Timothy 2:12 - A Feminist Would Disagree

[SkyChief]

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. "

Any apologists here care to take a crack at this one?

Thanks!

[Tcg]

One great day, Jesus will set it all right again.

Too bad his daddy couldn't keep it "right" from the beginning.

These two "gods" need an endless list of excuses from their followers to try to make their mythology seem even close to reasonably.

And of course the promised solution is always going to happen sometime in the future.



The problem is that like Wimpy's Tuesdays, Jesus never comes.

[SkyChief]

[Replying to post 1 by SkyChief]

It's not just feminists that will disagree with this command.

Anyone who is not a misogynist will.

Another mysogynist message is found in 1 Corinthians 11:3 when Paul says

"But 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."


This leaves little doubt as to who should dominate over who!

[ttruscott]

Your version of "God" created the first female human from one of the man's ribs, Apart from it being preposterous at a literal level mythology. ...It's sexist.

Try my version...
in which after everyone created in HIS image was separated by their free will into those who rejected YHWH as their GOD, becoming eternally evil, and the others who put their faith in HIM as their GOD, becoming HIS elect. Since HE cannot abide evil, HE called all HIS elect to come out from among the eternally evil ones so they could be banished to the outer darkness and the heavenly marriage started.

Preamble:
Some of the elect refused to heed the call because of an idolatrous love for some of the non-elect people and they became evil themselves. Since the judgement at that time would have destroyed them too, the judgement was postponed until they could be returned to their first faith by their redemption in Christ. To continue with this process, HE called the rest of HIS elect to come out from among these now sinful elect but again some refused not trusting their elect friends to HIS mercy, and became evil also. This continued until every person had declared where they stood in relationship with YHWH in heeding HIS call to holiness and judgement.

HIS next step was to create the prison Earth for all sinners and have them live together to aid in the redemption of the sinful elect, the essence of the parable of the sinful but good seed in Matt 13.

To return to the topic:
some events in earth history are types that point to what has happened in the spiritual world or are prophecies in real time events that point to future events in earth history. Iow, the type is real people doing real things that point to the anti-type, a previous event with a similar meaning or a future event with the same meaning.

I believe the story of Adam and Eve contains two types. Eve is the type for those who refused to reject their friends for their rejection of YHWH as GOD as evidenced by her following the serpent as if he was her mentor. Adam was the type for those who refused to leave their newly sinful elect friends and so became sinful themselves, as evidenced by his not following the serpent but following his friend Eve into eating. I also see a support for this idea that Adam and Eve were not ashamed though naked / sinful, IF they sinned for love and did could not believe love could be a sin.

IF this interpretation of the story is true then Eve was quicker to sin and though all sin has the same disvalue, her sin gave her a stronger connection to the eternally evil non-elect than did his. While I am not particularly bound to the idea that all elect sinners of Eve's type are women or that all elect sinners of Adam's type are men, I do believe these types are found in the church and in the church the type of sin is probably the source for the restriction on women teachers and leaders.

In this way I deny the charge that women not being allowed to be teacher is sexist as it would rather be a response to their self chosen (by their free will) position.

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 3 by StuartJ]

After all ...

Jesus wasn't a woman ...

And none of the disciples were women.

That is literally the answer told by one of my priest/teachers back when I was in school on this very topic.
Makes me wonder...are black people permitted to have authority? Asians? Native Americans? White people? Cuz just spitballin' here, but I coulda sworn Jesus and his disciples were Hebrews.

I thought that modern genetics disproved the whole idea of race...

[ytrewq]

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. "

Any apologists here care to take a crack at this one?

Thanks!

The Bible faithfully reflects the social attitudes and practices of the time, exactly as you would expect of a document written by people of the time. 2000 years ago, women were indeed thought of and required to be subservient to men - that's just how it was back then, and thus those attitudes are written, accepted and recommended in the Bible. Rape, genocide and cruel and pointless "sacrifices" of animals were all also accepted practices of the time so, just as you would expect, these practices were also described and recommended in the Bible. Well, sure, what would you expect from a document written by people, at that time? There is nothing puzzling about any of this, it's exactly as you would expect.

Another giveaway that the Bible was written by people, is that there is nothing in the Bible in the way of knowledge, over and above what intelligent and educated people of the time already knew. If God existed and had a hand in the Bible, don't you think he would have dropped an occasional clue that his contribution was from a being with greater knowledge than people of the time? Suspicious indeed that there is no knowledge in the Bible beyond what mere humans of the time knew already, though just common sense if the Bible was written by people, which I have no doubt that it was.

