Batchelor correct? Women less IQ than men?

[John317]

Quote:

John317: Do you believe in, and read, Ellen White's writings? It's in them.

Quote:

SivartM: I've only said that I do about a hundred times...

And I still don't see how Adam being bigger makes men superior. Shouldn't whales be superior to us?

I'm wondering why, then, you asking where it says Adam was made taller than Eve? It sounded like you weren't aware that she says it.

I've never said anything about males being "superior" to females.

It's not about being superior or inferior. It's about being made for different roles and different work and responsibilities.

[John317]

Quote:

John3:17: It's a fact. We're not trees or plants or chemicals or bacteria. I would say that we're animals made in the image of God, which the other animals are not.

Quote:

SivartM: In your original post, you didn't say that "we" were animals, you said that Eve was an animal. I think that phrase brought out the true colors of the anti-WO philosophy (either that or it just unintentionally sounded wrong, but nobody will afford the pro-WO people that benefit of the doubt, so I'll just have to further polarize the conversation).

Where did Eve come from-- from the man, right? So how could Eve be "an animal," and Adam not be? Man and woman are of exactly the same species, so if woman is counted as among the animal kingdom, certainly man would be also. Don't we all come from our mother? How could we be a different species or kind?

You are putting words in my mouth that I never said, SivartM.

[SivartM]

I'm wondering why, then, you asking where it says Adam was made taller than Eve? It sounded like you weren't aware that she says it.

I've never said anything about males being "superior" to females.

It's not about being superior or inferior. It's about being made for different roles and different work and responsibilities.

Maybe because I haven't memorized every word she's ever written.

You never used that word, of course, but when you say that women were made for men, and all that, I don't see how anyone can not think that that is not expressing the superiority of men.

And, with Eve vs. animals, I know that technically humans are animals, but that's not my point. You said that Adam named Eve and all the other animals. How does that not sound wrong? You don't call people derogatory terms just because they technically mean the same thing. You could have just said "Adam named the animals and Eve".

[John317]

Quote:

John317:

Read 1 Cor. 11: 9-- "Man was not created for woman's sake, but woman was for man's sake." Isn't that pretty clear? :-)

Quote:

SivartM: Why, so it is! I'm so glad that I'm not going to have to do anything for my wife when I get married, because she was made for me and not me for her!

Did you know about that verse before? You wrote as if you didn't believe the Bible taught that.

But really you have the wrong idea here. You're misunderstanding the Bible and God's arrangement if you think that way.

Also read Adventist Home, pp. 211-239. It's a truly wonderful book, one of my favorite.

[SivartM]

Travis, I make a suggestion that we clear the table for a moment and ask an objective question. What does the Bible mean here "Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered."

It's not an objective question is you already have a firm opinion and are only asking the question to try to persuade someone to your way of thinking.

And I think that means for husbands to respect their wives. (One could start by, say, not trying to control their lives.)

[John317]

Quote:

SivartM:

And I think that means for husbands to respect their wives. (One could start by, say, not trying to control their lives.)

Of course husbands should love and respect their wives.

I don't try or want to control my wife's life. Where are you getting these things from?

[SivartM]

Did you know about that verse before? You wrote as if you didn't believe the Bible taught that.

But really you have the wrong idea here. You're misunderstanding the Bible and God's arrangement if you think that way.

Also read Adventist Home, pp. 211-239. It's a truly wonderful book, one of my favorite.

Yes, I did, and I knew that you were going to quote it. And I don't believe that the Bible teaches that women were made to do what men want them to do, while men are free from such bondage.

I do believe that, chronologically, man was created first. And that husbands and wives should BOTH humbly serve each other instead of one exerting authority over the other because of some arbitrary rule.

If my future wife is better at me than something, I'm not going to insist that I do it just because of some gender convention. If she is better at teaching (which would not be hard), I'm not going to insist that I teach Sabbath School instead of her just because the Bible told the Corinthians not to let women teach men.

[SivartM]

Quote:

SivartM:

And I think that means for husbands to respect their wives. (One could start by, say, not trying to control their lives.)

