Wow

[NickF]

Right! The claim that the reason for this aspect of God's commanded heirarchy is due to women's lack of discernment does not follow necessarily from 1 Timothy. It would require additional assumption about the connection between propensity to be deceived and lack of discernment. Lack of discernment is not the only factor influencing this propensity (in men or women.)
But really fascinating points so thank you all.

Perhaps reading the scripture would help clarify.

1 Timothy 2:9-15 KJVS
[9] In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; [10] But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. [11] Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. [12] But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. [13] For Adam was first formed, then Eve. [14] And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. [15] Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. …


The woman was in the transgression because she was deceived. For that reason we are given the prohibition of women teaching or usurping authority. The text is very clear and simple. No additional assumption needed. Clear black and white explanation of the reason is given.

 

[LDremoved]

You quoted me, referencing a scripture. So yes you were. You may not have thought you were. We could be operating with a different definition of the word “opinion”.

You can have your own opinion and it could be correct or incorrect. I personally don’t put any weight on someone’s “opinion”. I care about truth.

Women are not to be in authority because God says so. That’s not my opinion. That’s His word on the matter. If you have a problem with it, take it up with Him. The above scripture is a plausible reason for God’s prohibition. But to be honest I don’t care if there is a reasonable answer. His word on the matter is enough for me.

You can formulate your own opinions all day long. If you think you are unaffected by outside factors and incapable of being swayed then you’re fantastically deluded or naive.

Being lied to does not abrogate your freedom in voicing and holding an opinion.

So either you’re not communicating what you’re really asking, or I’m not understanding what your question actually is.

I was responding to you, not your scripture quote, I quoted it so it caused confusion. I asked "when is a woman's opinion ever her own" because if we lack the ability to recognize when we're being lied to then we're always forming our opinions based on the influence/lies of others, we're essentially brainwashed. If that's the case then we're literally incapable of forming opinions based on our own volition.

Women are not to be in authority because God says so. That’s not my opinion. That’s His word on the matter. If you have a problem with it, take it up with Him. The above scripture is a plausible reason for God’s prohibition. But to be honest I don’t care if there is a reasonable answer. His word on the matter is enough for me.

Seriously I saw right through that from the beginning, not even going to bother.

 

[NickF]

…if we lack the ability to recognize when we're being lied to then we're always forming our opinions based on the influence/lies of others, we're essentially brainwashed. If that's the case then we're literally incapable of forming opinions based on our own volition.

This is seriously convoluted and poor logic. Not to mention reductio ad absurdum.
You can possess and pronounce your own opinions. You can have those opinions influenced by lies. Some people are more gullible than others. Some people are less intelligent than others. Some people are dumb as a box of rocks.

Some people are prohibited from leadership positions according to God.

I posted God’s word on a possible reason why.

I did not say all women are
- Stupid
- Lacking Discernment
- Incapable of leadership

Seriously I saw right through that from the beginning, not even going to bother.

There was nothing to “see through”. Scripture is plain and so were my statements. Invent some nefarious scheme you can see through all you want, I posted clear scripture on the matter.

Aaaaanyways after this derailment and contentiousness.

Does anyone want to discuss the OP?

 

[LDremoved]

This is seriously convoluted and poor logic. Not to mention reductio ad absurdum.
You can possess and pronounce your own opinions. You can have those opinions influenced by lies. Some people are more gullible than others. Some people are less intelligent than others. Some people are dumb as a box of rocks.

Some people are prohibited from leadership positions according to God.

I posted God’s word on a possible reason why.

I did not say all women are
- Stupid
- Lacking Discernment
- Incapable of leadership

There was nothing to “see through”. Scripture is plain and so were my statements. Invent some nefarious scheme you can see through all you want, I posted clear scripture on the matter.

Aaaaanyways after this derailment and contentiousness.

Does anyone want to discuss the OP?

Just as I know when the outside world is attempting to BS me, I also know when someone on here is. I'll leave it at that.

