Sexism And The Bible--fork

[Evangetholic]

Just some friendly advice.

 

It wasn't friendly advice it was you interjecting  yourself to defend an attack on the Holy Apostle because you find him offensive to your 21st century secular worldview.

[Autumn Dusk]

Or your interpretation of that particular verse is wrong.

 

 

⁸ Now to the unmarried^[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. ⁹ But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.  1 Corintians 7 NIV

 

 

To the unmarried and to widows I say: it is good for them to stay as they are, like me.  

⁹ But if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry, since it is better to be married than to be burnt up.  

 

1 Corinthians 7: 8 New Jerusalem

 

Whole Duey-Reims

 

7 Now concerning the thing whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

............

⁸ But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I.

⁹ But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.

pretty darn clear to me...

[Basilisa Marie]

It wasn't friendly advice it was you interjecting  yourself to defend an attack on the Holy Apostle because you find him offensive to your 21st century secular worldview.

 

And you're creating an attack on the canonical status of some good, thoughtful people.  

 

Check yo self before yo wreck yo self.  

[Evangetholic]

So you believe they should be excommunicated for them? 

 

So I guess I'll be leaving too.   Good thing you're not pope, dear.  :hehe2:

 

Culpability for the opinions offered isn't in my purview to judge. I'd not call you or them heretics, I still consider the opinons to be heretical. I'd never wish to be pope. It's hard enough to get to heaven as it is. :)

[Autumn Dusk]

St Paul isn't Tertullian. The Bible is not a collection of the private opinions of saints. I called the opinions heretical because I believe them to be so. The Bible is inerrant and infallible, and St Paul was not a misogynist, a racist, an antisemite, a homophobe or any other category of sinful arrogance people would like to put him in when they disagree with the words the Holy Ghost inspired him to write.

 

In that case you should be practicing the dietary coustoms and laws of the OT that Jesus clearly upheald.  No crawdads, lobster, clams or crabs, no pork, no cheese touching meat.  You should be a farmer or a shepard or a fisherman...becuase most other occupations were clearly rejected in the Bible.

[Evangetholic]

And you're creating an attack on the canonical status of some good, thoughtful people.  

 

Check yo self before yo wreck yo self.  

 

Ditto. (only St Paul is the good and thoughtful one I have in mind now.)

[KnightofChrist]

Asserting that cultural thoughts on gender influenced the Bible (and other theological works) isn't heretical. Knowing the cultural context of the authors is no different than learning to read Hebrew and Koine Greek to look at the original texts. You can say that the Bible is divinely inspired and still recognize the very human way in which it was written. If anything, learning about the culture of the authors helps fill out the bigger picture of what a passage means.

I would be concerned about adopting that position. The Bible is free from error, but if it was influenced by the culture of the time that's a tiny baby step away from the belief that the errors of the culture influenced the Bible.

[Basilisa Marie]

Culpability for the opinions offered isn't in my purview to judge. I'd not call you or them heretics, I still consider the opinons to be heretical. I'd never wish to be pope. It's hard enough to get to heaven as it is. :)

 

But that's what heretics do - say heretical things.  Ergo, you called us heretics.  

 

And they aren't heretical.  Seriously.  Saying that problematic views of the place of women in society influenced Paul's letters doesn't make them any less divinely inspired.  

[Evangetholic]

In that case you should be practicing the dietary coustoms and laws of the OT that Jesus clearly upheald.  No crawdads, lobster, clams or crabs, no pork, no cheese touching meat.  You should be a farmer or a shepard or a fisherman...becuase most other occupations were clearly rejected in the Bible.

 

That's a secular critique of the Bible that couldn't be made by anyone who had read it.

[Autumn Dusk]

Ditto. (only St Paul is the good and thoughtful one I have in mind now.)

 

No one is saying Paul is heretical or a masagonist or a homophobe.  He was only a man divinly inspired, leading some rather difficult people through a difficult time in the Early Church.  There are many switches in the Bible between mythos (that is stories we must learn from) and facts that we must believe and true happenings which we must glean knowledge from.

[Evangetholic]

But that's what heretics do - say heretical things.  Ergo, you called us heretics.  

 

And they aren't heretical.  Seriously.  Saying that problematic views of the place of women in society influenced Paul's letters doesn't make them any less divinely inspired.  

 

What we those of us with penises, after Paul, have done with his writings is horrible to be honest. But the Apostle wrote his words through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. We are not worthy of attacking his character or the God-breathed words he left us.

Edited March 6, 2013 by Evangetholic

[Autumn Dusk]

That's a secular critique of the Bible that couldn't be made by anyone who had read it.

 

 

Really?  Now you're just getting silly.  I may not be able to show you where exactly, but I know that Jesus was pretty darn clear about dietary laws.  How do I know?  I spent considerable time praying and learning about it in college, and learning why the Church did away with them.

[Evangetholic]

Really?  Now you're just getting silly.  I may not be able to show you where exactly, but I know that Jesus was pretty darn clear about dietary laws.  How do I know?  I spent considerable time praying and learning about it in college, and learning why the Church did away with them.

 

And you didn't learn that the Old Testament law being utterly abrogated (except in its moral precepts) is made clear in the Bible itself?

[KnightofChrist]

⁸ Now to the unmarried^[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do.⁹ But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. 1 Corintians 7 NIV

To the unmarried and to widows I say: it is good for them to stay as they are, like me.
⁹ But if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry, since it is better to be married than to be burnt up.

1 Corinthians 7: 8 New Jerusalem

Whole Duey-Reims

pretty darn clear to me...

Thank for the proof that you erred in your interpretation. No where does it say marriage is ONLY for men who cannot keep their urges contained. Edited March 6, 2013 by KnightofChrist

[4588686]

It wasn't friendly advice it was you interjecting  yourself to defend an attack on the Holy Apostle because you find him offensive to your 21st century secular worldview.

 

 

I was actually defending a phatmasser whose opinion I respect from your eagerness to overcompensate in embracing your latest worldview by denouncing somebody who has been making an earnest effort to be a faithful Catholic a lot longer than you have as espousing heresy.  The fact that St. Paul was a misogynist by modern standards doesn't need defending.  You can just read what he wrote.