The bible says women should be submissive, so how can Christians talk of the "evils of other religions?

[★Bandiera Rossa☭]

"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." - 1 Corinthians 14:34

"When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her." - Deuteronomy 25:11-12

"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." - 1 Corinthians 11:3

"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." - 1 Corinthians 11:8-9

"Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go." - Judges 19:24-25

"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." - I Timothy 2:11-14

"If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silvers, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days." - Deuteronomy 22:28-29

"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." - Genesis 3:16

(And from the Apocrypha)

"Give me any plague, but the plague of the heart: and any wickedness, but the wickedness of a woman." (Eccles. 25:13)

"Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die." (Eccles. 25:22)

"If she go not as thou wouldest have her, cut her off from thy flesh, and give her a bill of divorce, and let her go." (Eccles. 25: 26)

"The whoredom of a woman may be known in her haughty looks and eyelids. If thy daughter be shameless, keep her in straitly, lest she abuse herself through overmuch liberty." (Eccles. 26:9-10)

"A silent and loving woman is a gift of the Lord: and there is nothing so much worth as a mind well instructed. A shamefaced and faithful woman is a double grace, and her continent mind cannot be valued." (Eccles. 26:14-15)

"A shameless woman shall be counted as a dog; but she that is shamefaced will fear the Lord." (Eccles.26:25)

"For from garments cometh a moth, and from women wickedness. Better is the churlishness of a man than a courteous woman, a woman, I say, which bringeth shame and reproach." (Eccles. 42:13-14)

My question - How can Christians condemn Islam or any other religion for mistreating women when the bible contains the same "seeds" of "evil" as the Qur'an? (This should go to the EMM, I posted this in the wrong forum)

[Steve Holt]

Yeah probably should be in ehtos, I think its more a matter of interpretation, what one person thinks those passages means other people are probably going to interpret it differently.

[Fiyenyaa]

Because most of those who follow religion in modern societies ignore or rationalise the horrendous parts of scripture. Which we should be thankful for, I suppose - at least to the extent that we aren't affected by it like people were hundreds of years ago.

[Viking Prince]

Moved from VV to EMM at member request.

VP

[basics]

" My question - How can Christians condemn Islam or any other religion for mistreating women when the bible contains the same "seeds" of "evil" as the Qur'an? "

Dialectical Materialist,

All that you have posted was written because mankind was in a fallen state that Paul expands on by stating that it was through the woman where the fault of the fall lay. He goes on to say that as man is the head of the woman and Christ Jesus is the head of man it is appropriate for woman to take their lead from man just as man takes his lead from Jesus assuming that they are born again.

He goes on to say how that relationship should be explored, not in wifely beatings or any other abuse, but that the man and the woman should love one another as Christ Jesus loved them and died for them. That in marriage they are one body just as they are one body in Jesus Christ. I believe that he said this because there might well have been old habits still in operation even among newly converted Christians.

We have to remember that in those days even within Judaism women were not allowed to do many things that the women of today enjoy, and, at the expansion of the church into Gentile lands then, women did not have many freedoms at all. What regeneration did accomplish was that men and women are equal in the eyes of God, both being indwelt by God and both given gifts of various kinds for the benefit of the church as a whole.

That said there is no doubt that the command was and still is that women remain quiet in church as far as teaching is concerned, the allowance being that they may teach one another when in their own company. However Scripture tells us that many women had been given the gift of prophesy and these prophetic revelations must have been given allowances within the congregations for them to be authenticated as coming from God.

So, it is fair to say that women who are born again Christians are not submissively mastered in the same way that other religions were and perhaps still are. Indeed a Christian wife has only to appeal to the congregation where abuse is concerned for any abusive husband to be brought to account for his behaviour. That said it must be remembered also that within certain systems calling themselves Christian that must be taken into account that as Scripture goes they may indeed not be as Scripture requires for any to be a Christian.

