jmoon@lehi3b15.csee.lehigh.edu (Jonggu Moon [890911]) (05/08/91)
I'm sorry if this topic has been addressed before. In today's society, we are taught that women and men should be treated equally. That each should be given the same priveleges and rights. Indeed as I read 1 Timothy 2:9-15 it seems to run counter to my deepest sense of right and wrong. What is right ? What is wrong ? The most common explanation is that Paul is just a mysoganist and all his comments about women are just personal opinions and NOT inspired by the Holy Spirit. But if that is the case, what other things did Paul say that we can ignore ? - jon jm0h@ns.cc.lehigh.edu (Expires) jmoon@lehi3b15.csee.lehigh.edu (Jul1991) jon@home moon@work you@strange.places [The view that Paul hates women actually seems to be fairly rare, though I have heard it from time to time. More common is the concept that he is reflecting views of his culture on appropriate roles for women. I think most Christians, even those who don't feel bound by his arguments, understand that he considered women to be equally children of God. --clh]
jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (05/11/91)
In article <May.8.03.55.56.1991.10594@athos.rutgers.edu> jmoon@lehi3b15.csee.lehigh.edu (Jonggu Moon [890911]) writes:
+
+[The view that Paul hates women actually seems to be fairly rare,
+though I have heard it from time to time. More common is the concept
+that he is reflecting views of his culture on appropriate roles for
+women. I think most Christians, even those who don't feel bound by
I believe the Bible only mentions 2 women as 'judges' of Israel. In
each of the these cases it is mentioned as an 'insult' in that the
men were so hopelessly evil that 'God' had to 'call' call a woman.
Deborah is one, I can't recall the other.
This would suggest a 'strong' bias to only consider men for
positions of leadership. In most other cases of women in power, the
woman is leading into 'apostacy'. Re-enforcing the concept of woman
as evil, and in need of 'control'.(Esther is probably the only
counter example but she was married to a 'pagan', and 'won' her
battle in all due humility).
--
John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
[I just looked at Judges 4. It says simply that Deborah was a
prophet, and was serving as a judge for Israel. I see no sign that
this was because males were unavailable. Another example of a female
authority figure would be Huldah, the prophet who was consulting when
the book of the Law was found. (2 Kings 22). --clh]tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (05/13/91)
OFM writes... >[The view that Paul hates women actually seems to be fairly rare, >though I have heard it from time to time. More common is the concept >that he is reflecting views of his culture on appropriate roles for >women. I think most Christians, even those who don't feel bound by >his arguments, understand that he considered women to be equally >children of God. --clh] Well, perhaps it's rare among scholars, but it's not so rare among a number of lay women I know. (Especially Roman Catholics.) They've been so beaten over the head with little snippets from Pauline Epistles, that they've been soured to everything the man ever wrote! They've been convinced that he was a woman hater, and as a result, they hate *him*! They've been convinced that these snippets (some of questionable authorship) are Paul's only thoughts on the matter of women, and so they won't read a wonderful work like Paul's letter to the Romans, where they might get a more balanced view of the man. The church has done a vast dis-service to its women and to Paul by using these extractions to "keep women in their place". Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton
smithjh@argus.CS.ORST.EDU (Jeremy Smith) (05/14/91)
In article <May.13.02.09.40.1991.12175@athos.rutgers.edu> tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) writes: >Well, perhaps it's rare among scholars, but it's not so rare among a >number of lay women I know. (Especially Roman Catholics.) ... >They've been convinced that these snippets (some of questionable >authorship) are Paul's only thoughts on the matter of women, and so they >won't read a wonderful work like Paul's letter to the Romans, where they >might get a more balanced view of the man. The church has done a vast >dis-service to its women and to Paul by using these extractions to "keep >women in their place". This frustration is not without cause, but Paul's words are not without reason. Unfortunately, people interpret "man is the head of a woman" to mean "women are second-class citizens." Women are no less precious than men. Women are no less important than men. Having said this, let us not have the eye do the work of an ear in the body of Christ; let us not have the feet do the work of hands. To deny men their place and calling from God does not achieve God's will. To deny women their place and calling from God does not achieve God's will. Paul instructs us that God desires certain differences between men and women are to be recognized by the church. Even though our current popular myths would have us believe that this is evil sexism, we know that only God's formula for conduct will bear fruit. Let us lay down this bickering, and concur in our will to God's authority to make the rules. Let's stop treating women like second-class citizens and treat them as God commands. Let's stop trying to second guess God's rules and have faith(pistis). Peace and Grace, Jeremy.
tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (05/17/91)
In article <May.13.23.51.00.1991.5247@athos.rutgers.edu> smithjh@argus.CS.ORST.EDU (Jeremy Smith) writes: >... Let us lay down this bickering, >and concur in our will to God's authority to make the rules. Let's stop >treating women like second-class citizens and treat them as God >commands. Let's stop trying to second guess God's rules and have >faith(pistis). I of course agree with you that bickering gets us nowhere. It is most important that we get on with the work of the kingdom. I believe that acceptance is central to Paul's teaching, and to Christ's. The body of Christ has been divided, and it fights itself. How I long for unity in the church. I do not believe that in striving for unity of purpose, or unity of faith we need to have uniformity of faith, or of practice. I am willing to accept that you believe in following God's will. And I can understand how in faithfully reading your Bible you may conclude that women are not ordained by God. In Acts 11, some of the apostles lay into Peter for staying with uncircumcised Gentiles. But, Peter witnesses on behalf of the Gentiles, that they were given the same gift of the spirit that they were. They rejoice, and change their minds. Certainly their original stand was biblicaly based, but when faced with Peter's testimony, they decided that God felt differently. I will gladly testify that I know women who have been ordained by God, and that the gifts he has given to them are no less than the gifts he has given to men. Indeed in some cases the women I know seem to be more gifted than many men. I don't believe you'll afford me the same faith the early Christians afforded Peter, but I'm certain that many people will give similar testimony. How are we to find unity with a problem like this? I believe it is quite simple. I accept that your belief is different from my own. I believe that both of us work to serve the same Lord. You are my brother, and I am yours. Let us rejoice in our communion. Perhaps, as we work together, your beliefs may change, perhaps mine will, but I don't believe that this difference should prevent us from working for and worshipping our Lord together. Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton
smithjh@argus.CS.ORST.EDU (Jeremy Smith) (05/22/91)
I pray that my response here is in harmony with I Corinthians 13 and Jude 3. In article <May.17.02.20.53.1991.27494@athos.rutgers.edu> tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) writes: > >I of course agree with you that bickering gets us nowhere. It is most >important that we get on with the work of the kingdom. I believe that >acceptance is central to Paul's teaching, and to Christ's. Acceptance of what? Acceptance of whom? Certainly not darkness: "...and do not have fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them." Ephesians 5:11 Not those who rebel from scripture: "If anyone does not follow our word(message) through the epistle, mark this man and do not associate with him so that he may be put to shame." 2Thessalonians 3:14 >The body of >Christ has been divided, and it fights itself. How I long for unity in >the church. > >I do not believe that in striving for unity of purpose, or unity of >faith we need to have uniformity of faith, or of practice. I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. But it should be consistent with I John 1:6,7 "If we say that we have fellowship with him and walk in the darkness, we are lying and not doing the truth; but if we walk in the light as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another and the blood of Jesus is cleansing us from all sin." >I am willing >to accept that you believe in following God's will. And I can >understand how in faithfully reading your Bible you may conclude that >women are not ordained by God. > Mainly, I am curious how Christians arrive at a different interpretation than my own of I Corinthians 14:34: "Let women be silent in the churches, for it is not permitted for them to speak, but let them be subject, as the law also says." (I am not being sarcastic here, or anywhere else in this posting) >In Acts 11, some of the apostles lay into Peter for staying with >uncircumcised Gentiles. But, Peter witnesses on behalf of the Gentiles, >that they were given the same gift of the spirit that they were. They >rejoice, and change their minds. Certainly their original stand was >biblicaly based, but when faced with Peter's testimony, they decided >that God felt differently. > 1) Circumcision has never been a basis for salvation or righteousness. There has never been righteousness in the law, therefore the folly of the apostles was not biblically based. God is too smart to contrdict himself. Abraham is an example of a pre-New Testament uncircumcised Godly man. 2) A primary function of the apostles was to spread the gospel to the corners of the earth and to record it. Although the Apostles were vulnerable to some misunderstanding in this case, they alone were given charge to record the "...once delivered faith"-- Jude 3. Speculation on the limitations of the apostles is not sufficient motivation to dismiss or alter their account. Only Jesus Christ spoke with more authority(being God incarnate). Arguments that the apostles writings were specifically relevant to the culture of their day do not have basis in any scripture that I am aware of. When are the oracles of God culture dependant? >I will gladly testify that I know women who have been ordained by God, >and that the gifts he has given to them are no less than the gifts he >has given to men. Indeed in some cases