Spirituality
11 Apr 12
11 Apr 12
Originally posted by FMFI dont have any issues with anything in the ancient text.
Mosaic Law - thing of the past. Slavery - thing of the past. Death penalties for this and that - thing of the past. Gender discrimination - NOT a thing of the past. What do you say to the suggestion that this is "cherry picking"?
11 Apr 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWomen [or men] who do not agree with its institutionalized discrimination against women cannot join your organization?
No the Bible makes it clear that this is the remit of qualified men, who naturally will
discuss any potential candidates suitability for meeting the requirements.
11 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat do you say to the suggestion that this is a rather blatant example of "cherry picking"?
The qualifications for being an Elder are in the Bible and are immutable.
If the edict is important and "immutable" why didn't Jesus incorporate it into his teaching?
11 Apr 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo that means your god dislikes vagina's. I guess it would have made only men if it were not for the pesky fact men can't reproduce. You have no issues but right off the top you clearly say women have no rights to upper management. Right there that tells me the whole idea of christian (AKA Paulism)is wholly man-made. No real god would restrict women to being barefoot and pregnant based on religion. Anyone who says different is deluded, brainwashed, propagandized and walks with blinders. Women are second class citizens by definition. And you have most of them believing it. One result of that is we don't get the use of some of the finest minds on the planet, instead, relegating them to a lifetime of bearing children, cooking, mending and so forth. We don't need their minds, we have everything we need in our nice little bible.
No the Bible makes it clear that this is the remit of qualified men, who naturally will
discuss any potential candidates suitability for meeting the requirements.
11 Apr 12
Originally posted by FMFAny one is free to join our organisation who wishes to apply Biblical principles in their
Women [or men] who do not agree with its institutionalized discrimination against women cannot join your organization?
life, after all, we did spend last year as an organisation, 1,707,094,710 hours
attempting to do just that through a public ministry and conducting in the process,
8,490,746 Bible studies.
11 Apr 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell you seem pointedly reluctant to state how it is in keeping with the teachings of Christ.
Any one is free to join our organisation who wishes to apply Biblical principles in their
life, after all, we did spend last year as an organisation, 1,707,094,710 hours
attempting to do just that through a public ministry and conducting in the process,
8,490,746 Bible studies.
11 Apr 12
Originally posted by FMFWe have already been subjected to attempts to introduce gender issues by appeals to
What do you say to the suggestion that this is a rather blatant example of "cherry picking"?
If the edict is important and "immutable" why didn't Jesus incorporate it into his teaching?
Christ's teachings exclusively, we have no issues, sorry.
11 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBe that as it may, but you seem rather starkly unable to state how the discrimination is in keeping with the teachings of Christ. Are you suggesting that you subscribe to 'rules' that are not in keeping with the teachings of Christ?
Again, Christ's teaching is only a small percentage of the entire Biblical cannon.
11 Apr 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis does not answer the question: What do you say to the suggestion that this is a rather blatant example of "cherry picking"?
We have already been subjected to attempts to introduce gender issues by appeals to
Christ's teachings exclusively, we have no issues, sorry.
11 Apr 12
Qualifications for being an Elder,
(1 Timothy 3:1-7) . . .If any man is reaching out for an office of overseer, he
is desirous of a fine work. The overseer should therefore be irreprehensible, a
husband of one wife, moderate in habits, sound in mind, orderly, hospitable,
qualified to teach, not a drunken brawler, not a smiter, but reasonable, not
belligerent, not a lover of money, a man presiding over his own household in a fine
manner, having children in subjection with all seriousness; (if indeed any man does
not know how to preside over his own household, how will he take care of God’s
congregation?) not a newly converted man, for fear that he might get puffed up
[with pride] and fall into the judgment passed upon the Devil. Moreover, he should
also have a fine testimony from people on the outside, in order that he might not fall
into reproach and a snare of the Devil.
11 Apr 12
Originally posted by FMFI have produced the requirement or qualifications for Elders, you may draw your own
Be that as it may, but you seem rather starkly unable to state how the discrimination is [b]in keeping with the teachings of Christ. Are you suggesting that you subscribe to 'rules' that are not in keeping with the teachings of Christ?[/b]
conclusions.
11 Apr 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis is not the teaching of Christ.
Qualifications for being an Elder,
(1 Timothy 3:1-7) . . .If any [b]man is reaching out for an office of overseer, he
is desirous of a fine work. The overseer should therefore be irreprehensible, a
husband of one wife, moderate in habits, sound in mind, orderly, hospitable,
qualified to teach, not a drunken brawler, not a smiter, but r ...[text shortened]... people on the outside, in order that he might not fall
into reproach and a snare of the Devil.[/b]