 

[cnystrom]

Definitely. My concern comes from us faulting other women for taking options that are not our personal ideal. Particularly when (in my opinion) there are valid arguments for pursuing a career and waiting to start a family. Just as there are valid arguments for not.

I do not think anyone is claiming that women pursuing a career and waiting to start a family is a sin. I think it is viewed as more of a Martha and Mary situation.

This website is Biblical _Families_ so it should not come as a surprise that there is a strong family advocate vibe here. I think many here, including myself, view a woman pursuing a career and waiting to start a family is a tactical life mistake.

For example, I have 3 sisters and my wife has 3 sisters, so 6 data points. All of them would much rather be a stay at home wife and mother than a career woman trying to raise a family at the same time, and all are or were unable to do so. Why is that?

1. School debts and other debts.

2. Not marrying men who were able to support them and/or had the moral value of the importance of supporting a stay at home mother.

3. Learning and not being willing to give up a lifestyle that requires a two income budget.

Often women themselves do not understand the trap that they have created for themselves until they have that first baby and they bring the baby home from the hospital and then realize that they will have to take that baby and drop it off a daycare for someone else to raise to go back to work in a career that no longer seems as important as that baby does.

Other problems with delay:

1. All the good men are taken already - you are picking last. (Marriage is important: pick first and get the best man you can! Hint: There is a shortage of good marrying men. Marry the first good man you can find. You might not get another chance. )

2. Biological clock. (Women assume they can have a baby whenever they want: this is a fiction. There is a limited window.).

I am advising my daughters that if they want to be a stay at home wife and mother they should prioritize that over career. I advise them to:

1. Find a man that has the means to support a family and do not become involved with a man who is not in a position to support a family. If you have to tell him to come back when he can support a family. Maybe you will still be available?

2. Make clear in the courtship that you expect to be a stay at home wife and mother.

3. Avoid debt at all cost.

4. Learn to live within your means.

If you do all of the above you have an excellent chance for success without having to go the career route.

One of my daughters started an online business so that she can be stay at home wife and mother and still contribute to the support of the family. Excellent idea in my opinion.

So if a women has her heart set on a career climbing the corporate ladder than by all means do that. But if her heart is set on being a wife and mother then I suggest that that should be her first priority.

That you can have it all is a fiction. Very few people really have it all. Life is all about prioritizing and making choices.

P.S. Women pursuing careers and waiting to start families is a societal problem as well because it leads to declining birth rates. Basically Western Civilization is dying because of it, but most people make decisions like these for personal reasons and not to save Western Civilization.

 

[MemeFan]

Why nobody here doesn't mention central problem? Money printing by central banks.

Here is short version. On gold standard there would be no or far less money printing. So productivity growth would drove all prices (except wages) down which would enable even more stay-at-home moms every year due to failing cost-of-living.

Why is now situation getting worse? Central banks print money faster than productivity growth so cost-of-living grows every year.

Solution is simple. Burn central banks and every other money counterfeiter and problem will solve itself.

And before somebody asks Bitcoin would have same effect as gold, maybe even stronger in stopping counterfeiters.

 

[steve]

Why nobody here doesn't mention central problem? Money printing by central banks.

Here is short version. On gold standard there would be no or far less money printing. So productivity growth would drove all prices (except wages) down which would enable even more stay-at-home moms every year due to failing cost-of-living.

Why is now situation getting worse? Central banks print money faster than productivity growth so cost-of-living grows every year.

Solution is simple. Burn central banks and every other money counterfeiter and problem will solve itself.

And before somebody asks Bitcoin would have same effect as gold, maybe even stronger in stopping counterfeiters.

I am with you right up until Bitcoin.
I’m old fashioned and if something only exists in the electronic universe, it has no value for me. It goes in the trash along with other mind warp ideas like gender fluidity.

 

[MemeFan]

I am with you right up until Bitcoin.
I’m old fashioned and if something only exists in the electronic universe, it has no value for me. It goes in the trash along with other mind warp ideas like gender fluidity.