the women I know seem to be more >gifted than many men. > Certainly scripture, to my knowledge, does not prohibit women to share the gospel(outside of church) or encourage or do many other things which are priceless in God's eyes (and in mine). And although I have no direct scriptural reference, in my opinion women are capable of performing spiritual duties that cannot be done by men. However, it is clear from scripture that women are not to exercise authority over men in spiritual matters. "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to be in silence" I Timothy 2:12 >I don't believe you'll afford me the same faith the early Christians >afforded Peter, but I'm certain that many people will give similar >testimony. How are we to find unity with a problem like this? > The scripture is "God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof(testing), for instruction in righteousness." Unless the Holy Spirit somehow teaches us that the time has come for both men and women to lead each other, we(Christians) know that the scripture is profitable for use as a test for truth in these matters. Let us also realize that ever since the fall of Adam and Eve, men and women have had different spiritual roles (though having same spiritual goals). Unity in the church will happen as God desires. We are unable to tell the wheat from the tare before they reach maturity though, and unity with tares is not God's will. >I believe it is quite simple. I accept that your belief is different >from my own. I believe that both of us work to serve the same Lord. >You are my brother, and I am yours. Let us rejoice in our communion. >Perhaps, as we work together, your beliefs may change, perhaps mine >will, but I don't believe that this difference should prevent us from >working for and worshipping our Lord together. > > > Tom Blake > SUNY-Binghamton We must concur in our will to the authority of Jesus Christ to make the rules. This is our hope. Peace and Grace, Jeremy [As to how people arrive at a different understanding of I Cor 14:34, consider that I Cor 11 talks about what a women should wear when she speaks in church. This suggests that I Cor 14:34 can't be taken entirely as wholly prohibiting women from speaking in church. (or that Paul is being inconsistent). The most common reconciliation seems to be to assume that In I Cor 14, Paul had in mind some specific sort of disturbance. 14:35 implies that what he has in mind is asking questions rather than praying or teaching, so one theory is that women were asking their husbands questions and being disruptive in doing so. This is the problem in reading only one side of correspondence... There's also some textual evidence suggesting that 14:34-35 is a later interpolation into the text. I don't find the evidence terribly strong, though I don't claim to be an expert on textual analysis --clh]
tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (05/24/91)
In article <May.22.00.34.52.1991.1010@athos.rutgers.edu> smithjh@argus.CS.ORST.EDU (Jeremy Smith) writes: >In article <May.17.02.20.53.1991.27494@athos.rutgers.edu> tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake [That's me!]) writes: >> >>I of course agree with you that bickering gets us nowhere. It is most >>important that we get on with the work of the kingdom. I believe that >>acceptance is central to Paul's teaching, and to Christ's. >Acceptance of what? Acceptance of whom? Acceptance of our brothers and sisters beliefs, even if they vary from our own, assuming that they are attempting to follow the laws of God as earnestly as we are. (I am not advocating the acceptance of Satanists, their purposes are not ours. They are not trying to follow the laws of God, they reject the laws of God intentionally.) For instance, you are fond of I Corinthians 14:34. Let's look earlier in the chapter... I Corinthians 14:1-4 It is love, then that you should strive for. Set your hearts on spiritual gifts, especially the gift of proclaiming God's message. 2 The one who speaks in strange tongues does not speak to others but to God, because no one understands him. He is speaking secret truths by the power of the Spirit. 3 But the one who proclaims God's message speaks to people and gives them help, encouragement, and comfort. 4 The one who speaks in strange tongues helps only himself, but the one who proclaims God's message helps the whole church. (TEV) Paul goes on to talk about how speaking in tongues is really pretty useless unless there is someone around to interpret. Instead of focusing on gifts like this, ... I Corinthians 14:12 ... 12 Since you are eager to have the gifts of the Spirit, you must try above everything else to make greater use of those which help to build up the church. (TEV) In Paul's letter to the Romans, he spends quite a lot of time discussing matters of division in the church of Rome. It seems to me that in essense he tells the Jews not to try to make Gentiles into Jews, and he tells the Gentiles to respect the beliefs of the Jews, because there is neither Jew nor Gentile, only Christian. (Christians with different beliefs and practices, which they concientiously hold to.) >Mainly, I am curious how Christians arrive at a different interpretation >than my own of I Corinthians 14:34: > >"Let women be silent in the churches, for it is not permitted for them >to speak, but let them be subject, as the law also says." > >(I am not being sarcastic here, or anywhere else in this posting) I understand and respect your sincerity. >>In Acts 11, some of the apostles lay into Peter for staying with >>uncircumcised Gentiles. But, Peter witnesses on behalf