ladylinda
Moderatorz
Poetry Editor
July 2011 Member of the Month, May 2014 Member of the Month
Posts: 4,901
|
SOUL
Jan 20, 2017 15:45:41 GMT -5
Post by ladylinda on Jan 20, 2017 15:45:41 GMT -5
Jessie, I've known Chefmate for quite a few years. She and I disagree on lots of things. Even though we're both Christians we don't always agree on the interpretation of things. But I've never known her to be smug - she's not that sort of person at all. She's kind, caring, and has a big heart and a lovely (and at times wicked!) sense of humour. I don't think she's being sanctimonious either; she's had a kind of religious conversion and we all know that converts are more passionate than most of those brought up as Christians. I don't think she believes she's a saint and I don't think she's narrow-minded either. Over the years she's often surprised me with what she's said and done. In real life nobody gets to trade places; but I do think maybe a little understanding of how her life has changed since she found her faith in Christ wouldn't be a bad idea. It came to her much later in life than with some people but I have always felt warmth and affection towards her and always will. For me she is a thoroughly lovable human being. I'm not an Evangelical Christian; I'm a 'Broad Church' type of liberal Protestant. But I understand her point of view both because I was born and raised as a Presbyterian and because I've known many other born-again Christians. Frankly, most of them have been thoroughly kind and decent people. Like Chefmate. Lin, I believe you and Mike have mentioned all this numerous times on this site alone. But, you see, it does not change anything. Even if Chef is the finest person in the world, she still tries to undermine all religious belief except her own and infer all who do not follow her rigid ideas of biblical interpretation are going to hell. You want to overlook all that, but she slings it in everyone's faces, very often. Save your endorsements. People disagree all the time; I've seen equally dogmatic assertions made by atheists on this board. And by people who subscribe to different religious beliefs such as Eckanckar, Catholicism and similar. So why somehow some people get dissed for saying what they mean and others get a free pass is beyond me. But that seems to be the way it works. Frankly I thought that aspect of this thread was done, Jessie. I'm rather disappointed you brought it up. I thought it was an interesting discussion where I was pointing out to both Chefmate and Scottish Lassie that they were IMO mistaken. Facts were brought in by me to support my position. Maybe it's time we concentrated on the discussion rather than the dissing?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
SOUL
Jan 20, 2017 15:48:34 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2017 15:48:34 GMT -5
I strongly disagree with you, but like the situation with Scottish Lassie, we have reached an impasse and no point of further discussion for me at least. Well, those are the facts. It's a pity because for me a faith that can't face discussion is on very weak ground. all we would accomplish is butting heads. I can pull up scripture to back me up so what's the point? I'm on strong ground with my faith, but as I said, butting heads is a waste of time. On top of that, you don't believe the bible was inspired by God through men and is inerrant word of God; as to gender, God specifically assigned roles to each gender and women are not eligible to be pastors, deacons or hold authority in the church over men.
