<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Why did the Apostle Paul speak so degradingly about women?	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://askgramps.org/why-did-the-apostle-paul-speak-so-degradingly-about-women/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://askgramps.org/why-did-the-apostle-paul-speak-so-degradingly-about-women/</link>
	<description>Moral answers to everyday concerns, curiosities, and uncertainties.  Gramps considers all questions on all topics from all sources.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Sep 2021 03:39:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Liz		</title>
		<link>https://askgramps.org/why-did-the-apostle-paul-speak-so-degradingly-about-women/#comment-32333</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Liz]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2014 06:03:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.askgramps.org/4991/#comment-32333</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[This is exactly why the  use of scripture to argue that only men can hold the priesthood ( common to several denominations not just LDS) is not taking into account the historical context. Women in Bibical times were not awarded the same status as men and as you say only got the vote within the last 100 years in our society. It is very interesting how some parts of the Bible are taken literally and others are not. Who in modern times decides which of these are  so?  For example, the wearing of fabrics of mixed fibres is given the same condemnation in scripture  as gluttony and men laying with men but only the latter is held up these days, and polycotton is used for mens shirts and women&#039;s blouses and the majority  of Western World population appear to be obese .   sin, is a sin , is a sin. Things taken for granted now were biblical sins not just the few that are cherry picked as major sins. When I got married in 1964, I had to have my husbands signature to buy furniture with my own earnings. Women now are given equality in the eyes of the law at least in the Western Word.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is exactly why the  use of scripture to argue that only men can hold the priesthood ( common to several denominations not just LDS) is not taking into account the historical context. Women in Bibical times were not awarded the same status as men and as you say only got the vote within the last 100 years in our society. It is very interesting how some parts of the Bible are taken literally and others are not. Who in modern times decides which of these are  so?  For example, the wearing of fabrics of mixed fibres is given the same condemnation in scripture  as gluttony and men laying with men but only the latter is held up these days, and polycotton is used for mens shirts and women&#8217;s blouses and the majority  of Western World population appear to be obese .   sin, is a sin , is a sin. Things taken for granted now were biblical sins not just the few that are cherry picked as major sins. When I got married in 1964, I had to have my husbands signature to buy furniture with my own earnings. Women now are given equality in the eyes of the law at least in the Western Word.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
