I'm rereading these passages: 1 Corinthians 33-35: "As in all the churches of the saints, women should be silent in the chuches." So be it. Contrary to what I thought before, this really isn't a local commandment (in contrast to some of Paul's other instructions, in which he clearly states his views are simply his, not God's, wishes). This passage at least says that women should not be giving sermons. Most evangelical churches I know of follow this principle. Again, this was instituted not because women are inferior, but because unity needed to be guaranteed. (How can Christ be worshipped if men and women are fighting to gain control over each other? Gender wars are disgraceful in a church setting. And political advancement is utterly inappropriate in a setting wholly dedicated to service.)
Did he actually say the reason women were to be subordinated in the church and in marriage was for the purpose of "unity and strength that such a position is created for in marriage"? Or is this just conjecture or inference on your part? Are you sure you're not making this up as go along? Paul goes beyond merely suggesting men should "have the dominant role in the church" -- he specifically says women must remain absolutely silent in the church. That means NO SPEAKING WITHIN CHURCH WALLS. (Do you as an xian do all you can to ensure that this practice is enforced in your local church? If not, then why not?) Paul also says women must not assume positions of authority over men, or take on a role of teaching men -- these comments do not appear to pertain specifically to church, or marriage; they appear to be comments made in general: i.e., under no circumstances, in any situation, should a woman have authority over a man, or be in a position of teaching men. Lol.
Oh really? Well, I would say that Paul's ignorant attitudes towards homosexuality also appears to be addressing a reality of the time. If 'we' are going to ditch Paul's requirement that women not speak in the Church, then I move that 'we' also ignore Paul's rather ungenerous and ignorant comments re: homosexuality. Please provide a logical reason why I shouldn't do this, i.e., please explain why you are not being entirely hypocritical.
As I said earlier, Christians discard ceremonial law, civil law, and enforcement of moral law as outlined in the OT. Moral law itself is still kept.[/quote]
What does that even mean? It's gibberish to me. I would like a clear and precise explanation from you as to WHY comments pertaining to homosexual sex between males in Leviticus are to be regarded as "moral law", whereas mandates re: menstruation, masturbation, etc. are to be dismissed as mere 'ceremonial law' or 'civil law'? And what are the other specific "moral laws" that you, as a xian, take from Leviticus and fold into your daily life -- other than that male-male anal sex is punishable by death??
Leviticus is unambiguous -- there is no wiggle room -- a man who has penetrative intercourse with another man is to be stoned to death. (Just as a man having sex with a menstruating women must be cast out, flogged to death, stoned to death, etc.) Seeing as you do insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible, why do you not call for the death penalty for all sexually active male homosexuals?
Also, it's pretty clear that Leviticus pertains to anal sex between men. Is it OK, then, if I limit myself to kissing my boyfriend, maybe giving him the occasional blow-job? Technically I wouldn't be violating Leviticus. Is it OK if we sleep in the same bed, as long as we don't have anal sex? What say you?
Where'd you get the phrase UTTERLY SILENT? I think also you're confused about hair: 1 Corinthians 11-14-15: "Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?" Men should cut their hair; women should leave it long. As far as a wife's submission in marriage goes, the submission is a voluntary act of the wife. A husband is commanded to "love his wife as himself" (Ephesians 15:33), so that would hardly involve "insisting on absolute obedience from your wife."
You can look at Romans and see that whoever wrote it was a bigot.
This is just so amazing. It is OK therefore for men to practice disunity and fight to gain control over each other? Golly you would think that same gender wars would be just as unacceptable.
If men are acting wisely, this should not happen.
(If I want to be truly accurate, I should say "If men are acting by the Spirit...", but that is another topic.)
What does that even mean? It's gibberish to me. I would like a clear and precise explanation from you as to WHY comments pertaining to homosexual sex between males in Leviticus are to be regarded as "moral law", whereas mandates re: menstruation, masturbation, etc. are to be dismissed as mere 'ceremonial law' or 'civil law'? And what are the other specific "moral laws" that you, as a xian, take from Leviticus and fold into your daily life -- other than that male-male anal sex is punishable by death??
Leviticus is unambiguous -- there is no wiggle room -- a man who has penetrative intercourse with another man is to be stoned to death. (Just as a man having sex with a menstruating women must be cast out, flogged to death, stoned to death, etc.) Seeing as you do insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible, why do you not call for the death penalty for all sexually active male homosexuals?
