Husbands can lift a bigger rock than wives can

[Webers.Home]

.
● 1Cor 14:34 . . Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not
permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law also
says.

● 1Tim 2:11-13 . . Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I
suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be
in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

It's important to note that those rules address neither gender, nor
competency, nor intelligence when the issue is so obviously primogeniture,
viz: of the two; Adam was the senior and Eve the junior.

Paul appealed to "the law" as the basis for 1Cor 14:34. Normally when Paul
speaks of the law he's referring to the covenant that Moses' people agreed
upon with God per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

Exactly where in the covenant that women are forbidden to lead an
assembly and/or speak in a mixed group I don't know. However, it's quite
obvious that the covenant is very sexist, i.e. women were not installed in
either the priesthood or the Sanhedrin, to wit; the priesthood was Israel's
spiritual arm and the Sanhedrin was Israel's governing arm.

* Moses' law doesn't always explicitly address certain things. Sometimes the
law's rules and procedures imply principles that we call "the spirit of the
law".

FAQ: What about women like Anne Graham Lotz and/or Tara-Leigh Cobble?
Aren't they out of order?

REPLY: Paul's instructions are limited to churches, i.e. congregational
activities; they don't extend to public venue's, e.g. forums, town squares,
street corners, coliseums, stadiums, convention centers, radio, television, or
social media like YouTube and/or Facebook.

FAQ: What about Deborah in the old testament book of Judges? Exactly how
was she an exception to the rule, if indeed she was?

REPLY: Things are quite a bit different now with Christ at the helm, i.e.
Christ's association with his church trumps Deborah's association with the
Jews. I do not recommend using her, or any other woman in the Bible, as an
excuse to circumvent Paul's instructions in matters pertaining to the function
of Christian congregations.

● 1Cor 14:37-38 . . If anybody thinks he's a prophet or spiritually gifted, le
him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command.
_

 

[Dino246]

.
● 1Cor 14:34 . . Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not
permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law also
says.

● 1Tim 2:11-13 . . Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I
suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be
in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

It's important to note that those rules address neither gender, nor
competency, nor intelligence when the issue is so obviously primogeniture,

Anyone who thinks the core issue is primogeniture is not paying attention to text and context.

 

[Webers.Home]

I'm no expert on biology but believe that it takes the sperm of a man and the egg of a woman to
create a human baby.

You mean like Christ's virgin conception?

Adam's creation from the soil, and Eve's construction with material taken
from Adam's body, were miraculous events that circumvented nature just
as Christ's virgin conception circumvented nature.

It seems to me that Eve was definitely the peer of Adam as she was made out of his (human)
kind.

All children are made out of their parents' (human) kind yet parents are
definitely not their children's peers, rather, parents are their superiors.

Adam most definitely was not the parent of Eve. If so, then Adam married his daughter. I'm no
bible scholar but I believe that such an act would constitute as being an abomination in the eyes
of the Lord.

It would be an abomination now, yes, but not back then. I mean, after all:
Cain had to marry one of his sisters because the Adams family was the only
human life in existence. And the children of Noah's three sons coming off the
ark had to marry among themselves, viz: the children of Noah's three sons
married cousins; very close cousins because no one else survived the Flood.

NOTE: The laws of God aren't retroactive (Deut 5:2-3 & Gal 3:17) so then
seeing as how God said nothing about incest till quite a few centuries after the
Adams and the Noahs, then His later thoughts didn't apply to them. Even
Abraham got away with marrying a half sister because in his time the practice
wasn't forbidden.
_

 

[Dino246]

All children are made out of their parents' (human) kind yet parents are
definitely not their children's peers, rather, parents are their superiors.

Only while the children are minors. Once they are adults, the children and parents are peers. While respect is still due to one's parents even when one is an adult, parents have no authority over adult children and should not seek to exercise authority unless the adult child cannot handle his or her own affairs.

 

[tourist]

You mean like Christ's virgin conception?

Adam's creation from the soil, and Eve's construction with material taken
from Adam's body, were miraculous events that circumvented nature just
as Christ's virgin conception circumvented nature.




All children are made out of their parents' (human) kind yet parents are
definitely not their children's peers, rather, parents are their superiors.




It would be an abomination now, yes, but not back then. I mean, after all:
Cain had to marry one of his sisters because the Adams family was the only
human life in existence. And the children of Noah's three sons coming off the
ark had to marry among themselves, viz: the children of Noah's three sons
married cousins; very close cousins because no one else survived the Flood.

NOTE: The laws of God aren't retroactive (Deut 5:2-3 & Gal 3:17) so then
seeing as how God said nothing about incest till quite a few centuries after the
Adams and the Noahs, then His later thoughts didn't apply to them. Even
Abraham got away with marrying a half sister because in his time the practice
wasn't forbidden.
_

Interesting comeback to my quote in regard to the virgin birth of Jesus. Since there was no man involved in the creation process perhaps women are at least equal to the men. They certainly are not inferior.

