₦airaland Forum

@TV01,

Oh man! that's harsh, labelling me a chauvinist pig .

Don't tempt me men !

I am not suggesting male pre-eminence. Just differing aeas of ministerial duty. Who ever said that eldership was about pre-eminence? Not in singular or plurality. You appear to be confusing the biblical outline of servant-leadership, with the bombast and excess of modern day MOG's. If people truly understood the hardship, rigours and privation suffered by those "pre-eminent" in the early church, they'd run a mile.

How convenient. You are not canvassing for male pre-eminence yet you argue for male positions based on scriptures that teaches male pre-eminence within the marriage context. So have the elders in your local assembly ran a mile by now?

Oh man!! Now you are calling me "forked tongued"

Very tempting to do that, but I'll hold my tongue

In creation, in salvatio, in value, in worth and in complementing each other in union, men and women are equals. In service as in union, they may have more to do in certain areas.

Your case is baseless here. We know why a male has pre-eminence in union, but why would they in service? What relationship exists in service that necessarily requires the male to have a different role to females? At least we know that the pre-eminence of Christ over the church necessitates the pre-eminence of the male over the female in a marriage.  You might think I am being dogged about this, but the fact remains that there has to be a guiding principle behind every action.

In a family relationship it's husbands that can be usurped
In a church relationship, it's divinely instituted eldership authority that can be.
As no man has authority over anyone but his wife, no woman has authority over any mature man.

You are gradually agreeing with me. If your word in bold are to be believed, then no way a woman can usurp authority over any male, mature or not. And if the one in authority in church is based on the office, a woman occupying that office does not usurp authority over the mature males because it is the office that is representing the Christ and not the sex.

So theny are not equal? Talk of forked tongues !

Weaker vessel = Solely to the flesh? ~ The  woman being decieved = ??

The woman being deceived occurs exclusively within the confines of marriage. She usurped authority over her husband when she spoke to that serpent. The Serpent refered to them as a unit and instead of her to cede the voice of that union to Adam, she opened her mouth and spoke. That is the same context Paul had in mind in the NT.

@TV01,

I'm sure niether of us wants to get bogged down in semantics here. A father has authority/rule over his children.

It's not about semantics but about getting things straightened out the way it should be. It is lack of this understanding that makes people interprete that Christ is the Head of the male and henceforth justify the male-female dichotomy in Christ.

I am not saying everyman man is the head of every woman. At home its husband then wife, at church it's SQM elders who have a call/responsibility to shepherd the flock.

So do you agree then that a woman can only usurp her husband's authority and not any mature male's authority which is the bone of contention here.

TayoD, you have to buttress your points more when you introduce hitherto unknown superstitions ! or maybe I should say, I don't know that one O, please explicate further! I could have sworn it was "companionship".

I will oblige you because I believe many people need to understand this concept. First, it couldn't be companionship that God was talking about. Adam couldn't have been lonely. He was created perfect and the only relationship he must have longed for was God's.
Second, we are told that God created Adam in His own image. The question to be asked then is what is god's image? Paul answerd that in 2 corinthians 4:4 when he said Christ is the image of God -lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, In order words, the image of God that He planned to replicate in man was Christ and Christ is represented only in marriage when there is a union of a male and a female. Why do you think the devil is attacking marrigae so much these days? That is the spirit of the anti-Christ at work fighting against everything that represents the Christ.

It was far from elaborate sir. And no, I am non the wiser

I hope you now get it and if you disagree, please provide evidence to validate your position.

@TV01,

I remember you saying something earlier about a man being the "head" of his family including the children. That is absolutely untrue. A man is head only of his wife, same a Christ is the "Head" of the Church and the Church only.

A man's authority over his children does not stem from "headship" in as much as your government and boss' authority over you does not stem from "Headship".

"Headship" is what God had in mind when He said "It is not good that the man should be alone." Adam's creation in God's image was incomplete without him in a relationship with a dinsticnt person that is one with him. God must have looked at the Godhead, and envisioned the Church and concluded that Adam by himself does not represent these relationships.

Adam became a true image of the Christ to come when he had a wife. Children were not part of the equation when God now saw that all that He created was "Very Good". I hope my elaborate explanation is well understood now.

@Analytical,

Thatnks so much for your input. My persuasuins are exact same with yours with regards to the scriptures you've been discussing. I mentioned earlier in the debate that I will get to the various scriptures that TV and Sage use to propagate their male pre-eminence but you pre-empt me.

In any case, I held back from discussing the scriptures because I believe a foundation needed to be laid, and while I have been unequivocal about my stand, TV has been playing it both ways. I'll explain.

I feel the foundation that needs to be laid for this discussion is the equality in all aspects of relationship between both sexes. The only time a male gets pre-eminence over a female is within the marriage relationship. Within the Body of Christ, we are regarded as one. While TV says he agrees with this on one hand, he violates that basic principle in reserving some roles for women within the body. I wonder why he kesps saying that a woman can not exercise authority over mature male because he feels that will be usurping authority over the mature male. But he has failed to realise that the only mature male a female can usurp authority over is her husband. No matter how mature you are, you have no ounce of authority over my wife. My wife's submission to the authorities in church is not because of their sex, but because of the office they occupy as Christ's representative.

