Since: Aug 12

Manchester, UK

#101 Oct 26, 2013
array wrote:
<quoted text>the very first paragraph got me reading on, excellent!
Women teaching and preaching.
Jesus was a revolutionary figure in many ways, but none was so astonishing as his way of relating to women. Even from his childhood, Jesus strove to place women on an equal footing with men. In his ministry, he commissioned women to teach and preach, elevating their status in a capacity in which women were not ordinarily respected. The following quotes illustrate some of the ways that Jesus loved and respected women.(Also, if one goes to The Women Who Followed Jesus one can meet - in detail - some of these women disciples.)
This is why he was so endearing to his fellows, both man and women were treated equally. Keep reading if you're interested! It is the most heartwarming story you'll ever read, especially when you get to parts such as paper 126 onward (death of Joseph and Rebecca who fell in love with young Jesus):

http://www.urantia.org/urantia-book-standardi...

Since: Aug 12

Manchester, UK

#102 Oct 26, 2013
RedhorseWoman wrote:
<quoted text>
Excellent post. Thank you!!
Thanks!
Mumple

Milton, PA

#103 Oct 26, 2013
RedhorseWoman wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you that unfamiliar with a question mark? I ASKED if you advocated slavery, I did not say that you did. You refused to answer.
Speak about twisting and dishonesty...you embody those two dubious qualities.
I have a "selfish desire for prominence"? Because I asked you questions about your insistence on claiming that what Paul stated was "God's way" and because I ASKED (do you understand the meaning of "asked"?) you if you, therefore, advocated slavery, since slavery was "God's way" along with many other things.
God's way of doing things involved MUCH more than the suppression of women, and, if you were honest, you would admit that.
The first question you asked that I answered with a question, was what harm would there be in appointing women to the offices of elder in training, and elder. I will answer you to the best of my ability. In the Witness org. there would be the harm of straying from God's example of giving only men those positions (positions of authority over God's people) what ever that might be, since they are not God's people any more-so than any other religious org. As far as the rejection of the examples set in the bible as a working framework, such a thing would not be blessed by God. That is the harm.

3 Roll your works upon Jehovah himself and your plans will be firmly established.

Now as to the question you asked as an insult to me, I treated it as a rhetorical question, meant to deflect the reality that I presented by asking my follow-up questions of, in effect, what good would it do? As to the Do I advocate slavery question, my answer is that there was not an advocacy of slavery in the bible. That makes it a stupid question, from the stand point of examples God set, which was my position. Also slavery wasn't part of the thread.

Now, if you wish explain your advocacy of women having prominence in the congregations, and going against the examples provided in the bible as anything other than selfishness and a desire for prominence for yourself or other women, here is your chance. Remember it is God's example, you would be rejecting, so what positive benefit could you possibly derive for the congregation? Here is your example......

Now Miriam and Aaron began to speak against Moses on account of the Cushite wife whom he had taken, because it was a Cushite wife he had taken. 2 And they kept saying:“Is it just by Moses alone that Jehovah has spoken? Is it not by us also that he has spoken?” And Jehovah was listening.

that is what you are advocating. Whether you admit it or not. And here is God's answer to the situation of deviating from His intended course......

4 Then Jehovah suddenly said to Moses and Aaron and Miriam:“Go out, the three of YOU, to the tent of meeting.” So the three of them went out. 5 After that Jehovah came down in the pillar of cloud and stood at the entrance of the tent and called Aaron and Miriam. At this both of them went out..........9 And Jehovah’s anger got to be hot against them, and he went his way. 10 And the cloud turned away from over the tent, and, look! Miriam was struck with leprosy as white as snow. Then Aaron turned toward Miriam, and, look! she was struck with leprosy

Now it is no longer my answer, but God's answer to your question, of what harm would their be in such a thing. You should probably read the context those verses are presented in, so there is no misunderstanding on your part. It's found in Numbers chapter 12. My mistake was thinking you had a working knowledge of the bible, to begin with, and that you could relate to the principles involved by that knowledge. My mistake, I apologize.
Mumple

