Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    Btw just in case you didn't get the prophecy part. Women can still prophesise but when someone else is prophesying they have to be silent. I think it's meant to be they can't do it in church in front of everyone.

    In 1 Corinithians 11:5, it is shown that women prophesy and pray and it is allowable. It also shown in Titus 2:4 that older women are supposed to teach younger women.

    The reason Paul wrote this was because of how chaotic the Corinithian church was - there was no pastors, only elders mentioned. And the services were just a combination of everyone prophesying at the same time or speaking tongues at the same time and there was so much confusion.

    Part of the confusion was the fact that some women were disruptively asking questions while sermons were being preached so as to purposely interrupt it.

    The main reason these are the rules are that women can not assume spiritual authority over men not because of some inferiority (there are probably many women that are spiritually stronger than me) but because of the roles God has set out.

    If you look at Adam and Eve, the 'rib' Eve was made of could also be translated as side and could mean that Eve made out of half of Adam.

    As Matthew Henry said:
    “Eve was not taken out of Adam's head to top him, neither out of his feet to be trampled on by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected by him, and near his heart to be loved by him.”
    This is just solid, solid ********. I don't even know where to begin with your reasoning. So I won't, apart from... Now let's think for a moment...does this sound like something that was born out of the culture of inequality at the time that was epidemic and pervaded most religious cultures, or it was the 'Will of God' that just happened to align with the current culture and interests of those in positions of power in the church ie men.

    I won't get into a debate about the literal interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve. It's beyond ridiculous in this day and age.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leavingthecity)
    This is just solid, solid bu11sh1t. I don't even know where to begin with your reasoning. So I won't, apart from... Now let's think for a moment...does this sound like something that was born out of the culture of inequality at the time that was epidemic and pervaded most religious cultures, or it was the 'Will of God' that just happened to align with the current culture and interests of those in positions of power in the church ie men.

    I won't get into a debate about the literal interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve. It's beyond ridiculous in this day and age.
    I don't know what's wrong with the story of Adam and Eve and it isn't necessary for the reasoning on why women were instructed not to speak during prophesy.

    I don't know how that was ******** apart from the fact you don't know to refute it.
    (sorta rhyme)

    Also, it seems pretty fine that the Will of God is that women shouldn't speak prophesy to men in the church because those are the roles God has created and the order he has made in,

    The only real reasoning you can give is that God made man first and that's why. Same reason why mean are naturally biologically stronger and yet some men abuse this (some uses drugs and other means) explaining the reason why a lot more women are raped by men than men raped by women.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    I don't know what's wrong with the story of Adam and Eve and it isn't necessary for the reasoning on why women were instructed not to speak during prophesy.

    I don't know how that was ******** apart from the fact you don't know to refute it.
    (sorta rhyme)

    Also, it seems pretty fine that the Will of God is that women shouldn't speak prophesy to men in the church because those are the roles God has created and the order he has made in,

    The only real reasoning you can give is that God made man first and that's why. Same reason why mean are naturally biologically stronger and yet some men abuse this (some uses drugs and other means) explaining the reason why a lot more women are raped by men than men raped by women.
    Ok if you don't even have suspicions about the story of Adam and Eve then I can't get involved in a discussion on the subject, sorry.

    And if you're not even curious as to why women are subjugated throughout the bible because God said it so that's that, then I have no patience for anything further you may have to say on the subject. To me it is ridiculous.

    The fact that men being physically stronger than women being a reflection of divine order is laughable and yet sadly is probably the bedrock of all sexism past and present that has it's roots in religious ideology. Are you kidding me? The muscle of a man attaches differently to the bone. This is why he is stronger. Explain then why at age 65 he is only as strong as the average woman? Another reason why men are physically stronger is because their skulls are shaped differently as a result of them bashing each other over the head for millennia. Natural selection takes place and strong heavy forehead emerges. Sorry mate, you need to reference more than a single book to understand the world around you.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leavingthecity)
    Ok if you don't even have suspicions about the story of Adam and Eve then I can't get involved in a discussion on the subject, sorry.

    And if you're not even curious as to why women are subjugated throughout the bible because God said it so that's that, then I have no patience for anything further you may have to say on the subject. To me it is ridiculous.

