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!

[Tart]

I mean I could reference reports...

Men are physically stronger than women, who have, on average, less total muscle mass, both in absolute terms and relative to total body mass.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... -the-sexes

The women were approximately 52% and 66% as strong as the men in the upper and lower body respectively. The men were also stronger relative to lean body mass.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8477683

Men are stronger than women
https://www.jsams.org/article/S1440-244 ... 6/fulltext

etc....


But we all know this is true... There is no reason to debate about it... It is a futile debate, fruitless...

The real thing we should be debating about, at this point, is your reasoning... It seems to me that your reasoning and logic, is debatable... and in your very first post in this thread you accuse the faithful of coming up with excuses to justify their beliefs... kind of ironic

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 38 by Tcg]

Nope, i meant what i said,

Yes, that has been my point all along.

and you responded illogically...

Your admission shows that my response was and is accurate.

[Bust Nak]

Nope, i meant what i said...

As if it needs explaining, you forgot to include qualifiers along the lines of "on average," or "statistically."

[Tart]

To be honest, id rather not participate in such debates. I made my point, and it was derailed into a debate about semantics. While the main issue of the point is totally ignored... no thank you... If we cant see eye to eye on such obvious statements, how will we ever get anywhere in debate about the main subject?

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 43 by Tart]

Nope. Not an issue of semantics. It's an issue of a faulty premise as I explained from my first reply to your argument. It is not UNIVERSALLY true that all men are physically stronger than all women.

Your argument relied on a NONUNIVERSAL biological phenomenon to validate a UNIVERSAL misogynistic command. There is absolutely no correlation between the two.

[Purple Knight]

I've read the topic and it seems to me that Tart was trying to bring up a valid point and got banned for it.

If so, I probably don't have long on the forum myself, but I'll enjoy what time I have.

I'm not a Christian nor am I religious at all, but I try to give everything the best possible chance and only take a stance against the self-contradictory.

No one seems to have addressed a rather uncomfortable position. The (quite logical) argument that seems to be put forward here is this:

1. Christianity and feminism conflict.
2. Feminism is true.
∴ Christianity cannot be true.

If my interpretation is incorrect and the initial argument simply addresses the conflict itself (not to say either must or cannot be true) then I have no problem with it at all.

If my interpretation is correct, my problem is Premise 2.

One of the Christians replied that essentially, men and women are good at different things.

Sure. God designed men and women to fill specific roles in the church. There are appropriate places of leadership and authority in the church for both women and men. God endowed all people with gifts according to His choosing, none of which are "higher" or "better" than any other. And regarding the general way in which women are viewed in the church (by men and by other women), they are honored members of the Body of Christ, just as men are. And I know a whole lot of good Christian women who have a right, God-centered view of all this and thus really appreciate it all.

...And the view of the Bible may simply be that leadership is not one of the things women are very good at, so to get the best leaders, pick only males for that role, and even to get the best families, men should be at the head of them. (My interpretation does not rely on there being no exceptions.)

I prefer equality but this does not make me right and the Bible wrong.

This sort of filtering is done by employers every day, it's just modern convention that filtering by gender is unacceptable even though it may be a very good predictor of certain skills.

(Opinion) Equality is of paramount importance in modern society and I am in full agreement that this is an absolute necessity. In a world without trust, and only success or failure, each party must maintain 100% agency. For example, because a man may impregnate a woman and then simply decide he hates her, she must have the absolute right not to marry him and indeed not to obey him.

(Opinion) In a society with high trust - where a man cannot simply toss his pregnant wife and four children out on the street - equality is of less practical importance. Making the man the guardian of his wife may be deplorable by modern standards, but it makes perfect sense if he has an obligation to actually guard her.

(Opinion) Even if leadership is one of those things men are better at than women, everyone will still desire their own agency in modern day and they should. Whoever is on top will simply exploit those he or she controls and throw them away, so it is unimaginably important that everyone be equal.

But think of it this way: If you knew your mate was better at making decisions than you, wouldn't you charge them with it, since that would mean better decisions made and thus a much improved life for both of you?

Well, no, you wouldn't, because once you give someone that kind of trust, they will simply use you up like a dish rag to gain whatever competitive benefit they can from that. But if you had religion to preclude that option, you might.

[Zzyzx]

.
Welcome to the Forum PK,

Had you been around a while you might know that people are not banished for bringing up a point. There is a formal procedure in the Admin / Moderator Team (eight people) for dealing with serial rule violators.

I've read the topic and it seems to me that Tart was trying to bring up a valid point and got banned for it.

Here is the announcement that appears in the “Probation� area: viewforum.php?f=23&sid=2b3e366e5c04e278f30ce25b724aa5af

Tart has been banned for continued violation of the rules.

