-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Well Rex, I don't know if you are familiar with new testament. But Jesus basically said 'I have not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it'.
He later went on to describe that by 'loving our neighbour as ourselves', that we fulfill ALL the laws.
God can do as He pleases. But whenever we follow in Jesus, we stick to those laws. If God came from heaven, himself, in all the awe that comes with it, and told you that you have to commit a sin, would you do it?
Similarly though, I did mention that always, even in the days of Moses, there were commandments. One of those was not to kill. therefore, logically, how can killing ever be taken literally?
The Hebrew language is not English. It is highly exaggerative. ANd scholars (like Jesus, who spoke in Aramaic, similarly exaggerative) used many a metaphor and parable to describe the simplest of things. There are so many symbolisms in Old Hebrew that a lot of the translation (at least of the old testament) is very lost.
The hebrew word for stoning actually means 'to remove' when you trace it back. So what a lot of the passages really say is that one is to be 'removed' by the whole community. Some see this as removing the sin, others as excommunication. In either fashion, symbolism is there for everything. trees, wilderness, virgin (wwhich actually in greek and hebrew is often mistranslated, and meant to mean 'young woman', but anyway, that's besides the point.
The point is, if God commands not to kill, He doesn't go back on his words. Reborns will tell you the same thing. God doesn't go back on His word. And this should always be the case.
I am a person, who when I find a contradiction, I get wary. And in my wariness I search until I find a reason. If there comes a day where I cannot find a reason, that's the day I'll stop believing. But to have the belief to love everyone as yourself, to fix ones own faults before others, to try (and sometimes fail) in being the best me that I can be is a worthy cause in my eyes.
He later went on to describe that by 'loving our neighbour as ourselves', that we fulfill ALL the laws.
God can do as He pleases. But whenever we follow in Jesus, we stick to those laws. If God came from heaven, himself, in all the awe that comes with it, and told you that you have to commit a sin, would you do it?
Similarly though, I did mention that always, even in the days of Moses, there were commandments. One of those was not to kill. therefore, logically, how can killing ever be taken literally?
The Hebrew language is not English. It is highly exaggerative. ANd scholars (like Jesus, who spoke in Aramaic, similarly exaggerative) used many a metaphor and parable to describe the simplest of things. There are so many symbolisms in Old Hebrew that a lot of the translation (at least of the old testament) is very lost.
The hebrew word for stoning actually means 'to remove' when you trace it back. So what a lot of the passages really say is that one is to be 'removed' by the whole community. Some see this as removing the sin, others as excommunication. In either fashion, symbolism is there for everything. trees, wilderness, virgin (wwhich actually in greek and hebrew is often mistranslated, and meant to mean 'young woman', but anyway, that's besides the point.
The point is, if God commands not to kill, He doesn't go back on his words. Reborns will tell you the same thing. God doesn't go back on His word. And this should always be the case.
I am a person, who when I find a contradiction, I get wary. And in my wariness I search until I find a reason. If there comes a day where I cannot find a reason, that's the day I'll stop believing. But to have the belief to love everyone as yourself, to fix ones own faults before others, to try (and sometimes fail) in being the best me that I can be is a worthy cause in my eyes.
Last edited:
Sidenote: some translators will tell you to 'free from stones'. Freeing of stones, well, it could mean freeing of sins. Freeing of what wieghs one down. I don't really know. But I am quite sure that murdering/killing, in either instance, for whatever reason, is wrong. And also beyond my means. No matter what someone did, I would never resort to taking a life.
My reasoning comes from two things. That I am commanded to love my neighbour. And secondly, that the definition of love is found in the letter to the corinthians and is laid out plainly for me. Those two scriptures are the heart and soul of how I believe one human must act toward another. Sometimes, inevitably, we fail. But these are the two that I try to hold with me at all times.
I always found the parables to be extremely endearing and Jesus method of teaching to be very general, very patient. Very calm, kind and spoken in such a way as to (in most cases) make understanding easier without causing offence. the offended mind does not want to listen because of the anger and pride it feels. I know because sometimes, I have an offended mind. So when I am speaking, I do try to talk in a way as to cause least offence and experience more of a sense of understanding. It doesn't always work, but that's my method.
