[Wondergirl]

You will never think rightly about marriage until you are convinced of the divine origin of Scripture.

Let me know when you reach the 54th wedding anniversary of a very happy, cooperative marital partnership.

The way you (WG) go at it, is just as a pragmatist:

When you live in the real world, that's the only way to be.

[Athos]

This does not prove men are superior, but rather that they have been given authority. Two very different things.

You have supported my position. Authority is not given to those who are seen as inferior, or to those who are mistrusted.

The Genesis 19 story about Sodom and Gomorrah,..... Sin breeds sin. ....... I might also point out, that the Genesis story was prior to the law, it had not yet been given by God to Moses.......... Levite. The rule of law has been established in the land of Israel by the time of the Judges 19 story................................ There were no angels there to protect the Levite, however, and mob was assuaged by the wife of the Levite. This resulted in her death. ..... These are stories of how destruction befalls sinners, and how God's mercy can work through the sin of man. These are not exemplifications of sin and a righteous society. ....................... the man must marry the woman, and would never be able to seek a divorce, as this would give the wife more power over a weaker man. ..... The consent of the woman is not considered ..... to be put to death. It must also be understood, that women were usually betrothed at a very young age, and that the penalty for rape of a betrothed woman was death.

The above sampling should be read in toto by anyone interested in the subject. It is the most ridiculous defense of his position imaginable. It wanders all over the place except in rebutting the essential question. There's a lot about sin, law and death - but nothing about denying the lower status of women.

Infojunkie wants us to believe all his wordiness does just that - denies the inferiority of women without actually saying so. It's a common tactic of evangelicals - quote large amounts of the Bible until the original controversy is lost in all the words.

"And those members of the body which we think to be less honorable, on these we bestow greater honor; and our unpresentable parts have greater modesty, but our presentable parts have no need. But God composed the body, having given greater honor to that part which lacks it, that there should be no schism in the body, but that the members should have the same care for one another. And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; or if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it."

Quoted in full to reveal the bizarre stupidity (no other word fits) of how evangelicals support a position no matter how remote from the actual subject. The author (Bible author) is comparing women to the "unpresentable" parts of the body. Is anything else needed to see how this Bible author thinks of women?

The bible teaches us to have peace with our station in life, that to be rebellious is sin, that the law is to be followed

An excellent example of infojunkie supporting the position of the inferiority of women. The Bible teaches to accept the inferiority ("have peace with out station in life"). NOT to accept the inferiority is to be rebellious and sinful!!!

Although true, a woman was not without recourse. She could force a man to divorce her by being contentious, or having by some uncleanness about her.

An incredible explanation for the inferiority of women that "although true", infojunkie shows how a woman could get even.

Women are the weaker vessel, that is why God commands men to protect their daughters and wives. I know no body likes to talk about this, but it is biology.

"Nobody" (evangelicals) likes to talk about this because it clearly shows women to be inferior - unless "weaker vessel" means SUPERIOR!


There is no one who finds it more difficult to accept the truth than those who are already emotionally committed to easily disproven ideas.

[Athos]

The structure of Mosaic laws is that all men and women are under the authority of the law.The law delegates certain responsibilities to men. The law delegates certain responsibilities to leaders.The law delegates certain responsibilities to religious practice.Men are under the authority of leaders.Women are under the authority of men, but because both are under the authority of the law, they are equally protected by the law.The law allows certain sins and punishes others.The law allowed the authority of a leader to impact the authority of other men.

Saying the inferiority of women was codified in law does not change the fact of that inferiority nor how the Bible world treated women. The law simply reinforced what the tribal rulers (or God) had already decided.

It is also true that Christians do not have live by these laws. It is a book of histories of the chosen people of God.

Then why do Bible evangelicals cite these laws as in force today?

Speaking of semantics, you do realize that the word "history" had a very different meaning then compared to now?

[waltero]

You will never think rightly about marriage until you are convinced of the divine origin of Scripture.