    The fact that men being physically stronger than women being a reflection of divine order is laughable and yet sadly is probably the bedrock of all sexism past and present that has it's roots in religious ideology. Are you kidding me? The muscle of a man attaches differently to the bone. This is why he is stronger. Explain then why at age 65 he is only as strong as the average woman? Another reason why men are physically stronger is because their skulls are shaped differently as a result of them bashing each other over the head for millennia. Natural selection takes place and strong heavy forehead emerges. Sorry mate, you need to reference more than a single book to understand the world around you.
    Show me your suspicions?

    Lol, God didn't men to subjugate women.

    I said men are stronger and all you did was prove they are. Love how you gave no references but told me to references more than a single book. hmmmmm

    Men being stronger is just how man was made due to the fact that if they become husbands, they need to protect their wives. Idk how that makes bedrocks sexism but okay.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    Show me your suspicions?

    Lol, God didn't men to subjugate women.

    I said men are stronger and all you did was prove they are. Love how you gave no references but told me to references more than a single book. hmmmmm

    Men being stronger is just how man was made due to the fact that if they become husbands, they need to protect their wives. Idk how that makes bedrocks sexism but okay.
    Ok, you have not managed to wrap your head around any of that. Watch the thread for someone else more studied bringing up these contentious verses who can wrap their head around the points I and others have just made and it may help your understanding.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leavingthecity)
    Ok, you have not managed to wrap your head around any of that. Watch the thread for someone else more studied bringing up these contentious verses who can wrap their head around the points I and others have just made and it may help your understanding.
    I explained the women silent in church and you haven't done anything else really.

    I understood your theory and ignored as men are still naturally biologically stronger.

    You also haven't shown any of your suspicions about Adam and Eve and I don't see any problem with it.

    You see getting into a 'discussion' then refusing to discuss something in a somewhat condescending manner before you have even revealed an iota of what you were going to say doesn't really help the discussion.

    The women not being able to prophesy in the church to men - I don't see why you are so mad about it?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stychomythia)
    You may wish to read around this subject angryredhead. The word commonly used in these passages is Arsenikos. This is often interpreted by the translators of the Bible as 'gay men' but it really is not the case and in any case doesn't fit with the times. The early translators and the editors of the Authorised/King James version just assumed it meant the same thing as gay man. It doesn't. Interestingly, all the conservative commentators I have read on this end up saying 'That's clearly what they meant' (it isn't, there are other words which do mean gay man in the 1st Century - the bible doesn't use them) or 'This is the tradition of the church' which is true - but it's not a scripture-based argument.

    But in any case - are you a Calvinist?*
    The word is arsenokotai and it literally translates to "man lying with (man)" I know my stuff.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    Evolutions is not a fact, in fact it's been disproven all ready because it relies on spontaneous generation which was disproved a 100 years ago. The reason it is still held as scientific is because people don't want to believe in a God.
    Everything you said there is just wrong lmao

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    I explained the women silent in church and you haven't done anything else really.

    I understood your theory and ignored as men are still naturally biologically stronger.

    You also haven't shown any of your suspicions about Adam and Eve and I don't see any problem with it.

    You see getting into a 'discussion' then refusing to discuss something in a somewhat condescending manner before you have even revealed an iota of what you were going to say doesn't really help the discussion.

    The women not being able to prophesy in the church to men - I don't see why you are so mad about it?
    This is true, I have stopped short of getting into a discussion because I don't have the patience for such faulty critical thinking or going round in circles as you continually reference the Bible and claim it to be Gods word, the final word.

    That's the end of that. I will happily get into a discussion with someone who is curious about why God has ordained what he has ordained and is not genuinely stumped by modern day thinking.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leavingthecity)
    This is true, I have stopped short of getting into a discussion because I don't have the patience for such faulty critical thinking or going round in circles as you continually reference the Bible and claim it to be Gods word, the final word.

    That's the end of that. I will happily get into a discussion with someone who is curious about why God has ordained what he has ordained and is not genuinely stumped by modern day thinking.
    How am I stumped by modern day thinking? The continual attempt to make it seem like I'm stuck in sort of medieval mindset is pretty sad, don't you think?

    You asked me do I think that the women silent is what God ordained and it's true.

    I explained to you why God ordained it through Paul and you still felt mad?

    You asked me to explain the misconceptions but now you're trying to put forward that I have faulty critical thinking or that we're going around in circles when you haven't even explained how?

