On May 5, 7:16 pm, monkfish <monkfish@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> J A wrote:
> > This is particularly humorous since various churchs have been caving
in =
to
> > modern marketing pressures to allow women shamen (who often turn out
to =
be
> > lesbians).
>
> > Remember, these bible verses are supposed to be the word of "god", or
at=
> > least inspired by "god"...
>
> > On women in church:
>
> > 1 Corinthians 14:34 (New International Version)
> > New International Version (NIV)
> > Copyright =A9 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
>
> > 34 women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to
> > speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.
>
> > 1 Timothy 2 (New International Version)
> > 11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not
> > permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be
> > silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not
> > the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a
> > sinner. 15 But women[a] will be saved[b] through childbearing-if they
> > continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
>
> > 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 (New International Version)
> > New International Version (NIV)
>
> > 33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.
> > As in all the congregations of the saints, 34 women should
> > remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must
> > be in submission, as the Law says. 35 If they want to inquire about
> > something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is
> > disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church
> > =3D=3D=3D
>
> > Apparently, the "truth" changes over time according to manmade social
> > pressures..
>
> > Yes Andrew, you're wor****pping a large pile of horse****.... ;-))
>
> You don't seem to understand the nature of God's will that well.
> Even though they didn't have the proper expression,
> they knew even two thousands years ago that
> all the apparent rules are not to be interpreted literally.
> Most of them are too archaic to be applied to the modern society.
> But they are quite good examples for a certain policy
> if we manage to overcome our anachronistic tendencies.
>
> God's will needs to be understood as a policy.
> That would become clear if you looks at the words of Jesus Christ.
> "Love God with all your heart."
> "Love your neighbor."
> "Love even your enemies."
> In modern parlance, they are policies.
> If you are familiar with legal reasoning, you would know that
> reasoning with policies is quite different from applying rules.
>
> What would be the modern interpretation of the policy
> exemplified in the above archaic passages?
>
> --
> monkfish * alt.atheism is removed from the header because trying to
prov=
e
> the existence of God is prohibited by their undebatable policy.
> ** Atheists have blind faith in their ability to know of all actual or
> possible modes of existence. Such hubris cannot be good for science.
What does that have to do with the false apostle Paul's misogynist
garbage? Making misogyny a policy is supposed to make it alright? We
didn't hear that kind of hateful rhetoric out of the Messiah or his
true apostles.
|
