The next time some loud-mouth broad opens her trap in church...

[Mithrandir]

Crack open the users manual and lay these on her:

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything." (Ephesians 5:22-24)

[Don Quixote]

A simple, "STFU, b****, can't you see we're in a f***ing church" would probably suffice.

[johnnya24]

Both from Paul the woman hater. Paul's twisted morality is way more important to the church than Jesus's

[Kevin Seitzer]

Paul's words are misused and twisted out of context more than the words of Jesus and Moses, if that's possible.

[B-Fly]

Paul's words are misused and twisted out of context more than the words of Jesus and Moses, if that's possible.

I don't see a context in which his words can be harmonized with modern ideas about women's - particularly married women's - independent public selves. Not that I'd expect otherwise, given that Paul was writing 2,000 years ago.

[johnnya24]

Paul's words are misused and twisted out of context more than the words of Jesus and Moses, if that's possible.

That could be true in a lot of different ways ... especially regarding the issue of authorship and authenticity. There are big questions regarding the way these texts have been handed down, edited and translated. There is no doubt that Paul's was the voice that molded the Christian church more than any other. But I think there is enough evidence to suggest that these were prevalent views among the early Christian's, especially as they were attracted to Christianity because they found in it the antithesis to the Roman morality ... and of course, the role of women in ancient societies is nothing like ours ... no matter what Dan Brown would have us believe. The very early church martyrs were often praised for their chastity and abstinence ... the opposite of Roman morals.

I think a lot of people have no understanding of the context of these texts: why they were wrote, the people and societies they were being directed at. These letters were in response to request for guidance on certain issues ... they contained guidelines to help people lead more Christian lives within the particular context they found themselves. It's sad that people interpret this as the literal words of God when we can't even be sure if they are literally the words of Paul ... in fact it's fairly certain they are not.

[Kevin Seitzer]

I don't see a context in which his words can be harmonized with modern ideas about women's - particularly married women's - independent public selves. Not that I'd expect otherwise, given that Paul was writing 2,000 years ago.

Well, no, I'm not suggesting that. But he also wasn't saying what the Southern Baptist Convention would have you to believe he was saying, either.

We have a record of a number of women he put in places of leadership in the churches he planted around the Roman world. One might wonder in light of that what he really meant by what he wrote to the Corinthians and the Ephesians.

[Kevin Seitzer]

That could be true in a lot of different ways ... especially regarding the issue of authorship and authenticity. There are big questions regarding the way these texts have been handed down, edited and translated. There is no doubt that Paul's was the voice that molded the Christian church more than any other. But I think there is enough evidence to suggest that these were prevalent views among the early Christian's, especially as they were attracted to Christianity because they found in it the antithesis to the Roman morality ... and of course, the role of women in ancient societies is nothing like ours ... no matter what Dan Brown would have us believe. The very early church martyrs were often praised for their chastity and abstinence ... the opposite of Roman morals.

I think a lot of people have no understanding of the context of these texts: why they were wrote, the people and societies they were being directed at. These letters were in response to request for guidance on certain issues ... they contained guidelines to help people lead more Christian lives within the particular context they found themselves. It's sad that people interpret this as the literal words of God when we can't even be sure if they are literally the words of Paul ... in fact it's fairly certain they are not.

I'd have some quibbles with some of your points, but yeah, I mostly agree. The context is very important. Understanding ancient society is very important if one is to understand what the author(s) of the various writings was trying to get across.

[Mithrandir]

That could be true in a lot of different ways ... especially regarding the issue of authorship and authenticity. There are big questions regarding the way these texts have been handed down, edited and translated. There is no doubt that Paul's was the voice that molded the Christian church more than any other. But I think there is enough evidence to suggest that these were prevalent views among the early Christian's, especially as they were attracted to Christianity because they found in it the antithesis to the Roman morality ... and of course, the role of women in ancient societies is nothing like ours ... no matter what Dan Brown would have us believe. The very early church martyrs were often praised for their chastity and abstinence ... the opposite of Roman morals.

