Women speaking in Church

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Lord Urizen
"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, and if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for woman to speak in the church."

1Corinthians 14:34-35


laughing

TRH
ha ha,you go that from my link...,anyway yes very bad

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by TRH
ha ha,you go that from my link...,anyway yes very bad


Yes, Thank You TRH...I'm surprised I never found that quote before. That's hilarious.....and here on KMC Christians will INSIST that the Bible is NOT sexist.....


laughing hysterical laughing out loud laughing laughing laughing out loud

Alliance
Who cares? You don't have to take the bible as literal to be a Christian. This is irrelevant.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Alliance
Who cares? You don't have to take the bible as literal to be a Christian. This is irrelevant.


I know....


I jjust think it's hilarious....people will claim that the Bible is not sexist, when it clearly is...im waiting for some Fundamental Christian to defend that quote somehow....

Alliance
So if it is irrelevant, how is this thread possibly useful beyond aggravating people?

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Alliance
So if it is irrelevant, how is this thread possibly useful beyond aggravating people?


I never said it was irrelevant. Only you have....


It is very relevant to many Christians, for example: JIA, Marcello, etc.


Even Chrisitans such as Nellinator or Feceman, who see the Bible as flawless, and as the word of God, will defend it.


Many Christians here have claimed that the Bible is perfection, since it is the word of God, and since thier God is perfect. They have also said the Bible is NOT sexist...



IT clearly Is however....I am hoping somebody will try to refute that.....not because I truly care....but because it would be fun to hear the answers.

Alliance
Originally posted by Alliance
Who cares? You don't have to take the bible as literal to be a Christian. This is irrelevant. Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I know....

So yeah, not wha toyu said earlier.

Besides, you don't apply this same arguemant the Qu'ran, so apparently you're just as irrelevant or ignorant or whatever.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Alliance
So yeah, not wha toyu said earlier.

Besides, you don't apply this same arguemant the Qu'ran, so apparently you're just as irrelevant or ignorant or whatever.


When I said I know, I meant that I know you do not have to beleive in the Bible literally to be a Christian. I did not agree that this quote was irrelevant.


If this Biblical quote is irrelevant, than so is the rest of the Bible....therefore the religion thread would be irrelevant by default.


And no, your incorrect again.....


I am aware that there are moderate Muslims who do not follow the Quran tooth and nail....they primarily exist in United States, Europe, and some parts of the Middle East.


Islam today is a mess, and either needs to be further reformed or erased. The violence and bloodshed that Islam is responsible for today cannot simply be excused because you fear prejudice against Muslim people.

The Bible is a book i respect NO MORE than the Quran. I do not have a problem with Christian or Muslim people as I have stated numerous times....it is the BOOKS and the APPLICATION of the religion I have Anger towards.


Quit putting words in my ****ing mouth, and quit making half-ass arguments against me, when you do not understand my stance. ok ?

Nellinator
I'm just glad that God, unlike many people, recognizes that there is a difference between men and women. That said, you have no clue about the meaning of this verse. Go do some research on the culture of who he was sending it to and the church situation then perhaps you will understand. Remember what else Paul said about women the church so as not to misunderstand his belief and perhaps you will learn a thing or two about the position on women in the church.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Nellinator
I'm just glad that God, unlike many people, recognizes that there is a difference between men and women. That said, you have no clue about the meaning of this verse. Go do some research on the culture of who he was sending it to and the church situation then perhaps you will understand. Remember what else Paul said about women the church so as not to misunderstand his belief and perhaps you will learn a thing or two about the position on women in the church.




Oh God.... laughing


Let me guess, this is another quote that I could never understand because I'm not Evangelical roll eyes (sarcastic)


This is like when Feceman said that Homosexuality is not a sin, but that God punished Sodom and Gomorrah because men dedicated thier gay sex to false gods.....yeah ok.....


The verse clearly says it is a shame for women to speak in the Church....

Please do not give me this bullshit about how this verse has a "secret meaning" that myself and other non-Christians do not know about.

TRH
Just finished a course on paul in a church where thy adressed this verse

((The_Anomaly))
I LOL'd at this verse. Yet another prime example why I don't believe in Christianity.

