Bible: Woman Are Inferior to Man

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD

I believe the Bible teaches that women are inferior to men. Here is the evidence:

Man from God's Breath, Woman from Man's Rib

"LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being…LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. 21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." (Genesis 2:19-23)

Moses tells us that God in the Garden created man from God's own breath (spirit), but that woman was made from a rib pulled from man. Which is better, the breath of God, or a bone from man?

Woman Created for Man

Moses makes it clear that woman was created for man, not the other way around. If God meant for us to know that woman was not inferior to man, then he would have said that man and woman were created for each other. Moses was not the only Bible writer who believed that God wished for us to know that woman was inferior to man. Paul did, too:

"But I would have you know…[that] the man was not created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (1 Corinthians 11:2-9)

What wonderful consistency this represents; the message of inferiority remained intact for thousands of years, from Moses to Paul.

Woman Was Brought to Man

Note the Genesis writer tells us the God brought the woman to man, not vice-versa. If God wished for the Bible readers to know that he considered man and woman equal in his eyes, he would have told the Bible writer to say that man and woman were brought together, rather than the woman being brought to man.

Man Named Woman

God brought animals to man to see what he would call them, and after Adam decided what to call them, that was their name, period; thus, Adam named the animals. In the same manner, God also brought woman to man, and man said she should be "called" woman. The words "she shall be called woman" show that Adam was naming her, as is the prerogative of he who is superior.

Man's Fall Was Caused by the Woman

"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (Timothy 2:11-12)

The evangelist Paul's message is quite clear, I believe: Woman is not the equal of man, and she's to remain in a subservient position, in part because of her role in causing the fall of man.

Woman Not the Glory of God

"For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man" (1 Corinthians 11:2-9)

Paul states that man is the glory of God, but pointedly fails to say that woman is the glory of God also. Why not? If Paul wanted readers to know that equality and reciprocity existed between man and woman, he surely was smart enough to know he should provide a reciprocating statement such as, "SHE is the image and glory of god, too." However, nowhere is such a statement to be found. This is probably because no Bible writer--and that includes Paul--thought women were the glory of God.

[OldShepherd]

03-13-2003 @ 12:50 PM
Joseph Alward:

JOE ALWARD

I believe the Bible teaches that women are inferior to men. Here is the evidence:

Man from God's Breath, Woman from Man's Rib

"LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,

Moses tells us that God in the Garden created man from God's own breath (spirit), but that woman was made from a rib pulled from man. Which is better, the breath of God, or a bone from man?
Pardon me for being so blunt but your little essay starts with a bald faced lie! Even as you have quoted the passage it clearly says, "LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground" After man was made or formed from the dust of the ground then God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. Note, the nostrils were already made/formed before the breath got there!

Come on Joe, twist and corrupt some more scriptures for us.

[spl_cadet]

Equal but different. It's like saying that the military thinks women are inferior to men because they (with the exception of the Navy, aside from a few exceptions there) don't allow them combat duty (answer: On the whole women are not as physically capable of combat as are males and provide certain additional disadvantages to combat such as the male reaction to a wounded female).

In any case, your argument is completely defeated by this one verse.
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

[Sozo]

Now where did I put that rib? mmm....

[Joseph Alward]

CADET
In any case, your argument is completely defeated by this one verse.

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

JOE ALWARD

I'm not sure what you believe "one in Christ Jesus" means, Cadet, but it apparently doesn't mean that woman is not inferior to man. If you believe that's what it means, then you would also have to believe that the "slave" in that verse is not inferior to his master. However, that interpretation would seem to be quite false, for the Bible in many places teaches that the slave is indeed inferior to his master. Here is the evidence:

Leviticus 25:44-46 (NIV) "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

Exodus 21:20-21 (NIV): "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property"

Note, Cadet, that the Bible teaches that the Hebrew may take slaves that become their property for life, and passed on to their heirs. Furthermore, they could beat their slaves without punishment as long their injuries are not so great that the slaves cannot get up after a day or two. There should be no question, in my opinion, that these verses clearly show that the slave is inferior to his master.

Whatever the writer of the Galatians verse meant with "one in Christ Jesus," he couldn't possibly have meant that the slave was not inferior to his master. The slave and the master evidently are "one in Christ Jesus," whatever that means, but it obviously cannot mean that the slave is not inferior to the master.

Now, if the slave in the Galatians verse is obviously the inferior to his master, why do you insist that none of the people listed can be the inferior of another one?

[PuritanD]

Joe,

Question: In what way, is a woman inferior to a man?

Both are sinners and are fallen and both receive eternal salvation the same way so for you, what dictates inferiority?

Also, there is a difference between assigning people roles and being inferior or superior.

As you seen my post in "Women in the church," you know that I disagree with your assertion. I think as cadet argued that men and women are equal in regard to the need of salvation. Also, they are equal image bearers so you then may end up arguing that some of God's image is inferior to other aspects. This is no place to go.

PuritanD

[Sozo]

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

[PuritanD]

Sozo,

That is the point that Cadet tried to make. The question is what are you trying to prove via the verse.

I believe that it deals with our standing with Christ and our need of salvation. All are equally in need of salvation and the need of forgiveness.

[adam.naranjo]

Joseph: Asserts that the Bible says that Woman are inferior to Man.

First of all, what in the world do you mean by inferior?
Because, if you mean women are inferior in regards to their ability to produce muscle mass, then yeah, their inferior. BUT, I assume your trying to make a connection to intrinsic value...so I'll take it from there.


Man from God's Breath, Women from man's rib.

As was already mentioned, Man was created from the DIRT.
Adam, which is my name, means man of red dirt.

I find it interesting that you bill yourself as a 'biblical' skeptic.
I suppose you can be skeptical about something you don't understand, but is it wise?

One more thing, the Bible is NOT a scientific text book, and should not be interpreted as one. If you want to be a biblical skeptic you need to take, at the very least, a survey on hermeneutics, if not also more detailed study of hermeneutical issues of scientific importance.

No wait, one more thing, your making a couple of logical errors -- Let me explain. First of all, your argument from 'breath' assumes some kind of inherant value in the 'breath', especially as it is over and above the 'rib'. First of all this assumption CANNOT be made with certainty on logical or biblical grounds. Because your argument is dependent on this assumption, your argument is faulty because the assumptions on which it must operate, as an argument, are subjective in nature. (PS,. from an non-christian world view there can be no certain value statments regarding ANYTHING, much less 'breath' over 'ribs' -- and mere subjective value premises cannot lead to objective arguments) Essentially then, you have non-sequitors involved in your reasoning.
Also, there are certain objections that, if they were true, would make your argument impossible to prove. For example, it could be argued, with the same guesswork involved in your argument, that God took away from man to creat women, therefore suggesting that man is devoid of some part of his original value or created good, and that women recieved that which was taken from us, giving her more value or created good. If this were true, your argument could not be true. So which arbitrary assumption do you like better???

