Things I Think

You may also like...

76 Responses

  1. Solomon Rodriguez says:

    Amen to your 1, 7 and 9

  2. Rob Murphy says:

    @6 – John Lennox said something like …. the critics of Christianity would do well to take on abolishing ALL organized religion and begin their noble quest in Saudi Arabia.

    I watched an half hour thing by/on Billy Graham on Fox News Channel on Friday. I know that watching anything on Fox News Channel is worthy of banishment to the outer reaches but I couldn’t find it on any other channels, not even Al Jazeera, the most trusted name in news. I enjoyed the interview with Tchividian (spelling?) afterword.

    My kids really like Samaritan’s Purse, each year we put together a shoebox and look through the catalog to give gifts in far away places we’re not likely to be able to personally carry a gift.

    I join with my voice in adulation of broken people and things that do good sometimes because I hope to do good sometimes and I know that I’m a mess.

  3. Xenia says:

    1. I am pretty ambivalent about Veterans Day, even though I am a Vietnam-era vet, sort of. I have mixed feelings about the military in general although I know we need it to keep the country safe. I do not believe that women should join the military except in ancillary roles, like nurses, etc. Back in my day (40 years ago) it was bad enough (I could tell stories) but nowadays, ever since women got “liberated,” it’s a snake pit for women. Plus, military chaplains with any genuine Christianity at all about them will be driven from their jobs as homosexual couples demand weddings from them.

    2. Honestly, while I do see the redemptive hand of God in the lives of folks like Johnny Cash I find it more beneficial to read stories about…. well, Saints. I enjoy reading Saints’ lives. Johnny gives me a good excuse to fail while Saints encourage me live a more consistent life in Christ.

    3. I am letting my hair grow to see how long it will get. Me and the other old ladies at church are having a contest! (Not really, but almost really.)

    4. Franklin Graham… Well, I don’t know much about him. There is a goofy old man on our Meals on Wheels route (he’s not the client, his ancient mother is the client) and he’s a devout Roman Catholic. We like to talk about religion. This man loves Franklin Graham to pieces and thanks God for all his good work. I am inclined to go along with this fellow’s estimation, for the time being.

    5. What do you mean by “patriarchy?” You mean the man running the household? Isn’t that totally optional today anyway? I confess I am clueless as to what this means.

    6. Well, you know what the Lord said: when men mock and revile you for His name’s sake, rejoice and be exceedingly glad!

    7. All redeemed lives are beautiful, not just the sordid ones. You know, there is a tendency among some people that when a really good person is mentioned, dispersion is cast upon them (“They are probably fakes”) whereas when a flamboyant sinner is mentioned, we assume he is sincere. It is true that the big sinners do demonstrate the relentless love of Our Lord but they should not be our models.

    8. All I can say about this is that the veterans I know who are in terrible health receive great care from the VA hospital.

    9. Yes, you can learn that God is infinitely patient but you can also learn that we should not tempt the Lord Our God.

    10. I agree.

  4. Michael says:

    Xenia,

    I’m not sure I believe in “saints as defined by Orthodox and Catholic tradition…and if I did I’m honest enough to know that I’m not in that spiritual zip code.

  5. Xenia says:

    Well, saintly Protestants, then. You’ve got some, I’m sure!

  6. Michael says:

    The patriarchy issue is a complete deconstruction of the entire biblical narrative because it is allegedly oppressive to women and it has been tied to the cause of gay rights in the church.
    The next round of lawsuits will be against groups that have male only clergy…

  7. Michael says:

    Xenia,

    I believe our some of our biggest problems come when we try to make “saints” out of redeemed sinners.
    We start to celebrate the person we created instead of the God who redeemed them.

  8. Tim says:

    “10. Some folks ration out grace as if they were the ones who had to pay for it…”

    So sad, and sadly so true.

  9. Kevin H says:

    1. I always have had greate respect and admiration for those who endure the hardships and place their lives on the line to protect our country and preserve freedom. And so I say thnak you to all the veterans.