TRH
Originally posted by ((The_Anomaly))
I LOL'd at this verse. Yet another prime example why I don't believe in Christianity. your religon?

((The_Anomaly))
Originally posted by TRH
your religon?

I believe in The Matrix.

Lord Urizen
laughing

Nellinator
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Oh God.... laughing


Let me guess, this is another quote that I could never understand because I'm not Evangelical roll eyes (sarcastic)


This is like when Feceman said that Homosexuality is not a sin, but that God punished Sodom and Gomorrah because men dedicated thier gay sex to false gods.....yeah ok.....


The verse clearly says it is a shame for women to speak in the Church....

Please do not give me this bullshit about how this verse has a "secret meaning" that myself and other non-Christians do not know about. There isn't a secret meaning and you can understand it. You simply haven't done your research. Like I said, you haven't looked at the culture and you've pulled it out of its context and you have excluded everything else that Paul says about woman in the church. I said absolutely nothing about divine inspiration when reading this and although I do believe that it helps, you do not need it in this case. Go do research. You are arguing and discriminating against the Bible out of ignorance. That is known as bigotry.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Nellinator
There isn't a secret meaning and you can understand it. You simply haven't done your research. Like I said, you haven't looked at the culture and you've pulled it out of its context and you have excluded everything else that Paul says about woman in the church. I said absolutely nothing about divine inspiration when reading this and although I do believe that it helps, you do not need it in this case. Go do research. You are arguing and discriminating against the Bible out of ignorance. That is known as bigotry.


Oh please, i discriminate against the Bible no more than you discriminate against Homosexuals by labelling us immoral, unclean, and what not.....


And I wasn't aware that bigotry against Books existed....since when do the Bible and Quran have rights ? laughing

Nellinator
Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion is what bigotry is. The Bible counts as a religion.

Honestly though, please do a little research on this verse. I think it is better that you search on your own... I know that the answer will not be completely to your liking, but trust me, it is not nearly as bad as you make it out to be.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Nellinator
Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion is what bigotry is. The Bible counts as a religion.



I do not hate Christians.....you are sounding just like Alliance now. If I hated Christians, I would also hate my family and freinds.....which I don't.


I dislike a fkn book...that is not bigotry. Stop crying this senseless crap already please...it's getting annoying.



Besides....by your logic, I can easily call you a homophobe...that's bigotry as well. Please don't get me started.




Originally posted by Nellinator
Honestly though, please do a little research on this verse. I think it is better that you search on your own... I know that the answer will not be completely to your liking, but trust me, it is not nearly as bad as you make it out to be.



Since this is the thread asking the question, why don't you just answer the question instead of patronizing me ? It would save a lot of time.....


How bad am I making it out to be ?


Its clearly sexist....as of now, i dont care what the reason is. It's plain sexist, and that is bigotry in itself. I find it hilarious that you will call be a bigot for disapproving of evident bigotry laughing


But if you wish to enlighten me on the matter then do so. Do not just sit there and insist that I spend hours researching something that can be answered right here and now.

Nellinator
I know you don't hate Christians. You hate Christianity, I recognize the difference.

I am not a homophobe as I do not have any irrational suspicion or hatred of homosexuals. I believe that I have shown myself to be educated on the science of homosexuality and have explained my position more than once. Hell, I've even shared a bed with a homosexual before... a homophobe would not do that.

I'm not trying to patronize you. Doing the research yourself will help you a lot more than me telling you as you will look deeper at the things that primarily concern you. I am not you, only you know what parts confuse you.

However, I suppose that if you insist I will answer.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Nellinator
I know you don't hate Christians. You hate Christianity, I recognize the difference.


Wrong again bro...

I do not hate Christianity.....I hate the corruption that many people have caused, experienced, and promoted because of thier abuse of Christianity and because of thier intepretations of the Bible.


Same way I do not hate Islam, nor do I hate Muslims as Alliance will insist. I am angry, no...furious...with the violence and bloodshed that Islam promotes Today.


Christianity has evolved and is no longer the dangerous force it used to be. Christian Conservatives in power may be annoying, but they are no where as dangerous as Islamic Fundamentalists have become today. It's pretty self evident.


I do not care what you beleive, because it is your right and your own business, not my own.


