J.B.Katz said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Interesting article, probably an interesting book. Many denominations teach women should submit to the authority of men. If you don't know about that you haven't been paying attention.

The idea of a woman in the Bible is interesting, women having contributed either next to nothing, or nothing, to the text. Entirely from a man's point of view. It's not surprising that women are often taught that they have less of a role in the church than men. Certainly it was like that in both old and new testaments.

It is a rather newfangled thing that society is striving for actual equality. It has happened before in a few places, but never on this scale. Given the role of women in the Bible, and most religions, not surprising.

---

Appreciate your actually dealing with the subject of this article.

This is a religion and politics board and I had hoped for a substantive discussion than didn't immediately descend into bashing women or crude jokes about gender uncertainty, which maybe afflicts 2 percent of the population, some of whom are born with both male and female features. Those poor kids face enough of a challenge w/out *******s implying they're freaks for a developmental abnormality they can't help. How that kind of nastiness and filth comes from the mouth of anyone who purports to love Christ is a mystery to me.


Christianity was radical at the time it began because women did take leadership roles. Subsequent teachings, especially after the Catholic church became the established power in Christendom, and possibly the selection of books to include in the biblical canon diminished that role, but it's clear from the book of Acts and some epistles.

There are also two creation stories, one much older than the other. The older story has males and females created at the same time and doesn't imply that women are relegated to a companion or helpmate role. The first story says God created people and that they were the last thing he created. The second says God create man first then everything else and then a woman. Ppl whose faith is hinged on Biblical inerrancy are thus foiled in the first two chapters of Genesis.

I started grad school at a time when women were still new to professional schools that didn't involve nursing or teaching-they only made up a 4th of law students and fewer business students and still had lesser job prospects (although not as bad as Sandra Day O'Connor, who graduated third in her class at Stanford Law and netted only a marriage proposal from William Rehnquist, who was first in the class, and couldn't get a job except as a legal secretary). My children can't imagine a time when women weren't admitted to colleges and graduate programs in equal numbers. Evangelicals are fighting an uphill battle on the role of women in society. They've also made the same mistake as the Catholics by disregarding reports of domestic abuse or rape or blaming women b/c the power dynamic made that possible. If Barr's book doesn't spark a discussion and examination of how evangelical churches treat women--and from this thread, it looks like it won't, at least among hard-liner men--at least it can serve as a beacon to women that they shouldn't and don't have to tolerate that treatment.

---

I see nothing in Genesis 1 that says man and woman were created at the same time.. That is based purely on assumption on your part.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Interesting article, probably an interesting book. Many denominations teach women should submit to the authority of men. If you don't know about that you haven't been paying attention.

The idea of a woman in the Bible is interesting, women having contributed either next to nothing, or nothing, to the text. Entirely from a man's point of view. It's not surprising that women are often taught that they have less of a role in the church than men. Certainly it was like that in both old and new testaments.

It is a rather newfangled thing that society is striving for actual equality. It has happened before in a few places, but never on this scale. Given the role of women in the Bible, and most religions, not surprising.

---

Appreciate your actually dealing with the subject of this article.

This is a religion and politics board and I had hoped for a substantive discussion than didn't immediately descend into bashing women or crude jokes about gender uncertainty, which maybe afflicts 2 percent of the population, some of whom are born with both male and female features. Those poor kids face enough of a challenge w/out *******s implying they're freaks for a developmental abnormality they can't help. How that kind of nastiness and filth comes from the mouth of anyone who purports to love Christ is a mystery to me.


Christianity was radical at the time it began because women did take leadership roles. Subsequent teachings, especially after the Catholic church became the established power in Christendom, and possibly the selection of books to include in the biblical canon diminished that role, but it's clear from the book of Acts and some epistles.

There are also two creation stories, one much older than the other. The older story has males and females created at the same time and doesn't imply that women are relegated to a companion or helpmate role. The first story says God created people and that they were the last thing he created. The second says God create man first then everything else and then a woman. Ppl whose faith is hinged on Biblical inerrancy are thus foiled in the first two chapters of Genesis.

