Why is there such a quarrel with Christianity today?

[GhostVol]

Those were instructions for public worship, as the first quote clearly stated. Paul was saying that women couldn't be Bible teachers or hold offices of authority in church.

Since Paul talks elsewhere about women prophesying in church, most don't take him literally concerning the admonition that women remain quiet in church. Due to context about asking questions at home, some believe there were problems at some churches with some women interrupting service and blurting out questions, so Paul was telling them to stop interrupting and ask their husbands when they get home.

"Subservient" and "submissive" are two different things.

Since you seem to have problem with the fact that I'm bolding your own quotes (sucks to be caught out, doesn't it) here are some more for you.

Your. Own. Quote.

 

[GhostVol]

Those were instructions for public worship, as the first quote clearly stated. Paul was saying that women couldn't be Bible teachers or hold offices of authority in church.

Since Paul talks elsewhere about women prophesying in church, most don't take him literally concerning the admonition that women remain quiet in church. Due to context about asking questions at home, some believe there were problems at some churches with some women interrupting service and blurting out questions, so Paul was telling them to stop interrupting and ask their husbands when they get home.

"Subservient" and "submissive" are two different things.

I invited you to bold the part where I said that women can't know/understand. You seem t be good at it. So...... Go![/QUOTE]

OK.... Go we shall.... "women couldn't be Bible teachers or hold offices of authority in the church".

Your. Quote.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Since you seem to have problem with the fact that I'm bolding your own quotes (sucks to be caught out, doesn't it) here are some more for you.

Your. Own. Quote.

You're really wearing thin. This is the full sentence, including the part you left out of the bold.

Since Paul talks elsewhere about women prophesying in church, most don't take him literally concerning the admonition that women remain quiet in church.

And do you know what still isn't in there? Anything saying that women "can't" know/understand Biblical teachings. Just an avenue for women in case they didn't.

Now...

Paul said that women weren't to teach or hold authority over men in the church. He referenced quite blatantly the curse of women from Genesis 3, which has to do with God's order and not their intellect. So, you're misplacing your outrage. Your outrage should probably be better directed at the fact that God put that order in effect, not an invented point that I never made.

Now. This. Is. Over. Sleep well.

 

[GhostVol]

You're really wearing thin. This is the full sentence, including the part you left out of the bold.



And do you know what still isn't in there? Anything saying that women "can't" know/understand Biblical teachings. Just an avenue for women in case they didn't.

Now...

Paul said that women weren't to teach or hold authority over men in the church. He referenced quite blatantly the curse of women from Genesis 3, which has to do with God's order and not their intellect. So, you're misplacing your outrage. Your outrage should probably be better directed at the fact that God put that order in effect, not an invented point that I never made.

Now. This. Is. Over. Sleep well.

Nope..... You don't get to call out when this is over. You won't admit that you're a misogynist. Perioid.

women couldn't be Bible teachers

Why. Not.

That's your Paul quote above (bolded, yeah, I know)....

I just want to know..... Here's the question..... Answer it if you can.

WHY?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Nope..... You don't get to call out when this is over.

Actually, I do. Sweet dreams, and toodles...

 

[GhostVol]

Actually, I do. Sweet dreams, and toodles...

And...... That's what peeps do when they can't rationally answer a legit question.

Nighty night...... Thanks for the discussion!

 

[Gramps]

Nope..... You don't get to call out when this is over. You won't admit that you're a misogynist. Perioid.

women couldn't be Bible teachers

Why. Not.

That's your Paul quote above (bolded, yeah, I know)....

I just want to know..... Here's the question..... Answer it if you can.

WHY?

Women were/are Bible teachers. Per the Bible the older women are to teach the younger women and women are to teach the children.

The men are to conduct the business of the the church.

 

[Orange_Crush]

No. I didn't answer for several reasons.

I didn't answer because I figured that, for any self-aware person, my response to CWV that described the mutually-loving and healthy Biblical definition of marriage would have made you feel like a heel and want to drop the subject. But you apparently didn't. You just dropped that part from your quote and continued to mis-characterize the points.

And because the questions didn't follow the statements quoted. No one mentioned anything about what women may or may not be able to know or understand. You invented that. Why would I waste my time on your inventions?

