The Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy

Could not this have been a place to invoke the 'argument from silence' rather than give such extremists even time-of-day attention? One needs hip boots to read through such shitola. It is far, far out: independent fundamentalists jockeying for position with other independents as though either had a notion of reality. It's prooftexting at its worst too, verses lined up with others all read literally but what is called "presuppositional thinking" by the honcho. It's also a forum for home schooling which they practice so their children don't get contaminated by modern knowledge, and anti-family planning is the rule, not the exception in this group. The honcho is a part of the Institute for Creation Science, and all the pictures provided would confirm their fundamentalism as also having a very low gene pool on which to draw: not uncommon with such extremists. The "www" has given far more dignity to such asocial, anti-intellectual & pseudo-Xn groups than they would otherwise have had, which brings me back to my original statement. Carlos, did we really want to identify such an extremist operation, even as a byproduct to your Oct. 11th awareness note? These make-believe people are kaput!

I read the article you referenced. Everything in it seemed to be in agreement with the Bible.

Rebellion against God's ordained roles for men and women is a manifestation of a deeper rebellion against God. And so are the efforts to make homosexuality legitimate and equal with heterosexuality. Sinful men and women don't like the way God does things.

God's ordained rules, or the rules of ancient mideastern culture???

Again, you're blindly reading the bible as if it was written by God's own hand, instead of by a multitude of very human writers. There are cultures that ARE Matriarchial and have been long before the Europeans forced their ideas on everyone else. Matriarchial cultures (and I will admit that some people don't accept our existance because they expect the inverse of patriarchial) are less stratified, are more equal, generally more peaceful, and at least as moral, if not more, than the patriarchial cultures. This holds true for matrilineal and matrifocal cultures as well. The moral code may be slightly different than yours, but we are still very moral people as a rule.

You want your cage rattled? How about this- there is ALMOST NO EVIDENCE of the exodus as recorded in the Bible.

The closest evidence found is this- that during the reign of Ramses the Great (regarded by almost all authorities as the Pharoah of the Bible), a group of people was expelled from Egypt for creating problems. I think they were Samaritans, but I don't remember the recorded name.

Ramses oldest son was killed in battle, they've found his skeleton and he'd been killed by a blow to the head by a mace. The battle was with one of the enemies of Egypt, and not with some angel.

It may have been an Angel that killed him in the battle, but I doubt it. He was also in his '20's as I remember the report. Egyptian documents recorded his death in battle and his age, the finding of his remains and an examination provided us with what an understanding of what actually killed him.

If the Israelites had spent 40 years in the wilderness with the numbers that are recorded in the Bible, there would have been evidence. There would be chemical trace elements indicating a large group of people had lived there, there would even be physical evidence. There isn't any evidence of a huge number of people wondering around. NONE. NADA. If it had happened as recorded- the evidence would be found.

So, what does this have to do with being Christian??? It depends if you worship the Bible or worship God. If you worship God, you recognize that the Bible points to Teyose, and that does not require literal accuracy or even historical accuracy. It is a signpost and not a scientific document. It contains some parts that are absolutely accurate, some that are partially accurate, and some that are just plain wrong.

As I have said many times, it is a book of "why" and not "how".

Bob Bowers,

II Timothy 3:16,17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

The Bible is a book about why, but it is also, definately, a book about how.

But since you don't see it as about "how", then I would expect to read nothing more from you about "how" we should live, or treat other people, or act toward God.

The fact is Bob, you really don't believe ANY of the Bible. I know it, and I expect, if you were capable of honesty, that you know it too. Why don't you give up your silly, stupid pretense about being a Christian and just admit that you are not a believer. I would have a lot more respect for you if you were honest.

Honest- Gary, isn't it about time that you stop putting words into other people's mouths???

The operative phrase of the scripture you quoted is NOT "IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE AND MUST BE READ AS SUCH", it is "is profitable". That doesn't even begin to imply literal interpretation. Even a wrong statement can be profitable if you know it is wrong, and you examine the reasons and thinking behind it.

Gary, think about this. Your words and actions drive people away from God, and as far as I can tell, you've never strengthened their faith or relationship with God. You do not comfort, you do not inspire, you do not enlighten, you do not strengthen. You only tear down and spew hatred. That is more in line with what the DEVIL WANTS rather than what God wants. So, you may think you're serving God, but your actions are actually the ones that are in rebellion and opposed to God's will.

I truly feel sorry for you. You don't even see the truth of your actions.

I said before in another thread, one of God's gifts is being able to laugh at one's self. Another that I mentioned to a friend was to see one's self as others do.

I pray that you receive this gift- that you see yourself as others see you.

Maybe you will become a little more Christlike.

Bob,

If you read everything else like you read the Bible, you would not be able to function. In fact, you would soon be admitted to the nearest asylum. You think the Bible almost always means something other than what it says, but you can't do that with the other things you read.

I suppose I could lie to you and tell you that your theology is right, but there would be no way for me to prove that was true, since most of what you believe directly contradicts the Bible. Helping you deny reality would not help you. You like to talk about truth, but you don't recognize it when you see it. Unless God opens your eyes, you won't ever see it.

Don't feel sorry for me. I'm saved, sanctified, filled with the Holy Ghost, and on my way to Heaven. There is no reason for anyone to pity me. Save your pity for someone who needs it, like yourself, or some of your fellow unbelievers.

I read everything critically. I do not accept something just because it says it is true- in fact, I've found that that is usually a sign of a lie following. I look at the evidence. You see, I've learned that being able to think for myself is a gift from God. I walked away from the Assemblies a long time ago, and I am learning just how mind-numbing and brainwashing they were and are. I look at the evidence and weigh the arguments, and fundamentalism falls so short that it is pathetic. I seek truth- and have and WILL reject lies. When the evidence is overwhelming that something is in error, then the simplest answer IS that it is in error.

NOTE THIS: I do not reject most of the scriptures, as you so erroniously claim. I look at the historicity, the EVIDENCE. Some of the Bible is contradicted by the evidence. Some of it is supported by the evidence. The older parts are, as a rule, not supported. Some sections may be... for instance, the book of Job is a Hebrew version of an ancient story, that varies from culture to culture. It is actually one of the later versions. Is it literally true? Who knows? It really doesn't matter.

That book, by the way, is NOT about "why bad things happen to good people". It is far more subtle than that mistaken view.

