Originally posted by sonhouse
Jack Schaap

Now in jail for sexual abuse

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3218144/Pastor-Christian-rehab-program-treating-Josh-Duggar-jailed-sex-underage-girl-cabin-church-conference-telling-God-approves.html

I think he got 12 years.

I guess he is on the soap box in general population now.

LMFAO

Originally posted by sonship

I didn't "twist" anything. I pointed out a couple of passages and allowed "God's" words to speak for themselves. It was you who once again took several verses out of context from disparate sources in an attempt to "twist" things. It's what you do.

Examination of the original Hebrews proved false your claim that "slave'' only referred to f ...[text shortened]... he suppression of women card seem to be your latest staples to show that you're better than God.

Examination of the original Hebrews proved false your claim that "slave'' only referred to foreigners.

I NEVER claimed that. Like you so often do, you took what I wrote and "twisted" it into something else entirely. It's what YOU do. It makes it pretty much impossible to have a meaningful discussion with you.

It's a way for you to avoid the truth whether you want to admit it or not.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne

I NEVER claimed that. Like you so often do, you took what I wrote and "twisted" it into something else entirely. It's what YOU do. It makes it pretty much impossible to have a meaningful discussion with you.

So you think my criticism is grossly unfair ? And here it is:

From Thread Too Proud and Stubborn

ToO: You don't seem to understand Leviticus 25 very well.

In the following God speaks of Israelite indentured servants and makes a clear distinction between them and slaves.

Leviticus 25
39“ ‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. 40They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41Then they and their children are to be released, and they will go back to their own clans and to the property of their ancestors. 42Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.

Followed by this:

ToO:

In the following God condones the owning of slaves (as opposed to having Israelite indentured servants) and states that they are to be considered property owned for life. So they are in fact "chattel":

44“ ‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life....

And in cutting and pasting I am not keeping any original bolding.

Then you closed out that post with this:

ToO: Deuteronomy 24
7 If someone is caught kidnapping a fellow Israelite and treating or selling them as a slave, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you.

This is consistent with Leviticus 25 wherein God made a distinction between Israelite indentured servants and slaves which were considered chattel.

I am not re-pasting in my reply here.
Now if you think my criticism was unfair in light of these paragraphs, you can explain why.

Originally posted by sonship

I NEVER claimed that. Like you so often do, you took what I wrote and "twisted" it into something else entirely. It's what YOU do. It makes it pretty much impossible to have a meaningful discussion with you.

So you think my criticism is grossly unfair ? And here it is:

From Thread [b]Too Proud and Stubborn

[quote] ToO: ...[text shortened]... ou think my criticism was unfair in light of these paragraphs, you can explain why you think so.[/b]

You take things out of context and then make assumptions that do not take the context into account or otherwise "twist" what I've written whereby sidestepping the point(s) entirely. That was made quite evident in your reply on that thread.

Seems like whenever I try to explain exactly where you go wrong, you then take things out of context from the explanation and make further assumptions that do not take the context into account. Then I'm left having to try to explain where you went wrong with the explanation. If I do that, then you further perpetuate the cycle.

I don't have high hopes that you'll be able to understand the above, but I figured it was worth a shot. I imagine that there are those who've tried to have a meaningful discussion with you who will understand exactly what I mean.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne

Interesting that you use that to dismiss what Paul wrote about women speaking in church, but are unwilling to extend it to homosexuality for instance.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul does not say a women speaking in the church meeting will not inherit the kingdom of God. Yet he mentions homosexuality as a dis-qualifier. So I think to recognize a difference in severity of the two life-styles is appropriate.

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?

Do not be led astray, neither fornicators nor idolators nor adulterers nor effeminate nor homosexuals

Nor thieves nor the covetous, not drunkards, not revilers, not rapacious will inherit the kingdom of God.

And these things were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." (1 Cor. 6:9-11)

Can you see why I would not consider a woman speaking out in the meeting of the church on the same level of seriousness as, ie, drunkard, idolater, thief, homosexual ?

Can you see Paul mention talkative sisters during the assembly meeting as disqualifiying them from inheriting the kingdom of God? So you are correct. I do place a lesser level of seriousness to the speaking women in the meeting than to the unrepentant homosexual.

Before you respond, I would would hasten to add that this passages doesn't mean such persons cannot be saved. The sphere of inheriting the kingdom of God is more narrow than the sphere of receiving forgiveness and eternal life.

