Better at a thing does not mean that they do that thing. There is a difference between natural ability and inclination. Woman who have experienced their violent emotions are more likely than men to talk with their friends about how it makes them feel. This creates the dynamic that diminishes the inclination to perform the same violent acts because the sisters that she talks with help her to release her hold on those emotions. This is an oversimplification of what I have learned, for individuals can still manage their emotions without outside help, but when they need outside help, woman are most likely to seek the help they need. (Which may be why they get upset over males not asking for directions, as it indicates a greater problem within the male psyche.)

As for regards to strength, adrenaline and other emotion-based chemicals can give an individual superior strength when they have cause. Men might be superior in violence without cause, but I won't want to get in the way of any woman when she has cause to be violent. "Hell hath no fury, like a woman scorned."

When I spoke of ability, I meant natural ability not trained ability. Anyone can become trained in anything and become superior at doing that thing. Men have more inclination to train in war and, therefore, are more likely to have historically demonstrated better ability.


If you meant male society or society in general, then definitely not.
However, if you defined society to include the Society that woman have built between themselves, Maybe. Daughters are trained by mothers, a daughter without a mother is more likely to seek a substitute than a son without a father.
Violence also requires a trigger. Supremacy is not an emotional need for woman as their biology requires cooperation because a woman needs others when giving birth. Therefore a woman can go through her entire life without ever feeling violent emotions, while ever challenge against a man's Will could potentially trigger his anger.

A woman's adaptive traits are more inclusive of building the society that is necessary to support them in their moments of need.

Is Chivalry sexist when it allows a woman to open her own door if she gets there first?

Nothing is as ever simple as you believe it to be because there always things outside of what you experience. And I have yet to say all that I know about this topic.

---------

[/quote]
Natural ability, not trained ability. Sorry for the lack of clarity.


Civiliztion has made war a profession so that only a portion of the developed nations ever experience war. Why is this? Why don't all men join the military? What diminished man's inclination for war and bloodshed? Sure there are other factors, but the influence of the woman who lost husband, sons and fathers surely had an impact on the men that remained.

_________________
1 Corinthians 3:18


Truth. Love. Faith.

Called it!

_________________

It is too expensive.

Quote of the Day: "The Force is with you, young Skywalker. But you are not a Jedi yet."



Sir! Did you forget? I be crazy.

Normal is the perspective one grows up with. I have abandoned that perspective and that is the reason why I deem myself crazy.

Each and every person has a unique biochemical mixture that results in unique perspectives. As I am male, a female's perspective is different from the perspective that I grew up with and therefore is not "normal" to my perspective. But as I have abandoned my "normal", all that is left is the disorder/chaos of seeing the world through everyone else's eyes. Therefore, to judge my perspective on any basis is ludicrous because I don't see the world from a single set of eyes. That is my grief and burden for I have lost all sense of Self. (I gave it to another.) So when I ask stupid questions, it is because I have forgotten the basis from which to formulate the answers. And, god, does my heart hurt...



To women, Yes. Which is why (ideally) woman should marry men and men should marry woman.* Each person contributes something unique to every relationship they form. Men and women are sufficiently different from one another so that any man+woman pairing will result in a greater diversity of understandings than even the most different of individuals paired with another of the same gender. And with a greater diversity of understanding comes a greater number of solutions to the problems that a couple can overcome. But this is opinion and belief, arising from opinions and beliefs that have already been challenged.

* But let's not argue over the morality of homosexuality. Every one sins. (Sin, in this case, meaning imperfection in the sees of the God of Abraham.) So what difference does it make what the sin is? And as almost every couple lives with an unsolved problem (whether it be differences of belief or differences in spending habits) this argument will never sufficiently sway others to abandon a relationship that others are intolerant of. Anyways, one should only apply this understanding to oneself in seeking the best partner one can find and never in judging the relationships of others. But then, if you don't believe that I have found my soulmate, you are unlikely to accept my perceptive on this either.



