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

by AGuest 212 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  AGuest

  Ah, 5th Century B.C. is still long before the time of Roman power....

  Okay, dear Zid (peace to you!). Please know that I didn't make it up, though:

  "Freeborn women in ancient Rome were citizens (cives), but could not vote or hold political office. Because of their limited public role, women are named less frequently than men by Roman historians. ... Although the rights and status of women in the earliest period of Roman history were more restricted than in the late Republic and Empire,as early as the 5th century BC, Roman women could own land, write their own wills, and appear in court as their own advocates." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Ancient_Rome

  I realize Wikipedia isn't a completely reliable source, so you could be right...

  where did you get this info from.

  From my memory of what I learned in my Women's Studies class at Cal State Hayward, dear S&G (peace to you!)... as I mentioned. One thing I learned at university is that professors often go much further than what is taught to the general public. I spent a good deal of time last night trying to research the matter and it seems that there are several different opinions on this. Some believe only weathly women had such latitude (which I stated); others don't agree, obviously. I will try to look for the sources I recall (I still have some papers from college out in the garage), but will concede to you ladies re Roman women, for the present. at it's just not that important to me to "fight" yet another fight, right now. I have too much to get ready for in the coming days.

  Once I find what I'm looking for I will post it; of course, you may still disagree with it but that's okay. Because what I shared at the start was not based on any of these sources, but on what my Lord said to me regarding why Paul instructed Timothy to instruct the women as he did. As I truthfully posted. I doesn't matter to me (I can't, I'm sure you can understand), then, whether others believe me or not; I can only share what I've been given AS it was given. My experience, however, has always been that he tells me... and I step out in faith what HE said when I share it... even if the "proof" others need isn't available at the moment. I don't need "proof" - I hear and I believe what I hear because I know the One who speaks it doesn't lie. Even so, my Lord has never left himself without witness... so I have NO doubt that this matter will come to light through some means, sooner or later. In the meantime, I did "just so."

  So, please, again, believe as you will. Look to whatever you need to corroborate what the Spirit says to YOU (because I know you've asked). I can do nothing but look to that Spirit to corroborate what other things, including the Bible, says. As I've repeatedly stated, I don't know these things... not a one of them. I just share what I hear. I hope you can understand that. If not, no worries there, either.

  Again, peace to you!

  A slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  james_woods

  Well, I just looked in to see where this was going.

  I see that it is going nowhere, except off topic into a debate over Roman history and citizenship.

  I still agree with cofty: "Paul" wrote this in order to say that women should be having babies and not be teaching in the congregation.

  Just that simple.
• 

  Band on the Run

  Cal State - don't bother. The problem that I and others perceive is not your assertions of God speaking to you. Lunatics have believed that God gives them a personal message from the beginning of time. Genesis is an example of a "father" speaking to this children. Rather, the problem is you have a limited knowledge of both scripture and history. Couple with sheer arrogance that you know more than anyone here. Even when confronted with hard evidence, you do not blink. Serioius pathology is present and I'm not talking about hearing voices.

  I never said wikipedia was a reliable source. Wikipedia is a source that can lead one to reliable sources. The footnote is from a reliable source. Plus, I have read the info countless times when reading NT commentary. Almost any discussion of Paul's writings compared to Paul's message as stated by the author of Acts (which may very well not be Luke) states the conclusion I reported. Late at night it is easier to do a quick google search than start combing through books in one's personal library.

  What continues to disturb me is that A Guest's threads begin with a daring, startling statement. It is not a bad way to start. If anyone posts disagreeing with her, the personal disparagement begins. She negates reliable sources. Her personal vision is supreme. My faulty assumption was that people come here for engagement with others. I've learned a lot when people post replies that are different from my view. My view has changed b/c of such posts. Why publish your thoughts to the world to impose them on others. It seems that a webpage would be more useful. These posts contain a viciousness. Speaking personally, it is frustrating. It takes both sides to engage in a conversation.

  Her mind is the only one in touch with God. Also, only her weak schools. Cal State is not impressive when the entire weight of scholarship is against what it teaches. If a professor has a different take, she should still teach the mainstream view. When I grew up in ghetto town, we were taught the New Math. and New Science. The text books were cheaper b/c no other school district wanted them. Corruption was rampant. Imagine taking the AP part of the SAT with math and science that no one knows. Cal State's instruction would be informative if it were related to mainstream. I suspect we will not be lectured to about Cal Stat but rather a unique vision of Cal Stat supposed instruction.

  These discussions are endless b/c there is never any respectful resolution. Considering the breadth of this site, I've noticed only a few other posters whose threads consistently become contentious. Frankly, I believe few here care what A Guest's take on Paul and pregnany is. If I wanted spurious preaching, I could have stayed in the Witness and received great family approval. No one is being converted here. Some people feed on controversy and nastiness to get attention. Attention that leads to a change in view might be a worthy task. Annoying people to only annoy people is pathological.

  I wish we could all take a pledge to not respond. These posts are so wacky. The wacky factor seems exagerrated as though someone were scheming to incite people from the wackiness of the ideas. I don't recall a single post that has not been wacky and designed to stir up deep passions.