pinklight

Maybe male supremists really are just silly and immature when it comes to spiritual gifts and working with others in the body. I think of little kids running around in big bodies saying, ‘I get this and that, and you only get to do that’. I have a picture of little kids being selfish fighting over toys and some of the kids saying they posses most of them. I can’t help it. That’s how ridiculous to me this whole male female gender roles thing really is. It’s completly silly and immature. It’s time for some more kindercare! Yeah!! Brother, can’t grown ups just share?! LOL! Oh, somebody help me…

I want to say that I’ve always believed that most of those who believe that men are to be the spiritual leaders and also teachers of other men based on their perspective of Adam and Eve and Paul’s writings aren’t deceived in their beliefs. If one wants to believe something and does so long enough then eventualy, yeah they become deceived, but I’ve always understood that most supremeists at least initialy have known better. I have believed this because I cannot see how anyone can call themselves a christian, have a relationship with God and at the same time be openly prejudiced towards 1/2 the body, which is an enormous amount. It doesn’t make sense to me how someone with a heart for God can believe superiority/inferiority checks and balances for men and women based on the flesh, sex organs of all things and not the spiritual! To me, someone who says they are a christian and have prejudice against women is like saying that a bird is actualy a fish. It makes no sense to me. ‘I love God but I am prejudice against women’. (Male supremeists claim it’s not a matter of being prejudice) It doesn’t make sense and I still very much try to this day to make it make sense. I try and I try.

Someone may say, ‘Well the’ve been taught that way in church’ and I would respond, ‘Are people really that gullible having minds that are easily deceived over and against a spiritual heart for God?’ The thoughts and belief system within prejudicial thinking has not an ounce of any of the fruits, out workings of the Spirit. It doesn’t look like that of the Spirit in anyway. Yet I hear those who I hold in high regard say that they think the best of people first rather than the worst even though humankind is born in sin so that it makes more sense to think the worst rather than the best, and combine that with the fact that humankind is born into a fallen world caged in sin all around.

Perhaps I’m too simple of a person to understand it any other way. I don’t know. It seems that I cannot be convinced any other way after all these years, though I’d like to be if my view is incorrect. I would like to believe that most of those who look down on women are deceived and were so from the beginning of their prejudice view. In fact it would make me feel much better and it would be easier when on the topic. It would be easier for me to believe that most people (especialy religious ones) are generaly good and not bad in their hearts. But I just don’t think that such is the case or reality, but it would be great if it were true! To think that MOST of those who believe men are placed above women spiritualy in role are deceived like Eve rather than treacherous in heart like Adam IMO is fantasy thinking.

Now can someone here please convince me otherwise, ;P cause it would make it alot easier for me when I’m on such topics of men and women in the church because I then wouldn’t have a reason to feel disgust for the kinds that put down others below themselves while claiming to love God rather than loving others as themselves. It would be much easier and pleasent to look at people in general who are prejudice as just deceived rather than having bad hearts. How nice that would be.

‘So the point is that “head” cannot be about gender.’

And I wanted to make this point because comps or and patris do see from what I can tell that married men can be more Christlike than married women because of their supposed authority. And if they can be more Christlike then they can follow Christ in a way that a woman cannot and the reason is because of gender, so they think.

‘The actions are not limited to men. It seems that the only one “required” to serve is the “head”. The “body” has the ability to serve but not the requirement. That is the way I see it. Thoughts?’

That sounds great. Makes perfect sense to me.

It seems the “requirement” had to do with husbands having had privledge in Paul’s day. If this is true and the “requirement” was based on the privledged giving up and serving instead well it does parallel in some sense to what Christ did because he put on flesh and by doing so came to our level. Something like that?

So since “head” must include serving, giving up one’s life, providing for, protecting and nuturing and a wife can do those things because it’s not against any law then a woman technicaly can function as “head”. (I’m thinking of wives who have disabled husbands) So the point is that “head” cannot be about gender.

‘So once again the “actions” of Jesus that can be followed by men can also be followed by women.’

And I did want to get to this point ultimately. That what the husband is told to do for the wife, also the wife can do for the husband as it’s not against any law. 🙂

Cheryl,

I don’t think so but what stops a patri husband from thinking so? He like Christ is “head” of a body.

So Cheryl, how does one avoid thinking that all males can be more like Christ than females, if they marry because they then are head of their body (wife) as Christ is head of his body (Church)?

‘Is there anything that Jesus did that women are not allowed to follow and imitate?’

Yes…in comp theology, women are not allowed to follow and imitate Jesus’ ‘headhsip’ therefore there is something that Jesus did/does as kephale that women are not allowed to follow and imitate. 😛

‘He wants to argue against a plural meaning (wives and husbands) on one hand but on the other he wants to argue for it (women and men).’