[Watchman]

Why am I sceptical of the willigness and/or interest of a clannish, generally reactionary and fairly tight-knit (as they AFAIK tend to be) clique such as a born-again Christian congregation to intervene in an abusive family situation in any fashion favourable to the wife...?
Oh right, because it's always worked so well in the past.

I don't think those groups enjoy any particular reputation as womens'-rights progressives you know, quite the contrary.

Anyway, as for the (rather rhetorical) question posed by the OP, yeah well. Write it down to smug lack of awareness and perspective regarding what a recent phenomenom womens' suffrage is even in the "West" and how cheerfully religion has been, and still is, used as a blunt instrument against it, and flat out ethnocentric scorn of other peoples and cultures and willful ignorance of their specifics and situations.

[basics]

" Why am I sceptical of the willigness and/or interest of a clannish, generally reactionary and fairly tight-knit (as they AFAIK tend to be) clique such as a born-again Christian congregation to intervene in an abusive family situation in any fashion favourable to the wife...?
Oh right, because it's always worked so well in the past."

Watchman,

Why the skepticism when your last remark shows you think you know the answer? But in response not only did it work in the past it also works today and no doubt the future as well. Have you never heard the saying a problem shared..... especially when it has the power and love of God behind it?

[Watchman]

Why the skepticism when your last remark shows you think you know the answer?

Am I reading this wrong, or do you need new batteries in your sarcasm detector ?

But in response not only did it work in the past it also works today and no doubt the future as well.

It did ? When exactly, pray tell ?

Have you never heard the saying a problem shared..... especially when it has the power and love of God behind it?

Can't say I have. I'd also add that I know of very few (as in, none) problems that were fixed by the power and love of God, and very many that were fixed by human action...

[SigniferOne]

How can Christians condemn Islam or any other religion for mistreating women when the bible contains the same "seeds" of "evil" as the Qur'an?

Very simple. The reason Muslim treatment of women is condemned in fundamentalist countries is not for some general non-specific reasons, but because they are wont to inflict atrocious female circumcision on women. Because they rape women who show an ankle, to "teach them". This, as you can see, is the opposite of the Christian treatment, which never subjected them to the miseries of the burka either. All the quotes say is just that a woman should be submissive to man, which talks of hierarchy, not of treatment of women. Historically women were reverenced in Christian countries.

[Katsumoto]

Except that Islam and female circumcision have nothing to do with each other...

The traditional cultural practices of FGC predate Christianity and Islam. A Greek papyrus from 163 B.C. mentions girls in Egypt undergoing circumcision and it is widely accepted to have originated in Egypt and the Nile valley at the time of the Pharaohs. Evidence from mummies have shown both Type I and Type III FGC present.[41] (Note that the earliest evidence of male circumcision is also from Ancient Egypt.)
UNICEF reports that:
"... Al-Azhar Supreme Council of Islamic Research, the highest religious authority in Egypt, issued a statement saying FGM/C has no basis in core Islamic law or any of its partial provisions and that it is harmful and should not be practiced."
Coptic Pope Shenouda, the leader of Egypt's minority Christian community, said that neither the Quran nor the Bible demand or mention female circumcision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_...tal_mutilation

[★Bandiera Rossa☭]

Very simple. The reason Muslim treatment of women is condemned in fundamentalist countries is not for some general non-specific reasons, but because they are wont to inflict atrocious female circumcision on women. Because they rape women who show an ankle, to "teach them". This, as you can see, is the opposite of the Christian treatment, which never subjected them to the miseries of the burka either. All the quotes say is just that a woman should be submissive to man, which talks of hierarchy, not of treatment of women. Historically women were reverenced in Christian countries.

Yet they use the same type of scripture to justify this, what do you put this down to? Are Christians "Morally Superior" and thus able to interpret these as they "really are"? Or is it not possible that it has more to do with the culture, that progress has forced them to accept not being able to beat their wife mercilessly?

[removeduser_052420]

Because they rape women who show an ankle, to "teach them".

