Church women are to be well behaved

Insanely humbleInsanely humble Shipmate
edited March 29 in Purgatory
That women adorn themself in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety, not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; but with good works. Let the women learn in silence with all subjugation. 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." 1 Tim. 2:9-14

In summary, this Word of Divine inspiration requires Church women are to:
1.) Wear only "modest apparel," nothing to demand attention, or to reflect their bouncy mood, or to celebrate a loud season color.
2.) Be "shamefaced." (#127 bashful, reverent, downcast eyes) Not hooting it up with chit chat and excessive feelings. Minimal laughing.
3.) Have "sobriety." (#4997 sanity, self control)
No screaming, handle your caffeine.
4.) No "gold." It is the pretense of wealth issue, I believe.
5.) No "braided hair." Rrasonably as well no dyes, no extensions, no wigs, no Hollywood look, no Goth, no shaved patches, no glitter, no bouffant.
5.) No "pearls." Nobody should really abuse those oysters, or waste the money which can be given away.
6.) No "costly array." Nordstrom's, Eddie Bauer, Coach purses, high end Camo, you know what it is. This includes those fancy wedding dresses, too.
7.) "With good works." Actual material deeds, not just ideas for the husband to do. Not just chit chat brainstorming.
8.) Twice the passage specifies "silence." That means be quiet.
9.) "Learn." That means pay attention and remember.
10.) "All subjection." (#5292 "subjection" Webster's "n. under authority or control, owing allegiance) No freedom to be unsupervised upon their own pursuits.
11.) Not to "teach." Even if they have a desire, or a good reason, or because people like their personality, or are confident, or went to college.
12.) "Nor to usurp authority over the man." The Men have final say upon all matters. Women are not to persistently speak what they think should happen, or be purchased, or be "fixed so that it is nice!"
13.) "[Eve] the woman being deceived was in the transgression." This statement is clear.

Praise God for His loving direction upon this. Notice there is no given discussion within the text on these specifications.

Regards.

[Edited to remove duplicate content. BroJames Purgatory Host]
«1

Comments

  • Good thing there's "no given discussion" so we don't have to engage.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Like
    Quote
    Reply
    Report
    for_his_glory
    Did you just cut and paste all that stuff (twice) from some other website?
  • Yup, it comes from Christianforums.net
  • anoesisanoesis Shipmate
    I modestly and soberly, and with a complete absence of braids in my hair, invite you to eat a bag of dicks...
  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    😂😂😂thanks anoesis you’ve made my day
  • anoesis wrote: »
    I modestly and soberly, and with a complete absence of braids in my hair, invite you to eat a bag of dicks...

    But are you doing it shamefacedly and with all subjection :lol: :lol:
  • :lol:

    Oh dear, I shouldn't have clicked that link on my work computer.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    Men, on the other hand, are permitted to behave like power-hungry know-it-all arseholes.
  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    But of course
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    anoesis wrote: »
    I modestly and soberly, and with a complete absence of braids in my hair, invite you to eat a bag of dicks...

    Tasty but expensive!

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    edited March 29
    Back to the OP, and the link @questioning gives us - I don't think I've read such garbage ever before - and in both work and private interest I've read quite a bit. A good catch of fish though.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    orfeo wrote: »
    Men, on the other hand, are permitted to behave like power-hungry know-it-all arseholes.

    I'm not normally given to quoting myself, but it's hard not to look at this thread through the lens of the dominant political conversation in Australia at the moment, which is about the mistreatment of women. Rape in Parliament, sexual harassment in Parliament, an MP who thought it amusing to photograph a woman in a suggestive position etc etc etc.

    Along with ongoing conversations about things like, you know, an average of one woman a week being murdered by her partner or ex-partner.

    It's just fucking staggering that these people find so much time to write out the rules for women and how they're being women wrong. Where are the statements about how men are behaving? On the whole it's not women who are beating men. It's not women who are murdering men. It's not women who are taking sexual advantage of men. It's not women who are acting as if they're entitled to sex when they want it as if only one person is involved.

