God Says NO to Women Leashership

[POI]

According to the Bible, God is not okay with women leaders in church:

11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

1. Are the reasons given respectively, in Verses 13 and 14, acceptable by all you believers? If so, how come?

2. Does Verse 15 make sense? What if the woman is not fertile? Is this caveat already understood when reading these passages? What if the woman decides to become a nun, and wishes to remain untouched? Is this acceptable as well?

But the fact that the Bible mentions that Adam was formed first, indicates that the writer of this passage believed in a literal Adam and Eve. So much to square, to make the above given rationale "fit".

[nobspeople]

[Replying to POI in post #31]

maybe this is why they are here; to 'debunk' us skeptics, doubters, atheists, etc...?.?.?

Surely, some see it as witnessing. Others see it as the personal battel for christ.
But most believers, from what I've seen, are here to stroke their own ego. I mean, if their faith is strong, there's no need to test it. If they know all about God, there's nothing else to learn (surely not from us devil-controlled heathens!). They even bicker amongst themselves, so it's not about fellowship. Nay... they're doing 'God's will' in saving our very souls.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #31]

maybe this is why they are here; to 'debunk' us skeptics, doubters, atheists, etc...?.?.?

Surely, some see it as witnessing. Others see it as the personal battel for christ.
But most believers, from what I've seen, are here to stroke their own ego. I mean, if their faith is strong, there's no need to test it. If they know all about God, there's nothing else to learn (surely not from us devil-controlled heathens!). They even bicker amongst themselves, so it's not about fellowship. Nay... they're doing 'God's will' in saving our very souls.

It's funny you should say any of that.... I just spent 4+ years on a predominantly Christian website. I stopped because they discontinued the apologetics section, where anyone could question their god. Before they did so, they already expressed formal 'safeguards', as well as silent safeguards , to protect them from discussing certain topics. Furthermore, I've had entire threads removed, simply for making statements such as:

"Truth welcomes all scrutiny. If something is absolutely true, no one can dispute it with reason and logic."

This is my first time participating in a site, which is not dominated by Christians. And I have noticed the rules for engagement differ greatly. If Christians come here to spread the word, or to stroke their own ego, then why do I hardly see any here? Is it because they do not possess the safety in numbers, like they do on their protected Christian sites?

I find it quite interesting, that if the mission of the Christian is to convert as many as possible to Christ, they are not on all on atheist sites, debunking atheist arguments? Seems rather ancient, to still go door to door to spread the word. They can reach thousands, if not millions, by simply delivering arguments to shut us up. If their position(s) were true, we would not have so many objections, for which they have no real or consistent answers.

Let's start with this thread. Let us see if the interlocutor, from post #14, cares to set us doubters straight?

[nobspeople]

[Replying to POI in post #33]

If Christians come here to spread the word, or to stroke their own ego, then why do I hardly see any here?

Could be many reasons:
You're not looking for it
It's not obvious to you
You haven't been here long enough
I'm full of ca-ca
You're too nice
To be fair, the christian friends I retain would not set foot in a place like this. Not that the people here, or the site itself, are 'bad' in any way, but my friends would prefer to let their lives do the talking instead of their mouths. Maybe that's why I'm still friend with them?

Is it because they do not possess the safety in numbers, like they do on their protected Christian sites?

Like fish following the school in the wave, that might play a part.

I find it quite interesting, that if the mission of the Christian is to convert as many as possible to Christ, they are not on all on atheist sites, debunking atheist arguments?

Surely some are, I'd suspect. Or maybe they think it beneath them to do so? But Jesus didn't keep to his own - he went out and preached. Maybe those not 'going out' aren't doing so because their faith is worthless?

Seems rather ancient, to still go door to door to spread the word.

God, it would be nice if everyone thought that way!!!

[1213]

Is there anything that Paul said that we can say is what God said?

Usually in the Bible, if God says, it is said God says. But, obviously it can be that Paul is led by Holy Spirit and God and therefore speaks things that God approves. To know is it so, one way is to compare it to the previous teaching in the Bible. And other way is to think, is it reasonable, good and from love and what does it serve.

