Women should keep silent in the assembly?

[IndigoChild5559]

I seriously doubt that the Catholic Church would ever allow women to become priests, but I wonder, what if they did? Would men be allowed to become nuns?

I'm not up on the latest news, but there has been a commission put together by the Pope to investigate the idea of women deacons. If women were ordained as deaconesses, it would crack the glass ceiling.

There is a male counterpart for nuns: monks.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Hi IndigoChild5559. Good evening. In my faith, women aren't allowed to preach and Paul as you rightly stated said that women should not preach. The Bible I don't consider to be sexist. The Bible does teach headship. 1 Corinthians 11:1-3 says that the head of every woman is the man, and the head of the man the Messiah and the head of the Messiah is Yahweh. Yahweh is orderly, and this is the way things must be to create order.

The people of the world today are living in times of revolution and change. Equal rights for women are being continually legislated. The Bible does indeed teach equal rights for women where salvation is concerned, but conversely, it also teaches that the male of the human race was created to be the leader of the family (and the assembly) and the woman is the weaker vessel and needs the love, protection and strength of the male. For a woman to submit herself to her husband or father is not a spiritual weakness within her, but it is recognising a fact that has existed since creation. If we overturn the structure that our Heavenly Father has established it will only be us who will suffer.

Consequently, the Bible teaches that a man was made in the image of Yahweh, the Heavenly Father, while the woman stands in the position of the assistant which is depicted by the High Priest, who today is Yahshua the Messiah. The Bible is quite plain on this teaching. The woman received a command to be in subjection to her husband after sinning in the garden of Eden. It is for the best interest of all of us that we were given these instructions by Yahweh.

Hey Messianic Israelite. No offense, but it was reading the beliefs of YOUR congregation that got the burr in my saddle for this thread.

Genesis says the woman will long for her husband, not that she is subservient to him.

 

[Debater Slayer]

One issue here is that when there is a social/systemic imbalance, studies can be produced that seem to demonstrate this or that.

For instance, consider the old "women aren't as good as men at science" canard. The data that might be touted for this is obvious, because, well, just look at STEM demographics.

But it ignores that just because there's a gendered/sexed asymmetry doesn't mean that the asymmetry actually exists because of gender/sex: in this case it's because of societal reasons, broadly understood and studied (and called the "leaky pipeline"); whereas actual sexed studies of day, brains, or studies which do their best to remove cultural and societal factors, find zero difference between male and female science, logic, and math capability.

Just pointing this out, because there are any number of awful claims people can make about misogyny, racism, classism, and so on that they can actually dig up demographics on. The problem is in their interpretation of what those demographics mean.

I'm reminded of a classic pro-gun argument: "Cars kill more people than legally owned guns each year." People who say that often ignore or miss the fact that we use and handle cars far more often than we do guns, so they conflate a naturally larger flat number of accidents with a larger percentage.

But I digress. The above example of misunderstanding statistics is a can of worms in its own right.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Scholars aren't sure if Paul actually wrote those passages or if they were inserted later. They don't seem to fit his other teachings about and interactions with women. That "the man is the head of the woman" statement seems to contradict his "there is no male or female, in Christ" statement.

Does the Bible really tell women to be silent in church?

That's quite true. The church of the new testament had deaconesses and women apostles. Is it Priscilla who taught alongside Paul?

 

[Shakeel]

According to your worldview, is this you being feminine

It sounds like you think me referring to your writing as feminine (if I had done that) was something insulting. There is nothing wrong with your gender being apparent from your writing.

There is no need to add to what I said something I didn't say. What I did suggest, as a side point, was that you wrote apparently emotionally and you wrote incorrectly and even after that you have said many things including right here^ where you're taking my words out of context in order to make a point about something I haven't said.

This is done by men also, but here we have people who imply women can be just like men. Yet, it's very clear from their communication that they're not.

With regards to your third point, maybe you can clarify: when you said, "Here you're demonstrating the way women think emotionally which can lead them to misunderstand and get upset over something that hasn't been said," can you see why someone might reasonably infer that this wording appears as though you're saying there's something specific about women thinking emotionally?

Are you in all seriousness going to claim women don't tend to think emotionally?

What do you mean by "thinking emotionally," if not "being too emotional?

Are You a Rational Or an Emotional Thinker? Or Both?

Is it in contrast to thinking reasonably or logically?

no. Emotion doesn't have to exclude logic.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I have been told that the women in Paul's time were less educated than the men and interrupted the meating with chat and questions about what was going on. Paul's comment was for the purpose of putting an end to that and he goes on to say that the women should ask their husbands at home.

And slaves were uneducated too, and men can interrupt rudely as well, but none of that seemed to be enough reason to silence menn.