I started grad school at a time when women were still new to professional schools that didn't involve nursing or teaching-they only made up a 4th of law students and fewer business students and still had lesser job prospects (although not as bad as Sandra Day O'Connor, who graduated third in her class at Stanford Law and netted only a marriage proposal from William Rehnquist, who was first in the class, and couldn't get a job except as a legal secretary). My children can't imagine a time when women weren't admitted to colleges and graduate programs in equal numbers. Evangelicals are fighting an uphill battle on the role of women in society. They've also made the same mistake as the Catholics by disregarding reports of domestic abuse or rape or blaming women b/c the power dynamic made that possible. If Barr's book doesn't spark a discussion and examination of how evangelical churches treat women--and from this thread, it looks like it won't, at least among hard-liner men--at least it can serve as a beacon to women that they shouldn't and don't have to tolerate that treatment.

---

I see nothing in Genesis 1 that says man and woman were created at the same time.. That is based purely on assumption on your part.

---

Many people don't understand painting in broad strokes first and adding detail later in the narrative, not the chronology.

canoso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Interesting article, probably an interesting book. Many denominations teach women should submit to the authority of men. If you don't know about that you haven't been paying attention.

The idea of a woman in the Bible is interesting, women having contributed either next to nothing, or nothing, to the text. Entirely from a man's point of view. It's not surprising that women are often taught that they have less of a role in the church than men. Certainly it was like that in both old and new testaments.

It is a rather newfangled thing that society is striving for actual equality. It has happened before in a few places, but never on this scale. Given the role of women in the Bible, and most religions, not surprising.

---

Appreciate your actually dealing with the subject of this article.

This is a religion and politics board and I had hoped for a substantive discussion than didn't immediately descend into bashing women or crude jokes about gender uncertainty, which maybe afflicts 2 percent of the population, some of whom are born with both male and female features. Those poor kids face enough of a challenge w/out *******s implying they're freaks for a developmental abnormality they can't help. How that kind of nastiness and filth comes from the mouth of anyone who purports to love Christ is a mystery to me.


Christianity was radical at the time it began because women did take leadership roles. Subsequent teachings, especially after the Catholic church became the established power in Christendom, and possibly the selection of books to include in the biblical canon diminished that role, but it's clear from the book of Acts and some epistles.

There are also two creation stories, one much older than the other. The older story has males and females created at the same time and doesn't imply that women are relegated to a companion or helpmate role. The first story says God created people and that they were the last thing he created. The second says God create man first then everything else and then a woman. Ppl whose faith is hinged on Biblical inerrancy are thus foiled in the first two chapters of Genesis.

I started grad school at a time when women were still new to professional schools that didn't involve nursing or teaching-they only made up a 4th of law students and fewer business students and still had lesser job prospects (although not as bad as Sandra Day O'Connor, who graduated third in her class at Stanford Law and netted only a marriage proposal from William Rehnquist, who was first in the class, and couldn't get a job except as a legal secretary). My children can't imagine a time when women weren't admitted to colleges and graduate programs in equal numbers. Evangelicals are fighting an uphill battle on the role of women in society. They've also made the same mistake as the Catholics by disregarding reports of domestic abuse or rape or blaming women b/c the power dynamic made that possible. If Barr's book doesn't spark a discussion and examination of how evangelical churches treat women--and from this thread, it looks like it won't, at least among hard-liner men--at least it can serve as a beacon to women that they shouldn't and don't have to tolerate that treatment.

---

I see nothing in Genesis 1 that says man and woman were created at the same time.. That is based purely on assumption on your part.

---

Many people don't understand painting in broad strokes first and adding detail later in the narrative, not the chronology.

---

Right. Genesis one reads (NKJV), "So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."

God created man. God created him. Then God created male and female. God created them. This was the sixth day.

