Do you even realize how insulting you're being, Zarove?
I offendyou by standing on principles. But Im not beign offensive. I've not insulted you. You did insult me by compaing me ot a racist because I tke a Biblical stand. Its an argumet you can't support.
I know that there are racists who follow that doctirne you mentioned, but they have no actual verses that say Blacks can
t preach because of the curse of Ham. I do have verses that say women can't.
I can also note that there is no biological difference between black men and white men, they perform the name natural role. A black man will be a Husband an Father. That is somehtign no woman, black or white, will ever be. I note that black men act like men, too. They don't act like women, they aren't butil like women.
Saying that my views on women preahcing, which I remidn you are Biblical, unliekm yours which seem nbase don emotion more htan anythign else, is the same as excludign blacks formt he ministtrry and reframign it in those words is nothign but a smokescreen, an attemot to show how its all abptu inequality.
Well guess what else is abotu Inequality? Gay rightds. Why cant two lovign gay men marry each other? They lack the equel rights we have. Thats their arugment. They also use the racist comparrisons just liek you did.
SOcialists use the same arguments. Wealth iequality shoudln't exist so the Govnerment shoudl distirbute the wealth to everyoen equelly.
And again, many socialsist use racism to strit the emotions.
The truth is, wealth inequality is simply one man haivng or money than the other, and is not unjust. Homosexuality is not proper behaviour, period. Neither of them relaly compare to race.
Neither does this.
Women are not men. Sayign this doens't automaticllay mean that I am sayign women cannot be saved by CHrist, nor that they haven't equel treatment
under the law.
But women are not men.
Sayign this is also not the same as saign "Blacks are equel btu different form whites, and thats why they cant preach because fo the curse of Ham". Its nto the same, even if you eant to sit there and distort matters.
I had no intention of insulting anyone, and it was a mistake for me to say anything further in this discussion. I'm sorry we even began it.
The only reason anyone uses the racist argument is to shame the oposition into capitulation by claimign its abotu equality whn its not.
The truth is , oposing women preahcign is not like sayign blacks are "Equel but seperate" and can't preach because of the curse of Ham and ther eis no comparrison.
There are no scruptues which mention blacks as sufferers of the cuse of Ham, and before you shoot off itnepretation, keep in midn I DO have Verses that say women cannot prteach. Period.
YOU have to do fancy manipulation tot he text to get to ti nto mean what it plainly says, I don't. Just liej the raCISTS HAVE TO DO FANCY footwork to get the Bible to say Blacks cant preach.
You thus become liejk the racists, in manipulatign the Bible to suit your own arenga.
And I am not goign to sit here and tolerate beign compared to a racist becsause I follow God on what he said.
"Pulling the race card." What a thing to say! I can hardly believe you'd think that was what I was doing. Nor, despite your assertion, was I calling you racist or anything else. I was making an argument from analogy, and that's all. If you think it's fraudulent, fine, but how you can think I was calling you racist is completely beyond me.
Its a false analogy.
And it dfoes lead tot hat conclusion. If I do not let women preach, I am equivolent to peopel who would not let blacks preach. Its nto analoguous at all, though, since women are not men, whereas a black man is still a man.
Black men fill the same biological role as white men. White women do not fill the same biological role as black men, or as white men.
Nor do BVlack women.
The analogy fails because it asusmes that oen is equivolent toy he other, and its not.
Here's anpther reason it snot equivolent.
1 Timothy, CHaoter 2.
11. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
Find me any verse that says "The curse of Ham prevents blacks from preahcing" and I'll conceed that its the same.
Otherwise, I am stabding by the Bible at what it days, and you aren't.
The race analogy is offensive because it equates the while arugment to racism, which isnt true.
Just liek its offensive to distort the oposiiton to women preaching by making it abotu equel rights, and depictign those of us who oppose it as sayign that women are infiirot to men, and claimign this is abotu equel rights when its not.
As I said, its not a mere intellectual argument for me. Also, it snto like all women agree with you, and want wopmen to be able to preach. Many women oppose women in the pulpit, beause htis is what God said.
So no, this isn't the same as racism, and the arugment form analogy does tend to depict this as an equel rights issue, and depicts htos eliek me as racists, because we are the same as those who won't let blacks preach, and it is a false arugment.
wang more?
Heres research. Women are different form men. This is one artucld, there are others.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... llwell.DTL
If you do more researhc, you will find women are different form men in numerous ways.
You won't find the same sort of researhc on blacxks and whites, and thus the analogy doens't whold.
Again, black men hpld the same biological position and fulfill the same bilological function as white men. This is not true of women.
The arugment form analogy is not a good one, and it relies upon an acepted evil, racism, having an emotional reacton, thus creatign shame int he oposition.
So we shoudl let women preahc because otherwise we're just liek racists.
But thats harldyt he reality of the position I hold.
How dare you say "I'm following God's word, while you're following your own desires"-- just because I disagree with your interpretion of the Bible?
Hey, you used an argument from analogy that made me equicolent to a racist, and you complain?
The difference is, I can show you in the BIble where it says women are not to preach.
This is what is written.
The best you csn do to "Intepret" it differnetly is fidn where omen where commended by Paul the PAstle or did this or that good thing in the service fo the CHurch, whuich then is taken to mean that they can preach even though this was never stated. Or, you can relate hwo your pastor went to CHina and women preached there and where "Annointed" somehow.
