927 thoughts on “What Makes Something Right or Wrong?”
Haha, I think I’m really the only person here enjoying Mike’s presence. For what it’s worth, I think he is a good reflection of how we may be a little bit too overboard ourselves sometimes.
At the risk of angering others, I do kinda agree with his post on June 3, 2015 at 6:14 pm
Somehow or rather I can see his logic and argument (on civility at least, definitely not on theology). Which is much more to be said about other crazies like SOM if anybody even remembers him. Do I fully agree, of course not, but I think this bear mentioning –
“He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster . . . when you gaze long into the abyss the abyss also gazes into you”
It’s important to stick to the topic and avoid discussing people unless the remarks are friendly. Otherwise, the topic gets hijacked into a couple of people waging personality wars. Sometimes I’ll just ignore a comment about me and only address the point they’re trying to make about the topic.
I think they did back you into a corner on the women’s treatment issue. Your way out was to translate the verses in a woman-positive way, which is okay. I would simply point out that the treatment of women and slavery were cultural norms of the time.
Actually, setting the Bible aside, it took a long time before women were recognized as equal citizens under the law. There was probably some logic that led most cultures to adopt a male-dominant ethical theme, the most obvious being that males were larger and stronger and females were vulnerable while bearing and caring for children. Again: humans making moral judgments according to what seemed best to them at the time.
So, it remains our error, not “God’s”. As a Humanist I see us putting the words in God’s mouth rather than the other way around. So the blame pretty much is ours. We caused the problem long before God spoke the command.
I tend to forgive the Bible and its God because both are products of human imperfection.
Lots of problems they faced then, like homosexuality, were only recently re-evaluated and reframed in the light of better science.
On the other hand, the Bible continues to be a sociological resource and history of the Jewish people and later of the early Christians. And, as before, it contains poetry, legend, mythology, and very human portraits that would rival Shakespeare — especially the stories of a very human King David tempted by Bathsheba.
“The guys you mentioned have definitely crossed the line before, and so have others (myself included). However, whenever I’ve asked them to stop, they’ve typically complied.”
Nah Nate. that can’t logically fly. You can lie to yourself all you want but sorry I’ll have be the one person to call you on it. I have read through grlls (or whatever I can never remember stPaul or something) previous posts. He has pages and pages of invective against Christians. Name calling, desires to kill christians, vicious slander and maligning, even sexual perverse taunts and You have done nothing much but make token comments here and there and you and everyone else here knows he will be right back to it in a few days.
The facts are obvious and clear.
You are only really concerned with maintaining civility when its someone disagreeing with you.
Honestly? My tone is about the same as Arch’s always is toward quite a number of Christians that drop by and defend their faith. You have no problem with it because again he’s not calling you on anything. He’s agreeing with you
” but at the same time, it’s not like we’re talking about an actual contract.”
i’m going to skip the clear moral issues with that defense of not having a contract as an excuse for not keeping your word because at least this is half reasonable
“Nevertheless, if that bothered you, then I apologize. At the same time, try to understand that you made a big enough impression at the time that it would be hard to expect anyone to never refer to you again.”
well then don’t make agreements you don’t intend to keep.
However
at least on a veiled admission that there was an agreement. yeah sure thats reasonable ….I’ll give it a chance.
Shocker eh? A little reasonableness goes along way with me.
Right. On the one hand, we’d like to make sure our kids know the moral norms we expect them to follow. On the other hand, we still need to fix some very old, very bad rules. Having a book of doctrine tends to make changes more difficult. But, still, not impossible.
There was a big break between all the ethical rules of the Old Testament and the radical new approach in the New Testament, where converting the heart was more important than restricting behavior. And it is that concentration upon creating a good heart that should make Christianity a lot more flexible than the ten commandments.
Paul had a special problem dealing with Jewish circumcision and dietary rules that were hard to sell to Gentile converts. He makes a radical assertion in Romans 14:14, “I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.”
A church provides morale for morality. And when we often see people profiting at the expense of others, we may need a spiritual shot in the arm to support our choice to be good and to do good.
“I think they did back you into a corner on the women’s treatment issue. Your way out was to translate the verses in a woman-positive way, which is okay. I would simply point out that the treatment of women and slavery were cultural norms of the time.”
i’ll disagree with you there Marvin. I don’t think I am even remotely in a corner on the woman’s issue. Theres a pretty rich Divide on feminist views and based on what group you associate with certain positions seem inherently sexist and in the other not at all.
I know a great many women some not even religious that have men make certain decisions. They are fine with submitting because their husbands are not jerks. In fact I see the balance of love and respect all the time with some couples. Some, though the husbands activate a decision the nature of their relationship is such that she really had more the input. however in some groups mention the idea of submission at all and it is abhorrent and to them obviously wrong
What really has made the claim stick is that yes total jerks have used those passages without humility, little to no love or self sacrifice of the nature of Christ as husbands and ignorant we are all to submit at some point . I have never once thought “hey I am the man I make the decisions”. the importance of making the right ones weighs on me such that i take all input and yeah recognizing who knows best for certain things I do a lot of “whatever you say”.
the verses about silence? Out of context and unbalanced. The early church met daily breaking bread fellowshipping etc. Thats chapter 11 and woman are free to speak (its impossible to prophecy silent) . verse 14 if they actually read it is abut when the whole church came together and there was chaos. As the passages indicate people were talking out of turn – everyone wanted to prophecy and speak at the same time so yeah you could read it and say
A) it was telling them not to blurt out questions in church or
B) just let the women be silent in that meeting with the chaos (still free to even speak on behalf of God outside that meeting in other meetings)
Whatever the cultural context the idea that all free and bond , male and female jew and gentile were one and the same in the church was revolutionary for the culture of the time.
“On the other hand, the Bible continues to be a sociological resource and history of the Jewish people and later of the early Christians. And, as before, it contains poetry, legend, mythology, and very human portraits that would rival Shakespeare — especially the stories of a very human King David tempted by Bathsheba.
But I’m rambling now.”
I’d probably disagree with you about 60% of the time if we got into it but its not mean spirited or just intent on bashing Christianity. So no I don’t think you are rambling.
Have a good evening( or whatever time it is where you are). you were a pleasure conversing with.
A prejudice about a class of people is a belief or treatment based in something other than fact. If a woman is treated differently due to a presumed difference rather than an actual difference then that would be discriminatory and she has a right to object.
For example, a man’s hair may be long or short, just like a woman’s. If you’re a short-order cook and you have hair that can fall in the food, then you wear a hairnet. Not because you’re male or female, but because of the fact of hair contaminating food.
In church, there would have to be some realistic and practical difference to require women to cover their hair. If there is no real and relevant difference, then they have the right to be treated the same. Same goes for speaking in church, or even heading up a church.
To the degree that the a church teaches prejudices against women, it furthers discrimination.
Like I said earlier though, we should be able to forgive people their historical moral errors and understand they are fallible humans.
And Christians do that. They generally do not require women to cover their heads in church. So complaining about what the Bible says about it is moot in most cases, because Christians simply do not feel spiritually moved to abide by those verses.
Unfortunately Marvin you are now heading off into territories where you don’t know what you are talking about. Thats not a put down but a statement of fact. Fact: head covering is in fact still practiced by many Christians so saying they are not moved to abide is false in many cases
You are also trying to prescribe your own views and in the process arguing for infringing on freedom of religion. No there does not have to be any realistic and practical difference that meets your qualification to require women to cover their hair. No more than Jewish men at times wear a covering upon their head. If the requirement is spiritual in a spiritual activity then that is all that is needed.
I realize that to you the church and religion is nothing much more than a social or cultural expression. but that is your opinion. The church is under no obligation to give you a vote as to what you believe are realistic or practical decisions.
Now to what I have no doubt some would be upset over. I’ve never heard a really good all round preacher that was a woman. Inability to communicate? No…. more a voice issue…in the delivery of some sermons the female voice tends to shriek.. I can rationally see where that was even a worse situation before microphones. Sexist? I guess you can argue for that but then I have never heard a really good male Soprano
Based on differences between genders and in no way limited to the religious there is still a WIDE segment of society that sees fathers having certain responsibilities and mother s having another set. Now though I consider myself to be a good dad and I know many others as well I still maintain that when it comes to nurturing the best mother will beat the best father in that particular function of nurturing – going and coming. Now will some disagree? Probably. Funny though when I express woman being better at something theres almost never a backlash or claim of discrimination.
So who gets to decide on what you call presumed rather than actual differences? and why in the world do people not in the church get a vote if it even came down to one when our culture has recognized differences in obligations that have never been claimed before to be discriminatory?
And for what it’s worth, I largely agree with your comment to Marvin from 7:49pm
I agree that the Bible is not trying to set up a situation in which women would be totally subjugated. When I was a Christian, I thought the passages that talked about women submitting to their husbands were no more important than the passages that said husbands should love their wives as Christ loves the church. A proper Christian marriage should have the husband trying to do what’s best for his wife (and children, etc) and the wife wanting to do what’s best for her husband (and children, etc).
But there are still verses that seem to point to inequality to me. Like Marvin, I think this says more about the culture Paul lived in than anything else, but I know that raises some potential problems with divine inspiration.
In 1 Cor 11:3, Paul seems to lay out one of the foundations for everything that follows by setting up a clear hierarchy:
But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
So it’s like this:
God
–> Christ
—-> Man
——> Woman
If men and women are still equal in this scenario, then wouldn’t they also be equal with Christ? And maybe even God? What’s the purpose of the delineation if it’s not a hierarchy?
The next few verses talk about how a man should have his head uncovered when praying or prophesying, but a woman should have her head covered. Part of the reason for this is given starting in verse 7:
For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.
To me, these verses very clearly place women at a lower station than men. Again, I don’t think Paul imagines that he’s treating women poorly — I think he just views this as a fact, as many men of the time probably did.
In verses 11 and 12, Paul gives some caveats:
Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. 12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.
Here, he stipulates that even though their roles are very different, they still need one another. And ultimately, both are subject to God.
Not much else is said about this topic until chapter 14, and I agree with you that the main purpose of this chapter (at least the last half of it) is to talk about order in worship services. As verse 40 says, “Let all things be done decently and in order.” Nevertheless, to me there appears to be a clear distinction between what men are allowed to do and what women are allowed to do:
Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.
If women and men are truly equal in Christianity, I have a hard time understanding what the distinction is in this passage. Even if Paul is just trying to cut down on the chaos, why are women singled out to be the ones that should keep silent? And not only silent, but submissive? (You don’t necessarily have to answer these by the way — I’m mostly asking them rhetorically)
You’ve also mentioned Galatians 3:28, which says:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
The context of Galatians deals with how the Law of Moses was meant to prepare the way for Christ, not to stand forever. And through Christ, not only are they free from the bondage of the law, but Jews and Gentiles both have an avenue for salvation. So in verse 28, he’s hitting the crux of his argument that all people now have access to God through Christ. I don’t think this is saying that all people are truly equal, because in passages like 1 Cor 14, Paul talks about the different roles that people have in the church and how some are better than others. This is talking about equal access, not necessarily true equality. That’s the only way I see to reconcile this passage with the ones we’re talking about from 1 Cor.
I know we probably won’t agree on these points, but I wanted to at least take the time to lay out my perspective more fully.
Nate, part of the problem is that some of the later letters of Paul seems to have different message. Especially the pastoral epistles. In 1 Timothy 2:15 ‘Paul’ says women will be saved by bearing children. Verse 12 does not permit a woman to teach. Scholars find this odd given the prominent role of Priscilla in the teaching of Apollos in the book of Acts. Also in Romans Paul refers to a female apostle.
These inconsistencies are part of the reason the vast majority of scholars conclude Paul did not write the pastoral epistles.
There is a reference to women being quiet in church in 1 Corinthians, but this seems related ot a particular problem with that unruly congregation.
AB: “Unfortunately Marvin you are now heading off into territories where you don’t know what you are talking about. Thats not a put down but a statement of fact.”
(a) But if I’m giving you my own opinion then I do know what I’m talking about. You may disagree, of course, after all everyone has their own opinion, but to say “you don’t know what you are talking about” would not be a statement of fact.
(b) You seem to have immediately have turned the topic into a discussion of me. I’m flattered, but the topic I was discussing was the nature of prejudice and wrongful discrimination.
AB: “Fact: head covering is in fact still practiced by many Christians so saying they are not moved to abide is false in many cases”
But still true in many and probably most cases. All I can know for sure is what was practiced in the Salvation Army and what is practiced in the Methodist church. But that is sufficient to make my point. Christians (probably most denominations) do not require women’s heads to be covered in church, regardless of any biblical rule to the contrary.
And that means, to me, that they have abandoned many of these unfortunate prejudices about women.
AB: “You are also trying to prescribe your own views and in the process arguing for infringing on freedom of religion.”
(a) I would hope that I am always prescribing my own views, because, well isn’t that what we’re all doing here? Isn’t that what you are doing as well? SO: Let’s stop talking about each other and stick to the issue on the table.
(b) Since I have made no suggestion that we prevent any Christian churches from requiring women to cover their hair, I have not infringed upon anyone’s religious freedom. At the same time, anyone in such a church should feel free to lobby for a change in church policies that treat women as second class congregants. And I may certainly hold the opinion that following such rules, especially those that prevent full participation of women in leadership positions, are discriminatory against women and based in a historical prejudice.
AB: “I realize that to you …”
Really? You want to start out that way, by once again trying to make it into a personality issue?
AB: “… religion is nothing much more than a social or cultural expression. but that is your opinion.”
And, again, stop trying to put your words into my mouth. Better yet, try using “I messages” and fewer “You messages” to avoid discussing personalities.
AB: “I’ve never heard a really good all round preacher that was a woman. Inability to communicate? No…. more a voice issue…”
You may have an issue with your hearing, or your blood pressure (do you jog? I have a treadmill). But your problem cannot become their problem. Women must be treated as men are treated in all areas that do not relate to actual differences but only to differences in prejudice.
AB: “Based on differences between genders and in no way limited to the religious there is still a WIDE segment of society that sees fathers having certain responsibilities and mother s having another set.”
Some differences between genders are real. Some are imaginary and based in a history of prejudices. The correct thing to do is to keep what is real and discard prejudices.
AB: “So who gets to decide on what you call presumed rather than actual differences? ”
…part of the problem is that some of the later letters of Paul seems to have different message. Especially the pastoral epistles. In 1 Timothy 2:15 ‘Paul’ says women will be
saved by bearing children. Verse 12 does not permit a woman to teach.Scholars find this odd given the prominent role of Priscilla in the teaching of Apollos in the book of Acts. Also in Romans Paul refers to a female apostle.
I’m probably not telling you anything you don’t already know, but there is some dispute as to whether Paul actually wrote 1 & 2 Timothy, Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians. That may explain the disparity in the way Paul appears to write about women in the different epistles.
I used to think that all of these ‘experts’ were spouting nonsense, treating the Bible as a human book, not a divine book.
Now wouldn’t you know I seem to have joined them. All the higher criticism that I once looked on with such disdain, I now appreciate provides a better explanation of the Bible we have than the traditional idea that it is God’s word.
