[Athos]

Actually, it was a clear quote from scripture. It says nothing about men being superior over women. You have so much anger and hate that it clouds your judgement. You really should consider laying that aside.

You confuse anger and hate with objective truth. I'm not surprised by your use of such a tactic.

To the point - You wrote, "Actually, it was a clear quote from scripture". I thought you believed scripture. Do you believe this quote you offered which is from 1 Tim.?

You also wrote, "It says nothing about men being superior over women". Then why are women forbidden to teach when men are not so forbidden. And why are women forbidden to exercise authority over men? Both statements are very clear in placing women in a subordinate position to men.

You still appear to be conflicted re the role of women in society. Your Bible says one thing, and the present day finds many women exercising authority over men. Some even teach.

[talaniman]

To be honest I have enough problems with what modern man is talking about half the time. So much so that the words of the ancients is beyond me for the most part. I suppose the church can do as they please within their own church, but e

ven Christians disagree among themselves on how we apply the words of the bible and frankly that same disagreement is present in most religions. I think the law of the land though overwrites any and all religious laws, rules, or doctrines, and for sure the dufus gives religion little consideration when he does his thing in government or his business.

I would go so far as to say he definitely exploits everything to his own advantage.

[paraclete]

To be honest I have enough problems with what modern man is talking about half the time. So much so that the words of the ancients is beyond me for the most part. I suppose the church can do as they please within their own church, but e

ven Christians disagree among themselves on how we apply the words of the bible and frankly that same disagreement is present in most religions. I think the law of the land though overwrites any and all religious laws, rules, or doctrines, and for sure the dufus gives religion little consideration when he does his thing in government or his business.

I would go so far as to say he definitely exploits everything to his own advantage.

So this is why your constitution doesn't confer the power to make laws regarding religion, nice try

[jlisenbe]

You confuse anger and hate with objective truth. I'm not surprised by your use of such a tactic.

You have no objective truth, only your opinion. Your comments certainly seem to me to be hate and anger driven.

To the point - You wrote, "Actually, it was a clear quote from scripture". I thought you believed scripture. Do you believe this quote you offered which is from 1 Tim.?

You also wrote, "It says nothing about men being superior over women". Then why are women forbidden to teach when men are not so forbidden. And why are women forbidden to exercise authority over men? Both statements are very clear in placing women in a subordinate position to men.

You still appear to be conflicted re the role of women in society. Your Bible says one thing, and the present day finds many women exercising authority over men. Some even teach.

You are drawing conclusions from the text, but it does not explicitly address any issues of gender superiority.

Your disagreement is not with me but with the Bible.

[jlisenbe]

I think the law of the land though overwrites any and all religious laws, rules, or doctrines

As far as law goes, that is correct, but if the Bible is really God's word, then nothing overwrites it. Besides, much of western law is based on the moral standards of the Bible and the existence of God.

[talaniman]

As far as law goes, that is correct, but if the Bible is really God's word, then nothing overwrites it. Besides, much of western law is based on the moral standards of the Bible and the existence of God.

Does that also apply to those that do not believe the bible is the word of god but accept the premise that it has good values? Or is it because Paul said let it be law? The bible shares many good principles and values with other religions so it would seem that Good Orderly Direction is not exclusively Christian.

[waltero]

You still appear to be conflicted re the role of women in society. Your Bible says one thing, and the present day finds many women exercising authority over men. Some even teach.

God is the Creator of the world and the humans who inhabit it (Genesis 1). From the very beginning, God designed the world and people to “function” a certain way. When society doesn’t follow the principles that God gives us in the Bible, life simply doesn’t work as well. God’s the only One with the insight into how life functions to our best benefit, and He shares that wisdom with us in His Word. The Bible is described in Hebrews 4:12 as “alive and active.” This means, in part, that the Bible is as applicable and relevant today as it was when it was first written.

Where there is no honor of God, a society will fail to respect His creation, and people will suffer as a result.

[jlisenbe]

it has good values?

How do you determine what is good?

[Wondergirl]

How do you determine what is good?

Love. Does it promote love, selflessness? Many religions have the Golden Rule as a central teaching.

[talaniman]

God is the Creator of the world and the humans who inhabit it (Genesis 1). From the very beginning, God designed the world and people to “function” a certain way. When society doesn’t follow the principles that God gives us in the Bible, life simply doesn’t work as well. God’s the only One with the insight into how life functions to our best benefit, and He shares that wisdom with us in His Word. The Bible is described in Hebrews 4:12 as “alive and active.” This means, in part, that the Bible is as applicable and relevant today as it was when it was first written.

Where there is no honor of God, a society will fail to respect His creation, and people will suffer as a result.

Who wrote that? Not saying it's not true but rather to explore where they got it from. What does that have to do with a draft dodging morally befreft individual sending my kids to die in a war that brings him personal gain?

How do you determine what is good?

If it's good for ME! I have never had a problem knowing what's best for me.

Love. Does it promote love, selflessness? Many religions have the Golden Rule as a central teaching.

Great response wish I would have thought of it in those terms.

[Athos]

Your comments certainly seem to me to be hate and anger driven.

The hate is all yours. You are projecting, my friend.

You are drawing conclusions from the text, but it does not explicitly address any issues of gender superiority.

Of course, I am drawing conclusions from the text. A conclusion is rarely explicit - that's the nature of a conclusion. It simply needs to follow the rules of reason and logic which inevitably lead to the conclusion. Children learn this by the age of 4 or 5. They don't have the vocabulary of reason and logic, but the method is quite clear at an early age.

Your disagreement is not with me but with the Bible.

This is another familiar - and false - argument from you. If you agree with the Bible, then my disagreement is with YOUR belief. Your failure to stick up for your Biblical beliefs is stunning. You either A) don't believe the Bible teaching re woman as expressed in the quote you gave, or, B) you believe but are unable to defend that belief in today's understanding of women.

[jlisenbe]

This is another familiar - and false - argument from you. If you agree with the Bible, then my disagreement is with YOUR belief. Your failure to stick up for your Biblical beliefs is stunning. You either A) don't believe the Bible teaching re woman as expressed in the quote you gave, or, B) you believe but are unable to defend that belief in today's understanding of women.

1. Yes, it's my belief, but it comes from the Bible, so if you disagree with it, you are in disagreement with the source. It is a completely logical position to take.
2. There is no "sticking up" to be done. There is nothing to defend.
3. I believe that women are the absolute equal of men in worth and value. Their role in the church is different. That is where you are completely missing it. You reach an unwarranted conclusion unsupported by the text which addressed the role of women in the church but says nothing about men being superior to women.

Love. Does it promote love, selflessness? Many religions have the Golden Rule as a central teaching.

Why do you believe that love and selflessness are good? Are you making an appeal to religion?

[talaniman]

Why do you believe that love and selflessness are good? Are you making an appeal to religion?

Sounds more like an appeal to the better nature of man to me! Not to speak for WG, but she did reference the Golden Rule as a central teaching of many religions.

[Wondergirl]

Why do you believe that love and selflessness are good? Are you making an appeal to religion?

Man has free will. He can choose to be loving and unselfish. He doesn't need religion and a moral code for that.

[Athos]

1. Yes, it's my belief, but it comes from the Bible, so if you disagree with it, you are in disagreement with the source. It is a completely logical position to take.

My disagreement is with YOU. If you need to include the Bible in that disagreement, that's fine with me. The disagreement remains.

2. There is no "sticking up" to be done. There is nothing to defend.

What you need to defend is your position re women. If you wish to narrow your position to their role in the church, that's fine with me.

.I believe that women are the absolute equal of men in worth and value.

That's not what your Bible quote says. Yet you maintain that you believe the Bible quote. The conflict remains.

Their role in the church is different. That is where you are completely missing it. You reach an unwarranted conclusion unsupported by the text which addressed the role of women in the church but says nothing about men being superior to women.

My conclusion is neither unwarranted nor false. Here are the words for women - "not permitted to teach" and "not permitted to exercise authority over men". How you can construe from these words anything but the subordination of women to men (in church, if you must) is not possible.

[jlisenbe]

What you need to defend is your position re women. If you wish to narrow your position to their role in the church, that's fine with me.

No, I don't need to defend that. Your argument is with the text of 1 Tim. 2:12.

That's not what your Bible quote says. Yet you maintain that you believe the Bible quote. The conflict remains.

Again, the text said nothing one way or the other about the equality of men and women. It only speaks of roles. There is no conflict.

My conclusion is neither unwarranted nor false. Here are the words for women - "not permitted to teach" and "not permitted to exercise authority over men". How you can construe from these words anything but the subordination of women to men (in church, if you must) is not possible.

It's very simple. I just go with what the text says. Women are not to teach or exercise authority over men. It does not say that women, as a group, are subjugated to men. Women, in fact, are not subject to the general authority of men. A wife is subject to her own husband, but not to someone else's husband, just as a husband's love for his wife is unique to her and not intended for all women. You are simply reading your own prejudices into the text.

[Athos]

No, I don't need to defend that. Your argument is with the text of 1 Tim. 2:12.

Well, you ARE consistent in refusing to engage in discussion on the matter by leaving it to the Bible which, of course, cannot respond.

I just go with what the text says. Women are not to teach or exercise authority over men.

Thank you. At least you admit that much. It's a start.

A wife is subject to her own husband, but not to someone else's husband

But she is. That's EXACTLY what your quote says. Shall not exercise authority over MEN. Plural.

just as a husband's love for his wife is unique to her and not intended for all women.

With this reading, you're out in left field - stretching the meaning to a place it was never intended to go.

You are simply reading your own prejudices into the text.

Not so. I am reading the text based on the meaning of the words.

(This is another tactic I notice you use. When you're out of ideas, you revert to charging the other side with biases and prejudices).

[jlisenbe]

But she is. That's EXACTLY what your quote says. Shall not exercise authority over MEN. Plural.

I can only assume you are joking. That, in fact, is exactly NOT what the text says. Saying that women are not to exercise authority over men is a million miles from saying that all women are subject to all men. If I say I cannot exercise authority over the governor of Georgia, that certainly does not have the meaning that the gov can exercise authority over me. Your argument is total nonsense.

With this reading, you're out in left field - stretching the meaning to a place it was never intended to go.

Think a little. It was a comparison. Saying that the husband is to love his wife is NOT the same thing as saying he should love ALL wives. Saying that women cannot exercise authority over men in the church is NOT the same thing as saying that all men have authority over all women. It's a crazy interpretation.

leaving it to the Bible which, of course, cannot respond.

I assure you the Bible can respond. Try reading it. It defends and explains itself quite well.

[paraclete]

Think a little. It was a comparison. Saying that the husband is to love his wife is NOT the same thing as saying he should love ALL wives. Saying that women cannot exercise authority over men in the church is NOT the same thing as saying that all men have authority over all women. It's a crazy interpretation.

.

Talking about crazy interpretations, what you are arguing for is apartheid, separate development. Men have been given a leadership role. Some have abdicated

[Wondergirl]

It's very simple. I just go with what the text says. Women are not to teach or exercise authority over men. It does not say that women, as a group, are subjugated to men.

That makes absolutely no sense!