Slate XX has a piece up explaining that women like Beth Moore are much more of a force in driving conservative evangelical opinion on politics than outsiders would likely suspect. Slate quotes CBMW co founder John Piper explaining that it is fine for men to listen to Beth Moore’s sermons, so long as they don’t “become dependent on her”:
But these women are often underestimated as influencers, both from within the evangelical world and outside it. In conservative corners of evangelicalism, the question of whether and how women can properly serve as spiritual teachers is a sensitive topic. “I’m a guy,” a questioner asked the influential pastor and author John Piper in 2010. “Is it wrong for me to listen to Beth Moore?” It’s OK to listen, but be careful not to “become dependent on her as your shepherd,” Piper answered. “There is a certain dynamic between maleness and femaleness that when a woman begins to assume an authoritative teaching role in your life the manhood of a man and the womanhood of a woman is compromised.”
Readers who have viewed the movie War Room will recall Beth Moore delivering her signature line:
Submission is ducking so God can hit your husband.
Slate links to the full transcript of Piper’s answer to the question, and their summary and quote is accurate. This answer from Piper in July of 2010 is an evolution from the original answer Piper and Grudem put forth when they created the CBMW. In their inaugural book, Piper and Grudem explained that they believed the traditional reading of 1 Tim 2:14 is incorrect:
First Timothy 2:14 says, “Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.” Paul gives this as one of the reasons why he does not permit women “to teach or have authority over a man.” Historically this has usually been taken to mean that women are more gullible or deceivable than men and therefore less fit for the doctrinal oversight of the church. This may be true (see question 29). However, we are attracted to another understanding of Paul’s argument.
As a result of their innovative interpretation of 1 Tim 2:14, Grudem and Piper had Dr. Moo explain that 1 Timothy 2:11-15 only prohibits women from preaching to men:
…we argue that the teaching prohibited to women here includes what we would call preaching (note 2 Timothy 4:2: “Preach the word . . . with careful instruction” [teaching, didache ̄]), and the teaching of Bible and doctrine in the church, in colleges, and in seminaries…
…Paul’s position in the pastoral epistles is, then, consistent: he allows women to teach other women (Titus 2:3-4), 17 but prohibits them to teach men.
But this was back in 1991. By 2010, Piper explains that 1 Timothy 2:11-15 permits women to formally teach/preach to men, so long as the man doesn’t start to see her as his pastor.
I want to learn from my wife and I am happy to learn from Beth Moore. But I don’t want to get into a relationship of listening or attending a church where a woman is becoming my pastor, my shepherd or my authority. I think that would be an unhealthy thing for a man to do. I could give reasons for that biblically, experientially and psychologically, but I have given the gist of it.
So the answer is, no it is not wrong for you to listen to Beth Moore, but it could become wrong. I think Beth Moore would be happy with that answer. I’ve talked to her about this, and I think she would be OK with what I’ve said. Our paths cross at the Passion Conference every now and then, and we talk.
To see the full complementarian progression on the topic we have to add in Jenn Wilkin at The Gospel Coalition. This gives us the full progression to date, although certainly not the final complementarian word on the evolving meaning of 1 Timothy 2:11-15:
Pingback: Four legs good, two legs better. | Aus-Alt-Right
Yep, that’s the progression. The next steps:
– Men are required to listen to women preaching. To opt out is to defeat God’s purposes.
– To ignore the words of a woman pastor are abuse.
– Men are disqualified from preaching because they always try to usurp women’s power.
Funny how they always love to use just a little violence in their reasoning. Perfect really. It’s not real submission, it’s merely allowing God to abuse your husband for you. Ja, tell me again why marriage is a good idea?!
The real progression is to get rid of the inside of the Bible and replace it with Oprah. Merely a cover will remain, thus giving perfect realisation to the current body of the Church.
Ah, yes, the rabbit hole of no return. That’s what you get when you try to reinterpret 2000 years of Church teaching to fit a “progressive culture.”
The women who teach are simply deceived. They ignore the plain text of Scripture and tradition of the Church.
However, the more interesting and fascinating phenomena is how the men deceive themselves over time.
Why would ANYONE listen to Beth Moore? In college, I did a group study (let’s not call it a Bible study, though there were quotes from a paraphrase “translation” of the Bible) using one of her books, and it was execrable.
I still don’t fully understand the tortured logic that justifies women not being fit to teach men, but being fit to teach other women. People with more understanding of the inner-workings of the feminist “Christian” mind, please explain the rationale. In their mind did God just say these things arbitrarily? Some sort of symbolic order without any practical purpose?
As a general rule, women ARE more gullible and irrational. We all know this intuitively. This why women are overwhelmingly the victims of con-men and scammers.
So, we are going to say it’s ok for gullible people to teach other gullible people? Just as long as they’re not teaching men? NO! Women teaching other women is arguably worse then women teaching men. As least most men can see through the facade.
I’m kicking myself for encouraging my wife to go to the “Women of Faith” conference a couple years back. Blue pill regrets….
Follow the bouncing ball
Women are not to teach (preach). Keep Silent. -> Women are permitted to teach women – > only women are permitted to teach women -> only women are permitted to preach to women -> women are permitted to preach to men -> women are more spiritual than men so men who fail to listen to women preachers are blaspheming the holy spirit – > Women are to wear a head covering in worship to show how they have been oppressed by patriarchy, but now have been empowered to lead worship due to complementarian revisionism -> men who correct women are abusers and deserve scorn and imprisonment and divorce-> Women are more easily deceived because they listen to men who are not as spiritual as they are -> Women only should rule the church because they have the holy spirit guiding their feelings and men are spiritually tone deaf, abusers, and porn addicts -> wives should be the spiritual leaders in the the home because husbands are men and men are spiritual flunkies with sexually perverted ideas that use patriarchy to enslave women and treat them like doormats and sex objects -> men should serve their wives as the vessel of the holy spirit and oracle of wisdom -> men should worship women as goddesses of light and virtue to find atonement for being males. -> God is woman and the devil is a male -> a woman needs the Bible like a fish needs a bicycle, because they have special revelation in the form of feelings that are placed there from the holy spirit, those feelings that supersede the bible which was penned by men who abuse women by seeking to control them and keep them silent in the assembly and forbid them, the daughter of light and virtue to be empowered to teach and enlighten men as to their goodness and superiority!
Women insult other women on Twitter -> Women are victims of hate speech on Twitter -> “Society” (i.e. men) force women to be misogynist -> conservative men must be banned from Twitter because hate speech against women on Twitter.
Gracie Allen logic.
“Submission is ducking so God can hit your husband.”
If she needs to duck to let God hit her husband, that means she’s in front of her husband, which means she’s leading him and he’s submitting to her, which means she has the authority and he gets the consequences.
Perfect!
Follow the bouncing ball
Nicely done. Only missing an Amen! at the end.
The real progression is to get rid of the inside of the Bible and replace it with Oprah. Merely a cover will remain, thus giving perfect realisation to the current body of the Church.
We’re pretty much already there – or might as well be.
Give any ten “born-again Christians” a random ten-question quiz (NOT open-book) on any aspect of Scripture as written, and odds are that 9.5 of them will fail it miserably.
Why would ANYONE listen to Beth Moore? In college, I did a group study (let’s not call it a Bible study, though there were quotes from a paraphrase “translation” of the Bible) using one of her books, and it was execrable.
If you’re scripturally literate and take the contents of the Bible seriously, then no, you wouldn’t want to get within fifty feet of anything that has “Beth Moore” written on it. However, since most people don’t fall into that category and simply want their ears tickled/to receive a veneer of pseudo-Christian feelgoodz on top of the worldly life they’re living, ol’ Beth is just the ticket.
In my experience it’s not so much that women are more gullible. I do think women individually have a certain intuition that the average man does not have.
The problem with women teaching anyone scripture is the same problem of women as heads of household or in the military.
Women are not strong enough to defend anything. Part of teaching scripture is defending it against the naysayers, just like part of being head of household is defending the household from unwanted influences, and part of being in the military ID defending our country from outside threats.
I don’t think Eve ate the fruit in the garden of Eden because she was gullible or tricked per se. I think that she lacked the instinct or desire to defend what was right, even to death.
Women don’t defend. Hence why feminists always attack with strawman arguments when the error of their logic is pointed out to them, instead of defending their position.
RPchristian @ 6:56 pm:
“I still don’t fully understand the tortured logic that justifies women not being fit to teach men, but being fit to teach other women. People with more understanding of the inner-workings of the feminist “Christian” mind, please explain the rationale.”
The Biblical command is for older women to teach younger women how to please and obey their HUSBANDS, not how to please and obey God. (Titus 2:4-5) It’s the husband who teaches the wife theology; not any woman and not even any pastor. (1 Cor. 14:34-35)
What happened was first-generation feminists taught girls that their first loyalty was to God instead of hubby. After that, the woman’s easily-confused beliefs about God took precedence over her loyalty to and reliance upon her husband. I’ve often wondered in frustration how a wife could make the husband standing in front of her miserable every day for months and still call herself a Christian; this is how. She’s doing it to be loyal to “God”.
From Losing My Religion
https://therationalmale.com/2016/08/30/losing-my-religion/
Is not the torturing of 1 Tim 4:2 11-15 a feminist form of the Corban oath?
In Mark 7:11 (and Matt 15:5), Jesus states:
10For Moses said, ‘Honor your Father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ 11But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever you would have received from me is Corban’ (that is, a gift committed to God), 12he is no longer permitted to do anything for his father or mother.…
Jesus condemned such behavior as hypocritical in the strongest terms He could. This also was not an exception. In Matthew 23:18 for example, Jesus condemns the Pharisees for swearing by the gift on the altar, not by the altar that makes the gift sacred.
The pattern is consistent: Jesus condemns the rationalizations and work-arounds when it comes to Scripture. Thus, ANY woman preaching is a contravention of God’s Law and should be called out.
Beth Moore is against Donald Trump, eh? She knows that the alternative is a Satanic she-demon who as Secretary of State has destabilized at least 7 countries, condemning the Christians inside them to persecution and martyrdom. For this Moore and all other spineless anti-Trump evangelicals are going to rapidly get spewed out of our Lord’s mouth on Judgement Day.
Beth Moore isn’t a Christian she’s a feminist. It’s just that simple.
Well one more reason why people are giving the church the finger. Had an interesting conversation at work. A lot of atheist are atheist because of the church and not actual christianity.
Well, this will be handy.
At last now when my churchgoing male friends look at me quizzically and say “What do you mean, ‘feminization of the church'” I can ask them their opinion on Beth Moore. When that hemming and hawing is doen, I can ask them what their wife thinks of Beth Moore. That might be more interesting, given the modern requirement that church going men must be “nice”.
I keep seeing more and more where churches and church going people are all about “nice”, about being “nice” to each other, teaching “niceness” to their children, and so forth. One of the objections some churchgoing people have regarding Trump boils down to “he’s not at all nice“. The problem with nice is it’s an amorphous blob of emotion (no wonder women are fond of it) that can’t be nailed down like, oh, “Do Not Murder” or “Do Not Steal”, etc. Standing on “nice” is standing on jello.
Piper and Keller are clearly part of the church of “nice”, as is Powell. They’d rather cut whole sections out of the Bible than fail to be “nice” to teh womenz. This is a cult. A cult of “nice”.
This is a cult. A cult of “nice”.
I might be inclined to agree with you except that the cult is not nice to patriarchs. The cult frags the officers, makes husbands earn sex from their wives, assumes men are abusers and is threatens to destroy the family by cutting off the head with divorce, it then has the audacity to claim that men don’t lead, are selfish and juvenile tyrants who are only good for a few bucks. That is not nice – that is cruel!
I attended the last church where Beth Moore preached at before coming out in favour of Hillary. It is a megachurch in Dallas called Prestonwood Baptist. I haven’t gotten much out of it for a long time. This past weekend was the last time for me. I do tithe but it will now be going to the Salvation Army.
Pingback: Four legs good, two legs better. | Reaction Times
It does not matter how ‘good’ and scripturally accurate a woman may preach. God has designed that for men. Scripture is only written to men to have dominion over. Certainly some of it is for the use of women but that use is under the authority of men. There are only a small handful of scriptures for the use of women such as Titus 2 – and that is very specific to older women telling younger women to love and obey their husbands; it does not speak to teaching other things to women, and Proverbs wisdom to children – but that is under the delegation of the husband. All scripture is written to the brethren to interact with among the brethren and the women are the brethren’s help meets.
Knowledge is power and authority and a student surrenders to the teaching and argument of the teacher and it is clear men should never surrender to a woman so I would never listen to a woman’s instruction or correcting a man; Gen 3:17 got Adam in trouble with God for that …as he was not deceived [lied to self] nor did he transgress as did Eve; just in trouble for surrendering to the voice of Eve.
To start, women need to shut the Hell up [carefully chosen phrase]. This Illicit Authority that women have taken – and been given by the church – is blasphemy to God and He is re-establishing the Sanctity of Command in men.
Right on post Dalrock. Thanks.
“Two legs good, two boobs better.”
Well one more reason why people are giving the church the finger. Had an interesting conversation at work. A lot of atheist are atheist because of the church and not actual christianity.