The way you (WG) go at it, is just as a pragmatist:

The only way you can go at it, then, is just as a pragmatist: that there are certain principles here that might be helpful for us, and so on—some ideas, some concepts. I can apply them if I choose, I’ll disregard them if I want. There’s nothing here that is of divine authority; there’s nothing here that makes me have to do anything at all. I mean, I might see that it’s valuable to love my wife as Christ loved the church, but there again, I don’t really like to do that most of the time, and so why should I? Well, of course, you shouldn’t—unless God’s Word is true.

When you live in the real world, that's the only way to be

Do you understand Nothing? Why do you operate as if you live in this world? Christ Jesus is not of this world and neither is his Church. This should not be the world you subscribe to. You do understand that this world is going to pass away???

You believe the Bible unless, of course, it disagrees with you, and then you don't believe it unless asked when, again, you claim to believe it. And on and on it goes

This is WG to a "T."

Augustine said, “If you believe what you like in the gospel, and you reject what you don’t like, it’s not the gospel you believe, it’s yourself.” So, if you believe what you like in the Bible and reject what you dislike in the Bible, then it’s not the Bible you believe, it’s yourself.

At the end of the day—a man or a woman will only become convinced of the authority of Scripture by Scripture itself. You cannot appeal to a higher authority than the one who has written the Scriptures. So Scripture interprets itself. J. C. Ryle: “Our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word [of God] in our hearts.” The witness of the Holy Spirit working by the Word of God and with the word of God and within our hearts. In other words, the same Spirit that inspired the Word illumines the Word and convinces us that it is the Word. That’s how. And that is actually only how.

[InfoJunkie4Life]

Infojunkie wants us to believe all his wordiness does just that - denies the inferiority of women without actually saying so. It's a common tactic of evangelicals - quote large amounts of the Bible until the original controversy is lost in all the words.

Athos has trouble with words...he tends to skip most of them to get to his point.

Man, I thought I had you in real discussion, now I see I've lost you again.

There are 783,137 words in the King James Bible. More than most languages. It takes months and months to have a rudimentary understanding of any given language, years to master it, and then you may have only 40-50,000 words you truly understand.

If you spend some time studying the bible, you will learn something. There is more knowledge and wisdom there than in any dictionary or textbook. The topics are deep and profound with lessons a child can understand.

Athos, you keep telling me all the faults in the bible, maybe you should take a look at it, really take a look, maybe even read the whole thing, then you wouldn't have to go around pretending you know something you don't.

There is no blindness to my faith, only to the heresies you preach. Yes you are a preacher, knowing what is good and evil, what's right and wrong, gleaning many truths from something you don't even have to read.

I'd almost swear you have an aversion to truth. Its all relative to what you believe, I guess. Proverbs states it best "The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise."

The way to understanding is to look beyond your own stupid head. (Not ad hominem, we all got a stupid head, but you have to see that before you'll learn anything).

Good luck guys, I'm out.

[Athos]

Athos has trouble with words...he tends to skip most of them to get to his point. Man, I thought I had you in real discussion, now I see I've lost you again.

The words of a loser. No defense of his position, just a nasty charge against me. Typical.

There are 783,137 words in the King James Bible. More than most languages. It takes months and months to have a rudimentary understanding of any given language, years to master it, and then you may have only 40-50,000 words you truly understand.

As usual, no discernible point in the above re the issue at hand.

If you spend some time studying the bible, you will learn something. The topics are deep and profound with lessons a child can understand.

Then how to explain someone like you who has learned little, even those sections a child can understand.

Athos, you keep telling me all the faults in the bible

No, just the parts you refuse to see. A child could understand them.

maybe you should take a look at it, really take a look, maybe even read the whole thing, then you wouldn't have to go around pretending you know something you don't.

