Fade to Gray
I think.
But you're assuming that you have a monopoly on "facts." For a discussion such as this to go anywhere, it is imperative that both sides examine evidence with an open mind, realizing that he or she may actually be mistaken in light of evidence.That is not an actual counterpoint, you know. It is a response declaring the ability to ignore the facts.
You, Nadiine, and others have consistently used verses from scripture to back up your case--and this is fine. I'm not knocking you for that. However, you must also realize that there may be another interpretation to these verses, another understanding. You do not have to agree with that other interpretation, but you should at least acknowledge that it's there, that there may in fact be equally valid reasons for believing this second interpretation.
Also, I've noted several contradicting arguments when it comes to whether or not a woman is capable of leadership within the family or church. Using Nadiine as an example (I'm not trying to single you out--I just found your posts more readily), she has said:
And...While we are Equal AS HUMAN BEINGS, we are NOT equal
in our differences & capabilities.
Also...No wonder God set up men to rule. (in response to an argument stated by a female poster that Nadiine didn't agree with)
These very much imply (in my opinion) that women are not as capable as men, haven't been gifted with the same talents. Okay. Fine. I don't agree, but you're welcome to your opinion. However, in other posts you say:Becuz being in Christ doesn't mean that all Christians are equally gifted or called in service like the other is.
And...It has nothing to do with not being "FIT". It has to do once again with order of authority.
These both seem to imply to me that though you see women as fully capable of leadership, teaching, etc., those capabilities are overwritten by what you see as God's design.I don't care what people want to claim, the issue isn't about qualification, it's about what God ordains.
I think both arguments are fundamentally flawed (and, of course, you're welcome to disagree with that), but they're made even weaker when used in tangent. You can't say that women and men are unequal in their gifts and capabilities then in turn say that your argument is not about whether or not a woman is capable.
Personally, I would agree with you if women were in fact fundamentally different from men (besides biologically). However, modern psychology seems to have disproven that, I think, so needless to say, I don't agree. BUT I am open to evidence proving differently, though, if you have any, as I believe that would be your strongest argument if it's true.
However, let me post a study that backs up how I feel about gender differences. It was done back in 2005, I believe.
They ended up finding that while there are obviously some differences, for the most part "they were...so small as to be statistically irrelevant."The studies looked at cognitive abilities, such as the ability to do mathematics, verbal and nonverbal communication, aggression, leadership, self-esteem, moral reasoning and motor behaviour, such as throwing distance.
Also:
The American study found significant differences in only 22% of traits. These included sexual behaviour, where men were less willing to show commitment, and in aggression men were more prone to anger. Men were also, the psychologists found, better at skills involving co-ordination such as throwing.
And:
Hyde analysed the studies by recalculating the data from them so they were comparable. In 30% of the traits analysed, she found almost no difference that was statistically significant between men and women, while there were only small differences in another 48%. This means 78% of potential gender differences are small or close to zero, she said.
And:
Hyde also found evidence that differences between men and women is linked to society's expectation of how they should behave.
For example, one study analysed the behaviour of men and women playing a video game, where dropping bombs was a measure of aggressive behaviour.
Half the players were identified, the other half were anonymous.
In the group that was identified, men dropped significantly more bombs than women, but this difference did not exist in the anonymous group.
"In short, the significant gender difference in aggression disappeared when gender norms were removed," says Hyde.
In another test, women smiled more than men when observed but this was not the case when they thought they were not being observed.
Hyde says these findings provide strong evidence against the idea that psychological differences between men and women are "large and stable".
Upvote
0