Also, it's pretty clear that Leviticus pertains to anal sex between men. Is it OK, then, if I limit myself to kissing my boyfriend, maybe giving him the occasional blow-job? Technically I wouldn't be violating Leviticus. Is it OK if we sleep in the same bed, as long as we don't have anal sex? What say you?
[/quote]
Paul was writing in the context of rules for the church; furthermore, he did not have authority outside the church. It doesn't make sense that he was speaking for situations outside church service and worship. And yes, I the statement about unity is my own. But it comes logically from the fact that at the head of the man is God, and at the head of the household is the husband. No element is out of place. I probably can't give you an answer that really adequately adresses the reason for women's submission, but submission logical in the context of the church. I should have said, "I can't give you a full explanation. Outside the context of worshipping God, these instructions don't make sense." I'd have to go deep into Christian theology to give you the full explanation. Perhaps by doing so, these verses would not seem so out of place and demeaning to women as they may seem to you now. (Be assured that men and women are called to lead lives of service and submission in their lives; men are not given license to rule over women.)
I can't help you immediately in defining ceremonial, civil, and moral laws; their explanation would take some time that I don't have right now. But the law against homosexuality is clearly a moral one.
See my other post in regard to women being UTTERLY SILENT.
***Where did I get "utterly silent"? Um, from Paul himself. Read his words. He is quite clear and unambiguous on this matter -- there is no wiggle room on this issue:
4 the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.
35 If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. (1 Cor. 14:34-35)
2 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. (1 Tim. 2:12-15)
***The hair issue -- Paul specifies that if a women does not wear a veil covering her hair when praying (how many contemporary female xians make sure to cover their hair before attending church or praying???) then she must cut her hair short. If she isn't willing to endure the shame of short hair, then she should wear a veil:
4 Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head,
5 but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head?it is the same as if her head were shaven.
6 For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil (1 Cor. 11:2-6)
7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. (1 Cor. 11:3, 7-9)
13 Judge for yourselves; is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
14 Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is degrading to him,
15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her pride? For her hair is given to her for a covering. (1 Cor. 11:13-15)
For women, long hair is a matter of 'mere' pride according to Paul. She must cover her hair when praying, or cut her hair off.
2 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. (1 Tim. 2:12-15)
Paul was writing in the context of rules for the church; furthermore, he did not have authority outside the church. It doesn't make sense that he was speaking for situations outside church service and worship. And yes, I the statement about unity is my own. But it comes logically from the fact that at the head of the man is God, and at the head of the household is the husband. No element is out of place.
I can't help you immediately in defining ceremonial, civil, and moral laws; their explanation would take some time that I don't have right now. But the law against homosexuality is clearly a moral one.
See my other post in regard to women being UTTERLY SILENT.[/quote]
Yeah, I saw your post about Paul requiring silence from women in church. You haven't dealt with this issue. Do you, or do you not, request silence from 'your' womenfolk (mother, sisters, etc) when attending church? If not, then why not?
And the hair issue. Paul wants women to either veil their hair when praying; or cut their hair off altogether. Lol. Are you vigilant in ensuring that the women of your household conform to these no doubt very important requirements? If not, then why not?
>I can't help you immediately in defining ceremonial, civil, and moral laws; their explanation would take
>some time that I don't have right now.
In other words, you have no explanation, but to maintain face you are pretending you do..?
>But the law against homosexuality is clearly a moral one.
It's not clear to me. Are these moral laws?
9 For every one who curses his father or his mother shall be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother, his blood is upon him. (Lev. 20:9)
27 ?A man or a woman who is a medium or a wizard shall be put to death; they shall be stoned with stones, their blood shall be upon them.? (Lev. 20:27)
10?If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death. (Lev. 20:10)
22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (Lev. 18:22)
13If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them. (Lev. 20:13)
Interestingly, the same word, abomination, is used to describe both male-male anal sex, and a male sleeping with a menstruating women; in both cases, the participants are to be put to death. Why is the one a moral law, but the other mere 'civil' or 'ceremonial' law? The fact that you can't or are not willing provide an answer to these types of questions is very telling. I suspect that you are simply picking and choosing which aspects of the Bible you want to keep, and which aspects you want to discard. I hope you will prove me wrong. BTW you didn't answer my blow-job question. Oral sex between males is not technically prohibted in Leviticus. So what's the problem?
Yeah, I saw your post about Paul requiring silence from women in church. You haven't dealt with this issue. Do you, or do you not, request silence from 'your' womenfolk (mother, sisters, etc) when attending church? If not, then why not?