    4. I very much like Samaritan’s Purse including their Operation Christmas Child program. I must give Franklin Graham credit there. I am also disturbed by some things about Graham such as his salary issues and his apparent use of his father for political means. And I wasn’t even around for the Skip days and whatever Graham’s involvement was with that. Hmmmm, could make for a good saint and sinner discussion. 🙂

    5. I don’t know if it will be more divisive, but I could very well see the subject of patriarchy riding on the coattails of the homosexuality issue within the church.

  10. I don’t see how patriarchy could become a “cause”. Yes, it is and will be a buzzword foe some, but I think it will fall short when creating a movement of any sort.

  11. Michael says:

    Josh,

    I may just be having a bad day…but I grow more and more convinced that what a lot of these marginally “Christian” critics want isn’t a reformation, but a destruction of the faith once delivered to the saints.
    The war on “patriarchy’ is just the next bomb they will toss in it’s direction.

  12. Kevin H says:

    Josh,

    I don’t think it would become as much of a movement as is the current homosexual issue. But I can see the parallels forming. Just as today, those who dare call homosexual behavior to be sinful are more and more being ostracized for being homophobic and bigoted. I could see the same thing building momentum for those who believe in male clergy only or that the husband should be the spiritual head in the household. The pressure to drop these “outdated” and “misogynic” beliefs might only grow.

  13. No doubt, and that bomb is already being tossed, I just don’t seeing it gaining any mainstream traction. I’ve definitely seen the articles you are talking about, though. I predict this one will be a miss. They’ll soon find another cause with sharper claws and patriarchy will be all but forgotten about.

  14. Papias says:

    Happy Veterans Day! I never served my country in that fashion, but my dad emigrated from Canada by joining the US Marines.(Happy Birthday btw!)

    I saw an article yesterday about the “atheist mega churches”. Meetings of people in big cities, all having singing, a talk, and encouragement to go out a make a better world. All about having a community without God. It struck me as odd, and sad, and perhaps a little threatening.

    Franklin Graham makes a boatload off of SP and is buddies with Skip. I will do the shoebox thing and probably stay quiet cause no one cares about your warts if you’re connected well enough.

    Listening to “My Mother’s Hymn Book”. 🙂

  15. Solomon Rodriguez says:

    Ill get my freebie today at Chilis. I would advise todays Christian from getting in the military with the way stuff is going

  16. Ricky Bobby says:

    I see the issue of Homosexual taboo in the church and Patriarchal emphasis somewhere in the middle.

    I think socially and theologically Liberal folks have a legit beef with the so-called “church” and Christians* making a special Taboo of Homosexuality (while swallowing whole so many other sins within Selective Fundamentalism….pastors in Fundie evangelical churches can be liars, gluttons, narcissists, adulterers, porn watchers, greedy, divorced etc…but they can’t be Women or Homos).

    I think there is certainly a bias against homosexuals in the “church” at large.

    I also think that the mainstream is fine with Christians* calling it “sin” and holding that opinion…as long as it doesn’t cross over into banning folks from the same privileges under the Secular Laws of the Land that others who commit different sins have.

    Marriage can be between a man and a woman in Christianland, but the State is not the Church and the Church is not the State. In the State context, it is possible that Sheepf’ers and Polygamists have an argument…and if they are successful in making the case, then the “church” shouldn’t fret, other than to add it to the list of sinners to condemn to hell.

    Can’t discriminate against homosexuals, women, sheepf’ers, etc. Not within the State context.

    Regarding Patriarchy, I believe the mainstream is simply asserting an alternative view to the Fundie interpretation and example of the bible and pointing out the Taliban nature of waxing too Old Testament.

    I also think the liberals theologically and socially make a good point about some of the dangers and inequalities of Patriarchy. The Patriarchal mindset can lead to both spousal abuse and child abuse. It’s about Power…and if you give a human man too much unchecked power, he will often abuse it. Patriarchical constructs and teachings that the man is special and the end-all be-all and the woman and kids are inferiors and to be fully submitted etc is not only wrong, it can lead to a-holes being abusive and actually can tear families apart.

    Grace-based Parenting and Grace-based marriage relationships are not Patriarchal, not in the sense I’ve seen Patriarchy taught and demonstrated in Fundamentalist Evangelicalism.