Even if the stories and so forth are not literally true or accurate, they still have great value in guiding our spiritual walk. We learn lessons in faithfulness from some, about sacrifice in others, about faith in God in most. And, like I have said, the Bible points to Teyose. We learn about Him from the scriptures. Even then, sometimes we have to dig past the mistaken understandings and cultural shifts that have taken place. I've learned lately that studying the Jewish background is critical for understanding most of the Parables correctly. After all, Teyose (Jesus, properly Yeshua) was a Jew!!!

Now, regarding your continous insults and judgementalism...

You may THINK that you're as you say you are, but your own hate-filled words put a lie to what you say.

Like I said, I am truly sorry for you.

I just how much love and kindness, how many people you've driven out of your life because of your hatred and judgementalism. I remember a conversation about burning bridges... as I remember you blamed others for burning the bridges. I think it was the other way around.

I have friends that care, that I can trust... do you???

Think about it.

Correction to typing error- I WONDER just how much love and kindness, how many people you've driven out of your life because of your hatred and judgementalism.

Christians will never 'embrace sexual orientation equality' (your words for homosexual fornication). Neither can they embrace 'gender equality' which does not exist. Male and Female genders can never be 'equal' despite all your wishful thinking. The reason anyone would want that, is way beyond me.
And to view the fact that God has revealed Himself as HIMself, as 'extremist' is just stupid, to put it bluntly. Hander's 'hipboots' only protect him from knowledge--certainly not ignorance, which he displays in every post--especially when homeschooling is addressed. Even the liberal minded college recruiters from such institutions as Harvard and Yale (who actively recruit homeschooled students for their maturity, superior study habits, and FAR above average knowledge, SAT scores etc.; don't seem to share the same disdainful attitude as Hander.
God save us from the effects of such 'progressive' garbage.
EH

So you think you're superior to women, huh???

SAD.

All I can say is God help the poor woman who marries (married?) you.

I can also tell you this- Patriarchial systems are far more violent, far more abusive, and far more coercive than other systems. That's not very Godly to me!

As far as your argument about Christians- well, I know you don't seem to consider us to be Christians, no matter who our faith is in. But WE ARE, and we also reject hatred and homophobia.

There are a lot of us.

Bob,

People live in history. God works in history. The Bible is set in history. As I have said before, if the Bible cannot be trusted to convey history that is true, it cannot be trusted to convey spiritual truth.

Jesus said to Nicodemus, "If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?" John 3:12

Jesus told the Jews, "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" John 5: 46,47

If you don't believe what Moses wrote, you won't believe what Jesus said. And lots of you have said you don't believe the first five books of the Old Testament. You might as well stop looking in the Bible for "spiritual" truth: even if you found it, you wouldn't believe it, or know what to do with it. Real Christians believe what the Bible says. We may not understand all of it, but we don't deny that it is true, the way you and your fellows do. That is why I don't believe your claims to be Christians.

God has set rules about the roles of men and women. The fact that "progressives" are in rebellion against what God has ordained is just another in a long list of reasons to doubt the sincerity of your so-called faith.

By the way Bob, if telling you the truth offends any of you, you'll just have to get used to being offended.

Well, then, if you don't think we are Christians, and you are... and you don't think that you are going to "change us"...

WHY ARE YOU HERE???

Why are you wasting your time?

Is it because you have no other life because you drove everyone else away from you? I hope not.

As for me... I dislike having to live in a patriarchial society, but have no choice. It is being forced on us by people who just don't know better.

By the way... truth doesn't offend me. Hypocrites do. So do fools who think they have all the answers and spout hatred, barring others from God.

That is why fundamentalism is so offensive.

Bob, do you not realize that if your arguments actually made sense, you would address what is written instead of feeling the necessity to rewrite it first? I wrote nothing that would indicate I think myself 'superior to women'.
If, on the other hand, you disagree with my statement that men and women are not "equal", then you don't know much about human anatomy or emotions. Men are superior to women in the ways God made them to be; and women are superior to men in the ways God made them to be. And both have their weaknesses as well. I'm sure that's nothing new to you. But they are not "equal".
The "equality" argument is nothing but a political debate, rooted in the age-old hatred of God's Truth.
EH

Bob,

No doubt that, at your house, your wife runs the show.

Truth doesn't offend you? That's a lie: I often tell you the truth, and you are offended by it.

I haven't barred you from God. You have barred yourself with your unbelief! You find Bible believers offensive because you don't believe the Bible!!!! And don't give me that crap that you believe "part" of the Bible. That's another of your lies.

Why am I here? To be a witness to those who read this and are open to the truth. And I'm here to be a witness AGAINST those who will have no part of the truth of God's word. You fit in that latter category.

I guess, like others have advised me, that I AM casting pearls before swine.

To the REAL people on this sig: I apologise for letting this go on so long.

Go on and follow your delusions, Gary and Eddie. I wipe the dust off my feet with you.

There is nothing within the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth that suggest women should be "subservient" to men. In fact, although (out of necessity for the times in which they were written) Mary Magdalene was not listed as one of the disciples, she clearly was. It was to Mary that Jesus delivered His message after His resurrection, and it was Mary Magdalene who was later given the title "Apostle to the Apostles". The other Mary and Martha (Lazarus' sisters) were also clearly Jesus' disciples, as was Jesus' own mother, who tradition has it had her own ministry after the resurrection, as did Mary Magdalene. Jesus chooses a Samaritan WOMAN to impart wisdom to at the well, knowing full well that she will carry His message to others, and Jesus praises the Faith of the sick woman who knows with all of her heart that by merely touching The Master's robes (or a "sissy dress" as one of our visiting diablos would call it) she will be healed. It is in the Faith of both Elizabeth and her cousin, The Blessed Mother, in which we see examples of absolute certainty in God (John the Baptist's father was struck dumb for a time as punishment because he doubted where Elizabeth didn't), and while Mary Magdalene never questioned Jesus (as far as The Gospels tell us) His MALE disciples doubted Him and questioned His actions on NUMEROUS occassions (prompting Him more than once to chastize them with "Oh ye of little Faith" or "where is your Faith"). Peter was made the "rock" on which Christ's Church was founded, and emphasis was given to the male disciples of Jesus, because at the time a woman in ANY position of religious leadership would not have been taken seriously. More than that, they probably would have tried to stone her to death. And yet The Gospels more than suggest that Mary Magdalene was as faithful (if not even MORE faithful) a disciple than the men. Who were there at the feet of the cross as The Master died? His female followers. At no time in four Gospels do we hear of Jesus suggesting that women are to be in any way inferior to men--- IN FACT, what we do hear from Jesus is Him telling His disciples that ALL must be totally equal, that ALL must be servants, and none must seek to have authority over others. This message was an instruction for EVERYONE who would choose to follow Him, and includes men as well as women.

