good point. I made a ridiculous posting which is somehow equivalent to your every posting. The real joke is your continually posting babble and when anyone bothers to call you on any of your nonsense, you deflect, make a link to some unrelated topic, question them... do anything except answer anything with a sensible reply. Your every post is an equivalent of my goofy pee post.

And please... try studying your bible. God says you need to defer to men who are your betters. Your every post is a middle finger to the Bible.

Atheists don't have "headship" over Christian women. At least not in my opinion. Such a thing wouldn't make sense. To let the "world" rule over God's spiritual people even a lowly woman? It doesn't even make sense but you'd have to understand how spiritual things work. Many things are appearance versus the reality of the spirit issues in the bible and in life.

Many sects believe women can't run churches but many don't. Some take the bible verses literally while other groups say the spirit is what qualifies you because the spirit is higher than the letter in the bible. It all depends whether you wax figurative or literal on this. Priscilla was a disciple of Christ's.

More on Priscilla:
http://pontosworld.com/index.php?opt...1010&Itemid=98

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priscilla_and_Aquila

Splendour, you're making stuff up. The Bible is quite clear:
I can print 20 different versions if you like. It doesn't say "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over an ATHEIST man; rather, she is to remain quiet" That would be breaking the Bible's command to not add or subtract from the text.

It seems you believe you know better then God what is acceptable.

Please don't hem and haw. You seem to have real problems addressing Bible verses you don't like. This is the umpteenth post where you avoid discussing what the Bible actually says. Perhaps, like much of the links you post, you haven't actually read it?

Please don't post unrelated junk. No one cares when you veer off topic. Just address the passage as its written:
prediction- either no reply at all or the reply goes off on some other subject involving lots of links. Bonus points if she mentions Dawkins.

I'm not hemming and hawing. Its a fact. The Methodists ordain women and Priscilla who some credit with writing the book of Hebrews was a contemporary of Paul's and taught Apollos.

Oh and as an unbeliever you're unbelief disqualifies you from explaining scripture to believers. It's like accepting coaching from the opponent team's coach at the Super Bowl.

get with the program, just because it happened/happens doesnt mean its acceptable in God's eyes.

Priscilla discipled Apollos:
http://www.biblebb.com/files/KSS/kss-pris.htm

Acts chapter 18

a lot of things written in the bible are things god disproves of, right? so tell me, how do you know that God approves of priscilla discipling apollos?

Prove he doesn't.

Prove he does. see this is easy.

BTW, its pretty clear you will happily find whatever website you can that supports your view, and then ignore all other sources that discount it *even if the source is written by a fellow Christian*.

Your pathetic attempt to hold onto "Priscilla" as some sort of great example as women having permission to teach or have authority over man, is a joke. It shows your biblical immaturity, and is plain dishonest.

I mean, read Acts 18:26 yourself:

When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.

---

And from that, Splendour gets this:

Priscilla who some credit with writing the book of Hebrews (which, btw, is completely false and only supported by a tiny minority, of course who expects Splendour to be intellectually honest) was a contemporary of Paul's and taught Apollos.

To add, John Piper, whom youve quote a couple of times before, and is *A CHRISTIAN* has this to say:

lets see, who do i trust on matters like this, John Piper, or Splendour.

wow. I predicted correctly. You failed to address the bible verse.

You mostly hem and haw. Typical splendour conversation:
Splendour says X
Someone says "I believe that's incorrect because of A, B and C. Please address"
Splendour - "Here's a weblink to the shape of the pyramids." or "Chinese are chauvinists too. Here's a link of Footbinding" etc.

You define 'heming and hawing'

Once again... We're discussing a specific quote from the Bible says. Perhaps you couldn't read it? Is it so hard for you to just address the specifics that people ask you?

Let's try one more time. (1) What do you think this means? Without adding or subtracting from this passage, please tell us in lay man's terms what this means. I'm going to assume you are incapable of doing so but I might be delightfully suprised.
(2) If you can understand this passage, please explain why it doesn't apply to you. (I'm going to predict you fail to answer #1 so asking a followup question is ambitious of me, but I'm trying to be an optimist.)

No its not. We're looking at simple passages that we're reading in simple english. There's nothing complicated about it. You're just making excuses for one of three things... the meaning of the passage alludes you and you don't want to admit it (very likely) OR you know that you're disobeying it and you can't follow god's word OR you disagree with god's word.