Milton, PA

#104 Oct 26, 2013
Brother P wrote:
<quoted text>
This is why he was so endearing to his fellows, both man and women were treated equally. Keep reading if you're interested! It is the most heartwarming story you'll ever read, especially when you get to parts such as paper 126 onward (death of Joseph and Rebecca who fell in love with young Jesus):
I chose your post to answer, but this is directed at all of the chickens here in this thread who gathered together to peck someone who sees things God's way, and not their way, including you.

That's why Jesus chose six men and six women to be his apostles, because he felt equally about them. Yes, and pigs fly in God's Kingdom. And As long as you folks keep patting yourselves on the backs, you won't have to face the incompetence of your thinking about what is proper, and what is improper, in relation to that kingdom. All you need do is reject those scriptural accounts that you disagree with, as if Jesus didn't choose that particular individual, or see that he got holy spirit to facilitate his ministry. Lets call him a chauvinist, or a misogynist. That way we can disregard his council. Of course, it is camel train philosophy, that was the way those in the unenlightened past thought, we are so improved in our outlook on the relationship between the sexes these days, we can do better. It isn't as if God's standards are good through all ages. We have progressed to the point that we no longer need training wheels.

such imbeciles.

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#105 Oct 26, 2013
jace wrote:
<quoted text>
Come on now - no weasel words
Lol
When I asked the below - is your answer yes or no??
Don't need a lot of weasel words
Come on you can do it now
Smile
<quoted text>
Inspired like an artist being inspired by another's work....yes

Infallible...no

Did I use any weasel words this time or is my position clear now?

Since: Feb 07

RI

#106 Oct 26, 2013
Mumple wrote:
<quoted text>
The first question you asked that I answered with a question, was what harm would there be in appointing women to the offices of elder in training, and elder. I will answer you to the best of my ability. In the Witness org. there would be the harm of straying from God's example of giving only men those positions (positions of authority over God's people) what ever that might be, since they are not God's people any more-so than any other religious org. As far as the rejection of the examples set in the bible as a working framework, such a thing would not be blessed by God. That is the harm.
3 Roll your works upon Jehovah himself and your plans will be firmly established.
Now as to the question you asked as an insult to me, I treated it as a rhetorical question, meant to deflect the reality that I presented by asking my follow-up questions of, in effect, what good would it do? As to the Do I advocate slavery question, my answer is that there was not an advocacy of slavery in the bible. That makes it a stupid question, from the stand point of examples God set, which was my position. Also slavery wasn't part of the thread.
Now, if you wish explain your advocacy of women having prominence in the congregations, and going against the examples provided in the bible as anything other than selfishness and a desire for prominence for yourself or other women, here is your chance. Remember it is God's example, you would be rejecting, so what positive benefit could you possibly derive for the congregation? Here is your example......
Now Miriam and Aaron began to speak against Moses on account of the Cushite wife whom he had taken, because it was a Cushite wife he had taken. 2 And they kept saying:“Is it just by Moses alone that Jehovah has spoken? Is it not by us also that he has spoken?” And Jehovah was listening.
that is what you are advocating. Whether you admit it or not. And here is God's answer to the situation of deviating from His intended course......
4 Then Jehovah suddenly said to Moses and Aaron and Miriam:“Go out, the three of YOU, to the tent of meeting.” So the three of them went out. 5 After that Jehovah came down in the pillar of cloud and stood at the entrance of the tent and called Aaron and Miriam. At this both of them went out..........9 And Jehovah’s anger got to be hot against them, and he went his way. 10 And the cloud turned away from over the tent, and, look! Miriam was struck with leprosy as white as snow. Then Aaron turned toward Miriam, and, look! she was struck with leprosy
Now it is no longer my answer, but God's answer to your question, of what harm would their be in such a thing. You should probably read the context those verses are presented in, so there is no misunderstanding on your part. It's found in Numbers chapter 12. My mistake was thinking you had a working knowledge of the bible, to begin with, and that you could relate to the principles involved by that knowledge. My mistake, I apologize.
You are either being deliberately obtuse, or you just aren't getting the point at all.

