Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2011 9:55:14 GMT -5
Re: Women keeping silence in church. Many women had prominent roles in the foundation church. Some were possibly preaching and holding positions of authority. What Paul most likely was referring to was some women who spoke out of place in church gatherings. You have to observe Mediterranean cultures to understand how women often speak. This little statement of Paul's is probably one of the greatest contributors to the bondage of women over many centuries. We try to excuse it by attempting to isolate it a specific time and event. Let's face it, women at the time of this writing were second class citizens, not much more than chattels if that. Paul's writing reflected that reality. In the larger spectrum of time, Paul's statements were in error and have no place as perceived wisdom in a civil society. The sooner we can dismiss his words on this, the better. It has only been in the last century that the bondage of women has been breaking down and there is still a fair ways to go regardless of how much equality is built into the law.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Nov 24, 2011 10:12:41 GMT -5
Re: Women keeping silence in church. Many women had prominent roles in the foundation church. Some were possibly preaching and holding positions of authority. What Paul most likely was referring to was some women who spoke out of place in church gatherings. You have to observe Mediterranean cultures to understand how women often speak. This little statement of Paul's is probably one of the greatest contributors to the bondage of women over many centuries. We try to excuse it by attempting to isolate it a specific time and event. Let's face it, women at the time of this writing were second class citizens, not much more than chattels if that. Paul's writing reflected that reality. In the larger spectrum of time, Paul's statements were in error and have no place as perceived wisdom in a civil society. The sooner we can dismiss his words on this, the better. It has only been in the last century that the bondage of women has been breaking down and there is still a fair ways to go regardless of how much equality is built into the law. It seems to me that the women or female members of the fellowship who follow the ruling workers' advice in dress and hair that this is a kind of bondage where the workers keep control of the females and the male if they love their wives are not going to be seen as bucking their wives' choice of looks. Some men do not even understand that it is from the workers....usually the sister workers set the style, but the dictates have been handed down from ruling workers to sisters to female adults to new converts to growing female children.
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Nov 24, 2011 11:29:53 GMT -5
Re: Women keeping silence in church. Many women had prominent roles in the foundation church. Some were possibly preaching and holding positions of authority. What Paul most likely was referring to was some women who spoke out of place in church gatherings. You have to observe Mediterranean cultures to understand how women often speak. A lot of suppositions and postulation in this statement!
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Nov 24, 2011 12:20:37 GMT -5
Not really.... I don't think that observing ANY culture is going to get me to understand how women often speak..... I usually don't have a clue what they are saying, but nod, bow and genuflect as if I do........
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2011 12:52:07 GMT -5
your wife is one lucky woman !
|
|
|
Post by JO on Nov 24, 2011 14:10:12 GMT -5
This little statement of Paul's is probably one of the greatest contributors to the bondage of women over many centuries. We try to excuse it by attempting to isolate it a specific time and event. Let's face it, women at the time of this writing were second class citizens, not much more than chattels if that. Paul's writing reflected that reality. In the larger spectrum of time, Paul's statements were in error and have no place as perceived wisdom in a civil society. The sooner we can dismiss his words on this, the better. It has only been in the last century that the bondage of women has been breaking down and there is still a fair ways to go regardless of how much equality is built into the law. If we were to be fundamentalists we could use Paul and Peter's writings to justify owning slaves. Paul wasn't so impressed with slave traders though. ===================================================== Ephesians 6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Ephesians 6:8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free. Ephesians 6:9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him. Colossians 3:11 Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all. Colossians 3:22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. Colossians 4:1 Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven. 1 Timothy 6:1 All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered. 1 Timothy 6:2 Those who have believing masters should not show them disrespect just because they are fellow believers. Instead, they should serve them even better because their masters are dear to them as fellow believers and are devoted to the welfare of their slaves. Titus 2:9 Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, 1 Peter 2:18 Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 1 Timothy 1:10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2011 2:34:16 GMT -5
