No he didn't.
AlsoThis might indicate that Augustine held more than a simply utilitarian view of womankind. However, in his Literal Commentary on Genesis, the woman is found, figuratively speaking, walking behind the man, barefoot and pregnant. Augustine reasons that for purposes of either companionship or assistance in physical labor, another man would have been a more suitable "helper" than a woman. He concludes: "If it were not the case that the woman was created to be a man's helper specifically for the production of children, then why would she have been created as 'helper' (Gen. 2:18)? . .I cannot think of any reason for a woman's being made as a man's helper, if we dismiss the reason of procreation."13
Accordingly, in his Literal Commentary on Genesis, Augustine speculates as to how Adam, being already spiritual "in mind" could have been led astray. He concludes that this was one of the reasons "woman was given to man, woman who was of small intelligence and who perhaps still lives more in accordance with the promptings of the inferior flesh than by the superior reason...that through her the man became guilty of transgression.'" Assuming woman's natural inferiority, Augustine asks, "Is this why the apostle Paul does not attribute the image of God to her?"
https://www.cbeinternational.org/re...papers-academic-journal/woman-augustine-hippo
That's quite different than saying women are only good for procreation.Also
I was thinking of a different quotation. Can't find it now. It was my wording, but he had a very low opinion of women. Do you deny that? Thomas Aquinas had similar ideas.That's quite different than saying women are only good for procreation.
“as regards [to] the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten.”
St. Thomas Aquinas is Not Sexist - Clarifying Catholicism
Reading Time: 8 minutes By Katie Hugo, Franciscan University Thomas Aquinas was a well-known Catholic priest and saint who lived in the thirteenth century. The medieval theologian was part of the Order of Preachers, also known as the Dominicans. He wrote several works on various...clarifyingcatholicism.org
They deny the equality of men and women, but it's nothing like what you're saying. Look at the further context of Aquinas:I was thinking of a different quotation. Can't find it now. It was my wording, but he had a very low opinion of women. Do you deny that? Thomas Aquinas had similar ideas.
He recognised woman was created by God? How does that contradict his other statements?Look at the further context of Aquinas:
"On the other hand, as regards human nature in general, woman is not misbegotten, but is included in nature's intention as directed to the work of generation. Now the general intention of nature depends on God, Who is the
universal Author of nature. Therefore, in producing nature, God formed not only the male but also the female."
The part your quote came from addressed the false biology at the time. Immediately after Aquinas says this, denying this "misbegotten" description.
Here the writer of the article says the "mistake" was due to lack of knowledge of biology, but if that were the case, why would Thomas Aquinas assume that women were defective and misbegotten if it wasn't due to a low opinion of women? Was it a logical conclusion?As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence;
I don't know why the writer says this is about the "inherent value of women". Does it say somewhere so or is it wishful thinking? To me it looks more like he is referring to the task of women bearing children and how it has been intented.Thomas Aquinas discusses the inherent value of women by stating that “on the other hand, as regards human nature in general, woman is not misbegotten, but is included in nature’s intention as directed to the work of generation.”
where does Thomas Aquinas even refer to the scientific process of reproduction?The texts indicate that Thomas Aquinas did see women as equal in human nature and that it further indicates the contemporary views on women were rooted in a major misunderstanding of the scientific process of reproduction, rather than a deep hatred of women.
Muslims never taught so.the quote from Greek thinkers says that “the female is the misbegotten male.”[7] This was a common belief throughout much of history.
But Eve was the one who tempted him according to the Bible.Wrong...Adam holds the brunt of responsibility...by getting his directions directly from God and being the head of Eve, he understood fully what he was doing...if he had exercised his headship in the proper way, well...things might have been different today...we'll never know...
"Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived+ and became a transgressor." 1 Timothy 2:13
Wrong...who would be the one more guilty...a person who is deceived into doing wrong or a person who's not, who knows perfectly well what he's doing and does it anyway?But Eve was the one who tempted him according to the Bible.
The very verse you quote seems to speak against your argument. The woman was deceived, not Adam, and the woman became the transgressor. I.e. Adam didn't become a transgressor and he wasn't deceived.
I don't claim he thought they were equal. I said that from the start. I said you were wrong to claim that he thought they were good only for reproduction.He recognised woman was created by God? How does that contradict his other statements?
Here the writer of the article says the "mistake" was due to lack of knowledge of biology, but if that were the case, why would Thomas Aquinas assume that women were defective and misbegotten if it wasn't due to a low opinion of women? Was it a logical conclusion?
I don't know why the writer says this is about the "inherent value of women". Does it say somewhere so or is it wishful thinking? To me it looks more like he is referring to the task of women bearing children and how it has been intented. where does Thomas Aquinas even refer to the scientific process of reproduction?
