Go back
Lady Bishops

Lady Bishops

Spirituality

D
Losing the Thread

Quarantined World

Joined
27 Oct 04
Moves
87415
Clock
28 Jan 15

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am calling for nothing, as I have stated, I neither approve nor disapprove. If you think that is oppressive then so be it, I cannot change your perspective. I have not made nor can be induced to make any moral judgements. I am merely interested in how Christians can interpolate their own words for the written word of God for it appears to me that is what has transpired.
Weasel words. By claiming that the Church of England has interpolated its words for the word of God you are condemning their actions and calling for the oppressive restriction of jobs on the basis of gender. You're also confusing Saul of Tarsus with God.

rc

Joined
26 Aug 07
Moves
38239
Clock
28 Jan 15
1 edit

Originally posted by DeepThought
Weasel words. By claiming that the Church of England has interpolated its words for the word of God you are condemning their actions and calling for the oppressive restriction of jobs on the basis of gender. You're also confusing Saul of Tarsus with God.
Are you claiming that they have not interpolated their own teaching and essentially nullified the word of God with regard to the appointment of women bishops? On what basis are you making this claim? If you are not making this claim then your words make no sense. I have already stated that they are at liberty to do as they please. I have also stated that I make no moral judgements on their stance despite repeated efforts by others to impute a moral judgement by me. Your personal remarks are unworthy of serious comment, please try to argue on the basis of reason and objectively.

D
Losing the Thread

Quarantined World

Joined
27 Oct 04
Moves
87415
Clock
28 Jan 15

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Are you claiming that they have not interpolated their own teaching and essentially nullified the word of God with regard to the appointment of women bishops? On what basis are you making this claim? If you are not making this claim then your words make no sense. I have already stated that they are at liberty to do as they please. I have also sta ...[text shortened]... rks are unworthy of serious comment, please try to argue on the basis of reason and objectively.
By saying that they have interpolated their words for the word of God you are making a moral judgement.

Z

Joined
04 Feb 05
Moves
29132
Clock
29 Jan 15
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No one is claiming any of these things. No one has said that a women cannot commune with God, no one is claiming that women are less intelligent etc etc. The fact of the matter is, the Bible is unequivocal that the appointment of overseers is to be exclusively male. You have pushed that aside and have simply inserted your own standard. You cannot deny this Zahlanzi, you have made your own authority supersede that of Gods word the Bible.
"No one has said that a women cannot commune with God, no one is claiming that women are less intelligent etc etc"

then what is left? what is wrong with women being clerics and rising to bishophood and maybe eventually pope?

"The fact of the matter is, the Bible is unequivocal that the appointment of overseers is to be exclusively male."
so? it is also telling you how to treat your slaves. did jesus ever said specifically "don't own any more slaves?" does the bible tells you if it is moral or not to own a car? to watch tv?
the bible says that if you own 2 shirts you should give one to someone who has none. are you? you are also pushing the bible aside and inserting your own standard. the difference between you and me (among many) is just what you are choosing to ignore.


"You cannot deny this Zahlanzi, you have made your own authority supersede that of Gods word the Bible."
you mean some men who decided randomly what books to include in the bible and what not to.

rc

Joined
26 Aug 07
Moves
38239
Clock
29 Jan 15

Originally posted by DeepThought
By saying that they have interpolated their words for the word of God you are making a moral judgement.
No I have not, its a statement of fact and your vain attempts with no basis other than your own subjective reality cannot be proffered as some kind of qualifying factor. Tell us why they have not interpolated their own understanding and appointed a female bishop. It should be rather easy for you to interpret the verse and tell us why its not an interpolation of their own understanding and why they have not superseded the Biblical cannon in the process. This is the second time you have been asked to explain why, I hope you will not resort to ad hominem again.

