Rex B13

Joined

• started 49 topics
• posted 695 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Rex B13

• 
  43

  The Bible advances women's rights

  by Rex B13 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  our forum's now chapter likes to slander christian believers over alleged poor treatment of women.

  in truth, the bible advanced women's rights in the ancient world, even in a paternalistic society.

  here are the results of research into this topic.. num 5.12--the trial of bitter waters (sotah) is a an amazing provision by god for a woman to publicly clear her name (and indict a dysfunctional husband in the process).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Rex B13

  Jojon,
  Read the economics section of the post and also consider the relative aspects of the Israelites as compared to the other nations around them.
  Rex
• 
  43

  The Bible advances women's rights

  by Rex B13 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  our forum's now chapter likes to slander christian believers over alleged poor treatment of women.

  in truth, the bible advanced women's rights in the ancient world, even in a paternalistic society.

  here are the results of research into this topic.. num 5.12--the trial of bitter waters (sotah) is a an amazing provision by god for a woman to publicly clear her name (and indict a dysfunctional husband in the process).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Rex B13

  Nice try supporting my point, Arkangel. One thing that you are going to find here is that anyone who is a believer will face constant critisism from many of the new atheist recruits, led by people like Alan F., Julie, Kent, etc.
  They have an agenda that goes much beyond getting JWs to leave their religion, they pounce on anyone of faith unless it is some lukewarm faith that encompasses New Age and/or Buddhist crapola. If you stand on a principal you will not have a chance to 'win' unless you spend hours writing post after post.
  Take Alan for example, he has a long-winded post filled with his own ideas, supported by the best atheist scholars, the only ones he respects. I hope he did spend hours putting it together because then I really enjoy ignoring it!
  Later,
  Rex
• 
  41

  I D Cards First Step Down Slippery Slope?

  by Englishman in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the uk government has announced that it is very serious about making it compulsory for citizens to carry an id card in view of the risk of subversive activity increasing.

  it seems to me that this is the thin edge of the wedge.

  i spent years trying to get out of a repressive organisation, and then even more years getting that organisations brain-washing out of my head.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Rex B13

  Everyone should have to carry i.d. cards.
  We have a really nasty world that has been on the brink of the latest kind of thing for awhile. Add to that retinal scans and fingerprints. I don't think us law-abiding citizens should have anything to hide but it's bound to affect the scum of the earth.
  Here's another twist, since the terrorists have affected our national security to the poin that they threaten legitimate government in a warlike fashion, any trials should be under military code with military penalties. If this is a real war and enemy soldiers are in civies, the punishment is swift and extreme.
  Rex
• 
  25

  US Cowards?

  by Kent in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  will they be the ultimate cowards, and make the biggest asses in history of themselves, or will they tell the israelis to start behaving?.

  since 2 seconds after the first plane hit the wtc, the israelis has been busy running their own agenda - and they still are.

  the last, peace negotiations are off!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Rex B13

  Good job at hitting the nail on the head.

  BTW, maybe you should have nailed Kent for starting in with his usual anti-American, leftist hypocrisy?
  Later,
  Rex
• 
  43

  The Bible advances women's rights

  by Rex B13 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  our forum's now chapter likes to slander christian believers over alleged poor treatment of women.

  in truth, the bible advanced women's rights in the ancient world, even in a paternalistic society.

  here are the results of research into this topic.. num 5.12--the trial of bitter waters (sotah) is a an amazing provision by god for a woman to publicly clear her name (and indict a dysfunctional husband in the process).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Rex B13

  Well, well, a new know-it-all or is it a recycled under a different name know-it-all called COMMENT has spewed on my screen:

  >Blah, blah, blah no substance, no argument.

  The Israelites were very much ahead of the other nations in both sanitation and civility.

