http://www2.albertacourts.ab.ca/Home/JudgmentsfromAllCourts/tabid/72/ctl/searchJudgmentsResult/mid/662/Default.aspx

very consistent with his current blog… http://starbirdcanada.wordpress.com

He certainly is a model citizen for protection of women and children!!!

“As far as Paul is concerned… I’m afraid that you are both right in each instance where you quote his writings. And that’s the problem. Many of Paul’s writings, from my view anyhow, seem contradictory. For every quote you present, Michael, I’ll be willing to bet an opposing quote can be found, and either of you can twist it to support your conclusion. Bblical quotes are so often so damn cryptic that you have no choice but to try and interpret them, and will do so based on pre-defined leanings.”

That is the problem when dealing with such an emotional issue, and Paul’s teaching tend to be a lightning rod for people on both sides.

You are correct in stating that I was not labeling BPL as anti-woman.

I think an example of this kind of interpreting scriptures in different ways is perfectly illustrated by the number of denominations present within Christianity. It’s not just a matter of Catholic/Protestant, but each division breaks down even further. For example, there are dozens of Baptist denominations, that may all believe basically the same thing, but have a different view on one passage that causes them to split from other Baptists.

(Apologies to BA – this was not meant to be a scriptural debate.)

“I’m always amused when Christian-haters assume I must be anti-woman because I’m a Christian.”

I’m always amused when Christians assume I must be anti-Christian because I no longer follow…

Pot calling kettle black?

“Yes, Paul does say wives should submit to their husbands. He also says husbands should love their wives as Christ loves the church — sacrificially. To say Paul somehow justifies wife-beaters is just stupid.”

Correct, and my point exactly. Paul does state that there is neither Greek, nor Jew, now male nor female. In fact, one could argue that Paul ELEVATED the status of women. BUT, it is the individuals that have taken Paul’s words and twisted them. My point about Paul taking a stand merely means if he had come out and clearly condemned slavery, clearly condemned the abuse of women, there would have been no gray areas that would leave his teachings open to abuse.

When I ministered in the church, I spent a great deal of time covering Paul’s teachings on women in the church, and how one needs to interpret the Bible, not only based on what is being said, but also through the cultural lens of the writer.

BPL said
“Yes, I’ve known abused wives and children. My church operates a shelter for them. I had a nice conversation with one I was counseling about when killing is justified. She had killed her abusive husband and was, understandably, upset about it. I told her that whatever the apparent ethical quality of the killing was, the situation surrounding the incident was such that it was psychologically impossible for her to have done anything else. I think it helped.”

That is a very sad story, and you did exactly what I would have done. Sadly, in the ultra conservative denomination I was part of, many pastors would have told that woman to “buck it up” and stand by her man. Thankfully, as younger leaders are taking over, that attitude is passing away. I’ve never sat across from someone that has responded in that way, but I have counseled battered wives with children. I think you gave her some wise words. In that situation one has to throw themselves at the mercy of the legal system.

“Your view of Paul is as shallow and uninformed as your view of me. In either case, you could learn a lot just by asking some intelligent questions and doing some research. But you prefer to make dramatic points without doing any checking.”

Not true. I have studied Paul’s life extensively, and, I do understand that his teachings have been misinterpreted by both sides. Even if one does not agree with his message, one has to admire the fact that he, almost single-handedly spread Christianity throughout much of the Roman world, against incredible hardships.

As far as me misunderstanding you, BPL, that goes both ways.

Hopefully this response will clear up some of that.

“Iâ??m always amused when Christian-haters assume I must be anti-woman because Iâ??m a Christian.”

Where does Michael accuse YOU of being anti-woman? I must’ve missed that part. But thanks for stating it as fact and then espousing upon it.

Right or wrong, (and I’m not saying I support his claim or not), Michael’s point is that the idea of the “submissive woman” seems to be a common theme within Christianity. Wasn’t that the reason the story of Lilith, who preceded Eve in original biblical texts, was thrown out? Because she was created from the same earth as Adam, and not created from Adam and therefor an equal? Lilith refused to be seen as less than ean equal, uttered the true name of God and ascended to the heavens. God sent arch-angels to retrieve her, she refused, and thus God created Eve from Adam’s rib… making her a creation from man and therefor subservient. Or do I not have this story correct?

Either way, Barton, your work with NOW is really good to hear and is to be commended. I applaud that… But please don’t accuse Michael of accusing you of being anti-woman, when his statement was clearly meant as a generalization, IMHO.

