Is 1 Timothy 2:11-12 Moral?

[hedrick]

What makes you think that a man
and a woman are the same?

If 1 Tim said simply "men and women have different roles, and women's roles don't include leadership positions such as pastor" I might disagree but I wouldn't call it immoral.

However the passage gives a much more radically negative assessment of women, at least if it means what the traditional reading says it does. (I think there's another possibility, but I don't believe anyone here would accept it.)

The problem isn't just what it says about women's roles, but the justification. The argument is that because Eve was deceived, women aren't suitable for positions of authority. For the conclusion to follow, the clear implication is that women are simply not trustworthy. They can only be trusted with bearing children.

 

[RDKirk]

However the passage gives a much more radically negative assessment of women, at least if it means what the traditional reading says it does. (I think there's another possibility, but the overall tone of the passage doesn't really support it.)

The problem isn't just what it says about women's roles, but the justification. The argument is that because Eve was deceived, women aren't suitable for positions of authority. For the conclusion to follow, the clear implication is that women are simply not trustworthy. They can only be trusted with bearing children.

But that does not square with the vast bulk of what Paul has to say about women, nor does it square with what Luke reports about the roles of women in Paul's ministry. For instance:

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of his people and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been the benefactor of many people, including me. -- Romans 16

There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. -- Galatians 3

Yes, and I ask you, my true companion, help these women since they have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, -- Philippians 4

There are 28 women named in the New Testament, 23 of them named only by Luke and Paul. Without Paul's ministry, we would know only of Mary, Mary, Mary, Martha, and Salome. Given the patriarchy of the times, Paul and Luke need not have mentioned any of those women...but they did.

Some people contend that the female-negative verses could not have been said by Paul, based on all else he and Luke have to say about the incidence and importance of women in Paul's ministry. I don't know about that, but it's either that or we're misreading something about the female-negative verses.

 

[hedrick]

But that does not square with the vast bulk of what Paul has to say about women, nor does it square with what Luke reports about the roles of women in Paul's ministry. For instance:

i agree. I don’t see how it could have been written by Paul. One commentator suggests that Paul told a scribe what to say in general term but the wording wasn’t his. Even so, the content seems inconsistent. The o e possibility I see is if what it is really saying is that a wife shouldn’t have authority obey her husband. That allows a different exegesis for Gen3. But the tone seemzs to support the more negative view.

 

[cvanwey]

As the other person said, your biases are showing,
not the bible's. What makes you think that a man
and a woman are the same? You don't see that in
real life, do you? And it's not just physical.

Is it discrimination for a blind man to be told that
he cannot be a bus driver or a surgeon? Whatever
a woman's credentials, she is not to be put into a
position of spiritual authority over men. That does
not stop her from teaching children or women. In
fact, that is what the bible says. Titus 2:3-5

1 Timothy 2:8-15 New Living Translation (NLT)

8 In every place of worship, I want men to pray with holy hands lifted up to God, free from anger and controversy.
9 And I want women to be modest in their appearance.a]">[a] They should wear decent and appropriate clothing and not draw attention to themselves by the way they fix their hair or by wearing gold or pearls or expensive clothes. 10 For women who claim to be devoted to God should make themselves attractive by the good things they do.
11 Women should learn quietly and submissively. 12 I do not let women teach men or have authority over them.b]">[b] Let them listen quietly. 13 For God made Adam first, and afterward he made Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived by Satan. The woman was deceived, and sin was the result. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing,c]">[c] assuming they continue to live in faith, love, holiness, and modesty.

**************************************

Men and women are different in ways, yes. However, this appears to be a very overly simplistic conclusion. Each situation must be assessed accordingly. In the case above, aside from one's genitals, which happen to be the same genitals as Eve, the woman is disallowed such rights.

The Bible appears clearly 'bias'. Your reference towards 'my' bias, appears irrelevant. The humans whom wrote the Bible appear bias, by definition. I'm going to go out on a limb here... When I read these verses in context, it appears the author was mirroring his own personal bias, or the common bias practices and beliefs of the era, in the time period in which this scripture was written. Remember, by default, all words written to paper, were written by humans, with no aid from a claimed super natural source. There exists a rather large burden of proof, for the ones stating otherwise.

Bias - 'prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair'

A synonym to unfair is discrimination.

Discrimination - 'making or showing an unfair or prejudicial distinction between different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex

In context mind you, again, aside from the person possessing differing genital equipment, please explain why a woman is disallowed to preach the gospel to men in church, as a church leader? Both men and women are sinners alike.

Then please tell me honestly, if any other non-profit organizations (besides churches), are disallowing women to be the president/leader of their organization, based upon similar reasoning? And if so, please sight the actual reasons the women are disallowed to do so.

The Bible does not give any other reasons for the above verses. The 'reasons' appear to represent the 'bias' of the culture in which they were written. Furthermore, the Bible seems to suggest that all women, since Eve, now possess future inequality in church, because the woman was 'deceived' first. Punishing an entire gender, for someone else's sin, appears unjust, by definition. Again, this loops right back to the definitions above, citing 'unfair' and 'discrimination.'