Refers to reason and not understanding. Understanding comes from the heart, which arises from an individual's unique biochemical "signature". (When I speak of the heart, I do not speak of the cardiac organ.) Therefore, everyone's understanding is unique and a woman's understanding is uniquely different from a man's. This is because a woman has a monthly cycle that she must live with. This continuously changing of biochemistry results in an ever-evolving emotional perspective that must be balanced against her reason and sense of self. This monthly exercise is the source of a woman's understanding that men can never achieve (...without damaging his heart along the way).

------------

I begin with the perception that individuals are unique as snowflakes and diversity is to be valued. The study of people then creates stereotypes, which are simplifications to aid understanding. 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. It is this step that those that argue against me tend to fail to understand about me. 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. Whether the individual is an ounce of copper, or a living being, variance creates sufficient changes so that our understandings of an individual will fail over time. Also, with living things, variance is not only between different things that are similar, but also within the thing itself as the composition of all living things change with time as a direct result of life.

The trick between seeing the difference between two similarities is the acceptance that the labels we use to define things are imperfect representations of the things themselves.

If you do not take into consideration my prior arguments about reality, how do expect to fully understand my later arguments? And keep in mind, that these arguments are philosophical in nature.

------------



Jackass.



My initial impression was that speaks of position similar to mine, but more accurate. (Which is too be expected as my mind is more skilled in bullsh*t than accuracy). But as I look at it apart from the rest of what he said, it seems to be lacking the clarity that would prevent me from asking what "average at a higher rate" means. If it means what I thought it to mean, then I defer to his statement.



My mother is a redhead with a mostly German ancestry and had temper that matches both related stereotypes (red-hot & fierce). She broke my father (May He Rest In Piece) of his abusive tendencies by breaking his nose and arm on two different occasions, even though he was stronger, older than her father by a year or two AND a war veteran, because she was defending his wife. (You could say my mom was a concubine or you could say that their relationship was immoral. But I would rather you not say anything.) My mom was in her late teens or early twenties when she did this. Perhaps, my opinion is biased, but perhaps you will understand why I believe that ...

a woman's superiority in violence is not a matter of ability or skill. It is a matter of her willing to engage any enemy that threatens those for whom she feels responsible. This alters the biochemical make up of her being by adding adrenaline and/or other related chemicals when she engages in violence. Because these chemicals are in agreement with her emotional state, they are more effective than artificial enhancements using the same chemicals (and less harmful as well). This plus the psychological impact of seeing such a state gives the added advantage of diminishing one's opponents biochemically with fear.

I was walking to school (High School) with my brother after an encounter the previous day with some younger kids who were piling up on my brother. (I picked one of them up and dropped him behind me which scared them all away -- took everything I had to do it.) When along came two older brothers of the kids from the previous day's encounter and punched both my brother and me in a running attack. My attacker hit the side of my head between the temple and the ear, and this spun me around without knocking me off my feet. Without being able to fully process sight (from anger or pain, I know not), I was still aware of the location of my opponent and faced him while feeling all the rage of my being; however, I made no move to attack. If the thought of yesterday's encounter had not provided me with an understanding their motives (I give God the credit for reminding me) my anger would not have been controlled. And when I asked for my glasses, which had been knocked off my face, I heard fear in the voice of one of the kids from the previous day's encounter when he offered my glasses back to me. After that, they never bothered my brother again (nor he them).

As a pacific by choice, I am untrained in any form of combat (unless you consider watching martial arts movies "training"), and I do not fight needlessly. The only other time I engaged someone, I was given a black eye and was laid out flat (but then I was in grade school). ...Unless, of course, you include all the times I have engaged the ground. (And while the ground always wins, it could explain the increase in my pain tolerance) ... Yet, I have no fear of assault nor attack because my mother instilled in me an attitude that communicates I am not a victim. And if you don't believe I am sincere, consider this: Why did I behave like a puppy in the midst of you jackals unless I believe that I can defend myself? Is not the reason you behave like jackals a result of your knowledge of your own weaknesses? Therefore, should not my signs of weakness indicate strength? But since it does not, I am telling you these stories.




Do you not listen to your body to learn whether or not you're hungry or full? Thirty or saturated? Filthy or clean? Warm or cold? There is a balance between listening to your body and controlling it. If you do not listen to your body, you will suffer in health. In like manner, a woman who tells a man when he is need of knowledge performs the same function that your body performs for you. Also just because you ask for knowledge or advice, does not mean that you will use it either.

