I realised I should be clear what the question is:
eh -who are the 'your women' Paul is referring to?
Cheers,
Shafique
the message board for Dubai English speaking community
event horizon wrote:Women who chit-chat during mass.
shafique wrote:C'mon 'eh', which men did Paul mean when he said 'Your women'... should not speak in Church?
1 Corinthians:
14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
shafique wrote:So you don't know who Paul was addressing and yet you disagree with Kung who says this was a later fabrication. You could have just said so and saved me asking you so many times the question.
But I agree with you - at the end of the day, you don't see any contradiction between the verses which say women should shut up in church and the ones who say women were deacons.
Scholars like Kung seem to share my view that these are obviously contradictions - but I agree that you don't see a contradiction. I'm sure you think you are right - despite not being able to answer the question 'who' the men in this verse.
So the answer to your question is, yes, the NT obviously has contradictions in it - even your expert says so - but it appears that in your world 'shutting up' is not a contradiction to 'deacons in church'.
Thanks for making this clear.
Do you want us to move to the next contradiction, or is your argument going to be the 'ostrich defence' again?
Cheers,
Shafique
event horizon wrote:Yes, I agree the passages of women who were promoted to deacons, teachers and evangelists under Paul was first pointed out to you another thread.
event horizon wrote:Obviously, when read in toto with the rest of the NT and I Cor, the speaking that is being prohibited is of the chit-chatting type since women can already speak in mass if it's part of the worship and women were deacons, etc.
event horizon wrote:It's interesting that you continue to cite Kung, perhaps you have not read your own thread of the fallacy of citing a name and believing the argument is now over?
So, still waiting to hear who is being addressed - is only men whose women chit chat?
1 Corinthians:
14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
An ad hominem attack against an intellectual, not against an idea, is highly flattering. It indicates that the person has nothing intelligent to say about your message.
NN Taleb, The Black Swan, pg280
..so you become numb to insults, particularly if you teach yourself to imagine that the person uttering them is a variant of a noisy ape with little personal control.
Return to Philosophy and Religion Forums