I was waiting for abgemacht to do that.

I figure a few quote aught to start the discussion.
1 Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
1 Timothy 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
How does one find it in themselves to believe when they are asked to believe in misogyny?
Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
And this... human-centrism much?

I've frequented a couple christian forums, being well, frankly, unsure of what I believe, and it seems the more I try and allow myself to like christianity for some of its messages the more I run into things like this.

How can one have faith in the inherency of scripture, or in God when he insists on things like this. (The second even being from the New Testament.)

do be do be do be dooooo
do be do eb whoop da da da da da
bo be do be do be dooooo
whoop da da baa da da da bong bong.

Had to copy paste/re-format. Nice ninja abge.

With regards to the quotations from Timothy, interpretation depends on how you choose to read the word 'silence'.

Silence can have negative connotations but it can also imply a state of calm, or even peace.

Obviously, the Bible was a product of its time, when it says that the woman "shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety", this is an extension of what life for women would have been like in that period. Women simply were not off chasing careers in the time of the New Testament's writing. When you read Timothy in full, it doesn't appear misogynistic.

If you look at the whole passage, rather than (as most critics do) taking highly selective cuttings, the emphasis is on the humility of women in the face of God, which is something that men are said to do as well:

8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.

9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Perhaps my choice of Timothy 11 was ignorant of this alternate interpretation of silence. However the larger concern in in verse 12. Which I would say is clearly misogynistic. After all the refusal to allow women to teach or to be the head of a house is most certainly a comment on gender relations which speaks disparagingly of women.

The problem is if one dismisses this as a product of time, then such a teaching would seem not to be innerrant

I think you're referring to other parts you are not quoting.

"12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."

Why should women usurp authority over man? Men and women should be equal.
Furthermore, if you take the word 'teach' to mean teaching the word of God - then understandably women should not do that: a) because God is the principle teacher and b) because women have the primary duty of childbearing - which should be their main focus. (In the eyes of the Bible, of course)

I'm not saying it's right or that I agree but I don't think what you've selected should be described as "clearly misogynistic".

Don't you know animals have souls! You anthrpocentric bastard!

-source: George Pell ( it also seems we atheists can go to heaven)

"And this... human-centrism much?"

Well, the Bible is definitely human-centric (well, as regards species on earth, I mean). Man is the only species created in the Image of God, after all.

Timothy was one of the ones I've actually read, also, its in the new testament so you know, what Christians are supposed to live by. Which is why I chose it as my example.

See I agree men and women should be equal. However the fact is to usurp authority it has be bestowed first, meaning that line is a form of support for the Man as the head of the household.

As for teach, should men not teach the word of god either than? What are these prophets doing? Even if you take teach to mean the word of god why isn't man given the same restriction.

Also focus on childbearing...is sort of bothersome, but I feel somewhat less problematic.
So I don't know maybe its my interpretation but it seems to be clearly misogynistic.
Ha ha ha,
Yeah animals not having souls is one of my problems with the bible. (Really just the humo-centrism in general. )

"So I don't know maybe its my interpretation but it seems to be clearly misogynistic.
Ha ha ha,"

Of course. The Bible is not a clear cut text and is interpreted differently by various groups. That's exactly why Christianity has so many denominations.

Well, I don't think the Bible says animals don't have souls, per se, though it's often interpreted that way. What it clearly says it that humans reflect God in a special way and are made higher than other animals.

I don't think this verse in Timothy is saying anything about the household, but it does say/imply that men should govern the church, and teach therein. Why might this be? Well, one can speculate, of course. The Bible certainly teaches a more complicated view of men and women and their roles than the most popular modern view of near-complete fungibility. I don't at all see it as misogyny -- mistreatment of women in the ways usually associated with misogyny is violently discouraged in the NT -- but you can, of course.

"How can one have faith in the inherency of scripture, or in God when he insists on things like this. (The second even being from the New Testament.)"

Well, I think it's true that if you're going to believe in inerrancy, you can't pick and choose. You can interpret, of course, and should be careful to interpret carefully using all means available. But if you conclude, as here, that God is saying women should not teach in church, then it doesn't make much sense, to me, to say that you believe the Bible is of God but that it's just wrong here. What intuitions would we have that would be more reliable than God?

So to decide to accept the Bible as God's Word is to commit to accept such things. That doesn't mean you have to just quell whatever in you finds them not to make sense or to be wrong-seeming. It means you commit to work through and get to the bottom of why they do make sense, and are not wrong, after all (or else, in some cases, why you maybe were misinterpreting them).

Who cares what 'the bible' says? It's 2012, not 1012, what r u mentaally defective or sumfin?

2 billion people care. It's not something to be dismissed. I don't believe in The Bible's teaching about 'God' but I don't think it should be dismissed - especially not ignorantly as you suggest.

If you're going to dismiss something you should at least have knowledge of it to justify why you think it should not be listened to.

Christianity becomes much more appealing if you just remind yourself over and over again that the Gospels were written 30 years after Christ's life, then had to pass through a stringent pro-Imperial vetting process at Nicaea. And that the exact Gospel content of the Bible isn't even agreed upon across all branches of Christianity.

My opinion outweighs 2 billion others, you should know that by now sargey.

Bob: Yes christians make good wage-slaves. I assume thats wat u r saying :)

Ha. What is 2 billion when we have FIEDLER!

the choir says Amen.

1) What's wrong with being anthropocentric?
2)
3)

Somebody tell me what 'moral message' can be gleaned from the vicious gang rape in Judges 19.

Sorry, gang rape & dismemberment.

oh no u di'unt!

" What's wrong with being anthropocentric?"

Don't even bother falling for that troll. This is the same person who said whales are equivalent to dust.

Ephesians 5:21 says "...submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." It then goes on to say how this is different for men and for women. http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Eph&c=5&t=NLT#23
I've prayed and asked for wisdom on this point, having been raised in a very egalitarian home, and the understanding that I came to is that men and women have different roles to play. This chapter goes on to point out that men should love their wives as Christ loves the church, and that true love consists of giving your life for another. I see this as pointing out that the man has the role of protecting his wife even to the point of giving his life for her, and the wife should respect her husband for this. Re misogyny, at one time Israel was ruled by a female judge named Deborah, so even though in general men's and women's roles were very different, women were definitely respected.

The idea that the bible is inerrant is clearly preposterous.

Re anthropocentric, it's actually God-centric, but yeah, Genesis1:27-28 reads, "So God created human beings [fn] in his own image. In the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. Then God blessed them and said, 'Be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth and govern it. Reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the animals that scurry along the ground.'" So yeah, humans are special.

See to Christians, commanding women to have zero political power is not misogyny, because they can play the damsel in distress role they think they ought to play, except the in the multitude of passages where brutal violence is waged against women without god, jesus, or his minions batting an eye.

See I can't help but agreeing with Putin here. (Although I tend to disregard most lessons of the old testament, particularly anything related to laws/judgement as that is cast out with the advent of the new-testemant.)

Human specialness and soulless animals both problematic concepts for me, I think they're terrible.
Mistreatment of women is a problem... but it isn't the only one, the forcing of roles upon women is also really as much of a problem.