Fortigurn

I am investigating the extent to which Christian egalitarian arguments are persuasive outside the Christian community. If you are a non-Christian, you are invited to complete this poll. It is not the purpose of this thread to debate the arguments or issues raised here. This is an information gathering exercise.

I have read numerous secular criticisms of the Christian egalitarian case in the relevant scholarly literature, and I am interested in the extent to which they are persuasive in the broader secular community. I have searched these forums and looked through some of the threads which make mention of these issues, but sustained commentary from informed individuals is difficult to find. If you do not understand the terms 'Christian egalitarian', 'evangelical feminist', or 'Biblical feminist', or the arguments described below, then you're not the kind of person for whom this poll was designed.

The arguments concern two different passages. They are enumerated for convenience. Multiple choices are available.

Arguments concerning 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Arguments concerning 1Timothy 2:12

Toto

Previous thread that might relate to this

Toto

There are Christians or post-Christians who blame all the ills of the church on Paul. They seem to assume that he wrote everything attributed to him - in particular, that all government is ordained by god, and that women should not speak in church.

There are conservative Christians who try to take these requirements seriously, although they are so far out of line in modern society that they are a significant impediment to spreading Christianity.

There are other Christians who want to accept Paul's epistles as written, but apply some creative interpretation to avoid the obvious difficulties, which I think includes all of your options except 3. With the many women holding leadership positions in Christian denominations, including conservative evangelical churches, it would seem that most Christians have figured out some way around these passages.

The non-Christians and some of the Christians on this forum do not assume that Paul, whoever he was, must have written everything attributed to him. We also do not think that the words of the Bible are inerrant or in any way privileged, so we have no need of these creative interpretations.

It's not clear why you want the opinion of non Christians on this matter of Christian doctrine. Do you think it is a major stumbling block for non-Christians? Or that we would be impressed with the creative interpretations of these Bible difficulties?

bacht

If Paul was really a 1st C apocalypticist then his social teachings were meant to be temporary until the second coming of Christ sometime within Paul's lifetime. Such a man wasn't trying to build a new religious institution, he was expecting the end of all human traditions.

I think "Christian feminists" should look elsewhere for inspiration. The example of Paul's female friends is more interesting than his supposed teachings: women number among those who assisted his work and probably sponsored him financially. I think there are hints of this kind of thing in the gospels too, women who either travelled with Jesus or supported him.

Fortigurn

Whether or not this point is clear is irrelevant to my research. I am not interested in a discussion of the interpretive issue here. If I want a discussion of the interpretive issue (from all sides), I read the relevant scholarly literature, I don't hang around on forums trawling through random posts from keyboard warriors (of whatever religious or non-religious persuasion). The same goes for any other technical subject.

I am well aware of the range of views among Christians, having researched Christian commentary on the subject covering the last 500 years. I am currently more interested in secular responses to the issue, specifically secular responses to egalitarian arguments. I have spent some time on the scholarly secular responses, and I am now turning to research of the responses in the broader secular community. Thank you for your participation.

Toto

Are you interested in the secular view of what these passages actually mean, or the secular view of Christian attempts to interpret away these passages?

If it's the first, the 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 passage looks like an interpolation, and 1 Timothy is considered my most to have been forged in Paul's name in any case. But they are clearly anti-woman, and were accepted by the church and interpreted that way for most of Christian history. They are an embarrassment to the modern church as much as the passages that condone slavery, or condemn the Jews.

If it's the latter, I can appreciate the desire of Christians to rid themselves of this doctrine, but I don't think any of the arguments hold any water.

Will you be publishing your research?

Fortigurn

I am interested in exactly what I said I'm interested in:

I hope that's clear. I am not specifically interested in non-scholarly secular views on what the passages mean, but I appreciated your comments all the same. Your overall contribution was most useful, thank you.

I think not. The market is already well saturated. This is primarily for my own interest.

Susan2

On a scale of 0 to 10, none, zero, zip, nada, ziltch.



Yawn.


I did not know what the term christian egalitarian, evangelical feminist, nor bibilcal feminist meant so I gave it a brief peek at wiki and sure enough it was what the terminology attempts to convey, sham.

I don't get into the 'interpolation' (#3) trap of modern day scholars, secular or religious. I have come to view that opinion merely another argument of apologetics of some weirder sort. The book is what it is. The authors are whom the book say they are if the book identifies an author.

I imagine it makes for fodder to feed the restless natives, but at the end of the day that particular argument is what it is, small.

As to feminist, secular or religious, women are no more nor less competitive with each other then are men; nor do they always understand one another, or even necessarily care for one another, including issues that are gender specific.

I think Hillary's 'cookie comment' during Bill Clinton's first run for president is an example. Many stay at home mothers found it highly offensive. There was a huge divide, mistrust, and criticisms, and snobbery amongst women of traditional roles and working women at that time.

If I remember correctly Christy Whitman, Governor, New Jersey (USA) made a similar blunder, but, at the moment I can't remember what it was.

I also remember Ms. Whitman's sub campaign slogan, I feel your pain. Born with a silver spoon, I highly doubt it. Many others doubted it as well. Is that snobby enough for ya?

Why should women, or men trust religions 'feminism' any more then secular feminism?

Fortigurn

Thank you. Would you like to enter your view in the poll provided?

Susan2

I am sure that if I had wanted to I would have, correct?