And the hair issue. Paul wants women to either veil their hair when praying; or cut their hair off altogether. Lol. Are you vigilant in ensuring that the women of your household conform to these no doubt very important requirements? If not, then why not?
>I can't help you immediately in defining ceremonial, civil, and moral laws; their explanation would take
>some time that I don't have right now.
In other words, you have no explanation, but to maintain face you are pretending you do..?
>But the law against homosexuality is clearly a moral one.
It's not clear to me. Are these moral laws?
9 For every one who curses his father or his mother shall be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother, his blood is upon him. (Lev. 20:9)
27 ?A man or a woman who is a medium or a wizard shall be put to death; they shall be stoned with stones, their blood shall be upon them.? (Lev. 20:27)
10?If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death. (Lev. 20:10)
13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them. (Lev. 20:13)
13If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them. (Lev. 20:13)
Interestingly, the same word, 'abomination', is used here to describe both male-male anal sex, and a male sleeping with a menstruating women; in both cases, the participants are to be put to death. Why is the one a moral law, but the other mere 'civil' or 'ceremonial' law? The fact that you can't or are not willing provide an answer to this question is very telling. I suspect that you are simply picking and choosing which aspects of the Bible you want to keep, and which aspects you want to discard. I hope you will prove me wrong. BTW you didn't answer my blow-job question. Oral sex between males is not technically prohibted in Leviticus. So what's the problem?
[/quote]
Motherfvcking Impressive.Thumbs up.
cuz you're talking to the wrong bozo....
Jehovah's Witnesses (women) wear head coverings when a man isn't present to lead in prayer. as far as lev. is concerned. the punishment was applicable at the time, but the fact that the instances are morally wrong, still ring true. Jesus did away with the old law. i don't make my wife sleep out in the cold when she's on the rag. that was the way to maintain cleanliness at the time. other means are available, so of course that's out dated. there is nothing outdated about the morality of homosexuality. [/quote]
men who lie with men??? what's so vague about that? it's descrete, but to the point. don't stick it in another man's a$$. yes, my wife does maintain a subordinate role in our family. her opinion is very valuable to me as well as her compassion. but when the day is done... the decisions are MINE and therefore the responsibility is mine. if my children are out of line, i am bloodguilty, for i am their spiritual leader. the bible is very clear in several instances about homosexuality.... most notably the ones i mentioned. if that isn't to the point, then i'm sorry. unfortunately i won't be able to dig Paul up and ask him what he meant, but i'm pretty sure i got the gist of it.
"liberal elite media" and any variation on that is a euphamism for the old standard "jewish-run media"
im disgusted that it has become such widely accepted form of the "new antisemitism" that no one even blinks anymore when that phrase gets thrust out.
(i know you werent arguing for it or anything, i just thought i toss that into the conversation)
men who lie with men??? what's so vague about that? it's descrete, but to the point. don't stick it in another man's a$$. yes, my wife does maintain a subordinate role in our family. her opinion is very valuable to me as well as her compassion. but when the day is done... the decisions are MINE and therefore the responsibility is mine. if my children are out of line, i am bloodguilty, for i am their spiritual leader. the bible is very clear in several instances about homosexuality.... most notably the ones i mentioned. if that isn't to the point, then i'm sorry. unfortunately i won't be able to dig Paul up and ask him what he meant, but i'm pretty sure i got the gist of it.
[/quote]
I think you're a wizard. You should be stoned to death.
Where'd you get that?
As far as the other transgressions, they are all prohibited today, though as I said before, enforcement of such laws is radically different than it was before Jesus was sacrificed.
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, no place would have been sought for a second; 8 for he does find fault with the people when he says: ??Look! There are days coming,? says Jehovah, ?and I will conclude with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant; 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their forefathers in [the] day of my taking hold of their hand to bring them forth out of the land of Egypt, because they did not continue in my covenant, so that I stopped caring for them,? says Jehovah.? ...
ch. 9 For its part, then, the former [covenant] used to have ordinances of sacred service and [its] mundane holy place. 2 For there was constructed a first tent [compartment] in which were the lampstand and also the table and the display of the loaves; and it is called ?the Holy Place.? ... 11 However, when Christ came as a high priest of the good things that have come to pass, through the greater and more perfect tent not made with hands, that is, not of this creation, 12 he entered, no, not with the blood of goats and of young bulls, but with his own blood, once for all time into the holy place and obtained an everlasting deliverance [for us].
