Do you think that god would treat men and women differently? Some churches require women to cover from head to toe or always wear a skirt, women can't be priests or preachers or if they can it's only recently that that was possible. Society as a whole seems to have a place for either gender some things are expected of women and some of men....so do you think that god would be the same way? do you think that he would expect men to do things but if a woman did them they would be judged differently for it? and of course the other way as well that some things are expected of women etc.......

no. I think that in the eyes of the creator, we are equal.

That being said, there are specimens of both genders who may be unqualified to certain jobs, due to lack of qualifications, or physical ability.

I have no problem with women (or man) doing any job, as long as they are ABLE to do the job.

Oh I agree with that, I was just trying to figure out why within churches there has to be different rules depending on gender.......if god wouldn't care why should they?

At the risk of bringing down the wrath of the true believers on my head.....

Maybe because all these organized religions were created by men?

And just for the record, I think that women who want equality with men are selling themselves short: I think they are better than us. In fact, some of my best friends are women.




good journey

I won't argue that sentiment there JMPD

Very few men would offer equality so it takes a great man to say women are better for that as a woman I say thank you

I agree with what you said about being written by men, I suppose I want the believers take on it to see how they feel or what they're view will be, although i must say yours looks better and better all the time

bacca, you KNOW what 'they' are going to say. That "God dictated those rules....."





good journey

Yeah, men have historically been the dominate gender, hence God reflected those ideas. I don't believe an omnipotent creator would be so prejudice, though. After all, (s)he created the sex differences...no reason to punish one over the other.

Jenn you think that god said that men should be dominant over women? and your ok with that?

it really depends on the "religion". some religions treat the sexes equally, some were matriarchal, some patriarchal. There is a close connection between the structure of the religion and the structure of the society it serves.

I do not think any creature that makes universes on a whim would be interested in making one gender subordinate to another. It would not likely be too concerned with the "goings on" of little creatures on but one planet. Religion however is about casting a deity(s) in a form that serves its own purposes. You should all be able to figure out the rest....

You misunderstood what I was saying. Read both sentences, as I explained what I meant. I think the generally accepted idea of 'God' is very different from what really created the universe.

Religion, the organised churches at any rate, are a product of the time that they were founded... that was a time that was very heavily male dominated. It says all through the Bible, Old and New Testaments, that women were regarded as the possessions of men ... 'coveting your neighbour's wife, or ass, or any of his possessions' ... that was the general attitude of the time.

Bacca there is no way that God would create anything less than and truthfully I would prefer to burn in hell than except anything that teaches otherwise. i think it is very clear to most that the bible was written by men!!! men that felt very threatened by a woman , My question would be what woman would ever allow anyone or any system to convince her she is less than , Any woman who is not empowered in her own skin does not understand being a female I am honored to walk as a female and the greatest compliment i can pay all of us beautiful creatures is the courage to stand in my essence. In respecting myself i honor and respect all others male nd female. Namaste sheri

Funny thing though, in the Hebrew tradition, lineage is passed down through the female. Isn't it interesting that the OT places women in the back seat?

I've always assumed lineages were traced through the mother in the past because there were no things like DNA testing to assure who the father was, rather than out of respect to women.

True, which is why I find it strange that women are treated as 'second class'.

Since you couldn't really be sure who the father was, proving your lineage back through the mothers line would be the onlty way to show you were descended from older kings (or queens actually).

No God does not treat a woman no different then a man. Society does.

But in my church a woman can become a deacon,missonary, sunday school teacher, and whatever she chooses.

We have a woman childrens pastor. So how is it that God does not want a woman to do a job.

A woman might just not have been told by God what they should do- like become a pastor or something so they haven't yet.

That sounds like a very progressive church 101.

If you don't mind my asking, what denomination is it?

Do what? so your saying that the bible says that men are superior because he didn't want women to be equal yet? And even though god thinks all are equal it's ok that human men don't think so? ok 101 you church allows women to do what they want no matter what right? has it always been like that? and do you have a woman preacher? i understand working with the kids and all basically because men would see that as womans work..................now go bake me a pie

We have had male childrens pastors too.

Some people think that woman are in no place to preach but in my opinion is a bunch of bolonga.