Z

Joined
04 Feb 05
Moves
29132
Clock
29 Jan 15
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Would I expect a male gymnasium attendant to be employed in an all ladies gymnasium? would you? if not, why not? Organisations should be free to determine their own rules of who they employ and for what reasons. If that excludes anyone based on gender then so be it. I have no issues and no fences are facing. I do not approve nor disapprove.
why wouldn't a male be employed by an all women gymnasium? why would there BE an all women gymnasium? i am not going to get into why this idea is preposterous. there are some flimsy reasons why such a gym would deny employment to a man, true, though still not excusing such a practice.


what would the reasons behind not having women clerics be? you already said nobody is claiming women are less than men in the areas i enumerated (which isn't actually agreeing with me, btw). you are only left with "because paul said so".


why? give a reason why. if you follow a law made by paul, give a reason.

rc

Joined
26 Aug 07
Moves
38239
Clock
29 Jan 15
3 edits

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"No one has said that a women cannot commune with God, no one is claiming that women are less intelligent etc etc"

then what is left? what is wrong with women being clerics and rising to bishophood and maybe eventually pope?

"The fact of the matter is, the Bible is unequivocal that the appointment of overseers is to be exclusively male."
so? it is ...[text shortened]... le."
you mean some men who decided randomly what books to include in the bible and what not to.
I am going to say this for the last time, I am uninterested in whether its right or wrong. Why this is so difficult for your to comprehend I cannot say. I am interested in the process whereby a clear and unequivocal Biblical principle has been superseded and essentially supplanted and another put in its place. So far the reasons that have been proffered amount to,

1. because Paul is the only one that said it - argument of omission and logical fallacy
2. because many people affirm it - argumentum ad populum, many believe it therefore it must be true.
3. because Paul is not God - Strawman, no one is claiming that Paul is God
4. People decided what books to include and which to exclude - irrelevancy, Book of Timothy considered authentic and part of the Biblical cannon.
5. You (Robbie) are making a moral judgement - irrelevancy, Robbie is not the issue.

F

Joined
28 Oct 05
Moves
34587
Clock
29 Jan 15

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
3. because Paul is not God - Strawman, no one is claiming that Paul is God
Are you claiming that anything Paul said was and still is "God's word"?

Z

Joined
04 Feb 05
Moves
29132
Clock
29 Jan 15
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
[b]I am going to say this for the last time, I am uninterested in whether its right or wrong. Why this is so difficult for your to comprehend I cannot say. I am interested in the process whereby a clear and unequivocal Biblical principle has been superseded and essentially supplanted and another put in its place. So far the reasons that have b ...[text shortened]... al cannon.
5. You (Robbie) are making a moral judgement - irrelevancy, Robbie is not the issue.[/b]
1. that's important. one man's opinion is not enough to direct an entire society. there have to be reasons. one man must convince others of the validity of his opinion. through reasons.
2. affirm what? that women are just as good at being clerics as men? yes. the fact that many people affirm it isn't the reason why women are just as good. it is the other way around.
women are just as good at being clerics as men because empirical evidence shows that women can possess all the qualities that good male clerics have and in equal measure. so naturally, many people understand that so they affirm it.

3. you don't quite understand what a strawman is, don't you?
you just admit that there is no reason behind women not being allowed to be clerics except that paul said it. obviously i am not building a strawman (misrepresenting your stance into something easier to attack) since that IS your stance. Paul is the voice of god therefore anything he says must be adhered to. i claim that not everything paul said is god approved, even if one should in fact obey everything god says and not follow one's conscience.

4. not irrelevant. since people decide what to include and exclude, the decision to include timothy is a human action, not a divine one. since your only argument is that "it's in the bible so it must be adhered to", attacking the reason why timothy is included, showing that it is not divine will to include it is a valid counterargument.

unrelated to four, timothy was a letter written to timothy (not surprising) addressing how the christian community in Ephesus should act.
there is no more ephesus, why do you hold the very specific directions given to a greek (under roman occupation) city as something we must adhere to?

5.well, you are actually making an immoral judgement. (yes i know what you really meant). it is immoral to discriminate against women unless the fact that not having a penis would impede her ability to perform her duty as a cleric.

5 is not really an argument of mine, it is just a conclusion. i conclude that you have no logical reasons behind your stance, other than your incredibly idiotic morality.

rc

Joined
26 Aug 07
Moves
38239
Clock
29 Jan 15
2 edits

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
1. that's important. one man's opinion is not enough to direct an entire society. there have to be reasons. one man must convince others of the validity of his opinion. through reasons.
2. affirm what? that women are just as good at being clerics as men? yes. the fact that many people affirm it isn't the reason why women are just as good. it is the other ...[text shortened]... hat you have no logical reasons behind your stance, other than your incredibly idiotic morality.
and still not a single valid reason explaining why they interpolated their own thoughts and superseded a well established Biblical principle. Your personal remarks are unworthy of serious comment and are more a reflection of the emptiness of your stance than those you seek to vilify with them.

