Well Hi Pericles.. I always know I'm alive when ur around :) and you tend to slice and dice my arguments like a good butcher.. commendable.

How I wish I had more time to respond with great detail.

It should be noted however, that in my 'sidestep' (good vid too) as you put it, I don't deny the validity of Corinthians or Timothy.

Let's be clear, the context for what Paul is writing is 'The Church' as in the congregation gathered. It does not mean that a woman cannot hold a high position in life outside the Church.

The other point which should be noted is that there were women who did obviously speak and even teach.

Acts 18:26 When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, 'they' invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.

So... if we take the passages you cited by themselves, the suggestion or command is quite clear. "women, in the Church...silent"

The issue which should be looked at more closely is what Paul mean't by 'women'.. the context suggests 'wives' and it seems to me that Paul is alluding to some cultural issues here.

You might find some helpful insights from this page which is a Messianic Jewish one.. please have a look and see what they say about it.

Of particular importance I think is the Greek underlying our English translation "silence".. the same word is used in Thessolonians for 'quitness'

11We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. 12Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat.

"settle down" is the same Greek as 'silence' in Corinthians.

When I say 'should be balanced by'... I am referring not to 'contradictory' teaching, but to the emotional/attitudinal context.
Ephesians says "Love you wives as Christ loved the Church" which takes away any idea of 'tyrannical dominance'.

It is a far cry from 'beat them' in the Quran. Surely even you can see this ?

Pericles II ...while not wanting to derail the discussion into something about Islam, I do need to clarify something related to the content of your last post.

You suggest I used the "oh you just don't understand" approach, and this is true.. you don't. Your mind is still in pre born again mode. But for you to jump then into the Nambla deal is errr a bit far out. I've never used that for them..... I've only said that they use the same arguments that the Gay rights mob use to justify their own practice.

On the connection with the Quran, your comparison is unsteady and not reliable.
You can see what I mean partly from my last post, but more now.

BIBLE

a) "Women learn in silence (quietness)"
b) "Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the Church. (context)

QURAN
a) "If you see ill conduct.... beat them"
b) “And among His signs is that He created mates for you from yourselves that you may find comfort and repose in them, and He put between you love and compassion; most surely there are signs in this for a people who reflect.” (30:21)

In both cases, the 'b' does not refute the 'a'..so in the case of the Quran you are still left with a man being able to beat the wife.

I don't need to point out the considerable difference between those 2 situations.

POIROT.. *wow* :)

-achieve freedom ?
-Androgynous idea ?
-Imaginative powers?
-Earthbound subordinate psyche ?
-self invented odyssy ?

woooooo... you are a deep one arn't u :)

Bro...it's not that hard you know .... as Pynchy said:

*Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins. (1 Peter 4:8 )

When a fellowship is based on love and respect.. the negatives that some of us here fear simply don't exist.

Dear mjpb,

my position is that we live in this physical reality, which is somehow unconvincing or unsatisfying for us humans. Herein presumably we differ from other animals who indifferently chew their cud. This 'human condition' appears to be common to all human cultures in history, though it differs in how it is 'manifested culturally'. Myriad belief systems and rituals evolved in all these cultures in response to this curious 'human condition,' only among social 'groups' mind you. So what is the source of what I'll call human 'anxiety?' If we consult these diverse religions (no two the same) we typically find our answers in supernatural causes. The causes do not transcend us, however, but are conceived in the vices and norms peculiar to that group. The respective God provides for punishment, expiation and heavenly reward in relation to our (mis)deeds within the group--usually a hierarchy wherein the priestly caste traditionally governs, in itself or by proxy.
Now you may assert that these cultural institutions accurately and ethically reflect a divinely conceived reality. But there is no evidence for this. The 'miracles' of our modern fundamentalists are fraud and self-deception. If you can show me one real miracle that defies natural law (not as cited in a book) I'll reconsider.

qtd..

ctd..

But this still doesn't solve the problem of human 'anxiety' (including religious experience); is it divinely inspired or does it emerge as a manifestation of the social group? In the absence of any verifiable evidence for the former, logic points to the latter. Now bear in mind that though we are social animals we are still, ostensibly, 'individuals'. Yet can we conceive a single thought that is not derived from groupthink (we use art to try)? Doubtful. Rather than 'thoughts,' what we do experience individually is our animal being and its various appetites and drives, which are adjusted according to chemical dilutions within our bodies, and externally 'inhibited' by social norms. Social norms impose heavy constraints over our animal drives, and to the extent that we contravene these 'artificial' habiliments, even if we do it wilfully, we suffer a concomitant burden of guilt. Our 'epiphanies' can also be explained as psychic manifestations of this 'human condition,' or at least they cannot be 'cogently' explained as supernatural.
The secret ingredient that makes all this possible (we think) is language, or the 'symbolic order,' which we cannot step outside once we are initiated into it. Language structures not just our thoughts but reality itself; we can only conceive reality in our minds via the signs we've learned to identify with our sense perceptions of it. And language is an indigenous cultural form.
Most people do not know this explanation (my simplistic version of it) and are preconditioned anyway with their cultural group's religious explanation. In any case, this materialist version of the human condition is not very flattering or attractive. People will go on preferring flattering supernatural belief systems.
I am not fully satisfied with it myself; but out of genuine 'humility', rather than the disingenuous religious kind, I ponder my condition philosophically.

Dear Al,

It's not as deep as it sounds.
I'm being androgynous now (If you don't already know, this Poirot is a woman). And she is achieving freedom by using her imaginative powers to transcend her earth-bound reality to float around in cyberspace (unaccompanied and unimpeded) on a self-appointed odyssey to talk to you.

Squeers,

Your last two posts were excellent - I agree!

You continue to scale new heights in your attempts to paint Christianity as somehow different from other religions, Boaz.

For example, why did you select these two quotes, particularly, to contrast with those from the Qur'an?

>>a) "Women learn in silence (quietness)"
b) "Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the Church.<<

Why not:

a) "It is good for a man not to touch a woman" 1 Corinthians 7:1
b) "The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder" Luke 12:46

Just asking.

You see, the point is not about the quotations, but the use to which they are put. And your track record on this is pretty dire, as I have mentioned to you on many occasions.

But I notice you are still in denial about your "justification" being analogous to that of NAMBLA.

>> those outside of Christ... cannot embrace or understand the Biblical pattern for male female relationships.<<

Note the similarity to...

>>those Christians... cannot embrace or understand our approach to man-boy relationships<<

Have a look through their web site - it is chock-full of this type of "you outsiders simply don't understand" arguments. If you reject their rationale - which I suspect you do - you can easily see why I view yours in the same light.

But how about you tell us what you think, instead of what you think Paul thought.

>>the context for what Paul is writing is 'The Church' as in the congregation gathered. It does not mean that a woman cannot hold a high position in life outside the Church.<<

I can only assume that this indicates your own support for the stance that "a woman cannot hold a high position in life inside the Church"

Can you, absent 2000 year-old dogma, written, as you readily accept, when "things were different", justify this position?