Forlife if Paul thought that women needed to be quiet then what were his thoughts on the women God used in the OT to speak?
IE. several prophetess who had major and minor roles in leading Jewish men as well as speaking you know Ruth, Esther, Rahab, etc…
[quote]haney1 wrote:
I tell you what though lets assume that the women are commanded to be quiet. Then how would these women fulfill the verses right before they are commanded to be silent?
I cor 14:26
26What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church[/quote]
See the bolded part above. So was Paul being sarcastic to Timothy too? Do you really think an apostle would be sarcastic, and then sacrilegiously label the sarcasm as a “command of the Lord”? Seriously?
[quote]You are claiming the law of God is being referenced in verse 34. If that is what you are claiming Paul is referencing then it only exist in the OT.
[/quote]
WTF are you talking about? He says as plainly as possible that it is a “command of the Lord”. Are you saying there are no “commands of the Lord” in the new testament, only in the old testament? Was Paul lying?
[quote]forlife wrote:
haney1 wrote:
I cor 14:26
26What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church
See the bolded part above.
[/quote]
He was adressing the whole church in that chapter which can be noted through out. It is a generic label not adressing only the specific male recepients of the letter.
no he said he doesn’t let women teach over men. I would say that is in line with the edict of the day.
[quote]
Do you really think an apostle would be sarcastic, and then sacrilegiously label the sarcasm as a “command of the Lord”? Seriously?[/quote]
Yes. Jesus called a woman a dog sarcastically. seriously.
No I am not saying that at all.
[quote]forlife wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
so you are saying there is no way of knowing what sexaul immorality means, so this is a meaningless statement then.
so by your argument we don’t anything about jesus.
Ummm, no. I’m saying that you shouldn’t put words in the mouth of Jesus.
If someone defines sexual immorality, then you know what they mean by sexual immorality. Jesus did not define it, and he certainly did not say homosexuality is inherently immoral.
He did say something about loving others and leaving the judgment to God, though.[/quote]
ok we could chase cirsles on this argument forever, and honestly I don’t feel like it you have your stance I have mine and it probably won’t change in that aspect.
but there is definitely an underlying double standard with these events, so how do you expect to get a vote for gay marriage, when because you are a special interest group you are allowed to do more things that in most states can be charged as criminal acts, but because of the status as special interest group nothing comes of it.
like I stated before if this were a gay group supposedly provoking heteros of a non oppressed group these would have been considered hate crimes.
and that is where you lose your battle in the votes because people think about it and realize we don’t need to cave into you anymore.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
forlife wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
so you are saying there is no way of knowing what sexaul immorality means, so this is a meaningless statement then.
so by your argument we don’t anything about jesus.
Ummm, no. I’m saying that you shouldn’t put words in the mouth of Jesus.
If someone defines sexual immorality, then you know what they mean by sexual immorality. Jesus did not define it, and he certainly did not say homosexuality is inherently immoral.
He did say something about loving others and leaving the judgment to God, though.
ok we could chase cirsles on this argument forever, and honestly I don’t feel like it you have your stance I have mine and it probably won’t change in that aspect.
but there is definitely an underlying double standard with these events, so how do you expect to get a vote for gay marriage, when because you are a special interest group you are allowed to do more things that in most states can be charged as criminal acts, but because of the status as special interest group nothing comes of it.
like I stated before if this were a gay group supposedly provoking heteros of a non oppressed group these would have been considered hate crimes.
and that is where you lose your battle in the votes because people think about it and realize we don’t need to cave into you anymore.[/quote]
That’s right, we should cave into the religious conservatives instead.
[quote]haney1 wrote:
Yes. Jesus called a woman a dog sarcastically. seriously.[/quote]
It wasn’t sarcasm. Jesus said clearly that he was not sent to the Gentiles, and in the Jewish culture the Gentiles were considered dogs.
You still didn’t answer my question about Timothy. Was Paul being sarcastic with Timothy too?
