"I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

Discuss Biblical and theological support for concept that Bible teaches equality between sexes.

Moderator: Metacrock

ZAROVE
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: "I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

Post by ZAROVE » Wed Apr 16, 2008 8:56 pm

Still wondering how "I do not suffer a woman to teach" has morphed into "a woman can't be a preacher."

Let me rephrase then.

A woman cannot hold any teahcign responcibility in the Church that hodls any official status.

This woudl obviously be the role of the Preacher, sicne the PReacher is who taught.

Its not a Metamorphoses a t all.

"Teach means "teach."

Faith coems by Hearing, and hearign byt he word of God. But how can they hear who hae no preacher?

The PReacher is who insturcts us int he faith, that is why he is called a preacher, or evangelist.


The woman "Jezebel" (yes, I know that's a symbolic name) was "teaching."


THe woman Jezabel was not simply named Jezabel symboliclaly, she wasn't even a woman.

And again, you confuse the terms of Prophetess with those of a PReacher.

The two roles while similar in soem regards do have a differential distinction between them.


If you believe Paul is saying "I do not suffer a woman to teach, but she can still be a prophetess, even though prophetesses teach in the Church, because all I really mean is that a woman can't be a preacher," you are reading far, far more into the text than you say I am.


Actually I'm not. Prophetess is not the same as Teacher. Prophets , whle they offer insight and to a degree instruction, still do not hold the same offices withint he CHurhc as an evangelist or any other role.

THey do not administer communion, do not Baptist, do not preach form the pulpit and offer official teachings.

A Prophet merely stands to give direct messages form God, but must be given leave by the Church, and does not officiate at the Church.

They are not the same things to begin with, and veen the same scripture you quoted earlier in an attemot to show the title Apostle as soemhtign as aprt fp the Church made a distinciton ebtween the PReaher andthe Prophet.

To soem teachers, and to others Prophets, recall?

They arent the same things.


As for the Revelation quote-- yes, Jesus' messages to the churches had symbolic elements, but they were far less symbolic and more direct than other, purely symbolic, passages in Revelation. Or do you think that Rev. 2:13, "even in the days of Antipas, my faithful witness, who was put to death in your city" is not referring to a real person either?


Antipas, and the days of Antipas, do indeed refer to a real person, a reignign puppet King for Rome.

But at the same time, Jezebel the woman is not a owman in the same text.


Using a wholly symbolic reference in an allegorical passage to demonstrate women can be poermited htis trle, espeically when said woman is herself actulaly causing problems, is unsupportable.




The way these letters are worded, there are people Jesus praises and people He denounces.
But often those people end up being metaphorical references to isntitutions or places or ideas.

That said, Jezabel is denounced.



There are symbolic names given, but no reason whatsoever to disbelieve that there was a real person who was here given the appellation "Jezebel," or at the very least, a group of people giving false teachings which was under female leadership.

WHo where denounced.

And there is reason, if you read into Revelation and its actual meaning.

No one that I am aware of, from the Fathers of the Churhc to the modern theologian, orm the most stout evangelical to th most ardent liberal, sees Jezebel in this passage as anythign remotely conencted to women leadership.

It is far too much a stretchto use this for yor cause, given boththe fact that Jezbel is not refering to a woman, and evn uif it was, the fact remains that even though not spacificlay denounced for beign a woman "Leader" of the CHurch, you still have to accept that this Jezebel was denounced and harldy makes a positive example.


Must I, thoh, go into detial as to what Revelaiton chapter 2 means, in order to settle this?


It isnt related tot he topic we are discussing.

Suffer to say Jezebel is not a woman, and thus the passage isn't ultimatley useful for you.


As for Eve, I don't recall saying that blame didn't rest on Eve. I said that the Bible makes it clear that not ALL the blame rests on Eve, though Tertullian tries to make it so.
You are still to harsh on Tertullian, and you still haven't son that Tertullians words stem form a Mysoginist culture that he coudl not escape, instead of an Exegesis of the Scripture.

You can of coruse deny his accuracy, but it dods seem that your argument rests heavily upon the idea that the memebr sof the Church denied the role of official teachers to women base dont he culturla mysoginy, and that is not proven by uoting that segment of Tertullian which instead rested on how he understood Genesis chapter 3.

User avatar
KR Wordgazer
Posts: 1410
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: "I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

Post by KR Wordgazer » Wed Apr 16, 2008 9:21 pm

Oh, Zarove.

There are many people with more credentials than I have, who believe that passage about Jezebel refers to a real person. I'm not just out there on my own, you know.

Hey, you know-- I'd like to just declare a truce, ok? Your arguments make no sense to me, as mine seem to make no sense to you. I'll read more of the Church Fathers for my own education--- but though I've enjoyed the discussion, at some point we've got to admit we're getting nowhere and just agree to disagree.

Anyway, I'd rather be friends with you than win an argument. So can we just say, "enough?"
Wag more.
Bark less.

