Which is exactly how I feel about your beliefs. These arguments never really go anywhere because neither of us will ever be able to conclusively prove our beliefs, only make assumptions based on the evidence we have.

So you would admit that your position takes just as much faith as mine?

TBG

Which is exactly how I feel about your beliefs. These arguments never really go anywhere because neither of us will ever be able to conclusively prove our beliefs, only make assumptions based on the evidence we have.

So you would admit that your position takes just as much faith as mine?

Sure, I never said I didn't have faith. But at the same time, I don't have a problem admitting that I don't know what's gonna happen - none of us really do.

But isn't the passing of judgment on a culture not their own kind of the base of any conversion-based religion? Aren't they judging the other culture to be wrong and therefore in need of conversion?

Well yes, we are (I prefer to speak of redeeming culture), but we're consistent in doing it because we have an absolute standard.

So...basically judging a different culture to be wrong is ok as long as it's consistent and not called "judgment", just "redeeming"? What right does any outside culture (regardless of whether it is religious or not) have to judge another culture's ways as wrong and attempt to change them? Being consistent and having an absolute standard that the judged culture doesn't ascribe to doesn't exactly excuse the action.

What exactly do you mean by this? Christianity, from its earliest period, appealed to women and held them in much higher esteem than the culture of the time. Over half of the greetings in the letters of St. Paul are directed toward women, and women seem to have played vital (non-leadership) roles in the churches he wrote to.

I was speaking about the culture as can be seen through the prescriptions in the Old Testament. Male virility is highly venerated, and yet there is (apparently) this idea that sin nature passes from the father and unless I'm mistaken, sin nature is a bad thing. Yet the male is passing the sin nature, and his virility is still intensely prized. I was just wondering if anyone could explain this dichotomy, because I find it confusing.

Something else no one has ever been able to explain to me is why women are prohibited from leadership roles. I'm usually answered with "Because of Eve's punishment being that her husband will rule over her", but then that same person will tell me that Jesus' teachings made a new covenant. Why do only some of the OT norms apply and not others? St. Paul says male and female don't matter because everyone is one in Jesus Christ...and then tells us (in the same letter) women must cover their heads while men don't need to, and are not allowed to teach while men are. Do you see how this could be confusing?

Just popping in here. My facts aren't verified or anything. It's just something that seems to fit, but don't use me as the fact person or anything.

St. Paul doesn't seem to hold women in a position where they are intelligent and worthy of the same respect as men in several of his letters. I believe, however, that this was early on in his ministry. The Jews (I think) did not hold women up as high as they elevated men, certainly, and Paul was a Jew. A converted Jew, but a Jew nonetheless.

However, later on in his letters he shows signs of having met women such as Priscilla, Aquila's wife, and Lydia, the seller of the purple. His mindset seems to change as he goes on.

Then and again, the question that comes up here is whether or not Paul's seemingly derisive writings about women in the earlier letters should be followed or not. And it's the Bible, which is all true and God-inspired, so there's the stumbling block.

I know, though, that Paul was a man (i.e., human being). He was an incredibly holy man, but he was still a man. I think that it's safe to wager that he had prejudices, sins, and was even confused or wrong in his way of thinking from time to time. No, I'm not saying that Paul's teaching in the Bible is wrong. But still, the question above is something to consider. I'll have to ask my parents about it, and our pastor.

Which is exactly how I feel about your beliefs. These arguments never really go anywhere because neither of us will ever be able to conclusively prove our beliefs, only make assumptions based on the evidence we have.

So you would admit that your position takes just as much faith as mine?

Sure, I never said I didn't have faith. But at the same time, I don't have a problem admitting that I don't know what's gonna happen - none of us really do.

If my belief is warranted, then I am sufficiently justified to make a knowledge claim. How do I know what is going to happen? God has revealed it---it's right there in a manual.

What right does any outside culture (regardless of whether it is religious or not) have to judge another culture's ways as wrong and attempt to change them?

Well suppose culture A is correct.

I was speaking about the culture as can be seen through the prescriptions in the Old Testament. Male virility is highly venerated, and yet there is (apparently) this idea that sin nature passes from the father and unless I'm mistaken, sin nature is a bad thing.

I don't think it says in Scripture that sin nature is passed in the male line only. Certainly the virgin birth was necessary for Jesus to be sinless, but it has nothing to do with how Jesus was without sin. Jesus was without sin because He was fully God.

