Women's roles in the Church

[Lea101]

Have a good day. Any other sins you want to accuse me of, while you’re at it?

 

[Spyridon]

I accused you of nothing.

I merely stated the fact that to charge the Glorious Apostle with “sexism” is blasphemy.

 

[Lea101]

Sigh you didn’t.

It is blasphemous to say the Ever Blessed Apostle comes off as anything other than a Holy Man of God

You said that saying he gives the impression that he’s sexist is blasphemous. There’s a difference between saying that and calling a man sexist. The former implies that he’s viewed a certain way by people who don’t understand him. The latter falsely judges his character. As I stated the former (which is true because people have accused him of so), you basically said I was being blasphemous.

Keep misreading things all you want. I’ll just have a nice Sunday today.

 

[Spyridon]

You said that saying he gives the impression that he’s sexist is blasphemous.

That’s a blasphemous charge.

If you told me “admit St. Paul sounds sexist, or we will kill you and your entire family…” Then me and my entire family would be going to eternity.

I won’t budge on this no matter what you say. St. Paul sounds holy, not sexist.

 

[Lea101]

Good for you…?

 

[Spyridon]

Good for God, all glory to him Who rose from the dead, alleuia.

 

[Lea101]

Alright then

 

[Spyridon]

It is alright.

St. Paul, pray for us

 

[Lea101]

Gotta ask him to pray for blessings so you don’t go around falsely accusing people of sins and I gotta ask for some so I don’t go around wasting my time I guess.

 

[Spyridon]

Show me where I falsely accused you of sin, and I’ll publicly repent.

 

[Lea101]

It is blasphemous to say the Ever Blessed Apostle comes off as anything other than a Holy Man of God.

Considering that I have said he has came across that way (not to me, but for some reason you probably thought that initially)

You can entertain the filth of satan if you want

That’s a blasphemous charge.

If you told me “admit St. Paul sounds sexist, or we will kill you and your entire family…” Then me and my entire family would be going to eternity.

Saying he sounds sexist is different from calling him one but you don’t seem to care about the difference. He does sound sexist to some people. I can say that and I won’t go to hell for it because I didn’t call him sexist, I merely stated a fact that there are people who would view him as one.

I’ll forgive you with or without public repentance. I genuinely don’t care about what people here think for me anyways. Most of you guys are literally in another continent!

 

[Spyridon]

The Holy Ghost’s Name is YHWH, not Paul.

No, the Holy Ghost’s name is “Ruach Ha Kodesh” aka “Agios Pneuma” aka “Spiritus Sancti.”

YHWH is the Name of the Father.

 

[Lea101]

Two thoughts on women being silent in Church: one thought is that St Paul was advising this as Corinth was a little on the rowdy side and women were yelling across the room to their husbands during worship time. The other is that it was reinforcing that only men were to be priests and proclaim the Gospel and the homily (teaching). You must understand things in context.

Anyway OP, not to hijack the thread with my earlier posts. This is basically all you need to know in regards to the topic. Women have been teaching others for centuries. Paul just wanted things to be orderly in church.

 

[Spyridon]

I’ll forgive you with or without public repentance. I genuinely don’t care about what people here think for me anyways. Most of you guys are literally in another continent!

I’ll grant that you’ve clarified your earlier posts.

It was your earlier posts which I read as you flat out charging St. Paul as being uncharitable and sexist which I vehemently opposed.

I do acknowledge the fact that many people have falsely claimed St. Paul was “sexist,” unfairly (and blasphemously) attempting to impose 21st century Western cultural norms regarding gender on a 1st century Palestinian Judeo-Christian man.

 

[guanophore]

He gives the impression that he’s uncharitable because he’s hard to understand. This is true because you have lots of people calling him sexist for some of the things he said.

I understood that you meant “comes across that way”, but I disagree that he sounds uncharitable here because he is hard to understand. I think what St. Peter references as difficult to understand is related to Paul’s complex theological discourses. These were aimed at Gentiles, and Peter had little, if any , experience with Pagan philosophy. Peter was not well travelled, and was not educated in the way Paul was.

But the comments that Paul is often misunderstood to be sounding “sexist” are not part of those dense theological treatises. Paul makes these statements often in the context of discipline and managing customs in mixed Jewish/Gentile Christians. For example, the reason women are not presently required to wear veils in Church is because it is a cultural issue, not a doctrinal one. Paul gives a doctrinal support of it, but it is a discipline that the Church has the authority to relax.

Many of the objections to Paul are thus because we read him by introjecting our modern Western concepts into the text.

 

[guanophore]

No, he doesn’t.

Only if you’re a modernist and/or some sort of heretic does the Glorious and Ever Blessed Saint Paul the Apostle come off as “sexist.”

Oh I think it is easy to misunderstand a great deal of scripture without being a modernist or a heretic. It is primarily a lack of education/experience. When one has not learned to read the scripture in context, it is easy to misunderstand things.

It is blasphemous to say the Ever Blessed Apostle comes off as anything other than a Holy Man of God.

You can entertain the filth of satan if you want. I’ll have no part in it.

This seems quite harsh, especially when the major cause of misinterpreting is ignorance! Even Jesus comes across as “harsh” at times, like telling the Canaanite woman He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” ( Matt. 15).

If one does not know the context of these statements, it is easy to misunderstand them.

1 Timothy 2:15 “Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.”

Reading such passages without understanding the culture and context in which they were written can easily be interpreted as sexist!

 

[guanophore]

That’s a blasphemous charge.

If you told me “admit St. Paul sounds sexist, or we will kill you and your entire family…”

Actually, no “charge” was made here.

And no threats, either. If you don’t think Paul can come across as sexist, then that is your opinion, but no one is going to kill you over it! At least, not here on CAF.

Neither is it appropriate for you to accuse others of blasphemy just because a certain passage “comes across as” something differently than you understand it.

I won’t budge on this no matter what you say. St. Paul sounds holy, not sexist.

No one is asking you to budge. This is your perception, and you are entitled to it. At the same time, others are entitled to their perceptions.

 

[Lea101]

I understood that you meant “comes across that way”, but I disagree that he sounds uncharitable here because he is hard to understand. I think what St. Peter references as difficult to understand is related to Paul’s complex theological discourses. These were aimed at Gentiles, and Peter had little, if any , experience with Pagan philosophy. Peter was not well travelled, and was not educated in the way Paul was.

But the comments that Paul is often misunderstood to be sounding “sexist” are not part of those dense theological treatises.

Yeah, I’m not necessarily saying that his verses about women were what Peter was referring to when he said that. I was pointing out that Paul in general was difficult to understand. Peter mentioned how Paul’s letters are often distorted and I think it’s interesting to bring that up since we see that here too in fundamentalists or just people looking to discredit the faith.

I don’t know if Peter was only referring to his theological (name removed by moderator)uts or just his style of writing in general because there are other things he said that would make us go ‘???’. It feels as if Paul has a tendency to say things that require deeper analysis compared to the other letters from Peter or James. It was worth mentioning imo.

 

[guanophore]

Peter mentioned how Paul’s letters are often distorted and I think it’s interesting to bring that up since we see that here too in fundamentalists or just people looking to discredit the faith.

Yes, this is a very good point. If people were twisting them in the first century, why would we would think they are not still twisted!

It feels as if Paul has a tendency to say things that require deeper analysis compared to the other letters from Peter or James. It was worth mentioning imo.

I think this is certainly true with regard to those comments that are, in modern times, thought to be “sexist”. It is incumbent upon us who accept that they are from the Holy Spirit to acknowledge these problems and address them with scholarship.

Thank you for your persistence in the face of detraction.

 

[QwertyGirl]

I accused you of nothing.

I merely stated the fact that to charge the Glorious Apostle with “sexism” is blasphemy.

I think you are overlooking the fact that Paul was human, and Paul lived during s VERY sexist time in history. I think what he said was very sexist, and it is reasonable that he said it during the time in which he lived. That doesn’t mean what he said doesn’t have value. (And this is coming from me, someone who believes the Church should ordain women priests). At the end of the day, his message in saying what he said is to convey the quality of love husbands and wife are expected to have for eachother. By today’s standards, his illustrations were quite sexist. That is OK, though, because the lesson being taught had nothing to do with equality, or lack thereof, of the sexes. I think we sometimes are too quick to discard or deny the reality of the situation at hand. We don’t need to do that. We can accept that times were different 2000 years ago. The beauty in what he said pertains to the heart of his message.