Displeasing God

[Nihilist Virus]

We do not know unanimously, nor in every context.

Here is how I heard your question,
"If I disagree here [with a standard that really isn't a settled standard],
am I truly wrong (according to a standard that remains unsettled)...?"

Were you trying to ask a different question?

The only things that the bulk of Christianity agrees to is the Nicene Creed & Original Sin. Everything else is in flux.

In what way is it not settled? Because there was once a female Judge or something? Because if you read the rules laid out in the text, it is settled.

 

[com7fy8]

I'm asking if women leading men displeases God? And if so, is it merely because He says so, or other?

He says so, and He means how a woman might try to control and boss herself over and henpeck a man, talking down to him.

If he follows her good example, somehow, this is a good way to be led by a woman.

 

[Par5]

1. Equality displeases God. We are stones not bricks. The Tower of Babel was about the stones (everybody unequal) being transformed into bricks (everybody equal). Also, Jews were not allowed to build personal altars out of brick.

Logically, we can see that nobody is equal to anybody else but we must pretend. A society that must pretend is in trouble.

2. If the primary focus of women is not children then that society will cease to exist.

Logically, one can see that the West as we know it is dying because of reduced focus on children. Most women find most men undesirable. Hence, marriage and kids are going out the window. And immigration will transform the West into something else.

3. Measure the IQ of women. The mean equals men's, but the range or spread does not. Men's IQ is spread out more. More men at the top and bottom, and fewer in the middle. The best leaders will come from men. More criminals will come from men.

Note: This is one reason why the priorities of women will gradually rise to the top in democracies. Men are more divided.

4. Historically, societies led by women don't last very long.

5. Women as leaders in the church set a bad example that children are not the primary focus of women. This leads other women astray. This would displease God.

It's difficult to know what to say to someone who regards women the way that you do, but as you seem to see things biblically, I'm not that surprised.

 

[cvanwey]

You should do some research into the role of women in the early church.

Why should I? We already know that all fall short of God's standard, no matter who you are. I'm saying that women who teach, women who do not remain quiet, and women who lead men, appear to raise discord with God (at some categorical level). As I stated in the OP, I'm not sure if this discord is designated exclusively to church, and/or in school, and/or in employment, and/or the military, and/or the household, or maybe all of them?

You use a woman of God as an example of someone incurring God's displeasure. I'm saying that you are wrong.

If (1 Timothy 2:8-15) is correct, then I'm right, and it's you whom are wrong. Are you saying this is not what God meant? If so, what does He actually mean here? At some categorical level, women are to remain quiet, not have authority over mean, and not teach.

I don't subscribe to the view that success is necessarily proof that God is behind a ministry.

Then maybe you are a "cafeteria" Christian?

But in Joyce Meyer's case, I believe that God has indeed blessed her.

You can believe whatever you'd like. But if God is speaking about teaching His Word, at some level, it looks as though God is perpetually displeased with what she is doing.

 

[cvanwey]

He says so, and He means how a woman might try to control and boss herself over and henpeck a man, talking down to him.

If he follows her good example, somehow, this is a good way to be led by a woman.

I agree that He says so. But I disagree with the reason(s). If we examine the Text, we see He gives His reason(s):

11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

Thus, it looks like women are not to lead, teach, and are to remain quiet because the woman came second, and was the deceived sinner.

Does this sound reasonable?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In accordance with Holy Scripture, God seems to disapprove of women having authority over men. Not quite sure in what specific context God is speaking about here? (i.e.) Leading in church, and/or as head of household, and/or in employment situations, and/or other? But regardless, I must now ask...

1. If I disagree here, am I truly wrong? And if so, is it merely because God says so? Or, can we appeal to any reason(s)/logic/evidence?

2. Does this mean the very existence of someone's role in church, like Joyce Meyers for instance, displeases God?

Thank you in advance for your answer(s).

On this point I think you can disagree and not be truly wrong in doing so. I likewise disagree and don't think I'm truly wrong in doing so.

But, y'know, perhaps I think this because I listen to a woman on how to reason better when I attempt to interpret and clarify issues pertaining to the status of women in Christian society ... Ironic that, ay?

 

[Rachel20]

I agree that He says so. But I disagree with the reason(s). If we examine the Text, we see He gives His reason(s):

11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

Thus, it looks like women are not to lead, teach, and are to remain quiet because the woman came second, and was the deceived sinner.

Does this sound reasonable?

I think Paul is speaking for himself, and not as through a decree from God. Thus he says "I do not permit" in v12 and "I will therefore" in v8. Similar to the way Christ attributed the allowance for divorce to Moses, and not God, who hates divorce (Malachi 2:16), though he allowed it. It seems some things are done for the sake of order/harmony, like the sons paying taxes, though free (Matthew 17:25-27)

 

[cvanwey]

I think Paul is speaking for himself, and not as through a decree from God. Thus he says "I do not permit" in v12 and "I will therefore" in v8.