Patriarchy outside of The Gospels is found chiefly in the Old Testament (although clearly Paul felt women should be subservient to men in religious settings, this is not based on anything that Jesus had taught, was based more on Judaic customs it would seem, and additionally Paul seems to address more the issue of "gossipy" women). If one wants to use the Old Testament as proof that Patriarchy is God's Will, that's perfectly fine....one MUST also then acknowledge that polygamy is absolutely acceptable to God, because in the Old Testament it is quite clear that polygamy was an accepted practice as well.

Seriously I can't imagine why any Christian man would WANT to embrace a rigidly patriarchal concept, given that Jesus' teachings do not support such a thing in any way, shape, or form, BUT we can certainly see where such a lovely, precious patriarchal stance leads us by looking at the Muslim world, and especially the FUNDAMENTALIST Muslim world. My suggestion to all "christian" men who want to believe this blasphemy of male superiority over women... I suggest they think about converting. That, or become "traditional" Mormons.

Peace and Blessings.

Brother Damien

Mighty bold talk coming from a man who wears a bathrobe for a business suit.:-P
But it's bold talk that I agree with.

My question is: Why should EITHER sex be "the boss"?? We're equal, and that is the best way to approach things.

I've heard sermons supporting patriarchy that sound very much like what is included in the opening statement- but I've also heard other scriptures such as "man is head of the wife" used to encourage and support spousal abuse in the fundie churches I attended. Even the less conservative church I used to attend tends towards that kind of thinking.

We have so far to go!!!

BTW.. I really appreciate the fun, Frank.. right now I'm not in the mindset where I could come up with some good "funnies", but it helped to get the day started off on the right footing!!!

I see the "Gary" and "Eddie Hughes" Trolls are at it again.

Unless you intend to follow Brother Damien's tongue-in-cheek advice and convert to the fundamentalist Muslim world, why not try Christianity for a change?

1. Where in the Gospels did Jesus say that husbands and wives have equal authority in the marriage and in the home?

2. Where in the Gospels did Jesus say that he endorsed women for the offices of pastor and deacon, in the church?

Maybe I missed something in my reading of the Gospels.

Tenoch, they are so convinced that they are right that it would take a miracle for them to change. I don't think that they are capable of seeing the similarity between "christian" fundamentalism and mohammadan fundamentalism.

Me, I'm not holding my breath. I've learned just how wrong fundamentalists are over the years- and everything I have learned in the last few months very strongly reinforces that understanding.

This is especially true, considering the things we've been learning by studying and learning about the Jewish thought that Teyose would have followed and used. So many misunderstandings- even basic concepts have been translated wrong (especially in the KJV).

Damien's posted response is but another example of the lack of an intelligent rebuttal. Why is it necessary to reword what you disagree with, instead of addressing it as it was written? No one said anything about women being "subservient" to men. No one said anything that implied that Mary (and other women) were not considered "disciples" of Jesus. But as far as Mary receiving a title of "Apostle to the apostles"--that is just ridiculous, not to mention totally untrue. So is the stated idea that the apostle Paul taught that women were to be "subservient" to men--in ANY situation. Again--not true.
Being 'submissive' is not the same as being "subservient". It is an act of one's will regarding his or her own actions, not the actions of another. 'Submission' is not 'suppression' either.
Wives are encouraged in Scripture to 'submit' to their husbands, as their husbands submit to Christ. Men and women both are exhorted (in the same passage of Scripture) to 'submit' to one another as well. Christians in general are exhorted in Scripture to 'submit' to governmental authority as long as it is not in contradiction of God's authority--in which case we are forced (as Peter was) to respond to the question, "Who do we obey, men or God?". The answer, of course, is obvious.
The modern political 'equality' debate is, once again, another attact on Biblical Truth--not 'patriarchal fundamentalists'. And your problem, if you would be honest about it, is not with so called 'fundamentalists'; it's with the Bible. And the Bible being the only source defining Christianity--so called "progressive Christianity" is neither progressive nor Christian.
EH

Damien's posted response is but another example of the lack of an intelligent rebuttal. Why is it necessary to reword what you disagree with, instead of addressing it as it was written? No one said anything about women being "subservient" to men. No one said anything that implied that Mary (and other women) were not considered "disciples" of Jesus. But as far as Mary receiving a title of "Apostle to the apostles"--that is just ridiculous, not to mention totally untrue. So is the stated idea that the apostle Paul taught that women were to be "subservient" to men--in ANY situation. Again--not true.
Being 'submissive' is not the same as being "subservient". It is an act of one's will regarding his or her own actions, not the actions of another. 'Submission' is not 'suppression' either.
Wives are encouraged in Scripture to 'submit' to their husbands, as their husbands submit to Christ. Men and women both are exhorted (in the same passage of Scripture) to 'submit' to one another as well. Christians in general are exhorted in Scripture to 'submit' to governmental authority as long as it is not in contradiction of God's authority--in which case we are forced (as Peter was) to respond to the question, "Who do we obey, men or God?". The answer, of course, is obvious.
The modern political 'equality' debate is, once again, another attack on Biblical Truth--not 'patriarchal fundamentalists'. And your problem, if you would be honest about it, is not with so called 'fundamentalists'; it's with the Bible. And the Bible being the only source defining Christianity--so called "progressive Christianity" is neither progressive nor Christian.
EH

Damien's posted response is but another example... Why is it necessary to reword what you disagree with, instead of addressing it as it was written? No one said anything about women being "subservient" to men. No one said anything that implied that Mary (and other women) were not considered "disciples" of Jesus. But as far as Mary receiving a title of "Apostle to the apostles"--that is just ridiculous, not to mention totally untrue. So is the stated idea that the apostle Paul taught that women were to be "subservient" to men--in ANY situation. Again--not true.
Being 'submissive' is not the same as being "subservient". It is an act of one's will regarding his or her own actions, not the actions of another. 'Submission' is not 'suppression' either.
Wives are encouraged in Scripture to 'submit' to their husbands, as their husbands submit to Christ. Men and women both are exhorted (in the same passage of Scripture) to 'submit' to one another as well. Christians in general are exhorted in Scripture to 'submit' to governmental authority as long as it is not in contradiction of God's authority--in which case we are forced (as Peter was) to respond to the question, "Who do we obey, men or God?". The answer, of course, is obvious.
The modern political 'equality' debate is, once again, another attack on Biblical Truth--not 'patriarchal fundamentalists'. And your problem, if you would be honest about it, is not with so called 'fundamentalists'; it's with the Bible. And the Bible being the only source defining Christianity--so called "progressive Christianity" is neither progressive nor Christian.
EH

Sorry about the repeated post... Totally accidental.