“Christian” women, along with their mangina enablers, are essentially flipping God the bird by usurping those roles that Scripture prescribes as the sole province of men. This, among other progressive abominations, comes as no surprise at all when one considers that the majority of self-described Christians of both sexes in the western world are quite obviously merely “playing” church to begin with.
If more churches walked the talk and more Christians suffered for the true faith, that would serve as a witness like nothing else. Church growth during the First Century was largely the result of people being touched by the persecution and suffering Christians were willing to endure for their faith.
No-fault divorce has to go before anything can get fixed. Everything else is secondary. All of this can be remedied the moment men can act without fear of their wives taking them for everything they’ve got. I say this only after having seen countless time the extent to which married men are controlled in both action and speech by their wives.
We think of no-fault divorce as only controlling the husband, but if the wife wants to control another man she can recruit her husband to fight him, the same way the Germans got the Polish to fight for them out of fear. Ir’s an example of “let’s you and him fight.”
Everything that churcianity does and says bears with it an unspoken threat: if you don’t do what we say you’re gonna get divorced.
Jonadab
I might be inclined to agree with you except that the cult is not nice to patriarchs.
Well! (Clutching pearls…) Patriarchy is Not Nice. Also it is Not OK. So it’s OK to be not nice to patriarchs in order to stop them from being mean and bad and bring them in to the Church of Nice. God is everyone’s BFF but only if they are nice.
You can substitute “luv” for “nice” if you want. I’ve heard that version as well; “The True Gospel Is Love”, but “luv” in the “give certain people whatever they want whenever they want it” sense.
The 12-step people call it “enabling”…God as Ultimate Enabler, in other words.
Amanda Adkins: Mother of the Year candidate.
“Taylor is accused of brutally attacking Emmaleigh Elizabeth Barringer, the daughter of his girlfriend, overnight or in the early morning hours of Oct. 3. The girl died Oct. 5 at a Charleston hospital.
Dr. Allen Mock, West Virginia chief medical examiner, testified that [10-MONTH-old] Emmaleigh died from ‘multiple injuries sustained in a physical and sexual assault’, including a skull fracture, and that her death was a homicide.
Emmaleigh’s mother, Amanda Adkins, took the stand during the hearing, describing how she had found her daughter in the basement with Taylor bent over her. As she got closer, she said, she saw Emmaleigh was bloodied and battered.
….
When Taylor’s attorney, 5th Circuit Chief Public Defender Kevin Postalwait, asked if she’d ever had any concerns about Taylor with Emmaleigh or her other three children, she said, ‘Never’.
‘I thought he loved them’, Adkins said.
Postalwait asked if the couple had been ‘partying’ the night before. Adkins admitted they had both smoked marijuana and that she drank a small amount of beer while Taylor was consuming beer off and on through the evening.”
http://www.newsandsentinel.com/news/local-news/2016/10/suspect-in-jackson-county-child-murder-bound-over/
I’m sure she’s a real classy broad.
“I think Beth Moore would be happy with that answer. I’ve talked to her about this, and I think she would be OK with what I’ve said.”
Either she said it or she didn’t. Is this a halfway point, or a full step in progression?
From an article about Mrs Moore in Christianity Today:
“More than 8,000 women, from teenagers to senior citizens, have traveled from 30 states and shelled out $60 each to watch Moore open her Bible live and in person.”
So she collected $480,000 to preach? I just heard a charlatan alarm going off. I wonder how much the Apostle Paul charged when he preached? I don’t recall any record of him selling tickets in the Bible.
So she collected $480,000 to preach? I just heard a charlatan alarm going off. I wonder how much the Apostle Paul charged when he preached? I don’t recall any record of him selling tickets in the Bible.
People, especially wimminz, are willing to pay top dollar for deh feelgoodz, especially when it saves them from having to crack open a thick, dusty old Bible and read boring stuff that, like, takes concentration and is hard to understand. Beth chews it up for them so that they don’t have to and it tastes better.
Beth has found a niche market and is taking advantage of it.
$480k is chump change for what she makes. She’s got a private jet. Let that sink in.
The Question,
No-fault divorce has to go before anything can get fixed. Everything else is secondary.
You are not thinking far enough upstream.
The answer is that Democracy has to go. There is no way any fem-centric law gets reversed in a democracy.
Give any ten “born-again Christians” a random
If they can be born again, can’t the female pastor unilaterally abort them either before or after their rebirth? Abortion is choice, ya know.
Reblogged this on Patriactionary and commented:
Anyone who, like me, was raised in a mainline Protestant denomination, can tell you that once you allow female pastors, in time almost all the pastors in your denomination will be female. Evangelicalism denominations that cave will end up the same way.
“I think Beth Moore would be happy with that answer. I’ve talked to her about this, and I think she would be OK with what I’ve said.”
He’s already accepting her lead.
There is only one recorded passage in the Bible where a woman teaches the New Testament church:
20 Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols. 21 I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling. 22 So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. 23 I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.
Revelation 2: 20-23
HBO has a new series, Divorce. A self-described “feminist mother of three who works in publishing” worries that it is too pro-male: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2016/10/hbos-divorce-uncomfortable-viewing-feminists
In the show, Robert wife cheated on him, hence their divorce. It makes him openly bitter about women.
there’s something about Robert’s embrace of misogyny, almost as a form of liberation following years of repression, I find deeply discomforting. It’s not unfamiliar territory in TV shows or films relating to the topic of separation, but still it leaves me, as a viewer, on edge….
I can’t help getting the feeling that all too often stories of heterosexual divorce are being used to present a counter-narrative to feminism. In Divorceland there’s no such thing as structural oppression. …
Marriage has traditionally been a means by which men appropriate female domestic and reproductive labour — divorce has become a means by which women can withdraw it (a recent US study showed almost 70 per cent of divorces are initiated by women). While studies suggest that marriage is more beneficial for men than for women, the reverse is true for divorce.
Feminism has meant that men’s assumed rights both within and after marriage have eroded. A couple’s children are no longer presumed to be the husband’s property and marital rape has been illegal in the UK since 1991 and throughout the US since 1993. Still, the assumptions of what marriage should mean for a straight man remain deeply ingrained.
In her essay In Praise of the Threat: What Marriage Equality Really Means, Rebecca Solnit suggests that same-sex marriage will help straight women by transforming “a hierarchical relationship into an egalitarian one.” I am less convinced. I think it will take more than an awareness of the incoherence and illogicality of their demands to stop straight men subconsciously expecting submission from their wives and partners.
Appropriately enough, the author’s last name is Glosswitch.
The real progression is to get rid of the inside of the Bible and replace it with Oprah. Merely a cover will remain, thus giving perfect realization to the current body of the Church.
The same way that marriage remains “marriage” on paper, but it has been replaced by something else in its inner workings. Can anyone imagine society calling a man “insecure” because he hates the idea that the woman who hopes to become his future bride has had sex with countless random men who came before him?
Do I receive the virtual prize for recognising Dalrock’s implicit reference to Dr Johnson? Just soooooooooooo sexist.
Dalrock, i read often and never comment, so here goes. I was born and raised RC, what is this obssession Evangelicals seem to have with the structure of their marriage?? Why this continuous confrontation about who the leader is and who should submit and so on and so on ? Ive been married over 25 years, have raised two great children who are contributing members of society and still have sex with my wife 2-3 times a week like we did 25 years ago. We never, ever discussed who was to lead and who was to follow, we just lived our lives and our roles came about naturally. I guide the household, on big decisions my word is final and my woman knows that I am usually correct. She always has and always will look to me for leadership because that is how it has naturally evolved. Why would any man date let alone marry a woman who is in the least bit difficult?? If she is difficult and contrary while dating what the hell do you think marriage will be like? How about you Evangelicals start preaching some common sense. Women are naturally followers, they want and need you to lead them. If a woman in a congregation wants to start preaching, show her the fucking door, let her go start her own church. And if any women want to join them show them out the door as well. Men, Christian men, for the love of God will you please get a set of balls and put your foot down, the women are begging for you to be men again. The women are begging to be led, lead them.
[D: Welcome James.]
“This may be true. However, we are attracted to another understanding of Paul’s argument.”
The Bible says there is no private interpretation. If the first interpretation is true, then by default all other interpretations are false.
Having witnessed enough of their deceit, superficiality, mischieviousness, I have a visceral aversion to being lectured to on spiritual matters by a woman. Something deep down in my being thinks that I am being given a false message. Firstly I require that this woman demonstrate how she has plowed through life’s struggles like a man – with resilience and determination. Also how she has spoken truth to power.
Most instances of women gaining power was through beating down the opposition, scurrilous laws backed by legal threats etc.
James,
The problem is that what the churches normally teach pushes against this arrangement. It may be subtle or clearly visible, but it all makes women unhappy in that role and leads them to expect a chauffeur leader for their marriage, where her husband takes her where she wants to go, something that really doesn’t work well in practice.
Your argument could be applied to any Biblical principle. Return to your (and my) RCC roots if you want someone else to think for you. I would rather hear and wrestle with what the Scriptures teach, however comfortable that wrestling is.
We may think we are doing well, but our foundation must be on the Word of God. That is only built with diligent effort.
Some of us did not realize the level of rebellion pushed into even Christian women today. It has infiltrated far more than you realize, based on what you wrote.
In answer to the above comment about “If one says It is a karban anything you will get from me”, I had two thoughts off hand. Is one required to support one’s parent?.If so the court can come in and take his property and bank accounts to support his parents. It is not any different from any other monetary obligation. That is his money is משועבד to the obligation to honor his parents. You might think that is going a little too far. You might in fact think that the honor you owe your parents is not monetary. Then that would in fact be what the Mishna in Nedarim says. So if one says his money is a קרבן in respect to anything his parents need the neder is valid.Jesus disagreed with this. He thought one’s money is משועבד to one’s parents and also that הקדש אינו מוציא מיד שיעבוד.
These are questions brought up in the Talmud and off hand I can’t remember whose opinion Jesus is like. In any case I would be surprised to hear any Christians saying that one’s property is owed to one’s parents just like a loan that the court can collect against one’s will.
But this is what Jesus was saying. One is certainly obligated to obey one’s parents but to support them as a monetary obligation?
Perhaps you might want to say that Jesus as simply saying one is still obligated to honor one’s parents even if he says קרבן מה שאתה נהנה ממני. But no one disagreed with that in the first place. Everyone says that the obligation to honor and obey one’s parents is more that just financial. From what is possible to see in the NT Jesus was disagreeing with the idea that one’s money becomes not obligated. .
No-fault divorce has to go before anything can get fixed. Everything else is secondary.
Actually, if just one law could be torpedoed to have the maximum possible impact, that would be the elimination of child support. There may be no law on the books as antithetical to the functioning of a free civilization (beyond universal suffrage).
It’s common in the ‘sphere for even its own members to overestimate the impact of the ”pill”, and underestimate the impact of various aspects of family law. The reality is that the “pill” only gave significant power to women in the SMP up to the point of conception, but no further. The overwhelming transfer of power in the West has occurred via laws that transfer resources to women AFTER the point of conception. Feminism in its present form could not exist without child support as its foundation, and at its roots lies a direct assault on the concept of “legitimacy” (which is profoundly contrary to AF-BB).
Either the laws around child support (and family law, more generally) will be eradicated, or we will cease to exist as civilization. You may draw whichever dark conclusions from this as you wish.
Puffyjacket,
Actually, if just one law could be torpedoed to have the maximum possible impact, that would be the elimination of child support. There may be no law on the books as antithetical to the functioning of a free civilization (beyond universal suffrage)
Agreed. The only other law that is anywhere near as bad is the false rape kangaroo court regime.
Of course, both are the result of democracy (as you point out), which gives too much power to the already dominant FI.
@adam
There are no “scientific” studies on the gullibility of women (that I know of). Those studies would never get traction in our feminist academic climate. However, I would argue from personal experience and anecdotal evidence that women generally are more gullible. There are of course some exceptions, but as a general rule I think it holds. My argument is that it is related to women being generally more emotional, and thus more likely to be influenced by emotional arguments and emotional situations.
While gullible is a pejorative term, in my own wife I often find her emotionality and “gullibility” endearing. As long as you maintain frame it’s a non-issue. The problem with most church leaders is they have completely lost frame and encourage men to surrender to and follow their wives’ emotions. This is a recipe for disaster.
Paul seems to be warning Timothy about the gullibility of women and their susceptibility to false teaching in 2 Timothy 3:
6 For among them are those who creep into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and led astray by various passions, 7 always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth. 8
@Oscar
Again, another example of violence being committed by NON-FATHERS in the home. The safest place for a child (and woman) is in a home with the husband/biological father. No-fault divorce and normalization of out-of-wedlock birth has facilitated an increase in violence. But, you’ll never hear that from the feminists who argue that no-fault divorce is there to “protect” the woman from her “abusive” and “oppressive” husband.
I had a random thought the other day and here is a place where I can find men who are willing to consider heretical(by society’s standards) ideas.
I’ve starting thinking that where we are is the natural consequence of society conquering(for the most part) the danger of the natural world.
Go back far enough, and life is nasty, brutal, and short. Women are treasured and kept safe for their womb. As such, they’re not involved directly in the governance of society.
Men, being men, make politics and debate as much a full-contact sport as any physical combat or contest.
Eventually, the physical world is tamed in certain areas, and it is no longer so dangerous that women need be kept protected, some gain wealth or power of their own, and slowly women move into areas where there formerly were no women.
