Women In 1 Corinthians

That's not a view. That's a garbled mess.I hope you don't make a habit of forming views in such a "throw-your-toys-out-of-the-crib-unless.." fashion
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

My comment was that johnfoltons post was a garbled mess. The reason why you might not find Christians commenting on garbled messes might be other than that "we" don't want to take a "bro" to task.Of the bit that might be taken to be sexist? I could only extract this. Most of the rest of the post seemed to meander around interpreting Revelation in the light of a point not really made. Is John commenting using an interpretation of the divine order which places man at the head of a woman in marriage? And seeing it as shameful that a woman goes against this order? If so, this is not sexist but merely reflecting the divine order for an aspect of the relationship between a man and his wife (or a wife and her husband if you prefer). That's not sexist.Perhaps he means something else that is indeed sexist. Hard to tell and I wasn't planning on trying to tease it all out Doubtlessly there will be some cocky liberal women who will read this. Just like there will be some cocky liberal men. And cocky conservative men and women.So?I didn't read the link. The post didn't warrant it. I called his post a garbled mess and it is. And criticised your approach. You've been around long enough to know fallacious argumentation when you see it. Guilty (of something) until proven innocent is about as weak as it comes.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I see plenty of women driving cars so that much is inaccurate. I note myself that (as a grouping) womens strengths and weaknesses in driving cars tend to lie in different areas than (as a grouping) mens strengths and weaknesses. John is not so much sexist as he is being imbalanced and offensive. Apparently John has never heard of Maggie Thatcher. I'd give folk around here a little more credit for spotting rubbish than you seem to. A wolf in sheeps clothing would concern me - not someone, Christian or no, spouting blatant nonsense.Lifes too short to deal with nonsense posts Trixie. Take a leaf from the book of those who don't read and reply to them.

Sure. The term wolf in sheeps clothing implies a certain subtleness and deviousness on the part of the wolf. The techniques of such a one rely on slipping the lie in alongside a message containing as much of God's truth as possible.jf's manner is simply nonsensical. There is no subtley nor deviousness behind it.

As I've already pointed out, I'd rely on the natural defences of non-Christian EvC-er to deal with jf's representations of Christianity without my having to do so much as lift a finger.If it smells rotten then it will be discarded surely?