Warnings:

viewtopic.php?p=912246#912246
viewtopic.php?p=914004#914004
viewtopic.php?p=929399#929399
viewtopic.php?p=930945#930945
viewtopic.php?p=935442#935442
viewtopic.php?p=983579#983579
viewtopic.php?p=986222#986222
viewtopic.php?p=986285#986285
viewtopic.php?p=995616#995616

We have a system for dealing with those who refuse to abide by Forum Rules. Moderator Comment, Warning, Final Warning.

The only way a person can be instantly banished is if they are blatantly profane, obvious bot or spam, extremely disrespectful of others.

So far it seems as though you are respectful and civil -- and need not fear being banned for expressing opinions respectfully provided that you read and follow Forum Rules viewtopic.php?t=6

[bluegreenearth]

"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!

I'm not an apologist but hope no one minds if I post a comment regarding this topic. The problem with the quoted statement is that, in both isolation and in context of the entire 2nd Chapter of 1 Timothy, it appears to be absolute with no indication that any exceptions to the rule are possible. Therefore, any proposed justification for instituting such an absolute rule will be immediately refuted by demonstrating that viable exceptions to the rule are possible. If viable exceptions are possible, then there can be no justification for the rule to be absolute.

[Purple Knight]

The only way a person can be instantly banished is if they are blatantly profane, obvious bot or spam, extremely disrespectful of others.

I don't doubt you'll see me as that eventually. No matter how hard I try, I am always disliked everywhere by everyone, because I care only about logic and thus agree with nothing.

I'm not an apologist but hope no one minds if I post a comment regarding this topic. The problem with the quoted statement is that, in both isolation and in context of the entire 2nd Chapter of 1 Timothy, it appears to be absolute with no indication that any exceptions to the rule are possible. Therefore, any proposed justification for instituting such an absolute rule will be immediately refuted by demonstrating that viable exceptions to the rule are possible. If viable exceptions are possible, then there can be no justification for the rule to be absolute.

So I believe I see a leap in logic here: That an exception in ability merits an exception to a rule based on generalities.

I propose a question to bring this to light.

Should a genius child with a mind far superior to an adult in every fashion be allowed to make its own choices about sex?

I would think allowing exceptions would be problematic and lead to more injustices (cases of rape based on coaching a child to "test out" of childhood for the purposes of sex) than it would lead to remedies of injustice. (And I say this despite the fact that I was this child, though I think a better remedy for all would be to lower the age of consent to something like 16.)

The efficacy of a rule is not always refuted by the fact that in extreme cases, the rule may work against the desired result. As loathe as I am to admit it, if it were my decree to make, I would not allow time travelers to go and murder Hitler and it's very much because I would expect to be murdered myself the next instant for something horrid I do or cause post facto.

[bluegreenearth]

The only way a person can be instantly banished is if they are blatantly profane, obvious bot or spam, extremely disrespectful of others.

I don't doubt you'll see me as that eventually. No matter how hard I try, I am always disliked everywhere by everyone, because I care only about logic and thus agree with nothing.

I'm not an apologist but hope no one minds if I post a comment regarding this topic. The problem with the quoted statement is that, in both isolation and in context of the entire 2nd Chapter of 1 Timothy, it appears to be absolute with no indication that any exceptions to the rule are possible. Therefore, any proposed justification for instituting such an absolute rule will be immediately refuted by demonstrating that viable exceptions to the rule are possible. If viable exceptions are possible, then there can be no justification for the rule to be absolute.

So I believe I see a leap in logic here: That an exception in ability merits an exception to a rule based on generalities.

I propose a question to bring this to light.

Should a genius child with a mind far superior to an adult in every fashion be allowed to make its own choices about sex?

I would think allowing exceptions would be problematic and lead to more injustices (cases of rape based on coaching a child to "test out" of childhood for the purposes of sex) than it would lead to remedies of injustice. (And I say this despite the fact that I was this child, though I think a better remedy for all would be to lower the age of consent to something like 16.)

The efficacy of a rule is not always refuted by the fact that in extreme cases, the rule may work against the desired result. As loathe as I am to admit it, if it were my decree to make, I would not allow time travelers to go and murder Hitler and it's very much because I would expect to be murdered myself the next instant for something horrid I do or cause post facto.

Good point. I don't necessarily disagree with that logic. However, I was careful to specify that demonstrating "viable exceptions" to the absolute rule would invalidate the justification; not just any exception. The example you gave would not be a viable exception to the absolute rule because the ability to make responsible choices about sex are contingent upon more than just an individual's intelligence quotient.