I think a lot of people have no understanding of the context of these texts: why they were wrote, the people and societies they were being directed at. These letters were in response to request for guidance on certain issues ... they contained guidelines to help people lead more Christian lives within the particular context they found themselves. It's sad that people interpret this as the literal words of God when we can't even be sure if they are literally the words of Paul ... in fact it's fairly certain they are not.

That's my point.

[Gregg]

That's my point.

Really? I thought your point is that you think you found something inconsistant in the Bible and therefore can throw the whole thing out.

I am guessing if someone gave you a possible or reasonable explanation that it would fall on deaf ears (eyes).

You are not the first one to have had issues with tough scriptures.

[Mithrandir]

Really? I thought your point is that you think you found something inconsistant in the Bible and therefore can throw the whole thing out.

I am guessing if someone gave you a possible or reasonable explanation that it would fall on deaf ears (eyes).

You are not the first one to have had issues with tough scriptures.

Gregg, you really have no conception of me given the way you respond to my posts, so stop jumping to wrong-headed conclusions.

What ever gave you the idea that i would want to throw out the entire Bible? When have i ever posted that the Bible should be thrown out?

I enjoy the Bible as a collection of stories and for providing lessons on how to live ones life. I have no problem with it's existence. My problem is, as stated above, when people take the Bible as the literal word of God.

I don't mean this as harsh as it will sound, but the next time you comment on my posts try not to be so Bob-like.

[Mithrandir]

There is no such person as a Bible literalist. No one really believes that the Bible is infallible.


Interestingly, the whole concept of the Bible as an inerrant document is a pretty recent one. People were pretty comfortable for many centuries knowing that the book was not the literal truth in every single word. Even St. Augustine said as much.

Really? Have you been on this site long?

[Gregg]

Gregg, you really have no conception of me given the way you respond to my posts, so stop jumping to wrong-headed conclusions.

What ever gave you the idea that i would want to throw out the entire Bible? When have i ever posted that the Bible should be thrown out?

I enjoy the Bible as a collection of stories and for providing lessons on how to live ones life. I have no problem with it's existence. My problem is, as stated above, when people take the Bible as the literal word of God.

I don't mean this as harsh as it will sound, but the next time you comment on my posts try not to be so Bob-like.

There is so much wrong with this post, I am too weary to address all of it.

What was your real purpose in posting this? You were going fishing?

Did you do your homework? Do you know who, what, where, and why he wrote this? Maybe it is you who is taking this piece of scripture literally?

By the way Paul was not a woman hater. He was actually pretty progressive for his time. Way above Jewish custom.

[johnnya24]

By the way Paul was not a woman hater. He was actually pretty progressive for his time. Way above Jewish custom.

Nice rationalization ... and you can prove that how? You seem so certain.

We don't know what Paul really said, only what we are given of what he said ... but there is no doubt of the message the church wanted to deliver when the New Testament was codified, and what became the central doctrine of the church.

Many of the early church fathers openly regarded women as infected with a special kind of evil ... waiting to tempt men into Satan's lair ... all women are from Eve, the temptress. These are the people who decided what was scripture and what wasn't. Tertullian believed that a little of the soul was lost with every orgasm. The role of women in the Christian church became the exact opposite of the role of women in the Roman and wider Pagan world. Paul's words perfectly fit this world view ... whether they are actually Paul's words or not ... who knows ... maybe it's fair to say the church are woman haters rather than Paul ... but it's in Paul's name.

Thing is ... I just don't get how the role of women in the church (ancient, medieval, even today) corresponds with the teachings of Jesus. Paul's writings and the open misogyny of the early church fathers are far more crucial is establishing the Christian religion than anything Jesus said or did.

[chancellor]

There is no such person as a Bible literalist. No one really believes that the Bible is infallible.

Hmmm...are you differentiating between inerrant and infallible? Errancy is the typical theological term; in simple terms, one who believes the Bible is inerrant believes that all Scripture is accurate and has a purpose, even if some aspects no longer need to be followed. There are many Christian believers who hold the Bible is inerrant. How inerrancy is defined differs.