I didn’t say that homosexuals were misogynous as a group. But, some men are homosexual and some men are misogynist. Some men are bound to be both. Do you mean to say that one cannot be a homosexual and misogynous?
Sure, it’s unfair to judge St. Paul by current standards. Your point about his being a man of his era is valid and well-taken. Thomas Jefferson held slaves at the same time he wrote “…all men are created equal…”.
I am not at all certain that St. Paul was homosexual, that’s why I would like a time machine. If it were true, it would just KILL Jerry Falwell and others of his ilk.
I apologize to all, if my posting could be mistaken as ascribing a blanket negative characterization to homosexuals. Seriously, I meant no offense.
St. Paul liked women. Really, really liked ‘em. Everywhere he went, in his position of leadership, there they were, those good-lookin’ temptresses. Paul had elected to remain unmarried in order to carry our his mission of evangelism. But all around were these succulent, open-mouthed, recently converted from paganism, BABES. Paul couldn’t, in good conscience, avail himself of the opportunities that presented themselves.
Talk about blue balls. Or as Paul put it, a “thorn in the flesh”.
astorian: after reading your post, I had a feeling you might have had my post in mind. In case that’s so, maybe I should offer the following clarification:
While I slice and dice Paul’s logic in 1 Tim. 2:12b-14, my point wasn’t to dump on Paul. He was dictating a letter, and (assuming he was the real author), was probably doing so more with the goal of getting his thoughts onto paper via the scribe’s pen as quickly as possible, so he could get on to whatever his next project was. (It’s hard to imagine Paul sitting still much, even in prison - IMO, he probably paced his cell relentlessly, except while praying.)
He wasn’t thinking in terms of writing Scripture or worrying if he got his logic down pat; he had things he needed to say, and he wanted to get his point across as effectively as possible. Yes, his logic is faulty, but he was a man of his time and place, and as he was dictating, his mind was jumping from one thought to the next. But he was a brilliant man, and one of the great Christian mystics as well; his letters reflect both his intellect and the depth of his spirituality. I’m not particularly down on him for botching a point that a more painstaking writer might’ve caught; he had more important things to do than niggle over every phrase.
Rather, I’m dumping on people who, with the luxury of a couple of thousand years of analysis of Scripture as a base to work from, manage to overlook a number of fairly obvious problems in dealing with this brief passage while preparing to use it as a basis for a major doctrinal edict (in their denomination, anyway).
While I said and meant this, the implication is not that Paul is evil and Jesus is good. Rather, the implication is that Paul was a brilliant man with great spiritual depth - but a flawed person and a creature of his times, just like you and me. As one who accepts Jesus as Lord, I believe that Jesus wasn’t a flawed mortal, or a creature limited to a particular time and place. And as Lord, His words and deeds belong in center stage; anything Paul has to say needs to be interpreted in the light of the life of Christ. If the words of Paul come before those of Jesus in forming our theology, I believe we have it wrong, and I believe that error has significant implications in what we consider ‘true Christianity’ to be.
That isn’t dissing Paul; that’s just acknowledging him as something short of Lord.
This is more of a quibble, but in response to your comparison of Paul and Jesus with respect to the Mosaic Law and to the Gentiles, I would point out that Jesus spoke to and aided Gentiles on a number of occasions (the Samaritan woman at the well, a Roman soldier, adn others), and his obeisance to the Law seems to have been somewhat loose - he was willing to pick grain on the Sabbath, as well as to heal the sick; “the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” was his phrase. And he was willing to sum up the Law and the Prophets in a couple of phrases that certainly didn’t suggest a rigorous insistence on obeying each last detail.
Anyhow, in case you interpreted my post as being that of a Paul-hater, I wanted to clarify that that wasn’t the case. While I have difficulty with some of the things he said, on the whole he’s somebody I look up - way up - to, not down at. But I’m not keen on those who would use a passage of his such as that in the OP blindly or unhinkingly.
Actually, many of my postings (here and elsewhere) are not aimed at anyone in particular. Sometimes, I offer thoughts on the topic in general. Other times, I’m very DEFINITELY trying to rebut someone… but somebody ELSE thinks I’m slamming HIM!
In this case, my first posting wondered why any atheist would CARE whether CHristian churches ordained women. It was Arnold, a self-proclaimed atheist, who started this thread in the first place, after all! I merely asked what I thought was a logical question: if one is an atheist, then one believes Christianity is a fraud. Why, then, should it bother Arnold (or any atheist) that women aren’t allowed in on this fraud?