of the Gentiles, >>that they were given the same gift of the spirit that they were. They >>rejoice, and change their minds. Certainly their original stand was >>biblicaly based, but when faced with Peter's testimony, they decided >>that God felt differently. >1) Circumcision has never been a basis for salvation or righteousness... > There has never been righteousness in the law, therefore the folly of > the apostles was not biblically based. God is too smart to contrdict > himself. > Abraham is an example of a pre-New Testament uncircumcised Godly man. Then if the Apostles could make such a major blunder, why couldn't Paul make an equally major blunder? >The scripture is "God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for >reproof(testing), for instruction in righteousness." Unless the Holy >Spirit somehow teaches us that the time has come for both men and women >to lead each other, we(Christians) know that the scripture is profitable >for use as a test for truth in these matters... I would say that the holy spirit has given us such a teaching. What would it take for you to say it? Must it be written in the clouds? Must a voice boom from the sky? I testify that I have seen the signs. You don't accept my testimony, have you examined the signs yourself? Go! Find a congregation led by a woman. Learn from that congregation. Tell me then if you believe that women cannot be called by the spirit. People have used scripture to prove many things over the years. Please do not tell me that your, (or my), limited understanding of the scripture holds sway over the workings of the Spirit. I tell you that the Spirit is working through these women today. Recently I told of a woman clergy friend's invitation to a clergyman from another denomination to come and hear her preach, and then they would discuss whether or not she was called by God. This woman is new to the ministry, she has been given a charge consisting of three small congregations. In the time she has served so far, (less than a year), attendance is up in *all three* congregations. One of the churches under her charge was vandalized, the children responsible were brought to church by their parents, (not members of the congregation), and they apologized. My friend turned this incident into an opportunity for ministry. She has restarted sunday schools, and youth fellowships. She has been working to bring three congregations that were dying back to life! I'm sorry if it offends you, but from all I have seen of this woman's ministry, I cannot accept that her calling comes from anyone but God. Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton
James.Quilty@comp.vuw.ac.nz (James William Quilty) (05/24/91)
In article <May.22.00.34.52.1991.1010@athos.rutgers.edu>, smithjh@argus.CS.ORST.EDU (Jeremy Smith) writes: |> Mainly, I am curious how Christians arrive at a different |> interpretation |> than my own of I Corinthians 14:34: I make specific use of the context and culture to whom the letter was written (as our moderator suggests) and observe that Paul has many positive things to say about women (in power roles) elsewhere in the Bible. If it comes down to it, on the matters of sex and sexuality, I think that Paul was just plain wrong (if context is to be ignored - if it is to be taken into account, I think Paul had the right intentions, but went about protecting the gospel in the wrong way.) |> 1) Circumcision has never been a basis for salvation or righteousness. |> There has never been righteousness in the law, therefore the folly of |> the apostles was not biblically based. God is too smart to contrdict |> himself. |> Abraham is an example of a pre-New Testament uncircumcised Godly man. Abraham was circumcised by God (if you recall), and circumcision was a condition for salvation in OT times ! (read the OT !!!) God doesn't contradict himself, ever (humans do, though !) |> Arguments that the apostles writings were specifically relevant to |> the culture of their day do not have basis in any scripture that I |> am aware of. When are the oracles of God culture dependant? They always have been culture dependant ! (can you divorce yourself totally from your culture ??? - neither could the apostles !!!) The NT letters are written to people in specific situations and specific cultures - they (in many ways, if context is not taken into account) contradict themselves. The message of the Bible isn't social rules, at all, but so many times in the Bible, man-made social rules are presented as God's rules (particularly those rules that regulate the position of women in society) I personally don't think that Christians are bound by the old social rules, which are so male-oriented: surely that is the greatest indicator that these rules don't come from God ? - They [the rules] HURT men and women - and God would never do that ! |> Let us also realize that |> ever since the fall of Adam and Eve, men and women have had different |> spiritual roles (though having same spiritual goals). I think that you confuse social roles with spiritual roles. Ever since "the fall" (in the Bible) men and women were given different social roles - men have the power, women don't. And men (as a way to control women) also have the spiritual power, in the Bible. The God I worship doesn't differentiate between men and women in any way (and I know that there is enough Biblical precedent for this !) and neither will I ! - discrimination on the basis of sex is ILLOGICAL (and I really want to see a LOGICALLY constructed argument (i.e. first/second order predicate calculus, or whatever) to say that discrimination IS logical !) Jim.
