Jump to content

Same Sex Marraige Breakdown Chart


Recommended Posts

That verse has contextual meaning which clarifies it. Corinthians is a book written for instruction to pastors for their churches, and addresses specific problems some churches were having. They asked specific questions, and got specific answers. For instance one of teh questions they answered was regarding a man who was having an affair with his step mother. the answer is not to be applied to all relationships between men and women, to do so would be silly.Being so fresh from the Jewish faith, the Early Christians adopted many of the same traditions, one of which was separate sitting areas for men and women. Women would ask their husband questions about the service, and were disruptive, so they were commanded to shut their filthy mouths. In context, this verse completely has a different meaning than you are ascribing to it.
You "read" this:
34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 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.
And concluded this:
34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as it is pragmatic for the church mission in our cultural context. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is inconsistent with our members' expectations for a woman to speak in the church.
But I understand why you guys like to pull it out of context. It fits your pre-conceived notions of what you already know to be true.
This verse IS the context for women's role in the Christian church. Its influence stretches all the way to now.
That's why verses like this:
Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
are consistent with the message of the New Testament. One that was radically pro-women when the culture literally had women one step above property.
Is Corinthians not consistent with the message of the New Testament? Because that seems like a problem.There are some different nuances on equality that are intentionally mixed in this sort of conversation.
  1. All of us are working together for a common goal. Women are a part of the team.
  2. Men and women have equal "value" but different roles. A man's role is to make decisions and a woman's role is to bring him sandwiches.
  3. The opinion of a woman and the opinion of a man are of equal worth.

Suppose I run a football team. I put a white boy at quarterback, because Amscray told me white kids are smarter. There's a mix of black and white boys at the other positions. The Mexicans can be the waterboys. The girls will be cheerleaders. We are all on a team working together toward a common goal. They all get varsity letters. Therefore, they are all equal. "All one in Christ Jesus" is a statement about team membership.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to put the bible into context given that it was written at time that men treated women more like today's Taliban does than anything we actually would consider moral. Almost every woman in the old testament is refered to as a prostitute if she isn't married, presumable because she couldn't actually be doing anything useful to the story if she wasn't, like being in public or speaking, so the default explanation for everything was that she was a whore. Even the married women always had to cowtail to the husbands. When reading the old testament I found myself really rooting for female charachters and made notes of my 8 favorite prostitutes and such, and the few that were actually worthy of being great charachters in the story as well, like Ruth, int he Book of Ruth. And I do get where the the bible says that men shouldn't sleep with men, but in the same chapter it also says that if your son talks back you should kill him. Actually, you should take him to the town elders and denounce him and let them stone him to death. But in any case, people that follow the bible simply take what they want and twist it to what they like. Someone like the Jehovah's Witness at least try to follow what it says. I am looking forward to a book I will be reading soon called, "A year of living biblically" where a guy tried to live like the bible says for an entire year which should be a hoot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This verse IS the context for women's role in the Christian church. Its influence stretches all the way to now.
Not true. It was the women's role in that particular church. That particular church was having issues with the women being disruptive, and the men weren't standing up to them.Why do you think that every single Christian church today allows women to, for instance, sing... including Amish congregations?
Link to post
Share on other sites
That verse has contextual meaning which clarifies it. <snip>
Yay! for apologetics and rationalization! Yay! Yes!
Not true. It was the women's role in that particular church. That particular church was having issues with the women being disruptive, and the men weren't standing up to them.Why do you think that every single Christian church today allows women to, for instance, sing... including Amish congregations?
Ahh!Sweet, it was only that particular "church". (Even though "church" doesn't exist in the bible. There was no such thing.)Awesome, Christian churches allow women to sing! Ha! That clearly proves they are seen as equals. I mean, forget the fact that nobody I know, at no church I've even heard about, has a women preacher. I mean, they exist, but as a retardedly small minority. But, yes, they are of equal authority and value in the view of religious idiots. It's just coincidence that male preachers and authorities make up like 97% of religious leaders.Seriously, you aren't an abject idiot. Step back for a moment and, if not honestly and vigorously examine your stupid ass irrational beliefs... at least look at what you say before you say it. Attempt to use critical thought, logic, and reason to ensure that the things you say aren't fallacious, short-sighted or downright stupid.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Not true. It was the women's role in that particular church. That particular church was having issues with the women being disruptive, and the men weren't standing up to them.
You believe that women shouldn't be preachers. I'm not going to argue with you whether or not this belief has any biblical basis, because it really doesn't matter for purposes of this discussion. Even if it's just some shit your particular church made up or your individual prejudice, it's still a reality. Do I misunderstand your position?
Why do you think that every single Christian church today allows women to, for instance, sing... including Amish congregations?
This has ****-all to do with the topic and you know it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I also can't believe no one commented on the bottom right hand corner.Why has God destroyed Canada yet?
God punishment was to give them severe US envy.Serves em right..silly canukes.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Women would ask their husband questions about the service, and were disruptive, so they were commanded to shut their filthy mouths.
This is like fish committing suicide in a barrel.
Link to post
Share on other sites
That verse has contextual meaning which clarifies it. Corinthians is a book written for instruction to pastors for their churches, and addresses specific problems some churches were having. They asked specific questions, and got specific answers. For instance one of teh questions they answered was regarding a man who was having an affair with his step mother. the answer is not to be applied to all relationships between men and women, to do so would be silly.Being so fresh from the Jewish faith, the Early Christians adopted many of the same traditions, one of which was separate sitting areas for men and women. Women would ask their husband questions about the service, and were disruptive, so they were commanded to shut their filthy mouths. In context, this verse completely has a different meaning than you are ascribing to it.But I understand why you guys like to pull it out of context. It fits your pre-conceived notions of what you already know to be true.That's why verses like this:are consistent with the message of the New Testament. One that was radically pro-women when the culture literally had women one step above property.But again, just focus on the worst possible explanation, it will be repeated over and over again by many web sites filled with all the 'proof' that the Bible is racist, sexist and supports slavery. It will be wrong, but it will give you support for your pre-conceived notions of reality.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for confirming the validation of the verification.It's like you guys want me to win.
Nobody understands what you're trying to say. Pretending that the video validated your opinions is bizarre unless you can explain why, because from all appearances it does the opposite.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...