Did God Really Make Men and Women Equal?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 вер 2022
- Theologian Deborah Savage, currently teaching at Franciscan University in Steubenville, delves into the Hebrew wording of Genesis 1 and 2 to uncover new and liberating insights into God's revelation of the meaning of womanhood and manhood.
Reading through some of these comments, I don't know if they even listened to this interview before commenting. I found this interview interesting. She sheds some light on some things that I have never pondered before. I would love a Part 2 where she can expand on the scientific evidence for how Adam and Eve might have reacted to the serpent in the Garden. She touched on it and moved on. Looking forward to reading her book when it comes out. Maybe you can have her back on for Part 2 when her book is published and you can dive deeper into this aspect of how men and women might respond differently to the serpent (both good and bad).
I am gonna have to make a response video. But otherwise, fascinating interview and I'm gonna have to read some of her books. (Finish that book people are waiting for! 😁)
You haven't made a video in 10 months, so just in case you don't do it soon, what do you plan to address?
Sexes are equal in 'value', not equal in roles.
Read Levitcus 27 1-8
@@Fearl3ss234 (Autotranslation from Polish) Pope Pius XII:
"Today's structure of society, which is based on almost absolute equality between man and woman, is based on an illusory assumption. True, man and woman are, in what concerns personality, equal in dignity and honor, value and respect, however, they are not equal in everything. Certain qualities, inclinations and dispositions are inherent only in a man or a woman, or they are given to them in varying degrees and qualities, some more to a man others more to a woman, in the way that nature has assigned them different fields and activities. It is not a matter of secondary talents or natural inclinations, such as the attraction or love of literature, art or science, but of essential usefulness in the life of the family and the nation. Well, who does not know that nature, even if violently expelled, always returns? Therefore, one should watch and expect whether it will not one day impose a correction on today's social structure."
Pope Leo XIII:
"Secondly, the mutual duties of husband and wife have been defined, and their several rights accurately established. They are bound, namely, to have such feelings for one another as to cherish always very great mutual love, to be ever faithful to their marriage vow, and to give one another an unfailing and unselfish help. The husband is the chief of the family and the head of the wife. The woman, because she is flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone, must be subject to her husband and obey him; not, indeed, as a servant, but as a companion, so that her obedience shall be wanting in neither honor nor dignity."
Read what Church Fathers said on this topic.
Well said
It is my understanding that God's kingdom has a heirarchy/structure. Man is above Woman, in that, Man was directly created by God. Whereas, Woman was created through Man (his rib). That being said, Woman and Man were both created to help each other reach a point they can not get to on their own. That's why both Men and Women have characteristics that are meant to complement each other more fully.
This is why we (men) are instructed to treat our wives as Christ treats His bride, the Church: with great love and respect. And that women are instructed to be submissive to their husbands (as heads of the domestic church). ✝️
It's good understanding.
_women are instructed to be submissive to their husbands_
Oddly enough, it was men who wrote that stuff. Now _that's_ a surprise, huh?
I thought both Man and Woman were created directly by God. I don't see how God's creating Woman with Man's rib makes Woman any less directly created by God. By this logic, Man was created "through dust of the ground," and not directly from God. Can you help me understand what you mean?
@@lukehayner3202 I'm still learning more about this myself, but from what I'm understanding, the difference lies in the way we were created: Man being created directly via the hand of God, with Woman created by God through Man.
@@clgmafnas Do you mean by the "hand of God" in a literal sense? Surely God doesn't have literal hands (until Jesus became Incarnate). I see no significant reason to believe that since Woman was created from Man's rib, she is inferior to him. Man was created from the dust as we see in Genesis. Surely it isn't what God formed you from that determines your worth, but what you are. Both Man and Woman are created in the Image and Likeness of God. I see no significant reason to believe that since Woman was created from Man's rib, she is inferior to him.
Did God really make men and women equal? No, not as far as I can tell. All gods seem to be imaginary, don't they? And imaginary beings can't actually do _anything._
What do you mean by "all gods seem to be imaginary." Can you explain that further?
@@lukehayner3202
_What do you mean by "all gods seem to be imaginary."_
Well, do you agree that magic leprechauns seem to be imaginary? Like gods, we can't prove that they _don't_ exist. And magical beings (who can do anything believers _want_ them to do) would be the all-time world champions at hide-and-seek (let alone invisible, immaterial magical beings).
So I don't _claim_ that magic leprechauns don't exist - or gods, either. But it sure _seems_ like it, don't you think? As far as I can tell, we have zero good evidence of magic leprechauns _or_ gods.
And when it comes to gods, faith-based people worldwide _overwhelmingly_ believe in whichever one they were taught to believe as a child, while thinking that all of the _other_ gods are just imaginary. Heck, Christians can't even agree with _other Christians_ about much of anything, let alone with the other faith-based people in the world.