ch. 10 9 then he actually says: ?Look! I am come to do your will.? He does away with what is first that he may establish what is second. 10 By the said ?will? we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all time. ... 26 For if we practice sin willfully after having received the accurate knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice for sins left, 27 but [there is] a certain fearful expectation of judgment and [there is] a fiery jealousy that is going to consume those in opposition. 28 Any man that has disregarded the law of Moses dies without compassion, upon the testimony of two or three. 29 Of how much more severe a punishment, do YOU think, will the man be counted worthy who has trampled upon the Son of God and who has esteemed as of ordinary value the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and who has outraged the spirit of undeserved kindness with contempt? 30 For we know him that said: ?Vengeance is mine; I will recompense?; and again: ?Jehovah will judge his people.? 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of [the] living God."
in approaching the hebrews (very bold considering they were the "chosen people") he points to Jesus as being a new covenant with God, due to the fact that the old covenant wasn't being followed. He allucidates further by showing the metaphoric similarities between both covenants. So as far as stoning, that is replaced ("he who is without sin cast the first stone") because everyone is equally sinful. so those that break this covenant won't receive immediate death, but a fate much worse.
ch. 9 For its part, then, the former [covenant] used to have ordinances of sacred service and [its] mundane holy place. 2 For there was constructed a first tent [compartment] in which were the lampstand and also the table and the display of the loaves; and it is called ?the Holy Place.? ... 11 However, when Christ came as a high priest of the good things that have come to pass, through the greater and more perfect tent not made with hands, that is, not of this creation, 12 he entered, no, not with the blood of goats and of young bulls, but with his own blood, once for all time into the holy place and obtained an everlasting deliverance [for us].
ch. 10 9 then he actually says: ?Look! I am come to do your will.? He does away with what is first that he may establish what is second. 10 By the said ?will? we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all time. ... 26 For if we practice sin willfully after having received the accurate knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice for sins left, 27 but [there is] a certain fearful expectation of judgment and [there is] a fiery jealousy that is going to consume those in opposition. 28 Any man that has disregarded the law of Moses dies without compassion, upon the testimony of two or three. 29 Of how much more severe a punishment, do YOU think, will the man be counted worthy who has trampled upon the Son of God and who has esteemed as of ordinary value the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and who has outraged the spirit of undeserved kindness with contempt? 30 For we know him that said: ?Vengeance is mine; I will recompense?; and again: ?Jehovah will judge his people.? 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of [the] living God."
in approaching the hebrews (very bold considering they were the "chosen people") he points to Jesus as being a new covenant with God, due to the fact that the old covenant wasn't being followed. He allucidates further by showing the metaphoric similarities between both covenants. So as far as stoning, that is replaced ("he who is without sin cast the first stone") because everyone is equally sinful. so those that break this covenant won't receive immediate death, but a fate much worse.
Listen, Paul wasn't saying that all women should never teach in the church. The Greek word translated to "silent" is better read as "composed." In the early church days women were not allowed, under Jewish oral law, to teach in the church, or learn the Scriptures for themselves. An early problem for the church was false teachers, and women, due to the laws of the time, were not as well educated on the Scriptures and Jesus' teachings, and so were very succeptable to false teaching. Paul was trying to discourage anyone who was not educated enough on the Scriptures and Jesus' teaching to become leaders in the church... so many new Christians all at once, and many of them need to be taught, not teach. Women just happened to be the prime example due to the social constraints of the time, and especially in the Ephesian church to whom Paul is writing.
Here's a little further explanation:
"In first century Jewish culture women were not allowed to study, which is interesting since they were largely responsible for educating the children in the faith. When Paul said that women should learn in quietness and full submission, he was actually offering them a wonderful opportunity.
Paul says, "learn," which is a huge step forward from the thinking of the time. However, Paul didn't want the Ephesian women to teach yet because they didn't have enough experience or knowledge to be seen as credible. It had nothing to do with ability, but rather experience and knowledge at that place, and at that point in time.
You see the Ephesian church of Paul and Timothy's time was struggling with many false teachers. And women particularly were susceptible to false teachings because they didn't yet have enough biblical knowledge to discern truth from hypocrisy.
Paul was telling Timothy not to put anyone, and in this particular case women, into positions of leadership if they were not yet mature in the faith, and ready to take on the important task of Christian leadership.
Unfortunately some interpret this passage to mean that women should never teach in the assembled church. This doesn't sound like a Christ-like interpretation to me. The scripture is meant to be freeing and grounded in love, not a tool for control or oppression.
