English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

and then that person stated that to the affect that all women should be "Barefoot and pregnant".

2007-11-03 06:11:40 · 6 answers · asked by Diana Enright 2 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AoAS6O8hiDlmpz8LGZ0DpOzsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071103093403AANGf1t&show=7#profile-info-75gTLp3Eaa

My answer:

I think God was disappointed that Paul would say something that was not taught by Jesus. Does your heart witness that Paul was right to say that women should not be allowed to teach?

Why would anyone who followed Jesus listen to Paul teaching non-Jesus themes and additions?

(Now, do you see why I call these type of members "Low Mentals"?

2007-11-03 06:14:00 · update #1

6 answers

I don't claim to be an expert on Pauls teachings there but I think we are not getting the full picture of some of Paul's statements on a womans role in the Church, remember, when he wrote a letter that is was mostly to one particular church and dealt with a situation within that church. Also most Christians agree that a woman should without question should be teaching women Sunday School Classes especially in this day and time and I believe if Paul was here today this is what he would say. Again I am just expressing my opinion and thats the feeling I get from the Holy Spirit on this subject.

2007-11-03 09:34:58 · answer #1 · answered by victor 7707 7 · 0 0

No - we do not discount what Paul said - the BIble is not a place to pick and choose what we like and don't like - that would be following ourselves and not what God has said.
Obviously "barefoot and pregnant" is an inappropriate liberty with what Paul said.

2007-11-03 13:19:00 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

I think that you and the man who said those things both misunderstand the words of the Apostle Paul.

The man who said it, was and is using it to control women and to make himself feel more powerful and important.

You are using it to get angry at the bible and the man who said it.

Now, there is only one principality or spirit that I know of whom would enjoy this scenario and that is the devil.

Get saten behind you , read the rest of what Paul is teaching about. (Paul verymuch put women in charge of chruches), study just what Paul was trying to tell that particular church about what was going on at THAT time in history.

I have written about Paul many times and what he was put in charge of bringing together. Please study it, and get the venem and anger out of your system.

2007-11-03 13:22:22 · answer #3 · answered by cindy 6 · 0 1

As a Catholic priest I can assure you that St. Paul is no chauvanist. And it is a distortion of him and his letters to think he was.
It is even more wrongful (nay sinful and seriously misleading) to teach and proclaim to others that St. Paul condoned chauvanism and creditied it as a teaching of the Christ he encountered. This person who translated Paul's letters as proof of justifying the oppression of women and devalue the dignity of motherhood and domestic work to mere slavery and servitude, demonstrates that person's ingnorance of the Scriptures and his lack of authority to even teach and preach. His credibility as a disciple or one who even knows of Christ is shot and none should listen or follow him.
As I said Paul is no male chauvanist and none of that agenda can be found in his letters. The proof is in the Jewish mindset. Although Paul encountered Christ, he still understood things according to his Jewish upbringing and training. Christ amplified the Jewish teaching and clarified them and Paul in his letters is working out that singular encounter of Christ on the road to Damascus according to the Jewish teachings he was raised in. He is reconciling his Judaism with Christianity.
But I digress. Here is where Paul's Jewish mindset clarifies what he has written about women. I will take two notions from his letters and explain them.
In one of his letters Paul states that women should cover their heads when in the temple to worship. The modern mindset thinks this is a demeaning and demanding statement to remind women that they are less than men. However, this is NOT being said. In the Jewish understanding of the human person the head of a man represents the glory of God. The head of a woman represents the glory of man. And so, when a woman COVERS her head in the temple, it is saying she is there for the glory of God and not man! To have her head UNCOVERED in the temple is to say she is there for the glory of man. So, to make clear her intention of who she worships, she covers her head. To have her head uncovered is to say she is there to worship man. To be covered is to say she worships God alone. Because we have forgotten this about Jewish anthropology, we misunderstand Paul and believe and teach a chauvanist agenda when it was not Christ's or Paul's intention in the first place. Hence, the grave importance of studying the Scriptures, which entails more than just reading and applying it to our personal thoughts and agenda.
As far as the issue you brought up. The reason why Paul says women should not teach is because he is making a distinction between the pagan faiths that surrounded the Christian faith. If men and women preached and taught, then any pagan would think that Christianity is no different from Mithrism, Gnosticism, etc. etc. The same historical situation is one of the reasons why only men are priests and not women in the Catholic Church. For in most pagan religions women were priests as well as the men. So, if Christianity were to have the same, then how could Christianity remain distinct from any other pagan faith? So, to prohibit women teaching is not say women are stupid or have no understanding of God's words and teachings, but it was done and adopted by both Jewish and Christian men and women to remain distinct from other pagan faiths.
It is these things that must be studied when reading the scriptures so we will not make the foolish mistake this person has made and lead others to make the same mistake and be just as foolish as he.
This maybe more than what you wished, but I hope it has been helpful to you. May the Lord bless and keep you. May the light of His face shine upon you.

God's and your beast of burden
Fr. john

2007-11-03 14:10:28 · answer #4 · answered by som 3 · 1 0

Christ way is defintly masucline run...end of story...

there is nowhere in the bible that it says..."Barefoot and pregnant"

it does however say the women should be the "keeper of the home"...as her duty...

you'll find that in most cases if a women does this things go fairly
well for the family...when she doesn't things dont go so well...

the traditional family is the key to success...

2007-11-03 13:18:23 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

Infidel, simple.

2007-11-03 13:14:23 · answer #6 · answered by Stormchaser 5 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers