1 TIMOTHY 2:13
Incorrect source or offensive?
-
-
Copy & paste this:
-
Recent Comments
Jason on WE’LL MISS YOU Jason on MEANWHILE IN CANADA unicycle77 on *K rossturbo on THE SADDEST PART ABOUT TH… moi on SEEMS LEGIT moi on SEEMS LEGIT ahak on “FOOD FOR BROTHER… moi on SAY NO TO PEDOBEAR Jason on SEEMS LEGIT Jason on PREFERABLY
More MEMEBASE
Memebase - All Your Memes Are In Our Base
Scumbag Timmy
This Is Photobomb - Surprise! Ruined Photos
Bombing at the Beach
GraphJam - Music & Culture for People Who Love Charts
Not Sure If I Should Try to Console or Run
Señor Gif - Funny Animated GIFs
Hitting 2 Balls With 1 Shot
Picture Is Unrelated - Funny WTF Pictures
Even The Dog Is Confused
Comixed - Vertical 4 Pane Comics
I Meant My OTHER Axe
Derp - All the Derp Durr Hurr that's fit to Derp
Dis Mah 'Grrrrrr' Face
Art of Trolling - Trolls on Chatroulette and Yahoo! Answers
People for the Ethical Treatment of Idiots
Go Cry Emo Kid - Go Cry Emo Kids
Turkey Dubstep
Superheroes - Superheroes
What a Deal!
Rage Comics - Express Your Rage
She Jumped the Line!
Pokémemes - I choose you!
Generation Reversal
That means all the women are going eventually burn in he11. Well, according to bible we all going to burn in hell anyways, so I’m off to have at least some fun.
with girls, girls, girls !!!!
^THIS
+20
nope – it’s up to the guy to enforce that rule – that’s why it says not to “permit” it.
The Bible says no such thing about burning in hell in the first place – impossible since the concept of an immortal soul was Satan’s first lie (still taught by the Catholic church btw). People should actually read the book for themselves instead of taking other people’s word for it.
The verses inaccurately quoted and used out of context solely to incite the masses was written as instruction to early believers so they didn’t garner the wrath of local authorities.
But people like to troll Obama with inaccuracies too. Nothing new here.
Jehovah’s Witness?
Jemima’s Witness
Yall want some pancakes?
I disagree with M.S. on this. Simply reading the explanation Paul gives in the following two verses shows that Paul considered women, since the time of Adam and Eve, to need men to think for them. The teachings of Paul consistently attempt to put women in a role of subjugation to men, regardless of their location. This puts the idea that this is simply a way to avoid “the wrath of local authorities” in a rather doubtful light.
This is one example of the many areas where the teachings of Paul are in direct opposition to the teachings of Jesus. Jesus taught compassion toward and respect for the ideas of women. These contradictions to Jesus’ teachings are why I have concluded that Paul was a false apostle, and that his supposed conversion was simply a zealot’s realization that the ideals he was fighting were spreading faster than he could prevent, so he had to change tactics. His teachings are full of subjugation and separation messages, again in direct opposition to those of Jesus.. Jesus’ taught things that were radical, different, and his message of helping those who suffered meant that they were helping each other, and interfering with the way those higher in political station were able to control those beneath them..
By taking his perversion of what Jesus taught out into the Gentile world, he was able to create a faster growing base for “Christianity”, with a structure of internal subjugation, so that the exterior structure of subjugation would hold.
This was reinforced after the Council of Nicaea and the Council of Constantinople, where the newly converted Caesar ordered the religious hierarchy to consolidate Christianity into one set of beliefs. The religious leaders of that day were the non-first born sons of political leaders, and therefore would not inherit their fathers’ political stations. This set the precedent for religious appointments to be political rather than based on extraordinary faith. The First Nicean and Constantinople councils were called by a conqueror interested in keeping the masses under control, so naturally they kept the teachings of the false apostle Paul, because his teachings allowed for better subjugation and control of those following the formalized tenants. The fact that those who did not agree with the new system were put to death shows the lack of adherence to a Jesus-inspired faith.
