"I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

[KR Wordgazer]

Contrary to popular conception, Paul was not a man who looked down on women. Observe his admonition towards the end of the Book of Philippians:

"I implore Euodia and I implore Syntyche to be of the same mind in the Lord, and I urge you also, true companion, help these women who labored with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the Book of Life." Phil. 4:2-3.

He calls them his fellow workers, and urges his "true companion" (probably Timothy) to help them along with Clement. There is no indication here that he views them as anything other than equal with Clement, also a "fellow worker" of Paul's. Note that he doesn't ask these women to help his "true companion," but his true companion to help them.

[Metacrock]

yea I agree. how do we some comps to argue with?

[ZAROVE]

MAINLY htose who argue that St. Paul, or to extend it the whoel Bible, is Sexist is because it suits teir end to sdo so.

I mainly find it amongst those hwo have se thtmeselve sup as Eneies of Christendom. Neo-Pagans and Atheists hwo ar eintent on discussing why CHristianity is hte greatest evil to visit the world, or at leats find ample reaosn for it ot be Critisised, namly lathc onto such arguments.

Mianly they parrot it form others, who got it form soemoen else, ad nauseum. I do not even know the origins but doubt many of them arrived a thtis conclusion direclty. I also doubt many out much thuth into it or even bothered to read the texts for that they said, rathe than snippet quotes. Those thsat do are ismply looking for reaosns to be critical.

Thus they seek the verses they cna use to suppot their proposition whilst ignorign those that d o not.


Cultural considerations, History, and he actual meanign of hwat Paul said is ignroed, as are verses htta praise owmen, in order to depict the Sexism they wan tot storngly to be rpasen ot justiy their anger and rage.


I am more puzzled by the osurce of he rage, rather htan by the existane of such arguments. THey are easy to see through, btu why is it that so many are os opposed violently to Christendom? Although the majorty seem to be Ex-Christiasn themselves, and htis may play a vital role in unravlign the puzzle.

[Metacrock]

MAINLY htose who argue that St. Paul, or to extend it the whoel Bible, is Sexist is because it suits teir end to sdo so.

I mainly find it amongst those hwo have se thtmeselve sup as Eneies of Christendom. Neo-Pagans and Atheists hwo ar eintent on discussing why CHristianity is hte greatest evil to visit the world, or at leats find ample reaosn for it ot be Critisised, namly lathc onto such arguments.

want to bet! man you need a trip through complementarian land. check this out.

http://www.cbmw.org/Online-Books/


I think if you knew what the comps argue it would make you sick.

Mianly they parrot it form others, who got it form soemoen else, ad nauseum. I do not even know the origins but doubt many of them arrived a thtis conclusion direclty. I also doubt many out much thuth into it or even bothered to read the texts for that they said, rathe than snippet quotes. Those thsat do are ismply looking for reaosns to be critical.

Thus they seek the verses they cna use to suppot their proposition whilst ignorign those that d o not.


Cultural considerations, History, and he actual meanign of hwat Paul said is ignroed, as are verses htta praise owmen, in order to depict the Sexism they wan tot storngly to be rpasen ot justiy their anger and rage.


I am more puzzled by the osurce of he rage, rather htan by the existane of such arguments. THey are easy to see through, btu why is it that so many are os opposed violently to Christendom? Although the majorty seem to be Ex-Christiasn themselves, and htis may play a vital role in unravlign the puzzle.

they (comps) deny the doctrine that the members of the Godhead are equal and accept subordination in the Trinity because they want to prove that the principle of second class citizenship goes all the way up and comes down form on high.

[ZAROVE]

Nothign to make me sick. Just the usual.

Heresy is Heresy, and I've heard other strange ideas, which I take in stride.


Nevertheless, I'll look over it more thouroughly after I finish creatign a critique of Lee Randolphs current aitlce on Debunking Christianity abot how SIn doesnt exist because we are bron with biologicls flaws that lead us to make bad choices which somehow proves CHristianity isnt true because Christianity teaches us a simplsitic rewards and punishments system that epxect sus to live pereclty even thoguh we are biologiclaly predesposed to fail.


He, apparnelty, hasn't really considered either the Lucecrousness of htis artilce or the Irony of it, sicne he and hsi COnfederates Critisse the Doctirne of Original sin, and yet his enture post pressupposes that Humans are Biologiclaly incapabnle of following God, and ar einatley flawed, and thus Christainity is wrong.

( I knwo I dont beleiv ein Original sin, but, Im lookign at it academically.)

I'll be on later abotu it then.

[KR Wordgazer]

I think if you knew what the comps argue it would make you sick.

You better believe it. I went on CARM and was utterly flabbergasted. One of them was basically saying, in a nutshell, that
everything strong and ruthlessly logical and based on reason is male, and everything fluffy and emotional and mentally fuzzy is female. Where he found that in the Bible, I'll never know. He actually made me angry enough to post, when I'd sworn to myself I wouldn't except to support Joe. Erg. Now I've laid myself open to abuse over there. But I won't withdraw what I said in reply.

"Oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how I have longed to gather you to Me, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you would not." Jesus wasn't afraid to use a feminine metaphor in reference to Himself.

[Metacrock]

I think if you knew what the comps argue it would make you sick.

You better believe it. I went on CARM and was utterly flabbergasted. One of them was basically saying, in a nutshell, that
everything strong and ruthlessly logical and based on reason is male, and everything fluffy and emotional and mentally fuzzy is female. Where he found that in the Bible, I'll never know. He actually made me angry enough to post, when I'd sworn to myself I wouldn't except to support Joe. Erg. Now I've laid myself open to abuse over there. But I won't withdraw what I said in reply.

"Oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how I have longed to gather you to Me, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you would not." Jesus wasn't afraid to use a feminine metaphor in reference to Himself.

what name did you post under? those guys are pathetic.

[KR Wordgazer]

what name did you post under? those guys are pathetic.

I use "Wordgazer" by itself over there, without my initials. I really was kind of shocked to hear such blatent misogyny. I had thought that even if someone still thought that way, they'd at least be embarrassed to admit it.

[2thePoint]

Hi there. I hang around the Women In Ministry blog and saw a link to this board, so here I am.

Now that CARM allows non-members to view their board, I decided to take a peek. Glad I did it before lunch.

I believe that CARMite clan could be the formation of a new cult, seriously. No thinking by the subhumans (female), and groom the males for eventual godhood. Spew hateful venom at all who dare to disagree. Turn the females into useful Stepford Wives who will serve the godmen and cannibalize their own kind.

And that's as kind as I can be to them.

[ZAROVE]

I woudl adivce, ten, tat you learn greater compassion. All can be corrected, even in the most harsh of persons.

THat said, keep in midn that I am not a supporter of women preaching myself. THough I am harldy hostile to anyone, dispite what some may think accordign to the reputation I possess.

But even if I where, and even knowign how thoe on CARM behave, I find it needless to critisise them here.