Apparently 90% of the scholars conclude that pastoral epistles were not written by Paul. When I was going through Bible college 100% of the students were convinced that Paul did write them. So why the disconnect? I think for two reasons, the students don’t know enough to appreciate the arguments against Pauline authorship, secondly the students presupposition does not allow the possibility of non Pauline authorship.
I was like that for a long time then suddenly I considered the impossible. It changed my whole outlook and the dam wall breached, it destroyed my faith. Once one considers the ‘human’ alternative the signs are everywhere. But I can understand why people of faith will not even consider this alternative. It took four years of study before I was prepared to consider it.
The Bible makes a lot more sense to me now.
What always troubled me about Paul in the New Testament was that he seemed to have so many fights and arguments with fellow Christians. But once I accept he was only human, not empowered by the Spirit of God that makes a lot more sense.
“So it’s like this:
God
–> Christ
—-> Man
——> Woman
If men and women are still equal in this scenario, then wouldn’t they also be equal with Christ? And maybe even God? What’s the purpose of the delineation if it’s not a hierarchy?”
Those are roles. Does the NT teach that Jesus is lesser than than God or equal to him ?
Phillipians 2:6
King James Bible
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
SO if the top two in your diagram are the same/on equal footing then why wouldn’t the bottom two of your diagram? IN Christian marriage a man becomes one with his wife.
Verse 11 is not a caveat either its a clear indication that your hierarchy does not work because Men come from women and Paul factors that into the passage
“. Again, I don’t think Paul imagines that he’s treating women poorly — I think he just views this as a fact, ”
OF course Paul treats that as a fact. Its what Genesis teaches. Eve was made for Adam. TO be what though? a help meet for him – a companion in his work. I don’t see where you are getting the point that because Eve was made for Adam that it has to be For him to be superior to her . that just seems to be an assumption you are drawing from “FOR” that’s not at all necessary to the text.
“As verse 40 says, “Let all things be done decently and in order.” Nevertheless, to me there appears to be a clear distinction between what men are allowed to do and what women are allowed to do:
Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.
If women and men are truly equal in Christianity, I have a hard time understanding what the distinction is in this passage. ”
Multiple people are told to hold their tongue in that passage and the key is earlier when the passage expressly indicates its when the whole church comes together not every meeting. Churches met almost daily and verse 11 speaks to some of that. Secondly verse 35 suggests there is a a bit more in view than say giving a talk. It implies that questions were being blurted out.
Still again I must ask and I have asked several times with no answer – how exactly on logical grounds do you maintain that difference in roles makes genders inequal? seems to me you are making a politically correct assessment that equality means no differences in roles. Might have popular appeal but its not logically defensible.
“You’ve also mentioned Galatians 3:28, which says:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
The context of Galatians deals with how the Law of Moses was meant to prepare the way for Christ, not to stand forever. And through Christ, not only are they free from the bondage of the law, but Jews and Gentiles both have an avenue for salvation. So in verse 28, he’s hitting the crux of his argument that all people now have access to God through Christ. I don’t think this is saying that all people are truly equal, ”
Sorry Nate but you are playing fast and loose games with that passage. You are taking a passage that point blanks states all are one and trying to massage it away from what it says. Paul goes beyond the issue of having “access” to the results of that access that we are all one in Christ as a result of faith. Everyone that has “access” is not in Christ but those who exercise the access are as a RESULT in him,all one, breaking down other barriers. Paul is saying point blank that the RESULT of access by faith leaves us all one.
Ephesians
27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is [aj]neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you [ak]belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s [al]descendants, heirs according to promise.”
Your Moses context argument to change what the passage says just does not work.
“because in passages like 1 Cor 14, Paul talks about the different roles that people have in the church and how some are better than others.”
`
I am sorry Nate but you need to read the passage a little more slowly the next time. You completely botched that and made that up. Apparently you read the word better but didn’t understand what Paul was saying. Paul was saying gifts are better when they edify others. Thats not indicating higher status but greater facility to the church when you build up others in understanding.
but Yeah I get where you are coming from now. you are totally confusing roles with inequality. I don’t buy that definition and neither do Million and even Billions of people who see various roles for Males and females. Seeing different roles is not synonymous with proclaiming inequality
“(a) But if I’m giving you my own opinion then I do know what I’m talking about. You may disagree, of course, after all everyone has their own opinion, but to say “you don’t know what you are talking about” would not be a statement of fact.”
In what I referenced you were not giving your opinion and YES it a matter of FACT that you are wrong when you wrote
“Christians simply do not feel spiritually moved to abide by those verses.”
in reference to head covering. Many still do. I don’t know where you are looking but hats are worn quite often to church even today. It doesn’t matter if most do or do not . As a blanket statement which is how you wrote it its false Thats not for debate or opinion it IS a fact.
“And that means, to me, that they have abandoned many of these unfortunate prejudices about women”
You can have anything mean anything to you. Thats fine but Women historically have worn and enjoyed wearing hats and among those that i know that used to but don’t now it had absolutely nothing to do with them recognizing any prejudice whatsoever in wearing hats.
“Since I have made no suggestion that we prevent any Christian churches from requiring women to cover their hair, I have not infringed upon anyone’s religious freedom”
You made the following suggestion marv – “In church, there would have to be some realistic and practical difference to require women to cover their hair” SO yes “have to be” is such a suggestion and yes you claiming what must have to be for a church is making a suggestion as a criteria of your own that you are proposing. I don’t agree with you and when I don’t I will say so.
Isn’t that what conversations are about as well? It will be apart of any discussion I am in.
“And, again, stop trying to put your words into my mouth. Better yet, try using “I messages” and fewer “You messages” to avoid discussing personalities. ”
NO. and definitely no. There is nothing wrong with me saying you hold a position that you have articulated. Thats ridiculous. I will say you at times just as you are saying you multiple times now. SO stop wasting your time objecting to what you yourself are presently doing. Stay on the issue.
“You may have an issue with your hearing, or your blood pressure (do you jog? I have a treadmill). ”
LOL…. how your fake civility breaks down rather fast when someone disagrees with you Marv. You know nothing of my health and given your picture you are much more likely to suffer from those ailments so in keeping with Nate’s directive stop with the side shows.Stay on the issues and stop making snide remarks about my alleged health.
“But your problem”
Your? making it personal eh? lol
“cannot become their problem. Women must be treated as men are treated in all areas that do not relate to actual differences but only to differences in prejudice.”
Now you see thats why I asked before . Who gets to determine what is an actual difference. I referenced the very real and physical differences in women’s voices as compared to men. I even balanced it by saying it goes both ways. Your ignorance on that real difference does not become my problem or my prejudice. its just your ignorance ad very obvious ignorance of a real difference. simple.
“AB: “So who gets to decide on what you call presumed rather than actual differences? ”
They do.”
Great!! and since many women in the church have no issue with it then it is them deciding. You can take your skirt off now and stop trying to speak for all women.
I agree that different rules doesn’t necessarily mean inequality, but it does point that direction when the only reason for the differences (like saying women should be silent) is based on something like gender. Paul could have laid out all kinds of stipulations about how to achieve order in the congregation without blanketly prohibiting women from speaking, but he didn’t do that. He singled them out simply for being women.
In Marvin’s comment to you, it’s apparent that he felt you were being too personal. I know you may not have meant your comment that way, so why not try to defuse the situation and explain that? Instead, I felt like your reply to him only ramped things up further. Yes, he got snippy with you too, but can you see that he was reacting to the way he took your earlier comment?
“Still again I must ask and I have asked several times with no answer – how exactly on logical grounds do you maintain that difference in roles makes genders inequal? seems to me you are making a politically correct assessment that equality means no differences in roles. Might have popular appeal but its not logically defensible.” -ABlacksmanagain
EQUAL:
adjective
1.
as great as; the same as (often followed by to or with):
The velocity of sound is not equal to that of light.