[1213]

...
Isn't Paul speaking on God's behalf here? If not, why should anyone care what Paul asserts?...

Usually in the Bible, if something is directly from God, it is said so. But, even if Paul was not saying directly God’s words, he can have a good point that is in line with God’s will. To know that, I think it is important to examine is there a valid point.

You are avoiding the actual reasons given, for declined women leadership. Does this mean the reasons given, by the Bible, are not suitable enough for you? (i.e.)

My point was not to refute what Bible tells, but to open it, explain it in deeper way.

Furthermore, does God permit women to lead in church? If so, this means Paul is wrong?

By what I have understood, God and Jesus should rule “Christians” (disciples of Jesus), not anyone else, because:

For they bind heavy burdens that are grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not lift a finger to help them. But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad, enlarge the fringes of their garments, and love the place of honor at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, the salutations in the marketplaces, and to be called 'Rabbi, Rabbi' by men. But don't you be called 'Rabbi,' for one is your teacher, the Christ, and all of you are brothers. Call no man on the earth your father, for one is your Father, he who is in heaven. Neither be called masters, for one is your master, the Christ. But he who is greatest among you will be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
Mat. 23:4-12

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #33]

If Christians come here to spread the word, or to stroke their own ego, then why do I hardly see any here?

Could be many reasons:
You're not looking for it
It's not obvious to you
You haven't been here long enough
I'm full of ca-ca
You're too nice
To be fair, the christian friends I retain would not set foot in a place like this. Not that the people here, or the site itself, are 'bad' in any way, but my friends would prefer to let their lives do the talking instead of their mouths. Maybe that's why I'm still friend with them?

Another listed reason, which seems fair to add, is many Christians do not like to debate atheists in written form. Due to the fact that many Christians like to vocalize assertions, in the hopes that the majority will not have an immediate rebuttal/response. They then remain glorious in their uncontested victory. Many prey on the fact that most do not give these arguments daily thought, or maybe never heard of many of them before. Allowing the atheist to think about their response, and reply later, in permanent written form, after consideration, might be why so many Christians do not respond or follow up online?

On a side note, I sometimes attend church with my spouse, as she is still Christian. If I'm feeling frisky, I will sometimes go to the meet-and-greet/welcome area after the service. I will start asking questions. They give answers. I then follow up on their assertions. As soon as they realize I've already contemplated their assertions, and they have no further responses, they say they have to go. This is usually because many are listening.

I don't do this often, but I have a handful of times. The outcome is always the same. They retreat. Quite odd

God, it would be nice if everyone thought that way!!!

Yes!

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #25]

If such a god happens to be real, how do believers 'square' all the things for which they too see as inconsistent, verses their own moral and reasonable positions?

In order for this to happen, one has to engage with those who are open to questioning their faith-based beliefs and that is like finding a pearl in the mud. So rare, I cannot even remember engaging with any such personality, ever, although to be fair, I have come across one or two who claimed that they were open minded and interested in questioning their own beliefs...but it turned out they were saying so in a manner more indictive of someone who already believes they are on solid ground so it is a type of boast in that they believe that even in questioning their beliefs they will only come to the same conclusion - that their belief is worthy of believing.

Generally what occurs when the hard questions are asked, the believer goes quiet. This is after they have throw straw at your arguments to no avail. They are often frugal with their explanations about exactly what they believe and why they believe it - perhaps telling themselves that their believes are too special to waste explaining on those who question said beliefs - and then there is always the game of definitions, which is applied in order to slow down the flow to a manageable rate akin to swimming in molasses and when that ploy is shown not to work, they can always 'spend time with the family' and only pop in now and again and offer one or two lines of argument which you then debunk and wait days for their return reply, only to get a couple more lines, before they are off to do more family stuff, or some other such thing.

Maybe Christian debate sites are more for the intended purpose of providing a place for Christians of different denominations being able to argue with one another as to who are really the true Christians?

I don't see how the Christian idea of The Creator could realistically be considered to be an actual real entity, but trying to find a Christian willing to engage in questioning said idea seems an impossible task - given faith-based beliefs are non-negotiable...thus not really debatable/up for debate.

