Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789
Results 81 to 84 of 84
  1. #81
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    165
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    We are absolutely equal in every way that relates to being a HUMAN BEING. The fact that some men are stronger means nothing, because some men are weaker. Likewise, some folks are missing limbs, but they are still HUMAN. And that's the problem that I have with your argument. You think that mere physical differences should be used as a basis for who rules over others. I reject that view absolutely. All people should work together in a universal partnership for the good of all, and under no circumstances should anyone ever be denied a role in leadership because of physical characteristics like sex, height, strength, or beauty.

    Now with this in mind, please explain how the physical differences have any value in relation to how our societies and families should be structured.
    Gotcha RAM, so here goes. The physical differences (hormonal, psychological, and strength) predispose us towards certain roles. I am a firm believer in the idea that to whom more is given, more is to be required and here's how that is applicable to how families should be constructed. First off, families are headed by a parnership of a man and a woman working together to achieve 4 primary things in no particular order:

    1. Love and Peace within their household
    2. Safety, protection, and meeting the life needs of the family
    3. Attainment of knowledge and wisdom
    4. Teaching offspring how to be independent and of value to others

    All family members may in fact have a role to play in each of these goals and some members are better equiped than others in the attainment of certain goals. It is role number 2 where I believe it is incumbant upon the man to be willing to take the lead role as he is the one best equiped to be able to consistantly fulfill the responsibilities of this goal.

    So let me ask. Are their roles within the partnership? No, here's a better question; should there be roles within the male/female partnership?
    Are those roles interchangeable?

  2. #82
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by throwback View Post
    Gotcha RAM, so here goes. The physical differences (hormonal, psychological, and strength) predispose us towards certain roles. I am a firm believer in the idea that to whom more is given, more is to be required and here's how that is applicable to how families should be constructed. First off, families are headed by a parnership of a man and a woman working together to achieve 4 primary things in no particular order:

    1. Love and Peace within their household
    2. Safety, protection, and meeting the life needs of the family
    3. Attainment of knowledge and wisdom
    4. Teaching offspring how to be independent and of value to others

    All family members may in fact have a role to play in each of these goals and some members are better equiped than others in the attainment of certain goals. It is role number 2 where I believe it is incumbant upon the man to be willing to take the lead role as he is the one best equiped to be able to consistantly fulfill the responsibilities of this goal.

    So let me ask. Are their roles within the partnership? No, here's a better question; should there be roles within the male/female partnership?
    Are those roles interchangeable?
    Excellent post my friend.

    Yes, there are "roles" in relationships, and the beauty of our freedom and intelligence is that we get to choose what roles we want to fill and which we don't. And yes, they are totally interchangeable between the sexes, except for some very physical tasks. For example, she can't take a pee for me, and I can't bear children for her.

    For example, if my wife were better at math, she could balance the checkbook. Most tasks need not be put into rigid roles. Whoever notices when the garbage can is full can empty it. There is no "role" as "garbage person" in our home.

    So what sort of roles are you talking about? All the roles I can think of are totally interchangeable and based on ability and desire. Whoever likes and/or is best at a particular role fills that role. There are no roles established by some "religious dogma."

    Great chatting.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    333
    RAM said:
    You missed the point entirely. I said that your logic could (hypothetically) be used to reject the blood atonement. The purpose was to show the error in your logic, not to argue that the blood atonement is actually carnal (though many think it is). Here, let me spell it out for your simpleton mind since it appears that can't understand anything above a fourth grade reading level:
    No you are constructing an argument that is devoid of applicability. The church at Corinth was a carnal church. Whenever Paul invoked Moses it was to restore order. This is how children are to be dealt with. So he invoked the Mosaic order of the hierarchy between the man and the woman to restore order.

    Therefore, your "blood atonement" argument falls because it is not applicable. How would invoking blood atonement restore order?

    Note this brief exchange I had with a Fundamentalist Christian Woman this morning. An anti-trinitarian had appealed to Christ's submission to God as "proof" that Christ is inferior to God.

    Anti-trinitarian to Fundamentalist Woman:
    So deceived that you will not acknowledge the Heavenly Hierarchy.
    Kangaroo Jack (aka "thethinker") replied to the Anti-Trinitarian:
    It does not matter because Paul went on to say that the woman is equal to the man, "For the man is nothing without the woman and the woman is nothing without the man." So God is nothing without the Christ and the Christ is nothing without God.

    The point is that heirarchy does not necessarily suggest a real inferiority but rather an economical subjection.
    Fundamentalist Woman replied to Kangaroo Jack (aka "thethinker"):
    That's good, and I would add that it is only man's carnal nature that seeks hierarchy.

    replies#131-133 at http://www.gracecentered.com/christi...s-to-sin!/120/
    There you have it Richard! Even a Fundy Christian which we both consider would be challenged can see that Paul was dealing with the Corinthians as babes because "only the carnal seek hierarchy." I proved to you from from 2 Corinthians 3 that it was ALWAYS Paul's desire and intent to move them from the image of Moses which is childish to the image of Christ which is mature.

    A Fundy Christain can see it and you cannot. What does that make you Richard? Below is a clue:



    A Fundy Christian has a better head than Richard.

    KJ

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Kangaroo Jack View Post
    RAM said:
    No you are constructing an argument that is devoid of applicability. The church at Corinth was a carnal church. Whenever Paul invoked Moses it was to restore order. This is how children are to be dealt with. So he invoked the Mosaic order of the hierarchy between the man and the woman to restore order.

    Therefore, your "blood atonement" argument falls because it is not applicable. How would invoking blood atonement restore order?
    Your premise is false. Moronic. Ludicrous. Idiotic. Paul "invoked Moses" to establish the Gospel you ignorant Bible fart!
    Galatians 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. 7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. 8 And the scripture [in the First Book of Moses], foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. 9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
    I could cite a hundred verses where Paul "invoked Moses" to establish the truth of the Gospel and other aspects of his teaching. To "invoke Moses" was Paul's modus operandi! Therefore, you cannot dismiss his teachings about women merely because they might be based, in part, on the Old Testament. You argument is grossly absurd and ignorant.

    And besides that, Paul's most egregious teachings against women are found in 1 Timothy, not 1 Corinthians. So you missed the mark on that point too.

    My argument stands. You simply have not understood it yet. It is not a "blood atonement" argument. As explained previously (repeatedly) the argument has nothing to do with the "blood atonement" per se - that was merely an incidental doctrine I chose for the example. The argument is this:

    1) You assert that some of Paul's teachings should be rejected because they were written to correct a "carnal" problem, even though they appear identical to all his other teachings in the sense that they are stated as direct commands and supported by references to the OT.

    2) I assert that we could use the same logic to reject anything that anyone judged to be "carnal" in Paul's teachings.

    3) Your job is to explain the "rules" that say when I can or cannot reject the plain teaching of Scripture if I judge it to be "carnal."

    I can't believe I've had to explain this FOUR TIMES - it must be that bone in your head.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kangaroo Jack View Post
    There you have it Richard! Even a Fundy Christian which we both consider would be challenged can see that Paul was dealing with the Corinthians as babes because "only the carnal seek hierarchy." I proved to you from from 2 Corinthians 3 that it was ALWAYS Paul's desire and intent to move them from the image of Moses which is childish to the image of Christ which is mature.
    And what do you see in Moses when the veil is removed?
    John 5:45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. 46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
    You are setting the Bible against the Bible. Your house cannot stand.

    Jesus and Paul and all the authors of the NT based their teachings upon Moses. They all "invoked Moses" as a witness to the truth of their doctrines. Your argument is utterly incoherent.

    As for the idea that "only the carnal seek hierarchy" - I agree, and that's why I reject the Biblical image of a hierarchy under God:

    GOD > CHRIST > MAN > WOMAN

    If you reject this hierarchy, you are rejecting the teaching of Paul in its entirety. Paul based his teaching concerning the relation between Christ and the church on the pattern of male headship over women. In other words, according to Paul, THE GOSPEL ITSELF IS FUNDAMENTALLY FOUNDED UPON PATTERN OF MEN RULING OVER WOMEN!
    1 Cor 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

    Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

    Eph 1:22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, 23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

    Eph 4:15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

    Col 3:18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

    Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
    Paul was not "invoking Moses" to correct "carnality" in these passages. He was established the FUNDAMENTAL DOCTRINE of the relation between Christ and the Church. And he used the idea that men SHOULD rule over women as the basis of this pattern.

    Your ignorance knows no bounds KJ. It's like you've never even read one word of the Bible with any comprehension. How pathetic! It wouldn't be so bad if you did spice up your ignorance with you constant barrage of arrogant moronic insults. But oh well ... I understand. Stupidity and Pride are twin sins. The stupid are proud because they are too stupid to know they are wrong, and the proud are stupid because they are too proud to admit they are wrong.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •