Intrepid wrote
Quote:The one interesting thing, as it pertains to this thread, is that the said member is a female
hhhmmmm!!!!!! Now i'm intrigued.......
kate4christ03 wrote:one view on these verses is that paul is speaking of tongues...saying that women can't speak in tongues at church etc..another view is that it means women can't speak at all and if this is true then women can't even say Hi to others in church or sing in choir.......I take the view that its speaking on the function of tongues in church....I know many intelligent Godly women that teach and perform other functions within church and I'm thankful for them.......
It is interesting to me how clear language can so easily discarded. 14:35 looks as though it even prevents women from even asking a question in church, directing them to keep their mouths shut until they can ask their husbands at home.
From Barnes' Notes on the OT and NT
1 COR. 14:34
Let your women keep silence ... This rule is positive, explicit, and universal. There is no ambiguity in the expressions; and there can be no difference of opinion, one would suppose, in regard to their meaning. The sense evidently is, that in all those things which he had specified, the women were to keep silence; they were to take no part. He had discoursed of speaking foreign languages, and of prophecy; and the evident sense is, that in regard to all these they were to keep silence, or were not to engage in them. These pertained solely to the male portion of the congregation. These things constituted the business of the public teaching; and in this the female part of the congregation were to be silent. "They were not to teach the people, nor were they to interrupt those who were speaking" -- Rosenmuller. It is probable that, on pretence of being inspired, the women had assumed the office of public teachers. In 1 Cor. 11, Paul had argued against their doing this in a certain manner -- without their veils (1 Cor. 11:4), and he had shown, that "on that account," and "in that manner," it was improper for them to assume the office of public teachers, and to conduct the devotions of the church. The force of the argument in 1 Cor. 11:is, that what he there states would be a sufficient reason against the practice, even if there were no other. It was contrary to all decency and propriety that they should appear "in that manner" in public. He here argues against the practice on every ground; forbids it altogether; and shows that on every consideration it was to be regarded as improper for them even so much as "to ask a question" in time of public service. There is, therefore, no inconsistency between the argument in 1 Cor. 11:and the statement here; and the force of the whole is, that "on every consideration" it was improper, and to be expressly prohibited, for women to conduct the devotions of the church. It does not refer to those only who claimed to be inspired, but to all; it does not refer merely to acts of public preaching, but to all acts of speaking, or even asking questions, when the church is assembled for public worship. No rule in the New Testament is more positive than this; and however plausible may be the reasons which may be urged for disregarding it, and for suffering women to take part in conducting public worship, yet the authority of the apostle Paul is positive, and his meaning cannot be mistaken; compare 1 Tim. 2:11,12.
Anyone who wonders why the Paulists are controversial within Christianity simply needs to look at a situation like this.
I am not really familiar with Paulists. From what I understand they are Catholic Priests of a particular order. Is that correct? Are they different from other Catholics?
Intrepid, I'd describe the Paulists (I'm not a religious scholar, just a long-time student and currently doubting Christian) as one fringe of mainstream Christianity which believes in Paul's version, and interpretation, of events in early Christian history.
This is a generally interesting (though not to every Christian's taste, for sure) webpage (with many useful links) about the Apostle Paul.
http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/paul.htm
Thanks for the link. I will read it later. Already, I am in disagreement with them since they consider Paul and not Jesus the founder of Christianity. I will give it every consideration, however.
From John Macarthur's Study bible/commentary on 1 cor 14:34-35
The context in this verse concerns prophecy but includes the general theme of this chapter ie tongues. Rather than leading they are to be submissive as Gods word makes clear . It is not coincidental that many modern churches that have tongues-speakings and claim gifts of healing and miracles also permit women to lead worship, and preach. Women may be gifted teachers but they are not permitted by God "to speak" in churches. In fact for them to do so is shameful. Apparently, certain women were out of order in disruptively asking questions publicly in the chaotic services.....
this is the view i take......Women can teach sunday school because its not a leadership position...The pastor is the leader of the CHurch and should lead the service...
From religioustolerance.org
on the topic of
Quote:Women as clergy: priests, pastors, ministers, rabbis...
Quote: early in the 21st century, the largest institutions in North America which will still deny equal rights to women are among conservative Christian denominations: Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and many denominations within Protestantism, like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Southern Baptist Convention. These groups interpret Bible passages as requiring women and men to follow defined, sexually determined roles. In opposite-sex marriage, for example, men are to lead and women are to be submissive to their husbands. In religion institutions women are not to be placed in a position of authority over men. A logical result of these beliefs is that women are not to be considered for ordination. There is no wiggle room here, unless their theologians take a different approach to biblical interpretation.
