<<>>it is the same..as if her/his/their head were shaven[exposed]... 6:..For if..a woman/man will not veil himself/herself,..then he/she should cut off her hair;[pride]..but..*if it is disgraceful..for a woman to be shorn or shaven,..let her wear a veil.[husband/god/partner/MESSIAH/PROTECTOR]

7:.For a man..[husband...god/messiah;head]..ought not to cover his head,..since he is the image..and glory of God;[the holy spirit].. but woman[read wife]..is the glory of man..[READ HUSBAND/MESSIAH/GOD]

8:..(For man.>>[GOD/greater/CAUSE]..was not made from woman[MAN/FRUIT]..but woman from man.

9:..Neither was man..[GREATER]..created for woman,[LESSER] but woman for man.)
10:..That is why..a woman/MAN/MESSIAH/GOD,..ought to have a veil on her head,..because of the angels.[THE BRIDE OF THE WHOLLY SPIRIT]

11:..(Nevertheless,..in the Lord]..WE are made equal
YET..woman..is not independent of man..nor man of woman;
nor god from man/nor holy spirit./from that not wholly spiritual.

12:..for[just]..as woman..was made from man,
so man..is now born of woman...And all things are from God.)..AND THE HOLY SPIRIT..IS MADE WHOLE...now just to get as..ONE MOST WHOLE....holier than thou..

Dear Ojnab,

I was critical of the teachings of Paul. That does not mean I attacked Christianity or pushed atheism. An atheist can also be sexist, and Christians can disregard Paul's injunctions regarding women. Some branches of Christianity give women equal status. Paul is regarded highly by some Christians because his words are in scripture. A sophisticated Christian is capable of recognising that scripture is a product of its times and incorporates the views of those who wrote it even when those views are inconsistent with enlightened thinking.

There is a tendency to regard those who agree with one on either religious belief or non-belief as somehow more virtuous than those who don't agree. I regard all religion as mumbojumbo. However, there are many decent, virtuous, intelligent people who accept mumbojumbo.

David F, Mumbojumbo! I do like that word, that is religion.
One Under God, we are all born equal, correct, but some are more equal than others, lets take a close look at Royalty, they consider themselves as not equal to the beggar on the street, although they have the same body functions as the beggar, so equal, in their brains though we are a Prince, Princess etc. man made titles which set them apart from the all born equal you mention. Money also comes into the equation, the more you have the more you are not equal to the masses, you are better, that thinkig being only between your ears or the head between male legs,death thank goodnes is the only time we are all equal, we all smell to high heaven, rot or burn, only then are we equal to every one else.

ONJAB..of course we/arnt.all equal..[an example]."predatory equity."..

ITS NOT THAT SOME..ARE MORE/EQUAL
BUT THAT SOME..THINK THEY ARE BETTER/more clever/more aware
[and..by and large many are../so\..where is this going?]]

<<.man made titles>>rank/status/licended/unlicenced..
legal/lawful..aware unaware..old YOUNG MAN BEAST..sure/im with you

<<>>Money also comes into.the equation,.the more
you have..the more you..are not equal..to the masses,>>

MONEY/REMINDS ME/OF WIKISEED/WIKIGELD..THERE..I INVENTED A BANK/THAT ALLOWS YOU TWICE.[IN CREDIT/OF THAT..YOU PUT IN]..INTEREST FREE/overdraft..and.if you put more in...you have double available..in intrest/free credit/by overdraft..[non-fee bearing non-intrest accruing

but yeah..the more.they put in
the more.they get out/but thats fair..isnt it?