Nor do I care what a Muslim beleives.....a Muslim is not a bad person just because he or she is Muslim....



It's Organized Religion and its promotion of closed mindedness that I cannot tolerate.


Christianity has lee way with me, as it has been responsible for much good as well. And Today, Christianity's positives outway its negatives.


Islam, however, has much blood on its hands...and not a few centuries back...TODAY.....I've done research...I've read peices of the book written by Ghazul Omid....I've seen footage of the punishments done under Islam, and I tell you they are horrendous.


Islam needs to be further reformed. Very few Muslims actually question thier Quran, and I commend them, but there needs to be more people like them.









Originally posted by Nellinator
I am not a homophobe as I do not have any irrational suspicion or hatred of homosexuals. I believe that I have shown myself to be educated on the science of homosexuality and have explained my position more than once. Hell, I've even shared a bed with a homosexual before... a homophobe would not do that.

I'm not trying to patronize you. Doing the research yourself will help you a lot more than me telling you as you will look deeper at the things that primarily concern you. I am not you, only you know what parts confuse you.

However, I suppose that if you insist I will answer.






I know you are not a homophobe....that was my point. You called me a Bigot towards Christianity because I critisize the Bible.....that is JUST as valid as me calling you a Homophobe just because you think Homosexuality is sinful.....




Being judgemental of A BOOK is NOT the same as being judgemental of a PERSON or PEOPLE.



And you have also forgotten how many times I have critisized Gay Media....so it's not like I have this uncomprimisable Liberal Bias against Conservatives and Christians alike.....whenever I see injustice, in any shape or form, will be angry...that is just me.


I am VERY Hot- Tempered, always have been...its the Latino in me, or i duno,....but that does not equal Hatred. You are seriously confusing Anger for Bigotry, and they are not the same.


I have 100% NO tolerance for Violence, Prejudice, or Hate.



I may respond with criticism and anger, but I will not punish you by any means. You do not have to listen to me if you do not want to...anything I say in this case is pure opinion, and I do not expect you to submit to my opinions.

chithappens
Originally posted by Nellinator
I'm just glad that God, unlike many people, recognizes that there is a difference between men and women. That said, you have no clue about the meaning of this verse. Go do some research on the culture of who he was sending it to and the church situation then perhaps you will understand. Remember what else Paul said about women the church so as not to misunderstand his belief and perhaps you will learn a thing or two about the position on women in the church.

Why should anyone have to do research to understand that? There are no metaphors. I don't have to know the "church situation." It says what it says and it's pretty clear.

Alliance
But the Bible is not the Church, nor vice versa, and the Bible has changed in many ways.

Reasearch is the only path to understanding.

chithappens
Originally posted by Alliance
But the Bible is not the Church, nor vice versa, and the Bible has changed in many ways.

Reasearch is the only path to understanding.

I do agree with you there, but this particular passage does not require any extra understanding or application to a certain situation.

This is how I see it; the bible says stuff like this:

"Turn the other cheek" but then in other spots advocates capital punishment and the infamous "eye for an eye."

There are random spots where the Bible is contradictory. Even in it's full context these contradictions can not be justified (so to speak, should say explained but you should get my drift). It says:

"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, and if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for woman to speak in the church."

1Corinthians 14:34-35

I don't see what can not be understood even if one were to only view this to explain the thread; Women are to be silent until spoken 2, obedient as it is said under the law (which in context says there are sexist laws backed by Christian views), and when they do learn something to speak only at home to their husbands (implying only to the husband?) because they are not allowed to do so in church.

What's am I missing?

Nellinator
I never said you were bigot wink. You were being guilty of bigotry, but since I expect better you I do not consider you a bigot. It does bother me when you attack the Bible without researching it first because that is just you trying to aggravate, not learn. The Bible is not evil, nor is it full of prejudice. I think I've shown that more than once and I just wish you would do a little background searching first if its only ten minutes worth, rather than this. And the manner you present it in is another problem. Putting a laughing smilie and then saying that it is horribly sexist is wrong it you don't consider the context.

Now the answer in very brief:
One only has to go back to 1 Corinthians 11 to see that Paul teaches that women may indeed speak in the church.

