What Paul Says

[John Robinson]

Nearly fifty years ago my wife and were saved in the Jesus Movement of the late 60s/early 70s, and since then for the most part we've attended full-gospel churches.

In that time we've sat under men (and women) who were full of the Holy Ghost, and whose lives were exemplary as Christians, challenging us to press on into God.

I'm aware most of our brothers and sisters in the Lord disagree with this (sometimes quite stridently). I wish that wasn't so.

[Still Alive]

5 minutes ago, maryjayne said:

1) why?

2) if this is so why are most of the false prophets and snake oil preachers men?

Because men are really good at deceiving women.

 

Just to be clear, I don't see men as superior to women. Rather, I see women and men as designed for specific tasks, though they can overlap to a degree. The only exception to that rule is that only a woman can get pregnant and only a man can impregnate a woman. 

But with their specific physical design constraints come specific physiological design constraints. Women are nurturers by design. They can protect the family, but they are not designed for that function. Males are. One of the challenges women may have in that role is that their nurturing nature can make them "too defensive" of the family. This gives you "helicopter" moms and "my son can do no wrong" moms. Men can do it, but are less likely to. C. S. Lewis actually brings up this concept in Mere Christianity.

It always cracks me up to see women physically beating up men in movies. The truth is that, as a 64 year old man who works out only via working my property, I would have little problem taking down Ronda Rousey or any woman that plays a "tough girl" in any movie. The reasons are simple: Muscle mass, bone mass, leverage, etc. A well trained woman may be able to make some moves, but if I'm wise to them, fuggetaboutit.  BTW, this is why Chimpanzees are so dangerous. They have skinny arms, but they are very long - leverage.

But the real difference is the way men process information vs women. Men are absolutely more logical. This brings with it many weaknesses, but also many strengths. Same is true with women being more emotional. So, just as a boat is better at being on the water than an airplane, a car us better at being on the ground than on the water. This is why people don't try to drive to Hawaii.

So, with biblical teaching, women can add much constructive perspective from their more emotional minds, but men, being more logical, can be better teachers, especially if the class includes both men and women. If it is women only, never mind.;)

I'm not a misogynist. I simply see men and women as very different and designed by their creator for specific roles. I will add, however, that technology is marching towards making those differences irrelevant. It's why most feminists are not really gun control advocates.:D

On a side note, I see a LOT of misandry in our modern culture. And it seems to be growing completely unapologetically.

 

Edited November 29, 2018 by Still Alive

[Deborah_]

4 hours ago, LadyKay said:

So in another thread, I was accused of behaving like a cheery picking liberal Christian and of not believing that what Paul says is applicable to follow in today's world.  So I wanted to get some feed back about a passage that Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians.   Which says: 

   Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.  If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

 I myself do not know of any church that completely follows this passage of scripture. If you attend a church that dose follow this completely, or you yourself follow it ? How is it carried out?   Are all the women in your church silent not allowed to speak at all? As Paul seems to be saying here? How dose that work?  Also I don't understand what Paul means here by saying "as the law says". I thought that when Christ died, we were free from following "the Law".  What law is Paul referring to here? 

So anyway, I welcome your feedback on this and I will not try to do anything to change your mind on your thoughts about this passage. Though I may pop in a comment here and there.  

For what it's worth, here is my take on I Corinthians 14:34-35:

“Women should remain silent in the churches” (verse 34) is probably one of the most contentious things that Paul ever wrote. But I think we can safely say that he’s not imposing a ‘blanket ban’ on female participation, because he assumes elsewhere that women will be praying and prophesying in the church (I Corinthians 11:5), and has already stated that every member of the congregation should be able to take part in the service (I Corinthians 14:26). What he is banning is a chaotic babble of voices, whatever its source (uninterpreted tongues, unruly prophets, or the women’s side of the church).

Corinth was a very cosmopolitan city. It is highly likely that many of the women in the congregation were illiterate, and may not even have understood much Greek. That they should get bored or puzzled during the meeting and start chatting amongst themselves (or even calling out to their husbands on the other side of the room) was hardly surprising - but it was highly distracting for the rest of the congregation and might even bring the church into disrepute. If they needed any explanations, there were other, more socially acceptable, ways of going about it.
 

[Still Alive]

25 minutes ago, maryjayne said:

1) why?

2) if this is so why are most of the false prophets and snake oil preachers men?

