What in the world was the lie?
What do you think I was trying to accomplish?
[quote]This is false. Cite a scripture confirming this. You can’t. There is none.
[/quote]
That’s not something I said. That’s from the original thread in the Trump’s religious’ adviser thread.
IF anyone here is interested, which I doubt, they can read the thread. You specified Timothy 2:12 once, then you continued on about it a couple of times - it being women not being allowed to speak in church.
Oh…and again, when did I falsely claim you said anything? Jesus, all I said was you gave me the impression that’s what you thought. Your whole demeanor, the interpretation of your words.
Jesus, do you not know what the word “impression” means? How about “extrapoloation”?
Again, why does my having started this thread make you so upset?
I didn’t mention your name and as a matter of fact it’s got nothing to do with you except the impression you gave me that you thought that women should have no authority over men. You are unimportant in this thread…until you decided to create a fuss about it for reasons I still don’t understand.
Is that what upsets you? I’m sorry I got the wrong impression. I had no idea it was a sensitive subject!
Now…the thread had no interest before you chimed in… so I guess I can thank you for extending it for five or six posts…
You give me the “impression” you live in a Dumpster and eat dog crap. No, you didn’t say it but you gave me that impression. I still have it.
That’s not something I said. That’s from the original thread in the Trump’s religious’ adviser thread.
[/quote]
You quoted it and then agreed with it.
The whole thing was a lie.
You’re just lashing out, now.
Another post in a thread that no one had any interest in. If I could find a “shrug” emoji I’d use it.
What “whole thing” was a lie?
Folks - if there’s anyone else reading this thread apart from Bill and me - the thread in question, is this:
1 Cor. 7:1 " Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: … "
One issue was disorderly conduct in church assemblies.
1 Cor. 14:23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak in tongues, and there come in those that are uninformed, or unbelievers, will they not say you are mad? …
"26b Let everything be done for edification.
Then Paul explains how to use tongues and prophecy in an orderly manner where people take turns speaking.
Why is Paul saying these things in response to a letter he received from Corinth? Because the letter was reporting issues of disorderliness in the church, and was asking Paul 's advice. There follows another aspect of disorderly conduct.
Let YOUR women keep on keeping silence (present imperative active) in the church, for it is not being permitted (present indicative passive) to them to keep on speaking, but let them keep on being in submission , as also the law says.
35. And if they want to be learning anything, let them keep asking their husbands at home: for it is an embarrassment for women to keep on speaking in the church…
40. Let all things be done decently and in order.
We don’t know exactly what question was Paul addressing, since we don’t have their letter to Paul. Here are some possibilities.
Was it,
A. Women are speaking in our church, and some church members are offended by this and say that it is against the rules in all the other churches they know of. Should they shut up, or are they allowed to speak?
Or,
B. Women in our church are interrupting those who are speaking - asking questions and demanding answers and arguing about what is being said. We have asked them to refrain from doing so, but they argue they have just as
much right to speak their mind as anyone else. “There is neither Jew not Greek, male not female in Christ” They say.
It’s creating a very negative atmosphere to the proceedings. We have now ordered them to keep completely quiet in church until they have developed some better self-control. Is that too draconian?
The sense of Paul’s instructions is coloured by the question we think he is answering. I think it was something like the latter.
Why?
What purpose could an atheist have in understanding what the bible ACTUALLY says?
You pretend to want to investigate what “lots of (other) men want it to mean”.
What do YOU want it to mean?
There is not one word in all of 1 Corinthians saying that women are being disorderly in church.
You are studying a commentary trying to make what Paul said mean something entirely different.
1 Cor 14:34:
Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.
I know what the Bible says on certain things. Not all of it, I admit.
But my goal here is not to learn what the Bible says on everything.
I have never made a secret of why I like to discuss religion.
I am interested in learning why people believe what they believe.
The example I always bring up is the Flood.
God repents that he made man, right? So he’s going to send a flood to destroy him.
Makes sense to me so far. God is going to destroy his creation that he hath repented of, and one hopes bring out a Mark II version that he’ll give a bit more time to to learn about liars and trust, etc., before submitting them to any tests.
But God doesn’t do that. Instead he allows sin-natured man to live by saving Noah’s family. That has never made any sense to me. First he sets out to destroy all mankind because of their sin, then all of a sudden, no, he’s only going to destroy most of mankind. Leaving sin-natured man to populate the earth again.
Then there’s all the animals he condemns to death as well, for goodness knows what sin they committed.
There’ve been a couple of threads about this.
The only guy who came close to making any sense is one whose screen name I have forgotten who said that the angels had had sex with women and given birth to “giants” and God wanted to destroy the Giants but to do that he had to destroy all mankind as well except Noah’s family.
But I think that’s an interesting theory. Have you heard of it?
What does it matter what Paul said? He wasn’t one of the original apostles. He subverted the apostle title to his own ends.
Then don’t believe him. You are on the bottom of my list of people I’m concerned about.
The whole context on either side of the few verses that bring in women is about disorderly conduct in the church in the administration of tongues, prophecy and teaching.
An interesting discussion, but best suited to a thread of its own.
Thomas Jefferson wrote an entire version of the Bible based at least in part on a rejection of Paul.
But again, best suited for a new thread.
I will ask you once more and only once more - Cite a scripture that says the Corinthian women misbehaved in church.
If context is irrelevant to you, good luck to you with understanding what the Bible really teaches.
Yet here you made it about another member, and totally misrepresented what he has said.
It seems that you want to know why he believes what YOU SAY he believes.
So far nobody has said they believe what your original post claimed “lots of men want it to mean.”
Maybe you need to examine your prejudgments on issues religious before inserting foot.
Or maybe just ignore what you demonstrate you don’t understand, and what you reject anyway.
Wrong.
Where is the scripture? Post it.
1 Corinthians does not say that. Context my butt. You are making it up.
The fact that this makes sense to you demonstrates that you really aren’t looking to understand anything regarding biblical questions.
