Women in the Bible.

Originally posted by josephw
It's not so much your interpretation I disagree with, but the application.

What the Bible says is true. What a man says the Bible says is another thing.

Basically, without applying a negative connotation to it, what Paul is teaching is that men are to hold the positions of leadership as it directly relates to church governance, just as he teaches men t ...[text shortened]... om the beginning of time.

But of course you think it's bigotry. You got the wrong mind set.

Such a position clearly discriminates against women solely based gender rather than individual merit. From what I've read of your posts, I know and have known any number of women who are more intelligent than you, more rational than you and likely more capable than you in every way. For you to believe that you should be given the leadership role even with those who are superior to you in every way simply because you are male is irrational as well as discriminatory.

From what I can tell, members of the KKK similarly believe their discriminatory positions as being based on the Bible.
So it is you, like members of the KKK, who has a "wrong mind set."

It's been my experience that it is the extremely weak who resort to using the Bible as a weapon in furthering discrimination.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So what does he mean when he says Adam was not deceived? Did Adam knowingly sin then? Or was Adam required to follow the commands of Eve?
I realize that here Paul is using it as a tool for other purposes, but he clearly must have the view of Adam and Eve that he is using for his argument (even if he does not believe in a literal reading of Genesis) and one would think that his audience either has the same view or can easily be persuaded of it.

I don't know that there is any telling what Paul meant. From what I can tell, his teachings were often incoherent. If Paul was anything, he was inconsistent with his positions and messages. Either he was irrational or purposely taught one thing to one audience and something else to another.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I don't know that there is any telling what Paul meant. From what I can tell, his teachings were often incoherent. If Paul was anything, he was inconsistent with his positions and messages. Either he was irrational or purposely taught one thing to one audience and something else to another.

Therefore you must also believe that Jesus was irrational as well as St Paul.

You would have us believe that Jesus taught that we must overcome sin completely in order to be considered a follower of his (to one audience in John 8:32 ) and yet Jesus explicitly taught Christians that they must confess their sins daily (to another audience in matt 6:9) .

These two concepts do not logically fit together. They are mutually exclusive. A mixed message. Therefore , by your own logic Jesus must have been suffering from a bout of Paulian incoherence?

My feeling is that it's not Paul or Jesus that is incoherent. It is you that cannot face the illogical implications of your own position.

You simply have no intellectual framework to understand the concept that opposing truths compliment each other to reveal a deeper truth. You just can't understand why someone would say one thing and then another that SEEM to contradict each other. You want colour by numbers theology fit for kindergarten.

Grown up theology is too messy and real for you. It throws you into confusion because you have to think for yourself and figure it out yourself and even then the answer is not always clear.

This is why you never could discuss anything off your normal radar (like the origin of God thread which you seem to have disappeared from) - you just cannot compute it. You don't know how to make sense of it.

If you want simple , clear cut answers to everything with no flies in the ointment then that's fine , stick to the way you perceive and understand reality. But stop preaching to us as if that is the only way to look at things and stop pretending that the flies in the ointment don't exist.



There are irrational inconsistencies in your own position. Maybe you should consider them.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Therefore you must also believe that Jesus was irrational as well as St Paul.

You would have us believe that Jesus taught that we must overcome sin completely in order to be considered a follower of his (to one audience in John 8:32 ) and yet Jesus explicitly taught Christians that they must confess their sins daily (to another audience in matt 6:
There are irrational inconsistencies in your own position. Maybe you should consider them.

Not that I think you'll be able to understand this, but your argument is a straw man.

Hopefully at some time you'll be able gain the humility required to become a rational being.

From what I can tell, you are not currently capable of making a coherent argument because your self-centered belief system is threatened. Hence, your incessant compulsion to cyber stalk and make one incoherent argument after another.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Not that I think you'll be able to understand this, but your argument is a straw man.

Hopefully at some time you'll be able gain the humility required to become a rational being.

From what I can tell, you are not currently capable of making a coherent argument because your self-centered belief system is threatened.

Lol, wow, well thats real rich! i think knightmeister made some excellent comments, none of which you have even touched.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Lol, wow, well thats real rich! i think knightmeister made some excellent comments, none of which you have even touched.

lol. It comes as no surprise that you "think knightmeister made some excellent comments."

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Such a position clearly discriminates against women solely based gender rather than individual merit. From what I've read of your posts, I know and have known any number of women who are more intelligent than you, more rational than you and likely more capable than you in every way. For you to believe that you should be given the leadership role even with ...[text shortened]... s the extremely weak who resort to using the Bible as a weapon in furthering discrimination.

I know lots of women who are smarter than me too. So what!

You don't know why the Bible teaches that men are to hold the positions of leadership in the church. That's why you label it bigotry.

Originally posted by josephw
I know lots of women who are smarter than me too. So what!

You don't know why the Bible teaches that men are to hold the positions of leadership in the church. That's why you label it bigotry.

Did you understand anything else in my post besides the fact that there are any number of women who are more intelligent than you? You seem to have completely missed the germane points of my post.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Not that I think you'll be able to understand this, but your argument is a straw man.

Hopefully at some time you'll be able gain the humility required to become a rational being.

From what I can tell, you are not currently capable of making a coherent argument because your self-centered belief system is threatened. Hence, your incessant compulsion to cyber stalk and make one incoherent argument after another.

But where is your reasoning? You say my argument is a strawman but you offer no rationale or reasoning to back it up. Just saying "it's a strawman" is not good enough , you need to say why.

You have said quite clearly that St Paul is inconsistent because he says one thing to one audience and one thing to another audience. I have shown to you that Jesus did the same thing in John 8:32 and Matt 6:9 (if your version of things is to be accepted).

This is your problem .You make an argument using a certain logic but then you don't follow it through and you are NOT consistent with it. You make one argument against St Paul but you don't realise that the logic you use also must by definition apply to Jesus as well. And if you do that your position starts to look shaky.

You then have nothing to defend yourself with but accusations of cyber-stalking or idle unsupported statements.Meanwhile others like Carrobie can see what's going on and will understand the logic of the point I am making.

It matters not whether you think I am stalking or not because the logic of my argument speaks for itself. Remember you once implied yourself that the moral status of any one individual has no bearing on what Jesus said. So what do I do? I build an argument based on your most cherished preachings a) the teachings of Jesus and b) logic , but then you still do not engage in meaningful discussion.

It's almost farcical at times because it's like the left hand has no idea of what the right hand is doing. You don't have the humility (yet) to realise that I am using YOUR rules and YOUR arguments and YOUR logic to debate with you. I'm playing your own game back at you , and you can't handle it.

You say St Paul is not to be trusted because he is inconsistent and yet here you are not being consistent with your own logic.


So , one more time........................


You would have us believe that Jesus taught that we must overcome sin completely in order to be considered a follower of his (to one audience in John 8:32 ) and yet Jesus explicitly taught Christians that they must confess their sins daily (to another audience in matt 6:9) .

These two concepts do NOT logically fit together. They are mutually exclusive. A mixed message. Therefore , by your own logic Jesus must have been suffering from a bout of Paulian incoherence?

The way out of this might be to claim that Jesus was giving different messages to different crowds because of the different contexts of the situations . But then that argument could also be applied to St Paul. Why apply it to one set of teachings and not the other?

This was the point that Badwater was making on the other thread when he claimed that what Jesus was saying (matt6:9) didn't quite mean what it seemed he was saying because he was taking into account the context of the crowd he was talking to. You supported Badwater's point claiming that I had missed something.

Now here you are claiming inconsistencies with Pauls' teachings , but what is to stop me playing the "Badwater" context card with St Paul?

The fact is that you hide behind a facade of logic but in reality you load the dice in whatever direction suits your agenda because you do not hold yourself to your own logic. Others are starting to notice this now.

Far , far better to just admit (maybe for the first time ever) that your argument is not as watertight as you think and there are flaws and inconsistencies to it. It's 0k to do this. You won't die and I would applaud you for doing so.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
lol. It comes as no surprise that you "think knightmeister made some excellent comments."

Stop your jibes and start using logic and reason. You are just losing respect. If you have an argument then use it , if not just accept that you have your own interpretation of things and that is all.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Stop your jibes and start using logic and reason. You are just losing respect. If you have an argument then use it , if not just accept that you have your own interpretation of things and that is all.

I've asked you countless times to stop stalking me, yet it continues.

Like I said in the "Origin of God" thread:

"I know that the stalking will continue. It's a symptom of a deranged mind whose belief system has been threatened by the truth of the teachings of Jesus. The light of the words of Jesus can lead you out of your darkness."

You're mentally ill, KM. You really should seek professional help.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I've asked you countless times to stop stalking me, yet it continues.

Like I said in the "Origin of God" thread:

"[b]I know that the stalking will continue. It's a symptom of a deranged mind whose belief system has been threatened by the truth of the teachings of Jesus. The light of the words of Jesus can lead you out of your darkness."

You're mentally ill, KM. You really should seek professional help.[/b]

oh thinkofone, simply stating something does not make it so, and i am sorry to say, you are losing whatever ragged credibility you wore before now, if you would only address knightmeisters arguments then who knows it may return, but simply slandering his reputation is hardly convincing evidence that what you are saying is true, on the contrary, it seems compelling reason for dismissing it outright.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
oh thinkofone, simply stating something does not make it so, and i am sorry to say, you are losing whatever ragged credibility you wore before now, if you would only address knightmeisters arguments then who knows it may return, but simply slandering his reputation is hardly convincing evidence that what you are saying is true, on the contrary, it seems compelling reason for dismissing it outright.

It's not slander.

He's been stalking me for over a year.

What makes it true is that it is true.

If you want to check if it's true, check his posting history. He's a cyber stalker. While you're at it, you can also look at the reasons that I will no longer try to engage in dialogue with him. I've explained it to him numerous times.

Only an irrationally obsessive person does that.

I finally had to put him on my "ignore list" so that he could no longer send me PMs.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Did you understand anything else in my post besides the fact that there are any number of women who are more intelligent than you? You seem to have completely missed the germane points of my post.

Are you kidding? The only thing germane about your posts is your evasiveness and your seemingly endless desire to heap ridicule.

Not to mention the fact that you are incapable of staying on topic.

Originally posted by josephw
Are you kidding? The only thing germane about your posts is your evasiveness and your seemingly endless desire to heap ridicule.

Not to mention the fact that you are incapable of staying on topic.

This is the germane point and is very much "on topic".

"Such a position clearly discriminates against women solely based gender rather than individual merit... For you to believe that you should be given the leadership role even with those who are superior to you in every way simply because you are male is irrational as well as discriminatory."

If I "heap ridicule", it's because your position is ridiculous.