From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: The Woman Deceived (was ? for SW)
Organization: LLNL
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 00:55:06 GMT

In article <BrtM15.n2E@news.cso.uiuc.edu> maier@romulus (Chuck Maier) writes:
>In <1992Jul20.104506.18345@hemlock.cray.com> robd@cray.com (Robert Derrick) writes:
:
:many deletions...
:
::Under no interpretation that calls itself literal can this be
::shown to mean that under some circumstances should women teach.
::It clearly and unequivocally says No!
:
:Again, I refer you to Titus for a broader pastoral perspective
:on women/teaching/authority.
:
::::will suffer not a woman to teach, nor unsurp authority over

Here it the NT on women:

Paul states that (1 Corinthians 11) women are to be subject to men in
the same way that men are subject to God; that women exist for the
sake of men, and not men for the sake of women; that men are the image
and glory of God, while women are the image and glory of men; and that
women should keep their heads covered to indicate that they are under
their husbands' authority. Women should wear their hair long in order
to cover their heads, while men are to keep their hair short; this is
because men are the image and glory of God, while women are the image
and glory of men. Also, (1 Corinthians 14:34,35) women are to be
silent in church, and should let their husbands instruct them. (1
Timothy 2:11,12) Women are supposed to learn and not teach. (1 Peter
3:1-7) Women should submit to their husbands and should look plain;
they should call their husbands their masters, as Sarah had called
Abraham.

	[Most of it from "Today's English Version"]

	What more can be said?

::if I choose to, I can.  But you cannot, because you are a literalist.
::Or doesn't that mean what I thought it meant?	If it is the literal
:
:Literal means to read it all and read it as literature to derive 
:the full meaning.  It is not letterism.  Letterism would have us
:believe God is a bird because some Psalm says "He covers us with
:His wings."  It also does not mean mixing natural philosophy
:with the straightforward interpretation of morality and historical
:events.

	In other words, "literalism" is metaphorical and allegorical
interpretation under another name. But that is not the end of our
troubles, because there is no guide anywhere in the Bible to what is
literal and what is allegorical.

::world by application of selected parts of the dogma.  And the reason
::that the women are to be kept ignorant is so that they will not ask
::intelligent questions that may lead to them obtaining their own
::freedom.
:
:Wherever the gospel has been preached and the Bible believed, women and
:other minorities have been liberated,  educational and literacy standards

	Tell that to a heck of a lot of slaves.

	And women who have been confined to second-class citizenship
under Christianity. Examples: The Catholic Church's reason why its
priests cannot be female is that they must be like Jesus Christ, and
Jesus Christ was male. And some of the most fervent opponents of 19th
cy.  feminism were clergymen; the 19th cy. feminists fought for such
things as the right to vote and to own property and otherwise have a
legal existence independent of their husbands. The clergymen naturally
objected that women having rights was "anti-family".

	Chuck Maier: would you like to have a woman as the
clergyperson of your church? (if you belong to one)

:have been raised, and the general standards of living been raised.
:Nobody's perfect, but the Christian world has a far better record than
:the eastern countries where women are actually treated as you've 
:described.

	Against the efforts of a heck of a lot of Christian clergy.
Even today, only some Christian clergy can be called enlightened about
women's place in society.

:However, where the authority of God and the man are undermined, women
:are also deceived into a world of divorce, no spiritual headship for
:their kids, etc. .

	So men must have authority over women. Some women's libber.
/Loren
Newsgroups: talk.origins