"9 Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments; 10 but rather by means of good works, as befits women making a claim to godliness. 11 Let a woman quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression. 15 But women shall be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint." - 1 Timothy 2:9-15
The Bible is just full of great moral absolutes, ain't it? Women: stop fixing your hair, don't wear nice clothes or jewelry and just try to be good and do what you're told, okay? Don't even think about ever telling me what to do, because I have a penis, and you don't. In fact, I'd prefer if you just stopped talking most of the time. After all, it was freakin' Eve who got tricked by a snake, not Adam. I mean, yeah, Adam took a bite too, but Eve took the first bite, that bitch. But hey, if you women can keep it together, restrain yourselves, and try not to lose your sanctity you get to have children! I mean, that's what all y'all are for, right? Having kids?
Why do women put up with this? Why do men still think this is an acceptable way to treat their mothers, sisters, daughters and wives? It's 2010, why do billions of people still think this is okay?
Posts
17 comments:
Sure, it can be a moral absolute if plucked entirely out of context to support a position of attack. Paul was writing to his disciple to help him combat erroneous teaching being spread within the church, not necessarily by women, but by many people. What you conveniently left out of your diatribe is the beginning of that chapter which reads:
Exhort, therefore, that first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man, Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. Whereunto, I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle (I speak the truth); a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity. I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and disputing. I Timothy 2:1-8
It appears to me that Paul was talking to more than just women and admonishing them all to behave, in specific ways, not separating out women, but giving them honor and encouragement and not dressing like temple prostitutes, but showing the world that they could be good and modest at the same time.
I read the entire book of 1 Timothy before I wrote this post, because I wanted to make sure there was nothing in context which would change the meaning of the passage I wrote about. The book is a letter to a young pastor offering him advice on doctrine and various aspects of running a church. He talks about how deacons should conduct themselves, how elders should be treated, spiritual discipline, and women, among other things. In my bible verse 9 starts not only a new paragraph, but there's a new heading. Verses 1-8 are titled "A Call to Prayer" and verses 9-15 are titled "Women Instructed." The editors of the Thompson Chain Reference Bible, at least, realized that these two passages deal with different topics. In chapter 2:1-8, Paul talks about prayer. In chapter 3 he talks about the way overseers and deacons should behave themselves. In chapter 2:9-15 he spews misogynistic hate speech.
Paul was giving different people advice on how to behave. His advice to women was shut up and do what you're told.
Yes. He tells a young pastor that women should be silently submissive to men. He tells a young pastor that women shouldn't be allowed to dress the way they want. He tells a young pastor that women should shut their mouths instead of teaching a man. He tells a young pastor that Eve was deceived and Adam wasn't, when they did the very same thing. He tells a young pastor that, while men can hold positions of authority and run churches and do all this stuff, women get to have kids.
This was probably the norm in the Middle East during the 1st century, but that was 2000 years ago. Why do people still order their lives around a book that advocates treating women like crap?
I sort of wonder if you have paid attention to any church we ever went to. I never saw a single woman treated like crap. Maybe this is something you have read?
Perhaps I should have stayed away from hyperbole and chosen my words more carefully. But replace "women" with "blacks" or "gays," and the passage is obviously hateful.
I know that you don't treat Mom like this passage says you should. I know that I never saw women being repressed in church. I paid a lot of attention in church. I know how Christians operate. I know that they either ignore or try to rationalize the things in the Bible that they don't like, because average Christians are awake to the fact that this is 21st century America, and we can't act like the Israelites did 2000 years ago.
Here's my overall points with my attacks on scripture.
1) The Bible was written thousands of years ago by many different authors from cultures vastly different from ours.
2) The Bible contains numerous instances of extremely reprehensible acts done in the name of God.
3) Most Christians today, those who read the Bible anyway, recognize this and try to explain away the nasty parts, and go ahead and live their lives without telling their women to be silent or stoning their children if they talk back. Christians who do take the Bible literally and subscribe to a morality that went out of vogue long ago do things like shoot abortion doctors and parade up and down the street holding signs that say "GOD HATES FAGS." Average Christians look down on these nutjobs, and they should.
4) The nutjobs are the ones who are actually doing what most Christians claim to do: take the Bible literally. When the Bible says "do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a moan, but to remain quiet," that's what it says. Interpret and look at context all you want; the words are there in black and white.
5) Since most Christians don't actually obey what they read in the Bible, why don't they just come out and admit that there are kernels of good morality in the Bible, but they are surrounded by ancient customs that no longer apply? Of course, Christians won't admit this, because it doesn't line up with the Bible being the inerrant word of a holy and loving God, so they construct elaborate interpretations of scripture that neatly nullify or push into the realm of symbolism and metaphor the nasty parts of the Bible.
The greatest minds in theology for thousands of years, from Augustine to Aquinas, took the Bible at face value. They used scripture to justify genocide, torture and slavery for centuries. Only now that our culture is starting to move past some of these terrible ancient customs are Christians ignoring or rationalizing passages of scripture such as this one.