You have hit the nail on the head, with many points.

Also, if proclaimed believers are actually willing to scrutinize their position, then it's likely they are already on their way out.. For so many believers, for which I have debated over the years, seem to ultimately reference Romans 1. "We all know god exists, it's just that some of us choose to rebel (or) are clouded by our sinful ways."

I've noticed it takes a long time to remove a deeply held core belief (especially in religion and politics). This is why, often times, before I engage a theistic argument face-to-face, I'll ask... If I were to debunk the given argument, even to your own satisfaction, would you change your position? They either, like you state, remain silent, or say no. I then ask, then why should I bother? Not to sound like a straw man, but this is my experience...

Over the years, I have found the following reasons for core belief...

1. indoctrination - very hard to shake
2. one's nature to invoke unfalsifiable intentional agency, for protection, comfort, or to explain away uncomfortable questions
3. fear of change -- thus we sometimes close our ears to what we see as a threat to our current positions - (protection)

But I digress. The point of this thread, is to demonstrate to theists, that if this god exists, he is issuing commands for which most believers do not agree. Hence, the cognitive dissonance. I hope that the interlocutor, in post #14, finally responds? But like you said, this poster will not be up to address the logic in their claims, as their "faith is unshakable." And like you said, this poster prolly thinks they have an air-tight case, and is confident. And maybe this is why they are here; to 'debunk' us skeptics, doubters, atheists, etc...?.?.?

I don't think so. Realistically though, it is all just guesswork re your and my opinion re 'why?'.

Rather - can you and I focus upon why we are investing time and effort into participating on this Message Board. Is there something important we are trying to convey to the generic Christian? If so, then what?

My answer is to learn for myself through the experience, and convey that knowledge as it presents itself.

I have already being indoctrinated re generic Christianity. This is helpful as it give insight into belief structures.

I have not yet been persuaded that the Bible is non-relevant in relation to Theism and "The Question of Creation", not because of Christianity per se, but rather because of Theism as a whole and the possibility we do currently exist within some type of created environment.

Thus "hard to shake" when no conclusive evidence presents itself that we do not currently exist within some type of created environment. Thus "Agnostic Theist" is my current position.

My problem with the argument that it is one's nature to invoke unfalsifiable intentional agency, for protection, comfort, or to explain away uncomfortable questions is that I have been there done that but within the illusion I notice genuine signs of intelligence behind the scenes as it were. Indeed, it has got to the point where I now only see it that way, having had enough subjective evidence that I would only be lying to myself to deny it as so.

[You can take that as the hearsay it is offered as.]

Fear of change is a biggie, especially where the immaterial engages with the material and causes fear to naturally enough present itself. In such cases, throwing pooh at it achieves nothing other than subsequent embarrassment -- thus we sometimes close our ears to what we see as a threat to our current positions - (protection) unless there is no way in which we can possibly any longer take that path.

Then if suddenly [eventually] one realizes there was nothing to be afraid of in the first place, one has effectively questioned ones beliefs sufficiently to reach that conclusion. Job done.

That is my short story and I am sticking to it, always as ever open to being shown otherwise.

[POI]

Usually in the Bible, if something is directly from God, it is said so. But, even if Paul was not saying directly God’s words, he can have a good point that is in line with God’s will. To know that, I think it is important to examine is there a valid point.

Are Verses 13 and 14 "good points", as to (the reasons) women cannot lead or have authority over men? If so, how come? And if so, does God agree with Paul?

I'll save you the conundrum, for which you have placed yourself into...

-- If God agrees with Paul, then it does not matter if the Verses were directly sighted by God or Paul.
-- If God does not agree with Paul here, then not only is Paul wrong, but you keep doubling down, by still looking to defend a false position.

Does God agree with Paul or not? Are women not allowed to lead and have authority over men because 1. Adam was formed first, and 2. Eve sinned first?

My point was not to refute what Bible tells, but to open it, explain it in deeper way.

Okay, so if you are not refuting it, does this mean God agrees with Paul? Are women not allowed to teach or have authority over men because 1. Adam was formed first, and 2. Eve sinned first?

