Conclave sweat threat: Who will be the next pope?
Pope Francis has left the table. The first Latin‑American pontiff played every street of his twelve‑year run
Same here. And all catholic school through high school
No. There is a verse in one of the Epistles that says that women should not speak in church, although it was likely a forgery the Catholic church still accepts it as legitimate.
No. There is a verse in one of the Epistles that says that women should not speak in church, although it was likely a forgery the Catholic church still accepts it as legitimate.
Ever notice that it's typically only stuff that heathens don't like that they call "forgeries?"
The heathens don't seem to have a problem with "Love thy neighbor" being legit.
Ever notice that it's typically only stuff that heathens don't like that they call "forgeries?"
The heathens don't seem to have a problem with "Love thy neighbor" being legit.
It’s likely a forgery because in other epistles Paul addresses his letters to leaders in the church and of those leaders women were named. Also, Paul specifically talks about women praying and prophesying in church.
It is not absolutely impossible, of course, that Paul himself wrote the passage that is now found in 1 Corinthians. But as scholars have long pointed out, Paul elsewhere talks about women leaders in his churches without giving any indication that they are to be silent. He names a minister in Cenchreae, prophets in Corinth, and one of the chief apostles in Rome (Junia). Even more significantly, he has already indicated in 1 Corinthians itself that women are it is interesting to observe that these harsh words against women in 1 Cor 14:34-35 interrupt the flow of what Paul has been saying in the context. Up to v. 34 he has been speaking about "prophecy" and then does so immediately afterwards again in v. 37. It may be, then, that the verses were not an original part of the text of 1 Corinthians at all but originated as a marginal note that later copyists inserted into the text after v. 33 (others inserted it after v. 40). allowed to speak in church — for example when they pray or prophesy, activities that were almost always performed aloud in antiquity. How could he allow women to speak in chapter 11 but disallow it in chapter 14?
Moreover, it is interesting to observe that these harsh words against women in 1 Cor 14:34-35 interrupt the flow of what Paul has been saying in the context. Up to v. 34 he has been speaking about “prophecy” and then does so immediately afterwards again in v. 37. It may be, then, that the verses were not an original part of the text of 1 Corinthians at all but originated as a marginal note that later copyists inserted into the text after v. 33 (others inserted it after v. 40). However the verses came to be placed into the text, it does not appear that they were written by Paul. Who then wrote them? Evidently someone living later, who was familiar with and sympathetic towards the views of women advanced by the author of the Pastoral epistles.
https://ehrmanblog.org/did-paul-tell-wom...
I mean there are plenty of uncomfortable things in the Bible that are not forgeries, so I don’t know why you would say that anything the “heathens” don’t like is a forgery. I don’t particularly like the tacit approval of slavery and war rape in the Bible but I don’t call those forgeries.
Anyway like I said, it doesn’t matter what I think. The Catholic church has made it clear that it thinks women should have a lesser role in the church because the patriarchs won out. (Ironically Jesus’s ministry was likely very positive to women given how they are treated in the Bible, but even he had women in a lesser role according to the gospels. How true that is, I guess we will never truly know in this lifetime.)
Doesn't surprise me at all that the regular school you transferred to were run by a bunch of nutjobs.
I was forced to go to a religious highschool too for two years. I was early accepted to a college and skipped the entire second semester of Christian apologetics, a required senior course, until the principal caught me and gave me lunch detention to retake the class. It should be illegal to force children into religious schools that they can’t consent to.
Lol, I went to a Catholic Christian brother secondary school before transferring to a regular school. Bunch of nutjobs.
By the time I was there most of the brothers had died off. I only had 2 classes with brothers in 4 years.
In 9 years at parochial school before that I only had 1 nun. I think they were all gone by the time I left.
No. There is a verse in one of the Epistles that says that women should not speak in church, although it was likely a forgery the Catholic church still accepts it as legitimate.
They've spoken in church before.
On the radio yesterday I heard part of an interview with a woman who is in some reasonably high position at the Vatican, the first woman to get that high.
Ever notice that it's typically only stuff that heathens don't like that they call "forgeries?"
The heathens don't seem to have a problem with "Love thy neighbor" being legit.
Lots of "Christians" seem to have a problem with that one though.
For example, every Republican currently in congress. And the VP.
I don't think Trump even tries to pretend anymore.
I was forced to go to a religious highschool too for two years. I was early accepted to a college and skipped the entire second semester of Christian apologetics, a required senior course, until the principal caught me and gave me lunch detention to retake the class. It should be illegal to force children into religious schools that they can’t consent to.
Hey, we finally agree on something!
Although my high school was definitely far better than most of the public schools in my city.
I was forced to go to a religious highschool too for two years. I was early accepted to a college and skipped the entire second semester of Christian apologetics, a required senior course, until the principal caught me and gave me lunch detention to retake the class. It should be illegal to force children into religious schools that they can’t consent to.
Yes if you accept that being taught "the world is going to end if we don't stop capitalism" or "there are 100 genders" is religion as well.
It should be illegal to force children into any school which pushes any ideology which isn't super-majoritarian in the country. Any idea that doesn't have 85-90%+ agreement among adults in a society shouldn't be taught in school in general if the public pays any money directly or indirectly.
Yes if you accept that being taught "the world is going to end if we don't stop capitalism" or "there are 100 genders" is religion as well.It should be illegal to force children into any school which pushes any ideology which isn't super-majoritarian in the country. Any idea that doesn't have 85-90%+ agreement among adults in a society shouldn't be taught in school in general i
No more teaching evolution, even in college?
Who was forcing you to go to a religious high school?
I was early accepted to a college and skipped the entire second semester of Christian apologetics, a required senior course, until the principal caught me and gave me lunch detention to retake the class.
Sounds like a great class to me. Almost certainly more interesting than almost any class I ever took in high school.
It should be illegal to force children into religious schools that they can’t consent to.
I think this is a solid idea provided that you also believe that it should be illegal to force a religious child to go to a secular school that they don't consent to.
Quite so. (Air-quotes certainly appropriate there.)
For example, every Republican currently in congress. And the VP.
I don't think Trump even tries to pretend anymore.
I didn't know members of congress had been polled on this topic.
