Conquer Club

Following a discussion about this in meatspace (what white-knuckle weekends I have)...

So St Paul is the NT authority on homosexuality's sinfulness, yes?

But Paul was also pretty authoritative when it came to women:

Ephesians 5
22: Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. 23: For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24: As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands.

1 Timothy 2
11: Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. 12: I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.

1 Corinthians 14
34: the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. 35: If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

Should women be this silent and submissive? Is this how christian men are supposed to treat their wives and daughters?
If not, why are these instructions from Paul dispensable while his instruction on same-sex shagging are not?

Yes, yes, this looks like a troll thread, but i am genuinely interested in this apparent discrepancy that was only pointed out to me yesterday by a theologian buddy.

You've started something, heavycola. I can't answer your question because I'm bound by law (my lawyer, Victor Sullivan, can get into the logistics).

Though, I imagine anyone with a smug understanding of the topic that looks like this:



Will be here to answer you shortly. Have fun with Ursa-Nigel.

-rd

Well the obvious response is that thoughtful Christians recognise that social mores have evolved over time and disregard certain scripture as no longer relevent . There are of course those who insist that every word of the bible is literal and must be followed to the letter, the mennonite sects spring to mind , but even they are having a hard time these days holding on to such a standard.
By contrast an increasing number pretend a literal belief though in truth they are merely cherry picking scripture to further particular agendas , do they think that an omnipresent God might not notice the hypocrisy

I suspect there are some (and not an insignificant amount of) Christian sects who believe that women should be submissive.

I also suspect that Christianity's definitions of social evils change as people who are the subject of such social evils gain more political and societal power.

I read somewhere (I think in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress) that the people who are in favor of restricting the rights of others are never restricting their own rights. So maybe when women gain more power, the restrictions on women become less important.

heavycola wrote:Following a discussion about this in meatspace (what white-knuckle weekends I have)...

So St Paul is the NT authority on homosexuality's sinfulness, yes?

But Paul was also pretty authoritative when it came to women:

Ephesians 5
22: Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. 23: For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24: As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands.

1 Timothy 2
11: Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. 12: I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.

1 Corinthians 14
34: the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. 35: If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

Should women be this silent and submissive? Is this how christian men are supposed to treat their wives and daughters?
If not, why are these instructions from Paul dispensable while his instruction on same-sex shagging are not?

Yes, yes, this looks like a troll thread, but i am genuinely interested in this apparent discrepancy that was only pointed out to me yesterday by a theologian buddy.

That is a good point.
I agree with the Bible on this. I left a church that had women teaching men. Women can teach women.

One thing I like about the Catholic Church is that it forbids ordination of women. They can have roles in the administration of the church, and in regular orders by becoming nuns, but they are inherently unqualified to perform the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

If you don't like it, join a different religion.

kentington wrote:

heavycola wrote:Following a discussion about this in meatspace (what white-knuckle weekends I have)...

So St Paul is the NT authority on homosexuality's sinfulness, yes?

But Paul was also pretty authoritative when it came to women:

Ephesians 5
22: Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. 23: For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24: As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands.

1 Timothy 2
11: Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. 12: I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.

1 Corinthians 14
34: the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. 35: If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

Should women be this silent and submissive? Is this how christian men are supposed to treat their wives and daughters?
If not, why are these instructions from Paul dispensable while his instruction on same-sex shagging are not?

Yes, yes, this looks like a troll thread, but i am genuinely interested in this apparent discrepancy that was only pointed out to me yesterday by a theologian buddy.

That is a good point.
I agree with the Bible on this. I left a church that had women teaching men. Women can teach women.

In what other aspects of life would you say that men are more suited for than women?

They're definitely more generally suited to being basketballers, but mainly because you don't see too many 7 foot tall women....

kentington wrote:

heavycola wrote:Following a discussion about this in meatspace (what white-knuckle weekends I have)...

So St Paul is the NT authority on homosexuality's sinfulness, yes?

But Paul was also pretty authoritative when it came to women:

Ephesians 5
22: Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. 23: For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24: As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands.

1 Timothy 2
11: Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. 12: I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.

1 Corinthians 14
34: the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. 35: If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

Should women be this silent and submissive? Is this how christian men are supposed to treat their wives and daughters?
If not, why are these instructions from Paul dispensable while his instruction on same-sex shagging are not?

Yes, yes, this looks like a troll thread, but i am genuinely interested in this apparent discrepancy that was only pointed out to me yesterday by a theologian buddy.

That is a good point.
I agree with the Bible on this. I left a church that had women teaching men. Women can teach women.

did you have any female teachers in school? if so, how did you cope?

heavycola wrote:

kentington wrote:

heavycola wrote:Following a discussion about this in meatspace (what white-knuckle weekends I have)...

So St Paul is the NT authority on homosexuality's sinfulness, yes?

But Paul was also pretty authoritative when it came to women:

Ephesians 5
22: Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. 23: For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24: As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands.

1 Timothy 2
11: Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. 12: I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.

1 Corinthians 14
34: the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. 35: If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

Should women be this silent and submissive? Is this how christian men are supposed to treat their wives and daughters?
If not, why are these instructions from Paul dispensable while his instruction on same-sex shagging are not?

Yes, yes, this looks like a troll thread, but i am genuinely interested in this apparent discrepancy that was only pointed out to me yesterday by a theologian buddy.

That is a good point.
I agree with the Bible on this. I left a church that had women teaching men. Women can teach women.

did you have any female teachers in school? if so, how did you cope?

I wasn't a man when I was in school. No need to cope.

Frigidus wrote:

kentington wrote:

heavycola wrote:Following a discussion about this in meatspace (what white-knuckle weekends I have)...

So St Paul is the NT authority on homosexuality's sinfulness, yes?

But Paul was also pretty authoritative when it came to women:

Ephesians 5
22: Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. 23: For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24: As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands.

1 Timothy 2
11: Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. 12: I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.

1 Corinthians 14
34: the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. 35: If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

Should women be this silent and submissive? Is this how christian men are supposed to treat their wives and daughters?
If not, why are these instructions from Paul dispensable while his instruction on same-sex shagging are not?

Yes, yes, this looks like a troll thread, but i am genuinely interested in this apparent discrepancy that was only pointed out to me yesterday by a theologian buddy.

That is a good point.
I agree with the Bible on this. I left a church that had women teaching men. Women can teach women.

In what other aspects of life would you say that men are more suited for than women?

Discipline. With consistent discipline with the same words and as much the same tone as can be had. Children listen to men more. Unless the man isn't present. I have seen this time and time again.

Maybe you have confirmed it through your bias time and time again.

You're making an empirical claim, which isn't obvious or self-evident with such "insufficient data."

BigBallinStalin wrote:Maybe you have confirmed it through your bias time and time again.

You're making an empirical claim, which isn't obvious or self-evident with such "insufficient data."

I had no problem learning from women in school; I've had some problems learning from women in the workplace. I'm not sure what that's about, but I would not make an empirical claim relative to my personal experiences. Oh wait...

BigBallinStalin wrote:Maybe you have confirmed it through your bias time and time again.

You're making an empirical claim, which isn't obvious or self-evident with such "insufficient data."

He did ask for my opinion. Should I ask for government funding to start some research to get more broad results?

thegreekdog wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Maybe you have confirmed it through your bias time and time again.

You're making an empirical claim, which isn't obvious or self-evident with such "insufficient data."

I had no problem learning from women in school; I've had some problems learning from women in the workplace. I'm not sure what that's about, but I would not make an empirical claim relative to my personal experiences. Oh wait...

Haha, I'd say that as long as you confine your observations to only yourself, then it's "fine" because you'll limit your (private) policy to you and very few would relatively be harmed. When this is scaled up, more problems ensue---as with kentington's (alleged) support of the NT in order to make all women submissive and blah blah blah.

kentington wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Maybe you have confirmed it through your bias time and time again.

You're making an empirical claim, which isn't obvious or self-evident with such "insufficient data."

He did ask for my opinion. Should I ask for government funding to start some research to get more broad results?

If the lack the evidence, then you're making a huge leap of faith. Just sayin'.

Sometimes all one can say, "I'm not sure" instead of "Make women submissive! Impose the NT on these inferior creatures for they are inferior because (a) my confirmation bias says so, and/or (b) this special book says so.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Maybe you have confirmed it through your bias time and time again.

You're making an empirical claim, which isn't obvious or self-evident with such "insufficient data."

I had no problem learning from women in school; I've had some problems learning from women in the workplace. I'm not sure what that's about, but I would not make an empirical claim relative to my personal experiences. Oh wait...

Haha, I'd say that as long as you confine your observations to only yourself, then it's "fine" because you'll limit your (private) policy to you and very few would relatively be harmed. When this is scaled up, more problems ensue---as with kentington's (alleged) support of the NT in order to make all women submissive and blah blah blah.

Haha, my support of the NT isn't harming anyone. Am I not free to choose my church? I am not going out and requiring women to be submissive. I keep very much to myself.
In my home life my wife is submissive, but not in the sense that might think. She looks to me as the head of the household. We make our decisions together. I am the tie breaker if we disagree. I asked my wife a lot of questions before getting married and she did the same of me. We are very like minded and haven't had any large arguments in 7 years. We came close at one point and that was when we found out I had a hyperactive thyroid. Since then we have been very mellow.
I don't force my views on anyone else. Not even my kids. Not even homosexuals. I already stated that the government shouldn't even be involved in the marriage business. They can call it marriage or whatever they want, but it shouldn't have anything to do with religion because the government doesn't follow a religion.

kentington wrote:They can call it marriage or whatever they want, but it shouldn't have anything to do with religion because the government doesn't follow a religion.

what non-religious arguments can possibly be made in favor of not allowing gay marriage?

@kentington

Well, as I said, that's "fine."

To me, it seemed that you were agreeing with the NT on this, which would lead me to the conclusion that such a law would have to be imposed on everyone. (Absolute morality and all that jazz).

BigBallinStalin wrote:Maybe you have confirmed it through your bias time and time again.

You're making an empirical claim, which isn't obvious or self-evident with such "insufficient data."

I think he's just stating his opinion, actually.

kentington wrote:I don't force my views on anyone else.

In fact, you have been pretty consistent in this, in these fora. You and I disagree on a fair number of issues, but I do respect that greatly.

BigBallinStalin wrote:@kentington

Well, as I said, that's "fine."

To me, it seemed that you were agreeing with the NT on this, which would lead me to the conclusion that such a law would have to be imposed on everyone. (Absolute morality and all that jazz).

He was agreeing with the NT for his personal life, but his personal agreement doesn't necessarily mean he believes it should be made into law.

Army of GOD wrote:

kentington wrote:They can call it marriage or whatever they want, but it shouldn't have anything to do with religion because the government doesn't follow a religion.

what non-religious arguments can possibly be made in favor of not allowing gay marriage?

Hi. Here it is:

(1) The government should not be in the business of regulating or providing benefits for interpersonal relationships.
(2) Because the government should not be in the business of regulating or providing benefits for interpersonal relationships, the government should not be in a position to either approve of or disapprove of gay marriage or any other marriage.

The end. This is my view, by the way. Either the government does nothing with marriage (my preference) or it treats all interpersonal relationships equally (straight, gay, polygamy).

thegreekdog wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:

kentington wrote:They can call it marriage or whatever they want, but it shouldn't have anything to do with religion because the government doesn't follow a religion.

what non-religious arguments can possibly be made in favor of not allowing gay marriage?

Hi. Here it is:

(1) The government should not be in the business of regulating or providing benefits for interpersonal relationships.
(2) Because the government should not be in the business of regulating or providing benefits for interpersonal relationships, the government should not be in a position to either approve of or disapprove of gay marriage or any other marriage.

The end. This is my view, by the way. Either the government does nothing with marriage (my preference) or it treats all interpersonal relationships equally (straight, gay, polygamy).

I agree completely.

BigBallinStalin wrote:@kentington

Well, as I said, that's "fine."

To me, it seemed that you were agreeing with the NT on this, which would lead me to the conclusion that such a law would have to be imposed on everyone. (Absolute morality and all that jazz).

Woodruff got this one. I believe people have been given free will and it is their choice how to live. Of course I do agree with the laws that prevent people from harming others, I even include harassment in this one.
I am usually less ambiguous than I was in my first posts in this thread.