NT on women

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
who 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.

"exactly the same way it was done in the apostles day"

that excludes women, on account of them not being fit to think because they have an uterus. which is exactly what we are discussing here.


you keep hinting and dancing around your opinion instead of flat out admitting it: you believe only men should decide matters of doctrine. yet you just can't admit it, can you. you know that would be laughably outdated, yet admitting it would be against jw directives.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"exactly the same way it was done in the apostles day"

that excludes women, on account of them not being fit to think because they have an uterus. which is exactly what we are discussing here.


you keep hinting and dancing around your opinion instead of flat out admitting it: you believe only men should decide matters of doctrine. yet you just can' ...[text shortened]... you. you know that would be laughably outdated, yet admitting it would be against jw directives.

if you are going to sow bitterness and contentiousness you are going to reap contentiousness, i have no time for it myself, sorry. I have made no qualms about the fact that only men can be elders, its what the Bible says, I do not expect you to accept it, thats fine, the caravan trundles on and dogs howl into the twilight.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
if you are going to sow bitterness and contentiousness you are going to reap contentiousness, i have no time for it myself, sorry. I have made no qualms about the fact that only men can be elders, its what the Bible says, I do not expect you to accept it, thats fine, the caravan trundles on and dogs howl into the twilight.

there you go. you have finally made it clear you believe women should only pass along the wisdom of men, not add to it.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
there you go. you have finally made it clear you believe women should only pass along the wisdom of men, not add to it.

i don't know why you are so bitter, you are not being asked to adopt the practices of the Bible nor to live under its auspices nor do you speak on behalf of those women who do. We are united in worship, your secular liberalism and contentious schisms have no effect here, they are not our problem.

The discussion of the role of women in the Church, as taught in the NT, is very similar to the discussion on whether the Bible should be taken literally in another thread.

Reading through this thread I must say that I actually did not know before that the JWs are so patriarchal - I always assumed it was only fundamental Christian groups (in particular some Pentacostal denominations) that limit womens' role in the church, etc etc. Live and learn....

I would like to share an interesting (and very sad) observation that I came across recently. Arthur Burks, who runs Plumbline Ministries, reported that in the US the highest incidence of violence against women occurs in the Bible Belt states.

In communities where it is preached that "women must submit to their husbands" , (and women play a largely inferior role in the community), a wife suffering serious mental and physical abuse at the hands of her "saved" husband has no recourse to anybody for help. A sad, sad situation.

The Bible-punchers among us will immediately rise to the defence and say "Yes, but it IS written so in the Holy Bible! It is GOD's WORD!"

That is exactly what the pastors say from the pulpit, and the damage continues.... as we speak.....

Go figure!

If you could actually comment on the import of scripture for these ideals are certainly contained in Scripture it may be helpful for while I am sure your opinions have relevance to someone they are not scripture and have no more efficacy than what we are willing to allow them which at present is not much. I am sorry to be so blunt but with so many perspectives there needs to be a standard to which one may appeal which is at present scripture your opinions not withstanding.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
If you could actually comment on the import of scripture for these ideals are certainly contained in Scripture it may be helpful for while I am sure your opinions have relevance to someone they are not scripture and have no more efficacy than what we are willing to allow them which at present is not much. I am sorry to be so blunt but with so many p ...[text shortened]... a standard to which one may appeal which is at present scripture your opinions not withstanding.

I am not sure if you are misunderstanding me on purpose, or just trying to defend the indefensible...

The point I am making is as follows:

1 There is a written word, which is the Bible, which is taken as a Guide for Living by many different groups of people.

2 As this Forum has demonstrated on occasions too numerous to mention, these various groups, (e.g. JWs, Baptists, Pentecostals, you name it) have at times taken the SAME verses and filled 20+ pages of text showing to each other how THEIR particular interpretation is correct! (and often aggressively and insultingly so) Shouldn't this mere fact alone give you a gentle hint that the mere words are NOT ENOUGH to prove TRUTH? YOU say "GOD says this" then RJH or sonship says "No, GOD says this!" To any casual observer this would indicate that the written words of the Bible are, to put it mildly, open to differences of interpretation. (Do you follow me so far? Good.)

3 Surely you will agree that there is a main thread running through the Bible, and that is that God is interested in our relationship with Him and with each other. (I am intentinally making this very simple.) There is a thread of Reconciliation on both the vertical as well as the horizontal level. This is common in most groups and denominations, and I would guess even within the JWs.

4 When a specific interpretation of the Bible (in my example, the very clear literal message of Paul about the role of women) causes untold hardship and pain when applied in the way it is, surely it would be a warning sign that we are applying this particular scripture incorrectly? If one "Truth" contradicts another "Truth", then maybe one of them isn't a "Truth".

So if the STANDARD of which you speak is the PRINCIPLES espoused in the Bible, then I am in total agreement with you.

However, if that STANDARD is one particular interpretation then I am saying it is no longer a standard.

Please tell me that you at least follow my reasoning, rather than merely denouncing me as a heretic.

I am fully in agreement with the right of the JWs (and any other group, for that matter) having their own interpretations and following God in the way they think best. Go in peace and blessings on your head!

Unfortunately, this becomes a real problem when THAT view is propagated as being the only way anybody should believe - which is what I am afraid you are doing.

erased

Haloooo!
RC, are you there??

Originally posted by CalJust
Haloooo!
RC, are you there??

just let it go. nobody discusses with him. you just scream your opinion at him (and he screams his back) until one gets bored.

Originally posted by CalJust
Haloooo!
RC, are you there??

yes my son what is it?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
just let it go. nobody discusses with him. you just scream your opinion at him (and he screams his back) until one gets bored.

wow thats bitter.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I find your habit of speaking to people who disagree with you in the third person tiresome at best and insulting at worst. While I have very little agreement with robbie most of the time, I think perhaps, as a human being, he deserves to be spoken to 'as one might speak to a human being'.

Lord knows I wouldn't have a problem with what you just said to him, if only you'd at least give him the small measure of respect of engaging him in a less-distant form of conversation as you would any other human being.

tl;dr: I don't know how you all treat each other in the Debates forum, but that's not the way we do things in here.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I find your habit of speaking to people who disagree with you in the third person tiresome at best and insulting at worst. While I have very little agreement with robbie most of the time, I think perhaps, as a human being, he deserves to be spoken to 'as one might speak to a human being'.

Lord knows I wouldn't have a problem with what you just said to h ...[text shortened]... how you all treat each other in the Debates forum, but that's not the way we do things in here.

Wow being defended by Suzianne, what have i done to deserve the honor. (note my American spell checker) As for Duchess, she may 'make a man a fool if he hath not the spirit to resist', the kilt is the miniskirt of the Internet!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Wow being defended by Suzianne, what have i done to deserve the honor. As for Duchess, she may 'make a man a fool if he hath not the spirit to resist', the kilt is the miniskirt of the Internet!

It's just called "common courtesy". Don't flatter yourself.