A Double Standard in Christianity?

[Laura798]

As I have said, women are often influenced by their emotions rather than the facts.

Therefore it is no surprise that you would appeal to emotion here.

Curious that someone with the name Poinsettias would give a thumbs up to someone so clearly putting women down.

 

[Laura798]

1 Corinthians 11
1Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
2Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
3But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Also wouldn't Paul be a hypocrite as he was single or widowed and speaking in the privileged status of being married?
1 Corinthians 7:8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.

So is there a height restriction or an age restriction to the church? I think we have gone through the marital status. What about widowers and widows? Midgets, pet owners?

when in the history of the world has womanhood been determined by height? the head of woman--that is speaking of the marital relationship. Don't you realize that the church is called 'Bride of Christ'? Christ is the head of ALL. If a woman is widowed has nothing to do with this verse--what nonsense.

 

[Laura798]

Well, maybe I would do better to tell you that I have an unction from the holy one (1 John 2:20) and therefore know all things...especially the truth from a lie.

But you would probably come up with some kind of disparaging comment over that, too...

Justbyfaith said: "Well, maybe I would do better to tell you that I have an unction from the holy one (1 John 2:20) and therefore know all things...especially the truth from a lie."

I am done--normal Christians do not make such bizarre proclamations--it sounds like something a cult leader would say...

 

[LactoseIntolerant]

have you gone through your Bible and also become certain verses intolerant?

This is an awkward question. Would it not be better "Having gone through your Bible, did you not become intolerant to certain verses?"
No I am not a versist! I do not pick one verse to obey and another to ignore. Like, say, 1 Cor 11:1-3 to ignore.

why don't you address the scriptures that indicate women have positions within the church of the NT that you would like to claim are not allowed?

This is also an awkward question. Would it not be better "Why don't you cite Scripture that support claims of post modernist feminism within the church in the early centuries, of which you are opposed?"
No need.
1) the onus is on you to supply the evidence as you are the one trying to convince me with your eloquent words.
2) I do not do Scholarship for claims made by the opposing view point. Giving ammunition to argumentative ideologues so one can argue more seems a bit counterproductive. Are you trying manufacture consent?
3) The evidence for female pastors are not compelling enough to cite.
4) Teaching a radical is kind of fruitless.

I think what you state is prejudiced and without understanding if you cannot address those other scriptures...see my post 369 foro ne, but there are other posts wherein women being more than silent are documented

What you think of me is of no importance. This is actually the first time we have met. You are stranger with a very strange spirit. So nothing to see or hear.
(foro ne) sp. I will certainly read your post, but from the experience of this interaction I don't think anything you might say will change my mind.

really, address ALL of scripture or maybe you should keep silent

This is not a safe space. I am not one of your soldiers. Do you have fascist tendencies?
I will certainly consider your request, though!

I am TERF!

 

[LactoseIntolerant]

when in the history of the world has womanhood been determined by height? the head of woman--that is speaking of the marital relationship. Don't you realize that the church is called 'Bride of Christ'? Christ is the head of ALL. If a woman is widowed has nothing to do with this verse--what nonsense.

Are you speaking history or scriptures? Your context is self serving.

The church is the bride. Christ is not the head of husbands. Did you not have a father as child? Was he not the man who took you to church.

Your context not mine. The definition of a widow is a married women whose husband had passed. (marriage = state of being married). Are you defending your context , marriage?

Nonsense is when you are masquerading your ideologies as Scriptural understanding.

 

[Dino246]

Of course there are different curses that apply to both men and women.

God cursed the serpent, and He cursed the ground. He did not curse the man or the woman.

Again, women are more spiritual and are more inclined to accept a doctrine merely because it seems to be spiritually viable; often for emotional reasons.

In general, women are more in tune with their emotions than men. That doesn't make them more spiritual, nor does it make them more likely to accept a doctrine because it seems to be spiritually viable. That's ridiculous.

While men are more analytical and likely to examine doctrine to make sure that they are accurate according to the scriptures.

Dead wrong.

Which is why it is better for a man to teach than a woman any day of the week.

That doesn't follow from your wrongheaded ideas above.

 

[Dino246]

Gee, how many NT Books were written by women? ZERO maybe?

What does that have to do with anything?

 

[Dino246]

Look in you mirror.

I addressed them. Don't be lying again!

You just lied again.

I do indeed. What would you like to know about the Bible?

You flat out LIED dear.

" you obviously do not believe women mean the same to God as do men"

A statement is only a "lie" if the speaker/writer knows it to be false. If not, it is merely wrong.

 

[Laura798]

Are you speaking history or scriptures? Your context is self serving.

The church is the bride. Christ is not the head of husbands. Did you not have a father as child? Was he not the man who took you to church.

Your context not mine. The definition of a widow is a married women whose husband had passed. (marriage = state of being married). Are you defending your context , marriage?

Nonsense is when you are masquerading your ideologies as Scriptural understanding.

Please become familiar with the rest of my posts on this forum--I'm not sure what ideology you're talking about. You would need to read my posts here to ascertain that.

As to what you said above --I'm not understanding it or your previous post. I think I won't engage with you further as you sound angry and in some things, aren't making reasonable arguments in which to respond.