Saying women should ask their husbands at home is unbelievably condescending. We are not children to be patronized.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

From having been to a synagogue (Chabad Lubavitch) a lot and learning about Judaism I would say women only have 3 commandments: Lighting candles, spreading dough and keeping menstrually clean.

I think the idea is that women should just have it easy and not be responsible for debating anything.

That is not true at all. As a woman, I am still bound by all the commandments that are not specific to men, which is way way more than what you listed.

For one thing, in the traditional Orthodox home, the woman makes sure the home is kosher and shomer shabbat. That requires her to observe all sorts of laws. Are you getting the idea?

It is however true that the Orthodox tend to divide men and women over prayers requirements verses keeping the home.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Everybody wants to rule the world.

That's so cynical. Actually not everyone wants to rule the world. I would never, ever choose politics. Yuck.

Now for my story: The True Love of my life ( now deceased) and I were opposites in so many ways. When there was a big decision to make, I could easily make it on my own. On the other hand, I discovered that when her and I shared our opposite views then decided together that all the decisions ended up to be the best choices. Each shared views were not always seen by the other before sharing.

Sounds wonderful, and very good advice!

 

[IndigoChild5559]

People do not care what God says or wants. Why should women keep quiet in church? Because God says so.

But you are ignoring the question of why. Surely God must have a reason.

 

[Debater Slayer]

This is done by men also, but here we have people who imply women can be just like men. Yet, it's very clear from their communication that they're not.

Since you're relying on anecdotes and personal opinions in your arguments, I'll share mine: I first joined this forum 10 years ago, and I had little to no knowledge of topics such as logic, biology, sexuality, gender, etc. Discussions with people on this very forum were the main reason I started educating myself more and reconsidering a lot of misconceptions I had at the time.

The people who helped me throughout that process included multiple women as well as multiple men. I can confidently say that if any of them were incapable of thinking logically, then I would be as well. But I don't believe that, since I see a lot of reasons both scientific and personal not to view women as more "emotional" than men.

What about you? Do you have any science or extensive data to back up your assumptions about women? Because it seems to me that being set on viewing an entire gender as intellectually inferior is far more emotional and illogical than what you say women's thinking is like.

 

[Meow Mix]

It sounds like you think me referring to your writing as feminine (if I had done that) was something insulting. There is nothing wrong with your gender being apparent from your writing.

How to put this? I wouldn't be offended if someone found my writing feminine -- depending on what they meant by that. My writing is feminine. I use cat emojis, a cute cat moniker, and I'm a sucker for this old-school ASCII emoji ^.^

However, associating femininity with being more emotional than reasonable/rational would be offensive and wrong. More below on this.

There is no need to add to what I said something I didn't say. What I did suggest, as a side point, was that you wrote apparently emotionally and you wrote incorrectly and even after that you have said many things including right here^ where you're taking my words out of context in order to make a point about something I haven't said.

How did I take your words out of context? I merely noted that your words were emotional. I then asked if that meant, according to your worldview, that was feminine of you. I didn't assume, hence the question.

This is done by men also, but here we have people who imply women can be just like men. Yet, it's very clear from their communication that they're not.

Are you in all seriousness going to claim women don't tend to think emotionally?

Women and men are both on a spectrum of emotion. The difference in communication that you mention is more up to the individual than it is to the sex: you will find stoic women and you will find emotional men, and both are just as valid as emotional women and stoic men. Most people are going to be in between.

Are You a Rational Or an Emotional Thinker? Or Both?

no. Emotion doesn't have to exclude logic.

I don't tick a lot of boxes in the "emotional" Venn diagram; and do tick more boxes in the "rational" diagram, for what it's worth. The topic of misogyny is both rational and emotional.

 

[Shakeel]

And slaves were uneducated too, and men can interrupt rudely as well, but none of that seemed to be enough reason to silence menn.

Saying women should ask their husbands at home is unbelievably condescending. We are not children to be patronized.

In Islam, if women pray in the mosque behind men and the leader of prayer makes a mistake men are to say something and women are to tap their left hand with their right hand. I can't say I know the definite reason for this, it's a command, that's enough, but one obvious things is that we don't want men to be distracted by women, in particular during prayer.

Women have a feminine voice and have a tendency to speak with a soft voice. In the Qur'an women are commanded not to soften their voice when non-related men are present. Similarly women pray behind men if they pray in the same room at all, they are prohibited from wearing parfume and obviously obligued to cover themselves.

 

[Meow Mix]

In Islam, if women pray in the mosque behind men and the leader of prayer makes a mistake men are to say something and women are to tap their left hand with their right hand. I can't say I know the definite reason for this, it's a command, that's enough, but one obvious things is that we don't want men to be distracted by women, in particular during prayer.

