscribed— [13] on the east three gates, on the north three gates, on the south three gates, and on the west three gates. [14] And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

What is God's reasoning for doing this? Does this mean God was prejudiced against women? Not at all, but many today would say so.

Does anyone believe God will change His plans so they agree with modern society?

This text is not a proof of male superiority. This is a blatant and horrid use of Scripture. It is demeaning to God and to His Word. Scripture is sacred and should be used in a sacred way. This type of use of Scripture is profanity.

God does not reason this way. God respects His Own Word too much to reason this way.

True oneness between male/female is not an agreement with "modern society" but it is an agreement with God and the Scripture.

[miz3]

mis3, you are intitled to your opinion as I am of mine. It is clear that you never attempted to answer my quetions--

You never asked any questions that I did not answer. Just what questions are you talking about? Please repeat.

[doug yowell]

It is fair to say that God's reasoning for this aspect of the symbolic representation of his people is not at all like human reasoning.

And I am quite confident it had nothing to do with any male vs. female thing at all.

Nor was it an exclusion of women thing.

But why is there a complete exclusion of women in the foundations of the NJ? And why are only the 12 men going to sit as judges of the 12 tribes? Earthly symbolism represents heavenly principles(God is Father, Christ is Husband, church is wife,Christ is master, Christ's disciples are servants, ect...) or they become completely mysterious, subjective, and useless as object lessons.What og,was mindlessly (according to many here)alluding to was the animosity of so many to the exclusion of women from those roles that they consider as "of more importance" and their insistence that exclusion from those roles is demeaning to women. Accusing Christians, who believe that the heavenly symbols mean exactly (not the opposite of) what they appear to mean, of being the opposite of what God should mean them to be is the thrust of both the thread and what og is chit chatting about and John is responding to.But I could be wrong!!

[doug yowell]

Why did God choose to include for eternity only the names of men in the walls of the New Jerusalem?

I reckon we will have to ask God!! I do not choose to speak for him!! I will be too busy looking around to be concerned about naming issues!!!

[CoAspen]

Difficulty tracking here........?

I dispute what man(males) conclude from their own interpretations! God can speak for Himself! Only men(males) exclude, not God!!!

Is that any clearer?

[BibleOnly]

So, you accept the interpretations of women ? How does God speak to you ? No, it's not clear at all.

[Woody]

So, you accept the interpretations of women ? How does God speak to you ? No, it's not clear at all.

It is true that when one is in doubt in our church - we turn to a woman. Good Point.

[olger]

Originally Posted By: olger

The libs (liberals and libbers) will protest the New Jerusalem for having a chauvinistic foundation (all names of men). Occupy Jerusalem anyone ???

Well, that went over like a lead balloon, didn't it,Og? Try to keep it a little less complex.

[olger]

It is fair to say that God's reasoning for this aspect of the symbolic representation of his people is not at all like human reasoning.

And I am quite confident it had nothing to do with any male vs. female thing at all.

Nor was it an exclusion of women thing.

It has to do with God not being subject to modern feminist sensibilities

rejoice always,

g

[doug yowell]

Difficulty tracking here........?

I dispute what man(males) conclude from their own interpretations! God can speak for Himself! Only men(males) exclude, not God!!!

Is that any clearer?

Not really, considering the Bible (God speaking thru humans to humans)was written exclusively by males. And the overwhelming majority of Christian females are in agreement with the overwhelming majority of Christian males on what God means by what God says when He has used those males to speak for Himself. Unless you're saying that you dispute the Bible itself because of that?

[doug yowell]

It has to do with God not being subject to modern feminist sensibilities

g

And their progressively minded male backbone?

[doug yowell]

It is true that when one is in doubt in our church - we turn to a woman.

Which, if true, just goes to show that those who accuse Adventists of misogyny are out of sync with reality.

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Woody

It is true that when one is in doubt in our church - we turn to a woman.

Which, if true, just goes to show that those who accuse Adventists of misogyny are out of sync with reality.

It can be defined by the term "selective misogyny".