I have seen a female preacher as head of church but I cannot remember I was only 9 yrs old. So that was 13 yrs ago?

I go to a penecostal church. An Assembly of God.

"this subject is not an easy one to write about. This is because the subject is one that can cause offense even when the matter is discussed academically and in a non-personal manner. Yet, we are all adults and we should wish to know the grand truths of the Holy Scriptures and to fully understand the erroneous historical developments that have occurred in our ecclesiastical world since the time of Christ Jesus. Since we at the Associates for Scriptural Knowledge (A.S.K.) are devoted to teaching the truths of the Bible and to illuminate the real facts of history and geography, I feel it is incumbent upon me to tell you readers and associates what the symbols actually mean that comprise much of the architecture of our church edifices within Christendom today. Let us take a close look at the subject.

"The "Gothic style" of architecture that we are used to was introduced in the eleventh century into that part of Western Europe that was controlled by Roman Christianity. Since that time, our ecclesiastical world has been deluged with church buildings designed in "Gothic style" to instruct the initiated with a variety of mystical meanings. Most of Christendom have forgot those meanings. Only specialized professional historians are aware of them today. Among those esoteric themes are those associated with the anatomical parts of the human body that involve the use of human sexuality. This was one of the main themes within "Gothic" architecture. The universal adoption of these abtruse meanings developed some 800 years ago has resulted in virtually every Catholic or Protestant church today showing some architectural features (or "church decorations") that are directly derived from those early "Gothic" designs. The central motif that the medieval architects were endeavoring to show in their church buildings rested upon the biblical teaching that the "church" (Greek: ekklesia) was reckoned to be a "woman," especially and specifically the "Wife of Christ" (indeed the apostle Paul showed that the ekklesia was to be understood as a "Wife" in Ephesians 5:25-33).

"Those who constructed the "Gothic style" of architectural forms wanted to represent their "churches" as buildings of stone, wood and metal but designed with various shapes that mystically denoted that the building was symbolically a "Woman." Thus, all entrances into "Gothic style" church buildings (entry locations where it was supposed that Christ and the Father allegorically engendered children for the Family of God) were acknowledged as being equated with the female genitalia. Furthermore, the interior of the church was supposed to represent the "womb" of the mystical Woman, the ribbed buttresses (and what were called "flying buttresses") were analogous to the rib-cage of a woman’s body. The long hallway of most "Gothic churches" was called the Nave (originally after the Greek word "naos" meaning "inner sanctum of a temple" and it was noticed that its shape appeared like the interior of a boat with its two ribbed sidings, so "Nave" was connected with a ship). The center part of the Nave was the "navel" or the umbilical cord, to which a symbolic baby was attached in the womb of the woman. This region of the church was also located in the transept area (the transverse region of any cruciform shaped church, as most "Gothic churches" were designed). And depending on where the transept was located (if positioned midway along the hallway of the "Gothic church") it represented a woman’s womb with each wing of the transept on either side answering to the fallopian tubes, or (if positioned two-thirds of the way along the church hallway or aisle) it often represented the heart of the woman as the emotional center of her being. Sometimes there were two transepts (a double cruciform area), and the centers of these two transverse halls represented both the womb and the heart of the Woman/Church."



http://askelm.com/doctrine/d981127.htm

Loge that is so interesting. I have noticed that the most beautiful churches are the Catholic churches. I love how you told us that the church was decorated to show the beauty of the woman.

Now, you can understand why the Celebrant must be a Man (Priest), because only a Man can enter and officiate within the womb (Church, symbol of a Woman)!

Because it would equal out the male and female energy.

That is very, very, VERY interesting.

Male energy + female engery, united.

How very similar to pagan beliefs.


<-- wonders how many people will scream at this revelation.

I think that was Loge was talking about was within the Catholic church. But still it is so interesting.

Loge also has a good topic on Jesus and the Cup that refers to the male and female energys.

However, if a Priestess is present on the Altar (the Womb), she must be honored by the Priest at all times because she is the living representation of the church of God (Eden)!

This is why Jesus honored Mary Magdalene amongst all of his disciples!

A Priest without a Church is not a Priest, in other words, A Priest without a Priestess is not a Priest!

Sorry!