Prediction: more excuses and complete failure to logically address any question or point... how wonderful if I was wrong for once.

I'll leave your absurdly bad analogy alone and just ask you to please elaborate on why a person's "unbelief" would disqualify him as a scholar.

Must a dedicated and qualified academic believe in Egyptian or Greek or Norse or Native American or Aboriginal mythology in order to study it and understand it?

Are you seriously saying that you'd rather listen to other "believers" over scholars with more education and qualification and historical perspective, simply because those scholars are "unbelievers"?

Thanks for proving the atheist male chauvinism in this thread Pee Meister and dknightx....I really didn't read either of your posts thoroughly because I don't consider either of you discussion worthy anyways.

So much for some atheists' support of women's rights. Its not real support by all atheists its just more hot angry air.

that would explain why you don't read your own posts very thoroughly.

more non-sequitur, not surprising of course. you could be man, woman, child, dog, computer, and i would write the same things.

I'm continually shocked that a 40 year old can really behave the way you do. And before you get on your persecution soap box, no, this is not "ageism".

Actually bringing up those verses is supporting women's rights by showing unfair treatment of women.

It depends. I wouldn't necessarily like all believers more because I like to struggle with the big picture of salvation and I consider all kinds of viewpoints and evidence.

But I do greatly appreciate the believers viewpoint because I think we are taught by the Spirit of God personally and no expertise can equal that.

I also now thorougly appreciate the true believer's struggle like Jacob wrestling with God in Genesis. I think every believer is called to wrestle with God himself. As Paul says "work out your salvation with fear and trembling".

True or false: You are the one that doesn't believe that your god created men and women as equals.

Read the first verse: the head of every man is Christ.

Is Christ, Is Christ, Is Christ.

Is the whole world in Christ? No.

So this applies to Christian men not to all men.

The other verses deal with subjection: to men that are in Christ. Subjection does not equal "under tyranny". Are the subjects of Great Britain under a tyrant? Is the Queen of England exercising tyranny? Did Christ exercise tyranny? No, he washed his disciples' (his subjects') feet.

Colossians 3:19: Husbands love your wives and do not be harsh with them. (NIV)

Colossians 3:19: Husbands, love your wives and never treat them harshly. (NLT)

Colossians 3:19: A husband must love his wife and not abuse her. (CEV).

Wow that last post was pretty damning, in terms of the way women are presented in the Bible.

Was this thread about Haiti at one point?

Who's doing the unfair treatment?

You can prove chauvinism all around the world with or without religion.

How do you know that chauvinism isn't an innate or learned group characteristic of men?

And if it is wouldn't God know about it and why wouldn't he be right in adjusting for it? No guarantee that people will act Christlike and make the adjustments he is recommending though.

But it takes two to fight. If one sex is in subjection then there is less conflict. But once again subjection doesn't equal the right to apply tyranny or abuse. Its a conflict nullifier.

The person who wrote the verses or the men who are chauvinistic.

Vary true.

I think that both are somewhat true.

Im not sure what you mean here. If its innate and the biblical God is real. That would mean God created us that way and would support male dominance. If its learned and the bible is his word and those passages are accurate then male dominance is what he wants us to learn.

I actually agree with you on Jesus' liberal treatment of women. For a man of his day, time and place he was probably a bit of a feminist. Though by our standers of equality today i dont think he would hold up well.

Maybe less visible external conflict but i imagine the internal conflict of the subjected is fairly high. Not to mention equality is more important then lowering conflict between men and women imo.

I would say unwilling or demanded subjection is in and of itself abuse.

Well if dominance is a naturally occurring phenomena in men given the times of the writing of the NT the adjustment doesn't seem unreasonable.

Equality is just an abstract idea. But equitable treatment that's demonstrable.

The ancient Jews weren't known to be particularly hard on their women. Quite the contrary: http://www.jewfaq.org/women.htm

You keep saying this, but no one ever said otherwise.

You asserted that if Christianity were more widespread there would be less chauvinism than there is today, that is what people took issue with. Pointing to chauvinism in China or elsewhere doesn't support your assertion about Christianity curing chauvinism.

Only splendour could be so foolish as to not read someone's posts and then make a conclusion about that which she didn't read... But then, she's been doing that for years.

Evidence that splenda has that atheists don't support women's rights:

_____________

lol so pathetic.