1 Timothy 2:11-12: “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.”
People do take those passages seriously. We can’t and shouldn’t adjust our speech to avoid dumb people being as dumb as they were already planning to be.
Right, but if we're already using a "Gotcha", and it's...not really as much of a "Gotcha" as we think it is...then i'm basically just saying we gotta have arguments that work on the people we're talking to, not ourselves
Like if anything we're adjusting our speech to make the argument...that is going to have people perfectly willing to latch onto it seriously.
Please, just please, pull this on them. “So do you believe in this book? Because you are here attempting to hold authority over men, and you are anything but silent.” Someone needs to say this to her face. Or anyone who pulls the bible as a source for their arguments. Play hard ball, we don’t have time to spare.
For those that don’t know, even though that passage sounds very Old Testamenty, it is in fact the supposedly more enlightened New Testament, and it was written by Paul, THE major New Testament authority (after Jesus, of course). And that section in its full context gets even worse:
“Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing. I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.”
Most modern biblical scholars believe 1st (and 2nd) Timothy to be later writings not actually written by Paul. Which doesn’t change the point really I just think it’s interesting.
Paul seems to have had some spats with the apostles who were around for Jesus. The “super-apostles” of 2 Corinthians 11:5 (NIV: “do not think I am in the least inferior to those ‘super-apostles.’”) may be referring to those earlier apostles. Galatians 2:11–14 also mentions an incident where Paul openly tells Peter he’s a hypocrite.
Much like the meeting on resolving circumcision in the early church, it’s glossed over quickly and made to sound like everyone came to an agreement after hashing it out for a bit.
The Bible was famously translated to English during the Reformation.
Previously (mix of Aramaic and Greek here, you can pick one for either, plus I haven’t included their epithets. Like how nowadays we’re known as Firstname Lastname, at the time you’d have a family name and if you were famous, an epithet like Timos of Athens)
I grew up in the UK and our education system (or at least the one I had) has Religious Education as part of it’s curriculum and under history we study the Reformation, Henry VIII, Martin Luther etc
Also as a teen I read some of Karen Armstrong’s books. The rest is just… lived experience and google.
I agree with the second sentence, but I really do not think this is a separation issue. She was elected to represent her constituents, a majority of whom are, presumably, also stunningly unintelligent.
So her “logic” (and I’m stretching that word to the breaking point) is that God said he wouldn’t destroy the world again with a global flood. Let’s say we accept that as fact: God will not destroy the world via a global flood.
The problem is that God isn’t destroying the world, man is. And man isn’t destroying the world via a giant flood. He’s destroying it by changing the global climate to the point that he can’t keep up. (To be technical, man is destroying his ability to survive in the world, not the world itself. The Earth would be here even if we decided to burn more fossil fuels.)
So even if we accept Genesis 8 as a valid “argument” (more word stretching), it doesn’t apply. Now, if scientists start saying that a deity plans on instituting a global flood via 40 days and nights of rain, then I’ll accept Genesis 8 as a counter-argument.
I always wonder how this works. Do we have free will, or does everything we do follow God’s plan? If it’s the former, then God is clearly either not all-powerful or not entirely benevolent, since there are many ways we make things worse for our fellow humans and other life on this planet. If it’s the latter, then God is directly responsible for everything bad that happens as well as the good, nothing else really matters.
Christianity has major figures who have argued for one or the other. Fundies these days seem to pick whichever one suits them for the current argument.
There’s a very loud contingent of religious people who still hold power for historical and structural reasons. It’s a shrinking demographic, though. This could be the death yells of an archaic system.
Or maybe not. While trends are going that way for now, religion tends to be on the uptake when times become more difficult. We’re headed into a period of more climate problems and capitalism making things worse for all but a few. That could reverse the trends and send people back into the pews.
The tricky part is when links have (…) in them. Then you gotta escape the parentheses with a \ but work on getting the links right before that, you got this!
