Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 10-01-2008, 10:22 AM

Inquiring evangelical minds want to know.

Quote:

"The Palin selection is the single most dangerous event in the conscience of the Christian community in the last 10 years at least," said Doug Phillips, president of Vision Forum, a Texas-based ministry. "The unabashed, unquestioning support of Sarah Palin and all she represents marks a fundamental departure from our historic position of family priorities -- of moms being at home with young children, of moms being helpers to their husbands, the priority of being keepers of the home."

Voddie Baucham, a Texas pastor who has criticized the Palin selection as anti-family in a series of blogs, said that the overwhelming evangelical support demonstrates a willingness to sacrifice biblical principles for politics. "Evangelicalism has lost its biblical perspective and its prophetic voice," Baucham wrote. "Men who should be standing guard as the conscience of the country are instead falling in line with the feminist agenda and calling a family tragedy . . . a shining example of family values."

. . .

Others counter that restrictions on female leadership apply only to church and home. They include Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kentucky; and Randy Stinson, whose Kentucky-based Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood was established to combat growing feminism in evangelical churches.

Please stick to Biblical related comments, or this can be moved to Politics.

storytime · 10-01-2008, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Inquiring evangelical minds want to know.

Quote:

"The Palin selection is the single most dangerous event in the conscience of the Christian community in the last 10 years at least," said Doug Phillips, president of Vision Forum, a Texas-based ministry. "The unabashed, unquestioning support of Sarah Palin and all she represents marks a fundamental departure from our historic position of family priorities -- of moms being at home with young children, of moms being helpers to their husbands, the priority of being keepers of the home."

Voddie Baucham, a Texas pastor who has criticized the Palin selection as anti-family in a series of blogs, said that the overwhelming evangelical support demonstrates a willingness to sacrifice biblical principles for politics. "Evangelicalism has lost its biblical perspective and its prophetic voice," Baucham wrote. "Men who should be standing guard as the conscience of the country are instead falling in line with the feminist agenda and calling a family tragedy . . . a shining example of family values."

. . .

Others counter that restrictions on female leadership apply only to church and home. They include Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kentucky; and Randy Stinson, whose Kentucky-based Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood was established to combat growing feminism in evangelical churches.

Please stick to Biblical related comments, or this can be moved to Politics.

What was it Paul said about administration of the body of Christ[the church]? Some were appointed as bishops, teachers, healers, translators (speaking in tongues). He did not think it appropriate for a woman to upsurp authority of a man, because, the woman[Eve] was deceived and not the man[Adam].

From reading, the body of Christ was to be a separate nation within the world of nations. The world being the devils playground, so to speak. So, it doesn't sound as if Christians were intended to enter politics but instead be servants to servants to their own body of people.

What happened? We see that a few fundamentalists have latched onto a dominist theology whereby they think it their duty to control the whole world through their Right Wing Christianity. Taking Jesus to Washington and seating him in the oval office, appointing Right Wing judges etc., shows the extreme measures to which people like Palin are willing to go. Not satisfied with running the church, she will insist on running the country and separation of church and state is fundamentally flawed.

"come out of her[the world] and be not partakers of her sins." Is Palin stepping out of bounds? Seems to be the case in point. Wonder why her minister didn't counsel her about playing around in the devils domain? :devil1:

avi · 10-01-2008, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Sherif Abdel Azeem, describing the Islamic perspective, in scholarly fashion,

...
my concern is, mainly, the position of women in the three religions as it appears in their original sources not as practised by their millions of followers in the world today. Therefore, most of the evidence cited comes from the Quran, the sayings of Prophet Muhammad, the Bible, the Talmud, and the sayings of some of the most influential Church Fathers whose views have contributed immeasurably to defining and shaping Christianity.
...
A careful look into the two accounts of the story of the Creation reveals some essential differences. The Quran, contrary to the Bible, places equal blame on both Adam and Eve for their mistake. Nowhere in the Quran can one find even the slightest hint that Eve tempted Adam to eat from the tree or even that she had eaten before him. Eve in the Quran is no temptress, no seducer, and no deceiver. Moreover, Eve is not to be blamed for the pains of childbearing. God, according to the Quran, punishes no one for another's faults. Both Adam and Eve committed a sin and then asked God for forgiveness and He forgave them both.
...
{...n.b. here Dr. Azeem quotes from Paul:}

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I don't permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner" (I Timothy 2:11-14).

St. Tertullian was even more blunt than St. Paul, while he was talking to his 'best beloved sisters' in the faith, he said:

"Do you not know that you are each an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the Devil's gateway: You are the unsealer of the forbidden tree: You are the first deserter of the divine law: You are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert even the Son of God had to die."

St. Augustine was faithful to the legacy of his predecessors, he wrote to a friend:

"What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman......I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children."

Centuries later, St. Thomas Aquinas still considered women as defective:

"As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from a defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence."

Finally, the renowned reformer Martin Luther could not see any benefit from a woman but bringing into the world as many children as possible regardless of any side effects:

"If they become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth, that's why they are there"

...

It is clear that the Quranic view of women is no different than that of men. They, both, are God's creatures whose sublime goal on earth is to worship their Lord, do righteous deeds, and avoid evil and they, both, will be assessed accordingly. The Quran never mentions that the woman is the devil's gateway or that she is a deceiver by nature. The Quran, also, never mentions that man is God's image; all men and all women are his creatures, that is all. According to the Quran, a woman's role on earth is not limited only to childbirth. She is required to do as many good deeds as any other man is required to do.
....
{ here Dr. Azeem quotes from another of Paul's letters:}

"As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)
...

Orthodox Christians, who accept Paul's ideas, ought then be appalled by Governor Palin, dragging her mentally impaired, recently born infant around the country, like a suitcase of clothes. Selection of Governor Huckabee as the Republican Party Vice Presidential Candidate would have made more sense, logically, politically, and, from the perspective of orthodox Christianity, in harmony with the bible. In my opinion, however, McCain could have chosen Santa Claus, it would not have mattered one whit, since it is the Republican party's ideological perspective, rather than any religious doctrine, that obscures the finish line in this forthcoming election. Ron Paul was their sole hope, and they scorned his prescience in predicting, a year ago, the current economic chaos.

Ben C Smith · 10-02-2008, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

From reading, the body of Christ was to be a separate nation within the world of nations. The world being the devils playground, so to speak. So, it doesn't sound as if Christians were intended to enter politics but instead be servants to servants to their own body of people.

You are not alone in reading scripture in that way. What you describe is basically the anabaptist position.

Ben.

Doug Shaver · 10-02-2008, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Does Sarah Palin's career violate Biblical mandates?

It violates some of them. It complies with others.

The Bible's teaching about what women should or should not do is no more consistent than its teaching on practically any other subject.

davidbach · 10-02-2008, 07:45 AM

Absolutely. Before we can answer this question, we have to define "Biblical Mandates". There are a few which most will agree upon - "love thy neighbour", "do this (drink wine) in remembrance of me" etc. - but others are open to interpretation, or even outright perverse reading. "Thou shalt not kill", for example means "thou shalt prohibit abortion" but not "thou shalt provide pre-natal care" or "thou shalt immunise your children" to pseudochristian evangelicals.

More interesting is "Does Sarah Palin's career violate her own interpretation of the bible". Since she claims to be a YEC, there seems little doubt that the answer is "yes".

David.

storytime · 10-02-2008, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

From reading, the body of Christ was to be a separate nation within the world of nations. The world being the devils playground, so to speak. So, it doesn't sound as if Christians were intended to enter politics but instead be servants to servants to their own body of people.

You are not alone in reading scripture in that way. What you describe is basically the anabaptist position.

Ben.

I need to correct my mistake on that one. "the body of Christ was to be a separate nation within the nation of Israel." Because, in the OT, the priesthood of Levites was separated from the other tribes in Israel, their purpose to serve the tribes in the gates of their cities of Israel.

The apostles take the priesthood out of Israel and impose it into the world of Gentiles. As an adopted and adapted religion, Christianity was born in this illegitimate sense.

spamandham · 10-02-2008, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Please stick to Biblical related comments, or this can be moved to Politics.

IMHO, this thread is inherently political and I recommend moving it.

In regards to Palin. I chuckled while watching the Palin/Biden debate tonight when the subject of gay marriage came up, and Palin started hemming and hawing about the traditional marriage.

"In the traditional marriage, the wife is submissive and stays home barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen", I thought.

If Palin wasn't so brainwashed with religious nutterism, I'd have a lot of respect for her. It's hard not to admire her in spite of that (for me).

storytime · 10-03-2008, 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Please stick to Biblical related comments, or this can be moved to Politics.

IMHO, this thread is inherently political and I recommend moving it.

In regards to Palin. I chuckled while watching the Palin/Biden debate tonight when the subject of gay marriage came up, and Palin started hemming and hawing about the traditional marriage.

"In the traditional marriage, the wife is submissive and stays home barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen", I thought.

If Palin wasn't so brainwashed with religious nutterism, I'd have a lot of respect for her. It's hard not to admire her in spite of that (for me).

Palin has brought her religion into politics, which means she intends to lead the US through her version of Pentecostal fundamentalism. Never mind that she's the typical Christian hypocrit ready to preach damnation to others (abortion case in point, same sex marriage another of her godly condemnations). All the while she isn't obeying her church mandated policy as outlined in the NT. Nor would she, if her ministers and fellow church members, be allowed to remain the church with her evident support of her daughters out of wedlock pregnancy. Supporting of that little mishap makes her guilty of the sin. Paul instructed to cast out the evil influences so the whole body of Christ would not be infected and allowed to grow in that same manner. However, as I said, Christians are hypocritical in their judging and not willing to judge themselves as they do others.

Can you imagine the protesting from the Right Wing had Hilary's daughter been pregnant, or a lesbian? The fundamentalist would have torn her to pieces and outright called the baby a bastard and Chelsie a whore. But look at how the "family values" traditional marriage clan are excusing and not telling their bible truth about little miss winky-dinky-do Palin.

Atticus_Finch · 10-03-2008, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

IMHO, this thread is inherently political and I recommend moving it.

In regards to Palin. I chuckled while watching the Palin/Biden debate tonight when the subject of gay marriage came up, and Palin started hemming and hawing about the traditional marriage.

"In the traditional marriage, the wife is submissive and stays home barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen", I thought.

If Palin wasn't so brainwashed with religious nutterism, I'd have a lot of respect for her. It's hard not to admire her in spite of that (for me).

Palin has brought her religion into politics, which means she intends to lead the US through her version of Pentecostal fundamentalism. Never mind that she's the typical Christian hypocrit ready to preach damnation to others (abortion case in point, same sex marriage another of her godly condemnations). All the while she isn't obeying her church mandated policy as outlined in the NT. Nor would she, if her ministers and fellow church members, be allowed to remain the church with her evident support of her daughters out of wedlock pregnancy. Supporting of that little mishap makes her guilty of the sin. Paul instructed to cast out the evil influences so the whole body of Christ would not be infected and allowed to grow in that same manner. However, as I said, Christians are hypocritical in their judging and not willing to judge themselves as they do others.

Can you imagine the protesting from the Right Wing had Hilary's daughter been pregnant, or a lesbian? The fundamentalist would have torn her to pieces and outright called the baby a bastard and Chelsie a whore. But look at how the "family values" traditional marriage clan are excusing and not telling their bible truth about little miss winky-dinky-do Palin.

Sigh! Where to begin?

Christians are not the caricature you make them out to be. Further, even in conservative, evangelical churches, the role of women in the workforce is not what you portray it to be. Have you ever read Proverbs 31? It describes the ideal wife in biblical standards. "She considers a field and buys it: out of her earnings she plants a vinyard." Prov. 31:16. "She speaks with wisdom, and faithful instruction is on her tongue." Prov. 31:26. This is a picture of a confident, Godly woman who is involved in the economy.

I don't know if what Sarah Palin is doing is best for her family. What I will tell you is that I believe that both husbands and wives should think of that first before their own selfish desires. That is what the bible teaches.

Men are told to love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave his life for it. What higher burden is there than that?

With respect to her daughter's pregnancy, I have not heard anyone say that her pre-marital sex was a good thing. What is done is done. It can't be undone (an abortion won't undo it). What she has been praised for is that after making that mistake, she followed her convictions and is having the child. It certainly would have been simpler for Sarah Palin to get her daughter a secret abortion than to have to face this issue. Instead, she and her daughter are welcoming the child into the world with the love it deserves, no matter how it came to be.

You should also check your facts. You suggest that if Palin's daughter were a lesbian that the right wingers wouldn't have anything to do with Palin. Last time I checked, Dick Cheney was supported by those right wingers even though his daughter is a lesbian. No parent can control the choices their children make. What parents can control is how they react to them.

Paul only said to cast evil doers out of the church if they refused to repent and change their ways. Do you know if Palin's daughter has repented of her mistake? Neither do I. My guess is that she has and therefore, she, a sinner saved by grace, should be right at home in the Church. Just like me.

Regards,

Finch

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-02-2008, 07:45 AM	#6
davidbach Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: North Carolina Posts: 462	Absolutely. Before we can answer this question, we have to define "Biblical Mandates". There are a few which most will agree upon - "love thy neighbour", "do this (drink wine) in remembrance of me" etc. - but others are open to interpretation, or even outright perverse reading. "Thou shalt not kill", for example means "thou shalt prohibit abortion" but not "thou shalt provide pre-natal care" or "thou shalt immunise your children" to pseudochristian evangelicals. More interesting is "Does Sarah Palin's career violate her own interpretation of the bible". Since she claims to be a YEC, there seems little doubt that the answer is "yes". David.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.