Even now, when there are so many denominations of Christianity that have fractured off from the big political engine, the teachings of subjugation and separation have managed to follow these new Christian belief sets. Again, this is in direct opposition to the teachings of Christ. This means that mainstream Christianity is still filled with puppet strings that allow the politically powerful to use “Christian values” to control the masses. All it takes is a gentle push to turn those un-Christlike tenants of Paul’s teachings of subjugation and separation into fear and hatred, which then gives those in power the ability to keep the masses busy, and under their control.
I am not anti-Christian; I am far from that. The actual teachings of Jesus are excellent guidelines to a life of fulfillment and spiritual happiness. The misinterpretations of those teachings do not. Unfortunately, mainstream Christianity still concentrates on teaching the anti-Christlike teachings of fear and hatred through subjugation and separation.
In summation, I leave you with a quote attributed to Ghandi, that is sadly a quite accurate assessment of this situation:
“I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ”
It gets better… 1 Timothy 5:23: Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities.
.
Basically Paul is telling the church not to go against the law of the land (which Jesus tells us not to do)You must understand that women’s rights in that area was far worse then than it even is today, and it was against the law to give them any writes. Hell, women couldn’t even vote in the US until 1920
The New Testament is in no way misogynistic. Jesus only gave the greatests of respects to women (see the woman at the well, the “he who is without sin should throw the first stone”, and mary magdelene.
This is in the Old Testament not the New Testament, Paul has nothing to do with this.
1st Timothy is a letter written by Paul in the new testament to Timothy, a pastor of a church Paul planted. Punisher is exactly right, without the context of the laws and traditions of the first century in that country and under that rule, you can’t know “why” this was written. Further, Pauls letters were largely addressing problems that were occurring in churches, and how to deal with them. Sometimes he didn’t have enough time to address every little issue so he had to make sweeping judgements to shut down a problem until he could deal with it in a more personal and detailed fashion. People love to use this verse to indict Christian doctrine when they have no idea what the surrounding issues were behind it.
* women’s rightS WERE far worse…
And also “to give them any writes” SERIOUSLY????
Sorry, my dear pun-isher, by writing a serious post with so many mistakes in it, you have only succeeded in looking like a fool, and giving a push for the opposite opinion.
Soooo…. logically then, women shouldn’t vote?
actually, you got the grammer mistake in that sentense wrong, genius. Using was is correct, however the apostrophe in “women’s” should have been at the end — “womens’”.
Also, you have been plagued with, superfluous commas, which is a tough disease to get over, and the only cure is to start thinking subjectively, when responding to someone else, instead of sounding like a little fartknocker.
lol- sentence
grammar* sentence*, and we all know the only real cure is more cowbell.
Some of us don’t spell check after our computer corrects mistakes from typing, maybe he has better things to do…that doesn’t make him an idiot, you just don’t like the fact that there is a sound reason for why the verse states what it does.
read the next 2 verses, and Paul tells you that women have needed men to tell them what to think since Adam and Eve. I agree that JESUS respected women. Paul did not, and taught against the teachings of Jesus, in this area and many others. Basically, when taken in context, Paul is saying that women can’t think for themselves, therefore they must be controlled by their men.
Considering the use of wine in the Bible, fresh wine was fruit juice (not spoiled or fermented) – it’s still good advice!
“… woman… keep silent…”
Ha-ha, good one, Timothy!
*Paul
Well, a 3-second google showed an even more interesting version of 1 Timoty 2:13-14
“For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.”
checked my bible, ^true
“Stop taking this book literally.” -Common Sense, 21:50
if it was taken literal it would read 1 timmothy-2:12 but i suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 for adam was first formed, then eve
“This bit looks bad so let’s say that women not being allowed to speak is a metaphor for… I dunno, who cares?” – Bepo, 05:45
You realize that your hypothetical verse cancels itself out? The book of Common Sense commands that the reader not take the book of Common Sense literally.
For those of you not willing to look up the context, the verse is talking about Sunday etiquette.
“Moreover, stop taking all this book seriously” – Common Sense, 21:51
Paul wrote it not Timothy. Also it was in the congregation. In other words the men in charge are held responsible when things go wrong.
