Women speaking in Church

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

I never said you were bigot 😉. 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.

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.

Originally posted by chithappens
What's am I missing?

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

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.

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

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

In the present or at the time?

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

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.

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 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.

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

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.

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.