Metacrock

Meta => Prehaps you have the guts to go to the evangelical feminist board and tell them how stupid they are for being Chrsitians. Are you willing to that? If not, why not?


http://www.network54.com/Hide/Forum/31727









Against what standard are you judging the Bible? ...

Pure ethical relativism.



Meta =>That doens't make sense. Realitivism means no fixed standard. If yu have "pure" realitivism then how can you say sexism is wrong?

Under the Principle of Accommodation, God speaks to us in a manner and uses symbols thatwe can understand.

An omnipotent being would have no trouble making even the most arcane theories comprehensible.



Meta =>How do you know? that betrays a real unsophisticated understanding of language. People are always limited by their cultures.





Slavery, which is as old as the hills, is used as a figure for someone's devotion to God.

Very bad taste in metaphors. Sort of like saying that the Song of Solomon really describes one's love for god or whatever.



Meta =>IN the Book of Galations Paul makes it quite clear that freedom is a principal of the Gospel and that slavery is wrong. He says "be not a slave to any man," He also says "it is for freedom that you have been set free." The metaphors of freedom and salvery run thoughout the books, and freedom is the upshot of the gospel, slavery is for sin and law.



Take the example of a man who was to marry a woman he raped. This was the ultimate deterrent against rape (the resulting black mark on a woman's record being a poison pill)...

I don't see how that is the case, because that seems to me to be an endorsement of "marriage by capture".




Meta =>No, it means he has to take responsiblity for his actions.



Finally, Christianitry did more for the liberation of woman than any movement either before or after. No male or female before god-all one in Christ Jesus. Do you realise how revolutionary that was when first proclaimed?

However, that alleged insight was not followed up on; women were told to shut up about religion and let their husbands instruct them, and Jesus Christ had not had several female apostles.


Meta => That's a male ego thing, not a christian thing. But you are quite wrong. The first organized women's sufferage group in America was the Methodist women's association, headed by Phebie Palmer. There are tons of other carageious women in Christian history. So many that one pagan sketptic of the early centuries (I think he was Augustine's teacher) exclaimed "what women are among the Chrisitians!"









Meta =>Women have always had positoins of authoraity in God's economy, In the OT propheteses liek Deborah, in NT Apostles like Junia.

lpetrich

Meta => Prehaps you have the guts to go to the evangelical feminist board and tell them how stupid they are for being Chrsitians. Are you willing to that? If not, why not?

I don't know about you, I prefer not to make an ass out of myself. Why don't you go to some fundie bboard and explain to them what "Verbal Plenary" inspiration is, and why it is wrong.

Under the Principle of Accommodation, God speaks to us in a manner and uses symbols thatwe can understand.

An omnipotent being would have no trouble making even the most arcane theories comprehensible.

Meta =>How do you know? that betrays a real unsophisticated understanding of language. People are always limited by their cultures.

We've developed the vocabulary to talk about large numbers of things that were unknown or had not existed in previous centuries. And how had we done so?

Meta =>IN the Book of Galations Paul makes it quite clear that freedom is a principal of the Gospel and that slavery is wrong. ...

However, no slaves were ever freed as a result of this teaching.

... women were told to shut up about religion and let their husbands instruct them, and Jesus Christ had not had several female apostles.

Meta => That's a male ego thing, not a christian thing. But you are quite wrong. ...

But that's in the Bible, regardless of whether Metacrock wants to believe that it is.

The first organized women's sufferage group in America was the Methodist women's association, headed by Phebie Palmer.

However, their opponents never tired of waving their Bibles about how women ought to be subordinate to men, how the first woman was such a great troublemaker, how man is the head of woman just as Christ is the head of the church, and so forth. Metacrock has to throw out a LOT of the Bible and a LOT of history to make his case.

Meta =>Women have always had positoins of authoraity in God's economy, In the OT propheteses liek Deborah, in NT Apostles like Junia.

Such women were, however, rare.

Metacrock

Meta => But these people would discuss it nicely with you. In fact one of them already is. But I wont tell you the name she uses on that board. Still I think it's odd, you are so sure about the eivls of Christianity, and yet so unwill to go speak to the very people who need to know the most. Why? Because you know you can't talk them out of their faith, and have as much moral authority as women as other women would.

Under the Principle of Accommodation, God speaks to us in a manner and uses symbols thatwe can understand.

An omnipotent being would have no trouble making even the most arcane theories comprehensible.

Meta =>How do you know? that betrays a real unsophisticated understanding of language. People are always limited by their cultures.

We've developed the vocabulary to talk about large numbers of things that were unknown or had not existed in previous centuries. And how had we done so?



Meta => That artgument makes no sense because there's no way to know what we don't know of our future that God isn't telling us. Besides, since we are the more sophisticated and we are the all knowing modern people, we should be able to figure things out like acomdation. But those guys in the ancinent world couldn't have understood what we know, things like social progress and the rights of humanity. So it makes more sense that God Would allow them to develop into a progressive society before telling them all the thins that we know.

But, it's fairly certain that ancient soeicity was made more human, and more compassionate by religions like Judaism and christianity. So exposure to God's word did serve to civilize and humanize.



Meta =>IN the Book of Galations Paul makes it quite clear that freedom is a principal of the Gospel and that slavery is wrong. ...

However, no slaves were ever freed as a result of this teaching.


Meta => O they certainly were! Olympia Deconess of Constantinople, in the chruch of John Crysostum (3d century) gave away her whole family fortune by buying slaves to set them free.

for that matter the abolution movment was was stocked full of christians motivated by Paul's words. In fact the first abolition group in america was a christian group; remember above I said the first women's sufferage group was christian? Well, it was the [i]same group![/b] They did both causes. Methodist women

... women were told to shut up about religion and let their husbands instruct them, and Jesus Christ had not had several female apostles.

Meta => That's a male ego thing, not a christian thing. But you are quite wrong. ...

But that's in the Bible, regardless of whether Metacrock wants to believe that it is.


Meta =>No not. Paul's statment in 1 cor is not silencing women. That's been misunderstood and wrongly translated. The use of the alpha privative indicates that Paul is actually quoting those who would silence women then refutting them! Paul liked women. YOu look at the greetings in all of his letters, he had warm personal regards for women and he mentions many of them who were in authorith in the early chruch.








The first organized women's sufferage group in America was the Methodist women's association, headed by Phebie Palmer.

However, their opponents never tired of waving their Bibles about how women ought to be subordinate to men, how the first woman was such a great troublemaker, how man is the head of woman just as Christ is the head of the church, and so forth. Metacrock has to throw out a LOT of the Bible and a LOT of history to make his case.

Meta =>Yea but they won. They beat them. Are you one of those feminsits who likes to pretend that women are still in a really low oppressed position? There are still some disparities, but over 50% of christians in chruches believe in female ministers. They won, and they won by use of supirior exegsis--by understanding what the bible really says better than the sexist ministers.






Meta =>Women have always had positoins of authoraity in God's economy, In the OT propheteses liek Deborah, in NT Apostles like Junia.




Meta =>Not reallly, both the Bible and chruch history are full of them if you look. Tons of women had positions of authority in the early chruch. Paul's letters are full of references to them.

and now they are really in good shape in the modern chruch, over 50% of christians believe in wmen ministests (70%) and almost 50% of ministers are women.

lpetrich

doc58:
(on God delivering regular updates...) Maybe the first one could say, "Hey all you DTS guys, stop the verbal plenary, dispensational nonsense. Its not true. Read Metacrcoks website, everything he says is correct." Tongue in cheek but you get my point.

That's what the Bible is often advertised as being -- The Truth in one simple package.

Also, doc58's point is that the Xian God seems more than happy to have lots of false prophets flourish and lead people astray.

EvolvEarth

Man is supposed to be dominant over women.

lpetrich

We've developed the vocabulary to talk about large numbers of things that were unknown or had not existed in previous centuries. And how had we done so?

Meta => That artgument makes no sense because there's no way to know what we don't know of our future that God isn't telling us. ...

That's totally beside the point.

Meta =>IN the Book of Galations Paul makes it quite clear that freedom is a principal of the Gospel and that slavery is wrong. ...

However, no slaves were ever freed as a result of this teaching.

(Metacrock's counterexamples)

Except that these are not in the Bible.

for that matter the abolution movment was was stocked full of christians motivated by Paul's words. In fact the first abolition group in america was a christian group; remember above I said the first women's sufferage group was christian?

Except that the pro-slavery and anti-suffrage movements were also "stocked full of christians motivated by Paul's words". They remembered the story of Ham, the ancestor of black people, and how he was cursed for his being a Peeping Tom -- or something worse. And they remembered the Adam and Eve story and how Eve was led astray by that pesky snake. And the part that the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church.

... women were told to shut up about religion and let their husbands instruct them, and Jesus Christ had not had several female apostles.
But that's in the Bible, regardless of whether Metacrock wants to believe that it is.

Meta =>No not. Paul's statment in 1 cor is not silencing women. That's been misunderstood and wrongly translated. ...

However, the context clearly indicates "Shut up!" -- not that women should not be afraid to speak and participate alongside men.

There are still some disparities, but over 50% of christians in chruches believe in female ministers. They won, and they won by use of supirior exegsis--by understanding what the bible really says better than the sexist ministers.

No, they won because of overall changes in society in which it became much more acceptable for women to have serious careers. And this meant women becoming clergypeople. The Bible was re-interpreted in an entirely after-the-fact fashion; both sides were guilty of selective interpretation, and I still think that the most straightforward interpretation of much of the Bible on women is gross sexism.

Tons of women had positions of authority in the early chruch. Paul's letters are full of references to them.

Possibly, but that did not last long, and Jesus Christ never had any female apostles.

miss djax

metacrock said :


Meta =>Yea but they won. They beat them. Are you one of those feminsits who likes to pretend that women are still in a really low oppressed position? There are still some disparities, but over 50% of christians in chruches believe in female ministers. They won, and they won by use of supirior exegsis--by understanding what the bible really says better than the sexist ministers.

miss djax said :

uh, surely you jest....so methodists waved a bible to say slavery was wrong. that means no one since then as ever asserted that the bible supports oppression of any kind? you haven't heard of white supremists at all? most racists groups use the BIBLE to JUSTIFY their racism. universal church of the creator ring a bell?

And don't get me started on your categorically sexist comment about women 'who like to pretend women are ....oppressed..' You should apply 1/10th of the filter you use to examine biblical text to examine the world around you. There is still a glass ceiling. Gov't stats on income still show weighted for experience, eduacation, all factors, women still make less than men. But anymore discussion about our current world makes this off topic


metacrock asserted :

and now they are really in good shape in the modern chruch, over 50% of christians believe in wmen ministests (70%) and almost 50% of ministers are women. [/B][/QUOTE]

lies and damn lies. my mother, ordained in 1990, was the FIRST WOMAN MINISTER ORDAINED in that state for the Assemblies of God. and it was PERMITTED because she is a CHILDRENS pastor. There is not a single Assemblies of God church in the entire country that is ran by a female minister. THEY DON'T ALLOW IT!!! but wait, you will say 'those folks are fundies so it doesn't count'. what about the catholic church? they are pretty serious about women's role in the church. i DEFY you to find statistic ONE of ANY denomination of any church in the US that has 50% female ministers. WHat you will find is that women are PERMITTED to be children's ministers, and music ministers, and thats about it. Children and music are sof ministries, and the 'place and role' of women.

You lie when you say anything else.

I shouldn't be suprised by this. I find your assertions about plenary interpretations to be the same. Just because you believe all is egalitarian and no sexism doesn't exist in the bible doesn't make it so. Just because your interpretation of text is is believed by you doesn't make it so.

Miss Djax