Women created for man

There are so many possible explanations for this. I highly doubt you have thought of them all -- so i'll give a few. But, firstly let me say that this argument is still suffering from logical problems. Primarily, it just doesn't follow that, women being 'created for man', assumes, infers, or necessitates in anyway your claim to the teaching of inferiority. You can't go from, a) A proposition was made, then b) An argument was given 'for' the proposition, thefore the argument is inferior to the proposition. What would arguments and propositions be without each other?
Another example: Bikes were made, and then engines were put in, 'for' the bikes, to go faster, farther etc... Therefore the engine is inferior to the Bike. I could go on and on...I think you get it.
Another problem you have is an issue of definition. You really need to define, "FOR". The the greek word means, "for reason of"...BUT, what is the reason? Thats the question. What if the reason was man's inadequacy? Wouldn't you be red? Because that would mean that there was something lacking in man, and that, in a sense, women made up for that...We'll there was, and God planned it that way. Genesis tells us that Man had no companion...There was some relational point to God's creation order. Could it be that God wanted Adam, and us, to see the value of women, by virture of our relation need -- although not relegated merely to that alone, there could be other inadequacies, and certainly are, but for times sake, I'll stop there.

There are other possible explanations, but i'm tired.

Women was brought to man

I should have looked at all of your logically fallacious props., before I decided to post. I'm teaching a logical class if you would like to get involved???

Anyway, again, you have serious problems with the argument. Perhaps an rebuttle argument by way of anology would help. If I said, "I took my SON TO see the his new car" would you assume that the new car was of more value then my SON? NO. Please dont make continue...

I have another problem here. You say, "if God wished for...readers to know...he would have.
Now, you know better then to put modes of operation on God, right? You, know that IF God wanted us the know some thing he would have planned to make it absolutely direct an unambiguous to YOU. I personally do not see inferiority being tought in anyway here. Furthermore, this argument from silece is rediculous. To say that God, by NOT qualifying his methods, is then affirming that which he is silent on (in this particular passage). YOu ought to know that that is just non-sense.

Imagine, if I had to qualify the statment, "i'm gonna go get Ice cream", because my wife gets mad at me for not making it specific in my language that what I mean was that I was going to go outside and mix together some ingredients to make home made ice cream, rather then, what she thought -- which was, "i'm gonna go to the store and purchase an Ice cream cone".


Man named women

So what! I'm getting sick of this.
Thats like saying that, because I named my child, my child is inferior in value to me....rubbish
What kind of logic is that?
There are other problems here, but i'm not wasting my time. As you can see your argument reduced to absurdity when taken to its logical end. The act of naming does not infer any value judgements

Man's fall was caused by the women

First of all, the passage you quote does not say, IN ANY WAY, that the women was responsible for the mans fall. In fact, it says that she was decieved, while ADAM was not decieved into sin, but sinned knowingly, and willingly. As far as I'm concerned, and MANY theologians, Adam was the one to blame -- if it could be looked at in this way. The point of the passage is that Man was created first, which corresponds to his created roles (not value) in certain situations, and that the women fell into sin first, which corresponds to her roles (not values in certain situations. If Adam would have been teaching Eve, in regardst to the lies of the Evil one, she would not have been decieved. For adam was given that role -- And, also for other reasons that I dont have time for.

The whole point here is that the passage DOES NOT say what you claime is says. And It does not speak of VALUE, but roles. All of the pieces of a puzzle are of equal value, but not all are the SAME in regards to the role they play in the whole piece.

Again, she did not cause adam to fall....HE caused or LET her fall, by his silence (not teaching, which essentialy is just HELPING with WORDS and IDEAS)

WOmen not the Glory of God

You have NO idea what your talking about. The word Glory simply means representation or symbol. The context of the passage is in regards to the Body of Christ (the Church). In this context the women represents (or 'is the glory [or symbol] of') the Church (or as it is often called, THE BRIDE OF CHRIST) in relation to Christ, who is represented in this context by man, So that church tradition gives symbol to Christ and the Church, who is His BRIDE, in an metaphorical sense. Its sybolic of the Bride and Groom, which is a metaphor for Christ and His followers in eternal covenant. READ ASSOCIATED PASSAGE IN EPH 5:20 area.

This passage in NO way teaches that women are inferior in value...


-- NOW my turn. I will let scripture speak for itself:

vs 11 of the, often taken out of context, 11th chapter of 1 corinthians:
In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.

Eph 5:25
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her; 26 that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she should be holy and blameless. 28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, 30 because we are members of His body. 31 For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh. 32 This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let each individual among you also love his own wife even as himself; and let the wife see to it that she respect her husband.
The New American Standard Bible,

Galations 3:26
26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

1 peter 3:7
grant her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.
--Peter, here says that women are equal heirs of the Grace of God, and that they are worthy of the honor due.


I could go on and on...all night...but I need to go honor my wife, who is ready to go to bed now.

Buy,

Adam.Naranjo

[adam.naranjo]

I just had to post an apology for spelling errors of any kind. As well as grammar/syntax etc....

Im VERY tired. (and Im typing on my laptop)

goodnight

[PuritanD]

Adam.N,

I could not have said it better myself :yipee: :yipee: :yipee:


PuritanD

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD
One or two correspondents wonder what I meant when I said that the Bible teaches that woman is inferior to man. My answer is this: The Bible teaches that God doesn't think as much of women as he does of men. As evidence--not proof--I offered several passages from the Bible. One of the more important ones was the one in which the man is described as being the "Glory of God," but that woman was only the "Glory of man."

Now, was woman the "glory of God, " or not? Does God regard his creation of woman from a rib of man something that glorifies God? Evidently not, for the writer does not bother to say, "Woman is the glory of God, too."

Now, it is important that everyone understand that I believe that women and men are equally wonderful. My point is that the Bible cannot be taken as the word of any god because it paints a picture of woman inferior to man. You can either believe that man and women are equal, or you can believe that the Bible is the word of God, but you cannot believe both, in my opinion.

Those who would wish to refute my allegation that the Bible teaches that women are not regarded as highly as men should explain why the Bible says only that MAN is the "Glory of God," but yet doesn't say the same thing about woman.

Why didn't Paul say that "Woman is the glory of God, too"?

[Sozo]

03-13-2003 @ 12:17 AM
PuritanD:

Sozo,

That is the point that Cadet tried to make. The question is what are you trying to prove via the verse.

I believe that it deals with our standing with Christ and our need of salvation. All are equally in need of salvation and the need of forgiveness.

Sorry... I basically ignore him.

[spl_cadet]

03-12-2003 @ 09:03 PM
Joseph Alward:
I'm not sure what you believe "one in Christ Jesus" means, Cadet, but it apparently doesn't mean that woman is not inferior to man. If you believe that's what it means, then you would also have to believe that the "slave" in that verse is not inferior to his master.

Correct.



However, that interpretation would seem to be quite false, for the Bible in many places teaches that the slave is indeed inferior to his master. Here is the evidence:

That's nice. Now show it to me in the NT.



Note, Cadet, that the Bible teaches that the Hebrew may take slaves that become their property for life, and passed on to their heirs. Furthermore, they could beat their slaves without punishment as long their injuries are not so great that the slaves cannot get up after a day or two. There should be no question, in my opinion, that these verses clearly show that the slave is inferior to his master.

Inferior in status perhaps as they are property, but not as a person. Which is kinda the point that St. Paul made.



Whatever the writer of the Galatians verse meant with "one in Christ Jesus," he couldn't possibly have meant that the slave was not inferior to his master. The slave and the master evidently are "one in Christ Jesus," whatever that means, but it obviously cannot mean that the slave is not inferior to the master.

Yes it can.



Now, if the slave in the Galatians verse is obviously the inferior to his master, why do you insist that none of the people listed can be the inferior of another one?

