misogyny

[Spock]

Just now, worthy said:

Thanks for your two cents.

I don't want to see this thread closed. Just wondering where its going.

I can't answer that one, but here is what I see is going on:

I hope someone responds to things being brought up by Wolf, Marilyn, and myself.  

Ive brought up the "context and culture" angle and not many are biting. I'm truly open to reading other perspectives that don't even agree with mine. 

And it looks like presently we are discussing WHO are the harvesters of souls Jesus was calling for.  Missionaries, pastors, anybody?  

and I think we are still waiting for scripture to show someone other than Paul doesn't feel women should have authority over a man. 

 

[Spock]

5 minutes ago, Marilyn C said:

RIP,  I have had the best laugh this morning.

Thanks spock, Marilyn.

My pleasure Marilyn. Making you smile has made my day. ?

Btw, your soapbox debate is record setting. I can't believe the commitment you two have. Remind me never to debate either of you two.  

[Churchmouse]

2 hours ago, Spock said:

Hey churchmouse,

I would love to read your feedback on each paragraph I have written below. I would like to see what common ground we have if any.  

If you don't mind,  would you write 1 for your feedback on paragraph 1 only;  2 for feedback on paragraph 2 only; and 3 for feedback on paragraph 3 only.  Thanks.

1. People have and are still guilty of taking a verse or two from the word out of context and use it to support WHAT THEY WANT IT TO SAY.  I cited the bigoted racists of the 1800s who did just that, when they justified their right to slavery by quoting guess who? Paul from his LETTERS. (I wonder if Paul ever thought all of his LETTERS would end up being scripture read everyday for thousands of years by every Christian  on an equal plane with the Gospels, Acts, Hebrews, and Revelation?  Philemon who?  Just a thought.)  Therefore, we have to be careful not to use a very small segment of scripture to make a doctrine. 

2. Because of this, I encourage a TOTAL examination of the entire word as a better  way to support a doctrine.  What does God say about roles of women from Genesis to Revelation, not just a few verses from the same guy who is writing a specific LETTER to a specific person or a specific church. I also encourage the use of COMMON SENSE too, which means you might have to exam context and culture.

3.  People often apply context and culture much more than they probably I magine.  For example, how many Christians  have erased the 4th commandment from their  Bible and some have even done away with all 10 commandments saying they only apply to a person of Jewish persuasion.  Eating food set apart for idols is another that comes to mind. Why did they do that?  I'm sure Context and culture came into play along with perhaps a few other factors like keeping traditions.  So, if you are allowed to apply context and culture on some matters, is it possible this issue of women roles should also be filtered through a context/culture lens?

Thanks for your feedback. I will be reading and pondering. I value your input. 

Spock

 

 What we need to do is stop the scavenger hunt through scripture for anything to wrap ones own personal idealism around as it is not there for our ideals, but Gods. He was the one who inspired all f this and as from the beginning of time up until the present day, there is not one instance where any women ever had any authority to preach the word of God. The only times which I've ever heard anywhere close to this is when the Judges ruled over Israel and I don't specifically know how much influence they had, but I would guess they acted much like prophets.  There is no indication that any female held any priesthood in the old testament or the new. Jesus did not have any female apostles and there is no indication that there has ever been even thought of a woman in the position of preacher down through the ages and even into the 20th century and I think if God had it in mind that such a thing was permissible than no one, no matter who could stand in his way. 

The idea of putting forth the imagery of the Southern slave masters is just another attempt to elicit emotional responses and I don't think anyone here deserves to have their take on the Bible reduced to a prank. I say that for everybody including you and if I find out someone has done this to you, I will speak against that as well. I have no dog in this hunt and I'm not idealistically attached to any ideal. If you can show me where I am wrong and in a specific way I will be open to changing my mind. To date, I haven't seen anything to support anything other than what supports the views I have.

You ask me how many Christians erased this and that. I say none of them have, if anyone has sidestepped anything in the Bible they are not Christian, but people who are in love with calling themselves Christian and not following through with God's plan. What I have heard is that there are some of the laws that were ceremonial in nature and only were applied to making the Israelite's stand out apart from those people that were around them. I would like to, one day look into that and see which of those laws apply, but I'm fairly sure that it would have been along the same line as not wearing clothing of linen and wool together. I don't think any of these things can be refereed to the acceptance of women as preachers, because of the fact that we are his direct creations and are under his authority to conduct ourselves according to his wishes because how we do this is determined on how he sees us. That is the entire crux of the topic here. God grants through his holy spirit what these preachers say and he knows what is needed in the church itself. If he is displeased in any way with the person who is in charge there I hardly think he will influence that persons words.

This is not about making political or social points as there have been many civilizations that have risen up and died out in the long history of man, but God has a longer history and his history with us began in the Garden of Edan and he set the roles of men and women at that time. I haven't heard of any updates to this, but my eyes are open and my ears are ready for anything different that he has in store for us. Thank you and God bless.

 

[Marilyn C]

27 minutes ago, Spock said:

My pleasure Marilyn. Making you smile has made my day. ?