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: Woody

It is true that when one is in doubt in our church - we turn to a woman.

Which, if true, just goes to show that those who accuse Adventists of misogyny are out of sync with reality.

[BibleOnly]

It can be defined by the term "selective misogyny".

Which is what feminists call it when they don't always get their own way. :-)

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: Woody

It can be defined by the term "selective misogyny".

Or, it would be that one is trying to have it both ways not realizing how contradictory they are. Thus, hoping that no one will notice the misogyny, selective, or other wise.

Of course, we'd have to ask the misogyny experts what our real condition was. Even the woman who we selected to be the exception couldn't figure it out.Not to mention the millions of Christian (SDA) women who are still living in denial.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: Woody

It can be defined by the term "selective misogyny".

Which is what feminists call it when they don't always get their own way. :-)

Woody, a feminist??? Yikes!!!

[CoAspen]

Quote:

Not really, considering the Bible (God speaking thru humans to humans)was written exclusively by males.

And that proves what? What was the culture of the time? Women on back burner, yes?

And yet we have volumes of material written by a women for today! The most quoted source of texts used on this forum!

Why are you driving a car instead of a mule? Christ rode a mule/donkey! He spoke through a donkey! You want to use cultural standings for womens role, why not everything else?

Can you see why your statement is not applicable? No? Okay!!

Be that way!

Oh, by the way, what is your source and stats for 'overwhelming majority'? Wishful thinking...maybe?!

[doug yowell]

And that proves what? What was the culture of the time? Women on back burner, yes?

And yet we have volumes of material written by a women for today!

Who keeps on pointing us to the authority of those who kept all those women on the back burner.I guess culture warped her outlook too? Odd that so many point to a woman that they don't follow in defense of a position that she didn't support (Christian misogyny).

[Tom Wetmore]

Not really, considering the Bible (God speaking thru humans to humans)was written exclusively by males...

Why do you suppose that is so? You seem to assume that God selected the males to write to the exclusion of the females purely on His gender preference.

Let's talk about literacy. What do suppose was the percentage of the population in ancient Israel that were literate? Literate enough to write? Of those that possessed the necessary literacy to write, what percentage do you suppose were women?

It is estimated that the overall literacy rate of the whole population in Biblical times was 3%. Whole villages would very likely have only one person even literate enough to read the Torah. It is fact that divided by gender the literacy of women, except in modern western cultures, is always lower than that of men. And among ancient cultures that disparity was much more pronounced. Those are the objective facts without even getting into the reasons why.

Bottom line, it was highly unlikely that among those able to write what we find in the Bible, few, if any, would be women. So, saying the Bible was written by men was simply a practical matter of literacy.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

Not really, considering the Bible (God speaking thru humans to humans)was written exclusively by males...

Why do you suppose that is so? You seem to assume that God selected the males to write to the exclusion of the females purely on His gender preference.

Not hardly. Just responding to the charge that because only men (a miniscule few)were literate God allowed them to warp the Scriptures into their (God breathed) personal spiritual and cultural "hangups".

[Alchemy]

Originally Posted By: miz3

....Next I see this author as being wrong about Paul. I know Paul looks like a misogynist but in my view Paul is not. I think most people, including most Christians, think Paul is a misogynist and they also think that because Paul was that God actually approves of misogyny.

But what is misogyny? Isn't it hatred of women?

What evidence is there that Paul hated women?

An atheist might believe Paul must have been a misogynist because he said that women are not to be the teachers of men and should not be the Church pastors/elders.

But does that make Paul, or others who agree with Paul, a misogynist?

Are all the women who agree with Paul misogynists?

Aren't there valid biblical reasons for people to believe women ought not to be the elders/pastors/bishops of the church?

Excellent post.

And yes, there are very valid Biblical reasons to believe man has authority over women in the home and church. As a matter of fact, it is the only position the Bible has ever supported!

As far as hating women, that would be a sin. God created women and loves women extremely. Christ died for the salvation of women. But, nothing taught in Holy Writ relinquishes man's authority.