Women should keep silent in the assembly?

[Shadow Wolf]

You saying all this proves that you didn't read my previous posts.

I have talked about all of this ad nauseum already.

Your comments would be relevant if you were talking about what I actually said - rather then what you think I have said.

Even though I included wording from your post and did reference it accurately, such as your position that a few times used the phrase "primary roles."

I am talking about the original - universal - cosmic - design of God.

I too am referring to your gods design. His Law is a part of that. Like how his Laws permit slavery. And his Law and Paul both agree, homosexuals and bisexuals are to be put to death.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This is literally the first "silly" thing I have said on this thread.

I have been serious about everything else.

I think assigning "primary roles" in marriage is equally silly.
Each couple should work out what they will do that works best for them, with the understanding it is a partnership, both are equal, give and take is a part of it, and neither is "primarily" responsible.

 

[Shakeel]

You can't see a man as a gentleman because his wife is not a chicken?

I don't know if it's possible you actually understood it like that, but anyway, it isn't about the woman being afraid, it's about the man not wanting to take his wife with him to face people committed to doing evil. What kind of a man would do that? Not one worthy of marrying for sure.

A Muslim man who dies defending his family dies as a martyr.

Same-Sex Mice Parents Give Birth to Healthy Brood

Ta-da. Isn't science a pretty crazy thing? We have yet to do it for humans since, much like cloning, there isn't any real need for it and it would cost a lot of money, but its entirely possible to create a human with two women or even just one woman we would just need to try it out.

So, you can't get pregnant without a man.

Not that the man's wife being by his side defending their home was what made him not a gentleman.

For the man to take his wife with him to begin with is what would make him less of a man. It does depend on the situation somewhat, but generally speaking.

Even if a Muslim was to receive male visitors he would not have his wife come out to be seen by them.

 

[danieldemol]

I don't know if it's possible you actually understood it like that, but anyway, it isn't about the woman being afraid, it's about the man not wanting to take his wife with him to face people committed to doing evil. What kind of a man would do that? Not one worthy of marrying for sure.

A Muslim man who dies defending his family dies as a martyr.

So what if we turned that on it's head and said a woman wanting to leave her husband to face people comitted to doing evil alone was not one worth marrying?
Why do you think a woman can't be martyred for defending her family?

 

[danieldemol]

@Shakeel suppose if there are two agressors at the door, they could overpower the husband first then the wife if they are divided as it would be 2 on 1 each time, but it is an even fight if they are together when they fight. Can you see how your philosophy of denigrating men who don't decide for women who want to fight is essentially helping the aggresors?

In my opinion.

 

[Shakeel]

So what if we turned that on it's head and said a woman wanting to leave her husband to face people comitted to doing evil alone was not one worth marrying?
Why do you think a woman can't be martyred for defending her family?

If the man is capable and she just randomly decides to go first she's either exterely ignorant and weird or she's arrogant or perhaps both. Marrying someone ignorant or arrogant is to be considered carefully and the woman should be educated on what is her role in the home — it is not to defend the home.

I don't know about the reward for women for defending their family if, for instance, she defends her children when no man is around.

 

[Shakeel]

@Shakeel suppose if there are two agressors at the door, they could overpower the husband first then the wife if they are divided as it would be 2 on 1 each time, but it is an even fight if they are together when they fight. Can you see how your philosophy of denigrating men who don't decide for women who want to fight is essentially helping the aggresors?

In my opinion.

So the man is like, "you take him down". Sorry, still not to be married. Now if the man is overpowered and the woman can defend him, for instance if she has a gun and she can use it I'm not saying she can't help (or if there is something else in the particular situation that makes it necessary or useful for her to intefere) , but no, a man should not bring his wife to fight with him - to fight a man.

 

[danieldemol]

If the man is capable and she just randomly decides to go first she's either exterely ignorant and weird or she's arrogant or perhaps both. Marrying someone ignorant or arrogant is to be considered carefully and the woman should be educated on what is her role in the home — it is not to defend the home.

I don't know about the reward for women for defending their family if, for instance, she defends her children when no man is around.

Why are you taking a woman independantly deciding to fight *alongside* her husband as *going first*?

 

[danieldemol]

So the man is like, "you take him down". Sorry, still not to be married. Now if the man is overpowered and the woman can defend him, for instance if she has a gun and she can use it I'm not saying she can't help (or if there is something else in the particular situation that makes it necessary or useful for her to intefere) , but no, a man should not bring his wife to fight with him - to fight a man.

You are making the choice the man's, why shouldn't an intelligent woman be able to make her own decision to fight?

 

[Shakeel]

Why are you taking a woman independantly deciding to fight *alongside* her husband as *going first*?

Maybe I misunderstood you, anyway, whether she goes first or with him, if she does so unsolicited or without some other pressing reason that her husband agrees with, then she is in the wrong. It isn't her decision.

You are making the choice the man's, why shouldn't an intelligent woman be able to make her own decision to fight?

Because she's a Muslim and she does whatever her husband tells her so long as it isn't unlawful or unreasonable.

As I brought up before, for her to come out to be seen by male visitors, in many families, would be considered outrageous.

Women, Muslim and non-Muslim, usually know what their husbands want. It doesn't need to be analysed separately in every situation unless the man is like a feather in the wind.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Even though I included wording from your post and did reference it accurately, such as your position that a few times used the phrase "primary roles."

Anyone could skim a post and look for what is bolded and italicized.

It's fine - just go back and read them - or don't and leave me alone.

No one said I have to repeat myself over and over by addressing the same concerns from different people.

I too am referring to your gods design. His Law is a part of that. Like how his Laws permit slavery. And his Law and Paul both agree, homosexuals and bisexuals are to be put to death.

Again - you are referencing the Law of Moses - which was added to the Gospel law - the Law given to Man through the Atoning Sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ - which mitigates the Eternal and Universal Law.

God allowed slavery in ancient Israel for many reasons and I see no reason to get into them because it is not relevant to what I have been talking about.

Just think of the Law of Moses as the rules that strict parents give to their disobedient children - while the Law I am referencing is the law of the country those parents and children live in.

Both exist at the same time and at the same place - but they are not the same Law.

They are not comparable.

And I don't remember Paul teaching that homosexuals or bisexuals should be put to death.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

I think assigning "primary roles" in marriage is equally silly.
Each couple should work out what they will do that works best for them, with the understanding it is a partnership, both are equal, give and take is a part of it, and neither is "primarily" responsible.

Do you not understand what the word primary means?

I did not say sole or only roles - I said primary - which means that they also have secondary and other roles.

When I claim that a husband's primary roles are to be the spiritual leader of his family and to provide and protect them - that is not claiming that that is all that he does - nor that every couple operates the same - only that that is the ideal.

I have already talked about how both the husband and wife are in an equal partnership - despite the fact that God designed them to fulfill different roles.

You would have known that if you had read my other posts. You don't have to if you don't want to - but it makes you look silly - trying to participate in a discussion after it's over with no regard for what was actually said in it.

I'm done repeating myself.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

For the man to take his wife with him to begin with is what would make him less of a man. It does depend on the situation somewhat, but generally speaking.

Even if a Muslim was to receive male visitors he would not have his wife come out to be seen by them.

Oh dang.

But aren't two guns defending your door better than one?

Why wouldn't you want your wife to meet other men with you?

 

[Shakeel]

Oh dang.

But aren't two guns defending your door better than one?

Why wouldn't you want your wife to meet other men with you?

In Islam women are protected and honoured, not showcased and treated like men, e.g. sent to war, asked to share the responsibility of defending the home or earning the living etc.

 

[epronovost]

ISo, you can't get pregnant without a man.

Well yes. The scientist doing that work don't need to men. They can be women and since you can use two female genetic material to make a new person. You no longer need a man. Haven't you read the article?

 

[Shakeel]

Well yes. The scientist doing that work don't need to men. They can be women and since you can use two female genetic material to make a new person. You no longer need a man. Haven't you read the article?

It was a little long and I consider myself a human being not a mouse. Can you just clarify, has anybody ever made a woman pregnant without a man's contribution? And I am talking about human beings.

 

[epronovost]

It was a little long and I consider myself a human being not a mouse. Can you just clarify, has anybody ever made a woman pregnant without a man's contribution? And I am talking about human beings.

Mouse and humans have the same reproductive system. We are both mammals after all. We both have penis, vagina, uterus, placenta What you can do for a mouse, you can do for a human. You only need to apply it to humans which would be fairly easy though there is no need for this costly procedure amongst human when there is the absolutely free way to have kids and the cheaper way of artificial insemination. At the moment there are no women born from two women though its technically possible to achieve as of now.

 

[Shakeel]

Mouse and humans have the same reproductive system. We are both mammals after all. We both have penis, vagina, uterus, placenta What you can do for a mouse, you can do for a human. You only need to apply it to humans which would be fairly easy though there is no need for this costly procedure amongst human when there is the absolutely free way to have kids and the cheaper way of artificial insemination. At the moment there are no women born from two women though its technically possible to achieve as of now.

So, it is possible in your fantasy, but hasn't happened so you cannot get pregnant without a man.

 

[epronovost]

So, it is possible in your fantasy, but hasn't happened so you cannot get pregnant without a man.

No, its possible in reality it just wasn't done yet. Imagine someone who built a plane, made it work, tested successfully and then decided to put it in its garage to never use it since. Does the plane exists? Absolutely. Is there people flying it right now? No, not at the moment. That you can do something doesn't mean that you are doing it at the moment. I can kill a man, but I have not done nor am I interested in doing it either. That doesn't mean I am incapable of killing a man. It just means I am unwilling to. It's possible to have a child without a man (thanks the technology and process I presented to you), but nobody is willing to invest the money to do it as of yet.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

In Islam women are protected and honoured, not showcased and treated like men, e.g. sent to war, asked to share the responsibility of defending the home or earning the living etc.

Protected and honored - yet not free to make their own choices?