1 Corinthians 11:5
For every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

*Now this can also be pulled out of its context, but one only has to got to verse 15.

"But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering."

*Women's covering is merely there heads. However, women in the Corinthian church were shaving their heads and acting as men in the church, speaking on behalf of their husbands and whatnot, which is not what was expected. Therefore, specificly to the Corinthians Paul commands that the women not speak as a punishment for their wrongdoing. Woman with covering were allowed to prophecy and speak in the church. There were women deaconesses in the early church commended by Paul and Timothy's grandmother was in Paul's very high esteem. Paul was not so stupid as to contradict himself in the same book. The Corinthians knew exactly what Paul was talking about.

Alliance
Originally posted by chithappens
What's am I missing?

You're missing the fact that some of these texts are 3000 years old and concepts in ancient history wever very different then thay are today.

Its not simple at all.

Nellinator
Originally posted by chithappens
What's am I missing? The the women were acting outside of their place. Believe what you will, but the women were commanded to submit to their husbands. And husbands were commanded to love their wives and to be willingly to die for them. In practice this works perfectly, but these women were usurping the husband's authority, so Paul commanded them to speak to their husbands at home so that their comments and concerns might be voiced in the church without disgracing their husbands. In practice the husbands are obliged to speak everything on their wife's behalf as apart of the love they are commanded to show for them.

Alliance
^^^ These views would not be accepted today in society, which has learned.

Nellinator
I guess that's your personal decision then. It's a bit of a take it or leave it situation. The point is that women were allowed to speak in the church, but they are not supposed to emasculate their husbands. I can understand why many people disagree with this, but the sexism that some claim exists in the Bible does not exist. There is different roles for men and women, but not to the point of humiliating women and keeping them from being individuals as some might suggest.

Alliance
By modern standards that is humiliation. By ancient standards it was not.

Nellinator
What part is humiliating? That they got told to shut up because they were emasculating their husbands?

Alliance
In the present or at the time?

Nellinator
It was pretty specific to that one church at that one time.

Alliance
In the past I don't have a problem with it. I'm an Ancient hsitorian. I understand why these things were the way they are at the time.

i'm just got alarmed because I thought you were insinuating that this view of "demasculinization" was still acceptable.

chithappens
Didn't even say I disagreed with it; I might hate women and think they should submit and you are none the wiser.

Sigh, you guys are just attacking now.

Nellinator
I do still believe that a woman should leave a man his masculinity. In psychology I've seen enough relationships ruined by overbearing women... not that I haven't seen abusive men and control freak men... Masculinity is important in the male psyche which is why it is still relevant. However, because we have culturally advanced so that men are not as easily demasculated it is not much of an issue.

Alliance
Neither Nellinatory nor I attacked or even addressed you. Sorry, but this is a civil discussion.

Nellinator
Originally posted by chithappens
Didn't even say I disagreed with it; I might hate women and think they should submit and you are none the wiser.

Sigh, you guys are just attacking now. I didn't? Did I? We are discussing the topic civilly now, let's stick to that okay?

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Nellinator
I do still believe that a woman should leave a man his masculinity. In psychology I've seen enough relationships ruined by overbearing women... not that I haven't seen abusive men and control freak men... Masculinity is important in the male psyche which is why it is still relevant. However, because we have culturally advanced so that men are not as easily demasculated it is not much of an issue.



Masculinity is a social construct and does not exist in nature....sorry, but I disagree there.


Neither the man or woman should be dominant. I do not beleive that anyone in any couple, whether it be man/woman, man/man, or woman/woman should dominate thier partner and lover.


To dominate is the role of a parent, not a spouse.

chithappens
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Masculinity is a social construct and does not exist in nature....sorry, but I disagree there.


Neither the man or woman should be dominant. I do not beleive that anyone in any couple, whether it be man/woman, man/man, or woman/woman should dominate thier partner and lover.


To dominate is the role of a parent, not a spouse.

I couldn't have said it better.

Nellinator
It does exist in nature in many species. It depends on whether the species is patriarchal or matriarchal. Humanity, if you believe in evolution, is patriarchal like primates. In matriarchal species such as the angler fish, the opposite is true. However, it can be a social construct, but not necessarily, there is a genetic component to it.