And because you've shown me very little desire to discuss and a lot of desire to misrepresent, mock, and argue.

So, sleep well.

...

 

[ClearwaterVol]

OC - while i understand your views on marriage, the overall view of women in the bible seems to be sexist. Now you can justify that with a it was just the times response, but that approach would just be picking and choosing what to believe. ITT you've said that most people don't take certain verses literally. How is that decision made? Am i free to not take the story of Noah literally?

For years i took most of the stories in the old testament to be fables of sorts. Each designed to teach a lesson, but not to be taken literally. Then i was told by people that in order to be a true Christian, i had to believe that those stories actually happened. That i could not do.

 

[Orange_Crush]

OC - while i understand your views on marriage, the overall view of women in the bible seems to be sexist. Now you can justify that with a it was just the times response, but that approach would just be picking and choosing what to believe. ITT you've said that most people don't take certain verses literally. How is that decision made? Am i free to not take the story of Noah literally?

For years i took most of the stories in the old testament to be fables of sorts. Each designed to teach a lesson, but not to be taken literally. Then i was told by people that in order to be a true Christian, i had to believe that those stories actually happened. That i could not do.

CWV, I'm not trying to be curt or rude, but I've already answered the method I used to make this specific determination. The answer was in the statement, as a matter of fact. And again, this isn't meant meant to be sarcastic, but if you are truly interested, I'll link several books for you on proper hermeneutics. It's a subject bigger than I'm willing to invest on an anonymous internet forum.

As to the views of women in the Bible, I'm not trying to justify anything. I've simply responded to two quotes from the Bible, explained my understanding of what the author said, gave the scriptural reasoning that author referenced as to why he/I believe that, and was mocked, insulted, and told that I hadn't given a reason.

But again, I'm not trying to justify it. You guys seem to have it backwards. God is my defender; I'm not His.

ETA:

I never used the "it was just the time..." argument. Just the opposite, actually.

Specifically to the "silent in church..." question, I said that I don't believe it was to be interpreted as a 'you'd better not utter a word once we enter that service' kind of thing because of Paul's words elsewhere where women were talking and publicly serving in the church.

Specific to the authority part, I pointed out that Paul gave a theological/scriptural reasoning behind it, which would make it expressly not a 'for the time' issue, but instead a 'God's plan' issue, which I stated very blatantly.

That's one reason that I'm at such a loss with GV. He/She has repeatedly asked me to defend things that I didn't say, selectively quoted me, and then kept telling me to answer things that I've already answered. He/she may not like the answers. He/she may think those answers make me a misogynist. That's fine. But to repeatedly ask for answers that have been given is a bit dense and tiring.

And, considering my description of my wife and my marriage, which I see as Biblical and mutually loving/respectful, I can't see how I can be seen as misogynistic. But that's cool. Like I said... God is my defender. I'm not His.

:hi:

 

[Vol8188]

...

What are your thoughts on polygyny and what the bible says about it?

 

[Obsessed]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zNzs6YujPo


All your questions answered

 

[Orange_Crush]

What are your thoughts on polygyny and what the bible says about it?

My thoughts are that it was never God's plan but He made allowances for it for a period of history. In other words, He didn't want it, it was happening, so He gave laws that would protect women when it happened.

But I believe that His plan from the beginning was one man and one woman.

To me, though... It's a wasted conversation because I don't believe that the US is a theocracy, so America can do whatever America wants to do, and they can answer to God.

 

[Vol8188]

My thoughts are that it was never God's plan but He made allowances for it for a period of history. In other words, He didn't want it, it was happening, so He gave laws that would protect women when it happened.

But I believe that His plan from the beginning was one man and one woman.

To me, though... It's a wasted conversation because I don't believe that the US is a theocracy, so America can do whatever America wants to do, and they can answer to God.

I have a hard time accepting that a perfect being would allow something that he considered wrong on the simple basis that they were already doing it. He had countless people slaughtered for other transgressions. But for this one he decided to wait until society no longer accepted it?