Chris, by saying that ‘a woman and a man’ cannot be refering to all wives and husbands (because the context isn’t about marriage) is to say that Paul did not necessarily use the singular ‘a woman and a man’ generaly for both sexes, MARRIED OR NOT. Therefore you’ve argued for my position and against your own.

When Paul said ‘I do not allow a gune to…’ he could be refering to all wives generaly, all women generaly, or just a specific woman or wife. Therefore to be able to argue against a general meaning (all wives or all women) shows the weakness of your own argument for a general meaning.

Chris is arguing that Paul does not have wiveS and husbandS, in general, in view therefore he is arguing AGAINST a plural and a general meaning.

He wants to argue against a plural meaning (wives and husbands) on one hand but on the other he wants to argue for it (women and men).

Now, if Paul had a specific woman and a specific man in mind then it doesn’t matter one way or the other if they are married, though as Chris has pointed out, ‘they’ are likely husband and wife and it doesn’t matter since the woman and man in the passage remain SPECIFIC persons rather than refer to women and men in general.

‘Now, if one specific woman were in view, then I trust you will agree that the plural ‘they’ would more likely refer to a husband together with his wife than anything else. But, as I’ve already argued, husbands and wives are not in view here.’

Chris, why does it matter if wives and husbands in general are not in view since Paul is NOT talking about wives and husbands but rather a specific couple?

If Paul is talking about a specific couple, then yeah, all wives and husbands in general are NOT going to be in view because in view is the specific couple.

The patri or comp interpretation of this passage argues for Paul teaching women to keep within their role which would include not teaching, not having authority AND having children. (I guess getting married is not part of their role) So wives are not in view yet women without husbands will be saved through CHILDBEARING? Maybe only umarried women who have children will be saved? ;P

‘There is no need to switch from plural to singular if he is still talking about women in general. This would confuse the matter instead of keeping it simple and understandable.’

There was no need indeed. And what would we read and how would it look if Paul had NOT made the switch from plural to singular? The NLT is an example of what the inspired Paul very simply could have wrote. If the NLT translators could write it, then so could Paul. ;P

NLT
9 And I want women to be modest in their appearance. They should wear decent and appropriate clothing and not draw attention to themselves by the way they fix their hair or by wearing gold or pearls or expensive clothes. For women who claim to be devoted to God should make themselves attractive by the good things they do.
11 Women should learn quietly and submissively. 12 I do not let women teach men or have authority over them. Let them listen quietly. 13 For God made Adam first, and afterward he made Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived by Satan. The woman was deceived, and sin was the result. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing, assuming they continue to live in faith, love, holiness, and modesty.

‘When ‘she’ in verse 15 refers back to ‘the woman’ in verse 14 it is not referring to the woman *as* Eve or *as* the woman herself but rather the woman as the representative of all women collectively.’

And this is because why? What is written IN the passage itself that indicates this? Absolutely nothing. These are mere assertions.

‘Using the singular ‘she’ is fine grammatically because ‘the woman’ in verse 14 is singular, but it should be understood that all women are meant because, conceptually, ‘the woman’ stands for all women. The plural ‘they’ in verse 15 refers to all women collectively.’

Conceptually ‘the woman’ should be understood to be standing for all women because why? What is actualy written in the passage to indicate this or what spells it out? What evidence is there for saying that ‘the woman’ represents all women and ‘they’ refers to all women? There is no evidence within the passage itself to support your assertions.

The assertions above come completely from the imagination and not the text itself. On the other hand, there is no way to deny the least number of women, which is 1, and there is no way to produce as a fact, a larger number than 1 from the passage itself. If you look over the passage with a careful eye and keep within it’s written boundaries, this fact cannot be missed.

‘Besides you will notice that I didn’t say that “God doesn’t allow…” I said “I am not allowing a woman to teach or authentein a man”.’

By what power or authority does any mortal man have to create or give a universal law for God? God did not speak those words directly, Paul did not quote him and Paul did not say it was a command or law of God’s or the Lord’s. And by what kind of thinking and power or authority do any mortals have to give any mortal man such power and authority?

I know that many think that since Paul wrote it and his writings are inspired that therefore it must mean that what Paul wrote is a universal law of God’s. If this kind of logic were true then everything Paul wrote could be taken as universal law, but those who would say he wrote such a law in the 1 Tim 2 passage also pick and choose which other things that Paul wrote are universaly binding and which things are not.

‘It’s inspired therefore it is universal law’ is nonsense.