The only seeming "advantage" the scripture testifies that a male has over a female is the fact that the female is regarded has having a weaker vessel, and we know that relates solely to the flesh. If the role of elders have nothing to do with how strong a person is, why set the women aside then? The whole argument just doesn't make sense to me.

Like I said earlier, enlightenment will come as soon as we realise that preeminence for the male exists only within the confines of a married relationship, anything beyond that is just turning divine order on its head.

@Denex,

You have suceeded in lowering the quality of this debate. I have tried to overlook your insults and will continue to do so in the interest of reaching a reasonable conclusion with all interested parties in this discussion.

Well, now that the US has set itself against OPEC, we may as well start selling our Crude Oil in the more valuable and stable euro, rather than continue with the slipping and sliding dollar.
But first, it is adviseable that we dump all foreign reserves held in the dollar and opt for the euro instead. As this new Oil trade in euro will increase it's value and simultaneously reduce the value of the dollar as there will be less demand for the dollar.
That makes sense. I see no reason why a German would be buying crude from Nigeria in dollars when none of them actually use the dollar in the real sense of it.
I guess the Petrodollar system was initially viable when the dollar was very stable. But such is no more the case right now.

It is very funny that you would rather have us sell our oil in another country's currency. You've been proclaiming everything african and nigerian since but your latest post just shows your hypocrisy.
Don't you think Nigeria has more to gain if we sell our oil in Naira? Why do we sell in dollars? Because OPEC insists! Why does OPEC insist on the dollar? You may get the answer from the article above if it is to be believed. In order words, Nigeria's interest isn't the topmost priority of OPEC. These are the issues I am still getting at.

@topic,

Only God can save us from this manifest error that is coming out of Christ Embassy.

Let me share with you one principle that my Pastor shared with us one day in Church. He said the Bible is not about God the Father, neither is it about the Holy Spirit. Rather, the Bible from cover to cover is about the Lord Jesus Christ - For in Him we live and move and have our being. For by Him are all things and in Him do all things exist.

Anyway, as we go on in this discussion, I will show you how every revelation of God in the OT was a part revelation of Jesus Christ. Everytime you find someone receiving a revelation of Jehovah, it is Jesus at work and not the Holy Spirit. Why would there be more manifestation of the Holy Spirit than Jesus when it is the knowledge of Jesus that we are told to seek and which Paul sought after all his life? - That I may know Him and the power of His resurrection.

@The One,

I sympathize with your views, only that they are a little bit uninformed.

Really? We'll see about the misinformation.

I ordinarily wouldn't say this but to put things in proper perspective let me tell you that I am an oil industry professional who has been into the technical and commercial side of the business and has been priviledged to listen to experts in this business the world over talk about these issues.

Perspective acknowledged. Please put inot perspective also that I work as an Engineer/Project Manager within the power industry. While my specialization is in transmission line designs, I have the priviledge of working with professionals involved in every aspect of power generation to utilization. I recently sat in a presentation by the experts given the responsibility to provide the way forward in regards to energy to about 7 Governors here in the United States. So my perspective goes beyond just oil.

Let me state my case maybe you will appreciate what i've been saying.

I understand your case, but do you understand mine? While OPEC is set up to protect the interests of its member countries, every other country including the US have the right to challenge the organization to protect their interests.

1) Oil is still the energy for the nearest future and by that I mean at least the next 50 years. Research is going on for alternative sources but if you ask those who are in the know, they will tell you that it isn't feasible to get those at the scale needed to replace oil in the nearest future.

While oil is a very important source of energy, there is over-reliance on it considering the fact that it can be effectively replaced by other sources that are available now. It's use can be totally eliminated in few years for the generation of electricity while its use in cars cannot be eliminated for a few years.

2) You seem to think that paying for fuel products costs a lot of money? It is govt propagand and you are buying it hook, line and sinker? I personally think the subsidy talk is bullshit. Please look up write-ups by Austin Avuru, a renomned oil industry player on this subsidy business and you will get more enlightened about it. For the sake of this topic, let us agree that fuel prices are being subsidized. How much does fuel subsidy cost? Last year they said it was 300 billion naira right? What we should be asking is "what is the marginal revenue accruing from this increased prices of crude oil?". Over the last year Nigeria added about $15 billion dollars to her foreign reserves from the sale of crude not to talk about the ones that were spent on running govt at all 3 levels. Therefore, what stops the govt from taking $3 - $4 billion dollars from the proceeds to subsidize prices for the citizens if that is the route we chose to go.

Your calculation omits the fact that local consumption is rising which means the Government has to subsidise more refined and imported products while our quota with OPEC remains at a stand still. Our needs are increasing but our income is virtually stagnant. Why do you think Iran finds itself in such a mess too?

3) On the question of local refining, it is wrong to say that will not affect local prices of fuel. The marketers all currently say there is a cost associated with transporting the crude from elsewhere so if you remove that won't it bring down prices even if it is private enterprises that run the refineries? OIt might not bring the price down to the level we want but at least it will reduce the claimed "subsidies".