 

[RDKirk]

i agree. I don’t see how it could have been written by Paul. One commentator suggests that Paul told a scribe what to say in general term but the wording wasn’t his. Even so, the content seems inconsistent. The o e possibility I see is if what it is really saying is that a wife shouldn’t have authority obey her husband. That allows a different exegesis for Gen3. But the tone seemzs to support the more negative view.

I think Paul is talking about the specific relationship of disciple to master and insisting that particular arrangement must be same-sex.

 

[Ringo84]

No, I don't think it's moral because those verses are based on bad logic: that men were "deceived" and men were not. I also don't think it's Biblical to treat one gender as being "over" the other - "....there is no male nor female...for all are one under Christ Jesus".

The rules stating that women "can't" be pastors (or aren't called to be) are antiquated and discriminatory. I do think that objective morality exists, but that doesn't mean that our understanding of morality can't change/evolve over time. How many of us continue to make child sacrifices?
Ringo

 

[hedrick]

No, I don't think it's moral because those verses are based on bad logic: that men were "deceived" and men were not. I also don't think it's Biblical to treat one gender as being "over" the other - "....there is no male nor female...for all are one under Christ Jesus".

I agree.

There is one other possibility. Suppose the passage actually says that wives shouldn't have authority over their husbands. It's a possible reading of the Greek. First, that's more consistent with what the undisputed letters of Paul say. Second, it allows a different reading of the Genesis citation: the problem would be that Adam didn't exercise his function as leader of the marriage. Eve was deceived, but Adam simply followed her suggestion without making his own judgement.

I think this reading is possible. However the language isn't quite what you'd expect if that was the intention, and 1 Tim 2:15 is a bit hard to understand in that context.

 

[Ringo84]

I agree.

There is one other possibility. Suppose the passage actually says that wives shouldn't have authority over their husbands. It's a possible reading of the Greek. First, that's more consistent with what the undisputed letters of Paul say. Second, it allows a different reading of the Genesis citation: the problem would be that Adam didn't exercise his function as leader of the marriage. Eve was deceived, but Adam simply followed her suggestion without making his own judgement.

I think this reading is possible. However the language isn't quite what you'd expect if that was the intention, and 1 Tim 2:15 is a bit hard to understand in that context.

Slightly better. It's not a blanket condemnation of women in ministry (I don't think it's up to us to determine whether or not God has called someone else to the ministry).

However, it's still not great in my mind because I don't see marriage as a hierarchy. I see it more as a partnership of equals, and that's the kind of marriage I hope to have when I find my wife. I honestly don't see what intrinsic qualities of men make us more qualified to be "leaders" in a marriage over women.
Ringo

 

[the iconoclast]

Latest results of a study this added to the fact it, follows a trend that has been happening in Austria for a while now. Study 2010
44% of Austrian citizens responded "they believe there is a God"
38% answered "they believe there is some sort of spirit or life force".
12% answered "they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, God, or life force".

Austria is a strange place in these terms, they will claim that they are Christian but don't believe in God, and are just spiritual.
Freedom of religion is a statutorily guaranteed right in Austria, the legal foundation.

General Social Survey by researchers at the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago 2008 then again in 2012.
Percent of residents who said they were certain of God's existence:
Austria 21.4%


2008 Smith report (part of same overall study as above)
Do you believe in a personal God - Austria 27.4%

Other reason Austria is widely considered as a non-religious country is the speed at which the Church and Religion is losing ground. Around 10% in 10 years.

But if you wish we can take it out, still will not effect the statistical trend I spoke about.

Hey you beautiful human being. God bless you.

Your definiion of an atheist country is over 50%. Atheists dont just reject the Christian God but all religion and spiritually?

We will use the most upto date figures you have supplied, 12% re 2010 poll.

You have not been able to show how atheism has influenced Austria.

It would seem to me that we cannot call Austria an atheist country - using your standards.

We will omit Austria as an atheist country.


Lets look at China.

How is China a great example of human rights?

Cheers

 

[cvanwey]

Hey you beautiful human being. God bless you.

Your definiion of an atheist country is over 50%. Atheists dont just reject the Christian God but all religion and spiritually?

We will use the most upto date figures you have supplied, 12% re 2010 poll.

You have not been able to show how atheism has influenced Austria.

It would seem to me that we cannot call Austria an atheist country - using your standards.

We will omit Austria as an atheist country.


Lets look at China.

How is China a great example of human rights?

Cheers

Maybe this requires a new post? I'm looking for the intellectual honesty of verse 1 Timothy 2:11-12. This is so far off topic, maybe someone needs to generate a new thread.

If someone would like to actually address this topic, via post #164, that would be awesome

 

[cvanwey]

I agree.

There is one other possibility. Suppose the passage actually says that wives shouldn't have authority over their husbands. It's a possible reading of the Greek. First, that's more consistent with what the undisputed letters of Paul say. Second, it allows a different reading of the Genesis citation: the problem would be that Adam didn't exercise his function as leader of the marriage. Eve was deceived, but Adam simply followed her suggestion without making his own judgement.

