I never used the word “only”. It would seem that you are the one mischaracterizing, would it not?
I would agree with your suggestion. Much clearer.
|
I never used the word “only”. It would seem that you are the one mischaracterizing, would it not?
I would agree with your suggestion. Much clearer.
Your rephrasing assumed the "only."Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You do know what they say about the word “assume”? Seems appropriate here. Still his mishandling of complimentarianism should have concerned you. It didn’t. Wonder why?
The assuming was on your end, so I didn't mention it so as not to embarrass you after you agreed with me and complimented me.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I wasn't following that part, just the grammar stuff.Quote:
Seems appropriate here. Still his mishandling of complimentarianism should have concerned you. It didn’t. Wonder why?
So now you think you know what other people assume? Grasping of straws??Quote:
The assuming was on your end
I know that you will never say a critical word of your liberal buds on this site. You prefer assuming that you know what others assume and thus mischaracterize what they say. Hopefully you will wake up some day.Quote:
I wasn't following that part,
You said exactly what you assumed Athos had said. But he hadn't said what you assumed he did.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Tal, Athos, tomder, paraclete, and I have known each other for at least 20 years, had met on another Q&A site, had happily interacted long before politics got to be an issue on this site.Quote:
I know that you will never say a critical word of your liberal buds on this site. You prefer assuming that you know what others assume and thus mischaracterize what they say. Hopefully you will wake up some day.
Not SEEM to support misogyny, but DOES support misogyny. Your 50 examples were proof enough. The whole of scripture does nothing to undermine it's misogyny. Saying something positive about women does not eliminate the charge of misogyny elsewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life
Other than biology, rules are misogynistic when they are based on gender.Quote:
Having rules that are in regard to one sex or another isn't misogyny.
That's as good a definition as any.Quote:
A prejudice against women would be misogyny.
Being less misogynistic than other countries (if that's what you're claiming) does not change the misogyny in the Bible. It's like saying Joe murdered two people so he's less of a murderer than Sam who murdered three people.Quote:
After looking at the whole of scripture, you would find ancient Israel one of the most enlightened countries in the history of the world.
If a question is put to me, I may or may not answer it depending on the reason for the question. In your case, I don't know of any questions you have asked me. You've hardly ever been on this page.Quote:
Athos has many unanswered questions.
Insulting others is not a good way for you to start here. I'm at a loss to understand why fundamentalists are so quick to hop on the nasty train when they are challenged. (I'm assuming you're a fundamentalist - correct me if I'm wrong).Quote:
It must be easier to not think through your ideas than to have them critiqued.
This is an incredible way to present an argument that Paul (the Bible) is not misogynistic! You conclude that women are under men (per se misogyny) and then go on to prove it with head coverings as symbols, etc. I'm sorry, but the self-blindness of what you are saying is breathtaking.Quote:
This is the conclusion Paul gives after explaining that women are under men and men under God.
If this is you claiming that Paul is not misogynistic - a most ineffective claim - you still have those 50 Biblical examples to deal with.Quote:
He asserts nothing except to "judge amongst yourselves" concerning these things, and "we have no such customs" regarding these things. They are neither the domain of sin or church rules, but rather that the purpose of such customs have a biblical and logical basis.
You left out that Adam was not deceived because he was not tempted by the serpent. Pretty big omission, isn't that?Quote:
It was woman who was deceived. The man was with her, and heeded the voice of the woman and ate, he was however, not deceived by the serpent.
Your idea of conversation is to insult the other person.Quote:
I guess your idea of good is how many people are nice to you.
Here's a little tidbit about original sin. As we all know, Augustine was the first to promote original sin. He said it came from the semen during sexual intercourse. He also believed unbaptized infants went to hell. There's more on that topic, but I'll leave it for you to ponder.Quote:
If this is true (that Christ saw genesis as an allegory), then the doctrine of original sin is meaningless
No one is calling Christ a liar. But he did tell a lot of stories that were not literally true, and to make a moral point. Which genealogy did Christ "allow" his apostles to believe it's historical accuracy?Quote:
Further, you are calling Christ a liar, his genealogy would have been known to him and he allowed the apostles to believe it was historically accurate and all to support an allegory.
This whole section was directed toward me. Insult after insult, question after question never asked, telling me how confounded I am - note how these are all ad hominem statements - the refuge of the defeated. I'm only surprised you didn't threaten me with some Bible verses. The other guy usually does that.Quote:
I said "tend towards misogyny," thus illustrating my first point, that you have little understanding as to what the bible actually says about women.
Yet you still avoid the question "Are you wiser than God, than the scriptures, than the prophets of old?" How is it that you have some magical knowledge of the past and spirituality that was not imbued to the rest of mankind?
You continually place your wisdom over all evidences and all texts that confound you. "Those who trust in themselves are fools, but those who walk in wisdom are kept safe." Proverbs 28:26
When in doubt, insult. Oh, the irony!Quote:
Your view of history is simplistic and confounded.
WOW! How liberal! Bunch of darn lefties.Quote:
In Israel women were allowed to own things
No matter how you cut it, Israel was a patriarchial society. The Adam and Eve story is clearly the patriarchs unintentionally describing why women are secondary citizens. It was unintended but it's there anyway, being such a deeply rooted part of that society.
Does that include OT polygamy?Quote:
We are talking about one simple rule, leadership in the church.
Noah, Babel, Jonah? No third Possibility? Like a story making a point?Quote:
Also things Christ lied about? He believed such things or he lied.
They are stories, myths, fables. No one is rejecting them Biblically, only as literal fact.Quote:
There is no biblical or historical truth to rejecting these things.
No comment. What's the use?Quote:
But I guess you are now the arbiter of truth. You can look at a document and discern what did and didn't happen, through what means though? Do you have a crystal ball?
No, you are not all caught up, and light years from bring finished. You have hardly begun.Quote:
I'm finished, all caught up.
Except that the only way you could show that was to falsely insert the word "only" which I never said. You have been caught by "assume" in your desperate effort to support your liberal buddy.Quote:
You said exactly what you assumed Athos had said. But he hadn't said what you assumed he did.
So that's your excuse? You make assumptions about assumptions rather than let even a whisper of criticism arise for your long term buds? And this discussion is not even about politics.Quote:
Tal, Athos, tomder, paraclete, and I have known each other for at least 20 years, had met on another Q&A site, had happily interacted long before politics got to be an issue on this site.
BOTH were deceived!!! As I posted earlier, all Eve had to do was blink her pretty lashes and sweetly suggest Adam take a bite. And he did. Thus, it took all the guile of Satan to tempt the woman, but it took only a woman to tempt the man.Quote:
Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life
Nope. "For Adam was formed first [by God from the earth], then Eve; 14 and it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman who was led astray and fell into sin."Quote:
BOTH were deceived!!
Your comments on this board do not carry the weight of scripture. Good grief.
Adam ate of the fruit from the forbidden tree. Adam wasn't deceived by the wily serpent. He was deceived by a mere woman.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
What if he would have said to the woman, "No thanks, dear"?
Sez you. Sorry, but your words do not equate to scripture, and that's especially true coming from someone who says that Paul, John, and Jesus were all gay. Incredible.Quote:
He was deceived by a mere woman.
Of course you should notice that you are also alleging that Eve was both deceived AND a deceiver herself. Hmmm.
Genesis 3:6-13Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Yes, Eve was both deceived and deceiver. How did she not trick Adam into eating the forbidden fruit? "Oooooo, Adam! It's so sweet and crunchy and full of flavor." She didn't bother to mention it was from the forbidden tree, so he stupidly and cluelessly took a bite.
You post a reference which say absolutely nothing about Eve deceiving Adam.Quote:
Genesis 3:6-13
Oh well. Enough of this lunacy.
She handed him forbidden fruit (but didn't mention that's what it was). She. Deceived. Adam.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Sez you but not the Bible.
If she didn't deceive him, he was one [deleted].Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
"6When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it."
I guess she didn't deceive him. All she had to do was hand it to him (with her knowing that it was forbidden).
Ah Athos, Going fishing.
(Begins with the assumption that the tradition is fundamentally contaminated).Quote:
Bad theology leads to moral decay.
Moral theology in the United States today is in crisis. Fractured and polarized, the ascendant methodologies are only preoccupied with power both in theory and in practice. If the teaching authority and tradition of the Church are to be understood as hopelessly compromised by patriarchy, homophobia, and so on—such that they can and should be something other than central to the discourse—then a discipline other than theology is setting the terms of the practice.
Women may assist in the decision-making process, the ultimate authority for the decision is the purview of the male in marriage, courtship, and in the polity of churches.
What must be believed is that revelation is entrusted to the apostolic Church, and through many ups and downs the tradition is guided by the Holy Spirit and roughly, over time, we discern more and more how to live out the vocation of followers of Christ until he comes again.
Marriage is a partnership. The wife doesn't "assist". Husband and wife work together as equal partners.Quote:
Originally Posted by waltero
What if the husband is incapable of fulfilling his role?
And the apostolic Church is where? what?Quote:
But what must be believed is that revelation is entrusted to the apostolic Church
And, waltero, what is your source for your very comprehensive post?
What is your source for saying the husband and wife are equal partners?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:58 PM. |