  17. DavidM says:

    I guess I’m “blind as a bat”. Patriarchy is not on my radar at all. To be honest, this is the first I’ve heard of it, in the Christian sense of it becoming an issue. If you’re talking about the criticism of roles of men/women in the church and home, then this is nothing new.

  18. Ricky Bobby says:

    Again, the bible presents two distinctly different Narratives on a major issue.

    One is the hard-line cultural Patriarchy of the Old Testament society/culture, which is slightly softer in the New Testament, but still harder-line (women cover their heads, women can’t speak in church, man is head of the woman etc).

    Then you have the contrasting narrative of a large part of the Jesus Narrative where we see Jesus espousing “Servant of All” and Jesus ministering to the Woman at the Well and actually serving her and Jesus flipping the Patriarchal mindset with his Sermon on the Mount and Beattitudes and his instructions to the Apostles who clamored for position etc.

    You even have Paul (supposedly) espousing a similar doctrine here: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

    Again, two Narratives, two distinctly different Positions asserted: 1. Hierarchy, Offices, Roles, Positions vs. 2. Everyone is equal, No hierarchy, Servant of All, Submit one to another etc.

  19. Ricky Bobby says:

    Those who like old-school Patriarchy can appeal to parts of “the bible” and claim such and justify their a-hole behavior (often) and those who don’t like Patriarchy and see some dangers in it can point to “the bible’ and find an argument as well.

    That’s the truth of the matter.

    Regarding Society’s push on this issue…well, I’d say that throughout man’s history, those who support Patriarchy have had about 99.999% of the argument in their favor for centuries and millennia…so a little push-back now is probably a good thing.

  20. Xenia says:

    I think most Christian woman are fine with an all-male clergy but where they get annoyed is when the pastor calls them “gals” and expects them to volunteer their time for jobs that they pay men to do.

  21. PP Vet says:

    Society will beat on the church until all we stand for is love, hope, faith, the person of Christ, and the power of God.

    Then they will not be able to criticize us, and they will have no choice but to join us or kill us.

  22. Bob says:

    “Again, two Narratives, two distinctly different Positions asserted: 1. Hierarchy, Offices, Roles, Positions vs. 2. Everyone is equal, No hierarchy, Servant of All, Submit one to another etc.”

    There goes Ricky Bobby writing and yet has no idea what he’s saying.

    Dude you got it all wrong. Biblically and historically the Jewish people have been some if not the most liberal people in the world when it comes to woman and their position in the culture.

    Read where woman came from in Genesis and then compare it wit the contemporary positions in other creation stories.

    Read what the sages say about Eve’s declaration of her ish (man child in many English translations).

    Even read Ruth and how well the characters are treated in the Jewish side.

    Of course this doesn’t mean woman had the right to vote or equal pay in any of these ages, but on the whole a bibilcal view of woman in the entire bible is higher than any of the known world’s cultures. Even in these United States voting was only given to land owners up until more recent times and those land owners happen to be white and male.

    Dude you make bold big statements but fall short on the facts. You never draw the whole picture, but just color with the crayons you chose and are your favorites.

    Back to the classroom.

    PS. there isn’t any discrepancies between the positions of the NT and OT nor are there two different narratives.

  23. 2. Just added the Johnny Cash bio to my Amazon wish list.
    3. I haven’t been to a barber since the last time I was in Iraq. Every once in a while, my wife says my hair is too long and she pulls out the clippers and buzzes most of it off. I am starting to look like a hippie right now though. 🙂
    4. That whole waffling on the Mormon thing while Romney was running soured me on him. But must admit, things like Samaritan’s Purse do good work. Billy Graham, though, I have much respect for that man.
    5. Maybe, not sure.
    6. “If other faiths were mocked to the degree that some are now mocking Christianity, they would be accused of “insensitivity” at the least and “hate speech’ at the most.”
    This doesn’t surprise me when it comes from unbelievers, after all the Lord said it would happen.
    But, when it is people that profess to be believers that make it a habit of mocking other believers and the things they do….well that makes me angry.
    7. All this talk of Cash has convinced me to put on a vinyl album….hmm maybe “Orange Blossom Special”…think I’ll go do that.

