Deceived

[yam]

reps for the My Big Fat Greek Wedding reference

Thanx, I love that film

 

[Sunset2009]

It's not that women are illogical (obviously that statement in and of itself is illogical), but it's that men and women do have different ways of thinking. Period. And that's just the way it is. That doesn't mean that males are incapable of emotional feelings and women are incapable of logical thoughts, obviously. (Seriously, how old are we here?) It just goes to show how complimentary man and woman are together.

 

[Tamara224]

It's not that women are illogical (obviously that statement in and of itself is illogical), but it's that men and women do have different ways of thinking. Period. And that's just the way it is. That doesn't mean that males are incapable of emotional feelings and women are incapable of logical thoughts, obviously. (Seriously, how old are we here?) It just goes to show how complimentary man and woman are together.

Meh. "Ways of thinking" are trained in large part. (Before law school, I thought like a non-lawyer. After training I now think like a lawyer. Ask any lawyer and they'll tell you that their "way of thinking" was radically altered by law school.) They're also more individualized than they are gender-specific. A mathematician thinks differently than a musician, a poet thinks differently than an engineer, etc, etc, etc.

The truth is everyone has their own unique "way of thinking". You do both genders a disservice when you try to pigeon-hole them based on their gender.

Furthermore, the idea that men and women have different ways of thinking isn't supportive of the argument that men should be the leaders. Even if it's true that we think differently than one another, that should rather support the argument that both male and female are needed in the decision-making process. Why should one way of thinking be exalted over the other? Rather, both should be utilized to equal degree. (Unless, of course, one way of thinking is inherently better than the other - which seems to be the underlying assumption here). Otherwise you're foolishly under-utilizing half of your resources.



BTW, there's nothing inherently illogical in the statement "all women are illogical". It's not true. But it's not illogical. A thing can be logical but false and illogical but true. This is the kind of thing people learn if they care to study logic.

 

[Sketcher]

Meh. "Ways of thinking" are trained in large part. (Before law school, I thought like a non-lawyer. After training I now think like a lawyer. Ask any lawyer and they'll tell you that their "way of thinking" was radically altered by law school.) They're also more individualized than they are gender-specific. A mathematician thinks differently than a musician, a poet thinks differently than an engineer, etc, etc, etc.

There's also the "nature" component. Male and female brains function differently.

Furthermore, the idea that men and women have different ways of thinking isn't supportive of the argument that men should be the leaders. Even if it's true that we think differently than one another, that should rather support the argument that both male and female are needed in the decision-making process.

They both are needed, and being a leader doesn't mean you don't value input from those you are leading. In fact, a good leader will value their input.

 

[Gwenyfur]

This is really sad.... So to heck with the word of God?
1Co 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is man; and the head of Christ is God.

I'm a pagan..a witch...while I acknowledge your God exists as one among many...I don't follow his teachings...especially when only women contain the power of creation.

< staff edit > < staff edit > < staffed it >.

I may faint...an honest man!

 

[Apollo Celestio]

Women are not morally inferior to men. If you believe that, just out and say it. We have to agree to disagree. If women are not morally inferior, then all this "headship" is..redundant.

 

[Paulie079]

I'm a pagan..a witch...while I acknowledge your God exists as one among many...I don't follow his teachings...especially when only women contain the power of creation.

That's assuming that his teachings somehow downplay women.

I'm astonished that some people won't recognize that there are differences in men and women that go beyond the physical.

 

[Sketcher]

If women are not morally inferior, then all this "headship" is..redundant.

That's not Biblically true.

 

[Tamara224]

That's assuming that his teachings somehow downplay women.

I'm astonished that some people won't recognize that there are differences in men and women that go beyond the physical.

Recognizing that there are non-physical differences between men and women is not the point.

It would be fine if that's where it ended.

But people go beyond that to say that those differences mean that women need to be governed or supervised or led by men. They suggest that those differences make men more suited to "decision making" or such, and so that's why the husband gets to be the boss.

Ishida is right. The only possible reason women would need men to be our "superior officers" is if we're morally or intellectually inferior.

 

[LoveJC9]

Recognizing that there are non-physical differences between men and women is not the point.

It would be fine if that's where it ended.

But people go beyond that to say that those differences mean that women need to be governed or supervised or led by men. They suggest that those differences make men more suited to "decision making" or such, and so that's why the husband gets to be the boss.

Ishida is right. The only possible reason women would need men to be our "superior officers" is if we're morally or intellectually inferior.

The bible says women are supposed to be led by men. Does that matter at all?

 

[Apollo Celestio]

No, I never said that. Morality is not contingent upon gender--never has been and never will be.

I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, I was just setting an information trap. As far as the OP's action's that's between her and God. (Which since she's repented means she's been forgiven)

Again, Genesis 3:16 is not a command. I think even if this "submission" thing is true.. people have no idea what it means.

 

[Tamara224]

The bible says women are supposed to be led by men. Does that matter at all?