It's also interesting you say God allowed it then, but that we will have to answe to him if we allowed it now. That's a strange statement

 

[Orange_Crush]

I have a hard time accepting that a perfect being would allow something that he considered wrong on the simple basis that they were already doing it. He had countless people slaughtered for other transgressions. But for this one he decided to wait until society no longer accepted it?

It's also interesting you say God allowed it then, but that we will have to answe to him if we allowed it now. That's a strange statement

There's a lot that you don't accept, and none of that bothers me either.

 

[Vol8188]

There's a lot that you don't accept, and none of that bothers me either.

Odd. So god can be accepting of sin, if it's something the people are already doing. Because you know, he's only God. Why would he want to rock the boat?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Odd. So god can be accepting of sin, if it's something the people are already doing. Because you know, he's only God. Why would he want to rock the boat?

I guess it depends on your definition of 'accepting'. Do you mean accepting as in "I am longsuffering, slow to anger, and will deal slowly with my people..." or accepting as in "condoning"?

Interestingly enough, concerning marriage, Jesus said:

4 “Haven’t you read,” He replied, “that He who created them in the beginning made them male and female,” 5 and He also said:

“For this reason a man will leave
his father and mother
and be joined to his wife,
and the two will become one flesh?
6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, man must not separate.”

7 “Why then,” they asked Him, “did Moses command us to give divorce papers and to send her away?”

8 He told them, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because of the hardness of your hearts. But it was not like that from the beginning. 9 And I tell you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

So here, Jesus states God's original intent of one man and one woman, but His permissiveness from Moses that made provisions of protection for women when they didn't abide His original plan.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

CWV, I'm not trying to be curt or rude, but I've already answered the method I used to make this specific determination. The answer was in the statement, as a matter of fact. And again, this isn't meant meant to be sarcastic, but if you are truly interested, I'll link several books for you on proper hermeneutics. It's a subject bigger than I'm willing to invest on an anonymous internet forum.

As to the views of women in the Bible, I'm not trying to justify anything. I've simply responded to two quotes from the Bible, explained my understanding of what the author said, gave the scriptural reasoning that author referenced as to why he/I believe that, and was mocked, insulted, and told that I hadn't given a reason.

But again, I'm not trying to justify it. You guys seem to have it backwards. God is my defender; I'm not His.

ETA:

I never used the "it was just the time..." argument. Just the opposite, actually.

Specifically to the "silent in church..." question, I said that I don't believe it was to be interpreted as a 'you'd better not utter a word once we enter that service' kind of thing because of Paul's words elsewhere where women were talking and publicly serving in the church.

Specific to the authority part, I pointed out that Paul gave a theological/scriptural reasoning behind it, which would make it expressly not a 'for the time' issue, but instead a 'God's plan' issue, which I stated very blatantly.

That's one reason that I'm at such a loss with GV. He/She has repeatedly asked me to defend things that I didn't say, selectively quoted me, and then kept telling me to answer things that I've already answered. He/she may not like the answers. He/she may think those answers make me a misogynist. That's fine. But to repeatedly ask for answers that have been given is a bit dense and tiring.

And, considering my description of my wife and my marriage, which I see as Biblical and mutually loving/respectful, I can't see how I can be seen as misogynistic. But that's cool. Like I said... God is my defender. I'm not His.

:hi:

It sounds like you have a very good marriage. However, after having a daughter I cannot teach her that she is inferior to anyone let alone teach that she is inferior based upon her sex. And the bible seems to repeatedly say just that. You have said that in the event of a disagreement your wife simply relents. You have also said that neither of you is greater than the other, both equal.

It is not about worth, place, value, intelligence, force, respect... The picture of submission that my wife operates on is the same submission that Jesus showed to the Father. Neither is better than the other, above the other, more important than the other... They're both God. Jesus, with every right to refuse, chose to live out the Father's will.

By definition, submission is a choice--not forced.

But you're not equal. The final authority rests with you on all matters. Again, it works for you and I am not discounting that, but I cannot teach my daughter simply to submit to the will of man because he is a man. In many cases that would be a recipe for a very unhealthy relationship.

As for the it was just the time argument, maybe I misunderstood your statement..