I always found the parables to be extremely endearing and Jesus method of teaching to be very general, very patient. Very calm, kind and spoken in such a way as to (in most cases) make understanding easier without causing offence. the offended mind does not want to listen because of the anger and pride it feels. I know because sometimes, I have an offended mind. So when I am speaking, I do try to talk in a way as to cause least offence and experience more of a sense of understanding. It doesn't always work, but that's my method.
Similarly, to live in the way that causes maximum harmony through giving and loving. I don't particularly have too much right to 'cast the first stone', and as such, giving seems a much more noble path to travel toward. The understanding of someone's mind (sinful or not), and of their person, can hold the key to so many mysteries about that person, that I would much rather spend eight hours chatting to that person about themselves, than about their sins.
My soul is not perfect, and neither is theirs. My sin weighs me down, as do theirs weight them down. And I know that piling weight on an already breaking back has no logic in it. So then I can speak without reprieve, and without a judging tone because at the end of the day I do not believe love to be rude, nor to cause offence. As I have been told it is not. That's my philosophy and it is what i have interpreted from what the bible says.
My soul is not perfect, and neither is theirs. My sin weighs me down, as do theirs weight them down. And I know that piling weight on an already breaking back has no logic in it. So then I can speak without reprieve, and without a judging tone because at the end of the day I do not believe love to be rude, nor to cause offence. As I have been told it is not. That's my philosophy and it is what i have interpreted from what the bible says.
I
Does recognizing equal rights require us to view the sexes as the same?
I simply commented that these passages look exactly like what you would expect from a male-dominated society that had no concept of equal rights. As far as I can tell I haven't been insulting or snide, and if you need to me to back up anything I've said about these passages please don't hesitate to ask.
Well, let's just think about that for a moment. Obviously issues of equality are most important to women, since they have historically been treated so poorly by both religions and society. I think if you ask most women whether or not they think that women should have the same rights as men they will say "of course".
And you need for women to not have equal rights to still do this. . .why?
I simply commented that these passages look exactly like what you would expect from a male-dominated society that had no concept of equal rights. As far as I can tell I haven't been insulting or snide, and if you need to me to back up anything I've said about these passages please don't hesitate to ask.
Well, let's just think about that for a moment. Obviously issues of equality are most important to women, since they have historically been treated so poorly by both religions and society. I think if you ask most women whether or not they think that women should have the same rights as men they will say "of course".
And you need for women to not have equal rights to still do this. . .why?
O
The Bible is absolutely clear that Paul did not allow women preachers and pastors. "Shut up and learn" was his position. But there is another related and equally important question: Is this meant to be observed in today's churches, given today's social norms? Or, was Paul's position based on social norms at that time that do not apply today? What's your view of that issue?
Rex I am wondering why there was not a direct plug created for my brain to be plugged into yours, in all honesty. I can't seem to get you to understand what I'm saying. But I'll try.
Women, of course, want equal rights with men, and in most civilized countries, they have those rights. Is the argument about human ideals of equality or are we speaking biblically? We need to make a choice on that because if we are speaking in human terms, then women's rights are defined by the laws in the country they live in predominantly, and as such, you need to take that issue up with their head of state. If it is biblically, then you need to take the issue up with the bible.
As I have explained my view several times regarding both the biblical area, and the cultural area, yet neither argument has sufficed for you, I am at a loss at what else to say my friend, but here goes;
I regard women as beautiful creatures capable of many great things. The tiniest kind remark can make a woman's day and it is not so easy to please a man. They are fantastically sacrificing in many areas of life and yes, I am saddened that some cultures don't respect that. God says what God says, I am not Paul mate. I am not. If I could see any metaphor in those verses about women preachers, I'd be saying something different right now regarding this, but I can't see one. And I also can't see a flaw in Paul's logic regarding Eve.
i have asked all the questions I'd like to ask about your personal view but you don't seem to want to share what you would like women to actually have, apart from the ability to preach in a Christian church. This request, unfortunately, is a complete catch-22. If a woman DOES teach in a Christian church, then she defies the very book that she is preaching about. If she does not, you see it as an equal rights issue. So what can we do except agree to disagree mate?
Women, of course, want equal rights with men, and in most civilized countries, they have those rights. Is the argument about human ideals of equality or are we speaking biblically? We need to make a choice on that because if we are speaking in human terms, then women's rights are defined by the laws in the country they live in predominantly, and as such, you need to take that issue up with their head of state. If it is biblically, then you need to take the issue up with the bible.