Heck, it’s the same question I always asked about the Citadel! It’s clear that feminists DESPISE the Citadel and all it stands for- so why are they so determined to get women IN?? (Personally, I’ve never understood why any MEN wanted to go there!)
As for Rufus… first, the Samaritans WERE descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They were shunned by many/most Jews, but they were not “Gentiles” in the way that Irishmen and Italians are. Rather, the Samaritans were the so-called “Lost tribes of Israel.” They were Israelites (descendant of Reuben, Simeon, Joseph, Dan, Asher, Zebulon, Issachar, Napthali, Gad) who’d been conquered by Assyria… but whereas the Jews (descendants of Judah, Benjamin and Levi) had been conquered by Babylonia (and then Persia) and kept the faith, and avoided intermarriage/intermingling with outsiders, the Samaraitans HAD intermarried and intermingled with the Assyrians. THAT was what galled the Jews about the Samaritans.
SO, while JEsus took some guff rrom devout Jews for dealing with Samaritans, it was NOT the same as going out and preaching to GReeks or ROmans, as Paul did.
Astorian: I am afraid you are wrong. What Jesus said was that the Jews had to follow the Law, UNTIL HE died for our Sins. Until then, one had to follow the Law. It took that act of sacrifice to exempt us from the Law. See John4:21, John 8:58, John 14:19-21 John15:9-12 and in Matt5:18, where the “till all be fulfilled” is the Death & Resurection.
Okay, not meaning to start anything, but purely to add another perspective…in a few of the New Testament classes I took it was presented to me in this way:
Jesus came to announce the Coming of the Kingdom of Heaven. Everybody had been expecting this long before Him and long after. Much of what Paul writes–as well as his attitude about marriage–is colored by the belief that this Coming would perhaps happen in his lifetime. So marriages were somewhat of a waste of energy, in that light.
It is, and has been argued that some writings attributed to Paul were not really written by him–the book of Timothy being one of them. What difference does that make? Only that portions of it–namely the verses in question–do not fit with other, more female-friendly passages from other writings attributed to him. (I’m at work so I can’t cite–please forgive) All that aside, perhaps one point worth noting is that the writings of Paul are, for the most part, considered to be letters written to specific congregations. Now, it was presented to me in these classes that Paul may have been answering a question or specific concern within a congregation and not intending his statements to be taken as a general rule for the whole of the burgeoning Christian community.
Like I said, I only offer these as points for consideration–and since we don’t have a Way-Back machine I can’t thump my Bible and declare them to be fact. No matter how you look at it, he comes off pretty harsh in some areas…which I think (IMHO) shows his very human attitudes and very passionate feelings towards his beliefs.
Thank you all for your informative responses. When I said (in my OP) “Paul was a misogynist”, I should add that in the context of his time, his statements don’t have the same effect as they would nowadays. As a relevant example to americans, I’m sure that many of the founding fathers would seem to us to be sexist or racist, but I wouldn’t say that we need to disregard their writings because of that. Many of their opinions reflected the common beliefs of their time.
astorian suggests that since I’m an atheist, I should be indifferent to the fact that women are not encouraged to become leaders in this “fraud” that is organized religion.
My answer: I believe that most religious people (like most atheists, or most people in general) are decent, well-meaning folks, and I’m not going to totally separate myself from believers by drawing a wall between them and me. Since I protest sexism in other sections of society, I will equally protest it when it happens in religious congregations. Also note above where I stated that Paul was doubtless reflecting the common beliefs of his time. If more and more segments of society start viewing people as having different abilities based on gender, those views might eventually become common policy. And that would eventually affect me, the atheist.
(As an aside, I was raised Roman Catholic, and like most people raised in a particular faith, I have an affinity for the religion that is most familiar to me. For example, if my children asked me about God or were interested in a religious education, my first instinct would probably be to point them to the Catholic church. So I also hope that the RC will eventually accord women a more equal role in their clergy.)
I understood verse 13 as referring to Genesis Chapter 2, verses 15-24, which say (paraphrasing) that God took man and settled him in the garden of Eden to take care of it. Then God said “It is not right that ther man should be alone. I shall make him a helper.” Couldn’t you infer from that that God’s intent would be for the woman to be an assistant to the man, who was actually the one in charge?
Ok, let’s try to get this straight:
Southern Baptists are not bound by central theology. Each individual and each individual church interprets the bible for themselves. Conservatives have taken over the Convention and attempted to force their views on everyone else. Even though they are called “Conservative” in fact, their attempts to coerce every Baptist into lockstep is in fact, a RECENT movement in the history of the Baptist Church. Traditional baptist thought was that each individual would read the Bible and interpret it for him/herself. Many Southern Baptist churches do NOT agree with the recent takeover of the SBC by the conservatives. Many SBC churches have, as a consequence, reduced or eliminated their contributions to the SBC. Many of us Southern Baptists continue to hold to our traditional BAptist Beliefs and interpret the Bible for ourselves. Please stop telling me, a Southern Baptist, what I believe based on the media reports of the Southern Baptist Convention.
As one of those traditional Southern Baptists, I think Paul’s emphasis on reducing the role of women in the early church was an attempt to comply with cultural norms. Paul was not totally adverse to women in church–remember Dorcas, Lydia and others? My personal thought is that he recognized the weakness of weak men–even now, some (note the some–not all or even most) men will abdicate responsibility when women will assume it. Maybe Paul wanted these particular men to be responsible and knew that they wouldn’t step up to the plate unless they had to.
This is all just what I’ve heard… never really researched it myself. The way it has been explained to me, is that at that time period Christianity was having to compete with several different goddess religions. Of course the goddess religions appealed to the women, and so they were causing problems inside the churches. When Paul saw this was a problem, he said what he said.
Because there’s something a little unpalatable about an entrenched institution that wields an enormous amount of social, political, educational and moral power (not only in the United States, but worldwide), and was in fact for many, many decades THE organizing pillar of the community, (and still does perform that function for many communities), yet nevertheless excludes half the population from important leadership positions?
I’m not a real big catholic, but I am taking scripture class (junior year religion) this year, and recently we’ve been reading Paul’s letters. At the end of Romans (Romans:16 1-3), Paul mentions Phoebe: “But I commend to you Phoebe, our sister, who is in the ministry of the church at Cenchrae, that you may recieve her in the Lord as becomes saints, and that you may assist her in whatever business she may have need of you. For she too has assisted many, including myself.” This is hardly a sexist view. Obviously, Phoebe was an important member, if not leader of the church at Cenchrae, and even Paul realizes her gifts, citing instances in which she assisted him. Women most likely served an important role in the early church, and if anyone tries to use scripture to debate that, throw that verse at 'em.
Well, some branches of Judaism do. The Reform movement has had women rabbis for years. I’m embarrassed to say that I don’t know what the Conservative position is. I know there are Conservative women cantors, and I think that women are accepted as Conservative rabbis, but I can’t think of any in my personal experience. Any JTS students want to help me out?
Chaim and Zev explained to me in another thread why (in the Orthodox shuls) women can’t lead men in prayer; someone who is obligated to pray/perform a mitzvah can fulfil the requirement for another, but someone who is not cannot. Men are obligated, women are not (this is much simplified, and not applicable to all situations/prayers/mitzvot, etc.) For details, ask Chaim/Zev/sdimbert.
You have to take in consideration the context of the scripture to the day and time. The church was very new, being established after the death of Christ. There were still a lot of issues and problems the churches were facing. There was a lot of strife and questions. Many of the later writings of the Bible were directed at these churches to give them leadership.
Churches have evolved more today with a solid foundation in their beliefs. I have to state that my church does have a woman pastor, but her husband is also a pastor. They share the ministry, but she is the one that does the sermons. Our associate pastor is also a woman, she has never married.
We are an independent church. We have our own missionaries and we maintain and support our church as members.
I don’t proclaim to understand how the Southern Baptist Convention works, I’m sure it has it’s advantages and disadvantages. But I am glad that we aren’t part of it. It seems to be too confining.
Our members aren’t held to any type of dress code, we encourage people to come even in jeans. We also encourage everyone to come, black, white, green or yellow. We do have several black members that add to our congregation and we are glad to have them.
I was listening to Pastor Jack Hayford one morning when he spoke on this subject. IIRC, he mentioned that the original greek words used in this passage for submission and teaching were translated differently here than anywhere else in the new testament. He quoted a couple of other passages that used the same greek words but the meanings were translated differently.
Translations rely on too much interpretation of what a particular word means in context. I’m sure you could take that same passage and reinterpret it differently just by changing a few words. Since too many people believe that the bible is the “inerrant” word of God, I don’t think you’re going to find a big push to change the translations that might be in error.