    On the whole it's men telling women that their knowledge, skills, experience and opinions aren't of any importance, not the other way around. As illustrated by the opening post. And they have the nerve to dress it up as eternal spiritual truth, driven by questionable translations and dodgy interpretations of everything from the first couple of chapters of Genesis onwards.

    Men write things like this to convey that they think of women as audiences, as accessories. Not as independent images of God.

    Fuck that.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited March 29
    Wasn't Insanely Humble posturing as some sort of theological liberal on his other threads? But now he's back laying down the most patriarchal reading of probably the most patriarchal writer in the New Testament?
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited March 29
    stetson wrote: »
    Wasn't Insanely Humble posturing as some sort of theological liberal on his other threads? But now he's back laying down the most patriarchal reading of probably the most patriarchal writer in the New Testament?

    A "theological liberal" is someone who's prepared to live with the argument that the bit about wearing hats had a cultural context.

  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited March 29
    orfeo wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Wasn't Insanely Humble posturing as some sort of theological liberal on his other threads? But now he's back laying down the most patriarchal reading of probably the most patriarchal writer in the New Testament?

    A "theological liberal" is someone who's prepared to live with the argument that the bit about wearing hats had a cultural context.

    Well, yeah. I'm saying that he's NOT posting like a theological liberal now.

    The impression I get is that he's mad about the reception he got with his last round of posting, so he's decided to come back and just spam the board with stuff he knows will tick everyone off.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    edited March 29
    Yep, a wind up, badly copied and pasted from elsewhere.

    “ No freedom to be unsupervised upon their own pursuits.”

    Priceless! :lol: :lol: :lol:

    Thank you @BroJames for tidying it up. The terrible formatting annoyed me more than the text. :mrgreen: :naughty:

  • SusanDorisSusanDoris Shipmate
    I simply and heartily nod in agreement with all posts after the OP!
  • MiffyMiffy Shipmate
    “ No pearls?” Oops! I never thought to see the day that I’d be classified as an “immodest” woman.

    Wahey!😈
  • Fawkes CatFawkes Cat Shipmate
    I know. Never Feed the Troll.

    But:

    - what are the arguments for treating Paul's letters as 'Word(s) of Divine inspiration'? If they are divinely inspired, does that mean that they are the exact same as what God would say, or are they just Paul's understanding of what God would say? Are we saying that Paul was faultless in his understanding of God's views?
    - what status do we give to 'nothing to demand attention, or to reflect their bouncy mood, or to celebrate a loud season color' and so on? If Paul's analysis of God is faultless, is this a faultless analysis of Paul?
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Shouldn't this arc retrograde troll post be in Kerygmania where it won't stain Purgatory even as it rapidly ages out? Hmmm. Trouble is it's pretty static there.
  • anoesisanoesis Shipmate
    :lol:
    Oh dear, I shouldn't have clicked that link on my work computer.
    My compatriot Devoney Scarfe does a wonderful line in baked profanity, if you are interested...
    (I don't know her personally, we're not quite that small a country).
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    The thread is on a warning. In the days when we had the Dead Horses forum, the issue of the role of women was often the subject of serious discussion. We’re still happy to allow that in Purgatory. Sniping at the Shipmate isn’t that and is best done in Hell.

    So it’s serious discussion time or the thread will get zapped. There may be scope for serious discussion either here or Kerygmsnia, if it trends that way. If the thread has a future, it’s now up to you.

    Barnabas62
    Purgatory Host
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Educated opinion is that Paul is not directly responsible for the contents of 1 Timothy.
  • anoesisanoesis Shipmate
    Fawkes Cat wrote: »
    I know. Never Feed the Troll.

    But:
    - what are the arguments for treating Paul's letters as 'Word(s) of Divine inspiration'? If they are divinely inspired, does that mean that they are the exact same as what God would say, or are they just Paul's understanding of what God would say? Are we saying that Paul was faultless in his understanding of God's views?

