Poor poor Christianity?

[awareness]

I guess it's just you and me bro ZNP.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The NT is the covenant Christians have with God and therefore defines what it is to be a Christian. Using the common sayings of the day doesn't. It merely reflects the bias of the people who were newly converted (at best) and at worst is simply a stereotype. Some people felt you needed to be circumcised. That does not define Christians, it defines cults.

It's biological. I doubt we're ever gonna see a male team against a female team at the Superbowl. It becomes cultic when embedded in religion. That women should shut up in the church is cultic. And cultic that women have to wear head covering (so the sons of God don't come and violate them during the meeting ... apparently).

Is that sort of stuff what God demands? No. It's projected upon God, from the customs and mores of the times when Christianity was born, during Paul's times.

Originally Posted by ZNP

1. According to Paul in the church "there is no male or female".

Then why do "women" have to learn from their "male" husbands? Seems in practice there are, or were, male and female after all. But female was lower than male, and are commanded to be obedient. And Paul adds, "And if they will learn any thing," like it's not likely they can even learn. That's why none of the NT books are written by women ; they were illiterate because they weren't allowed to be educated.

Originally Posted by ZNP

Making the two equal. A radical approach to this topic given the feelings of the day and probably the reason "all in Asia abandoned him".

Exactly. "Given the feelings of the day," that even Paul couldn't escape. Cuz he clearly distinguished between male and female. Paul must have been speaking in the abstract when he said no male or female.

Originally Posted by ZNP

2. Paul said an elder had to be the husband of one wife. A strong position for monogamy and against polygamy and mistresses, etc. That strengthened the woman's position and was a radical position to take in that day.

But they are one flesh. So why are elders only male? Seems to me if they are one flesh both are elders.

Originally Posted by ZNP

3. Saying that an elder had to be the husband of one wife meant that every locality had both an elder and "the wife of an elder" which is also a leadership position. So in a very elegant way Paul made sure every church had a woman in a very important position of authority.

Now you must be speaking in the abstract. It doesn't work out that way. Men are in the leadership. Were the wives considered leaders in the local church?

Originally Posted by ZNP

The women's rights movement came out of the movement for ending slavery and giving blacks equal rights. Women said "hey, if you are giving black men the vote why not us". People justified slavery in the US using the Bible incorrectly (Biblical slavery was nothing like slavery of the south. It wasn't racial, it wasn't for life, there were no slave traders, only adults could sell themselves and only to pay off a debt and once the debt was paid they were free. It is analagous to an NFL contract.) Just because people misuse the Bible doesn't mean that is what the Bible says. For example, Awareness is trying to say the Bible is somehow against women's rights when it is exactly the opposite.

Not true. You certainly haven't proven it. The rest of the above is too much to bother unwrapping.

Originally Posted by ZNP

2/3 of the church membership is women. Why would so many women be in the church if it were abusive? In the church women can take on virtually every role and ministry. As a result, if Paul had not required that elders be the husband of one wife men probably would only have a token presence.

That one hit my funny-bone. Thanks for the belly laugh.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I guess it's just you and me bro ZNP.


It's biological. I doubt we're ever gonna see a male team against a female team at the Superbowl. It becomes cultic when embedded in religion. That women should shut up in the church is cultic. And cultic that women have to wear head covering (so the sons of God don't come and violate them during the meeting ... apparently).

Yes it is biological. It makes sense that for 9,950 years of human history women took on the jobs that have been replaced by appliances, and they also had the major job of child rearing for the first few years of life. When the women's suffrage movement first began the argument was that the woman would be 35 by the time all her children left her care and could live for another 50 years, therefore she needed a career. However, in practice women begin their career just like men and we warehouse the kids. 50 years is far too short to know what the impact of this dramatic change will be.

Originally Posted by awareness

Is that sort of stuff what God demands? No. It's projected upon God, from the customs and mores of the times when Christianity was born, during Paul's times.


Then why do "women" have to learn from their "male" husbands? Seems in practice there are, or were, male and female after all. But female was lower than male, and are commanded to be obedient. And Paul adds, "And if they will learn any thing," like it's not likely they can even learn. That's why none of the NT books are written by women ; they were illiterate because they weren't allowed to be educated.

It always bothers me that people get so outraged at one verse while ignoring another. Paul also said "let everyone be subject one to another" in the very same context. Are you so arrogant that you can't learn from your wife? Why can't she learn from her husband?

Originally Posted by awareness

Exactly. "Given the feelings of the day," that even Paul couldn't escape. Cuz he clearly distinguished between male and female. Paul must have been speaking in the abstract when he said no male or female.


But they are one flesh. So why are elders only male? Seems to me if they are one flesh both are elders.

That is how I read it and that is how it works in practice.

Originally Posted by awareness

Now you must be speaking in the abstract. It doesn't work out that way. Men are in the leadership. Were the wives considered leaders in the local church?

In NY I lived with one of the elders. His wife was very influential and pretty much called the shots in her zone of authority, but she did this behind the scenes. I also saw this in Taipei, Andrew Yu's wife was very influential.

Originally Posted by awareness

Not true. You certainly haven't proven it. The rest of the above is too much to bother unwrapping.

Let's take a vote. I say I have proven it.

Originally Posted by awareness

That one hit my funny-bone. Thanks for the belly laugh.