Wtf?

[Grobar]

Virgin Mary was submissive and obedient and yet she was exalted above all other God’s creation. She is more honorable than the Cherubim, and more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim. That is the fruit of obedience to God’s will.
Both men and women are equal in Christ.

[Visna]

Very simple. The reason Muslim treatment of women is condemned in fundamentalist countries is not for some general non-specific reasons, but because they are wont to inflict atrocious female circumcision on women.

FGM and Islam are unrelated. It's an ancient initiation rite which far predates both Christianity and Islam. If you really want to blame Islam for something in regards to FGM a case could be made that not enough has been done to stop it until recently. But then you would have to blame Christianity as well. Meh, you might as well blame Judaism for it too, Ethiopian Jews are prone to circumsizing their daughters. Throw in animism and shamanism as well just to get it all covered.

Because they rape women who show an ankle, to "teach them".

Is that so?

This, as you can see, is the opposite of the Christian treatment, which never subjected them to the miseries of the burka either.

The burqa is a local custom, not an Islamic one.

All the quotes say is just that a woman should be submissive to man, which talks of hierarchy, not of treatment of women. Historically women were reverenced in Christian countries.

Except for the ones who were burnt on the stake?

[SigniferOne]

Wtf?

I didn't say all Muslim countries. But nevertheless quite a bunch do. Several in the Middle East and a whole bunch in North Africa. You would think that only barbaric places like Saudi Arabia do that, but Ayaan Hirsi Ali is Somalian, and she was mutilated there (by her family).

Except that Islam and female circumcision have nothing to do with each other...

I didn't say the Muslims started it, only that they choose to use it.

Yet they use the same type of scripture to justify this, what do you put this down to?

No uhh, actually they don't. You think the Quran just says that women are secondary, and from that all these Muslims just rush to rape and mutilate women in every way possible? That is both obscene and uncharitable to the Muslim people. The reason they do it is because the Islamic tradition has specific support for it; FGC is not performed for some unnamed, obscene reason, but very specifically so that women will not be able to enjoy sex too much. And as far as rape, it is taught that a woman who tempts a man gets all that is coming to her if he can't restrain himself. Etc, verses like that. Under Christianity women are treated with extreme reverence.

Are Christians "Morally Superior" and thus able to interpret these as they "really are"? Or is it not possible that it has more to do with the culture, that progress has forced them to accept not being able to beat their wife mercilessly?

Beating your wife hasn't stopped, and occurrs in all times and in all cultures. It has to do with the fact that men are more violent, and physically stronger. Unlike corresponding verses on the Muslim tradition, there is no verse in the Bible that you should "teach" a woman to know her place, to knock her down and beat her up. It only teaches women to be respectful to man. Man, in reverse, acts reverentially to woman (i.e. the opposite of beating her up). That's the orthodox Christian teaching for what men and women are supposed to do, and has nothing to do with just the modern liberal development.

[Fiyenyaa]

The burqa is a local custom, not an Islamic one.

Interestingly the Tuareg people (a mostly Muslim people) have a tradition to cover the face of men instead of women.

[SigniferOne]

FGM and Islam are unrelated. It's an ancient initiation rite which far predates both Christianity and Islam.

What does the fact that it was invented by others have to do with whether they use it?

Is that so?

Yes, it is:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15836746/

The burqa is a local custom, not an Islamic one.

More excuses; what does that have to do with the fact that so many Muslims countries employ it?

Except for the ones who were burnt on the stake?

Nice little vitriol there -- I suppose only women were punished by burning, right?

[Katsumoto]

What does the fact that it was invented by others have to do with whether they use it?

So because some Muslims use it it's an Islamic practise? Generalisation ftw.

[SigniferOne]

So because some Muslims use it it's an Islamic practise? Generalisation ftw.

If by "some Muslims" you mean 30-40% of the Muslim world, yeah.

[Katsumoto]

Source s'il vous plaît.