...but why generalise so much?
Simplifications are valuable for learning, but should never be accepted as complete understandings. The trick then becomes to use the simplifications (stereotypes) to understand individuals without assuming that they will conform completely to your stereotypes.
And its fun to create theories, then smash them apart and see what remains. (Yip! yip!*)
Like kids with building blocks.
I get the pleasure of theorizing, you get the pleasure of taking them apart, and then we all learn from what remains.*Puppy is loose again.
Example: One ounce of copper does not equal a different ounce of copper. The number of atoms in one ounce is different that the number of atoms in the other ounce. Also, the structural arrangements of the atoms within the materials are different. Therefore, they are not perfectly equal, neither in mass nor in physical properties, which is why engineering deals with the values that include plus-&-minuses.
I do a chemistry degree, and so I find this blatant misinformation pretty laughable. For intrinsic copper (that means pure) one ounce of copper will have exactly the same number of copper atoms in it as another ounce of copper. Of course intrinsic copper is an idealised situation, it would never occur in real life, but as you didn't clarify what you were saying I assumed pure copper was what you were referring to. From statistical mechanics the Ergodic Hypothesis states that the time averaged value of a real substance for any physical property is the same as its ensemble average over a long enough timescale (an ensemble being a theoretical situation that takes into account all possible variations a particular material could have through probability). Number of defects is a physical property, and so using the Ergodic Hypothesis over time the average number of these defects will be exactly the same for two ounces of intrinsic copper and thus all their other physical properties - which will be related to number of defects - will also be the same. I appreciate that where defects are located in a material will be different, but that has no bearing on their overall physical properties.
The lesson here is: never use science as an example if you don't really know what you're talking about - there could always be a scientist lurking out there ready to dump on your face with his superior science knowledge.
Science? Science is all theory that has no REAL application to reality. I took Engineering (but didn't finish). In engineering, you learn that 1 has a single significant figure and can equal to as much as 1.49 or 0.50 as expressed with 3 significant figures. And 1.00 (one with three significant figures) can be as much as 1.004 or as little as 0.995 as expressed with four significant figures. So unless you have discovered a device that can accurately measure an ounce of copper to the weight of a single atom in ounces, you WILL have rounding errors. And it those rounding errors that Guarantee that your two pieces of copper are not equal in measure, regardless of how well you measured them.
And doesn't chemistry teach that objects are only in states of equilibrium, which means that as the copper interacts with the air, the number of its atoms is always in a state of flux?
Furthermore, why do you suppose that Ergodic Hypothesis is still called a hypothesis? If it had ANY support from evidence, wouldn't it be called a theory? It probably doesn't have sufficient evidence to be called a theory because it postulates a level of purity that doesn't exist in reality; therefore, reality keeps disproving it.
Finally, if computer chip makers weren't concerned with WHERE the impurities were, we wouldn't have the computer technology that gets them as small as it does (because impurites function like wires on the molecular level).// One final lesson, you know those "negligible" values of heat that escape into the atmosphere during your chemistry experiments? If you ever do anything with weather or climate, don't maintain the assumption that the atmosphere can absorb an infinite amount of heat.
Well, he's got me good there. Completely ignored my objection, and didn't even appreciate that I tried to make it witty!
Witty? It was so full of hot air that it passed completely over my head! If an objection it be.
Does it not say in the Bible that women are not allowed to teach or not?
Did you not quote, "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man"? Moreover, did not I challenge your preconceived notions of what it means to teach by pointing out the body does not teach the head and yet still informs the head of necessary information? In Jesus’ day, a Teacher was the same as a Master (Think Jedi's system of training, if you will). Therefore, those that taught also had authority that went with it. So the question to apply this doctrine would be "Who Has The Authority?"
Consider this, regardless of whether or not a poster on this forum is male or female, the only authorities that I recognize is the Authority over the site (and thus over whether or not my words are published on this site) and the authority of Knowledge. The authority of the speaker as a dispenser of information I ignore. I feel
that a person who is an expert in a field should still be required to provide the basis for the knowledge that comes from that expertise. Therefore, if I ignore the authority of the poster when considering the poster's words, what authority does the poster have over me? None. Therefore, when a poster is female, yet has no authority over me, how can she be my Teacher or Master?
By believing that I have no authority except the authority of Knowledge and treating all others likewise, I maintain the Equality between us by lifting neither others nor myself. The main lesson that I have been learning is that there is difference between what I thought was knowledge and what knowledge actually is.
But the main problem with your argument is that only woman who is required to obey me is my wife...
That's nothing to do with what I was saying. I was just simply pointing out God's Word, which frequently mentions that women should be silent and are inferior to their husbands.
Where is the word "inferior" used? The verses don't describe inferiority verse supremacy; they describe the relationship in terms of authority:
"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3)
Since when is the head stronger than the body? Is not the body more skilled than the head? And yet the head possesses the authority over the body.
"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (I Corinthians 11:8-9)
This verse can actually be used to support my position that women are superior in ability because, being made for man, a woman can possess the abilities that a man does not have. For why would a man need help from one that is inferior in ability?
"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14).
"Subjection" and "authority" are words that deal with a relationship in terms of authority and not ability.
And in every case when there is a verse that appears to diminish women, it is always in relationship towards her husband. Therefore, these verses apply principally to the husband-wife relationship.
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)
This verse is best for why a woman's silence in the church deals with her relationship towards her husband. "for it is a shame for women to speak in the church" refers to the husband being shamed by her speaking. Let me elaborate...
According to Judaism, to shame or to embarrass is to cause the blood to leave another's face; that is to say, to Shed the Blood of another
's face. Therefore shaming another falls under Thou-Shalt-Not-Murder. (see http://www.jewfaq.org/10.htm
Next comes the question of whether or not this applies to Gentiles, as well as Jews, because if it merely part of the Mosaic Law, it does not apply to non-Jews.
1) Eve's curse includes "and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." (Genesis 3:16)
2) Noah when shamed by Ham for seeing him naked cursed Canaan, son of Ham. (Genesis 9:22-25)
These two verses suggest that a wife shaming her husband would indeed be immoral and should be applied to Gentiles (as the authority of man is established in Genesis 3 & the wrong doing of causing shame is established in Genesis 9). So every woman should learn if her speaking in church shames him or not. Of course, if a woman feels that she shouldn't speak in church, regardless of whether or not she shames her husband, then she shouldn't, because she believes she shouldn't (Romans 14:20).
However, there is still the question of being an example to others. By this, I mean whether or not it will cause others to stumble. If you attend a church along side others whose wives would be shaming their husbands if they spoke, then it would be a poor example for your wife to speak. If you attend a church that permits women to speak, then it is a poor example to the wives of the men who are shamed. (Romans 14)
As some people feel no shame and others do, shame is a hard concept to evaluate the question of what is moral. For you might shame someone in one case, but not another in a different case. Therefore, Is it better to assume to you will shame a person or to shame them then apologize because you didn't know?
Also, there is a difference between a female without authority speaking and a female with authority speaking. When a female is given authority, that authority gives her liberty to speak. No man feels shame when his wife is hired to do a job and she does it. Likewise, no husband feels shame when his wife is hired by a church to be pastor or a school to be teacher and she limits her use of authority to what she was hired to do. If she exceeds her mandate, then let the ones who hired her determine whether she can keep her authority or not. As a man's relationship with his wife has no bearing on his occupation, neither should a woman's relationship with her husband have any bearing on hers.
"But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all. For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many." (Mark 10:42-45)