By what I have understood, God and Jesus should rule “Christians” (disciples of Jesus), not anyone else, because:

For they bind heavy burdens that are grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not lift a finger to help them. But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad, enlarge the fringes of their garments, and love the place of honor at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, the salutations in the marketplaces, and to be called 'Rabbi, Rabbi' by men. But don't you be called 'Rabbi,' for one is your teacher, the Christ, and all of you are brothers. Call no man on the earth your father, for one is your Father, he who is in heaven. Neither be called masters, for one is your master, the Christ. But he who is greatest among you will be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
Mat. 23:4-12

Okay, so now you seem to be saying that Paul is WRONG? If so, please see above (i.e.):

If God does not agree with Paul here, then not only is Paul wrong, but you keep doubling down, by still looking to defend a false position.

[POI]

I don't think so. Realistically though, it is all just guesswork re your and my opinion re 'why?'.

Yes. Fair enough.

Rather - can you and I focus upon why we are investing time and effort into participating on this Message Board. Is there something important we are trying to convey to the generic Christian? If so, then what?

1. I like to keep my brain sharp. I consider religion and politics hot topic subjects, which put us into everything. I want to stay sharp, in defending my position, especially when all comers of religious make assertions and claims. This way, I do not look like a deer in headlights.

2. Christianity receives special treatment, and seems to be exempt from scrutiny. I am here to vet many of my grievances out to the ones which will listen.

3. I too was heavily indoctrinated. Thus, I consider this topic therapeutic to speak about.

4. I like to engage with folks which do not think exactly like me. This is how I learn more.

5. My wife's side of the family is highly religious. I come here to voice questions, for which I am not allowed to discuss within my inner family, as it will cause WAR

I have not yet been persuaded that the Bible is non-relevant in relation to Theism and "The Question of Creation", not because of Christianity per se, but rather because of Theism as a whole and the possibility we do currently exist within some type of created environment.

Even if deism should turn out to be true, I have great doubt the Bible is anywhere near 'reality'.

Thus "hard to shake" when no conclusive evidence presents itself that we do not currently exist within some type of created environment. Thus "Agnostic Theist" is my current position.

I could see deism, but not theism? For me, the topic of "divine hiddenness" first comes to mind... If a creator exists, it's likely humans are not the focus of this creator.

My problem with the argument that it is one's nature to invoke unfalsifiable intentional agency, for protection, comfort, or to explain away uncomfortable questions is that I have been there done that but within the illusion I notice genuine signs of intelligence behind the scenes as it were. Indeed, it has got to the point where I now only see it that way, having had enough subjective evidence that I would only be lying to myself to deny it as so.

Such as?

Fear of change is a biggie, especially where the immaterial engages with the material and causes fear to naturally enough present itself. In such cases, throwing pooh at it achieves nothing other than subsequent embarrassment -- thus we sometimes close our ears to what we see as a threat to our current positions - (protection) unless there is no way in which we can possibly any longer take that path.

Mocking a belief can cause the opponent to really think about their position. Does it make sense? Is it consistent, or are they applying a cognitive dissonance? Many feel good thinking they have all of life's answers. They choose not to have that belief challenged, because they know belief is not a choice. Hence, they protect their existing one, or shelter it from inquiry. This is why the Christian site, for which I just resigned from, had so many 'safe-guards' in place

Then if suddenly [eventually] one realizes there was nothing to be afraid of in the first place, one has effectively questioned ones beliefs sufficiently to reach that conclusion. Job done.

That is my short story and I am sticking to it, always as ever open to being shown otherwise.

I'm only concerned with what is actually true. If a god exists, which is okay with infanticide, rape, slavery, misogyny, and is homophobic, then I guess I'll cross that bridge when I get there.

[William]

I don't think so. Realistically though, it is all just guesswork re your and my opinion re 'why?'.

Yes. Fair enough.

Rather - can you and I focus upon why we are investing time and effort into participating on this Message Board. Is there something important we are trying to convey to the generic Christian? If so, then what?

