24 Jan 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf that be the case, always look at the context, then preachers shouldn't be trying to make points reading individual verses of the bible.
no what I am saying is that unless you look at the immediate context and the context of the Bible as a whole you will never be able to put the constituent parts together and form an accurate picture of the whole, to take a verse out of context and ascribe a meaning to it in such black and white terms is pure folly! Pictures are meant to be looked at not sniffed as the great Rembrandt reminds us.
The post that was quoted here has been removedouch, you're a 'Kalashnikov', Duchess64, straight for the heart and just because i said i would not read your text because it was a personal attack, 'hell hath no no wrath like a women scorned'
never the less just for the record, the Bible forbids abortion because there is not one but two lives involved and no human has the right to take life it being considered sacrosanct to God, once again your failure to understand my motivations has led you to an overly simplistic and ultimately inaccurate portrayal of my morality and 'I see a man may be made a fool, if he has not a spirit to resist.'
Meh criticize away till your hearts content, tis water from an angels wings 😛
24 Jan 14
Originally posted by Proper KnobWhat is wrong with women keeping silent in church?
Urges them to be submissive? Are you having a laugh?! Paul (most scholars actually contest the authorship of Corinthians as Paul but that's another debate) commands that women remain 'silent' and that it is a 'disgrace' if a woman talks.
27 Jan 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieyou contradict yourself in the same post. on one hand you consider that women can in fact teach, but just later you admit they cannot become leaders and consequently teach. which is it?
No the context make it clear that Paul is talking of order, verse 33 states, God is a God of order, therefore what he is referring to is a congregational arrangement whereby men are to shoulder the responsibility of teaching, and a women is free to speak and teach under this arrangement.
It cannot be understood to be a complete ban on women talk ...[text shortened]... this is the Biblical arrangement, you can either accept it or not, either way, it is what it is.
"all others can impart knowledge under this arrangement but not usurp it."
if this is what i think it is, then it simply allows women to "speak" whatever the leaders (all men) allow to. this is what you understand by teaching? this is your view on women, that they cannot offer a better opinion than "qualified" men? do you understand this is offensive? and do you hold this position now?
i care not if women are only allowed to pass further the opinions of men. that counts for nothing.
Originally posted by ZahlanziThere is no contradiction, the congregations elders are to be responsible for teaching, a sister has various opportunities to teach under that arrangement without the necessity to usurp this authority, as do all publishers of the Good News of Gods Kingdom.
you contradict yourself in the same post. on one hand you consider that women can in fact teach, but just later you admit they cannot become leaders and consequently teach. which is it?
"all others can impart knowledge under this arrangement but not usurp it."
if this is what i think it is, then it simply allows women to "speak" whatever the leaders ...[text shortened]... care not if women are only allowed to pass further the opinions of men. that counts for nothing.
Within the congregation of Jehovahs witnesses we have what is termed the theocratic ministry school, in which all, male and female, young and old are encouraged to enroll, not to mention a weekly Bible study program. The import of this is, is that Christian sisters can freely share their knowledge with the congregation either through assignments in the school or through comments teaching those who are recipients of this knowledge, they are also free to teach members of the public in the public ministry in which many of them excel. That you do not understand this is a source of amazement to me, for they voluntarily engage in these activities and i suggest that the next time one of them visits your home you take the opportunity to ask them why, if it is indeed as oppressive and as unfair as you seem to be claiming. As for me i think they are awesome, for they do it not with the motivation of gaining some kind of position, but out of pure love and the world is not worthy of their awesomeness!
Please note i did not make the arrangement, it is not my personal view, it is entirely Biblical and i would normally resent your attempts to make it personal but now i simply cannot be bothered, everyone knows personal attacks are a sign of a weak and beggarly argument. If you have any complaints may i suggest you take it up with God and the authors of the Bible.
I will be happy to discuss the Biblical perspective, i will ignore all attempts to make it personal.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
27 Jan 14
2 edits
Do Christians agree - "Greet one another with a holy kiss." (Romans 16:16; 1 Corinthains 13:12) ?
Sure, I agree in principle. Of course in my Western backround it is not too customary that we kiss each other upon each meeting. However, we may express effection with a hardy shake of hands or even an embrace. However, it could be understood in many Eastern cultures.
The principle is to be affectionate spiritually even if it does not manifest itself physically exactly the way in may have been practiced in the Apostle Pauls day in that culture.
It is quite understandable that some aspects of Paul's instructions indicate a certain amount of his immediate cultural settings. Women and men should both be orderly, decorous in the church meetings. Some things Paul wrote may reflect norms of his immediate cultural setting.
No, such indications of cultural backround do not effect major tenets of the Christian faith.
Christ is still Son of God, died and rose and lives as Lord regardless of the immediate cultural customs of public greetings or norms or behavior of women in public gatherings of the Ancient Near East or of Mediterranean cultures.
Our sisters speak in our Christian meetings.
www.localchurches.org
27 Jan 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieQ: "Why do jehovah's witnesses' women all agree with the oppressive male dominated system?"
There is no contradiction, the congregations elders are to be responsible for teaching, a sister has various opportunities to teach under that arrangement without the necessity to usurp this authority, as do all publishers of the Good News of Gods Kingdom.
Within the congregation of Jehovahs witnesses we have what is termed the theocratic ministry ...[text shortened]... ll be happy to discuss the Biblical perspective, i will ignore all attempts to make it personal.
A: "Because whoever disagrees with the male dominated system is cast out"
that is regarding your claim that "they like it, other wise they would leave". people have left the jw's, for various reasons (sometimes for saving their children's lives by giving them blood transfusions, but that's another story). we do not talk about them, do we?
regarding your stance on women, i ask again: do your women have a say in what jw doctrine say? who gets to decide what jw's should be taught?
27 Jan 14
Originally posted by sonshipThanks, sonship, here I agree with you wholeheartedly.
Do Christians agree - [b]"Greet one another with a holy kiss." (Romans 16:16; 1 Corinthains 13:12) ?
Sure, I agree in principle. Of course in my Western backround it is not too customary that we kiss each other upon each meeting. However, we may express effection with a hardy shake of hands or even an embrace. However, it could be understood in many ...[text shortened]... he church meetings. Some things Paul wrote may reflect norms of his immediate cultural setting.[/b]
I have just finished posting a similar comment in my "How did Jesus interpret the Bible?" thread, where I make a plea for a "spiritual" interpretation of the Bible, rather than a literal one, which leads to dead dogma.
How can we (seriously!) argue about women speaking in church and/or wearing hats in 2014?!
😕
Originally posted by Zahlanziwho decides doctrine? exactly the same way it was done in the apostles day, I suggest you take a look at the accounts concerning whether circumcision was to be binding upon Christians for it details a rather interesting arrangement. As for us, we have no time for your rebellious and contentious spirit, we have no issues and we are happy that out elders are looking after the flock and caring for us as elders should do.
Q: "Why do jehovah's witnesses' women all agree with the oppressive male dominated system?"
A: "Because whoever disagrees with the male dominated system is cast out"
that is regarding your claim that "they like it, other wise they would leave". people have left the jw's, for various reasons (sometimes for saving their children's lives by giving them blo ...[text shortened]... do your women have a say in what jw doctrine say? who gets to decide what jw's should be taught?
Originally posted by CalJustI don't think it wise to trivialize it, after all, a women covering the head when performing a task usually carried out by a male member of the congregation is done as a sign to angels, in that she is being a wonderful example of humility. They may be looking on and who like her, have no position of authority and who can learn from her humility. I don't think such a thing is trivial.
Thanks, sonship, here I agree with you wholeheartedly.
I have just finished posting a similar comment in my "How did Jesus interpret the Bible?" thread, where I make a plea for a "spiritual" interpretation of the Bible, rather than a literal one, which leads to dead dogma.
How can we (seriously!) argue about women speaking in church and/or wearing hats in 2014?!
😕