  24. That last wasn’t aimed at Bob, but at the object of Bob’s comment.
    I like the back to the classroom thing!

  25. Dude says:

    This veteran chose not to get a freebie meal today…havent for the last 3yrs.To much of a hassle with long lines.

  26. I really don’t care what non christians think of the operational norms of the church. I don’t tell the Elks Club how to run their show.

    But if they want to bark, let them – and let them begin by telling Orthodox Jews that the MUST have female rabbis and the Muslims that they MUST have female imans … then if they are still going, I will give them a listen.

  27. Laura Scott says:

    I was just thinking of the younger Graham and I am in full agreement; there are not a lot of people I have less respect for, even allowing for the work of SP.

    However, I have endless respect for those who have served, particularly those in the Big One, WWII. That would be my father, both my in-laws (while I was married), and several others I have met along the way. A big shout out the the lovely folks out at The Wall in DC.

    As to patriarchy, that is one big EEHHH to me. As a female servant, I am quite used to the message of being not-quite-good-enough some folks give off in the church.

  28. babylonthegreatfallen says:

    As per the care of veterans; America is excellent at death and killing and not so good at life and healing. I would rather be in an American tank than a VA Hospital.

  29. Steve Wright says:

    I would rather be in an American tank than a VA Hospital.
    ——————————————-
    That’s the truth – especially a tank made in an influential Senator’s home state.

  30. brian says:

    http://youtu.be/gEJLKRUNLZ8

    This was big back in the eighties, it seemed there was a demon everywhere. Read the comments people actually believe this nonsense.

  31. Ixtlan says:

    When was the last time you were in a VA facility?

    As to Veteran’s Day: I don’t want your thanks. I would have rather had your comradeship.

  32. erunner says:

    I ran an article concerning veterans with PTSD today and the problems they are facing due to medication they are taking. It seems at times they can’t catch a break.

    http://morethancoping.wordpress.com/2013/11/11/veterans-with-ptsd-face-new-problems-their-medication/

  33. Ricky Bobby says:

    Bob, you are going to look very stupid an ill-informed shortly. I’ll put the “facts” together for you…from the “bible” itself.

  34. brian says:

    “you are going to look very stupid an ill-informed shortly.” Um this is not part of the discussion but I often find myself looking that way.

  35. Ricky Bobby says:

    Bob said, “Dude you got it all wrong. Biblically and historically the Jewish people have been some if not the most liberal people in the world when it comes to woman and their position in the culture.”

    Genesis: Adam is called Eve’s “master” and is to “rule” over her. Read the text, see the Hebrew translation.

    The Old Testament permits and examples polygamy. Lamech had 2wives, Esau 3 wives, Jacob 2, Ashur 2, Gideon had several, Elkanah 2, David had quite a few, Solomon had 700 wives of royal birth, Rehaboah 3, Abijah 14. Jehoram, Joash, Ahab, Jeholachin and Belshazzar all had multiple wives as well.

    Abraham forces Hagar his concubine/sex slave to have sex and bare a son.

    “Righteous” Lot offers his daughters up to be raped by the crowd of men in Sodom instead of the angels.

    Concubines/Sex Slaves were endorsed/permitted and exampled big time: Abraham had 2 concubines, Gideon at least 1, David had quite a few, Nahor 1, Jacob 1, Eliphaz 1, Gideon 1, Caleb 2, Manassah 1, Saul 1, David had at least 10, Rehoboam had a whopping 60 and Solomon a ginormous 300. There are a couple others in the bible who had concubines/sex slaves as well.

    Women were the “property” of their fathers and then the property of their slave owners or their husband.

    Male slaves could go free after 6 years, not women.

    Fathers could sell their daughters into slavery since they were his property.

    Men were literally valued more than women:

    27 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If anyone makes a special vow to dedicate a person to the Lord by giving the equivalent value, 3 set the value of a male between the ages of twenty and sixty at fifty shekels[a] of silver, according to the sanctuary shekel[b]; 4 for a female, set her value at thirty shekels[c]; 5 for a person between the ages of five and twenty, set the value of a male at twenty shekels[d] and of a female at ten shekels[e]; 6 for a person between one month and five years, set the value of a male at five shekels[f] of silver and that of a female at three shekels[g] of silver; 7 for a person sixty years old or more, set the value of a male at fifteen shekels[h] and of a female at ten shekels.

    A woman who was raped and didn’t cry out loud enough was to be executed with stones: “23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.”

    Women were viewed as “less clean”. If a woman had a boy she was unclean for 7 days, if she had a girl she was unclean for 14 days. I guess women are twice as dirty as men for some reason.

    When they took a census, women weren’t counted, only the guys:
    “Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them.”

    In a rather bizarre male-biased procedure, if a woman was suspected of adultery, the husband could take her to the priest and she was made to take a “cursed” potion that if she had committed adultery she would come ill. This same standard wasn’t applied to the dudes.

    11 Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[c] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.

    16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[d] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

    When a father dies, the inheritance went to the son, the daughter gets zero.

    Men could force the women of enemies they killed in battle to marry them. The woman had no say:

    “10 When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.”

    Women who were found to be non-virgins before marriage were to be executed with stones.
    Men could initiate divorce, the women had zero power to do so and were viewed as property of the man.

    Women who were widowed were required to marry their bro-in-laws.

    This one’s always a fun one:

    “11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.”

    No such penalty for the men folk.

    This one is particular disgusting. Basically, women are valueless. Sent outside to be raped and murdered…and the dead concubine is cut up into pieces by her master after she was given up to pacify other men who wanted the master.

    “16 That evening an old man from the hill country of Ephraim, who was living in Gibeah (the inhabitants of the place were Benjamites), came in from his work in the fields. 17 When he looked and saw the traveler in the city square, the old man asked, “Where are you going? Where did you come from?”

    18 He answered, “We are on our way from Bethlehem in Judah to a remote area in the hill country of Ephraim where I live. I have been to Bethlehem in Judah and now I am going to the house of the Lord.[a] No one has taken me in for the night. 19 We have both straw and fodder for our donkeys and bread and wine for ourselves your servants—me, the woman and the young man with us. We don’t need anything.”

    20 “You are welcome at my house,” the old man said. “Let me supply whatever you need. Only don’t spend the night in the square.” 21 So he took him into his house and fed his donkeys. After they had washed their feet, they had something to eat and drink.

    22 While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, “Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him.”

    23 The owner of the house went outside and said to them, “No, my friends, don’t be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don’t do this outrageous thing. 24 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But as for this man, don’t do such an outrageous thing.”

    25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. 26 At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight.

    27 When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. 28 He said to her, “Get up; let’s go.” But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.

    29 When he reached home, he took a knife and cut up his concubine, limb by limb, into twelve parts and sent them into all the areas of Israel.”

    Then in Chronicles we see that during the Second Temple period women were third class citizens, not allowed to testify in court, couldn’t go out in public or talk to strangers, had to be veiled (kinda like Burqas) couldn’t worship in the temple etc etc.

    Ya, Bob, really great treatment there “compared to other cultures”.

    You are asserting Relativism: “Well the bible isn’t as bad as the other cultures of the day!” well it isn’t good either…and there seemed to be some other cultures of the time that treated women better and same goes for the New Testament.

    You are delusional in your mythology above. Women were treated as bad in the bible as anywhere and there were cultures and religions who treated them better.

  36. Ricky Bobby says:

    One specific example is the Greek culture. During the Greek Bronze Age and Ancient Greek period (which is contemporary with what is supposedly Moses and the Israelites and then the First and Second Temple periods) women were treated much better in the Greek Culture.

    So, Bob, you need to brush up on your bible reading and your Greek history.

  37. everstudy says:

    Thanks Brian, that’s 3 minutes I’ll never get back… Now I need to read a calculus book or something to regenerate the brain cells that jumped ship during the clip.

  38. Ricky Bobby says:

    Egytian women were treated far better than most of the ancient cultures that were contemporary with Moses and then the First and Second Temple periods.

