Position of women in religion

Originally posted by josephw
Yes, I see. You are much too important to associate with those of lesser estate. You must only speak to those that you judge to be worthy. 😲

Wow you really like to read between the lines of what people say and twist their words don't you?. Once one of your points has been knocked down you immediately jump in with another attack on the person in question.

Call him sexist.... Oh crap that didn't work, quick quick call him up on thinking he's superior to everyone else..... I wonder whats next?

Yes I do believe that there are people who aren't worth talking to. As does everybody. If you come back with "not me" your simply lying.

Besides your one to talk about superiority complexes, with your extremely sexist attitude. And "the bible told me to do it" doesn't fly as an excuse either......

Josephw:

These questions still stand:

Why would something that Paul wrote 2000 years ago to a specific audience necessarily apply generally now?

For that matter, why would anything Paul wrote necessarily reflect the word of God?

Romans 1:1 didn't really address either question as I noted in my reply.

Either you missed my reply or are ducking the questions.

Originally posted by josephw
"Are you a mister mom?" Maybe you bought into the whole androgyny thing and have been emasculated.

Like I said, someone will be in control at some point in any human institution just as it has always been and always will be. Men rule. Always have, always will. Quit thinking like a feminist.

I'm quite sure this will piss you all off, but that's too ba ...[text shortened]... etermination. Automatons. Products of the environment.

Insulting today aren't I! 😠

More evidence for the conclusion that you're an idiot.

You know, this thread was started by snowinscotland and I merely engaged in the discussion in an exchange of ideas and beliefs. But then You all started ridiculing what I was saying because you can't handle it when someone doesn't think or believe the way you do.

Okay. I admit I was a bit harsh. I said things I shouldn't have said. But I'm only human, and when you belittle and insult and ridicule my God and me, then I'm fighting back.

I apologize to you skipper. It wasn't you personally that I was directing my comments to but to an idea or philosophy espoused by society in general. After all, I was a stay at home dad at one time myself while my wife went to work. I was in school at the time. And I'm not so shallow that I don't realise that people have a choice, and what they do is their business.

In this forum we attempt to exchange ideas for whatever reason motivates the individual to do so. Sometimes we forget to show respect here. I know that if I were to meat anyone here face to face I would not be insulting, but polite and respectful. (unless I got punched in the nose.) 😉

Originally posted by josephw
You all started ridiculing what I was saying because you can't handle it when someone doesn't think or believe the way you do.

I don't think that was the reason they started ridiculing what you were saying.

Originally posted by josephw
You know, this thread was started by snowinscotland and I merely engaged in the discussion in an exchange of ideas and beliefs. But then You all started ridiculing what I was saying because you can't handle it when someone doesn't think or believe the way you do.

Okay. I admit I was a bit harsh. I said things I shouldn't have said. But I'm only human, an ...[text shortened]... uld not be insulting, but polite and respectful. (unless I got punched in the nose.) 😉

These questions still stand:

Why would something that Paul wrote 2000 years ago to a specific audience necessarily apply generally now?

For that matter, why would anything Paul wrote necessarily reflect the word of God?

Romans 1:1 didn't really address either question as I noted in my reply.

Any reason that you don't want to respond to the above questions?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
These questions still stand:

[b]Why would something that Paul wrote 2000 years ago to a specific audience necessarily apply generally now?

For that matter, why would anything Paul wrote necessarily reflect the word of God?

Romans 1:1 didn't really address either question as I noted in my reply.

Any reason that you don't want to respond to the above questions?[/b]

Rom. 1:1
Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

How is it that this isn't still applicable today? It's the gospel of God still. And the apostle Paul was called and separated unto the gospel. The same gospel, the same apostle, and the same truth.

Originally posted by josephw
Rom. 1:1
Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

How is it that this isn't still applicable today? It's the gospel of God still. And the apostle Paul was called and separated unto the gospel. The same gospel, the same apostle, and the same truth.

How are you interpreting "separated unto the gospel of God"?

Originally posted by josephw
Rom. 1:1
Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

How is it that this isn't still applicable today? It's the gospel of God still. And the apostle Paul was called and separated unto the gospel. The same gospel, the same apostle, and the same truth.

Paul wrote this letter to a very specific audience at a very specific time. How do you know that the intent was for it to apply globally and eternally?

Paul wrote Romans. So, isn't this just self-declaration?

Originally posted by josephw
Of course. But in the final analysis the husband has the final word. Orderly maintenance. Even in human institutions someone has conferred on Him/her the authority to make the call. The rule of law and all that. It's a no-brainer!

you also posted earlier;
'Biblical mandates, laws, and commandments are primarily designed by God for the orderly maintenance of human life. The idea that the Bible subordinates women is a concept originating in ignorance of the correct interpretation and application of Biblical truth.'

Do you see that someone might find the dichotomy a little puzzling?

However I am wondering where exactly the idea comes from, that the male has a role to play that is different from the female role, and the best results come when they both play these roles to best of their abilities.

If we look at all cultures around the world, there is this split (broadly, lets not quibble too much) that divides the roles; these are evolved cultures that, by definition, have survived (and thrived) until now at least. This situation is reflected in the bible. There have been throughout human history very few cultures where women take the lead role for the most part.