Well, show me where St. Paul suggests that slaves are inferior.

[spl_cadet]

03-13-2003 @ 05:23 AM
Sozo:
Sorry... I basically ignore him.

Because I'm one of those evil Catholic people? :lol:

[undead]

03-13-2003 @ 08:46 AM
Joseph Alward:
Now, it is important that everyone understand that I believe that women and men are equally wonderful.


I don't believe that. The majority of both in occidental countries deserve to strung up on gallows and hanged for various offences which carried the death penalty under the Levitical law.



My point is that the Bible cannot be taken as the word of any god because it paints a picture of woman inferior to man. You can either believe that man and women are equal, or you can believe that the Bible is the word of God, but you cannot believe both, in my opinion.


I agree with your second point, but your first point seems to suggest that the equality of the sexes is a truth that prevails against any revelation from God. Unfortunately, the doctine of the equality of the sexes came about from the rise of feminism in the last 100 years or so. The cult of feminism cannot be set up against the word of God.

But in respect of your second point, it is clear that women are inferior in respect of particular attributes, i.e. moral uprightness. Look at what the teacher says:


Eccl 7 (NIV Translation):
27 "Look," says the Teacher, [2] "this is what I have discovered:

"Adding one thing to another to discover the scheme of things-

28 while I was still searching
but not finding-
I found one upright man among a thousand,
but not one upright woman among them all.




Those who would wish to refute my allegation that the Bible teaches that women are not regarded as highly as men should explain why the Bible says only that MAN is the "Glory of God," but yet doesn't say the same thing about woman.

Why didn't Paul say that "Woman is the glory of God, too"?

There are two separate points here. One is the "order" of creation. It is true that the order of creation does carry with an issue of "worth";

Mat 10:31 Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows.


But against this is to be considered that both men & women participate in the Holy Spirit. So it can be deduced that a woman believer is worth more to God than a man unebeliever.

The other issue relates to attributes. There are many attributes, in which women, in general, are not the equal of men, though there are many exceptions. But one issue is singled out by the bible above all else, and that relates to moral perception, which, from Eve being deceived by Satan, to Herodias wanting to kill John the Baptist, to the whore of Relevation, is a theme that runs throughout the bible:

Mar 6:19 Therefore Herodias had a quarrel against him, and would have killed him; but she could not:


Therefore, all women who are under the curse, irrespective of whether or not they believe, are bound to bear this biblically revealed truth in mind. It is for this reason, and well as the argument from creation order, why they are forbidden to preach.

And it is my experience that this truth is as true today as ever. The proclivity to evil of so many women today is simply beyond belief, and often carried out under the guise of saintly piety.

[Joseph Alward]

CADET
Well, show me where St. Paul suggests that slaves are inferior.

JOE ALWARD

I think the onus is on you to show evidence that Paul rejects the teachings in the Old Testament. There IS clear evidence that Paul embraced the teachings in Scripture, and there is clear evidence from Scripture that the Lord approved of men taking slaves as their property, and beating them as long as they could stand up after a day or two. What you need to do to show that Paul thought slaves were the equal of their masters is find evidence to support your view that Paul rejected this teaching in Scripture. If you cannot find it, why would you want to just assume that Paul rejected it?

[Joseph Alward]

UNDEAD
it is clear that women are inferior in respect of particular attributes, i.e. moral uprightness. Look at what the teacher says:

Eccl 7 (NIV Translation):I found one upright man among a thousand, but not one upright woman among them all.

JOE ALWARD
The biblical evidence you provide, Undead, clearly illustrates a theme pervading the Bible: Women are inferior to men. This is just one of the reasons I do not accept the the words in the Bible come from a loving God. In fact, I do not see any evidence at all that they came from any kind of god at all.

[spl_cadet]

03-13-2003 @ 03:47 PM
Joseph Alward:
JOE ALWARD

I think the onus is on you to show evidence that Paul rejects the teachings in the Old Testament.

Sure. Every verse where he says that we aren't under the law. Happy?

[adam.naranjo]

Joe Alward,

sidenote: You are an offensive person. Disrespectfull at best. Becuase you have not responded at all to me, but have completely disregarded my comments.

PS...Do not regard this without reading my frist response. and do not respond to this without also responding to my frist response, being that the first response offers more detail in certain areas.

1)
I offerd you a very valid explanation [as to the Glory of God] which is the view of most Biblical teachers. It's based on the contextual and liguistic analaysis of the passages as well as an wholistic understanding of the Symbolism reffering to the relational attributes of Christ, particularly: Him being the Bridegroom and redeemed humanity being the Bride belonging to Christ.

2)
Again, I have shown (the obvious) that you are not logically justified in reasoning from this passage that God puts more value on Men. In my many discussions with atheists, many of them being of the same opinion, I have rarely heard these arguments used -- of the rare instances in which they are, there is one common factor...those who use them are the most ignorant of objectors.

3)
NOW, let me challenge you to actually reply to my rebuttle -- including a reply, in which you must show that the scriptures I listed DO NOT show that women are to be valued as highly as men.

4)
ESPECIALLY that passages in Ephesians that says:
5:25
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her; 26 that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she should be holy and blameless. 28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, 30 because we are members of His body. 31 For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh. 32 This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.

A)
As is clearly evident here, the marriage bond is symbolic of Christ's love for the CHURCH, committment to it, willingness to die for it, and understanding that, in fact, the "bride" is the "husbands" very own flesh (as the church [the bride] is christs very own body)..."the two shall become one flesh"...this is symbolic of the church becoming unified with Christ..

B)
Do you get it now?
Refering to the word glory:
The words means 'representation' or symbol. In this respect the man is to represent Christ's love, sacrifice, and unity (oneness) with the 'bride', redmeemed humanity. The women is to represent the attibutes of redeemed humnaity. As you can see in this passage, more responsibility is put on the man to LOVE and CHERISH his wife...to honor her as he honors HIS SELF...why?

C)
BECAUSE THE MAN AND WOMEN ARE ONE PERSON IN THE MARRIAGE BOND. And they have the same value.
There is no evidence of value judgements inherrent in these passages. NONE. You are grasping towards stars that you will never reach...you logic falls just short.

5)
You also need to deal with the other passage I mentioned. How about, "grant her honor as a fellow heir "
"Fellow" means CO-HEIR, Partner...in other words, 'on the same level'


6)
How about the passage that says that men and women are interdepentant, and that "ALL THINGS [men and women] COME FROM GOD". The mode of operation is irrelavent because they both came from God, because ALL creation was God's. Deal with that.

7)
FURTHER MORE, Evidence is given in order to PROVE.
You allegation, that the bible teaches women are inferior [in value] to men, has not been show [or proven] in any fashion because your "evidential arguments" are all falsifiable through the objections that I have already give -- none of which you have replied to. I have shown that your arguments cannot give any weight to the argument.

8)
FURTHER MORE,
The only reason you 'think' that your arguments do work, is because you have assumed certain things to be true upon which your arguments rest -- whether you know it or not, you have certain presuppositions that rest behind your arguments.