It wouldn’t matter even if Paul or anyone else stopped all women from teaching since mere mortals, including apostles do not have the power or authority to create universal law for God. And God’s laws are ALWAYS said to be his in the scriptures. If a law is God’s then we find him speaking, being quoted or the law is said to be his.

‘here’
I can’t spell correctly, like ever…! lol!

‘But Eve was charged to guard Adam!’

Paula, what are you refering to hear?

Alright, that makes sense 😛

‘4. Is there a New Testament “proof” that Eve was made from the male and not divided from an androgynous human?

In 1 Corinthians 11:7-8, Paul states that the woman is the “glory” of the man (aner).

1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man (aner)
1 Corinthians 11:8 For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man (aner);

If the woman did not come from his own flesh as Adam declared she did, she wouldn’t have been his glory. She would have been her own glory.’

Love this part! Sorry for all the many comments… 😛 ‘Woman’ is contrasted with aner therefore is certainly means ‘male’ here in 11:8.

‘Adam concurred with God, agreeing that the female was taken from the male.’

I don’t understand perhaps what you mean here, but what I’m seeing is that since God didn’t say anything regarding the matter it is an assumption that Adam ‘concurred’ with God, but since God never showed disagreement as he did not correct Adam it’s safe to assume that Adam ‘concurred’ with God.

‘Adam concurred with God, agreeing that the female was taken from the male.
Adam’s testimony is that the female was taken out of the the male (Hebrew ish). Adam does not use the generic term for mankind.

Gen 2:23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman (ish-shaw), Because she was taken out of Man (eesh).’

This is how I understand Gen 2:23 also, but for some God needed to call Adam, ish in order for him to have been ish (male) before she was taken from him. But I don’t see why Adam’s testimony would not be good enough.

just some thoughts…

‘In verse 28 we can see that the rulership of the creation is given when both male and female are together. The male does not get rulership given to him before the time that the female is created. This is clear from the text because it would make no sense to tell a single human to “be fruitful and multiple”. This is spoken to both the man and the woman. God also tells both of them what they can and cannot eat by giving them parameters for food. The word “you” in the Hebrew is plural. God gives the man and the woman only the plants yielding seed and only the fruit from the trees which yield seed.’

I totaly agree here and have known that God did not give rule to Adam untell the woman was created according to the reading of Gen 1 and 2.

‘When God first created Adam, he created man in His image and then God created the woman in both the image of God and the image of man.’

Cheryl,

I don’t understand this. Why do you say that the woman was made in man’s image? I can only say that she was made in God’s image. How and where does the image of man come into play?

I think Doug needs to ask himself, why to begin with, he presumes that Paul is speaking about all women in general. Without that presumption in mind, when one goes to the text and follows it from v9 – v15 one is not able to come to that impossible conclusion that is, if facts and scriptural boundaries mean anything.

‘So Eve ends up breaking God’s command (seen in Gen 3:6) through denying Adam’s role.’

I also find it interesting that the focus is put on a false ‘how’ she broke God’s command to not eat – through denying the man’s role! The message is clear – women today will sin or find themselves in sin if/when they deny special male steward of the gospel. lol!

‘God made Adam a steward of moral life in the garden by giving him the garden mandate (Gen 2:15-17)… Adam’s role as steward was denied when Eve took it upon herself to break the garden mandate (Gen 3:6)…

This relates to 1 Timothy 2:11-15 this way: Men in the church today are to be stewards of the gospel as Adam was steward of the garden mandate.’

The comp position then threatens women who would teach and lead and be stewards of the gospel alongside men with satan and being deceived by him. If women deny the stewardship of men in the church as Eve denied Adam’s stewardship of the garden mandate, then they will be deceived as Eve was.

Just thinking on how odd it is that if work is done in the area of teaching correct doctrine that those who would do the work are threatened by the darkside according to the comp position. Isn’t that odd?

Women, don’t work equaly alongside men for the sake of the gospel or satan will get ya! Hello? Now why would such threats need to be made? I find the threat very odd. How do you keep 1/2 the body from the stewardship of the gospel alongside the other half? Threaten them with the devil ofcourse.

‘Adam’s role as steward was denied when Eve took it upon herself to break the garden mandate (Gen 3:6).’

So Eve ends up breaking God’s command (seen in Gen 3:6) through denying Adam’s role. And this sounds similar to some of the underlying messages that women today receive from the institution…

Ofcourse they can break the law or permit women to do so because they are the law makers. ;P

‘It would be giving permission by a man to do something that apparently God forbids.’

Okay, this point is comical, Cheryl!

Comp: Women are not to teach men as it is God’s law that they do not, but men may break God’s Law by allowing women to teach other men.

LOL!!!