Hi Chris,

One claim of Christianity is that, unlike most world religions, Christians give due status and respect to women.

i think it is fair to say that the New Testament on average was ahead of its time on the subject of women's rights.  The time in question was almost two thousand years ago, so i would question its usefulness as a contemporary guide to sexual politics, but credit where credit is due.  It was pretty good on that subject and for that time, but we have surpassed the insights contained within it since then.

A Christian friend of mine, holding to certain passages of the Bible (quoted below), protests that Christians do not follow God's teaching on the subjection of women.

There is a diversity of opinion about the status of women expressed in the New Testament, so whatever your standpoint on the subject you can find a supporting verse or two.  The church has traditionally been a male dominated organisation, and many of those men have been considerably less progressive on the subject of womens rights than Jesus seems to have been.  That's had an impact (for instance, the Catholic church excommunicates women who try to become priests but not priests who rape small children.  For an organisation claiming to be a moral beacon this is clear evidence of a confusion of priorities).  No gospel written by a woman - and we know that there were some which could have been elligible - was included in the canon, selected by men.  Even now, US protestant conservatives collaborate with catholics and muslims at the UN to torpedo advances in womens rights.  Is that true to the recorded message of Jesus?

1 Corinthians 14:34
Women should be silent during the church meetings. It is not proper for them to speak. They should be submissive, just as the law says.

You know many people think that this verse is an interpolation?  There are also several of Paul's epistles, notably the more misogynistic ones, which were probably not written by him.  i think Paul may get some unfairly bad press on the subject of women.

These quotes, of course, have context.

Absolutely they do.  The context of greatest importance seems to me to be that, whoever they were written by, they were culturally removed from todays society by almost two millenia.  That to me undermines the assumption that these words must mean something important for our lives today.

I care for this couple, and want to be able to speak knowledgeably to the husband.

A noble goal.  My approach is probably not going to be helpful in that regard.   

(This also seems a good subject to generate debate!)

There, on the other hand, i can help you. 

Regards,
Dan

EB,

"It was pretty good on that subject and for that time, but we have surpassed the insights contained within it since then."

I'd contend we're barely adequate (depending on if you're in the US) myself, and in liberal feminists case, just making the same mistakes on the opposite side of the spectrum.

i didn't say we were perfect, or that the intentions of everyone within the feminist movement are perfect.  However, your characterisation of liberal feminism as an oppressive or supremacist ideology is a fairly natural and obvious manifestation of male anxiety about loss of their traditional status in society.  The idea of women being men's equals is very threatening to some people.

Some people think everything in the Bible is just an interpolation written 50 years ago.

i'm not sure how this palpably false statement addresses the serious historical scholarship which calls into question Paul's authorship of Timothy 1 and 2 (for instance).  i assume you wouldn't question the fact that texts exist which claim to be written by Paul but were obviously not?  Everyone agrees that the ones which were excluded from the canon are forgeries, but when questions are raised about the possibility of a few pseudoepigraphica having found their way into the New Testament you cling to the (foolish) assumption of infallibility on the part of the Council of Nicea and start tossing around strawmen which are as irrelevant as they are false.  Poor show EB!

Yeah, because basic family interaction and human nature has changed sooooo much in two thousand years. *rolls eyes*

The status of women has changed.  If you notice, that was the title of the thread.

Chris,

I want to be cautious here - "four stars" would indicate earned status on the forum.

Or possibly just a long-standing lack of something better to do in the evenings. 
 
I may be missing some dynamics that are typical, but my observation is that End Bringer and Dannyboy have a long-running dialogue that picked up here, under this thread. As such, it is valuable - certain to be educational.

Maybe.  My feeling is, and this relates to the dilemma you have with your friend, that peoples beliefs are far less rationally-based than we like to think.  Numerous psychological experiments have shown that people who are presented with information that entails a certain belief (that person X is a thief, for example) will still often maintain that belief after it is revealed that the initial information was inaccurate.  They simply use other reasons to justify it.  The psychologist Jonathon Haidt developed the "wag the dog" theory to explain this (and a lot of other) research.  Think of one's belief system as a dog, and the arguments we make in support of that belief system as the wagging tail.  We tend to think of those arguments as being the underlying reason for our beliefs, but in fact they are generated by our belief system - the dog.  When one person presents their arguments to another person in the hopes of changing their beliefs it is much the same kind of mistake as if i said "i observe that when the dog is happy he wags his tail, therefore i can make him happy by physically moving his tail back and forth".

i'm not saying that rationality has no effect on what we believe, but it is at best only one of many active forces in play.  Taking religious affiliation as an example, it might as well be a genetically inherited trait, so likely is it worldwide that a child born into a Muslim family in a Muslim country will grow up convinced of the rationality of believing the Koran to be the perfect word of God (you can substitute any religion you like there).  Culture and upbringing are obviously strongly causative of what we eventually come to think we believe due to rational processes.

All this argues fairly strongly for the pointlessness of forums like this, and i would say that anyone who comes here seeking to make converts is probably wasting their time.  However, there are some good reasons for debating your beliefs; one is that it can be fun, but the main one i see is that it is only by trying our best to overcome the influences of culture, upbringing and social pressure on our beliefs that we can maximise the effect that rationality has on them, and one of the ways that we can do that is to expose ourselves to the beliefs of others.  In effect, if you wag the dogs' tail hard enough it may eventually get to like it. 

Anyway, yes, there is a long-standing dialogue between EB and myself, but whether it serves any purpose except getting us both cathartically annoyed with the opposite side of the ideological spectrum, i cannot say.  i certainly can't guarantee any enlightenment for spectators.

I will be talking to my friend, the husband. He is a scientist with a piercing intellect (though I think he's under illusion in some things). I will not be able to speak of "cherry picking" to any extent. He will be sure to take me back to the quotes I opened with, insisting on the infallibility of scripture. (Dannyboy, gentleman that he is, does not belittle those of us who so reverence the Bible.)  I will be challenged to coax my friend, rather than overpower him.

This is the problem that i identified above.  People's beliefs are rarely swayed by rational argument, and even the most intellectually brilliant people who have ever lived are not immune from this.  Isaac Newton, for example, was firmly convinced of all kinds of wacky things which none of us here would consider sensible (i'm assuming that there are no self-appointed Arian prophets reading).  To be totally pessimistic for a moment, if your friend selects these particular biblical verses it is probably because they fit in with his wants, needs and wishes.  So when you say to him, in effect, "Don't believe as you believe, believe as i believe" (which is a tall enough order), the task is complicated by the fact that you are also asking him to adopt a belief which would clash with his sense of how the world should be.  Most people need to find some reason to believe that they are better than others, and for men, a male-centric reading of scripture is one way of achieving that, and is not easily cast aside without the psychological discomfort of realising that one of the reasons you have to feel good about yourself is factually incorrect.

Sooo... Dannyboy - continue to point out why it is illogical (or worse) to hold to the infallibility of the Bible. You seem to be a patient person, and I will not be easily swayed.

That's a large subject for a single thread, and i find the science/art of changing people's minds to be a much more useful and interesting topic given your current problem.  If you have any specific questions about my beliefs, or why i think i believe the things i do then i am happy to address them, but bear in mind that you may just be seeing the wagging of an atheist dog's tail.

Dan

Chris,

Briefly...

A question to you (the resident atheist?):
How have you experienced this in your life, the discomfort of


In many ways.  i think that a lot of these things are implicit self-beliefs.  Most of us, unless we are on some kind of self-help program, do not walk around deliberately thinking to ourselves "i am attractive, clever and wonderful!", but we do tend to rate ourselves as being less obnoxious, prejudiced, unappealing and badly dressed in general than the next person (unless we have very poor self-esteem).  So when something happens, usually some sort of rejection by another person to dent the credibility of those implicit beliefs, we experience it as a deeply unpleasant event.  It generates shame, which is best described as the fear that something about ourselves makes us unworthy of love or attention.  i have experienced shame resulting from some kind of rejection on numerous occasions, whether professionally or socially, and so i know its sting.  Very few people are sufficiently secure in themselves to go through such an experience willingly.

i look at what people have invested in a belief as a measure of how difficult it would be for them to give it up.  How likely is it, for example, that Joseph Ratzinger will tonight renounce catholicism and become an atheist/muslim/hindu?  To do so would be to admit that his whole life up to this point has been a colossal waste of time.  The senseless perpetuation of a lie.

Notice what happens when people are forced to confront their own errors.  Often, they fabricate reasons why they were and still are correct (and therefore worthy).  The Harold Camping phenomenon is instructive of this process.  i don't know whether you have seen this clip, which exemplifies the lengths to which people will go to avoid the discomfort we have spoken of.  i suspect that a similar dynamic may have played a role in the interpretation a group of first century Jews put upon the ignominious death of their beloved leader, in an effort to avoid the idea that they had put aside their nets to follow someone who had turned out to be mortal after all.

But that's just my theory.   

That wasn't quite as brief as i intended.

Dan

i didn't say we were perfect, or that the intentions of everyone within the feminist movement are perfect.  However, your characterisation of liberal feminism as an oppressive or supremacist ideology is a fairly natural and obvious manifestation of male anxiety about loss of their traditional status in society.  The idea of women being men's equals is very threatening to some people

*yawn* And your response simply reinforces the sterotypical liberal attitude of thinking they know what is "really going on" that's completely divorced from what is "actually" said. Basicly because it misses the point that with liberal feminism it's not about "equality" anymore. It's about 'them' getting the bigger priviledges and opportunities based on status rather than merit. Showing that in the end they're fine with 'inequality' so long as it's they who benefit.

i'm not sure how this palpably false statement addresses the serious historical scholarship which calls into question Paul's authorship of Timothy 1 and 2 (for instance).  i assume you wouldn't question the fact that texts exist which claim to be written by Paul but were obviously not?  Everyone agrees that the ones which were excluded from the canon are forgeries, but when questions are raised about the possibility of a few pseudoepigraphica having found their way into the New Testament you cling to the (foolish) assumption of infallibility on the part of the Council of Nicea and start tossing around strawmen which are as irrelevant as they are false.  Poor show EB!

It actually highlights the fact that when it comes to the bible many people will take any opportunity to call it's credibility into question (like the Gospels themselves). And as an atheist your stance is pretty obviously going to be to cling to the (laughable) assumption that people 2,000 years removed from the time of events knows better than people who actually lived back then.

The status of women has changed.  If you notice, that was the title of the thread.

With comparison to what? A single nation now being compared to a single nation at a certain time? Are we comparing the US or the UK to the Roman Empire or the Babylonian? Or is this completely within the purview of US history? Where equality for women and races were historically advocated in Western societies because of the Scripture's declarations of equality. I'm sure you'll find many nations in the past that had a comparable status to women back then. Which is why I simply roll my eyes at the notion that we've "surpassed" anything when nothing is truly new under the sun when it comes to human nature and behaviour. It merely slaps on a fresh coat of paint every once in awhile.

Short Art--

In response to your original post......it may be constructive to consider what the Biblical ideas of "authority" and "submission" are. When we or others read those words we may understand them with a certain connotation....but is that the way they are intended? To get some greater context on "submission" in the Bible, you may want to check out Ephesians 5:21-33. Another point to consider: Jesus Himself submits to the Father (1 Corinthians 15:28, for example) and I've never heard anyone claim that it is somehow degrading to Him or doesn't give Him His due respect. Does "submission" mean that one is necessarily degraded or lessened by submitting? I would argue not.

I find this to be a fascinating topic...  I was a student in a religion class with Mr. Horvath 15 years ago so I am excited to chime in! 
To respond to Dan, I have trouble with the idea of looking into the Pauline Epistles and attempting to guess what was written by him and what was not.  I choose to accept that all letters written by Paul were in fact written by him.  Even if they were not, they are in the canon, and therefore deserve to be treated as God's Word. 
Looking more broadly, regarding the verses from the Pauline Epistles, they all have context which speaks of men showing respect to their wives, loving them as Christ loved the church.  A lot of the problem, as I understand it, is that men are behaving badly, and not respecting the women they are married to or not following the vows they agreed to. Think the former governator of California, Donald Trump, Kobe Bryant, John Edwards, Newt Gingrich, Bill Clinton, and the list could go on and on...  These are men that we have trusted as leaders, and although some were admonished, for the most part, they are still men of status today.  I think this represents a fundamental problem in how masculinity is represented in our culture, and this mentality should cause us to ponder how this has created such fertile ground for feminism. 
Finally, If Paul had such a problem with women in leadership, we must question Romans 16, which seems to mention women as deacons, apostles, and house church leaders.  I find it interesting how these passages are often overlooked...