Any commodity can function as money, including electronic. If you can exchange it and store it is enough to be money.

If Bitcoin maxis are right, day will arrive when Bitcoin will become universal and standard way of payment across whole world. It will replace all fiat currencies.

Bitcoin is superior than gold in one key aspect. Original meaning of inflation is growth of money supply. Gold supply grows 1-2% percent per year while Bitcoin maximum is 21 million. It is this hardcoded and everyone can check which makes counterfeiting very hard, if not impossible.

 

[Communication]

Some people are prohibited from leadership positions according to God.

I posted God’s word on a possible reason why.

If it's God's word, why is it only "possible reason"?

 

[FollowingHim]

Gold supply grows 1-2% percent per year

In other words, it approximately matches population growth, meaning no net inflation / deflation. That's a feature, not a bug.

If the supply were fixed, no more gold were ever produced, then supply would never increase and would actually decline over time through losses, and the amount available per person would decline even more rapidly as the population grew. This would cause deflation and ultimately could make the currency unworkably expensive - if gold became so valuable that a single grain of gold dust was needed for a transaction, it would be unwieldy.

 

[paterfamilias]

Are we "advancing"? What is "progress"?

Progress is not progress unless it is going towards a goal. What is the goal our society is progressing towards?

Ack...beat me to the very point I intended to make after reading that sentence

 

[paterfamilias]

Yes, I agree. That's why I said "sadly" because it's forcing people to adapt to things that are not natural in the persuit of these so called "advancements." Feels like it's forcing women into waiting to start a family. While I'm all for some women pursuing the option of waiting until they're financially secure to have children by their own choice, I don't think it's fair to pressure them to be less family oriented in the process.

In a world of astroturfed false progress, embrace real rebellion by living traditionally

 

[LDremoved]

In a world of astroturfed false progress, embrace real rebellion by living traditionally

I think both are a little extreme for me personally, I'm just a little old to be basing my feelings/opinions off of rebellion lol

The article predicted the outcome for 2030, who knows how women will settle into their place in the world and the workforce by then. That's why I didn't feel it was a cause for alarm necessarily.

I will say I find it a little odd that people want women to work outside of the household when it benefits the household yet they take issue with women putting off having a family for a couple of years to establish a career that pays well enough to do that.

 

[LDremoved]

I am with you right up until Bitcoin.
I’m old fashioned and if something only exists in the electronic universe, it has no value for me. It goes in the trash along with other mind warp ideas like gender fluidity.

I have a few friends who make bank off of Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency. One guy literally has multiple computers farming- making money while he's at work. It's so strange to me because I'm too old and electronically behind to understand things like that but apparently it can work lol they exchange it for real money.

 

[steve]

I have a few friends who make bank off of Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency. One guy literally has multiple computers farming- making money while he's at work. It's so strange to me because I'm too old and electronically behind to understand things like that but apparently it can work lol they exchange it for real money.

Many things work in the short term.

But you can’t walk into a vault full of bitcoins and bury yourself in them.
LONG LIVE RICHIE RICH!

 

[frederick]

Women are not to be in authority because God says so. That’s not my opinion. That’s His word on the matter.

Such a blanket claim is in conflict with Scripture. We have examples of women in authority such as Deborah who was a judge in Israel and the children of Israel came to her for judgement (Judges 4:4, 5). The Queen of Sheba visited Solomon in Jerusalem and came with a very great retinue, and she had servants under her authority (1 Kings 10:2, 13). Esther was Queen and she had authority over maids and servants, giving commands to e.g., Hathach concerning Mordecai and Mordecai did all that Esther commanded him. (Esther 4:5, 10, 17). Children are to honour and to obey their parents because both father and mother have authority over their children (Eph. 6:1, 2). King Lemuel's mother is honoured for teaching him through a reference to her in Proverbs 31:1. Not one of the situations I have referenced have any kind of negative connotation associated with them. The only passage in the Bible that I'm aware of that indicates a women should not teach or have authority over a man is in 1 Tim. 2:12 but we know this instruction is given regarding the role of women in the assembly (see e.g. 1 Tim. 1:3; 2:11; 3:14) so doesn't apply generally. If it applied to all of life in every situation, no woman could have servants and especially male servants; she couldn't serve as a queen, judge, police officer, or military officer, etc. No woman could have authority over her own children or employees in her business. However, we see in the Bible that women can and do have authority in certain places just the same as men can and do have authority in certain places, but all are under the authority of Him who reigns over all. Shalom

