Is 1 Timothy 2:11-12 Moral?

[redleghunter]

Objectivity, is an unbias observation. Example: One takes their temperature. The thermometer states 98.6 degrees/37 degrees celsius. The conclusion lacks opinion, is unchanging, is even handed, and does not discriminate based upon unnecessary attributes.

According to the above verses, a women cannot be a pastor in a church. What if she is more qualified than all other applicants in her congregation? She is then denied for having a vagina, and because her great great great grandma committed a 'sin'?

Asserting the above is wrong, without a proper rebuttal is madness.

When I read these verses, it appears to state that NO women can obtain the same rank, because they, for all intensive purposes, have a uterus. This is the epitome of subjective, as it does not represent being even-handed, fair, unbias, etc... It discriminates, based upon attributes a women has not control over. Yes, words are conceptual. Humans apply the meaning. But, this was the mechanism in which 'God' chose to use to spread 'truth' ;-)

And until one can demonstrate this was written by anyone other than humans, the DEFAULT position is that these verses were written by male chauvinists. Why, because they are demonstrating inequality based upon attributes in which no woman can control. Meaning, there appears to be an imbalance because they own female sex organs and apparently, Eve took a bite from the wrong apple. Punishing others, for another's crime appears unjust.

This is a fairly well written assertion. I'll await your argument on why you think what you wrote is objective truth.

 

[frater_domus]

Do you have evidence for this?

None other than a pastor that told me. Hence why I added the ever-ambiguous 'I heard'. I can neither confirm nor deny.

Paul encouraged his letters reach other churches and they were copied thousands of times meaning the importance of them to the early church and beyond. The NT is apostolic teachings and Christianity is based on them.

Indeed, but did Paul or other writer of the NT consider societal standards 2000 years into the future and how those might have changed?

 

[HypnoToad]

One might view it as immoral if one assumes that men & women are equal. But if morality is subjective, then "men & women are equal", by definition, can't be an objective standard. If it's not an objective standard, then we aren't morally required to uphold it, it's purely optional, giving you no grounds to condemn those who don't accept it.

 

[redleghunter]

Truly, I have to quote Jesus on this one:

"You are mistaken because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. (Matthew 22:29)

You just confirmed that human's basic ideas are 'wrong and of the flesh'. So if you have a brain, and I have a brain, and our brains are flawed, by what EXTRA mechanism did YOU use to determine the Bible was right?

A very good question. It's called the Bondage of the Will. Our 'free will' is either in bondage to sin and death or in bondage to the righteousness of Christ Jesus. That is the influencer and how one approaches both their walk with Christ and His Holy Scriptures. To quote Jesus Christ again:

John 16: NASB
5"But now I am going to Him who sent Me; and none of you asks Me, 'Where are You going?' 6"But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. 7"But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. 8"And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment; 9concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; 10and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father and you no longer see Me; 11and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged.

12"I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear [them] now. 13"But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. 14"He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose [it] to you. 15"All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose [it] to you.

Furthermore, if whatever god says is right, and you claim you receive messages from God, or talk to God, when God tells you to do stuff, how were YOU able to determine the message was actually from God, and not from the devil, since our minds are filled with sin and flawed?????

God did inspire TaNaKh and B'rit HaChadashah and we have copies of both (actually now just one big book) and from that we can test claims to truth. He also did not leave His sheep orphans. As quoted above those who are in Christ have the promise of the Holy Spirit.

You must assess your own moral code to determine.

This is very subjective. What if one is a serial killer? Is such a person in possession of a valid moral code?

I would imagine if a voice told you to kill, you would not do it right? Since your brain is flawed, just like mine, how were you able to assess right from wrong?.?..

Jesus said not to do that, so did the Law given by YHWH in Exodus 20:13. My parents reinforced these morals and the Spirit of Christ gives us discernment.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Indeed, but did Paul or other writer of the NT consider societal standards 2000 years into the future and how those might have changed?

No. That would likely have been sinful if they did, and then if not repented may have led to more sin.

 

[redleghunter]

This is no less assertive and less unfalsifiable than replacing Yahweh with Muhammad/Allah.

Not really as what Jeff left out is 'the how' one gains the understanding between the bondage of sin and death (Romans 6:1-23) and being born again (John 3). The new creation in Christ Jesus is supernatural in nature changing the hearts and minds (Ezekiel 36:25-27) and effecting regeneration (Titus 3:1-11).

 

[Micah888]

Given the definitions provided above, is it more likely a male chauvinist wrote such a passage, (or), a divine and 'objective' omnibenevolent being wrote such a passage?

Since a skeptic is writing this, the only suitable response is "No Comment".

