Question: The point I'm trying to make is that it is plausible and possible that you practice something that is [u]better[/u] than what Paul prescribes. And if this is so, than you are defending a set of rules that are worse than your own practice. Thus the only point I see in defending the bible on this point is not a question of defending a morality or a set of guidelines, but defending a text. Why not just discard it?
This principle has been lost in the maze of Christian ideology that is typically either trashed or overdone. In order to understand these admonitions, you have to look at the overall picture and not just one quote mine.
There were some problems in the early church especially the church at Corinth. Corinth was. . . . . . . . like a circus show. Corinth makes RDNet look like righteousness personified and I'm not kidding. Anyone out there having sex with their father's wife?
Other than these personal issues, one problem was that people were not used to getting together like this. This letter addressed that point probably more than any other point. When we girls get together, we like to .... talk. Actually, some of the wording there had to do with being busybodies such as gossips and talking about people behind their backs. This is the kind of "talking" that Paul is addressing. If you want to know Paul's pet peeve, that was it. Paul hated the situation when the girls were nosey and into everyone's business to the point of taking over. Remember that this guy had a very difficult task in that he is trying to establish a church with Jewish influence and righteousness by faith with people that are very foreign to any of this.
But this didn't stop some women from becoming quite prominent and respected in the early church. And remember, like I said, Paul told us all to submit ourselves one to another not just girls to guys. The guys were supposed to submit to the girls too.
PRISCILLA assisted Paul in his revival meeting and even taught Apollos in the way of the Lord more perfectly. It is significant that almost every time Priscilla and Aquilla are mentioned, her name is mentioned first. PHEBE- Romans 16:1-2. Paul commended Phebe to the Church at Rome and requested that they assist her in her business. She was one of Paul's assistants in the work of the Lord and delivered the Book of Romans to the people from the hand of Paul. I believe many women had a voice in what was going on and I think over the years, that voice has gotten louder. Men have grown to appreciate our perspective on things and many women have leadership roles. Listen, Jesus was one of the greatest liberators of women.
I think too that in this particular setting like no other setting, the guys feel kind of lame and the girls are rarin' to go. Running a church is not quite the same as say running an army. This brings me to another thing I've noticed about men. If we girls want to take over the reins and do the job for them, they are happy to hand it over at times. This is because guys do not like to be publicly criticized. Guys would rather dig ditches in the Gobi desert than to be publicly humiliated. So here we have this problem because the girls are probably able to run a church like a dream but the guys are in uncharted territory scared to death. I believe that was why Paul gave this comment.
In no way does Paul set up rules. He would be the first to tell you that we are not under the law but grace. So how ridiculous to make a new law - girls can't talk. He just wanted the masculine kind of guys to take the lead in an area where they would feel less than adequate and he doesn't want the girls talking while the guys are trying to figure this thing out or sitting in the back talking with each other or asking questions and being generally disruptive while this thing is getting off the ground. Are you getting a clearer picture now?
I know too that he is admonishing the girls to stay at home and be home makers and many of you would scoff at such an idea. But after being a nurse for ten years, I wouldn't trade my life at home for going back into the work force for anything. Please keep in mind that most men were not of the scholarly type anyway. There were not that many alternatives for women. Each person worked very hard. I think it has also been proven through studies that children do better being nurtured at home in their early years than if they are sent to day care. I really genuinely love being at home. I like doing God's work too. I get to do both. Anyway, it is obvious that women were doing other things besides being housewives.
Doug and I problem solve together. We learn from each other. I've learned a great deal from him and I know he's learned from me. It is mutual. He's changed because I asked him to and I've changed. We discuss certain decisions that have to be made in a natural way not through some contrived set of regulations. On almost any given day, I probably make 80% of the decisions without consulting him because he trusts me. I gladly yield to his choice, look forward to asking his opinion and value it and have learned to respect that because ultimately, it has been my experience that society (not necessarily the church) looks to him when there are mistakes. Not every woman is the same either. But there is a lot of peace and harmony when there is someone who has the last word. Not to mention that most guys do not last long in marriages where the girl is constantly forcing her opinion down his throat and/or cops an attitude about cleaning a toilet, preparing a meal, doing a load of laundry or mopping a floor? Can anyone say, "hen pecked?" Guys in such marriage get very busy doing other things. Get it?
As to psychology, all I meant was that it has been proven through psychology, that on the whole, men and women problem solve differently. I have been under both men and women as bosses and leaders and I have found women to be petty. In addition, when a fellow employee approaches a boss by giving a negative report about another employee, I think men are less likely to take up an offense and cop an attitude. They are more likely to listen to both sides of the story and resolve the matter objectively. Whereas the women I have worked with would suddenly without warning react in a bizarre way and then later it became apparent that it was over one of these types of situations that had they just asked in the first place, it could have been resolved very quickly. Just my personal observation and opinion from my own experiences both in the hospital setting and overall. I like male leaders. I think they do a good job.
Vera
Posts
2 comments:
This is the relevant part of my reply to Vera's post. The whole reply can is at http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=43265&p=911027#p911027
Please note that the discussion was started on RDnet and I would continue it there.
Vera,
[...]
But I don't think you are answering my question either (though I'm flattered that you quote me).
Firstly, your write:
"There were some problems in the early church especially the church at Corinth. Corinth was. . . . . . . . like a circus show. Corinth makes RDNet look like righteousness personified and I'm not kidding. Anyone out there having sex with their father's wife?"
Please stop dropping such remarks. It's not nice, it's beneath you. It also goes completely against what you already could have learned about the ethical standards of us in this thread: it has been shown that we are against genocide, rape, murder; that we believe in civil society, in innocence until proven guilty, in due process, in the equality of women. These have been shown to contrast your views that were condoning genocide, misogyny, lynching without due process (and yes, I have quotes to prove). Are the ethical standards we adhere to against righteousness???
You are demonstrating that you don't read our replies to your posts. Or that you do read them, but you cling on to your unjustified stereotype of what you imagine an atheist should be despite the fact that you have been shown repeatedly that your views about us are plain wrong.
As I said before: you don't get to tell me what I believe. You can ask, and I will tell you. But if you still don't learn, it's a reflection of your learning ability (or willingness), not of my ethical standards. Again, I resent your insinuations.
Basically, don't talk shit about us behind our backs.
As to the rest of your post.
The point I'm making is why do you defend their stance when the clues you leave to your own views suggest that you might be doing something better than what they are doing? You didn't answer this at all.
You did go into a lengthy apologetics including:
"When we girls get together, we like to .... talk. Actually, some of the wording there had to do with being busybodies such as gossips and talking about people behind their backs. This is the kind of "talking" that Paul is addressing. If you want to know Paul's pet peeve, that was it. Paul hated the situation when the girls were nosey and into everyone's business to the point of taking over."
And we guys don't like to talk when we get together?
Girls are busybodies, gossips, talking behind others' back, are nosey and into everyone's business to the point of taking over???? Please provide some evidence to the validity of this statement. Please provide evidence that guys don't do this. Otherwise there is no difference between girls and guys.
How do you know it was Paul's pet peeve? Otherwise you are making this up just to make Paul come off in a better light (and by this you would be proving my point).
"And remember, like I said, Paul told us all to submit ourselves one to another not just girls to guys. The guys were supposed to submit to the girls too."
And again: this would mean that Paul says that there is no difference between women and men, which contradicts what you were saying earlier about women having to submit to men in church matters.
"I believe many women had a voice in what was going on and I think over the years, that voice has gotten louder. Men have grown to appreciate our perspective on things and many women have leadership roles."
Please provide evidence, otherwise it is just an assumption.
So Paul says that women have to submit to men in church matters, but the women's voice manages to get louder? How? If Paul's rule is correct, women's voices cannot grow louder. If the voice got louder, and the men listened (despite Paul's orders), than maybe women had a point and this process in practice shows that Paul's order is against the reality. Thus practice shows that Paul is wrong. Why defend his erroneous stance, than?
"This is because guys do not like to be publicly criticized. Guys would rather dig ditches in the Gobi desert than to be publicly humiliated."
As opposed to girls who enjoy being criticized? Or publicly humiliated? Please provide evidence that your statement is true, otherwise it is yet another baseless assumption on your part.
"So here we have this problem because the girls are probably able to run a church like a dream but the guys are in uncharted territory scared to death. I believe that was why Paul gave this comment."
So basically girls would be better to handle the job, and the guys don't want to hand over the leadership to those who would be better at that? Suddenly Paul is not only misogynist, but also demonstrates that he goes against what would be best for the church: to empower those that are best suited for the job. How effective is that? Don't you see that your are defending a guy who is this stupid?
"In no way does Paul set up rules."
In a previous post of yours you write: "before Paul told wives to submit themselves to their husbands and for husband to love their wives and LAY DOWN THEIR LIVES FOR THEIR WIVES, he told them both to submit themselves one to another."
Is this not a rule?
"He just wanted the masculine kind of guys to take the lead in an area where they would feel less than adequate and he doesn't want the girls talking while the guys are trying to figure this thing out or sitting in the back talking with each other or asking questions and being generally disruptive while this thing is getting off the ground."
How do yo know this? Please provide evidence, otherwise it is nothing more than made-up apologetics.
Do you also mean that the masculine kind of guys would feel less than adequate, instead of imposing their masculinity? Do you mean that masculine = "feeling inadequate, in need of administrative protection by positive discrimination"?
Why wouldn't he simply say: "let's focus on the topic at hand", instead of making a statement about something that can be contorted into meaning something different 2000+ years after his death? Wouldn't you expect a text to be of profound insight into human affairs to be more to the point?
I know too that he is admonishing the girls to stay at home..."
So is Paul wrong or not?
You argue that women's voice got louder - it's an indication that in practice this rule was not obeyed.
You also argue, that women would be better at running a church - so Paul basically did a disservice to the church by not allowing the best suited to take control.
You say that the guys were simply reluctant to let go of the control - this shows their stupidity.
You establish, thus, that Paul is stupid, he did injustice to women in general, and than you, a women, feel the need to defend this deluded bum?
"Please keep in mind that most men were not of the scholarly type anyway."
Please provide evidence, otherwise it is just a baseless assertion on your part.
"I think it has also been proven through studies that children do better being nurtured at home in their early years than if they are sent to day care."
Please provide evidence.
Couldn't just Paul say: "look, women, we need you more on the home-front because that is more important" instead of what you quote him saying?
"Doug and I problem solve together. We learn from each other. I've learned a great deal from him and I know he's learned from me. It is mutual. He's changed because I asked him to and I've changed. We discuss certain decisions that have to be made in a natural way not through some contrived set of regulations. On almost any given day, I probably make 80% of the decisions without consulting him because he trusts me. I gladly yield to his choice, look forward to asking his opinion and value it and have learned to respect that because ultimately, it has been my experience that society (not necessarily the church) looks to him when there are mistakes. Not every woman is the same either."
You are basically describing why Paul's rule about women submitting to men is not followed by you and your husband. The questions remains: why do you defend Paul when you do the opposite of what he says? And why are church-matters different to any other matters of importance?
"But there is a lot of peace and harmony when there is someone who has the last word."
This is just silly. It is a tautology that every exchange ends with a last word, being it an argument or a discussion or whatever. This in no way suggests which party should have the last word.
"Not to mention that most guys do not last long in marriages where the girl is constantly forcing her opinion down his throat and/or cops an attitude about cleaning a toilet, preparing a meal, doing a load of laundry or mopping a floor?"
Do girls last long in marriages where the guy constantly forcing his opinion down her throat?
Without evidence it is just promotion of an unjustified stereotype of women and men.
"Can anyone say, "hen pecked?""
Can anyone say "bullied into submission"?
"As to psychology, all I meant was that it has been proven through psychology, that on the whole, men and women problem solve differently."
You referred to this study: http://www.livescience.com/health/050120_brain_sex.html
The study says: "Researchers stressed that just because the two sexes think differently, this does not affect intellectual performance." and "Scientists find it very interesting that while men and women use two very different activity centers and neurological pathways, men and women perform equally well on broad measures of cognitive ability, such as intelligence tests."
Thus there might be differences in the ways of solving progress, but not in the intellectual capacity, thus there is absolutely no reason to consider women inferior in their intellectual capacity. Thus Paul's rule of submitting women to men cannot be defended on the basis of different intellects. So why defend his erroneous and ineffective rule?
"I have been under both men and women as bosses and leaders and I have found women to be petty. In addition, when a fellow employee approaches a boss by giving a negative report about another employee, I think men are less likely to take up an offense and cop an attitude. They are more likely to listen to both sides of the story and resolve the matter objectively. Whereas the women I have worked with would suddenly without warning react in a bizarre way and then later it became apparent that it was over one of these types of situations that had they just asked in the first place, it could have been resolved very quickly. Just my personal observation and opinion from my own experiences both in the hospital setting and overall. I like male leaders. I think they do a good job."
Until you provide evidence that it is generally valid, it is just that: your personal observation.
//QuickEye
P.s.: you have a nice family
You went running off on a tangent here. I know you have morals. That's why I said that the Corinthian church make RDNet look like righteousness personified. I wasn't being facetious. Just because people have morals does not mean though that they haven't sinned at some time in their lives.
Here's what I believe about being inherently evil. The Bible doesn't teach this. If you read Romans 6, 7, and 8, you will see that Paul speaks of being able to be free from sin. In Romans 7, it speaks of the flesh being the problem, not this evil that he wants to do. He actually doesn't want to do evil but does it anyway because he can't control his flesh at times. This was specifically in regards to lust.
As to other examples of Paul talking about women and gossip, the best examples is "But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry; Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith. And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not. I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully."
To Paul, they've pretty much given up being saved. I'm telling you. The man hated gossip and he felt that an idle widow would have nothing better to do than to gossip. If you look up backbiter, whisperer, talebearer, slanderer you will find the Scriptures that speak of this sin.
You are wrong about women liking to talk about others. We enjoy discussing people and what's going on in their lives but that can turn very suddenly into talking about things that are none of our business.. Are you a guy? Because I haven't met any men that like to sit around and talk about people unless it has something to do with them. Sports and politics maybe but not the latest gossip on people in their circle of friends just to chat about them. I've met men that will talk about people out of concern. That isn't gossip. Gossip is when I talk about you and tell others those things you've told me in confidence. "Don't tell anyone but.... so and so told me that ........." Girls will do that. When was the last time you've seen a guy do that? It is a rarity.
And again: this would mean that Paul says that there is no difference between women and men, which contradicts what you were saying earlier about women having to submit to men in church matters.
I don't understand why you people think in such extremist terms. For every truth, there is a balancing truth.
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Please provide evidence, otherwise it is just an assumption.
If you are referring to their leadership roles, I did provide evidence. Phebe and Priscilla were leaders.
If Paul's rule is correct, women's voices cannot grow louder. If the voice got louder, and the men listened (despite Paul's orders), than maybe women had a point and this process in practice shows that Paul's order is against the reality. Thus practice shows that Paul is wrong. Why defend his erroneous stance, than?
We are talking about a church service. Not something in general terms. The book of Corinthians is written because the household of Chloe sent Paul a letter. That is clearly a feminine name.
So basically girls would be better to handle the job,
No. But, women "seem" to be spiritual at times when they aren't being spiritual. And it is easy for the guys to assume themselves to be inept and hand over the reins.
In a previous post of yours you write: "before Paul told wives to submit themselves to their husbands and for husband to love their wives and LAY DOWN THEIR LIVES FOR THEIR WIVES, he told them both to submit themselves one to another."
Is this not a rule?
No, what we are supposed to be is led of the Spirit and not under the law of bondage. These words transform our minds and souls so in the heat of a situation, the reaction comes naturally. They are more admonitions and exhortations than rules. There are definite times when it is wise for a woman to stop submitting and expose her husband and I have heard the church teach that. Nobody is supposed to submit to sin.
How do yo know this? Please provide evidence, otherwise it is nothing more than made-up apologetics.
Do you also mean that the masculine kind of guys would feel less than adequate, instead of imposing their masculinity?
1 Cor. 6:9-11 condemns effeminate behavior.
You establish, thus, that Paul is stupid, he did injustice to women in general, and than you, a women, feel the need to defend this deluded bum?
Or you grossly misunderstand the man as do many Christians that quote mine because he had a great deal of respect for various women and says so in his salutations.
And why are church-matters different to any other matters of importance?
Can we agree that there are various forms of authority? We have family authority. Government authority. Business authority. Hospital or medical authority. And we have church authority. Each of these areas is so different from the other. Government authority can be divided into many different areas that have need of governing like the police or law makers. The church is a much different area. Jesus said that a leader was not to be like one who lords it over others but to be a servant. He washed the disciples' feet to point that out. Mark 10:42-44
Until you provide evidence that it is generally valid, it is just that: your personal observation.
A woman's intelligence was never in question. In any other area, a woman is fine to govern but in this area, God wanted men with a woman's influence.
If you look at this whole admonition carefully, without quote mining the one sentence, you can see that Paul is not giving us a picture of a subserviant woman that is someone's doormat. Please note that this whole subject begins with him saying that we should submit to one another. See, I like Doug's opinion. I want Doug's opinion because he thinks differently than me and I've learned over the years to respect his way of thinking. He feels the same about me. Sometimes he yields to me and other times we disagree. When that happens, I yield to him as the one with the last word. I am definitely not a doormat. :-)
Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
Vera
Post a Comment