Let me simplify for you, okay? You have stated that prohibiting women from any sort of responsibility in the congregation is "God's way." It was actually "Paul's way" but we'll disregard that for now.

You also state that Christians today should always do things "God's way," correct? Going by what YOU have declared as the proper way to do things, it only makes sense that you should do everything "God's way," should you not?

Since I assume you find slavery abhorrent, and that you don't offer animal sacrifices or do any of the other things that God set out in the scriptures as "God's way," why do you cling to THIS particular tradition, set out by Paul--not God--yet feel free to reject all of the other components of "God's way"?

In the past, the scriptures were used to justify slavery, so don't say that it was NOT part and parcel of "God's way." You pick and choose.

Since: Feb 07

RI

#107 Oct 26, 2013
Mumple wrote:
<quoted text>
I chose your post to answer, but this is directed at all of the chickens here in this thread who gathered together to peck someone who sees things God's way, and not their way, including you.
That's why Jesus chose six men and six women to be his apostles, because he felt equally about them. Yes, and pigs fly in God's Kingdom. And As long as you folks keep patting yourselves on the backs, you won't have to face the incompetence of your thinking about what is proper, and what is improper, in relation to that kingdom. All you need do is reject those scriptural accounts that you disagree with, as if Jesus didn't choose that particular individual, or see that he got holy spirit to facilitate his ministry. Lets call him a chauvinist, or a misogynist. That way we can disregard his council. Of course, it is camel train philosophy, that was the way those in the unenlightened past thought, we are so improved in our outlook on the relationship between the sexes these days, we can do better. It isn't as if God's standards are good through all ages. We have progressed to the point that we no longer need training wheels.
such imbeciles.
I do believe that YOU are the one rejecting those scriptural accounts with which you don't agree, while trumpeting the ones that cater to your personal bigotry.

You've made it obvious that you consider women to be lesser beings, and you have joked about how you enjoy "tweaking the neck hairs" of the women on the forum. Admit it...you believe that you are better than women and you grasp onto Paul's ideas to justify your prejudices.
Mumple

Milton, PA

#108 Oct 26, 2013
RedhorseWoman wrote:
<quoted text>
You are either being deliberately obtuse, or you just aren't getting the point at all.
Let me simplify for you, okay? You have stated that prohibiting women from any sort of responsibility in the congregation is "God's way." It was actually "Paul's way" but we'll disregard that for now.
You also state that Christians today should always do things "God's way," correct? Going by what YOU have declared as the proper way to do things, it only makes sense that you should do everything "God's way," should you not?
Since I assume you find slavery abhorrent, and that you don't offer animal sacrifices or do any of the other things that God set out in the scriptures as "God's way," why do you cling to THIS particular tradition, set out by Paul--not God--yet feel free to reject all of the other components of "God's way"?
In the past, the scriptures were used to justify slavery, so don't say that it was NOT part and parcel of "God's way." You pick and choose.
I won't accuse you of being obtuse, you are just plain ignorant. You are ignorant of the application of Godly principles. There are many ways to apply them, but you don't even know what they are. What men do with scripture, to justify their own actions, is of no concern to me. Even an idiot could understand the clear scriptures I presented. That means you choose not to see. This is my next to last reply to you on the thread.
Mumple

Milton, PA

#109 Oct 26, 2013
RedhorseWoman wrote:
<quoted text>
I do believe that YOU are the one rejecting those scriptural accounts with which you don't agree, while trumpeting the ones that cater to your personal bigotry.
You've made it obvious that you consider women to be lesser beings, and you have joked about how you enjoy "tweaking the neck hairs" of the women on the forum. Admit it...you believe that you are better than women and you grasp onto Paul's ideas to justify your prejudices.
You've chosen not to present any scripture at all, let alone do anything besides criticize what you obviously don't understand. You supplied nothing but vitriol to support your position, whatever it is. This is the last time I will reply to you on this thread, so don't get your skirt in a bundle. If I post, it won't be to you, it may be about you, but not to you. Your replies will be duly ignored.

