There are many women in single parent households and two parent households that take the leadership role in the family and do as well or better than men.
There are women who do very well. I work with many such families. And quite frankly it is not hard to do 'better' than many men today.
That isn't the issue. Men failing to fufill their role (which they do) is not evidence against the role.
So the only reason you claim your position as head of the family is because you believe God's bias to be valid.
Again, you are only showing your bias and begging the question. Your statement is loaded to prove what you already believe. It's like me saying. Your biased opinion is biased. You really ought to stop.
And what about marriages that have no children, why is it suddenly when a woman gets married she needs a man to be her head, when all the time she was single she did just fine?
Fine according to what? As I've said, platitudes, no substance. arbitrary.
What does male circumcision have to do with the cleansing and purification time of the mother? At the most you could apply male circumcision to lessen the time of the babies purification and cleansing, but even that wouldn't really work because circumcision was for a specific covenantal reason...it had nothing to do with purification or cleansing.
I don't know, do you? No. That is why I said 'PERHAPS.' In other words, I am saying it is a possible consideration, but I'm not claiming it must be the answer.
It's possible, since the covenant of circumcision came FIRST, with Abraham, that it was given consideration in the Ceremonial laws. But, as Byblos pointed out, there are other potential explanations that it is NOT arbitrary and thus NOT bias in that it is discriminating against women. The point is that you have made up your mind. You approach the text with your "God bias" and read that into it, ignoring any other possible consideration.
The passage in Leviticus specifically says that the time of the mothers cleansing and purification is doubled if she has a female child. That is biased whether or not you think it is justified because of culture.
Only because you've made up your mind and stubbornly refuse to consider that you could be wrong and that there could be a perfectly VALID reason.
jlay wrote:If we just start with the text from Genesis we see that at the minimum, it isn't arbitrary. But the initial order was a result of consequence. To the woman he said,“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” Genesis 3:16
You say it isn't arbitrary?
![Confused y:-/](./images/smilies/yahoo/06.gif)
You mean it's not arbitrary to increase pain in childbirth and cause the man to rule over the woman for the rest of human history because Eve was deceived by a serpent? What in the world does being deceived by a serpent have to do with increasing pain in childbirth and male ruler-ship? For that matter why would anyone put a male in a leadership position when it was the male (Adam) who let the woman (Eve) talk him into eating the forbidden fruit?
-
Mock the scripture all you like. Just because something isn't important to you, doesn't mean it is not important. Cause and effect. If you read the text, the male faced consequences. Again, all you've done is set YOURSELF and your subjective values as the basis to judge the Bible and its God. It is egotistical and totally unflexible.