29 Dec 10
2 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnaswho says they are treated as inferiors? that is simply an opinion, based on what? nothingness? why is it to be construed that because a person cannot become an elder its discriminatory against women, for there are many men that do not qualify to be elders? its just opinion masquerading as fact, its nothingness Fabian, like reading a tabloid newspaper. When asked on what principle is it based, what will you say? How many Jehovah witness females have you spoken to and asked, do you feel that its discriminatory, i can guess, not even one, yet here you are, trumpeting your opinion as if it were a fact, why is that? Are you aware of what an Elder does? what the qualifications are? why they are appointed? Do you know anything with regard to what they do?
Whenever women are treated as inferiours, then you treat them 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 hete ...[text shortened]... discriminating? I don't know. JW is a disriminatory organisation, so I wouldn't be surprised.
What is more, if older women are actually treated as mothers, younger ones as sisters and a wife feels loved and cherished, what will happen to your assertion of inferiority Fabian? That is correct, it has no substance and you will need to think of some other prejudicial point of view, is it not the case?
30 Dec 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou're right in this, not many men become an elder. Yet every one can rech this position. It's just about qualifications, right? A woman cannot reach this position, not beause of lack of qualifications bu that she has an uterus, and nothing else. She can be as qualified as any man, but she has an uterus. that stops her for life. This is discrimination.
who says they are treated as inferiors? that is simply an opinion, based on what? nothingness? why is it to be construed that because a person cannot become an elder its discriminatory against women, for there are many men that do not qualify to be elders?
This is clearly a discrimination, and you seem proud of your organization being discriminative? You think it's a virtue. I see it as a fault, a shame, a non-christian principle.
30 Dec 10
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieFor the reasons Fabian has outlined, the point about the ineligibility of women to fulfill certain positions in your organisation is important, and you show your own dishonesty when trying to shroud this point with red herrings such as that quote you posted.
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.
Hitler helped fix the German economy after WW1...By your reasoning, surely since this is a good thing, and good things invalidate the importance of all bad things; Germans (and perhaps we) should just sweep all that other business under the carpet!
30 Dec 10
5 edits
Originally posted by Agergno its not, there are no guidelines in the bible for the ordination of women and if you knew anything about it Agers, its not a position as such, its a responsibility! this raises two rather insurmountable obstacles for you Agers, one God has given the responsibility to look after the congregation for men to shoulder! the implications of this are, that we, in upholding the Biblical procedures cannot be guilty of discrimination for the ordinances are very clear and it therefore becomes a matter of whose pattern we follow, yours or Gods and as you have provided not one reason why we should abandon them for your new vision, i suspect you have none. Its akin to claiming that childbirth is discriminatory because God has denied it to men, well Agers, i hope that in your case God restores full equality and bestows upon you the privilege. Its clear you have no idea what the actual qualifications of an elder are nor the role that women play in supporting that role, the mere fact that you think that it is discriminatory is nonsense, for what is it based upon, nothingness, an uninformed and prejudicial opinion, of someone with no experience and knowing nothing of either the qualifications or the responsibilities of an Elder.
For the reasons Fabian has outlined, the point about the ineligibility of women to fulfill certain positions in your organisation is important, and you show your own dishonesty when trying to shroud this point with red herrings such as that quote you posted.
Hitler helped fix the German economy after WW1...By your reasoning, surely since this is a good thin ...[text shortened]... bad things; Germans (and perhaps we) should just sweep all that other business under the carpet!
Lastly as has been pointed out time and again there are a plethora of other principles which clearly state that women have other responsibilities and are to be treated with love, dignity and mutual respect, why don't you comment on them, why Agers? because it makes your claim of discrimination preposterous, that is why!
Your analogy is best treated as one would a rugby ball, to be drop kicked over the moon.
30 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasperhaps you too then should petition God for the responsibility and privilege of childbirth, i dearly hope he listens to your petitions and grants you the request, for obviously he was discriminating against men in making it exclusively the forte of women to bear children
You're right in this, not many men become an elder. Yet every one can rech this position. It's just about qualifications, right? A woman cannot reach this position, not beause of lack of qualifications bu that she has an uterus, and nothing else. She can be as qualified as any man, but she has an uterus. that stops her for life. This is discrimination.