But the main problem with your argument is that only woman who is required to obey me is my wife... And that, I suppose, is the offense that I commit by asking a woman other than my wife for knowledge: I treat her as if she was. Therefore, a gypsy blessing in atonement for my mistake: "May Piper's husband always be worthy of her and may he always know her worth because she does not give to others what belongs to him. And if she be single, may she find one worthy of her, should she ever choose to seek a husband." I am sorry, Piper.

As an American, I believe that I Should Believe in Equality. How to believe so that it affects my actions and not merely my pontifications, is another matter altogether.

------------


No, that is what you do, WS. Anyways, do you honestly expect a reply to everything said? Aren't my posts long enough as they are? (In addition, I have limited internet acess.)


See reply to Smuel above ... Anybody here a psychologist?

_________________
1 Corinthians 3:18


Truth. Love. Faith.

Well, he's got me good there. Completely ignored my objection, and didn't even appreciate that I tried to make it witty!






I'm confused. Does it not say in the Bible that women are not allowed to teach or not?


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.


Sinner!



Oh, I do apologize! Please, can you point me to where I have warranted this counter-claim? I can't seem to find it myself. The fact that you have limited internet access has nothing to do with the fact that you won't or can't address any serious arguments against whatever nonsense you're spouting. Also, if you did have such limited access, I would imagine that you should spend more time actually giving substance to your counter-arguments instead of talking about something irrelevant.

_________________

Evidence?

Again, evidence? In my experience when my ladyfriend is angry at me she gets angrier at me after talking to her friends, not calmer.

Alright, well whatever, but what bearing, if any, does that have on your debate that a woman's natural abilities are superior to a man's?

Fix'd it for you.
Multiple studies have shown that women tend to be more vindictive than men, while men anger more slowly (in general, of course). I'm fairly certain nobody sees their violence as 'without cause.' Only a psychopath causes mayhem for mayhem's sake. Whatever the reason may be, and however stupid you may personally think the reason, no sane man fights without cause.

Fucking EVIDENCE please. What can you cite that shows that men are more inclined to train in war? Especially since the fact that wars have been mostly waged by men was due almost entirely to society's gender roles. There are plenty of women in the military today, and of course we can't forget the Amazons.

Actually, the mother is more important to both genders than the father.

Aforementioned ladyfriend would beg to differ with you on both of those points.

I could rebut this 20 different times, but working up the energy for that is harder than simply telling you you're a fucking moron. Pardon my French.

Moments of need such as? What about a man's moments of need? Do those exist? If they don't, why does a woman have super special needs that society, as opposed to just another person or even themselves, must provide?

That doesn't actually make any sense.

I fail to see how this is relevant.

I may have mentioned this before, but men don't have any more of, or even less of, an inclination for war than women.

Overall, your argument is a shallow one and leaves the taste of saltine crackers in my mouth.
3/10.

_________________
Please note that, being a newbie here on the House of Lords, I shall take your massive flaming of everything I do both in stride and good humor.

This is what Stringy Pete does in his spare time.
Come on, you KNOW it is.
Additionally, give a big hand for the greeting party of the Vendigroth Wastes!

These goddamn liberals...

_________________

Your mum sounds like a tiger, Xyle, and your dad sounds like a filthy fucking coward.

She was right to beat the shit out of him, but wrong to tolerate his bullshit for a second, let alone long enough to have his baby.

Then again, if every abusive relationship were dissolved, none of us would have ever been born.

It's an interesting story, but why generalise so much? Each person is their own story, man or woman. I guess you're still making sense of it all, and over-generalising is the first step to learning that exceptions are the only rule in nature.

Okay so I'm too lazy and I'm not emotionally invested enough to cover in depth those essays you wrote there; suffice to say I would just be parroting what Kierkegaard said so there really isn't any point. It sounds as if your opinions are just biased due to your upbringing (which you acknowledged yourself), and so rather than distancing yourself from past experience and relying on rational thought to build your arguments you're just letting your feelings get in the way.

However I will comment on this doozy:



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.

Agreed, ytzk. If Xyle's mother had left that guy before he could make her with child, we might have all avoided a headache.