Yeah, I was under the impression that the “women keep silent” was soley a church thing, and nothing else. I was always thinking that outside of worship services and SOME marriage situations, the Bible would have little to no problem with women having jobs or even put in positions of authority. Heck, if you think about it, it would be hard for a woman not to be in authority, esp if they guy had a big house or some business.
So, yeah I’m in a similar position as fangface and noodles-at the moment.
“[...] a meal of meat between two pieces of bread.”
OMG, the bible predicted the sandwich!!!
I am so going to convert to christianity, the church of sandwich lovers right now!
OMG, you are gullible!!!
He would have to be if he’s gonna become a Christian…
+1
Someone insulting a group of 2 billion people anonymously behind the safety of a computer screen?
Watch out fellas. We’ve got a badass over here.
Someone defending religion against those over here who are atheists?
Watch out, we got ourselves a Christian here.
He have to. Otherwise he would be burned or stoned to death.
White power.
why is it that men always leave the toilet seat up……..that is the jooooke
Why is it that women don’t look before sitting on the toilet?
How would we notice the toilet seat being up if we didn’t look?
Probably when you your ass got wet.
Or just bend down and drop the seat instead of complaining about it?
And whats wrong with having a woman shut her yap and remain subserviant to their husband? I’m having a hard time seeing how these verses are bad…
Women! Know your limits!
Oh no! You are so obviously a misogynist! I’m going to make angry comments about how you’re totally evil and probably a rapist.
Or someone could just put down their own words and claim it was from a bible verse and some idiot might just believe that the bible actually said it.
“12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet, 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.” (1 Tim. 2:12-13).
Or believe that everything in the bible should be taken out of context and used as if it were truly the words of God, and not written by bigoted, insecure men.
Though I do agree that a sammich would be rather nice right about now.
Oops, sorry Mosh, meant to reply to heng.
NO! Its too late! My feelings are hurt beyond apology! MISSUNDERSTANDINGMYOWNRELIGIONOFFORGIVENESS!!!RAAAAAAAAAR!
what’s the chance the next demotivational is about how unreasonable women are?
low, considering this is already a sexist one. Not that memebase ever seems to care about that, as there’s sexist memes everyday, but never any aimed at men…weird that.
Well if you follow the laws of logic, if a meme aimed at women is considered sexist, then it would follow that memes aimed towards men would be antisexist. And what about those places where it has been suggested there are at least 8 genders? Sexexist?
Whoever said there a re 8 genders was having a big lol.
*there are sexist memes everyday.
Timothy 2:13
“if we are faithless,
he remains faithful,
for he cannot disown himself. ”
antijokechicken.jpg
Wow. Timothy was a total chauvinistic douche.
No, that is supposedly a quote directly from jesus. Jesus and therefore god “was a total chauvinistic douche.”
That is right, all you so-called christian feminists. Your religion says you are wrong.
No, it is Paul’s letter to Timothy, where he is quite careful to differentiate the bits which he is giving advice to Timothy’s situation and the bits which he thinks are from Jesus. When Paul says ‘I permit’ Paul means this is something Paul is permitting, not that Paul is saying it is something Jesus said. That’s what ‘I’ means – the speaker, not someone else. If you can find something Jesus is reputed as saying in the gospels, then that might give your argument some credence.
The letter was writen by the apostle Paul TO timothy. The more you know.
Perhaps you should read at least part of the book before you criticize it.
Spoiler alert, the world ends…
Spoiler alert, Christ comes back to destroy it but recreates it for those who believed in him (not those who somehow deserve salvation). To find out how you can be a part of this joyous occassion…
invite the Jahovah’s Witnesses into your home for once! LOL!
(btw im not JW)
Everything that has a begining has an end Neo.
Amen
This wasn’t written by ‘Timothy’ its just the passages are entitled that. Its believed to be written by the Apostle Paul, which would mean he was writing the teaching of Jesus…
And people dispute that the Bible is not outdated…
Paul was not an original Apostle. He never even met Jesus when Jesus was alive. Paul was originally named Saul and actually spent many years hunting down Christians. Then he “converted” and proceeded to ruin true Christianity.