I never considered the issue of transporting the oil but rather on the effect of its high cost on the citizenery. The higher the cost of crude oil, the higher will be the cost of the refined product. When that happedns, the government will either have to subsidize more or the citizens will have to pay more. Someone has to pay somewhere.

I have been in foreign countries where they can't just fathom the way we go about these things when we discuss it. They say we will rather sell crude and buy value-added refined products which erodes part of the benefits we derive from the high prices. BUT EVEN THEN, THE NET EFFECT IS THAT WE DO NOT SPEND UP TO 20% OF THE GAINS ON SUBSIDY AND THIS IS THE PART I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND.

I have no data to confirm the percentage spent on subsidies so I will appreciate if you can provide one. I hope the numbers are not just taken from thin air. In any case, the lower the percentage spent on subsidy, the more Nigerians have to pay for it. Imagine how much the government must have been spending on subsidy if we still have to pay sixty something bucks per liter when 20% of our revenue is spent on subsidy. And can you quantify the inflation that has taken place due to lower subsidy? The 80% that the oyinbos are wondering what happened to is eaten up by the inflation caused from the high crude oil prices. It is just a big mess!

In any case, my major point remains the U.S. has the right to fight OPEC as much as OPEC has the right to retaliate. I guess everyone will back down eventually as the confrontation will not help anyone.

@Denex,

This freedom of expression thing can be painful sometimes. See the kind of thought pattern that someone is expressing. That a country has the right to deny other countries freedom of association.

I will overlook your sly invectives for the sake of not derailing this thread. I never said the US has the right to deny anyone the freedom of association. That is just what you choose to read into it. What I am saying is that the US has every right to work against the interest of any organisations whose objectives run contrary to her interests. Same is true for anyone.

The end times are truly here. First it was missile defence system, now it is outright banning of a mutually beneficial friendship. Olodumare! What has this world turned into?

Your ability to exagerate no be small.

Even one congressman in the US has already said this whole process is counter productive. If the bill passes next year, the US government will sue OPEC to its courts, the OPEC countries will not attend. They will then become less friendly with the US, and begin to sell preferentially to China and India. The US and some of its allies will place sanctions on the OPEC countries, the OPEC countries will place total oil sanctions on the US.

That is not an impossible scenario. Hopefully, the apparent likelyhood of this happening should get the U.S. to wake up and utilize the nuclear technology that they have. The shortfall will be obtained from non-OPEC countries and exploration of oil in Alaska. This will definitely bring down the price of oil for other nations of the world.

The US will begin buying more crude from the Non-OPEC countries. Supplies will not meet demand, prices will soar. The highly oil dependent economy of the US will slow own massively. Perhaps final collapse. Well, they may even begin to threaten military action, no one will listen.

And the higher the price, the more Nigerians will have to pay for it. the domino effect will reverberate all over the world.

The truth is, previously, this was not possible because any OPEC country which refused to sell to the US will not have any other massive market because Russia produces far more than it can consume. Unfortunately, there's now India and China; ever willing to scoop up the last drop of oil at a good price.

That is true. At the same time, they will not want to lose the american market because prices will surely fall when that happens.

Also, the OPEC countries have always been obedient to the US in trying to regulate prices and make sure prices do not skyrocket because they feared that if prices of oil became so high, the US and other developed countries would develope newer, cheaper fuels and make crude oil useless, thereby crumbling the economies of the oil producing countries. But after 20 years, where is cold fusion? Where is hydrogen fuel, Nuclear fueled engines, where are solar vehicles and how far with biofuels? These are fuels that would take the next 40 years before they come into everyday use. The next 40 years by which time OPEC would have finished selling its crude oil and used the revenues to develope these new forms of energy and start a new cartel.

You really think the oil producing countries will develop the next major energy source? You are kidding right? Which one among them has anything close to it except Russia? Can you tell us if any funds exist to go into this research by OPEC? The organisations leading the way in this respect are the major oil companies owned by the US and Europe. So you see how your persuasion is more imagined than real!

What some people refuse to realise is that there is a limit to this crude oil. It is not everlasting. So why sell it for less? You have 5 billion doughnuts and you want to be selling 5 million everyday just because you want the price to come down and to make your customers happy with you. Then when you finish selling them at that cheap price and you have nothing left to sell, what do you do?

Of course everyone realise that the oil will not be there forever. So how much money can they make in the next 50 years that will replace the goodwill and cooperation of the other countries for the next 1,000 years? The US just lacks the political will to break off the dependence on OPEC in well calculated steps in very short years. When they finally realised that they are faced with two evils, they will know that the nuclear option is the lesser one.

Some of you just mention crude oil as if it is dust. Do you know the various products that can be gotten from crude oil? Even synthetic food can now be manufactured from crude oil. Petroleum Jelly, lubricants and engine oils, jet fuel, rocket fuel, plastics and polythene, laptop computer and electronics casings, mobile phone casings, car bodies and interior accessories, insecticides, paints, gasoline, credit cards, ID cards, footwear, buttons, DVDs, toys, condoms, medical equipment and various forms of bulletproof material.