Agreed, and welcome.

MrWalmsley,

I was a student in a religion class with Mr. Horvath 15 years ago so I am excited to chime in!

Cool.  Any embarrassing stories to share?  Don't be shy now. 
 
I have trouble with the idea of looking into the Pauline Epistles and attempting to guess what was written by him and what was not.  I choose to accept that all letters written by Paul were in fact written by him.  Even if they were not, they are in the canon, and therefore deserve to be treated as God's Word.

What i understand you to be saying here is that God has deliberately involved himself in human affairs in order to ensure that every word in the Bible is exactly what He wants us to have access to at any given stage in history (despite his apparent reluctance to intervene in the, some would say, more urgent and pressing matters of earthquakes, tornadoes and babies dying of miscellaneous causes).  On that basis, it doesn't matter who actually first wrote down the text of Titus or 1 Timothy, because its very inclusion in the canon means that God wants it there.

Maybe there's nothing wrong with closing yourself off to all historical scholarship related to your belief system, but it wouldn't sit well with me personally.  There are gospels in existence which also claim to be authored by Paul but didn't get included in the canon, and while it may be comfortable to believe that this is exactly the way God wants it to be (thus hermetically sealing your worldview from any evidence of possible error), that assumption makes your beliefs unfalisifiable and ultimately, i would argue, intellectually unsatisfying.

Let's say that tomorrow archaeologists in the Middle East uncover a brand new treasure trove of documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls variety.  And let's say that one of them provides good historical evidence that one of the Pauline Epistles was forged by a later writer.  It's hard to say that God wouldn't let that happen considering all the stuff that God apparently does let happen in the world.  Or let's say that evidence existed that there were many changes and alterations in the text of New Testament documents since they were first written [this evidence actually does exist].  Must those alterations also be part of God's plan?  Seems like it would have been better just to get it right from the start.

A lot of the problem, as I understand it, is that men are behaving badly, and not respecting the women they are married to or not following the vows they agreed to. Think the former governator of California, Donald Trump, Kobe Bryant, John Edwards, Newt Gingrich, Bill Clinton, and the list could go on and on...  These are men that we have trusted as leaders, and although some were admonished, for the most part, they are still men of status today.  I think this represents a fundamental problem in how masculinity is represented in our culture, and this mentality should cause us to ponder how this has created such fertile ground for feminism.

   i was totally with you up until the last line, which i understand to contain a certain disparagement of the feminist goals of equality which i would argue is really a part of the problem that you have otherwise eloquently identified.  In the UK (where i live) we are having a run of tabloid scandals regarding premiership soccer players being romantically linked to women other than their wives.  The bottom line is that men who have the opportunity to indulge the evolutionary drive to spread their seed as far as possible can rarely resist the temptation to do so.  This is not a laudable characteristic of our gender, and certain cultural factors have a tendancy to exacerbate it.

Finally, If Paul had such a problem with women in leadership, we must question Romans 16, which seems to mention women as deacons, apostles, and house church leaders.  I find it interesting how these passages are often overlooked...

Paul's inconsistency on this issue is exposed by contrasting those verse with 1 Corinthians 14:33–35.  That inconsistency is easier to understand if we allow the possibility that some of these things were not written by Paul, but why (in your worldview) would God put conflicting messages like this into His primary communication with mankind?  i am glad that you prioritise Romans 16 over 1 Corinthians 14, because (as i mentioned above) i believe that people select the verses that fit their wants and needs from the biblical smorgasbord, and your preference for the nicer verses probably means that you are a nice person.  However, there is no particular reason in a literalist view to take one verse as being any more binding or important than any other unless it contains some sort of explicit imperative to obey this over all else.  If the Bible is a historical document, containing differing perspectives, errors, omissions, later revisions and interpolations, then these questions become a little easier to answer.

Regards,
Dan