Re: "I implore Euodia and Syntyche"
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 12:17 pm
Actually it asmre than just the "Open heart and mind" comment,even the beginnin when you said that soemone as convinced as I should not be addressed gave the impresion tot he hwoel fo the text that somehow I wa snto considerign alternate views.
Follow this by th elink you provided, a link to a "Testemony" that "ISnt an argument" that nevertheless contians a good deal fo mateiral that is,as a matter of fact, argumentation for the allowance of women preaching, and that toward the middle becomes rather condecending towards htose of us who find themslves disagreeing, it becomes rather a bit annoying.
I holdno animosity towards others, of course, but, of coruse, beign a very English soul I will alwyas sound harsh and cold to the American reader.
On that note, I will sya that for years Ive heard htis, that those who do not accept women preaching are somehow not listengin tot hose wonderful and open minded folks who do happen to allow it.But that is harldy an argument,nor is a heartfelt testimony, least of all one hwoch has ot use derogetory temrs and seperatist lables for those who hold an oposing view, sch a s"Patriarichal" and "Heirarichalists".
If you woudl, for the sae of arugment, adopt the position that women shoudln't preach, and read the testamony, you iwll see what I mean. Would you liek to be addressed in such terms?
It also strikes me that this Testamonial evidence is harldy reliable, sicne it shows only oen side of the debate iwhtotu condsideign the oposiiton. I am expected ot be open minded, but apparnelty the same demand is not made upon those working toward allowign women to preach.
the laoded language is, of ocruse, the greatest stumblign block forme.
I do treat women asEquels, but beign equel is nto the same thing asallowing women to preach the Gosepl. Equality in dignity and charecter is not the same asbeign able to perform the same tasks.
In much the same way as I see myself equel to my Queen, who is a woman, yet do not find that Equality entutles me to treat her any way I desire, and she is owed certain privlidges due a Soverign.
Equality under the law is nto the same thing as full permission to do whatever you please.
But do re-read your blessed testamony, with an open heart andmind, and see what I mean. Its not void of arugmentaiton, but is presente din a fahson that allows it to dispence with the oposing view and why its held by merley tlakign abotu how Rude Pastor CHuck was and how all those Queastsn fo Patricias wherewonderuflly unanswerable by those liek me who can't, and hwo we are fearful and rude to those hwo challege us and our patriarcihal view. Ah we Heirarichalists are a colourful lot!
As to my point on the Woman Preachers testamonies form those who oppose, unliek you I didn't bign them up in order to shwo off a testamony. I recall readignthem and am sure one can reaidly find them if one searches the internet, but my point was less about puttign their words agaisnt the words of your guy in that blog, rather, it only means htis. Such testamoniesaren't sufficient proof to determien what the Scripture says.
The Bible is quiet clear on the matter, and I can,andwill, explain 1Timothy Chapter 2 if asked.
I won't be rude, I wont snap, I dwon'tsay that you shoudl eb silent befor eme andjust accept it, btu I can explain things in hat Chaoter. Perhapsmy explanaiton won't be to yourliing, but it willbe an explanaiton.
I also have answrs for each ueasiton broguth up in that Testamony, answers which have been abotu for yearsm, long befor emy time,and yet wheren't addressed in it.
Thus I fidn the testamony worthless as it is too one sided.
Scripture binds us, and that alone.
Our answers thus must come from Scripture, andnot private interpetation of Scripture.
The Scriptures resewrve for men the role of PReacher.
THis is written, and it was written bunder Inspiration.
To break this is to break the bonds of scripture, and ot disobey its clear mandates.
And where woudl that pattern of disoedience end?
1 TImothy chapter2 is as fllows, starign at verse 9.
9. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10. But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13. For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
Women sit in subjection both as a Reminder of the fall of Man, and so it shoudl be.
I also found the comment about woman leadership in the home particulalry offensive. He asked what of the man lacked leaderhsipskills, or was disabled?
I am disabled.
Shoud I, if I marry, give over to my wife leaderhsip of the household because I am a cripple?
Are we disabled folks really infirior?
I have much to comment on what you linked, that youlikely missed in your uspport for womens Preahcign rights, but I fear to rpesent it as doign so wudl of ocurse be misconstrued. I am, as I said, cold by nature. Lovign, respectful, but not overly emotional amd very precise and,form a Yankee poitn fo view, rpetentious.
Still, I foudn the Testamony itself unconvincing, in that it presente donly its side, and depicted htose who disagree as the enemy whilst sowign those who support its cause as nobleand true and brave.