2.
like or alike in quantity, degree, value, etc.; of the same rank, ability, merit, etc.:
two students of equal brilliance.
3.
evenly proportioned or balanced:
an equal contest.
4.
uniform in operation or effect:
equal laws.
5.
adequate or sufficient in quantity or degree:
The supply is equal to the demand.
6.
having adequate powers, ability, or means:
He was equal to the task.
7.
level, as a plain.
I cant have children. Women can. That is a difference, but i dont view that as an inequality in the sense we’re discussing it, or other things like it.
But women can be wise.
men can be wise.
Women can speak and offer sound advice.
men can speak and offer sound advice.
Men can submit and can lead
Women can submit and can lead.
why not husband and wife love each other and submit to one another?
and wearing or not wearing head covering or having long hair is not a matter of inherent biology, like how one might pee.
so what we’re talking about is the areas where men and women can do the same things, but yet the women are continually places is a lesser or more controlled and regulated role than the male.
It’s like in the USA, all are free to the pursuit of happiness. They’re equal in the sense that they all get a shot, not that they will all be the same. But it wouldn’t be free or equal if one group, race or gender were told, “you’re equal, except you always have to wait behind the other races or gender or submit to them, or be silent when they can speak, etc…”
So again, different roles and different abilities and different biology is one thing, but arbitrary regulations and hindrances is what we’re looking at here.
We just look at this differently. I think you see where the bible says, “they’re equal” and then think that the parts that show them unequal must be just a distinction of roles like child birth or genitals, etc. Where I see the differences and realize they aren’t biological, and that they definitely limit one gender over another in ways that have nothing to do with biological restrictions or differences,and I can see that as an inequality, despite what some other passage claims.
saying a woman should compete with the males in the olympics is not what we’re talking about. I wouldnt say that the average woman is just a strong as the average male. Not what we’re talking about. men and women are different – again, not what we’re discussing.
we’re discussing areas where there are no real limitation from biology, but are placed on the females by the bible. and if one person’s role is only allowed to advance so high, while the other person’s has no such limitation, then that is indeed, unequal.
one questions that does keep going unanswered, and there are several, is why believe the bible and accept it as the word of god when it was written by men, and is therefore the claims of me about god, thereby making faith in the bible, first and foremost faith in man’s claims?
and I dont bash the bible. I still read it, but since leaving the faith, i find that it makes more sense now, and I am better able to “rightly divide the bible and discern the truth from the other.”
“Paul could have laid out all kinds of stipulations about how to achieve order in the congregation without blanketly prohibiting women from speaking, but he didn’t do that. He singled them out simply for being women.”
You seem to be skirting answering the question. the question I posed to you was PRECISELY regarding Male and Female roles in reference to equality. They are gender based. You might not like them but how do you logically go from someone adhering to role responsibilities and making that a belief that one gender is superior to another. They are just roles.
Other male and female roles are based on physical and chemical differences. And even those aren’t considered strict these days. But Paul’s prohibition is just based” then being women. Seems arbitrary to me
“’m Marvin’s comment to you, it’s apparent that he felt you were being too personal. I know your may not have meant your comment that way, so why not try to defuse the situation and explain that? Instead, I felt like your reply to him only asked things up further. Yes, he got snippy with you too, but can you see that he was reacting to the way he took your earlier comment?”
LOL…..What did it take?…not even 12 hour for your bias to show. I wish ed Marv a good night last night. Told him it was pleasure taking to him Said nothing untoward. He takes exception because I dared to question (in no in your face way) his knowledge of Women still wearing head covering and apparently because I point out that male and female voices are not the same
He gets all bent out shape and questions my hearing and health and here you are lecturing no one else but me like you could even have a moral basis.
You are as transparent and hypocritical as always nate. don’t even waste your breath (well key strokes) . You cant say I never gave you a chance to show you could be unbiased but I won’t be playing any more of your games. do as you wish.and I’ll do the same
“Still again I must ask and I have asked several times with no answer – how exactly on logical grounds do you maintain that difference in roles makes genders inequal? seems to me you are making a politically correct assessment that equality means no differences in roles. Might have popular appeal but its not logically defensible.” -ABlacksmanagain
EQUAL:
adjective
1.
as great as; the same as (often followed by to or with):
The velocity of sound is not equal to that of light.
2.
like or alike in quantity, degree, value, etc.; of the same rank, ability, merit, etc.:
two students of equal brilliance.
3.
evenly proportioned or balanced:
an equal contest.
4.
uniform in operation or effect:
equal laws.
5.
adequate or sufficient in quantity or degree:
The supply is equal to the demand.
6.
having adequate powers, ability, or means:
He was equal to the task.
7.
level, as a plain.
I cant have children. Women can. That is a difference, but i dont view that as an inequality in the sense we’re discussing it, or other things like it.
But women can be wise.
men can be wise.
Women can speak and offer sound advice.
men can speak and offer sound advice.
Men can submit and can lead
Women can submit and can lead.
why not husband and wife love each other and submit to one another?
and wearing or not wearing head covering or having long hair is not a matter of inherent biology, like how one might pee.
so what we’re talking about is the areas where men and women can do the same things, but yet the women are continually places is a lesser or more controlled and regulated role than the male.
It’s like in the USA, all are free to the pursuit of happiness. They’re equal in the sense that they all get a shot, not that they will all be the same. But it wouldn’t be free or equal if one group, race or gender were told, “you’re equal, except you always have to wait behind the other races or gender or submit to them, or be silent when they can speak, etc…”
So again, different roles and different abilities and different biology is one thing, but arbitrary regulations and hindrances is what we’re looking at here.
We just look at this differently. I think you see where the bible says, “they’re equal” and then think that the parts that show them unequal must be just a distinction of roles like child birth or genitals, etc. Where I see the differences and realize they aren’t biological, and that they definitely limit one gender over another in ways that have nothing to do with biological restrictions or differences,and I can see that as an inequality, despite what some other passage claims.
saying a woman should compete with the males in the olympics is not what we’re talking about. I wouldnt say that the average woman is just a strong as the average male. Not what we’re talking about. men and women are different – again, not what we’re discussing.
we’re discussing areas where there are no real limitation from biology, but are placed on the females by the bible. and if one person’s role is only allowed to advance so high, while the other person’s has no such limitation, then that is indeed, unequal.
one questions that does keep going unanswered, and there are several, is why believe the bible and accept it as the word of god when it was written by men, and is therefore the claims of me about god, thereby making faith in the bible, first and foremost faith in man’s claims?
and I dont bash the bible. I still read it, but since leaving the faith, i find that it makes more sense now, and I am better able to “rightly divide the bible and discern the truth from the other.”
“Other male and female roles are based on physical and chemical differences. And even those aren’t considered strict these days. But Paul’s prohibition is just based” then being women. Seems arbitrary to me”
Don’t really care about what you find arbitrary. given your non christian state you would consider anything spiritual to be arbitrary. I asked a simple question like five times now and you can’t answer
and no many male and female roles are based on psychological and emotional tendencies of male and women.
The problem with you and Williams claim on physical difference is that theologically and practically it makes absolutely no difference. If a woman can give birth and that is considered a superior experience (and i consider it as such) and makes her better then it doesn’t matter a bit if its been endowed to her by command of God or by God providing her and not males with the abilities
Finding Truth 
Haha, I think I’m really the only person here enjoying Mike’s presence. For what it’s worth, I think he is a good reflection of how we may be a little bit too overboard ourselves sometimes.
