29 Dec 10
5 edits
When asked to comment on a simple biblical principle, that being, on how the scriptures (Bible) counsel a Christian on proper respect for women, all three have exhibited a prejudicial and blatantly evasive and dishonest attitude. Firstly sonhouse, making the claim that the Bible was a control mechanism was asked, in his opinion, what was wrong with the following principle,
treat older women as mothers, younger women as sisters and a wife as ones own body
Rather than honestly submit to the idea that yes indeed it was a fine principle, one which should in practice engender respect and admiration for women, he completely ignores it and goes on a rampant monologue as if he had just been bitten by a rabid dog with immediate effect.
Fabian when trying to assert that my particular religion is discriminatory against women because there is no biblical procedures specifically with regard to the ordination of females to positions such as shepherds and elders when presented with the same principle , instead of commenting upon its effectiveness as a tool for mutual respect, also completely ignores it and havers on about some totally irrelevant argument as if a piano had fallen from the sky and rendered him disorientated on the spot.
Mr Hamilton when presented with the same opportunity to comment on the text describes it as religious crap, a fitting word for one obviously so well versed in the intricacies of scripture, perhaps if he took the time he may expand his vocabulary rather than resort to base expletives, who can say.
The point of these three instances clearly demonstrates an attitude not only of prejudice against religious principles, as is evidenced from their failure to discuss them, but at the most fundamental level, a deficiency of honesty, that indeed, there may be something of worth in religious literature. Such a prejudicial and bigoted attitude is hypocritical, for while they are asserting that they would like to engender freedom in others through the dissolution of religious principles, they themselves are existing as examples contrary to their claims.
29 Dec 10
Just because the particular verse calls for respect, doesn't mean all the others about women being made for men, or how they should submit to men, or get unfairly punished, don't have precedence. I'd take a (safe) gamble to say there is much more content regarding wives, daughters etc to be submissive at man's will. Then you have King Solomon who had hordes of wives. Are you going to ignore the entire (biblical) history of women treatment based on this verse alone?
29 Dec 10
Originally posted by ua41no, all i am calling for is transparency. Can you explain why they should choose to ignore the principle, why its described as religious crap, why the evasion? If its a fine principle in itself, why not say so? these other instances hardly negate its value, do they?
Just because the particular verse calls for respect, doesn't mean all the others about women being made for men, or how they should submit to men, or get unfairly punished, don't have precedence. I'd take a (safe) gamble to say there is much more content regarding wives, daughters etc to be submissive at man's will. Then you have King Solomon who had hordes of ...[text shortened]... going to ignore the entire (biblical) history of women treatment based on this verse alone?
29 Dec 10
2 edits
Yes, I think the principle outlined is fine in itself. I don't think any person with the slightest sense of decency would think otherwise. However, when weighed up against all the other stuff that is in contrast to this message- a rather insurmountable pile of stuff- the message is only a small appeal to emotion.
If I continually lectured you on how women should be scrubbing my floors, washing my dishes, cooking my food, running my errands, grabbin me a beer, and giving me absolute authority over everything else, or else get a caning for not doing any of the aforementioned, but I said it's a thing of respect- what would you think of my bit about respect? To me, it certainly seems like gilded words and actually rather contradictory if not a flat out lie.
29 Dec 10
3 edits
Originally posted by ua41no of course i would not expect that, however lets look at some of the suggestions you have made,
Yes, I think the principle outlined is fine in itself. I don't think any person with the slightest sense of decency would think otherwise. However, when weighed up against all the other stuff that is in contrast to this message- a rather insurmountable pile of stuff- the message is only a small appeal to emotion.
If I continually lectured you on how women sh it certainly seems like gilded words and actually rather contradictory if not a flat out lie.
1.Solomon had so many wives, well actually Solomon was warned against procuring wives for himself. They eventually led to his apostasy.
2.Submission to a husband is demeaning, well actually its relative, for even Christ himself was submissive to God, a husband also has to be submissive to the example of the Christ, children are to be submissive to their parents. Nowhere is it intended that this submission is to be absolute, for indeed a women must CHOOSE to place herself under this arrangement. If this arrangement is abused its very serious in the eyes of God.
3. That women were made for the sake of men, well i am not entirely sure what this means, nor what you may be trying to imply, however it is clear that the scriptures state that a man and a women are a compliment to one another, indeed, the creation of Eve states that she was a 'helper', to Adam, as a compliment.
what indeed is objectionable about any of these principles, i do not know. What is clear is that if a man takes seriously the admonition to love his wife as the Christ loved the congregation (i.e in a self sacrificing way, that is putting her interests ahead of his own) then it shall be much easier for a women to deeply respect her husband. Indeed i have failed to find a single Biblical principle that would not strengthen a relationship, one only has to look at the unbelievable rates of divorce to realise that an independent spirit can create havoc in a marriage!
29 Dec 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou have in several postings complained that I make an discussion personal against you. Now, all of a sudden, you make a very obvious personal complaint against me. You name me with name. I take that personal. You are clearly thinkiing that I am stronger than you are, because you believe that I can take this, even if you cannot. Fine with me. Perhaps I am stronger than you are, I don't know. You are very sensitive about insults, yet you deliver insults to everyone else. Perhaps as a JW you don't ahve to be very strong, because you are christian you say.
Fabian when trying to assert that my particular religion is discriminatory against women because there is no biblical procedures specifically with regard to the ordination of females to positions such as shepherds and elders when presented with the same principle , instead of commenting upon its effectiveness as a tool for mutual respect, also comple ...[text shortened]... evant argument as if a piano had fallen from the sky and rendered him disorientated on the spot.
You say that you are christian, yet you treat JW as a religion in itself, apart from the Christian religion. So when I criticize christian beliefs, then you take it as an personal insult. When I criticize JW, then you take it as an personal insult. I'm not sure if I
've ever criticize you personally, but whatever I say that you don't agree upon, you take it as an personal insult anyway. Very Vishva, very Vedic.
I still say JW is discriminatory against women. Whenever you show an female elder, then I change my mind. You cannot hide behind the bible, it is your opinion we discuss. Yours, not the people's of the biblical times. If you say discimination against women is a christian moral, then you are wrong. There are female priests, whter you like it or not. If you don't think women should be spiritual advisors, like priests or elders, then it is your opinion, not a christian opinion in general. Yes, this is personal, you are personal with me, and therefore i can be personal with you. You have to stand up for your opinions, not hide behind the skirts of your ... well, I don't know.
I've offered friendship. Don't you want it? Do you rather have enemies than friends? My offer of friendshp still stands. But in this friendship I don't accept everything you want me to accept. (If you don't want to give me the same respect when you don't agree with me? No? Okay.)
When I criticize JW of being discriminatory, then you can either say "Yes, JW is wrong in this." Or you can say "Yes, JW is discriminatory against women, and this is just fine." You cannot say "No, JW is not discriminatory against women. Woman can become an elder whenever they want, as any man can.", but then you are wrong. You don't have the right to redefine the word, because it is generally accepted what it means. You cannot have a JW interpretation about what discrimination is, and have another interpretation when JW is discriminated by others. You just cannot have it both ways. You have to decide.
In this posting I don't refer to the JW discrimination of homosexual people, nor the crusade against members of other religions or atheists, nor the denial of medical help involving blood transfusion causing deaths to near and dear friends or memebers of family, nor other immoral dogmas within the JW cult, I don't do that, because I'm afraid you would take it personal, even if not intended.
Because i don't want to get personal towards you, robbie my friend, but in this thread you get very personal agaisnt me, so i rahter want to think that you accept this. But it is very much agaisnt my intetion otherwise.
Think of the word of Jesus: "Don't treat others as you don't want to be treated yourself." When you do, then you shouldn't complain.
I ask you - Do you want me as your friend, or do you want me as your enemy?
29 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasNo Fabian, you were asked to comment on a simple Biblical principle, you ignored it completely and went on a rant, as you are now doing here. There have been since the beginning of this thread three or four Biblical references, that is to say, with regard to the principle of headship for both husbands and wives, the counsel to treat females as mothers and sisters, counsel with regard to what is expected of us with regard to our wife in the marriage arrangement, references to Solomon etc, which one of these principles are you now commenting upon? NOT ONE, why is that? instead, you have done what you continue to do and make remarks against me and my religion, with complete disregard for ANY principles under discussion. You should indeed be called out for that, its not an attack against your person, your inclusion merely highlights the point under question, that there is a real reluctance to discuss religious principles which appears to me to be both evasive and dishonest.
You have in several postings complained that I make an discussion personal against you. Now, all of a sudden, you make a very obvious personal complaint against me. You name me with name. I take that personal. You are clearly thinkiing that I am stronger than you are, because you believe that I can take this, even if you cannot. Fine with me. Perhaps I am u - Do you want me as your friend, or do you want me as your enemy?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
29 Dec 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobiePursuant to a conversation we had a while ago, Robbie, I was just accosted by a JW yesterday at a tramstop. So I guess you guys are active in Australia.
When asked to comment on a simple biblical principle, that being, on how the scriptures (Bible) counsel a Christian on proper respect for women, all three have exhibited a prejudicial and blatantly evasive and dishonest attitude. Firstly sonhouse, making the claim that the Bible was a control mechanism was asked, in his opinion, what was wrong with ...[text shortened]... tion of religious principles, they themselves are existing as examples contrary to their claims.