I don't try or want to control my wife's life. Where are you getting these things from?

I'm not accusing you personally of anything, but the idea behind anti-WO is that men tell women (in the name of the Lord, of course) not to teach them.

[John317]

Quote:

John317:

Did you know about that verse before? You wrote as if you didn't believe the Bible taught that.

Quote:

SivartM: Yes, I did, and I knew that you were going to quote it. And I don't believe that the Bible teaches that women were made to do what men want them to do, while men are free from such bondage.

Then why did you ask for a reference when I said that God made Eve for Adam and not Adam for Eve?

If you already knew the verse, could you please explain why this your response--

Quote:

Reference? As I recall they were made for each other.

[SivartM]

Because I disagree with your interpretation of that verse. It's not about importance (or "role" as you put it, but I really would like to know how that interpretation does not make men more important).

[Tom Wetmore]

Followed to its logical conclusion, all of our ministers and leaders should be taller than everyone else (Maybe God allowed Saul, to disprove that idea) and stronger (Maybe God used Samson to show how effective strong-arm leadership works) and have the highest IQ (And God's gift of great wisdom to Solomon didn't work out so well in the end either).

"Not by might nor by power..."

[Gregory Matthews]

I wonder:

ONec upon a time and for many years, I was 72 inches tall.

Now I am not 72 inches tall. I have shrunk and I am shorter than I once was.

Does my shrinking indicate that God has removed my leadership from me and given it to another? Does it indicate a loss of favor with God.

I wonder where that places double amputees?

[Woody]

I wonder:

ONec upon a time and for many years, I was 72 inches tall.

Now I am not 72 inches tall. I have shrunk and I am shorter than I once was.

Does my shrinking indicate that God has removed my leadership from me and given it to another? Does it indicate a loss of favor with God.

I wonder where that places double amputees?

Woody Likes This.

This is an extremly important point.

And what about this: "Before Christ left heaven and came into the world to die, He was taller than any of the angels. He was majestic and lovely. But when His ministry commenced, He was but little taller than the common size of men then living upon the earth" 7BC 904

Apparently Jesus shrank. You've stated that you have shrunk. But then ... you are in good company. :)

[Neil D]

If God's standards don't govern our relationships, we are not a Christians.

The commonly peddled "social gospel" is basically an application of situation ethics. The ends do NOT justify the means, Neil. He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much.

If God's standards bow to the prevailing culture, who is being worshipped?

Man is.

And what do you mean by "God's standards"?

If you mean the nebulous definition of love, you have some real explaining to do...because love knows no boundarys...It seeks not it's own, but the betterment of others....There is no law against love.

If you mean the 10 Commandmanets strictly, all you have done is limited the Christian's ability to minimumly reach out....if at all, and at best, shows our country and our church a land of laws only.

If you mean church standards, you have become even more narrow in your approach in social justice in that the church defines what it's goals and practices are as those in the church choose which values to emphasize. It, as "God standard" even more narrowly defines the 10 commandments and what it sees as Christian behavior. And the convolution of new ideas confounds this into more 'situational ethics' that you seem to think abhorant.

God and His children can not be limited in thier behavior toward others because they ARE the definition of love in action....Love does not belittle, nor does it regard others as just equal...it seeks the betterment of others...it goes beyond the current practice...it is it's own standard...ever changing for the better...

.The greatest benefit is to show others outside our nation and church that we are not only a land of law [or a church of law], but also of generosity and mercy.

[olger]

Originally Posted By: olger

Travis, I make a suggestion that we clear the table for a moment and ask an objective question. What does the Bible mean here "Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered."

It's not an objective question is you already have a firm opinion and are only asking the question to try to persuade someone to your way of thinking.

And I think that means for husbands to respect their wives. (One could start by, say, not trying to control their lives.)

1) Of course.

2) A man is called to love his wife, and the wife is called to respect the husband. This differentiation occurs in Ephesians 5. Emerson Eggerich has made an International series out of this biblical concept. As to the control issue, I have seen husbands trying to control wives and I have seen wives trying to control husbands. Both wrong. The solution is for both to experience spiritual intimacy and be controlled by God. This will equip the husband to lead properly, and the wife to submit her spirit to a relationship w/her husband. There is a compelling beauty in this type of oneness.