Not to belieger the point. I used to use this analogy back in the 1990's. Dodge made a viper and a pickup that both used the same V10 engine. But it was tuned differently in each vehicle. I use the truck as a "man" and the viper as a "woman" in the analogy.

Which of the two was a better vehicle? Depended on what you wanted to use it for. If you need to get a load of hay for your cattle, the truck is better. If you want to make a high performance run on the back roads of KY, or take a trip to your cottage in the woods of Idaho, the viper is your choice. 

But our culture was convincing Vipers to jack up the suspension and slap off road tires on them and tear out the back window and put a cute little truck bed there. What you ended up with was a sports car that was a lousy sports car and a lousy pickup.

And they convinced the pickups to lower the suspension and slap on large diameter wheels with low profile tires. What you ended up with was a pickup that was a lousy pickup and a lousy sports car. 

The sad part was when they convinced a lot of Vipers that they needed to be able to haul the load of the pickup because that skill is superior to their smooth, tight cornering and brisk acceleration on the twisties. They bought a lie. The happiest vipers are the ones that see themselves as sports cars and glory in doing things that match the abilities for which they were designed. 

The pickups mostly were left alone, but they did try to change that too. It just didn't stick as well because, well, they LIKE hauling big loads and don't want to be sports cars. Maybe that's why it never became a thing for men to wear dresses.

The happiest men are those that revel in being a man and the happiest women are those that revel in being a woman. My wife read "The Submissive Wife" and completely agrees with it's content, but with this caveat: She feels she is mated to a "real" man and doesn't think it would work if she wasn't. i.e. I fulfill my role and she fulfills hers. Frankly, the creation of the modern "metrosexual" man has caused a lot of them to be wanting in the eyes of most women. Men want women and women want men. Neither wants a "woman-man". 

[Still Alive]

2 minutes ago, maryjayne said:

I see you added 90% of that post AFTER I had replied.

Sorry about that. I should have put it in another post.  I've consciously noticed that on all sites you can say something to which people reply or agree, and then go back and completely change what you said. I think it is a flaw in the modern software paradigm for forums. I'm a member at Freerepublic.com. They use Perl language and have not changed it since 1997 (other than minor upgrades). Once you post there, it is forever. No edit function. All you can do is post a follow up explaining what you meant. It's great when you say the exact opposite of what you meant by leaving out words like "don't" as in "I don't agree" instead of "I agree".

[Still Alive]

15 minutes ago, Deborah_ said:

Corinth was a very cosmopolitan city. It is highly likely that many of the women in the congregation were illiterate, and may not even have understood much Greek. That they should get bored or puzzled during the meeting and start chatting amongst themselves (or even calling out to their husbands on the other side of the room) was hardly surprising - but it was highly distracting for the rest of the congregation and might even bring the church into disrepute. If they needed any explanations, there were other, more socially acceptable, ways of going about it.
 

I think that just may hit this spot on. It's why I called Pauls words as speaking to the culture there. If they are in a culture where they don't educate the women, well, this really can be an issue. It doesn't mean they were stupid. It means they may have been ignorant, through no fault of their own. 

And Bill Burr has a hilarious routine about women being a bit talkative. It's extra funny to me because in my marriage I'M the talkative one, for the most part.

[Still Alive]

1 minute ago, maryjayne said:

at last, something we agree on : )

Better check back. I may change it.

[LadyKay]

1 hour ago, Yowm said:

Hardly a fair and unbiased poll. What is your position on this clarifying passage?

1 Timothy 2:11-14 KJV
[11] Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. [12] But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. [13] For Adam was first formed, then Eve. [14] And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Do you buck against that?

Right now at this moment I am wondering if this would apply to this site? Do the women here teach the men on here anything?  As far has preaching goes. Every preacher I have ever know has said they they were called to preach. My advice on someone thinking about preaching be them man or women would be to pray upon it and know for sure that it what they are being called to do. 

I would like to address this more in dept when I have more time. 

[LadyKay]

56 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

Because men are really good at deceiving women.

I know a few that have been really good at deceiving other men. But that is for another time. 

[Still Alive]

5 minutes ago, Yowm said:

Then there are some that allow for a 5 and some a 10min window for editing. I think 10 min is ideal.

I agree with that. I'd be happy with five minute, frankly. If I don't notice it almost immediately, I won't notice until someone else calls it out.