@philokalia saidIt does not matter that the temperaments of men and women are different; it may explain why patterns of leadership are different, but so what? It does not justify male-monopolized corporate power being used to bar women from leadership roles.
We have already gone over how the temperament of men and women are different, and how this bears out in actual social sciences. The source hasn't been called into question yet, and I believe it quite thoroughly stands.
@philokalia said@philokalia said
The New Testament's position is rather obvious
Ah yes. The 'God said so' "argument".
22 Oct 19
@philokalia saidThis no reason to prevent women from assuming leadership roles.
Women scored much higher than in men in Sensitivity, Warmth, and Apprehension, while men scored higher than women in Emotional Stability, Dominance, Rule-Consciousness, and Vigilance.
22 Oct 19
@fmf saidSadly for FMF, God said so, explicitly, is considered not just a valid argument in theology, but is the most valid form of argument.
@philokalia said
The New Testament's position is rather obvious
Ah yes. The 'God said so' "argument".
The secular argument came earlier in the thread.
@fmf saidIt would not matter in the temporal world.
It does not matter that the temperaments of men and women are different; it may explain why patterns of leadership are different, but so what? It does not justify male-monopolized corporate power being used to bar women from leadership roles.
However, in sacred tradition, where the goal is to be uncorrupted by the world and to keep the tradition sacred and pure, the leadership must be restricted to the most qualified and strict, and with the temperaments naturally suited for it.
Moreoever, the cosmic order, which is brought to us in Christian theology, dictates the order of Christianity.
You appeal to the modern world to justify your position that Church authority should be open to women, and you do so as a person who does not believe the word of God, and probably would not mind seeing Christianity going belly-up. This is unpersuasive and goes against what Christians believe.
If you would like to make an argument that has weight and is not just the same, repeated, and undeveloped statements you have shared so far, feel free to do so.
I will respond to something if I think that it merits it and will not be goaded into repeating myself endlessly or arguing about forum drama.
22 Oct 19
@philokalia saidIt's yet another 'It is because it is' "argument".
Sadly for FMF, God said so, explicitly, is considered not just a valid argument in theology, but is the most valid form of argument.
The secular argument came earlier in the thread.
22 Oct 19
@philokalia saidYou seem to using the "argument" that you think it is proper for men to assume leadership and not women, therefore women should be excluded from leadership, otherwise things would be different, and you don't approve of that. It seems to be an Appeal to Tradition and little more.
I will respond to something if I think that it merits it and will not be goaded into repeating myself endlessly or arguing about forum drama.
What do you imagine corporate Christianity would be like now in the C21st if women had assumed a larger role in church governnace?
And if all you've got is some kind of 'It would have been worse because it would have been worse' "argument", don't bother.
22 Oct 19
@philokalia saidI am happy with my contribution. Your view is that women should be systematically and institutionally excluded from leadership in the church context, and yet all you have offered, for all intents and purposes, is the assertion that men and 'women are different'.
If you would like to make an argument that has weight and is not just the same, repeated, and undeveloped statements you have shared so far, feel free to do so.
25 Oct 19
@fmf said(1) Things should not be different from how they are in our church, and it has been able to maintain itself as very unchanged except in appearance for nearly 2,000 years.
You seem to using the "argument" that you think it is proper for men to assume leadership and not women, therefore women should be excluded from leadership, otherwise things would be different, and you don't approve of that. It seems to be an Appeal to Tradition and little more.
What do you imagine corporate Christianity would be like now in the C21st if women had assumed a l ...[text shortened]... s some kind of 'It would have been worse because it would have been worse' "argument", don't bother.
(2) If women were given a role in church governance, I imagine that we would quickly begin to resemble the denominations which have allowed women a role in governance: we would shrink at a very quick pace and soon become extinct, our position taken up by conservative churches that actually affirm what the Bible says.
If you want to be part of the world, then go be part of the world; but everyone who wants to be part of the Church will go to the churches who are not part of the world, and any churches which try to be part of the world will see themselves slowly go extinct as they serve no purpose. Why go to a Church that is the world when you are already in the world?
And if all you've got is some kind of 'It would have been worse because it would have been worse' "argument", don't bother.
You have routinely misunderstood my arguments as tautologies.
I think you do this because you say that basing any opinion off of the establsihed word of God is just an appeal to authority,a God said so argument. However, I have brought in science to show that men and women have key differences, and that men are thus better suited to leadership for our church naturally.
You are not being persuasive to anyone who doesn't already agree with you because you miss this point.