Jup, everyone who believes in a slightly different version of Christianity than you is not a true Christian… I’ve heard that argument so often and from such different people that it has lead me to the conclusion that there are in fact no true Christians at all. It’s all a big hoax.
Shame, Jesus was a pretty cool dude, he would have deserved a few true followers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
+1 brain power to you.
Also. Was Jesus a Christian?
I don’t think so. They were first termed Christians in Antioch, after Jesus’s death.
By the Bible, that is.
yeh thats totally my bad, i was thinking Peter…
It was Paul who also said ‘Man should always be head of women’. Considering his teaching are some of the main foregrounds for modern christian writings and teachings it still doesn’t take away from my main point of the Bible being outdated
Are you kidding…? Paul was one of the greatest Christians of all time. Assuming you are a Christian for the sake of this conversation (if you are not, I can’t persuade you any better, it’s 1) not my place 2) not THE place to have that debate), if you believe that the Bible is the infallible Word of God, then you need to rethink some things. Even if you don’t think it’s all God speaking (whether it’s through Himself or a Follower like Paul), don’t you think God would have intervened a bit to make sure that His Word is not distorted like you seem to think it is?
Like God always intervenes when bad things happen.
Like terrorism and genocide.
He totally steps in when that happens, right?
Oh wait, wasn’t God the one that promoted genocide on a regular basis?
Yeahhh….
He does what he does for his purposes and for his glory and does all things after the counsel of his own will. If he allows something bad to happen without intervention, then he has a greater purpose in the larger picture. As to preserving his Word, that is stated as one of his highest priorities. Sorry his will isn’t subject to yours…well, not really sorry, but let’s not forget who between the 2 of you is subordinate, even if you refuse to accept your place. So having said that, if its ok with you, I’ll follow him, because following you will get me nowhere. Following him is my created purpose, either way, what you think is irrelevant because you have no answers. But if you think you do, go ahead, tell me what your worldview, whatever it is, offers me that can take the place of the risen Christ.
So his intended word certainly wasn’t what he handed out a few thousand years ago, yeah? Looking at bad translations and omissions and neglected texts, as well as nearly countless denominations and sects; saying that one is Christian and follows the teaching of god means so many different things it has become almost meaningless.
What is better than following a guy who believed judgement day was nigh, who suggested that we abandon multiple basic qualities of being human, both “good” and “bad”, like family and lust? Or a deity who existence and doings are so far undetectable that he’s essentially irrelevant? Who both agreed on the nature of punishment like hellfire or plagues for slight deviations from arbitrary morality?
Plenty. I’m not going to tell you not to believe; if that is what gives you power and the will to live and do, then more power to you. But there’s no way I can ever believe it, so I live with the thought that we all have but a short time in this vast universe to do better for ourselves and others. It means nothing in the end, sure, but we should enjoy it and make the best of it while we’re here. There’s so much to do and explore and discuss. this worldview offers us freedom, which has both great power and great responsiblity. But it is also my worldview that we can, sooner or later, one step at time, qualify for this power of freedom. The freedom to make our own decisions for our own species, and to tell the universe, with courage and certainty: “Bring on the waves of oblivion, ’cause we’re about to make one hell of a sandcastle.”
Ivory, thanks for your considerate response. I can appreciate your frustration in looking at Christians, and if I were one based on the people I know in churches…at least most of them, I wouldn’t be prompted to be one. On your reference to Harold camping, he became a 5 star nut-job when he started setting dates, in fact, he was 4 stars for many years before that. If you wish to engage in attacking the positions of people who mishandle the word of God, I will be happy to join you in doing so. With that in mind, I’ll make that the focus of what the problem is…guys like him, that mishandle the bible! Your suggestion that the bible is not what God intended today, that it has been compromised over the years is the one thing that hasn’t happened. The followers may be all over the place, but the bible is fine. God by definition of how he is revealed in the bible is capable of all things. It’s stated in the bible that his word is eternal and incorruptible. Men cannot remove it. Sure, there are groups like the Jehovah witnesses that have their altered version of it, but no one else outside their group recognizes it as legitimate…
Ah, except I wasn’t speaking about Harold Camping. I was talking about Jesus. I know there’s been room for interpretation, but my thinking has been that with Jesus was not intently concerned with a lengthy existence of human society after his death/ascent. The talk about leaving one’s family, abandoning all things (including money) to follow him, about the second coming (no man may know the hour, but its coming was imminent; the current generation would live to see it); it seems he was more concerned with everybody repenting and clinging to righteousness due to upcoming Judgement, rather than present some abstract philosophical plan that would empower human cultures for another x-thousand years. But hey, maybe that’s just me.
As far as people who mishandle the word of god…that’s a rough job, because just about every group will accuse the others of mishandling the Word. Who’s right?
Evangelicals? Catholics? Polytheistic Christians? “Jesus-was-fully-human” Christians? The list goes on.
I’m not necessarily say that what the bible is today isn’t what he intended; but I am saying that the text exists in a number of different translations (biblegateway gives over 20, and that’s just in English), some of differences between the versions being significant. Then there are the oft cited examples, like the “virgin/young woman” problem with regards to prophecy, the later addition of text onto the end of … Luke, I think? What about the unused Gospels, like James or Thomas? Who or what determines what is god’s teaching revealed, and what is human error and addition and omission?
Unfortunately, I couldn’t get the second half of this response thru here. This site is horrible for sending messages into cyberspace.
I have a blog, if you click on my name (only in this comment, though; it’s the wrong URL in the others). Feel free to leave me a message there or e-mail me.
He may have intervened if he was not imaginary…
Yes, an imaginary man 2000 years ago has had more impact on world history by far than any other single figure in human history…to coin a meme: seems legit!
What…the…hell…are…you…talkin…bout…Willis?
This could be perfectly legit according to almost any religion…
Oh my God, people were so backwards and not forward looking 2,000 years ago. Why couldn’t they just drive their Prius to a Unitarian church and pray to nothing?
Oh… wait, it’s 2,000 years ago in a vastly different world/society/context.
And yet having 5 wives in burkhas that get beat across the legs if they walk too far or too close to their husbands is very forward thinking.
They should have put a best before date on the bible. That way people would have known when all the stories had become outdated and meaningless… They apparently can’t tell from the way they wiff and poison their minds.
Haha, well said.
The objective morality created by an all powerful infallible being who specifically and repeatedly stated not to change his teachings is outdated?
No, but the advice of Paul to Timothy on how he runs his church is, given his culture and the times he lived in.
*facepalm*
ahh….. thats not remotely close to what 1 timothy 2:13 is
Also, women should wear a veil and dress modestly
1 Corinthians 11:6
For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.:
1 Timothy 2:9-10
Likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works.
1 Corinthians 11:13-16
Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God..
Also, everyone who believes the bible should be shot.
Well there goes 1 billion people.
Tad over estimated count there, but only by this || much.
Ever heard of the inquisition?
you’ll regret saying that one day and by that time it with be to late
So, basically it says don’t dress like a whore, and judge for yourself if you think it’s proper for a women to cover herself while in prayer.
Given the context of the times, and even today, that’s really not that shocking.
Indeed, nothing says h00ker like someone showing off their hair.
At the time, yes.
Not wearing a hat, and braiding your hair, is dressing like a whore????
Guess you missed the whole gold and pearls part of the attire, but hey, context often skews viewpoints.
So, Paul gives advice to some churches under a certain context and phrases it as advice. “Hey, Timothy, I don’t know what you’re going to do, but in my churches I tell the women to keep silent and learn from their husbands instead of disrupting church.”
On the other hand, Paul says “There is no longer male nor female for all are one in Christ.”
One is a theological statement, part of Christian doctrine. The other is, well, advice, based on a certain time and place that may just not be applicable outside of their context.
And, Timothy is one of the Pauline epistles that many biblical scholars don’t actually think was written by Paul, but someone writing in the style of Paul.
Modest European women covered their heads in public into the mid-20th century regardless of religion. In the first and second quote he’s saying nothing more than that women (and men) should conform to a respectable appearance for their time. I’m sure even Paul would see that appealing to current standards of the Roman Empire was hardly an airtight argument for anything.
As for the middle one — do we not all disapprove of Snooki? Do we not all agree that substance is more important than style? What’s the point here?
Haha!
I believe the ENTIRE chapter should be in order before we jump to conclusions.
This is the teaching that a man is the only one that should be the head of a specific church, for a priest is the authority of the church and is a repository for religious knowledge. It is saying that women can’t be priests -_-
Because Jesus made the church his wife.
People really need to view this verse in context. It was written directly to a church where women were for the first time being allowed to attend services with men. This was highly progressive for the time and showed a great regard for the equality of women.
The problem was women were not used to being in these services and would yell across the aisle to their husbands during the service to ask questions. They were highly disruptive, so Paul wrote for them to wait till after to ask their husbands questions. The wording makes it sound confusing out of context.
This particular part was to the same church. Some of the early Christian churches were led by women as is evidenced at the end of some of Pauls letters where he addresses them directly.
This is clearly what democrats believe.
Too bad those people can’t seem to see “I do not…” as to mean his preference not his command.
LOL, Catholics…
I can’t believe how gullible some of you people are. Worshipping an invisible man who lives in the clouds. Giving your hard-earned money to pedophiles so they can afford the best lawyers around. Discriminating against gays, lesbians, and bisexuals because they are “abominations.” And for what, so you can feel better about yourself when you die? Hate to break it to you, but we’re all going to the same place when we die, and that’s in a hole in the ground. I know that, and deep down, you know it too.
It requires less faith to believe in an “invisible man” than it does to believe that the thousands of necessities required for life on Earth, all somehow came together perfectly by coincidence, as well as believing in the repeatedly disproved evolutionary theory.
Just because a theistic explanation appears to be simpler, that doesn’t make it true. You need to have evidence as to why it should be true.
The evidence is there that the universe is around 13 billion years old (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is one of the best examples of this, but there are many other pieces such as large scale homogenity and redshift).
There is good evidence that evolution has occured in the past (the fossil record), and is occuring right now (mutations in DNA). The reason we have to get a flu jab every year is because the virus has changed, eg it has evolved. Knowing about evolution and its mechanisms is important, because it helps us develop medicine.
I’d be interested to hear how evolutionary theory has been disproved. The modern scientific community would love to hear your evidence. Don’t try to use thermodynamics 2; It states that energy TENDS to dissapate (in laymans terms). This is in line with what we see in the universe; there are very few places where any form of life as we know it can exist, and overall the energy accross the universe is fairly uniformly distributed. It is the small imbalances which allow complexity such as life to develop.
You are free to believe whatever you like. Personally, I care about the truth, and that for which we have evidence. Religious faith is of neither use nor benefit to me.
actually there is plenty of evidence to support evolution, plenty of fossil records that complete a rather large evolutionary tree, so far there isn’t any theory to suggest otherwise, there appears to be no real amount of concrete evidence to really disprove evolution, i’m sure if there were substantial evidence to disprove evolution, all the scientists would accept it, that is after they try tearing it apart through scientific process to see if all the maths works and if all the evidence fits. Your problem here is ignorance, do yourself a favour and try to actually research about evolution, its process, what it does etc, you’ll find that it is not all coincidence, it’s all a very complicated process of random mutation (which is perhaps the only real random part) then natural selection selects the fittest of the group. The mutations add changes to species over billions of years and that is how we have such a wide variety of creatures today, if you actually looked you’d see that all life originates from a single celled organism. It’s a shame you do not see the true beauty that is the theory of evolution
Evolutionary theory may not be sound, but evolution itself is easy to prove.
When creatures adapt to their surroundings, this is the beginnings of evolution.
Also, the Bible never denies evolution.
Perhaps God used evolution as a tool, ever think of that?
No, you’re too busy biting at anything that doesn’t agree with your narrow views.