1. I like to keep my brain sharp. I consider religion and politics hot topic subjects, which put us into everything. I want to stay sharp, in defending my position, especially when all comers of religious make assertions and claims. This way, I do not look like a deer in headlights.

Bouncing off of each others subjective ideas is the way we all learn.

2. Christianity receives special treatment, and seems to be exempt from scrutiny. I am here to vet many of my grievances out to the ones which will listen.

What are your grievances that you think Christians should listen? [bullet points will suffice] Also - is venting the right approach?

3. I too was heavily indoctrinated. Thus, I consider this topic therapeutic to speak about.

Does the feeling go away and then return, so that you find yourself having to repeat the therapy?

4. I like to engage with folks which do not think exactly like me. This is how I learn more.

Bouncing off of each others subjective ideas is the way we all learn.

5. My wife's side of the family is highly religious. I come here to voice questions, for which I am not allowed to discuss within my inner family, as it will cause WAR

Jesus came to bring a sword. Swords are weapons of WAR. Words are weapons of WAR. Christians expect WAR.

I have not yet been persuaded that the Bible is non-relevant in relation to Theism and "The Question of Creation", not because of Christianity per se, but rather because of Theism as a whole and the possibility we do currently exist within some type of created environment.

Even if deism should turn out to be true, I have great doubt the Bible is anywhere near 'reality'.

Okay.

Thus "hard to shake" when no conclusive evidence presents itself that we do not currently exist within some type of created environment. Thus "Agnostic Theist" is my current position.

I could see deism, but not theism? For me, the topic of "divine hiddenness" first comes to mind... If a creator exists, it's likely humans are not the focus of this creator.

Hard to say. It might be a case of delegation - an assignment of sorts, which is no easy task...like trying to herd cats...

My problem with the argument that it is one's nature to invoke unfalsifiable intentional agency, for protection, comfort, or to explain away uncomfortable questions is that I have been there done that but within the illusion I notice genuine signs of intelligence behind the scenes as it were. Indeed, it has got to the point where I now only see it that way, having had enough subjective evidence that I would only be lying to myself to deny it as so.

Such as?

That is not important as it is purely subjective hearsay on my part and will do nothing for you to know the details of my journey. Perhaps if we get to know one another more closely, such information can be shared.

Fear of change is a biggie, especially where the immaterial engages with the material and causes fear to naturally enough present itself. In such cases, throwing pooh at it achieves nothing other than subsequent embarrassment -- thus we sometimes close our ears to what we see as a threat to our current positions - (protection) unless there is no way in which we can possibly any longer take that path.

Mocking a belief can cause the opponent to really think about their position.

Do you have any personal examples that this is the case? Seems to me that a religion which teaches that the arch enemy [Satan] roars like a lion and one should expect to be persecuted for one's belief, all mocking will accomplish is to give Christians a sense that they are defending 'The Truth".

Does it make sense? Is it consistent, or are they applying a cognitive dissonance? Many feel good thinking they have all of life's answers. They choose not to have that belief challenged, because they know belief is not a choice. Hence, they protect their existing one, or shelter it from inquiry. This is why the Christian site, for which I just resigned from, had so many 'safe-guards' in place

Satan is as real as God to most Christians. They believe he is always working to make them give up their beliefs, and so anyone who is in the practice of doing so, is considered to being a tool of Satan.

Then if suddenly [eventually] one realizes there was nothing to be afraid of in the first place, one has effectively questioned ones beliefs sufficiently to reach that conclusion. Job done.

That is my short story and I am sticking to it, always as ever open to being shown otherwise.

I'm only concerned with what is actually true. If a god exists, which is okay with infanticide, rape, slavery, misogyny, and is homophobic, then I guess I'll cross that bridge when I get there.

I do not think that any religious ideas of The Creator are necessarily correct as they all seem to present images and I think there is no image which can represent anyone who created this Universe.

Those things you mention, I think are just Human beings making images of The Creator out of themselves - therefore one would expect such beliefs to spring from such people. It might have made a lot of sense in the old world, but nowadays we are free to question the validity of such ideas about The Creator.