Now if, for example, the first 20 digits of pi were written in the Bible, then we would actually have a reason to believe that a superior being was involved in it's writing, but alas, there is no such evidence to be found. Instead, we find exactly what we would expect from a document written by people of that time, complete with description and recommendation of the social attitudes and practices of the time.

Yet another strong clue that the God of the Bible is a creation of people, is the extremely human temperament and ways of thinking attached to this God. How likely is it that some agent powerful and wise enough to create the universe, would think like a bad-tempered human? That just doesn't sound right, to me.

So not only is there no evidence for the Christian God, there is no shortage of clear evidence such as above to strongly suggest that he does not exist, and that the Bible was written by people.

[PinSeeker]

Too bad his daddy couldn't keep it "right" from the beginning.

Well, He could have, I guess, but He allowed human beings like you and me to muck it up first. And then He set out to redeem His creation by satisfying His own perfect justice on our behalf. In this way, His glory is made infinitely greater. This was always the plan, and in the fullness of time -- God's time -- it will be brought to completion at the day of Christ. God's purposes cannot be thwarted, and all His promises have their 'yes' and 'amen' in Christ.

...Jesus never comes.

Ohhhhh, yeah. He's coming, alright.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by SkyChief]

It's not just feminists that will disagree with this command.

Anyone who is not a misogynist will.

The faithful will of course come up with excuses to justify the misogyny their ancient and woefully outdated text preaches.

Moderator Comment

Do not assume your opponent only has "excuses" and not legitimate arguments. Please do not assume the response.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Wootah]

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. "

Any apologists here care to take a crack at this one?

Thanks!

Aren't we witnessing the collapse of the West from feminism? Divorce, abortion, post modernism, socialism, plumetting birthrates, spiralling debt from rampant social largesse. These are the fruits when women are the head.

Women generally reflect chaos/nature and men order/civilisation. Neither position is bad - both are good. We need both to live, prosper and honour God. But in this set up when chaos and order mix inappropriately chaos rules. You could call it a flood.

Its actually the social decay i see that shows me that the verse is wise.

Edit: Demographics is destiny. Imo be afraid of the toxic masculinity that is coming.

[ytrewq]

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. "

Any apologists here care to take a crack at this one?

Thanks!

Aren't we witnessing the collapse of the West from feminism? Divorce, abortion, post modernism, socialism, plumetting birthrates, spiralling debt from rampant social largesse. These are the fruits when women are the head.

Women generally reflect chaos/nature and men order/civilisation. Neither position is bad - both are good. We need both to live, prosper and honour God. But in this set up when chaos and order mix inappropriately chaos rules. You could call it a flood.

Its actually the social decay i see that shows me that the verse is wise.

Edit: Demographics is destiny. Imo be afraid of the toxic masculinity that is coming.

I don't actually agree with you, but I admire your frankness. I agree with you that men and women are different despite what some feminists might say, and think about things differently, but I don't agree that one should be above the other in decision making.

But with that said, I suspect that marriages do tend to work better when one partner is dominant, and that the dominant partner can be either the man or the woman. I also suspect it's true that at least some women actually prefer a strong, dominant, but tender and loving partner, just as with the fact that women generally prefer their man to be taller than they are.

[StuartJ]

I very often say that the biblical cult propaganda can mean just whatever believers CHOOSE it to mean.

I'm not the only one ...

Abstract
This study assesses individual social attitudes and ideological beliefs regarding systems of power and sexism (i.e., Authoritarianism, Conservatism, Traditionalism, Social Dominance Orientation [SDO], Hostile Sexism [HS], and Benevolent Sexism [BS]) in relationship to Bible interpretation choice about passages related to gender. Data were collected from 216 conservative Protestant Christian churchgoers. It was hypothesized that individuals with higher levels of Authoritarianism, Conservatism, Traditionalism, SDO, HS, and BS would prefer interpretations that endorse gender hierarchy. The results supported these hypotheses, finding Traditionalism and HS to be the primary factors related to interpretation choice. Additionally, it was hypothesized that any significant difference between men and women regarding interpretation choice would be explained by individual differences in these social attitudes and ideological beliefs. Men were significantly more likely than women to prefer Bible interpretations oriented toward gender hierarchy, and this difference was primarily explained by Traditionalism and HS https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10 ... lCode=ptja

The biblical writings are NOT the "Word of God".

That claim is patently FALSE.

The biblical cult propaganda gives EVERY indication of being written by misanthropic, misogynous males.