|
|
|
SOUL
Jan 20, 2017 19:05:18 GMT -5
Post by beth on Jan 20, 2017 19:05:18 GMT -5
Lin, I believe you and Mike have mentioned all this numerous times on this site alone. But, you see, it does not change anything. Even if Chef is the finest person in the world, she still tries to undermine all religious belief except her own and infer all who do not follow her rigid ideas of biblical interpretation are going to hell. You want to overlook all that, but she slings it in everyone's faces, very often. Save your endorsements. People disagree all the time; I've seen equally dogmatic assertions made by atheists on this board. And by people who subscribe to different religious beliefs such as Eckanckar, Catholicism and similar. So why somehow some people get dissed for saying what they mean and others get a free pass is beyond me. But that seems to be the way it works. Frankly I thought that aspect of this thread was done, Jessie. I'm rather disappointed you brought it up. I thought it was an interesting discussion where I was pointing out to both Chefmate and Scottish Lassie that they were IMO mistaken. Facts were brought in by me to support my position. Maybe it's time we concentrated on the discussion rather than the dissing? I see what you and Jessie are both saying, Lin. It has to do with the way opinion is put forth. You cheerfully ignore the fact Chef has told you discussion is futile. She simply wants to preach and pontificate and damn people to hell who do not agree. That's a sad example to follow. As far as I'm concerned, let the discussion continue but remember you've already done several rounds of back-patting ... a sure discouragement to any who thinks differently. Carry on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
SOUL
Jan 20, 2017 20:40:54 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2017 20:40:54 GMT -5
People disagree all the time; I've seen equally dogmatic assertions made by atheists on this board. And by people who subscribe to different religious beliefs such as Eckanckar, Catholicism and similar. So why somehow some people get dissed for saying what they mean and others get a free pass is beyond me. But that seems to be the way it works. Frankly I thought that aspect of this thread was done, Jessie. I'm rather disappointed you brought it up. I thought it was an interesting discussion where I was pointing out to both Chefmate and Scottish Lassie that they were IMO mistaken. Facts were brought in by me to support my position. Maybe it's time we concentrated on the discussion rather than the dissing? I see what you and Jessie are both saying, Lin. It has to do with the way opinion is put forth. You cheerfully ignore the fact Chef has told you discussion is futile. She simply wants to preach and pontificate and damn people to hell who do not agree. That's a sad example to follow. As far as I'm concerned, let the discussion continue but remember you've already done several rounds of back-patting ... a sure discouragement to any who thinks differently. Carry on My reasons were quite clear in not wanting to continue the discussion with Lin....why bother wasting time head butting when each of us is firmly grounded in our beliefs? I felt the same with Scottish Lassie...there comes a point when a discussion is over. The axe-grinding from you and Jessie only belittles the two of you, not me.
|
|
Jessiealan
xr
Member of the Month, October 2013
Posts: 8,726
|
SOUL
Jan 21, 2017 0:19:44 GMT -5
Post by Jessiealan on Jan 21, 2017 0:19:44 GMT -5
I see what you and Jessie are both saying, Lin. It has to do with the way opinion is put forth. You cheerfully ignore the fact Chef has told you discussion is futile. She simply wants to preach and pontificate and damn people to hell who do not agree. That's a sad example to follow. As far as I'm concerned, let the discussion continue but remember you've already done several rounds of back-patting ... a sure discouragement to any who thinks differently. Carry on My reasons were quite clear in not wanting to continue the discussion with Lin....why bother wasting time head butting when each of us is firmly grounded in our beliefs? I felt the same with Scottish Lassie...there comes a point when a discussion is over. The axe-grinding from you and Jessie only belittles the two of you, not me. She was simply answering Lin's exprssed wish to continue the discussion. No one is trying to belittle you, chef, you take care of that all by yourself.
|
|
|
SOUL
Jan 21, 2017 5:58:01 GMT -5
Post by mouse on Jan 21, 2017 5:58:01 GMT -5
Well, those are the facts. It's a pity because for me a faith that can't face discussion is on very weak ground. all we would accomplish is butting heads. I can pull up scripture to back me up so what's the point? I'm on strong ground with my faith, but as I said, butting heads is a waste of time. On top of that, you don't believe the bible was inspired by God through men and is inerrant word of God; as to gender, God specifically assigned roles to each gender and women are not eligible to be pastors, deacons or hold authority in the church over men. hang on....the church/congregation didn't exist in the days of Christ so there were no decons or pastors that came very much later once a chain of command had been established and women played a Very prominent role in the early church/congregation which came into being long after Christ what you had were loose unstructured groups of believers and converts who gathered to gether it was as Lin said the council of nicea which brought in the idea that men were to play the superior roles within the congregation of a structured religion and drew the strands together
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
SOUL
Jan 21, 2017 12:40:03 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2017 12:40:03 GMT -5
all we would accomplish is butting heads. I can pull up scripture to back me up so what's the point? I'm on strong ground with my faith, but as I said, butting heads is a waste of time. On top of that, you don't believe the bible was inspired by God through men and is inerrant word of God; as to gender, God specifically assigned roles to each gender and women are not eligible to be pastors, deacons or hold authority in the church over men. hang on....the church/congregation didn't exist in the days of Christ so there were no decons or pastors that came very much later once a chain of command had been established and women played a Very prominent role in the early church/congregation which came into being long after Christ what you had were loose unstructured groups of believers and converts who gathered to gether it was as Lin said the council of nicea which brought in the idea that men were to play the superior roles within the congregation of a structured religion and drew the strands together Paul was writing to an established church body 62-66 AD...in 1 Timothy. I can back up every statement I make with scripture...I have no idea how all of you have become so disconbobulated and spread falsehood as truth.
