Because of course God doesn't hear prayers unless spoken out loud. My friend, silence does not mean not praying.
I guess you figure they can prophesy silently as well?
Are they allowed to sing? Or do just the men sing in your church?
Read the scripture again.
Women are to STAY SILENT IN CHURCH from speaking.
1 Corinthians 14:34-35
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
When do you hear SPEAKING in church? That's right, when somebody is teaching something or commenting on something.
Pre-Composed hymns are not somebody teaching directly or commenting.
Do you think women should stay silent and church and not speak?
Sure enough, I checked the Scriptures again, and Ephesians 5:19 still says "Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs." So apparently singing hymns constitutes speaking to one another.
I appreciate our church's practice in which the women do not preach or testify individually during the church service.
ken_sylvania wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2024 1:15 am
I guess you figure they can prophesy silently as well?
Are they allowed to sing? Or do just the men sing in your church?
Read the scripture again.
Women are to STAY SILENT IN CHURCH from speaking.
1 Corinthians 14:34-35
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
When do you hear SPEAKING in church? That's right, when somebody is teaching something or commenting on something.
Pre-Composed hymns are not somebody teaching directly or commenting.
Do you think women should stay silent and church and not speak?
Sure enough, I checked the Scriptures again, and Ephesians 5:19 still says "Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs." So apparently singing hymns constitutes speaking to one another.
I appreciate our church's practice in which the women do not preach or testify individually during the church service.
Other than scriptural reasons, why do you appreciate it?
Szdfan wrote: ↑Sat Aug 10, 2024 10:57 pm Other than scriptural reasons, why do you appreciate it?
I don't know that I have any reasons other than the fact that it seems to be a very practical application of the plain reading of the Scriptures.
What better reason could there be?
i’ve never felt anything but blessed by this, “let them ask their husbands at home:” .. “two become one” .. it’s not as tho women are overlooked or forgotten, with no voice. Why covet what is not yours?
Obedience brings blessings, not loss. Often, unexpected blessings beyond human reasoning.
steve-in-kville wrote: ↑Wed Aug 07, 2024 10:01 am
A few podcasts I've listed to recently touched on being "woke", a term I never heard until the past year or so. Specifically, how the social culture is "dumbing down" masculinity. Some really good points I will share further downstream if I get the chance.
Vote and discuss. I'll allow for some politics provided its kept civil.
Yup. It has affected us. Same with the red pill movement.
What intrigues you about this. I feel like I must be missing something, to my ear it seems he is saying plural will ultimately fail as a public policy so no need to try.
What intrigues you about this. I feel like I must be missing something, to my ear it seems he is saying plural will ultimately fail as a public policy so no need to try.
Matt McManus is a very left-leaning socialist so I don't think he's exactly endorsing a Schmidtian reading of political philosophy. What I was cuing SZD into was his thesis on what he calls "post modern conservatives" Others might call them Nietzschean. I think that analysis is worth exploring.
What intrigues you about this. I feel like I must be missing something, to my ear it seems he is saying plural will ultimately fail as a public policy so no need to try.
Matt McManus is a very left-leaning socialist so I don't think he's exactly endorsing a Schmidtian reading of political philosophy. What I was cuing SZD into was his thesis on what he calls "post modern conservatives" Others might call them Nietzschean. I think that analysis is worth exploring.
This was the major takeaway for me from the article HK linked to:
Post-modern conservatives, who regard neo-liberal culture as decadent and plagued with ever greater social fragmentation, are especially prone to wanting to use the state to crack down on difference. More worryingly still they reject “objective” epistemic, aesthetic, and meta-ethical standards for assessing behavior. This is given added impetus since many of these same standards are promulgated by liberal “elites” who are seen as being allied with progressive and foreign groups responsible for the growing fragmentation of society and its values.
They argue that these liberal elites foster “fake news” which needs to be combated by “alternative facts.” But rather than mobilize a new set of objective epistemic, aesthetic, and meta-ethical standards to replace the progressive liberal’s and buttress these “alternative facts,” post-modern conservatives appeal to traditionally powerful identities and their values as a locus for understanding. They use these identities to push for the retrenchment of already powerful identities at the expense of marginalized peoples and movements, and they have done so by attempting to seize state power across North America and Europe.
The emergence of post-modern conservatism indicates that the desire to use the state and its power to create a total identity has not gone away. Indeed, recent times have shown us that this temptation is not just a relic of the 20th century but a very live issue given new form by post-modern culture. Trump and his affiliates are modern sovereigns using militant liberalism and conservatism, without bothering to justify the contradiction, to crack down on difference.
I don't read it as an argument against pluralism -- it acknowledges Schmitt's critiques of liberalism, but that the alternative by post-modern conservatives is worse in the sense that it will use the state's power to "crack down on difference" by emphasizing powerful traditional identities at the "expense of marginalized peoples and movements."
What intrigues you about this. I feel like I must be missing something, to my ear it seems he is saying plural will ultimately fail as a public policy so no need to try.
Matt McManus is a very left-leaning socialist so I don't think he's exactly endorsing a Schmidtian reading of political philosophy. What I was cuing SZD into was his thesis on what he calls "post modern conservatives" Others might call them Nietzschean. I think that analysis is worth exploring.
This was the major takeaway for me from the article HK linked to:
Post-modern conservatives, who regard neo-liberal culture as decadent and plagued with ever greater social fragmentation, are especially prone to wanting to use the state to crack down on difference. More worryingly still they reject “objective” epistemic, aesthetic, and meta-ethical standards for assessing behavior. This is given added impetus since many of these same standards are promulgated by liberal “elites” who are seen as being allied with progressive and foreign groups responsible for the growing fragmentation of society and its values.
They argue that these liberal elites foster “fake news” which needs to be combated by “alternative facts.” But rather than mobilize a new set of objective epistemic, aesthetic, and meta-ethical standards to replace the progressive liberal’s and buttress these “alternative facts,” post-modern conservatives appeal to traditionally powerful identities and their values as a locus for understanding. They use these identities to push for the retrenchment of already powerful identities at the expense of marginalized peoples and movements, and they have done so by attempting to seize state power across North America and Europe.
The emergence of post-modern conservatism indicates that the desire to use the state and its power to create a total identity has not gone away. Indeed, recent times have shown us that this temptation is not just a relic of the 20th century but a very live issue given new form by post-modern culture. Trump and his affiliates are modern sovereigns using militant liberalism and conservatism, without bothering to justify the contradiction, to crack down on difference.
I don't read it as an argument against pluralism -- it acknowledges Schmitt's critiques of liberalism, but that the alternative by post-modern conservatives is worse in the sense that it will use the state's power to "crack down on difference" by emphasizing powerful traditional identities at the "expense of marginalized peoples and movements."
My friend, silence does not mean not praying.
