Southern Baptist Convention says "no" to women pastors

[SkepticThinker]

I can't remember if it was you or not, where I was accused of not answering the question.
And then, when I tried to recapitulate all that had been said in regard to the point that I was making, I received no response.
I believe that you're applying a double standard here.

This was in response to, "Looks like some others here agree with me.

And perhaps you do as well, because I don't see an answer to my question or a rebuttal here, or even a clarification of your position. Just some hand waving"

And what do I get? Accusations, more handwaving, and still no rebuttal.

 

[ppp]

Disobedience to God, is like sorcery and divination in His eyes.

Wait. What? Your god believes in sorcery and divination? Did he read horoscope this morning? What happens if he says "Bloody Mary" three times while looking in the bathroom mirror?

 

[SkepticThinker]

My mistake - I never should have taken you seriously in the first place - your post had baseless attitude written all over it, ...exactly like this one.

Thank you - you just reminded me, again, why I never respond to your posts - shame on me for thinking that this time might be different.

Perhaps take note that you say some version of this to almost everyone who posts to you.
If that's really how you feel, then I have to ask why you're here. I mean, we like to have actual back and forth discussions here, where both posters respond to to the others' comments instead of just brushing them off and trying to insult them. This isn't Twitter.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Perhaps take note that you say some version of this to almost everyone who posts to you.
If that's really how you feel, then I have to ask why you're here. I mean, we like to have actual back and forth discussions here, where both posters respond to to the others' comments instead of just brushing them off and trying to insult them.

Good question. So many of these apologists for god are having the opposite effect of what one might assume that they are here for - to draw people into their theistic worldview. Yet they argue science with those trained in it, who find their manner of processing information (faith in dogma) flawed, and their divine command morality with humanists, who find it immoral as we are see in in this thread regarding rape. The apologist rationalizing biblical rape, like those trying to justify biblical slavery, atheophobia, and homophobia, must realize that they are driving their target audience further from them, their god, and their religion, but they are apparently indifferent to that. They aren't looking for ways to make their message more appealing. So what are they doing?

I can only come up with one answer. It's a show for an audience of one. As you likely would agree, believers are often infused with a persecution complex. They tell us how it is predicted that their messiah and religion will be rejected, but to put the message out anyway, and so they welcome the rejection and hope their god notices their obedience.

We're seeing the same thing in American politics now. The Republican House is performing for an audience of one, who they fear like believers fear their equally draconian and vengeful deity. Trump threatens to primary them like God threatens to damn them for disobedience or disloyalty.

There are many passages that seem excessively cruel, and out-of-character for a holy God. I do no blindly refuse to perceive these instances as they appear on the surface ...

That's your conscience speaking to you about your god's morals. It doesn't approve, does it? So, it has to be overridden by the intellect, where the god belief resides.

... but because of the isolated occurrences of these acts, they do not overwhelm the verses throughout the entirety of the Bible where God's wisdom and mercy are exemplified.

What wisdom?

First, what is wisdom to you? Any idea attributed to god you've committed your life to believe in? It seems so. That's not my definition of wisdom and what you call wisdom - Christian dogma - doesn't meet it. Wisdom is higher order knowledge about how to find and maintain happiness. That is, if intelligence is knowing how to achieve short-term goals, then wisdom, a subset of intelligence, is knowing which of those goals if achieved will bring happiness.

God dictated the 10 commandments to Moses, and the other 600 or so ordinances. The majority are sound and just, there are a few that appear male chauvinistic, or biased, or cruel.

Many of those commandments became the topic of a funny meme that later appeared in West Wing (original text and link)

Spoiler: Dear Dr.Laura

from http://www.ariel.com.au/jokes/Dr_Laura_and_Leviticus.html :
West Wing version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5f_lUyfQUE

"Dear Dr. Laura

"Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

[1] Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

[2] I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? She is 6 years old, healthy, and very smart. She doesn't want to be a slave, so that might be a problem.

[3] I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness - Lev.15: 19 24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

[4] When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

[5] I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

[6] A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

[7] Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear contact lenses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

[8] Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though Lev. 19 expressly forbids this: How should they die?

[9] I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? What should we do with the NFL?

[10] My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws?(Lev. 20:14) I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

You are a great prophet and I will go to my grave remembering that you were among the very few who placed the blame for 9/11 where it truly belonged: on abortionists, gays and lesbians. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

It is more a matter of dignity and hierarchy.

Yes, and the hierarchy is a patriarchy and there is no more dignity in womanhood in such cultures than childhood or slavehood.

For example, although a child may outgrow their parents in maturity and pragmatism, it is never acceptable that they should defy or challenge their parents authority.

That's a terrible moral precept.

I feel obligated to try and harmonize the impeccable holiness of God, with the entirety of Scripture.

That's the result of accepting divine command moral theory, which compromises moral integrity. You're describing rationalizing the immoral.

A 30 year old is not considered a child.

If it has (or had) a parent, it is. They remain parent and child forever, or, if you prefer, for as long as they both live. Maybe you mean minor child.

as children must obey their parents, and civilians the government, man is the head of the household and wherever leadership is required.

Women don't need the leadership of men and nobody needs a government leading them. Furthermore, children needn't obey parents, and often shouldn't. That book also says slaves must obey their enslavers and subjects their kings.

you are correct that this is an extremely harsh predicament, and I cannot explain the entire justification from a holy perspective on this matter.

There is no justification, but you can rationalize. It's good because God says so. End of thinking. Infact, if one dwells on it further, he's flirting with blasphemy, and Big Guy isn't very flexible in that department. Not you, of course. God understands why you write such things such as calling his judgments harsh appearing. You're trying to find common ground with skeptics, who find the deity monstrous as depicted. You want to show others that it is possible to have such reservations, to still take the plunge into Christianity, and to still consider it a good move from the other side.

My contention was that categorizing the mandate as rape, in the contemporary sense, was erroneous. The men must still provide for and protect their spouse.

And their children. But if they have nonconsensual sex with either, and with children it's always nonconsensual, they've committed rape by humanist standards if not by biblical standards.

God had a high regard for one's virginity

No, men did, and the regard wasn't for the virgin, just her virginity, or more properly, the assurance that she wasn't pregnant at marriage.

Virginity was a coveted status in the eyes of prospective Israeli husbands, and other cultures it appears also.

That tells you that the impetus for this was human nature, not a god's will.

In a purely secular state, what eternal principle or universal (platonic), so to speak, would there be to demand that water is always comprised of H2O, or that paper burns at around 480°F?

The laws of physics, which are required in a godless universe capable of generating life including intelligent life. They would also be required in a universe capable of sustaining an intelligent god, and would include the laws that that god obeyed in order to fine tune the universe, if that's what happened.

My mistake - I never should have taken you seriously in the first place - your post had baseless attitude written all over it, ...exactly like this one.

Wasn't it he that made the mistake of taking you seriously? He asked you if you could "demonstrate any of those positive assertions?" You didn't even try. To his credit, he didn't ask you again. He just wrote out your implied answer, "No" and moved on. He could have saved a step by not taking you as seriously and instead of asking you if you could defend those assertions, assuming that you couldn't and saying so with words like, "You can't support an of that, so why do you write it?" But he showed you more respect than that.

Oh, not you again - misunderstanding everything that's being said.

It's getting hard to be someone but it all works out. It doesn't matter much to me.[/SPOILER]

 

[metis]

You obviously chose to ignore the meaning of when Jesus said 'Do not Judge'.
Trust me, I'm judging you in the most scrutinizing manner.

So, you know the exact "meaning" and it supposed differs from what it literally says?

namaste

 

[DNB]

This was in response to, "Looks like some others here agree with me.

And perhaps you do as well, because I don't see an answer to my question or a rebuttal here, or even a clarification of your position. Just some hand waving"

And what do I get? Accusations, more handwaving, and still no rebuttal.

What's hand waving?

 

[DNB]

Perhaps take note that you say some version of this to almost everyone who posts to you.
If that's really how you feel, then I have to ask why you're here. I mean, we like to have actual back and forth discussions here, where both posters respond to to the others' comments instead of just brushing them off and trying to insult them. This isn't Twitter.

Every now and then, depending on the poster, progress is made.
Therefore, I haven't lost all hope.

 

[DNB]

Good question. So many of these apologists for god are having the opposite effect of what one might assume that they are here for - to draw people into their theistic worldview. Yet they argue science with those trained in it, who find their manner of processing information (faith in dogma) flawed, and their divine command morality with humanists, who find it immoral as we are see in in this thread regarding rape. The apologist rationalizing biblical rape, like those trying to justify biblical slavery, atheophobia, and homophobia, must realize that they are driving their target audience further from them, their god, and their religion, but they are apparently indifferent to that. They aren't looking for ways to make their message more appealing. So what are they doing?

I can only come up with one answer. It's a show for an audience of one. As you likely would agree, believers are often infused with a persecution complex. They tell us how it is predicted that their messiah and religion will be rejected, but to put the message out anyway, and so they welcome the rejection and hope their god notices their obedience.

We're seeing the same thing in American politics now. The Republican House is performing for an audience of one, who they fear like believers fear their equally draconian and vengeful deity. Trump threatens to primary them like God threatens to damn them for disobedience or disloyalty.

That's your conscience speaking to you about your god's morals. It doesn't approve, does it? So, it has to be overridden by the intellect, where the god belief resides.

What wisdom?

First, what is wisdom to you? Any idea attributed to god you've committed your life to believe in? It seems so. That's not my definition of wisdom and what you call wisdom - Christian dogma - doesn't meet it. Wisdom is higher order knowledge about how to find and maintain happiness. That is, if intelligence is knowing how to achieve short-term goals, then wisdom, a subset of intelligence, is knowing which of those goals if achieved will bring happiness.

Many of those commandments became the topic of a funny meme that later appeared in West Wing (original text and link)

Spoiler: Dear Dr.Laura

from http://www.ariel.com.au/jokes/Dr_Laura_and_Leviticus.html :
West Wing version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5f_lUyfQUE

"Dear Dr. Laura

"Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

[1] Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

[2] I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? She is 6 years old, healthy, and very smart. She doesn't want to be a slave, so that might be a problem.

[3] I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness - Lev.15: 19 24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

[4] When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

[5] I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

[6] A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

[7] Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear contact lenses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

[8] Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though Lev. 19 expressly forbids this: How should they die?

[9] I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? What should we do with the NFL?

[10] My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws?(Lev. 20:14) I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

You are a great prophet and I will go to my grave remembering that you were among the very few who placed the blame for 9/11 where it truly belonged: on abortionists, gays and lesbians. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Yes, and the hierarchy is a patriarchy and there is no more dignity in womanhood in such cultures than childhood or slavehood.

That's a terrible moral precept.

That's the result of accepting divine command moral theory, which compromises moral integrity. You're describing rationalizing the immoral.

If it has (or had) a parent, it is. They remain parent and child forever, or, if you prefer, for as long as they both live. Maybe you mean minor child.

Women don't need the leadership of men and nobody needs a government leading them. Furthermore, children needn't obey parents, and often shouldn't. That book also says slaves must obey their enslavers and subjects their kings.

There is no justification, but you can rationalize. It's good because God says so. End of thinking. Infact, if one dwells on it further, he's flirting with blasphemy, and Big Guy isn't very flexible in that department. Not you, of course. God understands why you write such things such as calling his judgments harsh appearing. You're trying to find common ground with skeptics, who find the deity monstrous as depicted. You want to show others that it is possible to have such reservations, to still take the plunge into Christianity, and to still consider it a good move from the other side.

And their children. But if they have nonconsensual sex with either, and with children it's always nonconsensual, they've committed rape by humanist standards if not by biblical standards.

No, men did, and the regard wasn't for the virgin, just her virginity, or more properly, the assurance that she wasn't pregnant at marriage.

That tells you that the impetus for this was human nature, not a god's will.

The laws of physics, which are required in a godless universe capable of generating life including intelligent life. They would also be required in a universe capable of sustaining an intelligent god, and would include the laws that that god obeyed in order to fine tune the universe, if that's what happened.

Wasn't it he that made the mistake of taking you seriously? He asked you if you could "demonstrate any of those positive assertions?" You didn't even try. To his credit, he didn't ask you again. He just wrote out your implied answer, "No" and moved on. He could have saved a step by not taking you as seriously and instead of asking you if you could defend those assertions, assuming that you couldn't and saying so with words like, "You can't support an of that, so why do you write it?" But he showed you more respect than that.

It's getting hard to be someone but it all works out. It doesn't matter much to me.[/SPOILER]

You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you get what you need!
Touché, mon ami!

 

[DNB]

So, you know the exact "meaning" and it supposed differs from what it literally says?

namaste

I'm going to try, despite anticipating utter futility:

Jesus meant to not judge in a self-righteous or hypocritical manner.

For, all Christians are to be as wise and discerning as serpents.
We are to judge the spirits - question who the charlatans are. We are to size up the pastors and deacons by judging the lives that they've lead - are they worthy to lead the Church. We are to judge right from wrong, and rebuke those who commit sin. If a man sins, accuse him before two witness, if he refuses to repent, separate yourselves from him. etc...

Righteous judging is incumbent upon all Christians.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you - you just reminded me, again, why I never respond to your posts - shame on me for thinking that this time might be different.

What was wrong with my response? You could have challenged me, instead you insulted without basis and ran away. That is the act of a man that knows that he is wrong.

 

[King Phenomenon]

Just another thing in the Bible misinterpreted by unwise men. All the Bible is truly saying is that woman are generally feminine by nature and men are masculine. Unfortunately people eat up all these petty topics to debate. It’s pathetic really. People have to realize that when God made all things, including the Bible, some mistakes were bound to be made. It all goes back to understanding where wisdom comes from. You first must ask the question, how did we get here? and then ask how will it all end? Not until you find the answers to these questions will you be able to truly understand other things.

 

[ppp]

It all goes back to understanding where wisdom comes from. You first must ask the question, how did we get here? and then ask how will it all end? Not until you find the answers to these questions will you be able to truly understand other things.

People have and do understand other things without ever having answers to either of those questions.

 

[King Phenomenon]

People have and do understand other things without ever having answers to either of those questions.

Much much folly has occurred because people don’t know these things. Much folly. Much pain really. You keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.

 

[metis]

I'm going to try, despite anticipating utter futility:

Jesus meant to not judge in a self-righteous or hypocritical manner.

For, all Christians are to be as wise and discerning as serpents.
We are to judge the spirits - question who the charlatans are. We are to size up the pastors and deacons by judging the lives that they've lead - are they worthy to lead the Church. We are to judge right from wrong, and rebuke those who commit sin. If a man sins, accuse him before two witness, if he refuses to repent, separate yourselves from him. etc...

Righteous judging is incumbent upon all Christians.

There's a difference between judgment v discernment, and what you concluded was the former with me. Whether one is a "true Christian" is not for you to decide, imo.

 

[ppp]

Much much folly has occurred because people don’t know these things. Much folly. Much pain really. You keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.

Nah. Keep telling yourself otherwise ehether or not it makes you feel better.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What's hand waving?

handwave
verb [ I or T ]


to behave or talk as if a problem, question, etc. is not important or worth serious attention, for example by ignoring it, discussing it in a very general way, or discussing something else instead:
I feel like the questions got handwaved off by the speaker.
His talk handwaved over some important details.

handwave

1. to behave or talk as if a problem, question, etc. is not important or worth…

dictionary.cambridge.org

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

All the Bible is truly saying is that woman are generally feminine by nature and men are masculine.

No. It's saying that women are subordinate to men, a value humanism rejects.

It all goes back to understanding where wisdom comes from.

Wisdom comes from experience and mindful living, but I suspect we're talking about different things. I'm guessing that to you, wisdom is anything in the Bible. To me, it's the knowledge that lets us find happiness.

You first must ask the question, how did we get here? and then ask how will it all end? Not until you find the answers to these questions will you be able to truly understand other things.

I don't need those answers.

Much much folly has occurred because people don’t know these things. Much folly. Much pain really.

So you say, but I'm pretty sure that you have no concrete examples.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Not even the simplest! Hell, it couldn't get the relationship of the diameter to the circumference of a circle right.

That's an interesting one, and where critics need to tread lightly. I've not come across a believer who is aware of this, but that forumlation, the ancient Jews probably blrrowed their idea of pi from the Babylonians who themselves wrote it as three but acknowledged it as an approximation of 3. That practice wasn't that uncommon, and even still today we have to remind people it's an approximation of 3.14 and every number you can list after that. They didn't have the calculus to work it out to humdreds and thousands of digits, but from what I've studied back then was hardly different than today. People don't know exact value but generally know it's an approximation of the value the vulgate speech states.
Better to pick on it for things like it's ritual to hold after someone has been declared cured of leprosy.

 

[DNB]

There's a difference between judgment v discernment, and what you concluded was the former with me. Whether one is a "true Christian" is not for you to decide, imo.

Yes, it is. I am to judge, to the best of my ability, when a charlatan walks into the room, and warn others accordingly.
I am to judge who the real Christians are, and I must be under the same scrutiny.

 

[DNB]

handwave
verb [ I or T ]


to behave or talk as if a problem, question, etc. is not important or worth serious attention, for example by ignoring it, discussing it in a very general way, or discussing something else instead:
I feel like the questions got handwaved off by the speaker.
His talk handwaved over some important details.

handwave

1. to behave or talk as if a problem, question, etc. is not important or worth…

dictionary.cambridge.org

Thank you.
Yes, some of the points that I read I feel are either, insignificant, a non sequitur, inaccurate, or implausible.
And, therefore, I dismiss the argument in a manner that I believe that the guilty party should have known better to employ such reasoning, that they did.
I get exasperated with atheist's world views.