The answer for timothy 2:12
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-09-2012, 02:16 PM
RE: The answer for timothy 2:12
(26-09-2012 02:09 PM)kim Wrote:  
(26-09-2012 01:36 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  Oh. So it's like saying, I have the answer to your question about why purple unicorns are superior to pink unicorns.

Yep.
You know you're among Christians when questions about the interpretations, need interpreting by interpreters, so the interpretations can be properly interpreted to be the correct interpretations. Wink

And then they interpolate the interpretations, causing perturbations.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
26-09-2012, 02:18 PM
RE: The answer for timothy 2:12
(26-09-2012 02:16 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(26-09-2012 02:09 PM)kim Wrote:  Yep.
You know you're among Christians when questions about the interpretations, need interpreting by interpreters, so the interpretations can be properly interpreted to be the correct interpretations. Wink

And then they interpolate the interpretations, causing perturbations.

Causing atheists much fruitless mastication and excess masturbation, requiring intubation.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Phaedrus's post
26-09-2012, 02:33 PM (This post was last modified: 26-09-2012 02:41 PM by Godless.)
RE: The answer for timothy 2:12
(25-09-2012 04:05 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  2 Timothy probably wasn't written by Paul... the writing style and tone are completely different than his other works.

Anyway, Timothy was over the Church at Ephesus. The church was started ~60AD and the book was written ~67AD. The church was indeed very young.

Paul and Timothy both fought false teachings that were heavily purveyed in Ephesus. This is seen in Ephesians, 1 Timothy, and 2 Timothy. This was an obvious problem in the church.

Per societal tradition of that time, women were not spiritual leaders nor did they have the scriptural knowledge that was bestowed upon male teachers. Ephesus was facing a very specific and unique problem of women disrupting church. It is not a far stretch to think that this was also a part of the false teaching problem that had become an epidemic in Ephesus.

Timothy got specific instructions for the church to not allow women to teach because no woman of that time had any scripture training nor had the authority or knowledge to properly teach a congregation.

Why was it women that were specifically targeted?

Apparently, the women of Ephesus came from an empowered culture. One of the Wonders of the Ancient World is the Temple of Artemis which was located in Ephesus. It wouldn't be odd for women to display authority over men in this culture - especially when it came to religion. This became a problem in the Christian church since no women had been trained in the scriptures or teachings.

Moreover, again, this seems to be a specific problem addressed to a specific person in a specific church. This can't be applied to every aspect of Christianity.

Earlier, I gave an example of someone finding a note I wrote to my wife. If it said, "I love you. You're the greatest person I know."

Would you take that note as me telling you that I love you and that I thought you were the greatest person alive? Of course not... it's not addressed to you.

This is a problem with scripture interpretation. Scripture that is written to and about a subject other than the unchanging God should only be taken in the context of that situation because outside of that situation it is not the same as another situation.

King I see one very large problem with your argument. It makes total and perfect sense in the real world and is possibly the correct answer but it makes no sense if you have an omniscience, omnipresent, benevolent god.

Why? Simple. A benevolent god would never treat someone differently in regards to respect or responsibility if they were true in their intentions for good.

Wouldn't a loving god instead use these women to preach and spread his message by directly inspiring them as he did with the writer?

Why would a loving god go to such trouble as to inspire the writer to write such a letter then leave such hatred or disdain within the work when he could use the opportunity to tell women how to best use their skills within his framework?

Even if these women were notoriously loud and lacked understanding you could simply focus your wording to say "Don't preach if you are loud of tongue and lack wisdom of scripture." or something along those lines. Targeting a gender seems like the last thing a wise god would do because he would know the long term repercussions of using the wording that is currently in the letter.

We either have a letter that wasn't inspired by god (because how much sense would it make for only certain paragraphs or sentences in the letter to be inspired) or we have a rather short sighted god.

edit: oopsie no they are not easily confused and that was a horrible mistake Kingschosen actually has arguments and thoughts to present. Egor is a little more direct and unbending.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2012, 02:39 PM
RE: The answer for timothy 2:12
(26-09-2012 02:33 PM)Godless Wrote:  
(25-09-2012 04:05 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  2 Timothy probably wasn't written by Paul...

Egor I see one very large problem with your argument. It makes total and perfect sense in the real world and is possibly the correct answer but it makes no sense if you have an omniscience, omnipresent, benevolent god.

Uh... nah, that was Kingsy.
I know, they're easily swapped. Drinking Beverage

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2012, 03:49 PM
RE: The answer for timothy 2:12
(25-09-2012 08:35 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(25-09-2012 08:00 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  No. The "context" of the Bible is a collection of books that is believed to be inspired by God and is instructions to those to whom it's written to.

It's not one cohesive book with one all encompassing lesson.


Are you series? No, the Bible doesn't make that specification because the Bible wasn't the Bible when it was written; therefore, couldn't make that specification.

HOWEVER, the book itself very much makes the specification that it is written to Ephesian women... since it was written to Timothy... as instructions... to his church... in Ephesus.

So, no... you're very wrong. The instructions are very specific.

You're setting up a double-standard with the instructions that you want to follow and the instructions that you'd rather remain directed at their specific audience, because EVERYTHING in the bible is written to an audience other than the reader. Consider this specific reference to this audience:

Quote:And God spoke all these words:

I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

“You shall have no other gods before me.

“You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Now it's funny, because I don't remember ever being brought out of Egypt or out of slavery. So should I ignore the commandments that follow because God wasn't talking to me? Consider also that this is from the Old Testament, a bunch of things told to a people that lived in a tribal community unlike our own. Does this mean that, because their culture was so different, that I should ignore these commandments? The 10 commandments are literally the only place in the bible that we're commanded not to steal or kill. Does this mean I'm free to steal and kill?

