Originally posted by robbie carrobieDid you even bother to read my entire post? Paul's teachings make it quite clear that he viewed females as inferior to males. So far as I know, Jesus did not teach these things or anything like them. If you think He did, please post the passages. It does not logically follow that Jesus necessarily held the belief that females are inferior to males just because the 12 documented apostles were all male.
nope, its only problematic when you dont understand its implications. It is merely, as so much of Pauls writings are, procedural, for the sake of harmony within the structure of the congregation.
You will note that there were no females chosen as apostles, was Christ discriminating, let me here you say it thinkofone, was he, hardly. You will n ...[text shortened]... icly admit that Christ and the Apostles were also being discriminatory. let me here you say it.
nope, its only problematic when you dont understand its implications. It is merely, as so much of Pauls writings are, procedural, for the sake of harmony within the structure of the congregation.
Oh "procedural". Kind of like when it was common for blacks to have to ride in the back of the bus "for the sake of harmony". Or when blacks were not allowed to drink from the same public water fountains as whites "for the sake of harmony".
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne"Paul's teachings make it quite clear that he viewed females as inferior to males."
Did you even bother to read my entire post? Paul's teachings make it quite clear that he viewed females as inferior to males. So far as I know, Jesus did not teach these things or anything like them. If you think He did, please post the passages. It does not logically follow that Jesus necessarily held the belief that females are inferior to males just be ...[text shortened]... llowed to drink from the same public water fountains as whites "for the sake of harmony".
So you say. Nobody else believes that. Only the few fringe out in left field types with nothing better to do than malign, impugn, misrepresent, and diminish the Word of God.
2 edits
Originally posted by josephwRead my earlier posts and the passages I cited. Paul taught that women are to be silent and submissive to males in church. Paul also taught that there is a hierarchy: God -> Christ -> Man -> Woman. Do you honestly believe that this does not demonstrate a view that females are inferior to males? If you do, show how the passages I cited can be taken otherwise instead of just making vacuous allegations.
[b]"Paul's teachings make it quite clear that he viewed females as inferior to males."
So you say. Nobody else believes that. Only the few fringe out in left field types with nothing better to do than malign, impugn, misrepresent, and diminish the Word of God.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOnethinkofone - Paul's teachings make it quite clear that he viewed females as inferior to males. Robbie says, 'nothing but mere opinion and an unfounded assertion.'
Did you even bother to read my entire post? Paul's teachings make it quite clear that he viewed females as inferior to males. So far as I know, Jesus did not teach these things or anything like them. If you think He did, please post the passages. It does not logically follow that Jesus necessarily held the belief that females are inferior to males just be llowed to drink from the same public water fountains as whites "for the sake of harmony".
it has been pointed out to you, that Paul was following the apostolic model, set by Christ himself. perhaps you can point out from scripture where Christ ordained any female? no, then you have some further slithering to do, to explain why not.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWhy should I get into it with you? You know you have a problem with Paul, so what's the point?
Read my earlier posts and the passages I cited. Paul taught that women are to be silent and submissive to males in church. Paul also taught that there is a hierarchy: God -> Christ -> Man -> Woman. Do you honestly believe that this does not demonstrate a view that females are inferior to males? If you do, show how the passages I cited can be taken otherwise instead of just making vacuous allegations.
Let's see whether or not we can honestly seek to find resolution in this debate.
Can we agree that there is a hierarchy?
1 edit
Okay here are the passages in question:
1 Corinthians 14
34 The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.
1 Timothy 2
9 Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, 10 but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. 11 A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
1 Corinthians 11
3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.
I've already provided my analysis. You guys can provide your own. Clearly Paul teaches that women are to quietly and submissively receive instruction and are not even allowed to ask questions, but must wait to ask their husbands at home. Paul also teaches that there is a hierarchy with God at the top and woman at the bottom with Christ and man serving as intermediaries.
Perhaps you guys don't see this as females being viewed as inferior to males, but then it is only because you are blind.
If either of you believe that Jesus taught these specific things or anything like them, please post the passages. Vague references to "following the apostolic model" do not excuse the explicit bigotry shown above.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI'll try this again.
Okay here are the passages in question:
1 Corinthians 14
34 [b]The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.
1 Timo ...[text shortened]... eferences to "following the apostolic model" do not excuse the explicit bigotry shown above.[/b]
Can we agree that there is a hierarchy?
2 edits
Originally posted by josephwI'm not even sure what you mean by such a vague question and how it fits into this topic.
I'll try this again.
Can we agree that there is a hierarchy?
Why don't you just state what you're thinking about and I'll take a look? I've already presented the passages and my analysis. I'd think you could just present your analysis also.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThis is what I mean. I had, at first, composed a reply that wasn't very nice. You see, you are extremely difficult to go back and forth with. There seems to be a kind of vindictiveness to your posts that's sets me off. (I admit I may be misreading you) I would really like to get away from an argument and insert a little courtesy in this exchange. I asked the question not so much for an answer, but more for finding common ground. Let me explain what I think concerning women and what the Bible says about them.
I'm not even sure what you mean by such a vague question and how it fits into this topic.
Why don't you just state what you're thinking about and I'll take a look? I've already presented the passages and my analysis. I'd think you could present your analysis.
First of all, I don't believe that women are inferior to men in as much as they are equal to men in the eyes of God. But one might ask the question 'how so'?
In soul.
Now, in the context of our roles as humans, male and female, we are not so equal. Men have certain strengths and weaknesses, and women have certain strengths and weaknesses. That's just the way God made us.
Why? To do his will, that's why. It all comes down to the will of God.
Is it for me to say that someone, whether they be male or female, is inferior? I think not.
Now concerning the verses you cited. I don't see the word 'inferior' in them.
Originally posted by josephw"Now, in the context of our roles as humans, male and female, we are not so equal.
This is what I mean. I had, at first, composed a reply that wasn't very nice. You see, you are extremely difficult to go back and forth with. There seems to be a kind of vindictiveness to your posts that's sets me off. (I admit I may be misreading you) I would really like to get away from an argument and insert a little courtesy in this exchange. I asked the ...[text shortened]... not.
Now concerning the verses you cited. I don't see the word 'inferior' in them.
Why? To do his will, that's why"
tell me please, what are those roles? and do you think men and women should be treated differentely because of that?
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI find this interesting. Does anyone else interpret genesis in this way? It appears to be absolving Adam (and thus all men) of any guilt in the garden of eden and placing the blame on Eve (and thus all women).
1 Timothy 2
...
14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
I am interested in:
1. Am I understanding Paul correctly?
2. Does anyone here agree / disagree with him.
3. Are the actions of Adam or Eve any reason to make any judgement about men or women in general?
4. Does the punishment given by God in genesis apply unequally to men and women?
Originally posted by josephwThe point isn't whether or not you view women as inferior to men, but whether or not Paul's teachings demonstrate a view that women are inferior to men.
This is what I mean. I had, at first, composed a reply that wasn't very nice. You see, you are extremely difficult to go back and forth with. There seems to be a kind of vindictiveness to your posts that's sets me off. (I admit I may be misreading you) I would really like to get away from an argument and insert a little courtesy in this exchange. I asked the ...[text shortened]... not.
Now concerning the verses you cited. I don't see the word 'inferior' in them.
Whether or not the word "inferior" appears on the verses is irrelevant.
From Merriam-Webster
in·fe·ri·or
1 : situated lower down : lower
Paul taught that women are to quietly and submissively receive instruction and are not even allowed to ask questions, but must wait to ask their husbands at home. Paul also taught that there is a hierarchy with God at the top and woman at the bottom with Christ and man serving as intermediaries.
Paul instructs that women are to quietly submit to the authority of men and places them below men in his hierarchy.
Clearly this demonstrates a view that women are lower than, hence inferior to, men.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt appears to be absolving Adam (and thus all men) of any guilt in the garden of eden and placing the blame on Eve (and thus all women).
I find this interesting. Does anyone else interpret genesis in this way? It appears to be absolving Adam (and thus all men) of any guilt in the garden of eden and placing the blame on Eve (and thus all women).
I am interested in:
1. Am I understanding Paul correctly?
2. Does anyone here agree / disagree with him.
3. Are the actions of Adam or Eve any ...[text shortened]... en in general?
4. Does the punishment given by God in genesis apply unequally to men and women?
I see nothing that indicates absolution. Rather Paul uses it to try to explain why he teaches that "woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness." If you also consider 1 Corinthians 11:3, it seems he believes that just as man is below Christ, woman is below man. I know of no teachings by Jesus that support this view. This is true of a number of teachings by Paul. Paul was no Jesus. It's tragic that so many Christians place his teachings above those of Jesus.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneSo what does he mean when he says Adam was not deceived? Did Adam knowingly sin then? Or was Adam required to follow the commands of Eve?
I see nothing that indicates absolution.
I realize that here Paul is using it as a tool for other purposes, but he clearly must have the view of Adam and Eve that he is using for his argument (even if he does not believe in a literal reading of Genesis) and one would think that his audience either has the same view or can easily be persuaded of it.
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
Originally posted by twhiteheadI find this interesting. Does anyone else interpret genesis in this way?
I find this interesting. Does anyone else interpret genesis in this way? It appears to be absolving Adam (and thus all men) of any guilt in the garden of eden and placing the blame on Eve (and thus all women).
I am interested in:
1. Am I understanding Paul correctly?
2. Does anyone here agree / disagree with him.
3. Are the actions of Adam or Eve any ...[text shortened]... en in general?
4. Does the punishment given by God in genesis apply unequally to men and women?
I don't, but that's not the point. Paul is stating in no uncertain terms that's how he interprets the Genesis story.
4. Does the punishment given by God in genesis apply unequally to men and women?
No. Paul is conveniently overlooking that the punishment meted out to both Adam and Eve is the same. He's trying to interpret Genesis in a convoluted, patriarchal way but if God thought that it was only Eve that was at fault he could have very easily dispatched her and taken another rib, eh?
Paul is only human and reflecting the bias of his time. Genesis takes a far more even view of sin - it is a human condition, and a condition that is shared equally between the sexes.