Paul and Women

@Pose123 (21635)
Canada
August 19, 2007 7:42pm CST
What did the apostle Paul have against women? His attitude towards females is quite different from that of Jesus, in fact from the other apostles as well. Why do you think this is so?
2 people like this
5 responses
@barehugs (8973)
• Canada
20 Aug 07
I wouldn't take anything in the Bible too seriously. Many scientific studies have been unable to prove that any bibical figure ever lived. There is no proof that Jesus lived, or ever existed in Isreal. The fact is, The bible is a book of Myths that go back to Egypt, many thousands of years before Christ.
@Pose123 (21635)
• Canada
20 Aug 07
Hi barehugs, Thanks for adding to this discussion.
@MikeMe (100)
• United States
23 Aug 07
That's just silly. Almost no one challenges the existence of Jesus. Virtually every scholar admits that he was a real person. The big tic is whether or not he claimed to be God or was, in fact, God. Can you "prove" Cleopatra ever lived? Nope...but everyone accepts it based on the written evidence.
@luzamper (1357)
• Philippines
14 Oct 07
I don't think Apostle Paul is at all against women. He was just very zealous in serving God as his responsibility to preach to the Gentiles is very great and he was practically alone. If single, one can devote all his time to serve God. If married, the attention is divided and usually one takes care of the family first and so service to God is just perhaps the second priority if not even ignored.
@Pose123 (21635)
• Canada
15 Oct 07
Hi luzamper, Thanks for your thoughts. Blessings.
@luzamper (1357)
• Philippines
14 Oct 07
I don't think Apostle Paul is at all against women. He is just very zealous in serving God as he is primarily responsible for preaching the word to the Gentiles. An unmarried person can devote his full time to serving God while a married person has divided time and concentration and the family is given top priority and so service to God is just next if not totally neglected or ignored.
@lecanis (16647)
• Murfreesboro, Tennessee
20 Aug 07
I have always wondered that exact same thing! When I was younger I studied many religions because I wanted to be able to understand other people and what they believed. And so of course in my research I wound up reading the Bible. In fact I've read the Bible more than some Christians I know, just because I wanted to understand why people would cherish a book that had so many horrific things in it. And one of the things that always got me is... what the heck is up with this Paul guy and his attitude towards women? Jesus didn't hate women, in fact many of his closest friends and followers were female. And yet here comes Paul saying all these bad things about women not having a right to speak in church and blah blah blah... and there are Christians who actually accept Paul's attitude over Jesus's? I've never understood that. Obviously it's either a cultural thing or the fact that at some point a female really hurt Paul, but I can't believe that people actually will accept his words about women over Jesus's, when the whole religion is supposed to be based on Jesus.
1 person likes this
@Pose123 (21635)
• Canada
20 Aug 07
Excellent comment lecanis, You were wise to study other religions. More people should do that, there would be more tolerance in the world, and heaven knows we need it. As to Paul, I don't understand it either.
1 person likes this
@MikeMe (100)
• United States
23 Aug 07
Paul merely reflected the view of the day. Women were considered secondary to men in those times. In fact, women in this country couldn't even vote until over 100 years after the Declaration of Independence! The trouble with the view Paul was tougher on women than Jesus was is that Jesus never addressed the issue of women in the church and Paul did. When Paul interacts with women in the New Testament, he treats them with no less respect than Christ did.
1 person likes this
@Pose123 (21635)
• Canada
23 Aug 07
Hi MikeMe, You are right of course, these were very different times. Some people wonder why Christ chose only men for his apostles, but its very obvious considering the thinking of those days. Thanks for commenting.