Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
I think facts such as these speak for themselves.
|
They do speak. They say something. But only someone with the view of a patriarchal system where women are property or second-class citizens would presume that what it is saying is that it was ordained to be that way.
It was ordained that Cain would kill Abel. It was ordained that slavery would be commonplace for centuries. It was ordained that women be excluded from any important acts in society other than bearing and raising children and cooking meals.
What you fail to consider is that it may simply be saying that the doors were locked and two big guys named Bruno and Rufus were standing outside with Glocks.
This is how Lee came up with so many of his novel teachings (and Nee too). Read something. Declare that nothing except his version of how it should be understood is valid. Declare a new prescriptive doctrine.
The stupidity of your opening sentence is that it is simply an observation of action by people who are acting in concert with the very problem that we are trying to figure out. The fact of their action cannot be accepted as the reason that their action was correct. That is circular reasoning. It is classic begging the question.
Planes flew into the World Trade Center. What principle does this prove? That it was correct for planes to fly into the World Trade Center.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
I have read about the matter of why the author of Hebrews is unnamed, and some, have suggested that if it were written by a woman, there is good reason why that fact should be hidden. Yes on the one hand it is positive that at least one woman possibly (hypothesis only) wrote a book of the bible. On the other hand it is a negative if her authorship was hidden because of male domination at the time.
|
It does not occur to you that in what was still mostly a male dominated society that hiding the fact (if it is a fact) of a woman writer for Hebrews was the way to get it read by the dim-witted men that would otherwise just reject it without as much as a second look? And that men are still doing that to this day? Your mention of Luther and others yet no women is hardly surprising given that Christianity has continued to understand its primary source text as relegating women to the back row, or outside watching video monitors.
The question as to whether that is the right thing to do in light of all of the scripture (not just one or two verses) must be studied from within the scripture, not by reference to how the people who already had an opinion on the subject did things. If your way was the way to go, then slavery would still be the norm because the fact that there was slavery would prove that there should be slavery.