I don't believe there is need for this statement as I trust everyone here is aware of the various uses of petroleum.

Don't you think even at $70/barrel, we're still cheating ourselves?

Please think about what Nigerians will have to pay to be able to afford this. The funny thing si that OPEC's limitation of our output limits how much we can make, and if prices keep increasing, Nigerians will pay more and the government will also pay more for subsidies. Do you know that OPEC countries have to sell in dollars which helps the value of that currency. If we were not part of OPEC, we would sell with naira and they will also help our currency.

I have said it. The US is not going to wait for its downfall. It is carefully crafting it.

You think the world itself will be fine if US falls?

@The One,

You are engaging in reverse integration instead of forward integration.

Your opinion.

If what you are concerned about are the Nigerian people, then what you should be asking for is that the proceeds of high oil prices be used to re-engineer our system such that the current prices of oil will not be too much of a burden on an average consumer because he earns enough to afford it.

Isn't that weird. Rather than provide affordable products to my citizens, I would rather try to get as much as possible from my sales to other countries in the hope that my citizens will one day get to the level where they can afford my voluntary high price! For your information, much of the governments income goes into subsidizing the products. The more the price increases, the more the government will make and the more they will have to spend in subsidy. How helpful to nigeria is that?

But your stand only suggests that the interests you are protecting are that of Americans rather than Nigerians

I am not protecting any one's interests here. All I'm getting at is that OPEC was set up for selfish reasons and why shouldn't other nations take actions in their selfish interests. Besides, not all the OPEC countries are equal members. How did they arrive at the quota for each nation?

@Davidylan,

this makes me wonder, how do other oil producing nations manage to sell gas to their citizens at rock bottom prices?

They are able to that because they all subsidize the product for their citizens. I'll explain why this economics doesn't work for Nigeria in my response to Denex.

@Davidylan,

If we did not spend 20 years on fruitless turn around maintenances we'd be able to refine our own oil and sell at cheaper prices just as its done in other oil produciing states. That we have to pay the prevailing world price for crude oil drilled in our backyard has more to do with our own inefficiency than OPEC.

It is not that simple. Even with the refining capacity, the oil will still have to be sold to the investors at the market price and they will in turn make their profits off the consumers - Nigerians.  Isn't that one of the major reasons why price of petrol was increased recently? It was done to make it profitable for those that will be buying the refineries from the Federal Government! They will buy the oil at market rate and must sell it for a profit. The lower the market rate, the less the consuming public will have to pay.

@Davidylan,

It is all about self interest.

That is exactly my point.

@The One,

Listen to yourself now? I f I build a house of 10 flats and decide not to rent out any will you force me to just because housing is scarce in town? Abi no be my house? OPEC member countries are at liberty to produce however much they want to, it's all a matter of economics.

So why is everyone shouting "free trade"? Don't you believe in free trade any more when the issue doesn't suit you?

We all know the gas prices are pinching those of you in the US, but that is a price you must pay for living there. Sorry hennnnnnn

The prices may be pinchin the U.S. but it is biting Nigerians. Despite the high price, the U.S. still added 132,000 jobs in June alone. Please tell me how the high petrol prices has affected Nigerians.

@Davidylan,

This is one point on which i will beg to differ slightly. The US congress has NO right to legislate against OPEC since no member nation is coerced to join. If the US were left to negotiate oil prices with individual nations we would have a situation where a barrel of oil costs $2!
OPEC is simply doing what it has to do to survive which is a good business strategy. Restrict supply, demand goes up and thus prices skyrocket.

While OPEC has the right to do what it deems protects her interest, the US also has the right to do the same is where I am going. Like I said above, Brazil is dictating to US. pharmaceuticals how much it wants to pay for their drugs. Every nation is after their own interests.  

TheOne made a good analogy, what is the use of selling 4 barells of oil at $20/barrel when you can easily sell 2 barells at $60/barrel? Yes you end up exporting less than would meet your immediate financial targets but you make a huge profit at the end of the day.

That sounds good. But if we look at it in practical terms, selling oil for $20/barel means Nigerians do not have to pay so much money for refined petroleum as we now do. So what happens if oil becomes $200/barell? Does that mean Nigeirasn will have to cough out N500/liter? In this case, what goes around cmes around.

@Denex,

You never give your verdict about the BBC source.

@topic,

Behind the fall of the most spiritual man, Adam is a woman - EVE!

Behind the fall of the stongest man ever, Samson is a woman - DELILAH!

Behind the fall of the wisest man, Solomon is a woman (or women in this case)!

@Denex the Umpire,

Do you need to see the other source before you proclaim if the link already provided to you is credible? Abeg, no come hia come do mago-mago o.

So tell us, is the BBC report credible or not? Or is it another Isreali conspiracy?

@Denex,

Is OPEC the cause of the current crazy prices of gasoline? It is
1. The war in Iraq
2. diplomatic issues between Saudi Arabia and the US started by Donald Rumsfeld.
3. Tensions between the US and Venezuela.
4. Rapid growth and development of India and China
5. Tensions between US and Iran.
6. US sponsored militancy in the Gulf of Guinea.
7. Tensions between US and Russia over a Missile Defence System.

You lose some credibility when you mix facts with speculations. Your points are credible save for point 6 while point 7 has no real time effect on the cost of crude oil.

In my estimation, the biggest source of high crude oil is point number 4. OPEC makes the matters worse when they keep to the same supply despite a higher demand. Microsoft was fined in Europe for Anti-trust activities which is similar to what OPEC is doing.

The US making a demand on OPEC is consistent with world trade and economics. Brazil is right now breaking the patents of pharmaceutical companies in the US. just to meet its own needs. They cannot afford the cost of the drugs and threatened to continue with breaking the patents or have the US pharmaceutical companies sell at an affordable price to them.

What is the differnece in this case?

@TV01,

In brief (and in Galatians as a whole) , Paul was expounding on Salvation being by “Faith in Christ Jesus” and not by obedience to the law (or by works). As a corollary he was debunking any notion that there were dichotomies in how this salvation was to be obtained in regards to whatever man made constructs there were out there, be that race, culture, social status or gender based.

In other words, Christ never looked at these irrelevant factors when he embarked on the work of salvation. After saving us however, he felt the need to dinstinguish between a male and a female. I though He once and for all broke down the middle wall of partition.

In terms of congregational dynamics, specifically order and authority, it says nothing that even remotely impinges on our discussion on this thread.

Na so you think.

@TV01,

1. Is Deborah judging Israel a principal? Please explain how it applies

That she judged the whole of Isreal with God's blessings proves that no principle was violated. Unless you want to tell us that God violated His principles by blessing Deborah's work.

2. The fact that somethings remain unchanged is noted, but does not mean that everything is carried over wholesale. Neither does it mean that Paul is championing the law, or that some parts of it still apply.

Like I said, there is no principle in the law that is violated in the NT. Please share any with us that you know of.

Y

ou are still trying to read nuance into scripture that does not exist. Apply paradigms that are not relevent and make arguements that do not hold.

By your opinion which of course I do not agree with.

Stimulus contines to obsfucate over leadership and eldership without making any specific declarations. he talks of "Leadership Capacity" and refuses to say whether there is an Eldership authoritry, and wether that eldership includes women. If they are equal in authority in the congregation, it is not a question of women usurping men, rather one of lower authority usurping higher.

I trust Stimulus can hold his own brief so I will not attempt to do so for him. There is one thing glaring in your conclusions, you think men are inherently in a position of authority over women. Nothing can be more further than the truth. Only a husband is in authority over his wife and that authority does not extend beyond that marriage. I remember my sister's brother-in-law trying to boss her around after she lost her husband in the last Bellview Plane crash in Naija. Such men must have been listening to your teachings a lot thinking he has inherent authority over her because of his dingy!

I remain none the less convinced by your persuasions or your articulation of your positions.

So do I.

@TV01,

A female of whatever status should not exercise authority over a mature Christian male, would more clearly state my position.

Why do you use the qualifier 'mature'? The scriputure we are referencing in 1 corinthians 11:3 never said anything about maturity.

why are women not to teach in a congregational setting?

The Bible didn't say a woman cannot teach in a congregationsal setting. If your interpretation of "women should keep silence in churches" means that, then I guess Paul must have excluded them also when he said "you may all prophecy one by one."

because authority would not be base on gender, but on office or function.

I agree that authority is not based on gender but on office and function. If indeed women cannot occupy the position of teachers, then you must be saying that the callings mentioned in Ephesians 4 are gender specific. That I cannot agrre with.

Authority is something that one place oneself under (even I would say before it is given). And it would include taking action as well as speaking.
I checked a few translations, and the vast majority do not translate that word husband, but man. Having said that, I shall meet you right there.

I agree with you here. In my understanding of scripture however, I do believe the context is talking about husbands and not just any male.

It says “rule a husband”. That is to say “any” husband, the husband of “anyone”, not just her own. That just furthers my point as I have said no woman is to take authority over any mature male.

Your point is not butressed at all here. If indeed the issue is usurping authority, my wife is not under your authority by any means even if you are married to 10 wives. She is solely under my authority and we are both under the authority of those set above us in the church. Please tell us how my wife will be usurping authority over you if she speaks in church!

Spiritually, creationally and, salvationally, I don’t cavil about equality. But practically the church is made up of males and females and more pertinently families.

This makes no sense. You covered every imaginable sphere in your conclusion that females are equal to males. Yet you are telling us in practical terms that a female should still be subject to a male. That is contrary to sound logic. A female is only subject to a male when they are married. This is just the principle of headship that God has put in place.

To say that they can be/are equal in terms of authority, means that women cannot in any way usurp men.

I have stated earlier that only a wife can use up her husbands authority. Anything contrary is sexual domination. For instance, would babyosisi be usurping my authority if we are in church together and she happens to be preaching or leading? No way, I have no single shred of authority over her. The authority over her there is her husband.

If you insist that only refers to their husbands, that still leaves the “usurping authority over men” conundrum, as if authority is received direct from Christ, there is no reason for women not to have authority over men. You also ignore the congregational context of that verse.

Congregationally, the church is made up of Christ vertically, and the church below Him horizontally. That the Church's recognition of marriage and the special male-female relationship in it is limited to that married set-up and not carried over into the body. How difficult is it to understand this concept?

Not so. The issue is not headship, it’s leadership and it’s authority.

I beg to disagree. The issue is "Headship". Authority is delegated in headship. That is why despite the equality of the Godhead, the final authority still lies with the Father. Same principle apply in marriage and the Church.

Parents have authority over their children. Because with responsibility comes authority.

Parents authority over their kids is not borne out of "Headship."  A man's authority over his wife is borne out of "Headship". Responsibilities do not always translate to authority.

You know I start from the home. Husband -> Wife -> Children, flows the line of authority. And please note the pains I have gone to to distinguish between mature adults and adults, adult from children/juveniles and a child/boy from a man.

Your dinstiction is not supported by any of the scriptures we've been discussing.

You points in 1. suggests the verse is talking about the congregation

Absolutely. the Bible is clear from other sciptures that Christ is the Head only of the Church and not the male. Pray tell, how can the spiritual be head over the carnal? How can the spirit be head over the flesh? The Christ is a spiritual Person who is Head over a spiritual Body - the Church.

whilst 2. suggests its marriage

Absolutely. A male is only head to a female who is his wife. Don't go tripping that you are head over my wife because of that carnal "instrument" you have. When I was joined to my wife, I became 'one' with her and the principle of headship kicked into gear to make me the one in authority.

and 3. would be the Godhead,

isn't that clear enough?

all in the same verse?

yep. this is where I told you that the whole thing is about "Headship" which exists only in three relationships captured in that verse.

Pray tell, is the word translated man in verse 3 the same in both instances?
And what of in verse 4?

The greek word use in all verses is the same "Aner". That word is used to mean a male and also used generically to mean a male and female group. That is why there is so much confusion about it. A clear understanding of "Headship" with accompanying scriptures that I outlined above will make it all clear.
And as the church has Christ as it’s head, a properly constituted Christian home will also

And as the church has Christ as it’s head, a properly constituted Christian home will also.

Christ is not the Head of any home. He is the Head of the Church and the Church only!

@TV01,

Can you kindly tell us what you understand the scripture is talking about in Galatians 3:28 - There is no male or female in Christ.

@Afam,

How you came about your conclusion from the infference is beyond me. The issue is 60% of oil exporting nations are non-members of OPEC. I never said anything about the volume of export. Your twisting the issue to read volume of export is dishonest at best.

Here are the facts (partly based on your submission)::

1. 40 nations are listed

2. 12 of them are members of OPEC

3. 5 of them are importers including Indonesia that is a member of OPEC and US, China, Australia, India

4. Overall, 35 countries are exporters.

5. 11 exporters are members of OPEC.

6. 24 exprters are non OPEC members

7. 24 x 100 / 35% = 68.6%

Unless you can prove that mathematics is wrong, the number is almost in the 70% range.

@Afam,

Here is a link providing the specific information you requested. I am sure you can interprete the data. http://www.answers.com/topic/chart-of-exports-and-production-of-oil-by-nation.

@Denex and the one,

I'll be back to address your concerns.

@Afam,

Well, it seems that some are tired of insulting others and would want to stick to issues, good thinking.

I will not even respond to this. It is so obvious those who have started personalising issues even before any coontrary opinion came on board.

Now, you asked 8 questions but before we deviate way too long I need to ask for confirmation that 60% of oil producing nations keep away from OPEC.

For a list of Oil Producing Nations, please check out this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil-producing_states

Can you explain this statement abi na question because I do not believe it is correct to state that 60% of oil producing nations are out of OPEC.

The link above provide you with answers. And by the way, Equador withdrew its membership from OPEC because its interests was not being served particularly because OPEC limited how much crude oil it should export. This limitation is also imposed on Nigeria as well who cannot export more oil to meet its financial goals all in the name of the Cartel called OPEC. Gabon is also a former member of OPEC.

While on this clarification it is also necessary to consider the quantity of crude oil (Saudi, Iraq and Iran coming 1st, 2nd and 3rd I think) and quality (even Nigerian crude remains one of the best due to the low sulfur content apart from brent).

Yep. Nigeria's crude is one of the very best in the world in terms of ease of refining as well. Considering the quantity of crude oil export allocated to each member is a negative to the image of OPEC. Equador which needs much more money than Saudi Arabia will have to limit its output so Saudi can maintain hers. What sort of arrangement is that. I wonder why they should limit Nigeriaa's production also when we need the money much more than they do.
Can you imagine a situation where a manufacturer is asked to limit its production so other companies can maintain their ever-increasin profit margin? Whose interest is being taken care of? The priviledge few in the cartel or the citizens of the member countries?

The US sure does have oil just as those in the North Sea area but what does it cost to produce the crude and to refine the crude?

