NT on women

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
it made it into the Bible because its inspired of God. Not sexist, just awesome.

"made it into the Bible because its inspired of God" i often forget that this is your starting point before forming any opinion. it explains why your arguments are always so vague, tenuous and illogical.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
"made it into the Bible because its inspired of God" i often forget that this is your starting point before forming any opinion. it explains why your arguments are always so vague, tenuous and illogical.

yeah right, Mr 'the truth is irrelevant', it explains why my arguments are so awesome! the logic unassailable, the reasons so clear, the references so sound, indeed, once you take out the supernatural element from scripture nothing in it makes sense.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Are you denying that unless you look at the immediate context and the context of the Bible as a whole that you will not be able to come to a more accurate understanding of the verse, are you really? To state that no possible context makes it ok is nonsense, its the same close minded approach as saying, forget the context the verse is what it is, ouc ...[text shortened]... o have limited their search for truth to unintelligent agencies, a close minded approach. is it?

The verse says this.
"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."

You say that there is 'context' that makes this verse morally ok.

And I disagree, there is no possible context which makes it ok to
say that women "must be in submission" to men, that they must
ask their husbands to explain things to them.

There is just nothing at all whatsoever it could possibly say that
justifies that.

Just as there is nothing that justifies slavery, or genocide.

There is no 'context' that makes it ok.

Originally posted by googlefudge
The verse says this.
"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."

You say that there is 'context' that makes this verse mo ...[text shortened]... there is nothing that justifies slavery, or genocide.

There is no 'context' that makes it ok.

Fine don't examine the verse in its immediate context or in the context of the verse in the Bible as a whole, you will never understand the verse.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Fine don't examine the verse in its immediate context or in the context of the verse in the Bible as a whole, you will never understand the verse.

If there were such a thing as 'the book of atheism'.

And that book had a verse that said,

"and all theists who call themselves Jehovah's Witnesses
Should be hunted down and killed like rabid dogs"

Then do you think there is some possible context in which
that could be ok?

Originally posted by googlefudge
If there were such a thing as 'the book of atheism'.

And that book had a verse that said,

"and all theists who call themselves Jehovah's Witnesses
Should be hunted down and killed like rabid dogs"

Then do you think there is some possible context in which
that could be ok?

it depends in what context the statement was placed, one cannot nor should not be dogmatic. It might be the uttering of someone undergoing a delusion, or a nightmare scenario, Hitler stated something similar and under the context of national socialism it seemed right to him. NO dogma!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
it depends in what context the statement was placed, one cannot nor should not be dogmatic. It might be the uttering of someone undergoing a delusion, or a nightmare scenario, Hitler stated something similar and under the context of national socialism it seemed right to him. NO dogma!

If the next line had read "nah just kidding they're harmless just ignore them"
that wouldn't make the statement ""and all theists who call themselves
Jehovah's Witnesses Should be hunted down and killed like rabid dogs"
ok. It would be simply disowned.


I am not asking if it's possible that the book doesn't really mean it.

My question was, is there any context that makes that statement ok?
Disowning it, doesn't make it ok, that's why it's being disowned.


My response to the verse in the thread OP is that there is no context
that makes that verse ok, simply saying that it could be disowned in a
different verse doesn't change that.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
it depends in what context the statement was placed, one cannot nor should not be dogmatic. It might be the uttering of someone undergoing a delusion, or a nightmare scenario, Hitler stated something similar and under the context of national socialism it seemed right to him. NO dogma!

Good grief man, you do come out with some extraordinary nonsense.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Good grief man, you do come out with some extraordinary nonsense.

why is 'we should not be dogmatic in our thinking', nonsense?

Originally posted by googlefudge
If the next line had read "nah just kidding they're harmless just ignore them"
that wouldn't make the statement ""and all theists who call themselves
Jehovah's Witnesses Should be hunted down and killed like rabid dogs"
ok. It would be simply disowned.


I am not asking if it's possible that the book doesn't really mean it.

My question was, is ...[text shortened]... at verse ok, simply saying that it could be disowned in a
different verse doesn't change that.

no one is talking of disowning anything, unless you examine it in its context you simply cannot understand it and will have a purely one dimensional perspective of the verse, that is your folly, not the Bibles.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
why is 'we should not be dogmatic in our thinking', nonsense?

I think it was all the other stuff you said he was objecting to.

However when someone as dogmatic as you says that people shouldn't be
dogmatic there is a level of hypocrisy at work.

What is the bible if not dogma.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no one is talking of disowning anything, unless you examine it in its context you simply cannot understand it and will have a purely one dimensional perspective of the verse, that is your folly, not the Bibles.

That could only ever apply if context could change the meaning.

This is not one of those times.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I think it was all the other stuff you said he was objecting to.

However when someone as dogmatic as you says that people shouldn't be
dogmatic there is a level of hypocrisy at work.

What is the bible if not dogma.

and yet you are the ones who have limited your search for truth to purely material agencies and here I am encouraging you to be less dogmatic, wow, I think the empirical evidence is stacked in my favor and you are the ones who are closed minded and unwilling to look at any perspective that does not fit in with your preconceptions.

The Bible is a gateway to intellectual emancipation, God is limitless, truth eternal.

Originally posted by googlefudge
That could only ever apply if context could change the meaning.

This is not one of those times.

how would you know? you are not willing to even consider the prospect.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
and yet you are the ones who have limited your search for truth to purely material agencies and here I am encouraging you to be less dogmatic, wow, I think the empirical evidence is stacked in my favor and you are the ones who are closed minded and unwilling to look at any perspective that does not fit in with your preconceptions.

The Bible is a gateway to intellectual emancipation, God is limitless, truth eternal.

There is no empirical evidence for your position.

And the bible is a big steaming pile of ****.

What you are doing is talking nonsense.


Context is relevant only when context could alter the meaning.

If context can't alter the meaning, then it isn't relevant.


There is no context in which "it's ok to kill Jews if you want to" is ok.

Period.

Go ahead, show me context that makes that sentence morally ok.