  Then we have the impotent Alan Fruithopper, who spends so much time trying to be a biologist, geologist, paleontologist and evolutionist that he ignores Bible exgesis! Alan likes to jump on the bandwagon too when he sees he will be surrounded by the equally foolish.
  Tell us again about the Piltdown man who had his skull pieced together to 'make' a missing link and fooled the great 'scientists' of the world for forty years (God had a big laugh over that one, forty being one of His favorite terms of years). Tell us how organs NOW developed quickly instead of evolving gradually. Tell us how a PIG'S TOOTH was the evolutionary proof used in the famous 'monkey' trial. Tell us how geology is all mixed up and strata do not match up in many places and much of the 'glacier' evidence is also 'flood' evidence. Get this Alan: cut and paste saves pain from carpal tunnel caused by working for a living.

  His imitator, Troglodyte, advances some argument that says the O.T. is not made for modern man....LOL, No duh, Troggy; the Law Covenant was fullfilled and is not to be followed except where the N.T. confirms some moral facet. It's part of the last dispensation period. We are now in the 'church age' dispensation which will end when the Church of Jesus Christ is raptured.
  Customs you say?, the Israelites so far advanced that they must be perfect as compared to the rest of the world? They were usually not in step with the covenant, in case you hadn't noticed during your tuesday book studies. BTW, the only trap I could have fallen into is one that you dreamed up after my post.

  Now we have the often present Jayhawk (it's obvious... blah blah no proof, no argument), the occasional Jigrigger and the wonderful Hillary Step. When are the three of you going to actually make an argument instead of trumpet how enlightened and intelligent you are now..........that you have left your momma Borg and figured out that since 'momma is wrong' then everyone else is wrong too.
  California Sunshine, Moxy, Tina (who quotes single scripture ideas of her own, not based on reality), JoJon and Julien seem to be all equally stupified and lost for anything substantial.
  Take some time to study your subject instead of just making knee-jerk, follow the leader comments. I know that is not easy after being followers all of your life and hearing constant slander of those who preach the gospel.
  There are some here who are so calloused and lost that they will never see the light of the Son. Please, give yoruself a chance. Feel free to e-mail me.
  Rex
• 
  2

  Insight For Living & Chuck Swindoll

  by stevieb1 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  has anyone ever heard this radio programme?

  chuck swindoll is a wonderful bible expositor with a christ-like manner.

  his humour and use of illustrations is first class.

  1. 
  2. 
• 

  Rex B13

  Both are good, I also enjoy Adrian Rogers, Charles Stanley, David Jeremiah, J. Vernon McGhee (who is deceased!), Michal Yousef & James Dobson.
  Rex
• 
  43

  The Bible advances women's rights

  by Rex B13 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  our forum's now chapter likes to slander christian believers over alleged poor treatment of women.

  in truth, the bible advanced women's rights in the ancient world, even in a paternalistic society.

  here are the results of research into this topic.. num 5.12--the trial of bitter waters (sotah) is a an amazing provision by god for a woman to publicly clear her name (and indict a dysfunctional husband in the process).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Rex B13

  Hey Trilobyte,
  Have you done any research into the historical traditions of the middle east? This passage, and the one about Lot's daughters speaks to how important the safety of one's guest was in those days. Guests are still of prime importance in an arab's household.
  Unlike most other ancient texts, the Bible shows all of the warts of it's characters.

  However, I want to probe the passage slightly farther, for it has always bothered/puzzled me. Lot is mentioned in the NT as a righteous man, tormented psychologically by the behavior of the people in the city of his dwelling--2 Peter 2.7. This situation obviously produced quite a fragmented spirituality in Lot, since the characteristics that he manifests in the Genesis narratives are FAR from complimentary--he picks his land choice selfishly and foolishly, lives in constant compromise with the inhabitants of Sodom, hesitates in leaving the city, changes his mind about living in Zoar and flees in fear to a cave, gets drunk repeatedly, etc. It may be the case (as most commentators believe) that Lot's offer of his virgin daughters to the men of Sodom was a similar huge character flaw or failure of nerve. Some, however, attempt to explain (not excuse) the severity of this by arguing about how important protection of one's guest was in the culture of the day. Hospitality was of course the norm (as would prompt such an action of offering one's virgin daughters) in the Law Codes of the times. (This is not altogether surprising, since Law Codes were produced in larger population centers, which generally had inns. The codes have many passages dealing with innkeepers, for example. See LCMAM for details.) There seems to be something else going on in the text. Notice: (1) Lot emphasizes that his daughters are virgins; (2) his daughters are pledged to be married; (3) the future sons-in-law seem to be in the crowd(!); (4) he uses a moral word for 'wickedness' and an ambiguous word for 'good'; (5) he is well known to the city (he sits in the Gate); (6) they accuse him of trying to 'judge' them. One possible understanding of Lot's action here could be this: Lot was reminding the men of how bad their planned action was, by offering them a theoretical alternative--which WAS contained in virtually all Law Codes of the day--the violation of a virgin pledged to be married was a VERY EXPENSIVE CRIME, monetarily. (In Israel, it would be punishable by death or forced marriage.) By confronting them with this alternative, perhaps he was trying to divert their attention onto the 'evil' of the other alternative (by comparing it with the evil of abusing the daughters). Also, it is distinctly possible that the appeal to the crowd about the daughters was designed to provoke some response from the future sons-in-law, which from all indications in the text, WERE IN THAT CROWD! Perhaps he had a hope to divide the crowd and so escape the situation. In any event, it is sufficient for our purposes to note that his action was precluded by the Angels, in an act of judgment on the crowd.

  Let's get back tot he original question:
  The Levite and his concubine (Jud 19f). This is one of the most abnormal passages in scripture. It is so filled with aberrations of ethics and law, and is specifically INTENDED to show how EVIL Israel had become during the period of the Judges! But even in this weird story, one can still see glimmers of a 'better' ethic from the Law. Consider first some of the 'weirdness' of this passage:

  An unnamed Levite marries a concubine OUTSIDE his tribe (19.1).
  This priest is polygamous!
  She is unfaithful (but is not killed).
  The Levite over-parties with the father.
  There was no hospitality in the square in Gibeah.
  The scenario of Sodom repeats--some 'wicked men' surround the house and demand to be allowed to sexually abuse one of the two male guests.
  The "old man" (the house-owner) offers them his virgin daughter (age unspecified, but presumably older) and the man's concubine for their "entertainment".
  The wicked men refuse, but the Old Man pushes the concubine out (not his daughter!)
  They rape and kill her.
  The Levite callously, without ANY sign of affection or grief, hauls her home, cuts her up into pieces (becoming unclean in the process), and mails her to all Israel.
  When all Israel gathers in outrage (they apparently took issue with the rape, but not the offering by the OLD MAN?!), the Levite tells a 'white-washed' version of the story. This version omits the pushing of the concubine out the door, and the attempted 'exchange' of the victims for females.
  The Levite rightly condemns the wicked men of Gibeah, but accepts NO blame for himself or the Old Man.
  The tribes of Israel are outraged at this rape (showing that the female--even a concubine-- was still valued highly by the majority).
  The tribe of Benjamin will NOT turn over the wicked men--they obviously don't have the same sense of ethics as does the majority.
  War ensues.
  Now, there are a few important points from this of relevance to my thesis here:
  The violation of the concubine was NOT approved by Israel, EVEN UNDER the assumption of the potential murder of the priest (20.4-11). Indeed, it was called 'vileness'.
  The obvious linkage of this story to that of Sodom is to HIGHLIGHT the exceptional character of this incident--it is NOT NORMAL for Israel.
  This horrible event was remembered for centuries as being a "low water mark" for Israel. (cf. Hosea 9.9: They have sunk deep into corruption, as in the days of Gibeah.)

  The questionable ethical character of the Old Man, and of the Levite, certainly doesn't suggest the thought that they are representative of all Israel in this matter.
  I have to conclude that the outrage of Israel actually supports a 'higher view' of female value, than the 'lower view' seemingly exemplified by the Old Man.
  Perhaps you atheist, Christian bashers could do SOME OF YOUR OWN RESEARCH on occasion, instead fo smugly asking questions that have already been answered ad anuseum?