At the risk of angering others, I do kinda agree with his post on June 3, 2015 at 6:14 pm
Somehow or rather I can see his logic and argument (on civility at least, definitely not on theology). Which is much more to be said about other crazies like SOM if anybody even remembers him. Do I fully agree, of course not, but I think this bear mentioning –
“He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster . . . when you gaze long into the abyss the abyss also gazes into you”
― Friedrich Nietzsche
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ABlacksmanagain
It’s important to stick to the topic and avoid discussing people unless the remarks are friendly. Otherwise, the topic gets hijacked into a couple of people waging personality wars. Sometimes I’ll just ignore a comment about me and only address the point they’re trying to make about the topic.
I think they did back you into a corner on the women’s treatment issue. Your way out was to translate the verses in a woman-positive way, which is okay. I would simply point out that the treatment of women and slavery were cultural norms of the time.
Actually, setting the Bible aside, it took a long time before women were recognized as equal citizens under the law. There was probably some logic that led most cultures to adopt a male-dominant ethical theme, the most obvious being that males were larger and stronger and females were vulnerable while bearing and caring for children. Again: humans making moral judgments according to what seemed best to them at the time.
So, it remains our error, not “God’s”. As a Humanist I see us putting the words in God’s mouth rather than the other way around. So the blame pretty much is ours. We caused the problem long before God spoke the command.
I tend to forgive the Bible and its God because both are products of human imperfection.
Lots of problems they faced then, like homosexuality, were only recently re-evaluated and reframed in the light of better science.
On the other hand, the Bible continues to be a sociological resource and history of the Jewish people and later of the early Christians. And, as before, it contains poetry, legend, mythology, and very human portraits that would rival Shakespeare — especially the stories of a very human King David tempted by Bathsheba.
But I’m rambling now.
LikeLike
“The guys you mentioned have definitely crossed the line before, and so have others (myself included). However, whenever I’ve asked them to stop, they’ve typically complied.”
Nah Nate. that can’t logically fly. You can lie to yourself all you want but sorry I’ll have be the one person to call you on it. I have read through grlls (or whatever I can never remember stPaul or something) previous posts. He has pages and pages of invective against Christians. Name calling, desires to kill christians, vicious slander and maligning, even sexual perverse taunts and You have done nothing much but make token comments here and there and you and everyone else here knows he will be right back to it in a few days.
The facts are obvious and clear.
You are only really concerned with maintaining civility when its someone disagreeing with you.
Honestly? My tone is about the same as Arch’s always is toward quite a number of Christians that drop by and defend their faith. You have no problem with it because again he’s not calling you on anything. He’s agreeing with you
” but at the same time, it’s not like we’re talking about an actual contract.”
i’m going to skip the clear moral issues with that defense of not having a contract as an excuse for not keeping your word because at least this is half reasonable
“Nevertheless, if that bothered you, then I apologize. At the same time, try to understand that you made a big enough impression at the time that it would be hard to expect anyone to never refer to you again.”
well then don’t make agreements you don’t intend to keep.
However
at least on a veiled admission that there was an agreement. yeah sure thats reasonable ….I’ll give it a chance.
Shocker eh? A little reasonableness goes along way with me.
LikeLike
@tildeb
Right. On the one hand, we’d like to make sure our kids know the moral norms we expect them to follow. On the other hand, we still need to fix some very old, very bad rules. Having a book of doctrine tends to make changes more difficult. But, still, not impossible.
There was a big break between all the ethical rules of the Old Testament and the radical new approach in the New Testament, where converting the heart was more important than restricting behavior. And it is that concentration upon creating a good heart that should make Christianity a lot more flexible than the ten commandments.
Paul had a special problem dealing with Jewish circumcision and dietary rules that were hard to sell to Gentile converts. He makes a radical assertion in Romans 14:14, “I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.”
A church provides morale for morality. And when we often see people profiting at the expense of others, we may need a spiritual shot in the arm to support our choice to be good and to do good.
LikeLike
“I think they did back you into a corner on the women’s treatment issue. Your way out was to translate the verses in a woman-positive way, which is okay. I would simply point out that the treatment of women and slavery were cultural norms of the time.”
i’ll disagree with you there Marvin. I don’t think I am even remotely in a corner on the woman’s issue. Theres a pretty rich Divide on feminist views and based on what group you associate with certain positions seem inherently sexist and in the other not at all.
I know a great many women some not even religious that have men make certain decisions. They are fine with submitting because their husbands are not jerks. In fact I see the balance of love and respect all the time with some couples. Some, though the husbands activate a decision the nature of their relationship is such that she really had more the input. however in some groups mention the idea of submission at all and it is abhorrent and to them obviously wrong
What really has made the claim stick is that yes total jerks have used those passages without humility, little to no love or self sacrifice of the nature of Christ as husbands and ignorant we are all to submit at some point . I have never once thought “hey I am the man I make the decisions”. the importance of making the right ones weighs on me such that i take all input and yeah recognizing who knows best for certain things I do a lot of “whatever you say”.
the verses about silence? Out of context and unbalanced. The early church met daily breaking bread fellowshipping etc. Thats chapter 11 and woman are free to speak (its impossible to prophecy silent) . verse 14 if they actually read it is abut when the whole church came together and there was chaos. As the passages indicate people were talking out of turn – everyone wanted to prophecy and speak at the same time so yeah you could read it and say
A) it was telling them not to blurt out questions in church or
B) just let the women be silent in that meeting with the chaos (still free to even speak on behalf of God outside that meeting in other meetings)
Whatever the cultural context the idea that all free and bond , male and female jew and gentile were one and the same in the church was revolutionary for the culture of the time.
LikeLike
“On the other hand, the Bible continues to be a sociological resource and history of the Jewish people and later of the early Christians. And, as before, it contains poetry, legend, mythology, and very human portraits that would rival Shakespeare — especially the stories of a very human King David tempted by Bathsheba.
But I’m rambling now.”
I’d probably disagree with you about 60% of the time if we got into it but its not mean spirited or just intent on bashing Christianity. So no I don’t think you are rambling.
Have a good evening( or whatever time it is where you are). you were a pleasure conversing with.
LikeLike
A prejudice about a class of people is a belief or treatment based in something other than fact. If a woman is treated differently due to a presumed difference rather than an actual difference then that would be discriminatory and she has a right to object.
For example, a man’s hair may be long or short, just like a woman’s. If you’re a short-order cook and you have hair that can fall in the food, then you wear a hairnet. Not because you’re male or female, but because of the fact of hair contaminating food.
In church, there would have to be some realistic and practical difference to require women to cover their hair. If there is no real and relevant difference, then they have the right to be treated the same. Same goes for speaking in church, or even heading up a church.
To the degree that the a church teaches prejudices against women, it furthers discrimination.
Like I said earlier though, we should be able to forgive people their historical moral errors and understand they are fallible humans.
And Christians do that. They generally do not require women to cover their heads in church. So complaining about what the Bible says about it is moot in most cases, because Christians simply do not feel spiritually moved to abide by those verses.
LikeLike
You too. Nice talking.
LikeLike
great video. i’ve never seen that one. so simple and true.
LikeLike
Unfortunately Marvin you are now heading off into territories where you don’t know what you are talking about. Thats not a put down but a statement of fact. Fact: head covering is in fact still practiced by many Christians so saying they are not moved to abide is false in many cases
You are also trying to prescribe your own views and in the process arguing for infringing on freedom of religion. No there does not have to be any realistic and practical difference that meets your qualification to require women to cover their hair. No more than Jewish men at times wear a covering upon their head. If the requirement is spiritual in a spiritual activity then that is all that is needed.
I realize that to you the church and religion is nothing much more than a social or cultural expression. but that is your opinion. The church is under no obligation to give you a vote as to what you believe are realistic or practical decisions.