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10046
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: "I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

Post by Metacrock » Thu May 15, 2008 9:56 pm

frankly i wish I had never put this board up. Your arguments are great Wordgazer. they are like mine so hen I say that, it's kind of self serving. I'm really tired of this stuff. so elementary. if people still don't get it, well they are just hopelessly conservative. Like Zor. of course, he's our Pal anyway and that doesn't change. Yes I have great respect for his intelligence and I like him as a friend. But he is hopelessly conservative, and he knows that, he is the first to admit and he love it!

he's no where near like the real comps. you should see them man, they are something else. anyway. I thought more people would come. the ECA let me down.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
KR Wordgazer
Posts: 1410
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: "I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

Post by KR Wordgazer » Sun May 18, 2008 8:32 pm

Well, Metacrock, I kind of enjoyed the discussion with Zarove-- but then I realized I was getting upset. And here's why: while, as a male, this is pretty much an academic discussion for Zarove, to me as a woman, it cuts to the very heart and soul of how I view God.

When it comes to brass tacks, here's how I feel: A God Who made me in His image-- and (as far as I can see) made me every bit as intelligent, competent and capable as men-- cannot then tell me I'm not allowed to function as He made me in every area (including in church services!) and still be a just and good Creator. If I felt Him calling me to service in the church through teaching or preaching, I would follow Him, no matter what the men said about it. If I did not, I would not truly be following Him. But I can't follow Him if He isn't both good and just. Because then He wouldn't be God.

So how can I continue to have a rational discussion about this when it's tearing at the very heart of my relationship with God? I simply can't. I know Zarove's going to tell me I'm wrong about this-- that God can make me in His image and then tell me I can't function as an equal to men in the church-- but he's not me. And he's never had to face this for himself, and never will.

So-- though I like Zarove very much and respect him deeply-- if he posts again in this thread, I probably will not answer. I can't do it without getting emotional. And when I consider that what he's saying might be correct, I find a wall going up within me against God. And that's not worth it to me. I refuse to believe ill of Him. If He had wanted to create me as an inferior to men, that would have been His right, and I would have submitted to it. But to create me in His image right along with my male counterparts, and then tell me I'm actually inferior in my roles within His body-- no. That's not good and just.

Sorry if that's too emotional, folks. But that's me being honest.

So-- a reading of the Scriptures that turns Who God is on its head, cannot be a correct reading of the Scriptures. As Martin Luther said before me, I can only say, "Here I stand; I can do no other. God help me."
Wag more.
Bark less.

ZAROVE
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: "I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

Post by ZAROVE » Tue May 20, 2008 1:09 am

The biggest problem with these debates is that its not about Equality at all, and those who tend to argue for women preahcing tend to try to force it as such. I know Kristen won't answer back, but, if she did, I woudl ask her why she has to unnessisairly depict those who oppose women preaching are automaticllay sayign women ar einfirior to men.


Its not like only men oppose women preahcing, and I know personally several wmen who oppose it.

None of those women, though, see themselves as infirior to men in any regard.


Nor is the debate over rather or not women ar einfiripr to men.


By framign it in that context, you also do a disservice tot hose who hodl the oposing view. If someoen read only the last post by Kristen, they woudl asusme my argument rest son how owmen, beign infirior to men, shoudl not be allowed ot preach, which is, itself, unjust, since the arugments agaisnt women preaching never acutlaly say this.


Its more about native roles and spacific funcitons and symbolism, that itself cuts to the very core of peopels theology.

IE, let slook at Cahtolsisim. If they allwoed women to be ordaiend as Priets, Kristen and Mtacrock woudl rejoice, becaus enow Cahtolsism droped its sexism and lets women be treate as equels. Catholisism woudl also loose its enture theology of the Proietshood, since a large and signifigant part of their teahcign abotu the Sacrament of Ordinaiton rests on the Priets beign Ex Persona Christi when performing a sacrament, and the Prists acutlaly assumes the very role and nature of CHrist himself whilst performing said Sacrament.


Women, no matter how equel with men, cannot be a men. No woman woudl ever be cast as Jesus in a movie abot his life. Much less coudl they embody him in all his form.

WOudl it then be accurate to say that Cahtolic doctirne abotut he Sacrament of Ordinaiton is sexist, and women are seen as infiriotr, base dont he Biological fact that Jesus was a man?


The same rest sin other, non-Cathlic settings. In many CHurhces the Ordinaiton rite is as much abotu reflectign Jesus himself, which no woman can do no matter how sincere.


There are many other points agaisnt women preaching, that also cut tot he very core of what it is to be a Christain, and yet, I find myself "Hopelessly conservative" if I hold this position, and I am told how I view women as infiriotr to me.

Is that even an address to the real issue? Or is it unjustified?

ZAROVE
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: "I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

Post by ZAROVE » Tue May 20, 2008 1:11 am

Incedentlaly, I'm not really a Conservative either. I'm just not Liberal.


My politivcal views are not easy to understand unless you try not to lable ,me with right-and-left connotations.

I am pro-environemnt, and pro-animal rights for example, and both of those are Left-wing ideals, yet I am for traditional marriage and for classical morality, which is associated with the right.

Actually, I'm more traditional than either set, the "Wings" where started by the French and branched out as the Enlightnment era ideology of govenrment overtook the world.

Given ow I prefer small govenrment and localised subsidies over the curfent Lockian Republican system that so fascinates us these days, I doubt I'd fit right in even with the Tories back home, much less with the Republicans in the USA.

User avatar
KR Wordgazer
Posts: 1410
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: "I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

Post by KR Wordgazer » Thu May 22, 2008 7:09 pm

At the risk of starting this whole argument off again, I feel I must explain why I take the stance I do, that this whole argument really is about women’s equality. I believe Zarove is sincere in saying otherwise, but I think he’s sincerely wrong, and here’s why:

My problem with the whole “equal before God, different in role” argument is that, though it sounds good, it really is self-contradictory. To see what I mean, this is how the argument would sound if you substituted different groups for men and women:

"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."

Sounds like double-speak, doesn't it? “Equal” doesn’t really mean “equal,” but everyone is supposed to think it does, and to feel better about it anyway. And yet this is what Paul's words in 1 Timothy 2:11 meant? Women are equal but are not to be allowed to act/be treated as equals?

I say that if an interpretation of a passage yields a self-contradictory result, then the interpretation is faulty. The only reason people can't see how faulty it is, is that they're used to hearing it said about men and women. But change it to be about black and white people, and it's easy to see how faulty it is.

As for the Roman Catholic priest argument:

While I disagree sharply with the Roman Catholics that any mere human being can, or should believe, that he assumes the very role and nature of Christ to any other human being– if they must believe that way, and if it is then important that the priest’s physical body resemble that of Christ, why does the Roman Catholic Church ordain blond, blue-eyed white priests, or African Americans?

Gender is a matter of physical bodies– of genetics, genitalia and hormones. But we are all, male and female, made in the image of God, and God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The “Father” and “Son” names are metaphorical, as God is Spirit and does not have gender– they refer to the relationship between these two Persons of the Godhead. What gender the Son’s physical body was has no bearing on His divine nature, and is only incidental to His human one. If the Jews had been a matriarchal culture, He would have been born into a female body, and we would all be saying, “Mother, Daughter, and Holy Spirit”! Odd as that sounds, Jesus Himself was not afraid to use female metaphors in relation to Himself: “Oh, Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how I have longed to gather you to me, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings!”

Paul said that in Christ there was “not male and female” (literal Greek rendering). So why place so much importance on His physical gender? As for “representing Christ,” I believe we are all called to do that to the best of our ability to the world– our gender should not restrict us.

As for "conservative," Zarove, I don't believe Metacrock was talking about your politics, but about your theological position. :)
Wag more.
Bark less.

ZAROVE
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: "I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

Post by ZAROVE » Fri May 23, 2008 12:33 am

Actually, I can say your sincerley wrong, and the race car d is bogus.


Look, the whole reframign it accordign to race doens't work. Black men are still men. The ealry Churhc didn't even exist in a culture that had distinctions between races as sharply defined. Its absurd to use the crappy "VBlacks are eque,. but cant userp the autghoprty of men" routine, and I feel personally offended that you do. This is not the same thing.

You want to say Im sexist, fine. But Im still follwojgn Gods word. You are following your own desires.


This isn't merely acadeimitc for me. Women ARE different form men, and in a way blacks are not dfferent from whites. its a flat out false arugment to say that denyign women the role of preacher is equivolent to denyign blacks the role of preacher base don the sins of Ham. They arne't the same.

No wher ein Scripture do you fidn admonition agaisnt race in administering the roles we are discussing. Your enture statement is base dmore n racist doctirne, which you conflate with this.

Do you even realis ehow insultign you are being?


Soemhow Im equated iwht a racist because I follwo Gods word? Oh, Im wsorry, I am sincelrey wrong fr upholdign 2000 years of Church teaching and you and your pastor and others are somehow right.


No, Kristen, it snot the same as race, and as much as that may pain you, your enture arugment is fraudulent.


Women are not men. Women give birth and ecome mothers. I will never, ever b anyones mother. Is that fair? Is it sexist that you can have a role I can't?


Women bond much mre lcosly wth their chidlren too, and htis is a known biological fact. Thats unfair to you?

And you wan tto pretend that sayign women have equel rights menas they shoudl be treated as men and allwoed top prwach because otherwise its like racism?


Thats amongst the owrst thougth out relies ever, and rleies intrinsiclaly upon emoiton.


Heaven forbid we deny wo,en the pulpits now, else we ar eloke those whop say blacks cant preaHC BECAUSE of the sins of Ham.

Coem off it, thats not valid at all.

User avatar
KR Wordgazer
Posts: 1410
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: "I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

Post by KR Wordgazer » Fri May 23, 2008 1:25 am

Do you even realize how insulting you're being, Zarove?

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.

"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.

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? 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.

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.

We need to end this now and not bring it up again. I can hardly believe the things you've just said.
Wag more.
Bark less.

ZAROVE
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: "I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

Post by ZAROVE » Fri May 23, 2008 1:12 pm

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.

Post Reply