Why do men have more dominance than women?

[Reactionary]

Anyone want to jump in? Feel free.

Well, Dom, I do have a few thoughts on my mind, such as...

Finally, I have to ask. You say God bless me on my life journey. What "God" are you talking about? Surely you're mistaken. We clearly don't agree. I respectfully say no thanks to that blessing, that "God" you worship wont be good for my soul.

This was offensive and unnecessary. It's certainly not the way fellow Christians should address each other. I'm surprised, in a negative manner.

Its a great verse. Needs more context. I've heard people use this verse to justify homosexuality as well. Its fallacious to read this in the context you are trying to put it in. People are different, and theres nothing wrong with being different. However, being indifferent with God IS WRONG. Biblically, the provision is for the MAN to LEAD his wife spiritually.

Dom, but that verse was prone to numerous interpretations throughout the history. You seem to claim that any other interpretation somehow means being indifferent with God? Sorry, but I'm afraid I don't understand that.

As for Ephesians 5:23, the verse in my opinion doesn't refer necessarily to spiritual leadership. You are right that being a Christian husband means to love your wife and be there for her whenever she needs it - I believe that's the meaning of the verse, but let's not exaggerate. A woman is a human being with IQ just as high as the man's. While I do believe that we should honour women for the role they play in the society, again, let's not exaggerate and start treating them like vegetables we grow in a hothouse. Some women are more in need of a strong man with leadership, while some are more independent and such treatment could only suffocate them. There are different types of people (16 as proposed by MBTI, for instance), and different types of relationships that may ensue.

I am not saying women cannot be good leaders and God loving people. Biblically, however, husbands are to be the leader. We're not trying to stomp on our wives. We're simply fulfilling our obligations to God to love our wives. Even as far as spiritually defend them from others. Why are women up in arms against this? That isn't sound Christianity. Thats satan himself doing his best to create destruction where he has been doing it recently. The family unit.

Frankly, I don't think Tina is up in arms against that, she's just raising a valid objection, trying to understand how things work and why it's so. Which is what Christians should do, as seen in 1 Thessalonians 5:21.

My wife's sister abandoned her faith in Christ, and I've gone as far as stepping in to defend my mother in law from her misguided "spirituality". In fact, I've had to defend all my in laws because nobody else is trained in apologetics. Thats satan's lies coming in and trying to destroy my wife's family.

It's admirable that you did that. However, if the circumstances were different, and there was a woman in the family trained in apologetics, she would have been able to do the same thing. Tina wrote, for instance, that she's more educated in apologetics then her fiancé, so she teaches him. According do you that would make him an incapable future husband, right? I don't know, Dom, but as a young man I'm perfectly fine with the possibility that my future wife could be more trained in certain skills than I'll be. I don't see a problem there. People have different interests and different talents.

Women have been forced to stay away from many social aspects of life and that is why people say that men are more dominant over women.

Apart from the evolution nonsense later on in his post, Bryan raised a good point with this sentence. Men are sinful just as all human beings are (the unfair treatment of women throughout the history proves it), so they (we) aren't exactly to be followed with unlimited trust as we follow Jesus Christ. Tina already said that, you see:

I'm not going to let a fellow sinful human be the leader of my spiritual life. If GOD needs me for something, GOD will lead me there. Not man.

...and as a response you told her disrespectfully that she's worshipping the wrong god. No man is an ideal man, or an ideal husband. Not even you - in fact, your lack of patience greatly disappointed me and raised some doubts about you within me, but it would be inappropriate from me to expand on them here and publicly.

[Ivellious]

Thumbs up for Reactionary.

If I could interject a random thought: I think that the verses present regarding men's spiritual superiority or their place above women in the household ought to be looked at in the same light today as the verses regarding proper rules for slave-keeping and the like. I think that because the cultural context demanded for things like this, and were highly relevant at the time, they are not necessarily proper for modern day Christians. In biblical times, women's lives were drastically different than today's women. Women were not allowed to become educated, for one (barring a few very rare circumstances for wives and children of wealthy or powerful men).

That point in particular is important, because in that time, this and other restrictions on women's lives would have made it difficult or even impossible for a woman to be more well-versed in the Bible or even other day to day items. In those times it was typically illegal for women to hold land or property or to even function outside the house without a husband or father. These cultural limitations clearly make it necessary for a husband in biblical times to take control of a relationship, because he would have been the only one allowed to take on such a role, both spiritually and domestically. In that time, this relationship dynamic described in the Bible was not only the easiest method of maintaining order, but often the only possible method.

Today, at least in most of the western world, such cultural circumstances are irrelevant and I see this difference as meaning that these lines demanding a cookie-cutter relationship are irrelevant to us today except as historical information. Much like we don't adhere to the Bible's rules on taking slaves because of changed social circumstances, I see the aspects of male dominance being outdated as well.

[Reactionary]

Thumbs up for Reactionary.

If I could interject a random thought: I think that the verses present regarding men's spiritual superiority or their place above women in the household ought to be looked at in the same light today as the verses regarding proper rules for slave-keeping and the like. I think that because the cultural context demanded for things like this, and were highly relevant at the time, they are not necessarily proper for modern day Christians. In biblical times, women's lives were drastically different than today's women. Women were not allowed to become educated, for one (barring a few very rare circumstances for wives and children of wealthy or powerful men).

