|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Women In 1 Corinthians | |||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2670 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
The reason I didn't support with documentation is that it would lead off topic as it would require a substantial amount of discussion on that topic to delve into the science of the brain. I assume that most here are apprised enough on the brain lobe functions to know what I'm referring to. If not, a search on the brain lobe functions should suffice. Ah. Let me see if I understand this (with my puny left brain). You get to drop completely unsupported assertions and then beg off because ... you are so darn committed to the Forum Guidelines? Mmm hmm.
As I stated, as I understand ... Stop right there! That explains everything. As you understand it. Now I understand. Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
You get to drop completely unsupported assertions and then beg off because ... you are so darn committed to the Forum Guidelines?
A common tactic of Buz's I'm surprised this is the first time you've encountered it. {Superfluous snide remark - Content hidden - Stop it. - Adminnemooseus} Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
quote: i'm actually sort of curious about what "the Law" says. normally, i'd be the one to provide that context, but i'm actually drawing something of a blank here. probably just a subject i'm not overly familiar, but i can't recall a single old testament law stating that women should shut up in church. indeed, even in mosaic times, miriam was a prophet before moses. biblical judaism is, of course, a patriarchal system, but the odd exceptions do slip through, most prominently, deborah, esther, and (depending on your bible) judith. i might make a decent argument about this later, if prompted, but the male dominance in judaism (and homophobia, and extreme sexual laws) seems to come from aversion to asherah worship. asherah was the supposed wife of yahweh, a female god around which a fertility cult was organized. but this verse probably relates more to the practice of the layout of traditional orthodox jewish churches: men in front, women in back on a second tier. women talking to their husbands in that kind of church would create disorder pretty quickly. but i'm not sure -- it does sandwich this bit between stuff about prophecy. and also, for the record, "tongues" means languages, not random babbling. during the pentecost, the apostles were granted the gift of "speaking in tongues" so that the people in the audience could understand them. babbling is not a miracle. communicating in a language you don't normally speak is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Interesting topic, so I decided to do a little reading on it. There are NT manuscripts that go back to within 100 to 200 years of the time of Jesus, so they are actually very reliable. There are however, one or two cases, such as the end of Mark where early Christian scribes decided to clear up gaps or deficiencies. In the case of Paul's letters the manuscripts are very consistent with only one or two examples of differences. Verses 34 and 35 is one of those. Some early manuscripts didn't have it so it is possible that this was added later by someone with a vested interest in seeing that public worship be led by only males.
However, it is still quite likely that Paul did write it. Obviously Paul's letters were culturally conditioned. He was writing to churches and societies that existed then which does not mean that we are not to take eternal truths from the Bible, but we have to be aware of the cultural setting at the time as well as be aware that we shouldn't build a theology around one or two verses. Look at Galatians 3:28.
quote: This is a fairly clear statement of the equality of all. Also when Paul says as in Ephesians 5;25;
quote:we have to remember not only that Christ died for the church but that also that Christ came to serve the church. In the end I see Paul saying that wives are to serve their husbands and husbands are to serve their wives. In 1 Corinthians Paul writes that women who pray or prophesy should not do so with their head uncovered, nor should men do so with their head covered. Obviously he sees both men and women taking part in the worship in this case. The culture at the time was largely male dominated and as a result the women in general were short-changed on education. This may have led to some problems in various churches. I agree that in the end the statement in question is an enigma and that we don't have all the answers. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Mgirl, I don't need to go through history and document that my statements are true. It's common knowledge and the history books are full of evidence relative to the male leadership role in world cultures.
If you wish to contend common knowledge it's up to you to support your claims. You can begin by falsifying my statement that men are more left frontal lobe dominant than women. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: That's not how it works, madear. You can provide evidence for your claim, since you made it and it has been challeneged, or retract it. And by "evidence", we mean studies from the scientific literature. But if anything, women should be considered more "left-brained", since they tend to score higher on verbal tests, and the left half of the brain is responsible for verbal activity. Right? But anyway, since I already know that you won't provide such evidence, becasue you think you don't have to support your claims with evidence, ever, I've doen gone and debunked you, with a Christian website, no less. The difference being, of course, that they actually have some education in Psychology:
source bolding added by me
- Jerre Levy, a biopsychologist at the University of Chicago, contends: "The two-brain myth was founded on an erroneous premise: that since each hemisphere was specialized, each must function as an independent brain. But in fact, just the opposite is true. To the extent that regions are differentiated in the brain, they must integrate their activities. Indeed, it is precisely that integration that gives rise to behavior and mental processes greater than and different from each region's contribution. Thus, since the central premise of the mythmakers is wrong, so are all the inferences derived from it" ("Right Brain, Left Brain: Fact and Fiction," Psychology Today, May 1985, p. 43). - Today's popular left-brain/right-brain myth was spawned by pop psychology -- a myth which some brain researchers have called "whole-brain/half-wittedness." In 1988, even Psychology Today ridiculed the concept with an article titled "Left-Brain/Right-Brain/Broccoli-Brain." One should not be surprised when the whole world is deceived, nor when New Age promoters use the pseudoscience of brain hemisphere dichotomy to give a semblance of substance to their desires to market intuition, creativity, visualization, and mystical experience. One should be concerned, though, when professing, evangelical Christians embrace and enthusiastically teach this myth as fact. We see those who purport to speak for God use such "science falsely so-called" (1 Timothy 6:20) and "philosophies and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ" (Colossians 2:8). Rather than checking the accuracy of statements about right and left brain research and conclusions, too many have moved into the never-never land of fantasy. Not only are their assumptions erroneous from a logical point of view; they have no support in Scripture. - Gary Smalley is one such professing Christian teaching this right-brain/left-brain nonsense. According to Smalley, because women are "right-brained," they are "more in touch" with their feelings. On the basis of this theory, Smalley approaches the marriage relationship from a selfish wife's point of view, and concentrates on how the wife can get her husband to meet all of her so-called needs, rather than how she can be a loving help-mate to him. Smalley, therefore, actually promotes a form of female dominance in the marriage relationship. Smalley's popularization of right-brain/left-brain has been largely due to his book The Language of Love (published and promoted by James Dobson's Focus on the Family Radio program), co-authored by Smalley and fellow psychologist, John Trent. The book touts "emotional word pictures" as the means of "activating" the "right brain," alleged to be essential for a wife to communicate with her husband. - Other well-known proponents of this teaching (besides Smalley, Trent, and Dobson mentioned above) are Donald Joy (who Smalley and Trent credit as being the source of their right/left brain information) and H. Norman Wright. They all dichotomize differences in a way the research does not permit, and promote right-brain/left-brain pseudoscience that the researchers oppose. They claim differences that do not exist and they ignore overlapping distributions that do exist. This misinformation and disinformation by such popularizers of right-brain/left-brain mythology are a gross disservice to the church.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I just want to point out that the likelihood that Paul actually put that in there himself is fairly low. First, I want to direct your attention to the surrounding passages:
quote: Does not this seem a little out of place to have a "shut up, woman!" message just dropped into Paul's discussion on prophesying? Second, let me show you another passage that helps us understand Pauline theology as being much more male/female-equality oriented.
quote: Now, you might notice that that final conjunction for "male and female" is often translated as "nor" (which sets the two in opposition), but we need to go back to the original Greek to see what it really was. For the conjunctions in the pairs "Jew nor Greek", "slave nor free man":
quote: For the conjunction in "male and female":
quote: It is clear from this, then, that Paul had set male and female up as being equals, instead of opposites as in the case of Jew/Greek, and slave/free. The Gospel of John is very female-friendly (likely compiled by a group containing many women). The letters of John are all written to the head of a church community who was obviously female. In the early Christian church, women and men were on relatively equal footing with women even holding serious leadership roles. I, and many scholars, would reason that it was not until after Christianity was adopted by the mainstream that the old Roman-world anti-female sentiment began to take hold, during which time the extra verse would have been inserted into Corinthians”because it obviously wasn't put there by Paul”, and the conjunction was intentionally mistranslated to show an opposition in men and women. In other words, anti-femalism is not really a feature of the original Christian church at all. Now, whether this has any bearing on the discussion at hand or not, I am not sure (there was too much for me to read through it all), but I still thought I would point these things out. Jon Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 7.4 |