Does God agree with "Paul's decree" to remain quiet, not teach, and to not have authority over men?

 

[Rachel20]

Does God agree with "Paul's decree" to remain quiet, not teach, and to not have authority over men?

I know of no scripture that tells us. But if a man truly has the authority, then he also has the authority to delegate it to whom he will, including to women.

 

[cvanwey]

I know of no scripture that tells us. But if a man truly has the authority, then he also has the authority to delegate it to whom he will, including to women.

God's decree seems pretty clear. God>Men>women. Mere men are not the true law makers. God is...

 

[Rachel20]

God's decree seems pretty clear. God>Men>women. Mere men are not the true law makers. God is...

It's not clear - you would have to provide passages.

 

[cvanwey]

It's not clear - you would have to provide passages.

Oh, I though you knew this already?

"But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God."

Hence, I now ask you anew... Does God agree with Paul's decree in 1 Timothy 2?

 

[Rachel20]

Oh, I though you knew this already?

"But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God."

Hence, I now ask you anew... Does God agree with Paul's decree in 1 Timothy 2?

Paul was addressing the head-covering of women, not denying the abolition of distinction of sexes in Christ (Galatians 3:28)

 

[cvanwey]

Paul was addressing the head-covering of women, not denying the abolition of distinction of sexes in Christ (Galatians 3:28)

You have completely avoided my direct question. "We are all slaves to God." We all ultimately fall under God's law. God's law dictates that man has dominion over woman. In the absolute best case scenario, if Paul was only speaking about his own spouse, which he wasn't, but let's "steel man" this argument, for your sake...

Does God agree with Paul's decree to tell his own wife and daughters to remain quiet, not teach, and to not have authority over him?

 

[Rachel20]

You have completely avoided my direct question. "We are all slaves to God." We all ultimately fall under God's law. God's law dictates that man has dominion over woman. In the absolute best case scenario, if Paul was only speaking about his own spouse, which he wasn't, but let's "steel man" this argument, for your sake...

Does God agree with Paul's decree to tell his own wife and daughters to remain quiet, not teach, and to not have authority over him?

If you admit we all fall under God's law, then you must accept there are situations where men do not have the authority to forbid women to be quiet and not teach -

And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: Acts 2:17-18

 

[cvanwey]

If you admit we all fall under God's law, then you must accept there are situations where men do not have the authority to forbid women to be quiet and not teach -

This is incorrect. As stated, twice now, God's law states that man has dominion over woman. Furthermore, Paul states that women in general, not just his spouse and children, are to follow such law. Thus, when Paul decrees the following:

"11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."

(3rd request) Does God agree? I'll answer for you, since you refuse.

The answer is likely yes. God agrees, as the rules go as follows: God > Christ > man > woman.

And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: Acts 2:17-18

Thanks for the unfalsifiable sermon.

 

[Rachel20]

Thanks for the unfalsifiable sermon.

Beg your pardon? Aren't you arguing your case from scripture as well? You've ignored several of my points and while I personally believe God did put man in authority, I don't think it's quite the blank check as your leading questions seem to suggest. The man who truly loves his wife as himself (yes, there's another part of the contract, you see), will not oppress her.

 

[Rachel20]

This is incorrect. As stated, twice now, God's law states that man has dominion over woman.

You've already conceded that in God's law, God has dominion over man. This is why the Acts quote was appropriate (and why you ignored it)

Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. Acts 5:29

 

[cvanwey]

Beg your pardon? Aren't you arguing your case from scripture as well?

Sure, but you are trying to detour the conversation. I do not appreciate it...

You've ignored several of my points and while I personally believe God did put man in authority, I don't think it's quite the blank check as your leading questions seem to suggest

I will not ignore the relevant ones to the existing OP. You seemed to be unaware that men have dominion over women, until I pointed it out in provided text. And now, you seem to now agree.

I'm not saying men have a 'blank check'. Scripture seems to provide the boundaries. I'm asking if God agrees with Paul's decree? It's a yes or no question. (request #4).

The man who truly loves his wife as himself (yes, there's another part of the contract, you see), will not oppress her.

Does Paul love his wife? If so, he decrees for her to be quiet, and not to teach. Isn't this a form of oppression?

 

[cvanwey]

You've already conceded that in God's law, God has dominion over man. This is why the Acts quote was appropriate (and why you ignored it)

Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. Acts 5:29

This does not answer my question. You first stated Scripture does not say. But then you seemed to agree. Does God agree with Paul's decree? (request #5)