Like I said, context is only raised when defending scripture that is clearly immoral or inapplicable (such as eating pig).

Now you say that we should consider the bible as inspired word rather than as a guidebook to Christian living, but what exactly do you mean by "inspired"? Could a Christian not justify misogyny by pointing out that the "inspired" word suggested it? There's obvious logical backing behind someone reading a commandment, even one written to a different audience (do I have to make the point in all caps again?) and saying "that must apply to me and my church, too".

I've already addressed this.

If it's about God, then that cannot be contested.

The 10 Commandments were given by God to Moses and Moses gave it to the people. They were still given directly by God. So, it's from God.

The epistles were inspired by God; not given. They were inspired by God to teach the audience that they were intended to. God inspired His chosen leaders and gave them wisdom and discernment on how to handle specific situations. You see this in modern day churches.

This is NOT direct instructions from God or about God. Being inspired by God is something completely different.

Now, I already know where you're going next...

"Well, then what about all the crazy crap that God told the Jews? Wasn't that direct from God? How come you say that's only applicable to the Jews?"

Because it was specifically addressed to the Jews. All of that stuff was for the Jews... to set them apart.

Jesus and the New Testament specifically abolished those practices for the Gentiles. Those were the instructions that were addressed to us (the Gentiles).

So, in a sense, yes, the original 10 Commandment were specifically for the Jews and are not applicable to us; however, Jesus reaffirmed the 10 Commandments with His two commandments.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2012, 03:52 PM
RE: The answer for timothy 2:12
(26-09-2012 02:33 PM)Godless Wrote:  King I see one very large problem with your argument. It makes total and perfect sense in the real world and is possibly the correct answer but it makes no sense if you have an omniscience, omnipresent, benevolent god.

Why? Simple. A benevolent god would never treat someone differently in regards to respect or responsibility if they were true in their intentions for good.

Wouldn't a loving god instead use these women to preach and spread his message by directly inspiring them as he did with the writer?

Why would a loving god go to such trouble as to inspire the writer to write such a letter then leave such hatred or disdain within the work when he could use the opportunity to tell women how to best use their skills within his framework?

Even if these women were notoriously loud and lacked understanding you could simply focus your wording to say "Don't preach if you are loud of tongue and lack wisdom of scripture." or something along those lines. Targeting a gender seems like the last thing a wise god would do because he would know the long term repercussions of using the wording that is currently in the letter.

We either have a letter that wasn't inspired by god (because how much sense would it make for only certain paragraphs or sentences in the letter to be inspired) or we have a rather short sighted god.

edit: oopsie no they are not easily confused and that was a horrible mistake Kingschosen actually has arguments and thoughts to present. Egor is a little more direct and unbending.

I have said over and over again that God is not omnibenevolent nor is completely bebevolent. In fact, God picks favorites and favors people.

The Bible doesn't convey God as completely benevolent, and I'm still at a loss as to where this incorrect concept came from.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2012, 03:55 PM
RE: The answer for timothy 2:12
(26-09-2012 03:52 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(26-09-2012 02:33 PM)Godless Wrote:  King I see one very large problem with your argument. It makes total and perfect sense in the real world and is possibly the correct answer but it makes no sense if you have an omniscience, omnipresent, benevolent god.

Why? Simple. A benevolent god would never treat someone differently in regards to respect or responsibility if they were true in their intentions for good.

Wouldn't a loving god instead use these women to preach and spread his message by directly inspiring them as he did with the writer?

Why would a loving god go to such trouble as to inspire the writer to write such a letter then leave such hatred or disdain within the work when he could use the opportunity to tell women how to best use their skills within his framework?

Even if these women were notoriously loud and lacked understanding you could simply focus your wording to say "Don't preach if you are loud of tongue and lack wisdom of scripture." or something along those lines. Targeting a gender seems like the last thing a wise god would do because he would know the long term repercussions of using the wording that is currently in the letter.

We either have a letter that wasn't inspired by god (because how much sense would it make for only certain paragraphs or sentences in the letter to be inspired) or we have a rather short sighted god.

edit: oopsie no they are not easily confused and that was a horrible mistake Kingschosen actually has arguments and thoughts to present. Egor is a little more direct and unbending.

I have said over and over again that God is not omnibenevolent nor is completely bebevolent. In fact, God picks favorites and favors people.

The Bible doesn't convey God as completely benevolent, and I'm still at a loss as to where this incorrect concept came from.

And we're still at a loss as to where your concepts came from. Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2012, 04:01 PM
RE: The answer for timothy 2:12
(26-09-2012 03:55 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(26-09-2012 03:52 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  I have said over and over again that God is not omnibenevolent nor is completely bebevolent. In fact, God picks favorites and favors people.

The Bible doesn't convey God as completely benevolent, and I'm still at a loss as to where this incorrect concept came from.

And we're still at a loss as to where your concepts came from. Consider

Meaning?

You'll have to be more specific.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2012, 04:02 PM
RE: The answer for timothy 2:12
(26-09-2012 03:52 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  The Bible doesn't convey God as completely benevolent, and I'm still at a loss as to where this incorrect concept came from.

So, you don't feel John 3:16 covers his ass then, huh? I'm thinking that a lot of people pretty much go with that as the be all and end all. But then, a lot of people shop at Wal-Mart, too. Dodgy

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like kim's post
26-09-2012, 04:05 PM
RE: The answer for timothy 2:12
(26-09-2012 04:01 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(26-09-2012 03:55 PM)Chas Wrote:  And we're still at a loss as to where your concepts came from. Consider

Meaning?

You'll have to be more specific.

Oh c'mon, KC. It was my periodic dig at your delusion; it was overdue. Yes

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: