Posts by JosephAlward

32

Women ministers

by Pleasuredome in

i recommend to you phoe'be our sister, who is a minister of the congregation that is in cen'chreae.

romans 16:1 .

i thought it was only men who are ministers?

JosephAlward

Thanks for the discussion, Joseph. I think I have said all that I wanted to in this thread.

32

Women ministers

by Pleasuredome in

i recommend to you phoe'be our sister, who is a minister of the congregation that is in cen'chreae.

romans 16:1 .

i thought it was only men who are ministers?

Joseph Malik: If you simply would take the time to read the very next verse you would see Paul's wrath raise in this letter when he said: 36 What? And then he rebukes them in no uncertain terms by saying to them: came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? That put them and this teaching in its place.

Joseph Alward: Paul's comments immediately preceding, and after, his comment about women being silent put his teaching in perfect perspective--one which is totally opposite to the one you see.

Your interpretation of Pauls comments in Verses 34 and 35 is impossibly incompatible with the verses preceding, and following. Before I comment further, here are the relevant verses (I have underlined key words):

33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. 34 As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church...everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way. (1 Corinthians 14:33-40)

The context of verses 33-40 is clearly one of maintaining serenity. Just before Paul warns against women speaking in church, he notes that God is not a god of disorder, but of peace. Then, after he states that women must remain silent, he reminds his audience once again that everything should be done in an orderly way. Is it not perfectly clear that the command for silence is totally consistent with his statements about peace and order in this passage, and cannot possibly be a false teaching?

Unless you wish to argue that Paul was teaching that God being a god of peace and order is a false teaching, then it is almost impossible to understand why you would believe that Paul wanted his listeners to repudiate Verse 35, in which he counsels against women speaking out in churches. How could the first and last verses be true teachings about peace and order be true, yet the middle one about women keeping silent in church be false?

Furthermore, the fact that Paul states that his teaching is "as the Law says" makes it clear that his statement about women remaining in submission is not a false teaching, as you seem to be claiming.

This passage, together with the one in which he points to Eve's mistake in the garden as one of the reasons he would not abide women to teach men, make the teaching that women are not allowed to teach or lead men one of the clearest teachings in the entire Bible.

Now, I'm completely in favor of women having at least as much authority as men in church, and that includes being the head of the church, but I hope that those who hold this same view also understand that the Bible teaches just the opposite. One can believe that God wants women to be ministers, or one can believe that the Bible is the word of God, but one cannot believe both.

Edited by - JosephAlward on 22 December 2002 0:40:28

Edited by - JosephAlward on 22 December 2002 0:41:18

Edited by - JosephAlward on 22 December 2002 0:42:3

32

Women ministers

by Pleasuredome in

i recommend to you phoe'be our sister, who is a minister of the congregation that is in cen'chreae.

romans 16:1 .

i thought it was only men who are ministers?

JosephAlward

Joseph Malik: " This comment that you attribute to Paul is not his teaching for the Faith to embrace but his example to Timothy of the kind of influence that was to be suppressed and avoided. "

Joseph Alward: I can't be certain, but I think you are saying that Paul was teaching that his followers should avoid anyone who would say, Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (1 Timothy 2:11-12)

If that is what you're claiming, Joseph, then I must point out that nowhere does Paul give the slightest hint to his audience that this was not a view he held himself, and nowhere does Paul give any clue that he was talking about the kind of teaching his audience should regard as false. If Paul was as wise as you apparently believe he was, then surely he would have known that his words would be interpreted by virtually everyone to mean that he didnt approve of women teaching men, and knowing this, he never would not have failed to clarify his meaning. The fact that he didnt do this is strong evidence that his words should be taken at face value, and that means that we must believe that Paul wouldnt allow women to teach because he felt that the first woman to attempt to do thisEvehad failed mankind miserably. Furthermore, Paul not only said that women couldnt teach man, he wouldnt even allow them to open their mouths in church to ask a question:

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."
(1 Corinthians 14:34-35)

and if they needed to learn anything, they should wait until they get home, and they could ask their husbands.

Few teachings in the Bible is clearer than the one which holds that women are inferior to men, and that they may not teach men.

I think Ive said about all I wanted to say on this topic for now, Joseph.

Edited by - JosephAlward on 21 December 2002 21:55:53

32

Women ministers

by Pleasuredome in

i recommend to you phoe'be our sister, who is a minister of the congregation that is in cen'chreae.

romans 16:1 .

i thought it was only men who are ministers?

JosephAlward

Joseph Malik states,

"So if we are discussing women ministers or teachers it makes no difference. Not only in Paul's day but in the kingdom itself women were/are equal in the Faith despite all attempts by men to dominate them. "

Joe Alward responds:

I won't dispute your contention that women are equal to men "in the Faith," but one cannot get around the facts that Paul said that he would not suffer a woman to teach man, and that he cited ancient scripture as justification: the woman was the one who was in transgression in the garden, not man. If you want to argue that we should not accept Paul's teachings about women because they were just his opinion, and not the intentions of God, then I would not disagree. However, once one accepts that writers of the Bible were not inspired by God, how could we be sure that the writers were not just expressing their opinion--or perhaps it was just their hope--that Jesus was resurrected?

64

Is God just teasing us?

by joannadandy in

ok yesterday i was talking to my dad (moe's thread reminded me) he said something about how bad satan was...and said, yeah but "wasn't it eve and adam's fault?

i mean yeah satan laid out the sales pitch but they could have said no.

you know gone home, talked it over with god, it wasn't even that high pressured a sales pitch.

JosephAlward

ASCOT: "One day I decided to re-read the first chapters of Genesis. My instinctive, gut reaction was, "how can anyone believe this stuff actually happened? It's a parable!""

JOE ALWARD: It is sad that so many people believe the Genesis stories are literally true. They actually believe, for example, that God paraded all of the birds and animals before Adam one at a time so he could call out names for them, and that God actually ripped a rib from Adams' chest to make a woman. It is just heartbreaking.

19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. 21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

64

Is God just teasing us?

by joannadandy in

ok yesterday i was talking to my dad (moe's thread reminded me) he said something about how bad satan was...and said, yeah but "wasn't it eve and adam's fault?

i mean yeah satan laid out the sales pitch but they could have said no.

you know gone home, talked it over with god, it wasn't even that high pressured a sales pitch.

JosephAlward

JOE ALWARD: If the god described in the Bible exists, then that god evidently just decided not to know the future--all of it, in order to give man free will.

LUCID SKY: Does knowledge remove free will? What of the prophetic nature of the Bible? Or does God not know the future, but just shape it the way he wants?

JOE ALWARD: Does knowledge remove free will? If God knows you will do something, you MUST do it, otherwise God will have "known" something that would prove not to be so, and that's impossible for the god described in the Bible.

What of the prophetic nature of the Bible? Some of them are either sufficiently vague that anyone with common sense could have made them. The rest either weren't fulfilled, or else they were written AFTER the events had already occurred, as is the case for the Book of Daniel.

Does God not know the future, but just shape it the way he wants? God cannot "shape" the future without affecting man's free will.

Edited by - JosephAlward on 12 December 2002 17:36:0

64

Is God just teasing us?

by joannadandy in

ok yesterday i was talking to my dad (moe's thread reminded me) he said something about how bad satan was...and said, yeah but "wasn't it eve and adam's fault?

i mean yeah satan laid out the sales pitch but they could have said no.

you know gone home, talked it over with god, it wasn't even that high pressured a sales pitch.

JosephAlward

It seems that the Christian God would have to be completely omniscient though. How can you decide what not to know, if you don't know what it is???

Joe Alward: If the god described in the Bible exists, then that god evidently just decided not to know the future--all of it, in order to give man free will.

Edited by - JosephAlward on 12 December 2002 3:47:55

64

Is God just teasing us?

by joannadandy in

ok yesterday i was talking to my dad (moe's thread reminded me) he said something about how bad satan was...and said, yeah but "wasn't it eve and adam's fault?

i mean yeah satan laid out the sales pitch but they could have said no.

you know gone home, talked it over with god, it wasn't even that high pressured a sales pitch.

JosephAlward

Crownboy writes,

the "selective foreknowledge" scenario...gives God a very convienient out in this case, but it is perfectly possible for a God who can have knowledge of the future to choose not to do so. It makes him incompetent and foolish for not doing so and checking the possible consequences of his actions.

Joe Alward responds:

If God chose to know all of the future, man would have no free will. Evidently--if the Bible is to be believed--it was more important to God that man have a choice in his actions than it was for God to know in advance all of the consequences of his acts. But, isn't it quite understandable for this god--if it exists--NOT to want to know what will happen? Who among us would choose to know exactly what will happen to us at each and every one of the future moments of our lives? I wouldn't want to have this foreknowledge, so perhaps even if there were no question of God giving man free will, wouldn't he choose not to know the future anyway?

Edited by - JosephAlward on 10 December 2002 20:17:44

29

Does praying "work"?

by SpannerintheWorks in

jw
friends

has anybody got any hard evidence that asking for something, through prayer, actually gives them what they were asking for?.

jesus promised to give anything to them that asked.

have you asked for something (in prayer), but it hasn't been given?.

JosephAlward

If you pray for yourself to get well, or are aware of others who are praying for you, there is sometimes a marginal improvement, but this is apparently due to the placebo effect. However, there is no credible evidence that intercessory prayer, which is prayer by strangers, at a distance, without the knowledge of the recipients, works. If one believes that intercessory prayer works, it is easy enough to test it. Just have your entire congregation pray that all of the women in New York City who conceive this month will refuse to have an abortion. If the prayer works, then the birth rate in that city will show a huge spike upward nine months from now.

64

Is God just teasing us?

by joannadandy in

ok yesterday i was talking to my dad (moe's thread reminded me) he said something about how bad satan was...and said, yeah but "wasn't it eve and adam's fault?

i mean yeah satan laid out the sales pitch but they could have said no.

you know gone home, talked it over with god, it wasn't even that high pressured a sales pitch.

JosephAlward

JOANNADANDY:

"how does [God] not have the ability to see where those hearts will lead us no matter what?"

JOE ALWARD:

Joanna, the Bible makes it clear that God does have the ability to see the future, but it's not clear that God chose to look into the future. If that is what he has done, then man has no free will.