to believe or not to believe...

Status
Not open for further replies.
jazzy said:
Three sons shared same father, then they married three different women. Supposedly each woman came from family but lived in same area where Noah and his sons lived. They may be look similar, in color of skin, hair and eyes? I see only one race here came from Noah's and daughter in laws. It does not explain where we get whiter, blacker, yellower, redder or browner.

That´s what I thought so.

I asked Reba in my last post either Noah´s people come from Eve and Adam or what? I´m waiting for her reply.

All what we beleive for a long time that Adam and Eve are first human, God created... but color skin... ??????? I don´t know.
 
Liebling:-))) said:
As you claimed that we have different blood groups due after Noah Ark time but where the humans comes from? Is the humans come from creation of first human couple thousands years before Noah Ark began. Am I mistake or what?
All humans descended from Adam and Eve. That includes Noah's family. All humans died in the great Flood, except Noah's family. All humans that are alive today are descended from Noah's family.
 
Liebling:-))) said:
Hard to beleive.

Do you mean it is hard to believe we are all descended from Noah's family? Why is that hard to believe?

Remember, Noah´s sons are also come from Eve and Adam´s creation, too. They are human like us.
Right.


Hard to beleive because most abnormal children born to Incest relationships.
Not necessarily. Children born from incestuous relationships are more likely to "get" genetic traits from their parents that might otherwise be passed down as recessive genes in non-incestuous relationships. Those recessive genes can be both for "good" and "bad" traits. It depends on what traits the parents are carrying.
 
Reba said:
My Bible beliefs are supported by historical and scientific facts. My Bible beliefs don't depend on outside sources but outside sources can support my beliefs.

So, what outside sources support your belief that man was smarter before?

Who do you think did the preliminary research, experimenting, and teaching that led up to present technology? Our present generation is building on the advancements of previous generations. Sure, a kid now can solve a long complicated equation in seconds using a programmable calculator. Who invented that calculator? Who devised the laws that make it possible to solve equations? Who figured out the theorms? Who created pi? Who invented zero? Who created number systems? How many college students today could have independently come up with those things without the teachings of previous generations?

I maintain that it has nothing to do with man being smarter before than today's people. If we were to start from scratch tomorrow, with just a fully grown man and woman, we would be able to make the same technological and scientific advances, from scratch, that history already shows us we made. You somehow believe that all those wonderful building blocks from the past mean that they were smarter, while I state that modern humans would come up with the same things or do even better.

How many back in the day "independently" came up with zero, pi, ABC's? Nobody knows. Was it just one? Was it everyone and they all knew it at once? I do know that people today still create their own ABCs, their own home signs, their own communications systems, EVERYTHING out of necessity.

You think man a few thousand years ago was "primative"? How many people today could, on their own, invent alphabets, writing, wheels, gears, or celestial navigation? Who figured out the processes for making metal alloys, or even baking bread (how does yeast work)?

I bet you a ton of modern day people could, even if they were somehow brought to a situation where only a single grown man and woman were left on this earth with no memory whatsoever. Of course, Adam was made and instantly was able to communicate with God, and Eve when she was made, 'cause, you know, God made them and stuff.

One of the first "chores" God gave Adam was to name all the animals. Who could do that today?

Yeah. "Human, name them for me. I already know the names you'll call them, and I know their entire history of which ones will be extinct, and you'll be sinning in a few days anyway, but do me a favor, name them for my future book."

Care to explain what that means? Did you have a bad experience in the past?
Sure. Christians have the "mission" to go out and "profess their faith" and "bring unbelievers to God, so that they might hear the Good Word." All fine and dandy, right?

You completely miss the whole underlying message. "You'll bring in more people who'll pay tithes." and "more people will listen to me therefore I can control more people." Of course, you'll dismiss this as pure paranoia and that a few rotten apples in the Church have abused the trust of their flocks, but you cannot deny that the more people come to church, the more money the church gets, and the more people listen to the pastor's message on EARTHLY philosophy. "Vote Republican" and "Support Prohibition" and "Ban Some Drugs" and "Don't Support Some Disabilities" and "Kill Black/White/Chinese/Mexican people!" and a host of other things that aren't in the bible but are the pastor's/priest's/flock leader's opinion. Tell me, do you vote the same way your pastor does? I bet you do, whether or not the bible really says you should be voting one way or another.

Interesting choice of words.

Some of us were busy educating God-fearin' people elsewhere. Duty calls, again.
 
Reba said:
All humans descended from Adam and Eve. That includes Noah's family. All humans died in the great Flood, except Noah's family. All humans that are alive today are descended from Noah's family.
100% correct!
 
Liebling:-))) said:
That´s what I thought so.

I asked Reba in my last post either Noah´s people come from Eve and Adam or what? I´m waiting for her reply.

All what we beleive for a long time that Adam and Eve are first human, God created... but color skin... ??????? I don´t know.