It would matter if it actually said that. But it doesn't. That's just some man's sexist misinterpretation of Scripture.

What the Bible actually says is that in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female. It says that both men and women are created in the image of God.

 

[Gwenyfur]

That's assuming that his teachings somehow downplay women.

I'm astonished that some people won't recognize that there are differences in men and women that go beyond the physical.

Therein lies the rub...the teachings about women in the gospels are completely over-ridden by the teachings of Paul.

If men were to live by the teachings of Christ as depicted in the recognized gospels of Christ then perhaps I wouldn't have such an issue with this "headship" notion of Paul's...but they're in direct opposition.

Ironically, while Peter and James were the first to tomb and to be told of the risen Christ...it was Mary who was the first to actually see the risen Christ. That in itself should be something to indicate the equal status of women in the newly emerging church...

But a few books and years later, Paul's telling the women to sit down, shut up, adn do what you're told.

And no...I never said that women and men were the same...physically, emotionally, psychologically males and females do have differences...
However, I refuse to submit to any male...ever...period.

 

[Sketcher]

Therein lies the rub...the teachings about women in the gospels are completely over-ridden by the teachings of Paul.

Wrong. They are all in agreement.

 

[Gwenyfur]

Wrong. They are all in agreement.

If you choose to believe so that's fine.
I know what I've read over endless wasted years as a Christian...

 

[white dove]

It would matter if it actually said that. But it doesn't. That's just some man's sexist misinterpretation of Scripture.

What the Bible actually says is that in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female. It says that both men and women are created in the image of God.

 

[ProAntiRevolution]

Women are not morally inferior to men. If you believe that, just out and say it. We have to agree to disagree. If women are not morally inferior, then all this "headship" is..redundant.

But didn't you realize that life is just like the military and someone must be in charge at all times?

 

[Gwenyfur]

But didn't you realize that life is just like the military and someone must be in charge at all times?

and that someone is me

USMC GySgt 1987-1996

 

[Paulie079]

Again, Genesis 3:16 is not a command. I think even if this "submission" thing is true.. people have no idea what it means.

Yeah this is very obviously true.

It would matter if it actually said that. But it doesn't. That's just some man's sexist misinterpretation of Scripture.

What the Bible actually says is that in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female. It says that both men and women are created in the image of God.

Are you serious? Genesis says that God created us male and female. How can you say that "in Christ Jesus" there is no male or female when He created us that way? If that were the case, He would've just made us all the same. Yes, we were created in God's image, but that doesn't mean that we're not different. In that case, we might as well throw race, culture, and ethnicity out the door too.

Therein lies the rub...the teachings about women in the gospels are completely over-ridden by the teachings of Paul.

If men were to live by the teachings of Christ as depicted in the recognized gospels of Christ then perhaps I wouldn't have such an issue with this "headship" notion of Paul's...but they're in direct opposition.

Ironically, while Peter and James were the first to tomb and to be told of the risen Christ...it was Mary who was the first to actually see the risen Christ. That in itself should be something to indicate the equal status of women in the newly emerging church...

But a few books and years later, Paul's telling the women to sit down, shut up, adn do what you're told.

And no...I never said that women and men were the same...physically, emotionally, psychologically males and females do have differences...
However, I refuse to submit to any male...ever...period.

I'm glad that you at least recognize that the Bible did significantly note the importance of women in Jesus' eyes. There are even other examples besides the fact that two women found the tomb.

But this is where the common misconception lies. Paul is not telling women to be mindless robots that blindly do whatever men tell them to do. The only passage that would ever even imply that is where he says that women aren't to speak up in a church gathering.
The two things that get sooo mixed up in all this are these:
1. Women are to submit to men. Not true at all! You have to recognize that Paul was writing his letters to Christians. Christian women are called by God to submit to Christian men. Or in other words, women that are seeking the Lord's will for them are called by God to submit to men who are seeking the Lord's will for them. And the only reason that women can faithfully submit to the leadership of a man at all is because he's seeking the Lord in everything he does.

2. People somehow think that women get the short end of the stick becasue they're called to submit. First of all, men are called by God to love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for it. If loving someone sacrificially to the point of being willing to die for them isn't submissive in nature, I don't know what is (I'm hoping that if I keep posting this, more people will catch onto this idea ). Also, the Bible tells us that we are to have the mind of Christ "who did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very form of a servant..." In that same passage, it also says that we're to consider others better than ourselves. So submission and service to anyone should be considered an opportunity to pursue Christ-likeness. I'm personally so excited for the opportunity to love and serve a woman in a dating relationship and, eventually, marriage. This whole idea that submission somehow equals drawing the short straw is all rooted in pride.

And I wouldn't expect you to buy into any of this because I don't expect non-Christians to behave like Christians. (This isn't meant in a 'holier-than-thou' way at all. I really don't expect people that aren't Christians to seek to live by what the Bible teaches.)

 

[Sketcher]

If you choose to believe so that's fine.
I know what I've read over endless wasted years as a Christian...

So you think.