While the cost may be high, it pales in comparison to National Security which the lack of oil would engender. America's limitation in producing oil is because of the powerful environmental interest group that prevent the legislation from moving forward. Bush has been calling for the U.S. to tap into her resources while building more Nuclear plants but these folks will not let it see the light of day.

Abeg, answers are needed to the issues raised based on the very first statement you made.

I trust that the answers have been provided.

Kindly address the issues Denex raised while telling us why and how each point is relevant to the discussion.

@topic,

Can we try to sift out the main issues here as against going on a tangent based on prejudiced leanings? Denex has laid out some interesting points which can be addressed objectively. It is funny how some have started to name-call perceived voices of dissent even before making any contributions. is that the best they can bring to a debate?

And by the way, George Bush opposes this plan despite the support of the majority of the House including the Veterans whose opposition to bush on iraq was considered as a lifeline for those who just hate the man. Since you consider the man's input to be weighty based on his length of service, why don't they use the same yardstick now to arrive at a conclusion? I guess it is because it does not fit their agenda.

Let me include the following points in addition to the one that Denex raised.

1. Why do 60% of oil producing nations choose to keep away from OPEC?
2. Does OPEC encourage the free market that everyone yearns for?
3. What does OPEC do for its members, and more importantly how does it affect the average Nigerian?
4. Is Nigeria a member of OPEC by reason of the citizen's choice? Nigeria is also a member of OIC too.
5. Will the disbandment of OPEC translate to cheaper crude oil? If it does, wouldn't that be a relief for Nigeria who import virtually all their refined petroleum based on the current high price?
6. Does the U.S. have the right to fight against an association it considers detrimental to the welfare of its citizens and national interests?
7. Do the OPEC countries have a right to retaliate?
8. Does everyone notice that OPEC is predominantly a conglomeration of Muslim countries with the exception of Angola, Venezuela and Nigeria? Nigeria being a member of OIC is understandable I guess.

Can we address these issues in addition to Denex's please. Cheap insults and character assasination should be jettisoned.

@TV01,

You mean people are following, without weighing in? Analytical, I thought the reference to your "under-arm" sevice would flush you out earlier ! Hope you are enjoying Wimbledon. See how my girl Venus laid some hurt on that Communist poser!

Aside, how do you watch Wimbledon when you have no TV at home? How you take dey do am?

@topic,

I have only been away from here for about 48 hours and you guys have already filled up these pages! Well, I wish una more wax to your candles and more kerosene to your lanterns. It's all good anyways.

While going through your submissions, I noted the emphasis on the following points by the two main groups: Stimulus and TV01/Sage.

1. A female cannot exercise any form of authority over a male - TV's camp.

2. A female can lead a male and by entension exercise authority over a male - Stimulus.

3. Stimulus has a clause on her position, which is that a female cannot teach in church.

My persuasion still remains number 2 above without Stimulus' "footnote" as stated in Number 3.

I'll address each of the points now.

@TV01,

I noted the follwing statements you made earlier:

TV01 - (b)Please explain what constitutes usurping authority over a man/the men, if she is allowed to lead with them, if she is a partner and an equal in authority? You can only usurp one in  higher authority.

Usurping authority occurs when someone speaks on the behalf of a body or organisation without the proper authorisation from the head of that union. In which case, a woman can only usurp authority over a man that she is married to as she is only in union with him. She usurps authority when she speaks on the behalf of her marriage without delegated authority from her husband.  Here is Young's literal Translation of 1 Timothy 2:12 - and a woman I do not suffer to teach, nor to rule a husband, but to be in quietness,  
When the issue is the body of Christ, males are not in authority over females unless you are telling us the Body of Christ is made up of 3 different members: Christ - Males - Females. Any member of that Body usurps authority over Christ when they speak without delegated authority from Him. Male/Females are equal members of that Body.

All women and men are under authority, albeit it is normal for all women to be under male authority of some sort.

The issue here is headship which we know occurs only in 3 relationships: The Godhead, The Church and Marriage. Parents are not the "head" of their children as it negates your intepretation of 1 Corinthians 11:3 where you wrongly interprete the word man there as meaning male. But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Going by your interpretation, a male child can never be under the authority of his parents becuase his 'head' is Christ, and neither can he be under the authority of his mother since a female cannot have authority over a male. These are the inevitable concomitance of your position.

Christ -> Man -> Woman to this,
Christ -> Man and/or Woman

Your first analogy here is very wrong. What union are you refering to that has Christ - Male - Female as members? Certainly not the church and not marriage. Let us look at 1 Corinthians 11:3 again.  
But I would have you know, that

1. the head of every man is Christ;Now this is not talking about the male. The word 'man' here is used generically to mean every body within the Body of Christ. Otherwise, you are telling us that Christ is the Head  of every male, whether born again or not. Now Paul explains this further in Ephesians 5:23 - For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: Colosians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: These scriptures are eloquent testimony that Christ is the Head of the Church and not the Head of males as you are erroneously interpreting it.

2. and the head of the woman is the man;This is talking about marriage where a male has pre-eminence over the female.  That preeminence does not exist within the Body of Christ despite the fact that the Chursh recognises the distinction and will not permit a wife to usurp authority (as I explained above) over her husband.

3. and the head of Christ is God.Now this is talking about the Godhead where Christ and the Holy Spirit are subject to the Father.  All this despite the fact that the 3 are ONE.

This scripture in 1 Corinthians specifies the 3 bodies where 'headship' exists. We need to get this right to properly interprete the scriptures we are all wrestling with.

I gave a new testament example of her wife and her husband. What has Deborah got to do with this? OT indicators are not binding on NT believers.

There is no principle that is taught in the O.T. that is violated in the New. Besides didn't Paul refer to the Law when he was doing the teaching about authority within the home never being violated in Church? 1 Corinthians 14:34 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.

@Sage,

It is difficult to respond to your posts because you tend to be superflous in your use of words. You say the same thing a thousand different ways and that makes it a task trying to debate with you.

However, one thing I noted and will respond to is the following coment:

My examples were simply to show that God has placed headship in the christian congregation in a certain way and its not up to humans to change that.

Headship exists only in marriage and not within the members of Christ's body. There is only one body with one head - Christ. Likewise in marriage, there is one body with one head - the man.

Declaring that headship exists within the Body of Christ is a blatant violation of the following scriptures.

Ephesians 5:23 - For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Colossians 1:18 - And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Colossians 2:19 - And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.

As you can see from these scriptures, Christ is the Head of one body - the Church, and the husband (not just any male), is the Head of His Wife (not all females).

This is the main contention I have with everyone on this thread. Until we realise that a male is no where given authority over the female strictly because of gender (with the exception of marriage), we will not even begin to appreciate the equality of both sexes within the body.

@Stimulus,

I very much appreciate your understanding and the concerns you've raised on this subject. In addition to what pilgrim.1 has offered in reply, let me see what little else I might proffer:

You know I appreciate you as well. You provided a breathe of fresh air from those who read total female silence in church into the scripture.

Well, let's look at the implication of your counter-point here. First, I applaud pilgrim.1's response to that, in the sense that I Tim. 2:12 speaks to the point of a man-woman relationship in the Body of Christ; rather than merely to a domestic situation at home. I believe that I Tim. 2:12 and I Cor. 14:34 tessellate perfectly on the core question of leadership and authority in Church; and I suppose that is why it is not by coincidence that the arrangement is first offered before its application.

       The divine arrangement:

       "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ;
        and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."
        (I Cor. 11:3)

       "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church:
        and he is the saviour of the body."
        (Eph. 5:23)

Okay, let's take a closer look at those scriptures while cosidering the various ramifications.  1 Timothy 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 1 Corinthians 14:34 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. 35 And 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. My persuasion that these scriptures are talking about a man-wife relationship is very glaring from verse 35 of 1 corinthians 14. It is evident that what Paul had in mind is a woman speaking in Church on the behalf of the family. A woman is under her husband's authority and she can only usurp her husband's authority and not any other male. For instance, if a woman other than my wife speaks in church, how will she be usurping my authority when I have no authority over her?

It is only my wife who can usurp my authority if a situation that concerns my family needs to be addressed and she stands up to speak without my giving her the permission to.

In the case of the Church as a separate entity from the family, Christ is the Head of that body and the sole autority over it. No member can usurp authority over another member because we are all under Christ's authority and not under each other's authority. Saying otherwise is to claim a pyramid of authority withing the body of Christ that looks like this: Christ ----- Male ----- Female. Isn't that a violation of the scipture that says there is neither male nor female in Christ? The only time gender is considered as basis for establishing authority is in regard to marriage, extending it to the church is preaching spiritual sexual inequality!

I'll get to your other submissions later. I have to run now.

@pilgrim_1,

I think something is missing in the chain of your argument here. First, you interpret the issue of authority as a man-and-wife situation; but then you ignore that when you ask to read books by those women you consider the "best teachers" in the Body of Christ!

In simple terms, what you're arguing seems to be this:
(a) you see the verse that women should not teach (I Tim. 2:12) as limited to just a man and wife situation; but -
(b) you don't see the issue as still a man-and-wife situation when you call some women the "best teachers" in the Body of Christ.
Do you see why arguments like this will continue to mark time on just one spot? It would seem to me that what is offered in I Tim. 2:12 alligns with the same overall picture about women assuming to teach in the CHURCHES in I Cor. 14:34. The point is that, we should not just narrow this question of women assuming to teach as a domestic issue between man and his wife; it pertains to the collective Church scenario.

You have misunderstood me altogether. I am absolutely in support of women preaching in church and holding any office that is available within the body. I'll explain my stand further in response to Stimulus. I just feel she limited the role of women by her submission. Please go to my subsequent reply to stimulus to understand my thoughts a little better.

@kokoA,

Be optimistic for once!

I'm an unrepentant Optimist. However, I do not engage my mind on issues that I know arent possible. When something is possible, though bogged down at the moment by certain situations, I am one to stick at it until it is realised. A United States of Africa does not fit this mold.

@Denex,

Which Ganja you dey smoke ? Abeg take am easy o. And which Prophet are you quoting there, or should I say which Alien?