Those were Moses' words, dunno if they are all in right place since the bible was rewritten 500 years ago. We will never know if they are fully 100 percent facts. We do not know what race Adam and EVe were, always thought they were white but there were white man's words about them as white. Hard to tell where all color of skins come from.
 
Dennis said:
...You completely miss the whole underlying message. "You'll bring in more people who'll pay tithes." and "more people will listen to me therefore I can control more people."
I am very sorry if you have had such a negative experience. All I can tell you is that it is not that way for everyone.

Of course, you'll dismiss this as pure paranoia and that a few rotten apples in the Church have abused the trust of their flocks...
No, I don't think it is paranoia but I do think it is stereotyping all churches into one rotten lump based on the abuses of a few.


but you cannot deny that the more people come to church, the more money the church gets...
It depends. Not all church members have much money to give but they are all equally welcome. At our church, the generous giving of members who can helps those members in need. Our Wednesday night offerings go to individuals in need, not to the church at all. For example, the offerings help to defray individuals' medical expenses, car repairs, moving expenses, college tuition, missions' trips, special missions' projects, etc.

Our Pastor and the church staff are paid salaries; they don't get commissions. The rest of the tithes go to building maintenance, utilities, and supplies for our church. Our faith promise giving supports our missionaries. What's awful about that?


...and the more people listen to the pastor's message on EARTHLY philosophy. "Vote Republican" and "Support Prohibition" and "Ban Some Drugs" and "Don't Support Some Disabilities" and "Kill Black/White/Chinese/Mexican people!" and a host of other things that aren't in the bible but are the pastor's/priest's/flock leader's opinion.
I don't know which churches you have been attending, but I have never heard any of those sermon topics at my church.


Tell me, do you vote the same way your pastor does? I bet you do, whether or not the bible really says you should be voting one way or another.
Since my Pastor votes privately, and in a different precinct than me, I don't know how our votes compare. Since he and I have pretty much the same viewpoints on issues, it is a safe guess that we do vote the same. So what? Don't you and the people with whom you share similar viewpoints vote the same? Most ballots have only two options, so I would say there is a good chance that people with similar viewpoints would cast similar votes.

I wonder what makes you so angry and bitter?
 
jazzy said:
...We do not know what race Adam and EVe were, always thought they were white but there were white man's words about them as white. Hard to tell where all color of skins come from.
Well, yeah, we do know what race they were--the human race. They had all the potential traits for all races. Adam and Eve were created with all the potential color combinations. Most likely their skin was dark dominant, with recessive lighter genes, so they could pass down all skin shades to their descendants.
 
Reba said:
God established the priority by creating Adam first. Then, God created Eve to help Adam.

Adam was incomplete without Eve...it was not good for Adam to be alone.

Eve was actually deceived by the serpent to eat the fruit. Satan was able to trick her because her spiritual understanding was weak.
Adam was not deceived. He knew that he was doing wrong but did it anyway.
They were both wrong, and both sinned but in different ways.

As I see it, and as I have been taught including by preachers, both committed the exact same sins. No sin is "less" than the other in the eyes of God--He does not value things that way. That is why it's just as sinful to THINK hateful thoughts towards a person as it is to actually go out and murder them. Both contain the same exact crime towards God: high treason against His will.

But, in the interests of refuting the idea that Eve somehow committed more and worse sins than Adam, let me lay this out:

--Both were encouraged by someone else to do something that was wrong.
--Both failed to consult God first when the offer was made.
--Both made the wrong decision
--Both tried to pass the blame to another entity instead of themselves. (And this blame-passing still goes on today, I see.)

Obviously both had weak spiritual understanding or this would not have happened. Had Adam been spiritually stronger, when Eve encouraged him to eat the apple, he would have gone to God and asked that God take control of the situation in whatever fashion He determined to be best.

When Eve bore her children, they were born into the world as sinners. As each woman bears her children, they are born into the world as sinners. BUT thru Eve's children (and each generation) until Mary, those mothers made it possible for the birth of our Savior Jesus Christ. Thru Mary's childbearing (of Jesus) the Savior was brought into the world.

Agreed that Mary's role in giving birth to Jesus was important and deserving of great respect.

But let me ask something--what do you believe redeemed the sins of women: the Immaculate Conception (to borrow the Catholic terminology), or the death of Jesus on the Cross, and subsequent Resurrection? The way I hear a lot of fundamentalists talk, you'd think that Christ died to free the sons of Adam from their sins, but left the daughters of Eve to be saddled with theirs. That is not what an impartial God does.

It makes sense that Jesus needed to be a man. That was what the culture listened to at the time, and who could spread the message the furthest. But, that to me does not mean the culture should have been that way.

Eve was indeed warned that Adam would rule over her even as she desired him. But that, as I have been taught, is a sin resulting from the Fall.

