Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Elipe" data-source="post: 1535021" data-attributes="member: 17998">How is it possible for those people to reach whole new levels of delusion and clown? This person's arguments are not supported by the evidence, and this person seems to be making things up out of thin air as &quot;evidence&quot;. The grammatical structure of 14:26-40 does not support the idea that 14:34-35 are quotations from Corinthian men. Also, 14:36 addresses 14:26-35 in entirety, as Paul is writing here to challenge the way the Corinthians were worshiping in such a way that every member was laying special claim to spiritual gifts.In a nutshell, Paul's complaint about the Corinthians was that they were sort of playing a game of one-upmanship over spiritual gifts, and 14:36 is a refutation of the idea that each of these Corinthians had some kind of special VIP access to God that put them above each other or above even the apostles to whom the Gospel originally came.The notion that Paul was some kind of male feminist getting angsty at the Corinthians over their treatment of women is idiotic beyond belief, and mis-attributing 14:36 to this kind of male feminist monologuing is not only stupid, it is straight up evil.And the second part of the post I quoted above, about 1 Tim 2, is also just clownish on a whole another level. Like I said, inverting a &quot;no&quot; into a &quot;no, except under conditions that are pretty much universal, so is as good as yes&quot;.To use a male feminist expression, this person clearly does not understand that &quot;no&quot; means &quot;no&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Elipe, post: 1535021, member: 17998"] How is it possible for those people to reach whole new levels of delusion and clown? This person's arguments are not supported by the evidence, and this person seems to be making things up out of thin air as "evidence". The grammatical structure of 14:26-40 does not support the idea that 14:34-35 are quotations from Corinthian men. Also, 14:36 addresses 14:26-35 in entirety, as Paul is writing here to challenge the way the Corinthians were worshiping in such a way that every member was laying special claim to spiritual gifts. In a nutshell, Paul's complaint about the Corinthians was that they were sort of playing a game of one-upmanship over spiritual gifts, and 14:36 is a refutation of the idea that each of these Corinthians had some kind of special VIP access to God that put them above each other or above even the apostles to whom the Gospel originally came. The notion that Paul was some kind of male feminist getting angsty at the Corinthians over their treatment of women is idiotic beyond belief, and mis-attributing 14:36 to this kind of male feminist monologuing is not only stupid, it is straight up evil. And the second part of the post I quoted above, about 1 Tim 2, is also just clownish on a whole another level. Like I said, inverting a "no" into a "no, except under conditions that are pretty much universal, so is as good as yes". To use a male feminist expression, this person clearly does not understand that "no" means "no". [/QUOTE]

Verification