But who is a priestess. A priest cannot be married.

let's go to anthropology 101, ok?

for those of us who realize the universe is more than 6000 years old, only:
the rest of you please ignore this post.

not long after our ancestors (the "cro-magnon") killed off their predecessors ("the neanderthal"-or maybe they just went into hiding-ever hear of the yeti? or bigfoot?), they organized into "hunter-gatherer groups". these loosely-organized tribes survived on a minimal culture, the men doing most of the hunting, the women doing the gathering. the women were in charge, and hence the great period of mother goddesses, etc. eventually, when the little cities evolved to walled city-states, and started killing each other, the men took over, and the mythology changed. instead of a mother goddess creating her own consort, who then impregnates her, so she may creat the universe, you have bizaare, sterile male gods that create the universe, essentially stripping the women of their authority. in modern times we call this "the catholic church".

in defense of judiasm, contrary to the smut depicted of judiasm by christianity, women are, and have always, been regarded as actually superior to men in many ways. Sorry, the gospel of Paul is full of sh--t on this issue. women have much fewer laws to obey, don't have to cover the soft spot on their head unless married, and don't get circumcized. why? because, in judiasm, women are regarded as closer to god, because life is made in their bodies! ask a rabbi if you don't believe me!

the god of the hebrew scriptures is not male! yes the male pronoun is usually used, but only because there is no neuter in hebrew. if you read hebrew, you notice sometimes a male (el, yahweh,etc.), female (eloah, ruach,etc.) or plural (elohim, shaddai, etc.) is used. unfortunately, the authors of the n.t., writing hundreds of years later, didn't read hebrew, and were not jews. the word for "spirit" is male in latin and greek, so the christians twisted it around as if three men created the universe, with no mother!

1 Timothy, chapter 3:

1: This is a true saying, if a man desires the office of a bishop (considered in some churches to be successors of the twelve apostles of Christ), he desires a good work.

2: A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife , vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

3: Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

4: One that rules well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

5: (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

6: Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.

7: Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

8: Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;

9: Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.

10: And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.

11: Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.

12: Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

13: For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

14: These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:

15: But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God (the Woman), which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

16: And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh (the womb), justified in the Spirit (of Chastity), seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

No!

It is also within any temple of any Religion!


Any Mosque is the symbol of the womb!


Islam


As well as any synagogue in Judaism!

This is why only Men are allowed inside their synagogues!

women are also allowed in temple, loge.

My church does not resemble the womb of a woman. Does it matter if they are? I mean as long as it is the house of God.

In God's eyes we are equal but it also speaks in the bible that women were created for men and that women aren't supposed to speak in church but instead silent and that women are supposed to be home taking care of things with the men working and that women are supposed to wear women attire only and not cut they're hair. But I don't think in my opinion that God would be so harsh to condemn a woman for keeping her hair cut short.

So then, in your opinion, what is it? Are we equal in the eyes of god, or are women second class citizens? How can you be equal if women are supposed to be silent?

If the bible is supposed to be the word of god, why then are women treated so harshly?

Temple of Jerusalem

"Although the Wall is considered by Jews as a holy place of worship it does not allow for all members of the Jewish community to pray in the same area. Orthodox Jews believe that women should not don prayer shawls or lead services and should be separated from men during prayer.

"So, Jewish women are expected to pray at a specific area of the wall without Torahs.

"Some women, who have attempted to pray at the wall have even encountered violence from Orthodox men. Unfortunately, the space at the Wall is not entirely equal and the Israeli government, for fear of the power of the Orthodox within Jerusalem will not protect a woman who wants to pray at any part of the wall. Instead women must pray at a separate area of the wall and if they feel inclined to pray elsewhere there is a chance she would be met by men who use violence as a deterrent. The mob rule of the Western Wall is unfortunate but indicative of Orthodox gender practice in general, in which women are not permitted to read from the Torah, pray in the same area as men or allowed to lead religious services.

"We may conclude that the separatism that occurs at the wall is not an isolated event but rather an extension of Orthodox Jewish practice concerning gender."

be that as it may, not all Jews are of the Orthodox variety.

I grew up in a jewish neighborhood, and the synagogue had a section for women.