 

[MemeFan]

In other words, it approximately matches population growth, meaning no net inflation / deflation. That's a feature, not a bug.

If the supply were fixed, no more gold were ever produced, then supply would never increase and would actually decline over time through losses, and the amount available per person would decline even more rapidly as the population grew. This would cause deflation and ultimately could make the currency unworkably expensive - if gold became so valuable that a single grain of gold dust was needed for a transaction, it would be unwieldy.

Gold was never used for small everyday transactions. Silver, copper and paper money were historically used.

Definitions of inflation don't have anything with per capita metrics. Per original definition (money supply) gold is inflating, just very slowly.

Just from experience workers will become 2-3% more productive per year. It makes sense that people with more experience are more productive. But this number is increase with no effort, just people slowly noticing how to be better.

Systematic effort in raising productivity could easily be double digit number in productivity growth per year in decades. Toyota targets 10% per year starting decades ago and Danaher did something similar. With much faster growing supply of goods in comparison with supply of gold good's prices will fall. Dramatically. This is deflation according to today's definition (general price level). In another words with same meaning, but coming from "another side" is growing purchasing power of money (what you can actually buy for money).

In hyperinflation purchasing power of money disappear, respectively prices of goods go exponential.

In fact, in second half on 19th century world was transformed due to growing population, growing wages and rapidly failing good's prices. This implies failing scarcity (higher price implies greater scarcity) despite growing population and consequently greater resource consumption. So more resource population, but actually growing amount of resources.

In fact, on gold or bitcoin pension funds would dissapear. Saving for retirement would consist of buying bitcoin/ metal coin and keeping it somewhere safe. Productivity growth would drive up purchasing power of bitcoin/metal coin way up for no needed effort and risk of capital. Why risk money when it will go up in value automatically?

Cultural consequences would be huge and transformative. Why spend on some snack when coin saved would bring more goods in future? So saving and smart investing would be natural. And life becoming better every year will make people more optimistic. Naturally, people will start thinking long-term and behaving accordingly.

Hyperinflation has directly opposite effect. Constantly changing prices makes any longer term economic action pure betting since nobody can't predict will anything be profitable. So short-term thinking and behaviour rules.

No wonder Weimar saw explosion of every sign of decadence. What is prostitution and shacking every day with another man for short-term thinking woman? Life as usual. To refuse both means thinking and behaving according to long-term consequences, not just according to short-term pleasure.

Only long-term thinking ladies keep themself pure for right man. So fix money which will fix culture which will fix social ills. Then finally nobody here will complain about lack of proper ladies.

Current system is slowly corrupting society. Slowly rasing inflation (in today's sense) mean people are thinking shorter and shorter. So society becomes slowly more morally worse.

We have to choose right battles and focus in solving key causes.

 

[FollowingHim]

Gold was never used for small everyday transactions. Silver, copper and paper money were historically used.

True, but it's all the same principle. Let's talk about silver then.

Definitions of inflation don't have anything with per capita metrics.

Only because fiat money inflation generally occurs so much faster than population growth that people don't take this into consideration.

In an inflating population, all assets need to inflate at approximately the same rate. The number of houses, items of clothing, food production, and everything else - including money - need to increase in quantity. If population and number of assets inflate faster than money, then that would be potentially just as destabilising as the opposite situation which we see today, where money inflates faster than assets.