  Rex
• 
  43

  The Bible advances women's rights

  by Rex B13 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  our forum's now chapter likes to slander christian believers over alleged poor treatment of women.

  in truth, the bible advanced women's rights in the ancient world, even in a paternalistic society.

  here are the results of research into this topic.. num 5.12--the trial of bitter waters (sotah) is a an amazing provision by god for a woman to publicly clear her name (and indict a dysfunctional husband in the process).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Rex B13

  Hi Norm the Norwig,
  Why do you keep coming back to be abused like this? I see that you have still not progressed in the knowledge of Biblical exgesis and research, but continue to labor under the context twisitng lack of understanding that is so prevalent amongst the Watchtower Society. Here's some research for you to ponder:

  The church at Corinth was the specific topic of Paul's letters. He was dealing with a SPECIFIC situation, as was the disfellowhip issue with the man who was committing incest. The Corinthians were undergoing some serious problems relating to abuses of the Lord's Supper, speaking in tongues, etc and the problem happened to be with a certain number of women who were leading the rest astray. Only a jdub would contend that women absolutely HAVE to wear a head covering to pray and that women cannot pray with men present. That is stupid and I have never seen this as a practice anywhere else!
  There is a specific with regard to women not being pastors but much of Christianity rejects this as factual, some do, some don't. Women play a role in the church just as men do. Also, you continue to deny the equality through submission: Christ is submissive to the Father; the church and man are submissive to Christ, women are submissive to their husbands but ONLY IN CHRIST. It is not, nor has ever been a reason to disreguard women as spiritual equals of men. It is a rule of orderliness that is proven to work in CHRISTIAN HOUSEHOLDS, something you would know nothing about.
  Paul is often maligned HEAVILY as being this quintessentially-Talmudic misogynist throwback, who set women's gains under Jesus back 2-3 centuries...but this is SO FAR from the truth...
  Just to show how off this mis-conception is nowadays, let me quote from Rosemary Reuther (a very outspoken feminist theologian) who is drawing upon Elizabeth Fiorenza (a very outspoken feminist theologian). Neither of these could REMOTELY be called 'apologetically inclined' toward Paul(!):
  "It is generally assumed that Paul is the author of a Christianity of female subordination. But more recent studies have shown that the historical Paul in fact continued most of the assumptions and practices of early charismatic, inclusive Christianity. Indeed, most of the New Testament evidence that women functioned as local leaders, as well as traveling evangelists, is to be found in the Pauline letters. Paul addresses almost an equal number of women along with men (sixteen women and eighteen men) in his greetings to Church leaders in Romans 16. He mentions two women, Euodia and Syntche, as having preached the gospel "with Barnabas and me" in Philippians 4:2-3. He addresses a woman name Junia by the title of "apostle," and constantly refers to the husband and wife team, Priscilla and Aquila, as "Church leaders," usually naming Priscilla first. He also speaks of the prominent woman Phoebe by the title of both "deacon" and "prostasis" or leader, of her community.
  Paul received from the early Church both a practice of thus including women in the ministries of catechesis, prophecy, local Church leadership, and traveling evangelism (the role Paul calls that of "apostle"), and also a baptismal theology of male-female equivalence in Christ as reflected in the Galatians 3:28 reference. This formula was not original with Paul; he cites it from early Christian tradition. The Galatians baptismal text expresses the early Christian vision of the new humanity in Christ. It was consciously moulded to contrast with the traditions of rabbinic piety, adapted from Hellenistic philosophy, in which the Jewish male thanks God for having been born male and not female, free and not slave, and Jew rather than Gentile. By declaring that in Christ these divisions had been overcome and all these groups made "one," the early Christian stated the essence of his or her new identity as one where the equivalence of all humans in the image of God had been restored." (WS:WWR:212-213)
  [Note--the 'recent studies' Reuther refers to are works by Fiorenza...]
  The data we discover about Paul shows that in every way he was as "liberated" in his actual treatment and teaching re:women as was Jesus. But Paul actually goes beyond this--he (as a human) can label women as 'fellow-workers' with him--a 'peer' statement from the great Apostle to the Gentiles.
  As Reuther/Fiorenza note above, Paul was VERY 'inclusive' in his views--women were leaders, were co-workers, were patrons, were deacons, were apostles, were emissaries, were official delegates, were prophets, were prayer warriors, were leaders of house churches. He "allowed"(!) women to pray and prophesy in church (e.g. I Cor 11.5) and called on them to disciple leading men (Priscilla and Apollos). He addresses NT epistles to them (e.g. Philp) and entrusts NT epistles to their care (e.g. Romans).
  As the apostle Peter noted in 2 Pet 3.15-16, Paul writes some things that are 'hard to understand'! He has passages which will probably always remain obscure (i.e. the head-covering passage?), and many passages that are exegetically baffling. The 'female silence' passages ('I do not allow a woman to teach' and 'women should keep silent in the churches') fall in these categories. The fact that Paul obviously allows women to speak in the churches ("pray and prophecy") and that prophecy was considered every bit as authoritative and as a teaching-practice as "official" instruction, should tip us off that something else is going on in those two texts. Exegetes from all persuasions have identified a number of options that remove the 'clash' with his less ambiguous (1) apostolic praxis and (2) other passages in his teaching corpus. It still remains which option will surface as a consensus option among students of Paul.
  In any event, Paul comes off as quite 'liberated' --esp. for his Pharisaic upbringing! The stereotype of a female-hating, women-subjugating, Christian "Rabbi Judah" just cannot be objectively maintained anymore.
  No, Paul understood their potential contributions to the cause of His precious Lord--their passion, their commitment, their love for the Desire of All Nations--and did not hesitate to worship with them and "put them to work alongside him" in His apostolic mission...