Those argument do not find validity.
Then you tlak about a wall goign p between you and God if I am right.
Thats emotion, that speaks of your desires, so does framign this in the context of equel rights, and so does the racist analogy.
You have no verses that say women can preach in the CHurches, or act as teachers int he Churches. You have only your desire that this be so, which enables you to compare me to a racist, and which allows you to see women as "Annointed" tot he ministry because owmen preach, and which allows you to see every commendation fo a woman int he Bible as proof that hey can preach.
you use an "Argument form analogy" to compare those who disagree with your intepretaiton with racists, I remidn you. The analogy is clear. I oppoe women rpeahcing, therefore I am exaclty the same as those who are racist agaisnt blacks, except Im sexist agaisnt women. Its all abotu equel rughtas and these people are just the same as the men thus shoudl b allwoed pt preach.
WHo cares what the truth is? Yoru Intepretaiton is as vlaid as mine,a nd more valid than mine because tis base don equel rights!
And Im just the moral equivolent to a racist anyway.
1 Corinthians chapter 14 says women shoudl not preach. 1 Timothy chapter 2 says that women cnanot preach.
Tis is not merley my interpretation fo the passages, its what they plainly say. The only way to get them not to say this is through distortign the text to mean what it dons't say.
Again, I stand by the word of God, you stand by arugments form analogy that make me the moral equivolent to a racist, and by your pastors expeirnces in CHina, and soem false illusion of equality that soemhow makes this right and the oposition view wrong, and the old standard of "Intepretations differ" to justify it.
But Im nto gogn to sit here and be mad einto the moral equivolent to a racist, and I won't sit here and accept that this is an equel rights issue.
The end of the matter is the scripture, and they do not support your position.
And this is not just my intepretation.
If Im wrong, shwo me Im wrong
from the scriptures.
Not from your interpetation of the scriptures, or your understanding, or your arugments form analogy.
SHow me a verse that says women can preahc in the Church.
That's possibly the most judgmental thing anyone's ever said to me. I love God with all my heart and do all I can to follow Him. To call someone's walk with God into question because you disagree with them is a terrible thing to do.
You used an argument form analogy that makes me the mroal equivolent to a racist.
Your arugment.
"Blacks are equal to whites before God, but because of the sin of Ham, blacks should not teach or usurp whites' authority in the churches. Blacks may teach other blacks, and they may teach white children, but they may not teach white adults in the churches. Nevertheless, though their roles are different, blacks are equal to whites."
That arguyemnt form analogy make sme the mroal equivolent to a racist.
You also refuse to acknowledge the real problem peopel have with women in the ministry, by pretendign its abotu equel rights. Its not. Its a distortion to say it is.
I stand by the verses I show you fromt he Bible, not from soemone elses expernces in another country, not on how I personally feel, not from me takign a verse to mean soemthign when it doens't acutlaly say this, and not from vain arugments from shadows that have no solid form.
Its also not just my interpretation, again the verses are rather plain.
Why shodul I think ti sjust another intepretation? on hat gorunds?
And why shoudl I think my intepretaiton is the moral equivolent to racism?
Why shoudl I frame this as euwel rights?
Especually sicne I never relaly said "Equel but seperate", but only said that women are equel under the law. You pt those words in my mouth.
Women are different form men and have a different biological role. The Churhc is a family, and the family does do best when heade dby men. ( Psycological studies confirm this.)
Thus it snot abot beign "Equel but seperate", its baotu beign a woman, as opposed to beign a man.
So it's "treating women like men" to allow them to preach. I think not. I think it's treating them like intelligent human beings.
You think base don what?
Again, I hgave scriptures, what do you have?
I cannto go agaisnt the word of God, and thats where I stand. Be offende dby this, I dont care. Im not the moral equicolent to a racist, and this isnt me sayign "Equel but seperate". THis is me saing the Bible said soemthign and me restign on that.
You can disagree wiht my intepretaiton, but the verses won't go away.
The Bible says women shoudl not preach, and that was written. Women are biologiclaly different form men, and Psycologiclaly diffeent. THis is a proven fact.
it snto "Seperst ebtu equel", its a matter of what is best for th Church, and what is wrotten.
We shoudl in all things obey God, and that means obeyign even in these matters.
It is also not abotu equality, its abotu the roles men and women are given to play.
We need to end this now and not bring it up again. I can hardly believe the things you've just said.
Yet, you did brign it up, and you did insult me, and you did render me as the mroal equivolent to a racist.
With this arugment.
"Blacks are equal to whites before God, but because of the sin of Ham, blacks should not teach or usurp whites' authority in the churches. Blacks may teach other blacks, and they may teach white children, but they may not teach white adults in the churches. Nevertheless, though their roles are different, blacks are equal to whites."
This "Argument form analogy" make sme the moral equiolent to a racist.
You want to make me somehow mor eoffensive than this?
You are wrong. THe Scruotrues are nto subject to private interpretation, and are written as they are written. ITs not abotu "Seperat ebut equel", I never used that prhase in my own stand.
Its baotu women fulfillign thier role in life as woman, not as man.
Thats not an issue of equality, either, its an issue of bilogy .
And, you still have o verses that say women acutlaly prached int eh Churhces, where I can show you verses that say they arne't permited.
Thats what the Bibel says, its there to be accepted or not.