|
|
|
SOUL
Jan 21, 2017 13:16:45 GMT -5
Post by Dex on Jan 21, 2017 13:16:45 GMT -5
hang on....the church/congregation didn't exist in the days of Christ so there were no decons or pastors that came very much later once a chain of command had been established and women played a Very prominent role in the early church/congregation which came into being long after Christ what you had were loose unstructured groups of believers and converts who gathered to gether it was as Lin said the council of nicea which brought in the idea that men were to play the superior roles within the congregation of a structured religion and drew the strands together Paul was writing to an established church body 62-66 AD...in 1 Timothy. I can back up every statement I make with scripture...I have no idea how all of you have become so disconbobulated and spread falsehood as truth. Maybe it's the way you interpret the scripture, Chef, or the way you let somebody interpret it for you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
SOUL
Jan 21, 2017 13:25:22 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2017 13:25:22 GMT -5
Paul was wrirting to an established church body 62-66 AD...in 1 Timothy. I can back up every statement I make with scripture...I have no idea how all of you have become so disconbobulated and spread falsehood as truth. Maybe it's the way you interpret the scripture, Chef, or the way you let somebody interpret it for you. no. scripture stands on it's own...very easy to read and understand.
|
|
ladylinda
Moderatorz
Poetry Editor
July 2011 Member of the Month, May 2014 Member of the Month
Posts: 4,901
|
SOUL
Jan 21, 2017 16:45:48 GMT -5
beth likes this
Post by ladylinda on Jan 21, 2017 16:45:48 GMT -5
Well, I freely admit that IMO (and the opinion of most people who examine it objectively) the Bible is NOT the 'inerrant word of God' but the work of men who put forward their own visions of what they believed to be the will of God.
On the question of the roles of men and women, I'm probably not typical in my thinking because I'm anti-feminist (not for religious reasons but for political and social ones).
But Genesis 1-3 shows clearly that men and women were equal and were both created in the image of God.
It's pretty clear that after the Fall, those roles were seen (by the author of Genesis at least) as having changed. (Genesis, by the way, was written by more than one author; the Yahwist, the Elohist and the Priestly Scribe all composed various parts of it. Just as Isaiah is actually three people - First Isaiah, Deutero-Isaiah and Third Isaiah. (Yes, I DID study religious education at school where all this stuff was freely admitted and it didn't seem to bother anyone - believer or not).
So Evangelical Feminists believe both that the Fall changed the relationship between the sexes from one of equality to one of male superiority and female inferiority and that Christ restored the balance by atoning for the sins of the world and therefore undoing the effects of the Fall. As a result, He restored that original equality before the Fall.
Galatians 3:28 says: There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Or 1 Corinthians 11:12: For as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.
Or Judges 4:4: Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time.
Or Psalm 68:11: The Lord gives the word; the women who announce the news are a great host:
Or Luke 10:38-42:
Now as they went on their way, Jesus entered a village. And a woman named Martha welcomed him into her house. And she had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord's feet and listened to his teaching. But Martha was distracted with much serving. And she went up to him and said, “Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Tell her then to help me.” But the Lord answered her, “Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things, but one thing is necessary. Mary has chosen the good portion, which will not be taken away from her.
Or Micah 6:4:
For I brought you up from the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery, and I sent before you Moses, Aaron, and Miriam.
Or 2 Kings 22:14:
So Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam, and Achbor, and Shaphan, and Asaiah went to Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvah, son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe (now she lived in Jerusalem in the Second Quarter), and they talked with her.
Or 1 Corinthians 11:10
That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
Or Philippians 4:3
Yes, I ask you also, true companion, help these women, who have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.
I could post a lot more but that should do for starters!
To be honest I find it sad that the words of men are confused with the Word of God.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
SOUL
Jan 21, 2017 21:06:37 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2017 21:06:37 GMT -5
Lin, so how does one decide what parts of the bible to believe if you labor under the false teaching that it is not 100% word of God?
2 Timothy 3:16
King James Bible All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness
You are walking a very dangerous path.
You have twisted the simple word of God to make it fit your need of a god without doing what God has required.
|
|
|
SOUL
Jan 22, 2017 5:05:45 GMT -5
beth likes this
Post by mouse on Jan 22, 2017 5:05:45 GMT -5
hang on....the church/congregation didn't exist in the days of Christ so there were no decons or pastors that came very much later once a chain of command had been established and women played a Very prominent role in the early church/congregation which came into being long after Christ what you had were loose unstructured groups of believers and converts who gathered to gether it was as Lin said the council of nicea which brought in the idea that men were to play the superior roles within the congregation of a structured religion and drew the strands together Paul was writing to an established church body 62-66 AD...in 1 Timothy. I can back up every statement I make with scripture...I have no idea how all of you have become so disconbobulated and spread falsehood as truth. I think the difference is in the way the word church is interpreted...we use it to describe a building or to describe a section of beliefe ie our local church is named St Johns or we can say the Anglican church meaning a body of believers . .the early Christians were small groups that the apostles had preached to or been invited to preach to and Timothy or not ... back then an established group of Christians were... very different... from to todays established church with all the rules and traditions acquired and foisted over the last 2,000 yrs ..Christ said where two or three are gathered together in my name..there am I ....no purpose built buildings...no rules and regulations and no payments..just some where for a visiting preacher to stay and be fed at some ones house and groups would meet where ever..following word of mouth or the sign of the fish.. in Rome especially where there was perseqution the catacombs were put to use so Timothy speaking to an established group of Christians some 66 yrs after the death of Christ taking into account the difference in word usage ? is not the same thing as an established organised church as we understand it today 2,000 yrs ago the world was a very different place what is your take on transubstanciation ...which was one of the basic differences between Rome and the newly established angligan protestants/ Lutherans/non conformists back in the 15th century and is still a bit of a sticking point for some
|
|
|
SOUL
Jan 22, 2017 7:52:41 GMT -5
beth likes this
Post by mouse on Jan 22, 2017 7:52:41 GMT -5
Lin, so how does one decide what parts of the bible to believe if you labor under the false teaching that it is not 100% word of God? 2 Timothy 3:16 King James Bible All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness You are walking a very dangerous path. You have twisted the simple word of God to make it fit your need of a god without doing what God has required. you have to understand that the Bible has had to be translated from many different sources before getting to the King James translation into English[which in my opinion is the best and most accurate translantion] firstly from word of mouth from the apostles who were a mix of educated and uneducated and thus would have some dialectal differences so Hebrew..Aramaic...latin..Greek..all translated into the English common tongue of the day..and some still feel the need to re translate into todays common tongue/usage of words ..hence the Moffats new translation of the new testament and many others .. a whole mindset can hinge on the translation of one word...such as the translation from old Arabic on the subject of reward ... of the virgins available in paradice..which many western and eastern scholars take to refer white raisons[which would have been a great reward back in the day so what you take to be the word of God..can just as easily be the words of man inferring what they thought God said or would say and then going through a series of translations
|
|
ladylinda
Moderatorz
Poetry Editor
July 2011 Member of the Month, May 2014 Member of the Month
Posts: 4,901
|
SOUL
Jan 22, 2017 19:52:07 GMT -5
Post by ladylinda on Jan 22, 2017 19:52:07 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
SOUL
Jan 22, 2017 22:39:54 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2017 22:39:54 GMT -5
I trust him about as far as I can throw him
|
|