Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: smithjh@argus.CS.ORST.EDU (Jeremy Smith) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: St Paul and Women Message-ID: Date: 3 Jun 91 04:17:40 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Oregon State University -- Math Department Lines: 54 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article 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