On Misogyny and Christianity: Women, Know Your Place!

[doug yowell]

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!

And if one rejects that teaching as hateful would that make them a misotheist if the position was Biblical?

[doug yowell]

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

Maybe. Maybe not. Perhaps a survey of Christian women around the world would be a good indicator (source). Start here in the US where the Evangelical and Catholic women are in the majority. Why no great uprising against misogyny? Why so many evangelical women's bible study groups that support and encourage the traditional role of women? There are literally millions of those women who attend them. Are they all mysogynist? You might want to compare those numbers to the Episcopal and other dying mainstream Christian denominations.Try a little personal observation outside of the progressive box.

[Guest]

Maybe. Maybe not. Perhaps a survey of Christian women around the world would be a good indicator (source). Start here in the US where the Evangelical and Catholic women are in the majority. Why no great uprising against misogyny? Why so many evangelical women's bible study groups that support and encourage the traditional role of women? There are literally millions of those women who attend them. Are they all mysogynist? You might want to compare those numbers to the Episcopal and other dying mainstream Christian denominations.Try a little personal observation outside of the progressive box.

Well said Douglas. And right too.

[olger]

Gosh yes.

(sorry for the hard language..)

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: John317

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.

"Misogyny is defined as a hatred, contempt, dislike or distrust in women – especially by a man." Like racism it is not often overtly manifested. It is most often subtle and even unconscious.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: Alchemy

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.

"Misogyny is defined as a hatred, contempt, dislike or distrust in women – especially by a man." Like racism it is not often overtly manifested. It is most often subtle and even unconscious.

Excellent post Tom.

[miz3]

We have shown that there are no valid reasons to exclude women from Leadership/Administration/etc. in the SDA Church .org.

We have also shown there are no valid Biblical grounds for placing men over women and never placing women over men.

We have shown extensively that women in the Bible have been placed by God over men (actually all persons) among God's People.

We have shown conclusively that these Biblical Women performed the exact functions for God that men like Moses, Samuel, David, etc. also performed. These women were not minor players as some claimed when they are demeaning and degrading these women's (Deborah and Huldah) work and position.

We have also conclusively shown that those in position of Authority before God's People are no more and no less than just "Messengers" who relay to the People the Will and Truth of God. Thus, Moses, David, Samuel, Deborah, Huldah, our Union Presidents today, our GC President, etc. are to be nothing more than "God's Messengers".

If our Union Prexies and our GC Prexy are not "Messengers of God" but are actually 'authoritarian oligarchs' then they are clearly not God's "chosen ones" and/or "called by God" to their work.

If this latter is the case then it is "misogyny of the highest form" that would keep our women from also being 'authoritarian oligarchs'.

If these Union Prexies and GC Prexy are called of God then like in the Bible our women can be called of God to be Union Presidents, and GC President.

Either way keeping women from such "power?" would be wrong and simply show male meanness and male arrogance.

Those who oppose women's being "called by God" to be Union Presidents and/or GC President have no leg whatsoever to stand on in regard to this issue.

Such have no Biblical support anywhere in the sacred Scripture.

If it is merely "cultural" then they are mean and arrogant.

[doug yowell]

We have shown that there are no valid reasons to exclude women from Leadership/Administration/etc. in the SDA Church .org.

We have also shown there are no valid Biblical grounds for placing men over women and never placing women over men.

We have shown extensively that women in the Bible have been placed by God over men (actually all persons) among God's People.

We have shown conclusively that these Biblical Women performed the exact functions for God that men like Moses, Samuel, David, etc. also performed. These women were not minor players as some claimed when they are demeaning and degrading these women's (Deborah and Huldah) work and position.

We have also conclusively shown that those in position of Authority before God's People are no more and no less than just "Messengers" who relay to the People the Will and Truth of God. Thus, Moses, David, Samuel, Deborah, Huldah, our Union Presidents today, our GC President, etc. are to be nothing more than "God's Messengers".

If our Union Prexies and our GC Prexy are not "Messengers of God" but are actually 'authoritarian oligarchs' then they are clearly not God's "chosen ones" and/or "called by God" to their work.

If this latter is the case then it is "misogyny of the highest form" that would keep our women from also being 'authoritarian oligarchs'.

If these Union Prexies and GC Prexy are called of God then like in the Bible our women can be called of God to be Union Presidents, and GC President.

Either way keeping women from such "power?" would be wrong and simply show male meanness and male arrogance.

Those who oppose women's being "called by God" to be Union Presidents and/or GC President have no leg whatsoever to stand on in regard to this issue.

Such have no Biblical support anywhere in the sacred Scripture.

If it is merely "cultural" then they are mean and arrogant.

Heads you win... Hard to argue with the Biblical evidence that "we've" presented here. But I think I'll take my chances with being just plain ole mean and arrogant, along with the tens of millions of other arrogant female Christian meanies.Misogynists, all of em!!

[CoAspen]

I reckon if one believes they speak for God why not the

Quote:

along with the tens of millions of other arrogant female(s).......

Merry Christmas!!!

[doug yowell]

I reckon if one believes they speak for God why not the

Quote:

along with the tens of millions of other arrogant female(s).......

Merry Christmas!!!

Thanks CoA and a very Merry Christmas to you too.