I'm glad we could have a reasonable discussion

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes it is biological. It makes sense that for 9,950 years of human history women took on the jobs that have been replaced by appliances, and they also had the major job of child rearing for the first few years of life. When the women's suffrage movement first began the argument was that the woman would be 35 by the time all her children left her care and could live for another 50 years, therefore she needed a career. However, in practice women begin their career just like men and we warehouse the kids. 50 years is far too short to know what the impact of this dramatic change will be.

I agree. I've been around long enough to see that not that long ago one earner, typically Dad could make ends meet for the family. Now it takes two earners. It caught on quickly. Initially, two earners allowed for better homes, cars, and higher standard of living, than the one earner families. But the cost of living went up as more and more families became two earners ... of course. So in the end there's now no gain for two earning families. But don't worry about the kids, technology is raising them now.

Originally Posted by Z

It always bothers me that people get so outraged at one verse while ignoring another. Paul also said "let everyone be subject one to another" in the very same context. Are you so arrogant that you can't learn from your wife? Why can't she learn from her husband?

Yes. Women we now know are not less intelligent than men. In fact, in general, they have better computer power in their head than men in general have.

Originally Posted by Z

That is how I read it and that is how it works in practice.

I don't know about the practice.

Originally Posted by Z

In NY I lived with one of the elders. His wife was very influential and pretty much called the shots in her zone of authority, but she did this behind the scenes. I also saw this in Taipei, Andrew Yu's wife was very influential.

But not Lee's, or Nee's. And certainly it is the exception, not the rule, that women lead, particularly with Bible literalists.

Originally Posted by Z

Let's take a vote. I say I have proven it.

There's only two of us. So it will be a tie. I guess we'll have cast lots, like they did in Acts, for God to be able to speak the truth of the matter, and settle it once and for all. Cuz he knows more than us that the 1st century was highly patriarchal and misogynistic.

Originally Posted by Z

I'm glad we could have a reasonable discussion

Me too. Thanks.

[ZNPaaneah]

I think this discussion on women's rights needs to include the concept of a eusocial society. We have lots of rules that we have to obey for this society to function properly that may or may not make sense to apes, or prehistoric man.

We have to follow traffic laws, there is a whole protocol in place about when you are to stop, when you go, who goes first, etc. Then if there is an accident there is a whole protocol again about how this is handled. None of these laws would be in a non eusocial society. In a group of apes it is simply might makes right and get out of my way.

Now there are a lot of advantages to having a eusocial society -- health care, electricity, social security, safe streets, etc.

The biggest rule that we all have to follow that makes all of this possible is we have to pay taxes. Imagine our society is similar to the ark of the covenant. We have to carry this. The more people we have shouldering the load the easier it is to do this in a good way. But as birth rates decline the society has major problems for their economy. Consider Japan. Too many old people and not enough young working adults to support them. The only possible way this society is sustainable is if the birth rate is at the very least, flat. As long as we replace every senior citizen with a young person this works, when that is no longer the case we are on the decline.

For a gorilla, none of this matters, but for a eusocial society it is crucial that the society has children and raises them to be productive members of society.

So with that in mind, consider the whole fight for "reproductive rights". Not talking about equal pay for women, not talking about giving women the vote, not talking about women breaking the glass ceiling.

Once the US legalized abortion, a major milestone in this battle for reproductive rights divorce rates skyrocketed, single parent mothers also skyrocketed, along with domestic abuse (more common where the man is not the father of the children). The only reason our birth rate hasn't plummeted like Japan is because of our immigrants.

So then in our society the vast majority of the poor are single parent families. The vast majority of kids in a gang are the kids of parents who cannot supervise them (single parent mothers working two jobs, likewise poor immigrants working multiple jobs with large families, etc).

Having a eusocial society requires the keeping of a covenant. The apes don't keep this covenant and they don't have this society. The laws in the Bible are the covenant that we keep so that we can live in a eusocial society. If someone doesn't want to keep those laws then they should not get the benefit of this society.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think this discussion on women's rights needs to include the concept of a eusocial society.

Rolling on the floor laughing my arse off. Not that again. But it is one of your favorite premises.

The rest of your post was just proving your position on eusocialism. But you failed to related it to women's rights in the 1st c.

I'm hoping you'll rectify that.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Rolling on the floor laughing my arse off. Not that again. But it is one of your favorite premises.

The rest of your post was just proving your position on eusocialism. But you failed to related it to women's rights in the 1st c.

I'm hoping you'll rectify that.

Of course I did. This explains why the NT takes a strong issue against homosexual sex, fornication, adultery, and abortion.

It also explains why the NT presents monogamy as an example (elders and deacons husband of one wife) though not a law.

It also ties nicely between the Lord's word about Eunuch's for the kingdom, and James word about pure religion caring for orphans and widows.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Of course I did. This explains why the NT takes a strong issue against homosexual sex, fornication, adultery, and abortion.

It also explains why the NT presents monogamy as an example (elders and deacons husband of one wife) though not a law.

It also ties nicely between the Lord's word about Eunuch's for the kingdom, and James word about pure religion caring for orphans and widows.

You've provided no substantial proof that 1st c. Christian women weren't considered lower class citizens, and that it wasn't patriarchal and misogynistic.

[zeek]

If Jesus didn't intend to start a new religion, then Christianity became poor when it became Christianity--a new religion that Jesus never intended to start.