Eddie,

Good lord, your lack of basic knowledge is just astounding! I guess we might call you and Gary the Moe and Larry of biblical scholarship, with the departed Ice Wolf as being either Curly Joe or Shemp (depending upon your Stooge preference). Go online (or to a library--that's the place with all them thar fancy books) and check out a reference to Mary Magdalene (or Mary of Magdala) as Apostle to the Apostles. She most certainly WAS given this title by the very early Christian Church Fathers. She's only been referred as such for the past...oh, two THOUSAND years or so. That you are not aware of something even this simple brings into question your biblical "scholarship" on ANYTHING quite frankly.

That you see a difference between subservience and submission for women is your issue. I will grant you this much, and that is that it is a matter of semantics. There are many who view these as the same thing. In Ephesians St.Paul does indeed encourage wives to submit (or be "subordinate") to their husbands, but this was not part of Jesus' teachings. St. Paul was encouraging a strengthening of the traditional family unit, and in his time-period a stable family would have pretty much universally been perceived as including a wife's being "subordinate" to her husband. No fault can be laid at St. Paul's door for this, because he was only encouraging stronger unions between couples...for wives to submit to husbands, and for husbands to love their wives as their "own flesh". HOWEVER, wifely "subordination" is not found within the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. Quite the opposite. Jesus taught that ALL who would be "rulers" or "masters" must become servants...in other words, that everyone who would follow Him must embrace total (TOTAL) equality. Women AND men. St. Paul himself chastised the people of his day for concentrating too much on himself and other leaders of the early church ("Were you baptized in the name of Paul? Was Paul crucified for you?"). St. Paul was HUMAN, and what he said CANNOT BE EQUATED WITH WHAT JESUS SAID. Jesus does not suggest anywhere in The Gospels that women are to be "subordinate" to men. Case closed.

The attack, ultimately, is not on "Biblical Truth", but on those who are bibliolators, a form of idolatry in which the entire Bible is considered "infallible". Since ONLY God is infallible, bibliolators are indeed committing idolatry, because they are claiming then that The Bible IS God. Progressive Christians do not make this mistake, because they claim that Jesus Christ IS The Word, The Incarnate Word of God, and since Jesus Christ IS God, there is no contradiction or heresy in that view, whereas there is major blasphemy being practiced by the bibliolators (nearly everyone of whom support raising the flag to a level of veneration, which is ALSO a form of idolatry). That said you might want to back up just a bit in Ephesians 5 and check out verses 5-7. These verses to me seem to speak eloquently of misters Gary, Eddie, and their bible-thumping, usury-defending, flag-worshipping buddies. As for which side is more "Christian", when one concentrates (as Jesus actually CALLED US TO DO) on The Gospels, and WHAT HE TAUGHT (IF you love me, obey MY commandments), one quickly discovers The Truth of that issue, for it is Jesus Christ ALONE who defines Christianity, Jesus Christ who is The Son AND THE WORD of The Living God.

Peace and Blessings.

Brother Damien

Eddie,

Great post!! You are right!

Thank you again Brother Damien for speaking the simple yet profound truth of Jesus.

It's truly amazing how religious fundamentalists invest so much energy in denying Jesus' gospel at all costs.

How telling that this denial comes not from Muslims nor Buddists nor Jews nor "athiests" but from the demographically small number of hate-filled, fear-driven, control-hugry U.S. fundamentalists.

: Gary at October 17, 2006 06:37 PM
1. Where in the Gospels did Jesus say that husbands and wives have equal authority in the marriage and in the home?
Romans 16:1
[ Paul Greets His Friends ] I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a deacon in the church in Cenchrea.
1 Peter 3
7 In the same way, you husbands must give honor to your wives. Treat your wife with understanding as you live together. She may be weaker than you are, but she is your equal partner in God’s gift of new life. Treat her as you should so your prayers will not be hindered.

Br. Damien, I've told a couple of domineering men who quote scriptures to support their nonsense...

You say that the man is head of the wife as Christ is head of the church... well, what did Christ do for the church?

HE DIED FOR THE CHURCH. Think about that.

Obedience theology is also the first step to spiritual, mental, and emotional abuse. This is another example of the wrong perspective- instead of focusing on Teyose, fundamentalist leaning people focus on control control control.

Or I should say obey obey obey.

Monte,

Read my questions once more please.

Damien,

Aren't you catholic? The Catholic church has a hierarchy of authority. And it claims that it is in accord with God's will. Isn't that interesting?

I don't agree that Jesus taught total equality amoung all believers or between husbands and wives. None of the apostles believed that either, and it is not reflected in the balance of the New Testament. If Jesus had really taught that, then at least some of the apostles would have obeyed Christ's command. But we find no evidence for that.

Believing that God inspired the writers of the Bible to write what God wanted is not bibliolatry. I believe the Bible because I believe it is God's communication to me and my fellow believers. I reverence the Bible, and I believe what it says, because I believe it is from God.

Hey guys. With all of this talk(once again) of biblical literalism and such, I wonder how many of you out there who put such great stock in the King James Version of the Bible know who King James the 1st of England really was? Well...he was the Mark Foley of his day. Complete with letters to his "favorites" that are still around. Kinda makes you wonder doesn't it?

Gary (sigh),

First off, after all this time on this board you should know I am NOT Roman Catholic. I am Orthodox-Catholic, and of an independent (autocephalous) branch. Yes, we have bishops and an archbishop, but no, it is not like the traditional "hierarchy", which we deny. Priests (or monks, or anybody) are not "told" to do anything within my denomination. A bishop or the archbishop might make a suggestion, but nobody is required to follow directions or be "obedient" as in Roman Catholic tradition. So, yes, that IS interesting, isn't it?

Secondly, you don't think Jesus taught total equality? Have you ever actually READ The Gospels, or have you relied on some fundamentalist cartoon version of it? Try out these verses:

Matthew 23:11
Mark 9: 35
Luke 9: 46-48
Luke 22:24-26
John 13:12-15

You really might want to try actually READING The Gospels from time to time. The Left Behind novels and the Armageddon video game leave out a BUNCH of stuff that's...well...kind of important.