Remember that even though society--and Satan--wanted to give Jesus a worldly kingship, He refused. Had He not done this, the consequences would have been drastic. In His love, He refused the temptation in the desert. Society offers the same to men today--easy power and domination over 50% of the population that others in power will sanction. And men are asked to love their wives as Christ loved His Church for which He made the sacrifice of worldly power--and ultimately of His life. While mortal men cannot follow that sacrifice of life in the same way as Christ did, they CAN and should follow the first part.

I understand that we will disagree on this, Reba--but I need to get it out there so that it is clear there IS more than one view on this. The Methodist Church, of which I am a member, does not see the women/teaching issue the same way as the Baptists (guessing you are one since they don't allow female clergy as is allowed in our church).
 
Rose Immortal said:
... both committed the exact same sins. No sin is "less" than the other in the eyes of God...
That's right. I'm afraid I wasn't clear in my explanation.

Eve had a weaker spiritual understanding, and she accepted the serpent's twisting of God's word.
Adam had a weaker resistance to temptation, and he accepted Eve's offer of the fruit.

They each had a different weakness that was exploited for temptation. Different weaknesses but same sinful result. Equal guilt.


...But let me ask something--what do you believe redeemed the sins of women...
The same thing that redeemed the sins of men--the sinless blood that was shed by Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary.


Eve was indeed warned that Adam would rule over her even as she desired him. But that, as I have been taught, is a sin resulting from the Fall.
Did you mean, "is a curse resulting from the Fall"?


...Society offers the same to men today--easy power and domination over 50% of the population that others in power will sanction.
Maybe some societies offer that but that is not what God offered.

God established the headship of the husband over his own wife; God did not set up headship of all men over all women. Also, that is supposed to be loving headship not power-hungry dictatorship.


And men are asked to love their wives as Christ loved His Church for which He made the sacrifice of worldly power--and ultimately of His life. While mortal men cannot follow that sacrifice of life in the same way as Christ did, they CAN and should follow the first part.
Yes, men should even be willing to die for their wives, as Christ died for His bride, the church.
 
Reba said:
I am very sorry if you have had such a negative experience. All I can tell you is that it is not that way for everyone.

You make it sound like churches are all about serving people, and that the money doesn't matter. The fact is, without any money coming in, there wouldn't be a church.

No, I don't think it is paranoia but I do think it is stereotyping all churches into one rotten lump based on the abuses of a few.

Oh, no, I'm not stereotyping. You don't create a church unless you want people to believe what you're telling them, and you have to fund that church somehow. Why else would there be a "mandatory" tithing percentage requirement in the bible that churches use to justify the reason why you should give them money? And most churches require that if you're a member, you have to tithe a certain amount to maintain membership.

It depends. Not all church members have much money to give but they are all equally welcome. At our church, the generous giving of members who can helps those members in need. Our Wednesday night offerings go to individuals in need, not to the church at all. For example, the offerings help to defray individuals' medical expenses, car repairs, moving expenses, college tuition, missions' trips, special missions' projects, etc.

I've never been to a church where MEMBERS, not simply visitors or people who regularly show up, are not required to give a certain amount of money without having their membership revoked. So, you sure could show up to church every day of your life, but you'll never get a say in how the church is run or what beliefs are shared with other members. Poor people can cite hardship but they still are pressured to "give all they can" or have someone sponsor them.

Our Pastor and the church staff are paid salaries; they don't get commissions. The rest of the tithes go to building maintenance, utilities, and supplies for our church. Our faith promise giving supports our missionaries. What's awful about that?

Do you audit the books? Do you get to vote on how much the staff gets paid? Do you vote how much of the income goes to costs and the rest go to charity?

I don't know which churches you have been attending, but I have never heard any of those sermon topics at my church.

Oh? So, your pastor never commented on the WTC attacks, and condemned terrorism, in a sermon, at all? He never mentions the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, supporting the war or the military in those places? He never talked about "Christmas" vs. "Happy Holidays?" He never brings up any kind of modern issue to relate your life to? I don't believe that.

Since my Pastor votes privately, and in a different precinct than me, I don't know how our votes compare. Since he and I have pretty much the same viewpoints on issues, it is a safe guess that we do vote the same. So what? Don't you and the people with whom you share similar viewpoints vote the same? Most ballots have only two options, so I would say there is a good chance that people with similar viewpoints would cast similar votes.

I bet he gives a lot of advice to people who aren't sure how to vote on an issue with "biblical advice," especially with regards to homosexual and abortion legislature.

I wonder what makes you so angry and bitter?

I don't think you and I will ever reconcile your beliefs with the facts. You believe one thing and look to explain away the contrary evidence, while I have examined those facts and I found out they couldn't possibly fit those beliefs. Of course, the bible has had a couple of thousand years to come up with explanations to why the literature is the way it is. I look forward to the day that something is proven correct, one way or another.
 