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#110 Oct 26, 2013
Mumple wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you say *amazingly*, in your reference to the sisters' compliant response to the hierarchical set up of the Witness organization? What congregational benefit could be gotten out of women being appointed to such offices? Or are you trying to stir up a little fleshly controversy?
The system existed long before anyone alive now became a part of it, male or female. Do you suggest that they should turn on the system that they accepted from the beginning? Or are you saying that since Eve was their ancestral source for DNA, that they should follow her lead in trying to usurp the authority of the males, in relation to Godly responsibility? What harm is derived by their not being appointed as future Elder-ettes? Or are imagined slights the rule of the day for you?
Actually women did hold responsible positions of leadership in the ancient church, Mumple.

It is very interesting when one reads 1 Timothy 3:1-13 (Revised English Bible). In these verses St. Paul lists the requisites for bishops and deacons. In verse 11 he says: "Women in this office must likewise be dignified, not scandalmongers, but sober, and trustworthy in every way." For the benefit of the Jehovah's Witnesses who are more familiar with their own Bible version, the NWT says, "Women should likewise be serious, not slanderous, moderate in habits, faithful in all things."

The NWT rendering makes it appear that St. Paul had some difficulty gathering his thoughts and while giving instructions to Timothy about deacons, inserts some counsel for women in general, and then picks up this thought and finishes his comments on deacons.

Regarding 1 Timothy 3:11-12 St. Chrysostom writes:

“Verse 11.‘Even so must the women be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.’

“Some have thought that this is said of women generally, but it is not so, for why should he introduce anything about women to interfere with his subject? He is speaking of those who hold the rank of Deaconesses.

“Verse 12.‘Let the “Deacons be husbands of one wife.’

“This must be understood therefore to relate to Deaconesses. For that order is necessary and useful and honorable in the Church. Observe how he requires the same virtue from the Deacons, as from the Bishops, for though they were not of equal rank, they must equally be blameless; equally pure.”(See The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Volume 13, page 441.)

In his discussion of 1 Timothy 3:11, David H. Stern writes in the Jewish New Testament Commentary, page 642:“Greek GUNAIKAS can mean either ‘wives’ or ‘women.’ If the former, Sha’ul [Paul] is taking for granted that only men can be shammasim [deacons] and is predicating their service on their wives’ good behavior. But if the meaning is ‘women,’ he is allowing that the office of shammash can be filled by women as well as men. At Romans 16:1 Sha’ul calls Phoebe a shammash; his use of the masculine form of the Greek word,‘diakonos,’ suggests that he is in fact referring to the office and not just describing her as a worker. Against this idea stands verse 12, which says a shammash must be faithful to his wife but says nothing about her being faithful to her husband. However, this can be explained as brevity of expression, or as a statement of the rule for the more frequent case.”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#111 Oct 26, 2013
The term Deaconess as applied to Christian woman, can also be found in non-Christian sources. Pliny, in a letter to Emperor Trajan written around 112 A. D. mentions two Christian women and says:

“Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses.” See Pliny Letters 10.96.

Despite the evidence the Jehovah’s Witness Governing Body refuses to allow women to hold positions of leadership in their church. They cite 1 Timothy 2:12 in support of their stand. The NWT renders this verse:“I do not permit a woman to teach, or to exercise authority over a man, but to be in silence.” In this instance the NWT didn’t mistranslate St. Paul’s words. The more ecumenical New Revised Standard Version translates the same verse:“I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent.”