Re: Women keeping silence in church. Many women had prominent roles in the foundation church. Some were possibly preaching and holding positions of authority. What Paul most likely was referring to was some women who spoke out of place in church gatherings. You have to observe Mediterranean cultures to understand how women often speak. My observation of Mediterranean culture is that women are far less vocal in public context than in western culture .. not that this makes them more or less credible. Speaking 'out of place' means anything less that flattery for workers within 2x2ism -- and includes anyone male or female.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Nov 25, 2011 3:43:30 GMT -5
I am afraid you will just have to wait for my final thesis and then it will not be what I think but the conclusions I come to as a result of my research. I wish you well with your research, conclusions, and thesis review, irvinegrey! I also feel compelled to quote Cardinal Strauss from Dan Brown's "Angels and Demons:" When you write about us, and you will, do so gently.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2011 5:47:16 GMT -5
Methinks that a Worker being "flattered" might take offense at the said flattery.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2011 7:25:55 GMT -5
Methinks that a Worker being "flattered" might take offense at the said flattery. OK Bert I will refraze -- Anything negative about 2x2 doctrine or more especially about workers is condemed as being 'out of place' -- and the result of a 'bad spirit'. This was the official explanation for our expulsion -- the ladies Paul spoke about just got a warning and admonistion to shut up.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 28, 2011 12:09:42 GMT -5
Gee, "eventually" doesn't sound too promising. So far, you have made a number of very general comments about my posts, and a number of copy-pastes of theological definitions and ideas which you claim have nothing to do with you. (That is, you stated, "I am not endorsing this definition just as I have not endorsed any of the previous definitions I have posted.") Will the real Irvine Grey stand up and be counted at some point and tell us what he actually thinks? I am afraid you will just have to wait for my final thesis and then it will not be what I think but the conclusions I come to as a result of my research. I am quite confused by this response. Earlier you posted that you were interested in how to respond to people you knew who described the friends as a cult. Now that I know you are in a Baptist College that seems quite admirable to me. You also stated that the question of cult-hood might merit one line in your thesis. Have you changed the content or focus of your thesis since you made these statements? Do 'scholargal's questions relate to your thesis somehow?
|
|
|
Post by 2 on Nov 28, 2011 12:59:07 GMT -5
I am afraid you will just have to wait for my final thesis and then it will not be what I think but the conclusions I come to as a result of my research. the question is: does your research have an unbiased and valid/sound conclusion? some people question the bias of your analysis, and i can understand why! *by default,perhaps you will be the ' interpreter' of your own analysis of the data! hmmmm, could that also, be a source of expounding your bias-ism.
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Nov 30, 2011 3:35:29 GMT -5
I am afraid you will just have to wait for my final thesis and then it will not be what I think but the conclusions I come to as a result of my research. I am quite confused by this response. Earlier you posted that you were interested in how to respond to people you knew who described the friends as a cult. Now that I know you are in a Baptist College that seems quite admirable to me. You also stated that the question of cult-hood might merit one line in your thesis. Have you changed the content or focus of your thesis since you made these statements? Do 'scholargal's questions relate to your thesis somehow? Just as I have already stated. you will have to wait for the completed thesis!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2011 6:55:31 GMT -5
I am afraid you will just have to wait for my final thesis and then it will not be what I think but the conclusions I come to as a result of my research. the question is: does your research have an unbiased and valid/sound conclusion? some people question the bias of your analysis, and i can understand why! *by default,perhaps you will be the ' interpreter' of your own analysis of the data! hmmmm, could that also, be a source of expounding your bias-ism. Is there anyone discussing a topic like religion that doesn't bare a bias of some kind? and it usually doesn't take very long into ANY discussion to figure out the general direction the bias lies. And you 2 are no exception. Deal with it!! Get used to it. It is also praxis that biased people disregard all opposing views as mere subjective!!! and then that biased people regard views that harmonize with their own as much more 'objective'.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Nov 30, 2011 10:16:03 GMT -5
what wrote Irvine Gray Queens University in Ireland is Baptist? ? I thot IrvineG was attending Queens. Am I mistaken?
|
|
|
Post by ScholarGal on Nov 30, 2011 10:22:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Jason Storebo on Nov 30, 2011 15:42:21 GMT -5
Since there is really no single living individual that can be said to be the leader, does the group still meet the criteria to qualify as a cult?