Dennis said:
You make it sound like churches are all about serving people, and that the money doesn't matter. The fact is, without any money coming in, there wouldn't be a church.
The purpose of a local church is to provide a place for Christians to meet for worship, to evangelize, and to minister to people's needs. Of course churches need money to function. Salaries and utilities need to be paid, buildings need to be constructed and maintained, missionaries need support, etc. So yes, money does matter. In fact, the Bible doesn't ignore finances. There are many passages teaching and preaching about the proper use of money, and the dangers of greed. We live in a material world, and we need to use our material resources wisely. However, Christians should always look at money as a means of supporting higher goals, rather than the acquisition of money as a goal in itself.


Oh, no, I'm not stereotyping. You don't create a church unless you want people to believe what you're telling them, and you have to fund that church somehow.
I can't speak for all churches. I will just give you an example of our church (and I personally know of other similar churches with the same history). Our church started out over 40 years ago with a few believers meeting together at one member's house. After a while, that group outgrew the house meeting. They formalized their congregation with a constitution, and bought a small property for a church building. After a few years at that site, they again outgrew the facility, so they moved to another location with more vacant land, and built a larger church facility. Since that move, we have added on to the original building, and included school buildings (classrooms, gym, library, etc.) We have recently acquired some adjoining land, and will someday begin building a larger church auditorium. Why? Because every Sunday morning, every seat is filled in the present auditorium. We are packed in tight.

My point is, the people came together first as a church group, before they began building the church facilities. The people always come first, and the facilities come second.

Our church has also established two smaller "satellite" churches in outlying areas. One has already become independent, and the second one is striving towards that goal as they grow. Satellite church means our church provides financial and staff support to the small new churches until they are able to support themselves.


Why else would there be a "mandatory" tithing percentage requirement in the bible that churches use to justify the reason why you should give them money? And most churches require that if you're a member, you have to tithe a certain amount to maintain membership.
Our church does not have a tithing requirement. Yes, the pastor preaches that Christians should use the tithe percentage as a starting point for giving. Also, we use faith promise giving for supporting our missionaries, so that is separate from the tithe money. Wednesday night giving, and other miscellaneous offerings are not included in the tithe. The tithe is used for the general expenses of the church facilities and staff.

The pastor is not allowed access to members' financial records. Also, he is not allowed to sign any checks or make any bank withdrawals from the church account. The only person who knows how much people give is the financial secretary because she prepares the annual tax statements. No one else knows. We use tithing envelopes for our giving, and the accounts are kept by number, not name.

Members are kept on the "active" list by their attendance, not their tithe money. If they quit coming after a certain amount of time, then they are voted out of the membership. If they ever come back, they can be voted back in. Simple.


I've never been to a church where MEMBERS, not simply visitors or people who regularly show up, are not required to give a certain amount of money without having their membership revoked. So, you sure could show up to church every day of your life, but you'll never get a say in how the church is run or what beliefs are shared with other members. Poor people can cite hardship but they still are pressured to "give all they can" or have someone sponsor them.
Like I said, I can't speak for all churches; I only know about my church and a few others.


Do you audit the books?
Me personally? No. Our church uses an outside auditing firm. We do have quarterly and annual business meetings for all the members to attend. We get copies of the financial report two weeks prior to each meeting so we can study them and prepare our questions. Then, at the meeting (Roberts' rules mtg), we go over the reports, ask questions, and vote.


Do you get to vote on how much the staff gets paid?
We vote on a budget that includes the salaries. We don't vote on each person's salary. Each job description includes a salary range, kind of like civil service.


Do you vote how much of the income goes to costs and the rest go to charity?
We vote on the annual budget, which includes the categories for each expense.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "charity" category. What would you include in that?

We have a fund called "Others"--it means that fund is to meet the needs of other people. It is not allowed to be used for church expenses. That fund is for people's medical expenses, tuition assistance, car repairs, emergency home repairs, moving expenses, missions trips, etc.

Our church collects items for food banks and the crisis pregnancy center. Men from our church do handyman repairs and construction projects for senior citizens and families without dads.

Church members provide weekly services for a local senior citizens center, and the Navy brig (yes, that is the same brig that recently transferred suspected terrorist Jose Padilla).

Our church financially supports 77 missionaries around the world, three travelling evangelists, and three Christian camps.


Oh? So, your pastor never commented on the WTC attacks, and condemned terrorism, in a sermon, at all? He never mentions the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, supporting the war or the military in those places? He never talked about "Christmas" vs. "Happy Holidays?" He never brings up any kind of modern issue to relate your life to? I don't believe that.
I didn't say that. He doesn't tell us, "You must vote for this candidate, or else!"

Our church supports our military. We have many church members who have served or are presently serving in Iraq, Kuwait, and Afghanistan. Our church members write to them, send them "goodies" boxes, and pray for them. We send things and communicate with not just servicemen who are from our church but entire units. They write back and send photos, which are posted in our church hallway.

Of course our pastor condemns terrorism, and he supports greeting people with "Merry Christmas". So?