    Egyptian women “achieved parity with Egyptian men. They enjoyed the same legal and economic rights, at least in theory, and this concept can be found in Egyptian art and contemporary manuscripts. The disparities between people’s legal rights were based on differences in social class and not on gender. Legal and economic rights were afforded to both men and women.” –Cornell University, “The Status of Women in Egyptian Society”

  39. brian says:

    Everstudy that is the tip of the iceberg. That is what I was trying to say in the last post, people I cared about and had a huge impact on my spiritual beginning bought into a great deal of this nonsense. Jesuit hit squads coming after jack, Alberto Rivera, Dave Hunt, all the end time stupidity, demons under every bush, it warps a person. It did me.

  40. brian says:

    The Egyptian culture at the time was cosmopolitan and from what I have read economically stable. The Israelite culture was tribal so I would be surprised if women were treated better. I mean I wish they would have been but there were two differing economies and cultures at play. Many of the OT laws seem to be to support a tribal mentality and were thus written that way. Of course that is a very simplistic view.

  41. Bob says:

    A Typical RB response:

    And your crayon work is a bit outside the lines.

    But arguing anything with you is worse than purposely hitting one’s head on the wall.

    Oh and BTW guess where the Israelites came from and built many of their practices around? That place with the big river and I don’t mean Memphis, TN.

    No I don’t feel stupid, just a lucky fisherman. You are predictable!

    Your comment on the narratives is still colorless and I really wonder about your eyesight.

  42. Bob says:

    PS. RIcky

    My bronze age history is a combination of copper and tin and if you didn’t know it the Genesis account of metals follows the actual historical progression of metal discovery and use. Lots of imagery, however, with the turning blazing sword and such.

    There’s a lot more about the name Eve than your “Strongs” my give you, but its not a difficult search, one your superior brain may be able to go and find. Something my “stupid and ill-informed” one probably can’t handle.

    You have to get over yourself! Facts are facts.

  43. Ricky Bobby says:

    I know someone who doesn’t know very much when I see them. Yes, typical response by appealing to the facts and data to support my assertion.

  44. Ricky Bobby says:

    But, like you said, there’s not much use arguing. I presented the facts and folks are free to remain in their delusion. Have a good evening. That’ll be my last comment on the issue so as not to “dominate” a thread by trying to overcome inability to acknowledge the facts and draw a reasonable conclusion.

  45. Bob says:

    “I know someone who doesn’t know much…”
    “facts and data to support my assertion.”
    “I presented the facts and folks are free to remain in their delusion…”
    “by trying to overcome inability to acknowledge the facts and draw a reasonable conclusion.”

    All quotes by Ricky Bobby.

    What do they say about him?

    Based on these facts, who’s delusional Ricky?

    Yeah I have a bug when it comes to your self expertise. Oh I will give you credit for one thing, you are one of the fastest googlers and computer bible searchers I’ve read.

    Sorry Michael the man set (sets) me off, so I went after him. Peace to you.

  46. Ricky Bobby says:

    Whatevs Bob, no skin off my back. Nothing to apologize for, you didn’t even do a good enough job to mildly irritate me LOL.

  47. Chile says:

    I suspect that when you, Michael, say Patriarchy, that it conjures up different meanings in different minds here.

    I immediately think of the Reconstructionists who include the following in their core distinctives: Quiverfull movement, homeschool only, extreme purity movement, political involvement & Patriarchy.

    My understanding of the Reconstructionists’ idea of Patriarchy includes, but is not limited to, the following: men make all the decisions; Dad’s decide who their daughters can court; daughters must stay at home and practice serving their fathers until married; girls are not to go to college or work unless they work with family; wives are not to voice their opinions, etc…

    This type of “Patriarch Movement” is related to Dominionism. I suspect this is not the Patriarchy that Michael is referring to?

    The Reconstructionist poster family is the 19 kids and Counting family on TV. One of the main leaders was Doug Phillips up until today, when his position was dissolved due to his fall from grace.

