Craig

Hi everyone,
As has been mentioned above, there has been a discussion at http://solapanel.org/article/equal_and_complementary_a_review/ over the last month on 1 Tim 2:11-15 and related subjects. That discussion closed today so I am continuing here.
I was asking why egals are concerned to emphasize that 1 Tim 2:12 is not a universal command if there are good grounds for believing that “authentien” is always a bad thing to do.
From your reply Kristen, I think some of the reason why I am not following you completely may be that my definition of universal command may be wrong.
I have thought of a universal command as one that is addressed to a particular group because they need to know it and suits their situation, but it could also be applied universally because it is also true universally.
So “love one another” in Jn 13:34 is addressed to a specific group of people applying to their specific situation, but I also understand it to be a universal command.
However, “wash one another’s feet” Jn 13:14 is also addressed to a specific group of people applying to their specific situation, but I believe that it is  is not a universal command. I make these inferences because of the teaching of the rest of the bible and some knowledge of culture and some hopefully sanctified common sense.
If Paul addressed a mixed group, and in that group the men were prone to anger during prayer, he would say that men should pray without anger 1 Tim2:8. I would understand this as both a specific command to a particular group, but I have also understood this to be a universal command because from the rest of the bible it would seem that it is always wrong for men to pray with anger. So this same command could be given at other times and places in the same way and still be God’s will.
I don’t see why, with this understanding of universal command, that a universal command necessarily implies anything at all about the things you and Jereth see. For example, you said
“If we decide that Paul’s words about men praying “without anger or disputing” are universal, then it is logical to infer (thanks, David!) that there is a reason why men need this command to be given specifically to them; i.e., that men, more than women, have throughout history and culture, more tendency to be involved in anger and disputing than women.”
I don’t see this as logical at all, and so this is why I think you must understand “universal command” differently. Do you understand “universal command” as God giving a general list of commands for all time to the whole human race, saying “this is what I want you all to do.”  There is no reference at all to any specific situation at all. If that is the case, then I think I can better understand what you are saying.

So what I meant was that I see the commands of v8-12 operating the same way as each other.
All of them are given to a particular gender because this is the gender that was having the particular problem at the time.
None of them imply that the other gender may not have problems with these at some other time or that one gender is more prone to it than the other.
None of them imply that it is ok for the other gender to ever do the thing prohibited in the command.
All of them could still be given at other times and places and be true (eg it is still correct for men to pray without anger today and women to dress appropriately) This is what I meant by universal command but may have a wrong definition.
Any comments? Am I totally confused? Thanks.