Peace and Blessings.

Brother Damien

Damien,

Those scriptures you cited teach humility, but I don't think they teach absolute equality. Absolute equality is not confirmed by reading the rest of the New Testament, but humility is. If total equality were really a teaching of Jesus, we would see it reflected in the writings of Paul, and Peter.

Br. Damien, don't you find it interesting that Paul and Peter are elevated almost to the importance of Jesus? I mean, what God Himself taught is almost ignored, but what Paul and Peter taught have so much focus.

Maybe this is done because it is easier to justify hatred by ignoring Teyose and focusing on Paul.

Even Paul himself states in his Epistles that his views on women isn't "from God's lips"- therefore clearly there is something in the scriptures that doesn't come from God. This is as clear an indication that he's teaching from CULTURE.

But then, I rather doubt that Paul would have approved of the FEW letters he actually wrote (and the number that are attributed to him but actually written by someone else) being elevated to the level of Scripture.

Bob,

Unlike you, Paul and Peter actually know Jesus. Had they been taught by Jesus that all believers were equal, in all ways and at all times, as you progressives claim, there would likely be some evidence of that in their writings.

Please keep posting here. It gives all of the readers an opportunity to learn the depths of your ignorance, and depravity.

Ignorance and depravity. Really?

You and your constant WRONG judging is what is depraved. Your continous vitriol and hatred would also be considered ignorant and depraved. Indeed, your comments to Br. Damien clearly demonstrates that either (a) you are trying your best to insult and pick a fight with him, or (b) your yourself are blatently and willfully ignorant.

Biblical literalism is also a clear hallmark of ignorance.

Damien... Grow up a little. I did not say there were no 'early' writers who gave Mary Magdalene an apostolic title--just no one with any credibility or authority to posthumously ordain anyone to such an office. Jesus appointed the first apostles to their office, and neither Jesus nor any of those first apostles named Mary to that, or any other office. And though your sources of "basic knowledge" as you call it, may exist in your select libraries--they are wrong. Mary was given no such title by anyone who had the authority to do so.
And once again... You create the lame arguments with which you disagree by rewording the statements of others like myself. No one said or implied anything about women being required to be "subordinate" to men. The obedience of godly wives to their husbands (not women to men in general) is suggested in Scripture only as men are obedient to Christ... And yet, it is to be in voluntary 'submission'--a word and concept, you don't seem to be able to address. The difference between 'submission' and 'subservience' is not, as you say, '[my] issue'. There is a real difference there, which you apparently refuse to acknowledge, as it would bring to light that your argument is with Scripture, not 'fundamentalism'.
EH

any one
Where in the Gospels did Jesus say women can't hold offices in the church

Isn't it amazing how deliberately ignorant some people are? I mean, when we go to historic documents and reflect what the church says, they reject it?

A great Episcopal priest (the one that married us) said that the Bible is the record of the teachings of the Early Church. Any scientist "worth his salt" would quickly agree with this. That is what the scriptures ARE: a record of the teachings of the church. These teachings are about Teyose and point to Him. They are not, nor were they ever meant to be a "how to" book or collection of rules and regulations.

I'm learning a lot about the problems (and politics) involved in the translation of ancient documents. So much has been translated literally, but totally missing the meaning of the original wording. I rather suspect that the attitudes towards women shown by "conservative Christians" may fall under this category. That is why critical scientific research and trying to understand things like the cultural epistemology and paradigm of the Jewish people of the time is so important! (Please excuse the fancy words, but they are the only way I can convey my meaning with some precision!) Also, a knowledge of the cultural sayings and their actual meanings is also CRITICAL!

Unless those people think that God himself wrote the KJV (possible, but a very foolish viewpoint), their arguments are not defensible.

Even the idea that God "dictated" to the original writers is a denial of humanity and free will and ignores the reality of how the Bible came to be.

Bob, and other "progressives",

Please respond and tell me whether I understand your view of the Bible correctly.

As I currently understand it, "progressives" view the Bible as follows:

1. The Bible is a collection of writings of men. It is the writers' opinions, or interpretations of events colored by the writers' own prejudices and cultures.

2. The Bible was NOT, in any way, dictated by God to the writers. In other words, God did not attempt to influence the writers in order to get them to write what he (God) wanted written.

3. The process of choosing which books, or letters, would be included in the Bible is also the work of men who also had their own prejudices and cultural influences which, in large part, determined which documents were included in the Bible. God had no part in the process.

4. The Bible does not tell us how to live or give us rules to live by.

Gary- the Bible is the INSPIRED writings of men who were trying to teach about what they experienced. God didn't dictate the Bible to people, and it is PROVEN FACT that the selection of the books of the bible was driven as much by politics as anything else. Fundamentalists for some reason ignore the RECORDED history of how the bible came to be what it is today. There are books left out (except in certain areas of the world) and Revelations was included strictly because of politics. That last book almost got left out. Those who have included other books (ancient forms of Christianity, by the way) are not committing sin- you need to understand WHY those books were included in their version. This requires study BEYOND reading the Bible as it is.

Several books should have been included in the popular Bible of today- the story of why they weren't (the deutrocanical books, sometimes called the apocrypha) is also interesting to learn about. It clearly demonstrates the involvement of politics (and, sadly, resentment and even hostility between the Jewish and Christian communities) in the selection of the books of the bible.

I wouldn't say that God had no part in the process- you're demanding an "all or nothing" scenerio again, and that is just not how reality is. God certainly DID have a part in the process, BUT SO DID HUMAN BEINGS.

The scripture "treasure in clay pots" comes to mind.

God may influence people, but we are all still human and error-prone. Noone is prefect except Christ- and we've PROVEN to you time and time again that there are demonstratable errors in the scriptures. That doesn't mean that they are therefore invalid or of no worth. The scriptures, as IT IS WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE, point to Teyose. That is the purpose of the Bible- a signpost towards God Incarnate.

And the Bible never gave us "rules to live by"... that is a total misunderstanding of Jewish thought. The Bible gives us guidence- suggestions on how to be more holy as it were. If you want to take them as autocratic rules and regulations, that's your choice. That is, however, NOT how the Jews understood the "Law" and not how we should understand the Bible. That comes from the "angry judging God" idea, and isn't valid.

Gary, your idea of us AS YOU HAVE WRITTEN is wrong. In fact, I would argue that we value and study the scriptures (most of us, I don't have the time due to other demands) more than you do. We look to understand what the writers were trying to say and why, not just reading the Bible as if it were dictated from "on High". We look at the original meanings of words, we look at how ideas were translated (and it can be PROVEN that some were mistranslated!). The reason we do so is to get a better understanding of God and to know God better. This is our goal. Such a goal is inherently Christian! We do NOT do so to "disprove" the Bible or anything like that- that is a total distortion and even a lie about our reasons for the studies we do.

The things we learn guide our beliefs and values. That is why we reject Biblical literalism and fundamentalism- it doesn't fit in with the FACTS. It also can be shown to lead to attitudes of judgementalism and hatred towards individuals who neither deserve or warrant such treatment. Indeed, biblical literalism has been shown to DRIVE PEOPLE AWAY FROM GOD. In the late 1800's and early 1900's great Christian authors and scholars warned against this- and what they said would come about happened.

Anyway...

We've told you all of this before. If you won't listen, then why ask?

If you think you're "showing us up", the fact is you are only demonstrating to people why fundamentalism is such error (sin).

I really think you don't want that.

Gary,
I think it is interesting that just a few simple, but challenging questions, or any small dose of Truth, for that matter, which challenges so-called 'progressive' doctrine will cause the Damiens, Bobs, Ardens, etc. to 'manifest' and display such antibiblical, unsound, and totally absurd ignorance (If it were not for the wasted space, I would cite both Bob's and Damien's entire previous posts for example). I can only hope that there are spiritually intelligent people reading their manifestations of absurdity and coming off the fence regarding Truth vs. error--never to be duped again by the more subtle approaches which lead to the same destructive end.
EH

Bravo to Damien and Bob for their comments thus far in this thread. I just have this to add:

When Paul came into contact with Onesimus, he sent him back to Philemon and back into slavery. As recorded in his letter to Philemon, Paul gave exhortation for Onesimus' good treatment, but no clear instruction to Philemon to set him free. (There is veiled allusion, but no clear instruction.) Moreover, when slaves and masters are given instruction in the epistles (Ephesians 6:5-9, etc), no mention is made of God's abhorrence of slavery, nor is any direction (veiled or otherwise) given to set slaves free. Rather the emphasis is on good treatment on the part of the master, and loyalty, obedience and good service on the part of the slave. In other words, the emphasis is on living-out Christ-like behavior to the best extent possible inside the cultural institution of slavery of the day - without bucking that institution.

I am curious as to how biblical inerrantists and literalists, who take the Bible as Word of God and thus on par with God himself, self-consistently follow these passages today. Moderate and progressive Christians see the Bible not as the literal Word (rather, Jesus is the Word - see John 1:1) but as sincere human testimony to God - testimony inspired by God-driven events and ideas stirring within their communities, and yet accommodated and enculturated to a high degree - testimony in which what is less-than-ideal can be identified by weighing that testimony in the light of Jesus (and in turn, in the light of the testimony given expressly about him). Thus moderates and progressives have no problem self-consistently honoring the book of Philemon and the other passages of scripture concerning slavery, in the same way they honor all of scripture: as pointing faithfully to the way of Christ relative to the depravity of the time, and thus reflecting both less than God's Best, and a true arrow arcing toward it.

But conservative inerrantists and literalists must take these slavery passages as binding instruction, invariant throughout time, incumbent upon all from beginning to end. If an Onesimus were to fall among them today, would they advise him to continue serving his Philemon cheerfully and faithfully (possibly for the rest of his life)? Would they return this Onesimus to his Philemon with only an appeal that the master treat his slave well? Or would they do more to materially assist the one caught in this evil system of compulsion? And if so, how would they justify it biblically, according to their hermeneutics?

In my opinion, conservatives have no good, self-consistent, answers to these questions, or a raft of others like them. They either must fudge on slavery, or water-down their definition of inerrancy and literalism in a way that self-undermines. It is the moderates and progressives who stand on solid rock on questions like these - because of, not in spite of, how they view the Bible.

Scott

Bob and others,

There is something I would like you to clarify: what do you mean when you say the Bible is inspired?

It seems to me that you have asked that question at least once before.

But to answer (from the American Heritage Dictionary)...

in·spire (n-spr) KEY

VERB:
in·spired , in·spir·ing , in·spires
VERB:
tr.

1. To affect, guide, or arouse by divine influence.
2. To fill with enlivening or exalting emotion: hymns that inspire the congregation; an artist who was inspired by Impressionism.
3. To stimulate to action; motivate: a sales force that was inspired by the prospect of a bonus.
4. To affect or touch: The falling leaves inspired her with sadness.
5. To draw forth; elicit or arouse: a teacher who inspired admiration and respect.
6. To be the cause or source of; bring about: an invention that inspired many imitations.

NOTE that it doesn't say "dictate" or have anything about inerrent or without flaw. Also, all of these usages have a common thread. I rather suspect that you were going to say something about your using the first sentence, but we use the others. That would be in error- they all mean approximately the same thing, and our usage INCLUDES the first sentence. It also doesn't say anything about God taking over the minds and CONTROLLING people, which I believe is the essence of what your idea of "inspire" is.

Definitions are what dictionaries are for.

Scott, your words are inspired! I hadn't thought of the Bible in quite that way, having heard it referred to as "THE WORD OF GOD" for all of my life! You are right, Teyose (Jesus) is the true Word of God. The Bible may be called that, but then that takes away from Teyose!

What you have said has contributed to the healing I am going through (necessary because of the lifetime of abuse at the hands of fundies- see my entry on Talk to Action). THANK YOU!!!

Anything that helps us think more clearly and with more precision and accuracy is always welcomed!!!

Why I believe in the teaching of the Bible; only a dumb fool would communicate with god and not do his will
Deuteronomy 18: 19: I will personally deal with anyone who will not listen to the messages the prophet proclaims on my behalf. 20 But any prophet who claims to give a message from another god or who falsely claims to speak for me must die.' 21 You may wonder, `How will we know whether the prophecy is from the LORD or not?' 22 If the prophet predicts something in the LORD's name and it does not happen, the LORD did not give the message. That prophet has spoken on his own and need not be feared.

I see the time warp at Christian Alliance continues. Gary, god spoke to me this morning and commanded me to tell you that He is very angry with you. He told me to tell you to grow up. He finds it very offensive that you can only relate to him through faerie tales.