The real pretender here is pretty obvious. You can't rationally rebut what I've said, so you strike out and throw insults instead of offering truth. Like many evangelicals, your understanding of the Bible is on the shallowest level, and serves only to feed your prejudices.

There is no blindness to my faith, only to the heresies you preach.

Unable to prove your point, the inquisitor in you surfaces. Now it's heresies. What's next? Burning at the stake?

Yes you are a preacher, knowing what is good and evil, what's right and wrong, gleaning many truths from something you don't even have to read.

No, not a preacher. Just someone who has read the Bible with common sense and a far greater understanding than you have with your blind faith and need to have your biases confirmed. That is obvious to open-minded readers of this exchange.

I'd almost swear you have an aversion to truth.

You just can't stop with your insults, can you? A common tactic of yours. Sadly.

Its all relative to what you believe, I guess.

No, you guess wrong. It depends on the meaning of the words and stories and moral lessons, a skill you have not mastered.

Proverbs states it best "The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise."

Lol. You don't want to duel Proverbs with me. You're unarmed for that battle.

The way to understanding is to look beyond your own stupid head. (Not ad hominem,

A suitable farewell. "Not ad hominem", you say. Kind of proves my point about your lack of understanding the meaning of words, doesn't it?

Good luck guys, I'm out.

I'm surprised it took you so long to admit defeat. There are many sources of good information re the Bible, but my guess is you prefer to wallow in your misunderstanding.

Understanding you is helping me to understand the Jan 6 Trump insurrectionists. Many similarities between you and them.

[jlisenbe]

Understanding you is helping me to understand the Jan 6 Trump insurrectionists.

Perfect example of the employment of the ad hominem fallacy.

Suggesting that a person's role in the church or family determines his/her worth is foolishness. An infant has no leadership role, but is certainly as valuable as the parents. This is true in many areas of society. Is the boss of greater worth to God than his secretary? For that matter, are the men in a church who are not employed in church leadership of less value than the men who are so employed? Of course not.

As to the Bible's affirmation of the equal worth of women, consider these.

1. Luke 8:2. Jesus did have female disciples, practically unheard of at the time. “The Twelve were with him, 2 and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; 3 Joanna the wife of Chuza, the manager of Herod’s household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means.” See also Mark 15:41 and 16:1.
2. Acts 2: On the birthday of the church, the prophecy of Joel makes it very clear that women would be used in ministry. “In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. 18 Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.”
3. John 4:39. Jesus uses a woman, who is living with a man not her husband, to bring the Gospel message to an entire village. “Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman’s testimony. “
4. Romans 16:1. A woman, Phoebe, was used to deliver Paul’s letter to the Romans, a job which would not have been carelessly assigned.
5. Romans 16:3ff. Of the first 5 people Paul greets, 3 are women. At least 10 women are mentioned in that long section of greetings.
6. Luke 2:36. A woman named Anna was a well-known prophetess and was living on the Temple grounds.
7. Acts 16:13. A woman named Lydia was the first convert in Europe. The first church in Europe met in her home.
8. Acts 17:34. When Paul lists some of the early converts in Athens, he makes sure to mention one woman by name (Damaris).
9. Acts 17:4. In Thessalonica, Paul sees a number of people won to Christ. This included, he made sure to note, “quite a few prominent women.”
10. Acts 17:12. The same is true of the young church in Berea. “As a result, many of them believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.”

Note. It is hard to imagine why the supposedly misogynistic Paul would have gone to the trouble of mentioning women unless he valued their inclusion in the early church.