Genesis 2 elaborates. God created man outside of Eden. God brought man into Eden. A suitable helper was not found for him. God caused a sleep to come on the man, took a rib, formed the woman, and introduced the man and the woman. God created them male and female. The first marriage--arranged and performed by God. All on the sixth day.

J.B.Katz said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Interesting article, probably an interesting book. Many denominations teach women should submit to the authority of men. If you don't know about that you haven't been paying attention.

The idea of a woman in the Bible is interesting, women having contributed either next to nothing, or nothing, to the text. Entirely from a man's point of view. It's not surprising that women are often taught that they have less of a role in the church than men. Certainly it was like that in both old and new testaments.

It is a rather newfangled thing that society is striving for actual equality. It has happened before in a few places, but never on this scale. Given the role of women in the Bible, and most religions, not surprising.

---

Appreciate your actually dealing with the subject of this article.

This is a religion and politics board and I had hoped for a substantive discussion than didn't immediately descend into bashing women or crude jokes about gender uncertainty, which maybe afflicts 2 percent of the population, some of whom are born with both male and female features. Those poor kids face enough of a challenge w/out *******s implying they're freaks for a developmental abnormality they can't help. How that kind of nastiness and filth comes from the mouth of anyone who purports to love Christ is a mystery to me.


Christianity was radical at the time it began because women did take leadership roles. Subsequent teachings, especially after the Catholic church became the established power in Christendom, and possibly the selection of books to include in the biblical canon diminished that role, but it's clear from the book of Acts and some epistles.

There are also two creation stories, one much older than the other. The older story has males and females created at the same time and doesn't imply that women are relegated to a companion or helpmate role. The first story says God created people and that they were the last thing he created. The second says God create man first then everything else and then a woman. Ppl whose faith is hinged on Biblical inerrancy are thus foiled in the first two chapters of Genesis.

I started grad school at a time when women were still new to professional schools that didn't involve nursing or teaching-they only made up a 4th of law students and fewer business students and still had lesser job prospects (although not as bad as Sandra Day O'Connor, who graduated third in her class at Stanford Law and netted only a marriage proposal from William Rehnquist, who was first in the class, and couldn't get a job except as a legal secretary). My children can't imagine a time when women weren't admitted to colleges and graduate programs in equal numbers. Evangelicals are fighting an uphill battle on the role of women in society. They've also made the same mistake as the Catholics by disregarding reports of domestic abuse or rape or blaming women b/c the power dynamic made that possible. If Barr's book doesn't spark a discussion and examination of how evangelical churches treat women--and from this thread, it looks like it won't, at least among hard-liner men--at least it can serve as a beacon to women that they shouldn't and don't have to tolerate that treatment.

---

You are hitting alot of different points in this post.

1. No one is bashing women on this thread. Not even close.

2. The massive push to normalize transgenderism comes after the equality massive top down media/capitalist/neo-liberal successful push to legitimize and normalize homosexuality. Those efforts were successful. If you don't think normalizing transgenderism, especially Male to Female transgenderism, won't have enormous effects on regular women in the future you are gravely mistaken.

3. You are correct that most people can barely remember a time when women were not fully integrated into the work force and modern capitalist society. If fact today they dominate the modern university campus. The vast majority of graduates today are women and not men. Of course the massive entrance of women to the working world has more to do with Wall St. and the capitalistic system wanting more workers than it does anything to do with "making women happy". But that is a subject for another day.

---

The treatment of women in evangelical churches has absolutely nothing to do with transgenderism. Go fish.

---

Well that was a slight digression from the main topic.

So lets stick to the topic.

Where is your evidence that "women were taught that they mattered less to God than men did" heresy is actually being taught in the majority of evangelical churches?

---

Yes, let's.

Barr's article questions the orthodoxy explained in this article, which also shows some of the weaknesses of the orthodoxy and how far you have to stretch to get to the rigid 1950s roles evangelicals want to claim the Bible supports.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2018/09/21/what-draws-women-religion-that-says-men-should-be-charge/

---

You can just stop right there.

You think the 1950s had "ridged roles"....as compared to every single other era of human history?