Is that intended to convinceme? Or where the queasitons that I'd heard beforeintended to?
Follow this by th elink you provided, a link to a "Testemony" that "ISnt an argument" that nevertheless contians a good deal fo mateiral that is,as a matter of fact, argumentation for the allowance of women preaching, and that toward the middle becomes rather condecending towards htose of us who find themslves disagreeing, it becomes rather a bit annoying.
I holdno animosity towards others, of course, but, of coruse, beign a very English soul I will alwyas sound harsh and cold to the American reader.
On that note, I will sya that for years Ive heard htis, that those who do not accept women preaching are somehow not listengin tot hose wonderful and open minded folks who do happen to allow it.But that is harldy an argument,nor is a heartfelt testimony, least of all one hwoch has ot use derogetory temrs and seperatist lables for those who hold an oposing view, sch a s"Patriarichal" and "Heirarichalists".
If you woudl, for the sae of arugment, adopt the position that women shoudln't preach, and read the testamony, you iwll see what I mean. Would you liek to be addressed in such terms?
It also strikes me that this Testamonial evidence is harldy reliable, sicne it shows only oen side of the debate iwhtotu condsideign the oposiiton. I am expected ot be open minded, but apparnelty the same demand is not made upon those working toward allowign women to preach.
the laoded language is, of ocruse, the greatest stumblign block forme.
I do treat women asEquels, but beign equel is nto the same thing asallowing women to preach the Gosepl. Equality in dignity and charecter is not the same asbeign able to perform the same tasks.
In much the same way as I see myself equel to my Queen, who is a woman, yet do not find that Equality entutles me to treat her any way I desire, and she is owed certain privlidges due a Soverign.
Equality under the law is nto the same thing as full permission to do whatever you please.
But do re-read your blessed testamony, with an open heart andmind, and see what I mean. Its not void of arugmentaiton, but is presente din a fahson that allows it to dispence with the oposing view and why its held by merley tlakign abotu how Rude Pastor CHuck was and how all those Queastsn fo Patricias wherewonderuflly unanswerable by those liek me who can't, and hwo we are fearful and rude to those hwo challege us and our patriarcihal view. Ah we Heirarichalists are a colourful lot!
As to my point on the Woman Preachers testamonies form those who oppose, unliek you I didn't bign them up in order to shwo off a testamony. I recall readignthem and am sure one can reaidly find them if one searches the internet, but my point was less about puttign their words agaisnt the words of your guy in that blog, rather, it only means htis. Such testamoniesaren't sufficient proof to determien what the Scripture says.
The Bible is quiet clear on the matter, and I can,andwill, explain 1Timothy Chapter 2 if asked.
I won't be rude, I wont snap, I dwon'tsay that you shoudl eb silent befor eme andjust accept it, btu I can explain things in hat Chaoter. Perhapsmy explanaiton won't be to yourliing, but it willbe an explanaiton.
I also have answrs for each ueasiton broguth up in that Testamony, answers which have been abotu for yearsm, long befor emy time,and yet wheren't addressed in it.
Thus I fidn the testamony worthless as it is too one sided.
Scripture binds us, and that alone.
Our answers thus must come from Scripture, andnot private interpetation of Scripture.
The Scriptures resewrve for men the role of PReacher.
THis is written, and it was written bunder Inspiration.
To break this is to break the bonds of scripture, and ot disobey its clear mandates.
And where woudl that pattern of disoedience end?
1 TImothy chapter2 is as fllows, starign at verse 9.
9. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10. But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13. For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
Women sit in subjection both as a Reminder of the fall of Man, and so it shoudl be.
I also found the comment about woman leadership in the home particulalry offensive. He asked what of the man lacked leaderhsipskills, or was disabled?
I am disabled.
Shoud I, if I marry, give over to my wife leaderhsip of the household because I am a cripple?
Are we disabled folks really infirior?
I have much to comment on what you linked, that youlikely missed in your uspport for womens Preahcign rights, but I fear to rpesent it as doign so wudl of ocurse be misconstrued. I am, as I said, cold by nature. Lovign, respectful, but not overly emotional amd very precise and,form a Yankee poitn fo view, rpetentious.
Still, I foudn the Testamony itself unconvincing, in that it presente donly its side, and depicted htose who disagree as the enemy whilst sowign those who support its cause as nobleand true and brave.
Is that intended to convinceme? Or where the queasitons that I'd heard beforeintended to?