PaladinValer said:"I do not"
That's St. Paul talking, not the Holy Spirit.
In addition, he's talking about a particular circumstance for a particular area. His letters are not catholic but place-specific.
In addition, back then, men were considered the dominate gender. For a woman to teach a man was considered cultural taboo.
For Jews, it was thought that women were considered lesser because Eve was tricked. Fact of the matter is, they were both tricked. Yet, it is because of this, that women were under greater scrutiny in Judaism than men.
Thanks to Christ, all that is meaningless.
But what of St. Paul's meaning? Like I said: particular problem in a particular area.
Women deacons have been mentioned in Scripture. And before someone says, "no, deaconesses," by that logic, all the ladies in this forum, guess what? All of you are not really teachers, scientists, accountants, or anything else, you are teacheresses, scientesses, and accountantesses.
Hate to say this, but what really blocked women's rights was the same logic used to deny women clergyhood. A man educator is a teacher and a woman a teacheress. Women can only teach other women and are not equal to a teacher. That's the same logic.
Its "logic" I reject.
Both genders are equal in Christ, and St. Paul was exactly right. Why? Both were created equally in Genesis 1. Men and women. Women and men. It could be worded either way and have the same meaning. Both are equally human. The entire Genesis 2 was the basic for the ritual/holiness laws that said men are unclean for X whereas women are unclean for X+5. As Christians, we are not under those laws. Judaizers think we are, but that was declared heresy in the 1st Century by the Council of Jerusalem.
The Law may be intact, but only in the way God meant it to be, and He made it easier by summing it up in two ways: The Two Great Commandments and, of course, the other way is none other than Christ Himself.
Ladies, you are not teacheresses but teachers. You are not soldieresses but soldiers. You are not engineeresses but engineers.
Ladies, you are not deaconesses but deacons; not priestesses but priests; not bishopesses but bishops; and what has been proven today, not primatessesbut primates.
give me a break. Your entire argument here is premised on two things #1 denying the inspiration of scripture
#2 muddling the linguistic distinctions within the english language between words which have specific masculine/feminine forms and those which do not. There is no substance in any of this.
Wether or not you call a woman a deacon or a deaconess is simply a matter of if you use correct grammer or not. It has nothing to do with ordination. Likewise, we don't call women "teacheresses" because its incorrect grammer, the word teacher doesn't have a specific feminine or masculine form. Some words do.
What is seen here is the fact that feminism has even gone so far as to attack language itself in its crusade to destroy the identities of both masculine and feminine.
Upvote
0