Zone1 Why does the Bible seem so misogynistic?

[Woodznutz]

Here's the thing: Western culture has totally perverted the role of women in a civilized society, which is determined by biology and natural temperament. The Bible views women realistically and appropriately, which drives today's Lefties crazy.

It would be entertaining to read some specific misogynistic statements or points that are in the Bible.

If it weren't so serious, battle of the sexes and all that.

 

[Meriweather]

How are those differences dealt with?

In all the parishes I have been throughout my life, we have fun discussing various perspectives. Homilies are equally interesting because priests have different perspectives as well. "I've never looked at it quite that way before" broadens horizons.

As Catholics we do have a few things we are set on: The virgin birth; the real presence; the resurrection and ascension. Other issues are open, including a literal six day creation versus evolution playing a part in creation.

 

[Meriweather]

So why the charge of misogyny by so many scholars?

Frankly, it is a kissing up to a current fad, currying favor with a perceived societal audience. Growing up, all the men in my family from grandfathers to fathers to uncles to brothers were supportive of women and all they brought with them in any/all situations. Never the dumb blonde, girls going to college for an MRS degree, or girls can't do that as well. My male bosses always went to bat for me over comparable salaries, etc. That was the example I was given and the example I follow when society left off on the "jokes" about women and turned to "jokes" about men.

Serious study of genealogy also plays a part in understanding history. For example, how many of our ancestors did not own property and therefore had no right to vote. That was corrected without fuss, and then we reached for the next thing to be corrected--women, too, should be voters. Society changes and it takes a minute to tweak these changes so that there is an even playing field. In most all of these tweaks, we see both men and women working together to affect them. We see both men and women against any changes. And...we see how "scholars" choose to tell the story. Scholars are so fond of saying women couldn't travel by themselves, be executors of estates, run their own businesses, etc. From my own genealogy I learned for a fact women were sailing across the ocean and back on their own, traveled through the wilderness on their own, ran their own businesses, and were executors of estates.

 

[ding]

I can rephrase it.
I'm certain they would be reminded who is the authority over interpreting scripture.

The Claim that Catholics “Cannot Interpret Scripture for Themselves”

A claim that I’ve often heard made by anti-Catholics is that “Catholics cannot intepret Scripture for themselves, but must submit to the Catholic magisterium.” The claim is that t…

lonelypilgrim.com

If you need more links let me know.

 

[Woodznutz]

In all the parishes I have been throughout my life, we have fun discussing various perspectives. Homilies are equally interesting because priests have different perspectives as well. "I've never looked at it quite that way before" broadens horizons.

As Catholics we do have a few things we are set on: The virgin birth; the real presence; the resurrection and ascension. Other issues are open, including a literal six day creation versus evolution playing a part in creation.

But do any of these differences lead to serious controversy? We express such differences as well but it's all just 'table talk'.

 

[Anathema]

From the Genesis to Proverbs to Paul statements critical of women abound. Thoughts?

Maybe because society was always intended to be make-led, male-dominated, and misogynistic from the beginning?

 

[Meriweather]

But do any of these differences lead to serious controversy? We express such differences as well but it's all just 'table talk'.

We can use the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary into Heaven as examples. These were discussions that started "from the pews" as the saying goes, meaning it was being discussed by parishioners. This discussion was taken up by the dioceses, then the archdioceses, then by the Cardinals at the Vatican. There was no real agreement all up the line, and after hundreds of years it came before the Pope. Here is where the Pope made an infallible decision, meaning that this decision was final and could not be changed by any future popes. If I recall correctly, these are the only two infallible decisions made by a pope. (Yes, in all of Church history, the infallibility of a pope has been exercised only two times.)

Let's take another for instance where some Christians no longer wanted to observe all seven Sacraments. They left the Catholic faith and started a new denomination. Even so, Christians who separate themselves from the Catholic faith are still considered members of the Body of Christ even though they are not in full communion with the Catholic faith.

 

[Woodznutz]

The Claim that Catholics “Cannot Interpret Scripture for Themselves”

A claim that I’ve often heard made by anti-Catholics is that “Catholics cannot intepret Scripture for themselves, but must submit to the Catholic magisterium.” The claim is that t…

lonelypilgrim.com

If you need more links let me know.

