Women in the Bible.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
This is the germane point and is very much "on topic".

"Such a position clearly discriminates against women solely based gender rather than individual merit... For you to believe that you should be given the leadership role even with those who are superior to you in every way simply because you are male is irrational as well as discriminatory."

If I "heap ridicule", it's because your position is ridiculous.

Men aren't appointed to church leadership because women are women. If that were the case, then that would be discrimination based on gender.

No. Men are appointed to the position of leadership in the church because that was, is, and ever shall be the way God wills it to be.

Get it yet?

Originally posted by josephw
Men aren't appointed to church leadership because women are women. If that were the case, then that would be discrimination based on gender.

No. Men are appointed to the position of leadership in the church because that was, is, and ever shall be the way God wills it to be.

Get it yet?

Setting aside the fact that this isn't just about "church leadership", what you have provided is an explanation for why you believe your position is "justified", not an argument that it isn't discrimination based on gender. Because it is undeniably discrimination based on gender.

I hope you can make this distinction.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Setting aside the fact that this isn't just about "church leadership", what you have provided is an explanation for why you believe your position is "justified", not an argument that it isn't discrimination based on gender. Because it is undeniably discrimination based on gender.

I hope you can make this distinction.

It's not about discrimination.

I suppose you think it's discriminatory towards women that Jesus was a man or that we call God our father?

Do you actually think God is a sexist because He placed man as the head of the woman, and that that means women are inferior?

You got it all wrong.

Originally posted by josephw
It's not about discrimination.

I suppose you think it's discriminatory towards women that Jesus was a man or that we call God our father?

Do you actually think God is a sexist because He placed man as the head of the woman, and that that means women are inferior?

You got it all wrong.

Paul is NOT God.

Paul "placed man as the head of the woman".

This teaching, as well as the others I cited earlier, indicate a view that women are lower than men.

From Merriam-Webster:
dis·crim·i·na·tion
3 a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually

So, it is about discrimination.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Paul is NOT God.

Paul "placed man as the head of the woman".

This teaching, as well as the others I cited earlier, indicate a view that women are lower than men.

From Merriam-Webster:
dis·crim·i·na·tion
3 a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually

So, it is about discrimination.

Didn't God create the woman for the man?

That doesn't mean the woman is inferior.

Your view is being projected onto the scriptures. It's hard not to do, but you're going to have to learn.

Originally posted by josephw
Men aren't appointed to church leadership because women are women. If that were the case, then that would be discrimination based on gender.

No. Men are appointed to the position of leadership in the church because that was, is, and ever shall be the way God wills it to be.

Get it yet?

have you read your own post? did it make much sense?

god wills men and not women to be in charge. why isn't that bigotry? not because "being in charge" absolutely requires a pen|s(apparently i cannot mention an anatomical part here because the kiddies will scream and die) whereas a v@gina will make everything crash. but because simply that one category has a p3nis and one has a v@gina. it is like me hiring only doodz with hairy backs to work in my garden, because i bloody well can.

not to mention that it was paul that said women must be subservient. and "suffer not a woman to teach". not god. in fact wasn't jesus who said that the man and woman who get married become "one"? not "one man and a little woman."

get it yet?

Originally posted by josephw
Didn't God create the woman for the man?

That doesn't mean the woman is inferior.

Your view is being projected onto the scriptures. It's hard not to do, but you're going to have to learn.

if the woman was not inferior, why place man as her master?
what was the logic?

usually someone in a position of power must be there because he is more deserving. not because he has a lighter skin or he has a p3nis or bows to Jesus and not Allah

so tell me, what was god thinking when he said women should listen to their men? do you believe it still applies nowadays?

Originally posted by josephw
Didn't God create the woman for the man?

...

Your view is being projected onto the scriptures. It's hard not to do, but you're going to have to learn.

God did not create woman for the man in the first creation story.

I would submit that your view is being projected upon the Scriptures. Further, it would seem you have some reading and learning to do as well. 😉

Originally posted by josephw
Didn't God create the woman for the man?

That doesn't mean the woman is inferior.

Your view is being projected onto the scriptures. It's hard not to do, but you're going to have to learn.

Well, I guess bigots are bigots for a reason. They find all manner of ways to try to "justify" their prejudice.

I just came across this story in yahoo about a Louisiana justice of the peace who refused to marry an interracial couple.

His "defense" was classic:
"I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way," Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday.

As sorry as it is, it's no less irrational than your "defense":
"Men aren't appointed to church leadership because women are women. If that were the case, then that would be discrimination based on gender.

No. Men are appointed to the position of leadership in the church because that was, is, and ever shall be the way God wills it to be."

No matter how much you deny it, it is the very definition of discrimination as I showed earlier.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
if the woman was not inferior, why place man as her master?
what was the logic?

usually someone in a position of power must be there because he is more deserving. not because he has a lighter skin or he has a p3nis or bows to Jesus and not Allah

so tell me, what was god thinking when he said women should listen to their men? do you believe it still applies nowadays?

is the air hostess inferior to the captain of the aeroplane? would you rather the air hostess flew the plane and the captain served you drinks? of course there is no superior or inferior, it is just different roles, that is all.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
is the air hostess inferior to the captain of the aeroplane? would you rather the air hostess flew the plane and the captain served you drinks? of course there is no superior or inferior, it is just different roles, that is all.

This has got to be one of the most irrational arguments yet.

There's nothing that keeps the Captain from being female and the flight attendant male.

Yes, RC, they do allow women to fly airplanes.

You're such a Neanderthal.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
This has got to be one of the most irrational arguments yet.

There's nothing that keeps the Captain from being female and the flight attendant male.

Yes, RC, they do allow women to fly airplanes.

i never said there was, did I. i merely mentioned that they have different responsibility, but in your ardour to discriminate the person, you missed the point, haha, its lucky i am as good natured as i am 🙂

feel like a muppet?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i never said there was, did I. i merely mentioned that they have different responsibility, but in your ardour to discriminate the person, you missed the point, haha, its lucky i am as good natured as i am 🙂

feel like a muppet?

I never said you did.

It's you who "missed the point".

From Merriam-Webster:
dis·crim·i·na·tion
3 a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I never said you did.

It's you who "missed the point".

From Merriam-Webster:
dis·crim·i·na·tion
3 a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually

did i state that the captain could not be a women, nope, did i state that the hostess could not be a man, nope, therefore you are striving after the wind thinkofone, i merely used the illustration to show hat there are different responsibilities, thus the reference to serving drinks, a responsibility and to flying the plane another responsibility, but no, in your zeal to try to incriminate someone, you were momentarily blinded and now you try to substantiate your claim, its a feeble attempt at defamation of character, but go ahead, who cares? its laughable!