Imagine a world where all purchasing was done with silver - but silver was becoming scarcer and scarcer simply because there were more and more people and not enough coinage available in the world. Wages would fall, and prices would fall, but at varying rates introducing destabilising fluctuations in the purchasing power of people's wages. That could cause poverty and social unrest for very similar reasons to how money supply inflation can cause poverty. And coinage would decrease in size over time, or be debased, out of pure necessity.

As I said, the gradual increase in gold & silver supply over time due to mining is a feature, not a bug.

 

[MemeFan]

In an inflating population, all assets need to inflate at approximately the same rate. The number of houses, items of clothing, food production, and everything else - including money - need to increase in quantity. If population and number of assets inflate faster than money, then that would be potentially just as destabilising as the opposite situation which we see today, where money inflates faster than assets.

Incorrect. Money doesn't need to increase in quantity. No money increase means declining prices. It's simple math: general price level = amount of goods/services / amount of money in circulation.

If good's production grows as same rate as population living standard will stay same. So it must go faster. It shouldn't be hard for economy to achieve this. History is proof of this success.

Changes in general price level don't matter if they are enough predictable for business planning. Moore's law with its prediction of transistor cost up to decade in advance has never hurt semiconductor industry. In fact, opposite was case.

As I said, the gradual increase in gold & silver supply over time due to mining is a feature, not a bug.

If there was no more mining of metals only effect would be slighty faster fall of good's prices with all it's good effects.

Imagine a world where all purchasing was done with silver - but silver was becoming scarcer and scarcer simply because there were more and more people and not enough coinage available in the world. Wages would fall, and prices would fall, but at varying rates introducing destabilising fluctuations in the purchasing power of people's wages. That could cause poverty and social unrest for very similar reasons to how money supply inflation can cause poverty. And coinage would decrease in size over time, or be debased, out of pure necessity.

Going slightly into fantasy world. There is no natural law against using two or more commodities as money. Gold for high denominations and silver for smaller denominations. Add additional metals as needed for smaller denominations. This is historical solution.

It is also possible to have paper currency representing gold/silver/etc.. denominations. To go bank, deposit metal and receive paper IOU back. Use OIU as payment. Used in Europe and America at start of 20th century. Trick is stopping paper currency counterfeiters and banks stopping owners from taking their metal back.

It would be trivial to have paper IOU representing 1/10, 1/100 etc gram of some metal. Add new smaller paper IOU denominations a needed.

Yes, prices and wages would fall. But prices would fall faster than wages driving living standard up because of productivity growth. Again, similar as with Moore's law. If predictable no problem. Against second industrial revolution shows it's not a problem. Everything had faster growth than money supply.

Only problem are wild swings, but they are caused by state or central bank intervention.

You are under too much influence by central banking cartel. They are calling for printing money because falling prices are disaster for them and governments. Their income would fall while nomimal debt staying same. So debt payment would take more and more percentage of income.

Meanwhile, population would have fun bargain hunting. Prices per product would fall, but more products would be sold. Productivity boost would help with costs. So nominal wages would stay same or fall less than prices. So real wage growth with growing living standards.

Don't believe central banks. They try to sell what is best for them as best for all.

 

[FollowingHim]

If there was no more mining of metals only effect would be slighty faster fall of good's prices with all it's good effects.

Falling prices are only good if wages remain high and do not fall.

These good falling prices occur because of increased efficiency in production. New looms make clothing easier to produce, more clothing is produced, price of clothing falls. New agricultural techniques increase yields, price of food falls. And so forth. Fundamentally, the price is reducing because the supply of that particular commodity has increased, and price drops due to increased supply.

If wages remain at the same level, while prices fall, purchasing power has increased - the average person in society is now wealthier, because they can buy more things for their annual wages.

However, if the quantity of money available per person decreased, both prices AND WAGES will fall. People will not be able to buy any more than they could before. There are no "good effects" from this.