To be clear, Catholic laity can interpret scripture however they wish, but it doesn't change what the church believes and teaches. The Magisterium has charge of that.

I can prove beyond a doubt that there was no 'snake' in the garden, but it won't change that belief.

 

[Woodznutz]

Maybe because society was always intended to be make-led, male-dominated, and misogynistic from the beginning?

Male led for sure, but I doubt hateful of women.

 

[Crepitus]

From the Genesis to Proverbs to Paul statements critical of women abound. Thoughts?

Mostly because it is.

Sign of the time it was created in I guess.

It's one of the reasons republicans love it.

 

[Woodznutz]

We can use the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary into Heaven as examples. These were discussions that started "from the pews" as the saying goes, meaning it was being discussed by parishioners. This discussion was taken up by the dioceses, then the archdioceses, then by the Cardinals at the Vatican. There was no real agreement all up the line, and after hundreds of years it came before the Pope. Here is where the Pope made an infallible decision, meaning that this decision was final and could not be changed by any future popes. If I recall correctly, these are the only two infallible decisions made by a pope. (Yes, in all of Church history, the infallibility of a pope has been exercised only two times.)

Let's take another for instance where some Christians no longer wanted to observe all seven Sacraments. They left the Catholic faith and started a new denomination. Even so, Christians who separate themselves from the Catholic faith are still considered members of the Body of Christ even though they are not in full communion with the Catholic faith.

Strange that a pope would ratify the belief in the assumption of Mary into heaven contrary to scripture. Perhaps he too liked the idea.

 

[Meriweather]

I can prove beyond a doubt that there was no 'snake' in the garden, but it won't change that belief.

How many Catholics versus how many non-Catholics believe there was an actual 'snake' as opposed to a snake being used as a metaphor?

 

[Woodznutz]

Mostly because it is.

Sign of the time it was created in I guess.

It's one of the reasons republicans love it.

Well, it has been said that the Republican Party is the party of men, and women who think like men, and the Dems the party of women, and men who think like women.

 

[Woodznutz]

How many Catholics versus how many non-Catholics believe there was an actual 'snake' as opposed to a snake being used as a metaphor?

I'll bite. What is the metaphor, that Lucifer/Satan is "a snake in the grass"?

 

[Meriweather]

Strange that a pope would ratify the belief in the assumption of Mary into heaven contrary to scripture. Perhaps he too liked the idea.

Keep in mind that the Catholic Church not only uses scripture (gathered together three hundred years after Christianity began) but also early Apostolic traditions and oral teachings that were in place during Apostolic times and before the canonization of the New Testament. Centuries of study and investigation had been ongoing and presented to the pope. It was a great deal more than a single man who "liked the idea". Compare to this to the single person who does not "like the idea". Hopefully they have done their own research dating down through the centuries instead of immediately jumping to the conclusion if something is not in the Bible it never happened.

 

[Meriweather]

I'll bite. What is the metaphor, that Lucifer/Satan is "a snake in the grass"?

Address your proof there was no snake in the garden.

 

[Woodznutz]

Address your proof there was no snake in the garden.

The Hebrew language doesn't support it.

 

[ding]

To be clear, Catholic laity can interpret scripture however they wish, but it doesn't change what the church believes and teaches. The Magisterium has charge of that.

I can prove beyond a doubt that there was no 'snake' in the garden, but it won't change that belief.

Only on certain doctrine, like the assumption of Mary for instance.

 

[Anathema]

Male led for sure, but I doubt hateful of women

It’s not a hatred of women. I have great respect and adoration for women. I find no use in the existence of feminists, who are not truly women.

 

[Meriweather]

The Hebrew language doesn't support it.

Shrug. The Catholic Bible, like the Hebrew, (and most translations) uses the term 'serpent', saying he was subtle (or shrewd, crafty). A synonym for 'serpent' is 'snake' which takes us back to the use of metaphors when relating a story. Are you really arguing whether the Hebrew means 'snake' or 'serpent'?