...[text shortened]... riminative? You think it's a virtue. I see it as a fault, a shame, a non-christian principle.
your assertion is nothing but an uninformed and prejudicial opinion, based on nothingness, no experience, no knowledge, no understanding, a trumpet that sounds an indistinct note! and a complete failure to realise that women are to be treated with dignity and respect!
As i have stated before, we shall not accept your opinion of what is right and what is wrong, the Bible is quite clear, the mere fact that you do not agree with it is bumf for you have provided no reasons as to why your point of view is better, why we should accept your standards and as usual all you can do is tear away at another, truly pathetic in the original sense of the word.
30 Dec 10
4 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut it isn't the same sort of comparison though is it!? 😵
no its not, there are no guidelines in the bible for the ordination of women and if you knew anything about it Agers, its not a position as such, its a responsibility! this raises two rather insurmountable obstacles for you Agers, one God has given the responsibility to look after the congregation for men to shoulder! the implications of this are, y!
Your analogy is best treated as one would a rugby ball, to be drop kicked over the moon.
The inability of blokes to give birth is a physical constraint, whilst the inabality of females to fulfill certain roles in your organisation is a constraint imposed only by your leaders.
As for your comment that I failed to comment on other principles, you should note that the comparison I gave implies that I do think the quote you gave is a good thing, but has little bearing
(get it?..bearing?? as in bearing children??? )
on the point Fabian is making.30 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by AgergFirstly its not an inability as you so wrongly word it, there are many wonderful and capable females in my organisation. Secondly my so called leaders, whatever that means have done nothing, they did not write the ordinances did they? It therefore comes down to this very simple premise, either we accept what is written in the Bible and the pattern set by Jesus Christ or we accept what you and Fabian are trying to proclaim. Its as simple as that.
But it isn't the same sort of comparison though is it!? 😵
The inability of blokes to give birth is a physical constraint, whilst the inabality of females to fulfill certain roles in your organisation is a constraint imposed only by your leaders.
As for your comment that I failed to comment on other principles, you should note that the comparison I gave ...[text shortened]... ng [hidden](get it?..bearing?? as in bearing children??? )[/hidden] the point Fabian is making.
Now let us look at the two options, one a son of God, spent aeons of time with his father in heaven, knows the make-up of humankind, was there at the birth of the universe etc etc and on the other hand, two troubadours, one an artist the other a trumpeter, now let me see, Jesus or you guys, Jesus or you guys. . . . . who appears to you Agers to be more qualified to set a precedent?
You see Agers one must accept that God has instilled limitations, both physical and spiritual which cannot be construed as discriminatory.
30 Dec 10
3 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell given that I hold Jesus was not the son of God, born of a virgin and all the other tall tales misattributed to this character, and you can do little to show this without circularly appealing to your holy book; one of the choices in your dilemma reduces, as far as I'm concerned, to a figment of your imagination. You should therefore, in my opinion, choose us :]
Firstly its not an inability as you so wrongly word it, there are many wonderful and capable females in my organisation. Secondly my so called leaders, whatever that means have done nothing, they did not write the ordinances did they? It therefore comes down to this very simple premise, either we accept what is written in the Bible and the pattern ...[text shortened]... ys, Jesus or you guys. . . . . who appears to you Agers to be more qualified to set a precedent?
That's besides the point however; the "leaders" as I refer to them, are those that decided the interpretation of the Bible as championed by yourself, along with their policies; are Truth™.
30 Dec 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo you live by multithousand years old traditioin. Good for you. You must be very happy to be born a man. The others of us live in the year of 2010 (a few days more, then we turn to 2011.).
perhaps you too then should petition God for the responsibility and privilege of childbirth, i dearly hope he listens to your petitions and grants you the request, for obviously he was discriminating against men in making it exclusively the forte of women to bear children
your assertion is nothing but an uninformed and prejudicial opinion, based o ...[text shortened]... usual all you can do is tear away at another, truly pathetic in the original sense of the word.
You discriminate women because you interprete the bible that way, forgetting the words of Jesus who doesn't agree with you. But you don't want to be discriminated yourself, because then you whine, whine, whine. Poor JWers....
If I was to give JWers 20% less salary in my company, stop them from be promoted to higher positions, not letting them have the parking spot nearest to the front entrance, and sack them first in harder times... "Discriminating JWers? Nooo, they made their choise when they entered the JW. They want it this way. And they discriminate their own women as well. Disdriminating them? Them?! Nooo..."