In regard to this subject, I don't think you should worry about either three of those posters. I had intended to enter this fray but decided that no fruitful dialogue will come from that. The subject has been revisited too many times and it seems that the same ground has to be continually covered again.
29 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo, I dint' ignore it. You just didn't like the answer. Perhaps you couldn't deqal with the answer, I don't know. But read again, and you have the real answer in front of your nose. Just go there and read it again.
No Fabian, you were asked to comment on a simple Biblical principle, you ignored it completely and went on a rant, as you are now doing here. There have been since the beginning of this thread three or four Biblical references, that is to say, with regard to the principle of headship for both husbands and wives, the counsel to treat females as moth ...[text shortened]... reluctance to discuss religious principles which appears to me to be both evasive and dishonest.
The rest of your posting is plain rannting, so I don't have to deal with it. By your newly invented rule. "Everything you don't like, just call it ranting and it will go away." Sorry, robbie, it doesn't work that way.
For everyone not knowing what we're talking about, this is the background.
Robbie thinks discrimination against women is alright becase there are discrimination in the bible. In this particular case: There are no female elders in the bible, so therefore Jehovas Witnesses cannot have female elders in their organisation because it is a sin (or something like this). Guess what? Noone is using Internet in the bible either, and yet you are doing it robbie.
Now I ask you the same question again: Do you want me as your friend or as your enemy? I would like to have you as my friend, robbie. You will never be my enemy, that's against the word of JEsus himself. I'm waitng for your answer.
29 Dec 10
Originally posted by Conrau KLol, acosted, while at a bus stop, cool, what did you say to them?
Pursuant to a conversation we had a while ago, Robbie, I was just accosted by a JW yesterday at a tramstop. So I guess you guys are active in Australia.
In regard to this subject, I don't think you should worry about either three of those posters. I had intended to enter this fray but decided that no fruitful dialogue will come from that. The subject ha ...[text shortened]... revisited too many times and it seems that the same ground has to be continually covered again.
actually Conrau, i get frustrated, people give opinions, that is fine, but i want to discuss the principles and ideas that led them to that conclusion, too many times its just i think that and you think this, at least if we understand the principles , even if we do not agree, we can at the very least understand why they think the way they do. Is it not so?
29 Dec 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasok, what Biblical principle did you highlight Fabian, for the life of me i cannot find one, no not one!
No, I dint' ignore it. You just didn't like the answer. Perhaps you couldn't deqal with the answer, I don't know. But read again, and you have the real answer in front of your nose. Just go there and read it again.
The rest of your posting is plain rannting, so I don't have to deal with it. By your newly invented rule. "Everything you don't like, just ...[text shortened]... ver be my enemy, that's against the word of JEsus himself. I'm waitng for your answer.
29 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KOh they're active in Australia alright!
Pursuant to a conversation we had a while ago, Robbie, I was just accosted by a JW yesterday at a tramstop. So I guess you guys are active in Australia.
In regard to this subject, I don't think you should worry about either three of those posters. I had intended to enter this fray but decided that no fruitful dialogue will come from that. The subject ha ...[text shortened]... revisited too many times and it seems that the same ground has to be continually covered again.
Yes , this subject has been covered , I agree, but the JW's will continue to put their malarky forward , as these dogmas seem to totally rule their lives.
29 Dec 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasyou see Fabian, i want to know why you came to the conclusions that you did, its not enough for me to simply take your opinion and agree or disagree with it, i want to know why you think they way you do, what line of reasoning led you to believe what you do, for at very least even if i cannot give it credence, i will now how you came to that conclusion. For example you state that we are discriminatory because we do not have female elders, that is simply an opinion, what is it based upon? what Biblical principles have led you to conclude that in a religious context, we as Christians are discriminatory?
I don't understand your question, dear robbie, please rephrase.
29 Dec 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhenever women are treated as inferiours, then you treat them discriminatory.
you see Fabian, i want to know why you came to the conclusions that you did, its not enough for me to simply take your opinion and agree or disagree with it, i want to know why you think they way you do, what line of reasoning led you to believe what you do, for at very least even if i cannot give it credence, i will now how you came to that conclusi ...[text shortened]... iples have led you to conclude that in a religious context, we as Christians are discriminatory?
In the JW organisation, women are treated as inferours, because they cannot be elders. Therefore JW is a discrimnatory organisation.
JW treats homosexual people the same way. JW discriminates every homosexual, as they are not allowed to give their love to tohers as any hetero sexual person do.
Are there more groups JW is discriminating? I don't know. JW is a disriminatory organisation, so I wouldn't be surprised.