    Bingo.
    I'm not a Bible scholar of any flavour, but I can do lit crit and narrative analysis 20 years later, half asleep, and two glasses in, as I am now (how very immodest of me), and Paul reads like Paul*, John reads like John, David reads like David, and Moses reads like Moses. Not like some third party using them as scribes. It feels to me like Christianity as it is now is really Paulianity, and I think this has something to do with us all being a few hundred years into the age of print, where the written word has come to be seen as the supreme and final authority, and that guy has floated to the top of the pond by nothing much more than sheer weight of words. He really did write a lot, but I have never been able to understand why a bunch of letters to specific small groups of people, at a specific point in history, are given such weight, and why the bits considered weightiest are usually addressed toward some specific administrative issue - and then venerated as the greatest of truths for all time!

    *If he was alive today, he would be tent-making out of his mother's basement and calling himself RooshV...
    Fawkes Cat wrote: »
    - what status do we give to 'nothing to demand attention, or to reflect their bouncy mood, or to celebrate a loud season color' and so on? If Paul's analysis of God is faultless, is this a faultless analysis of Paul?
    I grew up in one of these women please shut up areas of protestantism, and I can tell you from experience that it's a game you can not win. That's the point, of course. If you could ace being a woman you might then get ideas above your station or something like that. But to take a couple of examples: It's taken as read that women should have long hair. Okay, but so how long is long? Some will say it must be below the shoulders, and then some will say it only qualifies as 'long' if it's never been cut. Okay, so you mustn't wear gaudy jewellery, but is an engagement ring okay - or should it just be a wedding band? It's obvious that women should be wearing skirts and men should be wearing trousers (because that's what they were doing in the Middle East in the year zero, as we all know...) but is it okay to wear bike shorts underneath your skirt? Or is that still 'putting on the clothing of a man'? You can 'interpret' this stuff until the cows have both come home and gone back out again for milking the next morning, and all it ends up being is a load of holy one-upmanship, in which, as Orfeo notes, women are not agents, but pawns. Fuck that shit.
  • DavidDavid Shipmate
    edited March 29
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Educated opinion is that Paul is not directly responsible for the contents of 1 Timothy.

    Indeed. You beat me to it. I was going to offer the enticing possibility, if not outright probability, that 1 Timothy is nothing to do with Paul, not apostolic but sub-apostolic at best, and dealing with a particular set of circumstances in a small congregation in Ephesus well into the early second century CE.

    While interesting in the history of the developing early Church, and containing some theological value, it is absolutely preposterous to treat it as authoritative in any context other than its own, particularly in the twenty-first century post-Christian West.

    But then I would say that as I'm a theological liberal.
  • Well I believe we discussed 1 Timothy recently and it seems begging the question rather to say that "educated opinion" thinks it's not by Paul. In any case it doesn't really help matters even if it wasn't; someone still stuck it in the Bible.

    Context - sure. On the other hand are we saying that it was fine/authoritative in that context? Obviously not everyone at that time thought that way, otherwise there would have been no need to say it!
  • DavidDavid Shipmate
    Well I believe we discussed 1 Timothy recently and it seems begging the question rather to say that "educated opinion" thinks it's not by Paul. In any case it doesn't really help matters even if it wasn't; someone still stuck it in the Bible.

    Context - sure. On the other hand are we saying that it was fine/authoritative in that context? Obviously not everyone at that time thought that way, otherwise there would have been no need to say it!

    Presumably whoever wrote it intended it to be authoritative in that congregation. Who knows if it ever actually was.
  • I've been getting an ad on my Facebook feed for T-shirts with the slogan "Well behaved women rarely make history" with a silhouette of suffragettes with just their purple, white and green sashes showing. It's my daughters birthday soon, I might get her one ... not that I've any doubts that she'll stand up for her rights.