1. The book of 2 John is written to a woman. Note verse 13. “The children of your sister, who is chosen by God, send their greetings.”
2. Gal. 3:26ff. Here Paul clearly affirms the equal spiritual worth of men and women. “26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
3. Luke 10:38. Jesus allowed women to participate as disciples under His instruction, a situation unheard at that time. “38 As Jesus and his disciples were on their way, he came to a village where a woman named Martha opened her home to him. 39 She had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet listening to what he said. “
4. Acts 18:26. Here God uses a ministry team, who is listed with the wife’s name coming first, to instruct a powerful preacher named Apollos. “26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.
5. Luke 24:2ff. It was a group of women who discovered the empty tomb and made the first announcement of the resurrection. “ They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 3 but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4 While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them. 5 In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? 6 He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: 7 ‘The Son of Man must be delivered over to the hands of sinners, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’ ” 8 Then they remembered his words. 9 When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others. 10 It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles.

[Athos]

Posted by Athos to infojunkie

Understanding you is helping me to understand the Jan 6 Trump insurrectionists.

Perfect example of the employment of the ad hominem fallacy.

Not even close. Go back to reading what logical fallacies are. You missed bigly with this one.

Suggesting that a person's role in the church or family determines his/her worth is foolishness

Here we go again. No one has suggested any such thing.

As to the Bible's affirmation of the equal worth of women, consider these.

They have all been considered and, if you had carefully read what I posted, you would have discovered that I agree women could be and were "cherished and protected". You made the same error infojunkie made: I.e., conflating the value of women with their lower status, as if one cancels out the other.

Having ears, they heard not.

It gets tiresome explaining plain language to those who don't have ears.

[jlisenbe]

Not even close. Go back to reading what logical fallacies are. You missed bigly with this one.

Nah. I hit the nail on the head. You attacked Info personally rather than attacking his arguments. Comparing him to the 1/6 rioters was completely absurd and had no bearing on anything he had said. "Understanding you is helping me to understand the Jan 6 Trump insurrectionists."

Here we go again. No one has suggested any such thing.

You mean other than you? "You have supported my position. Authority is not given to those who are seen as inferior, or to those who are mistrusted." The lesser role women play in authority has nothing to do with being either inferior or mistrusted. But if you are now saying that a woman can play a different role in leadership and still have the same worth and value as a man, then fine. We agree on that.

you would have discovered that I agree women could be and were "cherished and protected"

You might have said that, but I haven't. I'm not going at all in the direction of "cherished and protected". I'm going in the direction of having the same worth and value as men, all of which agrees with the idea of complementarianism which you mishandled (and misspelled) right from the beginning.

BTW, what in your view is a "white evangelical"? You use the term constantly. It needs defining. And how are "white evangelicals" different from other evangelicals, other than, of course, skin color?

[Wondergirl]

BTW, what in your view is a "white evangelical"? You use the term constantly. It needs defining. And how are "white evangelicals" different from other evangelicals, other than, of course, skin color?

They used to be called fundamentalists, but that was getting a bad rap, so they grabbed onto the term evangelical (The word comes from the Greek word, “evangelion,” which means good news or gospel.) to make themselves sound more acceptable. The ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America), which was formed in 1988 after breaking with the Missouri-Synod Lutherans during the '70s, is talking about removing the "E" (and what it now stands for) from their name.

[waltero]

Bad theology leads to moral decay.

True dat.  
Look at the Centers of theological inquiry in America today, they have relocated to universities over the past half-century, drawn away from seminaries by more plentiful appointments—along with larger salaries, larger research budgets, and more graduate assistants. Many theology departments have been pressured to mirror the norms of the secular academy. Criteria for what counts as good scholarship, teaching, and service have gradually ceased to have reference to the tradition and the Church. Increasingly, these criteria have pushed theology to morph into the ostensibly neutral study of “religion,” especially as shaped by the disciplines of sociology and history.

in the Bible, one sentence seems to contain
Bad theology?

Your theology is contaminated. Your belief system, or theology, determines your deeds. The fundamental beliefs of Christianity should be the product of classical logic based on the evidence of Scripture, tradition and personal experience.

Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach (huh, why..women have to be taught this???) what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.

I'm sure you understand now...glad to help.

[jlisenbe]

What part of this would you not agree with?

