Yes Intrepid I would have guessed you thought that. Attended any fun lynchings lately?
And do you think it was only athiests who passed the amendment to give women the vote? Or the equal rights amendment? Boy, that's a red herring if I ever saw one.
And to completely ignore the voluntary nature of a man being the head of his household is to interject something that has not been argued and presumes a condition that does not exist.
dyslexia wrote:Yes Intrepid I would have guessed you thought that. Attended any fun lynchings lately?
Nah, we abolished the death penalty in Canada. Just waiting for the U.S. to catch up.
Intrepid wrote:The biblical question has been answered. It seems that we are now going off into an entirely different realm of today's world. They didn't have feminists back then.
The biblical question was what law was Paul referring to when he said
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
I do not recall seeing that answered. You offered up a quote from Genesis, but it was more of a castigation of Eve. Exodus and Leviticus are loaded with laws, but where is the one commanding silence of women in churches. Did Paul make it up?
Foxfyre,
Where is the voluntary nature of the woman's place in the verse quoted above?
Foxfyre Wrote:
Quote:Actually the passages in Timothy and elsewhere I think were as much practical as theological.
Paul did not forbid women to preach or prophesy; however in their culture women were not to be teachers of men because men were supposed to be up on the stuff sufficiently to teach their families, not the other way around. And anyone who has witnessed a family where the wife, not the husband, was head of the family, has witnessed an unhappy family. It just works better for the husband to be the head of the family and the wife to be the heart of the family, neither subservient to the other nor complete without the other.
Likewise in a church where the women have taken over the administration and the men fade into the background, you find a sick church.
The passage about women being silent in the synagogue was also practical. The men sat close to the speaker while the women were segregated behind a partition at some distance from the men. When one could not hear the speaker from such distance, they might shout out "What did he say?"
which was distracting. So, better they ask their husbands at home rather than disturb the service.
The rules were in not so much to keep women subservient, though the culture of the times did allow for that, but the rules were to establish and maintain a proper structure and order in the family, the church, and the community.
'
We have to remember that these 'rules' were established for a culture born of Jewish tradition more than 2000 years ago. Customs, cultures, mores, and traditions change over time and the Church has changed with them. I teach a very astute coed classes these days and that's okay. But some universal truths stand the test of time. I am very grateful that I have a husband who loves me as Christ loves the Church and who is very much the head of our household and family. It makes it very easy and logical to submit as appropriate. (Okay, sometimes I have to adapt, but its almost the same thing.)
To submit to God's instruction and do things the way He ordains is not the least bit oppressive for anybody and it is a beautiful thing to watch the results.
Permit me Foxfyre? Mesquite, this was posted quite a few pages back and I think it explains it very well.
mesquite wrote:Intrepid wrote:The biblical question has been answered. It seems that we are now going off into an entirely different realm of today's world. They didn't have feminists back then.
The biblical question was what law was Paul referring to when he said
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
I do not recall seeing that answered. You offered up a quote from Genesis, but it was more of a castigation of Eve. Exodus and Leviticus are loaded with laws, but where is the one commanding silence of women in churches. Did Paul make it up?
Foxfyre,
Where is the voluntary nature of the woman's place in the verse quoted above?
Sorry you didn't see the answer. I will repeat it for you. It seems that you only read the quote from Genesis and nothing else. Are you asking where in the bible is this "law" written? Why would it have to be written in the bible? Do you think that every law was written in the bible? Are you really saying that anything in the bible has to have a backup verse someplace to substantiate it? Do you discount this particular verse because you cannot find it elsewhere?
mesquite wrote:
Quote:1 Corinthians 14:
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
Not exactly a contradiction, but what law is being spoken of here?
Intrepid replied to mesquite:
Quote:This is directed against a practice which seems to have prevailed in this church at Corinth, allowing women to preach and teach in it; and this being a disorderly practice, and what was not used in other churches, the Apostle Paul forbids and condemns, and not without reason.
It was not permitted for them to speak in public assemblies, in the church of God, they might not speak with tongues, nor prophesy, or preach, or teach the word. All speaking is not prohibited; they might speak their experiences to the church, or give an account of the work of God upon their souls; they might speak to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs; or speak as an evidence in any case at a church meeting; but not in such sort, as carried in it direction, instruction, government, and authority. It was not allowed by God that they should speak in any authoritative manner in the church; nor was it suffered in the churches of Christ; nor was it admitted of in the Jewish synagogue.
Genesis 3:16 also reads:
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Foxfyre replied to mesquite
Quote:Actually the passages in Timothy and elsewhere I think were as much practical as theological.
Paul did not forbid women to preach or prophesy; however in their culture women were not to be teachers of men because men were supposed to be up on the stuff sufficiently to teach their families, not the other way around. And anyone who has witnessed a family where the wife, not the husband, was head of the family, has witnessed an unhappy family. It just works better for the husband to be the head of the family and the wife to be the heart of the family, neither subservient to the other nor complete without the other.
Likewise in a church where the women have taken over the administration and the men fade into the background, you find a sick church.
The passage about women being silent in the synagogue was also practical. The men sat close to the speaker while the women were segregated behind a partition at some distance from the men. When one could not hear the speaker from such distance, they might shout out "What did he say?"
which was distracting. So, better they ask their husbands at home rather than disturb the service.
The rules were in not so much to keep women subservient, though the culture of the times did allow for that, but the rules were to establish and maintain a proper structure and order in the family, the church, and the community.
'
We have to remember that these 'rules' were established for a culture born of Jewish tradition more than 2000 years ago. Customs, cultures, mores, and traditions change over time and the Church has changed with them. I teach a very astute coed classes these days and that's okay. But some universal truths stand the test of time. I am very grateful that I have a husband who loves me as Christ loves the Church and who is very much the head of our household and family. It makes it very easy and logical to submit as appropriate. (Okay, sometimes I have to adapt, but its almost the same thing.)
To submit to God's instruction and do things the way He ordains is not the least bit oppressive for anybody and it is a beautiful thing to watch the results.
This was followed by several pages of discussion on women in today's society, mostly by Phoenix.
You both are way ahead of me!
Well, that was a very fine review of the Catholic/Christian modus of subjugating women lo these many years. It is an unnatural form of human relationship at it's core, the submissive female - the dominant male- such appears more in the lower animal kingdoms, but didn't reach common state amongst amongst humans until the rise of organized, that is to say, government sanctioned, religion.
Say what you will, these believers will swim heartily around it, and the women have to make a double leap, first submitting to the belief in a fiction and then to believe that fiction makes it right, makes it their place, to be subservient to the male of the species merely because he is the male and the Godhead ordains such.
It's not as if equal authority amongst the sexes hasn't ever been the foundation for a society, it has been many times. It's just that each time any such society came into contact with the warriors of Christ that society has been eviscerated. Ask the Iroquois. Ask the Inca. Ask the Maya. Ask the Celts (before they arrived in Ireland.) Ask the matriarchal tribes of pre-colonial Africa. Ask the early Christian women who were leaders of the Church before Paul scolded them into silence.
Yet, as pertains the modern writers here, their belief takes them to the idea that this submissive/dominant scheme, because it works for them, is the right way, and perhaps, only way of behaving.
And the idea that the first concern of those opposed to abortion is the babies is smoke of the same fire. First is control of the women, their bodies, their minds, their spirits, then the dominant male can relax and rule his little world with the help of his misogynist God.
Joe(pass the blinders)Nation
Gee Joe, you make us Christian women sound pretty stupid and those of us against abortion downright evil and deceitful as if we are trying to create a whole Stepford Wives' scenario here.
So, I am assuming, of course, what you posted is YOUR opinion?
I am one of those Christian women and I am not stupid, subjagated, or dominated.
Joe Nation wrote:Well, that was a very fine review of the Catholic/Christian modus of subjugating women lo these many years. It is an unnatural form of human relationship at it's core, the submissive female - the dominant male- such appears more in the lower animal kingdoms, but didn't reach common state amongst amongst humans until the rise of organized, that is to say, government sanctioned, religion.
Say what you will, these believers will swim heartily around it, and the women have to make a double leap, first submitting to the belief in a fiction and then to believe that fiction makes it right, makes it their place, to be subservient to the male of the species merely because he is the male and the Godhead ordains such.
It's not as if equal authority amongst the sexes hasn't ever been the foundation for a society, it has been many times. It's just that each time any such society came into contact with the warriors of Christ that society has been eviscerated. Ask the Iroquois. Ask the Inca. Ask the Maya. Ask the Celts (before they arrived in Ireland.) Ask the matriarchal tribes of pre-colonial Africa. Ask the early Christian women who were leaders of the Church before Paul scolded them into silence.
