Religion is for men

So, just looking for an aknowledgement that you saw that your idea that men score better on IQ tests is not correct, and that average IQ scores show no gender difference.Since you used that error as support for one of your arguments, I think it's important to recognize the correction.

If you say that women are typically this or typically that, you are acknowledging differences in physical mental makeup. I can just as easily say that men are typically more objective, practical, and tacit.

Not so quick there nator! Men DO score better in general, but the tests are arguably faulty.

There is no scriptural evidence that leadership was given to any woman.Yes, a companion is equal. Differently equal. A man can provide the seed, a woman nourish it.Who is Paul? A humble follower of Christ. The church does not follow the dictions of Paul, but the example of Christ, as did Paul. Even Paul was not a Pope. And yes, priests are mini-Jesuses, and this 'pope' guy is the man formerly known as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

There is no firm basis for saying that men score better on IQ tests.It all depends upon how the subtests of any given IQ test are weighted.If the tests are weighted toward the things that men are usually better at (math and spatial ability), the men will show better.If the tests are weighted toward the things women tend to be better at (memory and verbal proficency), the women will do better.There is much, much more overlap than difference in the mean between the genders.IOW, even if IQ tests consistently showed a 5 point difference between men and women, it still would mean that there are an awful lot of women that score higher than an awful lot of men.A normal range of IQ's is something like 70-130, FYI.Therefore, it is meaningless to claim that men "score better" on IQ tests. Edited by nator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

There is no scriptural evidence that leadership was given to any woman.

---

It's also true that women, at that time, were chattel.

Yes, it is good to know about the IQ tests. They do not prove that ALL men score better, but that the average score for men is better. Etc. and I do not doubt you or anyone else. Well, yes, but not to Jesus. Still, He chose men, and the idea is that there is no 'at that time' for a god who is not limited by time. By the same token, men of 'that time' would possibly not have accepted a female leader, but its hard to say. Those gosh darn gentile Romans with their female gods and all. On a side note, it is a little curious that, for all the hatred spent on the monarchies, the Divine Right of Kings was also, the Divine Right of Queens, and, well, democracy has not made a female president yet.

Or, potentially, I'm acknowledging that culture tends to inculcate various mental habits and conditions. What's sexist, though, is that none of those traits have anything to do with church leadership; nonetheless, you insist that the prestigious position (pastor, Pope, etc) be filled by a man, while the subservient position (secretary, etc) be filled by a woman.Now, it seems irrefutable to me that a nurturing person would be best for the priest, and the practical person would be best as the secretary. Sexism dictates, of course, that the man hold the powerful position and the woman take the subservient role, even though that's the exact opposite of how we would expect their stereotypical traits to qualify them for these duties.That's the sexism.

quote:

---

They do not prove that ALL men score better, but that the average score for men is better.

---

No.In the tests where the things men are good at are weigted more heavily, men score better.In the tests where the things that women are better at are weighted more heavily, women score better.It is entirely possible, IOW, to design an IQ test in which it can be predicted that women will score better than men, since you can weight the memory and verbal parts of the test to count more.

quote:

---

Well, yes, but not to Jesus.

---

Really? Says who?He was feminist for the time, but I don't remember him making any sermons or statements declaring the chattel-status of women to be wrong or immoral. He didn't do that for slaves, either.

quote:

---

Still, He chose men, and the idea is that there is no 'at that time' for a god who is not limited by time.

---

OK, so why didn't he choose an astronaut for a first Pope?

quote:

---

By the same token, men of 'that time' would possibly not have accepted a female leader, but its hard to say. Those gosh darn gentile Romans with their female gods and all.

---

Er, I'm not sure why you are now arguing my point, that it had to do with the historical context and social attitudes and rules of the time, but I'll take the concession.

quote:

---

On a side note, it is a little curious that, for all the hatred spent on the monarchies, the Divine Right of Kings was also, the Divine Right of Queens, and, well, democracy has not made a female president yet.

---

It most certainly has, or did you think that the only democracy in the world was the one in the US?There have been at least 40 female presidents.If you want to count prime ministers, there have been at least 39.There are currently at least 9 elected female world leaders right now.Chile, Liberia, Bangladesh, the Phillipines, Germany, Finland, Latvia, New Zealand, and Ireland all have elected heads of state that are women.See, it's the US that is sexist and backward.Edited by nator, : No reason given.Edited by nator, : No reason given.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

Let's just say men will be men. Abortion is often related to free access to contraceptives.However note: There are direct correlations between birth rates and gender equality in a society.There are variety of reasons for this including:

Access to contraceptives

Enforcible rape laws

The ability to divorce

The ability to be economically independent

etc.

​

Women in patriarchal societies do not have the ability to choose family size, they do not control their body. This is wrong.

​

Ana writes:

​

There is no religion which says 'thou must have sex'. In many religions celibacy is preached as the greatest possible vocation.

​

Many religions encourage large families- Catholics, Mormons and Muslims, etc.

​

In addition, there is a correlation between birth rates and the general miseries of the people.

​

So in essence religion contributes to the misery of the world.

​

Ana writes:

​

The only way the 'disease' of christainity has been spread is evangelism, martyrdom, ministry, etc. There is no use in making the christian respect for life a pathetic attempt at indoctrination via procreation. We could just as easily come out and preach that, and to my knowledge, no one has, ever. Yet people want to provide subconscious motives for things which already have a motive; respect of human sexuality.

​

Large families are encouraged by many of the major religions not by happenstance.

​

Large families equate to church growth. By the way the Muslims appear to be currently winning this race.

​

Ana writes:

​

It is a little curious here that you say 'selected' as if evolution has selected for certain religions. Maybe I am wrong...

​

Perhaps this corresponds to Dawkins meme idea - birth rate maybe a "extended phenotype" of religion meme. Interesting idea.

​

Consider the Protestant Shakers that preached celibacy and frowned on procreation, they went from 100,000s members to essential none - a data point.

​

Think what the may about the "pure motives" of the church on their respect for "human sexuality" I would prefer they thought more on poverty and its causes and effects.

​

iceage writes:

​

Wasted Potential. Societies that restrain women essentially miss out on half their human potential - half of the intellectual, artistic, wisdom and moral potential smothered under a outdated power structure.

​

Ana writes:

​

I would say there is a huge part of the population that would not be utilized in terms of productivity. Still, if more women were given high power jobs, it would stand to reason that more men would be forced into lower positions, so, all in all, may the best 'man' win the job. Whoever fits the criteria. That includes, the criteria that the candidate must be male.

​

Not sure what you were saying here. Yes the point is that the best person would fulfill a specific job. That may threaten some men. But overall this would allow for a higher productive and prosperous society.

​

However I think you are thinking of economics as a zero-sum situation. (ei. women could in some situations would bump a man to a lower status paying job) That thinks is wrong.

​

Allowing women to participate in economic development increases and generates wealth and opportunities. Everybody boat floats higher.

​

Your argument is the same argument used against automation. A backhoe will put 10 men out of job so it is bad. In practice a backhoe frees 10 men to pursue high order work that became available as a result of a more productive society that uses back hoes.

it keeps going. i cut. now prophesy is nt necessarily leadership, but it's no small matter.should i quote the whole book of esther? miriam was a prophetess and helped moses and aaron lead the people into the promised land. huldah the prophetess verified the book of deuteronomy as being the word of god. (see also 2 chronicals 34) dorcas is called a disciple. this is no simple term. two women evangelists. apparently having a disagreement, as humans do. but impotant church leaders nonetheless. phoebe is the only deacon mentioned by name in the bible. also, where it says co-worker for pricilla? the word means colleague. that junia? that's a lady. the church father's spoke of her as a woman until 1000 ad when they supressed the truth of her gender as she is referred to as an apostle. some versions of the bible have even out of nowhere invented an 's' for the end of her name to turn her into a man.and those are just the ones that we know for sure. who knows what we would know about women in the church if church leaders had not quashed the idea of women in leadership roles and potentially even removed them from the text. i don't know whether mary magdalene was a leader among the deciples, but she was a powerful business woman and not the prostitute with whom the church has conflated her story. what cause would they have to perpetuate such lies but to reduce the importance and visibility of women in the eyes of the lord and in the work of the early church? you even have been so blinded by this as to suggest that no woman has ever been in a leadership role in the bible. that's simply bogus. has it ever occurred to you that the rarity of women was due to the refusal of the scribes to record their deeds rather than the idea that they stayed at home and baked mana cookies?