Then, we see the change. As men will not engage in the same no-holds barred competition with women, the intellectual combat became softer.
Then, as women are (generally in a sweeping generalization in comparison to men in a sweeping generalization) more emotional than rational in comparison to men, the language started to change.
Now, we see people saying “I feel.” and yet believe they are saying “I think.”
Thus, we’ve reached the age when feelings are confused with thought. I might change your mind, by presenting facts and data, or by making a compelling argument. I need not expend such energy to change your feelings.
I don’t feel that my truck is better and more reliable than another brand. I think that it is so by virtue of the data I examined before buying it.
My conclusion is then that the attempts to reason with heretics of the faith is futile as they are unthinking, and out political life is ripe for a demogogue because the contest is not over policies or positions, but over teh feelz.
That’s my random thought for the day.
Titus 2:4 uses the word “sōphronizō.” It means beseech to be sober-minded, The old women are not told to teach or preach. They are to constrain the young women to be loving and obedient, so that the Word of God will not be vilified.
@ Adam
Women are more easily deceived due to a stronger desire to fulfill their own selfish desires. Eve was deceived into believing that God was holding out on her and that her sin would not result in death. She wanted power ,she believed that God was holding out on her and due to her desire for power, she wanted to be like God, knowing good from evil. The carrot that lead her to sin was the temptation of power, not for a lack of the ability to defend
@RPchristian
The safest place for a child (and woman) is in a home with the husband/biological father.
Yes, it’s ironic that our child-support regime of forcing the biological father out of the family unit is extolled as beneficial “for the children”, when in fact it’s our greatest source of child abuse conducted in modern times.
I didn’t know who Beth Moore was. So I looked. Here’s a great example from Ms. Moore, talking (PREACHING) about “If my husband had an affair…”
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai54Q3-KcuU
Right off, she reveals that the WORST FEAR (for women) is not of her husband’s sexual, carnal betrayal itself, but the fear that her husband would “fall in love” with his mistress (i.e. that his male emotional commitment would shift to another woman, and what usually follows that – namely his commitment of his time, resources and attention to another woman, and that she would earn acceptance from the husband’s children too). That’s the worst. The true horror for the wife. Not the sex.
I found this aspect to be somewhat…..refreshing. Yeah. Honest even.
Her “sermon” goes from “If my husband had an affair….” to “If my husband fell in love with a woman half my age….”. It ends with her pastoral appeal to “bury your face in scriptures” and “get back to livin'”.
Not all bad necessarily.
I’ve listened to a lot of pastors, and her delivery doesn’t resonate with me very well. Like female pastors, her elevated voice and over-the-top gestures tend to grate on your nerves and make everyone feel uncomfortable (except the ladies?).
Fact is, a good ole Billy Graham sermon would probably steamrolls Ms. Moore’s best sermon any day of the week.
But I think she definitely delivers well to female audiences at least. She offers up just the right mix of female self-deprecation humor, outright misandry and a dash of female indignation that will have the ladies in the pews laughing, smiling and nodding in agreement. Mission accomplished. Hook, line and sinker.
The biblical assertion that woman must not preach at all, or are unqualified to preach to men is interesting to consider, but also laughable in current times. In every aspect of our male lives – as boys, young men and adult men – there are women literally and figuratively “preaching” to us and filling our heads with feminist horseshit, lies and nonsense as to how the world works. At home (mom), at preschool (female teachers), at elementary school (female teachers), middle & high School (female teachers, principals and guidance counselors), and college (professors).
So are we to believe that the outrage begins only when we see a female pastor preaching to men in a church congregation or on television? I don’t know man. Seems like we’re all a little slow on draw with this one, and not a little bit inconsistent or butthurt.
@ RPchristian says:
October 18, 2016 at 10:33 am
“Again, another example of violence being committed by NON-FATHERS in the home. The safest place for a child (and woman) is in a home with the husband/biological father. No-fault divorce and normalization of out-of-wedlock birth has facilitated an increase in violence. But, you’ll never hear that from the feminists who argue that no-fault divorce is there to ‘protect’ the woman from her ‘abusive’ and ‘oppressive’ husband.”
Exactly.
Furthermore, note that Amanda Adkins has three children IN ADDITION TO Emmaleigh (the 10-MONTH-old girl that Adkins’ shack-up raped and beat to death). Yet, I don’t see any suggestions that CPS remove those children from Adkins’ custody before she exposes them to yet another psychopath. Nor do I see any suggestions that Adkins keep her damned legs crossed and stop exposing children to extreme risks.
So what, then, does one do if, in fact, one believes that women should not be teaching period? If I instruct my wife that she no longer has my permission to attend women’s retreats, bible studies or events, and I instruct her that she is not to teach other women ANYTHING (she is still fairly young at 41 years), then what happens when she goes batsh*t crazy and rebels? I mean, I speak for my own wife, but I have little to no doubt countless other (Christian) wives would have the same reaction! Do I say “screw it, I will stand before God blameless because I have done as His word commands by prohibiting my wife, but she has rebelled”? How does one live with that.
I have to admit that, though I am on the fence about women teaching women at the moment there have been a couple of other blog posts on other blogs that DO show scientific data proving that women are gullible and susceptible to bad teaching. Everyone knows that the ladies follow the latest trends, no matter how stupid they might seem. Also information about falling into ‘in-group bias’ and ‘contextual morality’, which runs high in the fairer sex, makes me believe more and more that God knows exactly what He is doing, and His prohibitions are spot on!
Of course, good luck trying to get anyone else to believe that.
@James
You are fortunate. Or if you prefer, “blessed”. It’s not the RCC that is your magic token, the divorce rate among Roman Catholics is about 30% with the usual 65% to 70% filed by the wife. I personally know of three men raised in the RC church who are now divorced, every one filed by the wife, none for adultery. One woman had to go “bishop shopping” to buy her annullment, to be sure.
There are plenty of Protestant marriages like yours, Lyn87 would be one example although he and his wife do not have children for medical reasons.
The fact that Not All Marriages Are Like That doesn’t negate the fact that a lot of men live in silent misery with harpies, and in most cases the woman they married acted quite differently from the woman they are now married to. People change, and not always for the better, over time.
@constrainedlocus:
In every aspect of our male lives – as boys, young men and adult men – there are women literally and figuratively “preaching” to us and filling our heads with feminist horseshit, lies and nonsense as to how the world works.
I think you are on to something here, and wonder where the tipping point is (already passed?). I probably don’t have an accurate view of what the world looks like to a boy or young man coming up today. My generation gap shows, in that I was heavily influenced by my father and grandfathers at home, as well as no shortage of men teachers, principals, coaches, professors, Sunday school teachers, et al., compared to youth of today. Even the women teachers did not rock the boat in any way I can recall.
I never willingly followed the lead of any woman, unless a male authority figure told me to and enforced it. Now that his influences in life may in fact be predominantly female throughout his boyhood and youth (and many of those women “SIW” as it were), what kind of fallout from that can be expected? Seeing his female pastor as perfectly acceptable and normal may well be the very least of it.
Her “sermon” goes from “If my husband had an affair….” to “If my husband fell in love with a woman half my age….”. It ends with her pastoral appeal to “bury your face in scriptures” and “get back to livin’”.
I would imagine that it would never occur to “Pastor Beth,” nor most other women of her age group, that if her husband is being tempted by a younger woman it is probably due to the fact that she has been, to put it politely, “miserly” with love and affection and “overly generous” with attitude, contentiousness, frigidity, and rebellion.
That was my ex-wife to a T. After walking out on the marriage, she had the unmitigated gall to marvel and be upset at the fact that another, YOUNGER AND INFINITELY MORE FEMININE AND PLEASANT woman came along and picked up what she had tossed aside like last year’s garbage.
If Beth is gonna “bury her face in the Scriptures” after being butthurt by her husband, I’m sure that there will be no makeup or lipstick marks on the pages containing Titus 2, Ephesians 5, or 1st Peter 3.
The biblical assertion that woman must not preach at all, or are unqualified to preach to men is interesting to consider, but also laughable in current times. In every aspect of our male lives – as boys, young men and adult men – there are women literally and figuratively “preaching” to us and filling our heads with feminist horseshit, lies and nonsense as to how the world works. At home (mom), at preschool (female teachers), at elementary school (female teachers), middle & high School (female teachers, principals and guidance counselors), and college (professors).
So are we to believe that the outrage begins only when we see a female pastor preaching to men in a church congregation or on television? I don’t know man. Seems like we’re all a little slow on draw with this one, and not a little bit inconsistent or butthurt.
I’m about ready to reach the conclusion that most modern Christians, of both sexes, have abandoned all belief in the concept of sin, judgment, and eternal punishment. It’s almost as if they’ve set up a hypothesis that such does things do not really exist in concrete and that by disregarding and disobeying everything the Scriptures have to say that conflicts with secular modernism, they intend to prove that there will be no consequences for doing so.
Feminist shocked – SHOCKED! – when not even IVF can help her conceive at 40.
“Many young women were understandably seduced by the once widely publicized message that if they chose to delay pregnancy and were then unable to conceive, they could still have babies through in vitro fertilization, also known as I.V.F.
Miriam Zoll was one of them. Married at age 35, she thought she had plenty of time to start a family. After all, she said, ‘My mother had me at 40, and since 1978, the fertility industry has been celebrating its ability to help women have children at older ages’.
When at 39 she and her husband decided to start a family, they discovered that nature refused to cooperate. Four emotionally and physically exhausting I.V.F. cycles (and two attempted donor egg cycles) later, they remained childless.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/18/well/the-misleading-promise-of-ivf-for-women-over-40.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fhealth&action=click&contentCollection=health®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0
In every aspect of our male lives – as boys, young men and adult men – there are women literally and figuratively “preaching” to us and filling our heads with feminist horseshit, lies and nonsense as to how the world works. At home (mom), at preschool (female teachers), at elementary school (female teachers), middle & high School (female teachers, principals and guidance counselors), and college (professors).
So are we to believe that the outrage begins only when we see a female pastor preaching to men in a church congregation or on television? I don’t know man. Seems like we’re all a little slow on draw with this one, and not a little bit inconsistent or butthurt.
I agree completely, pointing out similar thing over the past few months. I send my son to private, “classical,” “Christian” school. Most teachers are women, virtually all administrators are women, and the consequences are clear in the attitudes of the teachers and content of instruction.
I attended a renown Christian college where there were several women profs and some administrators. Guess who got their feelings hurt and demanded more attention and more change from men. That college had a number of very public scandals during that time, and has recently had a new one open up b/c of a rebellious, entryist woman prof.
Was in a church small group some years back where the leaders invited a member of our church to speak (aka “teach”); she was on staff w/ Inter-Varsity (who I like) at a local university. I didn’t like the notion from the beginning but went along, her young children were disruptive the entire time (even w/ the group’s children), and she grew agitated when I pointed out inconsistencies w/ her interpretation of the Bible-study passage.
Anyway, you’re right, the genie is out of the bottle, and most people think everything is still fine, just b/c the Earth didn’t spin off of its axis in an instant. It’s a huge problem all over the US church, and one that most people won’t accept exists.
When at 39 she and her husband decided to start a family, they discovered that nature refused to cooperate. Four emotionally and physically exhausting I.V.F. cycles (and two attempted donor egg cycles) later, they remained childless.”
Anyone wanna bet that now that she can’t pop out a crotch fruit that hubby will suddenly become superfluous and that he’ll find himself kicked to the curb shortly?
To my earlier comment, I wish to point out the following. While growing up as boys, most our time is likely spent with our mothers. And I think many of us would agree that most of our mothers were/are really great people – they cared for us, loved us to bits, despite all of our flaws, sins, screw ups and prolific misbehavior. Most of you know exactly what I mean – the kind of unconditional love and acceptance of those Disney films – a love that we never quite find ever again with another woman, be she our lover or our wife.
At the same time, most mothers (and female teachers) also fill our heads with many wrong and destructive ideas as well. To clarify, some examples (including but not limited to) the following:
1. macro and micro indictments on our masculinity and drive,
2. pressing the importance of male deference to women,
3. pressing that girls/women must receive the benefit of the doubt,
4. the portrayal of women as victims with no accountability for their decisions while men are be held accountable,
5. the importance of devoting attention, service and support for women, even at great costs and sacrifice to our own well-being
6. comparatively little in the form of constructive, critical guidance and warning about female nature and behavior.
This is why it strikes me to read a Bible-supported insistence here that female pastors are not to be respected, or be taken seriously, or to have any authority to preach to men or women, nor to instruct or guide. Such claims don’t follow logic. Especially if we remember that as boys, all too often many of “good Christian fathers” we knew just stood there, did nothing and watched while mom crammed all that whoreshit nonsense into our brains.
And this still goes on today, completely unchecked.
I really don’t know whether women should be allowed to preach Christian doctrine to men and women, or not.
I just know this: we let them “teach” us everything else.
I realize I’m late to the thread, but constrainedlocus’ point that women already hold a great many positions of authority over men and (especially) boys within the larger society struck a nerve with me.