Pulling passages out of context, which I still maintain I did not do, may be intellectually dishonest, but so is ignoring or trying to explain away the parts of scripture that are no longer fashionable.
I'm just trying to play by the same sort of rules that you are. I do not find that I treat your mother the way that you think the Bible say I should in this passage. In fact this passage does not tell men how to treat women, even if you want to ascribe that treatment to them.
I'm guessing that you haven't engaged many Christians in honest debate about "explaining away" the crusty parts of scripture, but instead have resorted to attacks and insults. The Bible does contain a record of reprehensible (in a 21st century context) acts done at the behest of God. Can I explain it all? No, but I am honest enough to continue to study and try to learn.
I know that you have not talked to "most Christians today", in fact, I would hazard a guess that you have talked to very few Christians today about these items.
Most atheists (see over generalization) seem to take it upon themselves to evangelize against Christians. I wonder whose faith is most threatened?
I don't think that the bible says replace women with "blacks" or "gays". I don't care if you replace women with blond haired brown eyed males, it doesn't change the message - if you are contentious and teaching falsehood in church (as Paul was teaching Timothy about) sit your butt down, quite trying to show off your status and learn from a teacher.
that would be "quit" trying to show off your status
I know you don't treat Mom the way this passage says. (Did I just say type those exact words a few minutes ago?) I concede that the passage doesn't tell men how to treat women, but it tells women how to behave, and the things it tells them to do are ridiculous in this day and age.
Your guess that I haven't engaged Christians in an honest debate is wrong. I have. Do you think that I only ever talk about religion with you and Mark Nickles on facebook?
No, I haven't talked to most Christians. Are you saying that most Christians *do* think genocide is okay? Do most Christians think women shouldn't be allowed to wear jewelry? I don't think so.
I don't understand the paragraph about atheist evangelism. It hasn't been my experience that atheist try to evangelize. I know quite a few atheists, and very few of them try to deconvert people. I do find it interesting that you're faulting atheists for spreading the good news, as it were, when evangelism is a core tenet of Christianity.
Of course the Bible doesn't say replace women with blacks. I didn't say it did. But switching those words does reveal just how bigoted the passage is. You're right, replace women with anything you want and it doesn't change the meaning - women, or whatever group you pick, should dress a certain way, act a certain way, and perform a certain function.
no, replace it with any "contentious" group, which is what Timothy was facing - a group of temple prostitutes who were coming to Christian church - and telling them to sit down and be quiet, in church is completely appropriate.
My paragraph about atheist evangalizm is simply an observation - atheists seem to be shrill in their attacks
Where in Timothy does it say "I do not allow a temple prostitute to teach or exercise authority over a man"? I can't find it. I can't find a single mention of temple prostitutes in the whole book. If Paul was referring to temple prostitutes, why didn't he say that? Why did he make blanket statements about women? Is he saying that if women braid their hair they'll become prostitutes? Perhaps braided hair was a sign that a woman was a hooker 2000 years ago, but it's not today, so why do people still give the letters of Paul credence?
I've read this passage a dozen times or more today, and I just ran through the book for the second time, and I just can't make this passage say anything more than "Women: this is your place. Stay there."
Perhaps atheists are shrill in their attacks on Christianity. Christians have historically killed in their attacks on atheism.
And I, a Christian, have killed how many in my evangelism? As well, how many have you killed in your evangelism? So, I think that this point is not a valid argument. More have been killed in wars for nations than in defense of ANY religion - and the Jews were not killed in defense of their religion, but because of their religion.
I didn't say you killed any people. I didn't say I killed any people. I didn't say that more people have been killed in religious wars than in political ones.
I said that Christians have historically killed in their attacks on atheism. The Catholic church, which was the only church for centuries, advocated torture for the first two claims of atheism and death for the third offense.
On the point of temple prostiutes - a look at Galatia and Corinth show that they were strongly in the Greek tradition of worshiping the Greek gods. Greek worship typically was hedonistic and sensual - not exactly what we find in the Bible you reject but study. The temples of the Greek Gods were seeing that some of their best customer of the prostitutes were leaving and not coming back because they were now worshiping at the new Christian churches. This was an economic hardship. So they sent the prostitutes to the Christian churches to try and win their guys back.
Can you imagine a church service with a bunch of hookers trying to get the attention of men who had decided to abandon their hedonistic lifestyle and stopped spending their coin at the temple? I expect it was worse than anything you might see on Bourbon Street.
But, some of those women began to hear and believe, but they were still under the control of their pimp. Their pimps beat them and sent them back to try and get those wimpy Christians to leave that church and come back and spend their money...but those women weren't sure. They were torn...follow the lead of my pimp who wants me to degrade myself in all ways or follow the God preached in this church?
Some of them could not make up their minds, so they went back and forth - worship on some days, hook on other days.
God inspired Paul to write that maybe Timothy ought to encourage these women to worship - not hook. I guess that is something that is hateful to women.
And now we await someone else to jump in. Ross admits that I won!
Post a Comment