What about the early 1800s when the average family lived on less than a dollar a day...the United Nations cut off for absolute poverty today. When most people had never travelled more than 20 miles from their birth place.

What about the 1500s during the 30 years war?

What about 1066?

What about the past 20,000+ years that humans have been on this planet.

When some talks about the "rigidness" of the 1950s you know you are fundamentally dealing with an unserious person.

The 1950s saw the introduction of domestic appliances, antibiotics, and a host of other labor saving innovations.

Compared to the rest of human history is was hands down the most free and cushy for women, as well as for men....compared to all other previous centuries of human existence.


You also said Christianity was radical at the time for having women in leadership? WHAT

Have you never heard of the cult of Dionysus that was all over the Greco-Roman world? Who's leadership was always women. Or the Vestal virgins in Rome? Or the cults of Hera, Athena, etc?

https://www.nytimes.com/1985/04/30/science/women-s-cults-of-antiquity-the-veil-rises.html

https://womeninantiquity.wordpress.com/2018/11/29/the-cults-of-hera/

https://www.ancientpages.com/2016/07/27/role-priests-priestesses-ancient-greece/

"In ancient Greece, both men and women could become priests and priestesses. In most cases, it was a custom that priests were the same sex as the god they served. Most women who became priestesses were either virgins or beyond child bearing age."

Christianity being a sky-god worshiping religion of Abrahamic origin was far far more patriarchal than most of the earth mother religions of the pagan world.

In 40 A.D a female priest would have been a normal thing in the Mediterranean world...by 400 A.D. it would have been an oxymoron.

Indeed the rise of Christianity crushed female spiritual leadership and authority.

Redbrickbear said:

---

"For too many years, she said, she had stayed silent about the fact that women were taught that they mattered less to God than men did"

She is either making this up in her head or she spent years going to a church that does not teach the Bible or Christianity.

"This is not about deconstructing faith; its about deconstructing culture," Barr said.

Oh we know....and Barr is decades late to that party.

---

She is correct in this.

Porteroso said:

---

Interesting article, probably an interesting book. Many denominations teach women should submit to the authority of men. If you don't know about that you haven't been paying attention.

The idea of a woman in the Bible is interesting, women having contributed either next to nothing, or nothing, to the text. Entirely from a man's point of view. It's not surprising that women are often taught that they have less of a role in the church than men. Certainly it was like that in both old and new testaments.

It is a rather newfangled thing that society is striving for actual equality. It has happened before in a few places, but never on this scale. Given the role of women in the Bible, and most religions, not surprising.

---

Our NT seminar voted that Priscilla wrote Hebrews!

C. Jordan said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

"For too many years, she said, she had stayed silent about the fact that women were taught that they mattered less to God than men did"

---

What a shame she went to such a bad church for so many years that doesn't teach scriptural truth.

---

It was commonly taught in conservative evangelical churches.

So either you didn't grow up in that kind of church or yours was an outlier.

---

I highly doubt my small 3,000 person town 1st Baptist Church was an outlier.

We never ever were taught that women mattered less to God than men.

Stop engaging in dangerous, unfounded, and incorrect anti-conservative rhetoric.

Canon said:

---

A woman needs to understand biblical/Christian history like a fish needs a bicycle.....at least I think that's the quote.

---

= why Barr's book is needed

J.B.Katz said:

---

Canon said:

---

A woman needs to understand biblical/Christian history like a fish needs a bicycle.....at least I think that's the quote.

---

= why Barr's book is needed

---

To teach inaccuracies to bolster misconceptions by the incurious? No.

Redbrickbear said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

"For too many years, she said, she had stayed silent about the fact that women were taught that they mattered less to God than men did"

---

What a shame she went to such a bad church for so many years that doesn't teach scriptural truth.

---

It was commonly taught in conservative evangelical churches.

So either you didn't grow up in that kind of church or yours was an outlier.

---

I highly doubt my small 3,000 person town 1st Baptist Church was an outlier.

We never ever were taught that women mattered less to God than men.

Stop engaging in dangerous, unfounded, and incorrect anti-conservative rhetoric.

---

Maybe that's not how the women of your church perceived it.

I found out (sometimes to my injury!) that my wife perceives things differently than I do!

J.B.Katz said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Interesting article, probably an interesting book. Many denominations teach women should submit to the authority of men. If you don't know about that you haven't been paying attention.

The idea of a woman in the Bible is interesting, women having contributed either next to nothing, or nothing, to the text. Entirely from a man's point of view. It's not surprising that women are often taught that they have less of a role in the church than men. Certainly it was like that in both old and new testaments.

It is a rather newfangled thing that society is striving for actual equality. It has happened before in a few places, but never on this scale. Given the role of women in the Bible, and most religions, not surprising.

---

Appreciate your actually dealing with the subject of this article.

This is a religion and politics board and I had hoped for a substantive discussion than didn't immediately descend into bashing women or crude jokes about gender uncertainty, which maybe afflicts 2 percent of the population, some of whom are born with both male and female features. Those poor kids face enough of a challenge w/out *******s implying they're freaks for a developmental abnormality they can't help. How that kind of nastiness and filth comes from the mouth of anyone who purports to love Christ is a mystery to me.


Christianity was radical at the time it began because women did take leadership roles. Subsequent teachings, especially after the Catholic church became the established power in Christendom, and possibly the selection of books to include in the biblical canon diminished that role, but it's clear from the book of Acts and some epistles.

There are also two creation stories, one much older than the other. The older story has males and females created at the same time and doesn't imply that women are relegated to a companion or helpmate role. The first story says God created people and that they were the last thing he created. The second says God create man first then everything else and then a woman. Ppl whose faith is hinged on Biblical inerrancy are thus foiled in the first two chapters of Genesis.

I started grad school at a time when women were still new to professional schools that didn't involve nursing or teaching-they only made up a 4th of law students and fewer business students and still had lesser job prospects (although not as bad as Sandra Day O'Connor, who graduated third in her class at Stanford Law and netted only a marriage proposal from William Rehnquist, who was first in the class, and couldn't get a job except as a legal secretary). My children can't imagine a time when women weren't admitted to colleges and graduate programs in equal numbers. Evangelicals are fighting an uphill battle on the role of women in society. They've also made the same mistake as the Catholics by disregarding reports of domestic abuse or rape or blaming women b/c the power dynamic made that possible. If Barr's book doesn't spark a discussion and examination of how evangelical churches treat women--and from this thread, it looks like it won't, at least among hard-liner men--at least it can serve as a beacon to women that they shouldn't and don't have to tolerate that treatment.

---

You are hitting alot of different points in this post.

1. No one is bashing women on this thread. Not even close.

2. The massive push to normalize transgenderism comes after the equality massive top down media/capitalist/neo-liberal successful push to legitimize and normalize homosexuality. Those efforts were successful. If you don't think normalizing transgenderism, especially Male to Female transgenderism, won't have enormous effects on regular women in the future you are gravely mistaken.

3. You are correct that most people can barely remember a time when women were not fully integrated into the work force and modern capitalist society. If fact today they dominate the modern university campus. The vast majority of graduates today are women and not men. Of course the massive entrance of women to the working world has more to do with Wall St. and the capitalistic system wanting more workers than it does anything to do with "making women happy". But that is a subject for another day.

---

The treatment of women in evangelical churches has absolutely nothing to do with transgenderism. Go fish.

---

But it does. It's at least questionable whether women can be equally valued in a society that normalizes LGBT lifestyles.

Sam Lowry said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Interesting article, probably an interesting book. Many denominations teach women should submit to the authority of men. If you don't know about that you haven't been paying attention.

The idea of a woman in the Bible is interesting, women having contributed either next to nothing, or nothing, to the text. Entirely from a man's point of view. It's not surprising that women are often taught that they have less of a role in the church than men. Certainly it was like that in both old and new testaments.