    Three cheers for women who are not well behaved.
  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Admin Emeritus
    Verses like this are the reason I'd be perfectly happy to remove every single word written by Paul from the Bible. I don't care how much of a rock star he may have been at the time, he's a slavery-supporting misogynistic homophobe who in this day and age shouldn't even be given authority over the grass-cutting rota, never mind core theology.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Verses like this are the reason I'd be perfectly happy to remove every single word written by Paul from the Bible. I don't care how much of a rock star he may have been at the time, he's a slavery-supporting misogynistic homophobe who in this day and age shouldn't even be given authority over the grass-cutting rota, never mind core theology.

    Agreed.

    He has the occasional nice blessing to sign off, but that’s it.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    I think there are four possible takes on this
    1. It means what the OP interprets it to mean (and I'll be opening up as a milliner tomorrow (1 Cor 11.5))
    2. It's Paul all right, but we know he's a misogynistic homophobe, so we'll ignore it.
    3. It's not Paul, so we'll ignore it.
    4. It is Paul, but to interpret it in the way the OP does has him contradicting himself, and it's time we rescued Paul from [some of] his interpreters.
    My money is on the last.
  • Is it possible to wear pearls regularly, including (gasp!) in church, and also be styled Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England?

    Discuss.
  • Well, Moses and Joshua did all that, erm, genociding and then there was King David who was a bit murdery sometimes. And even parts of the Gospels and Acts have been said by some to be anti-semitic. So there might not be much left.
  • Ethne AlbaEthne Alba Shipmate
    (That cross posting has me seeing Moses and Joshua in a whole new light)
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    edited March 29
    BroJames wrote: »
    It is Paul, but to interpret it in the way the OP does has him contradicting himself, and it's time we rescued Paul from [some of] his interpreters.
    My money is on the last.

    Agreed.

    Let's start with noticing the inclusive imperatives in this passage, "Let the men pray... let the women learn", rather than the (apparent) prohibitions.

    Let's go on by noting that αὐθεντεῖν in 1 T 2:12 is a hapax legomenon and as such not a very solid foundation for building an entire doctrine of exclusion on.

    And let's go further on by asserting that any "creational hierarchy" is in the minds of the commentators.

  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Is it possible to wear pearls regularly, including (gasp!) in church, and also be styled Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England?

    Discuss.

    <double gasp! :flushed:>

  • Dafyd wrote: »
    Educated opinion is that Paul is not directly responsible for the contents of 1 Timothy.

    Erm which opinion is that?
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Ethne Alba wrote: »
    (That cross posting has me seeing Moses and Joshua in a whole new light)

    I Googled ‘Moses in pearls’ and found him - very smart, I must say.

    https://photos.app.goo.gl/xAJEYzY1ZZiZ5bLY7



  • HelenEvaHelenEva Shipmate
    I don't have any pearls. I KNEW there was something I was doing wrong in my attempts to annoy people and that is clearly it. Drat.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    There's a good and fairly concise discussion by Tom Wright of these and other 'difficult' verses in the Epistles here (pdf).
  • I've been getting an ad on my Facebook feed for T-shirts with the slogan "Well behaved women rarely make history" with a silhouette of suffragettes with just their purple, white and green sashes showing. It's my daughters birthday soon, I might get her one ... not that I've any doubts that she'll stand up for her rights.

    Three cheers for women who are not well behaved.

    [Tangent] The Suffragettes action brought well needed interference into the accepted norms of their day. The broader interpretation on their approach might express concern that they were the first to use IED's on mainland Britain and that their drive was for votes for certain women, not for all. They were very much a middle class, wealthy movement and the first easing of suffrage 1918 did not give votes to all women, only those who were over 21 and propertied.
  • How disappointing.

    I was reading the OP in the tone of complete irony as if it was written by a woman and it was hilarious.

    Then I found out that someone was actually serious.

    Oh well.

    AFF

  • No pearls, just swine.
  • MiffyMiffy Shipmate
    Miffy wrote: »
    “ No pearls?” Oops! I never thought to see the day that I’d be classified as an “immodest” woman.

    Wahey!😈
    Boogie wrote: »
    Is it possible to wear pearls regularly, including (gasp!) in church, and also be styled Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England?