As far as Paul is concerned… I’m afraid that you are both right in each instance where you quote his writings. And that’s the problem. Many of Paul’s writings, from my view anyhow, seem contradictory. For every quote you present, Michael, I’ll be willing to bet an opposing quote can be found, and either of you can twist it to support your conclusion. Bblical quotes are so often so damn cryptic that you have no choice but to try and interpret them, and will do so based on pre-defined leanings.

Barton gives an excellent example of this when he quotes Paul:

“There is neither Greek nor Jew, male nor female, bond nor free, but ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

OK… well, to ME, this is in NO way a condemnation of slavery or bigotry. I could easily interpret that as “yes, you may be a slave… and yes, you may be a woman, but we all are children of the Lord”. Now how is that in any way a statement against slavery? It isn’t. And I think Michaels point is that a person of Paul’s influence could have easily come out with far stronger positions against slavery and proper treatment of women. Regardless of the era, wrong is wrong, and if it’s wrong in the eyes of the Lord today, as I’m sure you would state slavery and abuse are, then was it not wrong in the eyes of the Lord then? So why not speak out against it, and in no uncertain terms? Not vaguely to be left to interpretation. Maybe I’m speaking incorrectly for Michael here, but I think that was his point… it wasn’t to label you as “anti-woman”, and claiming that he did so I think is unnecessarily inflammatory.

[[If Paul had actually taught that women are on an equal footing with men, I wonder how many Christian women would have been spared hellish abuse at the hands of men empowered by the rhetoric spewed from across their pulpits on Sunday morning?]]

“There is neither Greek nor Jew, male nor female, bond nor free, but ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” Galatians 3:28.

[[Have you actually sat across from abused women as I have? Have you witnessed first hand, the damage that Paul’s teaching has brought on women that have been beaten into submission by their husbands, who claim to be so Godly? Maybe when you have, you will come back with a very different view of the “Great Apostle”. ]]

I’m always amused when Christian-haters assume I must be anti-woman because I’m a Christian. My mother, of course, is Beverly Levenson Darwin, who founded Squirrel Hill NOW in Pittsburgh (you know, the one Ellie Smeal joined) and Metrolina NOW in Charlotte. Betty Friedan stayed at our house when she came to Charlotte to debate Phyllis Schlaffly. I myself was a lobbyist for NOW and pushed the ERA extension (unsuccessfully) to congressmen and senators from North Carolina. (We skipped Jesse Helms’s office.)

Yes, Paul does say wives should submit to their husbands. He also says husbands should love their wives as Christ loves the church — sacrificially. To say Paul somehow justifies wife-beaters is just stupid.

Yes, I’ve known abused wives and children. My church operates a shelter for them. I had a nice conversation with one I was counseling about when killing is justified. She had killed her abusive husband and was, understandably, upset about it. I told her that whatever the apparent ethical quality of the killing was, the situation surrounding the incident was such that it was psychologically impossible for her to have done anything else. I think it helped.

Your view of Paul is as shallow and uninformed as your view of me. In either case, you could learn a lot just by asking some intelligent questions and doing some research. But you prefer to make dramatic points without doing any checking.

[[I was responding to your statement concerning a life of slavery being no picnic in his day, and making the point that the Bible seemingly gives it a seal of approval.]]

I know. And I was pointing out that the Bible actually does no such thing, and that those who think it does are reading it superficially.

“In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;

And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;

And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;

And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.”

Maybe if Paul had spent as much time speaking against the injustices of slavery in his day, as he did against homosexuality in Romans and Corinthians, the slave trade could have been stopped far sooner, sparing the lives of untold millions of men, women and children.

I guess since Paul wasn’t a slave, but a very privileged Roman citizen, he didn’t really feel the need to speak out against it. Funny, how he had no problem telling women to shut their mouths in church? How they should obey and be submitted to their husbands? I know there is another part to that, I did teach this at one time, but conveniently, most “God fearing” *cough**choke* men tend to forget about that part. If Paul had actually taught that women are on an equal footing with men, I wonder how many Christian women would have been spared hellish abuse at the hands of men empowered by the rhetoric spewed from across their pulpits on Sunday morning?

Have you actually sat across from abused women as I have? Have you witnessed first hand, the damage that Paul’s teaching has brought on women that have been beaten into submission by their husbands, who claim to be so Godly? Maybe when you have, you will come back with a very different view of the “Great Apostle”.

I find it interesting that many who post here have studied the Bible, and come to the same conclusions about it that I have. Maybe you actually need to hear what those people are saying, but not only WHAT, but WHY they are saying it.