Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Women In 1 Corinthians
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 1 of 106 (452681)
01-31-2008 1:11 AM


Ok, here is the whole chapter so there's no confusion.
quote:
1 Corinthians 14
Gifts of Prophecy and Tongues
1Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy. 2For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit. 3But everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort. 4He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. 5I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may be edified.
6Now, brothers, if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good will I be to you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of instruction? 7Even in the case of lifeless things that make sounds, such as the flute or harp, how will anyone know what tune is being played unless there is a distinction in the notes? 8Again, if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle? 9So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air. 10Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning. 11If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and he is a foreigner to me. 12So it is with you. Since you are eager to have spiritual gifts, try to excel in gifts that build up the church.
13For this reason anyone who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret what he says. 14For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. 15So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind. 16If you are praising God with your spirit, how can one who finds himself among those who do not understand say "Amen" to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying? 17You may be giving thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified.
18I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. 19But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue.
20Brothers, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults. 21In the Law it is written:
"Through men of strange tongues
and through the lips of foreigners
I will speak to this people,
but even then they will not listen to me," says the Lord.
22Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is for believers, not for unbelievers. 23So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and some who do not understand or some unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind? 24But if an unbeliever or someone who does not understand comes in while everybody is prophesying, he will be convinced by all that he is a sinner and will be judged by all, 25and the secrets of his heart will be laid bare. So he will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, "God is really among you!"
Orderly Worship
26What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church. 27If anyone speaks in a tongue, two”or at the most three”should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.
29Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. 33For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.
As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
36Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. 38If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.
39Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.
I want to focus on the following quote which is directly from the chapter above.
quote:
As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
Ok, read that in context of the chapter. Ok, read it again. One more time.
Let's look at each statement made in that particular passage.
quote:
As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent in the churches.
I see 2 ways you can possibly interpret this. One is by face value of those words and the other... you have to use a little bit of imagination.
The first way is as written, that as in ALL the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. I don't think you can get anymore self-explanatory than that.
The other interpretation is as ICANT seems to suggest, that women should remain silent when it comes to speaking in tongues. But why only women? Surely, if Paul was concern about people speaking in tongues or misinterpreting god's words, he would have stated just that, that both men and women should be careful with that. Instead, he specifically referred to women and ordering them to remain silent.
quote:
They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.
Again, 2 possible interpretations.
The first is taking it at its face value, that women are not allowed to speak and they must be in submission as the Law says. Again, very self-explanatory.
The second way to interpret this is as ICANT suggested, that women are not allowed to speak in tongues OR that they are not allowed to question those who are speaking in tongues. Again, why only target women?
quote:
If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
Again, 2 possible interpretations.
The first is taking the words at its face value, that if the women want to inquire something they should ask their husbands at home because for them to speak in church is disgraceful. Very self-explanatory.
The second way to interpret this is that women are not allowed to ask questions about those speaking in tongues and they should only ask their questions at home rather than speak in the church because it's disgraceful for them to speak in church about speaking in tongues.
Um, why only target women if you didn't mean to downplay their role in society?
As far as I can see this, both of these interpretations clearly put women in a position that is inferior to their male counterparts.
ICANT writes:
I an not going to try to rationalize this passage. To do so I would have to have rational people to explain it to. Since you and Taz have your mind made up it would take too many posts, And I am not going to try Percy's patience.
ICANT, I am very confused, and so far you've refused to explain why you don't think this is an example of scripture putting down women. Here is a thread dedicated to this particular topic so please feel free to post as many messages on this as you need to. If you need more than 300, I will be happy to start a second thread on this.
And also, here is a humble request for Admin. At anytime, if you feel you need to suspend ICANT for whatever reason in regard to this topic, please suspend me instead so ICANT has nothing to fear and thus should be able to fully explain this to me and others here who are very eager to hear his very wise explanation on this topic.