It is a rather newfangled thing that society is striving for actual equality. It has happened before in a few places, but never on this scale. Given the role of women in the Bible, and most religions, not surprising.

---

Appreciate your actually dealing with the subject of this article.

This is a religion and politics board and I had hoped for a substantive discussion than didn't immediately descend into bashing women or crude jokes about gender uncertainty, which maybe afflicts 2 percent of the population, some of whom are born with both male and female features. Those poor kids face enough of a challenge w/out *******s implying they're freaks for a developmental abnormality they can't help. How that kind of nastiness and filth comes from the mouth of anyone who purports to love Christ is a mystery to me.


Christianity was radical at the time it began because women did take leadership roles. Subsequent teachings, especially after the Catholic church became the established power in Christendom, and possibly the selection of books to include in the biblical canon diminished that role, but it's clear from the book of Acts and some epistles.

There are also two creation stories, one much older than the other. The older story has males and females created at the same time and doesn't imply that women are relegated to a companion or helpmate role. The first story says God created people and that they were the last thing he created. The second says God create man first then everything else and then a woman. Ppl whose faith is hinged on Biblical inerrancy are thus foiled in the first two chapters of Genesis.

I started grad school at a time when women were still new to professional schools that didn't involve nursing or teaching-they only made up a 4th of law students and fewer business students and still had lesser job prospects (although not as bad as Sandra Day O'Connor, who graduated third in her class at Stanford Law and netted only a marriage proposal from William Rehnquist, who was first in the class, and couldn't get a job except as a legal secretary). My children can't imagine a time when women weren't admitted to colleges and graduate programs in equal numbers. Evangelicals are fighting an uphill battle on the role of women in society. They've also made the same mistake as the Catholics by disregarding reports of domestic abuse or rape or blaming women b/c the power dynamic made that possible. If Barr's book doesn't spark a discussion and examination of how evangelical churches treat women--and from this thread, it looks like it won't, at least among hard-liner men--at least it can serve as a beacon to women that they shouldn't and don't have to tolerate that treatment.

---

You are hitting alot of different points in this post.

1. No one is bashing women on this thread. Not even close.

2. The massive push to normalize transgenderism comes after the equality massive top down media/capitalist/neo-liberal successful push to legitimize and normalize homosexuality. Those efforts were successful. If you don't think normalizing transgenderism, especially Male to Female transgenderism, won't have enormous effects on regular women in the future you are gravely mistaken.

3. You are correct that most people can barely remember a time when women were not fully integrated into the work force and modern capitalist society. If fact today they dominate the modern university campus. The vast majority of graduates today are women and not men. Of course the massive entrance of women to the working world has more to do with Wall St. and the capitalistic system wanting more workers than it does anything to do with "making women happy". But that is a subject for another day.

---

The treatment of women in evangelical churches has absolutely nothing to do with transgenderism. Go fish.

---

But it does. It's at least questionable whether women can be equally valued in a society that normalizes LGBT lifestyles.

---

Men ARE women and women ARE men, to jinx. Any distinction between the two (or infinite) is bigoted.

quash said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

"For too many years, she said, she had stayed silent about the fact that women were taught that they mattered less to God than men did"

She is either making this up in her head or she spent years going to a church that does not teach the Bible or Christianity.

---

Sounds like she attended with Carlos Cruz.

---

Probably not. Women in my life know they are cherished. They don't have to be functionally similar in every endeavor to be special.

Carlos Cruz said:

---

quash said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

"For too many years, she said, she had stayed silent about the fact that women were taught that they mattered less to God than men did"

She is either making this up in her head or she spent years going to a church that does not teach the Bible or Christianity.

---

Sounds like she attended with Carlos Cruz.

---

Probably not. Women in my life know they are cherished. They don't have to be functionally similar in every endeavor to be special.

---

"There are reasons women should not teach men in church or have authority over them."

Telling them to shut up in church while doing all this cherishing is rank condescension. It is exactly like protecting women from the male gaze by covering them in a hijab. "For their own good."