Yet, as pertains the modern writers here, their belief takes them to the idea that this submissive/dominant scheme, because it works for them, is the right way, and perhaps, only way of behaving.
And the idea that the first concern of those opposed to abortion is the babies is smoke of the same fire. First is control of the women, their bodies, their minds, their spirits, then the dominant male can relax and rule his little world with the help of his misogynist God.
Joe(pass the blinders)Nation
Fancy words with smoke and mirrors Joe. How can you possibly claim to know what the first concern of those opposed to abortion is? You seem to have power and control on your mind and you seem to know a lot about it. You may not have noticed Joe(pass the blinders)Nation, that there are many women who oppose abortion. None of us (I won't presume... ) MOST of us are concerned for the unborn child and are not concerned about the women, their bodies, their minds or their spirits for this purpose. Of course, we are concerned about them as human beings.
cicerone imposter wrote:hearty har har...
C.I.,
Do you even know what it is you are laughing at?
cicerone imposter wrote:hearty har har...
Is that all you have to say? We are still waiting for your reply from yesterday. Should we just assume that you do not have an answer and you admit that you were wrong? Sure, we can do that if you wish.
Intrepid wrote:mesquite wrote:Intrepid wrote:The biblical question has been answered. It seems that we are now going off into an entirely different realm of today's world. They didn't have feminists back then.
The biblical question was what law was Paul referring to when he said
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
I do not recall seeing that answered. You offered up a quote from Genesis, but it was more of a castigation of Eve. Exodus and Leviticus are loaded with laws, but where is the one commanding silence of women in churches. Did Paul make it up?
Foxfyre,
Where is the voluntary nature of the woman's place in the verse quoted above?
Sorry you didn't see the answer. I will repeat it for you. It seems that you only read the quote from Genesis and nothing else. Are you asking where in the bible is this "law" written? Why would it have to be written in the bible? Do you think that every law was written in the bible? Are you really saying that anything in the bible has to have a backup verse someplace to substantiate it? Do you discount this particular verse because you cannot find it elsewhere?
Do you think it unreasonable to have a law written somewhere when you make a statement such as
as also saith the law? The existing Hebrew law was well documented at the time. Was it Greek law then? The Greeks were certainly not illiterate at that time since most of the New testament was written in Greek.
Intrepid wrote:mesquite wrote:
Quote:1 Corinthians 14:
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
Not exactly a contradiction, but what law is being spoken of here?
Intrepid replied to mesquite:
Quote:This is directed against a practice which seems to have prevailed in this church at Corinth, allowing women to preach and teach in it; and this being a disorderly practice, and what was not used in other churches, the Apostle Paul forbids and condemns, and not without reason.
It was not permitted for them to speak in public assemblies, in the church of God, they might not speak with tongues, nor prophesy, or preach, or teach the word. All speaking is not prohibited; they might speak their experiences to the church, or give an account of the work of God upon their souls; they might speak to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs; or speak as an evidence in any case at a church meeting; but not in such sort, as carried in it direction, instruction, government, and authority. It was not allowed by God that they should speak in any authoritative manner in the church; nor was it suffered in the churches of Christ; nor was it admitted of in the Jewish synagogue.
A lot of words without reference which may or may not have any validity, and there is no mention of any law.
Intrepid wrote:Intrepid wrote:Genesis 3:16 also reads:
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Foxfyre replied to mesquite
Quote:Actually the passages in Timothy and elsewhere I think were as much practical as theological.
Paul did not forbid women to preach or prophesy; however in their culture women were not to be teachers of men because men were supposed to be up on the stuff sufficiently to teach their families, not the other way around. And anyone who has witnessed a family where the wife, not the husband, was head of the family, has witnessed an unhappy family. It just works better for the husband to be the head of the family and the wife to be the heart of the family, neither subservient to the other nor complete without the other.
Likewise in a church where the women have taken over the administration and the men fade into the background, you find a sick church.
The passage about women being silent in the synagogue was also practical. The men sat close to the speaker while the women were segregated behind a partition at some distance from the men. When one could not hear the speaker from such distance, they might shout out "What did he say?"
which was distracting. So, better they ask their husbands at home rather than disturb the service.