 

[Webers.Home]

They certainly are not inferior.

Descriptions like "inferior" give the wrong impression and leave a bad
taste in peoples' mouth. The position of the firstborn is better thought of
as an hierarchical rank that has little, if anything at all, to do with intelligence,
value, or capability.

Primogeniture has its advantages. For example when Isaac blessed Jacob,
while mistaking him for Esau, he basically made Jacob to be Esau's
governor.

● Gen 27:28-29 . . Be lord over your brothers, and may the sons of your
mother bow down to you.

Also:

● Gen 27:37 . . Isaac answered Esau: I have made him lord over you and
have made all his relatives his servants.

Primogeniture is a really big deal throughout the Bible; ultimately Jesus
became the firstborn, i.e. the superior ranking man over all God's
handiwork (Rom 8:29, Col 1:12-15) and as the firstborn, Jesus is God's
No.1 heir apparent. (Heb 1:2) The thing is; the rank of firstborn makes a
man preeminent among everyone within the sphere of his influence.
(Col 1:18)

* To my knowledge; no woman in the Bible has ever been given the position
of firstborn; it has always been a guy thing, i.e. for men only.

NOTE: The position of the firstborn isn't limited to family circles. For example
the people of Israel are God's firstborn among the nations (Ex 4:22) and
David is God's firstborn among the world's heads of state. (Ps 89:20-27)
_

 

[Dino246]

Primogeniture is a really big deal throughout the Bible; ultimately Jesus became the firstborn, i.e. the superior ranking man over all God's handiwork

Primogeniture has nothing to do with the relationship between men and women today.

 

[Aaron56]

I was speaking to a young woman regarding authority. She had military experience. As a woman in service she went through all kinds of garbage for simply being female. The word "authority" was a pejorative, and a sound to immediately defend oneself.

I had her consider that, for the U.S. military, a projection of power was most important: it feeds a global narrative of strength and serves as a warning for any one or nation who would oppose it. When a projection of power is the primary goal of the whole institution then no one can escape that paradigm within that institution. And, since power is the goal, all relationships within that organization - personal and professional - will necessarily observe that power structure. The lowly recruits in their teens or 20s - who have yet to master their own minds and bodies - have little chance to remain unscarred by the primacy of power.

I said to her:

"Now imagine an organization that is all-powerful and, based on power, could not be opposed by anyone. They are omnipotent. It's not even a question: all detractors would be put down without much effort at all. Perhaps, even at the speed of thought, anyone or nation who opposed them would be completely overthrown. Now, that would be something!

Imagine then, instead of being known by their power they wanted to be known by something else. And this "something else" would make them vulnerable. It could even make them powerless against their enemies: they would have the ability to eradicate the opposition but would refuse to do so based upon this chosen characteristic. Furthermore, because of this choice, they would put themselves out if someone under their watch was in peril. If someone under their watch was lost or hurting they would give up what rights they had in order that the lost or hurting one may be recovered. Compared to the all-powerful organization that wants to project power this is a foolish strategy and a losing endeavor.

But that is the difference between authority based upon power and authority based upon love. If you're given authority based upon power then all you have to do is maintain that power. Just be stronger or bigger or louder or more hurtful, etc. If you do that you get to keep your authority. But, if you were given authority based upon love, well then, you will act according to what is best for those over whom you have authority. You might even be asked to give your life up for them, at least your comforts, so that they may be better cared for and better equipped. Love makes you vulnerable because, to maintain that authority, you must show that you love them. And very often that means giving up what you prefer for the sake of those you care for."

Any way, she's becoming a believer. She didn't know how to trust God because He is a Father, and her experience with men has been with terrible men with the authority of power. She's hearing a different sound from me - one from the Father Who is love.

1 John 4:8b "God is love"

 

[Jimbone]

I one time seen this women body builder. I think she was able to life a car off the ground from one side.

I saw a guy that could do it faster with greater easy.

 

[Edify]

My wife is a black belt in Hapkido. We get along really well.

Happy wife, happy life, eh?

 

[Mem]

Welp. I said I wasn't going to post anymore because I had reach post 7,777... I suppose I could just consider it a pivotal point in my cc membership

All yous guys can lift all the rocks to your hearts' desire, while I'm standing on it. What are you going to do? Kill me? You've had over 2000 years with the world stage yours and only yours and managed to do what? Go figure. Perhaps it's not good for man to be alone. Perhaps you should be given a suitable helper...

#justaskintag

 

[Edify]

I don't lift the rock, The Rock lifted me.(still does)

 

[tourist]

Descriptions like "inferior" give the wrong impression and leave a bad
taste in peoples' mouth. _

My take on the tone of your OP was that women in general are inferior to men. That is not my position but rather was stating my opinion based on what you wrote. I treat women as being equal to men.