You are right, domination is wrong, but submission and domination are different are they not? If a man loves his wife as commanded, he will respect her wishes and the marriage will be one of equals. However, the man socially represents the family in many cases as the primary provider. Since this is not as common in North American society, it is not a big deal. This whole issue of marriage is very culturally subjective based on Biblical principles. Fidelity is really the only full restriction put on marriage.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Nellinator
It does exist in nature in many species. It depends on whether the species is patriarchal or matriarchal. Humanity, if you believe in evolution is patriarchal. In matriarchal species such as the angler fish, the opposite is true. However, it can be a social construct, but not necessarily, there is a genetic component to it.



No it does not. You are confusing terms...

Masculinity is simply a social construct, and does not exist in "human nature" much less animal nature. Lionesses have many a time rebelled against, even killed, male Lions who were supposed to be incharge of thier pride.


There is nothing fixed in nature in terms of the role of gender. No one knows why animals behave the way the do, what we cannot understand we simply refer to as "instinct"...but since we do not live as the wild animals do, since we cannot look into thier minds, we cannot factually know why they do what they do, or behave how they behave.

And regardless of our conclusions, there are numerous anomalies that exist, INCLUDING the presence of homosexuality found in many many species, in mammals, reptiles, and birds alike.



"Masculinity" according to the social definition (as far as majority perception goes) is the behavior of dominance, insensitivity, and aggression in men. Obviously, not all men are like this, in fact, most men are cowards.

The standards of masculinity have changed throughout History. I suggest you do some research on the Victorian Era....even as far back as Ancient Greece...what they considered "masculine" back then is not what we consider masculine today.


WE made it up....it's not real bro....its an illusion, a standard we teach our children in hopes they will become what we percieve as "strong."




Originally posted by Nellinator
You are right, domination is wrong, but submission and domination are different are they not?



Bro, they are two ends of the SAME spectrum erm








Originally posted by Nellinator
If a man loves his wife as commanded, he will respect her wishes and the marriage will be one of equals. However, the man socially represents the family in many cases as the primary provider.


This is no longer true, as many women are taken charges of thier families.







What exactly is your point in this quote ? I thought we were talking about the existance of masculinity.....

FeceMan
Urizen's stupidity is universally acknowledged.

chithappens
I agree with Urizen

Alliance
who cares, it has no play on modern society. Ancience conceptions of masculinity are dead.

Nellinator
Masculinity is a psychological fact that I've had to learn about many times. It is part genetic as one sex in the species is genetically attuned for certain roles. In humans this includes men being, generally, genetically more inclined to be stronger, that is to be able to protect and provide for the family. This is not just a social construct. Of course rebellions occur and of course there are anomalies, but in general that is how it works. I'm not referring to the masculine image of being insensitive and whatnot, but rather a genetic predisposition to be a provider. Because of technological advancement, this is changing, but masculinity is still important. Even the socially constructed idea of masculinity is important as it helps can contribute to stable society.

Submission of wives to their husbands, how the Bible describes it in Ephesians 5:24 is the same way the church submits to Christ. I can tell you that it far different than domination.

It is still true in many cases in North America and outside of North America (and Europe?) it is even more prevalent. The domination of the service industry in the first world is not really applicable to the situation in Paul's time.

We are talking about how Biblical principles work in a marriage. Fidelity is one I thought I would mention.

Alliance
Its not really that true in the historical sense. The framework has remained similar, but the house has been gutted and rebuilt.

FeceMan
Fidelity? I think that's a bit outdated for today's standards.

Alliance
"todays" standards...

...one can make an arguement that fidelity is only "lower" today because its more accepteable to divorce.

Infidelity has ALWAYS been there.

Nellinator
Originally posted by Alliance
Its not really that true in the historical sense. The framework has remained similar, but the house has been gutted and rebuilt.
But you agree that scientifically humans are a patriarchal society?
Originally posted by FeceMan
Fidelity? I think that's a bit outdated for today's standards.
Touche.

Nellinator
Originally posted by Alliance
"todays" standards...

...one can make an arguement that fidelity is only "lower" today because its more accepteable to divorce.

