[Wondergirl]

I hate to ask this but how do you know Jesus considered Adam and Eve to be an allegory?

How do you know the story of Noah is true? Or the Tower of Babel? Or Jonah and the great fish? Each one had a hidden meaning and was told in order to pass on a bigger truth.

You certainly demonstrated you have never studied mitochondrial Eve.

Oh, if you only knew!

[jlisenbe]

I asked, "...how do you know Jesus considered Adam and Eve to be an allegory?" Your answer is, ""How do you know the story of Noah is true? Or the Tower of Babel? Or Jonah and the great fish? Each one had a hidden meaning and was told in order to pass on a bigger truth." Oh well. Plainly you have no way of knowing.

Oh, if you only knew!

I assure you I do. You have no idea.

I will ask this, I'm sure, in vain. How do you know this is true? "Each one had a hidden meaning and was told in order to pass on a bigger truth." The Bible certainly never says such a thing, so how do you know that's true?

[jlisenbe]

First Athos says white evangelicals believe his misinformed version of complementarianism because of only one verse. Then someone else supplied a number of verses, so now he says, "There follows pages and pages of misogyny from the Bible." So it's white evangelicals believing on the basis of only one verse, and yet now there are "pages and pages" of such verses? And it all adds up to, in his view, misogyny. But I thought that was what the white evangelicals believed? Is Athos a white evangelical now?

He is plainly confused.

[Athos]

First Athos says white evangelicals believe his misinformed version of complementarianism because of only one verse. Then someone else supplied a number of verses, so now he says, "There follows pages and pages of misogyny from the Bible." So it's white evangelicals believing on the basis of only one verse, and yet now there are "pages and pages" of such verses? And it all adds up to, in his view, misogyny. But I thought that was what the white evangelicals believed? Is Athos a white evangelical now?

He is plainly confused.

You are the confused one, my friend.

Here is what I said, "...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 will see that nowhere did I say it was the ONLY verse. Your reading comprehension hasn't improved. The tons added on by Infojunkie only went to prove my point.

To further alleviate your confusion, I will answer your question. No, I am not a white evangelical.

Now I must send you back to your room in the basement. You really should stop stalking me. It's not the manly thing to do - nor womanly, for that matter.

[jlisenbe]

First you said it was a white evangelical belief based upon "one sentence". Your actual untruncated statement was this. " Among the nearly 800,000 words in the Bible, one sentence seems to contain white evangelical thinking on this matter." Someone else pointed out that your suggestion was simply wrong, so now you decide to agree that the Bible is full of supposedly misogynistic (your view) scriptures. Well, you can't have it both ways. To have made your original suggestion was ridiculous from the start, and your bias was clear from your distorted description of complementarianism.

Can always tell when you feel insecure. You start with the personal attacks. Try sticking to the subject matter. If you don't want your statements evaluated, then you are at the wrong place.

[waltero]

Ever since Adam and Eve’s disobedience and their rejection of God’s authority over them, men and women have been subject to conflict in their relationships. Women have a natural desire to control men, while men have the strength and will to do the same to women.

Watch out, Children rebelling (Arghh, God/Bible strikes again!) against parents ruling over them...backed by the courts.

[Wondergirl]

Ever since Adam and Eve’s disobedience and their rejection of God’s authority over them

Nope. God gave them free will.

[jlisenbe]

I will ask this, I'm sure, in vain. How do you know this is true? "Each one had a hidden meaning and was told in order to pass on a bigger truth." The Bible certainly never says such a thing, so how do you know that's true?

Oh well.

Waltero said, "their rejection of God’s authority over them." You replied, "Nope. God gave them free will." In what way are you saying they did not reject God's authority in the exercise of their free will?

[Wondergirl]

Waltero said, "their rejection of God’s authority over them." You replied, "Nope. God gave them free will." In what way are you saying they did not reject God's authority in the exercise of their free will?

They behaved like we all do when given freedom -- we don't remember that one little constraint, that "but don't".

[jlisenbe]

Oh. I see.

[Wondergirl]

Oh. I see.

Like my grampa use to say in response to that statement, "'Now I see,' said the blind man!"

[InfoJunkie4Life]

InfoJunkie's reply was good and generally well-supported until he unfortunately went in this direction. "As a matter of fact I could list 50 (or more) passages that tend towards misogyny."

I was meaning to point out the misuse of scripture to support ill founded ideas. The bible isn't misogynistic because you can find instances of OT law or NT rules that seem to support misogyny, but rather you need to look at the whole of scripture regarding a subject before you can have an intelligible discussion about this.

Having rules that are in regard to one sex or another isn't misogyny. A prejudice against women would be misogyny. After looking at the whole of scripture, you would find ancient Israel one of the most enlightened countries in the history of the world. I think wondergirl would fault me on this, however, its 2021 after all and women have great talents!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lastly and unsurprisingly, the description by Athos of "complementarianism" is sadly wrong. It should be described, as the word suggests, "Complementarianism is a theological view in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, that men and women have different but complementary roles and responsibilities in marriage, family life, and religious leadership." Also unsurprisingly, he directed his criticism only at white (racist on his part?) evangelicals while being strangely silent about Muslims. Wonder why?

I second this.