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Buzsaw, posted 01-31-2008 10:56 AM Taz has not replied
 Message 5 by randman, posted 01-31-2008 10:58 AM Taz has not replied
 Message 9 by ICANT, posted 01-31-2008 11:20 PM Taz has replied
 Message 18 by arachnophilia, posted 02-02-2008 10:47 AM Taz has not replied
 Message 19 by GDR, posted 02-02-2008 12:15 PM Taz has not replied
 Message 22 by Jon, posted 02-03-2008 3:43 PM Taz has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 106 (452753)
01-31-2008 9:42 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 3 of 106 (452767)
01-31-2008 10:18 AM


In this thread post post #78, member Hill Billy writes in response to T4C and me...
Now,as far as I know,there ain't no law round these parts that says anything at all about womenfolk speakin in church.
So to me,
that passage says,
specifically,
that women can in fact speak in church provided it is legal to do so.
So, let us look at the passage again.
quote:
As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
Did you notice the underlined portions, Hill Billy? "As in all the congregations of the saints" tell me that Paul was talking about church Law, not the law of the land.
Think about it for a minute. We are talking about a time when christians were still a religious sect with only a few members compared to the other religions. In fact, it was being persecuted by both mainstream religions at the time as well as the Roman authority. I find it hard to believe that there was already a law of the land in place dictating how people should act or speak inside christian churches.
Beside, you are directly contradicting ICANT in this. So, which one of you is right?
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Hill Billy, posted 02-12-2008 3:39 PM Taz has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 106 (452798)
01-31-2008 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
01-31-2008 1:11 AM


Here's The Deal, Taz
Hi Taz. This response is likely to make me even more unpopular here than I already am but I'll be forthright in addressing this controversial issue head on.
1. The male leadership role in the family, in government and in social cultures throughout recorded human history is evident. There have been exceptions to this but by and large it is a fact.
2. Whether one is evolutionist or Biblical, the science of the brain as I understand is that men are more left frontal lobe and women more right frontal lobe.
The logic relative to your topic is that the properties of the left frontal lobe being the more logic and calculative so far as function would tend towards male leadership role.
I don't want to stray from the topic on a sedgeway but there are other male/female characteristics which would explain the phenomena of the male leadership role throughout history.
3. Nearly all human social orders such as governments, clubs, busineses, sports; you name it, function best having not multiple but one presiding officer/leader/president, etc. As stated above there has been reasons for the leadership roles to be filled by the male by and large.
Perhaps many of the social national and family problems as well as the breakdown of the home and family becoming so prevalent in modern cultures can be attributed to the deterioration of the male leadership role in society.
4. The apostle Paul in his epistles to the churches is not introducing a new concept, dogma or stigma relative to the role of women in society. He was applying what has been natural and prevalent throughout history to the church.
5. The women of the day were not likely adverse to this ruling. It was to be expected.
6. For what it's worth, the OT prophet Isaiah forsaw prophetically the latter day phenomena of the end of the male leadership role in social orders:
Isaiah 3:12
As for my people, children are their oppressors and women rule over them. Oh my people, they that lead you cause you to err and destroy the way of your paths.
(note this is worded in the present tense but the entire context of the chapter is future. This is often the case in eschatology.)
Since you raised your voice a bit to emphasise I'll follow suit with a morsel of my own:
THE APOSTLE PAUL AS WELL AS OTHER NT WRITERS OF THE EPISTLES REMINDED MEN OFTEN TO LOVE THEIR WIVES AS CHRIST LOVED THE CHURCH. If the leader husband honors and loves the wife as he loves himself he will not oppress, abuse or dishonor the wife.
Your OP pertained to the church, yes, but it would not make logical sense for the male to be leader of the wife/home but not the church.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taz, posted 01-31-2008 1:11 AM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Jazzns, posted 01-31-2008 11:01 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 14 by nator, posted 02-01-2008 7:20 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 15 by molbiogirl, posted 02-01-2008 11:29 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 5 of 106 (452801)
01-31-2008 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
01-31-2008 1:11 AM