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Nov 30, 2011 15:53:01 GMT -5
Since there is really no single living individual that can be said to be the leader, does the group still meet the criteria to qualify as a cult? This is by no means the only criteria on which one would reach such a conclusion. There are many factors and aspects to be considered before one would, if one did, reach such a conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 30, 2011 15:53:29 GMT -5
Since there is really no single living individual that can be said to be the leader, does the group still meet the criteria to qualify as a cult? Of course. Redefine the word "cult" to meet your needs!
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Dec 1, 2011 5:07:34 GMT -5
Since there is really no single living individual that can be said to be the leader, does the group still meet the criteria to qualify as a cult? Of course. Redefine the word "cult" to meet your needs! A rather cynical response!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 1, 2011 12:06:44 GMT -5
the question is: does your research have an unbiased and valid/sound conclusion? some people question the bias of your analysis, and i can understand why! *by default,perhaps you will be the ' interpreter' of your own analysis of the data! hmmmm, could that also, be a source of expounding your bias-ism. Is there anyone discussing a topic like religion that doesn't bare a bias of some kind? and it usually doesn't take very long into ANY discussion to figure out the general direction the bias lies. And you 2 are no exception. Deal with it!! Get used to it. It is also praxis that biased people disregard all opposing views as mere subjective!!! and then that biased people regard views that harmonize with their own as much more 'objective'. The problem with the theological definition of the word 'cult' is that bias is deeply wired into the language. There is always bias in people's ideas and thoughts, and that's not the issue here. I think you'd find that I'm in pretty good company on this; it's not just my subjective idea. My objection is not to bias, but to bigotism. There's no one more bigoted than a bigoted Christian.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 1, 2011 12:11:35 GMT -5
what wrote Irvine Gray Queens University in Ireland is Baptist? ? I thot IrvineG was attending Queens. Am I mistaken? He is enrolled at Irish Baptist College whose programs are accredited by QUB. I have objected on this thread to Grey's lack of complete disclosure on his web page. Anyone enrolled at Irish Baptist College is also enrolled at QUB. His degree is as good academically as any issued by QUB, but I think his research subjects should know about his bias.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 1, 2011 12:16:06 GMT -5
Since there is really no single living individual that can be said to be the leader, does the group still meet the criteria to qualify as a cult? In reading for this thread (see scholargal's links above) I noticed that a number of sociologists and theologians distinguish cults from sects on the basis that sects separate themselves from mainstream religion based on doctrine, whereas cults revolve around personality and leadership without a doctrinal focus. You would find aspects of both within the friends and workers.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Dec 1, 2011 12:23:10 GMT -5
Since there is really no single living individual that can be said to be the leader, does the group still meet the criteria to qualify as a cult? In reading for this thread (see scholargal's links above) I noticed that a number of sociologists and theologians distinguish cults from sects on the basis that sects separate themselves from mainstream religion based on doctrine, whereas cults revolve around personality and leadership without a doctrinal focus. You would find aspects of both within the friends and workers. I'm interested in an example of how the f&w fellowship revolves around personality and leadership, any more so than any group religious or not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2011 15:12:53 GMT -5
The problem with the theological definition of the word 'cult' is that bias is deeply wired into the language. There is always bias in people's ideas and thoughts, and that's not the issue here. I think you'd find that I'm in pretty good company on this; it's not just my subjective idea. My objection is not to bias, but to bigotism. There's no one more bigoted than a bigoted Christian. Well said!!! You may be right about the bigoted Christians --- but there as some close runner-ups!!!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 1, 2011 17:52:36 GMT -5