But of course, I'm sure that one's real life experiences pale in comparison to data retrieved from the internet.


good journey

Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law also says. And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church." (NASB, 1 Cor. 14:34-35)

This is the srip I think Kate was talking about. But I researched this.

So I found this:

ARE VERSES 34-35 A DECLARATIVE STATEMENT?

Those scholars who believe that the apostle Paul is making a declarative statement exhibit a wide range of thought about the applicability and why Paul may have written these verses. Following are examples reflective of such diversity of opinion of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.

Women must never speak, prophesy or speak in tongues in church. One 19th century Bible commentator holds this extreme and minority view that denies the right of women to speak, prophesy or speak in tongues by saying: "This rule is positive, explicit, and universal ... women were to keep silence ... take no part in speaking foreign languages and of prophecy." This commentator's dogmatic statements are totally unjustified and without merit. He disregards Scripture's declaration that women will prophesy (Joel 2:28; Acts 2:17-18) and have already done so in the Corinthian church (1 Cor. 11:5). He believed the phrase, "as saith the Law" in 1 Cor. 14:34 was linked to Gen. 3.16 but offered no scriptural evidence in support of his opinion.[2]

Women may pray, prophesy, teach or speak as long as they do so in an orderly manner. J. D. Douglas, editor of the New Commentary on the Whole Bible admits the statement Let your women keep silence in the churches is difficult because Paul had previously spoken about women praying and prophesying in church. He writes that, "Women should not teach or speak in any way that causes disturbance in a church meeting. But we cannot dogmatically say that women did not and could not pray and/or prophesy in church meetings." This commentator suggests that the apostle Paul is concerned about what is proper in the church meetings and rebukes the Corinthians for their pride beginning in verse 36. Additionally, he believes the reference to the "law" refers to Genesis 3.16 but offered no support for his belief.[3 ]

Some married women need to exercise self-control. David Lowery, a professor at Dallas Seminary, acknowledges the difficulty in determining the exact meaning of 1 Cor. 14:34-35. He acknowledges that women did participate in worship services by exercising the gifts of the Spirit. He suggests that Paul wrote these words because "church members needed to exercise self-control," not only in the context of tongues and prophecy but that some women were causing a disturbance. He writes: "Paul then wanted silence on the part of married women whose husbands were present in the assembly, but he permitted the participation of other women when properly adorned (1 Cor. 11:2-16). Such silence would express their subordinate (but not inferior) relationship to their husbands." The real issue, he said, is one of self-control. This commentator makes no attempt to account for the expression just as the Law also says.[4 ]

Married women were uneducated and had nothing of value to say. Leon Morris, author of The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, also recognizes a problem with a natural reading of the passage as Paul had already encouraged women to pray and to prophesy. He reminds us that women were uneducated in the first century. In that context, he states that the "Corinthian women should keep quiet in church if for no other reason than because they could have little or nothing worthwhile to say." He reasons that Paul is telling the wives to ask questions of their husbands at home and not disturb the assembly. [5 ]He apparently assumes this passage applies only to married women. Women were basically uneducated in the first century as were many of the men. He does not discuss single women or what "law" is being referenced.

Married women must not interrupt the proceeding by asking questions. F. F. Bruce in The New Century Bible Commentary I & II Corinthians also notes that Paul had already recognized a woman's right to pray and prophesy in the church. Therefore, the imposition of silence and forbidding women to speak is only in the context of interrupting the proceedings by asking questions of their husbands. Asking questions should be done at home. Bruce carefully notes that the expressions they are not permitted to speak (v. 34) and it is shameful for a woman to speak in church (v. 35) is limited in application and refers only to the interrupting of proceedings. In commenting on the phrase, "as even the law says," Bruce believes the appeal to Gen. 3.16 is unlikely. He thinks the reference to which Paul is alluding to is Gen. 1:26 and 2:21 but offers no support for his opinion.[6 ]

But If you read all of this info it says that Paul might have been refering to women talking and disturbing the church services. Maybe because sometimes women talk a lot and would interfere the teaching of God's word.

I think, both of you are applying the rules of Jewish P-R-I-E-S-T-H-O-O-D to the laymen!

Maybe it is how it always has been.

