Queen of Swords

Originally posted by lcb:
<strong>I thought we were talking about the sin of sexual exploitation and prostitution </strong>

How can we do that when you contradict your own religious text by implying that these prostitutes can be teachers?

lcb

abacus, q of words are you people nuts? not even the fundies i know say that! that verse has to do with ecclesiastical authority in first century palestine. and are you trying to hijack the thread? how bout discussing the topic?

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by lcb:
<strong>not even the fundies i know say that! that verse has to do with ecclesiastical authority in first century palestine. </strong>

Please point out where Paul says the verse applies only to churches in first century Palestine and not to women today.

<strong>and are you trying to hijack the thread? how bout discussing the topic?</strong>

But included in the topic is what can be made of these women's lives, other than prostitution which appears to be wrong under your particular moral code.

I don't understand why you want these women - sorry, "little girls" to be teachers and doctors, rather than good Christian wives and mothers.

[ August 31, 2002: Message edited by: QueenofSwords ]</p>

lcb

ok, I get it , this is a joke right? show me one major protestant denomination where women are not allowed to be engineers or teachers..!

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by lcb:
<strong>ok, I get it , this is a joke right? show me one major protestant denomination where women are not allowed to be engineers or teachers..!</strong>

When you show me where Paul says that his command applies only to churches in first-century Palestine, and not to women today.

lcb

not this again, ok, I'm going to pull a Toto on you q of words, evertime i bring up a point with toto, toto always says that this issue has already been decided(see the infidel library) ad nauseum...as if to say that since atheists have discussed this before it is resolved in their favor. soooo, evry first year seminary student knows that Paul is referring to the congregation in Ephesus in which a false, heretical teaching had taken hold and was influencing groups within the congregation and that there was an admonition to (essentially shut up) so that this false teaching could be dealt with. (please refer to the Christian library).It has absolutely nothing to do with women being doctors,lawyers, teachers or indian chiefs (and of course, queen you already knew that)

Abacus

No, I'm not nuts. But those christians I know are.

As far as what that verse means, well, quite frankly I don't give a fuck.

How do you come to the conclusion that making use of these prostitues is okay by secular humanist standards?

tronvillain

lcb:
Well, I am not a secular humanist, but it it does not really conflict with my standards, though I would not be especially enthusiastic about purchasing their services for myself.

*shrugs* You could say that about virtually every recreational activity everywhere on the planet. People simply strike a balance between sensual pleasures and the pleasures of charity.

The Other Michael

lcb,

I think QueenofSwords would be able to direct you to the websites of several different self-proclaimed Christian sects (see her "weekly nutwatch" threads in the lower fora) who would support that women should not be teachers or engineers.

It seems that you are now hoist on the same petard you try to use on non-theists. Here you have some Christians saying the Christian dogma justifies this - yet you seem to imply they are not True Christians (TM) since their interpretation of your holy book differs from yours.

Christians seem to be just as all over the board as those you term "secular humanists" in spite of a supposedly unifying common holy book, yet you keep trying to lump all "secular humanists" into one coherent group when they lack any unifying dogma.

Also, are you condemning only the purchasers of sexual favors, or also the suppliers? If also the suppliers, then what if they have no reasonable alternative, or the available alternatives are not as remunarative as prostitution?

Should they starve, or inflict a life (such as it is) of relative poverty and malnutrition upon their families instead of providing sexual services on a voluntary, consenting adult basis?

If the purchasers of services are not interested in philanthropy, but are willing to exchange money for services in a business contract of equals, should they be admonished for that, and if so, why?

cheers,
Michael

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by lcb:
<strong>(please refer to the Christian library).</strong>

Please refer to the bible, which clearly states that women cannot teach or have authority over men.

<strong>It has absolutely nothing to do with women being doctors,lawyers, teachers or indian chiefs </strong>

Actually, it has to do with the woman (Eve) being deceived and tempting Adam, who was not deceived until she enticed him to eat the apple (1 Timothy 2:13-15). And are we not all daughters of Eve, including these "little girls" in Thailand whom you are so concerned about? Therefore, because of her sin, the bible clearly prohibits us from teaching men. Can you find a verse where Paul explains that this command only applies to the church in Ephesus, but all other women are exempt from the consequences of Eve's sin?

I don't know why you want these "little girls" to go against what Paul said. If you're so concerned about their (eternal) well-being, shouldn't these men be trying to convert them to Christianity and encouraging them to bear children? "Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith, love and holiness, with self-control" (1 Timothy 2:15).

<strong>(and of course, queen you already knew that)</strong>

I already knew what the bible said on the topic. Perhaps you should consult the bible on the matter of how to deal with these "little girls".