Zone1 do you agree with Paul that women should be quiet in church?

do you?


  • Total voters
    8
A little too late lol. We have a female pastor. A female lay pastor. Our church council is 3/4 women. Women teach Sunday school. So um this is a little late.
 
I think you misunderstand. I believe women should be SILENCED both in the church and in society at large. There are places for their voices to be heard, but they are decidedly limited.
and i thought you were speaking of newcomers ….. in general ….
 
A little too late lol. We have a female pastor. A female lay pastor. Our church council is 3/4 women. Women teach Sunday school. So um this is a little late.
and Paul is clearly wrong!
 
and i thought you were speaking of newcomers ….. in general
Not newcomers as much as the second versions of humankind. Adam asked for a helpmate and assistant. God created Lilith and then Eve, both faulty and unable to meet Adam’s needs and desires, though in different ways.
 
no, we are not.

who said that only women were asking things?

men can behave the same, and probably did.
And you believe if men were being disruptive, Paul wouldn't have written a thing. But, if it makes you happy to criticize Paul, go for it. Reminds me of Theodore Roosevelt:

Which person are you being? Which person was Paul?

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
 
And you believe if men were being disruptive, Paul wouldn't have written a thing. But, if it makes you happy to criticize Paul, go for it. Reminds me of Theodore Roosevelt:

Which person are you being? Which person was Paul?

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
a pity you cannot just answer in a neutral way

you cannot imagine that men can also be disruptive in church?
 
Not newcomers as much as the second versions of humankind. Adam asked for a helpmate and assistant. God created Lilith and then Eve, both faulty and unable to meet Adam’s needs and desires, though in different ways.
i meant newcomers to church
 
you cannot imagine that men can also be disruptive in church?
Paul was not addressing those who could "possibly" be disruptive. He was addressing those who were. In this case it was the women, and from what he wrote he was simply saying the time to pursue answers to their questions was not during the service, but later at home.

It take modern Western culture for someone to accuse Paul of picking on women. When those in his day read his letter, the women probably said, "Okay! That makes sense." Bet they weren't snowflakes that went looking for a puppy and a safe place. Or, for a social outlet to tell everyone about that meany, Paul, and how he should be canceled.
 

Forum List

Back
Top