So do not attribute to me a belief that a drunkard or thief or reviler or homosexual cannot be saved. Rather while continuing in that error they are in danger of not being qualified for the reward of co-reigning with Christ in the coming millennial kingdom.

me:
I think he meant that his custom was not to allow the women to authoritatively define doctrines.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ToO: What nonsense. Yet another example of how you "twist" what is clearly and unambiguously stated when you have a mind to
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, the reason that I attach [edited] his exhortation to defining doctrines is because he spoke about QUESTIONS wanting to be asked. Thanking, Praising, Rejoicing, Singing, and other forms of public exultant worship much less involve the need for QUESTIONS of matters to be examined. Whereas central doctrines of the church much more involve the need for instruction.

Based on that analysis, I believe that Paul's word about the silence of the sisters and them asking QUESTIONS of their husbands at home is more related to central doctrines.

My critique may not be as good as someone else's. But so far it seems quite logical to me. However, any slanderous accusation of Paul being piggishly chauvanistic and oppressing the women (as is the case in Islam) I dismiss. And I did so with his central theme of Christ abolishing typical social stratification which did give rise to oppression.

"There cannot be male and female, for you all are one in Christ Jesus" - Paul (Gal 3:28)

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne

You take things out of context and then make assumptions that do not take the context into account or otherwise "twist" what I've written whereby sidestepping the point(s) entirely. That was made quite evident in your reply on that thread.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Twisting may have been unfair to you, as you were ... mistaken.
I apologize for using the word twist.

Now what did I "side-step" ?

Paul said it was shameful for a woman to speak in the church. I don't deny he wrote it.
All things considered, I put it in a more full context.
That's not a side-step. That's not agreeing with your charge that it is mind boggling to listen to Paul.

And if you say it is mind boggling to listen to the Apostle Paul then you shouldn't be bothered if someone says you twist things.

Do you wish Paul had not authored Romans, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, First and Second Corinthians ???

You want to dismiss those letters as mind bogglingly untrustworthy because he said the women should ask about Christian teaching of their husbands at home ?

We're not going to dismiss the Pauline revelation as mindbogglingly unreliable because of this. Should I instead trust your rather dubious hedging on the RESURRECTION of Christ over Paul's testimony ?

Come right out and admit it. You like the red letters in the four Gospels. Your New Testament is without redemption, without resurrection, without ascension, without exaltation, without the enthronement of Jesus as Lord. I don't know why you don't just come right out and say it - "Jesus is dead and no longer available to anyone. "

I think to trust you ToO, that would indeed be mind boggling.

Seems like whenever I try to explain exactly where you go wrong, you then take things out of context from the explanation and make further assumptions that do not take the context into account. Then I'm left having to try to explain where you went wrong with the explanation. If I do that, then you further perpetuate the cycle.

I don't have high hopes that you'll be able to understand the above, but I figured it was worth a shot. I imagine that there are those who've tried to have a meaningful discussion with you who will understand exactly what I mean.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm letting you have the last word here. I said what I wanted to say about your theology verses the revelation of the Apostle Paul in the New Testament.

Originally posted by sonship
[b] You take things out of context and then make assumptions that do not take the context into account or otherwise "twist" what I've written whereby sidestepping the point(s) entirely. That was made quite evident in your reply on that thread.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Twi ...[text shortened]... anted to say about your theology verses the revelation of the Apostle Paul in the New Testament.[/b]

Of course here you've done it again. You took a post of mine out of context that was in response to your post regarding "slavery".

In doing so, you ended up going on a rant about Paul that had nothing to do with that particular post of mine. It's what you do. You do it with what I write and you do it with scripture as well. You should at least be honest enough with yourself to realize it.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne

This sounds to me like you obfuscating and arranging excuses. From memory there are two or three issues I have handled in these last few exchanges.

1.) My disagreement with you reasoning that it is "mind-boggling" to trust in Paul because of his word about women speaking in church meetings.

2.) A brief recollection of your similarly reasoned argument that Israelites could be indentured servants while foreigners could be made slaves.

And probably

3.) you also added in a brief argument about my supposed inconsistency between an attitude toward homosexuals as opposed to women speaking in the meetings.

All this complaining about process isn't doing much for the rebutted points you made.

You did get one apology from me, about the word "twist."
Now your further lectures about honestly realizing this or that sound to me like mere face saving distractions. Why not stop grumbling and point out some error in my comprehension of your argument ?

I invited you to explain why my pointing out that you viewed "slave" as a word reserved for foreigners rather that Israelites, didn't agree with the original language. I see no reply yet.

If I misunderstand your argument, you still have a chance to explain why. But this is going back to the thread "Too Proud and Stubborn" .