_________________

Select certain sentences -- the post that this is replying to is an example.
offends -- your snarky remarks that you call humor or sacrasm.
talking about something Irrelevant -- the post that this is replying to is an example of you doing that.

There are two possiblities here 1) you really are completely unaware of doing what you claim that I do or 2) you are doing it deliberately. If 1) then it is "breathtakingly moronic" how little you know of yourself. If 2) you're being a jackass and its annoying.

Now on to the serious argument...
Judaism doesn't believe that Gentiles (Non-Jews) are to be held accountable to the Mosaic Law. Instead they believe they are to held accountable to the "Seven Laws of Noah". So as a Gentile Chistian, why should I hold myself accountable to the Mosaic Law?

Second,

HUSBANDS. Not men in general.
My relationship to she-who-will-be-my-wife may or may not be defined by the Head-Body relationship depending on whether or not it can be defined in such a manner that keeps the relationship subject to the law "Love your neighbor as you love yourself" which is the superior law. My relationship with every other woman should be bound by the principals of equality because the verses you quote have no application to any other relationship other than a husband and his wife.

_________________
1 Corinthians 3:18


Truth. Love. Faith.

Of course; I neglected to mention that you select certain sentences and ignore others, which seem of importance; forgive me for assuming some interpretative comprehension on your part.


I'm not really interested in whatever you think about my manner. However I say what I say, it's as valid or invalid as if it was said any other way; and I don't see that you've shown yourself deserving of any respect whatsoever, in any case.


You'll definitely have to be more specific about that. What I seem to understand from reading it, is that you think my post above was irrelevant; and I know from reading it (and writing it) that my post above was a response to something you wrote about me doing what I've accused you of doing, and about how your arguments are of no consequence because they're weak and fallacious; ipso facto, it is not irrelevant, because a direct response combined with a direct comment on your argument cannot be but relevant.


Or, 3) You don't read good.


I think I already mentioned Matthew 5:17 (or whatever it is); but in any case, if you don't think that certain actions are to be taken by believers in God (there wasn't the distinction of Jews and Christians then, obviously), and that is not specifically mentioned in the Bible (that people who believe in God but also believe in Jesus Christ are exempt from certain laws), then you are reading a fair amount of interpretation into it, the way I see it, because you're picking and choosing parts of the Old Testament to follow and believe in, and arbitrarily ignoring or grossly liberally interpreting others.


So, husbands are superior to their wives? Is that one of the parts of the Old Testament that's real, unlike the unseemly parts? or is that your own personal opinion? If "Love your neighbour as you love yourself" is the superior law, in what circumstances do the others (killing people, &c.) apply? Wouldn't they be negated wholly? If the Bible says: "Love your neighbour &c.", and it says all that stuff about wives, which one do you do? What're the criteria? In any case, you do believe that the husband is the superior of the two, and that women should be kept in silent submission?

_________________

I know I'm a bit late here, but are you saying I'm left wing or liberal?

_________________
Please note that, being a newbie here on the House of Lords, I shall take your massive flaming of everything I do both in stride and good humor.

This is what Stringy Pete does in his spare time.
Come on, you KNOW it is.
Additionally, give a big hand for the greeting party of the Vendigroth Wastes!

_________________

Ah, I see. Thank you for the clarification sir.

_________________
Please note that, being a newbie here on the House of Lords, I shall take your massive flaming of everything I do both in stride and good humor.

This is what Stringy Pete does in his spare time.
Come on, you KNOW it is.
Additionally, give a big hand for the greeting party of the Vendigroth Wastes!

While glancing through his post, I thought it read "Saven Laws of North", and I put on Ai O Torimodose. A religion based on Hokuto No Ken seems more fun then a religion based on the Old Testament.

Quick note: if my girlfriend heard me say "women are supposed to be quiet and inferior to their husbands" she'd send me flying through a wall. Generalisation leads to many bad things, like racism and discrimination.

_________________
Rabbi pirate: "Shalom, die, me hearties!"

But it's in the Bible! The Word of God! (How do I know that? It's in the Bible!)

_________________

The Bible is also totally okay with slavery.

