women

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
You have a point, but I don't care much for labels. I for example, am a Lutheran (now). But some of their basic tenets I do not hold. I DO believe the communion wine and wafer are symbols of Christ's blood and body--this I'm told is NOT what they believe. I also don't believe one MUST be baptised in order to be saved. And then there's something about ...[text shortened]... m that fit me, I was a Methutherabyterian, with strong Calvino-Quaker tendencies.🙂

sure, i don't either. what does it matter how we call them they are all still christians(except for the mormons). i was simply making a point that if the pope has the power to pass rules and he says priests cannot marry then the catholics say priests cannot marry. of course there are exceptions and of course some don't recognize the pope. it doesn't even matter if nobody respects it. if all the catholic priests in the world would marry it will still mean the catholics have a illogical rule.

😀 then do the baptist believe he turned water into koolaid at the cana wedding?

Originally posted by pritybetta
Women were to keep quiet in the churches not because Paul said so but because they were to be under obedience for that is what the law says. It is not because women are any less than men, it is only the order the Lord set.

1Co 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be un ...[text shortened]... at order are only wanting to go by what they want and dissregarding what the Lord has set forth.

i am sorry to say so but do you like being a slave? it is my theory that your husband is a very decent man. so you don't realize under these rules you are his slave because he treats you with the respect you deserve as a human being and his equal.


do you care however that thousands of women suffer abusive, alcoholic, idiot men because paul says so? that paul put those rules to set an order i have no doubt. but why would the reason be for 2 equal persons to be in servitude to one another?

we already changed obsolete rules. we no longer stone adulterers to death and we no longer force a widow to become a nun. and we haven't been smacked by god's wrath. so if we are able to think and to change rules that are barbaric, tell me why shouldn't we change this rule also. is it because god said it once? the stoning of a person who picks berries on Sunday was also said by god.

and you have yet to say where does jesus say that women are inferior to men. paul said it. tell me if jesus said it.

and if i tell someone to be quiet then i am considering that someone less than me, that his/her opinion is unworthy of listening. if i then ask for an opinion from my inferior is like i am doing them a favor

Originally posted by pritybetta
First off, I was not posting to you I was posting to stoker.

Seconly, I use scripture so that no one can say it is not there. I do not make a claim about the Bible if I do not find it in the Bible.

Thirdly, what have I taken out of contexed? If I have I would like to know what it is so I can see for myself.

[1[ thank you for your post, i knew all the points you mentioned, but allways use the letter to timothy, to my belief.
[2] yes fully agree
[3] not to my knowledge.
[4]still tho im against by order of my knowledge of the bible. i canot see why. all the jobs they do are not physical and hard pressed to find a logical answer.
[5] even mary never taught on earth, and all saints since have not to my knowledge have ever said they should

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
.....do you care however that thousands of women suffer abusive, alcoholic, idiot men because paul says so?....

Part of the problem with some of these strictly religious people is that they dont have the ability to understand the SPIRIT of the teachings of both Christ and Paul. They simply follow parts of it like robots. Paul also has guidelines for husbands to love and cherish their wives. My views is that if a husband abuses his wife, then she is under no obligation to obey him and has every right to divorce him. I do not think that Christ or Paul would expect someone to stay in a marriage that is abusive.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Part of the problem with some of these strictly religious people is that they dont have the ability to understand the SPIRIT of the teachings of both Christ and Paul. They simply follow parts of it like robots. Paul also has guidelines for husbands to love and cherish their wives. My views is that if a husband abuses his wife, then she is under no obligation ...[text shortened]... . I do not think that Christ or Paul would expect someone to stay in a marriage that is abusive.

from my observations they do. we know as you put it the spirit of the law, but read the scripts and if a clear message then how can we say its not in the spirit of things. WE can not change the law but try to live by it. No not robotic, if you see a sign and it says do not cross and you do who do you blame if there is a accident?? Abusive is your answer how many are that get divorced, yet divorce is very high even non christians.

Originally posted by stoker
from my observations they do. we know as you put it the spirit of the law, but read the scripts and if a clear message then how can we say its not in the spirit of things. WE can not change the law but try to live by it. No not robotic, if you see a sign and it says do not cross and you do who do you blame if there is a accident?? Abusive is your answer how many are that get divorced, yet divorce is very high even non christians.

if rules no longer apply, then you must change them. if a rule is barbaric by todays standards then we must change it. i can never understand why some christians are so opposed to change when christ himself brought about change. no longer eye for an eye but turn the other cheek. no longer kill the infidels but love your enemies and try and convert them by example.

we no longer stone women, yet god said we must and he pointed a long list of circumstances when we should. we no longer expect widows to become nuns or at the least live their lives in mourning and never marry again even if the woman in question is 20. the church finally accepted we revolve around the sun. so if we do change the word of God, then why do we cling to some rules as if the message of christ is changed in any way if a woman preaches it.

how can a decent human being give orders to someone smarter or more experienced? my boss is a woman, should i refuse to take orders from her because Jesus said so or should i understand she is more experienced and more capable in her position than me?