Eddie Highes, god told me to tell you to stop taking food out of the mouths of your congregation. If you want money, He said, then go work for it like the good people in your congregation do. He said that if you really want to serve Him, then go DO something for one of the folks in your congregation and stop dicking around on your computer.

gpope,

Your story sounds like a faerie tale to me. I'm sorry, but I don't believe it.

Bob,

It appears that my understanding of how you folks view the Bible was pretty accurate. I realize that there is some variation of beliefs amoung progressives.

What I find strange is that people who view the Bible as being as seriously flawed as you do would claim to believe anything it said, or would give it any credibility.

I also wonder what kind of "God" you believe in that would, in some way, inspire the writers of the Bible to write things that you believe are obviously untrue, and yet hide some sort of truth in the false stories and make-believe characters. Makes me question why God could not say what He wanted using real people and true history. Oh, I forgot that God didn't actually say anything, the human writers did.

It is also interesting that all of the people in the Bible, who are portrayed as believers, disagree with your "interpretation". Or, at least there is no evidence that they agreed with you.

Thanks to both Bob and Scott for some very thoughtful and erudite posts.

Someone mentioned the issue of Free Will, and I think this is an important point when discussing "bibical infallibilty" (or more accurately bibliolatry, since if The Bible is completely infallible it IS God). The suggestion by christian conservatives is that (ignoring of course all of the editing and translational changes made down through the ages)every single person who wrote every single book in The Bible was guided WORD FOR WORD by God. This of course totally eliminates Free Will. For these writers to have engaged (essentially) in "Spirit Writing" as mediums term it, these writers had no Free Will, and the books were actually written (every word) by The Holy Spirit. Of course, if that is the case, then one must ask why there are inconsistencies within The Bible (even one would not make any sense, and yet there are numerous examples of this). And St. Paul for one would appear to be writing letters using his own words and his own opinions on certain matters. The Bible itself indeed does not suggest that The Holy Spirit wrote the books word for word, but that it was actually written by human beings. The problem with human beings writing anything however is that NOTHING produced by humans can be "infallible". In fact, ONLY God can be infallible, nothing else. Jesus of course WAS and IS God, so embracing the concept ( a concept actually found within The Gospels)that Jesus IS LITERALLY the true Word of God, The Incarnate Word, makes perfect sense, and as we have discussed recently we can be fairly certain of His basic teachings, because, even though there are some differences between the four Gospels, #1. They were written in a time when people who remembered Jesus' teachings, and being able to read and write, wrote them down, and even compared them with others who had witnessed His miracles and teachings, and #2. All four Gospels repeat the same teachings, essentially, although the fourth Gospel (John) puts more emphasis on Jesus' Divinity--nonetheless we have these teachings "backed up" several different ways.

It is also of interest to note that, while Edie maintains that (apparently) God directed the early Church Fathers on which books to include in The Bible, or what changes to make...while they apparently had this authority by The Holy Spirit, they did not have the "authority" to bestow upon Mary Magdalene the title of Apostle to the Apostles. Kind of like how conservative christians can claim that parts of Levitical Law are still valid and others can simply be ignored; or how the ten injunctions against usury in the Old Testament do not apply to "standard business practices" in the U.S. today; or how the Old Testament can be used to justify patriarchy, and yet polygamy is not acceptable; or how conservatives who divorce for reasons other than marital infidelity is acceptable, even though Jesus said it was not; or how defending a law to prevent "desecration" of a flag can be defended, when something can only be "desecrated" if it has been declared holy, and therefore such a law would be idolatry; or how defending the accumulation of fortunes is more than acceptable (actually encouraged) by conservatives, and yet Jesus preached against wealth hoarding and pronounced "Woe to the rich, for they have their reward", and that it would be "easier for a camel to travel through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter Heaven" (not to mention His warning not to worship Mammon); or the conservative apathy toward the poor and sick, when Jesus made concern for the poor and sick a measuring stick by which He would separate "the goats" from "the sheep" in Heaven (and while we hear lots from the "Religious Right" about evolution vs. creationism, gay marriage, and flag ammendments, when was the last time any of them preached about the 46 million Americans who can't afford health insurance, or the over 50 million going without basic necessities, OR the new genocide in the Darfur region of the Sudan?); or their support of war and torture when Jesus said not only that those who lived by the sword would die by it, but that THE PEACEMAKERS would be called The Children of God; or their love of public displays of piety when Jesus scorned such activities, and taught private prayer and humility in prayer.....well, I could go on for several pages.

The point in all of this is HYPOCRICY, and a vile generation of vipers (ultra-conservative "christians") who are, in a VERY real sense, The Pharisees and Saducees of our modern era. But The Master told us we must go "beyond the righteousness of The Pharisees", beyond those who simply do lip-service to Him, but blatantly ignore His commandments given to us in The Gospels. And we know what Jesus will say to these pseudochristians when He sees them on the other side......they'll WISH they just had millstones tied around their necks when that day comes.

Peace and Blessings.

Brother Damien

If you are going to say the Bible is not the true word of God then why are you visiting this site, and if you think parts of it is untrue or a lie please show that part please list book chapter verse to argue when you don’t put the facts out there is like two little boys arguing whose dad is the toughest

Gary, we don't see the Bible as "seriously flawed". That's your subjective judgement call, not ours. And that is the main difference between us. You can't imagine that the Bible could be the way we view it without being a crock of you-know-what. You're just like an atheist in that way: judging on the basis of "How You Would Do It" if you were God. Try taking a look instead at how God has actually and wisely seen fit to do it: by humbly incarnating through free human ideas and words, nudging not overpowering, just as Jesus did. Such a view explains and fits with so much more than the literalist/inerrantist view does.

As for hiding "some sort of truth" in "false stories and make-believe characters", that is just what all great storytellers and writers have always done. When your high school English teacher tried to get your class to reflect on the theme of, say, "Ozymandias", were you perhaps one of those snickering and scoffing, sleeping, or basically not paying attention in the back? Did you not learn this? Humans communicate ideas through the non-strictly-factual all of the time - and never more so than in the pre-modern, pre-Greco-Roman-influence world from which most of the Bible comes.

Returning to my previous posting: So Gary, if a slave were to show up on your doorstep today, would you return him to his master? Why not? You didn't answer the question. (Assume for sake of argument that slavery was still legal.) Incidentally, this isn't entirely hypothetical: it was biblical inerrancy and literalism that enabled Southern conservatives in the 19th century to claim a biblical mandate for slavery.