The wholesale ejection of father from the lives of their children by government fiat at the insistence of women is well-known, as well as the myriad destructive consequences of that, so it needs no further elaboration from me… but it seems that we as a society have extended that to all areas. Teachers are but one example, but now nearly anyone having anything to do with children is female. Indeed, while feminists whine about “hostile environments” when they get 10% of what men get every day, every man who interacts with children faces an actual hostile environment: the presumption is that any man who works with kids is probably a pedophile and must be under constant supervision by one or more women lest he go on a rape-spree in the school lunchroom.
I would argue that most teachers – and all principals / headmasters – should be male. Children should not be placed in institutions that are staffed primarily by women (like most elementary and secondary schools today), nor should they typically see women exercising authority over men as headmistresses, department heads, or administrators.
Once that nonsense got into popular culture it became inevitable that weak churches would gradually find “work-arounds” to the clear teaching of scripture with regard to women’s roles in the church. I can remember when “women preachers” were a novelty in major denominations, and got a good deal of push-back. Now most denominations are “gender neutral” in their criteria for clergy, despite claiming to be Bible-based in their doctrine.
“A little leaven leaveneth the whole loaf,” and the disease that started in the more theologically “liberal” denominations has spread to the “centrist” ones and has made more that a few inroads into the “conservative” ones as well. That may be the worse thing of all – the theologically liberal churches rarely even pretend to be Christian any more in the Biblical sense, but the fire-and-brimstone, “Old-Time religion” guys are committing many of the same errors.
@Lyn87
I also think it’s ironic that while one of the rallying cries of feminists is that women lack power, most people who haven’t completely bought a materialist mindset understand that the most powerful people in society are those that have the most influence over our children. They instill attitudes and beliefs in the next generation, which then shapes society. Many of us on this blog are case in point, taking years to wake up from a blue-pill mindset instilled in us by the powerful women in our childhood.
This story certainly relates to why we are seeing this:
Survey Finds Most American Christians Are Actually Heretics http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/10/survey-finds-american-christians-actually-heretics/
In a similar project conducted two years ago, researchers asked participants to self-identify, resulting in an inflated number of professing “evangelicals. Not surprisingly, this group Christmas-treed the survey, espousing all kinds of unorthodox views.
So this year, LifeWay used more stringent criteria for evangelical faith, as defined by some group called the National Association of Evangelicals. Only participants who called the Bible their highest authority, said personal evangelism is important, and indicated that trusting in Jesus’ death on the cross is the only way of salvation, were labeled “evangelical.” They totaled 586 survey-takers.
Everyone expected them to perform better than most Americans. No one expected them to perform worse. Seven in ten evangelicals—more than the population at large—said that Jesus was the first being God created. Fifty-six percent agreed that “the Holy Spirit is a divine force but not a personal being.” They also saw a huge increase in evangelicals (28 percent, up from 9 percent) who indicated that the Third Person of the Trinity is not equal with God the Father or Jesus, a direct contradiction of orthodox Christianity.
Evangelical Christianity is not only a mess, it is in crisis. I would wager that if you examined the 10 largest Evangelical churches in America, you would find that not one (not a single one) is teaching anything near sound doctrine.
If we aren’t living in the prophesied era of itching ears, then I can’t imagine how it could get any worse.
Guess I’m a heretic then as well because that is patently absurd..
@Disillusioned says: I do tithe but it will now be going to the Salvation Army.
Tithing is not God’s plan for Christians.
John MacArthur’s “God’s Plan for Giving” is a good introduction to what the Bible actually says about Christian giving.
Perspectives on Tithing: Four Views by David A. Croteau (assistant professor of Biblical Studies at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. He holds a Th.M. and Ph.D. from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary) is a good overview of the various teachings popular today.
If you really want to dig deep into the subject, try:
Russell Kelley’s “Should the Church Teach Tithing? A Theologian’s Conclusions about a Taboo Doctrine” which is in depth, but easy to read.
or either of these books by David Croteau:
You Mean I Don’t Have to Tithe?: A Deconstruction of Tithing and a Reconstruction of Post-Tithe Giving (McMaster Theological Studies Series Book 3) a heavy weight overview of the subject.
Tithing after the Cross (Areopagus Critical Christian Issues Book 7) which is a summary of the above book.
Fair warning: if you read these books, you will become angry at your pastors as you will realize the way tithing is taught in Evangelical churches today bears no resemblance to how it was practiced in the Bible–none whatsoever.
https://heidelblog.net/2013/03/the-athanasian-creed-on-the-trinity/
@ Otto Lamp
Your reporting of the dismal survey is disheartening. One of the three ecumenical creeds is the Athanasian creed, it is the longer than the Apostle’s creed and the Nicene and the most strict. For over a millennia it has been used by Roman Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants, yet today it is all but forgotten. I put it below. Notice how it states these things must be believed and failure to do so shall without doubt perish, yet few according to your stats actually do.
@Feminist Hater,
It is a heresy. The point is that 28% of Evangelicals wrongly believe it is true.
It isn’t heresy. The idea that God would send himself down to die for our sins defeats the entire purpose of the New Testament. I’m sorry that bursts your bubble but it isn’t heresy to think that.
@constrainedlocus
Your presentation of the facts is compelling, and I can easily see it being used by attorneys for the women pastors; when they bring their class action suit against any holdout churches. Personally, I do not wish to be told jack squat about much of anything by a woman – in church or anywhere else – but this is no doubt due to my sexism/chauvinism/misogyny; and will hold no water in the face of your very valid argument that I’ve been listening to them my whole life.
On a side note. Old school mothers (pre-fully developed 2nd wave feminism) were as guilty of what you describe as anyone, but at the same time they lived inside a different social paradigm. I think they did not want to be seen as raising effeminate, or soft, or weak sons; they wanted the sons that were seen as manly men. That mitigated some of the negative effects of spending so much time with Mom, because she herself put some controls on it for her own reputation. This was of course “all about them” the Moms – not the boys per se; but it did help the boys by extension from being totally wussified. I think. Maybe it just produced an even more formidable white knight.
Replace old school mothers with 2nd and 3rd wave feminist, single moms and this story gets much worse for the lads.
There is always something, somewhere one doesn’t agree with or can’t make sense of. If that were one of the sole criteria for our souls being damned, we would all be damned anyway. Damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Good thing Jesus actually died for our sins, is it not?.. for a man could never, truthfully understand God and it would be folly to think that these men got it all right back them when they wrote that.
@Lost Patrol,
Thanks for your comment.
I could be completely wrong.
But I do think that modern day Christians, and non-Christians for that matter, woefully underestimate just exactly what is going on today in terms the messaging that mothers (both married and single) are passing down to their sons and daughters, and what teachers are actually passing down to their students.
And further, it is my contention that the husbands of such wives and mothers are largely doing nothing about it. I’m confident there will be consequences. In fact, we are already witnessing the fruits within society today.
What are the feminist mom’s teaching/preaching?:
https://www.themuse.com/advice/how-feminist-mothers-can-raise-feminist-sons
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/11-powerful-women-on-raising-feminist-sons_us_572b65d5e4b016f37894d801
https://www.babble.com/parenting/ways-to-raise-feminist-boys/
https://www.romper.com/p/10-things-feminist-moms-do-differently-than-any-other-parents-644
What are the feminist teachers teaching/preaching?:
https://www.noodle.com/articles/teach-feminism-in-elementary-school-with-these-tips
https://feministteacher.com/2011/03/29/teaching-boys-feminism/
What are the feminist school counselors and school psychologists teaching/preaching?:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-new-teen-age/201501/teaching-our-sons-not-rape
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/psyched/201502/feminist-pedagogy-in-the-classroom
http://www.feministvoices.com/psychology-s-feminist-voices-teaching-resources/
http://www.feministvoices.com/assets/Teaching-Resources/PFV-Psychology-of-WomenTeaching-GuideAugust-2012.pdf
In so many ways, matters are far worse now than they ever were when you were a boy.
Jonadab-the-Rechabite @ 5:39 pm:
“For over a millennia it has been used by Roman Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants, yet today it is all but forgotten.”
Only one millennium? So it’s a much-later, subordinate rehash of the original two creeds, probably created to address a specific problem. And how did Protestants use it for a millennium when the entire movement is half that age? Honestly, it reads like the Holy Hand Grenade skit from Monty Python.
“And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity. ”
I would hate for my eternal soul’s salvation to depend on properly comprehending this. Perhaps God would accept knowledge of Excel macros instead? The cis-God, I mean, not the trans-God. Trans-God thinks math is hard. Not that there’s anything wrong with the trans-gendered God. Aw, I’m going to Hell aren’t I?
The thing about most of these doctrines is, to be saved you don’t need to know them (what you need to know to be saved is very simple) – but if you know them and deny them then you are considered to be lost.
>I wonder how much the Apostle Paul charged when he preached? I don’t recall any record of him selling tickets in the Bible.
Religious professionals are willing to rely on the Scripture that says those who work for the gospel should be able to make a living from gospel. These same religious professionals apparently however have never read 2 Thess 3:10-12, which shows that Paul served in that city for free, without pay. He worked, in addition to preaching, to pay his own way.
As repeatedly discussed here, it is funny in a sad way that our “spiritual leaders” will not themselves lead by example as commanded (1 Pet 5:1-4). I do not ask that they always work for free; we see in the Scriptures that Paul both did and did not take money for his ministry. But requiring even 1 out of 3 years without pay would likely remove those who are “serving” because they are greedy for money (1 Pet 5:1-4), or have otherwise incorrect motives.
On that thought, it is annoying to me when politicians or religious professionals are described as “serving” the church/community. They are not serving; they are doing a job for pay. The volunteers are serving.
And yes I am aware the dictionary would disagree; but to me, “serving” has a connotation of self-sacrifice. Doing what I am paid to do is not a sacrifice; it is the fulfillment of my job obligations, for which I am remunerated.
I wonder what the average church in the US of any denomination would look like if that tax exempt status went away. I wonder what the average Beth Moore style traveling road show would look like if that tax exempt status went away.
More interestingly, what if the tax exempt status went away for some churches / groups, but not others.
Gotta love that progression…a priest (I’m Catholic) once told me men call the shots in the relationship, though it’s politically incorrect to say so. If only more priests and Protestant pastors would have the guts to say that…
Oscar, do father’s usually hit their children in the face? Parents who use corporal punishment usually hit the back side of the child rather than the front. So her ducking so God can hit your husband doesn’t mean she is in front of her husband.
I am not sure what Dalrock wrote about male-female relationships in War Room. I don’t recall any anti-complementarian error in the movie. That doesn’t mean Dalrock can’t find something to criticize.
Older women are to teach the younger women to be diligent around the home, to submit to their own husbands, etc. The Bible does not say women cannot teach doctrine to younger women, though it doesn’t say ‘older women teach doctrine to younger women’ either. I don’t know that much about Beth Moor. Most of what I have seen has been positive, and I’d rather see her working with women than some of the other celebrity female ministers from what I know of them.
If we accept that a woman can teach and disciple other women, and we therefore allow for the idea of a woman like Beth Moor having a ministry focused on teaching women, if men can’t listen to Beth Moor, then how is a man going to check up on what his wife is listening to? If you allow for women teachers, then men need to be able to listen to someone like Beth Moor.
If Hillary gets in she’ll be telling you what you can say, and what you can think. If she gets control of the Supreme Court you can kiss your First, Second, and Fourth Amendments to be history in the first few years, and others to fall. Of course, at that point it will be war, and not just of words… I expect that when they try to take the guns… Liberal have always wanted American destroyed – and this is their chance, they aren’t going to let it slip away, no matter what they have to steal, kill, or rig…
Gents,
If you haven’t seen the Project Veritas videos, please do. In this one, Democrats Scott Fogel and Cesar Vargas (an illegal immigrant) explain how they successfully commit massive voter fraud, including busing Democrats to states where they don’t live and helping illegal immigrants vote.
Please share far and wide.
feeriker: Anyone wanna bet that now that she can’t pop out a crotch fruit that hubby will suddenly become superfluous and that he’ll find himself kicked to the curb shortly?
Could be, but it’d be stupid on her part. Hubby can then find a younger wife, who can birth him kids.
But what would the first, older, barren wife now do? No kids and now no husband. I suppose she can always buy a cat, start a blog celebrating her liberation, and promote herself as a cougar on Craigslist personal ads.
I wonder what the average church in the US of any denomination would look like if that tax exempt status went away.
Probably a lot like the early First Century (i.e., original New Testament) church, as in persecuted, poor and deprived, Christ-focused, full of infinitely more wheat than chaff – if much smaller in size than it is today.
That might be just what the American church needs.
I wonder what the average Beth Moore style traveling road show would look like if that tax exempt status went away.
It would continue, as tickling churchian women’s ears with feminist, heretical fluff is a can’t-fail, extremely lucrative business strategy. Beth would just have to charge more for her speaking engagements to offset Uncle Sam’s tax grab. Worse comes to worst, she might have to give up her private jet and start flying business class.
More interestingly, what if the tax exempt status went away for some churches / groups, but not others.
Count on that happening if Hitlary is elected next month. Muslim and Jewish groups will get a tax subsidy. Christian and Mormon groups will be taxed retroactively. If you think the Obamunist has been abusing the IRS as a political weapon against enemies of the Deep Prog State, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. And don’t bother citing the Constitution’s prohibition of Establishment. That GD piece of parchment is already dead letter.