I think you might notice that my first post in the thread talks about the women who have prophecied throughout histroy in the RCC.We already talked about Ven. Mary of Agreda, Bernadette of Lourdes, Catherine Labouree, Marguerite Alacoque, Lucia of Fatima.Women have been Catholic queens, leaders of convents, doctors of the church, etc. This does not take away the fact that Jesus did not choose a woman as an apostle. That is all that the church goes by, and all that it ever will, and the leaders of the church are well aware of the other women in scripture.Junia, btw, is almost positively male. Paul refers to 'her' as a kinsmen and a fellow prisoner.

ouyyevns (suggenes)
1) of the same kin, akin to, related by blood
2) in a wider sense, of the same nation, a fellow countrymanin no way does this word mean male relatives only.further, the greek says 'iounian' not 'iounias' as junias (the male name) would be (and as some concordances insert, but is not in the greek text). what about being related to paul and a prisoner means junia has to be male?“Greet Andronicus and Junia . . . who are outstanding among the apostles” (Romans 16:7): To be an apostle is something great. But to be outstanding among the apostles”just think what a wonderful song of praise that is! They were outstanding on the basis of their works and virtuous actions. Indeed, how great the wisdom of this woman must have been that she was even deemed worthy of the title of apostle.John Chrysostom (344/54-407)The earliest commentator on Romans 16:7, Origen of Alexandria (e. 185-253/54), took the name to be feminine (Junta or Julia, which is a textual variant),(4) as did Jerome (340/50-419/20),(5) Hatto of Vercelli (924-961),(6) Theophylact (c.1050-c.1108),(70 and Peter Abelard (1079-1142).you say junia is positively male, because to be an apostle, you think she must be. i argue that there needs to be more evidence. i'm not trying to talk to the leaders in the church. i'm sure the rcc knows full well a lot more than is even available to most scholars. i'm talking to you, and you do not seem to be aware of the truth of women in the early church. but then it occurs to me and may not to you that someone might be able to change the bible to remove women from it, as they changed it to remove nose rings.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

ouyyevns (suggenes) I do not know if the Greek word was used in a masculine sense, or if it has variations indicating gender. It is possible that 'iounian' was changed, added, etc. regarding the last letter. If it was, it may have not been because of gender, but for some other reason; maybe there was someone known then with the name 'iounias', or maybe it was a copyist error.Bible researchers would look for other clues; that Paul was a fellow inmate with this person could make him male, or if Paul was speaking more generally, she could be female. The point is, no one knows for sure.Here is what I get;Early church fathers were reading the Bible as it was presented to them. You are taking their reading as accurate, without concern about possible changes. Further in your post, you are very concerned with possible changes; So, what occurs to me, is that the church fathers were not concerned with removing women, that the Bible has not been changed to remove women, as there are women in there, and that all further speculation about whether the apostles were changed from women to men at a later date, is irrelevent and would not be a basis for changes in the church.Further, in spite of what the DaVinci Code may speculate, women were not present at the Last Supper. Why, because I know there is a controversary about Junia? I would say that should be evidence that I am aware of the truth of women in the church. I am aware that the church did not attempt to hide the fact of women in the early church, as all of the great church fathers accepted this as a correct name. But again, just calling her an apostle does not make her the same as an elected leader. Again, Paul is not even considered to be a priest, a pope, a bishop, a deacon, or a cardinal, or anything except a prophet and apostle.

but if she was a woman and an apostle, then she was very clearly a church leader and perhaps there are other unmentioned women who were elected church officials.i suppose the difference here is that i have very little faith in the church as an institution and much more faith in a man who seemed to treat women equally. we don't have a list of who was at the last supper. the bible refers to jesus and his disciples. however, it was most likely a seder meal which is a family tradition. so these men would have been with their families and friends and most likely there were more than 13 people in the room. there is no evidence in either direction and it is foolish for you to purport such. precisely, and yet you claim that i must be wrong even though more recent retranslations and the presentation of the greek as best i can tell do not support a male. what i am concerned with is that church leaders can't seem to decide on the gender of a person. that the role and abilities of women are assumed and decided by this question, i think it is a very important issue. you said three posts ago that no woman was presented in a leadership role in the bible. that is clearly not the case, especially if junia is a woman. you didn't and i didn't claim elected office and now you are quibbling over elected office. before, you were talking about appointment by jesus. you can't decide what parameters you will be pleased by as making a woman worthy of her placement and you use this to distort the argument. i am concerned that three or four marys and a martha and a few other women were instrumental to the ministry of jesus and yet they're not good enough to lead because they weren't one of these twelve doubtful, untrusting, bickering men.i am concerned that we have allowed the flawed nature of man with the insistance to quibble over differences to prevent god-loving women from exercising the call of god. paul was never elected to office as you recognize, and yet half of the new testament is his otherwise mad ravings, except his contemporaries decided that he was indeed called by god to lead and that his words and input were important enough to be preserved. are people now not capable of testing the spirits and determining whether a woman is truly called of god? what makes her so very different that because she cannot spew forth semen that she cannot speak of the loving light?