context
It's a letter addressing a specific context so you have to try to infer what that context is. We know he couldn't have meant women cannot speak in the church at all since women could prophesy according to Paul and he laid out rules for that church in doing so.
A clue is the statement, if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home. This has been taken to mean that they were asking their husbands questions and generally talking too much in church, and Paul is saying, hey, be quiet and not disruptive. Some go as far as to believe that women sat on one side of the room and men on the other and so they were having to be somewhat loud to communicate with their husbands. On this part, I have no idea really, but I think it's clear something disruptive and disorderly to a degree was going on, and that the problem was with the women.
The other thing to note is the reference to the Law involves women being created after man to be man's help-meet. Paul is saying that the way you conduct church must preserve the headship of the man in the family is how I read it. Others read it women cannot teach.
A big problem, imo, with the women cannot teach interpretation is that women, like Deborah, in the Law were not so much "under obedience" and also Paul mentions there is neither male, nor female in Christ and women preachers and apostles.
I think the solution here is to once again consider the context. Perhaps they were following more of a synagogue approach from that era or a format where men could ask questions or interject. Paul's letters though they establish leaders are generally less leader/priest/pastor dominated than today's churches. There is more of an equality because he says any of you may share a revelation or doctrine, a hymn, etc,.....seems a bit more free-flowing.
However, it may have appeared unseemly to allow women in that soceity the same freedom as men as it could seem to place women, who share an equality spiritually, an equality in the family, which Paul elsewhere insists the man is the head of the wife. Paul and the New Testament unequivocally make men the heads of their families. However, I disagree with many that argue women cannot teach or preach or occupy leadership roles.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taz, posted 01-31-2008 1:11 AM Taz has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 6 of 106 (452802)
01-31-2008 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Buzsaw
01-31-2008 10:56 AM


Re: Here's The Deal, Taz
The logic relative to your topic is that the properties of the left frontal lobe being the more logic and calculative so far as function would tend towards male leadership role.
Even IF this was true which you don't support, what makes you think that such traits automatically produce better leadership which you also did not support.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Buzsaw, posted 01-31-2008 10:56 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Buzsaw, posted 01-31-2008 1:42 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 106 (452844)
01-31-2008 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Jazzns
01-31-2008 11:01 AM


Re: Here's The Deal, Taz
Jazzns writes:
Even IF this was true which you don't support, what makes you think that such traits automatically produce better leadership which you also did not support.
Hi Jazzns. I appreciate that you're still active in the debates.
The reason I didn't support with documentation is that it would lead off topic as it would require a substantial amount of discussion on that topic to delve into the science of the brain. I assume that most here are apprised enough on the brain lobe functions to know what I'm referring to. If not, a search on the brain lobe functions should suffice.
As I stated, as I understand, briefly putting it, the left frontal lobe has a different function than the right, the left being more oriented to decision making, logic and calculating whereas the right being more receptive to what enters the brain through the organs which feed info into the brain; things like the metaphysical (as per church relative to this topic), for example.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Jazzns, posted 01-31-2008 11:01 AM Jazzns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by molbiogirl, posted 02-01-2008 11:34 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 8 of 106 (452975)
01-31-2008 10:48 PM


Bump
Bump for ICANT.

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 9 of 106 (452987)
01-31-2008 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
01-31-2008 1:11 AM