Muslims never taught so.
Then the article argues that since Thomas Aquinas raised Mary's status above angels and prophets, to be something divine, he couldn't have had a low opinion of women. The article claims he saw women as equal. Please point out a single Christian in 1200 or around that time who thought of men and women as equal.
Here it isNo he didn't.
What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman… I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children. –Saint Augustine
Twenty Vile Quotes Against Women By Church Leaders from St. Augustine to Pat Robertson
What with diatribes about entertainers who invite rape and moms who are destroying America by supporting their families . . . with ignorant arguments about fetuses that masturbate, and females who …valerietarico.com
Augustine disagreed.I don't claim he thought they were equal. I said that from the start. I said you were wrong to claim that he thought they were good only for reproduction.
The misbegotten part comes from the biology of the time which thought that in development the natural course was to develop as a male and that women came about from some defect in the process. Even with that biology Aquinas argued against the term because he said God created male and female.
Mary is not divine. Period.
Who said he knew better than Eve? Are men smarter?Wrong...who would be the one more guilty...a person who is deceived into doing wrong or a person who's not, who knows perfectly well what he's doing and does it anyway?
Adam received directions directly from God in Genesis 2:15-17...Who said he knew better than Eve? Are men smarter?
Or is Caritas (love) also required? Let's ask St. Augustine.
but according to Christianity as well as Judaism, we all die because of Eve.
Wishful thinking of those who don't want to do good deeds.
Augustine also said women are only good for reproduction.
But Eve was the one who tempted him according to the Bible.
The very verse you quote seems to speak against your argument. The woman was deceived, not Adam, and the woman became the transgressor. I.e. Adam didn't become a transgressor and he wasn't deceived.
The only citation I can find for that quote is that it is from Augustine's 243rd letter. I can't find that letter in English. Can you? The ellipses make me think Augustine is being taken badly out of context.Here it is
Augustine disagreed.
"If I have faith so as to move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing."Why not consult Paul instead.
“ 8 For (A)by grace you have been saved (B)through faith; and [a]this is not of yourselves, it is (C)the gift of God; 9 (D)not a result of works, so that (E)no one may boast.”
“ if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and (M)believe in your heart that (N)God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, [g]resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, [h]resulting in salvation”
John: “ For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. ”
“ “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” Acts
But she received the message. On what basis do you make her less accountable? Does the Bible say, because (and if) Adam was the only one to receive the warning from God directly then that makes him more obliged to abide by the rule? Or are you just making things up?Evidently Eve received hers from Adam, her head, which would make sense...no mention of God telling her directly...
"Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived+ and became a transgressor." 1 Timothy 2:13But she received the message. On what basis do you make her less accountable? Does the Bible say, because (and if) Adam was the only one to receive the warning from God directly then that makes him more obliged to abide by the rule? Or are you just making things up?
Being deceived is a negative thing, not a good one. Becoming a transgressor is also a negative thing."Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived+ and became a transgressor." 1 Timothy 2:13
Being deceived is not as bad as knowing wrong and yet doing it...that was Paul's point...Being deceived is a negative thing, not a good one. Becoming a transgressor is also a negative thing.
One could say, in the Biblical story, Adam was deceived as well — by his wife, whom he blames to begin with. At the same time he's also blaming God.
And is there anything in the Bible to indicate that Adam knew more than Eve — seeing as they both knew the same warning?Being deceived is not as bad as knowing wrong and yet doing it...that was Paul's point...
Wrong...I gave the scripture, not once but twice...why was Eve deceived but Adam wasn't...think about what that means...And is there anything in the Bible to indicate that Adam knew more than Eve — seeing as they both knew the same warning?
You are basically arguing that Eve indeed was inferior, either intellectually or morally or both, and that is why she caused the fall of mankind, but because Adam too and Adam knew.... Knew what? Knew what Eve knew. Don't eat from the tree.
We don't look for evidence from our own reasoning. If you think the Bible proves your point the proof must be somewhere other than what you keep quoting.Wrong...I gave the scripture, not once but twice...why was Eve deceived but Adam wasn't...think about what that means...
If you don't think God expects you to use your power of reason, why did he give you a brain? No, according to scripture, Adam was NOT deceived...he knew what he was doing and then turned around to blame God..."it was that woman that you gave me"...Genesis 3:12We don't look for evidence from our own reasoning. If you think the Bible proves your point the proof must be somewhere other than what you keep quoting.
They were both deceived. Do you suggest Adam a) didn't believe the serpent b) knew his wife was deceived and c) knew the fruit would not give him anything and still ate from the tree? Why, was he just indifferent?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?