A)
For example. It must be presupposed that 'breath' is somehow more valuable then a rib. Which is an easily falsifable affiliation, and is obviously a huge logical strech. (if you dont know what I mean, just ask. If you dont think I'm right, challenge me)
b)
You also have to presuppose that the VALUE in the BREATH is somehow representative of the VALUE, in which the thing created by it, is regarded by the creator. And that the RIB is ALSO representative in the same way. This is also falsifiable, logically undetermainable, and based on tons of other assumption which also have serious problems.

c)
With regard to the GLORY of God etc,.
You must assume, not only that what I have shown you, which most biblical scholors agree on, is wrong, but ALSO that being the Glory of something is somehow representative of [or is meant to infer] the inherent value of the thing to which it is subscribed. This is an highly arbitrary assumption on your part. Unfounded, easliy falsifialbe, and hermenuetically irresponsible.

[b]I'll stop there and hunt the big fish.

D)
The transcendental problem with your arguments.
In order to make such arguments you must first have a concept of VALUE. And in order for you to actually [i]believe such arguments you have to really believe in the existance of VALUE - especially and necessarily objective absolut value - and (in the same way) VALUE judgments.

I would argue [and would be correct, and win] that, outside of the Christian worldview, you cannot offer the preconditions of the intelligibility of such things as: VALUE, Especially inherent value.

AS an athiest [or agnostic - or whatever you are], do you suppose that you can offer the preconditions for these things?
ON what BASIS can you make sense out of VALUE? What is it in your worlview that offers VALUE -- or that gives any objective value to anything? (because if you can't offer objective and absolute Value, then your argument will find itself sliding down the slipery scope of relativistic skepticism, upon which NOTHING can be proven or even shown as evident) Keep in mind that the thing which offers value must be something outside of the thing being valued itself, [unless it itself offers preconditions necessary], and that because value is an intelligent and rational judgment you preconditions must come from someone or something intelligent, as opposed to conventions, or nature itself...I could go on, but I know you cannot answer this age old philosophical dillema. But I can. GOD offers the preconditions for the intelligibility of all experience.

You have no basis for certainty, or belief in inherent human dignity or value, without borrowing from GOD, and His worldview, which gives the only coherent answer to the problem. Because you live in a God bathed world, it is apparent to you, through a sense of the divine within you, that there is inherent value in all or creation, including special value in humanity. And it is For THIS reason that you offer such arguments , because you are sure, in your heart of hearts, that there IS inherent value in both man and women. If we lived in a Godless world, atoms and energy could NOT give value to anything, and conventions could not give abslute answers, but instead reduce to skepticism and absurity because of relativism.
The problem is, you know that God is there, but you suppress the truth in unrighteaousness. Because of this you becom foolish in your reasoning, because you deny the very person who [is the only one who] can offer the preconditions for the experience of VALUE and MORALITY and many other things. So your argumentation, in the end, is reduced to skepticism, relativism, and absurity, and at that point you cannot offer any argument which is philosophically, or logically justified.

Your only hops is to Save yourself, inlcuding your reasoning, and reach out to Christ.

without him you are left with this problem...
The MORE you argue, the more you must borrow from concepts that only th CHRISTIAN worldview [GOD] can offer you, and so [B]IN THE VERY ACT OF ARGUING, YOU ARE PROVING MY WORLDVIEW, AND MY ARGUMENTS

(Stop borrowing from my worldview, I dare you.)

Adam Naranjo

[adam.naranjo]

joe

The onus is on YOU to show that after Christ came and died (and FULLFILLED that OLD testament LAW, TYPES, SHADOWS, AND PROPHECY. ) That EVERYTHING in the New Covenant is the same as in the old Coventant.

The problem is you don't understand the WHOLE progress of the STORY OF THE BIBLE AND THE REDEMPTION, THROUGH THE COVENANTS. The OLD coventant [OR TESTEMANT] was given for a reason. WE are now under the second covenant, which has its reasons, laws, and blessings.

(I personally don't believe, in anyway, that God held women inferior to men in EITHER coventant)

The COVENANTS are 'contracts' [in a matter of speaking] and the SECOND contract is not the SAME as the first...For the Scripture says, "if the First covenant was faultless, there would have been no reason for a second..." But in fact the first was faultless because of US...Mankind could not keep up there end of the bargin [so to speak]. The new covenant is based on CHRIST as our perfect righteousness -- HE kept up our end of the bargin, by fullfilling the LAW and the prophets. If you read the BOOK of romans you will find that Paul clearly teaches that, under the new covenant, God IMPUTES the righteousness of Christ to our account because of our faith in Him. Thus, the New Covenant is fullflled in us who are 'In Christ' - by our faith. Being in Christ, means that we are "NO LONGER UNDER THE LAW" -- AS PAUL CLEARLY SAYS. "WE ARE FREE FROM IT"... AND WE ARE "NOT TO TOUCH IT"...


THIS WAS NOT ONLY THE THEOLOGY OF PAUL. Read the rest of the New Testament. Jesus speaks of this new covenant, and these other concepts as well. Read 2 peter 3... you will find that Peter commends PAUL for writing the TRUTH of GOD, "which men twist just like the rest of Scripture" ... PETER TOUGHT THAT PAULS WORDS WERE THE WORDS OF GOD. ALL of the apostles agreed and offer Old testament evidence for the coming of the New Covenant...Read Hebrews.

I suggest that you dont know what your talking about.
Go study the Bible some more....please.

Adam Naranjo

[ItalianGold]

Joseph Alward:
Note, Cadet, that the Bible teaches that the Hebrew may take slaves that become their property for life, and passed on to their heirs. Furthermore, they could beat their slaves without punishment as long their injuries are not so great that the slaves cannot get up after a day or two. There should be no question, in my opinion, that these verses clearly show that the slave is inferior to his master.

Cadet:
Inferior in status perhaps as they are property, but not as a person. Which is kinda the point that St. Paul made.

Huh? Inferior in status because they are property (tiny detail) but NOT as a person??

Please, the Bible has been used for centuries as the authority for men to repress women. Paul was a notorious misogynist. And no, I'm NOT referring to the unproven allusions about his sexuality. It is clear though that Rabbi Paul would prefer all men be "celibate" as he is, however to spare them the sin of fornication, they should have a wife.

Even today, in some fundamentalist sects in some areas of the country (US) - the Bible is used as an excuse to justify spousal abuse. It was used to keep women from voting long after the slaves were freed. It is used to promelgate the idea that women are somehow impure, deceitful, temptresses. Although these ideas are no longer actively taught in most churches, the entire western culture is steeped in male superiority with "divine" justification.








It will be the proud boast of woman that she never contributed a line to the Bible-

[spl_cadet]

03-13-2003 @ 06:33 PM
ItalianGold:
Huh? Inferior in status because they are property (tiny detail) but NOT as a person??

Correct. Think of it sortof like the difference between white indentured servants and landowners in colonial times. Or the difference in military ranks.



Please, the Bible has been used for centuries as the authority for men to repress women.

And do I support that? No. But, what do you consider repression?



It is clear though that Rabbi Paul would prefer all men be "celibate" as he is, however to spare them the sin of fornication, they should have a wife.

Of course. However, St. Paul recognized that some (like myself) can't live that way.



Even today, in some fundamentalist sects in some areas of the country (US) - the Bible is used as an excuse to justify spousal abuse.

I'd love to know what verses they twist to come up with that.



It was used to keep women from voting long after the slaves were freed.

Your point being? Some peple twisted the Bible to support slavery, does that mean the Bible supports it? No. Some people twist the Bible to support active homosexuality, does that mean the Bible supports it? No.



It is used to promelgate the idea that women are somehow impure, deceitful, temptresses.