Loge I asked you a question on your thread about Humanity will end.

ok so churches are symbols of women yadda yadda yadda whatever that doesn't answer the question.......do you think women will be judged differently then men? would a man who does something for his family be judged differently then a woman doing the same thing? would a single parent be judged differently then a married one? Do you think that god would pick and choose and expect different things from different groups of people?

Er . . . . a little backwards here. In the Jewish tradition, it is the being "Jewish" that is passed down through the female. The offspring of a Jewish man with a gentile woman is not Jewish by birth. The offspring of a Jewish woman by a gentile man is Jewish by birth. With other Hebrew tribes, it would be the same. As to lineage, take a look at the OT . . . men "begetting" men "begetting" men. The Messiah hoped for by the Hebrews was to be of "the root of Jesse". In the lists of lineage in the OT, women are, in fact, rarely mentioned. In ancient days, the woman was considered to be only a "fertile" field into which the seed of the man was planted. We don't hear of Sarah being the matriarch of the Hebrews, but Abraham as the patriarch of the Hebrews. Then too, as rape of the women of those conquered was a common practice in ancient days, what would the Hebrews have done with the children sired by non-Hebrew conquerors? The only practical way of dealing with it was to consider the offspring to be of the tribe of Hebrews the mother belonged to, even if not the offspring of a male of the tribe.

You are right, I misspoke. Meaning that 'jewishness' is passed from the female.

Men and women have different roles. There is not one "superior" sex as you imply. As 101 pointed out, there are women deacons, Sunday school leaders, Bible study leaders, preachers etc. The role of the pastor however is reserved for men. THis is not to say that men are better at it than women. It's just the way it is. Women can do most of the roles of pastors (preaching, teaching, small groups etc), but the pastoral role is for men.

I'm sure I'm going to be flamed for saying this so go ahead.............

PA your right and that is my point. For some odd reason most places keep the positions of the most importants for men and I don't understand that, which is why the original question was posted. If god would look at both sexes equally then wouldn't the human way of separating things and making men superior go against god's word? and if it doesn't then why doesn't it? Will those men who look down on women be treated harshly in gods eyes? or will that be acceptable because god would have done the same? if you believe that then i think no woman should ever do anything but turn her back on him.......I do not stand for any man who thinks himself better then me for any reason, I know very strong women who would never stand for this from anyone and I agree women are strong, and smart they are capable of doing anything they believe themselves capable of. however men seem to enjoy the idea that they can belittle women and keep the 'in there place' which makes men's lives easier..................and then they wonder why they can't get a date

i have to leave god out of the question. but all men and women are treated unequally. the world isn't perfect. majority of the world has yet to come to the idea that women are just as capable as men. this is a social issue and not a religious issue. even in America, where it is a free country "most of the time" there is a similar problem with race, size, and income. if you would rather point fingers rather than acting to make the issue better then yes, we can blame anything and everything we want. that is the case with this topic.

So do you agree with this position, that only men are allowed to preach?
Are not women, who nurture life and bring it forth, not able to spread the word of god? And why is that so?

This isn't a flame, nor is it a 'trick' question. I am interested in your opinion, PA. Can you explain why you follow this trend? Your opinion please, not just "because"...

good journey

leaving god out of the question avoids answering the question now doesn't it, since that was the entire point here? I am not pointing fingers at anyone i was asking a simple question that you don't seem to want to answer or perhaps can't? I could raise issues all day long about race, class, education etc however this is about the church plain and simple no pointing fingers at anything just looking at one part of the world ( the part we talk about in this section by the way) and asking a question in reference to that........so what's the problem with that?

it is called a patriarchal society.

the more established a habit, the harder it is to change. "norms" are those things accepted "as is" without thought or concern.

i assure you that even here on the liberal west coast (in canada) i can easily introduce you to people that would, based on the post i quoted from, raise your blood pressure! Even though on a superficial level they view women as equal (some do, some don't), when "push comes to shove" the "just a woman" attitude shines through quite clearly. I even know a fellow that compares riding bulls to women....

I know quite well that there are a great many men that feel that way and women who don't seem to have a problem with it as well. But my thing is this, if a god fearing person does this will god be ok with it? lets word it like that and perhaps you'll understand my reasoning here. No need to explain the mentality to me or why humans feel that way the issue is a bit bigger or at least that was the intent