As gender discrimination becomes as abhorrent to the public as racism, these denominations may well be under increased pressure to conform to the non-sexist secular standard. Faith groups will be expected to evaluate candidates for ordination on the basis of the candidates knowledge, sense of calling from God, personality, commitment, ability, etc -- but not on the basis of gender. Gender discrimination will be viewed by many as a millstone around the necks of conservative denominations. It will present a serious barrier to the evangelization of non-Christians. Whenever religious institutions are perceived by the general public as operating to a lower ethical standard than the rest of society, religious conversion becomes more difficult to achieve.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/femclrgy.htm
Quote:Topics Covered in this menu:
The status of women in society and religion:
Equal rights - An overview
Legal aspects of gender discrimination
Numbers of female clergy in North America
When various faith groups started to ordain women
Status of female ordination as priests & consecration as bishops:
The Roman Catholic Church
Among Anglicans:
The Anglican communion
The Australian Anglican Church
The Church of England:
Ordaining female priests
Consecrating female bishops
The Episcopal Church, USA
The Scottish Episcopal Church
Other faith groups
Bible and other ancient sources:
Female leaders mentioned in the Bible, and early Christian writings
Biblical passages directly related to female ordination
The continuing debate:
Arguments for and against female ordination
Recent news on female ordination
Lawsuit against the Roman Catholic church
More information:
Books, Internet links and a video
I'm sure I'll be reading, and thinking, about this (along with other religious questions) for the rest of my life.
spendius wrote:Doc wrote-
Quote:Id be interested to know how many of us in the 140-150 range have imaginary friends and such.
I have more imaginary friends than I can manage. Does that make me a genius?
What is or are "such".
To reword my inquisition, I wonder how many people in the range of 140-150 IQ harbour beliefs in spooks, gods, deities, and other faith based propositions.
To all others, re: myself - Yes, I am a
Satanist. No, I am not out to shock anyone, I am out to streamline my mind, so to speak. No, I do not worship anything , save myself. Satanism is
autotheistic (a quick search of this site will bring up some of my opinions on that subject)
To Set - I think you're a dink too...
..which is partially why I enjoy reading your posts.
Namby pamby niceness has little use in a place like this if you ask me.
<---the smiley is special order just for you, because I know how you love them so
I worked my way out of the catholic church while still liking the paulists I knew. Ellwood Keiser (or similar name, he got sort of famous at one point) was a priest at my church... St. Paul's, as fate would have it. I liked it because all those folks were forward looking (!!) Most lib catholic church around at the time, or so I thought. I don't remember any sermons about shutting women up. But then I might have been daydreaming. So, let me add a smidge of doubt about how much all the Paulists agreed with Paul... 'course, that was then, mid sixties.
That is sad. What would Christ say about this? Isn't that what you're supposed to ask? Surely you only listen for Jesus when you hear preaching...
This is just control of one body of people by another; maintenance of the status quo and power.
"This is the way we've always done it" - another stupid statement which consigns progress out the door.
I don't know who Timothy is, and I don't care - my question is why he is still being listened to. Doesn't the bible ever get an update?
Mame,
Are you proposing that the doctrine and word of God be changed to suit the times? The faithful, for the most part, accept what is written in the bible. Those who do not follow or believe it's teachings are free to think what they will.
I'm ill-equipped to argue about religion as I'm a non-believer. As I said, I don't even know who Timothy is. Obviously there are many differences between the sects because some allow female preachers and some don't. Some insist on women having their heads covered, and others don't.
Surely, however, one should allow for progress. If Jesus were resurrected today, what would his message be? Would he still say women were not allowed to preach? And don't the Quakers follow some scripture where they have to use certain tools (or can't use electricity or something)? Well, they didn't have electricity THEN, but we have it now, so surely he would accomodate his message to today's world.
Doktor S wrote: <---the smiley is special order just for you, because I know how you love them so
I'll get you for that, you son of a kitsch . . .
Mame, I'd say you're better equipped than most to argue about religion. (especially with such a great tag line)
The problem with unqualified belief (as all belief is) is that you have to pick which bits to believe....no literal interpretation of any religious text is possible, otherwise they'd all agree. And if you just agreed with the bits that naturally felt right to you (as so many people feel they can)...you wouldn't need religion at all!
Quote:Mame, I'd say you're better equipped than most to argue about religion. (especially with such a great tag line)
I guess she's equipped to argue it, but with a tagline like that she probably wouldn't be a follower of any religion. I think the one thing they all do agree on (in their texts) is the sanctity of every human life. (And that's not to say I think they act on that - they just spout it in their texts).
Quote:The problem with unqualified belief (as all belief is) is that you have to pick which bits to believe....no literal interpretation of any religious text is possible, otherwise they'd all agree.
Agree with what? That's assuming there is one supreme version of perception of reality which is deemed the "literal". I don't agree that's true at all.
Quote:And if you just agreed with the bits that naturally felt right to you (as so many people feel they can)...you wouldn't need religion at all!
But that's what people do everyday. That's called life - some people call it religion I guess - but religion is about more than following a text- and that's why some people would feel that they still need it (or want it).
aidan wrote:Quote:Mame, I'd say you're better equipped than most to argue about religion. (especially with such a great tag line)
I guess she's equipped to argue it, but with a tagline like that she probably wouldn't be a follower of any religion. I think the one thing they all do agree on (in their texts) is the sanctity of every human life. (And that's not to say I think they act on that - they just spout it in their texts).
Not too familiar with the texts are you?
