Knowing the context of this passage is important. This passage is not God speaking to his people, it’s the Apostle Paul telling Timothy how to run a church. It is not the Bible nor God saying women should be silent. Instead it is Paul telling Timothy that they should not preach in Timothy’s ministry.
Some additional historical context, at the time where Timothy was going to minister, many pagan priestesses held gatherings where they would shout and show skin and attracted participants with sex and a show and Paul was telling Timothy that women and sex should not be the thing that draws in people whom he intended to minister too. He suggested they cover up and hide their heads and remain quiet and not be the focus of the moment because he should want to distance himself from what amounts to orgies in the area.
It is not the Bible nor God saying women should be silent. Instead it is Paul telling Timothy that they should not preach in Timothy’s ministry.
That is disingenous, because the Pauline epistles are definitely part of canonical bible scripture in almost all denominations, and has been used as such by Christians as well in the past.
So why are there directives on how to run a church in the official doctrine of this religion? If they’re only meant to be relevant to Timothy, shouldn’t they have been cut with the rest of the apocrypha?
Some additional historical context, at the time where Timothy was going to minister, many pagan priestesses held gatherings where they would shout and show skin and attracted participants with sex and a show
That is hard to believe and sound more like a post hoc rationalisation. Did you get this context from a good source, or was it a partial one, like a christian minister?
This is… not what the bible says. The bible doesn’t suggest that the bible is the word of man and subject to interpretation or waffling. It says that women are lesser than men and should be subject to them and it says it very very clearly.
You should read up on the concept of the Canon. They are part of the New Testament, which is part of the Bible, which is Scripture. This is objective fact. There is no slinking away from that even if the words may disturb you.
I’m a strong atheist but I really hate when people cherry pick bible verses to support an argument either for or against.
It’s stupid when Christians do it and it’s stupid when we do it.
It’s not even that it’s a bad argument technique, which it is, it’s something exclusively done in bad faith to attempt to dunk on someone who isn’t going to interpret it that way anyway.
By the time people are pulling out Bible verses the entire exchange has turned into a dick measuring contest from which nothing will be gained.
It’s not a bad argument technique to pull out the actual primary document and examine it. You can take small portions of a document in a fair minded fashion and examine it without deliberately being misleading or taking it out of context.
The explanation is bubkis historical re-imagining like when the media sane washes the babble that comes out of Trump’s mouth. He’ll spend 15 minutes babbling about how he thinks magnets work and they report hurr durr somewhere in there he said lower taxes.
Ok even if that explanation is bubkis it’s still to my point that using Bible quotes goes nowhere because you’re using the root delusion to attempt to disprove their personal delusions.
You’d be better off quoting Harry potter or anything else that they haven’t already decided the meaning of or integrated into their personality.
every christian believes they live by the bible, which they fortunately don’t, actually
also faith is supported by the existence ilof the “perfect”, god-inspired text, if we can show it is neither, we shake the foundations that religion relies on
Not to be a dick but you fundamentally don’t understand religious people because ignoring what’s obviously in front of you is the core “faith” these people talk endlessly about.
You can’t logically disprove religion because it’s not a logical phenomenon.
You’re arguing with someone’s personal interpretation of the Bible when you argue the Bible with religious people, they have no objectivity to leverage.
That’s why I really don’t like using Bible quotes, it’s just indulging in delusion to attempt to disprove delusion.
I’m not saying it will work on everyone, but the fewer “supporting” arguments people have, the more questions they will not be able to reflexively dismiss
and i’m basing this on myself, i used to be fairly religious, although i was on a “we don’t know what god really is, and the bible is not fully literal” level, so i didn’t have a problem with texts like this
Most modern scholars consider this epistle to have been written after Paul’s death, although a small and declining number of scholars still argue for Pauline authorship.
Since it claims to be written by Paul it ought to be called a forgery.
Wasn’t practische the whole of the current Bible version written in something like 300 C.E.? The older books that have been found, like the Dead Sea Scrolls havent made it into the bible.
Knowing the context of this passage is important. This passage is not God speaking to his people, it’s the Apostle Paul telling Timothy how to run a church. It is not the Bible nor God saying women should be silent. Instead it is Paul telling Timothy that they should not preach in Timothy’s ministry.
