|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,481 Year: 3,738/9,624 Month: 609/974 Week: 222/276 Day: 62/34 Hour: 1/4 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Women In 1 Corinthians | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3313 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Ok, here is the whole chapter so there's no confusion.
quote: I want to focus on the following quote which is directly from the chapter above.
quote: Ok, read that in context of the chapter. Ok, read it again. One more time. Let's look at each statement made in that particular passage.
quote: I see 2 ways you can possibly interpret this. One is by face value of those words and the other... you have to use a little bit of imagination. The first way is as written, that as in ALL the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. I don't think you can get anymore self-explanatory than that. The other interpretation is as ICANT seems to suggest, that women should remain silent when it comes to speaking in tongues. But why only women? Surely, if Paul was concern about people speaking in tongues or misinterpreting god's words, he would have stated just that, that both men and women should be careful with that. Instead, he specifically referred to women and ordering them to remain silent.
quote:Again, 2 possible interpretations. The first is taking it at its face value, that women are not allowed to speak and they must be in submission as the Law says. Again, very self-explanatory. The second way to interpret this is as ICANT suggested, that women are not allowed to speak in tongues OR that they are not allowed to question those who are speaking in tongues. Again, why only target women?
quote:Again, 2 possible interpretations. The first is taking the words at its face value, that if the women want to inquire something they should ask their husbands at home because for them to speak in church is disgraceful. Very self-explanatory. The second way to interpret this is that women are not allowed to ask questions about those speaking in tongues and they should only ask their questions at home rather than speak in the church because it's disgraceful for them to speak in church about speaking in tongues. Um, why only target women if you didn't mean to downplay their role in society? As far as I can see this, both of these interpretations clearly put women in a position that is inferior to their male counterparts.
ICANT writes:
ICANT, I am very confused, and so far you've refused to explain why you don't think this is an example of scripture putting down women. Here is a thread dedicated to this particular topic so please feel free to post as many messages on this as you need to. If you need more than 300, I will be happy to start a second thread on this. I an not going to try to rationalize this passage. To do so I would have to have rational people to explain it to. Since you and Taz have your mind made up it would take too many posts, And I am not going to try Percy's patience. And also, here is a humble request for Admin. At anytime, if you feel you need to suspend ICANT for whatever reason in regard to this topic, please suspend me instead so ICANT has nothing to fear and thus should be able to fully explain this to me and others here who are very eager to hear his very wise explanation on this topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3313 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
In this thread post post #78, member Hill Billy writes in response to T4C and me...
Now,as far as I know,there ain't no law round these parts that says anything at all about womenfolk speakin in church. So to me, that passage says, specifically, that women can in fact speak in church provided it is legal to do so.
So, let us look at the passage again.
quote:Did you notice the underlined portions, Hill Billy? "As in all the congregations of the saints" tell me that Paul was talking about church Law, not the law of the land. Think about it for a minute. We are talking about a time when christians were still a religious sect with only a few members compared to the other religions. In fact, it was being persecuted by both mainstream religions at the time as well as the Roman authority. I find it hard to believe that there was already a law of the land in place dictating how people should act or speak inside christian churches. Beside, you are directly contradicting ICANT in this. So, which one of you is right? Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3313 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Bump for ICANT.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3313 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
ICANT writes:
Could you make this a little bit clearer? I couldn't tell where you made the transition from "it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church" to "Will my women speak in church yes."