It is clear from this, then, that Paul had set male and female up as being equals, instead of opposites as in the case of Jew/Greek, and slave/free. The Gospel of John is very female-friendly (likely compiled by a group containing many women). The letters of John are all written to the head of a church community who was obviously female. In the early Christian church, women and men were on relatively equal footing with women even holding serious leadership roles. I, and many scholars, would reason that it was not until after Christianity was adopted by the mainstream that the old Roman-world anti-female sentiment began to take hold, during which time the extra verse would have been inserted into Corinthians”because it obviously wasn't put there by Paul”, and the conjunction was intentionally mistranslated to show an opposition in men and women. In other words, anti-femalism is not really a feature of the original Christian church at all. Now, whether this has any bearing on the discussion at hand or not, I am not sure (there was too much for me to read through it all), but I still thought I would point these things out. Jon I think that's an excellent point, Jon... ...except that it can't be taken into account by those who think the Bible is the literal Word of God. Once human additions and subtractions are accepted as existing, the entire literalist point of view collapses. Either the Bible is not literally true word for word, or the Bible does tell women to "shut the hell up." When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3320 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 3320 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).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
The bible is the written word of god. DOH! I must have misplaced that fact in my brain whilst typing the previous post. All apologies; continue on, now. Jon Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
would love a reply to my message regarding left/right brain, buz.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Taz,
Taz writes: 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. I am truly glad you are such a Bible Scholar. ABE Especially since you don't believe in it. God Bless, Edited by ICANT, : No reason given. "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4087 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
But if anything, women should be considered more "left-brained", since they tend to score higher on verbal tests, and the left half of the brain is responsible for verbal activity. Without getting into the OP passage, which I don't understand as it seems to contradict other passages even in the same letter, i would like to throw in a thought about this. Per The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat by Oliver Sacks, who has all the appropriate credentials for this sort of subject, damage to the right side of the brain can completely shut down verbal communication in various ways. There is verbal activity that belongs to the left half of the brain, but the right side of the brain also plays a major role, since damage can completely stop verbal communication. I hope that's on topic. I think it is, even though it references one portion of one argument off the OP.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Hi Taz and other posters.
I have not read ALL of the submissions to this discussion yet. I will go back and continue to read. But I would like to submit to the discussion. When we read that women are to be silent in the church we have to consider some important things. Paul writes that they are permitted to speak at home. Now, in the early days of the Christian church many very important meetings occured at the homes of the believers. In Jerusalem eventually there ended up being ( conservatively ) be about 10,000 Christians. This is based alone on Peters two messages which produced 5,000 and 4,000 believers. Now Acts says that they "met from house to house." So we could say that there may have been at least 100 home meetings of the church in Jerusalem. That would be about 100 people per home meeting. Probably there were not that many participants in a Christian meeting in each person's home. But if you had 100 or more homes where women were free to speak, you apparently had a lot of Christian sisters speaking in Christian meetings, I think. Ten thousand believers met from house to house and in the tempple, until they were chased out of the temple to meet only in thier homes in Jerusalem. Now if a typical church in a city was divided into multiple house meetings in the homes of the believers, and the apostle Paul permitted the sisters under his apostolic care, to speak in their homes, for sure you had a lot of speaking from women in home meetings. Today, many hear the word "church" and assume a physical edifice or building of some kind where according to Paul, women should keep silence. The church is the people and not the building. My problem with so non-speaking women in the church is thattoo many meetings of the saints occured in their homes. So they must have been ample opportunity to her the sisters prophesy. Paul said "You can all prophesy one by one." Prophesy is not just to predict. It is to speak forth the Christian God and speak for Christ in words of encouragement and edification. So in the homes, in the houses, many women MUST have been speaking in home meetings. And if they were speaking rightly as they and the brothers should, they were speaking spiritual edification and building up of the church in the homes gatherings. Today, these home gatherings are called by some "cell groups." But many denominations which practice home meeting or cell groups grow to include huge numbers of Christians. So we can forget the mental picture of women being altogether silent in early Christian gatherings. All things considered I think Paul did not want women to be authoritatively defining doctrines. And perhaps the major definitions of doctrines WERE taking place in large full church gatherings. But alternatively, as today, many many gatherings had to be in the homes of couples or famililies where Paul did expect the sisters to speak. I contribute this not as a conclusive answer to the original question, but to hopefully enhance the consideration of the larger perspective. Many thousands of meetings of mutual encouragement, edification, spiritual excercise, building up, teaching, testimony and prayer, were conducted in homes of the believers, where Paul expected the sisters to SPEAK. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024