Topic: Did Paul appear to be anti-women
Topsykretts's photo
Thu 05/22/08 08:37 AM
in his epistles?

tribo's photo
Thu 05/22/08 09:00 AM
Paul had sexual problem's of his own, dealing with personal lust that bent runs throughout his epistles/letter's.
most of his writings should never have been canonized or included in the bible, they were personal in nature meant for the intended recipient of his words,Timothy, etc..

Britty's photo
Thu 05/22/08 09:00 AM



Personally, I do not believe so.

no photo
Thu 05/22/08 09:03 AM
40% of Pauls ministry were women.

lizardking19's photo
Thu 05/22/08 09:08 AM
I think that for historical/mythical/religious figures who lived over 1000 years ago, a person who said "hey maybe we should only throw smaller rocks at the ladies" was a radical feminist, compared to the accepted old world thinking that is

no photo
Thu 05/22/08 09:10 AM

I think that for historical/mythical/religious figures who lived over 1000 years ago, a person who said "hey maybe we should only throw smaller rocks at the ladies" was a radical feminist, compared to the accepted old world thinking that is


Smaller rocks would be a worse punishment. It's actually required in Islam that when you stone someone to death, you use small rocks no bigger than your fist, so that the person suffers as long as possible.

lizardking19's photo
Thu 05/22/08 12:15 PM


I think that for historical/mythical/religious figures who lived over 1000 years ago, a person who said "hey maybe we should only throw smaller rocks at the ladies" was a radical feminist, compared to the accepted old world thinking that is


Smaller rocks would be a worse punishment. It's actually required in Islam that when you stone someone to death, you use small rocks no bigger than your fist, so that the person suffers as long as possible.


I didnt know that, thanks 4 instructing me in the ways of mysogeny

but the point was somebody who suggested LESS oppression towards women 1000+ years ago would have been percieved as being as radical as the suffragets in the 20s because the anctient world statutes of freedom were so far "behind" us us (i put behind in quotations because im sure that in the year 3000 the anctient americans will be seen as a backwords people who had 100s of words each for poop and marijuanna)

wouldee's photo
Thu 05/22/08 12:45 PM
Edited by wouldee on Thu 05/22/08 12:48 PM

in his epistles?


what appears to be the case is misunderstood as a hater railing against women.

His points were intended towards self denial and the avoidance of distractions and entanglements with this life, in that we ought best to consider that which serves Christ with our efforts and attentions and not our own.

To the Church, those hid in Christ, the greater service to God in reciprocal love is towards our fellow man and those which may be engendered as "children of God" and not children of flesh.

That Christ gave himself for us is magnified in our will worship of God in giving ourselves to Him in spirit and truth and in worship of spiritual compassion and sympathy for others in His name, for His sake, and the gospel's sake, for which Jesus Christ gave His all.

We are reminded to give our all.

As ministers ; ambassadors in Christ's stead.

Not as selfish men unwilling to shelter women in love.

But in love, also sheltering holy women dedicated to the purposes of the Gospel as well, even those denying themselves for the sake of the gospel; as family, like brothers and sisters, not necessarily as lovers, one and all.

Begetting spiritual children in the Lord; not of and in the flesh.

Marriage is honorable to all. Paul conveyed that too

flowerforyou :heart: bigsmile