Female “pastors”? You ain’t seen nothing yet.
http://www.naomidowdy.com/about-naomi-dowdy/
Here’s “Apostle” Naomi Dowdy.
Female “pastors”? You ain’t seen nothing yet.
http://www.naomidowdy.com/about-naomi-dowdy/
Here’s “Apostle” Naomi Dowdy.
To paraphrase Mercy Me in “I Can Only Imagine,” what will these women say on Judgment Day when they’re asked to explain why they thought that the scriptural command to women to keep silent in church meant the polar opposite of its clear meaning? Will they offer a hamsterbation, or will they be unable to speak at all?
@chokingonredpills, @feeriker,
You have discovered the NAR (New Apostolic Reformation).
The site here has info on it: http://www.spiritoferror.org/
Check out the “Fighting for the Faith” podcast linked on the home page for a quick intro to the NAR.
I’ m reading the book by the site’s author. Well researched and…scary. This (heretical, imho) movement of modern day “apostles and prophets” is growing quickly, and has managed to have more influence on mainstream churches that most realize.
Introduction to Boyfriend (Husband gets to meet wife’s new boyfriend…)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1028587
As much as I want to beat up on the Christians & that survey, important point: much of the deeper Christian Theology doesn’t work in survey form.
Colossians 1:15 “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.” (ESV)
It’s especially an issue with the Trinity as it is both clearly “1 in 3 parts” and “3 parts in 1”. You can’t reduce “the mystery” down to survey questions, as it assumes you can contain all of Christianity as a fact-sheet. That doesn’t work.
Asking about specific things being a Sin could work, but I doubt anyone involved in those surveys would really be careful enough to craft a survey that reflected anything of value.
Adam was also made in the image of God. That is the mystery. Adam was created by God in his own image but as man, he sinned and fell short of the glory of God. Thus man, in his sin, loses the grace of God. Jesus, also in God’s image and his son, is needed to restore humanities grace in God. Jesus needs to be separate from God to be able to do this, he has to be human and thus not equal to God in order to be able to be tempted, like man, yet not sin but to sacrifice, die and be born again. The Bible has so many passages to do with Jesus where he states he is under the glory of the Father. They cannot be equal.
Making Jesus equal to God destroys the essence of what Jesus did. I don’t really want to distract from the original topic of this thread but there is a reason for disagreement here and it isn’t to do with being a heretic.
@constrainedlocus
Those links you provided show how far the pendulum has swung. These women are actively and intentionally destroying the man within the boy, before he has a fighting chance at all. Their point of personal pride and reputation is to be recognized for raising the most womanly man possible. Seismic shift.
And many men do seem to be standing around doing nothing about it, or in the case of several of the women in those links, he is helping her wreck the boy.
If God is pleased by his crushing of Jesus, how could Jesus being equal to God?
Feminist Hater, you’re actually echoing the feminist argument against male headship: that submission is fundamentally incompatible with equality. Man and wife are “one flesh” and equal before God, but there is a hierarchy of authority within the marriage. Likewise, the Son is one with the Father but also under the authority of the Father.
If Jesus were not fully God, then the Sanhedrin was right to declare Him a blasphemer. “Before Abraham was, I AM” is an unequivocal claim.
If Jesus were not fully man, then nothing about His death and resurrection affects man’s condition. He took on humanity in order to conquer death for humanity. “What is not assumed is not redeemed”, to quote either Augustine or Athanasius (I can’t remember which). If Jesus were born merely human but somehow attained divinity, then Pelagius was right, man can attain salvation by his own effort, and Jesus becomes a typical pagan hero.
@ Feminist Hater says:
October 19, 2016 at 4:33 am
“If God is pleased by his crushing of Jesus, how could Jesus being equal to God?”
Why would those two concepts be mutually exclusive?
I really don’t know whether women should be allowed to preach Christian doctrine to men and women, or not.
Could the reason be….because, as has been endlessly pointed out on this page, the Word does not permit it? Why are you conflating the Word of God with many other *secular* areas women teach in? One of these things isn’t like the other.
“Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.”
@PokeSalad,
“Why are you conflating the Word of God with many other *secular* areas women teach in?”
I do understand and agree that “The Word” literally forbids it. I’m not misunderstanding that.
However, this same Word would also have men of the community stoning non-virgins to death at her father’s doorstep, but I digress….
I’m not questioning what the Bible says.
I’m questioning why the selective outrage?
We are somehow offended and irritated by the notion of women preaching the gospel in church on any given Sunday because it’s inconsistent with The Word, but we’re perfectly fine with allowing the ladies engaged far more pervasive, substantial, “*secular*” pedagogic endeavors the rest of the week? Seems inconsistent to me. And maybe that’s alright.
And I don’t have to tell you that even *non-secular*, parochial schools are majority jammed packed with female teachers, principals and counselors as well.
This is why this gets nowhere. Argumentum ad infinitum.
If Jesus and the Holy Spirit are completely equal to God as that missive up thread suggests. there is no way God could crush Jesus, the whole point of the New Testament becomes superfluous. If Jesus is God and therefore it was really God that died for our sins, then he did not sacrifice his son for us for there was no risk, punishment or pain to be felt by Jesus. Moot point.
These are two mutually exclusive ideas. However, let’s fly with it. There is feminism who states that their is no hierarchy, just two equal beings with equal power and equal rights. Whereas the Christian ideal is that we are equal before God but there is a hierarchy within a family and social station that we are to follow, much like the idea that we can all be equal before the law but still have two very unequal people before the law itself. That difference speaks volumes. The equality is the perception of the law or the perception of God himself, i.e. equality before God, not the two beings actually being equal when pitted against each other.
We can take this further.. since we are now telling each other what we are echoing or better known as putting words in the mouths of others.. Are you stating that Jesus and us mortals are equal as men are equal to their wives? The Church is the bride of Christ after all, furthermore, that would make us equal to God, since we are equal to Jesus who is equal to God, which is the feminist position after all… women being Goddesses and all.
Sorry, Jesus cannot be equal to God, God is the creator, the beginning and the end. Christ is our redeemer, our Saviour but he is saving us for God, not for himself.
Why? Well, if Jesus is equal to God then Jesus is God, and then Jesus cannot be the image of God, he must just be God… it becomes gobbledygook really, with no foundation or reason. Why all the hassle, why the red tape. If God and Jesus are the same, then the passage that states that no one gets to the Father but through Jesus Christ is meaningless. Everything the Bible states becomes meaningless.
SnapperTrx says: October 18, 2016 at 12:06 pm
The only thing women are instructed to teach is to tell younger women to submit to their husband and love him. And that teaching is only with the approval of her husband [submit to him in everything]. A woman does not go into the world and proclaim [teach] the gospel. Men do.
SnapperTrx: Yes, as the Lord leads you, you confront your wife all the way to separation. That is what God has done with His people. I have done that with my wife 18 months ago, letting her know her now decades of open rebellion and specific blasphemy to God’s Word [Jesus] is over. That after years of polite exhortation, then into firm confrontation, then into jealous zeal [redundant wording] as the Lord – documenting her identity as a practicing witch [rebellion = witchcraft], bitch [Proverbs’ nag], adulterer [idols beyond God], murderer [Proverbs’ rottenness to the bones; quite literally asphyxiating me], murder II [actual knife attacks and “I know where the guns are” and “women can kill too, you know”], rotting flesh, and on and on. Yet she is this ‘sweet’ women most of the time with family and friends and has her ‘quiet time’, etc. with her own god.
I exposed this to the family and they were shocked I would do such a thing. But this is what has to happen in the church. This needs to be exposed. And it has further exposed incredible blasphemy in my mother [because she knows this is confronting her] who is a widowed pastor’s wife; hundreds would list her as the most godly woman they know. This is the lie that we live under in the church [forget the world]. There are dozens of other women I know that are family or friends that are the same way, destroying their man. That is why Derek Prince, in his Witchcraft in the Church sermon, mentions examples of the witches in the church as ONLY women examples.
SnapperTrx: confront it at age 41; my wife is 65 and I can only hope and pray that we have intimacy [not just sex] again. My wife would have gone on forever in blasphemy and having the final say. Confrontation is painful …BUT IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. Jesus came as The Great Confronter, as The Rock of Offense. And He was in pain too. He calls us men to the same. No pain, no gain.
“I am before Abraham” could simply mean “I existed before Abraham.” Or “I exist always.” Or “I am above and beyond time.” In any case there is no Divine name “I am.” There however is a Divine name: “I will be.” That is אהיה which means I will be. It is similar to the case one says I will be in the store tomorrow. אני אהיה בחנות מחר. That is not the same as “I am in the store.” אני בחנות
@ Feminist Hater says:
October 19, 2016 at 10:15 am
“If Jesus and the Holy Spirit are completely equal to God as that missive up thread suggests. there is no way God could crush Jesus… ”
Why not?
@Feminist Hater.
“If Jesus and the Holy Spirit are completely equal to God as that missive up thread suggests. there is no way God could crush Jesus, the whole point of the New Testament becomes superfluous.”
So how do you explain this?
John 5:17 But Jesus answered them, “My Father has been working until now, and I have been working.”18 Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.
You can only crush that which is not equal to you. Thanks but no thanks. I don’t care anymore, I’m damned, whatever. I cannot believe in all good faith in the stuff I read up top. It makes zero sense and craps all over the idea that God sacrificed his only son for us.
The Son can do nothing of himself but what he sees the Father do.
My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me.
For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, 27 and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man. 28 Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice 29 and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation. 30 I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me.
The Jews assumed his equality, which is why they wanted to kill him, not because he actually is equal to God.
@ Feminist Hater says:
October 19, 2016 at 11:10 am
“You can only crush that which is not equal to you.”
Unless He who is equal willingly allowed himself to be crushed. That’s why it’s called submission. Christ submitted. He was not dominated.
@Feminist Hater
One thing that has helped me understand this is as follows:
Remember that one of the descriptions of being a Christian and being saved is to be adopted into the family of faith. Abraham is the patriarch of the family of faith. Therefore, of many covenants in the Bible, the New Covenant hearkens back to and fulfills the Abrahamic Covenant. (We are not Jews; the Mosaic Covenant was with the children of Jacob, not Abraham.)
In Genesis 15, God and Abraham sign this covenant. It is a simple, blunt deal: keep your side, or be torn apart like those animals. God is faithful; it is an immutable part of his character; God will always keep his side of protecting his own. However, God does something: He signs for mankind, too. Further, he presages how he will shove a personage of God into a man in that God, the smoking firepot, signs for divinity, and God, the blazing torch, a piece of that firepot, signs for humanity.
This is not the only time God has stuffed himself into human form to appear to Abraham. In Genesis 18, there are three visitors. One of them is addressed as God. The personage that can become corporeal, can become man, is the Christ, God the Son. God the Son says this himself – he is the way; none can come to God the Father except through him, and their wills are the same. We can only interact at present through this material world. The personage of God the Father cannot be contained in the material world. God the Son is literally humanity’s conduit – from Adam physically walking with him, to Abraham physically meeting him, to Thomas physically sticking his finger in the wounds.
Based on how God himself signed the Abrahamic Covenant, God has both roles: God enforces the covenant against his dependent, to demand that his dependent, failing the requirement of being without sin and doing the exact will of God, is to be torn apart. This is God as claimant on behalf of divinity. However, God signed for humanity, too – and he did this thing willingly. It was not put upon him; it was done willingly; there is no forcing sovereignty, but there is the agreement of sovereignty to condescend to certain actions. Abraham did not march through the animal carcasses – God did. God set up for the beginning that he would be the substitution as well, and to be torn apart and punished for Abraham’s children’s punishment. Since this is mankind that must pay, God must become a man to complete this contract; the personage of God that becomes a man is God the Son, the man Jesus Christ.
“The Jews assumed his equality, which is why they wanted to kill him, not because he actually is equal to God.”
Wrong
“9So Jesus replied, “Truly, truly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing by Himself, unless He sees the Father doing it. For whatever the Father does, the Son also does. 20The Father loves the Son and shows Him all He does. And to your amazement, He will show Him even greater works than these. 21For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom He wishes.”
Genesis1:26
Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
Who is the “us” and “our”?
God grants Jesus his powers, he grants Jesus life, God grants Jesus the authority to judge, Jesus states he can do nothing himself and only judges righteously because he doesn’t seek his own will, thus separating his will from his father’s, but instead seeks his father’s will who sent him, which is what makes his judgement righteous.
God has infinite wisdom, Jesus has to learn wisdom. God cannot be tempted, yet Jesus is tempted by man and the devil. There are countless more passages that illustrate that Jesus himself does not think himself equal to his father.
The reason I spoke up on this topic is precisely because of some survey trying to prove that Christians are heretics because they don’t believe or cannot conceptualize something that on the face of it, sounds absurd. The Holy Trinity isn’t a sticking point in the Bible, that came afterwards and seems to be used as another ploy to trick and divide. The Bible states we must honour the father, son and Spirit and I will do that. However, the Glory is God’s and his alone.
Sorry for the derail.
Linx, I don’t care. I’m done.
@Feminist Hater
Very well. Then I will end with this.
John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”
Thanks Linx, however, what did Jesus say before that?
John 14:28
Take a look.
FM
“what did Jesus say before that?”
