Who does not believe in freedom of choice in religion?

[eik]

Why do you believe women have a lower 'earthly' status then men? Why do you believe they have different roles and are not equal?

Reasons, please -- and please reason. No Biblical quotations. Biblical quotations are no more authoritative than quotations from Baha'i, Hindu or Mayan scriptures, or even The Chronicles of Narnia. (If you believe they are, I'd be interested in your justification for this, as well).

Clearly women do not have a lower 'earthly' status in the modern Western democracy.

I am talking only about the kingdom of God. Women are more prone to being deceived. They find rational argumentation difficult, and are often led by the devil into trying to reduce the kingdom of God to worldy politics. I've already made it clear that empirical evidence exists that female led "churches" are always associated with grosser forms of heresy. The observation is undeniable. In fact the quickest way to corrupt and spiritually destroy a church is to introduce women into its leadership. Frequently such churches also decline in numbers massively as the Spirit of God departs cf. declines in methodism, anglicanism (episcopalianism), quakerism (in those places where it is liberal), and presbyterianism (in those churches where it is liberal).

Question: Are women a clever form of livestock, or are they, rather, eternal children?

I've already answered that question, when I said "they have already been given equality in a spiritual sense by the gospel."

I don't believe this "axiomatic" premise, I'll echo Secret Chief: How did you come up with this?

The reason you don't believe it is because you don't examine the evidence. Unless you were a Christian, the whole enterprise would be meaningless to you anyway.

So if you aren't, then butt out. If you are, then state your evidence that female led churches are divinely ordained.

 

[eik]

So is the upshot of this that you believe women are inferior to men in the matter of spiritual leadership? (Can't quite be sure if that is your meaning) If this is the case, why do you think this?

It is not the case that all women are inferior. Thus in the OT, the prophetess Deborah led Israel when Israel suffered a dearth of spiritual men, as a punishment.

What is the case is that women who seek elevation for themselves generally do not have pure motives. If their motives were pure they wouldn't exalt themselves. The bible prescribes ways for women to exercise their Christian faith. Lording it over men is not one of them.

 

[Secret Chief]

What is the case is that women who seek elevation for themselves generally do not have pure motives. If their motives were pure they wouldn't exalt themselves.

Do you simply take this opinion from the Bible or would you say this would be your opinion anyway?

 

[Riders]

I have heard Christians ramble on about our country being a Christian country founded on Christian beliefs and principles and wondered if they truly believe other religions should be allowed to live in America.

 

[Valjean]

Clearly women do not have a lower 'earthly' status in the modern Western democracy.

If, as you say, they're equal spiritually, yet they're unequal. that would leave only the earthly realm for the inequality, n'est-ce pas?

I am talking only about the kingdom of God. Women are more prone to being deceived. They find rational argumentation difficult, and are often led by the devil into trying to reduce the kingdom of God to worldy politics. I've already made it clear that empirical evidence exists that female led "churches" are always associated with grosser forms of heresy. The observation is undeniable.

I'm skeptical. Evidence?
Are you judging women gullible because they're likely to question scripture and fall into heresy? That sounds backwards. It sounds like it's the women who are the actual truth-seekers, and the men who are blind followers. It sounds like you're saying it's the women who are more likely to judge actions by the consequences, rather than slavishly adhering to the letter of the law.

In fact the quickest way to corrupt and spiritually destroy a church is to introduce women into its leadership. Frequently such churches also decline in numbers massively as the Spirit of God departs cf. declines in methodism, anglicanism (episcopalianism), quakerism (in those places where it is liberal), and presbyterianism (in those churches where it is liberal).

I think there's more to their decline than letting the women get out of control. Aren't there other churches, with women clergy, which are thriving?

Yes, you said they were spiritually equal, I've already answered that question, when I said "they have already been given equality in a spiritual sense by the gospel."

The reason you don't believe it is because you don't examine the evidence. Unless you were a Christian, the whole enterprise would be meaningless to you anyway. So if you aren't, then butt out. If you are, then state your evidence that female led churches are divinely ordained.

So the only discernible evidence is discernible only to one who's already convinced?

You're looking for harmony on a religious debate forum? If you don't want to discuss your religious doctrine, why post here? If you want to sing with the choir, try a Christian DIR.

I'd think someone who valued truth would welcome his ideas being challenged. Those who fear a challenge I'd suspect of religious insecurity.

 

[danieldemol]

Look into the heretical churches and you will find that all of them are into elevating women into leadership and roles and into positions of equality. That's not to say that the men are not equally sinful, but it is a feature of heresy in religion that it is well subscribed to by grasping women who imagine that being equal with men is something to be attained, when they have already been given equality in a spiritual sense by the gospel. Of course the bible is talking about spiritual leadership here: something that doesn't really exist in the modern antichristian democracy, and which it can't relate to.

*shrugs* one person's heresy is another persons religion.
And what does it mean to be spiritual equals if only men can rule? Your opinions don't seem thought out at all.

 

[Milton Platt]

Confessions? I hear some here don't believe in it.... Come out come out wherever you are..

You can also just name one from the last 1000 years and that way safely divert attention from yourself.

I would say that most religiously oriented people do not believe in freedom of religion. Many think that they do, but their actions and words often say otherwise. In the U.S.A., many Christians, especially evangelicals seem to want to incorporate religion into the government. That necessarily establishes a bias in such a government with respect to many laws. Also, they do not practice freedom of religion with respect to their own children. It is rare to see a Christian try to objectively teach their children about other religions.

 

[Pipiripi]

If we don't have free choice, how could we choose to obey God's rules? Why would God even need rules, if we're essentially automatons?
Or are the 'rules' just some kind of inbuilt programming?

Now the Calvinist churches also agree that we don't have free will, because they believe God's omniscient, and knows our every action and ultimate fate even before we're born.

Is this omniscience the reason you don't believe in free choice?
If so, what would faith in Jesus gain us? Both our actions in life and fate in the afterlife are pre-ordained.

My friend everybody have free choice to choose, it is not binding on the rules. Look what happens to the people in the time of Moses. They have to choose or the golden calf, or the 10 Commandments.

 

[eik]

*shrugs* one person's heresy is another persons religion.
And what does it mean to be spiritual equals if only men can rule? Your opinions don't seem thought out at all.

May be it's you who have the problem, if you equate spirituality with leadership. You seem to have a serious lacunae in your understanding of spiritual or true religion.

Jas 1:27
Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

 

[danieldemol]

if you equate spirituality with leadership

Actually I didn't and I don't equate spirituality with leadership.

That being said I can't see why a person who visits the afflicted and remains unspotted by the world is unfit for leadership because they are lacking a penis lol

 

[Secret Chief]

My friend everybody have free choice to choose, it is not binding on the rules. Look what happens to the people in the time of Moses. They have to choose or the golden calf, or the 10 Commandments.

What about in the time of now?

 

[eik]

Actually I didn't and I don't equate spirituality with leadership.

That being said I can't see why a person who visits the afflicted and remains unspotted by the world is unfit for leadership because they are lacking a penis lol

Again you're not seeing things coherently. Spiritual women do provide leadership, simply by their example. Formal leadership has to be approved by God in the church and he has not approved women for that role, for the divine order had been fixed since the beginning in 1 Cor 11:3. Over-promotion is always going to end in tears. Let women do what that good at. There have been no plausible female Christian theologians since the beginning of time.

 

[eik]

Do you simply take this opinion from the Bible or would you say this would be your opinion anyway?

My own personal experience. My interactions with females in "spiritural" command have never been happy. In fact it is easy to confuse them with witches, especially when subjects are broached that they are unable to defend theologically. Then they become ranters and accusers and slanderers at the drop of a hat, as incidentally do those men that defend them. It make you fear for any church that employs them.

 

[eik]

If, as you say, they're equal spiritually, yet they're unequal. that would leave only the earthly realm for the inequality, n'est-ce pas?

Inequality was what was ordained Gen 3:16. If your religion is the earthly equality of women, I would ascribe you as a communist and / or feminist.

I'm skeptical. Evidence?
Are you judging women gullible because they're likely to question scripture and fall into heresy? That sounds backwards. It sounds like it's the women who are the actual truth-seekers, and the men who are blind followers. It sounds like you're saying it's the women who are more likely to judge actions by the consequences, rather than slavishly adhering to the letter of the law.

I'm judging women as gullible on an empirical basis as well as on a biblical basis. Yet I'm not saying that they are worse sinners than men, because disobedience can be equally due to rebellion without gullibility. I'm saying that women are not necessarily fit for formal positions of spiritual leadership, although there is nothing to stop them leading by example in life and works.

I think there's more to their decline than letting the women get out of control. Aren't there other churches, with women clergy, which are thriving?

I don't know. I'm not into churches with women clergy.

So the only discernible evidence is discernible only to one who's already convinced?

You're looking for harmony on a religious debate forum? If you don't want to discuss your religious doctrine, why post here? If you want to sing with the choir, try a Christian DIR.

Without being personal, spirtual matters do not have any resonance with pagans.

1Co 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Churches are required to be obedient to divine law. It is in the area of enforcing obedience to divine law that women leaders are consistently seen to fail; and in any event, it is impossible to reconcile female leadership with the divine order.

I'd think someone who valued truth would welcome his ideas being challenged. Those who fear a challenge I'd suspect of religious insecurity.

Challenge me all you want, but don't expect me to descend into worldly arguments based on political equality. That is communism, not Christianity.

 

[Piculet]

I would say that most religiously oriented people do not believe in freedom of religion. Many think that they do, but their actions and words often say otherwise. In the U.S.A., many Christians, especially evangelicals seem to want to incorporate religion into the government. That necessarily establishes a bias in such a government with respect to many laws. Also, they do not practice freedom of religion with respect to their own children. It is rare to see a Christian try to objectively teach their children about other religions.

Your idea of freedom of religion is different from mine.

Only a hypocrite would not raise their children to practice their religion. Children learn about other religions in school (depending on the school). What I have seen Christians doing in America, is trying to incorporate values into the government. The question is, why is the public so afraid of someone pointing out their immoral ideas? And isn't it part of democracy that they have the right to try and make changes in as much as they can?

 

[Valjean]

Again you're not seeing things coherently. Spiritual women do provide leadership, simply by their example. Formal leadership has to be approved by God in the church and he has not approved women for that role, for the divine order had been fixed since the beginning in 1 Cor 11:3. Over-promotion is always going to end in tears. Let women do what that good at. There have been no plausible female Christian theologians since the beginning of time.

I get the impression you're trying to justify your misogyny.
You keep quoting the Bible. Why do you think the Bible's more authoritative than the Guru Granth or Popol Vuh?
Do you ever think for yourself or make your own moral decisions, or is the Bible your Magic 8-Ball?

 

[Piculet]

I get the impression you're trying to justify your misogyny.
You keep quoting the Bible. Why do you think the Bible's more authoritative than the Guru Granth or Popol Vuh?
Do you ever think for yourself or make your own moral decisions, or is the Bible your Magic 8-Ball?

This is a step back in the discussion. Soon enough it'll be, "prove me there's God."

Islam too has a view to this closer to the biblical one.

There is no dispute among the scholars that one of the conditions of the imaam or leader is that he should be male. Ibn Hazam reported in his book Maraatib al-Ijmaa’ that there was scholarly consensus on this point. In the section he says: “Out of all groups of the people of the Qiblah [i.e., all Muslim sects], there is not one that allows the leadership of women.” Al-Qurtubi reported something similar, and al-‘Allaamah al-Shanqeeti said, “There is no difference of opinion among the scholars on this point.”

