According to the Holy Scriptures, a woman is to be submissive to her husband and silent in church. In Ephesians 5:22-24, Paul, the chosen vessel of our Lord and Savior (ref Acts 9:15), wrote that a woman is to be in submission to her husband, as she is to God. Paul also explains that this relationship is to model that between Christ and the Church: The husband is the head of the household just as Christ is the head of the Church. This does not demean the woman, as the husband is told to treat his wife as a weaker vessel, understanding that she is his equal, as in 1 Peter 3:7, loving her as Christ loved the church, for which is gave his life; Ephesians 5:22. This submission as reinforced by Colossians 3:18-19 and 1 Peter 3:1.
In the church, the woman is to keep silence, as Paul commanded them in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, in which he tells them to be silent and, if they have any questions, to ask their husbands at home. In 1 Timothy 2:9-11, he made it clear that he would not suffer a woman to speak nor to usurp authority over a man. Clearly, women cannot be ministers, preachers, or elders, as one of the qualifications is that an elder must be the husband of one wife; 1 Timothy 3:2. A woman’s place, therefore, is in silence and submission, showing the glory of God in her obedient and tender nature.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Lets hook up. Because I'd LOVE LOVE LOVE to see you try to get me to revere you as I would a god.
Er... so what? Paul was merely human, and a very flawed one at that. If you argue that a womna's place is in 'submission', give LOGICAL reasons for that.
when i clicked on this blog to read it, i had high hopes that the title was satirical or ironic. these hopes were dashed away as i read the dribble youve posted here. Just you try to dominate and silence me. just. you. try.
Hug a musician, they never get to dance.
You know, Ruth, Miriam, and Ester were all really powerful Biblical women...
~C
Visit my blog.
It's true some churches preach this.
See here
And thats...one of the many reasons I'm not a Christian. :)
-------------------------------------------------------
See my blog and I'll love you forever! Or at least temporarily: www.progressiveu.org/blog/npsm18
...of yet another example of the inherently primitive, ignorant and oppressive nature of your religion.
percivale
Things are different now in some places. Life is not so terribly hard and cruel. Maybe it is time for change in the church.
~Maybee Sinclair~
GO ME----Plant A TREE !!!!!
Thanks for the bible verses. In my church 10 yrs ago they were just starting to let women be Lay Preachers, now they have a woman pastor.
~Maybee Sinclair~
GO ME----Plant A TREE !!!!!
I didn't quote scripture so that it could be dismissed? How often do preachers quote the verses like 1 Cor 13:10 or John 3:16 to talk about love? Faith? Hope? But when someone decides it's time to address the finer points of scriptural obedience, suddenly we are oppressive and primitive? Are you saying that Paul was primitive? To negate his preaching to "his being human and flawed" thereby negates his preaching on salvation and heaven. You can't say that his preaching on one topic is valid and applical and then throw away the parts that inconvenience you. that's called hedonism. that's primitive and neanderthalish.
In fact, I think it should be rediculously obvious that someone lived more than a thousand years is very likely to have at least a primitive viewpoints. The bible promotes may beliefs that are painfully primitive. Kill your enemies if they don't practice your religion. The world is flat. Snakes eat dirt. Women are inferior. Slavery is okay.
The very idea of living life according to the practical morality described in the bible is a horrible thought, indeed.
percivale
-------------------------
Arthur: Which is the greatest quality of knighthood?
Merlin: Truth. That's it. Yes. It must be truth, above all. When a man lies, he murders some part of the world.
(From John Boorman's Excalibur)
...shall appear to those of our seed in 200 years. Thus too are the precepts banter'd in mantras of the buddhist and the hindi. But I am assured that you'd not esteem them so poorly, as you feel no emergent threat from so simple and abstract a faith. No, the life of Christ was primitive, but pure, as were those of his apostles. Paul did not preach that women are inferior, to the contrary, he preached that women and men are equal, as are masters and slaves, greeks and jews, gentiles and believers. The subordination of women is purely due to the need for organization and order. And for those who would esteem Paul as chauvanist, it is imperitive that one understand that Paul did preach of his own free will, but of the guiding and inspiration of God by means of the holy spirit.
Thats all well and good, but the thing you dont seem to be getting is that times were different. you can still have order without subordinating women! What about families where the woman goes out and works, and the dad stays home with the kids? its not unheard of; are they wrong? Woman and man can divide the responsibilities of the household, breadwinning, and life in general without being reduced to complete chaos. Following a line of thought like Paul's where this was not yet understood is pure and utter folly.
Hug a musician, they never get to dance.
"Horseapples."
Now, to clarify...I don't have "poor esteem" for the Constitution, because unlike the primitive and imaginary authority of the religions you mention (I distain them all pretty much equally), the Constitution admits to its potentiality for error, and permits those who live beneath it to alter its precepts via amendment.
As for your interpretation of the reasons for Paul's undeniable--undeniable by any rational modern person, at least--chauvanism, I must again say, "horseapples." It most disingenous to suggest that the subordination of women in your religion is simply for the purpose of "maintianing order." How convenient is it for a man who benefits from such an arrangement to defend such an obviously oppressive arragement? "Very," I think is the answer.
percivale
-------------------------
Arthur: Which is the greatest quality of knighthood?
Merlin: Truth. That's it. Yes. It must be truth, above all. When a man lies, he murders some part of the world.
(From John Boorman's Excalibur)
if the times were different, and we can thereby justify our alterations of the gospel and its precepts, then I think it is high time we revoke the blessed salvation offered in its sacred pages!
...to lure people away from the ideal of basic human equality, then by all means revoke away.
Do you also think that we should return to the biblically ascribed morality of murdering people who worship different "gods?" Should we once again institute the practice of slavery? Should we go back to the days when fortune tellers and women who are raped were put to death? Should we execute children who disrespect their parents?
Or, should we perhaps continue to grow as a society, and abandon the primitive, ignorant and fearful beliefs of our primitive ancestors, and by so doing free ourselves to walk into a brighter and more egalitarian future?
percivale
-------------------------
Arthur: Which is the greatest quality of knighthood?
Merlin: Truth. That's it. Yes. It must be truth, above all. When a man lies, he murders some part of the world.
(From John Boorman's Excalibur)
were we to execute unrully children, of course that was the mosaic law, which according to Gal 3:23-26 was simply a school master to bring us to Christ. I don't see any of those things as harmful, so i'd be inclined to embrace them.
I have come to expect this kind of intellectual inconsistency from the christian "mind." But, I think that when you say...
"I'd be delighted...were we to execute unrully children,"
...we can see the truely primitive and ultimately violent character of your religious beliefs. I further find it truly disturbing that you don't find the practice of slavery (in particular) to be abhorrent. Thanks once again from proving one of my points for me so eloquently.
percivale
-------------------------
Arthur: Which is the greatest quality of knighthood?
Merlin: Truth. That's it. Yes. It must be truth, above all. When a man lies, he murders some part of the world.
(From John Boorman's Excalibur)
Am I reading this correctly? You want to kill kids? How are they supposed to learn how to behave if they don't get in trouble for misbehaving once in a while? Small children, especially ages 2-6, learn their boundaries by testing them and crossing them! I am appalled that you would want to murder a child just because he ran indoors or knocked over a sippy cup that spilled. I sincerely hope you are sterile and do not have kids.
Hug a musician, they never get to dance.
first of all, the old testament never alloted for the "murder" of children, and the litmus for disobedience was severely detailed, so the whole sippy-cup example is absurd. Second, their are restrictions imposed upon the relationship between slave and master in the church. Not the God wanted slavery in the first place, but he ensured that Christians understand their place spiritually.
"I'd be delighted...
were we to execute unrully children, of course that was the mosaic law, which according to Gal 3:23-26 was simply a school master to bring us to Christ. I don't see any of those things as harmful, so i'd be inclined to embrace them.
You supported in your previous statement the execution of unruly children, so my example stands.
Hug a musician, they never get to dance.
> the "murder" of children, and the litmus for disobedience
> was severely detailed, so the whole sippy-cup example is
> absurd.
To be precise, Exodus 21:17 says...
"Whoever curses his father or mother shall be put to death."
http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/exodus/exodus21.htm
Do you think that a young child who says something ugly to one of his parents should be put to death?
Second, their are restrictions imposed upon the> relationship between slave and master in the church. Not
> the God wanted slavery in the first place, but he ensured
> that Christians understand their place spiritually.
More horseapples. The bible refers quite literally to the actual, physical state of keeping slaves in MANY places. Turning to Leviticus 25:44-46, we can see a perfect example...
"Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess, provided you buy them from among the neighboring nations. You may also buy them from among the aliens who reside with you and from their children who are born and reared in your land. Such slaves you may own as chattels, and leave to your sons as their hereditary property, making them perpetual slaves. But you shall not lord it harshly over any of the Israelites, your kinsmen."
http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/leviticus/leviticus25.htm
There is simply no escaping the fact that if your "god" considered slavery to be immoral, then "he" would have said so. The bible is literally filled with "don't to this" and "don't do that." But, slavery is not only permitted, but in many cases commanded. For example, in Numbers 31:28-47...
"You shall levy a tax for the LORD on the warriors who went out to combat: one out of every five hundred persons, oxen, asses and sheep in their half of the spoil you shall turn over to the priest Eleazar as a contribution to the LORD. From the Israelites' half you shall take one out of every fifty persons, and the same from the different beasts, oxen, asses and sheep, and give them to the Levites, who have charge of the LORD'S Dwelling." So Moses and the priest Eleazar did this, as the LORD had commanded Moses. This booty, what was left of the loot which the soldiers had taken, amounted to six hundred and seventy-five thousand sheep, seventy-two thousand oxen, sixty-one thousand asses, and thirty-two thousand girls who were still virgins. The half that fell to those who had gone out to combat was: three hundred and thirty-seven thousand five hundred sheep, of which six hundred and seventy-five fell as tax to the LORD; thirty-six thousand oxen, of which seventy-two fell as tax to the LORD; thirty thousand five hundred asses, of which sixty-one fell as tax to the LORD; and sixteen thousand persons, of whom thirty-two fell as tax to the LORD. The taxes contributed to the LORD, Moses gave to the priest Eleazar, as the LORD had commanded him. The half for the other Israelites, which fell to the community when Moses had taken it from the soldiers, was: three hundred and thirty-seven thousand five hundred sheep, thirty-six thousand oxen, thirty thousand five hundred asses, and sixteen thousand persons. From this, the Israelites' share, Moses, as the LORD had ordered, took one out of every fifty, both of persons and of beasts, and gave them to the Levites, who had charge of the LORD'S Dwelling."
http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/numbers/numbers31.htm
Sometimes I really wonder if there are ANY christians out there who have acutally read the bible in its entirety.
percivale
-------------------------
Arthur: Which is the greatest quality of knighthood?
Merlin: Truth. That's it. Yes. It must be truth, above all. When a man lies, he murders some part of the world.
(From John Boorman's Excalibur)
You are quite right. Slavery was encouraged under the law, as was divorce, right? not really. Actually, Jesus pointed out that divorce (and I'm going out on a limb here, but probably a few other things as well) were permitted not due to God's taking pleasure in them, but due to that fact that he was well aware that they would do it anyway (similar to the argument for legalizing certain vices today. Matt 19:8 shows jesus' condemnation of divorce, "He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way". Paul preached in Col 3:11 that there is, in the sight of God, neither slave no free, jew nor greek, circumsised or uncircumsised.
Second, you use the harsh standards of the OT like nobody's business, but a question for you sir, have you ever seen the term "christian", "believer", "faithfull", or church (referencing the 1st century church) in the OT? Probably not. Did you not read Galatians 3:23-26? We are not under the Mosaic law...your bringing it up serves only to cause derision, but it is not effective.
First of all, I don't recall mentioning divorce at all, so how is that relevant? Even if you are against the idea of divorce (another primitive attitude), it simply doesn't compare with any rational equivalency to the practice of slavery.
As for your defense of slavery, it is categorically false to suggest that this practice was unique to the old testament.
"Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ," (Ephesians 6:5)
http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/ephesians/ephesians6.htm
"Those who are under the yoke of slavery must regard their masters as worthy of full respect, so that the name of God and our teaching may not suffer abuse. Those whose masters are believers must not take advantage of them because they are brothers but must give better service because those who will profit from their work are believers and are beloved." (1 Timothy 6:1-2)
http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/1timothy/1timothy6.htm
"That servant who knew his master's will but did not make preparations nor act in accord with his will shall be beaten severely; and the servant who was ignorant of his master's will but acted in a way deserving of a severe beating shall be beaten only lightly. Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more." (Luke 12:47-48)
http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/luke/luke12.htm
Now, let me ask YOU a few questions.
1 - Go and get a copy of the bible used by your church. Look in the front. Is the old testament included in its pages? If the contents of the OT are not relevant, then why is it there?
2 - Do you believe that the "god" described in the OT is a different being than the "god" described in the New? If not, then what is the reason that you turn a blind eye to the acts and commandments attributed to this character in the OT? Do you think that mass murder has a spiritual statute of limitation?
And yes, I have read Galatians. In fact, I think we have long since established that I am one of the very few people on this site that has actually read the whole bible. You certainly haven't, as I will demonstrate in a moment, below.
have you ever seen the term "christian",Do you think that a "christian" worships different "god" than the people in the old testament?
"believer",Yes.
"What is Apollos, after all, and what is Paul? Ministers through whom you became believers, just as the Lord assigned each one." (1 Corinthians 3:5)
"faithfull",Yes.
"And now may the LORD be kind and faithful to you. I, too, will be generous to you for having done this." (1 Samuel 2:6)
http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/2samuel/2samuel2.htm
"Thus says the LORD: I will return to Zion, and I will dwell within Jerusalem; Jerusalem shall be called the faithful city, and the mountain of the LORD of hosts, the holy mountain." (Zechariah 8:3)
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/zechariah/zechariah8.htm
"Those who trust in him shall understand truth, and the faithful shall abide with him in love: Because grace and mercy are with his holy ones, and his care is with the elect." (Wisdom 3:9)
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/wisdom/wisdom3.htm
or church (referencing the 1st century church)Well, the only way that I could find this one is if the bible actually contained records of a prophecy that actually came true, so no on this one. But how is this relevant? Do you deny that the "church" of the NT worships a different being that "the LORD" of the OT?
percivale
-------------------------
Arthur: Which is the greatest quality of knighthood?
Merlin: Truth. That's it. Yes. It must be truth, above all. When a man lies, he murders some part of the world.
(From John Boorman's Excalibur)
The relationship one has with God is different, it was been dynamic, altered by the reformation of the covenant made with Abraham, and then with the individual believer. The fundamental truths of worship are no longer national, as the were in the OT, which denied personal entry into the temple save one be a levite. I am not a levite, but I can be assured that my prayers are heard and answer'd. To be honest, Percy, it would assist us all if you would be more honest in you "hazco" against christianity, which has little to do with it, and everything to do with your incesant yen to be as disobedient and self-indulgent as is legal. God and his church is not compulsary, nor is obedience. of course, I'm not sure of the state of that unobedient soul when God judges him a goat.
...that have been placed before you. Ah, well...I've become used to that. The simple fact that the religion you practice today was altered and continues to be altered by its members for their own benefit. There are literally hundreds of modern christian denominations in the world, and every single one of them differs from every other on at least one significant point of doctrine or belief.
What you seem to fail to grasp is actually very simple.
The practice of slavery is indefensible.
Applying the punishment of DEATH to a child because of disobedience or disrespect to his or her parents is indefensible.
The idea that women should categorically submit to the men around them is indefensible.
It really doesn't matter whether your justification for believing that slavery is okay, that disobedient children should be killed, or that women should be submissive comes from your religion or just out of your ass. The point is that these ideas are indefensible to any even half-developed modern mind, and if you support these things then your opinion is primitive and yes...that makes you a "bad" person.
As for the rest...poppycock. I am not in the least concerned about the judgements of your imaginary friends.
percivale
-------------------------
Arthur: Which is the greatest quality of knighthood?
Merlin: Truth. That's it. Yes. It must be truth, above all. When a man lies, he murders some part of the world.
(From John Boorman's Excalibur)
It is admirable that you would like to live a better life but don't you think that would suggest treating people as equals, and showing them the path to God through love and good acts instead of making judgmental comments? I think it was put best "let he who is without sin cast the first stone..."
PS if you truly loved your wife you would value her opinion as much as your own and never ask her to be silent- if God wants us to all pray to Him why would He ask that women be silent in public? Just because some man in a high position had an opinion doesn't make it right. Take a minute to look at those "godly" Catholic priests who betrayed the trust of those little boys now what would people think 2000 years from now if their writings were the only ones preserved? It would make for a rather perverse message on Christianity don't you think?
It is never too late to be what you might have been- George Elliot