Z

Joined
04 Feb 05
Moves
29132
Clock
29 Jan 15

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
and still not a single valid reason explaining why they interpolated their own thoughts and superseded a well established Biblical principle. Your personal remarks are unworthy of serious comment and are more a reflection of the emptiness of your stance than those you seek to vilify with them.
i gave you plenty of reasons, none of which you accept.

it's not my fault you are too afraid to disagree with the bible, that's your shortcoming as a human being. thank god jesus didn't forget to say "btw, you guys should really stop stoning people to death, it's nauseating".

rc

Joined
26 Aug 07
Moves
38239
Clock
29 Jan 15

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i gave you plenty of reasons, none of which you accept.

it's not my fault you are too afraid to disagree with the bible, that's your shortcoming as a human being. thank god jesus didn't forget to say "btw, you guys should really stop stoning people to death, it's nauseating".
'I am too afraid to disagree with the Bible', that just about sums it up - first of all I am not the issue, secondly neither is what I am afraid of, thirdly i have not attempted to change what's in the Bible and my shortcomings are irrelevant. You have just about single-handedly committed every logical fallacy in the book.

Look, I'll help you out. Pauls words are, 'I do not permit a women to exercise authority over a man'.

You might have started with something like. A bishop is not really a position of authority, its more the designation of a pastoral service and therefore Pauls words don't really apply in this instance.

Here you have provided a very subtle reason why it may be correct or at least not anti-Biblical to make an appointment of a Lady bishop. Instead of that you have rather clumsily gone in for all kinds of moral reasons or worse still, personal insults.

Again I am uninterested in your morality and your personal insults are again more a reflection of the emptiness of your arguments than those you seek to vilify with them.

Z

Joined
04 Feb 05
Moves
29132
Clock
29 Jan 15
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
'I am too afraid to disagree with the Bible', that just about sums it up - first of all I am not the issue, secondly neither is what I am afraid of, thirdly i have not attempted to change what's in the Bible and my shortcomings are irrelevant. You have just about single-handedly committed every logical fallacy in the book.

Look, I'll help you out ...[text shortened]... in more a reflection of the emptiness of your arguments than those you seek to vilify with them.
"You might have started with something like. A bishop is not really a position
of authority, its more the designation of a pastoral service and therefore Pauls words don't really apply in this instance."
if i would have started with this, it would have shown that i have no idea what a bishop is, what he(now also she, finally) does and what paul's words mean.

a bishop is TOTALLY a figure of authority, fulfills a number of functions other than service, and paul totally meant that women cannot possibly be fit for a position of authority that until recently played a hugely important role, for better or worse, in human history.



the rest of your post is simply you declaring that you won at debating, without any logical reason to support such claim. while this is consistent with your juvenile form of debating which you have shown throughout your frolicking here, it is rather tiring.

rc

Joined
26 Aug 07
Moves
38239
Clock
29 Jan 15

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"You might have started with something like. A bishop is not really a position
of authority, its more the designation of a pastoral service and therefore Pauls words don't really apply in this instance."
if i would have started with this, it would have shown that i have no idea what a bishop is, what he(now also she, finally) does and what paul's words m ...[text shortened]... nile form of debating which you have shown throughout your frolicking here, it is rather tiring.
fine at least you are providing rational counter arguments.

stellspalfie

Joined
16 Jan 07
Moves
95105
Clock
29 Jan 15

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
'I am too afraid to disagree with the Bible', that just about sums it up - first of all I am not the issue, secondly neither is what I am afraid of, thirdly i have not attempted to change what's in the Bible and my shortcomings are irrelevant. You have just about single-handedly committed every logical fallacy in the book.

Look, I'll help you out ...[text shortened]... in more a reflection of the emptiness of your arguments than those you seek to vilify with them.
Pauls words are, 'I do not permit a women to exercise authority over a man'.


what positions within your church would be ones of 'authority'?

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.