Sexism more Acceptable; Racism runs Deeper

The problem with some of the protestant denominations is that they interpret the bible literaly and does not take into account the culture, society and the time that it was written. Of course at that time women have no or little rights in comparision to men. Furthermore, the translation of the King James is not written in accurate terms since the bible was translated so many times and in some languages it is tricky to define some of the words and context that otherwise would not exist or would not make any sense in the another language translation.

Non-ordination of women is not sexist. Non-ordination of people of a different race would be racist. The difference here is that the Bible defines most ordained positions in the church as being for men. There is no mention of race. Therefore, if a church did not ordain on racial grounds, it would be racist, because there if nothing in the Bible that would justify such a restriction. However, not ordaining women is evidence that a church is trying to conform to the standards set forth in the Bible.

"Your comment deserves a D minus."

So now the writing assignments at liberal seminaries have degenerated to blog comments instead of papers? Not surprising, since they only care about the party line and new age fluff theology as opposed to faithfulness to God and his Word, and critical thought. I guess that's why theological liberals tend to resort to name calling when you challenge them on their position.

These institutions would probably also give D's to Sproul, Mohler or MacArthur for not towing the Party Line, so I'd be proud to stand in such company. The SBC was right to clean house.

Your comment deserves a D minus. Now go and sit in the back of the bus.

Nice stretch there begone. Sorry it doesn't hold this time. Japan is not the First Century near East, and your inability to recognize any change that is not literally earth shattering does not mean small incremental changes do not take place. There is no question that the wide spread dissemination of Christianity in the 1st to 5th centuries AD on the whole improved the lot of both women and the poor in regions where Christianity held sway. Of course it didn't bring them up to standards that we would find acceptable today but it was none the less an improvement over what had previously existed.

non-ordination of women is not "sexist". The Bible specifies different roles for men and women. Are you sure you're a theologian?

garyd:

Are you sure about that "women simply weren't as free to go and do the things a pastor or elder had to do."? Maybe women were more settled with their gods and simply rejected...

"Husband of but one wife" is the way to end polygamy? Come now, many cultures that never heard of Jesus either never had or ended polygamy. And that did not elevate women in many of their worlds. Imperial Japan for example where women stood so any man could occupy the last seat on the train.

The law of the land is the only historically accurate means of elevating anyone. Groups are determined by wealth. Individuals have always managed to wiggle from one group into a higher one. Napoleon was a corporal and so was Hitler before the rise to glory.

Religion, all religions tend to hold members of societies in place. The rich stay rich and get richer while the poor are promised their reward in heaven for doing what the rich dictate.

"The poor you will have with you always" said Jesus and repeats the disciple.

Religion is the great enemy of progress for religion claims that all is known, cut and dried. The good life is doing what the faith dictates which leads to eternal bliss in heaven.

Jesus also said, "What profit the man who gains the whole world and loses his immortal soul"?

What profit a man that attempts to save his immortal soul worshiping and sacrificing all he has to Devil calling Him God? One can be a religious agnostic and say God doesn't care. Any other reason God won't punish?

http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul says religion is not the solution to the problem, its the problem. The reason we are trying to answer the ism question is because of religion for without religion, a certain ministry there would be nothing to worry about. Devil never rests.

How could a candidate challenge the "n-word?" It's been canceled and removed from the dictionary. Unless of course the cadidate demanded to know how to spell it and what it meant.

No one ever speaks the "n-word" word so how can we know what it is?

Do you know who's in charge of canceling words? I have a couple I would like to have canceled myself but I have no idea how to go about it.

Hillary Clinton was heckled, “Iron my shirts.”

I'd have said, "OK. Stand still. :)"

Good grief. To date I see a great deal of evidence that the main reason God restricted the the Pastorate and the Elders but clearly not the Deacons to men was two fold. First it had to do with time and place. At the time Paul wrote there were almost no societies in which women were not largely second class citizens when they ranked that high which largely meant that women simply weren't as free to go and do the things a pastor or elder had to do.

It should also be noted that Paul's statement that a Pastor or an elder should be the Husband of but one wife probably did more to end the practice of polygamy in the west than any other single statement in history. Which in turn likely did more to elevate the position of women in society than anything before it.

2nd On the whole I think women are more in tune with the spiritual side of things than are men but that men tend to be somewhat better in leadership positions because they more easily get beyond personalities and tend to be not as inclined to take things personally.

mr borg- as i've come to expect from your articles- elegant and concise.