I bet he gives a lot of advice to people who aren't sure how to vote on an issue with "biblical advice," especially with regards to homosexual and abortion legislature.
He doesn't "give advice" about how to vote. He preaches God's Word about those issues. The members can figure out how to vote.


... I look forward to the day that something is proven correct, one way or another.
Fair enough. :)
 
Reba said:
That's right. I'm afraid I wasn't clear in my explanation.

Eve had a weaker spiritual understanding, and she accepted the serpent's twisting of God's word.
Adam had a weaker resistance to temptation, and he accepted Eve's offer of the fruit.

How do you know what would've happened if it were Adam the serpent spoke to first? Adam's understanding may have been just as weak. Certainly to look at men and women today it's obvious that both genders have their share of weak understanding. I'm not going to point fingers at men because even though I believe in equality, I do NOT believe in anything that smacks of retaliation or punishment against men.

But ultimately you don't know what would've happened and you have to accept what I said that both committed the same sins and both are equally responsible.

They each had a different weakness that was exploited for temptation. Different weaknesses but same sinful result. Equal guilt.

Again, all we know is what did happen. We do not know what could have happened were it the other way around, so conjecturing about who was weaker in what area is pointless.

Both were weak.

Both made the wrong choices.

Both fell.

That's the sum total of what we know, full stop.

Again, as far as I understand it this is part of the underlying logic as to why the Methodist Church allows female pastors--because they accept that both genders were equal in their responsibility for the Fall and one should not be penalized more than the other.

The same thing that redeemed the sins of men--the sinless blood that was shed by Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary.

Right. So was Christ's sacrifice more for men than it was for women? If it wasn't, then why are women made to pay for the sins of the Fall more than men are? In Christ we inherit equal share of the eternal kingdom--yet fundamentalists act as though women must pay a greater penance just because of being born female. This is a source of terrible abuses by men against women--AND also a source of retaliation by women against men, both of which are equal and opposite wrongs. The only solution that reduces the temptation for both is equality.

And again, look at what I said about the need to step down from worldly power that society offers in order to love as Christ did (even when that power is offered through priests or ministers who perpetuate the wrong situation for their own self-interest as did the Pharisees).

Did you mean, "is a curse resulting from the Fall"?

I mean what I said. The behavior you see of men towards women is a sin. Death, decay, and further sinfulness all came into the world as a result of the Fall--Eve was forewarned at the expulsion from the Garden of Eden that this would happen to her, that Adam would seek to control her and manipulate her through her love for him. The family structure from that point forward was fundamentally disrupted from what it was supposed to be.

Why is it that with every other curse, every other warning given by God, we seek to work against it yet we allow the inequality of the sexes to persist? Our world is subject to physical decay yet we go to our jobs to try to counteract that decay and make things grow. Our health is subject to decay yet we go to hospitals and treat our illnesses and lead healthy lifestyles to counteract that decay. Yet when we are faced with the disruption of the family structure, we simply lie down and let it deteriorate by suppressing half the human race. We teach our daughters that their worth is less and our sons that it's OK to see themselves as superior. Something is very wrong there.

Maybe some societies offer that but that is not what God offered.

Yet the interpretation given by fundamentalists offers just that--domination over women.

God established the headship of the husband over his own wife; God did not set up headship of all men over all women. Also, that is supposed to be loving headship not power-hungry dictatorship.

And in the New Covenant we learn that the husband is supposed to be sacrificial in his conduct towards his wife. She is not his possession or his servant. Just as the wife is to make some sacrifices for the sake of her husband, he is to make his own equal share of sacrifices towards her. It is mutual surrender that ultimately puts both on equal footing.

I can attest to the fact that this works. This is how my parents conduct themselves towards each other. And their marriage has lasted in a HEALTHY state where many others have fallen apart or become toxic. Sometimes it means there are more discussions that would seem heated to those on the outside watching it--but the reason this happens is become issues are coming out in the open, being discussed with both listening to each other, and being settled either by determining which option has the best logic or by making a compromise...without being dependent on WHO raised what opinion. This WORKS. To condemn my mother for "taking power" or my father for failing to "exercise" his is a thing I will not do.

Yes, men should even be willing to die for their wives, as Christ died for His bride, the church.

Physical death, yes. But a man cannot redeem his wife through his death, only (perhaps) protect her physical life. It's Christ who redeems souls, and that's what I meant about mortal men not being able to follow in His sacrifice to the same degree.

Apologies for not being able to do specific research--I'm running very short of time right now and just wanted to go ahead and get an answer out.

And ultimately, if we come to an impasse with each other, may we just agree to disagree, since our churches are run differently and probably will not change for a long time? My main point in all of this has been much less to argue and much more to demonstrate the existence of an alternate view that has a large mainstream following among Christians, as well as your view.
 
Askjo said:
That is a simple lie because this atheist knows there is a real God, but rejects Him. When this atheist uses the word, "God," he is a real liar because he knows the existence of God. That is why he SPOKE about Him.

Saying "Thank God I'm an atheist" could also be a joke by an atheists on the people who say "Thank God" about stuff. :mrgreen:

Speaking of a god, jokingly, or not, doesn't mean saying that it exists. I can talk about Zeus, Amun, Allah, Santa and the Easter bunny. That doesn't mean I believe that those beings exist. It doesn't mean that I know that they exist, but reject them.

The same goes for the Judeo-Christian god. If I talk or joke about it, it doesn't imply that I believe that it is real and reject it. What I do know is that there are lots of people who say "Thank God" in various circumstances, which makes the "Thank God I'm an atheist" joke possible.

I think that maybe the idea that atheists believe a god and reject it comes from the religious people projecting their belief in the god onto the atheists, making it harder to understand that there actually are people who have no belief regarding its existence. They don't say that they're rejecting a real god because they have no beliefs regarding the existence of it in the first place. (Here, I am using the meaning of atheist that means people who do not have beliefs about a god or gods.) But some do joke about religion and related stuff because they think that it's funny to joke about what so many other people take seriously. Others, don't bother with the jokes and live without worrying about religions and gods.
 
Rose Immortal said:
How do you know what would've happened if it were Adam the serpent spoke to first?
I don't play "what if" games. God recorded it exactly as it happened, from His viewpoint.


Again, as far as I understand it this is part of the underlying logic as to why the Methodist Church allows female pastors--because they accept that both genders were equal in their responsibility for the Fall and one should not be penalized more than the other.
The reason that women should not be pastors has nothing to do with "penalizing" them. It is not a punishment.


So was Christ's sacrifice more for men than it was for women?
No.


If it wasn't, then why are women made to pay for the sins of the Fall more than men are?
How do you figure that? In what ways do women "pay for the sins of the Fall more than men"? The wages of sin is death for all people, male and female. Salvation from the penalty of sin is the same for men and women. I don't see any difference.


In Christ we inherit equal share of the eternal kingdom--yet fundamentalists act as though women must pay a greater penance just because of being born female.
In the Christ there is no penance to pay; Jesus paid it all.


This is a source of terrible abuses by men against women--AND also a source of retaliation by women against men, both of which are equal and opposite wrongs. The only solution that reduces the temptation for both is equality.
If men abuse women, or women retaliate against men, they are both wrong. Neither way is acceptable to God. Abuse and retaliation are not biblical. The Bible is not the source of those sins. God is not the source of those sins. The sin natures of men and women lead to those sins of abuse and retaliation. The real solution is confessing those sins, repenting, and seeking God's grace and strength to overcome those temptations. Using excuses for sins is never a solution.


Why is it that with every other curse, every other warning given by God, we seek to work against it yet we allow the inequality of the sexes to persist?
In Christ, there is no inequality.
Galations 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.


... Yet when we are faced with the disruption of the family structure, we simply lie down and let it deteriorate by suppressing half the human race.
If we are faced with the disruption of the family structure, the family members need to surrender to God's plan for husband and wife, and their roles also as father and mother. The family structure collapses when it doesn't follow God's plan. "Suppressing half the human race" is not part of God's plan.


We teach our daughters that their worth is less and our sons that it's OK to see themselves as superior. Something is very wrong there.
Who is teaching that? That is wrong teaching. I have never heard that taught at my church.


Yet the interpretation given by fundamentalists offers just that--domination over women.
My church would be considered "fundamentalist" yet I have never heard any teaching or preaching that encouraged men to dominate women.

I'm not saying no churches do that; I just say that I have never learned that at our church, churches we have visited, Christian publications that I have read, or Christian radio programs that I have heard.


And ultimately, if we come to an impasse with each other, may we just agree to disagree, since our churches are run differently and probably will not change for a long time?
I really don't know how your church or other churches are "run". I have rambled on and on about the functions of my church in other posts. :P

If my church does change some day, I will find a new one.


My main point in all of this has been much less to argue and much more to demonstrate the existence of an alternate view that has a large mainstream following among Christians, as well as your view.
I appreciate that. Sometimes I tend to hog the conversation. My bad. :(
 
Reba said:
The reason that women should not be pastors has nothing to do with "penalizing" them. It is not a punishment.

If not a punishment, then the implication is that women are either inherently weaker morally or intellectually--that they are not as capable of being as smart or as good as men. It's almost like the way one treats children, and I don't buy that.

How do you figure that? In what ways do women "pay for the sins of the Fall more than men"? The wages of sin is death for all people, male and female. Salvation from the penalty of sin is the same for men and women. I don't see any difference.

For women it seems to be death AND poorer treatment in life. She is treated and described as being more like a child than a man, in this need for greater supervision.

In the Christ there is no penance to pay; Jesus paid it all.

And now you're hitting the central issue as to why I'm not understanding why women are treated as second-class in practice...because it seems out of joint with the fact that ALL of us were bought and paid for by Christ.

The Bible also addresses slave/master relationships. Why, if we as a society were able to decide that slavery was wrong and move past it, can we not decide that the restriction of women is wrong and move past it, too? Just because slavery is discussed as something that was relevant to people of that time does not mean slavery is relevant today.

If men abuse women, or women retaliate against men, they are both wrong. Neither way is acceptable to God. Abuse and retaliation are not biblical. The Bible is not the source of those sins. God is not the source of those sins. The sin natures of men and women lead to those sins of abuse and retaliation. The real solution is confessing those sins, repenting, and seeking God's grace and strength to overcome those temptations. Using excuses for sins is never a solution.

So would you agree there are cases where the Bible can be misused against women?

In Christ, there is no inequality.
Galations 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

I was hoping to see you bring up this verse, because it's tough to reconcile with the other verses in the Bible that would seem to suggest women must be more tightly controlled and restricted in what they can and can't do than men (like putting more restrictions on younger children).

If we are faced with the disruption of the family structure, the family members need to surrender to God's plan for husband and wife, and their roles also as father and mother. The family structure collapses when it doesn't follow God's plan. "Suppressing half the human race" is not part of God's plan.

At what point in your mind must the husband surrender? When does his dominance over his wife become too much? When is it OK for him to decide things for his wife and when is it not? What in her life can he control and what can he not? What would possibly compel him to recognize her as an equal heir to eternal life and treat her accordingly? This can get very dangerous depending on where one sets that threshold.

Who is teaching that? That is wrong teaching. I have never heard that taught at my church.

My church would be considered "fundamentalist" yet I have never heard any teaching or preaching that encouraged men to dominate women.

I'm not saying no churches do that; I just say that I have never learned that at our church, churches we have visited, Christian publications that I have read, or Christian radio programs that I have heard.

It may be that it's happening more among some denominations that are even more conservative than Baptists. I saw an account that I believe belongs to a certain denomination, but I'm concerned about getting it wrong if I name that denomination publicly.

Anyway, there have been cases where women are in clearly abusive relationships (the husband cheats, physically or psychologically abuses his wife) and the pastor has said that because it is the woman's duty to submit, she must forgive her husband and return to the abusive situation. This is very disturbing.

I appreciate that. Sometimes I tend to hog the conversation. My bad. :(

I'm not trying to make you feel bad, only to explain myself. :(
 
Rose Immortal said:
If not a punishment, then the implication is that women are either inherently weaker morally or intellectually--that they are not as capable of being as smart or as good as men. It's almost like the way one treats children, and I don't buy that.
Maybe it depends on how some people misinterpret the Bible. I have never read anything in the Bible, nor have I ever heard anything from the pulpit about women being intellectually weaker. The Bible does say that women are the weaker vessel, which generally they are physically. It doesn't mean they should be valued less; it means they should be protected and cherished.


For women it seems to be death AND poorer treatment in life. She is treated and described as being more like a child than a man, in this need for greater supervision.
That's not from God. There are many examples in the Bible of women who were industrious, good leaders, faithful servants of God, wise, brave, etc.


...The Bible also addresses slave/master relationships. Why, if we as a society were able to decide that slavery was wrong and move past it, can we not decide that the restriction of women is wrong and move past it, too?
Because "society" is made up of sinners who let pride and selfishness rule their behavior instead of obedience to God's Word.


So would you agree there are cases where the Bible can be misused against women?
I agree that the Bible is misused by many people for many reasons, in many ways. That means people are wrong, not God, and not the Bible.


I was hoping to see you bring up this verse, because it's tough to reconcile with the other verses in the Bible that would seem to suggest women must be more tightly controlled and restricted in what they can and can't do than men (like putting more restrictions on younger children).
Can you please give me those verses?


At what point in your mind must the husband surrender? When does his dominance over his wife become too much? When is it OK for him to decide things for his wife and when is it not? What in her life can he control and what can he not? What would possibly compel him to recognize her as an equal heir to eternal life and treat her accordingly? This can get very dangerous depending on where one sets that threshold.
Your questions seem to refer to specific personal situations. I don't feel that is my place to answer those.


Anyway, there have been cases where women are in clearly abusive relationships (the husband cheats, physically or psychologically abuses his wife) and the pastor has said that because it is the woman's duty to submit, she must forgive her husband and return to the abusive situation. This is very disturbing.
Our pastor never says that. He has said that if there is abuse in a family, the wife must protect herself and her children. She doesn't have to stay in a dangerous situation.


I'm not trying to make you feel bad, only to explain myself. :(
No, no, you are not making me feel bad, really. :)
 
Reba said:
Maybe it depends on how some people misinterpret the Bible. I have never read anything in the Bible, nor have I ever heard anything from the pulpit about women being intellectually weaker. The Bible does say that women are the weaker vessel, which generally they are physically. It doesn't mean they should be valued less; it means they should be protected and cherished.

I admit that if I'm in a dark alley at night, I'd rather be accompanied by a trustworthy, strong man. ;)

But I am just trying to figure out how people justify keeping women from preaching other than saying "just because". In my experience God is more logical than we give Him credit for...after all, our own logic is a lesser, sometimes-flawed version of the laws of logic He wrote. (As to why we give Him less credit than He deserves, I think it's because we're used to "logic" meaning our own messed-up variety.) Basically, I'm just saying that IF the interpretation that women can't be pastors is correct, then God by nature HAD to have sound reasoning behind it (since He can't miss details or have logic fallacies). I'm trying to get at what that reasoning would have been.

As far as I can come up with, there are only 2 ways to reasonably justify giving one group permanently lowered status compared to another: either the lower group is intellectually weaker or morally less capable. I rule out "experience" by assuming we're comparing men and women of equal years to each other, because it's obvious that in many cases older people will have a better handle on moral and intellectual stuff than younger ones.

So, you and I both have ruled out intellect as the dividing factor between men and women. That leaves "morally less capable" as the only other option. Yet earlier in the discussion we agreed that both Adam and Eve's moral failures are counted as equally sinful in the eyes of God, and both paid for it by death. This would suggest equal weakness--that a man can teach incorrectly just as a woman can. In that case, saying that only men can teach would appear arbitrary. We also agreed that through Christ God saved both men and women equally and that we are equal inheritors of eternal life.

I'm aware this puts me in a position of seeming to contradict particular verses...if those verses are taken alone. Here is where I think our method of exegesis (Biblical interpretation) likely differs: many literalists do not account for things like historical situation, culture, and tradition. I do. We could argue back and forth about which way is right, but I have a feeling we're about to have a big breakthrough here on WHY our opinions differ yet we both believe wholeheartedly on God's Word. And that's cool...that's exciting. :)

I don't think God writes stuff in the Bible that's contradictory because that defeats the purpose of relying on His word, which He wouldn't want to do. That goes against His nature since confusion is not of God. Therefore, if there seems to be a contradiction, that means something's wrong with the interpretation causing the contradiction. So something has to be done to resolve the conflict.

So I started thinking, why would God suggest there was a problem with women teaching? Obviously He said it without hateful intentions, so could there be something about the time when the Bible was written that caused Him to say that? I don't know about you, but I'm coming up with a pretty big one, and it's really very simple: Women were uneducated in the time of the New Testament.

This would account for the likelihood of women of that time giving poorer spiritual instruction than men--women just weren't educated in the Law to the same degree, and a lot were illiterate and so couldn't consult the written Law to double-check themselves before saying something. Now, some women probably had better common sense than their husbands, or learned from their husbands despite lack of formal education. ;) But odds would be the man would have the better education. So I'm not sure God's saying women are less capable inherently as pointing out the fact that at that time, women didn't have as much education on such matters. This was a reality of the time. This may also be the reason for other aspects of life where the man was charged with greater responsibility--education.

And speaking of education--isn't it interesting that Jesus told the "sinful woman" one night that it was better for her to sit at His feet and listen to His moral instruction than to do other less relevant stuff? I find that very compelling considering that women were typically forbidden to learn the Law. And if Jesus broke with a social taboo, He didn't do it to be contrary...He did it because something was wrong with the taboo.

This resolves the conflict without suggesting that women are intellectually or morally inferior--or suggesting that God contradicted Himself.

Now going back to the issue I mentioned about slavery being in the Bible: that, too, was a reality of the time, but in the Bible were also laid seeds to change that--the verse in Galatians that you pointed out, for instance. Other facets of Jesus' teachings would point to that conclusion as well. So, times changed and slavery was eliminated. Similarly, I suggest that since now women have equal access to education, equal access to jobs (legally if not always in reality!)--things that help them gain needed experience and give them the proper grounding to teach effectively.

I don't expect you to be swayed. But, this isn't something I just thought up for some silly "female pride" reason. ;)

That's not from God. There are many examples in the Bible of women who were industrious, good leaders, faithful servants of God, wise, brave, etc.

Deborah and Esther come to mind. Paul also mentions others who worked with him.

Can you please give me those verses?

I'm not sure exactly where they're located, but I know that in OT law you get stuff like this:

Women's testimony not weighing as much in a court of law

Women getting fewer property rights (though I'll admit they got better rights in Israelite society than in the societies around them)

In the NT, women being told to wear veils in church and not to speak or ask questions. They must go home to their husbands...which basically means that in order to ask questions of priests, they have to ask their husband who then asks the priest. (I've heard one suggestion that THIS one comes as the result of dropped quotation marks in translations. I do know that Greek of that time is really ambiguous about where you should and shouldn't have quote marks, but I don't know enough to say how valid it is in that case.)

There are more examples but I'm getting really tired... ;)

Our pastor never says that. He has said that if there is abuse in a family, the wife must protect herself and her children. She doesn't have to stay in a dangerous situation.

That's very good, since the misuse does happen.

No, no, you are not making me feel bad, really. :)

OK, cool. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top