24Now Thomas called Didymus, one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” [ see verse 28 😉 ]
But he replied, “Unless I see the nail marks in His hands, and put my finger where the nails have been, and put my hand into His side, I will never believe.”
26Eight days later, His disciples were once again inside with the doors locked, and Thomas was with them. Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” 27Then Jesus said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and look at My hands. Reach out your hand and put it into My side. Stop doubting and believe.”
28Thomas replied, “My Lord and my God!”
29Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen, and yet have believed.”
Linx, read the passage I gave you. Don’t use annoying emojis. It’s not clever, just condescending.
The only reason I responded to your previous post was because you said that you would finish this. You cannot. Thomas being in awe of Jesus’ resurrection doesn’t mean he is correct in thinking that Jesus is God.
This in not a winnable debate, we cannot understand God. A survey using man’s understanding of some 1000 idea of the Holy Trinity on deciding who is damned and who is not is in direct contradiction to that which Jesus said. He alone judges and decides. No one else. You cannot refute that.
@ Feminist Hater says:
October 19, 2016 at 11:35 am
“Linx, I don’t care. I’m done.”
13 minutes later…
@Feminist Hater says:
October 19, 2016 at 11:48 am
“Thanks Linx, however, what did Jesus say before that?
John 14:28
Take a look.”
Gotta love it.
That should be 1000 year old idea..
Oscar, who decides who is damned and who is not? A 1000 year old decision made by men or Jesus?
@ Feminist Hater says:
October 19, 2016 at 12:07 pm
“… we cannot understand God.”
And yet…
@ Feminist Hater says:
October 19, 2016 at 10:15 am
“Well, if Jesus is equal to God then Jesus is God, and then Jesus cannot be the image of God, he must just be God… it becomes gobbledygook really, with no foundation or reason.”
Could it be that the reason you think that “it becomes gobbledygook really, with no foundation or reason” is not that it’s actually “gobbledygook really, with no foundation or reason”, but simply a result of your admitted inability to understand God?
Love it all you want. Fine, I’m not done. Now I’m just getting started. You want to have it out, let’s do it.
Sure Oscar, perhaps it is, however, you come along and then think that men who made this decision can… If it is so easy, it should be understandable, yes?
@ Feminist Hater says:
October 19, 2016 at 12:14 pm
“Oscar, who decides who is damned and who is not? A 1000 year old decision made by men or Jesus?”
Who says that the concept of the Trinity is “a 1000 year old decision made by men”? You?
@ Feminist Hater says:
October 19, 2016 at 12:15 pm
“If it is so easy, it should be understandable, yes?”
Did I at any time say it was “easy”? Can you provide a quote?
@FH
The emoji was done in good faith. I will not use them again.
“You want to have it out, let’s do it.”
Well seeing as you changed your mind.
Genesis1:26
Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
Who is the “us” and “our”?
If a priest can write that in 500 AD or sometime around then, surely it would be comprehensible, especially considering that our very souls rely on it. If not, it serves little to no purpose but to damn us all.
I would still like my question answered, stop looking for little faults. It hardly serves to move anything forward. Who decides our judgement. A priest from Alexandria or Jesus our saviour?
God and his Angels.
Linx, John Chapter 14 verse 28.
Remember what I told you: I am going away, but I will come back to you again. If you really loved me, you would be happy that I am going to the Father, who is greater than I am.
Feminist Hater: Christ has two natures in his one being. He has a divine nature in which He is equal to God and is God. He also has a human nature in which He is inferior to God in his humanity. Our humanity was assumed into God’s divinity. This is why He is able to redeem and save us.
John 1:1-3
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
John 1: 14
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
John 1:16-18
Out of his fullness [the fullness being both God and Man] we have all received grace in place of grace already given. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.
@FM
“God and his Angels.”
Where in Scripture does it say that the angels were co creators?
How do you get that God specifically separated himself when talking to himself about creating man in the likeness of himself but also the likeness of his other selves?
@FH.
Where in Scripture does it say that the angels were co creators?
Testing, one two three.
It doesn’t. Your idea there is to paint them as such. They were helpers, unless you mean to assume that God talks to himself in the third person.
@FH
So how do you know that “us” and “our” include the angels?
You think it doesn’t? Of course it does, they were God’s creation, made to help him. Exactly why Lucifer was so angry at God’s love for humans. Lucifer knew what humans were, he helped God when God created us.
Feminist Hater:
In my experience, kooky “Linx” is merely here to waste time and sow division among brothers. While I’m always entertained by mindless flame-wars, you should keep in mind that he has an ulterior motive, and arguing with him won’t really teach you anything.
He never even makes a point, he just chases his tail and barks, impotently, in an attempt to get some attention from his elders and betters.
Best,
Boxer
@FH
“Of course it does, they were God’s creation, made to help him.”
So God needs help?
@Boxer.
So how does it feel to let down your branch swinging ancestors?
@ Feminist Hater says:
October 19, 2016 at 12:41 pm
“If a priest can write that in 500 AD or sometime around then, surely it would be comprehensible, especially considering that our very souls rely on it. If not, it serves little to no purpose but to damn us all.”
If a priest can write what?
“I would still like my question answered, stop looking for little faults. It hardly serves to move anything forward. Who decides our judgement. A priest from Alexandria or Jesus our saviour?”
Who says the faults in your thinking are “little”? For example, the question you want answered is based on the premise that the concept of the Trinity is “1,000 years old”. If that premise is false, answering your question is pointless. So, once again, who says that the concept of the Trinity is “a 1000 year old decision made by men”? You?
Linx’s position is the orthodox one. Hard to call him the divider in this circumstance.
I didn’t say God needs help, Linx. Not even going to answer that.
https://carm.org/athanasian-creed-500-ad
That’s what I mean Oscar, not saying the Trinity is 1000 years old, merely the discussion which that survey was based off of is.
And, technically, I should say over 1500 years old..
@FH
“I didn’t say God needs help, Linx. Not even going to answer that.”
Yes you did.
Not only that you said “Lucifer knew what humans were, he helped God when God created us.”
So what exactly did the angels and Lucifer help God with when He created us?
The division isn’t caused by Linx, the division is caused by the idea that a survey says 28% of Christians who answered that specific question who took that survey are heretics because they don’t subscribe to the idea that the parts of the Trinity are equal but sometimes not equal and the same but sometimes not the same, it reads like something trying to confuse.
Sure, they helped him do whatever he wanted them to do, they do it countless times in the Bible. He doesn’t need any help, he doesn’t need anything but yet he still makes use of others, Linx.
And don’t put words in my mouth, I know what I said.
I don’t know Linx, I wasn’t there, neither were you. Can you give a description of what God did to make us, and what the Word did as well?
The division isn’t caused by Linx, the division is caused by the idea that a survey says 28% of Christians who answered
I find most of those surveys to be nothing but fear-mongering. Questions to complex theological questions are boiled down to simple set of answers. No room for nuance, or even a challenge whether the question is phrased well.
But it makes for big hype, especially for orgs like Salem Communications, but also for orgs that I believe are generally doing the right thing.
@FH
“And don’t put words in my mouth, I know what I said.”
I used your exact words.
“I don’t know Linx, I wasn’t there, neither were you.”
Then how do you know that God used the angels and Lucifer for help during creation?
“Can you give a description of what God did to make us, and what the Word did as well?”
Genesis2: 7″ then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.”
It seems to be that what is being said is that God is the Word, Jesus, the Holy Spirit and the Father. That he separated himself into these different parts or was always separated and created man. Then man sinned and God sent part of himself down to be birthed as a man to sacrifice for our sins, a man who while on Earth is subject to himself in heaven but is also the Word manifest in flesh. All sounds well and good, really it does.
My opinion. I don’t even know why I bother anymore. Trying to make sense of the Bible, Catholicism and the rest of it is a high order.. it seems either I just believe everything said or I burn in hell, nice choice, I could just believe, those beliefs could be wrong, in which case, I burn, or I try and understand them to the best of my knowledge, come short, not understand and thus cannot believe in them and burn.
Take it as a victory gents, debating like this just makes my heart harder. I know what you’re all saying but logically, rationally, it makes little sense and since I have yet to have the Holy Spirit enter my life, probably never will.
Linx, stop. I said Angels helped God, not that he needed their help. There is a difference.
@FH
“Take it as a victory gents, debating like this just makes my heart harder. I know what you’re all saying but logically, rationally, it makes little sense and since I have yet to have the Holy Spirit enter my life, probably never will.”
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”
Please don’t think that I am just talking to argue. I really do care because I see your view point that is why I ask you questions to help you try and understand our presupposition.
@Boxer
Are you a Toronto dweller? I am going to be there on business in early December and it would be fun to connect with a fellow Dalrockian. Let me know how to email you.
Hey Mr. Teebs:
I’m xerofrog on gmail. Email away!
@constrainedlocus
>However, this same Word would also have men of the community stoning non-virgins to death at her father’s doorstep, but I digress….
You write as if that were a bad command… Have you seen the world we have, when female sexuality is unrestrained? If we did not tolerate promiscuity, it would drop off. Not to zero of course, but to less than the current 99% level. And no, that is not an exaggeration, assuming you accept that even one extra-marital partner is promiscuity.
@Feminist hater
I hope this will be helpful for you. God desires you to come to repentance 🙂 2 Peter 3:8-9.
>“You can only crush that which is not equal to you.”
>Unless He who is equal willingly allowed himself to be crushed.
See Phil 2 for a great discussion that shows Christ’s humility, his being in nature God, his choice to be made as a man. And since he chose to empty himself, he could be killed (and was).
1 If then there is any encouragement in Christ, any consolation from love, any sharing in the Spirit, any compassion and sympathy, 2 make my joy complete: be of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. 3 Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves. 4 Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others. 5 Let the same mind be in you that was[a] in Christ Jesus,
6
who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God
as something to be exploited,
7
but emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
being born in human likeness.
And being found in human form,
8
he humbled himself
and became obedient to the point of death—
even death on a cross.
9
Therefore God also highly exalted him
and gave him the name
that is above every name,
10
so that at the name of Jesus
every knee should bend,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11
and every tongue should confess
that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
>Sorry, Jesus cannot be equal to God, God is the creator, the beginning and the end. Christ is our redeemer, our Saviour but he is saving us for God, not for himself.
He is saving us for himself. See verse 14
Titus 2:11-14New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all,[a] 12 training us to renounce impiety and worldly passions, and in the present age to live lives that are self-controlled, upright, and godly, 13 while we wait for the blessed hope and the manifestation of the glory of our great God and Savior,[b] Jesus Christ. 14 He it is who gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity and purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.
>If God [the Father] and Jesus are the same
They are not the same person, but both are God, as shown by John 1:18. Someone else quoted John 1 for you above. That verse refers to “the Father” and also “The Word” as God. Similar to Titus 1
Titus 3 uses the term “God our Saviour” for the one who appeared. And in case you are wondering who “God our Saviour” is, the answer is in verse 6.
3 For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, despicable, hating one another. 4 But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, through the water[a] of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit. 6 This Spirit he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. 8 The saying is sure.
I desire that you insist on these things, so that those who have come to believe in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works; these things are excellent and profitable to everyone.
>The Holy Trinity isn’t a sticking point in the Bible
I think you are correct on this. The passages on salvation that I know, such as Eph 2:8-10, Romans 10:1-13 and Titus 3:3-8 talk about faith, grace, admitting Christ as Lord/master and belief. But nothing about having the “correct” understanding of God. As if we could have that on this side of eternity.
May God bless and guide you.
“But what would the first, older, barren wife now do? No kids and now no husband. I suppose she can always buy a cat, start a blog celebrating her liberation, and promote herself as a cougar on Craigslist personal ads.”
She won’t get any Dark Triad bad boys responding to her Craiglist ads, but she can probably bag more than a few thirsty young incel beta boys, who while they aren’t as tingle inducing as Chad is, are far younger and probably more virile than her middle aged ex hubby, and she’ll even have her own harem for a while, at least until she starts to look like their grandmothers.
This is why I cannot understand it. It’s contradictory in its nature. Read through that.
If they are all one and the same, merely different manifestations of the same thing, it means Christ knew he couldn’t really die or that the death of his physical body meant little, he’s God after all. It removes the sacrificial part necessary for the atonement of our sins. I know what you all mean that he chose to do it, he chose not to use his powers, he chose to be a man but the real threat wasn’t there but is for all of us.
This boils down to a distinction. You are all wanting me to believe that Christ is God, that Christ is the ‘Word’, whatever that was or is. Is the ‘Word’ the Bible? Is it the Holy Spirit? Is it God’s grace. God cannot do anything without the ‘Word’ but Christ cannot do anything with the Father. God is the only God but he’s now in three parts which are wholly dependent on each being there to fulfill any goal that might achieve. Does this not violate God’s first commandment, you shalt have no other Gods but him?
They talk to each other as if independent but are in fact the same being. The ‘Word’ which was with God in the beginning was made flesh in Jesus, or was it Jesus before as well?, and then died for our sins, rose from the dead and was lifted into heaven to sit at God’s right hand. Is Jesus now the ‘Word’ again or are we dealing with an entirely new being?
Thank you. At least we can agree on that. Which was the entire reason for me sticking my head out here. The survey suggested that indeed our salvation does depend on understanding of God. Which means I’m well and truly screwed because God does not grant me understanding. I suppose his will must be done.
I can understand why my comment about the Trinity was ignored. Who am I after all to comment on such things? But why Boethius and Aquinas are not even mentioned in this whole discussion is a mystery to me. It is not as if any new information has been forthcoming since they came on the scene. You would think the ideas Aquinas would interest people. He was at least on the top ten list of the smartest people in the Middle Ages.
@ Feminist Hater says:
October 20, 2016 at 3:26 am
“it means Christ knew he couldn’t really die or that the death of his physical body meant little”
That’s true of everyone who has eternal life. How do you think the martyrs went to their deaths so courageously?
Philippians 1:21 For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain.
“It removes the sacrificial part necessary for the atonement of our sins.”
You don’t think His suffering was a sacrifice? You don’t think setting aside His glory – even if temporarily – was a sacrifice? You don’t think taking on the frailty and limitations of human form after having existed for eternity past in an unlimited form is a sacrifice? You don’t think taking on Himself the guilt and filth of every sin ever committed by every human being ever despite being 100% holy, righteous and sinless was a sacrifice?
Seriously?
“I know what you all mean that he chose to do it, he chose not to use his powers, he chose to be a man but the real threat wasn’t there but is for all of us.”
Death is no eternal threat to he who is in Christ, only a temporary threat, just as there was for Christ Himself.
“This boils down to a distinction. You are all wanting me to believe that Christ is God, that Christ is the ‘Word’, whatever that was or is.”
Is. Not was. Always has been, always will be. John used the term “the Word” as a way to explain that God the Son (Jesus) is the one who reveals God the Father to us…
John 14:7 “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him.”
8 Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.”
9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
“God cannot do anything without the ‘Word’ but Christ cannot do anything with the Father. God is the only God but he’s now in three parts which are wholly dependent on each being there to fulfill any goal that might achieve.”
Can your mind do anything without your body? Can your body do anything without your mind? Can your mind and body live if separated from your spirit? You are created in God’s image. Have you ever wondered what that means?
“Does this not violate God’s first commandment, you shalt have no other Gods but him?”
No, because God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are one. Just as your spirit, mind and body are one.
“Is Jesus now the ‘Word’ again or are we dealing with an entirely new being?”
God the Son always was and always will be the Word.
Oscar, that just throws so many questions into my mind and I don’t want to disturb anymore. I get it, God is the whole and the Father, Son and Holy Spirit make up the whole, all the different names for the same part, Jesus being called the Grace of God, the Word of God, the Son of God, it becomes a little too much if God is simply all of these things anyway. Why the word play?
Anyway, I guess what I’m saying is if God whats me to understand this, he will in time.
Lots to study in the area FH. All 3 are referred to as God in various parts of the Scriptures.
Though I am not sure humans can really understand the Trinity any more than we can really understand God. We try to fit it and Him into our little brains and likenesses and fail to account that it really goes the other way, we are in His likeness. We are not Him.
I do find it ironic that Adam and Eve fell because they wanted to be “like God” when they already were. How much of our lives are spent seeking what we already have?
@ Feminist Hater says:
October 20, 2016 at 8:50 am
“Why the word play?”
Because we’re using our severely limited little monkey brains and the language they created to describe an infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being. Unsurprisingly, both are inadequate.
@ BillyS says:
October 20, 2016 at 9:43 am
“I do find it ironic that Adam and Eve fell because they wanted to be ‘like God’ when they already were. How much of our lives are spent seeking what we already have?”
Exactly. Now check this out.
8 Again, the devil took Him [Christ] up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. 9 And he said to Him, “All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me.”
Think about that.
“I do find it ironic that Adam and Eve fell because they wanted to be ‘like God’ when they already were. How much of our lives are spent seeking what we already have?”
Eve wanted to be like God. Women are still cursed with that tendency. Adam preferred the company of women to the company of God. In hindsight, this was predictable by God’s admission that Adam was lonely despite having His presence. And we men are still cursed with a burden of performance.
For those disputing about the trinity doctrine, please read “conquering the verbal sorcery of trinitarianism” by southern Israelite. You can find his book free online through his webpage southern Protestant dot com.
To you trinitarians, I was once as you are but realized after reading that book and the relevant scriptures and my reason that it is ipso facto patheism when you strip away the word salad.
Scrict monotheism is what the bible teaches. Jesus is inferior ontologically to the father but is identified with him nominally as his chosen representative and is the only one not created ex nihilo but derived from the father before the foundation of the world. The only time the New Testament uses the word theos” and there is a numeric value attached, it refers to the father.
We are not given enough information about the spirit of God to be dogmatic about his personage.
Continue the Protestant reformation and come out of her.
Dear Fellas:
In my experience, 35+ women have far fewer options in this regard than pop culture suggests. The thirsty young incel beta boys are, to begin with, a far smaller pool of people than you’d guess, and secondly, even they have standards.
It continues to amuse, amaze and entertain me, that this shell game actually succeeds in convincing some women to divorce good men in hopes of tapping into some nonexistent sex-appeal that these women have. Women who are 35+ are potential sex goddesses to one man only, and then only if she had loyally stuck by that man, bore and raised his children competently, and kept his house faithfully. A divorced 35+ woman actually gives up the only sex appeal that she will ever have, the minute she presses the eject button on her marriage.
Feminism is strictly for suckers.
Boxer
8 Again, the devil took Him [Christ] up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. 9 And he said to Him, “All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me.”
Think about that
I wonder if Jesus was thinking some First Century variation of “They’re already mine, you moron, but since you have a role to play, we’ll go with the script.”.
It continues to amuse, amaze and entertain me, that this shell game actually succeeds in convincing some women to divorce good men in hopes of tapping into some nonexistent sex-appeal that these women have. Women who are 35+ are potential sex goddesses to one man only, and then only if she had loyally stuck by that man, bore and raised his children competently, and kept his house faithfully. A divorced 35+ woman actually gives up the only sex appeal that she will ever have, the minute she presses the eject button on her marriage.
Feminism is strictly for suckers.
Yup. It’s both hilarious and tragic to watch these poor wenches angle in an ocean teeming with fish that ignore their baited hook.
In my experience, 35+ women have far fewer options in this regard than pop culture suggests. The thirsty young incel beta boys are, to begin with, a far smaller pool of people than you’d guess, and secondly, even they have standards.
It continues to amuse, amaze and entertain me, that this shell game actually succeeds in convincing some women to divorce good men in hopes of tapping into some nonexistent sex-appeal that these women have. Women who are 35+ are potential sex goddesses to one man only, and then only if she had loyally stuck by that man, bore and raised his children competently, and kept his house faithfully. A divorced 35+ woman actually gives up the only sex appeal that she will ever have, the minute she presses the eject button on her marriage.
On average you’re right. Most women at that age just aren’t attractive enough. There is a tail, though, of, say, 15-20% of them that is, and they comprise most of the active divorced cougar set. Whether there are more or less of these around is very environmental — that is, there are some parts of the country or the world where they are just more common than others. They do exist, but they are vastly outnumbered by the rest of the women in their age group 80-90% in most places.
Of course that’s cougaring and sex. When it comes to marriage, even the women in this more select group have a very hard time capitalizing on remarrying well at these ages. I have seen some pretty good looking ones manage a side-grade after quite some time looking, but for *marriage* for the most part that’s the best they can do, and most are looking at a downgrade because the better guys in the proper age range who are on the market at that time just go younger because they can, and it’s a better deal than marrying a 45 year old woman with two kids, even if she’s a fairly hot 45.
So, yes, cougaring isn’t open to most older women — it is open to a small subset of them. However, even that subset has a very hard time remarrying well, when you actually do a comparison of before and after.
@ Novaseeker says:
October 20, 2016 at 1:18 pm
“I have seen some pretty good looking ones manage a side-grade after quite some time looking, but for *marriage* for the most part that’s the best they can do, and most are looking at a downgrade because the better guys in the proper age range who are on the market at that time just go younger because they can, and it’s a better deal than marrying a 45 year old woman with two kids, even if she’s a fairly hot 45.”
Not even Christie Brinkley managed an upgrade, and she’s always been among the most beautiful in the world in her age group.
Oh, there are some very visible examples of famous women who were 9s or higher, that divorced a couple of times, and just never married again. They could not get what they were used to, so at present, are just not married.
Heather Locklear
Sophie Marceau
Isabella Rosellini
Elizabeth Hurley
Sharon Stone
Pamela Anderson
Tawny Kitaen
Christy Brinkley
I am sure there are many more. All had 1-4 divorces and are not married now. It is obvious that they just cannot get what they thought they could get forever. Plus, all the online comments they still get on their 10-20 year old photos keeps their self-assessment inflated..
>this was predictable by God’s admission that Adam was lonely despite having His presence. And we men are still cursed with a burden of performance.
True. But at least we/I am no longer burdened by loneliness; I have male friends, and also community with y’all here. I think many Christians ignore the fact that Gen 2:18 says, “It is not good for the man to be alone”, rather than, “It is not good for the man to not have a woman”.
God might have meant that the man needed a woman, thus the creation of Eve.
Or, God might have meant only exactly what he said, that the man needed someone else there. And since God was going to create another person anyway, he killed two birds with one stone by making a woman, so that in addition to not being alone, the man could also “be fruitful and multiply”, as God later commanded.
I will not pretend to speak for God and say what he was thinking, but we should admit the various possibilities that are supported by what God did and said.
Re: Trinity
Two last thoughts on this…
First: Maybe I am too simple, but why is “three in one” difficult? Think of any sports team. We say “team”, singular. There is only one team. But it has many members. Same as the “we who are many form one body” speech given by Paul in Rom 12:3-8.
Second: It is my unsubstantiated opinion that God made a big deal of there being only one God, not many, early in history (e.g. Deut 6:4-9) because the people of that time came from polytheistic backgrounds; they believed there were dozens of gods. The Egyptians apparently had a “god” of the sun, fertility, agriculture, war, Nile, frogs, and anything else that moved (slight exaggeration). After 400 years of the Israelites living in that culture, God was trying to correct their faulty ideas.
So maybe God gave the “one God” bit to get them to stop trying to worship him plus the other dozen false gods they were packing around. (And that is packing around literally. See Joshua 24:14-15; even at the end of Joshua’s time, after seeing God repeatedly help them, the Israelites apparently were still packing around idols.)
And even when we acknowledge the three persons in God, they are “one” in that they always act in agreement/concert with each other. The gods of the Egyptians worked independently and against one another. Both Egypt and Greece had the idea of gods fighting against and killing each other (IIRC). Compare that conflict between gods with the unity of purpose exemplified by God. A favourite passage is from John 17, which records a prayer from Jesus:
20 “I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us,[a] so that the world may believe that you have sent me.
So God wants the multitude of his church to be one. Even though we number millions.
And to get this thread somewhat back on topic: This unity of purpose, shown by God, is supposed to be reflected in the marriage relationship. If women submitted to their husbands, as required by 1 Pet 3:1-7, Col 3:18-21, Titus 2:3-5, etc., then the two would act in concert, for the same purpose. Each man would then actually have a helper/helpmeet, as intended.
Or, women could rebel against their husband, just as Satan rebelled against God, and cause chaos. I am so grateful I do not have a rebellious wife. even at the cost of having none.
Heather Locklear
Sophie Marceau
Isabella Rosellini
Elizabeth Hurley
Sharon Stone
Pamela Anderson
Tawny Kitaen
Christy Brinkley
I’m sure too that the “bitch factor” for each of these women is probably between a 12 and a 15 on a low-to-high scale of 1 – 10. While that’s typical of Hollywood princesses and queens, the Hollywood princes and kings usually have the option of putting up with that shit from considerably younger, more nubile, and more fertile women among the “royal family.” The eight women listed above are all grandmothers in Hollywood years, women well past their primes even if they’re in better condition than most women in their age group, and thus not worth the hell they will inevitably put any man through who decides to claim them off waivers.
Lesson for all you “commoner” women out there: if the princesses and queens of Hollywood royalty can’t “trade up” in men, then you for sure the hell won’t either. Of course that won’t stop many of you from making fools of yourselves and trashing your lives trying.
Three in one is usually considered a problem. That is why Boethius and Aquinas spent some effort to resolve the problem.One way of putting it is the Father =God. Son=God. Spirit =God. But Father does not equal Son. Son does not equal Spirit. That is a=d; b=d; c=d. But “a” does not equal “b.” “b”does not equal “c.”
In any case I have not seen the proofs of this approach to be convincing. The translation of the Name of God at the burning bush is “I will be,” not “I am.” Therefore Jesus saying I am before Abraham has nothing to do with any claim to Divinity to anyone who knew Hebrew at the time.
Oh, add to the list :
Teri Hatcher
Demi Moore
Carrie Fisher
Kim Cattrall
Vanna White
Gwyneth Paltrow
Nastassja Kinski
Again, this list indicates how easy it is for a top glamor actress to overplay her hand… They got divorced one time too many, and now they can’t get what they used to, so just don’t marry again.
Teri Hatcher
Demi Moore
Carrie Fisher
Kim Cattrall
Vanna White
Gwyneth Paltrow
Nastassja Kinski
The one thing all the women of this batch have in common that distinguishes them from the other eight is that they have no aged well. At all. Especially not Hatcher, Fisher, Moore, Paltrow, and Kinski.