Women have a feminine voice and have a tendency to speak with a soft voice. In the Qur'an women are commanded not to soften their voice when non-related men are present. Similarly women pray behind men if they pray in the same room at all, they are prohibited from wearing parfume and obviously obligued to cover themselves.

I guess fortunately for men, I've removed that particular temptation (I don't speak due to a speech disorder). So they're safe from me, can I come out of hiding?

Not making a point, just a dumb attempt at breaking the ice and being silly.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Well said, and I agree: either person bullying the other into doing everything doesn't respect their partner.

The contentious line said, "However, if you have just as much free time as she does and do the housework for her because you don’t want her getting angry, then she’s going to lose respect for you as a man"

I guess because of the wider misogynistic context, it sounds an awful lot like it's saying that in general, a woman would try to bully a man into doing most of the housework by getting angry if he doesn't (ostensibly because, per the author, this is just the way women are), not merely that she might (if she were a gross person).

I agree that it can be taken that way. I just refused to. It is one of those sentences that is just written ambiguously enough that misogynists can use it to support their view but they can deny its true meaning when confronted.

 

[Meow Mix]

I agree that it can be taken that way. I just refused to. It is one of those sentences that is just written ambiguously enough that misogynists can use it to support their view but they can deny its true meaning when confronted.

I think the rest of that abominable site is a good enough of a clue for their intentions, though. It's pure misogyny and toxic masculinity crap.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I think the rest of that abominable site is a good enough of a clue for their intentions, though. It's pure misogyny and toxic masculinity crap.

Well yes. Context matters. Which is why I pointed out those specific highlighted parts for the sake of this discussion. Because at least they admit that there are times when it makes sense that the man does the housework.

 

[rational experiences]

Underlying thesis of female behaviour he says as a man is mysterious.

In science he is driven by what he says is satanic titillation about self in acute pain about to be destroyed to know it all.

After all the bible was a satanic man human science confession. His owned life as contradiction by sacrifice.

Encoded deep in his subliminal reasoning.

Motivation to lie. Females in life have to somehow give me science out of space advice. They have to is his claim. They must he said. By my study theories about self expression.

Surely space owns some comparison.

Mystery he said space and space womb abomination.

Is no mystery.

He titillated himself by word implied.

Space is empty and space is full of mass as empty space a part of mass cooled it.

So space is held in two places.

Not lying he says there is not any thing to know.

Reason said I learnt...
I made sink holes myself removed mass back to nothingness.

So mass only existsas it is held.

The thought abomination is his satanic subliminal titillation thinking he might find new advice via his suffering.

Given by his satanism maths womb space causes. Known. He wrote the thesis. He wrote what he heard.

Yet his brother had caused it. Yet it was his brother who was gone when he was yet to be harmed hearing the advice. Why he said his human mother's body caused it. The ovary. Ova ovah. And it never did.

Only new born male babies inherited DNA mutation.

As you own your man self. My mother owns her self. Tired of you saying she using advice he and woman inferring man and female inferring male.

The eternal uncondition owned our presence so your status ownership is certainly fake.

After all he became a victim of his own mental science maths.

Father said his descriptive analogies proves he hated the female human.

As he knows space is just space.
He knows energy is taken from mass by false + cross and then the cross removal as minus-.

Mass never owned the cross + addition.

His claim the heavens is an addition as it is cold and clear. Clear he says I cannot understand.

We say who ever told you that you would?

So he seeks blame of not knowing by how he behaves to the human female life.

Already known by psychology. Part of philosophy speaking observing without judging.

 

[wellwisher]

For what reason would a woman not have the same right as a man to speak in a religious assembly? Other than sheer sexism of course. I'm not speaking of women chatting and gossiping. No one should be rude--men cannot do this either. I'm speaking of the contribution to the learning and worship.

It has to do with a discovery, made by modern science, that was known by early religions. The male and female brains are wired differently. The female brain is more wired left to right, while the male brain is more wired from front to back. These differences were naturally designed to be complementary; team affect. From above they form the sign of the cross, when combined as one.

One result is males are more visually orientated, while women are more verbally orientated. Women spend a lot of time and effort trying to "look nice" to attract men; pander to the male strengths. While men try to develop a charming line of bull to sound nice and romantic to women; pander to her strength. Progressivism and atheism appears to rely on old pseudo science, with the assumption that both male and female are the same.

The question now becomes how do these brain wiring differences impact the teaching of religion, and why did religion decide that the front to back wiring of males was better for this particular purpose?