Yes, we did! Ever hear of death before sin? No, you’re too busy assuming that christians don’t have reasons for disbelieveing in ideas you think we haven’t considered that make these 2 worldviews incompatible. Perhaps the view isn’t as narrow as you think, especially given that there are many facets to our position you clearly no nothing of. I don’t need to hear the merits of the empirical/naturalist view for more than a few hours to know that no matter how much time I invest in learning the details of an accidental universe, that even a PhD in any of the related fields of study can never answer the philosophical dilemmas embracing it poses for me…and neither can you, nor any challenger on any of these forums. Yes, it really sucks when you discover that you don’t have the tools to argue this point to conclusion any better than you think we do because when it comes down to it, the worldview of the evolutionist is deficient in such a major way.
Please do enlighten me about the disproval of evolution?
Think about it this way: I was chided by a woman comparing Gods creative power with magic. To call the biblical Gods works magic is like calling a birds ability to fly magic. It’s not accurate. Speaking the universe into existence is within the definition of the characteristics given of him in his self attesting revelation, the bible. For him, it’s as easy as speaking. My point is that the biblical account is conceptually sound and plausible given the eternal authors power. In considering naturalism, we see accidents on a grand and incredible scale that defy imagination, that have no accountability, and make no sense, certainly not of our existence, and forget about purpose. Yet, we are supposed to believe we are fools for believing what we do, and ridiculed for it, when your proposition in our estimation, is far more incredible and has many unanswerable questions. It is our contention that our worldview, is complete in that it provides all the necessary preconditions for intelligibility and a philosophy in which it’s ethics, metaphysic and epistemological content have no tension among themselves. In spite of this, you would have us turn our backs on such a sufficient system to embrace your broken and unanswered question filled, philosophically bankrupt system, and you look at us as being ridiculous. Dude, you have no clue! How’s that for enlightenment?
A bit bitey there at the end, but you do have a very good point.
Some people just don’t want to be accountable for their lives, I think. =)
I agree! In fact, when I wasn’t, and if I still weren’t, a christian, escaping that accountability would be at, or near, the top of my agenda…whether I realized it or not.
Any man that thinks he knows any thing, knows nothing yet as he ought to know. 1 Corinthians 8:2
That’s not what it says…
Okay folks, let me try and get some of this cleared up.
Let me just say now that I am by no means all-knowing, nor do I pretend to know exactly what Paul meant, and in my own beliefs, what God meant. But what I do tell you I know is how my Church, and I, interpret things like this.
The specific laws and such in the Bible are not always to be taken as written. Specifically things like this, where Paul is talking about restricting women, these were the norms and the expectations of that time period. What Paul is saying, I think, is that women (and men, for that matter) should be what they are designed to be for that time. In that time, it was neither acceptable nor feasible for a woman to teach. None were truly educated, so if they were to teach, it would be the equivalent of a Middle Schooler of today teaching a College class. (Strictly knowledge-based, of course, it would be more similar to a first or second grader teaching a Middle Schooler, because upper level courses like Calculus were either not discovered or not common among everyday people in that time.)
What Paul is NOT saying is, “Women are to be treated like property.” If Paul was a Christian, and I believe he was, otherwise his letters would not be included in the Bible, he then believed what Jesus taught. And he believed Christian principles. Women are highly respected in Christian culture. If Jesus were to disregard or show that He believed men were higher than women, why, then, did he interact with women so much? After Rising from the Dead, He first appeared to a woman! In that era, no one would have believed that! This, for one, is one reason why I believe Christianity could not POSSIBLY be a complete hoax: It’s just too bold in its statements. If the founders of the Faith were trying to fool people into believing them and making a plausible new religion, they surely would not have told of something as PREPOSTEROUS as GOD appearing to a woman first.
Oh yes, also: 1 Timothy 2:13: For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
In 2:12, also, the Greek word authenteō, which is used in this translation as “to have authority” can be translated in various ways, not all of which are so bold and absolute.
lol read and live by my book, but if you don’t like what it says you can always interpret it how you want.
Ah, the old ‘its only literal if we want it to be’ argument. Yet Creation is true – both the conflicting accounts in Genesis.
Doesn’t matter, meme failed.
+ 4000 internets for you
Also, OP is an a$$hole, so is everyone who agrees with him
Why do Christians put up with crap like this from people like you? Target any other belief system that way and see what happens. People are entitled to their own form of belief without being belittled or harassed. What makes Christianity any more different?