So, are all gods imaginary, then? Or just all gods except the particular one _you_ were taught to believe as a child? _Maybe_ gods exist, but every religion can't be true, because they contradict each other. They _can_ all be false, though.
And how inept can a god _be_ that he can't even get _his own worshipers_ agreeing among themselves? How inept can a god _be_ that he can't even convince faith-based people worldwide who really, really _want_ to be worshiping the real god that _he's_ the real one?
Do you have *one piece of good evidence,* specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself, that _your_ god is real, rather than just imaginary? You already think that all of the _other_ gods are just imaginary, don't you? Don't we just disagree about one of them?
I'm interested to hear what you have to say, because I've never understood this. And yes, I was raised Christian, too.
@@helloman1051
_The physical Universe needs a non-physical Creator, otherwise nothing at all would exist_
*Evidence?*
That's a very bold claim. Can you back it up with anything at all? Anything other than wishful-thinking, at least? If not, why should I believe your claim?
_and that reality is God_
Well, after you finish demonstrating that the first part of your sentence is true, you can get to this one. So far, you've just made some claims. How about *one piece of good evidence* backing them up? Just *one,* for now, but specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself, please.
@@Bill_Garthright I'm going to address the most important points of your argument, and ignore the lesser points despite not agreeing with many of your claims.
No, I don't believe in magic or leprechauns because I don't see any good evidence for them existing. I do, however, have good reasons to believe that God (understood in the classical theistic sense) exists. One of my favorite arguments is the Kalam argument. P1: everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence. P2: The universe began to exist. C: The universe has a cause for its existence. Once the conclusion is established you can go further and show that this cause (that isn't part of the universe) has divine attributes that are classically attributed to a being like a personal God. (I don't think that the Kalam proves the God of Christianity, it doesn't try to) Further, I think that God is the only sufficient cause for our having objective moral obligations. I also think Thomas Aquinas's argument from motion is convincing.
It's important to note that just because I think other major religions don't get God completely right, it doesn't follow that they get him completely wrong either. Further, it is a straw man to say that because I don't believe in Roman/Greek-like gods I'm not in as good a standing to believe in the God of classical theism. Without explaining why I think it sufficient that the two have nowhere near a similar amount of evidence going for them. This seems to show an ignorance of the arguments given for the existence of an ultimate cause of the universe by philosophers.
I agree that many people believe in the deity they were raised to believe in. However, I'm not interested in the psychology of believers but in what is true. We find out what is true not by looking at the subjective feeling of people (in general), but by using logic and reason to best explain the world.
Christians do agree on most topics of Faith. You are overstating the disagreements.
Why do I believe in the God of Christianity? Well, because I think that Jesus existed. And Jesus claimed to be God. He was either a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord. He was neither a liar nor a lunatic. Therefore he is lord. The authenticity of Jesus' claim is also the best explanation for the proceeding events in history. (The apostles' actions, like willingly dying for what they claimed to have seen in physical reality)
I ask one question of you. You seem to say you don't find any of the arguments for the existence of God convincing. What is the best argument you have looked into for the existence of God, and what was wrong with it?
@@lukehayner3202 *Why do I believe in the God of Christianity? Well, because I think that Jesus existed. And Jesus claimed to be God. He was either a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord. He was neither a liar nor a lunatic. Therefore he is lord.*
We see in the OT that Yahweh lies:
- Yahweh puts lies into the mouths of his prophets in order to kill the king of Israel. (2 Chronicles 18:20-22 and 1 Kings 22:22)
- Yahweh deceives some of his prophets and then kills them for believing his lies. (Ezekiel 14:7-10)
We see in the NT that Yahweh *and* Jesus lie:
- Yahweh causes people to believe a lie so that they can be damned (2 Thessalonians 2:11-12)
- Jesus says he won't go to the festival, then sneaks to the festival in secret (John 7:2-10)
So then, the first option is possible. And this is before we analyze his claims that "the time is at hand" and "I'll return within a generation", "before you can preach to the towns of Israel".
Secondly, there is a 4th option: "Legend" or "Lionized". People can *become* greater in memory, especially when survived by loved ones or admirerers. And we can see this in the NT, because the first 3 Gospels don't have Jesus making claims to divinity, but John does. And centuries later, when Christians stopped being persecuted, the first thing they did was to figure out if the believed that Jesus was God or not. This 4th option matches what we see in history quite well.
*The authenticity of Jesus' claim is also the best explanation for the proceeding events in history. (The apostles' actions, like willingly dying for what they claimed to have seen in physical reality)*
Your example seems to suggest that people wouldn't die for a lie, but we see in history LOTS of people dying for lies. Both intentionally or unintentionally. For example, David Koresh said he was Jesus. He died maintaining that lie, and his followers died believing it.
As for "claimed to have seen in physical reality", the skeptic might note that the reappearance of Jesus happened only to people who were biased towards him, with no surviving evidence. And the last thing he did was chastise a follower for not believing without seeing, just before disappearing to never be seen again.