Then Paul committed the unpardonable sin according to most women. When he said: it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church.So now I am going to get to the part you are not going to like. God made man and gave him a helper.The helper was deceived by the serpent. God put man in charge and made him responsible. Some of the early men took advantage and made door mats out of their wives. Some still do today.When I was growing up in the 40's a child did not talk back to a mother. They would find themselves getting up off the floor. Dad might take it but it was not allowed for mom she had to work too hard to put up with that It was a capital offense for a man to raise his hand against a woman must less strike her.We had no such thing as an abusive husband in our community. If one did raise his hand and strike his wife he would get a visit from the local correction team. It would never happen again. As things got better the women became ladies and were placed on a pedestal. Men were content to work and bring home the bacon for the ladies to prepare Then people had to have a lot of stuff. Stuff costs money. Got to the point man could not make enough. Mom had to get out of the kitchen and go to work. Leaving kids to raise themselves. Mom had now ceased to be a lady and had become a woman demanding equal everything. Most men said OK you want it you got it. They quit doing anything but going to work coming home flopping on the couch in front of TV till bedtime. Mom was left to do her job then come home and do the job that had to be done there also. I have ladies that attend the church I pastor and they are loving every minute of it. They might not have all the stuff they want. But they have their very desire of a loving caring husband to take care of them. Would one of them dare to speak in another language in church no. Would any of the men not if their life depended on it. None of them can Now if we have some of our Cuban friends come visit us I ask one of the ladies that is fluent in their tongue to interpret what I am saying.Will my women speak in church yes. I even have a couple that will get my attention during the sermon and ask me a question. Which I am always glad to answer if I have the information or clarification they are seeking. I encourage anyone to ask questions. As cavediver says the only stupid question is the one that is not ask. Now I have explained what Paul was saying if you disagree that is your privilege, and I am sure many of you will. I also explained how I feel about it by telling you how I operate. You can like that or you can lump it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3313 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Honestly, I'm not being dense. All I saw was a lot of words talking about how you think women should be treated and then jump from "it is a shame for a woman to speak in church" to "will my women speak in church yes." Explain it to me please. I read it several times now. Still can't figure out where you decided it's ok to go against scripture.
Added by edit. Oh yeah, you forgot to explain this part.
quote: Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3313 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Sorry for the late reply. Time is something I don't have much of lately. Seems like my free time is inversely proportional to the number of things I have to do cubed.
Anyway, let's look at the whole chapter again.
quote:So, when Paul was referring to speaking in tongues, he was talking about people speaking in jibberish like so many do nowadays in churches while in trance-like state. He's clearly not talking about speaking in a foreign language. quote:Here is another clue to this. Again, clearly, he's not talking about people speaking in a foreign language like you made it out to be. quote: Did you get that ICANT? In every part of that chapter, and in nearly every sentence, Paul mentioned speaking in tongues or prophesy except for that paragraph about women. Read it again, ICANT. Ask everyone else here. That really sounds to me like he was talking about speaking in tongues and then added in "by the way, women can't speak in church, blah blah blah". That paragraph about women not allowed to speak in church stands out as really not part of Paul's explanation about prophesy and tongues. It's just a brief reminder of a seperate issue that was related to speaking in tongues. Don't take my word for it. Ask everyone else here. Even Buzsaw would agree with me on this, that Paul wasn't talking about not allowing women to speak in a foreign language in church, which I think is pretty far fetched. Another thing is this. For thousands of years, people have been interpreting this as women not being allowed to speak in church. Then, here comes the latter part of the 20th century and all the sudden you started to interpret it as Paul not allowing women to speak in a foreign language in church. Again, ask everyone else here. Anyone who can even read at a 6th grade level with agree with me, that that paragraph was an extra bit put in by Paul to remind us of a seperate issue. Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3313 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
The bible is the written word of god. Every part of it is true. Ask the two resident preachers (ICANT and Buz).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3313 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
ICANT writes:
I'm going to assume you're being sarcastic. I am truly glad you are such a Bible Scholar. ABE Especially since you don't believe in it.