James.Quilty@comp.vuw.ac.nz (James William Quilty) (05/26/91)
In article <May.24.00.31.03.1991.29842@athos.rutgers.edu>, James.Quilty@comp.vuw.ac.nz (James William Quilty) writes: |> In article <May.22.00.34.52.1991.1010@athos.rutgers.edu>, |> smithjh@argus.CS.ORST.EDU (Jeremy Smith) writes: |> |> Mainly, I am curious how Christians arrive at a different |> |> interpretation |> |> than my own of I Corinthians 14:34: By the way, (since I had no Bible with me yesterday) I would quote Galatians 3:28 to support the fact that men & women are equal (both spiritually and [should be] socially) KJV: " There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." NIV: " There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." TEV: " So there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles, between slaves and free men, between men and women; you are all one in union with Christ Jesus." God (I believe) wants us all to be equal here on earth, as, indeed, we are all equal in his sight ! Jim.
hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) (05/26/91)
In article <May.24.00.31.03.1991.29842@athos.rutgers.edu> James.Quilty@comp.vuw.ac.nz (James William Quilty) writes: and circumcision >was a condition for salvation in OT times ! (read the OT !!!) > In order to enter into the covenant with God, a man was to be circumcised, but where was salvation promised? Paul really stressed the point that Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness, even before his cirumcision . Paul also said that the jews stumbled at the stumblingstone (Christ) because they sought the righteousness of God by the works of the Law, rather tthan by faith. > The God I worship doesn't differentiate between men and women >in any way (and I know that there is enough Biblical precedent >for this !) and neither will I ! - discrimination on the basis >of sex is ILLOGICAL (and I really want to see a LOGICALLY >constructed argument (i.e. first/second order predicate >calculus, or whatever) to say that discrimination IS logical !) Paul bases his logical conclusion on the fact that God differentiated between man and woman's role at the fall. Are men and women different? Then why can't they have different roles (particularly when these roles are ordained by the Lord.) Are men and women exactly alike? Can men have baby's (normally.) Let me put it this way, did God design or designate men for having babies? No. God did designate certain men for authority positions in the church. link hudson
hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) (05/27/91)
In article <May.26.01.57.15.1991.13505@athos.rutgers.edu> James.Quilty@comp.vuw.ac.nz (James William Quilty) writes: > >NIV: " There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for > you are all one in Christ Jesus." > > God (I believe) wants us all to be equal here on earth, as, indeed, we are >all equal in his sight ! > What does Paul mean by this verse? Do slaves have the right to leave their masters? Paul wrote many times that slaves should obey their masters, even as they were obeying the Lord. Was it no longer proper to use the terms "Jew" and "gentile?" Paul uses both in many of his letters. If slaves still had to obey their masters, and that order of authority was kept in placed, why would the order between man and woman be destroyed. Galatians 3:28 should not be taken out of its context of refereing to the inheritance of the promise. On many occasions, wives were commanded to obey their husbands, both by Paul and also in one of Peter's letters. Paul bases his assertion that women should not teach in church on the Old Testament. Look at I Timothy 2:12-15. Paul breifly recaps the creation and the curse given at the fall. Look at God's curses recorded in the book of Genesis. Do snakes still crawl on the ground? Does the earth grow food for man all by itself, or does man still have to till the soil? Does mankind still return to the dust? Do women still experience pain in childbirth? The answer to allthese questions is "Yes." I left out one part. Do women still have to obey their husbands? Yes. They do. This is what Paul bases his idea that women should not hold authority over men in church on. Link Hudson.
James.Quilty@comp.vuw.ac.nz (James William Quilty) (05/28/91)
In article <May.26.23.14.31.1991.24625@athos.rutgers.edu>, hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes: > What does Paul mean by this verse? Probably exactly what is says ! > Do slaves have the right to leave > their masters? Paul wrote many times that slaves should obey their > masters, even as they were obeying the Lord. Was it no longer proper > to use the terms "Jew" and "gentile?" Paul uses both in many of his > letters. Slavery is wrong, just as discrimination is - and may be shown PHILOSOPHICALLY to be so. If Paul supported slavery then Paul was WRONG ! (personaly I like to think the best of Paul until his intent is shown beyond doubt !) If you support discrimination then you are WRONG ! Give me a logical argument to show that discrimination is right, or that slavery is right ! I don't think that using the 4000 year old patriachal trick of saying "this is the way God wants it" (and not really giving God much of a chance to decide !) is in any way convincing ! And the message of the verse (which is in no way changed by the context) is that God regards everyone as equal - if any inequality exists in society, it is not due to God, but HUMANS wanting to keep the power for themselves by opressing others (slavery, sexual discrimination) > On many occasions, wives > were commanded to obey their husbands, both by Paul and also in one of > Peter's letters. Paul bases his assertion that women should not teach > in church on the Old Testament. Also commanded is that husbands obey their wives, I recall ! You seem to ignore context of just to whom the letter was written, and the sort of people that were speaking in the church ! (Priestesses from other religions wanting to merge Christianity with their own religion) And whether it occured in the past or not, there is no supporting DISCRIMINATION ! > Do women still have to obey their husbands? Yes. They do. This is what > Paul bases his idea that women should not hold authority over men in > church on. Then Paul was WRONG, if that is what Paul says, but I don't think that what you assert is what Paul was saying - you have failed to provide explicit evidence that the way in which society worked THEN is the way society should work NOW ! I think that you are still confusing the way in which society treats people with the way that God treats people - and saying that the latter means the former. I don't think that is really supported in PHILOSOPHY or the Bible. Jim.
jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (05/30/91)
In article <May.27.17.58.02.1991.9659@athos.rutgers.edu> James.Quilty@comp.vuw.ac.nz (James William Quilty) writes:
+
+Slavery is wrong, just as discrimination is - and may be shown
+PHILOSOPHICALLY to be so. If Paul supported slavery then Paul was
+WRONG ! (personaly I like to think the best of Paul until his intent
I am free to make any opinion I choose regarding the 'wrongness' of
Biblical writers. But then I am a non-believer. There seems to be a
certain amount of 'smorgasboard' approaches to Bible writers. My
prejudices are based more on reading the Bible and take essentially
at face value the statements.
Some conclusions I have come to are that a number of statements of
morality and existentialism that are given in the Bible are WRONG.
However, if one beleives the Bible to be the word of the Diety, one
can not dismiss the statements of one author while holding some
other dear.
If you wish to accept a 'canon' which has these writers expunged
then be ready to accept complaints from those who do not agree.
The Bible does teach, for certain classes of people, discrimnation
even genocide. A 'tour' of ancient Israelite history will have at
every turn "Distroy and lay waste" as how to deal with other
non-Israelites. On some occassions certain of the 'enemies' were
granted a stay of execution, "take the un-married women for wives,
but distory the rest".
Some of the OT statements have been interpreted to be only for
these ancient Hebrews, but in many cases, such as 'morality' laws,
these are accepted as 'for Christians' as well. Where the 'it
applies to Christians as well' stops has been much debated relative
to setting up earthly kingdoms by force of arms. It seems the only
thing Christians can agree on is that they need not sacrifice
animals or gather at the temple in Jerusalem.
--
John Clark
jclark@ucsd.educonan@herb-ox.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe) (06/02/91)
In article <May.24.00.31.03.1991.29842@athos.rutgers.edu> James.Quilty@comp.vuw.ac.nz (James William Quilty) writes: > The God I worship doesn't differentiate between men and women >in any way (and I know that there is enough Biblical precedent >for this !) and neither will I ! - discrimination on the basis >of sex is ILLOGICAL (and I really want to see a LOGICALLY >constructed argument (i.e. first/second order predicate >calculus, or whatever) to say that discrimination IS logical !) As requested, one logical argument proving discriminationis logical: Axiom 1: God created men and women to fill _different_ roles. Axiom 2: God has ordained that men fill a leadership role in the Church. Argument: It follows immediately from axioms 1 and 2 that women are not to fill leadership roles in the church. QED Please note that I do not take this argument seriously--my own personal views are in a state of turmoil. However, as a mathematician, I felt obliged to point out that appeals to logic are extraordinarily dangerous. Everything hinges on the correct choice of axioms. :-) Yours in Christ, David Cruz-Uribe, SFO [Presumably "different" allows for some overlap. Otherwise you could use the same argument to prove that both sexes are not allowed to eat and breathe. I think about all you can hope to show is that there are some aspects of the roles that are unique. This means that it isn't enough to show that men are ordained to do a certain thing. You must show that that's one of the unique aspects. Of course that's precisely what people say the usual citations from Paul's letters show. --clh]
smithjh@argus.CS.ORST.EDU (Jeremy Smith) (06/03/91)
In article <May.24.00.31.03.1991.29842@athos.rutgers.edu> James.Quilty@comp.vuw.ac.nz (James William Quilty) writes: > I make specific use of the context and culture to whom >the letter was written (as our moderator suggests) and observe >that Paul has many positive things to say about women (in >power roles) elsewhere in the Bible. > If it comes down to it, on the matters of sex and sexuality, >I think that Paul was just plain wrong (if context is to be >ignored - if it is to be taken into account, I think Paul >had the right intentions, but went about protecting the >gospel in the wrong way.) > Ah, but in I Timothy 2:12-14: "I do not permit a woman to teach nor to excercise authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam first was formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived came into transgression." Paul explains his point with an insight into the original sin. By using Adam and Eve as examples, symbols of all men and women, he reasons outside of his current time and place. If I am not mistaken, he is describing fundamental differences between men and women in this *lifetime*. After this life is a completely different issue. Why do people *assume* Paul is not speaking with the inspiration of God here. Is there something i'm missing in this passage? >|> Abraham is an example of a pre-New Testament uncircumcised Godly man. > >Abraham was circumcised by God (if you recall), and circumcision >was a condition for salvation in OT times ! (read the OT !!!) > Thank you for correcting me. I was mistaken. If there is other scripture I am overlooking, please feel free to cite! :) > > The God I worship doesn't differentiate between men and women >in any way (and I know that there is enough Biblical precedent >for this !) and neither will I ! - discrimination on the basis >of sex is ILLOGICAL (and I really want to see a LOGICALLY >constructed argument (i.e. first/second order predicate >calculus, or whatever) to say that discrimination IS logical !) > >Jim. Jesus Christ chose 12 disciples/apostles, all men. If there is no difference between men and women, why wouldn't he choose 6 men, 6 women? Remember that Jesus Christ did not conform to the traditions of the day. Indeed, He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Peace and Grace to the Saints! Jeremy Smith