The evidence for this is the general meaning of the aayah (interpretation of the meaning): “Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allaah has made one of them to excel the other…” [al-Nisa’ 4:34]. It is also clearly indicated by the hadeeth of Abu Bakrah who said that when the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) heard that the Persians had appointed the daughter of Chosroes as their queen, he said, “No people who appoint a woman as their leader will ever prosper.” (Reported by al-Bukhaari, 13/53).

Ruling on appointing women to positions of high public office - Islam Question & Answer

 

[Valjean]

Inequality was what was ordained Gen 3:16. If your religion is the earthly equality of women, I would ascribe you as a communist and / or feminist.

There you go again.
Do these ancient, biblical injunctions seem fair, reasonable, or even utilitarian to you? Do they make sense? Do you ever wonder Why?

I'm judging women as gullible on an empirical basis as well as on a biblical basis. Yet I'm not saying that they are worse sinners than men, because disobedience can be equally due to rebellion without gullibility. I'm saying that women are not necessarily fit for formal positions of spiritual leadership, although there is nothing to stop them leading by example in life and works.

How ecumenical is your experience in these matters? I'm thinking there's some apophenia working here.

Without being personal, spirtual matters do not have any resonance with pagans.

Pagans can't be spiritual?
How are you defining "Pagan?"

Churches are required to be obedient to divine law. It is in the area of enforcing obedience to divine law that women leaders are consistently seen to fail; and in any event, it is impossible to reconcile female leadership with the divine order.

"When all mankind shall receive the same opportunity of education and the equality of men and women be realized, the foundations of war will be utterly destroyed. Without equality this will be impossible because all differences and distinction are conducive to discord and strife. Equality between men and women is conducive to the abolition of warfare for the reason that women will never be willing to sanction it." -- Promulgation of Universal Peace. Abdu’l‑Bahá

...Imbued with the same virtues as man, rising through all the degrees of human attainment, women will become the peers of men, and until this equality is established, true progress and attainment for the human race will not be facilitated. -- Ibid.
Anyone can play dueling quotations.

Challenge me all you want, but don't expect me to descend into worldly arguments based on political equality. That is communism, not Christianity.

So it is to be dueling quotations; no original thinking or reasoning allowed.

Communism? Where are you getting that? What is communism to you?

 

[Valjean]

This is a step back in the discussion. Soon enough it'll be, "prove me there's God."

God's an extraordinary and unsupported claim. Asking for evidence seems perfectly reasonable. I'd ask the same for Leprechauns or Bigfoot.

Islam too has a view to this closer to the biblical one.

Islamic theology is similar to Christian in a lot of respects. It's not known for being particularly progressive.

 

[eik]

There you go again.
Do these ancient, biblical injunctions seem fair, reasonable, or even utilitarian to you? Do they make sense? Do you ever wonder Why?
How ecumenical is your experience in these matters? I'm thinking there's some apophenia working here.

It's time for you to start producing evidence once you start making allegations of apophenia

Pagans can't be spiritual?
How are you defining "Pagan?"

Pagans make no pretence to spirituality, unless it be to the occult.

"When all mankind shall receive the same opportunity of education and the equality of men and women be realized, the foundations of war will be utterly destroyed. Without equality this will be impossible because all differences and distinction are conducive to discord and strife. Equality between men and women is conducive to the abolition of warfare for the reason that women will never be willing to sanction it." -- Promulgation of Universal Peace. Abdu’l‑Bahá

You'll notice that in the age of equality, the rate of crime has increased massively. In England roughly double the number of sexual assaults on females were logged by police in 2012 compared with 1965, when the Sex Discrimination Act did not exist.

...Imbued with the same virtues as man, rising through all the degrees of human attainment, women will become the peers of men, and until this equality is established, true progress and attainment for the human race will not be facilitated. -- Ibid.

Anyone can play dueling quotations.

Your quotations are socialist claptrap. That is why i asked you to seriously think whether you are trying to play politics or engage with religion.

So it is to be dueling quotations; no original thinking or reasoning allowed.

Communism? Where are you getting that? What is communism to you?

You're quoting from a political manual that could have been written by any communist or feminist. Nothing to do with spirituality.