"Evangelicalism is a worldwide trans-denominational movement within Protestant Christianity that maintains the belief that the essence of the Gospel consists of the doctrine of salvation by grace alone, solely through faith in Jesus's atonement. Evangelicals believe in the centrality of the conversion or "born again" experience in receiving salvation, in the authority of the Bible as God's revelation to humanity, and in spreading the Christian message."

Also found this. What part of it do you disagree with? "Fundamentalism regards biblical inerrancy, the virgin birth of Jesus, penal substitutionary atonement, the literal resurrection of Christ, and the Second Coming of Christ as fundamental Christian doctrines.

This remains unanswered. "BTW, what in your view is a "white evangelical"? You use the term constantly. It needs defining. And how are "white evangelicals" different from other evangelicals, other than, of course, skin color?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism

I guess I must give up on trying to have any real discussion on complementarianism which was the misspelled and ill defined original topic here.

[Athos]

You attacked Info personally rather than attacking his arguments. Comparing him to the 1/6 rioters was completely absurd and had no bearing on anything he had said. "Understanding you is helping me to understand the Jan 6 Trump insurrectionists."

Read what I italicized in your quote above and then continue reading below.


Both infojunkie and the insurrectionists have a belief that is not true and stick to that belief in the face of undeniable proof that it is not true. Infojunkie re the status of women in the Bible, and the insurrectionists believing that the 2020 election was stolen by Biden.


Both believe in the strongman theory of history. Infojunkie in a God who slaughters great numbers of people to get his way, and the insurrectionists who worship an ego-driven madman who tried and failed to be an autocrat running the USA.


Over time, the God who acted maniacally was discarded. In the end, the ego-driven madman was deserted by his hand-picked legal enforcer and also discarded.


But both groups of followers have continued to believe in what was discarded and/or ended. Both groups are badly informed/educated and lack critical thinking abilities.


An insurrectionist, who is an evangelical minister, claimed on-camera that “Trump is anointed by God”. It's hard to imagine a more bizarre statement.


None of this is ad hominem. It is simply the result of dialogue and observation. You still misunderstand what logical fallacies are.


(PS - When you run out of ideas to debate me, try pointing out misspelling typos).

[jlisenbe]

Both believe in the strongman theory of history. Infojunkie in a God who slaughters great numbers of people to get his way, and the insurrectionists who worship an ego-driven madman who tried and failed to be an autocrat running the USA.


Over time, the God who acted maniacally was discarded. In the end, the ego-driven madman was deserted by his hand-picked legal enforcer and also discarded.

Your point is valid only if a person accepts these wild, inaccurate observations as valid. The God you suggest was "discarded" is still very much alive and very much followed. It was an ad hominem attack, pure and simple.

When you run out of ideas to debate me.

Actually I've asked several questions which you have avoided, one of them repeatedly. The questions were asked in the same post that you quoted from, so you certainly saw them. Why the dodge?

I'll repeat them for what is now the third time. What in your view is a "white evangelical"? You use the term constantly. It needs defining. And how are "white evangelicals" different from other evangelicals, other than, of course, by skin color?

Might add this. Is your definition of an evangelical, white or otherwise, in line with the commonly accepted definition, or is it driven by what certainly appears to be your hatred of them?

I'm also interested in why you intentionally misrepresented the concept of complementarianism. I've asked about it repeatedly and you have not addressed it.

Kind of hard to debate someone who doesn't like to answer questions.

[Athos]

The God you suggest was "discarded" is still very much alive and very much followed.

Unfortunately, that's true that that God is still being followed, primarily by fundamentalists. Better they should follow the God of the New Testament.

Actually I've asked several questions which you have avoided,

I don't avoid them, I just don't bother with them.

What in your view is a "white evangelical"? ..... And how are "white evangelicals" different from other evangelicals, other than, of course, by skin color?

Is your definition of an evangelical, white or otherwise, in line with the commonly accepted definition, or is it driven by what certainly appears to be your hatred of them?