Is St. Paul contradicting himself? The New Interpreter’s Bible, Volume 11, page 801 says:

"With these verses the instruction becomes more specific and focuses on the gatherings for worship. The thought is clearly determined by the attitude behind the household codes. In the ancient household the male head of the family, the PATERFAMILIAS, had all authority and power, and this was deemed to be essential for the good order of the household, itself the basic unit of city and state. In consequence, the proper relation of the wife to her husband was one of 'submission;' the same key world appears in non-Christian household codes, as well as Christian.

"The possibility of confusion arose because the first churches all met in private homes. Consequently there was uncertainty as to whether the norms of behavior were those of household or of church. Probably in the early days of Christianity there were wives who, in exercise of prophetic or other gifts, had been seen to be teaching or exhorting their husbands. Conceivably, this may have been acceptable in church, but since church was also household, the practice was too easily understood to be subversive of the good order of the household and of the authority of the PATERFAMILIAS. For a church concerned to be seen as supportive of what was good for society, the only solution was to conform church order to that of the well-ordered household and to forbid wives to teach or to have
authority over their husbands."

St. Paul's instruction needs to be considered in light of the time and the place. In his instructions to Timothy Paul wasn’t denying women the office of deacon, but in the instance of a house church, so as not to appear subversive, women should learn in silence. In a different setting a deaconess could teach and hold a position of influence in the church. However, the Jehovah's Witnesses take St. Paul’s instructions out of context in order to justify the denial of leadership positions for women in their religion.

Nevertheless, there is considerable evidence from the Scriptures, from scholars, and from history that women held leadership positions in the ancient church. If a religion is truly Bible based there can be no justification for treating women as second-class Christians. There is nothing to fear but much to gain with women in leadership roles. Christians will be especially blessed and enriched when women are restored to full equality in today’s church.
Mumple

Milton, PA

#112 Oct 26, 2013
Admiral Kolchak wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually women did hold responsible positions of leadership in the ancient church, Mumple.
It is very interesting when one reads 1 Timothy 3:1-13 (Revised English Bible). In these verses St. Paul lists the requisites for bishops and deacons. In verse 11 he says: "Women in this office must likewise be dignified, not scandalmongers, but sober, and trustworthy in every way." For the benefit of the Jehovah's Witnesses who are more familiar with their own Bible version, the NWT says, "Women should likewise be serious, not slanderous, moderate in habits, faithful in all things."
The NWT rendering makes it appear that St. Paul had some difficulty gathering his thoughts and while giving instructions to Timothy about deacons, inserts some counsel for women in general, and then picks up this thought and finishes his comments on deacons.
Regarding 1 Timothy 3:11-12 St. Chrysostom writes:
“Verse 11.‘Even so must the women be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.’
“Some have thought that this is said of women generally, but it is not so, for why should he introduce anything about women to interfere with his subject? He is speaking of those who hold the rank of Deaconesses.
“Verse 12.‘Let the “Deacons be husbands of one wife.’
“This must be understood therefore to relate to Deaconesses. For that order is necessary and useful and honorable in the Church. Observe how he requires the same virtue from the Deacons, as from the Bishops, for though they were not of equal rank, they must equally be blameless; equally pure.”(See The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Volume 13, page 441.)
In his discussion of 1 Timothy 3:11, David H. Stern writes in the Jewish New Testament Commentary, page 642:“Greek GUNAIKAS can mean either ‘wives’ or ‘women.’ If the former, Sha’ul [Paul] is taking for granted that only men can be shammasim [deacons] and is predicating their service on their wives’ good behavior. But if the meaning is ‘women,’ he is allowing that the office of shammash can be filled by women as well as men. At Romans 16:1 Sha’ul calls Phoebe a shammash; his use of the masculine form of the Greek word,‘diakonos,’ suggests that he is in fact referring to the office and not just describing her as a worker. Against this idea stands verse 12, which says a shammash must be faithful to his wife but says nothing about her being faithful to her husband. However, this can be explained as brevity of expression, or as a statement of the rule for the more frequent case.”
One can tell you've never read an interlinear version, with the benefit of Strong's notes. I would guess that in this day and age, a person could find so called scholars to support what ever the flavor of the day doctrine someone could come up with. If you wish to promote that kind of thinking, you will get into trouble with RedHorseWoman, she doesn't think too highly of Paul's writings, to begin with.
Mumple

Milton, PA

#113 Oct 26, 2013
Admiral Kolchak wrote:
The term Deaconess as applied to Christian woman, can also be found in non-Christian sources. Pliny, in a letter to Emperor Trajan written around 112 A. D. mentions two Christian women and says:
“Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses.” See Pliny Letters 10.96.
Despite the evidence the Jehovah’s Witness Governing Body refuses to allow women to hold positions of leadership in their church. They cite 1 Timothy 2:12 in support of their stand. The NWT renders this verse:“I do not permit a woman to teach, or to exercise authority over a man, but to be in silence.” In this instance the NWT didn’t mistranslate St. Paul’s words. The more ecumenical New Revised Standard Version translates the same verse:“I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent.”
Is St. Paul contradicting himself? The New Interpreter’s Bible, Volume 11, page 801 says:
"With these verses the instruction becomes more specific and focuses on the gatherings for worship. The thought is clearly determined by the attitude behind the household codes. In the ancient household the male head of the family, the PATERFAMILIAS, had all authority and power, and this was deemed to be essential for the good order of the household, itself the basic unit of city and state. In consequence, the proper relation of the wife to her husband was one of 'submission;' the same key world appears in non-Christian household codes, as well as Christian.
"The possibility of confusion arose because the first churches all met in private homes. Consequently there was uncertainty as to whether the norms of behavior were those of household or of church. Probably in the early days of Christianity there were wives who, in exercise of prophetic or other gifts, had been seen to be teaching or exhorting their husbands. Conceivably, this may have been acceptable in church, but since church was also household, the practice was too easily understood to be subversive of the good order of the household and of the authority of the PATERFAMILIAS. For a church concerned to be seen as supportive of what was good for society, the only solution was to conform church order to that of the well-ordered household and to forbid wives to teach or to have
authority over their husbands."
St. Paul's instruction needs to be considered in light of the time and the place. In his instructions to Timothy Paul wasn’t denying women the office of deacon, but in the instance of a house church, so as not to appear subversive, women should learn in silence. In a different setting a deaconess could teach and hold a position of influence in the church. However, the Jehovah's Witnesses take St. Paul’s instructions out of context in order to justify the denial of leadership positions for women in their religion.
Nevertheless, there is considerable evidence from the Scriptures, from scholars, and from history that women held leadership positions in the ancient church. If a religion is truly Bible based there can be no justification for treating women as second-class Christians. There is nothing to fear but much to gain with women in leadership roles. Christians will be especially blessed and enriched when women are restored to full equality in today’s church.
Like I've said before, women are not equal to men. God doesn't consider them so. He never did. They were not created the same, they were not dealt with at all, except as subordinates of men, with the exception of Deborah. And she was not a leader, in the sense that Moses or Joshua or even Saul. Women, are women, because they were made from an already existing man. They are considered a weaker vessel for the containment of God's spirit. That is the way they were made. The bible shows that with consistency. Your foolishness is not supportive of God's interests.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#114 Oct 26, 2013
Mumple wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I've said before, women are not equal to men. God doesn't consider them so. He never did. They were not created the same, they were not dealt with at all, except as subordinates of men, with the exception of Deborah. And she was not a leader, in the sense that Moses or Joshua or even Saul. Women, are women, because they were made from an already existing man. They are considered a weaker vessel for the containment of God's spirit. That is the way they were made. The bible shows that with consistency. Your foolishness is not supportive of God's interests.
and Queen Esther? you need to read the gospels on who Jesus valued and treated women as equal in fact it was women that he first appeared to after the resurrection, women have children men can't reproduce without women, women are a compliment to man, go read up on what compliment means, women were created from the mans rib according to the scriptures, they are of man, they are the same substance, the only difference is men are physically stronger, that does not make women inferior, you talk like you come from a third world country where women are treated less than a man.

And God said to Abraham listen to Sarah, consider what she says, imperfect humans abuse the headship and take it to another extreme that women are inferior and therefore have been mistreated and abused.
Mumple

Milton, PA

#115 Oct 26, 2013
array wrote:
<quoted text>and Queen Esther? you need to read the gospels on who Jesus valued and treated women as equal in fact it was women that he first appeared to after the resurrection, women have children men can't reproduce without women, women are a compliment to man, go read up on what compliment means, women were created from the mans rib according to the scriptures, they are of man, they are the same substance, the only difference is men are physically stronger, that does not make women inferior, you talk like you come from a third world country where women are treated less than a man.
And God said to Abraham listen to Sarah, consider what she says, imperfect humans abuse the headship and take it to another extreme that women are inferior and therefore have been mistreated and abused.
I don't see where your point changes anything. I don't know if you read the book of Esther, but it seems she was under the authority of her husband. I guess Abigail, Michal, Bathsheba, Jezebel, and the wife of every other king and prophet in the bible, also fall into your thinking. But alas, being a queen under a king isn't much of a leadership position.

If you folks would read the scriptures to see what they contain, instead of trying to prove me incorrect, and yourselves right, you would be a lot further ahead, and in the process, you would learn something about God.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#116 Oct 26, 2013
Mumple wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't see where your point changes anything. I don't know if you read the book of Esther, but it seems she was under the authority of her husband. I guess Abigail, Michal, Bathsheba, Jezebel, and the wife of every other king and prophet in the bible, also fall into your thinking. But alas, being a queen under a king isn't much of a leadership position.
If you folks would read the scriptures to see what they contain, instead of trying to prove me incorrect, and yourselves right, you would be a lot further ahead, and in the process, you would learn something about God.
she was primarily under the Authority of Jehovah, all women should and must put God before their husbands, ultimately he is the above all including men.

The authority as said has been misued abused, to make ones like you think that because of the headship issue women are beneath me, but its not true, women are in subjection to their husbands, it is usually the men that abuse that headship and not treating women as their equal, their has been many WT on that subject and the Wt has never said that women are not equal to men, but it is as said the the abuse of that headship to lord it over women and treat them harshly as not equal.

you should read up on headship and authority, and understand why these were put in place in the first place, and what it actually means, do you think that God regards women as second class, not women are to even be part of the kings and priests that will rule in heaven with Christ.

If men are superior they certainly made a mess of things seeing they are the majority rule of this wicked system of things, far more crimes, murders and abuse is by this superior being man!!

Since: Feb 07

RI

#117 Oct 26, 2013
Mumple wrote:
<quoted text>
I won't accuse you of being obtuse, you are just plain ignorant. You are ignorant of the application of Godly principles. There are many ways to apply them, but you don't even know what they are. What men do with scripture, to justify their own actions, is of no concern to me. Even an idiot could understand the clear scriptures I presented. That means you choose not to see. This is my next to last reply to you on the thread.
Oh, I know well what they are. I just disagree with how some people interpret and apply them.

Since: Feb 07

RI

#118 Oct 26, 2013
Mumple wrote:
<quoted text>
You've chosen not to present any scripture at all, let alone do anything besides criticize what you obviously don't understand. You supplied nothing but vitriol to support your position, whatever it is. This is the last time I will reply to you on this thread, so don't get your skirt in a bundle. If I post, it won't be to you, it may be about you, but not to you. Your replies will be duly ignored.
LOL Oh, I see, so because you couldn't bully me into kowtowing before your mighty manliness (snicker) you intend to gossip about me behind my back, but will huffily stick your nose in the air and not reply to me. LOL

You are hilarious!! How does it feel to have your "neck hairs" solidly "tweaked"?