Something else no one has ever been able to explain to me is why women are prohibited from leadership roles.

What we are really talking about here are the Biblical concepts of masculinity and femininity. The man is supposed to be strong, creative, bold, and to lead. The woman is to be nurturing, comforting, expressive, and to help the man to lead. A man with a woman behind him is motivated and energetic. A man with a woman leading him usually ends up lethargic and useless.

As for church order, yes women are excluded from the leadership role, but that is not to diminish their importance or contribution. The fact is that men have to lead because if we don't, we'll end up letting the women do all the work. The churches I have seen where there are women in positions of authority have tended to eventually be dominated by women because the men all leave.

Also, try reading Song of Solomon and Proverbs 31 and tell me what you think the Bible says about women.

TBG

As for the head-covering thing, that's purely cultural. There was a temple (to Aphrodite I believe, or maybe Venus, the Roman counterpart) in which priestesses worked as "holy" prostitutes. They were known by the fact that they did not wear a head covering. A woman walking about town with her head uncovered was for them essentially the same as a woman walking about topless in our culture. Some Christian women believed that being Christian meant they no longer had to abide by cultural norms and could wear whatever they pleased, so they began to go about head-covering less. Thus Paul's commandment to keep a hat on. I doubt very seriously if anyone would seize upon Paul writing that women should cover their breasts in church as some sort of chauvinistic abuse of women.

As for church order, yes women are excluded from the leadership role, but that is not to diminish their importance or contribution. The fact is that men have to lead because if we don't, we'll end up letting the women do all the work. The churches I have seen where there are women in positions of authority have tended to eventually be dominated by women because the men all leave.

This is interesting. Why can men not share the leadership with women, rather than 'ending up letting the women do all the work'? This complete abdication of male leadership at the sight of a few women in leadership roles seems to be a case of throwing out the baby with the bath water, or perhaps a severe underestimation of men's ability to work with women in equal positions.

Wait Andrew, you love everyone but you don't like everyone? How does that work exactly. I'm a Christian and I'd be hard-pressed to answer honestly and say I love everyone, even like everyone. Yet, that's what Christians are commanded to do. It's a daily struggle. Anyone can say they love everyone, but to show that through words and action, is another thing all together.
I'm not berating you, I'm just curious.

I feel this talk is going to go around in circles. We have our own world-view and base our words and actions on that, you have your own world-view and do likewise. Therefore we are steeped in our beliefs and you in yours. It will take more than some good discussion to sway either side. Still, it's interesting.

This is interesting. Why can men not share the leadership with women, rather than 'ending up letting the women do all the work'? This complete abdication of male leadership at the sight of a few women in leadership roles seems to be a case of throwing out the baby with the bath water, or perhaps a severe underestimation of men's ability to work with women in equal positions.

It's partly just the way men are wired: we aren't wired to be led but pushed into leadership. How many people like to see a man who can't lead his family? We call him a sissy or hen-pecked and we pity him.

Underestimation? Not really, just observation. I have simply observed that while in politics or business, men and women are perfectly capable of co-operation in leading, in the church and family, when men don't lead, the structure breaks down.

TBG

Wait Andrew, you love everyone but you don't like everyone? How does that work exactly. I'm a Christian and I'd be hard-pressed to answer honestly and say I love everyone, even like everyone. Yet, that's what Christians are commanded to do. It's a daily struggle. Anyone can say they love everyone, but to show that through words and action, is another thing all together.
I'm not berating you, I'm just curious.

I think it's a choice we make, and one I fail at everyday. I naturally feel much more alive around people, and I choose to love them, but it's not easy. There's still of course times where I get angry, say mean things, etc., but it's an ongoing journey.

What right does any outside culture (regardless of whether it is religious or not) have to judge another culture's ways as wrong and attempt to change them?

Well suppose culture A is correct.

If someone showed up and told you "So, this thing you've been doing for generations untold, our absolute standards say that its wrong. You've got to change to be like our standards now" it would be all right with you, then? Of course not. You would hold the belief that you were right and they were wrong, and suppose you each had an absolute standard? What good is done in this situation? More often than not, people end up dead on both sides.

I don't think it says in Scripture that sin nature is passed in the male line only. Certainly the virgin birth was necessary for Jesus to be sinless, but it has nothing to do with how Jesus was without sin. Jesus was without sin because He was fully God.

When sin entered into the world, and death by sin, a sin nature passed upon all human beings. This sin nature is passed from father to child (which is why it is so important that Jesus had no earthly father), and infects every one of us. . . there are no exceptions.

So where did this idea come from, then?

Something else no one has ever been able to explain to me is why women are prohibited from leadership roles.

What we are really talking about here are the Biblical concepts of masculinity and femininity. The man is supposed to be strong, creative, bold, and to lead. The woman is to be nurturing, comforting, expressive, and to help the man to lead. A man with a woman behind him is motivated and energetic. A man with a woman leading him usually ends up lethargic and useless.

And I have no issue with that. What I was asking is if male/female truly does not matter in the long run, why bother with assigning such strict demarcations? What place does a woman have who is deeply not nurturing or comforting?

Also, try reading Song of Solomon and Proverbs 31 and tell me what you think the Bible says about women.

I like both of these. It's just a shame more people don't use them as the basis of their views on women. Instead, they take what is mentioned in Proverbs 31 and say women can't do anything outside of that. They end up used to limit rather than to celebrate.

If someone showed up and told you "So, this thing you've been doing for generations untold, our absolute standards say that its wrong. You've got to change to be like our standards now" it would be all right with you, then?

No, they'd have to prove it. This is what we do every time we have an ethical debate---we reason with the other side.

You would hold the belief that you were right and they were wrong, and suppose you each had an absolute standard?

We would debate those standards until one turned out to be unliveable or self-referentially incoherent.

So where did this idea come from, then?

Again, I would suggest that whole male-superiority thing plus men carry the sin nature idea is just the way that any Greek would think about genetics. To a Greek, all that a woman did was to bear children---the man alone was responsible, so any defects could be blamed on him. Today, of course, we know that genetics doesn't work that way, but you can see how a culture with that assumption could assume that sin was passed through the father.

And I have no issue with that. What I was asking is if male/female truly does not matter in the long run, why bother with assigning such strict demarcations?

Male/female doesn't matter in God's economy, true, and neither does slave/free, but in terms of earthly relationships, there are clearly defined roles. Paul says there is no slave or free and then goes on to instruct slaves to obey their masters.

What place does a woman have who is deeply not nurturing or comforting?

No one said it was easy, but in order to be faithful to God, we must obey what His word says.

I don't have much time this morning but a quick comment about the male/female roles. I've noticed that all the Scriptural passages brought up have to do with women's roles and being in submission to the male. Any of you notice how as much space was spent on the male's role in loving and supporting the woman? Yes, the Bible does say that women are suppossed to submit to men. That was put in place at the original sin in Genesis 3, in part because it was Eve who got Adam to sin. But men are suppossed to care for thier wives with such esteem and love that they put the wive's needs far above his own. So it is not the commanding, dictatorship role that is often percieved.

Are women capable of leadership? Absolutely. But men and women are created differently. There are certain things that men can do that women can't (like compartmentalize thier brain), and certain things that women can do that men can't (process x amount of things all at once without thinking about it). Neither is better than the other, it's just different. And as for leadership, men and women do things differently as well, and women have a tendency to do things through manipulation, while men try to exert power and authority. It gets complicated quickly but once you get a true understanding of what the roles are intended, it makes the jobs that need to be done so much easier.

But men are suppossed to care for thier wives with such esteem and love that they put the wive's needs far above his own. So it is not the commanding, dictatorship role that is often percieved.

A comfortable cage is a cage nonetheless. People who argue against this submission aren't saying that women get nothing in return, but that the exchange of being 'loved and esteemed' isn't enough to make up for giving up the ability to make final decisions about their own lives.

Neither is better than the other, it's just different. And as for leadership, men and women do things differently as well, and women have a tendency to do things through manipulation, while men try to exert power and authority. It gets complicated quickly but once you get a true understanding of what the roles are intended, it makes the jobs that need to be done so much easier.

This is not a genetic behavior, it's a taught one. From a young age children are taught that boys have to be strong and get what they want, and girls have to keep their voices down or people might thinking they're nagging and get what they want the quiet way - by manipulating.

I think people are confusing the biblical concept of submission with the submission found in many romance novels. As for nagging, it's very different to talking loudly.