    It's becoming clearer and clear that you may have faulty critical thinking.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobML)
    Everything you said there is just wrong lmao

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    My bad then if so but either way macroevolution hasn't been proven so how is it a fact?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Rev Nick is an absolute star.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    Evolutions is not a fact, in fact it's been disproven all ready because it relies on spontaneous generation which was disproved a 100 years ago. The reason it is still held as scientific is because people don't want to believe in a God.

    That similarities only show the hand of the same God at work and doesn't necessarily mean we descend from a common ancestor.

    As a Young Earth Creationist, I accept microevolution, adaptation and the fact the Bible talks about monsters and references giant creatures/reptiles which I could count as dinosaurs.
    Evoloution doesnt say anything about the origin of life just how species change over time.So no ut hasnt been disproved.Its still unknown how life originated.To see evidence for evolution you only have to look at dogs.Artificial selection working over thousands of years has produced many different varieties.N atural selection over billons of years produces all the many different animal species we see today.The earth is most definitely not 6000 years old.To put that in perspective thats just as stupid as believing the distance to new york from san francisco is 200 yards.What about radiometric dating of rocks?What about the fact that we can measure the distance to stars that are billiions of light years away? What about all the fossils that are far older than 6000 years old?Tgere is plenty of evidence for an old earth but only a book written by who even knows provides evidence for a young earth.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    Show me your suspicions?

    Lol, God didn't men to subjugate women.

    I said men are stronger and all you did was prove they are. Love how you gave no references but told me to references more than a single book. hmmmmm

    Men being stronger is just how man was made due to the fact that if they become husbands, they need to protect their wives. Idk how that makes bedrocks sexism but okay.
    How about the idea that adam and eve had 3 sons? Incest much?You cant produce the genetic variation you see today from just two original people, massive inbreeding would have occurred.The story is obviously not meant to be taken literally.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    How about the idea that adam and eve had 3 sons? Incest much?You cant produce the genetic variation you see today from just two original people, massive inbreeding would have occurred.The story is obviously not meant to be taken literally.
    Oddly enough, we are all actually descended from one woman.

    Biologists used to believe humans started in a several different pockets around Africa. However, since the advent of DNA testing, we actually all share the same DNA of one woman about 200,000 years ago. She goes by the name of Mitochondrial Eve.

    I'm not one to take genesis literally but we are all descended from one woman.

    Pretty fascinating though, eh?

    Further reading: http://science.howstuffworks.com/lif...e-ancestor.htm
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by Aaron2515)
    What do you think of a bishop being in a homosexual relationship?
    Not only is it the homosexual part. But he's meant to be celibate!
    Not in the Church of England, he's not. The C of E doesn't do that, you're thinking of Roman Catholic clergy.

    What does it matter, anyway? As a member of the Church of England myself, I'm pleased that they're not disallowing people from doing the work to which they are called because of who they're in a relationship with.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Supersaps)
    Oddly enough, we are all actually descended from one woman.

    Biologists used to believe humans started in a several different pockets around Africa. However, since the advent of DNA testing, we actually all share the same DNA of one woman about 200,000 years ago. She goes by the name of Mitochondrial Eve.

    I'm not one to take genesis literally but we are all descended from one woman.

    Pretty fascinating though, eh?

    Further reading: http://science.howstuffworks.com/lif...e-ancestor.htm
    Not really, it is not amazing at all, the real life eve you speak of is only our MRCA - our most recent common ancestor. You, Supersaps, could be Mitochondrial Adam one day if the Great God of Statistics so allows. You will either be the ancestor of no human beings, or all human beings. As time goes on, the proportion of humans in existence that are your descendants will move either toward 0% or toward 100%.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Is it really such a surprise that it needs even one exclamation point, let alone two? The Church of England is a church for people who don't believe in god.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leavingthecity)
    .
    I like the fact we're all one family. Not just human but everyone is related.


    So, even me and you are cousins by some degree of removal.



    On balance, I can see why you wouldn't be too excited about that.


    SS
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Supersaps)
    I like the fact we're all one family. Not just human but everyone is related.


    So, even me and you are cousins by some degree of removal.



    On balance, I can see why you wouldn't be too excited about that.


    SS
    It's sad really, given all the ways we've come up with to separate ourselves from each other...exactly what happening with this gay bishop story...
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.