That point in particular is important, because in that time, this and other restrictions on women's lives would have made it difficult or even impossible for a woman to be more well-versed in the Bible or even other day to day items. In those times it was typically illegal for women to hold land or property or to even function outside the house without a husband or father. These cultural limitations clearly make it necessary for a husband in biblical times to take control of a relationship, because he would have been the only one allowed to take on such a role, both spiritually and domestically. In that time, this relationship dynamic described in the Bible was not only the easiest method of maintaining order, but often the only possible method.

Today, at least in most of the western world, such cultural circumstances are irrelevant and I see this difference as meaning that these lines demanding a cookie-cutter relationship are irrelevant to us today except as historical information. Much like we don't adhere to the Bible's rules on taking slaves because of changed social circumstances, I see the aspects of male dominance being outdated as well.

There is sense in what you write - in fact, it's an impressive interpretation for a non-Christian.

As everywhere, cultural and historical contexts are important. This "male leadership" seems too counter-intuitive in this age, at least to me. Not because I'm indoctrinated by some propaganda, but because, given the conditions of the 21st century society, there are no boundaries to women being intellectually equal to men. This involves spirituality as well. Personally, I would have nothing against assuming leadership in a relationship, but let's say that I wouldn't really prefer an overly dependent woman who has to consult her husband about everything. If I wanted to be a master, I would buy a dog. I want a woman who will be an intellectual challenge to me, and help me grow as a person, just as I would help her. I'm a highly independent person myself, and I like to treat other people as they were such as well. If I had been born female I don't think it would have been any different.

[domokunrox]

Reactionary,

My comment was not offensive or unnessary. Its offensive and unnessary to say God bless you in this instance. Christian or not. You don't tell anyone God bless after an unresolved critical theology disagreement. Saying God bless is attempting to convince yourself you're taking the high road because you certainly don't convince me at all. I will give no one that satisfaction.

If you reject biblical theology because "this doesn't apply to me, I am a special exception" then you've created your own image of God to worship. Its no different from the golden calf. Jesus said, "who do you think I am?", NOT "who do you want me to be?"

2nd, Gal 3:28 is an incredibly difficult verse to completely understand. You cannot take that verse and apply it as is. Reading it like that would be blinding our differences all the way up to God himself. Hence, you create an INFINITE absurdity. I've seen eastern philosophies attempt to assimilate this to support their view. I've heard unitarian univeralists do the same.

In a nutshell, we have differences. All are distinct predications, NOT A COMPLETE LOSS OF IDENTITY LIKE PEOPLE WANT YOU TO THINK IT STATES IN ORDER TO PROPAGATE LEADERLESS AGENDA IN THE CHURCH AND CHRISTIAN HOUSEHOLD.

Eps 5:23 absolutely does entail spiritual leadership. Don't kid yourself. What do you think its telling the man to be the HEAD of? Nothing? Yes, there are different kinds of relationships. However, there is only one truly perfect loving relationship with God. Just 1. One leads, the other follows. We are told to reflect this. One in authority showing all the incredible qualities of God along with command be SUBMISSIVE to our wives. The other to be in complete OBEDIENCE.

It does not say to share the leadership role for we DO NOT share leadership with Christ. Period.
God's love and mercy is immensively difficult given the fallibility of man, but we are not told to NOT TRY. Nor does it tell women to follow the man in transgressions when he falls.

To simply go "Man is sinful, too" is a Tu quoque fallacy. Its invalid.

To simply go "well, modern times don't call for that anyone. Women have the same IQ, etc,etc" is the genetic fallacy. When you are born and where you are born does not invalidate the proposition.

Your citing of 1 Thess 5:21 is invalid to apply here. This verse is again another Unitarian universal trick to get us to ignore whatever scripture we find doesn't fit our lifestyle. Hold onto what is good. Its all good in the NT for the new covenant. We conform to God. God doesn't conform to us.

Also, I said no such thing that her future husband is an incapable future husband. He is only incapable if he does not believe. However, her teaching is is fine and dandy, BUT this doesn't mean he can ignore his responsibility to his wife and to God to be the spiritual leader of his family. Nor does it say its ok for her to deny him that role.

And again, a Tu quoque is a Tu quoque. If you have doubt about me, you have my permission to express publically here. I didn't lose my patience with her. She began to present strawman arguments and fallacious reasoning. I will call it out, and I expect others to do the same in return. And again, telling her no thanks to her God isn't out of line. That offended me especially when you attempt to back yourself up with a clear fallacy I've already bunked.

[Reactionary]

Reactionary,

My comment was not offensive or unnessary. Its offensive and unnessary to say God bless you in this instance. Christian or not. You don't tell anyone God bless after an unresolved critical theology disagreement. Saying God bless is attempting to convince yourself you're taking the high road because you certainly don't convince me at all. I will give no one that satisfaction.

I didn't interpret it that way, but fine, let it be your way.

If you reject biblical theology because "this doesn't apply to me, I am a special exception" then you've created your own image of God to worship. Its no different from the golden calf. Jesus said, "who do you think I am?", NOT "who do you want me to be?"

Eps 5:23 absolutely does entail spiritual leadership. Don't kid yourself. What do you think its telling the man to be the HEAD of? Nothing? Yes, there are different kinds of relationships. However, there is only one truly perfect loving relationship with God. Just 1. One leads, the other follows. We are told to reflect this. One in authority showing all the incredible qualities of God along with command be SUBMISSIVE to our wives. The other to be in complete OBEDIENCE.

Where did I call myself an exception? OK, you meant the modern day society. But surely you do realize that there are things mentioned in the Bible (including NT) that we don't practice anymore. What about slavery? It doesn't take long to find it - in the following paragraph, Ephesians 6:5. Do you support slavery, Dom? Should we have slaves to "lead" them like we lead our wives?

2nd, Gal 3:28 is an incredibly difficult verse to completely understand. You cannot take that verse and apply it as is. Reading it like that would be blinding our differences all the way up to God himself. Hence, you create an INFINITE absurdity. I've seen eastern philosophies attempt to assimilate this to support their view. I've heard unitarian univeralists do the same.

Nowhere do I see blinding our differences with God. Therefore, I don't create absurdity. The fact that someone else does it, means nothing to me.

In a nutshell, we have differences. All are distinct predications, NOT A COMPLETE LOSS OF IDENTITY LIKE PEOPLE WANT YOU TO THINK IT STATES IN ORDER TO PROPAGATE LEADERLESS AGENDA IN THE CHURCH AND CHRISTIAN HOUSEHOLD.

What does that have to do with what I wrote? Of course we have differences, that was my point in the first place, that different types of people have different types of relationships. I don't have a leaderless agenda, nor do I follow one. I believe that capable individuals should lead by the principles of democracy, and as for families, I recognize that some families are led by the husband, while in some husband and wife make decisions together. I don't have a problem with either, as long as a family is run under mutual consent.

It does not say to share the leadership role for we DO NOT share leadership with Christ. Period. (...)
To simply go "Man is sinful, too" is a Tu quoque fallacy. Its invalid.

It seems to me like you've spent more time looking for fallacies rather than understanding what I wanted to say. I said that it's not the same to follow Christ and to follow an ordinary man because man is sinful, Christ is not. We don't share leadership with Christ for obvious reasons. Those don't apply to a man.

To simply go "well, modern times don't call for that anyone. Women have the same IQ, etc,etc" is the genetic fallacy. When you are born and where you are born does not invalidate the proposition.

I was saying that these days women are allowed to fully develop their potentials, which they weren't allowed 2000 years ago. My impression is that not everything written in the Bible was intended to serve timelessly. Like the aforementioned example of slavery. Or, all the blood spilled in the OT.

Your citing of 1 Thess 5:21 is invalid to apply here. This verse is again another Unitarian universal trick to get us to ignore whatever scripture we find doesn't fit our lifestyle. Hold onto what is good. Its all good in the NT for the new covenant. We conform to God. God doesn't conform to us.

1 Thess 5:21 encourages critical thinking, unless I committed another fallacy. Where would we be without critical thinking, and how would we know which interpretation to consider correct? We'd interpret everything literally, creating confusion.

Also, I said no such thing that her future husband is an incapable future husband. He is only incapable if he does not believe. However, her teaching is is fine and dandy, BUT this doesn't mean he can ignore his responsibility to his wife and to God to be the spiritual leader of his family. Nor does it say its ok for her to deny him that role.

...this doesn't exclude your future marriage and your future husband to STEP UP to to be the head of a christian family.

To step up means to improve or take more responsibility. So obviously, that before stepping up, a person is less than fully capable.

And again, a Tu quoque is a Tu quoque. If you have doubt about me, you have my permission to express publically here. I didn't lose my patience with her. She began to present strawman arguments and fallacious reasoning. I will call it out, and I expect others to do the same in return. And again, telling her no thanks to her God isn't out of line. That offended me especially when you attempt to back yourself up with a clear fallacy I've already bunked.

And again, I don't see a fallacy. In fact, that's my criticism of your modus operandi - you twist my words into the definitions of the fallacies you mentioned, and then you defend yourself with them. Furthermore, you make conclusions based on impressions.

Do you want examples? Here they are:

1. Saying God bless is attempting to convince yourself you're taking the high road because you certainly don't convince me at all. I will give no one that satisfaction.

An obviously defensive response, slightly paranoid if I may add.

2. Then clearly, you directly called God arrogant by critizing the scripture he gave us.

...or, by criticizing your interpretation of the Scripture, rather than the Scripture itself?

3. If you reject biblical theology because "this doesn't apply to me, I am a special exception" then you've created your own image of God to worship.

Again, I rejected your interpretation of biblical theology, not biblical theology itself.

4. 2nd, Gal 3:28 is an incredibly difficult verse to completely understand. You cannot take that verse and apply it as is. Reading it like that would be blinding our differences all the way up to God himself. Hence, you create an INFINITE absurdity.

I don't create anything. Your imagination, however, does.