Now to what I have no doubt some would be upset over. I’ve never heard a really good all round preacher that was a woman. Inability to communicate? No…. more a voice issue…in the delivery of some sermons the female voice tends to shriek.. I can rationally see where that was even a worse situation before microphones. Sexist? I guess you can argue for that but then I have never heard a really good male Soprano
Based on differences between genders and in no way limited to the religious there is still a WIDE segment of society that sees fathers having certain responsibilities and mother s having another set. Now though I consider myself to be a good dad and I know many others as well I still maintain that when it comes to nurturing the best mother will beat the best father in that particular function of nurturing – going and coming. Now will some disagree? Probably. Funny though when I express woman being better at something theres almost never a backlash or claim of discrimination.
So who gets to decide on what you call presumed rather than actual differences? and why in the world do people not in the church get a vote if it even came down to one when our culture has recognized differences in obligations that have never been claimed before to be discriminatory?
LikeLike
Thanks Mike.
And for what it’s worth, I largely agree with your comment to Marvin from 7:49pm
I agree that the Bible is not trying to set up a situation in which women would be totally subjugated. When I was a Christian, I thought the passages that talked about women submitting to their husbands were no more important than the passages that said husbands should love their wives as Christ loves the church. A proper Christian marriage should have the husband trying to do what’s best for his wife (and children, etc) and the wife wanting to do what’s best for her husband (and children, etc).
But there are still verses that seem to point to inequality to me. Like Marvin, I think this says more about the culture Paul lived in than anything else, but I know that raises some potential problems with divine inspiration.
In 1 Cor 11:3, Paul seems to lay out one of the foundations for everything that follows by setting up a clear hierarchy:
So it’s like this:
God
–> Christ
—-> Man
——> Woman
If men and women are still equal in this scenario, then wouldn’t they also be equal with Christ? And maybe even God? What’s the purpose of the delineation if it’s not a hierarchy?
The next few verses talk about how a man should have his head uncovered when praying or prophesying, but a woman should have her head covered. Part of the reason for this is given starting in verse 7:
To me, these verses very clearly place women at a lower station than men. Again, I don’t think Paul imagines that he’s treating women poorly — I think he just views this as a fact, as many men of the time probably did.
In verses 11 and 12, Paul gives some caveats:
Here, he stipulates that even though their roles are very different, they still need one another. And ultimately, both are subject to God.
Not much else is said about this topic until chapter 14, and I agree with you that the main purpose of this chapter (at least the last half of it) is to talk about order in worship services. As verse 40 says, “Let all things be done decently and in order.” Nevertheless, to me there appears to be a clear distinction between what men are allowed to do and what women are allowed to do:
If women and men are truly equal in Christianity, I have a hard time understanding what the distinction is in this passage. Even if Paul is just trying to cut down on the chaos, why are women singled out to be the ones that should keep silent? And not only silent, but submissive? (You don’t necessarily have to answer these by the way — I’m mostly asking them rhetorically)
You’ve also mentioned Galatians 3:28, which says:
The context of Galatians deals with how the Law of Moses was meant to prepare the way for Christ, not to stand forever. And through Christ, not only are they free from the bondage of the law, but Jews and Gentiles both have an avenue for salvation. So in verse 28, he’s hitting the crux of his argument that all people now have access to God through Christ. I don’t think this is saying that all people are truly equal, because in passages like 1 Cor 14, Paul talks about the different roles that people have in the church and how some are better than others. This is talking about equal access, not necessarily true equality. That’s the only way I see to reconcile this passage with the ones we’re talking about from 1 Cor.
I know we probably won’t agree on these points, but I wanted to at least take the time to lay out my perspective more fully.
Thanks
LikeLike
Nate, part of the problem is that some of the later letters of Paul seems to have different message. Especially the pastoral epistles. In 1 Timothy 2:15 ‘Paul’ says women will be saved by bearing children. Verse 12 does not permit a woman to teach. Scholars find this odd given the prominent role of Priscilla in the teaching of Apollos in the book of Acts. Also in Romans Paul refers to a female apostle.
These inconsistencies are part of the reason the vast majority of scholars conclude Paul did not write the pastoral epistles.
There is a reference to women being quiet in church in 1 Corinthians, but this seems related ot a particular problem with that unruly congregation.
LikeLike
AB: “Unfortunately Marvin you are now heading off into territories where you don’t know what you are talking about. Thats not a put down but a statement of fact.”
(a) But if I’m giving you my own opinion then I do know what I’m talking about. You may disagree, of course, after all everyone has their own opinion, but to say “you don’t know what you are talking about” would not be a statement of fact.
(b) You seem to have immediately have turned the topic into a discussion of me. I’m flattered, but the topic I was discussing was the nature of prejudice and wrongful discrimination.
AB: “Fact: head covering is in fact still practiced by many Christians so saying they are not moved to abide is false in many cases”
But still true in many and probably most cases. All I can know for sure is what was practiced in the Salvation Army and what is practiced in the Methodist church. But that is sufficient to make my point. Christians (probably most denominations) do not require women’s heads to be covered in church, regardless of any biblical rule to the contrary.
And that means, to me, that they have abandoned many of these unfortunate prejudices about women.
AB: “You are also trying to prescribe your own views and in the process arguing for infringing on freedom of religion.”
(a) I would hope that I am always prescribing my own views, because, well isn’t that what we’re all doing here? Isn’t that what you are doing as well? SO: Let’s stop talking about each other and stick to the issue on the table.
(b) Since I have made no suggestion that we prevent any Christian churches from requiring women to cover their hair, I have not infringed upon anyone’s religious freedom. At the same time, anyone in such a church should feel free to lobby for a change in church policies that treat women as second class congregants. And I may certainly hold the opinion that following such rules, especially those that prevent full participation of women in leadership positions, are discriminatory against women and based in a historical prejudice.
AB: “I realize that to you …”
Really? You want to start out that way, by once again trying to make it into a personality issue?
AB: “… religion is nothing much more than a social or cultural expression. but that is your opinion.”
Actually, if you want to know how I view religion you need to check out
http://marvinedwards.me/page/2/?s=religion
And, again, stop trying to put your words into my mouth. Better yet, try using “I messages” and fewer “You messages” to avoid discussing personalities.
AB: “I’ve never heard a really good all round preacher that was a woman. Inability to communicate? No…. more a voice issue…”
You may have an issue with your hearing, or your blood pressure (do you jog? I have a treadmill). But your problem cannot become their problem. Women must be treated as men are treated in all areas that do not relate to actual differences but only to differences in prejudice.
AB: “Based on differences between genders and in no way limited to the religious there is still a WIDE segment of society that sees fathers having certain responsibilities and mother s having another set.”
Some differences between genders are real. Some are imaginary and based in a history of prejudices. The correct thing to do is to keep what is real and discard prejudices.
AB: “So who gets to decide on what you call presumed rather than actual differences? ”
They do.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@Peter,
…part of the problem is that some of the later letters of Paul seems to have different message. Especially the pastoral epistles. In 1 Timothy 2:15 ‘Paul’ says women will be
saved by bearing children. Verse 12 does not permit a woman to teach.Scholars find this odd given the prominent role of Priscilla in the teaching of Apollos in the book of Acts. Also in Romans Paul refers to a female apostle.
I’m probably not telling you anything you don’t already know, but there is some dispute as to whether Paul actually wrote 1 & 2 Timothy, Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians. That may explain the disparity in the way Paul appears to write about women in the different epistles.
LikeLike
@Ruth – Yes Exactly.
I used to think that all of these ‘experts’ were spouting nonsense, treating the Bible as a human book, not a divine book.
Now wouldn’t you know I seem to have joined them. All the higher criticism that I once looked on with such disdain, I now appreciate provides a better explanation of the Bible we have than the traditional idea that it is God’s word.