What about Paul’s commandment that women keep their heads covered? Sarcasm?
How about Paul’s commandment to slaves that they should obey their masters? Got it. Sarcasm.
He was one sarcastic dude.
I say we just setup a slap-fight in a cage between the Christan group and the gays of Castro Street.
[quote]forlife wrote:
haney1 wrote:
Yes. Jesus called a woman a dog sarcastically. seriously.
It wasn’t sarcasm. Jesus said clearly that he was not sent to the Gentiles, and in the Jewish culture the Gentiles were considered dogs.
[/quote]
you are right they say them as dogs which is why Jesus was being sarcastic. It was a shot at the jewish leaders of his day
So you are telling me that you understand first century language well enough to know that Jesus wasn’t being sarcastic?
which is the consesus of any one who studies first century linguistics and its usage in ancient text usage.
yes I did.
[quote]
What about Paul’s commandment that women keep their heads covered? Sarcasm?[/quote]
doubt it was a cultural norm for that day and time.
[quote]
How about Paul’s commandment to slaves that they should obey their masters? Got it. Sarcasm.
He was one sarcastic dude.[/quote]
why should I expand the discussion when you can’t tell me what the Bible’s stance on the female prophets and other women who had major roles in the Bible was.
[quote]haney1 wrote:
you are right they say them as dogs which is why Jesus was being sarcastic. It was a shot at the jewish leaders of his day[/quote]
Nope, Jesus said that he was sent to the Jews and not to the Gentiles. Or was he being sarcastic there too?
[quote]So you are telling me that you understand first century language well enough to know that Jesus wasn’t being sarcastic?
which is the consesus of any one who studies first century linguistics and its usage in ancient text usage.[/quote]
Actually, you’re the one claiming to know that Jesus was being sarcastic. And now you’re throwing out baseless references, claiming that every expert in first century linguistics agrees that Jesus was being sarcastic. That is an outright lie, and you know it.
Despite your earlier preaching about the dangers of personal interpretation of scripture, it is obvious that you have fallen into that same trap.
[quote]forlife wrote:
haney1 wrote:
you are right they say them as dogs which is why Jesus was being sarcastic. It was a shot at the jewish leaders of his day
Nope, Jesus said that he was sent to the Jews and not to the Gentiles. Or was he being sarcastic there too?
So you are telling me that you understand first century language well enough to know that Jesus wasn’t being sarcastic?
which is the consesus of any one who studies first century linguistics and its usage in ancient text usage.
Actually, you’re the one claiming to know that Jesus was being sarcastic. And now you’re throwing out baseless references, claiming that every expert in first century linguistics agrees that Jesus was being sarcastic. That is an outright lie, and you know it.
Despite your earlier preaching about the dangers of personal interpretation of scripture, it is obvious that you have fallen into that same trap.[/quote]
Give me a reference to some one who disagrees with that who is an expert in first century linguistics.
you have yet to answer the question on the other females in the Bible. I have asked you three times. When will I get an answer?
[quote]haney1 wrote:
forlife wrote:
haney1 wrote:
Yes. Jesus called a woman a dog sarcastically. seriously.
It wasn’t sarcasm. Jesus said clearly that he was not sent to the Gentiles, and in the Jewish culture the Gentiles were considered dogs.
you are right they say them as dogs which is why Jesus was being sarcastic. It was a shot at the jewish leaders of his day
So you are telling me that you understand first century language well enough to know that Jesus wasn’t being sarcastic?
which is the consesus of any one who studies first century linguistics and its usage in ancient text usage.
You still didn’t answer my question about Timothy. Was Paul being sarcastic with Timothy too?
yes I did.
What about Paul’s commandment that women keep their heads covered? Sarcasm?
doubt it was a cultural norm for that day and time.
How about Paul’s commandment to slaves that they should obey their masters? Got it. Sarcasm.
He was one sarcastic dude.
why should I expand the discussion when you can’t tell me what the Bible’s stance on the female prophets and other women who had major roles in the Bible was.
[/quote]
When people bring up women in the Bible, I think its interesting to note that one of the judges in the early days of Israel was a woman. There are only one or two verses about her, but a woman was one of the early rulers of the nation of Israel.
I also don’t know that sex with angels constitutes homosexuality. It they aren’t human.
[quote]forlife wrote:
haney1 wrote:
Yes. Jesus called a woman a dog sarcastically. seriously.
It wasn’t sarcasm. Jesus said clearly that he was not sent to the Gentiles, and in the Jewish culture the Gentiles were considered dogs.
You still didn’t answer my question about Timothy. Was Paul being sarcastic with Timothy too?
What about Paul’s commandment that women keep their heads covered? Sarcasm?
How about Paul’s commandment to slaves that they should obey their masters? Got it. Sarcasm.
He was one sarcastic dude.[/quote]
If you bring up the “slaves obey your masters” thing one more time, I’m going to put up a really long post.
Paul also told masters to treat their slaves well, as brothers. In those days, were a master to “free” a slave, he very well may have starved to death for lack of work. That’s simply another case of dealing with culture in realistic terms. Kind of like the women speaking in the church “issue”.
[quote]
Society has evolved, and today we are less misogynistic, less racially biased, and less homophobic than people were back then. [/quote]
You honestly believe this^^^?
Wow. Just wow. Because you know, those organizations like the KKK, that whole holocaust thing, etc…those are all lies. People never get lynched or anything, right?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
GumsMagoo wrote:
rainjack wrote:
GumsMagoo wrote:
Bible thumpers need to mind their own business.
So do the militant fucking gay motherfuckers.
It’s their neighborhood. You don’t see many “gay mobs” marching through christian town USA.
Regardless, they should both mind their own fuckin’ business.
Public streets are not the property of any “group”.
But you do see gay pride parades in just about every major city in the US.
I don’t see any difference. [/quote]
The difference is gay pride parades are about them celebrating who they are. When bible thumpers march through gay areas it’s about telling them how wrong their lifestyle is and how they need to be saved.
The problem with a lot of christians (and pretty much all religions) is that they think that their way of life is the only truth.
Ah yes, the old Rick Rodney vs Jamey Jasta dilemma…
[quote]GumsMagoo wrote:
The problem with a lot of christians (and pretty much all religions) is that they think that their way of life is the only truth. [/quote]
Of course. Otherwise we wouldn’t follow our faith.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
forlife wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
so you are saying there is no way of knowing what sexaul immorality means, so this is a meaningless statement then.
so by your argument we don’t anything about jesus.
Ummm, no. I’m saying that you shouldn’t put words in the mouth of Jesus.
If someone defines sexual immorality, then you know what they mean by sexual immorality. Jesus did not define it, and he certainly did not say homosexuality is inherently immoral.
He did say something about loving others and leaving the judgment to God, though.
ok we could chase cirsles on this argument forever, and honestly I don’t feel like it you have your stance I have mine and it probably won’t change in that aspect.
but there is definitely an underlying double standard with these events, so how do you expect to get a vote for gay marriage, when because you are a special interest group you are allowed to do more things that in most states can be charged as criminal acts, but because of the status as special interest group nothing comes of it.
like I stated before if this were a gay group supposedly provoking heteros of a non oppressed group these would have been considered hate crimes.
and that is where you lose your battle in the votes because people think about it and realize we don’t need to cave into you anymore.
That’s right, we should cave into the religious conservatives instead.[/quote]
No just that you need to choose does the gay agenda want equal treatment or special treatment.
As of now there is special treatment on most issues.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
GumsMagoo wrote:
The problem with a lot of christians (and pretty much all religions) is that they think that their way of life is the only truth.
Of course. Otherwise we wouldn’t follow our faith.[/quote]
I guess that’s what sheep do.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[/quote]