5. We're simply fulfilling our obligations to God to love our wives. Even as far as spiritually defend them from others. Why are women up in arms against this? That isn't sound Christianity. Thats satan himself doing his best to create destruction where he has been doing it recently. The family unit.

Exaggeration at best. Who is "up in arms"? If someone's opinion differs from yours, it doesn't mean (s)he's doing Satan's work.

6. ...speculations and "what if's" do not make someone guilty of that particular proposition. The serpent did not tempt the man because it would not have worked.

Yet, now you're the one speculating. You can't deny it - you used Conditional II tense, used to describe actions that might have taken place in the past.

You see, that's the problem that I have with you - and since you gave me the permission to express myself, I'll tell you what I think. You display an arrogant and condescending attitude, like you're the only one who interprets the Bible correctly, yet all of us who disagree with you are either Satan's associates or idolators. I believe that such attitude led to many errors that the Church as an institution did throughout its history, because influential and powerful individuals thought that they were the the ones who "got things right". I might be getting speculative now as I don't know you personally, but your attitude may have also been fueled by your need to be "the man" as you perceive an ideal man to be - powerful, dominant and uncompromising, which was best displayed in my example #1.

[Ivellious]

So tell me, how does the thought of allowing women the same opportunities and leadership possibilities "propagate leaderless agenda"? The way I see it, all that idea does is double your list of potential great leaders and expand the level of influence that can be achieved. If you want a fallacy, that's it right there. All that statement did was attack a non-existent (and frankly absurd) agenda.

[Tina]

Reactionary,

My comment was not offensive or unnessary. Its offensive and unnessary to say God bless you in this instance. Christian or not. You don't tell anyone God bless after an unresolved critical theology disagreement. Saying God bless is attempting to convince yourself you're taking the high road because you certainly don't convince me at all. I will give no one that satisfaction.

I didn't interpret it that way, but fine, let it be your way.

If you reject biblical theology because "this doesn't apply to me, I am a special exception" then you've created your own image of God to worship. Its no different from the golden calf. Jesus said, "who do you think I am?", NOT "who do you want me to be?"

Eps 5:23 absolutely does entail spiritual leadership. Don't kid yourself. What do you think its telling the man to be the HEAD of? Nothing? Yes, there are different kinds of relationships. However, there is only one truly perfect loving relationship with God. Just 1. One leads, the other follows. We are told to reflect this. One in authority showing all the incredible qualities of God along with command be SUBMISSIVE to our wives. The other to be in complete OBEDIENCE.

Where did I call myself an exception? OK, you meant the modern day society. But surely you do realize that there are things mentioned in the Bible (including NT) that we don't practice anymore. What about slavery? It doesn't take long to find it - in the following paragraph, Ephesians 6:5. Do you support slavery, Dom? Should we have slaves to "lead" them like we lead our wives?

2nd, Gal 3:28 is an incredibly difficult verse to completely understand. You cannot take that verse and apply it as is. Reading it like that would be blinding our differences all the way up to God himself. Hence, you create an INFINITE absurdity. I've seen eastern philosophies attempt to assimilate this to support their view. I've heard unitarian univeralists do the same.

Nowhere do I see blinding our differences with God. Therefore, I don't create absurdity. The fact that someone else does it, means nothing to me.

In a nutshell, we have differences. All are distinct predications, NOT A COMPLETE LOSS OF IDENTITY LIKE PEOPLE WANT YOU TO THINK IT STATES IN ORDER TO PROPAGATE LEADERLESS AGENDA IN THE CHURCH AND CHRISTIAN HOUSEHOLD.

What does that have to do with what I wrote? Of course we have differences, that was my point in the first place, that different types of people have different types of relationships. I don't have a leaderless agenda, nor do I follow one. I believe that capable individuals should lead by the principles of democracy, and as for families, I recognize that some families are led by the husband, while in some husband and wife make decisions together. I don't have a problem with either, as long as a family is run under mutual consent.

It does not say to share the leadership role for we DO NOT share leadership with Christ. Period. (...)
To simply go "Man is sinful, too" is a Tu quoque fallacy. Its invalid.

It seems to me like you've spent more time looking for fallacies rather than understanding what I wanted to say. I said that it's not the same to follow Christ and to follow an ordinary man because man is sinful, Christ is not. We don't share leadership with Christ for obvious reasons. Those don't apply to a man.

To simply go "well, modern times don't call for that anyone. Women have the same IQ, etc,etc" is the genetic fallacy. When you are born and where you are born does not invalidate the proposition.

I was saying that these days women are allowed to fully develop their potentials, which they weren't allowed 2000 years ago. My impression is that not everything written in the Bible was intended to serve timelessly. Like the aforementioned example of slavery. Or, all the blood spilled in the OT.

Your citing of 1 Thess 5:21 is invalid to apply here. This verse is again another Unitarian universal trick to get us to ignore whatever scripture we find doesn't fit our lifestyle. Hold onto what is good. Its all good in the NT for the new covenant. We conform to God. God doesn't conform to us.

1 Thess 5:21 encourages critical thinking, unless I committed another fallacy. Where would we be without critical thinking, and how would we know which interpretation to consider correct? We'd interpret everything literally, creating confusion.

