Childbirth, A Protection For Women (Per Paul)... How?

by AGuest 212 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  james_woods

  james-woods - Intersting comment about Paul possibly being homosexual. I think it is a strong possiblity. Was this the "angel of Satan" that the lord would not take away from him?

  I cannot really support a strong proof - but I also think it is a strong possibility. We have had threads here where many thought so. Note that I am not being anti-gay with this - I am just saying that it would explain a lot of the chauvinism you read in the writings attributed to him. Strange thing is, when I was a witness 40 years ago, he was my favorite gospel writer - he sort of talked like the witnesses I knew. Arrogant, prideful, all-knowing... Now it is almost embarrassing for me to read most of what he wrote.
• 

  Band on the Run

  Yet Paul also mentions a number of women who clearly played leading roles in the church. He commends them. Perhaps childbirth is code for a woman's place. No one seems to have a gestalt view of Paul maybe b/c the scriptures cannot be reconciled. I do note that I am always saying perhaps this loathsome thing was really code for or was understood differently in that time period. It is a lot of work. The better view may be that the work is completely tainted by miscogyny.

  I am a feminist precisely b/c of the pain of never being fully human in JW world. Men and women are different but competence cannot be determined by the presence of an appendange. If Paul is taken at face value,, only half the world should live. Women do not need the brain capacity God gave us to just be maids. Sometimes I wonder what Paul's own mother was like. Were pagan women achievers and active in worship? I know there were priestesses but I mean ordinary women? Paul seemingly goes out of his way to cripple women. No one can say it is an incidental teaching.
• 

  james_woods

  If Paul is taken at face value,, only half the world should live.

  Yet Paul also mentions a number of women who clearly played leading roles in the church. He commends them.

  Band on the Run - did you ever consider that some of this may have been written by more than one author? Maybe it was sort of compiled together from things written by people with basically different views?

  However, like you say - the classic Paul comes off as quite condescending to women; something I do not get from the rest of the NT.
• 

  Band on the Run

  I believe condescending is too mild a word. It is only recently that I do not want to hop on a time machine and tell him what I think of his miscogyny. I can't read Latin or Greek so I don't know what other people were writing about women and society. Being female was the excuse for not being worth the slightest respect in my home. It is something that is very much an emotional response from me. He needed a dressing down and still does.

  His attitude towards women colors his other thoughts for me.

  I've never heard of more than one author. Commentators seem to know which works he wrote from a logical organization that it not apparent to me. It looks like formal logic to me. Maybe there are multiple authors. It would be very easy to do. I don't think it would even be seen as fradulent back then.

  I was so young and I wanted to stand up and scream about the teachings toward women. My mom told me it was mostly Rutherford's influence. They seem to harbor men who truly hated women. I wonder about their virility. If your testament to your manliness is only that you possess a different genitalia, you are pathetic. Real men should be more like John Wayne types or like the John Hamm character in Mad Men. Hemmingway. Not some sniveling, stupid brother feeling superior to people with vaginas. What kind of pleasure can they enjoy when they hate women so much?
• 

  AGuest

  What did Paul's supposed birthplace and citizenship have to do with whether this verse made any sense or not?

  Honestly... absolutely nothing, dear JW (peace to you!), so I'm with you: it was an absolutely ridiculous thing to have been brought up in the first place. It was even MORE ridiculous when someone who "knows" made the statement that he not only wasn't Roman, but only had citizenship because his parents purchased it (it's also ridiculous how Paul is literally revered by one poster yet called misogynistic by that same one.

  But, I mean, you can see these things, right? 'Cause, surely, you dear folks ARE paying attention to what others besides me and what THEY'RE posting, too... right? You would NEVER just focus on ME... me who wickedly "needs" all of your attention and so you'll all be damned if you'll give it... right? Certainly, what others and what have to say and so post is JUST as important... and so you're paying as CLOSE attention to THEM and what THEY'RE posting, as WELL? Right?

  But back to topic of the thread, I did not post the information to undermine anyone's perception of Paul as a misogynist (although if one READS "Paul"... in the order "he" was written, one would see that this isn't true, although his attempts to put the early congregations back under law in some instance is). I posted it simply to explain what he meant as to THIS particular statement. Indeed, in light of the culture at the time, the verse quoted by dear Cofty (peace to you!) helps ME see it even more:

  "Therefore, I want younger widows to get married, bear children, keep house, and give the enemy no occasion for reproach; for some have already turned aside to follow Satan".-1Tim 5:14,15

  As I posted previously:

  "Defined by the men in their lives, women in ancient Rome were valued mainly as wives and mothers. ... Women were not allowed to be active in politics, so nobody wrote about them. Neither were they taught how to write, so they could not tell their own stories." http://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/empire/women.html

  and...

