Sign of the times. Simplest answer is usually the right one.
"Paul was a misoginist, no doubt."
Hopefully, you don't truly believe this, as this shows your utter ignorance of Paul's actual epistles and missionary journeys.
First, it's Paul that says "in Christ, there is neither male nor female."
Second, Paul above any other NT writer mentions countless women as laboring beside him in the gospel, not under him or at his whim.
Third, Paul gave more instruction on respecting women and treating them with charity and love than any other NT writer.
Fourth, Paul called for husband and wife to be subject to one another. Almost blasphemy for his current day.
What typically happens is people read certain verses of scripture. They draw their own conclusions without studying the time period, the possible reasons, and investigating the context of a passage and in a knee-jerk reaction, make disparaging comments or invent conspiracy theories in order to explain, seemingly offensive verses. It's very sad, IMHO.
Jesus said: "Blessed is he who is not offended in me."
The same people who dismiss Paul as a misogynist, also embrace his 1 Corinthians 13 chapter on love. It's the buffet mentality of choosing the easy passages of scripture and ignoring the difficult passages with blatant, unfounded ideas.
He also told the men in leadership that they COULD NOT have more than one wife! Almost blasphemy for his day as well.
Bludhall: Should First Corinthians 11:2-16 be a part of the "True" Bible?
Great! So that is in huh!
Well then refute this:
"For the sake of reasoning this matter out, we will suppose for the moment that First Corinthians 11:2-16 does indeed discuss what to do in the gathered assembly.
The question before us now is, "Does this particular passage actually teach that women do pray or prophesy?" Read the passage carefully. It says:
If men pray or prophesy while covered,
then they dishonor Christ – their Head. (11:3,4)
If women pray or prophesy while uncovered,
then they dishonor their husband – their head. (11:3,5)
Where does it say women can pray or prophesy while covered? It simply does not! This is only an assumption which some persons, because of their presuppositions, infuse into the text. It is not a necessary inference from the text itself. There is no way by exegesis or by logic to prove the proposition.
One could just as easily argue that, in the gathered assembly, if women would pray and prophesy while uncovered, then they would dishonor their husband, but if women would pray or prophesy while covered, then they would dishonor Christ in the same way which the men would dishonor Christ if they would pray or prophesy while covered.
The logic goes like this:
• If anyone prays or prophesies in the gathered assembly while covered, then that person dishonors Christ.
• If a woman prays or prophesies in the gathered assembly while uncovered,
then she dishonors her husband.
• Therefore, if a woman prays or prophesies in the gathered assembly, then she dishonors either Christ (covered) or her husband (uncovered).
Or, to translate this back into the logic of the original passage:
• All uncovered persons are permitted to pray and to prophesy in the gathered assembly.
• We know (from elsewhere) that a woman cannot pray or prophesy in the gathered assembly.
• Therefore a woman must be covered (which happens to be the point of the passage).
Why must a woman be covered? Because to be uncovered is to be permitted to pray or to prophesy, but it is shameful for a woman to be permitted to pray or to prophesy in the gathered assembly (First Corinthians 14:35). Only men can be uncovered in the gathered assembly without shaming or dishonoring anyone. Therefore only men can pray and prophesy in the gathered assembly.
The only reason anyone would be uncovered in the gathered assembly would be to pray or to prophesy. Since a woman cannot be uncovered in the gathered assembly without cutting her hair (or, if you prefer, without removing a cloth veil from over her head), she therefore cannot pray or prophesy in the gathered assembly without being put to shame while dishonoring her husband."
Or do you want to take that veres out too now?
No, I do not see how those verses can be used to make any difference because John 10:33 and Matthew 6:5–6 are not in the Bible!
Or if you like this better: This is one of those times that the opposite of what you are asserting is just as true and so really it is me that is right!
(Hey, I am really starting to like this!)
There is a huge intellectual gap between a person that thinks black-and-white, and another person that can see the shades of gray.
It is an inner attitude that must be developed, that only time can help.
Yet, it is also hard to understand that black-and-white thinkers "is" too.
Thinking about it, I guess we can make an analogy with computers.
Most of them are binary (I´m not aware on the state-of-art on processors).
How powerful the computers would be if they could work with the decimal or hexadecimal systems to make decisions?
That is a good subject for statistics.
Not as powerful. Their speed comes from being able to utilize a binary system.
That's like saying 'how fast could humans eat if we could shove 10 or 16 apples down our throats at once'. It just doesn't work that way, our throats are too small.
You'd need to come up with something that can deliver 16 values as fast as you can deliver 2 values (electrically) currently not possible.
The speed is going to come from using different construction materials, not playing with the binary system.
And I have a lot of faith in Bill Gates. :)
I'd pick linux over DOS.
ChemicalSage: Are you in IT?
I'm a windows fan, linux is a distant second.
tom - I'm taking an honours BA in computer science. I'm on coop right now, doing systems administration amongst other things.
Good stuff. Is the work satisfying to you? I was shooting for being a programmer, but I think I'm going to try to be a highschool math teacher.
I can help more people this way, I think anyways.
How far did you get in Programming?
Bludhall: It sure does a lot more good (IMO) than working for some corporation trying to get their software out faster. I can always help homeless people on the side, and I need something that works with the 3-4 years I've already spent on this path.
Tom - not sure how you want me to answer that question. I've been taking computer science for the past 4 years and continue to do so.
Could you write a Program that violated any of these statements (assume A = true):
(A == A) == true
(A && !A) == false
(A || !A) == true
See "ATTN: ChemicalSage".