As I have explained my view several times regarding both the biblical area, and the cultural area, yet neither argument has sufficed for you, I am at a loss at what else to say my friend, but here goes;
I regard women as beautiful creatures capable of many great things. The tiniest kind remark can make a woman's day and it is not so easy to please a man. They are fantastically sacrificing in many areas of life and yes, I am saddened that some cultures don't respect that. God says what God says, I am not Paul mate. I am not. If I could see any metaphor in those verses about women preachers, I'd be saying something different right now regarding this, but I can't see one. And I also can't see a flaw in Paul's logic regarding Eve.
i have asked all the questions I'd like to ask about your personal view but you don't seem to want to share what you would like women to actually have, apart from the ability to preach in a Christian church. This request, unfortunately, is a complete catch-22. If a woman DOES teach in a Christian church, then she defies the very book that she is preaching about. If she does not, you see it as an equal rights issue. So what can we do except agree to disagree mate?
I
Wouldn't that, then, include equal rights? I can't imagine a better line of reasoning one could use to arrive at the conclusion that people should be treated equally.
That would obviously depend upon what I was being asked to do, but if it were something particularly egregious like killing my own child then I would, of course, refuse.
Have you read the rest of the OT? There are some very clear guidelines therein concerning killing other people and they are in no way treated as being the same as you are suggesting here.
Doesn't it seem just a little convenient that you can simply claim every single thing you don't like in the bible as symbolism while at the same time take everything you do like as literal?
I'm sorry, but that's simply wrong (you can look it up yourself by clicking on the blue text). Stoning was a well known form of execution in Ancient Near Eastern culture, it was practiced by people at the time, and the OT makes repeated references to stone people until they die.
The text is just there; either it's reliable or not.
That would obviously depend upon what I was being asked to do, but if it were something particularly egregious like killing my own child then I would, of course, refuse.
Have you read the rest of the OT? There are some very clear guidelines therein concerning killing other people and they are in no way treated as being the same as you are suggesting here.
Doesn't it seem just a little convenient that you can simply claim every single thing you don't like in the bible as symbolism while at the same time take everything you do like as literal?
I'm sorry, but that's simply wrong (you can look it up yourself by clicking on the blue text). Stoning was a well known form of execution in Ancient Near Eastern culture, it was practiced by people at the time, and the OT makes repeated references to stone people until they die.
The text is just there; either it's reliable or not.
Last edited:
C
Paul gave his reasons for what he said. Thats why I dont believe that it was limited to his time.
1 Timothy 2:12-15 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
No matter what day and age we live in or what church we go to, this still remains true. So I just cant accept the argument that Paul was only addressing a particular church or it only applied to their culture.
1 Timothy 2:12-15 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
No matter what day and age we live in or what church we go to, this still remains true. So I just cant accept the argument that Paul was only addressing a particular church or it only applied to their culture.
I
As an unbeliever I'm certainly not going to tell you who you should or should not allow to teach in your churches. My point is simply that these types of teachings are exactly what you'd expect to get from a male-dominated society. What you, personally, choose to believe about women or what teachings you put your faith in is your call.
Again I'd realy like to point out, if you go to the Origin of the word, it means 'to prim, root out, or remove'.
The removal of sin is an apt description, not because I am conveniently placing symbolism, but because stoning to death, along with trees, virgins, and many other symbols, remain consistent the entire way through the Old and New Testaments, in both excerpts and direct quotations. The symbolism is there, but as for the issue of women preachers, I cannot find any symbolism.
Another symbolism for instance, might be the covering of a woman's head. But that's covered on another thread mate.
The removal of sin is an apt description, not because I am conveniently placing symbolism, but because stoning to death, along with trees, virgins, and many other symbols, remain consistent the entire way through the Old and New Testaments, in both excerpts and direct quotations. The symbolism is there, but as for the issue of women preachers, I cannot find any symbolism.
Another symbolism for instance, might be the covering of a woman's head. But that's covered on another thread mate.
Well Rex, you make a very interesting and valid point. I do think that these were times where the male dominated the society. But one must think back. In biblical terms, again, Eve was made from Adam. So to go right back to the root, and also (although a real gender, as some say, is never actually specified), even God is referred to as a He. But that is just Christianity my friend. and again, it is up to the individual whether they wish to follow it as it is meant to be followed. As you said earlier, the text is just there. Like it or don't, you know?
But thanks for that point
But thanks for that point