How do you read the term "weaker vessel?"

g

[olger]

As to the IQ question, there is much extant evidence that men have a slight IQ edge, but does that qualify them to the role of spiritual leadership? No.

The Bible is our authority here, and the Bible is abundantly clear.

See Anne Moir & David Jessel's excellent book "Brain Sex" (chapter 6 "the ability gap").

[John317]

Quote:

SivartM: Because I disagree with your interpretation of that verse. It's not about importance.

Again, Is it gender discrimination for God to have made Eve for Adam and not Adam for Eve?

[John317]

Quote:

John317: If humans are not included in the animal kingdom, what then are we? I'm not suggesting that we're not different in some major ways from the other animals.

Quote:

SivartM: I know that, but in the context, it sounded a lot like you were putting Eve on the same level as all the other animals, without mentioning that Adam was also an animal.

What exactly did I say that made you think this? If you've been reading my posts, you should realize that I believe all of the doctrines of the SDA church and in all of the writings of Ellen White, beside all of the Bible. Do any of these things teach that Adam had a different inherent nature than the one Eve had?

Quote:

SivartM: We're taxonomically classified as animals, but I don't think most people would appreciate being grouped with them in practical terms.

My point is that God planned it so that Adam was the one who named all the animals and that Adam also gave Eve the name "woman" and her personal name, "Eve."

Ellen White says that after the Fall, God "placed [Eve] in subjection to her husband" because she "had been the first in transgression, and she had fallen into temptation by separating from her companion, contrary to the divine direction." PP 58

These are the facts as the Bible and SOP gives them to us. I don't believe these things make men "better" or "superior" to women. But I do believe it's important for humans to understand what happened and what God's plan is for humanity.

So when I mention the fact that God made Adam taller and physically stronger than Eve, I don't mean that it makes the male "better" or "superior" to woman.

I am saying these things indicate something about the relationship God intends for the man to have toward the woman. They tell us about man's position and responsibilities, which are different from the position and responsibilities that God intends woman to have.

Ellen White writes about this in Adventist Home, pp. 211-243. Have you ever read these pages? The world would be a far better place if everyone read them and put them into practice in daily, practical life. I wish I had read of them and practiced them as soon as I got married. I thank God for Ellen White and her books, such as Adventist Home.

She was inspired by God to write, "The husband and father is the head of the household... All members of the family center in the Father. He is the lawmaker... The father is in one sense the priest of the household, laying upon the alter of God the morning and evening sacrifice... Morning and evening the father, as priest of the household, should confess to God the sins committed by himslef and his children through the day.... The father represents the divine Lawgive in the family... The father must not betray his sacred trust. He must not, on any point, yield up his prerental authority." AH 311-212. Also read the chapters on the woman's position and responsibilities.

Just wondering if you believe the husband and father is the head of the household?

And what do you think it means to be the head of the household?

[John317]

I would like to know whether you believe the following things, and if you do, how you think we should understand them:

Did God make Adam and all other husbands the head of the home?

How about God's decision to make Adam taller and stronger?

How about God making Adam first and giving him the responsiblity of naming all the animals?

How about God's allowing Adam to be the one to give the name "woman" to womankind and the personal name "Eve" to his wife? (Ge. 2: 23; 3: 20.)

How about God making Eve for Adam and not Adam for Eve?

Or making Eve from Adam and not Adam from Eve? (1 Cor. 11: 8)

Or telling Eve to be sure to stay at Adam's side in the Garden in order to make it less likely that Satan would be able to trick her into sinning? See PP 53-54

Or the fact that Ellen White says that if Adam had stayed faithful God, Eve would have died, and God could have made a new wife for Adam? PP 56

Or that even though Eve was the first to sin, it was Adam's sin that brought sin and death into the human race?

And finally, was it gender discrimination for God to choose all men as Israel's Kings, for priests, for most of the judges and the prophets, and for Christ's 12 disciples?