Due to context about asking questions at home, some believe there were problems at some churches with some women interrupting service and blurting out questions, so Paul was telling them to stop interrupting and ask their husbands when they get home.

as an it was just the times type of argument. Perhaps after reading your comment you can see why.

 

[Orange_Crush]

It sounds like you have a very good marriage. However, after having a daughter I cannot teach her that she is inferior to anyone let alone teach that she is inferior based upon her sex. And the bible seems to repeatedly say just that. You have said that in the event of a disagreement your wife simply relents. You have also said that neither of you is greater than the other, both equal.



But you're not equal. The final authority rests with you on all matters. Again, it works for you and I am not discounting that, but I cannot teach my daughter simply to submit to the will of man because he is a man. In many cases that would be a recipe for a very unhealthy relationship.

You seem to be equating 'authority' with 'greatness' or 'worth'. I suspect that GV was as well, thus his/her inability to see beyond his/her formation of what they must have thought I said.

As I stated, it's not about either. No more than Jesus is less than the Father. It's about one person's decision to give up their rights as the other person is giving up their rights for them. Like it. Don't. I'm cool with however you choose to feel about it. And by all means, teach your daughter as you see fit. I'll teach my daughter not to settle for anyone that doesn't serve them selflessly.

And for the record, Jesus' definition of 'greatness' and 'authority' was 'lower yourself to serve others'. So, I'll continue to try to be great in my marriage.

As for the it was just the time argument, maybe I misunderstood your statement..



as an it was just the times type of argument. Perhaps after reading your comment you can see why.

I wasn't attacking or chastising you. I was merely making sure I was clear, and as you've accused me of waffling in the past, I was trying to show that it had been my position all along. I apologize if that wasn't clear. Written word... Forum... Emojies... etc...

Is it still unclear? Or did I clarify?

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

It sounds like you have a very good marriage. However, after having a daughter I cannot teach her that she is inferior to anyone let alone teach that she is inferior based upon her sex. And the bible seems to repeatedly say just that. You have said that in the event of a disagreement your wife simply relents. You have also said that neither of you is greater than the other, both equal.

But you're not equal. The final authority rests with you on all matters. Again, it works for you and I am not discounting that, but I cannot teach my daughter simply to submit to the will of man because he is a man. In many cases that would be a recipe for a very unhealthy relationship.

As for the it was just the time argument, maybe I misunderstood your statement..

as an it was just the times type of argument. Perhaps after reading your comment you can see why.

Clearwater... that is not what the Bible says and not what OC has said. The word "inferior" was never used.

What I have found interesting is that there have been a number of secular studies done which state (in simplistic terms) that the thing a man wants most out of a marriage (even more than sex ) is respect, and what a woman wants most out of marriage is to feel loved, and that this is the most successful recipe for a married couple. And if you were to honestly think about it, I think you would agree.

Now... this imo is essentially what the Bible teaches.

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

Submission does not mean the husband is always right, and it clearly doesn't mean that the wife is inferior. You are looking at submission in terms of how many might define it today, but that is not what it means. There are many resources available on the internet, and as far as giving advice to a daughter who might be getting married, I can't think of anything that would be better than what the Bible describes.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

OC and IBlvNTmWrk -

I gave you both likes because you explained it well. However, I still believe their is some spin control going on with regard to the place that women are taught they should keep in the bible. Isn't there a verse that women shouldn't teach or hold a place of authority over a man? That rings as inferior.

That being said, this may be the best quote in this entire thread...

I'll teach my daughter not to settle for anyone that doesn't serve them selflessly.

:groupwave:

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

OC and IBlvNTmWrk -

I gave you both likes because you explained it well. However, I still believe their is some spin control going on with the place that women are taught they should keep in the bible. Isn't there a verse that women shouldn't teach or hold a place of authority over a man? That rings as inferior.

That being said, this may be the best quote in this entire thread...



:groupwave:

Jesus washed the feet of his disciples. Do you think He was inferior?

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Jesus washed the feet of his disciples. Do you think He was inferior?

Did the bible teach him that his lot in life was to wash the feet of others? Or did he do so of his own free will to teach others a lesson?