In reading for this thread (see scholargal's links above) I noticed that a number of sociologists and theologians distinguish cults from sects on the basis that sects separate themselves from mainstream religion based on doctrine, whereas cults revolve around personality and leadership without a doctrinal focus. You would find aspects of both within the friends and workers. I'm interested in an example of how the f&w fellowship revolves around personality and leadership, any more so than any group religious or not. The evaluation has to do with distribution and exercise of power. For example, in the feudal system peasants yielded their autonomy to a lord who took some of the peasant's wealth in exchange for protecting them from robbers, thiefs and enemy lords. These lords often ruled by fiat, by whatever they decided, and could be either benevolent or merciless. Over time rule by fiat has been replaced by rule by law in Western society, laws which encode and embody a sense of fairness and justice. If we look at extreme cults such as FLDS or Jim Jones, governance is 'rule by fiat'. The leader or leaders have exercised tremendous charismatic or manipulative abilities in order to first secure and then maintain their power. Whatever these rulers say, pretty much goes. In most ordinary churches power is extremely circumscribed, both by church doctrine and articles of church governance. In the f&w movement, the workers do have considerable power, but that power is limited to church/ spiritual life, and although there are no explicit articles of governance, their powers are limited through obedience to Scripture and to the principles established by Christ. One concern in such a closed-in group as the friends is that individuals can elevate their social status by operating purely in sycophantic fashion rather than out of any true principles of love or concern for their fellow man. A premium is often placed by those in charge on loyalty over principle. So those who are extremely loyal to the vested powers can sometimes get away with acting in an inhumane manner. Another concern with the friends is that the group exercises an exclusive monopoly on the spiritual life of its members and this can lead to abuse of power. Once I shopped at a shopping mall in East Germany and every store in the mall had exactly the same name. I wondered about how good the prices and service would be in that environment. Would the store employees provide good service or would they know that I had only them to deal with. It's been observed that Americans mistrust big government, big business and big unions. Anything that becomes too big and too powerful encroaches on individual freedom. I've mentioned that it might not be a picnic for customers, but perhaps not one for employees either. Badly treated employees in a monopoly don't have recourse to working for the competition; there is no competition so they are stuck. So the same applies with "big church". That is, if you put all your faith in one church system you're quite vulnerable if things should go wrong. Diversity within religion is a healthy thing, in my view. Later edit for clarity ... sorry for the meandering, it's a large topic in just a few words.
|
|
|
Post by apple on Dec 2, 2011 19:34:22 GMT -5
This little statement of Paul's is probably one of the greatest contributors to the bondage of women over many centuries. We try to excuse it by attempting to isolate it a specific time and event. Let's face it, women at the time of this writing were second class citizens, not much more than chattels if that. Paul's writing reflected that reality. In the larger spectrum of time, Paul's statements were in error and have no place as perceived wisdom in a civil society. The sooner we can dismiss his words on this, the better. It has only been in the last century that the bondage of women has been breaking down and there is still a fair ways to go regardless of how much equality is built into the law. In Galations 3:28, Paul says that men and women are equal in Christ which was hugely different to the prevaling to women in Jewish society at this time. He even told men to treat younger women as "sisters" and older women as "mothers". In the Jewish world, segregation by gender was the norm, and this is still the norm in many of the more conservative Jewish communities- yet Paul knew the women in the churches he had visited by name, even greeting them in his letters to the community! This was shockingly liberal behaviour for a Jewish man of that time, nevermind a man like Paul who had been a Pharisee. What's more- Paul refers to the women as "sisters" (equals). In 1 Cor 7:14 we see the modern attitude Paul, a bachelor, had regarding marriage. Paul didn't tell husbands to rule over their wives but to love them as Jesus loves the church. If you say that Paul was in error, then you believe that the bible has mistakes? Many women had prominent roles in the foundation church. Some were possibly preaching and holding positions of authority.What Paul most likely was referring to was some women who spoke out of place in church gatherings. If Paul was referring to women speaking out of place at church gatherings, I'm sure Paul would have said so. I see no women either preaching or having prominent church roles in the NT, in fact Paul said that women should not preach. www.rustyparts.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/philo_paul_women.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Dec 2, 2011 23:46:39 GMT -5
If you say that Paul was in error, then you believe that the bible has mistakes? Asking whether the bible has mistakes is like asking whether "Hamlet" has mistakes.
|
|