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#119 Oct 26, 2013
Remnant143999 wrote:
Do ministerial servants ever become ministers? A jw female role is just to obey her husband and not to talk unless spoken to.
.
. There you go... I know one ..that writes up her husbands talks for him.. Get a load of that.. he never knew what his talk was till he gave it.. All I can say is..it's a good thing HE towed the line...

Since: Aug 12

Manchester, UK

#120 Oct 26, 2013
Mumple wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I've said before, women are not equal to men. God doesn't consider them so. He never did. They were not created the same, they were not dealt with at all, except as subordinates of men, with the exception of Deborah. And she was not a leader, in the sense that Moses or Joshua or even Saul. Women, are women, because they were made from an already existing man. They are considered a weaker vessel for the containment of God's spirit. That is the way they were made. The bible shows that with consistency. Your foolishness is not supportive of God's interests.
This is what religious indoctrination does to a person!

They clearly cannot look beyond the confines of a book even if that book were to tell them to jump off a cliff. Granted, some religionists are forward thinking (i.e. use their brain to think outside the box), but others just get worse with more "study" they do.

The bible is NOT infallible. It was written by men, inspired by society. It was the greatest moral and spiritual guidance OF THE TIME. Some are too ignorant or indoctrinated to see this, and this is why they believe that God is some tyrant who gets angry and discriminates against women (the writings were only a reflection of the moors of the day).

Nowhere in the "updated ways of God" (i.e. NT) does it say that rape is wrong, or pedophilia is wrong. This is because it is society that evolves to understand these ways. The only thing God expects is love to be shown, and this is an evolving concept to us humans.

This was "God's way" according to Mumple (i.e. justice in those days):

(Deuteronomy 22:28, 29) If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Now we know that these days it is beyond disgusting to punish a rapist by making them marry the victim because our moral values have evolved, but back then that WAS justice. Just as it was JUSTICE (in the context of those days) to stone a person. It was the highest form of idealism, morality and ethics of the times (attributed to the "word of God"). The urantia book shows that when a prophet felt strongly about something, back in those days they actually believed that this was God speaking to them! So they would say something along the lines of "and the word of the Lord came to me saying...". Sometimes these are spiritually inspired from deep meditation and seeking of God (i.e. of the highest spiritual value), but many times things such as bloody battles etc were put down to "the word of God" (had God's seal of approval).

The urantia book painstakingly DETAILS how Paul had many of his own ideas/opinions and what we see today is more PAUL'S religion than it was Jesus'(Pauline Christianity). If it were Jesus' religion people would not have churches, they would not hate, they would not segregate society, they would treat women as equals and most of all it wouldn't matter what religion you were because Jesus' principles were adaptable and embracing of ALL peoples (it doesn't depend on the country you were born into)- God is no respecter of persons (race/sex/position etc)- He is not just the Father of one particular people. Jesus' religion ATTRACTS people, MAN'S religion repulses the forward thinking ones (and this included the prophets in ancient days who'd pull their hair out due to the ignorant and foolish).

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jehovah's Witness Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
A Challenge ! 3 min sidgi 151
GB and Bethel Days Numbered 22 min Beelzebub Hook 6
"God's Kingdom Rules" available for download: 26 min x WTS 5
Why can JWs be DF'd for associating w/ a DF'd p... 38 min Flame 49
Jehovah, Yahweh, YHWH, or LORD? 40 min The Real Karen 167
Found this today about Gods name. 41 min The Real Karen 883
Challenge for Ihveit (Dec '11) 47 min the Mad JW 113
YES-Jesus WAS once known as Michael 1 hr the Mad JW 821
The "fear" 1 hr The Real Karen 233
What is the trinity? (Apr '13) 2 hr imagoodboy 17,137

Jehovah's Witness People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE