Cardinal Keith O'Brien steps down as Archbishop

Originally posted by jcutler12888
I agree, it would be unbelievably unjust to condemn all that have been led astray. That's what this whole argument has been about...not that people have tried for millennia to change the Bible (which they have), but that a blanket condemnation was made of those led astray and those with Christ in their hearts but lied to by a religion.

The continuation of questionable teachings and practices serves no purpose. I believe we should drop all of the "preaching against those who teach false doctrine" and come down off of our theological high horses...down to the people who need salvation and teach them the true path to salvation, and down to work to help strengthen the faith of those who have received salvation but have been lied to by religious organizations. If we were to do that, THEN we would be acting as honest champions of the faith and of Christ.

So very true.

It's obvious that many of us are struggling with the simple core principles, perhaps that should be the place to start.

Peace be with you, Jennifer.

reply to post by truejew


You're absolutely appalling, truejew. You need to take a step back, reconsider what you're saying, and stop attempting to subjugate me on your warped logic concerning women and religion and the basis of a verse regarding the submission of wives to husbands and NOT the ability of women to evangelize OR speak on religion. You have gotten so far off of your original argument that it's ridiculous and now you seem to be intent on preventing me from speaking on religious matters by telling me that I'm either not qualified by my gender or instructed not to by God due to my gender. You're wrong...I'm sorry, but you're just wrong.

We are both God's children. I am not inferior to you and I will speak about what I wish.

reply to post by KyrieEleison


Thank you.

The simple core principals are what Christ wanted us to focus on...and those simple core principals are the best place for us all to start (or go back to) and to always keep in mind.

Peace be with you as well, Kyrie.

Originally posted by truejew

Ephesians 5:22-24 (KJV)
22Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23For 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. 24Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Let's not stop abruptly here:

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

It would seem that these passages are describing a relationship based on love and mutual respect, not one of sexist subjugation.

reply to post by KyrieEleison


Amen. Thank you for providing a better view of the whole picture, Kyrie.

Originally posted by KyrieEleison

Originally posted by truejew

Ephesians 5:22-24 (KJV)
22Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23For 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. 24Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Let's not stop abruptly here:

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

It would seem that these passages are describing a relationship based on love and mutual respect, not one of sexist subjugation.

Correct. I am not teaching "sexist subjugation" as I am being accused.

Originally posted by KyrieEleison
It would seem that these passages are describing a relationship based on love and mutual respect, not one of sexist subjugation.

Don't forget Galatians 3:28

There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

He also seems to forget Paul's love of Prisca, for her ministry, as well as:

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of his people and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been the benefactor of many people, including me. (Romans 16:1-2 NIV)

The "sit down, shut up" stuff that cretins like to use to keep women subservient is enough at odds with Paul's other writings to make it suspect as either hyperbole on his part, or a later addition to the text.

Originally posted by jcutler12888
reply to post by truejew

 

You're absolutely appalling, truejew. You need to take a step back, reconsider what you're saying, and stop attempting to subjugate me on your warped logic concerning women and religion and the basis of a verse regarding the submission of wives to husbands and NOT the ability of women to evangelize OR speak on religion. You have gotten so far off of your original argument that it's ridiculous and now you seem to be intent on preventing me from speaking on religious matters by telling me that I'm either not qualified by my gender or instructed not to by God due to my gender. You're wrong...I'm sorry, but you're just wrong.

We are both God's children. I am not inferior to you and I will speak about what I wish.

I am not trying to prevent you from speaking nor teaching that women are inferior. I am however saying that God does not call women to the five-fold ministry. You have the right to rebuke me if you like, however you have no authority from God to do it.

reply to post by adjensen


Paul never says that Priscilla was a minister.

reply to post by truejew


It sounds to me like you are trying to keep me from speaking...or at least saying that whatever I say doesn't matter because God wouldn't support me speaking.

You have the right to rebuke me if you like, however you have no authority from God to do it.

So, by your logic, I have no authority to rebuke you but you have authority from God to rebuke me??

Seriously??

:

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

Paul never says that Priscilla was a minister.

He (Apollos) began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately. (Acts 18:24 NIV)

... sure sounds like a minister / teacher to me.

reply to post by truejew

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

Paul never says that Priscilla was a minister.

But I'm pretty sure that said "our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church". Phoebe was a deacon...yet you say no women were involved in the ministry in the Scripture and that women aren't called by God to ministry?

Originally posted by jcutler12888
reply to post by truejew

 

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

Paul never says that Priscilla was a minister.

But I'm pretty sure that said "our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church". Phoebe was a deacon...yet you say no women were involved in the ministry in the Scripture and that women aren't called by God to ministry?

Romans 16:1 (KJV)
I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:

I see servant not deacon.

reply to post by adjensen


There is nothing that says Priscilla was doing the ministering.

reply to post by truejew


AND I commend to you Phebe, our sister, who is in the ministry of the church, that is in Cenchrae. - Romans 16:1

And I see "in the ministry".

That's from Douay-Rheims, which is an older translation than the King James version.

And in the newer versions/translations, it says deacon/deaconess.

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

There is nothing that says Priscilla was doing the ministering.

Oh come on.

When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.

THEY invited him to THEIR home, so therefore, THEY explained to him.

If it was just Aquila that did the explaining, the pronoun would have changed.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

There is nothing that says Priscilla was doing the ministering.

Oh come on.

When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.

THEY invited him to THEIR home, so therefore, THEY explained to him.

If it was just Aquila that did the explaining, the pronoun would have changed.

That is not really true. If a person goes to a church to ask the Pastor a question, it could be said that they (the church) gave them an answer since the Pastor represents more than himself. That does not make everyone in the church a pastor.

reply to post by truejew


So... I guess it all depends on what your definition of 'is' is, amirite?

The time given for me to respond on this thread has come to an end. I will not respond to further questions or attacks in this thread.

reply to post by truejew


Okay.

Nice speaking with you...good luck and God bless you!