chappell@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Glenn Chappell) (06/03/91)
In article <May.27.17.58.02.1991.9659@athos.rutgers.edu> James.Quilty@comp.vuw.ac.nz (James William Quilty) writes: >In article <May.26.23.14.31.1991.24625@athos.rutgers.edu>, >hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes: >> On many occasions, wives >> were commanded to obey their husbands, both by Paul and also in one of >> Peter's letters. Paul bases his assertion that women should not teach >> in church on the Old Testament. >Also commanded is that husbands obey their wives, I recall ! No, actually it isn't. There are general admonitions for believers to submit to other believers. But husbands are never specifically told to obey their wives in the Bible. They are told to love them (Eph 4:25), care for them just as they would take care of their own bodies (Eph 4:28-29), and to treat them in an understanding and respectful manner (I Peter 3:7). GGC <>< [I suspect he was thinking of I Cor 7:3ff: "the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does" --clh]
chappell@antares (Glenn Chappell) (06/03/91)
In article <Jun.2.00.28.37.1991.15832@athos.rutgers.edu> conan@herb-ox.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe) writes: >In article <May.24.00.31.03.1991.29842@athos.rutgers.edu> James.Quilty@comp.vuw.ac.nz (James William Quilty) writes: >> The God I worship doesn't differentiate between men and women >>in any way Well, the God of the Bible does. No, he doesn't differentiate between them in *all* ways, and He certainly considers them to be of equal worth in His sight, but that doesn't mean He treats them identically. >As requested, one logical argument proving discriminationis logical: > >Axiom 1: God created men and women to fill _different_ roles. > >Axiom 2: God has ordained that men fill a leadership role in the Church. > >Argument: It follows immediately from axioms 1 and 2 that women > are not to fill leadership roles in the church. > > QED > >Please note that I do not take this argument seriously--my own personal >views are in a state of turmoil. However, as a mathematician, I felt >obliged to point out that appeals to logic are extraordinarily dangerous. >Everything hinges on the correct choice of axioms. :-) Well, if we stick to what the Bible actually *says*, we don't get the above axioms. The Bible says nothing directly about "different roles" for men and women. Rather, it says, for example, that in the church women should not have authority over men (I Tim 2:12). Thus the argument above really isn't necessary. I might add that I think everyone ought to learn to be a leader, but being a leader doesn't necessarily mean having authority over men, as in the case of a church elder/pastor/overseer/bishop/shepherd/presbyter/ whatever-you-want-to-call-it. GGC <><
John_Graves@cellbio.duke.edu (John Graves) (06/04/91)
In article <Jun.3.00.17.38.1991.467@athos.rutgers.edu> smithjh@argus.CS.ORST.EDU (Jeremy Smith) writes about what Paul has said in rebuttal to a previous argument using Paul's teachings: > Ah, but in I Timothy 2:12-14: > "I do not permit a woman to teach nor to excercise authority over a > man, but to be in silence. For Adam first was formed, then Eve. And > Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived came into > transgression." According to Dr. Jeffrey Hopper, Professor of Theology at the Methodist Theological School in Delaware, Ohio, in his textbook, Understanding Modern Theology I: Cultural Revolutions and & New Worlds, ...Careful examination has convincingly shown that Hebrews, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus cannot have been written by Paul, and many scholars are persuaded that Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians must also be designated as Deutero-Pauline (that is, written by someone else in the tradition of Pauline teaching). The factors involved in these judgments (and the arguments and counterarguments) are quite complex. They include differences in language, style, and theological teaching, and indications of later circumstances, such as the assumption of the postapostolic church order evident in 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. (p. 149) In other words, this letter to Timothy may have been an attempt by a postapostolic church which was dominated by men, to serve as a foundation for maintaining their positions. If so, it is an apostasy forced on the Christian community in its choice as canon under a forgery of Paul's name. I would remind you that in one of the "real" Pauline text, Romans, Paul at 16:1-2 says: I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon (or minister-footnote) of the church at Cenchreae, so that you may welcome her in the Lord as is fitting for the saints, and help her in whatever she may require from you, for she has been a benefactor of many and of myself as well. and in verse 16:7: Greet Andronicus and Junia (other ancient authorities read Julia-ftnote), my relatives (or compatriots-ftnote) who were in prison with me; they are prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was. The real Paul clearly accepts the role and authority of women as deacon and apostle. John Allan Graves Unitarian Universalism Duke University An inclusive religion! and all its components () including the Divinity School, \__/ disavow anything I say. II
hetyei@athena.mit.edu (Gabor Hetyei) (06/04/91)
I did not follow this thread, so I can only hope I am not repeating something that has already been told. I just would like to point out tht St. Paul distinguishes several times between "it is our Lord Jesus Christ and not me, who is telling this to you", and "I am telling this to you." Therefore we must always carefully examinate if St Paul is transmitting one of o our Lord's command or pronouncing his own command based on his own authority. The second one is less binding I guess. At least, someone in an authority position similar to that of to St. Paul should surely be able to change it. (Sorry for this tipically Catholic remark ;-) Peace, Gabor Hetyei
conan@sizzlean.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe) (06/23/91)
In article <Jun.3.22.58.20.1991.9225@athos.rutgers.edu> John_Graves@cellbio.duke.edu (John Graves) writes: > >According to Dr. Jeffrey Hopper, Professor of Theology at the Methodist >Theological School in Delaware, Ohio, in his textbook, Understanding >Modern Theology I: Cultural Revolutions and & New Worlds, > > ...Careful examination has convincingly shown that Hebrews, 1 and >2 Timothy, and Titus cannot have been written by Paul, and many scholars >are persuaded that Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians must also be >designated as Deutero-Pauline (that is, written by someone else in the >tradition of Pauline teaching). The factors involved in these judgments >(and the arguments and counterarguments) are quite complex. They include >differences in language, style, and theological teaching, and indications >of later circumstances, such as the assumption of the postapostolic church >order evident in 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. (p. 149) > >In other words, this letter to Timothy may have been an attempt by a >postapostolic church which was dominated by men, to serve as a foundation >for maintaining their positions. If so, it is an apostasy forced on the >Christian community in its choice as canon under a forgery of Paul's name. I wanted to comment on this post since it brings to a head many of the difficulties I have with modern scripture scholarship. I have read only small amounts of critical scholarship on the authorship of the Pauline epistles--my general reaction has been negative, as the authors seem to be piling large conclusions onto the backs of very small bits of information. I do admit, however, that I have not read enough to make a reasonable judgement. What bothers me the most however, is that this scholarship is then used to "edit" the Bible to support particular conclusions. To wit, the above argument: 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus are, in effect, thrown out of the Bible as "heresy" because they do not support a particular conclusion. Before I am deluged by rebuttal's, let me acknowledge that traditional scholarship is guilty of a similar crime--ignoring certain passages and themes because they do not support a given line of thought. But my enemy's crime in no way justifies my own. I would appreciate any thoughts which could help me clarify my thinking on this issue. Yours in Christ,
jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (06/24/91)
In article <Jun.22.21.32.02.1991.18265@athos.rutgers.edu> conan@sizzlean.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe) writes: +In article <Jun.3.22.58.20.1991.9225@athos.rutgers.edu> John_Graves@cellbio.duke.edu (John Graves) writes: + +> +>According to Dr. Jeffrey Hopper, Professor of Theology at the Methodist +>....putting forth that certain letters of Paul's are possibly not +> directly from him.... + +I wanted to comment on this post since it brings to a head many of the +difficulties I have with modern scripture scholarship. I have read +only small amounts of critical scholarship on the authorship of the +Pauline epistles--my general reaction has been negative, as the The 'problem' is only due to the assumption that the canon is 'sacred' and all others are false. Since the collection of books was in a sense arbitrary, the fact that some books were 'mis-attributed' to Paul is insignificant. For an interresting and short example of text analysis, there is a discussion in May/June(I think) "Biblical Review" on the intripolations of later scribes into the works of Flavius Josephus, the Jewish writer of the 70-90 A.D. period. The author of that article was 'able' to point out 'phrases' which he believed to be from other sources than F. J. The author does not really give any new news on the subject, since he indicates that most authorities on the subject concur on some of the issues. -- John Clark jclark@ucsd.edu