Posted on 08/02/2005 10:54:57 AM PDT by wallcrawlr
Sooner or later, you'll change your tune.
Zing!
So anyways... Do you allow your wife to speak in church?
(I'm not really expecting an answer. But since you're still here...)
It's not a question of whether I allow it. My wife's deepest desire is to obey God's word.
1 Corinthians 14:34-35: "...women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says, 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."
And your reply:
It's not a question of whether I allow it. My wife's deepest desire is to obey God's word.
Okay. This would indicate one of only a few possibilities is true. Among these possibilities:
1) Your wife does not speak in church. This would include during the service, during any religious functions at the church, Bible study, etc. The scripture reads clear on this point. If she has a question or comment about religion, she waits until you are at home and poses the question to you.
2) Your wife does speak in church, though it goes against her deepest desires to obey God's word, as it is "inerrently" communicated in the Bible. I can only assume, based on the circumstances, that this produces feelings of guilt and disgrace in her, and perhaps embarrasment and discomfort in you. But you both carry on in the hopes that this rule will be only slightly broken, or is not so significant in God's eyes (who can know for sure?) - or that God is not paying attention.
3) Your wife speaks in church, and has her own idea of what "God's Word" really is/means. She does not read 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 as God's Word.
I doubt you'll tell me which case it actually is, so I'll make a guess and keep it to myself.
Your post reminded me of Romans 1:22.
Great response! And took little-to-no work on your part. In fact, I'm suspecting it's your canned answer whenever a discussion is not proceeding in a fashion that makes you comfortable.
The problem is, your judging me as a "fool" brings about a very simple observation, and you knew this was coming, because it is plain as day: That scripture you cited could apply to just about every post you've written in this thread, including (and especially) those you penned before I even got here.
Best regards.
---------
"How blessed is the man who finds wisdom
And the man who gains understanding."
Proverbs 3:13
Any more would have been a waste. But, I'll take that chance with this much: Context is everything. Your professing-to-be-wise, black-and-white options for my wife -- any woman -- to be silent in church completely ignored the context. But, that's understandable when your objective is to p*ss on the infallible Word of God.
"How blessed is the man who finds wisdom And the man who gains understanding." Proverbs 3:13
How utterly ironic for you to post that.
Best regards.
Likewise, I'm sure.
Whoa, hold the phone! There it is - the explanation is context. You've had at least three opportunities to provide an answer, and finally, we see one peeking through. But I would implore you to tell me - to tell us all - exactly how the verse was taken out of context; or, if that's not the case, just exactly what context we are supposed to be framing it in. I wouldn't have pegged you as someone to read around specific wording in the Bible, or the Constitution in the name of "context" (Read: your signature), but perhaps you will explain otherwise.
But, that's understandable when your objective is to p*ss on the infallible Word of God.
Except that you can't even seem to give a convincing argument of what "the infallible word of God" actually is. Apparently, some of it needs to be read "in context," which might bring into question just about any of those laws of the Bible which strike as absurd (e.g. if a man rapes a woman, he must marry her) which means there is hope yet - perhaps you don't march around following it word-for-literal word. But that still remains to be seen.
How utterly ironic for you to post that.
No more utterly ironic than for you to refer to Romans 1:22. Best regards.
From the start, you mocked the Bible. Among other things, you said it demands that women be "cowering, submissive robots." You declared the Word of God "hogwash" and "absurd." Thus, I'm sure you can understand if I see no benefit to bother with you any longer. Because, if I were to answer your questions by casting pearls from the Word, I would be guilty of enabling your further mocking. Perhaps you can find someone else to be your straight man.
By the way, the context I mentioned has absolutely nothing to do with cultural or historical context. It is only the textual context. In other words, let Scripture interpret Scripture. It's still a literal reading of Scripture.
Have a nice weekend.
Pardon me, but this explains nothing. "Textual context?" Would you like me to cite the entire chapter? Or how about the entrire book of Corinthians? Perhaps then we can look at it, and you can explain exactly why it doesn't mean what it says, based on this vague notion of "textual context."
Or, you can just leave this floating out there, point a finger at me for being a big meanie and "mocking the Bible," and excuse yourself from the discussion. In fact, if you are going back to my first post (now here we are several posts, and days, later) - perhaps you should have excused yourself at that time. You certainly haven't clarified any position here, nor have you made a compelling argument for letting "scripture interpret scripture," whatever that means.
But no hard feelings - there isn't anyone left in this ghost town of a thread anyways, so this is as good an opportunity to let it die as any, I suppose. We can both walk away satisfied, with me being convinced you cannot stand by your own convictions; and you being convinced that I am a heathen who mocks the Bible. There's probably a little bit of truth in both assumptions.
But I wouldn't expect us to agree on that, either.
Have a nice weekend.
You too. Right now I'm trying to decide between baseball, and pre-season football. Neither one is particularly exciting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.