Also, I said no such thing that her future husband is an incapable future husband. He is only incapable if he does not believe. However, her teaching is is fine and dandy, BUT this doesn't mean he can ignore his responsibility to his wife and to God to be the spiritual leader of his family. Nor does it say its ok for her to deny him that role.

...this doesn't exclude your future marriage and your future husband to STEP UP to to be the head of a christian family.

To step up means to improve or take more responsibility. So obviously, that before stepping up, a person is less than fully capable.

And again, a Tu quoque is a Tu quoque. If you have doubt about me, you have my permission to express publically here. I didn't lose my patience with her. She began to present strawman arguments and fallacious reasoning. I will call it out, and I expect others to do the same in return. And again, telling her no thanks to her God isn't out of line. That offended me especially when you attempt to back yourself up with a clear fallacy I've already bunked.

And again, I don't see a fallacy. In fact, that's my criticism of your modus operandi - you twist my words into the definitions of the fallacies you mentioned, and then you defend yourself with them. Furthermore, you make conclusions based on impressions.

Do you want examples? Here they are:

1. Saying God bless is attempting to convince yourself you're taking the high road because you certainly don't convince me at all. I will give no one that satisfaction.

An obviously defensive response, slightly paranoid if I may add.

2. Then clearly, you directly called God arrogant by critizing the scripture he gave us.

...or, by criticizing your interpretation of the Scripture, rather than the Scripture itself?

3. If you reject biblical theology because "this doesn't apply to me, I am a special exception" then you've created your own image of God to worship.

Again, I rejected your interpretation of biblical theology, not biblical theology itself.

4. 2nd, Gal 3:28 is an incredibly difficult verse to completely understand. You cannot take that verse and apply it as is. Reading it like that would be blinding our differences all the way up to God himself. Hence, you create an INFINITE absurdity.

I don't create anything. Your imagination, however, does.

5. We're simply fulfilling our obligations to God to love our wives. Even as far as spiritually defend them from others. Why are women up in arms against this? That isn't sound Christianity. Thats satan himself doing his best to create destruction where he has been doing it recently. The family unit.

Exaggeration at best. Who is "up in arms"? If someone's opinion differs from yours, it doesn't mean (s)he's doing Satan's work.

6. ...speculations and "what if's" do not make someone guilty of that particular proposition. The serpent did not tempt the man because it would not have worked.

Yet, now you're the one speculating. You can't deny it - you used Conditional II tense, used to describe actions that might have taken place in the past.

You see, that's the problem that I have with you - and since you gave me the permission to express myself, I'll tell you what I think. You display an arrogant and condescending attitude, like you're the only one who interprets the Bible correctly, yet all of us who disagree with you are either Satan's associates or idolators. I believe that such attitude led to many errors that the Church as an institution did throughout its history, because influential and powerful individuals thought that they were the the ones who "got things right". I might be getting speculative now as I don't know you personally, but your attitude may have also been fueled by your need to be "the man" as you perceive an ideal man to be - powerful, dominant and uncompromising, which was best displayed in my example #1.

I completely agree with you Reactionary ( On a side note- I had never intended anything of which he said I did when I said GOD bless- I had actually explained what it meant in an earlier post )

[Reactionary]

I completely agree with you Reactionary ( On a side note- I had never intended anything of which he said I did when I said GOD bless- I had actually explained what it meant in an earlier post )

I had noticed that you write "God" in all capital letters, so I didn't pay any special attention to your emphasis.

[Tina]

I completely agree with you Reactionary ( On a side note- I had never intended anything of which he said I did when I said GOD bless- I had actually explained what it meant in an earlier post )

I had noticed that you write "God" in all capital letters, so I didn't pay any special attention to your emphasis.

Oh oops that's not what I mean-- I write GOD in all capital letters out of a sort of habit I guess as symbolism that GOD is above us...like respect? Idk I just write it that way - no when I talked to Dom, I had said "GOD bless you on your life journey" as a sign of Christian love and respect that we should agree to disagree ( I can't debate with an arrogant person ) but I was being sincere when I said it- and I had told him this

[Danieltwotwenty]

I am glad this thread was started as it has made me think deeply about man and womens roles within a marriage or even the church.
I have always been a little confused on this issue but I am now finally starting to see some clarity on the issue, thanks guys!! especially Reactionary.


Dan

[Reactionary]

Oh oops that's not what I mean-- I write GOD in all capital letters out of a sort of habit I guess as symbolism that GOD is above us...like respect? Idk I just write it that way - no when I talked to Dom, I had said "GOD bless you on your life journey" as a sign of Christian love and respect that we should agree to disagree ( I can't debate with an arrogant person ) but I was being sincere when I said it- and I had told him this

I understand, I've noticed that you do that, but Dom obviously thought that you were "taking the high road". I believe that you were sincere, so was I.

I am glad this thread was started as it has made me think deeply about man and womens roles within a marriage or even the church.
I have always been a little confused on this issue but I am now finally starting to see some clarity on the issue, thanks guys!! especially Reactionary.


Dan

No problem, friend. I hope all is well with you.

[domokunrox]

Reactionary,

In order. By paragraph.

