1 Timothy 2:11-12: “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.”
“Silence woman! Your god commands it!”
I mean - it’s so perfect and horrible, it seems to be the only proper response.
“…For all who draw the sword will die by the sword.”
But I’m not a very talented artist, it’s all I know how to draw. :(
Rules are rules.
It’s better to die by the sword than to live with a boot on your neck.
So you’re arguing in favor of this lady then, or…?
They just got distracted.
Just get a pen and you don’t need to worry about swords anymore.
“Your holy book says for you to sit down and shut the fuck up while the men are speaking.”
Except these are the same people trying to legislate further misogyny
For those that don’t know, even though that passage sounds very Old Testamenty, it is in fact the supposedly more enlightened New Testament, and it was written by Paul, THE major New Testament authority (after Jesus, of course). And that section in its full context gets even worse:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Timothy 2&version=NIV
"Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing. I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety."
This is Handmaid’s Tale stuff.
Most modern biblical scholars believe 1st (and 2nd) Timothy to be later writings not actually written by Paul. Which doesn’t change the point really I just think it’s interesting.
Also, Paul never even met the character known as Jesus. Something I find very interesting given how much prominence he’s given in “the” bible.
Paul seems to have had some spats with the apostles who were around for Jesus. The “super-apostles” of 2 Corinthians 11:5 (NIV: “do not think I am in the least inferior to those ‘super-apostles.’”) may be referring to those earlier apostles. Galatians 2:11–14 also mentions an incident where Paul openly tells Peter he’s a hypocrite.
Much like the meeting on resolving circumcision in the early church, it’s glossed over quickly and made to sound like everyone came to an agreement after hashing it out for a bit.
Please, just please, pull this on them. “So do you believe in this book? Because you are here attempting to hold authority over men, and you are anything but silent.” Someone needs to say this to her face. Or anyone who pulls the bible as a source for their arguments. Play hard ball, we don’t have time to spare.
On one hand, yeah
On the other hand, this could potentially just attract another type of asshole you don’t want to be associated with who agrees with you.
Theyre being ironic. Theyre using a bible passage to illustrate that using bible passages as proof of anything is retarded.
I understand they’re being ironic, i’m pointing out that they could attract the unironic
If you know there’s people who will use Genesis 8 against climate change, you know there’s people who will take other passages seriously.
People do take those passages seriously. We can’t and shouldn’t adjust our speech to avoid dumb people being as dumb as they were already planning to be.
Right, but if we’re already using a “Gotcha”, and it’s…not really as much of a “Gotcha” as we think it is…then i’m basically just saying we gotta have arguments that work on the people we’re talking to, not ourselves
Like if anything we’re adjusting our speech to make the argument…that is going to have people perfectly willing to latch onto it seriously.
Copy and paste this to her Facebook and X accounts.
Who tf is Timothy?
Timótheos was the first bishop of Ephesus, which is now Selçuk, Turkey.
The Bible passage is allegedly a letter from St Paul to St Timótheos, although most scholars think it was written after Paul’s death.
Oh right, Timótheos. Calling him Timothy makes him sound very modern.
The Bible was famously translated to English during the Reformation.
Previously (mix of Aramaic and Greek here, you can pick one for either, plus I haven’t included their epithets. Like how nowadays we’re known as Firstname Lastname, at the time you’d have a family name and if you were famous, an epithet like Timos of Athens)
- Simon Peter: Shimoun Bar Younah
- Andrew: Andreás
- James Greater: Iacobus
- John: Iohannes
- Phillip: Philippos
- Bartholomew: Bartholomaios
- Thomas: Toma
- Matthew: Matisyahu
- James Lesser: Yaqub
- Judas Thaddeus: Yahwada
- Simon: Sumeon or Simo
- Judas Iscariot: Yehuda
Anyone who actually cites Noah’s flood to counter scientific data doesn’t need to be making laws for the public.
Frankly they don’t need their sensory organs,
Obviously aren’t using them much.Frankly, they don’t need their heads above water.
So her “logic” (and I’m stretching that word to the breaking point) is that God said he wouldn’t destroy the world again with a global flood. Let’s say we accept that as fact: God will not destroy the world via a global flood.
The problem is that God isn’t destroying the world, man is. And man isn’t destroying the world via a giant flood. He’s destroying it by changing the global climate to the point that he can’t keep up. (To be technical, man is destroying his ability to survive in the world, not the world itself. The Earth would be here even if we decided to burn more fossil fuels.)
So even if we accept Genesis 8 as a valid “argument” (more word stretching), it doesn’t apply. Now, if scientists start saying that a deity plans on instituting a global flood via 40 days and nights of rain, then I’ll accept Genesis 8 as a counter-argument.
I’m pretty sure God promised to next destroy the world with fire instead. And that’s what we’re seeing. So even her crazy opinion is wrong.
You can unravel her doublespeak by realizing that god is a creation of man, and therefore in her mind man is god and can do no wrong.
Mental gymnastics.
That’s not how you debate a topic. You have to use the shared medium of discussion
Shame our country doesn’t take the separation of church and state seriously. This sort of mental deficiency should not be part of our government.
I agree with the second sentence, but I really do not think this is a separation issue. She was elected to represent her constituents, a majority of whom are, presumably, also stunningly unintelligent.
This should be grounds for immediate removal.
Something tells me this might just be an elaborate ruse by a cosplaying Colin Mochrie… 🤷🏼♂️ (Can’t unsee it, now)
Oh my god
Perhaps she perfectly reflects her district.
The problem with gutting public schools
The POINT of gutting public schools.
So, is everything that comes out of this woman’s mouth bullshit? Even the examples of climate change policies that she gives are wrong. We aren’t banning new gas stoves due to climate change. We’re banning them due to indoor air quality issues and increased incidence of respiratory disease.
No, we’re not banning gas stoves, full stop. (In the US at least)
Literally the only story there was that a scientific study was published that suggests having a gas stove/oven can lead to an increase in asthma for children.
That alone was enough to set them off. Simply being told that we found something new out, and here it is in case you want to consider the pros and cons of having your kids around gas stoves.
They are literally triggered by the scientific method itself.
Several states are banning gas stoves in new buildings. It’s just not federal yet.
Cool, states rights. “Laboratories of democracy.”
Or is that only when they’re banning abortion or rolling back child labor laws?
What?
From my cold dead hands will you take my gas stove. I need a way to generate heat WHEN there is a blackout.
I mean, I love a gas stove (wish my apartment had one) but we are probably moving slowly towards a world where municipal gas is just not nearly as much of a thing. But nobody is ever going to stop you from setting up a propane or butane range in your house.
I will get a tank if I have to. No way I and my family are freezing to death when the power goes out. Besides it is harder to bake with electric.
Even then I thought it wasn’t really banning of gas stoves, just updating/tightening regulations and all that jazz so they wouldn’t be leaking the fumes.
It’s happening in some states, like NY
Good grief. When you do something like this you have disqualified yourself from office, but will the voters be smart enough to realize this?
Religion has no place in government or science for a good reason.
Not anymore. Religion is back with a vengeance and brought its little brother dumb science denial with him…
There’s a very loud contingent of religious people who still hold power for historical and structural reasons. It’s a shrinking demographic, though. This could be the death yells of an archaic system.
Or maybe not. While trends are going that way for now, religion tends to be on the uptake when times become more difficult. We’re headed into a period of more climate problems and capitalism making things worse for all but a few. That could reverse the trends and send people back into the pews.
It’ll def give Patton Oswalt a real burn for appreciating their [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZtR43-MIkII](planet incineration.)
Edi: I can’t do this right. Here or on reddit apparently.
You almost have it, it’s [name](https://link)
The tricky part is when links have (…) in them. Then you gotta escape the parentheses with a \ but work on getting the links right before that, you got this!
I wish. That don’t make no sense to me.
Video not available any more?
That statement is proof that she’s an idiot.
If she really believed that book she wouldn’t be talking to me or my penis.
And how are you doing today? NOT YOU.
Pennsylvania: Philly in the east, Pittsburgh in the west, and Alabama in the middle.
I always thought it was Kentucky in the middle. e.g. Pennsyltucky
Edit: I’m a moron. From the Wikipedia page "This quote is often paraphrased as “Philadelphia in the east, Pittsburgh in the west, and Alabama in the middle”
See also: upstate New York. You have the 5 boroughs, the suburbs thereof, and then it’s “paddle faster. I hear banjos” with a few islands of sanity in between.
I live in Upstate NY and you’re absolutely right. I’m in a very blue area, but I could drive a half hour away and see Trump flags alongside Confederate flags. (I’m close enough to Stefanik’s district to get her horrible political ads on my TV.)
A map of New York would actually look red, not blue, because of the vast rural areas. Luckily, land doesn’t vote so the huge red areas with few people are outvoted by the small blue areas with a lot of people.
I used to live in New Paltz 30 years ago. I still know exactly what you mean. The West Point area and Kingston is that last “island” on your way north.
There are other areas. I live in a very blue area in the capital district, well north of New Palz. Pretty much any of the cities in New York will be blue, while the rural areas are deep red.
Locally, we call it Pennsyltucky. There’s a lot of farmland and open space, with towns scattered across. It’s not all bad, but generally you will know it’s not a great area if there is a noticably high concentration of churches, strip clubs, or the smell of cat pee.
I’ve lived in it my entire life. Beautiful countryside, lots of land, but the neighbors are terrifying and there’s entire counties I won’t live in like Perry, Clearfield, and Tioga
Some of it’s really gorgeous, and we have some incredible state parks. Once the Main Line sprawls out past York, all that beautiful countryside is going to become golf courses and McMansions.
I bet anyone who agrees with her has heartfelt beliefs that inform their political stances, while anyone who doesn’t agree has a vicious agenda that they are imposing on the public.
But . . but h3r EmAiLz
Woah lady, you’ll get yourself stoned if you talk to men like that. Also are you wearing clothing made of two different materials? Straight to hell after the well deserved stoning.
She ignores those chapters and cherry picks the ones that agree with her oppressive views.
Like every single Republican who professes to be a “Christian.”
deleted by creator
Although that’s a great and nuanced view, I don’t think you have to go that deep. Any indication at all that these “Christians” have love in their hearts for anyone who isn’t just like them? Do these “Christian” lawmakers support feeding the poor or helping those less fortunate? Do they support affordable healthcare for their fellow children of God? Do they support programs to help underprivileged mothers care for the children that their Christian/Republican policies force to carry their babies to term? Do they support any measure whatsoever that leads to helping people and not putting profits first?
No, no, and no.
deleted by creator
Can you possibly imagine how stupid the people who vote for her are?
And I cite Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy 7 as proof that a hot cup of tea is the secret to the Infinite Improbability Drive. I’m willing to bet my citation has a higher chance of being correct.
I wouldn’t know. I’m not invited to those sorts of parties
How can people this fucking stupid be in charge?
It may shock you, but half of America has the cognitive reasoning of a 6 year old.
“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.” -G.Carlin
i.e. half the country.
“Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.” -G.Carlin
enough of which have been spoonfed hate and stupid over the last many decades by fox “news”, rush, some doofus with a spray tan, and others. and they vote.
Regular people are too busy to run?
That’s stupid. The only evidence that provides is she shouldn’t be any where near decision making in a government capacity.