So, is everything that comes out of this woman’s mouth bullshit? Even the examples of climate change policies that she gives are wrong. We aren’t banning new gas stoves due to climate change. We’re banning them due to indoor air quality issues and increased incidence of respiratory disease.
Even then I thought it wasn’t really banning of gas stoves, just updating/tightening regulations and all that jazz so they wouldn’t be leaking the fumes.
No, we’re not banning gas stoves, full stop. (In the US at least)
Literally the only story there was that a scientific study was published that suggests having a gas stove/oven can lead to an increase in asthma for children.
That alone was enough to set them off. Simply being told that we found something new out, and here it is in case you want to consider the pros and cons of having your kids around gas stoves.
They are literally triggered by the scientific method itself.
I mean, I love a gas stove (wish my apartment had one) but we are probably moving slowly towards a world where municipal gas is just not nearly as much of a thing. But nobody is ever going to stop you from setting up a propane or butane range in your house.
Locally, we call it Pennsyltucky. There’s a lot of farmland and open space, with towns scattered across. It’s not all bad, but generally you will know it’s not a great area if there is a noticably high concentration of churches, strip clubs, or the smell of cat pee.
I've lived in it my entire life. Beautiful countryside, lots of land, but the neighbors are terrifying and there's entire counties I won't live in like Perry, Clearfield, and Tioga
Some of it’s really gorgeous, and we have some incredible state parks. Once the Main Line sprawls out past York, all that beautiful countryside is going to become golf courses and McMansions.
See also: upstate New York. You have the 5 boroughs, the suburbs thereof, and then it’s “paddle faster. I hear banjos” with a few islands of sanity in between.
I used to live in New Paltz 30 years ago. I still know exactly what you mean. The West Point area and Kingston is that last "island" on your way north.
There are other areas. I live in a very blue area in the capital district, well north of New Palz. Pretty much any of the cities in New York will be blue, while the rural areas are deep red.
I live in Upstate NY and you’re absolutely right. I’m in a very blue area, but I could drive a half hour away and see Trump flags alongside Confederate flags. (I’m close enough to Stefanik’s district to get her horrible political ads on my TV.)
A map of New York would actually look red, not blue, because of the vast rural areas. Luckily, land doesn’t vote so the huge red areas with few people are outvoted by the small blue areas with a lot of people.
I always thought it was Kentucky in the middle. e.g. Pennsyltucky
Edit: I’m a moron. From the Wikipedia page "This quote is often paraphrased as “Philadelphia in the east, Pittsburgh in the west, and Alabama in the middle”
Woah lady, you'll get yourself stoned if you talk to men like that. Also are you wearing clothing made of two different materials? Straight to hell after the well deserved stoning.
Although that's a great and nuanced view, I don't think you have to go that deep. Any indication at all that these "Christians" have love in their hearts for anyone who isn't just like them? Do these "Christian" lawmakers support feeding the poor or helping those less fortunate? Do they support affordable healthcare for their fellow children of God? Do they support programs to help underprivileged mothers care for the children that their Christian/Republican policies force to carry their babies to term? Do they support any measure whatsoever that leads to helping people and not putting profits first?
I bet anyone who agrees with her has heartfelt beliefs that inform their political stances, while anyone who doesn’t agree has a vicious agenda that they are imposing on the public.
And I cite Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy 7 as proof that a hot cup of tea is the secret to the Infinite Improbability Drive. I’m willing to bet my citation has a higher chance of being correct.
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." -G.Carlin
i.e. half the country.
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." -G.Carlin
enough of which have been spoonfed hate and stupid over the last many decades by fox "news", rush, some doofus with a spray tan, and others. and they vote.
The deeper, and much messier problem, is that people like this are willingly voted into power by their constituents. One random idiot is whatever. A population of idiots looking at another idiot and truthfully saying "This represents us!" is a much bigger problem.
If you care, I'd more propose deeper investments in education and jobs in rural areas so that moronic populists aren't as appealing. I'm originally from rural Missouri; I'm a lot more familiar with these kinds of areas than I'd otherwise like to be.
Add comment