Women speaking in Church

Originally posted by chithappens
You beat me to every freaking comment! 😆

😆

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

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 🙄

Sexist......

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.

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.... 🙄

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

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

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.

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 ? 😄

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.

🙂

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 ? 😄

Yes, they were. David? Solomon?

Nope.

Originally posted by 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.

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.

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?

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.

Morality does change.

Slavery?

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

**** 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.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Yes, they exist whether you want them to or not.

social construct, a social mechanism, phenomenon, or category created and developed by society; a perception of an individual, group, or idea that is `constructed' through cultural or social practice – -Webster’s Dictionary

😬

Originally posted by Nellinator
Yes, they were. David? Solomon?

Were David and Solomon punished on speaking for women ? Or were they punished for abusing women ?

Because those are two different things...the Bible seems to make no antagonization towards men speaking on behalf of women as they have always done, before and since.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Nope.

Why Not ? Is Feceman's evidense not good enough ?

Originally posted by Alliance
Morality does change.

Slavery?

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.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
[b]social construct, a social mechanism, phenomenon, or category created and developed by society; a perception of an individual, group, or idea that is `constructed' through cultural or social practice – -Webster’s Dictionary

😬

Were David and Solomon punished on speaking for women ? Or were they punished for abusing women ?

Because those are two different things...the Bible seems to make no antagonization towards men speaking on behalf of women as they have always done, before and since.

Why Not ? Is Feceman's evidense not good enough ? [/B]

They were punished for infringing upon the dignity of women, which is the same crime the women of Corinth were committing.
I can't think of an example where men spoke on the behalf of women, but I haven't really checked. I'd be interested to see one.

This is not the place for this discussion. We are talking about women remember? 😄

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
[b]"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

😆 [/B]