Let me answer this was an intellectual exercise. Say we had a room full of 6500 different people, who collectively, can speak all the 6500 known languages of the world. I will place objects on a table at center stage, and ask each person, in their native tongues, to say what they see. The result will be up to 6500 different noises and sounds for each object. Spoken and written language is subjective and arbitrary, since there is no natural or universal cause and affect between the sounds used for objects and actions and the noise itself. Any noise can be used to label anything. New words and noises appear each day; slang. While the same sound or noise can have many meanings in each language. The word Liberal means something different for Conservatives and Liberals. To one group it is good and to the other it is bad; subjective.

Next, let me change the experiment. I will now place six new objects on the table and ask everyone to silently check off what see, using a list of 12 photos. They are also required to number the six checked photos, from 1 to 6, based on the objects from left to right. What will happen is in spite of the subjectivity in all the noises, from all the 6500 different verbal languages, there is a universal visual language; sight, that is objective. Everyone will get it right using heir eyes. We will all see the same things based on the same reflected light entering our eyes.

The male brain, based on its wiring, is more in touch with the universal visual language. Science, which was and still is a male dominant world, is based on any team, from any country and any language, able to see the same lab results in their own labs.

Theoretically, a male religious teacher will naturally try to use his dominate front to back wiring and the universal visual language. This will help him overcome the subjectivity and the bias of spoken and written language. Rather than just memorize and repeat, he will try to induce visual imagery; frontal lobe, that can be tested; visual cortex. For religion to become universal, you will need to lead with a universal language; visionary; frontal lobe, in touch with the universal proofs of visual reality; visual cortex.

The subjectivity of the verbal language can divide people due to subjective misunderstanding via less visual verification. One example is the verbal mantra that male and females are the same, instead of complementary, therefore both can teach the same words the same way.

In the story of Adam and Eve, Eve is tempted by Satan, due to the seduction of his language. Satan could not tempt Adam, since he used his sight and visual wiring to extrapolate something bad. He conned Eve to tempt Adam, because that was his wife and complement.

Women are more likely to make changes to religious works, often suggested by male con artists, since she will not see the negative result right away. Any women who was duped into believing male and female are the same was conned this way. This is why liberalism targets the females. Conservatives will rely more on a male perspective; universal sight, and long term tracks records.

If you look at revisionist history, since language is subjective and can and will change with time, the new subjective definition, of an old word, is being placed onto behavior from the past, when the same word meant something different. Visually, I can see the difference. One cannot blame the past for the irrationality of the present. But a verbal brain will not see this visual difference, in time. They can be seduced by the revision; commandeering of language to mislead the female brain, so she can change her male, to his own demise; Adam and Eve affect.

 

[Shakeel]

According to whom? The same patriarchal norms that declare women as inferior to men in terms of reasoning capacity despite the scientific evidence to the contrary?

According to religious and conservative norms, me and some hundreds of millions of other people.

What is your source for the highlighted statement? Since such a claim should be verifiable, it isn't a matter of opinion. It needs to be evidenced by studies/science or it is simply unfounded.

Experience is my evidence. Hardly ever have I seen or heard a man apologise or explain for losing their temper. It happens, but much less than it would with women.

Women love to explain why they feel what they feel, why they said this and that. They share feelings. Men, not so much. And it is true women are frequently criticised or made fun of for being emotional. I have rarely heard criticism or mocking of men who have a bad temper. I think it's because women have the need to be understood always, completely. Men don't.

Women Really Do Apologize More Than Men. Here's Why (and It Has Nothing to Do With Men Refusing to Admit Wrongdoing)

‘Women are judged for being emotional’ — yet it’s more acceptable for men to get upset and angry, female executives say

 

[Stevicus]

According to religious and conservative norms, me and some hundreds of millions of other people.

Experience is my evidence. Hardly ever have I seen or heard a man apologise or explain for losing their temper. It happens, but much less than it would with women.

Women love to explain why they feel what they feel, why they said this and that. They share feelings. Men, not so much. And it is true women are frequently criticised or made fun of for being emotional. I have rarely heard criticism or mocking of men who have a bad temper. I think it's because women have the need to be understood always, completely. Men don't.

Women Really Do Apologize More Than Men. Here's Why (and It Has Nothing to Do With Men Refusing to Admit Wrongdoing)

‘Women are judged for being emotional’ — yet it’s more acceptable for men to get upset and angry, female executives say

I'm not sure that men get a pass for being upset and angry, at least not from other men. In fact, men who have a reputation as being hotheads might be seen as a weak link in an organization. (A classic example from fiction is how Barzini was able to manipulate Santino Corleone in The Godfather, because Santino had quite a temper.)

It's also a matter of why someone gets angry. Do they have a legitimate grievance? That's often in the eye of the beholder. Just like the other day, I was in traffic, and some guy got mad at me. He was yelling at me from his car, called me an "*******." But from my viewpoint, he had no cause to get angry at me; he was the one who was in the wrong. I also have a personal pet peeve against people who yell at other people from cars in heavy traffic.