Originally posted by stoker
... No not robotic, if you see a sign and it says do not cross and you do who do you blame if there is a accident?? ....

You dont realise it but this is an example of being robotic. There are many instances I can think of in which it will be best to disobey the sign. You are clearly strait-jacketed in your thinking. Paul's letters were for the early church 2000 years ago. Not everything in it can possibly be applicable today.

Everything in Paul's letters can be disregarded or adapted to suit the year 2008 as long as it does not violate the basic teachings of Christ which are ;
1. Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart
2. Love thy neighbour as thyself
3. etc
4 etc

... you know what they are.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
sure, i don't either. what does it matter how we call them they are all still christians(except for the mormons). i was simply making a point that if the pope has the power to pass rules and he says priests cannot marry then the catholics say priests cannot marry. of course there are exceptions and of course some don't recognize the pope. it doesn't even ma ...[text shortened]... cal rule.

😀 then do the baptist believe he turned water into koolaid at the cana wedding?

I guess they do--well, I can only speak for one pastor--he claimed that there is/was no word in ancient Greek for "grape juice" 🙂 As I am only now learning ancient Greek, I can't dispute him, yet.

I'm curious why you find the Mormons non-Christian? My pastor concurs with you, but the ones I remember from my formative years (United Methodists) accepted the LDS as a fellow Christian church. I've met 5 or 6 Mormons in my life, and they all professed Christ as their personal savior and, since no one can read their hearts except God, I'd call them Christians.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
I guess they do--well, I can only speak for one pastor--he claimed that there is/was no word in ancient Greek for "grape juice" 🙂 As I am only now learning ancient Greek, I can't dispute him, yet.

I'm curious why you find the Mormons non-Christian? My pastor concurs with you, but the ones I remember from my formative years (United Methodists) accepte ...[text shortened]... sonal savior and, since no one can read their hearts except God, I'd call them Christians.

The bible is clear that Christ drank alcohol with the publicans and sinners. Whats the big deal about alcohol. The NT actually recommends drinking wine and nowhere does the Bible say you should not drink alcohol.

Originally posted by Rajk999
The bible is clear that Christ drank alcohol with the publicans and sinners. Whats the big deal about alcohol. The NT actually recommends drinking wine and nowhere does the Bible say you should not drink alcohol.

Beats me---like I said, it seems to be a Southern Baptist thing.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
Beats me---like I said, it seems to be a Southern Baptist thing.

I only read the first couple of pages, but this may give you an idea:
http://alcoholandthebible.org/unfermented_wine.htm

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I only read the first couple of pages, but this may give you an idea:
http://alcoholandthebible.org/unfermented_wine.htm

"Now the evil sense of gay, meaning homosexual..." Sort of loses a bit of credibility there, along with the narrow focus of the King James Version translation. So in King James' time this word meant both this and that. What about all the other translations that aren't from that time and place? If they also use the word "wine" when translating from the original Greek, then it should be safe to assume that "wine" is meant and not "unfermented grape juice." (The "gay apparel" part is a piece of work too...)

Originally posted by pawnhandler
"Now the evil sense of gay, meaning homosexual..." Sort of loses a bit of credibility there, along with the narrow focus of the King James Version translation. So in King James' time this word meant both this and that. What about all the other translations that aren't from that time and place? If they also use the word "wine" when translating from th d not "unfermented grape juice." (The "gay apparel" part is a piece of work too...)

Perhaps you gave up before you got to this:

"Translators can see that they must change the translation of lampro,j from a seventeenth century meaning, but they are adamant in refusing to change the meaning of the words !yIY and oi=noj, which in Biblical Hebrew and Greek meant grape juice, whether fermented or unfermented being left to the judgment of the reader according to the context."

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I only read the first couple of pages, but this may give you an idea:
http://alcoholandthebible.org/unfermented_wine.htm

Thanks ToO--good post.

Originally posted by Rajk999
You dont realise it but this is an example of being robotic. There are many instances I can think of in which it will be best to disobey the sign. You are clearly strait-jacketed in your thinking. Paul's letters were for the early church 2000 years ago. Not everything in it can possibly be applicable today.

Everything in Paul's letters can be disregarded ...[text shortened]... all thy heart
2. Love thy neighbour as thyself
3. etc
4 etc

... you know what they are.

yes i know
if im strait-jacketed by the teachings then i accept this, but the teaching, "tho shalt not" are more than older and still enforced, we have not the gift to change the words just because we say they are not in line with our ways. if on the other hand there was a message from them who god blesses and thier has been a lot since he was raised, non to my knowledge and i think its about 50/50 male female have said women should be given the authority to give the sacrament.