Apparently 90% of the scholars conclude that pastoral epistles were not written by Paul. When I was going through Bible college 100% of the students were convinced that Paul did write them. So why the disconnect? I think for two reasons, the students don’t know enough to appreciate the arguments against Pauline authorship, secondly the students presupposition does not allow the possibility of non Pauline authorship.
I was like that for a long time then suddenly I considered the impossible. It changed my whole outlook and the dam wall breached, it destroyed my faith. Once one considers the ‘human’ alternative the signs are everywhere. But I can understand why people of faith will not even consider this alternative. It took four years of study before I was prepared to consider it.
The Bible makes a lot more sense to me now.
What always troubled me about Paul in the New Testament was that he seemed to have so many fights and arguments with fellow Christians. But once I accept he was only human, not empowered by the Spirit of God that makes a lot more sense.
LikeLike
“So it’s like this:
God
–> Christ
—-> Man
——> Woman
If men and women are still equal in this scenario, then wouldn’t they also be equal with Christ? And maybe even God? What’s the purpose of the delineation if it’s not a hierarchy?”
Those are roles. Does the NT teach that Jesus is lesser than than God or equal to him ?
Phillipians 2:6
King James Bible
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
SO if the top two in your diagram are the same/on equal footing then why wouldn’t the bottom two of your diagram? IN Christian marriage a man becomes one with his wife.
Verse 11 is not a caveat either its a clear indication that your hierarchy does not work because Men come from women and Paul factors that into the passage
“. Again, I don’t think Paul imagines that he’s treating women poorly — I think he just views this as a fact, ”
OF course Paul treats that as a fact. Its what Genesis teaches. Eve was made for Adam. TO be what though? a help meet for him – a companion in his work. I don’t see where you are getting the point that because Eve was made for Adam that it has to be For him to be superior to her . that just seems to be an assumption you are drawing from “FOR” that’s not at all necessary to the text.
“As verse 40 says, “Let all things be done decently and in order.” Nevertheless, to me there appears to be a clear distinction between what men are allowed to do and what women are allowed to do:
Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.
If women and men are truly equal in Christianity, I have a hard time understanding what the distinction is in this passage. ”
Multiple people are told to hold their tongue in that passage and the key is earlier when the passage expressly indicates its when the whole church comes together not every meeting. Churches met almost daily and verse 11 speaks to some of that. Secondly verse 35 suggests there is a a bit more in view than say giving a talk. It implies that questions were being blurted out.
Still again I must ask and I have asked several times with no answer – how exactly on logical grounds do you maintain that difference in roles makes genders inequal? seems to me you are making a politically correct assessment that equality means no differences in roles. Might have popular appeal but its not logically defensible.
“You’ve also mentioned Galatians 3:28, which says:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
The context of Galatians deals with how the Law of Moses was meant to prepare the way for Christ, not to stand forever. And through Christ, not only are they free from the bondage of the law, but Jews and Gentiles both have an avenue for salvation. So in verse 28, he’s hitting the crux of his argument that all people now have access to God through Christ. I don’t think this is saying that all people are truly equal, ”
Sorry Nate but you are playing fast and loose games with that passage. You are taking a passage that point blanks states all are one and trying to massage it away from what it says. Paul goes beyond the issue of having “access” to the results of that access that we are all one in Christ as a result of faith. Everyone that has “access” is not in Christ but those who exercise the access are as a RESULT in him,all one, breaking down other barriers. Paul is saying point blank that the RESULT of access by faith leaves us all one.
Ephesians
27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is [aj]neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you [ak]belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s [al]descendants, heirs according to promise.”
Your Moses context argument to change what the passage says just does not work.
“because in passages like 1 Cor 14, Paul talks about the different roles that people have in the church and how some are better than others.”
`
I am sorry Nate but you need to read the passage a little more slowly the next time. You completely botched that and made that up. Apparently you read the word better but didn’t understand what Paul was saying. Paul was saying gifts are better when they edify others. Thats not indicating higher status but greater facility to the church when you build up others in understanding.
but Yeah I get where you are coming from now. you are totally confusing roles with inequality. I don’t buy that definition and neither do Million and even Billions of people who see various roles for Males and females. Seeing different roles is not synonymous with proclaiming inequality
LikeLike
“(a) But if I’m giving you my own opinion then I do know what I’m talking about. You may disagree, of course, after all everyone has their own opinion, but to say “you don’t know what you are talking about” would not be a statement of fact.”
In what I referenced you were not giving your opinion and YES it a matter of FACT that you are wrong when you wrote
“Christians simply do not feel spiritually moved to abide by those verses.”
in reference to head covering. Many still do. I don’t know where you are looking but hats are worn quite often to church even today. It doesn’t matter if most do or do not . As a blanket statement which is how you wrote it its false Thats not for debate or opinion it IS a fact.
“And that means, to me, that they have abandoned many of these unfortunate prejudices about women”
You can have anything mean anything to you. Thats fine but Women historically have worn and enjoyed wearing hats and among those that i know that used to but don’t now it had absolutely nothing to do with them recognizing any prejudice whatsoever in wearing hats.
“Since I have made no suggestion that we prevent any Christian churches from requiring women to cover their hair, I have not infringed upon anyone’s religious freedom”
You made the following suggestion marv – “In church, there would have to be some realistic and practical difference to require women to cover their hair” SO yes “have to be” is such a suggestion and yes you claiming what must have to be for a church is making a suggestion as a criteria of your own that you are proposing. I don’t agree with you and when I don’t I will say so.
Isn’t that what conversations are about as well? It will be apart of any discussion I am in.
“And, again, stop trying to put your words into my mouth. Better yet, try using “I messages” and fewer “You messages” to avoid discussing personalities. ”
NO. and definitely no. There is nothing wrong with me saying you hold a position that you have articulated. Thats ridiculous. I will say you at times just as you are saying you multiple times now. SO stop wasting your time objecting to what you yourself are presently doing. Stay on the issue.
“You may have an issue with your hearing, or your blood pressure (do you jog? I have a treadmill). ”
LOL…. how your fake civility breaks down rather fast when someone disagrees with you Marv. You know nothing of my health and given your picture you are much more likely to suffer from those ailments so in keeping with Nate’s directive stop with the side shows.Stay on the issues and stop making snide remarks about my alleged health.
“But your problem”
Your? making it personal eh? lol
“cannot become their problem. Women must be treated as men are treated in all areas that do not relate to actual differences but only to differences in prejudice.”
Now you see thats why I asked before . Who gets to determine what is an actual difference. I referenced the very real and physical differences in women’s voices as compared to men. I even balanced it by saying it goes both ways. Your ignorance on that real difference does not become my problem or my prejudice. its just your ignorance ad very obvious ignorance of a real difference. simple.
“AB: “So who gets to decide on what you call presumed rather than actual differences? ”
They do.”
Great!! and since many women in the church have no issue with it then it is them deciding. You can take your skirt off now and stop trying to speak for all women.
Glad we got that cleared up
LikeLike
I agree that different rules doesn’t necessarily mean inequality, but it does point that direction when the only reason for the differences (like saying women should be silent) is based on something like gender. Paul could have laid out all kinds of stipulations about how to achieve order in the congregation without blanketly prohibiting women from speaking, but he didn’t do that. He singled them out simply for being women.
This is just something we see differently.
LikeLike
Hi Mike,
In Marvin’s comment to you, it’s apparent that he felt you were being too personal. I know you may not have meant your comment that way, so why not try to defuse the situation and explain that? Instead, I felt like your reply to him only ramped things up further. Yes, he got snippy with you too, but can you see that he was reacting to the way he took your earlier comment?
LikeLike
“Still again I must ask and I have asked several times with no answer – how exactly on logical grounds do you maintain that difference in roles makes genders inequal? seems to me you are making a politically correct assessment that equality means no differences in roles. Might have popular appeal but its not logically defensible.” -ABlacksmanagain
EQUAL:
adjective
1.
as great as; the same as (often followed by to or with):
The velocity of sound is not equal to that of light.
2.
like or alike in quantity, degree, value, etc.; of the same rank, ability, merit, etc.:
two students of equal brilliance.
3.
evenly proportioned or balanced:
an equal contest.
4.
uniform in operation or effect:
equal laws.
5.
adequate or sufficient in quantity or degree:
The supply is equal to the demand.
6.
having adequate powers, ability, or means:
He was equal to the task.
7.
level, as a plain.
I cant have children. Women can. That is a difference, but i dont view that as an inequality in the sense we’re discussing it, or other things like it.
But women can be wise.
men can be wise.
Women can speak and offer sound advice.
men can speak and offer sound advice.
Men can submit and can lead
Women can submit and can lead.
why not husband and wife love each other and submit to one another?
and wearing or not wearing head covering or having long hair is not a matter of inherent biology, like how one might pee.
so what we’re talking about is the areas where men and women can do the same things, but yet the women are continually places is a lesser or more controlled and regulated role than the male.
It’s like in the USA, all are free to the pursuit of happiness. They’re equal in the sense that they all get a shot, not that they will all be the same. But it wouldn’t be free or equal if one group, race or gender were told, “you’re equal, except you always have to wait behind the other races or gender or submit to them, or be silent when they can speak, etc…”
So again, different roles and different abilities and different biology is one thing, but arbitrary regulations and hindrances is what we’re looking at here.
We just look at this differently. I think you see where the bible says, “they’re equal” and then think that the parts that show them unequal must be just a distinction of roles like child birth or genitals, etc. Where I see the differences and realize they aren’t biological, and that they definitely limit one gender over another in ways that have nothing to do with biological restrictions or differences,and I can see that as an inequality, despite what some other passage claims.
saying a woman should compete with the males in the olympics is not what we’re talking about. I wouldnt say that the average woman is just a strong as the average male. Not what we’re talking about. men and women are different – again, not what we’re discussing.
we’re discussing areas where there are no real limitation from biology, but are placed on the females by the bible. and if one person’s role is only allowed to advance so high, while the other person’s has no such limitation, then that is indeed, unequal.
one questions that does keep going unanswered, and there are several, is why believe the bible and accept it as the word of god when it was written by men, and is therefore the claims of me about god, thereby making faith in the bible, first and foremost faith in man’s claims?
and I dont bash the bible. I still read it, but since leaving the faith, i find that it makes more sense now, and I am better able to “rightly divide the bible and discern the truth from the other.”
LikeLike
“Paul could have laid out all kinds of stipulations about how to achieve order in the congregation without blanketly prohibiting women from speaking, but he didn’t do that. He singled them out simply for being women.”
You seem to be skirting answering the question. the question I posed to you was PRECISELY regarding Male and Female roles in reference to equality. They are gender based. You might not like them but how do you logically go from someone adhering to role responsibilities and making that a belief that one gender is superior to another. They are just roles.
LikeLike
Other male and female roles are based on physical and chemical differences. And even those aren’t considered strict these days. But Paul’s prohibition is just based” then being women. Seems arbitrary to me
LikeLike
“’m Marvin’s comment to you, it’s apparent that he felt you were being too personal. I know your may not have meant your comment that way, so why not try to defuse the situation and explain that? Instead, I felt like your reply to him only asked things up further. Yes, he got snippy with you too, but can you see that he was reacting to the way he took your earlier comment?”
LOL…..What did it take?…not even 12 hour for your bias to show. I wish ed Marv a good night last night. Told him it was pleasure taking to him Said nothing untoward. He takes exception because I dared to question (in no in your face way) his knowledge of Women still wearing head covering and apparently because I point out that male and female voices are not the same
He gets all bent out shape and questions my hearing and health and here you are lecturing no one else but me like you could even have a moral basis.
You are as transparent and hypocritical as always nate. don’t even waste your breath (well key strokes) . You cant say I never gave you a chance to show you could be unbiased but I won’t be playing any more of your games. do as you wish.and I’ll do the same
LikeLike
“Still again I must ask and I have asked several times with no answer – how exactly on logical grounds do you maintain that difference in roles makes genders inequal? seems to me you are making a politically correct assessment that equality means no differences in roles. Might have popular appeal but its not logically defensible.” -ABlacksmanagain
EQUAL:
adjective
1.
as great as; the same as (often followed by to or with):
The velocity of sound is not equal to that of light.
2.
like or alike in quantity, degree, value, etc.; of the same rank, ability, merit, etc.:
two students of equal brilliance.
3.
evenly proportioned or balanced:
an equal contest.
4.
uniform in operation or effect:
equal laws.
5.
adequate or sufficient in quantity or degree:
The supply is equal to the demand.
6.
having adequate powers, ability, or means:
He was equal to the task.
7.
level, as a plain.
I cant have children. Women can. That is a difference, but i dont view that as an inequality in the sense we’re discussing it, or other things like it.
But women can be wise.
men can be wise.
Women can speak and offer sound advice.
men can speak and offer sound advice.
Men can submit and can lead
Women can submit and can lead.
why not husband and wife love each other and submit to one another?
and wearing or not wearing head covering or having long hair is not a matter of inherent biology, like how one might pee.
so what we’re talking about is the areas where men and women can do the same things, but yet the women are continually places is a lesser or more controlled and regulated role than the male.
It’s like in the USA, all are free to the pursuit of happiness. They’re equal in the sense that they all get a shot, not that they will all be the same. But it wouldn’t be free or equal if one group, race or gender were told, “you’re equal, except you always have to wait behind the other races or gender or submit to them, or be silent when they can speak, etc…”
So again, different roles and different abilities and different biology is one thing, but arbitrary regulations and hindrances is what we’re looking at here.
We just look at this differently. I think you see where the bible says, “they’re equal” and then think that the parts that show them unequal must be just a distinction of roles like child birth or genitals, etc. Where I see the differences and realize they aren’t biological, and that they definitely limit one gender over another in ways that have nothing to do with biological restrictions or differences,and I can see that as an inequality, despite what some other passage claims.
saying a woman should compete with the males in the olympics is not what we’re talking about. I wouldnt say that the average woman is just a strong as the average male. Not what we’re talking about. men and women are different – again, not what we’re discussing.
we’re discussing areas where there are no real limitation from biology, but are placed on the females by the bible. and if one person’s role is only allowed to advance so high, while the other person’s has no such limitation, then that is indeed, unequal.
one questions that does keep going unanswered, and there are several, is why believe the bible and accept it as the word of god when it was written by men, and is therefore the claims of me about god, thereby making faith in the bible, first and foremost faith in man’s claims?
and I dont bash the bible. I still read it, but since leaving the faith, i find that it makes more sense now, and I am better able to “rightly divide the bible and discern the truth from the other.”
LikeLike
“Other male and female roles are based on physical and chemical differences. And even those aren’t considered strict these days. But Paul’s prohibition is just based” then being women. Seems arbitrary to me”
Don’t really care about what you find arbitrary. given your non christian state you would consider anything spiritual to be arbitrary. I asked a simple question like five times now and you can’t answer
and no many male and female roles are based on psychological and emotional tendencies of male and women.
The problem with you and Williams claim on physical difference is that theologically and practically it makes absolutely no difference. If a woman can give birth and that is considered a superior experience (and i consider it as such) and makes her better then it doesn’t matter a bit if its been endowed to her by command of God or by God providing her and not males with the abilities
men Still would be inferior.
LikeLike