Some additional historical context, at the time where Timothy was going to minister, many pagan priestesses held gatherings where they would shout and show skin and attracted participants with sex and a show and Paul was telling Timothy that women and sex should not be the thing that draws in people whom he intended to minister too. He suggested they cover up and hide their heads and remain quiet and not be the focus of the moment because he should want to distance himself from what amounts to orgies in the area.
~former member of the church
That is disingenous, because the Pauline epistles are definitely part of canonical bible scripture in almost all denominations, and has been used as such by Christians as well in the past.
So you’re telling me we could have had a timeline where sunday’s mass would essentially be a strip show?
So why are there directives on how to run a church in the official doctrine of this religion? If they’re only meant to be relevant to Timothy, shouldn’t they have been cut with the rest of the apocrypha?
Indeed, it is not apocryphal, but canon. It is part of scripture and god’s word, regardless of who said it in the text.
That is hard to believe and sound more like a post hoc rationalisation. Did you get this context from a good source, or was it a partial one, like a christian minister?
This is… not what the bible says. The bible doesn’t suggest that the bible is the word of man and subject to interpretation or waffling. It says that women are lesser than men and should be subject to them and it says it very very clearly.
Al the books in the new testament are named after the man who told the story or wrote the letters, so yes it does.
You should read up on the concept of the Canon. They are part of the New Testament, which is part of the Bible, which is Scripture. This is objective fact. There is no slinking away from that even if the words may disturb you.
But those men were divinely inspired, right? After all that’s what I, an atheist, keep hearing from apologists.
I think its pretty clear that the word of man is not just like their opinion its the inspiration of the divine. It’s not really up for debate.
I’m a strong atheist but I really hate when people cherry pick bible verses to support an argument either for or against.
It’s stupid when Christians do it and it’s stupid when we do it.
It’s not even that it’s a bad argument technique, which it is, it’s something exclusively done in bad faith to attempt to dunk on someone who isn’t going to interpret it that way anyway.
By the time people are pulling out Bible verses the entire exchange has turned into a dick measuring contest from which nothing will be gained.
It’s not a bad argument technique to pull out the actual primary document and examine it. You can take small portions of a document in a fair minded fashion and examine it without deliberately being misleading or taking it out of context.
“You can take small portions of a document in a fair minded fashion and examine it without deliberately being misleading or taking it out of context.”
This is literally what’s happening here though, there’s a whole ass comment explaining this quote is out of context that I responded to originally.
The explanation is bubkis historical re-imagining like when the media sane washes the babble that comes out of Trump’s mouth. He’ll spend 15 minutes babbling about how he thinks magnets work and they report hurr durr somewhere in there he said lower taxes.
Ok even if that explanation is bubkis it’s still to my point that using Bible quotes goes nowhere because you’re using the root delusion to attempt to disprove their personal delusions.
You’d be better off quoting Harry potter or anything else that they haven’t already decided the meaning of or integrated into their personality.
You aren’t being fair minded about it or examining it in context.
every christian believes they live by the bible, which they fortunately don’t, actually
also faith is supported by the existence ilof the “perfect”, god-inspired text, if we can show it is neither, we shake the foundations that religion relies on
“if we can show it is neither”
Not to be a dick but you fundamentally don’t understand religious people because ignoring what’s obviously in front of you is the core “faith” these people talk endlessly about.
You can’t logically disprove religion because it’s not a logical phenomenon.
You’re arguing with someone’s personal interpretation of the Bible when you argue the Bible with religious people, they have no objectivity to leverage.
That’s why I really don’t like using Bible quotes, it’s just indulging in delusion to attempt to disprove delusion.
I’m not saying it will work on everyone, but the fewer “supporting” arguments people have, the more questions they will not be able to reflexively dismiss
and i’m basing this on myself, i used to be fairly religious, although i was on a “we don’t know what god really is, and the bible is not fully literal” level, so i didn’t have a problem with texts like this
Most modern scholars consider this epistle to have been written after Paul’s death, although a small and declining number of scholars still argue for Pauline authorship.
Since it claims to be written by Paul it ought to be called a forgery.
That is basically the entirety of the bible though.
Wasn’t practische the whole of the current Bible version written in something like 300 C.E.? The older books that have been found, like the Dead Sea Scrolls havent made it into the bible.