Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I kind of figured that.

---

As my grandpa would say, "You're full of applesauce."

Quote:

---

from WG
Is the Flood story an allegory or literal/historical? Is Jonah and the great fish story alligorical or literal/historical? How do you know?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I take them both literally since I see no compelling reason not to, but I have no quarrel with someone who chooses not to.

---

You don't consider the fact that there has never been a world-wide flood that that destroyed all humanity a compelling reason to consider the story not literal? A man living for three days inside the belly of a whale is not a compelling reason to consider the story other than literal?

Like you, I have no problem with how others may see these stories, but to call them literal is bizarre in the extreme.

Before I saw this, I was going to ask you about the creation story in Genesis, and the Adam and Eve story. But I think I know your answer now. Anyway, I will ask it anyway to make sure.

Quote:

---

Why did you misspell allegorical as "alligorical"?

---

I can't resist citing the parable of the man who swallowed a camel (took the flood and Jonah as literal) and strained at a gnat (concerned about a spelling typo).

I only pointed out her typo because she continually does that to others.

As to the flood, there are good reasons to believe in it, but it is hard as well in other ways. That's why I don't worry too much about others not taking it literally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I only pointed out her typo because she continually does that to others.

---

Continually? Wash out your mouth! There aren't enough ours in the dsy to pint out the arrows and tepos on these boreds!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I only pointed out her typo because she continually does that to others.

---

Then why did you point out mine?

Quote:

---

Then why did you point out mine?

---

You mean your spelling of complementarianism? Because I thought then, and still do, that it highlighted the fact that you don't understand the concept and grossly misrepresented it.

Hope you all have a good night. See you tomorrow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You mean your spelling of complementarianism? Because I thought then, and still do, that it highlighted the fact that you don't understand the concept and grossly misrepresented it.

Hope you all have a good night. See you tomorrow.

---

Then how do you explain that it was spelled correctly by me otherwise? By your own logic, that would mean that I do understand the concept and accurately represented it.

On the issue of your Bible reading as literal, allegorical, etc., etc. please tell us your take on the Genesis creation story and the Adam and Eve story.

I just saw your response re the flood story. Quote, "As to the flood, there are good reasons to believe in it, but it is hard as well in other ways." What are the good reasons to believe that a world-wide flood killed all life on earth?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Continually? Wash out your mouth! There aren't enough ours in the dsy to pint out the arrows and tepos on these boreds!

---

Your mispellings here are outrageous! I have no option but to report you. Stop watching Dr. Phil. His doctorate is in jump-rope.

I had no real problem with your spelling. It was your unfortunate mischaracterization of the idea that revealed your lack of understanding.

Do you want a Pilot?
Signal then to Jesus;
Do you want a Pilot?
Bid Him come on board;
For He will safely guide
Across the oceans wide
Until you reach at last
The Heavenly Harbour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I had no real problem with your spelling. It was your unfortunate mischaracterization of the idea that revealed your lack of understanding.

---

What part or parts of the below do you deny?

"Complementarianism" says men and women have separate roles, and men are the ones in charge. Among the nearly 800,000 words in the Bible, one sentence seems to contain white evangelical thinking on this matter. It’s from a letter the Apostle Paul wrote to his protege, Timothy: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.”

You only presented one narrow aspect. The principle is that men and women, though filling different roles in marriage and leadership, complement each other's strengths. It is a partnership based upon leaders who sacrifice for the sake of their wives, children, and church members, and a corresponding respect paid to those in leadership, including by the men of the church who do not participate in church leadership. You attempted, quite intentionally I think, to portray it as the idea of men dominating women. If you had even said, "men and women have separate and yet complementary roles," then it would have been more on target.

But we have discussed this to death. I see no point in pursuing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You only presented one narrow aspect

---

That is true. I was making a point ABOUT the idea, not defining the idea.

Quote:

---

The principle is that men and women, though filling different roles in marriage and leadership, complement each other's strengths. It is a partnership based upon leaders who sacrifice for the sake of their wives, children, and church members, and a corresponding respect paid to those in leadership, including by the men of the church who do not participate in church leadership.

---

I believe that is also true. But does it work out that way in practice?

Quote:

---

You attempted, quite intentionally I think, to portray it as the idea of men dominating women.

---

You're batting 1.000! That is exactly what I intended. That has been my observation of the idea. I think it is generally true that men dominate women in those (Biblical) relationships. It is also true (generally) that some women accept and like their subservient role, while others prefer an equal partnership. Either way is OK with me, but I must insist on the ongoing practice of excluding women (generally) from leadership roles in (some) churches. Sorry for so many qualifiers, but that's the only way to put it.

I definitely appreciate your idea of sacrifice and a corresponding mutual respect.

Sadly, it oftentimes does not work out that way in practice. I think that doesn’t alter the beauty of the arrangement.