Many who have studied this scripture, and the historical context in which it was written, are quick to point out that Paul didn't forbid women from ever teaching. Paul was a leader in promoting and encouraging women in the work of the Lord. Paul commended co-worker, Priscilla and taught Apollos the great preacher.
In addition, Paul frequently mentions women who held positions of responsibility in the church. Phoebe worked in the church. Mary, Tryphena, and Tryphosa were the Lord's workers, as were Euodia, and Syhtyche.
In our scripture, Paul was prohibiting just the Ephesian women of the time of his writing from teaching, for the reasons I mentioned earlier, not all women from teaching."
Here's a little further explanation:
"In first century Jewish culture women were not allowed to study, which is interesting since they were largely responsible for educating the children in the faith. When Paul said that women should learn in quietness and full submission, he was actually offering them a wonderful opportunity.
Paul says, "learn," which is a huge step forward from the thinking of the time. However, Paul didn't want the Ephesian women to teach yet because they didn't have enough experience or knowledge to be seen as credible. It had nothing to do with ability, but rather experience and knowledge at that place, and at that point in time.
You see the Ephesian church of Paul and Timothy's time was struggling with many false teachers. And women particularly were susceptible to false teachings because they didn't yet have enough biblical knowledge to discern truth from hypocrisy.
Paul was telling Timothy not to put anyone, and in this particular case women, into positions of leadership if they were not yet mature in the faith, and ready to take on the important task of Christian leadership.
Unfortunately some interpret this passage to mean that women should never teach in the assembled church. This doesn't sound like a Christ-like interpretation to me. The scripture is meant to be freeing and grounded in love, not a tool for control or oppression.
Many who have studied this scripture, and the historical context in which it was written, are quick to point out that Paul didn't forbid women from ever teaching. Paul was a leader in promoting and encouraging women in the work of the Lord. Paul commended co-worker, Priscilla and taught Apollos the great preacher.
In addition, Paul frequently mentions women who held positions of responsibility in the church. Phoebe worked in the church. Mary, Tryphena, and Tryphosa were the Lord's workers, as were Euodia, and Syhtyche.
In our scripture, Paul was prohibiting just the Ephesian women of the time of his writing from teaching, for the reasons I mentioned earlier, not all women from teaching."
I'd like to make a generalization. For the past many posts we have been bantering back and forth about the applicability of the role of women in marriage and within the church. Unfortunately, we've been treating the relevant passages in that area of doctrine similarly to the way we've been treating the passages that concern homosexuality and other moral issues. In reality, the two topics are not similar. Paul's instructions regarding the role of women were addressed specifically to the church; they do not really reflect the human condition, nor do they address the moral laws written on everyone's conscience. They are specific, special instructions designed to make the church run properly. Discussing them with people outside the church is really foolish, because they were designed for Christians and the church. The laws governing homosexuality and other moral matters, however, are relevant to everyone. They reflect the universal disparity between man and God, and they highlight issues that plague every human. Hence, those topics are probaly more meaningful to the non-Christian. I think we should heed Peter's warning (2 Peter 3:15-17):
That makes more sense than what I've been writing. However, I still hold that men should have the dominant role in marriage and in church leadership.
I like reading stonewall dig himself into a hole. Although, he may not know he is in a hole and would probably argue that with me, but from where I'm standing, he is practically throwing the dirt straight up at this point.
Whatever gets you through the day and keeps you hating homosexuals, I suppose. Bad homosexuals, we could run out of people any day now. And whose to argue with god, right? I mean, if he somehow said homosexuality was a sin through one of his followers, then who are we to question. I mean, theres no reason to ask yourself exactly WHY homosexuality would be a sin, right? As long as the bible tells you so...
Whatever gets you through the day and keeps you hating homosexuals, I suppose. Bad homosexuals, we could run out of people any day now. And whose to argue with god, right? I mean, if he somehow said homosexuality was a sin through one of his followers, then who are we to question. I mean, theres no reason to ask yourself exactly WHY homosexuality would be a sin, right? As long as the bible tells you so...
Originally posted by: Gen Stonewall
I have no idea what your basis is for those accusations.
Because anybody that's ever heard of civil rights can see what a nut case you are.
Originally posted by: tss4
Originally posted by: Gen Stonewall
I have no idea what your basis is for those accusations.
Because anybody that's ever heard of civil rights can see what a nut case you are.
Thanks for the compliment. I have addressed the civil rights aspect of homosexual marriage (which is what you seem to be referring to, and something that I haven't even brought up in this thread) several times before.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 387
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter