Women should be silent in church?

[Songbird]

Perhaps!

I'll get around to reading Ehrman someday...til then I'll just pull his quotes and act like I know what I'm talking about.

 

[Songbird]

Case closed on that possibility

All cleared up, then! In light of that, it's a mystery why there are so many different beliefs.

 

[SageTree]

I'll get around to reading Ehrman someday...til then I'll just pull his quotes and act like I know what I'm talking about.

Hey, it's sure as heck works for everyone else!

(You can Wiki it too )

 

[Songbird]

Hey, it's sure as heck works for everyone else!

(You can Wiki it too )

Wiki and I are close.

 

[SageTree]

I often say, "That sounds like one to pray to theWiki-Gods about."

 

[Me Myself]

If this was a real woman, it might explain why Paul wrote that women should not be teachers or exercise authority over the men in the congregations. Perhaps there was a women or group of women who were causing trouble by teaching false doctrines in the congregation of Thyatira.

The problem with this is that while it may explain why Paul as a person would write that (I am sure he had his reasons), it is still a kind of thinking that I wouldn´t expect from the holy spirit.

Women have proven to be as capable leaders and teachers as man in the modern world. While not all are as prone to it and while not all are as good in it you shouldn´t judge each one of them because of "most" of them.

God obviously gave more than one women the ability to lead and teach, and I doubt it was intended as a form of "test" for them not to "sin"

 

[Villager]

You got that right!

Indeed, I did. You see, it's very clever. Christians simply choose the books that don't conflict, lob out out those that do, and call the result their 'Bible'. And people are talking about it, all day, every day. They've got it right, you see, those Christians. And skeptics are obliged to switch topics so often.

 

[Pegg]

I find this part particularly interesting, especially if Christians think the "Law" is done away with. Apparently Paul says "Even as the Law says" in reference that its still binding, even if such a commandment may not exist in the current canon.

Gods standards are still Gods standards. the mosaic law was more then just a reflection of those standards.....it was a binding contract which required ceremonial observances and regulations to be adhered to.

What christians were released from was those ceremonial observances and regulations. But the laws which expressed Gods standards are still binding on every individual. You must not kill, must not covet, must show respect to parents, must not lie or cheat, wives are subject to their husbands, men take the lead role etc etc etc...they are the standards that Christians must try to live by.

 

[Vinayaka]

If women are allowed to speak in church, the next thing you know they'll be posting on the internet!

Its the snorers in the back of the room that need to be quiet. Really disruptive, that.

 

[Pegg]

The problem with this is that while it may explain why Paul as a person would write that (I am sure he had his reasons), it is still a kind of thinking that I wouldn´t expect from the holy spirit.

Women have proven to be as capable leaders and teachers as man in the modern world. While not all are as prone to it and while not all are as good in it you shouldn´t judge each one of them because of "most" of them.

God obviously gave more than one women the ability to lead and teach, and I doubt it was intended as a form of "test" for them not to "sin"

When God made Eve, he created her to be a 'compliment' of the man. She was to assist him as a supportive partner. She was to follow his lead, not lead him.

 

[Awoon]

When God made Eve, he created her to be a 'compliment' of the man. She was to assist him as a supportive partner. She was to follow his lead, not lead him.

Ancient cultures.

If you believed what you posted you wouldnt be posting here.

 

[Pegg]

Ancient cultures.

If you believed what you posted you wouldnt be posting here.

i didnt say she was given as a 'silent' partner

 

[Awoon]

i didnt say she was given as a 'silent' partner

Where's yer husband?

 

[McBell]

My view is that in the passage you quote, Paul was speaking to a specific incident for a specific group.

That is my also my take on the passage.

 

[work in progress]

A wife does not need to teach or have authority in order to contribute effectively, as many evangelists and preachers can attest.

It's already been covered, but I guess your point is 'the little woman has all the authority she needs.' It might come across as a little patronizing to a lot of women, but that's the dilemma for a fundamentalist, who has to find a way to work within the strictures of Biblical rules, rather than just use common sense and say 'let those who are best able and equipped for teaching and preaching do the job', instead of saying that preaching and teaching the congregation is exclusively a man's job....no matter how bad he sucks at it.

I recall that in my teen years as a Jehovah's Witness...a sect that puts a high premium on evangelizing -- the workaround strategy during the Tuesday night Theocratic Ministry School (later changed to Theocratic School) was to relegate the women to special dialogue talks where the two women would be sitting down facing each other, rather than one of them speaking to the congregation. One of the sisters, usually one who was older, more experienced, would essentially be giving a sermon...but giving it to the younger woman or girl she was speaking to. Funny thing is, they never used this approach with the male speakers. Even those of us that were young and inexperienced public speakers. We were expected to just do our Bible reading and give a brief commentary. The concept that public speaking has to be divided between men and women wouldn't exist, if it wasn't for a rule that was added to later Bible manuscripts.

The persistent difficulty about modern scholars is that they do not appear to have gone to school. Neither do their students, who permit them to utter the most astonishingly fatuous lies, presumably because it suits their lax lifestyles.

So, graduates of the Harvard Seminary haven't gone to school? The previously mentioned - Bart D. Ehrman, began as a fundamentalist student who began at the Moody Bible Institute; but when he wanted to further his understanding of Ancient Greek and Biblical manuscripts, he enrolled at Harvard and had his eyes opened. Ehrman comments that most graduates of Harvard are usually liberal, non-literalist Christians....which may as well be atheist to most fundamentalists. The trend is unmistakeable, that if a young evangelical goes to Moody, or a typical fundamentalist school, that only teaches one line of thinking, they'll come out as fundamentalist preachers. But, if they go to a real university and get a real, unbiased education, very few will come out at the other end thinking like William Lane Craig.

 

[Villager]

It's already been covered, but I guess your point is 'the little woman has all the authority she needs.''

Guesswork, yes. The biblical 'point' is 'Husbands, ... be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner' 1 Pe 3:7 NIV. And of course all knowledgeable Christians are familiar with Proverbs chapter 31.

It might come across as a little patronizing to a lot of women,

It might. Otoh, women might realise that modern culture is flattering them in order to deceive. It may occur to them that those who oppose the church wish to encourage Christians to appoint the weaker sex to direct the stronger, and thereby to overcome the church; and women might realise the ploy of Satan and resist him.

but that's the dilemma for a fundamentalist, who has to find a way to work within the strictures of Biblical rules

Ah yes, rules. 'Do not murder', 'Do not steal', 'Do not commit adultery', and other Biblical rules have been found downright irksome strictures by many who have called themselves Christians. So, when a 'bishop' merely pinches a young lady''s bottom, why bother about it? When a vicar tells blue jokes at dinners, where is the point of making a fuss? When clerics die of AIDS because they think that seminaries are for close physical encounters, why, that's not as bad as burning 'fundamentalists' at the stake. So why bother with mere Bible fictions, like Paul saying 'as the Law requires? It is they who ought to worry about dilemma and self-contradiction and looking farcical- though, as the Bible prophesies, they have no shame to trouble them.

rather than just use common sense and say 'let those who are best able and equipped for teaching and preaching do the job', instead of saying that preaching and teaching the congregation is exclusively a man's job....no matter how bad he sucks at it.

Of course, many men in apostate congregations deliberately make themselves look inadequate so that women will appear to shine, as they do in the rest of the worldly world. The curious thing is that their congregations often do not like women in charge, and prefer men to order their estate.

I recall that in my teen years as a Jehovah's Witness...a sect that puts a high premium on evangelizing

But not on biblical accuracy. Like modern 'scholars'.

So, graduates of the Harvard Seminary haven't gone to school?

If they have, why don't you reproduce their wisdom here? We haven't seen it yet, anyway.

 

[Songbird]

Guesswork, yes. The biblical 'point' is 'Husbands, ... be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner' 1 Pe 3:7 NIV. And of course all knowledgeable Christians are familiar with Proverbs chapter 31.

It might. Otoh, women might realise that modern culture is flattering them in order to deceive. It may occur to them that those who oppose the church wish to encourage Christians to appoint the weaker sex to direct the stronger, and thereby to overcome the church; and women might realise the ploy of Satan and resist him.

Ah yes, rules. 'Do not murder', 'Do not steal', 'Do not commit adultery', and other Biblical rules have been found downright irksome strictures by many who have called themselves Christians. So, when a 'bishop' merely pinches a young lady''s bottom, why bother about it? When a vicar tells blue jokes at dinners, where is the point of making a fuss? When clerics die of AIDS because they think that seminaries are for close physical encounters, why, that's not as bad as burning 'fundamentalists' at the stake. So why bother with mere Bible fictions, like Paul saying 'as the Law requires? It is they who ought to worry about dilemma and self-contradiction and looking farcical- though, as the Bible prophesies, they have no shame to trouble them.

Of course, many men in apostate congregations deliberately make themselves look inadequate so that women will appear to shine, as they do in the rest of the worldly world. The curious thing is that their congregations often do not like women in charge, and prefer men to order their estate.

But not on biblical accuracy. Like modern 'scholars'.

If they have, why don't you reproduce their wisdom here? We haven't seen it yet, anyway.

I know you're addressing someone else, but I've had difficulty following your discussion in this matter. You keep focusing on one line (or word in my case) then adding a paragraph of unrelated content as a response.

For example, saying modern scholars seem like they haven't gone to school. I think that means anyone who disagrees with your view of scripture is uneducated, but you're not willing to admit that's what you mean. In what way does any scholar - pick any one - seem uneducated? And is it compared to someone who is educated according to your standard? I'm trying to figure out your definition of educated and why all modern scholars should be ignored.

 

[Villager]

I know you're addressing someone else, but I've had difficulty following your discussion in this matter.

Do you not understand what is meant by 'as the Law requires'? It's very understandable that there is difficulty if that is not understood.

 

[Songbird]

Do you not understand what is meant by 'as the Law requires'? It's very understandable that there is difficulty if that is not understood.

See, here you again take one line and reply with something not related. You haven't answered my questions. But I'll play along.

Which law? Required by whom and who is required to adhere to it? What happens when the law is broken?

 

[Sunstone]

For example, saying modern scholars seem like they haven't gone to school. I think that means anyone who disagrees with your view of scripture is uneducated, but you're not willing to admit that's what you mean. In what way does any scholar - pick any one - seem uneducated? And is it compared to someone who is educated according to your standard? I'm trying to figure out your definition of educated and why all modern scholars should be ignored.

Villager, I too am curious about your view that the scholars who disagree with you are uneducated. Could you answer Songbird's questions, please?