1Timothy 2:11-12
11 Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. 12 I permit no woman to teach or have authority over a man; she is to be kept silent.
Forgive me , I must be slow and the holy spirit must have passed me by. So I'm probably misinterpreting this. I know God would be sexist.
2006-09-23 16:16:18 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
This wouldn't be too popular with Susan B. Anthony or Ayn Rand
2006-09-23 16:23:28 · update #1
Of course it's sexist. The bible was written by men, for men.
2006-09-23 16:55:10 · answer #1 · answered by lenny 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
considering what these verses are followed by, yes it is very sexist. Not only is it saying that women are an equal to men , but the Bible is generalizing all women. The next versus go on to say: ( for Adam was formed first, then eve. And Adam was not deceived, fell into transgression.) basically because the ' first' woman, Eve, disobeyed god, every woman after her is equal to dirt. Because Eve made a mistake, all women after her must also be this naïve. I understand that God told Eve do not eat from the tree, but she did not know the difference between good and evil until she ate the apple. Naïve equals gullibility.
2015-05-01 11:59:43 · answer #2 · answered by Kaycee 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You have to keep in mind that the Bible was written by men many years ago when the world was a sexist world, so yes, it sounds sexist as it reflects life during the time it was written. Many parts of the world are still sexist, and if you read a commentary on modern times from those parts of the world, you will find similar statements.
2006-09-23 16:24:31 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
To the modern mind this verse sounds sexist but the reality of why the verse was written had a very different purpose.
The followers of Paul wrote to the Gentiles which are the same thing as pagans, heathens, or white polytheistic non-jews. Because the pagans had a healthy relationship to woman, Paul's mission was to subvert that relationship.
2006-09-23 16:31:00 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, it does, and it's actually widely debated in Christian circles as to what it means in context, how it is best translated into English, and how it is intended to be applied since clearly women in the New Testament church were not generally restricted in this manner.
Some believe that it is an answer to a specific problem with some specific women and should be worded more to reflect that. Some believe that since the word "woman" used here could also be translated "wife" that this passage is talking specifically about not letting wives have authority over their husbands in the church or speak out or tear down their husband's teaching in the public gathering. Some believe it refers to the teaching of the whole congregation and so do not ordain women as "preaching pastors." Others believe it refers to all teaching, and so do not have any women teachers over men in any situation.
Perhaps it would surprise you to learn that this debate is not a hindrance to my Christian faith. I am a strong woman with the gift of teaching, and I teach often in the church, with great peace in my heart, but I choose not to teach as a pastor of a church as that gives me a feeling of unrest in my spirit. My relationship with Jesus is very personal, and I rely on walking with him and seeking his approval and wisdom daily and every time I decide whether or not to teach in a given situation.
2006-09-23 17:21:54 · answer #5 · answered by happygirl 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That was a long time ago. We've moved on. What person doesn't learn about love from his or her mother before learning to love God? You can look beyond the limited thinking of the ancients and find some real truth in the good book, but you can also waste a lot of time wondering about all the outdated stuff.
2006-09-23 18:29:18 · answer #6 · answered by anyone 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
That's full submission to God. The man is the head of the family and the head of the Church. The woman is of course the neck and can turn the man any direction she wants. What it also means is that men should teach men and does not forbid women from teaching women or children. This is how the ancient church was organized.
2006-09-23 16:25:05 · answer #7 · answered by Nora Explora 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Not sexist at all... That means that men had tehobligation of teaching, among others... Men were designated as the "head" or lieaders of family. This means, they are responsabile to God of whatever happens to their submisive wife and children,
Women were left to other christian responsabilities different to teaching.
2006-09-23 16:33:28 · answer #8 · answered by etherberg 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
That passage was written to the early church. Although there are areas of the church that I don't believe a woman should be, and that is a deacon, or elder, or a preacher. I believe that if she is called of God she can teach. I for one teach Sunday School, and I work with children in AWANA's on Sunday Nights at our church.
Women do have their place in the church, but I think sometimes it has been forgotten, and it has also been abused, and distorted, on in several ways, of which only God himself knows.
2006-09-23 16:26:24 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Well then how do they explain Mary magdalene ending up Preaching in France? Or what about Esther, who saved the Jews due to her speaking out? Or any of the other numerous women who evangelized and spread the gospel ? Not sure how that particular text is to be interpreted but I shall have to read it in completeness again to gain the real context.
2006-09-23 16:20:30 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