  48. Xenia says:

    I remember in the home school world there were families that followed what Chile is talking about. There was even a short-lived magazine called “Patriarch.” It was almost like a Mormon polygamist cult w/o the polygamy. Most of them were part of the local (also short-lived) OPC (orthodox Presbyterian Church) or the local Fundamentalist KJV-only church. You can Google some of the children who were raised under this system and see how miserable they were and how wild and rebellious they turned out and who blames them. The CA state home school assoc back then (CHEA) was dominated by Reconstructionists and Rushdoony spoke at one of the conventions. This “cult” is what immediately came to my mind, Michael, when you said you thought the next big assault on traditional morality would be against Patriarchy and I thought to myself “I sure hope so!”

  49. local brave says:

    Me Big Chief Google Many Feather. Me carry whole tribe. Me get-um all fact in line. Me kill bird of feather. Sell tail feather to white man. Get much wampum. Buy thread. Sew seed. Get all fact. Medicine Man mark trail. All brave must follow Big Chief Google Many Feather. Squaw follow behind. Carry papoose. Big Chief carry fire. Big Chief spear bright red. Big Chief not real name. Real name protected by local Spirit. One day Big Chief go to Great Metaphor in sky. Show all. Fact rule.

  50. Michael says:

    From what I’m seeing from people who tend to be barometers of whats coming, patriarchy refers to any male headship whatsoever.
    The home school reconstructionists and other abusers will be used as the example…but it won’t stop there.
    It’s an uncomfortable issue for me…this is one of the places where I wish the Bible spoke differently than I read it.

  51. Xenia says:

    I am perfectly content with the Bible’s/ Church’s teaching about gender roles.

  52. Ricky Bobby says:

    you’re the one who asked for facts. If you don’t want them or require them and it bothers you so much when they’re presented, then don’t ask for them. Seems a simple concept.

    Michael, how is there “headship” in the context of “Servant of All” and “Be Least”…isn’t part of the bible narrative the opposite of headship? Hard to be the “head last” (first will be last, last will be first).

  53. Michael says:

    It’s two different contexts and categories.

    “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.”
    (1 Timothy 2:11–14 ESV)

    “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.”
    (Ephesians 5:22–24 ESV)

    “But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.”
    (1 Corinthians 11:3 ESV)

    “Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them.”
    (Colossians 3:18–19 ESV)

    “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.”
    (Ephesians 5:22–24 ESV)

  54. Michael says:

    The fact (and it is a fact) that these texts have been the source of much abuse of women does not remove them from Scripture.

  55. Xenia says:

    None of it works without the mother of all virtues, humility.

  56. brian says:

    I have been sort of working on an article concerning the treatment of native peoples by European people and the dynamic of two cultures with differing world views interacting. I dont want it to be a “hit piece” on those big bad “Christians”. So I am looking for a more nuanced view of the interactions. I have seen some really powerful stories which seem to show the actual human interaction. The one thing that struck me, the native people actually believed what they did. I find that profound.

  57. Steve Wright says:

    I guess my question is, if you were God, and wanted marriage to last forever, and not have people divorce over “irreconcilable differences” – and you wanted marriage to be only two people – then who would you make the tiebreaker? The wife or the husband?

    Because someone has to be….and those are the only two options.

    (And yes, we all know that marriage involves compromise, working things through and so forth. However, there are times, and a whole lot of divorces have their root there, when a major decision must be made and the two are on opposite pages. A job transfer is a common one)

  58. brian says:

    “I guess my question is, if you were God, and wanted marriage to last forever, and not have people divorce over “irreconcilable differences” – and you wanted marriage to be only two people – then who would you make the tiebreaker? The wife or the husband?”

    I mean no offense and I would make a lousy god, I rarely make a decent human being. But to answer your question, I would show up, be there and be real and irrefutable. I would heal them and not expect anything in return, I would show them grace and just heal them. No matter what was done because I was their Father. That is repugnant and weak on my part and I get that, one, among many reasons I would make an awful god. I just hate seeing people hurt, and I want to help it is one of the stupidest things I have done in my life, and would do it again at the drop of a hat.