1. Your interpretation is naive. Would you be receptive to a muslim saying Allah be with you? A Mormon telling you that Jesus loves you? A JW telling you may Jehovah bless you? Given that you know what they mean it, you'd accept it? You might as well just give up being an apologetic in that case. Don't be naive. Saying a blessing to someone after fierce disagreement is passive aggressive. Still aggressive. You need to put yourself in their shoes before you make your word choices otherwise you SOUND ARROGANT AND CONDESCENDING. I don't do that, and if you want to be a good apologetic, you'd refrain from it. They don't agree, you walk away.

2. Really? That's what you got? A bible condones slavery red herring? Surely you have got to be joking, reactionary. Please go start a thread in theology discussion titled "Bible supports slavery", then when you are shown to be wrong, state "well, since the bible is wrong about slavery, its certainly wrong elsewhere".

3. Gal 3:28 could absolutely be interpreted to blind our differences if you read it AS IS. Which is how it was being read here in this discussion. If you're reading there is no male or female, in what context is it speaking in? Is it trying to tell us that salvation is equal opportunity? Or is it saying we don't have any differences, therefore ignore scripture with predications? Guess which one invoking an infinite absurdity.

4. God didn't intend for the family unit to be a democracy. Democracy in society is so we can get along with non believers so we can bring them to Christ. It does not translate to the Christian family.

5. Nope. Still a Tu quoque. Fallacy is false 24/7/365/Judgement day. Christian man is be the spiritual leader of his house and be SUBMISSIVE TO HIS WIFE. The man is the leader, the women follows. Needless to say, women should not follow the man in transgressions in the event he does.

6. You impression of the NT is unfortunately naive. Context is important. Red herrings are fallacious.

7. 1 Thess 5:21 does encourage critical thinking, but not how you're thinking about it. Being a first century Christian was a daunting time in Christian history. There was no bible. Christians prosecuted. In strange places where pagan gods "priests" were attempting to assimilate Christian ideas into their beliefs and use deceptive ideas to poach these new Christians that came into the scene.

8. Being less then capable does not mean you cannot put honest effort to try. You're still obligated to. Its sort of like how everyone isn't always completely qualified for a job when you come into the workforce. You have a job you're obligated to do, you do it.

9. Its a fallacy. You know what a Tu quoque is, right? This is already bunk, reactionary. I don't interpret your words into fallacies, they fit the descriptions perfectly. Don't want me to call them out? Don't commit them.

10-15:
Bunk
Proposition in scripture is clear
Again, proposition is clear
Bunk, interpretation of complete loss of identity invokes an infinite absurdity
Not an exxageration. If women reject the biblical proposition they take up arms AGAINST God.

16. Not a speculation. The serpent had purpose in choosing who to deceive. The women was not simply conviently there to deceive. This is a logical deduction. Burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise that the serpent was just an unguided process. However, that is bunk. Deception requires a mind. If you're going to believe it was just a coincidence, you might as well admit the universe coming into existence was also a coincidence and that God's existence is equally probable to his non-existence.

17. Not even worthy of a reply.

[Reactionary]

Domokunrox,

1. Your interpretation is naive. Would you be receptive to a muslim saying Allah be with you? A Mormon telling you that Jesus loves you? A JW telling you may Jehovah bless you? Given that you know what they mean it, you'd accept it? You might as well just give up being an apologetic in that case. Don't be naive. Saying a blessing to someone after fierce disagreement is passive aggressive. Still aggressive. You need to put yourself in their shoes before you make your word choices otherwise you SOUND ARROGANT AND CONDESCENDING. I don't do that, and if you want to be a good apologetic, you'd refrain from it. They don't agree, you walk away.

The thing is, Tina is not Muslim, or Mormon, or JW, but Christian. So no, I wouldn't have objections to being sent a blessing from a Christian. She said that she was sincere, and I have no reason not to believe her. Having read her other posts on this forum, I didn't notice that she a had a habit of "passive aggressive" responses. I also didn't notice arrogance in my own posts. Please point me to them if there are any.

2. Really? That's what you got? A bible condones slavery red herring? Surely you have got to be joking, reactionary. Please go start a thread in theology discussion titled "Bible supports slavery", then when you are shown to be wrong, state "well, since the bible is wrong about slavery, its certainly wrong elsewhere".

Once again you equate your interpretation of the Bible, with the Bible. I don't have to be proven wrong, because I don't believe the Bible condones slavery in the first place. I was pointing out problems with your interpretation, problems with applying certain paragraphs to all times. Other Bible commentators also wrote that verses about slavery in Ephesians 6 refer to a method of gradually changing the society in a way that would lead to an abolition of slavery in its entirety. So, nobody except you has a problem with accepting the fact that the society is ever-changing. Needless to say that your response with guesses and speculation about what I would do, after I do what you think I would do, is presumptiveness at best.

3. Gal 3:28 could absolutely be interpreted to blind our differences if you read it AS IS. Which is how it was being read here in this discussion. If you're reading there is no male or female, in what context is it speaking in? Is it trying to tell us that salvation is equal opportunity? Or is it saying we don't have any differences, therefore ignore scripture with predications? Guess which one invoking an infinite absurdity.