If you believe all these things, what do you believe they signify about God's plans?

[Gregory Matthews]

John:

I know that you like the arguement and the debate. In a different venue, I can participate in such and I do.

But, a long time ago I gave that up in relation to deeply held spiritual/religious issues. I have given up attempting to convince people of what is spiritually and Biblically correct. I have come to the place where I simply present (and often once) issues that the Holy Spirit my use to stimulate their thinking. I have faith that God is powerful enough to do the convicting and I do not have to do that. Yes, I believe that there are times when the HS so uses me.

The questions that you have asked me are repeats of questions thet you have asked others. Others have responded to you. There is no need for me to further respond and to simply repeat answers that you have already been given.

I am not here to either score a point or to win a debate. I do not imply that your questions are not valid. I simply have nothing more to contribute to you than has already been delivered to you.

[Gregory Matthews]

JOhn said:

Quote:

If you believe all these things, what do you believe they signify about God's plans?

You have a basket of questions. There is no one answer that fits everyone of them.

There are facts and there is intrepretation of facts. E.G. it is a fact that God created Adam first. To go beyond that is speculation unless it is backed by a clear Biblical statement. IOW to attach meaning to that you should have a clear Biblical statement--even when you are probably correct. Without that clear Biblical statement the intrepretation falls into the field of speculation.

In the area of speculation we should be willing to live in peace with others who see it differently.

[John317]

John:

I know that you like the argument and the debate. In a different venue, I can participate in such and I do.

Actually I don't like argument and debate. I like exchanges of viewpoint in a conversation type of dialogue. I'm not interested in who wins a 'debate' but I am very interested in the search for truth and for study, communication, examination.

It appears you are using "argument" in the sense of "arguing" or "quarrel." I don't do that. But I do enjoy conversation in which two or more people talk about their reasons for beliefs. My idea is close to the dialectic of Plato's dialogues.

But I believe in what Ellen White says about discussing these things. As soon as it becomes an "argument" as you refer to it, where people have an angry attitude, particularly when talking about the Bible or God, I stop and refuse to participate because the Holy Spirit is not involved but the Devil is.

That's why if you go through my posts, you won't find me calling names or getting angry with people. I can easily discuss issues with people who totally disagree with me and I can still like them or love them, without feeling angry at them. I separate the viewpoint people have from the person himself. If I couldn't do that, I wouldn't stay on the Forum. I'm here to learn and have fun.

[John317]

Quote:

Gregory Matthews: You have a basket of questions. There is no one answer that fits everyone of them.

Yes, I do. I'm not expecting you to answer all of them. I just basically was wondering if you agreed with them.

Quote:

Gregory: There are facts and there is intrepretation of facts.

Sure. I'm not asking you for any interpretation. Just if you believe the questions. For instance, do you believe, as Paul says, that God made Eve for Adam and not Adam for Eve?

Quote:

Gregory: E.G. it is a fact that God created Adam first. To go beyond that is speculation unless it is backed by a clear Biblical statement.

I agree we shouldn't speculate. In the case of the creation of Adam first, what application does the Apostle make of this fact, in 1 Cor. 11? Or of the fact that Eve was deceived and Adam was not?

Quote:

Gregory: IOW to attach meaning to that you should have a clear Biblical statement--even when you are probably correct. Without that clear Biblical statement the intrepretation falls into the field of speculation.

Do you think 1 Cor. 11 is a clear enough biblical statement so that we do not have to speculate about what Paul is saying in those verses dealing with Adam and Eve?

Quote:

Gregory: In the area of speculation we should be willing to live in peace with others who see it differently.

I think so too. I do live in peace with everyone.

[John317]

Quote:

Gregory Matthews:

The questions that you have asked me are repeats of questions thet you have asked others. Others have responded to you. There is no need for me to further respond and to simply repeat answers that you have already been given.

Most of the questions have not been answered by other people, but the main thing is that I am interested in your thoughts if you'd care to share them. I really don't know what you think on these things but I'd very much like to.

[olger]

Greg, John was asking for your personal views on these aspects. That is fairly benign.

blessings,