Athos has many unanswered questions. It must be easier to not think through your ideas than to have them critiqued.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 1 Corinthians 11:5, Paul asserts that women prophesy and pray aloud in church, and he doesn’t silence them or condemn them. In that verse, Paul also says we women should wear a head covering, as do married Muslim women who each wear a hijab as a symbol of the sanctity of her marriage.

Lets put this in view:

Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

This is the conclusion Paul gives after explaining that women are under men and men under God. He discusses head coverings as a symbol of having authority over you. The bible teaches us to operate in peace and not to rebel against authority simply to be rebellious.

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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's an allegory anyway. P.S. All she 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.

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. I'm pretty sure "all the guile of Satan" couldn't tempt Christ, even so, there was way more guile than that which was deployed on Eve.

I don't know where you live. I'm sorry you aren't having a good experience. The people in my neck of the woods are getting nicer and nicer.

Are you deceived? The world has been "getting worse" in the sense that people are rejecting God, that evil is known as good, that the consequences of war and famine affect more and more, that people prefer deception over truth........
I guess your idea of good is how many people are nice to you.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jesus knew very well it was an allegory, and for his uneducated listeners always repeated such stories with characters intact.

If this is true, then the doctrine of original sin is meaningless, and the doctrine of the second Adam is a lie. 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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

There follows pages and pages of misogyny from the Bible. Thank you so much for proving my point.

Also, your loving Trump is noted. That supports an idea I have of the connection between the Jan6 insurrection and white evangelicals. More on that some other time.

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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes! And it is now nearly halfway through 2021. Since Bible times, the world has changed in so many ways, especially regarding women. Women no longer are at home 24/7/365. Businesses welcome them as employees. Women have the right to vote in the U.S. and in other countries. Women have accompanied men into space. Women serve in the military. Women are accomplished artists and writers. Women are involved in politics and sports, and have made lasting impressions. Even Mensa, with open arms, welcomes women as members! And that's only the bare bones of women's talent (certainly far beyond baking brownies and roasting a Thanksgiving turkey).

Your view of history is simplistic and confounded. History is in large part the collaboration of both men and women; not some war of the sexes that you finally won. The world was hard, very hard, and it took both men and women to make what it is today. In Israel women were allowed to own things, become leaders in society, be in the lineage of inheritances, were given legal recourse against lies and misbehaving men. This was not true in the rest of the ancient world.

We are talking about one simple rule, leadership in the church. Not the talents of women and their place in the world. The bible agrees with you on most of that.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

How do you know the story of Noah is true? Or the Tower of Babel? Or Jonah and the great fish? Each one had a hidden meaning and was told in order to pass on a bigger truth.

Also things Christ lied about? He believed such things or he lied. There is no biblical or historical truth to rejecting these things.

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?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm finished, all caught up.

[jlisenbe]

Well and accurately stated.

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?

The great unanswered question. By what means does WG make these assessments?

[jlisenbe]

Like my grampa use to say in response to that statement, "'Now I see,' said the blind man!"

Did gramps also mention anything about the necessity of being able to support statements you make, or the value of being able to answer serious questions?

[Wondergirl]

Did gramps also mention anything about the necessity of being able to support statements you make, or the value of being able to answer serious questions?

Nope. He was an evangelical Christian and a Republican.

[Athos]

First you said it was a white evangelical belief based upon "one sentence". Your actual untruncated statement was this. " Among the nearly 800,000 words in the Bible, one sentence seems to contain white evangelical thinking on this matter."

"... one sentence SEEMS TO CONTAIN...". I wonder why I ever bother to explain things to you when you are so bad at reading comprehension, even when the meaning is plain. My sentence in no way excludes any other misogynistic Bible statements. If you can't see that, I don't think anyone can help you. It truly makes me wonder about your claim to be an educator. That's not an insult, it's the plain truth.

[jlisenbe]

So sensitive!! Well, you're back to the personal attacks. You were proven completely wrong and it seems to bug you. At any rate, I'll post your quote again and others can decide for themselves. "Among the nearly 800,000 words in the Bible, one sentence seems to contain white evangelical thinking on this matter." So you were saying, it would seem, that out of 800K words in the Bible, that one sentence seemed to contain "white evangelical" (hmmm...no black evangelicals???) thinking on the subject. You were simply wrong just like you were wrong in what was likely your prejudiced description of complementarianism.

[Wondergirl]

So sensitive!! Well, you're back to the personal attacks. You were proven completely wrong and it seems to bug you. At any rate, I'll post your quote again and others can decide for themselves. "Among the nearly 800,000 words in the Bible, one sentence seems to contain white evangelical thinking on this matter." So you were saying, it would seem, that out of 800K words in the Bible, that one sentence seemed to contain "white evangelical" (hmmm...no black evangelicals???) thinking on the subject. You were simply wrong just like you were wrong in what was likely your prejudiced description of complementarianism.

You quoted Athos, then deliberately, by tangling it up, misstated and then misinterpreted his quote.

[jlisenbe]

In what way? Please be specific.

[Wondergirl]

In what way? Please be specific.

He didn't say "only one sentence". That's the sense you gave his quote when you rephrased it and twisted it.

To be perfectly clear to literalists reading these threads, he should have added a transition phrase used when giving an example: "one sentence in particular seems to contain...."