    Discuss.

    <double gasp! :flushed:>

    Let me make it quite clear that I am not labouring under the illusion that I’m said royal personage. 😇

  • I've been getting an ad on my Facebook feed for T-shirts with the slogan "Well behaved women rarely make history" with a silhouette of suffragettes with just their purple, white and green sashes showing. It's my daughters birthday soon, I might get her one ... not that I've any doubts that she'll stand up for her rights.

    Three cheers for women who are not well behaved.

    [Tangent] The Suffragettes action brought well needed interference into the accepted norms of their day. The broader interpretation on their approach might express concern that they were the first to use IED's on mainland Britain and that their drive was for votes for certain women, not for all. They were very much a middle class, wealthy movement and the first easing of suffrage 1918 did not give votes to all women, only those who were over 21 and propertied.
    Correction to the tangent.

    The 1918 representation of the people act gave all men over 21 the vote (removing the requirement to own property) and women over 30 who either owned property or who's husband did (that covered about 2/3 of women at the time). The 1928 act gave everyone over 21 the vote, regardless of whether or not they owned property (ie: gave women the same voting rights as men).

    Though the main activities of the Suffrage movement ended in 1914, there were ongoing campaigns to equalise voting rights between 1918 and 1928.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Educated opinion is that Paul is not directly responsible for the contents of 1 Timothy.
    Erm which opinion is that?
    If you leave out people for whom literal Biblical inerrancy is a premise, I believe the non-Pauline authorship of Timothies and Titus is as close as biblical scholarship gets to a consensus.

    Point being: if you think it's possible Paul was wrong then you can't blame him for stuff in 1 Timothy or use material from 1 Timothy as part of the case for the prosecution.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Point being: if you think it's possible Paul was wrong then you can't blame him for stuff in 1 Timothy or use material from 1 Timothy as part of the case for the prosecution.

    Could we similarly discard the Gospels on the grounds that a consensus holds they were not written by the people whose names they bear?

    It seems like this approach is creating a bigger problem (canonicity) than it solves.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    If someone posted a racist post as long and detailed as the OP, there would have been fairly quick Admin action to censure the poster. But since this sexist drivel has some biblical basis, however debateable that might be, a bunch of you are taking it seriously. This is even required by Hostly admonition. And when you do that, you are seriously entertaining the notion that women less than men.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Could we similarly discard the Gospels on the grounds that a consensus holds they were not written by the people whose names they bear?
    That's a different question.
    Let's take it as read that God speaks through the personality and theology of the writers of the Bible. Now Paul didn't write Hebrews. If we form a picture of the personality of Paul that includes Hebrews we'll get that picture wrong (and equally get wrong our picture of the author of Hebrews). That doesn't affect Hebrews' canonical status, but it affects the way we read it.

    What one does with misogynistic and pro-slavery passages in the New Testament is one matter. But one oughtn't incorporate them into one's picture of Paul if they're not actually by Paul.

    If you read 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 as the work of a writer who also wrote 1 Corinthians 14:34-5 then it's natural to read it as a series of conservative prohibitions on what women can do. If you don't see 1 Corinthians 14:34-5 as actually by Paul then the 1 Corinthians 11 passage looks more like a man who is trying to open up a space or keep open a space for women's participation in a conservative culture with which he is only partly in sympathy.

    If you think Paul wrote 1 Timothy 6 then you'll read Philemon as more supportive of slavery than if you don't.

    That doesn't address the question of how to read 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians 14:34-5 or what to do with them, it is true.

  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    Dafyd wrote: »
    That doesn't address the question of how to read 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians 14:34-5 or what to do with them, it is true.

    That's kinda my point.

    In my preaching, I've been working my way through Hebrews for about a year and a half now and am increasingly convinced the author is female.

    @Ruth I somehow don't think this thread is the right place to complain about how it's being hosted, and you know that. And pointing out what is wrong with the OP is hardly the same as seriously entertaining the notions it seeks to uphold.
This discussion has been closed.