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Since a skeptic is writing this, the only suitable response is "No Comment".

Noted.
It wouldn't even be a permitted topic of discussion in assemblies of Ekklesia serving Jesus.

 

[Rivga]

One might view it as immoral if one assumes that men & women are equal. But if morality is subjective, then "men & women are equal", by definition, can't be an objective standard. If it's not an objective standard, then we aren't morally required to uphold it, it's purely optional, giving you no grounds to condemn those who don't accept it.

And You have objective morality, how?

 

[redleghunter]

You, in no way, shape, or form, have addressed the verse 1 Timothy 2:8-15. Please enlighten me, oh enlightened one, as to what logic I'm missing, when I state it seems pretty clear God is discriminating against ALL women because they have a vagina, and their ancient ancestor took a bite from the wrong apple? This is not opinion. These are basically the two reasons even 'God' stated women are to have less rights ;-)

Your logic is fine within the context of a third wave feminist SJW sitting circle.

If you study Biblical exegesis the first step is to understand the text as it relates to God, to whom it is addressed and by extension how is it addressed to us.

You have a jaded view of Holy Scriptures and Christians. It is painted with the terms, subjective belief system and subjective ethical code of a post-modern society. Of course you will have issues addressing words inspired of an unchanging---immutable God.

A clear indicator is your use of 'rights.' How do you determine even that we have rights in the first place?

 

[Rubiks]

The pastorals were likely written by a disciple of Paul specifically to combat gnostic theology. (Gnostics taught women must become men in order to get to heaven). In Paul's own letters we see a very egalitarian view of women. He names female apostles and those who held a high position in the church.

 

[redleghunter]

None other than a pastor that told me. Hence why I added the ever-ambiguous 'I heard'. I can neither confirm nor deny.

Ok. I asked because I have not found any convincing arguments.

Indeed, but did Paul or other writer of the NT consider societal standards 2000 years into the future and how those might have changed?

Why should they? Of course there are many churches which do move with the changes in the world whether good or bad. The question should be, was Paul out of step of what God established in the beginning? The answer is no.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The pastorals were likely written by a disciple of Paul

Pastoral epistles - Wikipedia
Pastoral epistles - Wikipedia
The pastoral epistles are three books of the canonical New Testament: the First Epistle to Timothy (1 Timothy) the Second Epistle to Timothy (2 Timothy), and the Epistle to Titus. They are presented as letters from Paul the Apostle to Timothy and to Titus. ..

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The messenger of Yahweh, the Apostle Paul, wrote as Breathed, Inspired by God,
what Yahweh wanted and accomplished and guarded even all this time since.

 

[redleghunter]

One might view it as immoral if one assumes that men & women are equal.

How are you using 'equal' in the statement? Our understanding of secular law or current societal norms (if there are any left that is)? I ask because spiritually in the eyes of Christ "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise." (Galatians 3:28-29)

That shows as children of God there is no pecking order. It says one in Christ which would be His church. Within that organism there are different functions and duties. Thus there is equality as children of God, yet not everyone is an eye, or a foot or hand. Not all are elders, teachers etc. The various functions in the church are supposed to be complementarian.

But if morality is subjective, then "men & women are equal", by definition, can't be an objective standard.

I agree which would make any perceived equality a fantasy.

If it's not an objective standard, then we aren't morally required to uphold it, it's purely optional, giving you no grounds to condemn those who don't accept it.

Indeed this is the logical conclusion. Making those who make subjective arguments against objective truths, beggars to their own demise.

 

[Rivga]

Indeed this is the logical conclusion. Making those who make subjective arguments against objective truths, beggars to their own demise.

Can you please explain to me how you get to your "objective" morality?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

This definition just found makes 'objective' something not to be desired perhaps ?
(subjective also not good, btw)

"Objective morality is the perspective that there are things about the universe that make certain morals claims true or false. An objectivist would state that the way the world is makes murder an objectively wrong thing to do. Objective morality also entails that these truths are universal."

 

[redleghunter]

The pastorals were likely written by a disciple of Paul specifically to combat gnostic theology. (Gnostics taught women must become men in order to get to heaven). In Paul's own letters we see a very egalitarian view of women. He names female apostles and those who held a high position in the church.

Can you provide evidence for the pastoral epistles being written by a disciple of Paul? Thanks.

 

[redleghunter]

Can you please explain to me how you get to your "objective" morality?

From the Lawgiver.

 

[Rivga]

From the Lawgiver.

So is the Lawgiver informing you what the correct morality is, that is external to the lawgiver themselves?

If so what is the source of this morality he is informing you of?

Assuming God is the Lawgiver you are talking about, what external Morality does God reference?