  "... In public, though, women were expected to play their traditional role in the household. Women were expected to be the dignified wife and the good mother and, while these rules could be bent, they couldn’t be broken."http://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/empire/order.html

  So, now, here you have christian women... who were formerly JEWS... whose women (Jewish women) were NOT hidden and did NOT rely solely on a husband (some were judges; some owned businesses, etc.) but VERY much among the leadership of their culture and so outspoken and vocal. PAUL... a ROMAN... AND former Pharisee... KNEW that this could get the christian women (and, through them, entire households/congregations) KILLED. BY Romans AND Jews (who would point to the affront to "Caesar" as a reason). HE KNEW... because he was once among those did so... that the ONLY thing that would save a christian from being "delivered up"... WAS the Law.

  This Law... Exodus 21:22-25... is what he invoked as a means to "keep" christian women who could GET pregnant/bear children... "safe." And for some, it did. At least, until the Law was no longer a restraint.

  Paul, a Roman... knew Roman law. He also knew that the Jewish leaders knew it... and would use it to undermine this new "movement." He also knew Jewish Law... and so used THAT... to try and prevent the first. You don't have to LIKE Paul... and I certainly don't say that he was inspired; to the contrary, actually, on ALL occasions. I'm only giving you opportunity to LISTEN, however... to the Spirit... and NOT me. Which you can DO... simply by going to that One... and ASKING... rather than taking MY word as to this matter.

  C'mon, dear ones... stop trying to find the error with the message... because you have problem (for whatever reason)... with the "messenger." HEAR. Get the SENSE of it. You can DO this; it's NOT rocket science. True, many have used the verses SINCE in order to keep women in their place. Let me ask you: while it worked for some time for christian women... what is the status of JEWISH women in their culture? What was it THEN?

  THINK, folks! USE that "intelligence"!

  Again, peace to you!

  A slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  cofty

  THINK, folks! USE that "intelligence

  I am, I am looking objectively at the context of the verse. You are just making stuff up with no regard at all to the context. I am an atheist and I have more respect for the bible than you do. You treat it like a bunch of unconnected phrases that you can use and abuse to suit yourself.

  My interpretation is simple and logical and requires no special pleading at all.
• 

  Band on the Run

  Whoa! It boggles my mind that you spent one day enrolled in law school. I said he received Roman citizenship b/c he was born to a Jewish family that was gifted (gifted implies without a cash transaction). His family may have rendered services to Rome. English kings are always titles and huge land grants to their favorites or honored diplomats. Margaret Thatcher received a title this way. I suspect Tony Blair will be knighted or something. Sir Paul McCartney did not purchase his knighthood. He was given it for his 1/4 contribution to reviving British trade. (A high school student can read more accurately. I don't have problems with anyone else on this forum).

  Your misphrased with the express intent of trying to making me seem weird and outlandish. Roles you love but not any to which I aspire. You raised the idea of his citizenship at the very beginning of your thread. It was repeated with the arrogance that mere mortals would not have access to this information when any jerk can read it from Gideon's Bible. You, not I, found great significance with a Rome/Jewish divergence. Of course, you are incapable of simply stating what the point was. Evidently, you expect a standing ovation b/c you know Paul was a Roman citizen. No Roman would believe Paul was Roman b/c he was Jewish. Many countries allow multiple citizenships. My gf hubbie became CAnadian with a cash transction in case Hong Kong became unstable when China assumed control. Paul's gut allegiance was to Judaism. It is clear from all his writings.
• 

  TD

  I believe condescending is too mild a word. It is only recently that I do not want to hop on a time machine and tell him what I think of his miscogyny. I can't read Latin or Greek so I don't know what other people were writing about women and society.

  In some ways, Paul was actually very progressive for his time
• 

  sabastious

  Cofty you have a PM
• 

  AGuest

  I have more respect for the bible than you do.

  I'm not sure I would disagree with you on that, dear Cofty (peace to you!). I mean, I have a little more regard for it than a lot of other books, yes, but not necessarily all. It is not the be all/end all for me. I'm sure you recall that I've stated that man, many times...

  You treat it like a bunch of unconnected phrases that you can use and abuse to suit yourself.

  I treat it like it is: a compilation (by man) of scripture, histories, records, chronologies, letters, revelations, etc. I do NOT treat it is if it's infallable and/or the Word of God... because it is neither. Now, I COULD have just posted a statement something to the gist of:

  "Hey, dear ones, when Paul said women would be safe through childbirth, he meant literally safe... from persecution by the Jews and perhaps even death by both the Jews and Romans." Which is what he meant. But I also stated WHY he meant so: the Law. Now folks have come back and said, "No Roman women were..." and "No, Paul wasn't a..." and all manner of things. And THIS time I did what YOU all always cry for: I included SECULAR historical facts to show that "Roman women were NOT"... and "Paul WAS...".

  But, again, some of you are so BLINDED... by your "view" of the MESSENGER... that the information just can't get through. If you would stop looking at ME, for a second, though... and look at the One who GAVE it to me... which One you're SUPPOSED to be looking at... all the time... anyway... you would see what he allowed ME to see. But... nope: your eyes "are on the Shelby." Pray tell... why?????

  I mean, either that... or there's a honkin' rafter you can't see around. Either way... you're unable to see. Only you can do something about that, dear one.

  Again, peace to you!

  YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

  SA