Again, I don't see any difference blinding. In fact, equal opportunities encourage differences. All the posts I've written by now are about differences. Different people, different personalities, different relationships, unique as we all are. Yes, I believe salvation is an equal opportunity. We all have an opportunity to accept Jesus Christ as our saviour. Men and women. Women can do it by themselves, they don't need a husband to do it for them.

4. God didn't intend for the family unit to be a democracy. Democracy in society is so we can get along with non believers so we can bring them to Christ. It does not translate to the Christian family.

I actually had to read the bolded sentence several times to be sure I had read it right. So according to you, a hypothetical country whose all citizens are Christians shouldn't be a democracy? How should it be led then? What about non-religious issues such as, let's say, economic policy? How would we decide whether to have laissez-faire capitalism, state capitalism, workers' self-management or socialism? Who would decide on those things, if not the people? Enlightened individuals such as you, who would tell us what's right? I still hold to what I said earlier. Such an approach would lead to us repeating errors that the Church as an institution did in the past.

5. Nope. Still a Tu quoque. Fallacy is false 24/7/365/Judgement day. Christian man is be the spiritual leader of his house and be SUBMISSIVE TO HIS WIFE. The man is the leader, the women follows. Needless to say, women should not follow the man in transgressions in the event he does.

Well, how should she decide what's a transgression? By consulting with him? If the husband is the spiritual leader, then I don't know if his wife is allowed to read the Bible by herself.

I don't understand your doctrine of being submissive to your wife, but at the same time being a leader. Doesn't being submissive to your wife mean that you respect her wishes and opinions? If you do, then you are a "democratic" leader, as I had suggested.

6. You impression of the NT is unfortunately naive. Context is important. Red herrings are fallacious.

7. 1 Thess 5:21 does encourage critical thinking, but not how you're thinking about it. Being a first century Christian was a daunting time in Christian history. There was no bible. Christians prosecuted. In strange places where pagan gods "priests" were attempting to assimilate Christian ideas into their beliefs and use deceptive ideas to poach these new Christians that came into the scene.

Hey, wait a second... Being a "first century Christian"? A daunting "time"? I thought that was a genetic fallacy. At least you had said so.

It's unfair, you're allowed to use fallacies, while I'm not!

8. Being less then capable does not mean you cannot put honest effort to try. You're still obligated to. Its sort of like how everyone isn't always completely qualified for a job when you come into the workforce. You have a job you're obligated to do, you do it.

But not "taking leadership" over your wife's spiritual life is a sign of incapability, right? Thank you, that's all I wanted to know.

9. Its a fallacy. You know what a Tu quoque is, right? This is already bunk, reactionary. I don't interpret your words into fallacies, they fit the descriptions perfectly. Don't want me to call them out? Don't commit them.

Please, Dom. You intentionally misinterpret my words, which you have proven in this post again (response 2.), and you'll prove it again below (response 16.), by putting words in my mouth and throwing guesses about what I'd do if this or that happened.

16. Not a speculation. The serpent had purpose in choosing who to deceive. The women was not simply conviently there to deceive. This is a logical deduction. Burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise that the serpent was just an unguided process. However, that is bunk. Deception requires a mind. If you're going to believe it was just a coincidence, you might as well admit the universe coming into existence was also a coincidence and that God's existence is equally probable to his non-existence.

Once again, the Presumptive Dom. I lost you in your sentence 4. Everything you wrote after that is, as you call it, "bunk".

17. Not even worthy of a reply.

Sure. Keep avoiding my objections, insist on yours.

[domokunrox]

The thing is, Tina is not Muslim, or Mormon, or JW, but Christian. So no, I wouldn't have objections to being sent a blessing from a Christian. She said that she was sincere, and I have no reason not to believe her. Having read her other posts on this forum, I didn't notice that she a had a habit of "passive aggressive" responses. I also didn't notice arrogance in my own posts. Please point me to them if there are any.

Reactionary, english isn't your first language. I can't expect you to understand everything I say. So, its best that you keep your assumptions to an absolutely nothing. Lets try that first.

Regardless of how you assessed Tina's post, Reactionary. If you have a massive disagreement and you insist on saying "God bless you", thats passive aggressive. Doing so is arrogant and condescending. Just don't do it. Trust me. In my experiences, don't do it. Even if you have the best intent in those words, you simply do not say it.

I'm not calling your posts arrogant and condescending. You misunderstood.

Once again you equate your interpretation of the Bible, with the Bible. I don't have to be proven wrong, because I don't believe the Bible condones slavery in the first place. I was pointing out problems with your interpretation, problems with applying certain paragraphs to all times. Other Bible commentators also wrote that verses about slavery in Ephesians 6 refer to a method of gradually changing the society in a way that would lead to an abolition of slavery in its entirety. So, nobody except you has a problem with accepting the fact that the society is ever-changing. Needless to say that your response with guesses and speculation about what I would do, after I do what you think I would do, is presumptiveness at best.

I have done no such thing. The bible brings forth a CLEAR PROPOSITION.

As for the bold, then why bring up slavery as a red herring? Its clear as day that you don't have a good objection to the proposition if you bring in a fallacy to support your rejection of said proposition.

Society changes, yes.

but HOW GOD WANTS US TO LIVE OUR LIVES DOES NOT CHANGE!

Christians are to change to conform to how God wants us to live our lives, and its not the other way around.

Surely, you can't be so naive that you're trying to tell me I'm making an error of historical context. The proposition is clear.

Again, I don't see any difference blinding. In fact, equal opportunities encourage differences. All the posts I've written by now are about differences. Different people, different personalities, different relationships, unique as we all are. Yes, I believe salvation is an equal opportunity. We all have an opportunity to accept Jesus Christ as our saviour. Men and women. Women can do it by themselves, they don't need a husband to do it for them.

So, then you agree with me, then? The correct way to read the verse IN PROPER CONTEXT is that we don't have identity loss? But rather that we have differences and we CANNOT IGNORE OR DELIBERATELY DISMISS scripture that has a CLEAR PROPOSITION with DISTINCT PREDICATIONS? I need an answer here, Reactionary.

As for the bold, you have got to be joking right? Thats a strawman. Of course a women can "do it by themselves". However, that depends on what you mean by that, though.

Do you mean they can accept Christ and obtain their salvation on their own? Absolutely they could! Thats the beauty of Christianity!
Or do you mean women can reject how God wants man to lead the spiritual aspect of a husband and wife marriage? Absolutely not! Thats against God and clearly against the scripture.

Context, Reactionary. Context.

I actually had to read the bolded sentence several times to be sure I had read it right. So according to you, a hypothetical country whose all citizens are Christians shouldn't be a democracy? How should it be led then? What about non-religious issues such as, let's say, economic policy? How would we decide whether to have laissez-faire capitalism, state capitalism, workers' self-management or socialism? Who would decide on those things, if not the people? Enlightened individuals such as you, who would tell us what's right? I still hold to what I said earlier. Such an approach would lead to us repeating errors that the Church as an institution did in the past.

Reactionary, this is entirely a red herring. I'm not interested in debating politics with you. The political structure does not translate to the family husband/wife Christian structure. If you cannot comprehend this fallacious argument, then you're hopelessly lost.

I don't understand your doctrine of being submissive to your wife, but at the same time being a leader. Doesn't being submissive to your wife mean that you respect her wishes and opinions? If you do, then you are a "democratic" leader, as I had suggested.

Of course you don't understand it.

To answer your question, yes and no. A wife's "wishes and opinions" are not necessarily ones that are compatible with living a Christian family life. The man could listen to his wife, but the husband AS THE SPIRITUAL LEADER checks it over, consults with God, then decides. 100% decided by the husband. 0% decided by the wife. The wife could have ideas and opinions, but that doesn't mean it goes though. So, no, its not a democracy.

Hey, wait a second... Being a "first century Christian"? A daunting "time"? I thought that was a genetic fallacy. At least you had said so.

It's unfair, you're allowed to use fallacies, while I'm not!

Its not a fallacy. I'm pointing out a flat out syllogism you're making. I agree with you that there is historical context to be understood with this particular verse. However, this still does not give anyone permission to reject the biblical proposition (along with its appropriate predications intact) we're speaking of and deem it "historically out of date" because women have been "allowed to develop" and "democracy advancements"

Try again, Reactionary.

But not "taking leadership" over your wife's spiritual life is a sign of incapability, right? Thank you, that's all I wanted to know.

The proposition still stands regardless of whatever semantics games you want to play. Nice try though. Can't blame you for going for the hail mary at this point of desperation.

Please, Dom. You intentionally misinterpret my words, which you have proven in this post again (response 2.), and you'll prove it again below (response 16.), by putting words in my mouth and throwing guesses about what I'd do if this or that happened.

I didn't misinterpret you, Reactionary. I read you loud and clear. Perhaps it is YOU who misunderstood ME because english isn't your first language? Thus, you made fallacious arguments by mistake? I'll grant you that we're lost in translation here, but nothing more.

Once again, the Presumptive Dom. I lost you in your sentence 4. Everything you wrote after that is, as you call it, "bunk".

Not at all presumptive, Reactionary. Burden of proof is on you to prove that the serpent picked the women by coincidence. Trust me, you don't want your skepticism go that far. I'm going to run you over there.

It is logical and rational to believe the serpent picked the women to deceive on purpose.

You might as well just give this one up, Reactionary. It won't end well.

Sure. Keep avoiding my objections, insist on yours.

I've answered your every objection and ignored the personal attacks. Ball in your court.

[inlovewiththe44]

Dom, I'm not going to attempt to refute any of your points because I am not very skilled when it comes to these kinds of debates. However, does Reactionary's use of English give you any indication that it's not his first language? I certainly don't think he's misunderstanding your language by any means, but, if anything, he may be misunderstanding your arguments and the evidence you use to support them as well as how you've constructed them. There's no need to immediately link his misunderstanding with the fact that English is not his first language. If we're going to use personal attacks on his language, why not take a look at yours: what exactly do you mean by "keep your assumptions to an absolutely nothing?" Unless you had a point to using such a jumbled statement.

Sorry for the last few sentences, as they could be considered petty personal attacks. I know that's not the purpose of this board.