I'm glad you replied, Terry. I was hoping you would.

Unsurprisingly, you and I disagree about many things. In many cases I think it would be pointless to try to argue a specific point. For example, you most certainly know the American religious right so much better than I do, so how can I argue that you are wrong about what you say about it? All I can say is that the religious right looked antifeminist to me when I looked at it from outside. It did seem to me that very many of the measures that the religious right was asking for would circumscribe women's rights in society. I also noted that the religious right always seemed to refer to the Bible when they explained their reasons for wanting to change society this way. If people who seemed to want to make women less free were using the Bible to explain their reasons, then I wanted to read the Bible for myself to learn about the foundations for these antifeminists' claims.

I had grown up in a religious home, so it wasn't as if I was unfamiliar with the general and overall message of the Bible. I didn't approach the Bible as an ignorant novice. However, I wasn't sure what the Bible really and truly said about women, so I decided to read it to find out about that. Tell me, Terry - do you think it is wrong to read the Bible to learn about the Bible's views on a particular issue, when you are already familiar with the general and overall message of the Bible?

You do seem to misunderstand my reactions when it comes to abortions, and I want to put that right. I was not shocked that many people in America were strongly opposed to abortions. However, I saw a TV documentary which claimed that many of the same people who were opposed to abortions also wanted to cut down on the federal aid to unmarried mothers. In other words, the same people who wanted to make it impossible for women to terminate a pregnancy also wanted to make it harder for them to provide for their children. Now that shocked me. Because it seemed to me that if you were concerned with the well-being of children, then you would increase the federal aid to unmarried mothers at the same time as you made abortions illegal. If you made it harder for women to provide economically for kids that they didn't want in the first place, then you increased the risk that these kids would be condemned to a life of misery, didn't you? I strongly felt that if you want to force women to give birth to unwanted children, then at least you should help these women to provide for their kids.

Quote
quote:
It's no wonder, then, that someone like Paul the Apostle admonishes women again and again that they must be silent and obey.
-------

You're flat wrong on this one. Paul never told women to “be silent and obey.” The one time he admonished women to “be silent in the church” was in 1 Cor. 14. This was part of a passage where he was correcting abuses of spiritual gifts by the entire congregation, not just by some women.

And every time he told a wife to obey, he also told a husband to love. The two always go together.
Well, here is where I think you are wrong, Terry. There are several places in the New Testament where Paul admonishes women to be silent and obey:

Corinthians 14:

14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Corinthians 11:

11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
11:8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

(Please note that Paul says that the woman was created for sake of the man, but the man was not created for the sake of the woman.)

Ephesians 5:22-24:

22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

Colossians 3:18

18 Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

1 Timothy 2:11-15:

11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

Please note that the woman is singled out as the transgressor and as the cause of the downfall of humanity.

Titus 2:3-5:

3 Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, 4 and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.

1 Peter 3:1-6

3:1 Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they see your respectful and pure conduct. 3 Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— 4 but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious. 5 For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.


There are not at all as many biblical passages urging husbands to love their wives. Ephesians 5:25-33 is by far the clearest:

25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. [1] 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. 33 However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

There is also Colossians 3:19:

Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them.

Maybe you could also include 1 Peter 3:7:

7 Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you [1] of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.

To summarize, the Bible says so much more about womens' duty to obey their husbands than about men's duty to love their wives. However, I must admit that some of the most misogynic passages here, like the one from 1 Timothy, may not have been written by Paul himself at all.

I noted that you mostly quoted from the Gospel of John, Terry. I'm not surprised that John is your favorite gospel, because many Christians feel that way. As a non-Christian, I like John by far the least, and I like the synoptic gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, so much better. Why? Because I find Jesus so irritatingly self-obsessed in the Gospel of John. Compare what Jesus says about the same thing in John and in Matthew:

John 3:16:

16 “For God so loved the world, [9] that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Matthew 25:31-46:

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on his right, "Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, "Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?' 40 And the King will answer them, "Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, [1] you did it to me.'

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' 44 Then they also will answer, saying, "Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?' 45 Then he will answer them, saying, "Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.' 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

According to Jesus in the gospel of John, it is enough to believe in him, in Jesus. According to Jesus in the gospel of Matthew, it is necessary to be a good person and treat others people with love and compassion, if you want to enter into the kingdom of heaven.

And in the synoptic gospels, Jesus just isn't so self-centered. Compare these two biblical passages:

John 8:12:

12 Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world.

Matthew 5:14:

14 “You are the light of the world.

Give me the synoptic gospels anytime. Ah, but even the Jesus of John is a feminist.

But, Terry, I would never suggest that Jesus' most important message is that women should be treated well. No, Jesus' main message is that the kingdom of heaven is coming, and people must repent so that they will be let inside.

As for the idea that the Old testament's main message is that women are dangerous and should be kept on a short leash... No, it's not the main message. The main message of the Old testament is that God created heaven and earth and man and woman, but there was a horrible rift between humans and God because the woman listened to the serpent and Adam listened to his wife. Later God made the children of Israel his chosen people and made a convenant with them. That is the main message of the Old Testament. But darn it, the idea that women are dangerous is a very recurrent theme, too.

Ann