  The data is quite otherwise--the early church was PROBABLY dominantly female!
  There several indications of this, in the data (NT, archeology, extrabiblical lit, sociology):
  Numerically, they were a minority in the Greeco-Roman world, but a majority in the pre-Constantine church.
  One of the earliest pieces of 'high literature' the church produced--the gospel of Luke--was CLEARLY written with women readership in mind.
  Outside Palestine, Christianity was a "cult" (Galen called it a "philosophical school"!). Cults have ALWAYS spread first through the intelligentsia, and intelligentsia are always closely aligned with patrons. And patrons were mostly women in that day and age...
  The records of the earliest sites and house-churches feature prominent women leaders.
  The earliest pagan reference to Christian leadership (e.g. Pliny) is to women deacons, who were tortured for their faith.
  Early paintings and mosaics show females as a large part of Christian gatherings.
  Women Christians outlived their non-Christian counterparts by DECADES--due to the Christian ethics around abortion, later marriage, non-forced remarriage, medical care-giving...
  Early and Late Church Fathers refer to the large number of women in the church, AND TO their effectiveness at bringing their husbands 'into the fold'.
  We have already noted in many places the widespread female representation in early church leadership positions.
  Even widow-care was an early Christian priority! (Acts 6).
  The church was known to attract a high number of high-status women to its ranks.
  The early church was VERY MUCH "inclusive" of females--indeed, females CONSTITUTED a very large (maybe even majority) of the early church. They were a part of the Body of Christ and part of the leadership of that community.

  Rex
• 
  43

  The Bible advances women's rights

  by Rex B13 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  our forum's now chapter likes to slander christian believers over alleged poor treatment of women.

  in truth, the bible advanced women's rights in the ancient world, even in a paternalistic society.

  here are the results of research into this topic.. num 5.12--the trial of bitter waters (sotah) is a an amazing provision by god for a woman to publicly clear her name (and indict a dysfunctional husband in the process).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Rex B13

  Perhaps all of you could answer the post directly the info within, instead of hijacking the thread?
  Rex
• 
  67

  God's image

  by Rex B13 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  we are made in god's image and he is a person, not just some invisible, omnipresent force.

  here is some more research for those who love to ask questions yet won't do the digging.. the bible consistently portrays god as a passionate individual, whose inner experiences of love, compassion, grief, delight, joy, peace, anguish, and moral outrage at atrocity dwarf ours in the extreme.

  the bible makes no apology for this, but rather exults in the living one, in contrast to the dead and lifeless idols that surrounded its writers.. one scholar put it thus:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Rex B13

  We are made in God's image and He is a person, not just some invisible, omnipresent force. Here is some more research for those who love to ask questions yet won't do the digging.

  The Bible consistently portrays God as a passionate individual, whose inner experiences of love, compassion, grief, delight, joy, peace, anguish, and moral outrage at atrocity dwarf ours in the extreme. The Bible makes no apology for this, but rather exults in the Living One, in contrast to the dead and lifeless idols that surrounded its writers.

  One scholar put it thus:
  "The Bible speaks unashamedly of Yahweh's passion, presenting him as an intense and passionate Being, fervently interested in the world of humans. Not only is there no embarrassment on the part of the OT at Yahweh's possession of emotion, but rather, it is celebrated (see for example, 2 Sam 22:8, 9, 16; Ps 145:8). In fact, his passion guarantees not only that he is intensely interested in the world but that he is a person. This in turn opens up the possibility for communion at the heart of the universe. Therefore, his passion was seen to be continually linked with the implementation of his resolve, and in this, interaction with the world. The God of the OT desired fellowship and interaction with the other persons in his world, and his anger was seen to be part of the actualization of that desire.

  [This, I might add, is so fundamental to understanding the bible (and knowing God, obviously!)--although rarified versions of systematic and/or philosophical theology have been (and, are still) known to hold to varied forms of an 'impassible god'.

  For all the emotions I can think of, the bible takes the position that such emotions can be appropriate responses to situations OR inappropriate responses to situations (when the emotion is deliberately sustained, of course). Pity can be quite inappropriate (e.g., when it is the dominant emotion controlling how one deals with active, willful, violent oppressors, instead of for those being victimized by them), and outrage can be quite appropriate in situations of moral and human atrocity (e.g., child abuse, rape, violent crimes against the elderly, vandalism against the poor, extortion of the helpless).

  Likewise, the Bible argues that (like us people) emotions are not 'mutually exclusive and exhaustive' at any given moment. Just as my mom could have felt affection, anger, compassion, frustration, confusion, helplessness, hopefulness and despair(!)--ALL AT THE SAME MOMENT--when I was still a teenager living in her home (embarrassed grin), so too can we and so too can God. God is frequently described in these terms in the Prophets--His love for His people Israel (compassion and affection) is simultaneously experienced by Him as His anger (at their intra-Israel atrocities) and His hopefulness (that they will 'wake up' to treating one another better, in keeping with the Covenant contract they "signed" together as a community!). Hosea 11:8ff is so very vivid (and moving) in showing the struggles in the heart of God. There is no intrinsic contradiction in ascribing multiple emotional states to a person, since we consistently experience these in our lives. And God, as a Person, is apparently no different in that respect...

  For example, God is said to be "angry with the wicked every day." Since "wickedness," in biblical terms, is generally related to treachery, atrocity, and oppression, I would HOPE God would be disturbed by this. But at the same time, the Bible says that God is "patient" with them (hoping they will 'come around' and re-join the community in love and contribution) and even "nurturing" (i.e., leading them/influencing them in that direction). His moral anger at personal evil, of course, has nothing to do with Him being 'caught off guard' or surprised by it (!), since His response is the treachery involved--NOT the circumstances of it. Even my experience illustrates this aspect. I know quite well that in the future I will read (yet another) story of human atrocity, be it on an individual scale (such as rape, child abuse, or brutalization) or group scale (such as ethnic violence, religious persecution, or economic exploitation), so there is no element of 'surprise' in my response when I actually encounter the story. I KNOW I will be upset when I read it...