Infidelity has ALWAYS been there.
True, but something tells me that infidelity is more acceptable now than then. You know, the good ole days when a wife was considered a treasure worth courting and fidelity was admirable. Now fidelity is a non-factor.

Alliance
Originally posted by Nellinator
But you agree that scientifically humans are a patriarchal society?

Scientifically? I have problems substantiating that. There have been many successful matriarchial societies throughout history. And todays societies are dealing with "equality" quite fine.

I've learned well enough from previous "scientific" movements in history not to attmept to base social conceptions on science. I'd have trouble saying that society is patriarchal and I think it would be an uphill battle to prove so.

I will say that traditional "male" characteristics are more higly prized in many Western societies than traditional "female" characteristics. However, that doesn't make a society patriarchal, it makes it masculine....lets say animus (to take this out of gender constructs)instead. Both males and females can exhibit these qualities equally well, regardless of thier traditional roles, hence not patriarchal.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by FeceMan
Urizen's stupidity is universally acknowledged.



Go have Sex PLEASE ? erm

FeceMan
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Go have Sex PLEASE ? erm
Ooh, a suitor for me...how quaint.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Nellinator
Masculinity is a psychological fact that I've had to learn about many times. It is part genetic as one sex in the species is genetically attuned for certain roles. In humans this includes men being, generally, genetically more inclined to be stronger, that is to be able to protect and provide for the family. This is not just a social construct. Of course rebellions occur and of course there are anomalies, but in general that is how it works. I'm not referring to the masculine image of being insensitive and whatnot, but rather a genetic predisposition to be a provider. Because of technological advancement, this is changing, but masculinity is still important. Even the socially constructed idea of masculinity is important as it helps can contribute to stable society.

Submission of wives to their husbands, how the Bible describes it in Ephesians 5:24 is the same way the church submits to Christ. I can tell you that it far different than domination.

It is still true in many cases in North America and outside of North America (and Europe?) it is even more prevalent. The domination of the service industry in the first world is not really applicable to the situation in Paul's time.

We are talking about how Biblical principles work in a marriage. Fidelity is one I thought I would mention.




Women can provide just as well as Men. And technology has less to do with it, than the fact that women have been given more freedom and rights this era than before.


Women have been oppressed for countless ages, and given very little power, how do we expect women to provide when they have been forced to submit for centuries ?


You are using Masculinity out of context....again....Masculinity and Feminity are behaviors constructed by society. There is nothing genetic about Masculinity or Femininity. We are simply taught to behave a certain way, and nothing more...as I've stated before the standards are ever changing.

A man being physically stronger is not a masculine aspect. Some men are very physically weak...does that make them less masculine ? Does that make them less of a man ?


If a woman is not a mother, does that mean she is not feminine ?



You are trying to disguise a social construct as a natural phenomena, and it isn't working. A woman should not be punished for speaking on hehalf of her husband. If it was nature's law that women submit to men, then women wouldn't have the ability to speak out against, or for their male partners, now would they ?

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by FeceMan
Ooh, a suitor for me...how quaint.


Seriously...go get laid...you are resentful and annoying.

Nellinator
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You are trying to disguise a social construct as a natural phenomena, and it isn't working. A woman should not be punished for speaking on hehalf of her husband. If it was nature's law that women submit to men, then women wouldn't have the ability to speak out against, or for their male partners, now would they ? I defined the context that I was working in so pulling it out of the defined context doesn't help the discussion. Yes, they would be able to, it comes with the ability to speak and with social constructs. Speaking for someone is wrong, women were allowed to speak for themselves, they screwed up, they got it back, it was cool. Paul pwned them.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Nellinator
I defined the context that I was working in so pulling it out of the defined context doesn't help the discussion. Yes, they would be able to, it comes with the ability to speak and with social constructs. Speaking for someone is wrong, women were allowed to speak for themselves, they screwed up, they got it back, it was cool. Paul pwned them.


No offense Nellinator, but that was a desparate summation of what could have been a great argument thumb down


Social constructs are unnecessary, and only serve in inequality and nothing more.

Paul pwned the women for speaking on hehalf of thier husbands ? Oh wow, as if men haven't been speaking for woman centuries before and since roll eyes (sarcastic)


Sexist......

chithappens
You beat me to every freaking comment! laughing

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by chithappens
You beat me to every freaking comment! laughing



laughing


Okay...Let's take turns....you pawn them once, ill pawn them second.

Nellinator
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Social constructs are unnecessary, and only serve in inequality and nothing more.

Paul pwned the women for speaking on hehalf of thier husbands ? Oh wow, as if men haven't been speaking for woman centuries before and since roll eyes (sarcastic)


Sexist...... Social constructs are very necessary and contribute to the stability of society. There are roles within societies whether they are sex related or not.

Actual, not sexist because woman were allowed to speak for themselves. They overstepped their bounds and discipline followed. Paul had a tendency for pwning idiocy in the church. That's basically all the epistles are.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Nellinator
Social constructs are very necessary and contribute to the stability of society. There are roles within societies whether they are sex related or not.


That's a load of bullshit.....no one has the right to classify me, you, or anyone else as anything. No one has the right to tell me what to do with my life, or how to live it.





Originally posted by Nellinator
Actual, not sexist because woman were allowed to speak for themselves. They overstepped their bounds and discipline followed.



And men have been over stepping thier boundaries centuries before and centuries since.... roll eyes (sarcastic)


But when a woman does it...its wrong erm






Originally posted by Nellinator
Paul had a tendency for pwning idiocy in the church. That's basically all the epistles are.



Oh yes, like when he declared all Homosexuals as evil people

Nellinator
You don't get classified. They just exist.

Men would deserve it to. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Did he? I seem to remember him arguing that homosexuality is not a sin. He simply pointed out that much of the homosexuality was also attached to idolatry.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Nellinator
You don't get classified. They just exist.




No ...they... don't...


Do you know what a Social Construct is ?





Originally posted by Nellinator
Men would deserve it to. Two wrongs do not make a right.


But men were never punished or condemned for dominating women in the Bible.






Originally posted by Nellinator
Did he? I seem to remember him arguing that homosexuality is not a sin. He simply pointed out that much of the homosexuality was also attached to idolatry.


So you agree with him that Homosexuality is not a sin, and therefore not wrong ? big grin

Alliance
Originally posted by Alliance
Scientifically? I have problems substantiating that. There have been many successful matriarchial societies throughout history. And todays societies are dealing with "equality" quite fine.

I've learned well enough from previous "scientific" movements in history not to attmept to base social conceptions on science. I'd have trouble saying that society is patriarchal and I think it would be an uphill battle to prove so.

I will say that traditional "male" characteristics are more higly prized in many Western societies than traditional "female" characteristics. However, that doesn't make a society patriarchal, it makes it masculine....lets say animus (to take this out of gender constructs)instead. Both males and females can exhibit these qualities equally well, regardless of thier traditional roles, hence not patriarchal.

smile

Nellinator
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
No ...they... don't...


Do you know what a Social Construct is ?








But men were never punished or condemned for dominating women in the Bible.









So you agree with him that Homosexuality is not a sin, and therefore not wrong ? big grin
Yes, they exist whether you want them to or not.

Yes, they were. David? Solomon?

Nope.

Nellinator
Originally posted by Alliance
smile
I started a response then quit. Basically it comes down to why masculine characteristics are more valued and who is more likely to be genetically geared towards them.

Alliance
I do call the genetic gears into question. I think theres no basis to claim there is a genetic favorability. Only a socital one.

Nellinator
Men are genetically predisposed to muscle, and other advantageous characteristics such as a higher centre of gravity, greater height, and fast twitch muscle fibers over the slow twitch muscle fibers that women are more likely to have. I have a athletic training certificate, training men and women is far different.

chithappens
Originally posted by Nellinator
Social constructs are very necessary and contribute to the stability of society. There are roles within societies whether they are sex related or not.

Actual, not sexist because woman were allowed to speak for themselves. They overstepped their bounds and discipline followed. Paul had a tendency for pwning idiocy in the church. That's basically all the epistles are.

Your comments seem to suggest your moral constraints change as the morals of the culture change. So you are saying that Paul pwned then and not now?

Nellinator
Paul would open a can of pwnage everywhere if he was still alive. Heresy is all over the place. Morality doesn't change. The moral issue was women emasculating the men. Since this is not as much of a problem nowadays because of cultural changes it is not a problem.