_________________
Please note that, being a newbie here on the House of Lords, I shall take your massive flaming of everything I do both in stride and good humor.

This is what Stringy Pete does in his spare time.
Come on, you KNOW it is.
Additionally, give a big hand for the greeting party of the Vendigroth Wastes!

Not with murdering your slaves, though, as I mentioned already. You can only beat them to within an inch of their lives; you can't kill them for no reason. I think the official line is, if they get up after a day or two, no harm done (Exodus 21:20-21, I think...)!

_________________

Oh well, that makes slavery just fine and dandy then, I mean we wouldn't want those fools dying, but by all means impose brutal physical labor on them and call a human being your property!

_________________
Please note that, being a newbie here on the House of Lords, I shall take your massive flaming of everything I do both in stride and good humor.

This is what Stringy Pete does in his spare time.
Come on, you KNOW it is.
Additionally, give a big hand for the greeting party of the Vendigroth Wastes!

I'm sure justice is a symptom of piety; so don't worry about it!

_________________

Not that I've given a shit about this thread in the last 32+ pages, but why is it still going?

_________________

Multiple possibilities:
1: It really matters.
2: It's fun.
3: We've got nothing better to do.
4: It's derailed to the point where we can discuss anything and everything, which is what we like to do.

5: If you post here you get free candy.

_________________
Rabbi pirate: "Shalom, die, me hearties!"

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.



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.

============

Witty? It was so full of hot air that it passed completely over my head! If an objection it be.


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.


Where is the word "inferior" used? The verses don't describe inferiority verse supremacy; they describe the relationship in terms of authority:
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.
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?
"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)

_________________
1 Corinthians 3:18


Truth. Love. Faith.

...


No.


If the inferior parietal lobule is concerned with mathematical ability and the bigger the better, in this case, then a bigger inferior parietal lobule means better mathematical ability; therefore, if men in general have a larger inferior parietal lobule, then men in general have a more pronounced mathematical ability than do women. On average, men do have a larger inferior parietal lobule; therefore...


Ignoring the fact that this is simply a specious misappropriation of words, wouldn't that mean that women have less authority than men in some circumstances, simply on the basis of their being women, and that you agree with that, because it's in the Bible?


That seems a little hypocritical, considering that all I've observed you doing is spewing dogma.


So the husband holds authority over his wife. Why?


I don't pretend to know exactly what nonsense the Bible is shoving down our throats here; but I do see that it says that man stands to woman, as Christ stands to man, and as God stands to Christ.


Actually, firstly, no it can't be used to support your position, because it's just dogma; secondly, so you believe that women were created for men? What does that mean? Your point about ability seems to suggest that you believe that women were created to serve men.


So a husband has authority over his wife, simply because he's the husband (which is because he's the man)?


So, as I've said already, is it the case that the husband has authority over his wife, and that he can exercise power over her, or do whatever you consider the criterion of authority, and a wife cannot be in that position, simply because it's written in the Bible?


I barely read through that; but, what I think I gathered from it is that you believe, for Jews at least, that it is acceptable, in some circumstances, that a woman should be kept in a place of subjection and silenced, unable to voice her opinion, if and because it pleases her husband.


Conjecture, and most likely untrue.

As above.

"As a man's...": should be "If a man's...".


I don't get what you think the significance is; it doesn't seem to have any relevance, except by some long stretch of the imagination, mixed with some conjecture, and allowing for any interpretation you see fit, whether it be what was intended by the Scripture or not.


In short, what you seem to be advocating is that husbands hold authority over their wives, and that it is immoral for wives to shame their husbands. You claim this knowledge from the Bible, while simultaneously claiming that you value reasons over authority; so, I'm sure we'd all be obliged if you pointed out the reasons given in the Bible for why a wife should apparently be so obsequious to her husband.

Also, I'd like to know if you think it is immoral for a wife to contradict her husband or a friend of his (thereby shaming her husband) because she believes that she has more knowledge than he. A simple yes or no will suffice. What would perhaps make the most sense to me, is if you thought up a scenario where the Bible's doctrine should be observed, and then thought up one where it shouldn't (if you think any such thing exists), and gave the reasons why in each case.

_________________