  59. Misty says:

    Me thinks the generic ‘Bob’ is actually the one and only Derek. Use some critical thinking skills people. And, who be ‘local brave’? LOL

  60. Steve Wright says:

    I would show up, be there and be real and irrefutable. I would heal them and not expect anything in return, I would show them grace and just heal them. No matter what was done
    ————————————————-
    Jesus Christ has done this. Mission accomplished.

    You help make a larger point – get both people focused on Christ and His will – He will reveal it.

    And Christ won’t be divided.

    Too many marriages look to the commands, and don’t look to the Lord and His will. That was never God’s intention in giving the commands in the first place – to have them supercede a walk with God in the Spirit.

    The Law shows us our need for Christ. And then, after receiving Christ, Christians want to be put back under a new set of do’s and dont’s – when the reality is we are to live in the fullness of the Holy Spirit, and the fruit of the Spirit will fulfill those commands. Against such there is no law.

  61. brian says:

    “Jesus Christ has done this. Mission accomplished.”

    Yes I heard that still so many suffer, I am sure it is our fault. I dont want to be under the law all I ever wanted was to be part of a family and to find peace. That is totally unreasonable on my part and I admit that, but it was what I hoped for.

  62. Solomon Rodriguez says:

    I would take a chest beating humble sinner rather than a holier than thou pharisee anytime. Who is the one justifoed according to out Lord? The breast beater is.

  63. Sorry Misty. Maybe some critical thinking would be useful there in your own instance and notice that I replied to one of Bob’s posts.
    Went to bed early last night and may try to catch up on what happened on this thread when I get home from work.

    Let me guess though.
    At some point RB made references to how much smarter he is than his opponent.
    RB gave up at some point and said something about “not dominating” the thread?
    Typical and predictable.

  64. Mark says:

    RB you are mixing things up. The examples of patriarchy you give from the OT were not condoned by God. Polygamy, for example, was clearly against Gods law and nowhere is it written in scripture that God condoned the practice. Further you state God “permitted” it so u assume it was ok by God. God “permits” all sin- that’s free will. Give examples of God actively commanding servitude of women or a “master” position for men. You can’t. Even the submission verses quoted by Michael r taken out of context and misinterpreted. Submission in scripture is mutual and in fact the man is actually commanded to love his wife as Christ loved the church. Guess what? Christ loved the church as the ultimate submissive , dying for the church after serving it to the max. This whole concept of Christianity being a patriarchal system is a complete misrepresentation of what the bible teaches

  65. search injun says:

    Me beatum chest all time. Getum clue. Go beyond reason to fact. That what meta for.

  66. Laura Scott says:

    Re: #67 I am not someone who is very thin-skinned but that comment is completely offensive in tone, arrogance and intent.

    From an American Indian.

  67. search engine says:

    I apologize. Not meant to impugn American Indians. Perhaps the moderator can remove it.

  68. DavidH says:

    #9. A hearty yes. However, most folks want sanitized heroes. They like the “Look at me I was a real mess before I met Jesus, now I’m all cleaned up, just like you should be. Please buy my book, and go to my seminar.”

  69. dominate……………………………………………………….☑
    implying how much smarter he is than opponent…☑

    Yawn…same old RB.

  70. Here is just one example from his diatribe of RB’s intellectual dishonesty in just about every position he takes.

    “Abraham forces Hagar his concubine/sex slave to have sex and bare a son.”
    Is anyone here able to show from scripture, that she was “forced”?
    No.
    Why should anyone even have to argue with such a thing.

    He makes an argument and most of us just skip the post nowadays, because there is just too much dishonesty involved in his arguments and no one wants to deal with them.

    It has gotten to where he is background noise for the most part.

    But, it is fun. Whenever you see him use “whatevs”…you know you have made him mad. 🙂

  71. Oh and Misty,
    That is my full “real name”.
    I have no need to use some made up name on here.

  72. erunner says:

    Derek, There was a person here years ago who posted on the same thread with different user names. It wasn’t you! 🙂

  73. Misty says:

    Derek

    Of course I know you ‘replied’ to ‘Bob’, Einstein.

    ::Facepalm::

    I’ve got a plane to catch here.

  74. Bob Sweat says:

    Yes Erunner, Ex Calvary and GW were trouble makers. 😉

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.