Alliance
Morality does change.

Slavery?

chithappens
HAHA, long as I wasn't the one to bring it up...

Nellinator
**** you, go to bed, I can't debate this crap anymore...

Seriously though... as a Christian I believe that morality is objective and there is no way around that.

Slavery is a complicated issue. Once again, it is very different now than it was back then. It is a morality of human dignity. I know you are versed in Roman history so you know that slavery was not necessarily a horrible thing. The Bible is concerned with human dignity which is why masters are commanded to be good their servants. Also, slaves are promised a greater reward in heaven, so it all works out. Because of the way culture is nowadays, slavery can never happen. If we somehow reverted to 0AD it would be different.

Lord Urizen

FeceMan
Originally posted by Alliance
Morality does change.

Slavery?
What is acceptable and what is right are two entirely different things.

Alliance
Originally posted by FeceMan
What is acceptable and what is right are two entirely different things.

Yes and both change depending on when and where you are viewing and when and where you are viewing it from.

Nellinator

lord xyz
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
"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, and if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for woman to speak in the church."

1Corinthians 14:34-35


laughing Reminds me of Islam.

FeceMan
HAHAHA.

He said "pawn." Not "pwn," but "pawn." Hey, Urizen, how 'bout you be my ho and I'll pwn you off to the highest bidder?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by FeceMan
HAHAHA.

He said "pawn." Not "pwn," but "pawn." Hey, Urizen, how 'bout you be my ho and I'll pwn you off to the highest bidder?

I thought you were a Christian. eek!

FeceMan
Ain't no rule in the Good Book about being a pimp, only about being a ****.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by FeceMan
Ain't no rule in the Good Book about being a pimp, only about being a ****.

evil_monkey Stop it.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by FeceMan
HAHAHA.

He said "pawn." Not "pwn," but "pawn." Hey, Urizen, how 'bout you be my ho and I'll pwn you off to the highest bidder?



yawn Been there, done that....

lord xyz
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
yawn Been there, done that.... liar

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by lord xyz
liar



I charged a man $500.00 for sex. Needed it to help pay tuition.

FeceMan
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I charged a man $500.00 for sex. Needed it to help pay tuition.
HAHAHAHAHA.

EDIT: Actually, that's pretty depressing.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by FeceMan
HAHAHAHAHA.

EDIT: Actually, that's pretty depressing.


I was desparate bro....I needed the $$$


At Chelsea they're cool with sh*t like that

FeceMan
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I was desparate bro....I needed the $$$
Hence the "actually, that's pretty depressing" part.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I was desparate bro....I needed the $$$


At Chelsea they're cool with sh*t like that

Only $500? eek! laughing

FeceMan
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Only $500? eek! laughing
I should ask Rogue Jedi if he's worth it.

Alliance
Thats really sad.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Only $500? eek! laughing



I try to drive a fair bargain...im never doing that again. (hooking that is)


You wanna know the funniest part though....this guy was a Baptist ! eek! laughing

AngryManatee
Originally posted by Lord Urizen

You wanna know the funniest part though....this guy was a Baptist ! eek! laughing

lol no surprise there

finti
yeah cause they dont speak/chat around wherever whenever as it is already roll eyes (sarcastic)

Shakyamunison

Alliance
Originally posted by finti
yeah cause they dont speak/chat around wherever whenever as it is already roll eyes (sarcastic)

laughing out loud

Related story. A couple of mates and I went to see 300. Walking out of the theaters, these three teenage girls ran screaming up to one of the movie posters outside of the theater screaming in a prepubescent voice how cute one of the actors was.

Needless to say, my friend noted how sometimes she was ashamed to be a woman, to which I replied thats why women have only been able to vote for the past 100 years.

Besides...no one talks in Church anway...even today.

Nellinator
Originally posted by Alliance
Besides...no one talks in Church anway...even today. Ever been to a charimastic church where there is disorganized speaking in tongues?

Alliance
Thanksfully no. The worst I've had to endure is a 5 hour evangelical sermon.

lord xyz
Sometimes I hate it when I start these things.

Lord Urizen

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.