I'm also interested in why you intentionally misrepresented the concept of complementarianism. I've asked about it repeatedly and you have not addressed it.

And you wonder why I don't answer your questions? Could your questions be any nastier?

Why do you want me to answer your questions? What is your reason?

[jlisenbe]

I don't avoid them, I just don't bother with them.

I guess that's as good a dodge as any. Look, you're free to do as you please, and I'll respect that. But don't complain about someone running out of ideas for debate when you refuse to engage those ideas.

[Athos]

I guess that's as good a dodge as any. Look, you're free to do as you please, and I'll respect that. But don't complain about someone running out of ideas for debate when you refuse to engage those ideas.

A) I'll do whatever I want to do.

B) I notice YOU haven't answered the question I asked. Is that a dodge from you?

Why do you want me to answer your questions? What is your reason?

The reason I ignore your questions is because you are not trustworthy. Some time ago, when I answered a question from you when you said you would also answer the question, you refused to answer when your turn came. You said my answer wasn't an answer, so you decided not to answer.

Another reason for your being untrustworthy is how you manipulate quotes from members by adding a word or re-phrasing the quote to change the meaning in order to support whatever your position is. I'm surprised you do that because it's so damn obvious when you do. WG has called you out on this many, many times. As I have.

I think you're an evangelical, and I think of evangelicals (not every one) like Trump followers. You both treat facts as things to be flatly denied when it suits you. Trump, of course, is the master.

[jlisenbe]

The reason I ignore your questions is because you are not trustworthy. Some time ago, when I answered a question from you when you said you would also answer the question, you refused to answer when your turn came. You said my answer wasn't an answer, so you decided not to answer.

Another reason for your being untrustworthy is how you manipulate quotes from members by adding a word or re-phrasing the quote to change the meaning in order to support whatever your position is. I'm surprised you do that because it's so damn obvious when you do. WG has called you out on this many, many times. As I have.

I think you're an evangelical, and I think of evangelicals (not every one) like Trump followers. You both treat facts as things to be flatly denied when it suits you. Trump, of course, is the master.

More excuses and more non-answers.

Some time ago, when I answered a question from you when you said you would also answer the question, you refused to answer when your turn came.

I don't believe that is true.

It's a very simple proposition. 1. What is your definition of a white evangelist? 2. Are white evangelists different in beliefs from non-white evangelists? 3. Why did you distort the meaning of complementarianism in your initial post?

That's about the fifth post of those questions. Like I said, if you don't want to answer, or are unable to answer, then that's fine, but don't complain about a lack of ideas for debate.

Why do you want me to answer your questions? What is your reason?

Already answered that. Look at post 169. But that's fine. I don't mind answering for a second time. Not real sure what you mean by a "white evangelical". Also unclear how being "white" affects that person's theology as opposed to, say, a "black evangelical" such as Voddie Baucham who is an evangelical with whom I find a LOT to agree with.

The question on complementarianism is asked simply to see if you believe you have a bias in the issue on white evangelicals, because your description of the term was certainly inaccurate and seemed biased to me.'

Now I've answered your question. Let's see if you'll answer mine.

[Athos]

Already answered that. Look at post 169.

I looked at post #169 and it's not even from you. It's mine.

You did not explain WHY you asked the questions - except for below.

The question on complementarianism is asked simply to see if you believe you have a bias in the issue on white evangelicals

No, I have no bias.

your description of the term was certainly inaccurate and seemed biased to me.

My description was accurate. I can't help what seems biased to you. You have to work that out yourself.

[jlisenbe]

Good grief. Post 169 is my post. Look again. https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showth...29#post3870329

I just explained why I asked the questions above. You did not answer again, so I'm done with it.

Any description of complementarianism which does not include the word "complement" is not accurate. You have no idea what it means. Your description was ludicrous, and you can't even now define it.

Oh well. I did try.