 

[Orange_Crush]

OC and IBlvNTmWrk -

I gave you both likes because you explained it well. However, I still believe their is some spin control going on with the place that women are taught they should keep in the bible. Isn't there a verse that women shouldn't teach or hold a place of authority over a man? That rings as inferior.

That being said, this may be the best quote in this entire thread...



:groupwave:

I appreciate the kind words. And I understand why you would feel that there is 'spin control' going on, but I still think that you feel that way because we are operating on two very different definitions of 'authority'. You see it from a very self-serving, self-glorying perspective, which is to be expected since you see it from the secular/worldly/fleshly perspective. But Jesus made a point of blatant distinction there:

Matthew 20:20 Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons approached Him with her sons.w She knelt down to ask Him for something. 21“What do you want? ” He asked her.

“Promise,” she said to Him, “that these two sons of mine may sit, one on Your right and the other on Your left, in Your kingdom.”

22But Jesus answered, “You don’t know what you’re asking. Are you able to drink the cupaa that I am about to drink?”ab,ac

“We are able,” they said to Him.

23 He told them, “You will indeed drink My cup.ad But to sit at My right and left is not Mine to give; instead, it belongs to those for whom it has been prepared by My Father.” 24 When the 10 disciples heard this, they became indignant with the two brothers. 25 But Jesus called them over and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles dominate them, and the men of high position exercise power over them. 26 It must not be like that among you. On the contrary, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first among you must be your •slave; 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life — a ransom for many.”

Apparently, a coupe of the disciples were scheming to have authority. It was a very self-glorying and self-serving pursuit. Jesus had to correct this, so He explained the difference between worldly authority and Biblical authority.

Do you want to be great? Do you want to have authority? Then become a slave/servant to others. Do you want to 'climb the ladder'? Then bow low and be a servant. Do you want to be given charge of others? Then care for them and put their needs above your own.

Note the marked difference, not just in definition, but in attitude between worldly authority and God's version. It's not about being greater, it's about serving those who have been put in your care. It's not about your glory. It's about your humility. It's not about your rights, but about your willingness not to stand on your rights. It's not about having your way. It's about giving away.

That's not spin, it straight from the mouth of God in red letters. It's not spin, it is core to the faith.

Philippians 2:5 Make your own attitude that of Christ Jesus,

6 who, existing in the form of God,
did not consider equality with God
as something to be used for His own advantage.n
7 Instead He emptied Himself
by assuming the form of a •slave,p
taking on the likeness of men.q
And when He had come as a man
in His external form,
8 He humbled Himself by becoming obedient
to the point of death —
even to death on a cross.r
9 For this reason God highly exalted Hims
and gave Him the name
that is above every name,
10 so that at the name of Jesus
every knee will bow —
of those who are in heaven and on earth
and under the earth —
11 and every tongue should confess
that Jesus Christ is Lord,x
to the glory of God the Father.

So... In all relationships, this is the standard which we seek. Church leaders? Serve those in your care humbly. Husbands? Serve your wife. Parents? Serve your kids. Each other? Give up your rights in service to others.

Women can't be leaders? Well, that is apparently God's design, but that means the men are serving them selflessly. Wives are asked to submit to men as leaders in the home? That means that men are the greatest servants in the home.

Tell me this... What would this world look like if everyone dropped their self-glorying accumulation mindset and decided to love everyone else as they loved themselves, and to serve others for the others' benefit?

It seems to me the biggest arguments would be about who got the blessing of blessing others.

Literally, last night, my wife and I got in our first 'argument' in quite some time... She wanted to cook dinner because I'd been working on lots of chores and she knows that I'm not the biggest fans of leftovers. I didn't want her to have to cook because she hasn't been feeling well lately.

"I'm cooking." "No you're not. I can eat leftovers." Back and forth.

She submitted and we ate leftovers.

No spin. Just the ideal that Christians should be seeking in our personal actions.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Did the bible teach him that his lot in life was to wash the feet of others? Or did he do so of his own free will to teach others a lesson?

That's an odd question. Do you think that the Bible taught Jesus something? Or did you know that Jesus was teaching a lesson, while ignoring the lesson that He was teaching to the future leaders in the church?

Was that meant as an honest question, or to just be argumentative and instigate?