The rules were in not so much to keep women subservient, though the culture of the times did allow for that, but the rules were to establish and maintain a proper structure and order in the family, the church, and the community.
'
We have to remember that these 'rules' were established for a culture born of Jewish tradition more than 2000 years ago. Customs, cultures, mores, and traditions change over time and the Church has changed with them. I teach a very astute coed classes these days and that's okay. But some universal truths stand the test of time. I am very grateful that I have a husband who loves me as Christ loves the Church and who is very much the head of our household and family. It makes it very easy and logical to submit as appropriate. (Okay, sometimes I have to adapt, but its almost the same thing.)
To submit to God's instruction and do things the way He ordains is not the least bit oppressive for anybody and it is a beautiful thing to watch the results.
Yes, I saw all of that, nothing new here. Mostly a lot of apologetics about the practice and nods to the effect that it is God's instruction, but nary any mention of where is is written other than Paul's head.
So what was taking place, was Paul quoting law or was he creating it?
Here are a few more translations for comparison.
Quote: Women should be silent during the church meetings. It is not proper for them to speak. They should be submissive, just as the law says.
New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust
NKJV - 1Cr 14:34 - Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says.
New King James Version © 1982 Thomas Nelson
NASB - 1Cr 14:34 - The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.
New American Standard Bible © 1995 Lockman Foundation
It never ceases to amaze me how glibly the anti-religious, aka Joe and Mesquite, assign their version of 21st morality to a people and culture of more than 2000 years ago as PROOF that Christianity sucks. You might as well say that medicine of 2000 years ago is PROOF that modern medicine is all snake oil or that science of 2000 years ago is evidence that you can't trust any of it now.
The universal truths of the Bible, howver, have stood the test of time in much better shape than has many other concepts that the anti-religious think are just fine now.
And Mesquite, what 'passage' are you asking about as being voluntary? My comment about the Christian home is that it is purely voluntary on the part of the husband and wife. Nobody can be considered oppressed or mistreated or disrespected or subjugated when the Christian wife gives the gifts of her role freely, joyfully, and without reservation. The benefits are quite remarkable and more than worth the effort.
Talk about convoluted statements, "You might as well say that medicine of 2000 years ago is PROOF that modern medicine is all snake oil or that science of 2000 years ago is evidence that you can't trust any of it now."
And they wonder why I don't bother to answer their silly questions. hearty har har...
Phoenix32890 wrote:Quote:The perception of keeping women controlled is foreign to anything that I know, or have experienced. Are there hard facts and statistics to support this, or is this simply an opinion born of intolerance?
Well, what about today's discussion that according to biblical teachings, in a Christian home the man is automatically the head of the household, and he has the final say on everything? I think just THAT is demonstrating how the Christian faith looks to control their women. And what is so sad, is that many Christian women buy into that idea, as perfectly right and proper.
I think that dys, a few pages back, elaborated some of the ways that demonstrate how the Judeo-Christian tradition considered its women 2nd class citizens, or worse. For Pete's sake, in the US, a supposedly enlightened country, women could not even vote until early in the 20th century. And where do you think from where that tradition emanated?
Again, you take it out of context to try to paint everything green. You keep coming back to what you perceive as unfair and suppressive to women. Why do you think women did not have the vote in the U.S.A.? Was it purely religious?
cicerone imposter wrote:Talk about convoluted statements, "You might as well say that medicine of 2000 years ago is PROOF that modern medicine is all snake oil or that science of 2000 years ago is evidence that you can't trust any of it now."
And they wonder why I don't bother to answer their silly questions. hearty har har...
Because he is unable to do so without making silly remarks such as hardy har har. Nothwithstanding the fact that he does not understand the questions. Hard to have an intelligent conversation with someone who refuses to bring anything but glib remarks to the table.
Actually C.I., we don't wonder why you don't bother to answer any of our questions. You have made it very clear to us why you don't answer them.
We answer your questions to the best of our ability. We tell you the truth even knowing that we are probably going to get slammed for it.
What Foxfyre was trying to say is (I believe) that you have to take into account the times themselves. People of today's era think entirely differently than they did in biblical days. I am sure some of the things that go on in today's world would absolutely give some of them a heart attack.