Scott

Br. Damien, Scott, et al...

Gary was banned by Tim several days ago. He was warned (at least once) to stop the personal attacks and judgementalism, yet he (as you well know) persisted. I THINK he has been warned several times.

Yet he's back- possibly using spoofing software to get past the ban.

Tim gave me permission to share this.

Getting back on topic now... I have a question for discussion. I've heard and believed that God transcends gender. I understand that this is the accepted theological viewpoint as well. After all, it makes sense.

I know that there are female and male forms of words in Hebrew (from recent reading). Are there any indications in, not modern translations but the original language, that the Jews might have also had this viewpoint?

Since this is totally outside my own areas of knowledge, I'd like to hear from someone who has a much better background in Jewish thought and language of the time.

As for the Bible and gender, not to mention slavery and racism, we have a pretty clear hint from Paul in Galatians 3:28: "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." (NRSV) If this doesn't suggest what we would today call "equality", I don't know what would.

Yet "equality" is probably not the best word to use to describe what I think is being taught in light of Jesus. "Equality" in our culture is tightly bound-up with the concept of "rights", as in "equal rights". And "rights" are the good things I should get because they are due me just because of who I am. This is foreign to the teaching of Jesus, from what I can tell - rather, the teaching of Jesus is about what I should give, not what I should get; and it is about escaping the condemnation I deserve through the free grace of God, not reaping the reward I deserve.

Rather than "equality" then, I think the best way to talk about the Christian model of relationship, is being one of mutual submission, subjection, or servitude (as expressly taught in Ephesians 5:21). When the epistles instruct husbands and wives, slaves and masters, parents and children, etc, on proper norms of behavior, this is what is being emphasized.

The concrete expression of such mutual submission is placed by the biblical writers within the bounds of the culture of their time, of course - pushing the bounds without breaking them - since to break them would be to render the message immediately foreign and unacceptable to the audience of the time. But when we look at the epistles' concrete expressions of mutual subjection as being accommodated to culture in this way - as we must, in order to render those concrete expressions consistent with the same epistles' more abstract expressions of "equality" (egin Ephesians 5:21 and Galatians 3:28) - then we can see clearly what they are really talking about: mutual servitude in ways appropriate to each person's role in society.

For example, wives are instructed to submit and obey their husbands, yes; but husbands are instructed to give up their lives for their wives, as Christ did for us (Ephesians 5:22-33). The culture of the time would not permit fully egalitarian roles for husband and wife, but rather dictated traditional roles upon them. Thus the writer of Ephesians is not able to use fully identical, reciprocal language when addressing husband and wife, but must use language for each which is at least barely acceptable to his culture - a culture in which wives are clearly secondary to their husbands. But within those bounds, the writer of Ephesians pushes them to their limits, by using expressions of servitude and subjection appropriate to each role. For the wife, the instruction to servitude is given in plain language since the culture permits it; and for the husband, it is given in veiled language, by comparison to the role model of Jesus, who made himself last, from washing the disciples feet, to dying for them.

So I don't think we Christians have anything to be ashamed of in how the Bible treats gender, racism, or slavery. It is consistent and progressive for its time, always instructing Christians toward mutual submission in ways appropriate to the cultural context. Interestingly, though, it is only through adopting a non-inerrantist, non-literalist approach that I think we can really appreciate this.

Scott

Interesting, Scott. I have a little problem with the idea of "condemnation we deserve" because that was the foundation of the AG teachings that led me to self-hatred (something I still fight against), but being serving one another and not considering one's self above another is counter to much of what we fight against. In my case that is as much fighting against the idea of top-down authority, which leads to abuse.

I consider that to be the essence of equality- there are none who are "more deserving" or "less deserving"- ALL deserve to be treated with kindness, justice, and love.

Certainly no-one should feel self-hatred when the God who loves us so much does not feel that way about us. I'm sorry to hear about your abuse at the hands of the "judgment" side of the Christian message - which really only exists to motivate toward humility and gratitude those of us for whom such attitudes do not come as easily as they might to others. I see nothing in scripture to indicate that God loathes us or wishes us to really feel that way about ourselves.

Best regards,

Scott

Thanks, Scott. Sometimes we get so hung up on the one side of the submission coin that we forget the other. The way that particular passage you're referencing is structured lends itself to the assumption that the man in the marriage isn't to use the power he traditionally held for his own gratification. Rather, he was to be, in an ironic way, "subservient" to his own wife.
What the...? you might think. Hnag on a minute. Given the culture Paul was writing in, where a wife was essentially a piece of property, to have a husband who would serve and die for his wife as Christ served and died for the church would be completely countercultural. Paul was up to something, and letting that text speak for itself would ferret it out.

PS: if any of you want a well-reasoned discussion on all this, try Gilbert Bilezikian's Beyond Sex Roles (Baker Press). It's really good.

You can imagine how irritating hearing all of the "submission to men" stuff is to me- as my people are matriarchial (which in actuality is very egalitarian in nature). 60% of our mikkos are women- and they are respected leaders (except by those few individuals who have been poisoned by fundamentalist preaching/nonsense).

It's all about power, keeping the priviliged in place and denying equality to everyone else. I don't see any difference between that argument and the argument fundamentalists have used to keep the social structure unchanging (irregardless of how much harm it causes to individuals). Both are WRONG- if something is harmful to people, it needs to be changed, not supported and protected.

Years ago a fundamentalist preacher (AG) used that sort of argument to coerce me into staying in a (severely) physically abusive job situation.

Shortly after being personally preached at (submission theology), I was beat up and required stitches. I was so cowed by the preaching and abuse that I never sought a lawsuit and only found other employment after I walked out of the AG church and the business folded.

That was 25 years ago. Now I am adamantly opposed to any form of autocratic authority and stratification. Hearing about preachers using the scriptures to force women to remain in an abusive situation makes me ill.

Allie, yes - that's what I was trying to say. Thank you for expressing it so well.

Scott

Is the Christian Alliance giving up fright for Christanty.

I am not a game, I am not a world, I am WOWgame

hrwzhoef http://fnxvikos.com tduzczek gsvxqeqi [URL=http://ipbfrkda.com]srnecayi[/URL] jlbvtswl

depwstmb [URL=http://turjlohd.com]oqnjslvi[/URL] lvytdqrt http://qfyclwfy.com aekhlncs uclibzcs