<<thank goodness..the only time weare all equal,..we all smell to high heaven,..rot or burn,..only then..are we equal to every one else.>>..apparent/endings..[death]...the ultimate/social leveler

IT DONT NEED BE..LIKE THAT..unfairness isnt law
isnt a moral value..nor specifically..a doctrine the church follows[though jesus d..id say something like it...[taking only your holy book..might make some more humble]..but we cant/all be the same/

god glories..in our differences

its no fluke/we each got our own face/own dna..own scent..
own voice-print..own eye sign/fingerprint's..own life own reality...own/perceptions/even own ways...etc..etc

we each are meant/to realize..what we are..by the clues
some need more to get it..others dont..its about perceptions OF SCARCITY..CREATING NEED GREED FEAR HATE SPITE ETC...but some get their rewards here..others get theirs ten fold in the next life/

but essentially..those WHO Have naught..have either chosen..it spiritually .. physically mentally..or pre-emptily oR KARMICly..but never permanently.

as our values evolve/we see how rich/simply good health is.
not..needing to spend.money looking better physically/while our spiritual side rots...

what good wealth/../that cant buy
health..power influence/fame....LOVE

money cant buy me love
thus the one with a lover..has things money cannot buy

if you have a happy home..your wealthy..we are the people of the common wealth...in things reality cant despoil..ROT STEAL OR REMOVE
i love.the promise/purity..of spirit...over.this realms/boom/bust..cycles

[ITS SCHIZOPHRENIC BIPOLAR material-ISM]

it*wont..last...dust we are..to dust we return
as we gave/so shall we earn/learn

.
 
Dear George,
 
.
 
You wrote :
 
“My reservations were not about critical thinking but about passing hasty judgement about a scholar’s research methods as poor. I certainly would not worry too much if somebody, who was not a mathematician, called my research methods poor. In distinction to e.g. my teaching skills that any student could judge”. 
 
I am sorry to insist but you will recall that following my careful analysis (page 18) of Butterfield”s statements which you had posted, you replied:
 
“ Thanks for spelling out for me in such detail your views on this matter”.
 
This does not imply that you considered I was “passing hasty judgement” - quite the contrary. In fact, my analysis could more correctly be described as a “critique” – certainly not a “hasty judgment”. Had I contented myself with simply declaring that the “the research methods are poor”, that would have been a hasty judgment.
 
First there was the “spelling out”, the analysis (critique), then the conclusion (judgment). My intention in submitting all my arguments to your scrutiny was to invite criticism and debate. It had nothing to do with “hasty judgment”.
 
Neither had I ever envisaged that you might make a “hasty judgment” either - make a judgment in conclusion of the debate, why not? - but certainly not hastily.
 
You also indicate:
 
“ … there are many ways of interpreting and judging historical facts by professional historians …  but I would leave the appraisal of their professional quality to the community of professionals”.
 
Interestingly, I found on the internet a commentary of one of Butterfields peers, J.P. Kenyon, considered “one of the foremost historians of 17th-century England and a Fellow of the British Academy”. Kenyon describes Butterfield as :
 
“ A man with a reputation rather like an inverted cone, his wide-ranging prestige balanced on a tiny platform of achievement”.
 
.
 
(Continued …)
 
.

.

(Continued …)

.

Another of his peers, J.H.Hexter, an American historian, specialist in Tudor and seventeenth century British history, and reportedly well known for his comments on historiography, commenting on Butterfields major historical work, the “Whig Interpretation”, noted:

“ Given the developments in historiography and historical theory, it is tempting to view it now as a somewhat primitive piece. One ‘has to see his act of criticism in the light of its own day, responding to a climate of historiographical opinion that no longer exists”.

I am inclined to think (without necessarily concluding) that though peer review is, generally speaking, an excellent means of determining the value of intellectual endeavour, even this needs to be considered in relation to the inevitable rivalry which exists within the community of historians whose subject matter, unlike mathematics, is “open to interpretation”, as you rightly point out.

So how do we overcome this inconvenience ?

Hannah Arendt observed :

“The genius can start something new, but in order to communicate it, this novelty must be described in terms that others can perceive”.

So we are back to Kant’s recommendation: one should employ one’s natural “capacity to think by oneself, without referring to an exterior authority, be it a prince or tradition”.

However, I see no reason why I should not consult peer review before formulating my own opinion - whatever the subject.

 
.