Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: James.Quilty@comp.vuw.ac.nz (James William Quilty) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: St Paul and Women Message-ID: Date: 24 May 91 04:31:06 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Computer Science, Victoria University, Wellington, NewZealand Lines: 66 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article , smithjh@argus.CS.ORST.EDU (Jeremy Smith) writes: |> Mainly, I am curious how Christians arrive at a different |> interpretation |> than my own of I Corinthians 14:34: I make specific use of the context and culture to whom the letter was written (as our moderator suggests) and observe that Paul has many positive things to say about women (in power roles) elsewhere in the Bible. If it comes down to it, on the matters of sex and sexuality, I think that Paul was just plain wrong (if context is to be ignored - if it is to be taken into account, I think Paul had the right intentions, but went about protecting the gospel in the wrong way.) |> 1) Circumcision has never been a basis for salvation or righteousness. |> There has never been righteousness in the law, therefore the folly of |> the apostles was not biblically based. God is too smart to contrdict |> himself. |> Abraham is an example of a pre-New Testament uncircumcised Godly man. Abraham was circumcised by God (if you recall), and circumcision was a condition for salvation in OT times ! (read the OT !!!) God doesn't contradict himself, ever (humans do, though !) |> Arguments that the apostles writings were specifically relevant to |> the culture of their day do not have basis in any scripture that I |> am aware of. When are the oracles of God culture dependant? They always have been culture dependant ! (can you divorce yourself totally from your culture ??? - neither could the apostles !!!) The NT letters are written to people in specific situations and specific cultures - they (in many ways, if context is not taken into account) contradict themselves. The message of the Bible isn't social rules, at all, but so many times in the Bible, man-made social rules are presented as God's rules (particularly those rules that regulate the position of women in society) I personally don't think that Christians are bound by the old social rules, which are so male-oriented: surely that is the greatest indicator that these rules don't come from God ? - They [the rules] HURT men and women - and God would never do that ! |> Let us also realize that |> ever since the fall of Adam and Eve, men and women have had different |> spiritual roles (though having same spiritual goals). I think that you confuse social roles with spiritual roles. Ever since "the fall" (in the Bible) men and women were given different social roles - men have the power, women don't. And men (as a way to control women) also have the spiritual power, in the Bible. The God I worship doesn't differentiate between men and women in any way (and I know that there is enough Biblical precedent for this !) and neither will I ! - discrimination on the basis of sex is ILLOGICAL (and I really want to see a LOGICALLY constructed argument (i.e. first/second order predicate calculus, or whatever) to say that discrimination IS logical !) Jim.