Seriously? It’s God’s first commandment. What did Moses do to those that worships the calf?
God is the one and only God, we can dispute the idea of the Holy Trinity being other manifestations of God but not his commandment.
On the Trinity being easy to understand. It’s not the concept of what is being said that is difficult, that is something I heard many years ago. I watch the movie ‘Nuns on the Run’ when I was a kid, funny as it was, there was the humorous attempt to explain the Trinity as a shamrock.
Yea, the confusion is why?… why.
@ Feminist Hater says:
October 21, 2016 at 2:43 am
“Yea, the confusion is why?… why.”
Why what?
Don’t be so pedantic Oscar, it’s a general why, the questioning of the universe, God and all therein.
Outside of Aquinas and Boethius I thought about the issue. My own feeling is mainly that human reason can not go into unconditioned realities. That is to say I do not see the Trinity as a subject to be involved in. The Talmud [Sanhedrin] says God came down in human form, so the whole issue just does not seem all that essential to me. [The basic statement in the Talmud is based on a verse in Isaiah in which God came down in human for in order to give a haircut to a human king. The Talmud is not speaking as a metaphor since it precedes its remarks with the statement that if the verse itself did not say this, then it would be impossible to say.]
Avraham,
It also says God (plural) made man in His image in Genesis. Something unusual definitely going on there.
There is little if any problem defending the Trinity with Neo Platonic thought. And you could come up with places in the Old T where God is talking through an angel. Intermediates are common in the OT. I simply do not see this as an important issue. But for those that do it is defensible. Aquinas was however stuck because of his Aristotelian system. He needed to get the Trinity to work in that context which made it harder for him than for people that had come before him.
@ Feminist Hater says:
October 21, 2016 at 7:43 am
“Don’t be so pedantic Oscar, it’s a general why, the questioning of the universe, God and all therein.”
So, taking your questions seriously and attempting to understand them is “pedantic” now?
>Seriously? It’s God’s first commandment.
I was not disputing the first commandment.
“You shall have no other God before me.”
Whether the me, referring to God, refers to a single being or to a Godhead of three persons does not change the prohibition against putting any other (false) god before God.
Now, where we could have a lively debate / argument, amongst those who accept the trinity, is on the identification of who exactly is speaking.
Generally, when the Scriptures say only “God”, it is my understanding they are referring to God the Father. E.g., see how John 1:18 refers to one being as “God” and the other as “God the one and only”.
If we accept that it was God the Father who was speaking the command to put no other God before him, should this cause concern for the various churches in North America? Many N.A. churches focus on the grace of God, and ignore the continuing willingness of God to judge us, find our actions lacking, and punish us. E.g. 1 Cor 3:14-16, Matt 12:35-36, Heb 4:12-13, Heb 12:11, Rev chapter 2-3, etc.
Many incorrectly associate God’s justice with (only) God the Father. And they associate the grace of God with God the Son.
And, as we naturally like grace better than judgement, providing the grace is being given to me and not my enemy, many choose to focus their worship mostly or wholly on God the Son.
So, is the focus on God the Son, instead of equally worshiping all three persons, an example of disobedience to the first commandment in Ex 20:1-3?
Pingback: All Linked Up – Inconceivable!
No, you didn’t take the questions seriously, you know very well what I mean by why, you’re being pedantic, everything I say to be twisted. Your arguments were no more convincing than the video I shared.
The question wasn’t even asked of you, it was in response to Dale.
You see the contradiction. We focus on Jesus because the Bible clearly states that no one comes to the Father but through the Son. It’s not disobedience.
If Jesus is God then why this double entendre? He could have easily just said that he is Lord and thus worshiping him is the same as worshiping God, cutting out all the word play. However, the Father gives him the right to judge us, a distinction made meaningless if they are the same being.
If we take Oscar’s idea of our body, mind and spirit being in the image of God, thus making the Father the mind, the Son the body and the Holy Spirit, well, the spirit. It works until they are co-equal, and then begins to fall a little flat. My body only exists to service my mind, both my mind and body perish when I die, leaving only the spirit.. thus creating an unequal hierarchy.
Why split an omnipotent being up into three equal parts? He can do anything anyway thus making the distinction superfluous. Furthermore, this very idea doesn’t create an omnipotent being, it creates a being bound by this very construct.. a contradiction.
Why would Satan, who was created by God and thus created by – and this is your methodology – Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit, tempt the very being he knows to be the ‘Word’ who created him? He’s tempting God the Son, right? You cannot believe that Satan doesn’t know who Jesus really is? Only if Satan thinks of Jesus as a man, not a co-equal of the Father, do the temptations make sense.
Why would Jesus sit at God’s right hand when he is part of God?
John Chapter 14 Verse 28
Why would Jesus say something that, according to all of you, is obviously false? He doesn’t say God, he says ‘Father’, the co-equal part to him the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Why does the Bible use God and the Father interchangeably – and I mean this in the sense of the Father being equal to God, being the whole of God, not a co-equal part? Can you show me the verses that mention God and the Son interchangeably to the same effect and also the Holy Spirit and God interchangeably?
Why would God create a hierarchy within himself?
Matthew Chapter 27 Verse 46
“So, is the focus on God the Son, instead of equally worshiping all three persons, an example of disobedience to the first commandment in Ex 20:1-3?”
No. Each person of the Trinity is wholly and completely God. God is one being, not three distinct beings. This is very hard for our minds to comprehend. To worship one person of the Trinity is to worship God fully as God. God is one yet the distinctions we know as the three persons are distinctions of relatability within the inner life of God. A weak analogy would be if you had a son and someone praised him, the parents wouldn’t say, “Hey, why is he getting all the glory here?” The parents would feel praised as well because their son is a part of them. I know that as a parent if someone praises one of my children then I’m compelled to say “Thank you” because I feel complimented as well.
>You see the contradiction.
No, I was pointing out that many focus on God the Son, virtually ignoring God the Father and Spirit.
Re interchangeable and greater comments
In any group, whether a sports team or the Godhead, each person has their own strengths and roles. Only a stupid coach would tell the quarterback and an offensive linesman to switch positions; each has their own strengths. Similarly, a wife and a husband are not interchangeable. As another person wrote to you above, you appear to be falling for the feminist lies:
a) everyone is equal
b) everyone is equal in every way and every ability
c) if I choose to submit to the authority of anyone else, then they are automatically worth more than me, thus not equal, and thus it is abusive and not fair.
No, the F, S and HS are not interchangeable. They have unique roles that they fulfill. Whether that is because one has skills the others do not have, I do not know. We only know that they have certain roles, not why.
No, they are not “less God” than each other. The Son does submit to the Father; so in authority he obeyed the Father, or “less in authority” if you prefer. That does not make him less God, anymore than I am less human because I submit to the human policeman or the human king/president. The king and I are both fully human; his differing role and authority are irrelevant to our DNA/being, we are both human. And only an idiot or a feminist (to repeat myself) would say that the king is worth more in God’s sight than I. Although equally human, we would not be equally equipped for certain roles. Hopefully the king has had an education of economics and statecraft, whereas I have training in software development. We are not interchangeable.
> For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
>God made him, pretty big hole right there
I am disappointed you would think that. There is a pretty massive difference between “he hath made him to be sin for us” and “he hath made him.”
The first means God the Father made God the Son to be sin for us; e.g. God the Father laid on Jesus the sin of us all (Isa 54:5-6).
The second, if the complete statement, would mean simply that God the Father created/made God the Son; e.g. one created the other.
There is no hole with the first. This is an example of why we need to use full sentences from Scripture, and frequently full paragraphs, to get the correct meaning. Picking out a partial phrase is asking for trouble, whether you are interpreting the Bible, Shakespeare, or any other document.
Speaking of Carrie Fisher (Anon added her to the list), Fisher made news about a decade ago, complaining that, as she nears 50, she realizes that she will likely never marry again. She lamented how unfair that was. That she was better than she’d been in her youth. Wiser. More experienced in life. More skilled in her craft.
Fisher complained that a man in her position — a highly successful Hollywood actor/writer/producer — would be inundated with younger, beautiful women eager to marry him. But that as a successful but 50-year-old woman, Fisher was invisible to her male peers, who bypassed her for unaccomplished young bimbos.
That was a decade ago. Fisher is now 60. She was correct. No spouse at 50. No spouse at 60.
Dale, you, as with Oscar, refuse to answer any questions I laid out, instead determining to attack me. Weak. The point I made, which is a pretty big hole, is that God created Jesus, thus refuting the idea that Jesus was with God at the beginning being merely called the ‘Word’.
The rest, not even going to bother.
FH ” The point I made, which is a pretty big hole, is that God created Jesus, thus refuting the idea that Jesus was with God at the beginning being merely called the ‘Word’.”
God did not create Jesus. Jesus is begotten of the Father but we have to be careful not to think in human terms of a father generating a son and applying that to the Fatherhood of God. In creatures fatherhood implies a relation of two distinct persons but in the Godhead Father and Son is a relation of being in which they are of the same substance. St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa explains God the Father as the principle of the Godhead and not to be confused as the cause of the Son. He says,
“Hence this term “cause” seems to mean diversity of substance, and dependence of one from another; which is not implied in the word “principle.” For in all kinds of causes there is always to be found between the cause and the effect a distance of perfection or of power: whereas we use the term “principle” even in things which have no such difference, but have only a certain order to each other; as when we say that a point is the principle of a line; or also when we say that the first part of a line is the principle of a line.”
“…although we attribute to the Father something of authority by reason of His being the principle, still we do not attribute any kind of subjection or inferiority to the Son, or to the Holy Ghost, to avoid any occasion of error. In this way, Hilary says (De Trin. ix): “By authority of the Giver, the Father is the greater; nevertheless the Son is not less to Whom oneness of nature is give.”
“Although this word principle, as regards its derivation, seems to be taken from priority, still it does not signify priority, but origin. “
Sorry Dale, I made an error in reading your above paragraph. Please disregard my above comment.
I read Hebrews 1 and that seems to be quite conclusive. It confuses the heck out of me how the Father can speak like that to his Son but it lays it out clearly.
Anyway, I have learned quite a bit from this but am still confused about much.
Thanks for the discussion above regarding essence and hypostatic union! As I’m reading through, I keep getting the picture of blind men and the elephant in my head. Full disclosure – I’m one of the blind men.
Does God find it humorous when men attempt to apply finite wisdom and logic to the infinite? Probably. Doesn’t stop us from asking the questions, as He created us to be inquisitive. I’ve always found it helpful to keep in mind something of Aquinas – “Omnia exeunt in mysterium” – all things pass into mystery. When we hit the mystery in contemplating God, that should lead us to worship the infinite God who is so far beyond us – Isa 55:8-9
Thanks Dalrock for a great site!
Aquinas is interested in preserving Divine Simplicity.I mean to say God is not a composite. And that was the unified approach of all Christian thinkers up until Martin Luther. If people had not cared about Divine simplicity there never would have been a question about the Trinity in the first place.
Feminist Hater says:
October 22, 2016 at 2:53 pm
“No, you didn’t take the questions seriously, you know very well what I mean by why, you’re being pedantic, everything I say to be twisted. Your arguments were no more convincing than the video I shared.
The question wasn’t even asked of you, it was in response to Dale.”
I did take your question seriously. Maybe I shouldn’t have.
Perhaps you should crawl out from under that gigantic chip on your shoulder. The sunlight would do you some good. At the very least, you might get a little less pissy.
@ Avraham rosenblum says:
October 24, 2016 at 3:46 am
“Aquinas is interested in preserving Divine Simplicity.”
I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum006.htm
Aquinas taught the doctrine of the Trinity.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum034.htm
Thanks for those references. I am aware of the approach of Aquinas. I may not have learned him as much as I should have but I did spend time learning his writings.
You have been condescending every time I asked a question. I sought answers to something that deeply perplexed me. Your continued responses with their condescending tone has done nothing to help the situation. Why would I care to explain every minute detail to you, responding to such empty headed questions as ‘why what?’. You are the one with a chip on his shoulder, always interjecting, forcing words into the mouths of others, even when the ‘why’ was already explained to you.
Aquinas would have thought the Protestant idea of the Trinity does not preserve Divine Simplicity. A baseball team has different members. Therefore within his context he tried to preserve Divine Simplicity. Previous people had less trouble than him because they were Neo Platonic. But the general approach that I have seen here seems to me to be the very thing Aquinas was trying to avoid at all cost.
@ Feminist Hater says:
October 24, 2016 at 11:08 am
“You have been condescending every time I asked a question.”
False. If your skin were any thinner, it would be transparent. On second thought, maybe you should continue to enjoy the shade underneath that enormous chip on your shoulder.
“….always interjecting, forcing words into the mouths of others…”
Every time someone quotes you exactly, you whine about having words placed in your mouth. Then you turn around and falsely ascribe bad intentions to the people with whom you argue. That is called projection. Very feminist-like of you.
Pingback: Tithing | Christianity and masculinity
I am also very concerned about the slippery slope we see of feminist redefining of the plain words of Scripture. However, I’m still not clear on how “Women may teach other women” is a feminist compromise, given that Titus explicitly tells the older women to teach the younger, and no limiting contexts are given, only the required content.
Pingback: Why there is a controversy about women teaching/preaching Scripture and doctrine. | Dalrock