The reason this passage is in here was a reference to the meetings that the men had in the temple during Jesus’ time. Consider it a modern day Sunday school. The men didn’t want the women to talk because they didn’t know any scripture and were known to ask stupid questions during theological talks. I think that scripture should be taken fairly literally, but a lot of the bible is metaphorical. This piece of scripture should be taken literally, but is one of the few passages in the Bible that don’t apply to modern times.
Let me be your enlightenment as to why the bible says this. In 2:9-2:10, the bible says “I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess in worship. 2:11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.”
This is sometimes misconstrued as women should never teach or be at the head of the church. However Paul, one of the deciples, commended his co-worker, Priscalla, and she taught apollos the great preacher. In addition, paul frequently mentioned other women who held positions of responsibility in the church. Phoebe worked in the church. Mary Typhena were both the heads of churches. Paul, in timothy, was most likely prohibiting ephesian women, not all women, from teaching. Ephesian women, who at the time were not allowed to get any kind of education, were starting Ephisian churches, but they could not read, so they had no way of reading the bible and knowing whether or not what they heard from sources were true. He prohibited them from teaching because they were illiterate, and when the blind and uneducated lead the blind and uneducated, I think we can all see what happens. Btw, I am not christian, I just read these things alot and know exactly what they meant when they put it into the bible. By the way, 2:13 does not say that, it says “For Adam was formed first, then eve.” It has absolutely nothing to do with the importance of women and men, but it more or less defines that women back then could be deceived easily, such is the story of the garden of Eden.
hahahaha the comments on this are so entertaining
This is really taken out of context.
There is a good reason I’m an atheist.
The “New Testament” – an insult to the book it follows.
That conflicts with the story of Deborah. She was a woman and judge over all Israel.
Well, if you read the Sermon on the Mount, it’s pretty obvious that Jesus expects you to care and actually think. It actually takes some, you know, effort. Instruction in a letter made to one church in a location where there were some very troubling and problematic ideas bouncing about should not be applied with idiotic, superstitious and thoughtless abandon to every context.
Was that response intended as a reply to my post? It has nothing to do with what I said.Must be Christian – Answers with something totally irrelevant.
Original God following religion often had women as it’s leaders – “New Testament” bans women from leading roles. Name one female pope or cardinal.
Perhaps you should start thinking. Maybe read the whole bible, not just small sections.
You need to read it again, it directly deals with your point. You may want to read some of the other posts here as well. The issue is well addressed here. The letter was written to a specific church, in a specific area, and was a remedy to a specific problem and involved the laws and surrounding culture of that day. It’s not meant to be a remedy for all cultures in all times. I learned from reading these posts. I never really had a handle on this issue after being a Christian for 25 years. That’s why Christians are admonished to study to show themselves approved, diligent workmen rightfully dividing the word of truth. There are many who mishandle it. People read 1 verse, out of context, and a context that involves detailed knowledge of an obscure history, and use it to formulate wild conclusions.
Well said, sir. Well said.
Good job on reading one verse out of context :-p I’m sure you are thinking critically here. You are probably justified in not reading another word more of it, too! That way you can continue living comfortably in the Dunning-Kruger effect :-p x 1000
Nahum 3:5 “I am against you,” declares the LORD Almighty.
“I will lift your skirts over your face.
I will show the nations your nakedness
and the kingdoms your shame.
OH LOOK! I CAN QUOTE BIBLE VERSES OUT OF CONTEXT TOO!
Author: Rick Santorum.
All the grammatical errors in a religion war! Gaaaaahh!!1!!11one!1
1 Timothy 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
Good job quoting the Bible correctly, a little google goes a long way.
None of you understand the culture of the times of this situation. Back in those days, the church sermons were taught in Greek. Since the women would only know the local languages due to lack of education, and the fact that women were segregated from the men in the sermons, they would start whispering to one another out of boredom. This eventually got out of hand: Paul had to make this stop.
Women weren’t allowed to teach at that time because they JUST LEARNED about the gospel. You shouldn’t begin to teach about something that you are just learning.
It’s funny because the sandwich didn’t even exist until over 1500 years after that was written.
Was quite meh, as I feel for most sandwich jokes.