Results 1 - 9 of 9
|
|
|||||
Results from: Notes Author: joyduncan Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Was it like the Taliban? | 1 Pet 3:1 | joyduncan | 124627 | ||
Just this morning though I was reading in John 4 that Jesus' disciples were surprised to find him talking to a woman. That sounds a little indicative of general supression, don't you think? I do agree that Proverbs 31 and other passages may seem to give women more place, more standing in society. Proverbs 31 though was written hundreds of years before the NT. I guess there probably was quite a span in treatment of women to go along with the huge span of time that passed during the writing of the Bible. Thank you for the other references. I have also been told that there is an excellent book on this entire thread of converstaion called Slavery, Women and Homosexuality that I am going to have to check out. | ||||||
2 | So should your wife wear a headcovering? | 1 Pet 3:1 | joyduncan | 124604 | ||
It totally makes sense to me, but I can see how a homosexual could question it. He might ask "What's to say that your headcovering verses are cultural, and my homosexual issues are not? You are!" he might say. Though it would sould ridiculous to us, he might have an argument. I'm going to be thinking about this more and more in my reading of the Word. My biggest problem is the subjectivity - use the cultural argument sparingly - one might say why don't we just use it for gender or sexual issues ??? As I search for black and white, for clear-cut answers, I am reminded of how futile even awesome and convincing apologetics can be - it does, eventually, all come down to faith. |
||||||
3 | Grey? | 1 Pet 3:1 | joyduncan | 124596 | ||
Ok - I am submitting to my husband here - he says the color is spelled gray - Grey, is as in Earl Grey Tea. I guess the Bible leaves this area intentionally gray, eh? |
||||||
4 | Grey? | 1 Pet 3:1 | joyduncan | 124576 | ||
Ok - I am submitting to my husband here - he says the color is spelled gray - Grey, is as in Earl Grey Tea. I guess the Bible leaves this area intentionally gray, eh? |
||||||
5 | How literal do we go? | 1 Pet 3:1 | joyduncan | 124575 | ||
It would be giving some directions to the husbands to treat their wives as humans, other Christians, not as property. It would remind the husbands that they should see their wives in a new light - that they should see them as God sees them, not as their culture would see them. It also sounds a little like it is trying to convince the men that they shouldn't feel embarassed in loving his wife in this way - because - loving your wife is like loving yourself - you are not going soft - it's a good thing. I think that the regulation of supression goes along with both these verses as well as the verses which speak of submission. The ultimate aim does make sense - the aim of the love is the sanctification of his wife - but the supression is answered not by the aim of the love, but by the love in general, itself. I am thinking as I write here, but that is my initial reaction. | ||||||
6 | Still looking for black and white | 1 Pet 3:1 | joyduncan | 124564 | ||
Ed - my thoughts exactly! A line has to be drawn - and by the Word itself - or we are not far from explaining away most of the Bible. It's hard though - that really puts us in a tough spot - it would seem that even most Evangelical churches do some "explaining away" - such as with no head-coverings, women speaking in church, etc. I guess I was hoping that a different line could be specified - a very clear, Bible-supported, line which would give us more direction as to when God would have us to apply the principles vs. the "literal meaning" of the texts. I feel like I may have learned something about this in a college class - like Inductive Bible Study or something - I seem to have forgotten all of that - where's the seminary student out there? | ||||||
7 | How literal do we go? | 1 Pet 3:1 | joyduncan | 124517 | ||
I am so glad that there is another woman in on this with me! Thank you for your support! Are there any more women out there? | ||||||
8 | How literal do we go? | 1 Pet 3:1 | joyduncan | 124516 | ||
I'm sorry - I must not be communicating correctly - I didn't mean to say that the Greek word for submission here meant supression, rather that the unspoken truth there was that there MOST CERTAINLY was a supression of women - and from what I have read, it's not like America before women had the right to vote - it was - YOU ARE YOUR HUSBAND's PROPERTY - as is his slave, his child, and his camel. It was probably very similar to the Taliban's treatment of their women. We cringe at that when we see it today but forget about that major part of the picture when we read the verses. I am wondering why we don't see that Paul was trying to regulate women within this cruel system (very similar to slavery). He could regulate their actions by the directives given to submit, and therefore also stop the fall-out that would have occured if the men of the day saw that "this new Jesus religion" was one that caused their slaves to stop working or their wives to get the idea that they could buck the patriarchal gender roles of the day. | ||||||
9 | How literal do we go? | 1 Pet 3:1 | joyduncan | 124485 | ||
I totally agree with you. But I was thinking the same thing with regard to "supression of women" - it does not support it, nor did it abolish it - it regulated it with the submission passages. | ||||||