Okay, not exactly. But, to the extent to which God intended equality of the sexes, I think so.
Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. Gen. 5:2 (KJV)
The tension between Christianity (or Christian doctrine) and feminism has always struck me as odd and unnecessary. God created them, male and female, and called them Adam.
In Genesis 2, we are told that Adam named his helper “Woman,” but I don’t find anywhere in scripture where God makes such a distinction. God created a helper for Adam, but called them Adam.
Later in scripture, there are rules for how humans are to interact, govern, and live peaceably in a society, but I believe those are for the benefit of mankind, given from a merciful God who knows all to well the frailties of Adam. In the New Testament, Paul gives additional instructions out of revelation of how these beings can best interact and accomplish God’s will on earth.
But, male and female are indeed two sides of the same coin, and together we are one Adam.
#1 by AV1 on June 30, 2009 - 11:25 am
True enough we are all Adam for Woman did come from Adams rib. However there is a distinction between man and woman made by God:
” 18And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
20And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
21And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
25And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.”
Gen. 2:18-25 KJV
The point is this; because God is omnipresent what took place was already known “And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.”
Blessings,
AV1
#2 by petermlopez on June 30, 2009 - 11:39 am
Undoubtedly there is a distinction, I agree. Thanks, AV1.
#3 by Scripture Zealot on June 30, 2009 - 11:43 am
Technically feminism means “for women” as far as I know and in this definition Jesus was a feminist. I’m going to be writing a post about women in the Gospel of Mark.
Jeff
#4 by petermlopez on June 30, 2009 - 11:56 am
Please excuse my inexact usage, but I thought the title might grab some stray readers. Technically, I don’t think God is an “ist” of any kind, just labels we have come up with. Thanks for stopping by. How have you been?
#5 by Scripture Zealot on June 30, 2009 - 1:29 pm
Sorry, my writing, “Technically feminism means,” wasn’t directed at you. I was just saying what it means as I understand it without all the modern connotations that have been added and feel Jesus was a feminist in that sense which kind of agrees with what you’re saying. If that makes any sense.
I’ve been dealing with back pain related stuff, having procedures done, etc. in addition to dealing with other health related stuff. But I’m hanging in there and spiritually doing really well. My last post came out of a prayer time but I’m afraid it just looks like bad poetry.
Thanks for asking. I hope you and your wife are doing well. Always enjoy your posts.
Jeff
#6 by petermlopez on June 30, 2009 - 1:46 pm
Thank you, I appreciate your participation. I wasn’t getting snippy with you, by any means, and my pastor has already corrected me. He said he would say God was a “women’s libber” but perhaps not a feminist. And I agree with that, but I liked the sensationalistic title.
#7 by Scripture Zealot on July 1, 2009 - 2:18 am
Seriously, I would never take anything you say as snippy.
‘Women’s libber’ that’s a good term with less baggage than feminist has now.
Jeff
#8 by petermlopez on July 1, 2009 - 8:57 am
Agreed. I think I like it better too.
#9 by tc robinson on June 30, 2009 - 10:44 pm
PeterM, beautiful thoughts as they relate to the equality of men and women.
#10 by petermlopez on July 1, 2009 - 8:49 am
Thank you, my friend.
#11 by Damian on July 1, 2009 - 3:29 am
I agree, Peter. Good stuff.
#12 by petermlopez on July 1, 2009 - 8:55 am
Thanks, Damian. I appreciate you reading.
#13 by mondaymorningreview on July 2, 2009 - 10:03 pm
Blatant sensationalism at its finest.
Well said.
#14 by petermlopez on July 4, 2009 - 10:49 am
Well, it generated pretty good numbers for a single post, so I guess it worked.