Btw, your soapbox debate is record setting. I can't believe the commitment you two have. Remind me never to debate either of you two.  

I would never want to cross swords with you spock, you`d only make me laugh. And then I`d lose my place.

[Spock]

54 minutes ago, Churchmouse said:

 What we need to do is stop the scavenger hunt through scripture for anything to wrap ones own personal idealism around as it is not there for our ideals, but Gods. He was the one who inspired all f this and as from the beginning of time up until the present day, there is not one instance where any women ever had any authority to preach the word of God. The only times which I've ever heard anywhere close to this is when the Judges ruled over Israel and I don't specifically know how much influence they had, but I would guess they acted much like prophets.  There is no indication that any female held any priesthood in the old testament or the new. Jesus did not have any female apostles and there is no indication that there has ever been even thought of a woman in the position of preacher down through the ages and even into the 20th century and I think if God had it in mind that such a thing was permissible than no one, no matter who could stand in his way. 

The idea of putting forth the imagery of the Southern slave masters is just another attempt to elicit emotional responses and I don't think anyone here deserves to have their take on the Bible reduced to a prank. I say that for everybody including you and if I find out someone has done this to you, I will speak against that as well. I have no dog in this hunt and I'm not idealistically attached to any ideal. If you can show me where I am wrong and in a specific way I will be open to changing my mind. To date, I haven't seen anything to support anything other than what supports the views I have.

You ask me how many Christians erased this and that. I say none of them have, if anyone has sidestepped anything in the Bible they are not Christian, but people who are in love with calling themselves Christian and not following through with God's plan. What I have heard is that there are some of the laws that were ceremonial in nature and only were applied to making the Israelite's stand out apart from those people that were around them. I would like to, one day look into that and see which of those laws apply, but I'm fairly sure that it would have been along the same line as not wearing clothing of linen and wool together. I don't think any of these things can be refereed to the acceptance of women as preachers, because of the fact that we are his direct creations and are under his authority to conduct ourselves according to his wishes because how we do this is determined on how he sees us. That is the entire crux of the topic here. God grants through his holy spirit what these preachers say and he knows what is needed in the church itself. If he is displeased in any way with the person who is in charge there I hardly think he will influence that persons words.

This is not about making political or social points as there have been many civilizations that have risen up and died out in the long history of man, but God has a longer history and his history with us began in the Garden of Edan and he set the roles of men and women at that time. I haven't heard of any updates to this, but my eyes are open and my ears are ready for anything different that he has in store for us. Thank you and God bless.

 

Church mouse,

tha ks for your response. I read it twice before commenting. 

1. You seem upset with the slavery issue so I will address that first. I was merely cautioning and questioning....are we using a few scripture verses regarding women authority out of context and culture  just like some Southern men did back in the 1800s.  After further thought, I do agree with you...it does add an emotional component that is not needed. I withdraw that analogy. Sorry. 

2. You mentioned ceremonial laws of the OT but you did not address my specific point regarding the 4th commandment. Do you not see how most Christians have done away with the 4th commandment? On what basis? It seems to be based on "context and culture."  (Its to the Jew only.) The point I was making then was simply this, if some use context and culture to support doing away with the Sabbath, why can't I use context and culture to dismiss Pauls admonition regarding women should not have authority over men in church settings?  (To the Corinthian Church only.) 

anyhow, I'm not trying to stress you or anyone out and honestly, you won't hurt my feelings if you completely disagree with me on this topic. I enjoy good debate because it is an opportuntiy to test your beliefs and to grow. 

Cheers,

spock

Edited May 18, 2017 by Spock

[Churchmouse]

1 minute ago, Spock said:

Church mouse,

tha ks for your response. I read it twice before commenting. 

1. You seem upset with the slavery issue and I'm not quite sure why?  It is a known fact that many southern Christian men justified their religious position of owning slaves from Pauls letters in the Bible.  I majored in History a long time ago and I can still remember one course I took- Religion in Wars. This angle was brought up and it made an impression on me because I often wondered how could a Christian support slavery?  Why were these Southerners so willing to leave the country to hang onto their slaves? I got an answer, at least part of it.

2. You mentioned ceremonial laws of the OT but you did not address my specific point regarding the 4th commandment. Do you not see how most Christians have done away with the 4th commandment? On what basis? It seems to be based on "context and culture."  (Its to the Jew only.) The point I was making then was simply this, if some use context and culture to support doing away with the Sabbath, why can't I use context and culture to dismiss Pauls admonition regarding women should not have authority over men in church settings?  (To the Corinthian Church only.) 

anyhow, I'm not trying to stress you or anyone out and honestly, you won't hurt my feelings if you completely disagree with me on this topic. I enjoy good debate because it is an opportuntiy to test your beliefs and to grow. 

Cheers,

spock

I very rarely get upset and when I do, I try to walk away from the keyboard.