Re-Put Down
Hi Taz,
Taz writes:
ICANT, I am very confused, and so far you've refused to explain why you don't think this is an example of scripture putting down women.
Sorry it took so long I been kinda busy. I also thought I would put a lot of eggs in one basket.
We need to start at the beginning.
Woman was taken from the side of man.
Not from the sole of his feet.
She was to be a help mate.
Not a door mat.
Gen. 2:21-24
21And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Verse 24 tells us man will cling to, stay close, keep close, stick with.
Keep in mind this is before Eve ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
After eating the fruit.
16Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Lets notice a couple of things here.
Why did the serpent go to the woman instead of the man?
Why do con men prey on little old women instead of little old men?
Women are more prone to being deceived than a man.
It seems they are a little more emotional.
Now to the text at hand.
I Corinthians
Lest anybody misunderstand lets see what Paul is speaking about.
18I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
Paul is talking about speaking in other languages. Paul spoke several different languages.
Now back to verse one.
Paul said follow after charity. Love.
Desire spiritual gifts, There were several of which one was being able to speak in a language unknown to the one speaking it. But could be understood by someone who spoke that language.
The first known time speaking in other tongues was recorded is in Acts 2:4-8
4And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
5And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
6Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
7And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
8And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
Every known language was present in Jerusalem at this time of Pentecost.
Every man heard the disciples speaking in their own tongue and was amazed.
This is not what is observed today that is known as speaking in an unknown tongue.
Now back to Paul and his problem he was trying to deal with.
It seems everybody wanted to speak during the meeting, in tongues and it was causing quite a lot of confusion.
So Paul tells them to desire to be able to prophesy rather than any of the other gifts.
3But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
4He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
Paul explains that everybody benefited from the prophesy.
But if everyone spoke the same language the only person edified would be the one speaking in the other tongue. Now if you realize they could not understand themselves how did they get edified. It made them feel good and important.
In verse 22 Paul says tongues are for a sign to those who do not believe.
Paul then in verse 23 talks about the worship service and said:
23If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?
So if you were having services and an unbeliever came in and there was 50 different languages being spoken they would think everybody was crazy.
But if everybody prophesy the unbeliever could be convinced.
26How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.
Paul wanted to know why everyone had these things and there was mass confusion.
Then Paul addresses the problem.
27If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
28But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God..
Taz take special notice here.
Vs 27 If any man. With a maximum of three speak one at a time.
Vs 28 If there is no interpreter man NO speak in the church.
Let the prophets speak maximum three. That all may learn.
From what I understand the Church at Corinth was a fairly large congregation in the hundreds.
Pauls reasons for giving these instructions was the God was not the author of confusion.
Now the bad boy.
34Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
Let your women keep silence in the churches.
Everybody on here is reading this MAKE slight difference.
Paul further explains that it is not permitted for them to speak.
Now since Paul has been speaking for some 33 verses about prophesying and speaking in other tongues. I would conclude he is still speaking of the same thing in verse 34 as he has not changed the topic.
Not only that but it has been pointed out that it could get quite noisy and confusing with a bunch of women asking their husbands, what did he say?
Because of that Paul said in verse 35 wait until you get home and ask your husband.
Then Paul committed the unpardonable sin according to most women. When he said: it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church.
So now I am going to get to the part you are not going to like.
God made man and gave him a helper.
The helper was deceived by the serpent.
God put man in charge and made him responsible.
Some of the early men took advantage and made door mats out of their wives. Some still do today.
When I was growing up in the 40's a child did not talk back to a mother. They would find themselves getting up off the floor.
Dad might take it but it was not allowed for mom she had to work too hard to put up with that
It was a capital offense for a man to raise his hand against a woman must less strike her.
We had no such thing as an abusive husband in our community.
If one did raise his hand and strike his wife he would get a visit from the local correction team.
It would never happen again.
As things got better the women became ladies and were placed on a pedestal. Men were content to work and bring home the bacon for the ladies to prepare
Then people had to have a lot of stuff.
Stuff costs money. Got to the point man could not make enough. Mom had to get out of the kitchen and go to work. Leaving kids to raise themselves.
Mom had now ceased to be a lady and had become a woman demanding equal everything. Most men said OK you want it you got it.
They quit doing anything but going to work coming home flopping on the couch in front of TV till bedtime. Mom was left to do her job then come home and do the job that had to be done there also.
I have ladies that attend the church I pastor and they are loving every minute of it. They might not have all the stuff they want.
But they have their very desire of a loving caring husband to take care of them.
Would one of them dare to speak in another language in church no.
Would any of the men not if their life depended on it. None of them can
Now if we have some of our Cuban friends come visit us I ask one of the ladies that is fluent in their tongue to interpret what I am saying.
Will my women speak in church yes.
I even have a couple that will get my attention during the sermon and ask me a question.
Which I am always glad to answer if I have the information or clarification they are seeking. I encourage anyone to ask questions. As cavediver says the only stupid question is the one that is not ask.
Now I have explained what Paul was saying if you disagree that is your privilege, and I am sure many of you will.
I also explained how I feel about it by telling you how I operate. You can like that or you can lump it.
My wife of 50 years thinks I am doing just fine keeping her on her pedestal. She has no desire to climb down and be equal.
Y'all Have fun now.

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taz, posted 01-31-2008 1:11 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Taz, posted 01-31-2008 11:35 PM ICANT has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 10 of 106 (452991)
01-31-2008 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by ICANT
01-31-2008 11:20 PM


Re: Re-Put Down
ICANT writes:
Then Paul committed the unpardonable sin according to most women. When he said: it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church.
So now I am going to get to the part you are not going to like.
God made man and gave him a helper.
The helper was deceived by the serpent.
God put man in charge and made him responsible.
Some of the early men took advantage and made door mats out of their wives. Some still do today.
When I was growing up in the 40's a child did not talk back to a mother. They would find themselves getting up off the floor.
Dad might take it but it was not allowed for mom she had to work too hard to put up with that
It was a capital offense for a man to raise his hand against a woman must less strike her.
We had no such thing as an abusive husband in our community.
If one did raise his hand and strike his wife he would get a visit from the local correction team.
It would never happen again.
As things got better the women became ladies and were placed on a pedestal. Men were content to work and bring home the bacon for the ladies to prepare
Then people had to have a lot of stuff.
Stuff costs money. Got to the point man could not make enough. Mom had to get out of the kitchen and go to work. Leaving kids to raise themselves.
Mom had now ceased to be a lady and had become a woman demanding equal everything. Most men said OK you want it you got it.
They quit doing anything but going to work coming home flopping on the couch in front of TV till bedtime. Mom was left to do her job then come home and do the job that had to be done there also.
I have ladies that attend the church I pastor and they are loving every minute of it. They might not have all the stuff they want.
But they have their very desire of a loving caring husband to take care of them.
Would one of them dare to speak in another language in church no.
Would any of the men not if their life depended on it. None of them can
Now if we have some of our Cuban friends come visit us I ask one of the ladies that is fluent in their tongue to interpret what I am saying.
Will my women speak in church yes.
I even have a couple that will get my attention during the sermon and ask me a question.
Which I am always glad to answer if I have the information or clarification they are seeking. I encourage anyone to ask questions. As cavediver says the only stupid question is the one that is not ask.
Now I have explained what Paul was saying if you disagree that is your privilege, and I am sure many of you will.
I also explained how I feel about it by telling you how I operate. You can like that or you can lump it.
Could you make this a little bit clearer? I couldn't tell where you made the transition from "it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church" to "Will my women speak in church yes."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by ICANT, posted 01-31-2008 11:20 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by ICANT, posted 02-01-2008 12:04 AM Taz has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 11 of 106 (452996)
02-01-2008 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Taz
01-31-2008 11:35 PM


Re-Put Down
Hi Taz,
Taz writes:
Could you make this a little bit clearer? I couldn't tell where you made the transition from "it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church" to "Will my women speak in church yes."
Taz I did not make the transition I left that for you to figure out for yourself.
Have fun,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Taz, posted 01-31-2008 11:35 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Taz, posted 02-01-2008 12:51 AM ICANT has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 12 of 106 (453000)
02-01-2008 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by ICANT
02-01-2008 12:04 AM


Re: Re-Put Down
Honestly, I'm not being dense. All I saw was a lot of words talking about how you think women should be treated and then jump from "it is a shame for a woman to speak in church" to "will my women speak in church yes." Explain it to me please. I read it several times now. Still can't figure out where you decided it's ok to go against scripture.
Added by edit.
Oh yeah, you forgot to explain this part.
quote:
As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent in the churches.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by ICANT, posted 02-01-2008 12:04 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by ICANT, posted 02-01-2008 1:47 AM Taz has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 13 of 106 (453006)
02-01-2008 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Taz
02-01-2008 12:51 AM


Re: Re-Put Down
Hi Taz,
Taz writes:
Honestly, I'm not being dense.
So you want me to do like Paul did and commit suicide.
Then Paul committed the unpardonable sin according to most women. When he said: it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church.
So now I am going to get to the part you are not going to like.
God made man and gave him a helper.
The helper was deceived by the serpent.
God put man in charge and made him responsible.
Taz
God's order is man is responsible to him.
Woman is responsible to man.
Man is responsible for woman. to God.
At that time there was plenty of men willing to take care of the teaching so it was not necessary for the women to have to do it.
1Tim 2:12 (KJV) But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Paul's thing was if the woman taught, spoke in tongues, or prophesied she was usurping authority over man. God said to the woman "thy husband shall rule over thee."
Somebody has to be in charge. God put man in charge. Man is answerable to God for the mess we are in not the women.
Taz writes:
Still can't figure out where you decided it's ok to go against scripture.
I don't see that I am. My ladies don't speak in tongues unless I need an interperter. If I had a man that knew the language He would be glad to do it. And the lady would be glad also because I go to fast sometimes. Paul was trying to control confusion. And point out that the women were not supposed to be over men but in subjection to them. My ladies or men don't prophesy. I have men that teach. I have ladies that teach but they do not teach a men's class.
Now if my interpetation of what Paul said is wrong then I will have to answer to God for it. So be it.
Have fun,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Taz, posted 02-01-2008 12:51 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Taz, posted 02-03-2008 10:36 PM ICANT has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 14 of 106 (453294)
02-01-2008 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Buzsaw
01-31-2008 10:56 AM


Re: Here's The Deal, Taz
quote:
the science of the brain as I understand is that men are more left frontal lobe and women more right frontal lobe.
Your understanding is wrong. In fact, your statement is 100% false.
My husband just taught a lecture to his to his Educational Psychology class that debunked that and all the other popular mythology attached to this issue.
So, all the stuff you argue after that is worthless since your premise is false.
quote:
I don't want to stray from the topic on a sedgeway but there are other male/female characteristics which would explain the phenomena of the male leadership role throughout history.
Sure there are.
But having the brawn and agression neccessary to crush skulls and bring down large prey isn't exactly valuable in a leader these days, is it?
Wouldn't you say that being skilled in communication, negotiation, and diplomacy are more valuable in leadership positions these days?
Which gender traditionally excells in those skills?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Buzsaw, posted 01-31-2008 10:56 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Buzsaw, posted 02-09-2008 6:20 PM nator has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 15 of 106 (453364)
02-01-2008 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Buzsaw
01-31-2008 10:56 AM


Re: Here's The Deal, Taz
1. The male leadership role in the family, in government and in social cultures throughout recorded human history is evident. There have been exceptions to this but by and large it is a fact.
Wrong.
If you insist, cites please.
2. Whether one is evolutionist or Biblical, the science of the brain as I understand is that men are more left frontal lobe and women more right frontal lobe.
Wrong.
If you insist, cites please.
3. Nearly all human social orders such as governments, clubs, busineses, sports; you name it, function best having not multiple but one presiding officer/leader/president, etc. As stated above there has been reasons for the leadership roles to be filled by the male by and large.
Wrong.
If you insist, cites please.
5. The women of the day were not likely adverse to this ruling. It was to be expected.
Wrong.
If you insist, cites please.
Buz. Your word is not enough. You need to support your bare assertions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Buzsaw, posted 01-31-2008 10:56 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Buzsaw, posted 02-03-2008 11:37 AM molbiogirl has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024