 

[LactoseIntolerant]

I suggest you read my closing comment more carefully.


Your ignorance is showing. The Greek words are not role-specific. The word for man can mean husband, and the word for woman can mean wife. It has absolutely nothing to do with a gender-neutral agenda. As I stated previously, it is the singular or specific articles that indicate that a marriage relationship is in view here. There is no other common relationship between a man and a woman.


I have no need to look for translations that say such, because contextually, it would be ridiculous.


Irrelevant.

You have demonstrated your scholarship in previous OPs, so you will forgive me if I don't believe you.
I will certainly look into this, time permitting. Send me the paper which discusses it if you will. But for now I think I will trust the majority of translations which use "man" and "woman". I certainly will keep an eye out for ES and NRSV bible - for what not to reference.

 

[Laura798]

Are you speaking history or scriptures? Your context is self serving.

The church is the bride. Christ is not the head of husbands. Did you not have a father as child? Was he not the man who took you to church.

Your context not mine. The definition of a widow is a married women whose husband had passed. (marriage = state of being married). Are you defending your context , marriage?

Nonsense is when you are masquerading your ideologies as Scriptural understanding.

An example of one of my posts:

Steve,

What is getting a 'thumbs down' is the mindset, not the scriptures themselves. It seems a whole misguided doctrine has been built around this and a handful of similar sounding verses. The bible must be looked at as a whole since all Christian fanaticism comes from the isolation of verses.

 

[LactoseIntolerant]

Please become familiar with the rest of my posts on this forum--I'm not sure what ideology you're talking about. You would need to read my posts here to ascertain that.

As to what you said above --I'm not understand it or your previous post. I think I won't engage with you further as you sound angry and in some things aren't making reasonable arguments in which to respond.

I will certainly read you posts, time willing.
Not angry at all. But arguing for arguments sake does not serve the truth. Have a good day.

 

[Laura798]

I will certainly read you posts, time willing.
Not angry at all. But arguing for arguments sake does not serve the truth. Have a good day.

Agreed.

 

[LactoseIntolerant]

An example of one of my posts:

Steve,

What is getting a 'thumbs down' is the mindset, not the scriptures themselves. It seems a whole misguided doctrine has been built around this and a handful of similar sounding verses. The bible must be looked at as a whole since all Christian fanaticism comes from the isolation of verses.

I recommend you lookup Sandra Richter, The Robert H. Gundry Chair of Biblical Studies. She addresses this issue quite nicely.
Also, a bit of advice, what you present are conjectures without substantive proof. They are absolutely unconvincing. Cite. Cite . Cite. if you wish to shake someone's tree.

 

[Laura798]

I recommend you lookup Sandra Richter, The Robert H. Gundry Chair of Biblical Studies. She addresses this issue quite nicely.
Also, a bit of advice, what you present are conjectures without substantive proof. They are absolutely unconvincing. Cite. Cite . Cite. if you wish to shake someone's tree.

Conjectures? I'd like to know what conjectures you're speaking of? The vast majority of my posts are scripture verses, a commentary by Adam Clarke and a video by a pastor who lays out both sides of the argument in simple language.

You know it gets to a point where Christians need to, alongside reading the Scripture--exercise common sense. One of the first things one learns in exegesis is context. Who is the author's audience? For example, Paul is often addressing, aside from theological truths, issues that a particular church was dealing with. I'm gobsmacked how much doctrine regarding a women's role in the church orbits around one single verse in 1st Timothy.

 

[Laura798]

No; His imputed righteousness; and it is not a snare.

You can have Christ's imputed righteousness and still be self - righteous.

 

[Magenta]

Christ is not the head of husbands.

"I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ," said Paul. Hmmm. You disagree.

 

[Duckybill]

What does that have to do with anything?

1 Timothy 2:12 (NKJV)
12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.

 

[Duckybill]

A statement is only a "lie" if the speaker/writer knows it to be false. If not, it is merely wrong.

You're defending this lie about me.
"you obviously do not believe women mean the same to God as do men"

 

[SophieT]

You cited 9 verses. 3 of the 9 states husband/wife relationship. Not really a majority, no?

The ESV, NRSV are somewhat controversial bible translations ("The ESV is based upon an entirely DIFFERENT Greek text than the King James Bible", "..NRSV is more liberal than the ESV..." - I will certainly read more). In your quoted hyperlinks of the ESV and NRSV there are footnotes that expound the usage as "man" and "woman" not "husband" and "wife". Why choose bibles involved in the gender neutral wars (though I still have to read some more opinions)?
Also translated phrase "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man..." NOT "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every husband...". The ἀνδρὸς is used as "husband" in other verses and the root greek is the same as ἀνήρ. Are you cherry picking the meaning within one sentence? I think you would be hard pressed to find a translation of "..Christ is the head of husbands.."

Also, Mounce Reverse interlinear uses syntax/grammar of english to achieve greek, not the other way around (I.e. not exegetical - "In the process, I came up with the term "reverse interlinear." A traditional interlinear maintains Greek word order and alters the English, which makes the English almost unusuable. But if I maintained English word order and altered the Greek, then both the English and Greek are helpful; hence, "reverse interlinear.")

this is a 100% quote from the author of that interlinear

you are really stretching things