What I am is tired of the tactic of using imagery over substance. It's the same thing as using the name of Hitler, as it brings up the spectre of evil and as it is always utilized to seemingly equate the oppositions viewpoint. I think it is more to get the opposition off their game than to support any viewpoint that user has. I really think most people use such things when they are frustrated and should really step away from the keyboard themselves and collect their thoughts. I say that because I have had my fair share of going after others. The one thing is that these threads are not specifically for those carrying on the conversation. They are for those people who come here to read what is being discussed here. I don't think that too many of these threads have changed the minds of those who debate here. They are for those who might just be influenced by what they read here and if they see these emotional outbursts as what they are. Emotional outbursts and those reading will attribute the outbursts to those who use them.

As far as history is concerned. History is just that. If those slaveowners were to have been born 200 years earlier or 200 years later they would have the mindset of the times they were in and they would justify their actions accordingly by the authority figures in their lives. What gets me is the fact that people try to judge people from other time periods according to the previlant attitudes that they live under and that Is not fair, no matter how you look at things.

I addressed what I thought reliant, which is as much as anyone can do. As far as taking the Lords name in vain  I've have heard two lines of thought on this. One is that taking in vain means not using God's name for making profit and the other is not turning it into a curse word or one that is used thoughtlessly. What I find odd is that most people seem to think Gods name is God. It Is not. God is a reference to a state of being, as he is God. His name is one of many I've heard over the years. Jehovah, I am, Yah-weh.

As far as you personally doing whatever you want , that is up to you. We all are responsible to the one who made us to act according to his designs, If we wish to have a relationship with him. It is not up to me to stand in your way. It is up to me, though to point out things which I think will be helpful to you and to make my understanding of Gods will known as it is, to me his message and I would not be following his instructions to me, as I see it, if I kept quiet here.  I owe it to him and all who are here, to do nothing less and a whole bunch more.

[Spock]

2 minutes ago, Churchmouse said:

I very rarely get upset and when I do, I try to walk away from the keyboard.

What I am is tired of the tactic of using imagery over substance. It's the same thing as using the name of Hitler, as it brings up the spectre of evil and as it is always utilized to seemingly equate the oppositions viewpoint. I think it is more to get the opposition off their game than to support any viewpoint that user has. I really think most people use such things when they are frustrated and should really step away from the keyboard themselves and collect their thoughts. I say that because I have had my fair share of going after others. The one thing is that these threads are not specifically for those carrying on the conversation. They are for those people who come here to read what is being discussed here. I don't think that too many of these threads have changed the minds of those who debate here. They are for those who might just be influenced by what they read here and if they see these emotional outbursts as what they are. Emotional outbursts and those reading will attribute the outbursts to those who use them.

As far as history is concerned. History is just that. If those slaveowners were to have been born 200 years earlier or 200 years later they would have the mindset of the times they were in and they would justify their actions accordingly by the authority figures in their lives. What gets me is the fact that people try to judge people from other time periods according to the previlant attitudes that they live under and that Is not fair, no matter how you look at things.

I addressed what I thought reliant, which is as much as anyone can do. As far as taking the Lords name in vain  I've have heard two lines of thought on this. One is that taking in vain means not using God's name for making profit and the other is not turning it into a curse word or one that is used thoughtlessly. What I find odd is that most people seem to think Gods name is God. It Is not. God is a reference to a state of being, as he is God. His name is one of many I've heard over the years. Jehovah, I am, Yah-weh.

As far as you personally doing whatever you want , that is up to you. We all are responsible to the one who made us to act according to his designs, If we wish to have a relationship with him. It is not up to me to stand in your way. It is up to me, though to point out things which I think will be helpful to you and to make my understanding of Gods will known as it is, to me his message and I would not be following his instructions to me, as I see it, if I kept quiet here.  I owe it to him and all who are here, to do nothing less and a whole bunch more.

I edited my last post  before you posted regarding the Southern men using slavery from the Bible to justify their position.  Go ahead and read it. 

[Churchmouse]

7 minutes ago, Spock said:

I edited my last post  before you posted regarding the Southern men using slavery from the Bible to justify their position.  Go ahead and read it. 

I thank you for that removal. I've had to do too many of those withdrawals myself.

 We are all subject to be passionate about what we believe. just remember that there are some people that frequent these forums who are only here to egg someone on and see how many buttons they can push. I would hate to see one of those types push you into pushing your own self right out the front door.  Take care and God bless and keep you.

[Spock]

8 hours ago, Churchmouse said:

I thank you for that removal. I've had to do too many of those withdrawals myself.

 We are all subject to be passionate about what we believe. just remember that there are some people that frequent these forums who are only here to egg someone on and see how many buttons they can push. I would hate to see one of those types push you into pushing your own self right out the front door.  Take care and God bless and keep you.

It is not my intention to win an arguement using worldly ways. I don't even have to be an attorney to know that what I did would cause an emotional reaction to get people to appreciate my argument even more.  After reading your words, I felt convicted that I don't need to apply WORLDLY means on a Christian site to present an argument. If I feel I'm representing God, then He doesn't need that kind of assistance from me. 

The point I was simply trying to make was this- I caution people to not make doctrines so quickly based on a very small sample size, especially if much of it comes from one source.  Always Consider the totality of scripture.  I see you did that in your rebuttal too. Well done. 

Cheers,

spock

[OneLight]

Yes, this thread has run its course.  Closed.