From: Paul S. Dixon (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat May 16 1998 - 12:47:35 EDT
On Sat, 16 May 1998 07:28:06 -0400 Jonathan Robie <email@example.com>
>At 02:19 AM 5/16/98 EDT, Paul S. Dixon wrote:
>>Your reference to 1 Cor 11 is problematic. There is no way you can use
>>that passage as a guiding light for interpreting 1 Tim 2. The 1 Cor 11
>>passage says only that a woman who prays or prophesies with her
>>head uncovered shames her head. It does not say a woman who prays
>>or prophesies with her head covered does not shame her head, and it
>>is logically invalid to deduce it (negative inference fallacy).
>This confuses natural language reasoning with formal logic. If I say I'm
>hungry, and you tell you that there is a restaurant around the corner,
>I am right to assume that I believe it is also open, that they still
>food, and that it is likely to be in my price range, even though none of
>this is formally implied by your statement that there is a restaurant
>the corner. The whole reason you are telling me about the restaurant is
>that I can get something to eat.
>If Paul doesn't believe that it is OK for women to pray or prophesy,
>why is he telling us about the proper headgear for such activities?
Welcome back from Aussieland, Jonathan. When are you going to give
us a summary of your pilgrimmage? Who all did you see while there?
If you reject the application of logical principles to the 1 Cor 11:5
passage, at least be consistent and don't then try to argue that
1 Tim 2 must be interpreted in light of your findings in 1 Cor 11.
Someone was arguing like this, and it is not something to let fly by
unnoticed or unchallenged.
So, how is the food in Australia? Fight any crocs lately?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:44 EDT