I've never heard that taught or even thought that the Bible taught that and I went out with such a person.



Although these ideas are no longer actively taught in most churches, the entire western culture is steeped in male superiority with "divine" justification.

I doubt that.

[Socrates]

One day Italian Pyrite might surprise us all and learn some facts instead of resorting to emotionalism:
Please, the Bible has been used for centuries as the authority for men to repress women. Paul was a notorious misogynist. And no, I'm NOT referring to the unproven allusions about his sexuality. It is clear though that Rabbi Paul would prefer all men be "celibate" as he is, however to spare them the sin of fornication, they should have a wife. This passage was clearly referring to a "present crisis" not a blanket rule for all time: 1 Corinthians 7:26 Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for you to remain as you are.There is nothing whatever to claim that Paul was a misogynist, and there is everything to believe that his teachings were tremdously liberating for women. For example, a husband is supposed to love His wife sacrificially as Christ loved the Church, to the point to giving up his life for her (Eph. 5:25).

It would also help if IP learned the difference between a difference in ROLE and a difference in NATURE. E.g., when Jesus was a child, He was submissive to his mother Mary and foster father Joseph (Luke 2:51). But in NATURE He was infinitely superior to them, because Jesus was fully God as well as fully human. So the Biblical teaching of benevolent male headship in marriage and the Church has nothing at all to do with male superiority in NATURE.

Conversely, evolution provides NO basis for treating women well.

IP continued in the same emotional way, totally lacking in historical perspective:

Even today, in some fundamentalist sects in some areas of the country (US) - the Bible is used as an excuse to justify spousal abuse. It was used to keep women from voting long after the slaves were freed. It is used to promelgate the idea that women are somehow impure, deceitful, temptresses. Although these ideas are no longer actively taught in most churches, the entire western culture is steeped in male superiority with "divine" justification. More assertion, totally ignoring the role of Bible-believing Christians like Wilberforce in abolition of slavery, and William Jennings Bryan in promoting women's suffrage.

[adam.naranjo]

With regard to evolutionary theory...

Darwin actually said that he believed Men were Inherently smarter then women due to evolutionary theory.

I have the direct quote from Darwin, but I dont want to go find it right now...

Of course its commonly known that darwin also believed that Africans were not a smart as other races...

And of course, his book was subtitled, "the preservation of favored races in the stuggle for life.."

Adam.Naranjo

[The Laughing Man]

03-13-2003 @ 05:58 PM
Joseph Alward:

This is just one of the reasons I do not accept the the words in the Bible come from a loving God. In fact, I do not see any evidence at all that they came from any kind of god at all.

Sure, and I bet you came up with that conclusion after studying the Bible and not before, as most skeptics do. Uh-huh. And I've got a bridge in San Francisco I'd like to sell you.

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD
I think the onus is on you to show evidence that Paul rejects the teachings in the Old Testament.

CADET
Sure. Every verse where he says that we aren't under the law. Happy?

JOE ALWARD
Paul said,


The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them."Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law (Galatians 3:12-13)

We're looking for an indication that Paul rejected rules regarding societal behaviors, such as rule regarding slaves, not methods of salvation. The law taught that those who did certain things would be saved, but Paul taught that with the coming of Jesus, this non-faith-based law is not to be followed. Paul's words give no indication that slaves were the equal of their masters.

[spl_cadet]

03-13-2003 @ 09:57 PM
Joseph Alward:
We're looking for an indication that Paul rejected rules regarding societal behaviors, such as rule regarding slaves, not methods of salvation.

1 Corinthians 5:1-5. St. Paul states that the man living with his mother is to be excommunicated. As a rabbi he knew rather well that the penalty was death for the man under the Mosaic Law. Therefore you have your example of societal behavior rules rejected.

[adam.naranjo]

JOE

You can refere to my previous post as well.
I mention that paul discusses, in the book colossians as well as in other passages, that we are no longer obligated to the law and tradition found in the Old Covenant...
Colossians 2:21 "do not handle, do not taste do not touch" Speaking of the hebrew traditions, which were, "A shadow (or type) of the thing to come [in the New Covenant]", but have now been, "taken out of the way, having [been] nailed to the Cross." -- In other words, destroyed, killed, abondoned to the grave.

Do yourself a favor and READ MY POSTS.

Adam.naranjo

[adam.naranjo]

Joe

On more thing: you need to make your points clearer.

Are you now discussing the issue of slavery? (roman or hebrew)
Or are you now discussing the issue of women in slavery? (roman or hebrew)

Or are you now discussing Paul view of Old test Law?
Or are you now discussing Pauls view of Roman Law?

???

Adam.naranjo

[Joseph Alward]

CADET
1 Corinthians 5:1-5. St. Paul states that the man living with his mother is to be excommunicated. As a rabbi he knew rather well that the penalty was death for the man under the Mosaic Law. Therefore you have your example of societal behavior rules rejected.

JOE ALWARD
That comes pretty close, I agree. However, what I am looking for is a clearer rejection than this. Your verse shows only that the man is to be excommunicated, but this is evidently what Paul approves of the church doing. Would he disapprove of the man being stoned to death by the people?

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD
It hasn't escaped my attention that others beside Cadet and Jinx are expressing their views on this thread. I am not ignoring their comments because they lack substance, but because they are filled with too much hate. I prefer to discuss things calmly and rationally, as is the case now with Cadet.

[spl_cadet]

Today @ 01:17 PM
Joseph Alward:
JOE ALWARD
That comes pretty close, I agree. However, what I am looking for is a clearer rejection than this. Your verse shows only that the man is to be excommunicated, but this is evidently what Paul approves of the church doing. Would he disapprove of the man being stoned to death by the people?

Yes he would disapprove. When he sent this letter to them he was stating "This is the punishment for his sins." If he had wanted him stoned, he would have told them especially as Corinth was Gentile city iirc and thus didn't have knowledge of what the Mosaic Law commanded in such an instance.

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD
Would he disapprove of the man being stoned to death by the people?

CADET
Yes he would disapprove. When he sent this letter to them he was stating "This is the punishment for his sins." If he had wanted him stoned, he would have told them especially as Corinth was Gentile city iirc and thus didn't have knowledge of what the Mosaic Law commanded in such an instance.

JOE ALWARD
I agree that if Paul wanted him stoned he might have said so. However, not calling for the man to be stoned is not quite the same as saying that he is rejecting the old practice.

I think it would be better if we were not to focus on whether Paul approved of stoning, but on what it meant to Paul to be "one in Christ Jesus"

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28)

If you can show that this means that the female Greek slave was not inferior to the free male Jew, then I would agree that Paul taught that women were not inferior to men, in spite of all his other teachings. But, it seems to me that all Paul is saying is that Jew, Greek, slave, freeman, male and female, all reach salvation the same way. What evidence do you have that this verse means that none are inferior to the other before they enter the kingdom of heaven?

[spl_cadet]

Today @ 08:03 PM
Joseph Alward:
I agree that if Paul wanted him stoned he might have said so. However, not calling for the man to be stoned is not quite the same as saying that he is rejecting the old practice.

Well, actually it is if you consider the fact that this guy was fanatical about the law.



If you can show that this means that the female Greek slave was not inferior to the free male Jew, then I would agree that Paul taught that women were not inferior to men, in spite of all his other teachings. But, it seems to me that all Paul is saying is that Jew, Greek, slave, freeman, male and female, all reach salvation the same way. What evidence do you have that this verse means that none are inferior to the other before they enter the kingdom of heaven?

Show me where in the NT it does teach that they are inferior.

And did you know that you look just like Leo Laporte?

[Joseph Alward]

No. Never heard of him until now. I looked him up on the web, and I do see a resemblance. I am not Leo Laporte, by the way.

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD

Cadet, you haven't explained why you think that being "one in Christ Jesus" means that neither man, woman, slave, Greek, nor Jew was inferior to the other. Doesn't this just mean that everyone is saved in the same way, through Christ Jesus?

If so, then the Galatians passage doesn't support your argument that Paul thought women were the equal of men.

[adam.naranjo]

Joe Alward,


This is a response to many of the questions, and issues you have brought up in this thread.


Joseph: Asserts that the Bible says that Woman are inferior to Man.

First of all, what in the world do you mean by inferior?
Because, if you mean women are inferior in regards to their ability to produce muscle mass, then yeah, their inferior. BUT, I assume your trying to make a connection to intrinsic value...so I'll take it from there.


Man from God's Breath, Women from man's rib.

As was already mentioned, Man was created from the DIRT.
Adam, which is my name, means man of red dirt.

I find it interesting that you bill yourself as a 'biblical' skeptic.
I suppose you can be skeptical about something you don't understand, but is it wise?

One more thing, the Bible is NOT a scientific text book, and should not be interpreted as one. If you want to be a biblical skeptic you need to take, at the very least, a survey on hermeneutics, if not also more detailed study of hermeneutical issues of scientific importance.

No wait, one more thing, your making a couple of logical errors -- Let me explain. First of all, your argument from 'breath' assumes some kind of inherant value in the 'breath', especially as it is over and above the 'rib'. First of all this assumption CANNOT be made with certainty on logical or biblical grounds. Because your argument is dependent on this assumption, your argument is faulty because the assumptions on which it must operate, as an argument, are subjective in nature. (PS,. from an non-christian world view there can be no certain value statments regarding ANYTHING, much less 'breath' over 'ribs' -- and mere subjective value premises cannot lead to objective arguments) Essentially then, you have non-sequitors involved in your reasoning.
Also, there are certain objections that, if they were true, would make your argument impossible to prove. For example, it could be argued, with the same guesswork involved in your argument, that God took away from man to creat women, therefore suggesting that man is devoid of some part of his original value or created good, and that women recieved that which was taken from us, giving her more value or created good. If this were true, your argument could not be true. So which arbitrary assumption do you like better???

Women created for man

There are so many possible explanations for this. I highly doubt you have thought of them all -- so i'll give a few. But, firstly let me say that this argument is still suffering from logical problems. Primarily, it just doesn't follow that, women being 'created for man', assumes, infers, or necessitates in anyway your claim to the teaching of inferiority. You can't go from, a) A proposition was made, then b) An argument was given 'for' the proposition, thefore the argument is inferior to the proposition. What would arguments and propositions be without each other?
Another example: Bikes were made, and then engines were put in, 'for' the bikes, to go faster, farther etc... Therefore the engine is inferior to the Bike. I could go on and on...I think you get it.
Another problem you have is an issue of definition. You really need to define, "FOR". The the greek word means, "for reason of"...BUT, what is the reason? Thats the question. What if the reason was man's inadequacy? Wouldn't you be red? Because that would mean that there was something lacking in man, and that, in a sense, women made up for that...We'll there was, and God planned it that way. Genesis tells us that Man had no companion...There was some relational point to God's creation order. Could it be that God wanted Adam, and us, to see the value of women, by virture of our relation need -- although not relegated merely to that alone, there could be other inadequacies, and certainly are, but for times sake, I'll stop there.

There are other possible explanations, but i'm tired.

Women was brought to man

I should have looked at all of your logically fallacious props., before I decided to post. I'm teaching a logical class if you would like to get involved???

Anyway, again, you have serious problems with the argument. Perhaps an rebuttle argument by way of anology would help. If I said, "I took my SON TO see the his new car" would you assume that the new car was of more value then my SON? NO. Please dont make continue...

I have another problem here. You say, "if God wished for...readers to know...he would have.
Now, you know better then to put modes of operation on God, right? You, know that IF God wanted us the know some thing he would have planned to make it absolutely direct an unambiguous to YOU. I personally do not see inferiority being tought in anyway here. Furthermore, this argument from silece is rediculous. To say that God, by NOT qualifying his methods, is then affirming that which he is silent on (in this particular passage). YOu ought to know that that is just non-sense.

Imagine, if I had to qualify the statment, "i'm gonna go get Ice cream", because my wife gets mad at me for not making it specific in my language that what I mean was that I was going to go outside and mix together some ingredients to make home made ice cream, rather then, what she thought -- which was, "i'm gonna go to the store and purchase an Ice cream cone".


Man named women

So what! I'm getting sick of this.
Thats like saying that, because I named my child, my child is inferior in value to me....rubbish
What kind of logic is that?
There are other problems here, but i'm not wasting my time. As you can see your argument reduced to absurdity when taken to its logical end. The act of naming does not infer any value judgements

Man's fall was caused by the women

First of all, the passage you quote does not say, IN ANY WAY, that the women was responsible for the mans fall. In fact, it says that she was decieved, while ADAM was not decieved into sin, but sinned knowingly, and willingly. As far as I'm concerned, and MANY theologians, Adam was the one to blame -- if it could be looked at in this way. The point of the passage is that Man was created first, which corresponds to his created roles (not value) in certain situations, and that the women fell into sin first, which corresponds to her roles (not values in certain situations. If Adam would have been teaching Eve, in regardst to the lies of the Evil one, she would not have been decieved. For adam was given that role -- And, also for other reasons that I dont have time for.

The whole point here is that the passage DOES NOT say what you claime is says. And It does not speak of VALUE, but roles. All of the pieces of a puzzle are of equal value, but not all are the SAME in regards to the role they play in the whole piece.

Again, she did not cause adam to fall....HE caused or LET her fall, by his silence (not teaching, which essentialy is just HELPING with WORDS and IDEAS)

WOmen not the Glory of God

You have NO idea what your talking about. The word Glory simply means representation or symbol. The context of the passage is in regards to the Body of Christ (the Church). In this context the women represents (or 'is the glory [or symbol] of') the Church (or as it is often called, THE BRIDE OF CHRIST) in relation to Christ, who is represented in this context by man, So that church tradition gives symbol to Christ and the Church, who is His BRIDE, in an metaphorical sense. Its sybolic of the Bride and Groom, which is a metaphor for Christ and His followers in eternal covenant. READ ASSOCIATED PASSAGE IN EPH 5:20 area.

This passage in NO way teaches that women are inferior in value...


-- NOW my turn. I will let scripture speak for itself:

vs 11 of the, often taken out of context, 11th chapter of 1 corinthians:
In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.

Eph 5:25
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her; 26 that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she should be holy and blameless. 28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, 30 because we are members of His body. 31 For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh. 32 This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let each individual among you also love his own wife even as himself; and let the wife see to it that she respect her husband.
The New American Standard Bible,

Galations 3:26
26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

1 peter 3:7
grant her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.
--Peter, here says that women are equal heirs of the Grace of God, and that they are worthy of the honor due.

[adam.naranjo]

Joe,
After claiming that people were not answering your questions, I offer, again, a response to some of the issues you have brought up.

1)
I offerd you a very valid explanation [as to the Glory of God] which is the view of most Biblical teachers. It's based on the contextual and liguistic analaysis of the passages as well as an wholistic understanding of the Symbolism reffering to the relational attributes of Christ, particularly: Him being the Bridegroom and redeemed humanity being the Bride belonging to Christ.

2)
Again, I have shown (the obvious) that you are not logically justified in reasoning from this passage that God puts more value on Men. In my many discussions with atheists, many of them being of the same opinion, I have rarely heard these arguments used -- of the rare instances in which they are, there is one common factor...those who use them are the most ignorant of objectors.

3)
NOW, let me challenge you to actually reply to my rebuttle -- including a reply, in which you must show that the scriptures I listed DO NOT show that women are to be valued as highly as men.

4)
ESPECIALLY that passages in Ephesians that says:
5:25
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her; 26 that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she should be holy and blameless. 28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, 30 because we are members of His body. 31 For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh. 32 This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.

A)
As is clearly evident here, the marriage bond is symbolic of Christ's love for the CHURCH, committment to it, willingness to die for it, and understanding that, in fact, the "bride" is the "husbands" very own flesh (as the church [the bride] is christs very own body)..."the two shall become one flesh"...this is symbolic of the church becoming unified with Christ..

B)
Do you get it now?
Refering to the word glory:
The words means 'representation' or symbol. In this respect the man is to represent Christ's love, sacrifice, and unity (oneness) with the 'bride', redmeemed humanity. The women is to represent the attibutes of redeemed humnaity. As you can see in this passage, more responsibility is put on the man to LOVE and CHERISH his wife...to honor her as he honors HIS SELF...why?

C)
BECAUSE THE MAN AND WOMEN ARE ONE PERSON IN THE MARRIAGE BOND. And they have the same value.
There is no evidence of value judgements inherrent in these passages. NONE. You are grasping towards stars that you will never reach...you logic falls just short.

5)
You also need to deal with the other passage I mentioned. How about, "grant her honor as a fellow heir "
"Fellow" means CO-HEIR, Partner...in other words, 'on the same level'


6)
How about the passage that says that men and women are interdepentant, and that "ALL THINGS [men and women] COME FROM GOD". The mode of operation is irrelavent because they both came from God, because ALL creation was God's. Deal with that.

7)
FURTHER MORE, Evidence is given in order to PROVE.
You allegation, that the bible teaches women are inferior [in value] to men, has not been show [or proven] in any fashion because your "evidential arguments" are all falsifiable through the objections that I have already give -- none of which you have replied to. I have shown that your arguments cannot give any weight to the argument.

8)
FURTHER MORE,
The only reason you 'think' that your arguments do work, is because you have assumed certain things to be true upon which your arguments rest -- whether you know it or not, you have certain presuppositions that rest behind your arguments.

A)
For example. It must be presupposed that 'breath' is somehow more valuable then a rib. Which is an easily falsifable affiliation, and is obviously a huge logical strech. (if you dont know what I mean, just ask. If you dont think I'm right, challenge me)
b)
You also have to presuppose that the VALUE in the BREATH is somehow representative of the VALUE, in which the thing created by it, is regarded by the creator. And that the RIB is ALSO representative in the same way. This is also falsifiable, logically undetermainable, and based on tons of other assumption which also have serious problems.

c)
With regard to the GLORY of God etc,.
You must assume, not only that what I have shown you, which most biblical scholors agree on, is wrong, but ALSO that being the Glory of something is somehow representative of [or is meant to infer] the inherent value of the thing to which it is subscribed. This is an highly arbitrary assumption on your part. Unfounded, easliy falsifialbe, and hermenuetically irresponsible.

[b]I'll stop there and hunt the big fish.

D)
The transcendental problem with your arguments.
In order to make such arguments you must first have a concept of VALUE. And in order for you to actually [i]believe such arguments you have to really believe in the existance of VALUE - especially and necessarily objective absolut value - and (in the same way) VALUE judgments.

I would argue [and would be correct, and win] that, outside of the Christian worldview, you cannot offer the preconditions of the intelligibility of such things as: VALUE, Especially inherent value.

AS an athiest [or agnostic - or whatever you are], do you suppose that you can offer the preconditions for these things?
ON what BASIS can you make sense out of VALUE? What is it in your worlview that offers VALUE -- or that gives any objective value to anything? (because if you can't offer objective and absolute Value, then your argument will find itself sliding down the slipery scope of relativistic skepticism, upon which NOTHING can be proven or even shown as evident) Keep in mind that the thing which offers value must be something outside of the thing being valued itself, [unless it itself offers preconditions necessary], and that because value is an intelligent and rational judgment you preconditions must come from someone or something intelligent, as opposed to conventions, or nature itself...I could go on, but I know you cannot answer this age old philosophical dillema. But I can. GOD offers the preconditions for the intelligibility of all experience.

You have no basis for certainty, or belief in inherent human dignity or value, without borrowing from GOD, and His worldview, which gives the only coherent answer to the problem. Because you live in a God bathed world, it is apparent to you, through a sense of the divine within you, that there is inherent value in all or creation, including special value in humanity. And it is For THIS reason that you offer such arguments , because you are sure, in your heart of hearts, that there IS inherent value in both man and women. If we lived in a Godless world, atoms and energy could NOT give value to anything, and conventions could not give abslute answers, but instead reduce to skepticism and absurity because of relativism.
The problem is, you know that God is there, but you suppress the truth in unrighteaousness. Because of this you becom foolish in your reasoning, because you deny the very person who [is the only one who] can offer the preconditions for the experience of VALUE and MORALITY and many other things. So your argumentation, in the end, is reduced to skepticism, relativism, and absurity, and at that point you cannot offer any argument which is philosophically, or logically justified.

Your only hops is to Save yourself, inlcuding your reasoning, and reach out to Christ.

without him you are left with this problem...
The MORE you argue, the more you must borrow from concepts that only th CHRISTIAN worldview [GOD] can offer you, and so [B]IN THE VERY ACT OF ARGUING, YOU ARE PROVING MY WORLDVIEW, AND MY ARGUMENTS



Adam Naranjo

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD

In previous posts I've outlined the reasons why I think the overall teaching in the Bible is that women were second in importance in God's scheme. God created man first, and gave man life by breathing God's own breath into man's nostrils. Woman's life was not initiated from something from God, as was man's. Her life began not with God, as was man's, but with man--his rib. Why did God not breath life into her, too, so that the both lives could have begun with God's breath? Thus, the Bible teaches that woman is inferior to man in the sense that she was—and is—second in importance to man.

I've given evidence which supports the view that the Bible teaches that woman is second in importance to man, and in this post I will offer some more.

Man Is First, Woman Second

Wife is second in importance behind the husband, because woman was made from man, and for man, not vice-versa:

"Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.....For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (1 Corinthians 11:2-9)



Wife Is to Submit to Husband As She Submits to the Lord

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body." (Ephesians 5:22-24)

Nowhere in the passage above does it say that the man submits to the wife. Thus, the hierarchy is clear. Woman must revere the husband the way the church reveres Christ. This means that just as the church is less important that Jesus Christ, so is the wife less important than the husband.

Few teachings in the Bible are clearer than the one which holds that God wants everyone to know that man is more important to God than the woman.

[Socrates]

Joe Alward:
In previous posts I've outlined the reasons why I think the overall teaching in the Bible is that women were second in importance in God's scheme. God created man first, and gave man life by breathing God's own breath into man's nostrils.So what? God created the animals before man, and plants before the animals. Does that make them better than humans (JA doesn't strike me as a loony greenie who would think so ;)Woman's life was not initiated from something from God, as was man's. Her life began not with God, as was man's, but with man--his rib. Why did God not breath life into her, too, so that the both lives could have begun with God's breath? Thus, the Bible teaches that woman is inferior to man in the sense that she was—and is—second in importance to man. Not at all. The fact that woman was taken from man's is the basis for man and woman becoming one flesh again in marriage (Matthew 19:3-6, Mark 10:6-9, quoting Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 as real history). This important connection would have been lost if it had been done JA's wau.

I've given evidence which supports the view that the Bible teaches that woman is second in importance to man, I must have missed the actual evidence. Was it on the same level that road STOP signs are wrong because they fail to realise that everything on Earth CAN'T stop because the Earth is hurtling through space?
and in this post I will offer some more.

Man Is First, Woman Second

Wife is second in importance behind the husband, because woman was made from man, and for man, not vice-versa:Difference in ROLES, not NATURE.Wife Is to Submit to Husband As She Submits to the Lord
"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body." (Ephesians 5:22-24)

Nowhere in the passage above does it say that the man submits to the wife. Thus, the hierarchy is clear. Woman must revere the husband the way the church reveres Christ. This means that just as the church is less important that Jesus Christ, so is the wife less important than the husband.JA is reading far more into the analogy than the Bible says. YES, the Bible teaches that the husband has the casting vote as chairman of the marriage. But the passage goes on to talk about the husband's obligations of sacrificial love towards his wife as Christ loved the Church. There would be no wifebashing and other unkindness if husbands kept this commandment.

But the fact that the wife is meant to submit to her husband says nothing about whether she is inferior by nature. This is easily shown by Luke 2:51, where Jesus, the SUPERIOR, submitted to His INFERIORS, His mother and foster father.
Few teachings in the Bible are clearer than the one which holds that God wants everyone to know that man is more important to God than the woman.Once more, I challenge you to deduce sexual equality from the proposition "God does not exist" or "We evolved from pond scum". I refuse to let people criticise Christian morality when they can't justify their own moral viewpoint under their own belief system!

[adam.naranjo]

joe

I suppose you have not read my posts.
Is it becasue they are so long?
The reason they are so long is because Im actually answering all of your question, and showing the error in your propositions.

It seems to me that you are not reading the Scriptures that I pointed out either.

If you did, you would have seen that the HUSBANDS JOB, OR ROLE, IS TO LOVE THE WIFE IN THE SAME WAY THAT CHRIST LOVED THE CHURCH, AND DIED FOR "HER" -- THE CHURCH.
So, when you say that the Church is "LESS" important, you are not being completely honest with the scripture. YES, Jesus is more important in the creater/creature distinction, BUT, there is clearly "NO DISTINCTION" between Man and Women with regard to value. Christ DIED for both of them! And COMMANDS the HUSBAND to love the wife in that same attitude. AN attitude that TREATS THE OTHER WITH MORE VALUE...(Phil 2:3), even though all are of the same value ontologically.


It is evident that you have LOST this argument. You have not even attempted to respond to my responses, and have not even attempted to respond to my aguments in favor of the equal value view. It can only be assumed that you have not responded because you cannot respond, but are instead defeated by the scriptrue itself, and trapped in your logical and hermeneutical errors.

Adam.Naranjo

[Sher]

I wanted to address this one point you made:
03-13-2003 @ 05:40 PM undead:

But in respect of your second point, it is clear that women are inferior in respect of particular attributes, i.e. moral uprightness. Look at what the teacher says: Re: Eccl 7:27-28 (NIV): Yet, we must read it in context to understand the WHOLE reference here; that it is unrelated to what you attempt to make it mean (in rebuttal to the o.p.). {I'll even use the NIV for consistancy in understanding}:

Eccl 7:26-29
26 I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare.
27 "Look," says the Teacher, "this is what I have discovered: "Adding one thing to another to discover the scheme of things--
28 while I was still searching but not finding-- I found one [upright] man among a thousand, but not one [upright] woman among them all.
29 This only have I found: God made mankind upright, but men have gone in search of many schemes."

Here, we finish v. 29 with all mankind being made upright, but men going in search of many schemes ... which appears of and by itself to contradict your point. But let's move backwards to v. 26 which specifies which type of woman was being discussed in v. 27 & 28: "the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains." This verse is imperative to understanding the others and to understanding the point that was being made here against a specific kind of woman, not all women in general.

[Sher]

Today @ 02:53 AM
Joseph Alward:

Few teachings in the Bible are clearer than the one which holds that God wants everyone to know that man is more important to God than the woman. :doh:

1 Cor 11:11-12 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.

Eph 5:32-33 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

Submit is not due to supposed inferiority, but respect as outlined in scripture.

Wouldn't you be confounded and displeased if anyone clipped your words as you clip the Bible's? Why do you persist on conveniently overlooking that which contradicts your postition and posting scripture out of context? I would allow that it was an error, yet it is in the very same chapter that you posted from in each of these cases!

[The Laughing Man]

You know what? Women ARE inferior to men... AT BEING MEN. Likewise, men are inferior to women at being women.

[Joseph Alward]

SHER BEAR

Wouldn't you be confounded and displeased if anyone clipped your words as you clip the Bible's? Why do you persist on conveniently overlooking that which contradicts your postition and posting scripture out of context?

1 Cor 11:11-12 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.

Eph 5:32-33 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

JOE ALWARD

The Corinthians verse doesn't teach that woman is not second in importance to man. To state that each is dependent on the other is not to teach that the woman is not second in importance to man. One can depend on another who is second in importance, cannot one?

As for the part about man coming through woman, this is clearly teaching that woman is just the portal through which man enters the world, but woman, on the other hand, comes from man, who comes from God, so ultimately woman comes from God, too, but only after she literally came from man in the form of his rib. The "being second" quality of woman is one of the more consistent themes in the Bible.

The Ephesians verse only says that man should love his wife. It does not say, nor does it imply, that woman is not second in importance to man. One can depend on one who is second in importance, isn't that true?

Furthermore, note that while the author makes it clear that while the wife is to respect the husband, the author pointedly does not say that the husband should "see that HE respects his wife." If the author wanted his readers to know that the woman did not come second, he would have made sure to make a reciprocating comment about the man respecting his wife, too. The fact that he didn't do this is good evidence that the author—along with almost all of the other authors of the Bible's passages, thought of woman as being inferior to man in the sense of not being as important as man.

[Joseph Alward]

JINX
You know what? Women ARE inferior to men... AT BEING MEN. Likewise, men are inferior to women at being women.

JOE ALWARD
It is not in that sense that I claim that the Bible teaches that women are inferior. The Bible teaches that women are inferior in the sense of being less important to God, of being second to man in God's eyes.

Of course, I completely reject this whole notion. I think that either nature provides male and female humans of equal value, or else the woman, being the one who gives birth to humans, is superior to man, and therefore first. The Bible's clear teaching against women is just one of the great many reasons I couldn't possibly accept the Bible as the word of a loving god.