Talibans also discriminate women. So JW do it the taliban way, right?
30 Dec 10
Originally posted by Agergok Agers what qualifications do you have? Angel? Cherub? Pre human existence? Prophet?
Well given that I hold Jesus was not the son of God, born of a virgin and all the other tall tales misattributed to this character, and you can do little to show this without circularly appealing to your holy book; one of the choices in your dilemma reduces, as far as I'm concerned, to a figment of your imagination. You should therefore, in my opinion, choose us :]
That's besides the point however.
30 Dec 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasWell well, how refreshing to be lectured by such a stalwart advocate of scriptural truth, tell the forum Fabian, in the precedent that Jesus set, how many females did Jesus give the responsability of being an apostle and thus a shepherd of the flock of God? How many if you please? Lets see if you can answer this very straightforward and simple question, without your ego getting in the way?
So you live by multithousand years old traditioin. Good for you. You must be very happy to be born a man. The others of us live in the year of 2010 (a few days more, then we turn to 2011.).
You discriminate women because you interprete the bible that way, forgetting the words of Jesus who doesn't agree with you. But you don't want to be discriminated y ...[text shortened]... em? Them?! Nooo..."
Talibans also discriminate women. So JW do it the taliban way, right?
30 Dec 10
3 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI need none of those "qualifications" in order to deduce that there exists prejudice in your organisation - again, it is not physically impossible for your organsiation to repeal their policy towards women in the one specific case we're discussing presently. That you support their failure to do this implies you support discrimination in this respect.
ok Agers what qualifications do you have? Angel? Cherub? Pre human existence? Prophet?
One more thing, in answer to:
secondly my so called leaders, whatever that means have done nothing, they did not write the ordinances did they?
I say they did! (well Charles Taze Russell did anyway it seems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses)
30 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by AgergYou have no qualifications nor experience , then i say neeeext! well call you Mr. Agers,
I need none of those "qualifications" in order to deduce that there exists prejudice in your organisation - again, it is not physically impossible for your organsiation to repeal their policy towards women in the one specific case we're discussing presently. That you support their failure to do this implies you support discrimination in this respect.
One mo ...[text shortened]... Charles Taze Russell did anyway it seems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses)
the ordinances were written almost two thousand years prior to the birth of Charles Russell, here they are Agers, please state which one was authored by Mr Russell,
(1 Timothy 3:1-7) That statement is faithful. If any man is reaching out for an office of overseer, he is desirous of a fine work. The overseer should therefore be irreprehensible, a husband of one wife, moderate in habits, sound in mind, orderly, hospitable, qualified to teach, not a drunken brawler, not a smiter, but reasonable, not belligerent, not a lover of money, a man presiding over his own household in a fine manner, having children in subjection with all seriousness; (if indeed any man does not know how to preside over his own household, how will he take care of God’s congregation?) not a newly converted man, for fear that he might get puffed up [with pride] and fall into the judgment passed upon the Devil. Moreover, he should also have a fine testimony from people on the outside, in order that he might not fall into reproach and a snare of the Devil.
which one did brother Russell author Agers?
why should we accept your ordinances over scripture, you have already stated that you have no qualifications, why then? because you think they are discriminatory? hardly a reason is it!
30 Dec 10
4 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt's Mr Russell's take on it, given that we've evolved (in a civilised sense), that I'm referring to. Many other religious persons and organisations acknowledge that the times when the Bible was written were times of male dominance, and so the scriptures (even if we suppose (excessively charitably) divinely inspired) would have a male biased slant. Your organisation, in particular Russell who started it, does not.
You have no qualifications nor experience , then i say neeeext! well call you Mr. Agers,
the ordinances were written almost two thousand years prior to the birth of Charles Russell, here they are Agers, please state which one was authored by Mr Russell,
(1 Timothy 3:1-7) That statement is faithful. If any man is reaching out for an office of ...[text shortened]... no qualifications, why then? because you think they are discriminatory? hardly a reason is it!
30 Dec 10
Robbie, what is your position in JW organization? Are you a 'publisher' or 'witness'? Are you going to be one of the 144,000 who go to heaven? Or are you one of those to live on an improved Earth forever?
BTW, with millions of world wide members, how did they come up with that 144,000#?
Why have such a tier society? 144,000= 12X12X1000. Does that breakdown have some significance? 12 disciples times 12, etc?
Of that 144,000 what is the percentage of women?