Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: conan@herb-ox.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: St Paul and Women Message-ID: Date: 2 Jun 91 04:28:39 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department. Lines: 37 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article James.Quilty@comp.vuw.ac.nz (James William Quilty) writes: > 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 !) As requested, one logical argument proving discriminationis logical: Axiom 1: God created men and women to fill _different_ roles. Axiom 2: God has ordained that men fill a leadership role in the Church. Argument: It follows immediately from axioms 1 and 2 that women are not to fill leadership roles in the church. QED Please note that I do not take this argument seriously--my own personal views are in a state of turmoil. However, as a mathematician, I felt obliged to point out that appeals to logic are extraordinarily dangerous. Everything hinges on the correct choice of axioms. :-) Yours in Christ, David Cruz-Uribe, SFO [Presumably "different" allows for some overlap. Otherwise you could use the same argument to prove that both sexes are not allowed to eat and breathe. I think about all you can hope to show is that there are some aspects of the roles that are unique. This means that it isn't enough to show that men are ordained to do a certain thing. You must show that that's one of the unique aspects. Of course that's precisely what people say the usual citations from Paul's letters show. --clh]