I've read that whole chapter over and over and I still can't see how you could possibly interpret that as not allowing women to speak in a foreign language in church. I even explained in detail why I don't think there's anyway you could possibly interpret that bit as forbidding women to speak in a foreign language in church. Aren't you just trying to rationalize this like so many christians do? PS - I'll see you in heaven... from hell.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3313 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
ICANT writes: The entire chapter is concerning speaking in other tongues andprophesying. So why would Paul change in just one verse. Read the whole chapter again. Be honest with yourself. Does that single paragraph fit in with the rest? Again, Paul somewhat wandered off topic to remind people of a separate issue that was related to the main topic. Ask yourself this question. When you talk about something, do you always 100% absolutely always 100% absolutely must stick true to the topic from top to bottom? Noone talks like that in real life. Not even in literature. There are bits that we all put into our words that are seperate issues from what we are talking about. Everything we say reminds us of something else, and sometimes we say it out loud. Read the whole chapter again. I even went through the trouble of outlining for you a few posts ago how the rest of the chapter fit in with speaking in tongues and prophesying except for that single paragraph. Are you honestly telling me that after reading the whole chapter you don't find that paragraph stick out one single bit? Here is another test to see if I'm right or you're right. Next time when you go to one of your preaching sessions, without hinting your stance, ask everyone to read that chapter and ask them if they thought Paul was talking about not allowing women to speak ina foreign language in church or not. No matter how many times I read it, and I've asked other people to read this chapter over and over, we all still agree that that paragraph did not appear to be talking about not allowing women to speak in a foreign language in church. I don't know why you are insisting that Paul was forbidding women to speak in a foreign language in church. For the lazy readers who don't want to go back a page to read the chapter, here it is again. Be honest to yourself for once. Ask yourself if that paragraph looks like it was talking about women speaking in a foreign language or not.
quote:So, when Paul was referring to speaking in tongues, he was talking about people speaking in jibberish like so many do nowadays in churches while in trance-like state. He's clearly not talking about speaking in a foreign language. quote:Here is another clue to this. Again, clearly, he's not talking about people speaking in a foreign language like you made it out to be. quote: Added by edit. Also ask yourself this question. The rest of the chapter, Paul was very specific when he talked about tongues and prophesy. He even used those words everytime he refered to them. But all the sudden, he was too lazy to say "it is disgraceful for women to speak in tongues or prophesy in church"? Look at the underlined portions in that paragraph. It is clear to me that he wasn't talking about not allowing women to speak in a foreign language in church. Edited by Taz, : No reason given. Edited by Taz, : No reason given. Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3313 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Unknown? Who said anything about the word unknown? Here is that sentence again
quote:Did you get that, ICANT? When Paul referred to speaking in tongue, he was talking about people speaking directly to god. How on Earth can you interpret that as speaking in a foreign language? Paul was clearly talking about people speaking in jibberish when they are in a trance-like state. Again, don't take my word for it. Ask anyone here or anyone at all at your congregation. They'll tell you the same thing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3313 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
*Sigh*
I'm not trying to be dense and I'm not trying to be hardheaded. I'm simply pointing out obvious flaws in your interpretation. I honestly don't see how on Earth you could interpret "speaking in tongue" as speaking in a foreign language, especially when Paul specifically said those who speak in tongue are speaking directly to god. Are you saying that Mexicans who speak Spanish in an American church are speaking directly to god?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3313 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Even you would agree with me on this one. I just don't know how ICANT could interpret that bit as forbidding women to speak in a foreign language in church. It doesn't make any sense to me. Paul specifically said that to "speak in tongue" is to speak directly to god. How did ICANT interpret that to mean to "speak in tongue" is to speak in a foreign language like greek or french or whatever?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3313 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
If in 3 days time I don't see any christian reacting or responding to johnfolton's sexist view, I'm going to take your silence as agreeing his view.
Peace.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3313 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Remember our conversation about christians rarely ever speak up against crackpot christians as if they all agree with them? Silence is another way of approving or agreeing. All it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing. And christians seem to be the ultimate pacifists when it comes to their brother christians speaking or doing evil.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3313 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
GDR writes:
Because there are 2 main groups of people on these boards: atheists and christians. Everytime an atheist says something wacky, he is piled on by a dozen or so other atheists. The same cannot be said about the christian side. It seems like christians welcome wacky comments from other christians with their silence.
I'm not sure why it is necessary to only point out the badly misinformed Christians.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024