Paul's exhortation that women should be submissive to their own husbands is not free pass for men to be oppressive.

The Apostle Peter adds that ALL the believers should be in humlity towards one another without exception.

" In like manner, younger men, be subject to elders; and all of you gird yourselves with humility towards one another,

Because God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble. Therefore be humbled under the mighty hand of God that He may exalt you in due time." ( 1 Peter 5:5,6)

"All of you ..." - Men, Women, Wives, Husbands, Elders, Younger .... All of you ... "gird yourselves with humility towards one another ..." .

So "proud husband" ... beware. God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble.
So "proud woman" ... beware. God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble.

And Paul says the class oppression of male and female CANNOT be in the local church.

" For you [male and female] are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

For as many [men and women] of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

There CANNOT BE Jew and Greek,
there CANNOT BE slave nor free man,
there CANNOT BE male and female;

for you are all one in Christ Jesus. " (Gal. 3:26-28)

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne

This ignoramus could be the second coming of Paul of Tarsus:

You poor, poor misunderstood and misrepresented fellow, ToO !

Originally posted by sonship
This sounds to me like you obfuscating and arranging excuses. From memory there are two or three issues I have handled in these last few exchanges.

1.) My disagreement with you reasoning that it is "mind-boggling" to trust in Paul because of his word about women speaking in church meetings.

2.) A brief recollection of your similarly reasoned argument t ...[text shortened]... a chance to explain why. But this is going back to the thread [b]"Too Proud and Stubborn" .[/b]

Evidently Jaywill remains "Too Proud and Stubborn" to be honest enough with himself to realize how he takes things out of context and then make assumptions that do not take the context into account or otherwise "twist" what I've written whereby sidestepping the point(s) entirely.

[This sounds to me like you obfuscating and arranging excuses.
No doubt that it does sound like that to you. That can be expected of the "Too Proud and Stubborn". It's how they rationalize their actions and remain "Too Proud and Stubborn".

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne

... whereby sidestepping the point(s) entirely.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Please identify the "sidestepping" of me, a point "entirely." This is the second time I've requested this - What did I SIDESTEP ?

You're talking about sidestepping now, right ? Don't do it yourself.

If I "sidestepped" something let's take it head on. Shall we?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne

ToO:

In light of the above, why anyone would place faith in anything else that Paul of Tarsus wrote is mind-boggling.

Why? Because he had his hands on too much truth.

But I'm the proud and stubborn one ?
Isn't it rather the case that you are the one too proud and stubborn to appreciate the Apostle Paul's foundational work to define the new testament church?

So you find it mind-boggling that anyone would trust this paragraph from the same man ?

"And if I have the gift of prophecy and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

Love suffers long. Love is kind, it is not jealous. Love does not brag and is not puffed up. It does not behave unbecomingly and does not seek its own things, it is not provoked and does not take account of evil.

It does not rejoice because of unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth. It covers all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Love never falls away. But whether prophecies, they will be rendered useless; or tongues, they will cease, or knowledge it will be rendered useless. ... Now there abide faith, hope, love, these three; and the greatest of these is love." (See 1 Cor. 13)

So because he exhorted sister Christians not to be talkative in the meeting, SO to these words of Paul you say -

In light of the above, why anyone would place faith in anything else that Paul of Tarsus wrote is mind-boggling.

Originally posted by sonship

I NEVER claimed that. Like you so often do, you took what I wrote and "twisted" it into something else entirely. It's what YOU do. It makes it pretty much impossible to have a meaningful discussion with you.

So you think my criticism is grossly unfair ? And here it is:

From Thread [b]Too Proud and Stubborn

[quote] ToO: ...[text shortened]... re.
Now if you think my criticism was unfair in light of these paragraphs, you can explain why.[/b]

I firmly believe a deity would NEVER set up such a situation where it would condone slavery.

The whole thing SCREAMS of human writing, to justify the rule of the upper echelons of that religion, FEAR god.

Which just points to that fear god thing as just another hook to control.

That is the whole point of religion, having nothing to do with real spiritual achievement but to control the population and put in place a system where slavery and the subjugation of women is allowed.

Clearly no god needed to write those words.

Just creative people writing down the stuff needed to maintain control.

But of course, you will just foist on us more bible verses to 'prove' your unprovable faith.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Jack Schaap

Now in jail for sexual abuse

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3218144/Pastor-Christian-rehab-program-treating-Josh-Duggar-jailed-sex-underage-girl-cabin-church-conference-telling-God-approves.html

I think he got 12 years.

I guess he is on the soap box in general population now.

Now that totally figures.