I think this reading is possible. However the language isn't quite what you'd expect if that was the intention, and 1 Tim 2:15 is a bit hard to understand in that context.

If God's chosen method for truth, is the 'word', and later translations makes it look pretty clear the passages appear discriminatory, based upon gender alone, is the word the best method for 'truth'?

Also, isn't it quite possible these verses were written by a human who was simply chauvinistic, and passed the verses off as coming from God?.?.?.? If not, why not?

 

[the iconoclast]

Maybe this requires a new post? I'm looking for the intellectual honesty of verse 1 Timothy 2:11-12. This is so far off topic, maybe someone needs to generate a new thread.

If someone would like to actually address this topic, via post #164, that would be awesome

Hey there friend.
I would be delighted to discuss scripture with u.

What issue do u have with said scripture?

Cheers

 

[cvanwey]

Hey there friend.
I would be delighted to discuss scripture with u.

What issue do u have with said scripture?

Cheers

Well, I presented many posts, but I'll make it short and simple...

When I read this verse, it appears to be written by the opinion of men in time period written, and not given, inspired, or instructed by a God.

It appears man written, with no aid from a divine source.

Your thoughts?

 

[the iconoclast]

Your thoughts?

Wow i just figured out how to change text colour. Everone behold my Technicolor-text.

How r u my new friend.

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.

Wow.

Sorry could not resist that emoji. I never bothered looking for this stuff until now.

When I read this verse, it appears to be written by the opinion of men in time period written, and not given, inspired, or instructed by a God

Why do you believe it to be the opinion of men and not Divinely inspired?

Cheers you absolute diamond.

 

[cvanwey]

Why do you believe it to be the opinion of men and not Divinely inspired?

I'll start simply... For the same reason many receive a 'gut feeling' that they are being filled with the holy spirit when reading scripture, I receive the opposite feeling when reading such verses.

 

[the iconoclast]

I'll start simply... For the same reason many receive a 'gut feeling' that they are being filled with the holy spirit when reading scripture, I receive the opposite feeling when reading such verses.

Hey hey you beautiful person.

So my friend your arguement is based on a gut feeling - emotion and guesswork?

What standard or authority re morality do you think trumps said verse?

What is the Holy Spirit and what is the opposite on the Holy Spirit?

Cheers my newest friend.

 

[cvanwey]

Hey hey you beautiful person.

So my friend your arguement is based on a gut feeling - emotion and guesswork?

What standard or authority re morality do you think trumps said verse?

What is the Holy Spirit and what is the opposite on the Holy Spirit?

Cheers my newest friend.

Subtly might be lost in text I was stating that many feel the power of the holy spirit, as they read scripture. I was simply stating that I receive a feeling of 'disgust', when I read such passages.

Morals are subjective, really no matter what. I get that.

Morals are basically argued in two ways, under theism.

1. Inherent moral values are given by god. Hence, we can objectively assess right/wrong instinctively.
2. Morally 'good' is whatever is commanded by God

They both fall flat though...

1. If we have inherent knowledge of right/wrong, why do I disagree with such verses?
2. If 'good' is simply what God dictates, you then need to first prove the provider's existence, and philosophers have still been debating such existence for thousands of years, with no proven success, as of yet. Furthermore, I am then no better than a dog following orders from their master, which also appears 'immoral'.

This is a very simplistic answer, but I'll stop here for now....

 

[the iconoclast]

Hey hey there u gem.

Subtly might be lost in text

I was stating that many feel the power of the holy spirit, as they read scripture. I was simply stating that I receive a feeling of 'disgust', when I read such passages.

Why do u feel disgust?

Morals are subjective, really no matter what. I get that.

Is absolute morality the same as objective morality?

Morals are basically argued in two ways, under theism.


1. Inherent moral values are given by god. Hence, we can objectively assess right/wrong instinctively.

2. Morally 'good' is whatever is commanded by God


They both fall flat though...

Why do u believe they fall flat my friend?

1. If we have inherent knowledge of right/wrong, why do I disagree with such verses?

What is your standard or authority re morality?

2. If 'good' is simply what God dictates, you then need to first prove the provider's existence,

and philosophers have still been debating such existence for thousands of years, with no proven success, as of yet.

What proof would satisfy your criteria?

Furthermore, I am then no better than a dog following orders from their master, which also appears 'immoral'.

If good is simply what God dictates than you are no better than a dog following orders from their masters?

My friend this is misrepresentation. Are you familiar with strawmen?

Cheers my newest friend, i look forward to the discussion.

 

[cvanwey]

Hey hey there u gem.



Why do u feel disgust?



Is absolute morality the same as objective morality?



Why do u believe they fall flat my friend?



What is your standard or authority re morality?



What proof would satisfy your criteria?



If good is simply what God dictates than you are no better than a dog following orders from their masters?

My friend this is misrepresentation. Are you familiar with strawmen?

Cheers my newest friend, i look forward to the discussion.

No thanks

 

[the iconoclast]

No thanks

Hey hey friend.

We can discuss this in the future when you have re grouped. I will be ready for you as soon as you are ready for me.

Cheers you absolute gem and God bless you.